In California, being a Friend can get you fired.

Just so you know. In case, you know, you actually want to put your faith into practice…

(San Francisco Chronicle) Feb. 29 - California State University East Bay has
fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word “nonviolently” in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.

Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.

“I don’t think it was fair at all,” said Kearney-Brown. “All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don’t care if I meant it, and it didn’t seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn’t matter. Nothing.”

A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before - but had modified it each time.

She signed the oath 15 years ago, when she taught eighth-grade math in
Sonoma. And she signed it again when she began a 12-year stint in Vallejo high
schools. [I have done this here in The Garden State, without any hassle.]

Each time, when asked to “swear (or affirm)” that she would “support and defend” the U.S. and state Constitutions “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote “nonviolently” in front of the word “support,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.” All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.

The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.

But Cal State East Bay wouldn’t, and she was fired on Thursday.

Modifying the oath “is very clearly not permissible,” the university’s attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. “It’s an unfortunate situation. If she’d just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment.” [Right. “If she’d only been a good little mind-numbed robot…”]

Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy. [Hello, Earth to Jerry: Mr. Brown, you used to be a “liberal…” Want to make a call here?]

Kearney-Brown said she could not sign an oath that, to her, suggested she was agreeing to take up arms in defense of the country.

"I honor the Constitution, and I support the Constitution,” she said. “But I want it on record that I defend it nonviolently.”

The trouble began Jan. 17, a little more than a week after she started teaching at the Hayward campus. Filling out her paperwork, she drew an asterisk on the oath next to the word “defend.” She wrote: “As long as it doesn’t require violence.”

The secretary showed the amended oath to a supervisor, who said it was unacceptable, Kearney-Brown recalled.

Shortly after receiving her first paycheck, Kearney-Brown was told to come back and sign the oath.

This time, Kearney-Brown inserted “nonviolently,” crossed out “swear,” and circled “affirm.”

That’s when the university sought legal advice. [Methinks they'll be a-needin' some more soon...]

“Based on the advice of counsel, we cannot permit attachments or addenda that are incompatible and inconsistent with the oath,” the campus’ human resources manager, JoAnne Hill, wrote to Kearney-Brown.

She cited a 1968 case called Smith vs. County Engineer of San Diego. In that suit, a state appellate court ruled that a man being considered for public employment could not amend the oath to declare: his “supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ Whom Almighty God has appointed ruler of Nations, and expressing my dissent from the failure of the Constitution to recognize Christ and to acknowledge the Divine institution of civil government.” The court called it “a gratuitous injection of the applicant’s religious beliefs into the governmental process.” [Wow! I’ve never heard of such a thing! Have you?]

But Hill said Kearney-Brown could sign the oath and add a separate note to her personal file that expressed her views.

Kearney-Brown declined. “To me it just wasn’t the same. I take the oath seriously, and if I’m going to sign it, I’m going to do it nonviolently.”

Then came the warning.

“Please understand that this issue needs to be resolved no later than Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, or you will not be allowed to continue to work for the university,” Hill wrote.

The deadline was then extended to Wednesday and she was fired on Thursday.

“I was kind of stunned,” said Kearney-Brown, who is pursuing her master’s degree in math to earn the credentials to do exactly the job she is being fired from.

“I was born to do this,” she said. “I teach developmental math, the lowest level. The kids who are conditionally accepted to the university. Give me the kids who hate math - that’s what I want.”

(Snarky comments and emphasis all mine.) Loyalty oaths should have gone out of fashion when Joe McCarthy was run out of Washington, DC, back in the 1950s. And, last time I checked, this handy little chestnut was still part of the Bill of Rights (the part that pertains here is emphasized, just in case, you know, they forgot):

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Quakers do not swear oaths. This is part of our religious practice going back to the very founding of the Religious Society of Friends. It’s why I personally don’t say the Pledge, amongst other things. From Wikipedia:

Various religious groups have objected to the taking of oaths, most notably the Quakers and the Mennonites. This is principally based on the words of Christ in the Antithesis of the Law, “I say to you: ‘Swear not at all’”. The Apostle James stated, “Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.” Not all Christians follow this reading, because of the statements in the Old Testament. Jews also avoid taking oaths, as even making an unintentionally false oath would violate a Biblical commandment (see Leviticus 19:12).

