The Constitution is important. Full stop. It does many things, chief among them being defining and protecting the rights of people in the United States. So, what happens when America elects an executive that doesn’t fairly apply the constitution because he either doesn’t understand it or doesn’t respect it (the jury’s still out on which is worse)? The American Civil Liberties Union starts getting busy.

The inauguration of Donald Trump in 2016 was a watershed moment for civil liberties in the United States. Since the Warren Court, our constitution has been interpreted in a way that has made speech more free and rights more universal. Tinker v. Des Moines paved the way for student speech, Brandenburg v. Ohio protected inflammatory speech that doesn’t incite violence, Roe v. Wade extended a woman’s right to privacy to reproductive healthcare. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have encountered rulings they’ve disagreed with, but for the most part with some notable exceptions (Bush activities after the Patriot Act) they’ve accepted the norms that make our democracy work. Whenever a President did try to skirt the constitution and curb our civil liberties they at least made noises about “national security”. But there has perhaps never been a President so willing to abandon dog-whistle rhetoric and explicitly state his intentions to undermine our constitution.

“I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding”

“Nobody wants to say this, and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice.”

“We’re going to open up those libel laws, so when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace … we can sue them and win money”

“I’m calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.”

“When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no judges or court cases, bring them back from where they came.”

“We’re rounding them up in a very human way, a very nice way.”

“Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey.”

President Trump’s public statements rival those of Richard Nixon who famously declared “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” But the institutions of 2018 seem to lack the intestinal fortitude of the institutions of 1974. Even with the intervention of a few state attorneys general and the 9th circuit court of appeals, we appear to be witnessing a rapid erosion of constitutional norms that has been exacerbated by recently emboldened state governments. That’s why there’s a necessity for non-profits that exist independent from government, enter the ACLU.

We asked the Executive Directive of the ACLU of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman, how he views the role of his organization and he said, “Our job is to be a check on the government, we are the only organization whose absolute responsibility is to protect every American, every Missourian against government overreach, against violation of constitutional civil rights.” When Mittman says every American, he really does mean every American and it has not been without controversy.

Last year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the city of Cape Girardeau on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan because the city considered it a crime for that group to leave handbills on windshields. For many people, it’s head scratching that the same group that has been integral in the expansion of minority rights should also defend a hate group that is diametrically opposed to those rights. Mittman told us “We will defend any right as strongly as any other, so we have to defend free speech rights, but we also have to defend the right to racial equality to ends of restrictions on racial … restrictions on voting, to school the prison work, the unfair treatment of African American students…When hate crimes laws came up that said…if you say something bad, or think something bad, or write something bad, we will punish that. The ACLU said, “Wait, nope.” We can’t punish speech, we can’t punish thought. Our friends in the LGBT community, and the African American, and minority racial communities were not happy, but understood. What we said is if you commit a crime, and in the commission of that crime you say you are doing it because of that person’s race, or religion, or sexual orientation, we can as a community say, because of that history of discrimination there will be an extra penalty because of that. But to simply punish thought, or speech, or writings is not permissible.”

The ACLU is perhaps the most consistent advocacy organization in America, and it’s operated under its mission statement “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” essentially without fail for nearly 100 years. It’s put them at odds with a number of Presidential administrations, but maybe none more than the Trump administration whose policy directives continue to challenge the limits of the constitution. Mittman detailed to us the work that’s been done on behalf of DACA students, Muslims that have been targeted due to the travel ban, and transgender soldiers whose ability to serve is in jeopardy to name a few. But listening to Mittman, who has been in Missouri since 2014, it’s clear that maybe the nature of his work hasn’t changed but rather the public has become more aware of problems that have existed longer than we’d like to admit.

Mittman went on at some length about racial disparities in this state, especially as they relate to education and law enforcement. There’s a “school to prison pipeline” which is essentially the disproportionate way minority students eventually become incarcerated adults that is likely related to school disciplinary policies. Mittman talked about a specific case that’s emblematic of similar experiences around the country. “In 2015 that Missouri had the highest differential between rates of discipline of white students and black students in elementary school. We represented a young, seven-year-old boy who was handcuffed. Less than four feet tall, weighed less than 50 pounds, was crying his classroom, was handcuffed, was taken to the principal’s office and left in handcuffs in the principal’s office. So, we’re working on the issue of police and schools.”

The ACLU is in the middle of a multi-year program to address this, and Mittman says the struggle is “How do we say that under third grade you should never have an out of school suspension?” he continued, “It’s just not necessary, these are young people, these are students, these are children. These are not criminals. These are not people who need to be dealt with by police officers.” Currently the ACLU is starting with five school districts in a partnership to help them look at their policies and “help them educate themselves, help them look at implicit bias training for schools, for teachers. Whatever it takes to lower those differentials.”

