How timely!

I don't know how accurate the reporting is, but it ties in with what Ned is
promoting!

I guess it has something to do with Bill's book "Killing Jesus"!

http://lezgetreal.com/2013/03/can-the-catholic-church-please-disown-oreilly-now/

Can The Catholic Church Please Disown O'Reilly Now?

Posted by: Linda Carbonell on March 21, 2013.

(excerpts)

William James O'Reilly, Jr., attended St. Brigid parochial
school in Westbury, Long Island, New York, and Chaminade
High School, a parochial school in Mineola.

He graduated from Marist College, which was then a Catholic institution, in
Poughkeepsie, New York in 1970. From 1970
to 1972, he taught English and history at Monsignor Pace
High School in Miami Gardens, Florida.

He was 4 and 0 for Catholic education.

So how the hell can Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News star,
say totally stupid things like Christ was born 3,000
years ago and was killed by the Romans because He
opposed taxation?

Opposed taxation?

Did his Jesuit instructors manage to miss Mark 12:17,

> "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's
> and unto God that which is God's"?

That's one of the top five quotes used to defend our secular government against
the forces of theology.

Nonetheless, O'Reilly's latest pronouncement from his
personal Mount is that Christ died for opposing taxation.

It's part of his justifications for supporting the Ryan budget
and the Bush tax cuts and anything that might threaten his
income with additional taxes.

Last year, O'Reilly swore that if President Obama raised his
taxes, O'Reilly would quit, shut down his business enterprises,
fire all his employees, walk away rather than let Obama get a
penny more of his money.

Well, just like Rush Limbaugh threatening to move to Costa
Rica (where they have nationalized health care, by the way)
if Obamacare was passed, O'Reilly is still here and still
spouting nonsense.

O'Reilly only earns $10 million a year, and has a net worth
in the $50 million range. That makes him seriously poor
compared to Rush, who is estimated to have earned $69 million
last year and is worth around $350 million.

But Christ died because of taxes.

In O'Reilly's revisionist Bible, Christ died for a really
mundane reason. Sort of takes the whole miracle thing out
of His life and death, doesn't it?

Maybe Cardinal Dolan should spend more time cracking down
on highly public Catholics who abuse the message of Christ
for political points and less time worrying about health
insurance coverage for non-Catholics.

-------------------------------
-------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/03/21/congress-probes-irs-over-tax-d\
ollars-spent-making-star-trek-video/

Congress Probes IRS over Tax Dollars Spent Making Star Trek Video

By Robert W. Wood
March 21, 2013

You may not like paying taxes, but taxes fund the government and are necessary.
Still, government waste is like lemon juice in a paper cut.

I'm no judge of what's wasteful, but the idea that the IRS is spending money
producing a video parody of Star Trek?

Priceless.

Yes, the IRS goes boldly where no man has gone before.

And like a space tourist, the IRS wrote a check to do it. Some headlines suggest
the price tag was $4 million.

Actually, the IRS studio itself cost around $4 million but the Trekkie movie was
around $60,000.

In fact, that was for two movies, the Star Trek parody and a skit based on
Gilligan's Island.

See Republican demands copy of IRS's `Star Trek' parody.

That's quite a double feature and is no fictional Argo-style movie.

Does the IRS even need a studio?
Apparently.
The IRS TV studio is in New Carrollton, Maryland.

But the controversial movies are proving to be elusive, a kind of limited
release.

House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany, Jr. M.D.
(R-LA) asked the IRS to hand over a copy of the Trekkie video. See March 20,
2013 Letter to Acting IRS Commissioner Miller.

IRS videos are usually boring.

One involving a Star Trek parody and a skit based on the television sitcom
Gilligan's Island?

You can just see Mr. Spock raising an eyebrow.

Fascinating.

The IRS has acknowledged the existence of the two videos, admits they cost
$60,000, but hasn't complied with Chairman Boustany's request to hand them over.

The IRS defends its movies as needed for effective employee training.

IRS filmography is good for all audiences, including the public.

Besides, movies reduce travel and other costs, says the IRS. But House watchdog
Mr. Boustany wants those movies, plus:

> An accounting of all costs associated with
> the production of the Star Trek video;

> Any communications regarding the production,
> distribution, or posting of the videos; and

> A detailed account of all taxpayer money spent
> at the New Carrollton studio, including leasing
> expenses, personnel costs, and all contracts
> for use of the studio.

Will there be Argo-style lawsuits and complaints about the IRS movies?

Perhaps.

If there's a "Beam me up Commissioner" line, will someone complain?

Will the Klingons sue Iran-style saying they aren't fairly depicted?

