The city council in Mount Vernon, Ohio just pissed off religious nuts in the region:

As the May 14 meeting drew to a close, four council members spoke against the change. Afterward, on the city hall steps, voices and questions were raised: Who complained? Who made the decision?

Why wasn’t prayer on the agenda anymore?

…

“I think it’s pathetic,” said local religious advocate Jeff Cline… “We keep kicking God out of everything.”

So what exactly did they do to “kick god” off the agenda?

They moved their pre-meeting prayer from 7:30p… to 7:28p.

That’s it.

And it happened because Ryan Kitko, a student from The Ohio State University, requested it:

Ryan Kitko

“We live in a diverse community of many faiths and non-faiths,” Kitko, an atheist, told the Mount Vernon News. “Having a prayer in any faith creates an atmosphere of exclusion.”

I’m sure the city council members believe their “generic” prayer is inclusive of everyone. What they don’t understand is how matters of god have no business in government meetings. Leave it to the local churches, the homes of local residents, and everywhere else where reality takes a backseat to superstition.

Kitko did the right thing in requesting that they remove the prayers and Council President Bruce Hawkins (at least in theory) honored the request by pushing up the prayer to when it’s not an official part of the agenda.

“The last thing we need in this community is division,” said Hawkins, who sought the advice of city Law Director Bill Smith before he made his decision. “The bottom line is, we want to make sure it’s legal.”

Even though the invocation is still being delivered, people aren’t happy with the time change:

“If one or two people want to change something that’s been done forever, I kind of a have a little problem with that,” [council member John] Fair said. “I don’t think one person has the authority to change what the majority of people feel.”

…

The public outcry and debate in Mount Vernon began less than 24 hours after the meeting ended. “ Prayer Shut Down at City Council Meetings?” someone posted on the anonymous online forum KnoxPages.com. “ONE person complained, and *poof* — prayer is no more.” The post garnered more than 70 responses.

“I frankly see this Ryan guy and [John] Freshwater as two sides of the same coin,” one user wrote. “ Intolerant and divisive.”

Already, there’s a plan to reinstate the invocation. If the city council is smart, they’ll reject it. I’m not holding out much hope.

(via Religion Clause)

Today is Everybody Draw Muhammad Day 3:

(Video via Thunderf00t)

In previous years, I’ve compiled and posted large sets of images as a way to show solidarity with others who refuse to be censored by religious extremists… this year, for a variety of personal reasons, I just didn’t have the time to put it all together. I didn’t think anything of it — it wasn’t as much of a hot topic this year as it was in the past, right?

Maybe I need to reconsider.

Pakistan shut down Twitter in the country after the company refused to censor Tweets linking to the Everybody Draw Muhammad Day Facebook page:

Muhammad Yaseen, chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, said the micro-blogging site had been shut down on Sunday after it refused to remove tweets promoting a Facebook page encouraging people to post images of the prophet Muhammad.

He said Facebook agreed to address Pakistan’s concerns but officials had failed to persuade Twitter to do the same. “We have been negotiating with them until last night, but they did not agree to remove the stuff, so we had to block it,” Yaseen said.

Tech-savvy Pakistanis found ways to get around the censors, but the idea that a country can censor a website because some of its users don’t treat Islam with respect it doesn’t deserve in the first place is crazy.

It makes me want to draw Muhammad just to spite them. For now, I’ll just link you to Facebook pages featuring drawings of him.

Then again, the whole thing is just going to backfire, anyway:

Emrys Schoemaker, director of iMedia, a research organisation that studies social media in Pakistan, said attempts to control the internet reflected a shift from the media freedoms introduced by the former president Pervez Musharraf.

“This is a very defensive, dated response to politics in the digital era,” Schoemaker said. “Closing down debate simply makes the voices louder.”

People will keep drawing images of the Islamic prophet until Muslims stop censoring other people from doing it. If they can’t handle freedom of expression, that’s their problem. No one else has to abide by their religious rules — and as long as they kill and suppress others who criticize their faith, we have all the more reason to fight against it.