Now back to the President, who not only dominates media conversation but a significant portion of the National ACLU’s casework. We asked Mittman, who knows quite a bit about constitutional law, if the President can pardon himself. It seems more relevant now as the Mueller probe has progressed and many of his associates have been indicted including his former campaign manager and national security advisor. Mittman had an interesting answer “My own fundamental belief, and I think it’s fairly what ACLU would say, is going back to our earlier question, we are a system of laws not men. So, the fundamental principal will be the Constitution applies to all of us. The president is not above the law. So, if we agree on that starting point, I would hope and trust that any opinion, whether a trial court, whether the Supreme Court, would strongly ascribe to that idea that the president is not above the law.”

The ACLU is doing something that every citizen should be doing, and that’s ensuring the continued existence of liberal democracy. Whatever freedoms we have and rights we acknowledge only exist because they were fought for. The ACLU has done much of the heavy lifting in shaping how we view free speech, and it’s been a net positive for our country. Mittman said of his organization, “What people don’t know is before the 1920s, nobody would’ve said first amendment. There was a first amendment to the constitution, but it hadn’t been enforced. ACLU started around the time of World War I. Wilson was having people jailed for opposing the war. ACLU said wait a second, we have free speech right. We went to court, and now we’ve built a body of law. We’re that follow-through on what the federalists said. We’re the follow-through on the constitution…the challenges in Missouri are going to be different than the challenges of New Hampshire … [but] we know what goes on here, we are part of what goes on here, and we have the expertise in national to make it happen. They listen to us, we listen to them.”

The constitution is not a partisan issue, it’s literally above politics. It’s patriotic to support the constitution, it’s sycophantic to make excuses for its degradation. As Americans, now is the time to come together and make it known that we believe that government has to work for the people and do that work within the bounds of the people’s document.

The post While Rome burns, the ACLU rebuilds appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When Donald Trump announced via Twitter that he was banning transgender people from military service, 56 retired generals and admirals said, “No, sir.”  Their statement, released on August 1, 2017, adds to the growing dossier of public objections—issued by concerned current and retired government officials, scientists, and other knowledgeable professionals—to Trump’s offensive utterances and casually tossed-off “ideas” for new policies.

Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were blindsided by the out-of-the-blue tweet order. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford, responded by saying:

There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines. In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect.

The reason behind Trump’s impulse to tweet out a far-reaching and backward-looking policy change like this one is not clear. He didn’t say why he was doing it. We can only speculate. It could be an effort to throw out some red meat for his base—given that he has not accomplished any of the terrible things that he promised them during the presidential campaign. Or, it could be a grandstanding distraction, launched to divert attention from the investigation into Trump’s Russia entanglements that is inching ever closer to him. Or, it could be a way of giving the ultra-conservative religious right and other angry white guys a win in their campaign to turn back the social clock. Whatever the reason, the twitter-edict has resulted in skepticism and potential disobedience from the very people who would have to implement it.

Below is the full text of the statement from retired generals and admirals, with my emphasis in bold. These guys are not dancing around the issue. They address each of the objections raised by transgender-phobes, and knock every one of them down—not just by opinion, but via facts and their direct observations of soldiers and units in the field.

And, although I am not a fan of most of the military actions that I have witnessed during my lifetime, this is one military intervention that makes complete sense. Trump has recently elevated several generals to his White House cabinet and inner circle, and they seem to be the only levelheaded people in the room. Trump apparently worships military honchos: Maybe he’ll listen to them, both in rescinding his transgender tweet-ban and in making even bigger decisions as they come along.

The Commander in Chief has tweeted a total ban of honorably serving transgender troops. This proposed ban, if implemented, would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent, and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy. As a result, the proposed ban would degrade readiness even more than the failed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. Patriotic transgender Americans who are serving—and who want to serve—must not be dismissed, deprived of medically necessary health care, or forced to compromise their integrity or hide their identity.

President Trump seeks to ban transgender service members because of the financial cost and disruption associated with transgender military service. We respectfully disagree, and consider these claims to be without merit. The RAND Corporation, as well as research in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that the financial cost of providing health care to transgender troops would be, at most, $8.4 million per year. This amounts to one one-hundredth of one percent of the military’s annual health care budget. As for ostensible disruptions, transgender troops have been serving honorably and openly for the past year, and have been widely praised by commanders.

Eighteen foreign nations, including the UK and Israel, allow transgender troops to serve, and none has reported any detriment to readiness.

Recently, two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have taken courageous stands in support of our transgender service members. General Martin Dempsey said of our transgender troops that, ‘The service of men and women who volunteer and who meet our standards of service is a blessing, not a burden.’