Opposition to oath-taking caused many problems for these groups throughout their history. Quakers were frequently imprisoned because of their refusal to swear loyalty oaths. Testifying in court was also difficult. George Fox famously challenged a judge who had asked him to swear, saying that he would do so once the judge could point to any Bible passage where Jesus or his apostles took oaths. (The judge could not, but this did not allow Fox to escape punishment.) Legal reforms from the 18th century onwards mean that everyone in the United Kingdom now has the right to make a solemn affirmation instead of an oath. The United States has permitted affirmations since it was founded; it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Only two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover, have chosen to affirm rather than swear at their inaugurations…

So I guess they’d have to fire two former Presidents, too… And me.

Would, or will, this university demand that all Catholic instructors remove the crucifixes from around their throats? That all Jewish males on campus remove their yarmulkes? That any Muslim females take off their hijabs? This is discrimination, plain and simple.

This is also why we have an ACLU, and why, in this “post-9/11 world,” chock full of phony baloney plastic patriotism and jerky, car-magnet jingoists, we still need one.

Here’s a deal for you: California American Civil Liberies Union, take this Friend’s case, and I’ll renew my lapsed membership. Today. Seems to me this is an easy win.

And if you’re so inclined (I am, and I did), you can contact the Office of Public Affairs for this fine, tolerant institution, a so-called university that prides itself (and advertises itself) as being “academically rich”… “multicultural”… “socially responsible”… “open-minded”… “welcoming”… “inclusive” here. Just be polite. That’s how Friends are supposed to act.

(H/t for the head’s up on this to Blue Gal, ‘natch.)

Bearing the Fruit of Fascist Theocracy

To protect citizen's health care rights, Washington state regulators ruled that pharmacists may not refuse to dispense any medication based on personal convictions. In Washington state, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists sued the Washington State Department of Health because the ruling infringed on their right to deny any medication based on their personal beliefs.

In this case, the pharmacists have issues with "Plan B", the "morning after" birth control pill.

Plan B works by using high doses of common birth control medication to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Opponents regard it as a form of abortion. It is not the same as RU-486, the so called "abortion pill", and has no effect if a woman is already pregnant.

To my seemingly never ending irritation, these rogue pharmacists equate birth control with abortion, to which they seek to prevent access. I have already shared my views on abortion. Preventing access to legal birth control should be, in my view, illegal.

Last week a federal judge suspended the rule, to the delight of the rebel pharmacists who claimed it had violated their religious freedoms to obstruct women's ability to purchase critical medications in a safe and legal manner.

A preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton prevents the state from disciplining pharmacists who refuse to dispense the medication, known as Plan B, as long as they immediately refer patients to nearby sources.

By allowing pharmacists to delay medication, the injunction enables pharmacists to render the medication ineffective:

The injunction creates a system in which pharmacists can refuse to fill a request for Plan B if they refer customers to a nearby source. But that could effectively deny the drugs completely to residents in rural areas, said Jet Tilley, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest. Advocates argue that women must have access to the medication as soon as possible for it to be effective.

Does this mean that rural women who are denied "Plan B" medication based on a pharmacist's personal conviction, are sent to look for legal medication elsewhere, try but are unable to obtain their legal medication in time for it to be effective, can sue the rogue pharmacist and pharmacy for 18 years of child support? I want to know the answer to that.

Fortunately, State Senator, Karen Keiser, D-Kent, is working to propose legislation that will prohibit pharmacists from denying access to legal medications.

As much as these events anger me, they fit right in with the "rampant sexism" that is institutionally supported by the Bush administration. Under Bush:

W. David Hager chairman of the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs. Hager believes that headaches, PMS and eating disorders can be cured by reading Scripture.

Predictably, Bush's FDA has been up to some real monkey business thwarting the makers of Plan-B in their quest for over-the-counter approval:

David Muir's report on the "morning-after" pill, or Plan B, on ABC's World News Tonight, included a conservative group's claim that allowing sales of the pill without a prescription would be unsafe, but provided no scientific evidence to support the claim, while omitting the fact that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) staff scientists and outside advisory panels have recommended that the FDA approve allowing over-the-counter sales.

And articles that confuse the whole issue don't help either:

And because Plan B can now be sold over the counter to most women and men 18 or older, he said, most people can get it without a pharmacist.