***Update***: Pakistan’s Prime Minister has restored Twitter access in the country.

(via Atheism Examiner)

This is a guest post by Annie Thomas. Annie is a science teacher and writer from Gainesville, Florida. She last wrote about her night at a Kirk Cameron-hosted “marriage-strengthening” event.

***

On May 3^rd of this year, a monument of the Ten Commandments was unveiled at the Bradford County courthouse in Florida. The $20,000 monument was a gift from Lee Anderson of Lake City. Anderson gave a similar “gift” to Dixie County a few years ago. The Dixie County monument was ruled unconstitutional in July of 2011, but still stands today as the county appeals. The Bradford commissioners knew about the state of the Dixie County monument before they agreed to acquire their own. Lawsuits are nothing new to the city of Starke (home of the Bradford County courthouse). In March of 2007, a federal judge ruled that the crucifix affixed to the city’s water tower (and was even illuminated at night) was unconstitutional and had to come down.

Here is the Ten Commandments monument unveiling ceremony that took place a couple of weeks ago:

On Saturday, May 19^th, about eighteen atheists traveled from all over Florida to protest the newly-erected Ten Commandments monument. The Bradford County Courthouse is located in Starke, Florida, a small north central city that straddles U.S. 301 with Camp Blanding to the east and Florida State Prison to the west.

As the protestors proceeded from the parking lot to the front of the courthouse, they passed a circle of thirty bowed heads that were praying for strength and courage. Several people took turns leading the group in prayer, and many prayed for the hearts of the atheists to be turned over to Jesus.

The woman above was saying, “Father God, we’ve remained quiet for too long. We will let your word be heard, Father God.”

Another group of counter-protestors were in a similar circle in the courtyard of the U-shaped building where the Ten Commandments monument stands. By 11:00a, the scheduled start time of the protest, the atheists were lined up along the sidewalk facing U.S. 301, and the counter-protesting group was growing. A headcount at 11:30a revealed that there were 100 counter-protesters and about 18 atheists.

Both groups were in good spirits and relatively peaceful towards each other. However, I overheard Ken Weaver, a Bradford County resident who led the dedication of the monument on May 3^rd say to his friend, “They’re not arguing against Church and State; they are arguing about our religion being a myth.” His friend responded, “They’re just a bunch of damn Democrats,” to which both men chuckled.

I briefly interviewed Laura Finley, who was the National Day of Prayer organizer for Bradford County. When asked if there might be a more appropriate place for the monument than the courthouse lawn, she said no, as it represented the word of God, the person who created us. She continued, “We would be kind of like… animals who have no souls” without it. “The protestors here today,” Finley continued, “they don’t have any beliefs in anything.” Finley was quick to point out that she was not at the event to counter-protest, but rather to share her support that the monument had a right to be there.

Early in the event, an unidentified preacher in a gold vest started to encourage the crowd to sing and pray. He utilized an interesting tactic to decipher who was there to protest and who was there to counter-protest. After leading the group in singing “Jesus Loves Me,” he asked participants to shout out if they love Jesus. He then asked them to raise their arms in the air if they love Jesus. He tried to corral the counter-protestors away from the atheists by saying, “Come on people! You’re talking to the wind!” A big circle was formed around the Ten Commandments for more prayer.

The atheist protestors came from all over the state. Nathaniel Hall, a member of the Tallahassee Atheists (in the red shirt below), was the first to break the invisible barrier and converse with counter-protesters.

Melody Delaney, another member of the Tallahassee Atheists and founding member of the Tallahassee Secular Chorus, shared her reason for coming out to protest: “We are not trying to disparage anyone’s religion… we just believe in separation of church and state as Constitutional law.”

Sean Fraser traveled from Crystal River wearing two hats, one as a protester and another to cover the story for a blog he writes. When asked if he was surprised by the turn-out he said, “Of us? No. Of them? Yes.” This was Fraser’s first protest as an atheist, but he said he’d like to attend more.

Brandi Braschler, president of Freethinkers FSU, was not discouraged by the small turnout or the lack of press coverage. She was part of the group that “unannointed” roads in Polk County earlier this year. “No one was out there, but everyone posted on it” afterwards. As we spoke, a counter-protester (the woman above who was praying to “Father God”) interrupted our conversation. She said, “We don’t want tax payers dollars!” She continued on about “people like you” when Braschler calmly responded, “The First Amendment says a lot of things. But it’s up to the courts, the judges, to interpret what the Constitution means.” This made the other woman walk away, which I observed several times when the counter-protesters had no rebuttal.