“And Admiral Mike Mullen stated that, ‘I led our armed forces under the flawed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy and saw firsthand the harm to readiness and morale when we fail to treat all service members according to the same standards. Thousands of transgender Americans are currently serving in uniform and there is no reason to single out these brave men and women and deny them the medical care that they require. The military conducted a thorough research process on this issue and concluded that inclusive policy for transgender troops promotes readiness.’

Admiral Mullen urged civilian leaders ‘to respect the military’s judgment and not to breach the faith of service members who defend our freedoms.’ We could not agree more.”

 

The post 56 generals and admirals sign statement opposing Trump’s transgender ban appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a few weeks, I turn 20. People keep telling me how young I am— how my life is just beginning. But today I can’t help but feel keenly how old I am— how many more years my life has had than millions of lives do.

How many Syrian refugees died before they had to use both hands to count their age? How many Iraqi, Thai, and Congolese children died soldiers before they lost their baby fat? How many Yemeni and Somali children will waste away of malnutrition without ever learning to walk? How many Afghani and Nigerian girls died giving birth to a child while themselves still children? How many trans teenagers in the United States ended their lives before their adolescence ended?

To them, my life has been eons already. By their metrics, I am ancient. I am acutely conscious of the privileges I have as a fluke of my birth that conspired to keep me alive here today rather than in a grave as small as theirs.

A month ago, Jordan Edwards was shot to death by a police officer in Dallas, TX as he drove away from a party. He was only 15 years old.

I am almost 5 years older than he will ever be. But because my body is not Black and male, here I sit. The number of unarmed Black men killed by police is so incredibly high, it is numbing. The number of lives cut short by police brutality is almost unfathomable. The number of birthdays lost to violence because a Black man’s unarmed body was seen as inherently too dangerous to exist is staggering.

How many unarmed Black boys’ and men’s lives were cut brutally short by police before they even left their teenage years?

• Tamir Rice was killed at age 12 in Cleveland, OH (11/22/2014).
• Tyre King was killed at age 13 in Columbus, OH (9/14/2016).
• Laquan McDonald was killed at age 17 in Chicago, IL (10/20/2014).
• David Joseph was killed at age 17 in Chicago, IL (2/8/2016).
• Michael Brown was killed at age 18 in Ferguson, MO (8/9/2014).
• Paterson Brown was killed at age 18 in Richmond, VA (10/17/2015).
• Tony Robinson was killed at age 19 in Madison, WI (3/6/2015).
• Keith McLeod was killed at age 19 in Reisterstown, MD (9/23/2015).
• Christian Taylor was killed at age 19 in Arlington, TX (8/7/2015).
• Dalvin Hollins was killed at age 19 in Tempe, AZ (7/27/2016).
• Dyzhawn Perkins was killed at age 19 in Buckingham County, VA (2/13/2016).

The number of candles on their birthday cakes will never increase to more than mine. How can I not feel too old?

And in none of these instances will the police officer who cut their lives abruptly short be charged with a crime.

And what about the many lives which existed for only a few years beyond 20?

• Terrance Kellom was killed at age 20 in Detroit, MI (4/27/2015).
• Zamiel Crawford was killed at age 21 in Leeds, AL (6/20/2015).
• Christopher J. Davis was killed at age 21 in Milwaukee, WI (2/24/2016).
• John Crawford was killed at age 22 in Dayton, OH (8/5/2014).
• Christopher Kimble was killed at age 22 in East Cleveland, OH (10/3/2015).
• Vernell Bing, Jr. was killed at age 22 in Jacksonville, FL (5/22/2016).
• Deravis Caine Rogers was killed at age 22 in Atlanta, GA (6/22/2016).
• Levonia Riggins was killed at age 22 in Hillsborough County, FL (8/30/2016).
• Sean Bell was killed at age 23 in Queens, NY (11/25/2006).
• Albert Davis was killed at age 23 in Orlando, FL (7/17/2015).
• Calin Roquemore was killed at age 24 in Longview, TX (2/13/2016).
• Ariel Denkins was killed at age 24 in Raleigh, NC (2/29/2016).
• Kevin Judson was killed at age 24 in McMinnville, OR (7/1/2015).
• Ezell Ford was killed at age 25 in Florence, CA (8/11/2014).
• Freddie Gray was killed at age 25 in Baltimore, MD (4/19/2015).

By a fluke of my birth, I was born into this body in these circumstances in this place with these opportunities and privileges, and so here I sit. But by a fluke of their birth, they weren’t given the same privileges as I was.

And that’s not even counting the thousands— the millions— of people whose lives may not be over, but who through a fluke of their birth were not given the opportunities and privileges by which their lives could flourish.