Excuse me but...the drug has been approved for sale, without a prescription, behind the counter, by pharmacists, to women who can prove they are at least 18 years of age--approval that this injunction allows pharmacists to ignore.

Welcome to Bush's Fascist Theocracy; we're soaking in it.

---

Thanks to my friend, Green Libertarian, who passed this news story along to me. I won't even mention what Ellie passed along. With friends like these, the rage never ends... peace.

TAGS: Plan B, Abortion, Health Care, Birth Control, Access, Reproductive Rights, Women's Rights, Karen Keiser, Medication, Pharmacist Rights

The Great Gender Surrender

My Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has signed CA SB777, "Student Civil Rights Act", a bill which protects against gender based discrimination in public school settings. It also recognizes sex as socially constructed, and redefines it as self-identified gender.

Excerpts from the bill:

Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of a school district from adopting for use in the public schools any instructional materials that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction, activities, and instructional materials and instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate
crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose.

OK, call me a flaming liberal loon circling the moon on a bicycle, but, I think that's a good thing. I don't see how anyone can argue that providing protection against discrimination is bad. But, it is instructional to understand how opponents construct and understand their argument. Bear with me. This is both amusing, maddening, and informative.


From the Right:

"We are shocked and appalled that the governor has blatantly attacked traditional family values in California," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute.

I don't know, but my family never valued discrimination. We had a saying, "People are people." Kind of simple, really.


Is this an argument to appeal to supporters of public schools, i.e., liberals?

"With this decision, Gov. Schwarzenegger has told parents that their values are irrelevant. Many parents will have no choice but to pull their children out of the public schools that have now become sexualized indoctrination centers."

High drama:

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has delivered young children into the hands of those who will introduce them to alternative sexual lifestyles," said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, which worked to defeat the plans. "This means children as young as five years old will be mentally molested in school classrooms."

"Shame on Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians for ensuring that every California school becomes a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center," he said.

OK, not exposed to discrimination = mental molestation. I see.


Bigots Across America Call to Action:

Analysts have warned that schools across the nation will be impacted by the decision, since textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser, which often is California, and they will be unlikely to go to the expense of having a separate edition for other states.

Gratuitous "Duh Statement":

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

Argument supporting the right to hate and discriminate:

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values," said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute." These students [who discriminate] have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured.

Casting bigotry as moral "high ground":

"It's the height of intolerance to punish individuals, organizations, businesses, and churches that have moral standards on sexual conduct and sexual lifestyles," said Thomasson, in response to the signing of AB14. "This is another insensitive law that violates people's moral boundaries."

Admission of guilt:

"The shocking hate mail we received shows that those behind this legislation do not promote true tolerance," said England. "Only politically correct speech will be tolerated. Those with religious or traditional moral beliefs [who discriminate] will not be allowed to express their opinions in public schools."

Apparently, religious and traditional moral beliefs are founded on discrimination? Says who? Never mind, that is another post for another day.


Gratuitous dig at California from another Daily Nut article:

"Thus, under this latest advance toward a Brave New World of polymorphous perversion, California textbooks will no longer be able to use words like 'mother and father' and 'husband and wife,' because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm – even though that is manifestly the case, even in California."

Even in California. I kinda think that's cute.


What it boils down to:

"California parents who don't want to see their children subjected to gender indoctrination will now have no alternative but to withdraw from the public education system – which they will be required to fund, nonetheless," Carlson said.

It's really about taxes and having to pay for public school because public school tends to prohibit faith and the art of suspended belief training. Really.

Want to read something else freaky? Google "Exodus Mandate." You'll be sorry.

OK, rant off.

P.S. Point goes to Terminator.

TAGS: CA SB777, California, Gender Discrimination, Education, Public Schools, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Faith, Science, and the Art of Disbelief

I confess. Pluto bugs me. It really, really bugs me. And the reasons are compelling. Let us review...

When I went to school, Pluto was a planet. There were 9. I understood the universe. Now that Pluto has been voted off the island, I feel uncomfortable, old school, like my education was somehow wrong. The scientists voted, and they voted for 8. It bothered people when they heard the earth was round, too.

9, originally uploaded by Leo Reynolds.