And in a parody video put out by your IRS, what's fair anyhow?

These are weighty questions.

------------------------------
------------------------------

http://newcovenantgroup.com/donate/

(excerpts)

Join the Movement.

Support the Mission.

Every day, billions of people across the world are
told...

The New Covenant Group is working hard to dispel
this mythology.

But we can't do it alone.

We need your help.

We have a lot of work ahead of us, and it's going
to take time, effort, and money.

Your one-time donations of $5, $10, $30, $100, or
even $1000 or more are needed, and each dollar helps
us to take one more step towards a world that isn't
terrorized by a mythological God, a world that isn't
filled with religious bias and hatred, a world where
everyone is free to love each and every man and woman,
regardless of who they are.

This is our mission.

If you're interested in making a monthly commitment
of $30 or more, please give us a call at 850-549-3677,
and someone will make arrangements for you.

Join the movement!

The New Covenant Group is an exciting place to be,
and a wonderful group to be involved in.

Every day is a new step into a better world!
We can't wait to meet you and work with you!

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Ned,

It would not seem to me to be productive to quibble with you about "real crimes"
and "victim/victimless crimes".

You spoke of exoneration, and that was the subject I addressed.

I think my logic was impeccable, valid and sound.

That is, criminals of all stripes can be exonerated if the laws which they
transgress are repealed, retroactively.

Ned, are you now proposing that some Government is appropriate, some laws
justified and subject to enforcement by "the long arm of the law/Government",
and maybe even some taxes levied to pay for the operations thereof?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote:

> The similarity is not logical.
>
> Real crimes, like those you name,
> have victims.
>
> Who was victimized by Aaron Schwarz's crime?
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM,
> rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
>> Ned Netterville <nednetterville@> wrote, in part:
>>
>>> Robert,
>>>
>>> Voluntaryists would... which would, of course,
>>> exonerate Aaron Schwarz.
>>
>> Similarly, if we would only repeal laws
>> against..., we could eliminate prison
>> over-crowding and exonerate rapists,
>> bank robbers, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson,
>> etc., etc., etc.

Ned,

While I have religious based concepts of government, such concepts do not
require a religious base.  A lot of non-religious sorts share one or more of my
views of Government and taxes.

That might be distinguished from Hovind's claim that "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old" which is solely based in his religious foundation.

I was trying to be a little humorous with my reference to your previously stated
experiences with the pokey.  It's hard to successfully deny the reality of
Government when the Government has you locked up.

I think your logic is off regarding the witch thing.

Government execution of "witches" doesn't say anything about the reality of
"witches", but it does say something about the reality of the Government;
whether acting properly or not.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote, in part:

> Robert said, :
>
>> "Hovind admits to the legitimacy/reality
>> of Government and its authority.
>>
>> So do I.
>
> Well, I didn't know that Hovind held that belief,
> as you do, so that is another similarity.
>
> But what I was talking about is that Hovind's belief
> in creationism and your belief in government are both
> both based on religious-like faith.
>
> Therein lies the similarity.
>
> What does my need for a bail bondsman have to do with
> the reality of government?
>
> By the same or similar reasoning, I suppose you would
> say that the arrest, torture, hanging and other forms
> of punishment resulting in the deaths of Martha Carrier,
> Giles Corey, Martha Corey, Mary Eastly, Sarah Good,
> Elizabeth Howe, George Jacobs, et al., in Salem, MA,
> a while back is evidence of the reality of witches.
>
> Mass hysteria accounted for the disastrous belief in
> witches, and a similar. more  ubiquitous mass delusion
> accounts for the belief in the reality of government
> authority.
>
> Neither belief is rational, but both have proven to
> be deadly

I guess your comment there will have to be processed and approved before it's
posted and we can see it.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Wow! I'll say. I'd call it quite a coincidence
> if I believed in coincidences. Thanks for spotting
> it particularly for the comment you left on Linda's
> blog.
>
> I added my two cents. ktf, Ned
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:25 PM,
> rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
>> How timely!
>>
>> I don't know how accurate the reporting
>> is, but it ties in with what Ned is
>> promoting!
>>
>> I guess it has something to do with
>> Bill's book "Killing Jesus"!
>>
>>
>>
http://lezgetreal.com/2013/03/can-the-catholic-church-please-disown-oreilly-now/

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote most recently, in part:

> No, not proposing as you suggest.
> No need for government or its laws.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

> Voluntaryists would do away with...which
> would, of course, exonerate Aaron Schwarz.