I just earned my undergraduate degrees; I’m going to law school in the fall. How many people could have been world-class lawyers or doctors or engineers or politicians transforming our society but who weren’t given the opportunity to complete their education? Who were put in underfunded school systems that didn’t have the funds or resources to provide a quality education? Who had to drop out of high school? Who couldn’t afford college tuition? Who are so desperately living paycheck-to- paycheck so their children can one day go to school even though they harbor no hopes of themselves seeing a degree in their name?

When I think about the opportunities I’ve been given in almost 20 years that some people are never given their entire lives, I can’t help but think that perhaps the standards we use to measure if someone’s life is “just beginning” are just lies— cold comfort so we don’t have to think too hard about the way our life could have been if not by a fluke of our birth. And the more I think about those names and those dates, I just remember how old I am. Happy birthday.

The post Happy Birthday appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When I woke up this morning, I was outraged to discover that $3,050 in Truman State University funds (taken from the non-optional “student activity fee” charged to all Truman students) was taken to hire one of the most prolific Islamophobes alive, Robert Spencer, to give a talk called “Exposed: The Truth About Radical Islam” despite his purported neo-Nazi ties and the fact that he has been banned from the United Kingdom for his radical agenda to defame Islam and spread hate and misinformation. This event is being funded by the University and hosted by the College Republicans and being held April 13th, 8:00pm in Violette Hall, Room 1000.

A quick google search of Robert Spencer reveals his “extremist profile” on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. They state that “As the director of the Jihad Watch blog and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer is one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists.” Continuing, they explain that Robert “insists, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, that the religion is inherently violent and that radical jihadists who commit acts of terror are simply following its dictates.” His writing was cited dozens of times in a manifesto written by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist in July 2013” (Southern Poverty Law Center).

So, despite the fact that the United Kingdom has banned this man from entering their country because his views on Islam are incorrect and hateful, Truman State has not only invited, but is PAYING him to come our campus, using thousands of dollars in University funding. The FAC (Funds Allotment Council) has public records which prove that this funding was in fact, provided to the College Republican club to host this event. Those records can be found here: https://fac.truman.edu/slates/ under Spring 2017.

While outraged students have been writing letters to school administration and planning ways to stage nonviolent and peaceful protest at the event, which is scheduled for April 13th, 2017 at 8pm, online threats have recently surfaced advocating for the shooting, lobotomization, imprisonment and expulsion of students who disagree with Spencer or plan to protest. Attached below is an image of one such comment, however, it is just one of many. The rest can be seen on Robert Spencer’s personal website, here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/truman-state-university-student-calls-for-violence-ahead-of-robert-spencer-lecture.

Many of these comments are also incredibly transphobic. Several Truman students are calling the event “tone-deaf” especially given the ongoing mental health crisis being experienced at Truman’s campus, with our current suicide rate 6.25x that of the national average at other Universities. A Truman student committed suicide just last week and with such a fragile and stressful campus environment at present, the last thing our University needs is additional stressors and events which incite violence, stress, and promote hate.

Furthermore, following Trump’s Muslim travel ban, University President Dr. Sue Thomas sent out an email ensuring that minority students would be protected and supported, yet by allowing and funding anti-Islamic speakers like Robert Spencer, they are doing precisely the opposite. Truman claims to promote an atmosphere in which diversity is respected and students of every creed, color, religion and culture can feel protected and safe. But their actions (and lack thereof) demonstrate otherwise.

While College Republicans and campus leadership (including University President Dr. Sue Thomas) argue that Spencer’s talk on campus falls under free speech, student Breanna Rigger stated in a public Facebook status,

“Look, it’s unethical to give fascists a platform. It’s not intolerant or hypocritical to deny them speech on campus. These people manipulate others with fear to support horrible policies and discrimination towards others. This fear can lead to violence towards targeted groups. If you use your first amendment rights to spread fears, lies, and violence then you shouldn’t have a platform.”

Furthermore, Robert’s rhetoric and platform has been characterized as “hate-speech” in the past which many feel should not fall under the definition of “free speech.” Furthermore, such speech is not appropriate on a campus that has falsely promised to stand up for minority students and help them feel safe and protected.

As a student who is personally concerned, I have reported the shooting threats to the proper authorities and expressed my concerns regarding the inappropriate nature of spending student activity fee money on hate speech, yet Truman State refuses to take action, telling students that this will promote “academic discourse.”

If the event is not canceled despite violent threats towards peaceful protesters and students who disagree with Spencer’s extremist, bigoted stance, there will be nonviolent protests staged by students who are standing in solidarity with our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters.