OK, I'm over it, but here's what really does bother me: the Religious Right and their War on Science. (And for the record, I personally believe that the rabid radical right has hijacked religion as merely another political tool to achieve their desired ends. That's right, faux faith on parade. Sincere faith has a whole different feel.) It comes down to this: the decision by the science community to defrock Pluto of planetary status provides fodder to the anti-scientists. It allows them to disregard any scientific evidence that undermines their political objectives. It allows them to say, "See, you can't trust science. It's all wrong. Any assertion is as valid as any other. There is no Global Warming. Evolution is just a theory..." And on and on and on. Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, delivers a blistering assessment of the fruits of this strategy.

Scientists have joined together in resisting the war on science. In fact, "in 2004, 62 renowned scientists and science advisors signed a scientist statement on scientific integrity, denouncing political interference in science and calling for reform. On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have since joined their colleagues on this statement." The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented evidence of political interference in their "A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science", organizing the evidence using four broad categories:

1. The Environment
2. Public Health
3. Pollution and Contamination
4. National Security and Other

"From air pollution to Ground Zero, the A to Z Guide showcases dozens of examples of the misuse of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury contamination, and endangered species."

Speaking of Evolution...Like others, I have wondered why the Religious Right is so resistant to the notion of Evolution. It's really quite simple: If they can get you to ignore science over the first line of the Bible, they can get you to ignore science anytime, anywhere. It's the alpha, the gateway, the beginning. They assert that if you want to stay in the group, which for some is an important cultural heritage, you must believe the literal interpretation of the first line of the Christian Bible: "In the beginning, God created..." The ability to lead people to reject carefully, conservatively collected scientific evidence--to suspend their disbelief--is obviously valuable. Creation is the beginning, and it's a slippery slope from there. Next thing you know, you're willing to believe that war is peace, censorship protects the right to free speech, spying on America protects the right to privacy, and that forcing a new style of government on a region through military assault and occupation is really "Freedom on the March."

And so the 2008 Republican presidential candidates have bravely signed up to do their part to fight the War on Science. These chickenhawks walk the Creation Science walk. Perhaps they have visited the Creation Museum described here by our resident unruly minister, RevPhat. It's bad enough that science is attacked through doctored government reports and our own complicit corporate media, but the advance of "Creation Science" marks the American classroom as the new front on the War on Science.

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, a site I rather enjoy, describes the current tension between politics and science well:

In this case, science and politics are at exact opposites: science wants information to uncover underlying truths, while political operatives use information as a tool — or, more accurately, a weapon — to further political gain despite the truth. Politicians may actively distort the truth if it disagrees with their pre-determined goals, whereas with scientists, truth is the goal...

I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat, what’s happening in the U.S. is a wholesale dismantling of one of our most precious resources: the scientific ability to sort truth from fiction.

(Click to enlarge; it's worth it! H/T SadButTrue)

How can we let Freedom ring, if we can't even let Truth ring?

As a scientist, I object.

Creation Science, Roy Zimmerman

"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use."
~Galileo Galilei

---

P.S. I find it amusing that the newly discovered space object whose discovery in 2005 launched the recent debate about what constitutes a planet and eventually led to Pluto's excision from the planetary family, has been named Eris, after the Greek goddess of discord and strife.

TAGS: Creationism, Science, Faith, War on Science

A Military Crusade in Iraq brought to you by...

the Department of Defense. Operation Straight Up and their upcoming crusade - tour - is one of the newest members of the Defense Department’s America Supports You program. In the name of our Blessed Creator and with the humble blessings of the Department of Defense of the Apocalypse, they will spread their message that it's not the extent of brain injury or mental health disorder your soldier suffers from, but whether he or she is saved:

On the most dangerous soil in our world, we’re taking a team of performers, professional athletes, and evangelists on a mission that will be both entertaining, as well as lend tremendous solitude to our men and women stationed in this war torn country of Iraq. We are most excited about this crusade and yes we are willing to go to the front lines with a very encouraging word straight from God, to our troops. We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region... At no greater time is our military acceptant of the principles of God and prayer, than when under extreme danger and concerned about their loved ones at home. No one can give lasting meaning to the heartache these troops are suffering than can Jesus Christ. Only our God can give back the sanity of our brave men and women, that risk coming home with mental issues because of what they have witnessed on the battle fields of Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, and Fallujah.