Just for clarification, Ned, in proposing the exoneration of Aaron Swartz, you
did not mean to limit your exoneration proposal; right?

That is, your proposal would exonerate the likes of drunk drivers, rapists, shop
lifters, graffiti artists, speeders, bank robbers, Bernie Madoffs and Charles
Mansons as well; right?

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

> Real crimes, like those you name,
> have victims.

That kinda sounded like you were in favor of "real crimes", but now you sound
like you are for not having any crimes or criminals.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> quoted:
>> Well, just like Rush Limbaugh threatening to move to Costa Rica (where they
have nationalized health care, by the way) if Obamacare was passed, O'Reilly is
still here and still spouting nonsense.<<

Costa Rica does not have nationalized heath care. Costa Rica has a Social
Security system, which incorporates medical care, just as the US does. Costa
Ricans who are dissatisfied with the low quality of care available through
Social Security are free to avail themselves of private medical care, which, of
course, is not free.

Daniel Buck

http://www.unifreethought.com/2013/03/suing-ourselves-in-the-foot/

Suing Ourselves in the Foot

Posted on March 19, 2013
by Trevor Boeckmann

In 2010, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a letter to the City
of Warren, Michigan. For years, the city had put out a holiday display that
included a lighted tree, reindeer, snowmen, a "Winter Welcome" sign and a
nativity scene. Unsurprisingly, FFRF didn't like it. They demanded the city put
up another sign that read, in part, "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may
reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, No heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world, Religion is but Myth and superstition That
hardens hearts And enslaves minds." Also unsurprisingly, the city refused, and
FFRF sued.

Most unsurprisingly of all, FFRF lost.

This story is nothing new.  Westlaw, a website that tracks court decisions,
shows twenty-seven cases where FFRF has gone to court and gotten a final
disposition1. They have won six. This 22% win percentage makes FFRF the least
successful secular organization in the courts. They also happen to be the most
litigious.

In this article, I will argue (1) that FFRF's litigation strategy is harming the
movement, (2) that the secular movement needs to take lessons from the gay
rights movement on how to be successful in the courts, and (3) I will make
recommendations of where to go from here.

FFRF's Effect on the Movement

To understand how FFRF is harming the movement, it helps to understand how our
legal system works. Here's a quick Law 101 lesson.

There are two major legal systems in the US: federal and state courts. They
operate fairly independently of each other. Our federal system is hierarchical.
At the top is the Supreme Court. Below it are thirteen circuit courts, each
covering a handful of states. Below them are district courts. When you first
bring a lawsuit in federal court, it goes to a district court. District court
decisions have relatively little effect on anyone other than the parties
involved. The district judges also have the least amount of flexibility. Each
district court is in a circuit, and if their circuit court or the Supreme Court
has decided a case that it similar to the one they're deciding, the district
court is required to rule the same way.

If a party loses in district court, they can appeal to the circuit court. A
circuit court has more flexibility. They're bound by previous Supreme Court
decisions, but other than that, they can develop the law in whatever way they
want2. Because the Supreme Court only takes 75 cases a year, most law develops
in the circuits, and the law can vary dramatically from circuit to circuit. For
instance, city councils can likely start meetings with a Christian prayer if
they are in Florida, but doing the same thing in North Carolina would be
illegal3.

If a party loses in their circuit court, they can appeal to the Supreme Court.
As I mentioned, the Supreme Court is very selective in the cases they take and
most of the time they will let the circuit court's opinion stand.

Once a case is decided, it creates a legal precedent. While courts have the
ability to overturn their previous decisions, they very rarely do. In 1986, the
Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to ban gay sex. It wasn't until
2003 that they overruled that decision � and that is considered an extremely
quick change. The lesson is that legal organizations have to be very careful.
Losing a case with a circuit court or the Supreme Court can sink future
litigants for decades.

This is especially scary when we consider how the law works in practice. While
many people believe that justice is blind and that courts mechanically apply the
law, this is far from the case. If a plaintiff is especially sympathetic, courts
will often try to find a way to make sure he wins. If he is unsympathetic, the
court will try to make him lose.

On the other side of the equation are state courts. State courts are courts of
general jurisdiction � they can hear cases on anything including their state
constitution and the US Constitution. When deciding issues about the US
Constitution, the court is required to follow previous Supreme Court cases � and
the Supreme Court has a right to review their decisions � but they are not bound
by circuit decisions. They are also the only ones allowed to interpret their own
state's constitution.

Got it? Great.

So how is the FFRF harming the movement? Well, they keep losing. In general,
this is not a good time for the Establishment Clause. The pro-religion
conservatives have a strong 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court and almost any
time we bring a case to them, we lose. The circuit judges � many of whom are
Bush appointees � have taken note of this and they generally rule against us,
too.