By continuing to host this event, despite an outpouring of outrage from the student body, Truman State is alienating and actively oppressing their Muslim student body. I would urge any Truman alumni to immediately call Truman and ask to be taken off donor lists and any high schoolers considering attending Truman State to keep the actions of the University at this time in mind.

The post Tension mounts with Islamophobic speaker scheduled at Truman State appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The newly released movie Moonlight is a very quiet film with a powerful impact. It’s absorbing, thought-provoking and emotionally exhausting, with performances that are breathtaking. But I wonder if anyone is going to go to see it. The 16-screen theater where we saw it this afternoon offered only one showing—at 3:30—in a dine-in screening room that seated only 50 people.

If that limited availability is typical, it’s very unfortunate, because Moonlight should be on everyone’s watch list.

The story follows the main character, Chiron, from his childhood years in a struggling African-American neighborhood in Miami, through high school and young adulthood. He’s a quiet [almost completely silent, actually]  kid—ignored by his drug-addicted mother, bullied by his neighbors and classmates, and mentored—for a time—by a drug dealer who has retained a sense of decency. We follow Chiron as he grows up, with the three stages of his life portrayed by three different actors [each of whom gives a stunning performance.] It’s a heartbreaking story.

But beyond summarizing the plot, it’s almost impossible to describe this movie. Unlike many of the formulaic movies that draw big box office returns, Moonlight does not fit well into a single category.

It’s not a “black” movie—although all of its characters are African-Americans, its setting is a black community in Miami, and there’s a lot of vernacular that this aging white lady in a suburban bubble doesn’t usually hear. Unfortunately, AMC Theatres apparently thinks it is, indeed, a “black” movie. How do I know? Because 4 out of 5 of the previews that precede it are movies featuring predominantly black actors. That categorization does this movie—and all audiences—a disservice. “Moonlight” focuses on black characters, but tells a story that is far broader.

It’s also not just a “coming out” or “gay” movie, although the main character is bullied, as a child and throughout middle- and high-school, by others who call him a “faggot.” It takes him years to discover who he is, and even more years to accept and act on that aspect of his identity.

Nor is it a “love story,” in the conventional sense. You could say that Chiron eventually learns to accept himself, and discovers that he is capable of loving someone else, and saying so out loud. But you don’t get that until very late in his story—and the future of that self-actualization is not certain.

I can’t comment on the verisimilitude of the story and the characters, because I’ve lived a completely different—privileged, protected, insulated—life. But I don’t think you need to have lived Chiron’s life to appreciate the damaging effect that parental rejection and cultural ostracism can have on a person, regardless of skin color, culture, socio-economic circumstances, neighborhood or other factors. Chiron is oppressed—for reasons he doesn’t understand and can’t control—and repressed as a result. His is not just “black” suffering, it is human pain.

I don’t know what else to say. I’m sure there’s a lot that I missed and didn’t understand because of who I am. But that didn’t stop me from aching for Chiron as a human being.

The Hollywood establishment has believed, for essentially its entire history, that “nobody” [meaning, of course, white people] will go to movies with African-Americans in lead roles. Please seek out this remarkable film—primarily because it’s just a damn good movie—and, as a by-product, to prove them wrong.

The post Moonlight: Powerful, quiet, heartbreaking movie appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When do you know that a social trend has gained full traction in America? One way is to listen to the pronouncements of pundits, think-tankers, pollsters and professors. They’ll conduct sociological studies; they’ll sample public opinion; and they’ll make the case with statistics. And, in the aggregate, they’ll probably get it right.

But if you really want to know what’s on the radar screen of most Americans, look and listen to advertising, tv shows, sports, movies and music. That’s where theory meets reality. That’s where savvy manufacturers and artists do what capitalists do best: capitalize on the zeitgeist.

I think we all knew that racial integration had really begun to take hold when at-the-time-beloved Bill Cosby [now disgraced, of course] became the tv pitchman for that all-American convenience food—Jello Pudding. More recently, Cheerios ads began featuring an interracial family.

And now, the Kiss Cam has broken the same-sex romance barrier. On May 2, 2015, the Kiss Cam at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium zoomed in on two men, who did what all obliging Kiss Cam couples do: they smooched on camera. And the crowd cheered!

That, my friends, is progress–especially considering the fact that, in 2000, a lesbian couple was kicked out of Dodger stadium simply for kissing as they sat in the stands.

Just for a little background, the kiss cam tradition originated in California in the early 1980s, as a way to fill in the gaps in play in professional baseball games, taking advantage of the possibilities of the then-new giant video screens. But until recently, the Kiss Cam was a hetero-only deal. Over the years, some Kiss Cam operators would use the lens to create a homophobic joke: framing two men on the Kiss Cam screen with the word “KISS” beneath their faces. That was supposed to elicit laughs and “ewws” from the crowd. And it probably did.