Now if you would please peel your eyes off the Flying Wallendas and Stephen Baldwin for just a moment. Because proselytizing with the overt support of the Defense Department is only the tip of the iceberg. Feast your eyes upon the Freedom Package OSU mails to frontline soldiers. These consists of:

Greeting card
75 Minute Phone Card
White Socks
Baby Wipes (suggested by Col Oliver North)
Gideon’s pocket size New Testament
Extreme Sports “Livin It” Witnessing DVD
“More than a Carpenter” book by Josh McDowell” Double printed in the Arabic language
PC Game – Left Behind Game by Tim LaHaye & Jerry Jenkins
and an assortment of snacks.

Skipping over why Oliver North thinks baby wipes are important, I want to comment on the Josh McDowell book and the PC game. You can buy More than a Carpenter at amazon.com by the six pack. It's plugged there as "the most powerful evangelism tool worldwide." What's interesting is with this version you can read it through frontways in English and then turn it over and read it through in Arabic. Ooops, you don't know Arabic? Apparently neither does our military. So obviously the book is meant for proselytizing our Muslim friends in Iraq. You know, the ones whose religion we're just so tolerant of and stuff. But why read a book when there's a video game!?! Now there's some lessons for how to evangelize your nonChristian friends.

The goal of the game is to kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture. It hit the shelves just in time for Christmas and I blogged on No War Toys for the Prince of Peace. It was exposed for it's dominionist and eliminationst tone by Talk2Action. And as Alternet notes, "Even Marvin Olasky, the evangelical publisher, intellectual author of "compassionate conservatism," and a force behind the George W. Bush Administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," denounced the Left Behind videogame. In a blog post on the website of his World Magazine, Olasky described the game's content as akin to "the way homicidal Muslims think." As a result of the fallout, Left Behind Games fired its senior VP and released three board members."

The OSU thinks this game of convert or kill is the perfect end to a day of fighting the evilddoers in Iraq.

And the Blessed Department of the Defense of the Apocalypse is giving its full support to this new military crusade in Iraq by training up a generation of crusaders who will believe that killing in the name of Christ is right and good.

After all, you wouldn't want to spend all eternity in that damn fiery lake would you?

Common Ground on Abortion?

Two years ago, Governor Rick Perry of Texas signed an abortion bill into law in the gymnasium of the Calvary Christian Academy. This past week, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt signed a bill into law that bars Planned Parenthood from teaching sex education in schools. And now NARAL has discovered that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had revised a government website, 4parents.gov, with biased and misleading ideological claims about abortion.


Next week thousands of Disciples of Christ will come to Ft. Worth, Texas, for our general assembly. One resolution we will be considering is entitled, "PROACTIVE PREVENTION: SEEKING COMMON GROUND ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION." Now to be sure, we're only seeking common ground amongst ourselves. Being as we have no doctrine nor creeds, there's a lot of variety in what individual disciples believe. We don't even have to pay attention to resolutions - especially if we don't like 'em. So if we reach some consensus around this issue, it would be nothing short of a modern day miracle.

Aside from seeking common ground amongst ourselves, this resolution

Affirms the desire to reduce the number of abortions, while still affirming a woman's privilege to responsibly exercise her inherent freedom of conscience, through programs that provide better health care and community support for women during pregnancy.

Calls on churches to provide age appropriate health and sexuality education paired with Christian spirituality for adults and youth. They are recommending a curriculum written by the United Church of Christ. I've not seen it, but I'm confident that it is not subtitled "abstinence education."

Further, Disciples are to be advocates for pregnancy counseling and adequate healthcare for women and families, as well as advocating for and/or creating affordable daycare facilities in underserved neighborhoods, college campuses and other areas where children and families, have the greatest need.

Historically, Disciples have affirmed a woman's right to choose. In 1973 and 1975 we passed resolutions that,

Affirm the principle of individual liberty, freedom of individual conscience, and sacredness of life for all persons.

Respect differences in religious beliefs concerning abortion and oppose, in accord with the principle of religious liberty, any attempt to legislate a specific religious opinion or belief concerning abortion upon all Americans.

Ultimately, Disciples recognize that the women who must decide whether or not to undergo an abortion need to have the informed supportive resources of the Christian community to help them make responsible choices, and that congregations and individuals must give their continued full support to each person who must make such a decision, knowing that whether or not an abortion is decided the person will need the supportive assurance of God's grace and love.

I'll be voting "aye" on this one.

TAGS: Abortion, Separation of Church and State, Pro-choice, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)