I asked David Silverman (who was quick to point out he is not that David Silverman) why he traveled from his home in Jacksonville to protest. “I feel strongly about this and decided to give up a day’s work for this.” He was surprised by the massive monument that was erected and that it was actually a “solid, fixed display.” Silverman (holding the sign in the picture below) added that he had a “long, interesting talk with a Christian and I think I planted a germ.”

Rob Curry (in white shirt), president of the St. Petersburg chapter of Atheists of Florida, speaking with a counter-protester

Bridget Gaudette (right), Florida state director for American Atheists and organizer of the protest, chats with fellow protester in Starke, FL

A member of the motorcycle group 'F.A.I.T.H. Riders' waves his bible in the air at the Bradford County Courthouse

What surprised me most about the event was that this was not about religious rights, but strictly about Christianity. There was no attempt to pass this new monument off as representing a generic god that many could relate to, this was all about Jesus. I asked one counter-protester how he thought a non-Christian in his county might feel about the monument. He couldn’t see why they would care. “I don’t bother them and they don’t bother me” was his response.

The counter-protesters were giddy with delight in their numbers exceeding the protesters. One man yelled out to the crowd, “There’s more preachers in Starke than there are atheists today!” which very well may be true. But what failed to impress them was the great distance the protesters traveled to be in Starke today. Driving for a few hours (as opposed to walking down the street) requires a bit more dedication to a cause. As the sun rose directly overhead, the breeze died down, and stomachs started to ask for lunch, the majority of the counter-protesters drifted off to go about their life. When I asked Brandi Braschler how long she would be there, her response was, “I’m planning to stay here all day.”

In news that doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of American press, José Mujica, the President of Uruguay, made a reference to his own atheism this week when speaking about the ailing Hugo Chavez:

President José Mujica (via EFE)

Reader David Osorio was kind enough to translate:

“I still have not been able to believe in God… if such an important man exists I hope he gives a helping hand to the poor in Latin America by defending the health of the commander,” said Mujica.

Ignoring for the moment the suggestion that Chavez is the solution to poverty in Latin America, it’s not very often that a sitting president makes a declaration like that.

Even stranger (at least from my American perspective) is how that barely seems to register as “news.”

Alabama governor Robert Bentley has called for further discussion on a controversial anti-immigration bill widely regarded to be the country’s toughest. Yesterday, lawmakers in the state House of Representatives passed a revised version of the bill 68-37 just hours after it had passed the Senate. Needless to say, both the chambers are controlled by Republicans.

(via restorefairness.org)

Viewed by critics to be draconian in some of the measures it makes available to police, instead of signing it into law or vetoing it, Governor Bentley has called for another round of discussions to further clarify the more controversial parts of the law. For example, one portion would call on schools to collect and report back information on the immigration status of their students. Another requires the courts to publish records of undocumented workers guilty or otherwise.

Whatever happened to innocent-until-proven-guilty?

On top of the courts releasing this information, the police are also required to check the immigration status of anyone they detain and suspect of being in the state illegally. It would also become illegal for undocumented workers to apply for or renew a driver’s license, ID card, or license plates.

Amazingly, religious leaders were complaining about aspects of the proposed bill — although not for very good reasons. Some had complained that their missionary work would be deemed a criminal offence if the recipients of their ‘aid’ were illegal workers. At one stage a version of the bill included exceptions for this, however the final bill features no such measure.

Illegal immigration is always a contentious issue, although it seems to me that measures like this do far more harm than good. They encourage racial profiling by law enforcement, whether subconsciously or otherwise. They force the problem underground making it far more dangerous, forcing people to take bigger risks by falling into the hands of organized trafficking gangs. It’s also easy to lose sight of what it is that means people migrate to the U.S. to begin with. It’s more than the jobs and the money -– it’s the values of the entire society and country. Bills like this attack the very core of those values.