As CNN’s John D. Sutter puts it:

For years I’ve half-jokingly told friends that we’ll know gay equality is here when same-sex couples are featured unironically on the kiss cam — when two dudes who are asked to kiss on screen actually do it and get awwwws, not laughs.

And now that [at least] one Kiss Cam—and one enlightened crowd– has validated on-camera same-sex smooching, that great and glorious day when people can unashamedly love whomever they choose may be dawning in the American psyche.

The post Kiss Cam: The new social barometer appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s always bittersweet in June when the Supreme Court issues its major rulings, because I can’t help but wish school was in session so we could talk about them in my American history class.

In our Constitution unit we’ve spent a lot of time these last couple years talking about the Equal Protection Clause, tracing it from Chinese laundry owner Yick Wo up through more recent civil rights struggles. Inevitably, we end up looking at current events and asking where the Equal Protection Clause could or should be applied next.

Eighth graders are so strident and idealistic, and listening to them talk about marriage equality (among other issues) is just one of the best parts of my job. I’m really hoping they’re watching the news today (“SEE! Remember when I told you the Constitution was a living document that affects our lives everyday??!!”), and I’m hoping they’re already thinking about what the next step in the struggle for equal rights will be.

The post Supreme Court rulings: Lessons for my 8th grade students appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Religious identity has always been a big deal in America. Identifying yourself as a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or some other religion, is a convenient shortcut to let others know who you are—whether you’re like them or different—and offering clues as to how to interact with you. But what if you don’t identify with a recognizable religion? What if you’ve quit, or never joined up in the first place, or find yourself in a place on the fringes or somewhere between the lines? What do you call yourself, when the conversation inevitably—if not politely—comes around to the topic of religious identity?

As shown in the recently published Pew Research study, a growing percentage of Americans are growing away from traditional religious identification. I’m one of them, and I still struggle to define where I stand. It’s complicated.

On a recent NPR talk show, the discussion began with those statistics. And then, all call-in hell broke loose, when people began phoning in to describe their own, unconventional religio-spiritual identities.

One woman, who identified herself as an Episcopal priest, protested that the term “Christian” has been “hijacked and “unfairly claimed” by ultra-fundamentalists. She then declared herself to be a “Christist,” which she defined [if I understood her correctly] as a person who follows the teachings attributed to Jesus, without the ritualistic requirements of formal Christianity.

Another caller proclaimed himself to be a “deist.” He didn’t define it very clearly, but he was obviously making a distinction between his beliefs and those promulgated by churches he had tried to participate in.

You get the idea. Religious identity—in a way that strikes me as similar to sexual identity—is becoming fluid and confusing. That call-in show sent me into research mode: I’ve been trying to get definitions for the various shades of un-belief and un-religion.

Today, I stumbled onto an article that offers helpful descriptions [meaning definitions that I can actually understand] of seven of the more popular—and traditional—shades of non-belief. Unfortunately, reading these definitions makes me even more confused about what to call myself.

1. Atheist

The term atheist can be defined literally as lacking a humanoid god concept, but historically it means one of two things. Positive atheism asserts that a personal supreme being does not exist. Negative atheism simply asserts a lack of belief in such a deity. It is possible be a positive atheist about the Christian God, for example, while maintaining a stance of negative atheism or even uncertainty on the question of a more abstract deity like a “prime mover.”

(Hmmm. I’ve been calling myself an atheist for a while, now. It turns out that, according to this definition, I’m more of a negative than a positive atheist. But even that is not a perfect definition, because the author says that negative atheism “asserts a lack of belief” in a deity. I object to the word “belief:” I don’t think that the word “belief” belongs in a definition of atheism. In my kind of atheism, I simply do not accept the premise of a deity. It has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with thought.)

2. Anti-theist

The term anti-theist says, “I think religion is harmful.” It also implies some form of activism that goes beyond merely advocating church-state separation or science education. Anti-theism challenges the legitimacy of faith as a moral authority or way of knowing. Anti-theists often work to expose harms caused in the name of God like stonings, gay bating, religious child maltreatment, genital mutilation, unwanted childbearing or black-collar crime.

(Well, then, maybe I’m an anti-theist, as well as an atheist, because I keep telling people that I quit religion when I realized that it creates divisions among people and that a shitload of bad things have happened under the guise of religion.)

3. Agnostic

…The term agnostic represents a range of intellectual positions that have important substance in their own right and can be independent of atheism. Strong agnosticism views God’s existence as unknowable, permanently and to all people. Weak agnosticism can mean simply “I don’t know if there is a God,” or “We collectively don’t know if there is a God but we might find out in the future.”
…These definitions of agnosticism, though different, all focus on what we do or can know, rather than on whether God exists.”