There are two types of cases the FFRF are bringing. The first are cases that
present a novel question. These are cases where the Supreme Court might have
given an indication of how they feel about it, but there are no cases exactly
similar. Using the legal parlance: the case presents an open question. The FFRF
brings these cases, and because the courts and precedent are hostile to us, we
lose.

Why is this so bad? It's very likely that, in the near future, we will have a
more sympathetic majority in the Supreme Court. This will help us win future
cases � but remember, courts are really hesitant to overturn their past
decisions. Luckily, novel questions give them some cover. If they can take a
case and say "well, this is kind of similar to this past case, but here are some
relevant differences that let us rule a different way," they'll do it. But with
FFRF's strategy, none of these novel questions are going to be left. They have
slowly built up bad precedent on every set of facts imaginable. We're forcing
future courts to make really hard choices rather than giving them the easy way
out to help us.

The other sort of cases are those where the Supreme Court or the circuit court
have dealt with the exact same facts and ruled against us. The case I described
at the start was a perfect example. It is very well-established that Warren's
Christmas display was Constitutional and that the city wasn't required to put up
FFRF's sign.

Why is this so bad? There's nothing to lose, right? Well, not quite. Again, it
all goes back to how hesitant courts are to overturn their own decisions. It
took seventeen years until the Supreme Court was ready to say "okay, things have
changed enough since our last decision that we won't let states ban gay sex."
Now instead imagine that, every year since 1986, a group brought another lawsuit
about sodomy, and every time they lost. What's the court going to say now? In
the past 12 months things changed enough that we can overturn these thirty other
cases? Courts are most comfortable overturning a single decision that happened a
long time ago. They are least comfortable overturning a huge number of decisions
that happened relatively recently. FFRF has made it so that anytime a judge
wants to rule against us, she has a mountain of previous cases to point to.

The worst part of all this is that FFRF takes the absolute least sympathetic
facts when they go to court. Again, we have to remember that there are just
things that federal courts will not do. They are not going to force a city to
post an anti-religious sign on city hall's steps. They are not going to ban the
pledge of allegiance. They are not going to force the government to take "In God
We Trust" off money. It's just not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.
So, when FFRF brings suits about these issues (all of which they have), the
court will find any way they can to make us lose.

Sometimes the courts are not comfortable ruling against us on the merits, so
they look to other places. The past decade has led to a huge expansion of the
standing doctrine. While I won't get into the nuances of the doctrine, it's a
set of rules that stop people who haven't been harmed from bringing a suit (i.e.
I can't sue the governor of Kentucky for polluting a river, only a resident of
the state who lived close to the river could). Because of a series of bad
decisions coming from unsympathetic cases where the judges went searching for
ways to make us lose, one of the biggest obstacles for defending the separation
of church and state is convincing the judge to even hear your case. The standing
doctrine has become so powerful now that there are some violations of the
Establishment Clause that no one has the ability to challenge in a courtroom.

I understand why FFRF's strategy is so appealing to so many people. We get
pissed off � and rightfully so. The Mayor of Warren was an asshole. Atheists �
not to mention Muslims and Jews � shouldn't have to watch their government
embrace Christianity every December. And the rulings that say otherwise? I think
they're wrong. The Supreme Court isn't "final because [it is] infallible, but
[it is] infallible only because [it is] final." I don't want God in my pledge or
on my money. And when minority groups like atheists are discriminated against,
they should be able to go to the courts to be protected.

But we can't. At least not now. Going to the courts does more harm than good.

Instead, it's time we follow the lead of other groups that have been successful
in the courts. We need to be patient, and we need to stop shooting ourselves in
the foot.

Learning from Other Movements

The LGBT rights movement provides the best model for how minority groups can win
in the courts. As a case study, I want to give an overview of how the LGBT
movement handled the battle in the courts for marriage.

The late 1990s and early 2000s were a tumultuous time for the LGBT movement. The
movement was still reeling from a 1986 ruling upholding the rights of states to
criminalize gay sex. A 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court ruling finding a right to
same-sex marriage gave the movement hope, but the Hawaii legislature quickly
amended their state constitution and Congress responded by passing DOMA. A 1996
Supreme Court case overturning a discriminatory law in Colorado was a huge win
for the movement, but the political climate was still hostile.