Same-sex marriage opponent Matthew J. Franck in Washington Post‘s On Faith section talks about Obama using his faith to justify his support of marriage equality, and almost — almost! — has a point:

The mere fact that the president claims to have religious reasons — specifically Christian reasons — for supporting same-sex marriage has occasioned some interesting triumphalism in recent days among those who agree with him… If the people of California can be faulted for “imposing their religion” on their fellow citizens by passing Proposition 8, then it is equally true that President Obama is “imposing his religion” on his fellow Americans when he says, as he did last week, that laws preventing same-sex marriage are unjust to gay couples desiring to get married.

I grant that I’m not thrilled about anyone using religion to justify even progressive stances that I agree with. For example, I have a problem with the death penalty because of its immutability, the fact that it doesn’t work as a deterrent, and because I have a problem with the state deciding who lives and dies, but not because a stone tablet is purported to instruct me that I “shalt not kill.” The right thing is the right thing, and you don’t need Jesus to tell you one way or the other. So I do think it’s wrongheaded for progressives to hypocritically fault conservatives for using religious justifications for conservative positions, and then turn around and use religious justifications for their own progressive positions.

Anyway, Franck goes off the rails pretty quickly, thus my vociferous “almost”:

If he is not imposing his religion on anyone, neither is anyone else.

Hooooold on there, bub. False equivalence! Saying that you think it would be nice if we treated people equally because Jesus suggested it is not the same as declaring “God commands that we codify into law the oppression of the gays.” Nor is Mitt Romney imposing his religiously-motivated will when he says that marriage is between a man and a woman. He’s expressing a theological belief. But he would be imposing it if, as president, he worked for and signed into law a ban on same-sex marriage.

A major difference here is that if a President Romney (shudder) were to do so, he would be doing it purely for religious reasons. He may dress it up in secular-ish language about the stability of the American family or tradition or some other malarkey, but there is really no reason to oppose marriage equality unless one is doing so because one feels that the creator of the universe is squeamish about gay folks.

If Obama were to wave a wand and legalize same-sex marriage nationally, and did so purely because of his religious beliefs, he would still not be “imposing” his will on anyone. He’d be granting a right enjoyed by everyone else, and one which harms no one else. He’d be doing it for a silly reason (because a probably-mythical guy in sandals 2,000 years ago said we should be nice to each other) but he would not be forcing anything on anyone, other than maybe some local clerk who has to put a notarized stamp on the marriage certificate of Adam and Steve, and might feel grudgingly about it.

To boil it down: Saying “you may not do X” is an imposition. Saying “go ahead, guys” is not.

As a side note, we may see more of this kind of thing. In an interview at Religion & Politics, Mark D. Johnson notes that the Jesus example is often undergirding a push for equality:

I’m sure that the President’s invocation of faith was considered carefully beforehand. But that doesn’t make it insincere. And the way he invoked it echoes what a growing number of Christian writers have reported over six decades. Many devout Christians — members of the clergy, lay leaders, theologians and religious educators — have become convinced not just that discrimination against homosexuals is a violation of basic human rights, but that it goes directly against the teachings and the example of Jesus of Nazareth. So I was struck that the President spoke not just about the moral principle of the Golden Rule, but about Jesus’ sacrifice.

So there’s another way of looking at it: If Jesus is an example as a person, and his story is one that makes you wish to behave toward others in a certain way because it has inspired you, that’s very different than doing so because you think you’ve been instructed to by a guy who’s been dead for millennia. Or by his dad. Who is also him. Or whatever.

Great news, Missourians! Rush Limbaugh has been inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians.

Rush Limbaugh (via Global Grind)

The best part about the news story is that Missouri House Speaker Steven Tilley selected Limbaugh himself for this honor and actually kept the time of the ceremony under wraps so that he could try to avoid public backlash.

Gee, it’s almost like he knew it was a bad idea in the first place, don’t you think? Putting someone like Rush Limbaugh, self-appointed slut designator and misognynist to the stars, in the same sphere as people such as Sacagawea, Edwin Hubble, and Mark Twain is just downright shameful.

I give it a week before his bronze bust is desecrated. At the very least, they should attach a clown nose to it.