(So, it’s possible to be an atheist and an agnostic? Is that what I am?)

One author—Philip Pullman—is quoted as calling himself both:

The question of what term to use is a difficult one, in strict terms I suppose I’m an agnostic because of course the circle of the things I do know is vastly smaller than the things I don’t know about out there in the darkness somewhere maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever and everybody who claims to know there is a God seems to use that as an excuse for exercising power over other people…

4. Skeptic

Traditionally, skeptic has been used to describe a person who doubts received religious dogmas. However, while agnostic focuses on God questions in particular, the term skeptic expresses a broader life approach. Someone who calls him- or herself a skeptic has put critical thinking at the heart of the matter. Well known skeptics, like Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, or James Randi devote a majority of their effort to debunking pseudoscience, alternative medicine, astrology and so forth. They broadly challenge the human tendency to believe things on insufficient evidence.

5. Free-thinker

Free-thinker is a term that dates to the end of the 17th Century, when it was first used in England to describe those who opposed the Church and literal belief in the Bible. Freethought is an intellectual stance that says that opinions should be based on logic and evidence rather than authorities and traditions…The term has gotten popular recently in part because it is affirmative. Unlike atheism, which defines itself in contrast to religion, freethought identifies with a proactive process for deciding what is real and important.

(All of these definitions are making things much more complicated. Probably, many of us on the un-belief spectrum would like to think of ourselves as somehow fitting into each of these categories, because they make us think we’re smarter than the blind-faith believers.)

6. Humanist

While terms like atheist or anti-theist focus on a lack of god-belief and agnostic, skeptic and freethinker all focus on ways of knowing—humanist centers in on a set of ethical values. Humanism seeks to promote broad wellbeing by advancing compassion, equality, self-determination, and other values that allow individuals to flourish and to live in community with each other. These values drive not from revelation, but from human experience.

(Personal anecdote: About 30 years ago, when I still participated—with a large dollop of skepticism—in religion—I was in the presence of a scholarly older gentleman, to whom I expressed my reservations about the Jewish holiday we were commemorating. “I hear what you’re saying,” he said. “You do realize, don’t you, that you are a secular humanist.” I didn’t. But I do now. I just hope that all of these definitions are not mutually exclusive. I really don’t want to have to choose at this late stage of the game.)

7. Pantheist

…Pantheists center in on the spiritual heart of faith–the experience of humility, wonder, and transcendence. They see human beings as one small part of a vast natural order, with the Cosmos itself made conscious in us. Pantheists reject the idea of a person- god, but believe that the holy is made manifest in all that exists.

(At last, I think I’ve found a category that doesn’t fit me. That’s a relief.)

But let’s not forget the deists—most notably America’s founders—

…who didn’t believe in miracles or special revelation through sacred texts but thought that the natural world itself revealed a designer who could be discovered through reason and inquiry.

Or the Naturalists,

..who assume a philosophical position that the laws operating within the natural realm are the only laws governing the universe and no supernatural realm lies beyond.

Or the Secularists,

…who argue that moral standards and laws should be based on whether they do good or harm in this world and that religion should be kept out of government.

Maybe, like the whole notion of the existence of some form of supreme being, it’s just not definable at all, and—except for those who proclaim “faith” and unshakable belief—we all have to learn to live with the vagueness and ambiguity, trying on different definitions for size, and sometimes switching from one to another.

In my ideal world, though, having a name for whatever one thinks about the origin and organization of the universe wouldn’t be such an important part of one’s identity or a getting-to-know you social requirement.

The post The religious-identity spectrum: Is this the new LGBTQ+? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republican legislators and Governor Mike Pence in Indiana have presented us with the latest incarnation of church – state relations in the United States. As they try to stand four-square behind religion, it might be good to take a look at what U.S. Constitution says about church-state relations. The First Amendment says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Like any right in the Constitution, it is not absolute. Why is it not absolute? Because it can’t be. Inevitably it will collide into other rights also guaranteed in the Constitution. For example, the 14^th Amendment, Section 1 states:” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So the obvious question arises, “What happens when my religious belief interferes with someone else’s “equal protection of the laws?” The answer requires that we follow the words of Lyndon Johnson, “Let us reason together.”

We literally have to bargain this through. Suppose the bakery in Indiana wants to refuse to sell goods to members of the LGBT community. The proprietor says that his or her religious beliefs are such that homosexuality is a sin and it is acceptable to treat members of the LGBT community with less deference and respect than others.

However, on the basis of the 14^th Amendment and the civil rights public accommodations laws of the 1960s, there is a guarantee that an individual, regardless of race, national origin, etc. cannot be denied service at a public establishment. So what is of a higher value, the proprietor’s right to discriminate or the customer’s right to be served at any establishment open for business?

In this case, it is a little difficult to determine purely on a legal basis because members of the LGBT community are not considered a protected class, as is the case with a race, color, religion, gender, age, or national origin. With all the advances in rights for members of the LGBT community, there has not been the sort of legal protection for just “existing” that many other groups have.

Even though the civil rights of members of the LGBT community are not legally protected in the way that other groups are, logic leads us to conclude that their rights should be protected as with other “existence” groups.

This leads us back to the question of what is of  higher value, the proprietor’s right to discriminate or the customer’s right to be served at any establishment open for business. If we side with the business owner because of his or her religion, we are left with all kinds of questions, not the least of which is “what is a religion.” What would happen if all the businesses in a particular area suddenly got “religion” and decided that it was against their religion to serve members of the LGBT community? Then we would have a situation similar to the confederate states during the era of segregation. Large numbers of individuals would be locked out of significant portions of our society. The “common good” of our citizens would be sublimated to the wills of individual business owners whose main intent would be to discriminate against an unprotected group of citizens.

Women and minorities have been discriminated against during most of this history of this nation. In the 1960s, we began to make serious progress in reducing the discrimination. In the past five years, we seem to have taken steps backwards. What is happening now in Indiana and elsewhere beckons us to renew our logic and our compassion to protect the basic interests of the common good.

The post This church – state thing gets curiouser and curiouser appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On July 11, 2014, nationwide, gay men contributed to blood banks in the only way they legally can: Instead of men being able to donate blood themselves, they have to bring along allies who are legally eligible to donate.

The National Gay Blood Drive isn’t your everyday charity event, it’s also a protest that gives voice to an important and overlooked issue. The FDA bars gay and bisexual men from donating blood.

Almost unbelievably, this law is still in effect. When donors enter a donation center, they are asked to fill out a form that includes many questions—one example of which is “Have your ears been pierced in the last three months?—to establish whether or not a person is at high risk for diseases transmitted through blood. Most regulations on blood donors are reasonable and necessary to accurately decrease the amount of unusable blood, by assessing their risk for diseases including Hepatitis B & C, syphilis and HIV/AIDS. So it is excessively unfortunate that another question on the form asks if the donor is a man: “Have you had sex with another man since 1977?” Answering yes to this question makes a man ineligible to donate blood for fear it would contain HIV.

So, being gay puts you at higher risk for AIDS? According to science, absolutely not. According to the federal government, apparently—yes.

Not only is this belief as vintage as leg warmers, it’s a throwback to 1980s knowledge of HIV and the all too recent HIV scare targeted at homosexuals. Obviously, the FDA is thirty years behind the times. Why exclude lifesaving blood when someone needs a transfusion approximately every 2 seconds?

Here are just a few reasons why this law is just plain wrong: All donated blood is tested. All donated blood is tested for HIV, Hep B & C, and syphilis. So, why make you answer questions about sexual identity? If the FDA is willing to concede that not just gay men have HIV, why ban them as a group?

Sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are not synonyms. Just because a man is homosexual or bisexual does not mean he is promiscuous. But this law doesn’t determine someone’s number of partners, just his gender. Some heterosexual people are promiscuous, and many gay men are not. Obviously.

More women have HIV than men. The largest population of HIV today is in Africa, and over 70% of people HIV positive there are women. Women are more likely to contract all types of STIs, including HIV, because of their anatomy.

There. Now that we have established that this regulation is as unfounded as it is arbitrary, why is it still happening? Why doesn’t the FDA just change the questionnaire? There are so many ways to assess high risk behavior, regardless of how a person identifies. It’s a simple solution. But instead, the FDA forces gay men to disclose their sexual behavior when all they wanted to do was give a life-saving donation. It targets gay men who may then relive the torments they’ve experienced before being comfortable identifying as gay.

And this law works on a bizarre honors system. If you don’t disclose this information, no legal action can be taken against you. Why make gay men hide their identity to give blood?

All these questions deserve answers. But what is really striking is how little awareness there is for this issue. While gay marriage garners the main stage of the LGBT rights platform, blatant discrimination and defamation that still exist in government bureaucracy are ignored.

Why is this issue on the back burner of the fast moving LGBT rights movement? Especially when these kinds of misunderstandings about gay men has caused so much animosity in the past, both during the AIDS epidemic and before.

Most people, even in the healthcare industry, have no idea that this law still exists. It’s archaic, a violation of our rights, and totally fixable.

If you’re like me and want to do something to change this law, here is a link to the National Gay Blood Drive website, where you can sign a petition to repeal the ban on gay blood.

The post Let’s repeal the ban on gay blood appeared first on Occasional Planet.