The movement came together to find a plan. They knew a federal marriage lawsuit
would lose and set the movement back decades, so they went to state courts
instead. First, they went to favorable states to build up precedent. Suits were
filed in Vermont and Massachusetts alleging that their respective state
constitutions prohibited the state from banning same-sex marriages. This
state-by-state strategy was brilliant. They were able to start with liberal
states that would be more hospitable to their claims. The hope was to create a
domino effect. If they could get three state Supreme Courts to find a right to
marry, it would be much easier to convince other states to do the same. In
addition, while it's never good to lose, any real harm was mitigated because no
other state would be bound by the decision and because they were suing under the
state constitution it was unreviewable by the Supreme Court.

And it worked.

A win in Vermont forced the legislature to give rights to same-sex couples and
the win in Massachusetts made it the first state to have � and keep � same-sex
marriage equality. Meanwhile, the movement was much more conservative in federal
courts. It avoided any claims of a general right to same-sex marriage and
instead focused on more narrow issues with more favorable facts. For example, in
2003, a man in Texas was actually prosecuted for having sex with another man.
While these laws remained on the books in many states, they were never enforced.
The fact that Texas was actually prosecuting this was insane � and the movement
recognized it. The story behind the case is fascinating. It turns out that the
men weren't actually having sex (they weren't even gay), but because they were
belligerent, the cops decided to charge them with something � and they chose
sodomy.  The movement heard about the arrest and, within two days, it had
lawyers on the ground in Texas. They brilliantly managed the case through the
state court, setting it up to go to the Supreme Court. Good facts make good law.
And they had good facts. This was a sympathetic case, and the Supreme Court
wanted to find a way to let the men win. In doing so, they laid the framework to
(hopefully) overturn Prop 8 and DOMA a decade later.

The movement also continued its work in state courts. A 2006 New Jersey Supreme
Court decision (again, sticking with liberal states) brought marital rights to
same-sex couples. Washington's, Maryland's and New York's supreme courts refused
to do the same, but the movement rebounded with wins in Iowa and California.
Again, this state-by-state push allowed this movement to win some and lose some
without risking too much. The game was played on the LGBT movement's turf � they
picked the plaintiffs, they picked the state, they picked the court. They rigged
the game � and it worked.

Meanwhile, the movement's leaders actively pushed back against any groups that
didn't want to play the game like they did. When activists in Minnesota � a
state the movement wasn't ready to go into yet � wanted to bring a case to the
Supreme Court, the movement refused to represent or help them. Sure enough, the
litigation led to a loss and a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage. Similarly, when plaintiffs in California went to federal court to
challenge Prop 8, their lawyers said the LGBT movement had "gone to such great
lengths to dissuade us from filing suit and to tar this case in the press."
Eventually the movement united behind the Prop 8 case, but only after four years
of litigation gave time for public opinion to become more favorable to the LGBT
community.

The movement's work continues in the courts. This month, the Supreme Court will
hear a case about the constitutionality of DOMA. In their briefs, the movement
has been able to extensively cite from state court and earlier Supreme Court
decisions that found in favor of LGBT couples. While no one expects the court to
legalize same-sex marriage everywhere, piece-by-piece and bit-by-bit the
movement has put itself in a winning position in the courts. If this suit had
come a decade earlier, they would have undoubtedly lost.

To summarize, the LGBT movement has been incredibly successful in the courts
over the past decade. Its strategy has been to (1) litigate in liberal state
courts where a loss will have little precedential effect, (2) litigate in
federal courts only when it has a narrow issue and a favorable set of facts to
slowly build up precedent on its side, and (3) to actively resist any
organization or plaintiff that goes against this model. The secular movement
could learn a lot.

Proposals for the Secular Movement

The secular movement needs to follow suit with the LGBT movement. Our litigation
needs to start happening on the state level instead of in federal courts. This
is already happening to some extent, and to some success. FFRF had one of its
six wins last May when the Colorado Court of Appeals found the state Day of
Prayer to be unconstitutional. This same suit, filed in federal court, lost in
2011 on standing grounds. Similarly, the American Humanist Association (AHA) is
challenging "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in Massachusetts state
court. While I'm skeptical that AHA will be able to win this case, at least
there is far less to lose because it's not being brought in federal court under
the federal constitution.

The secular movement needs to expand this effort. Nearly every state
constitution has an establishment clause that differs from the US Constitution.
We need to find sympathetic cases and bring them in favorable state courts to
start building precedent on our side.

The secular movement needs to start being careful what it's bringing in federal
courts, as well. Here, FFRF is the worst offender. We need to stop the grandiose
suits over the motto on our money. We need to turn our focus to places we're
actually winning. Let me give two examples of recent, successful, and modest
cases. In 2011, the ACLU sued a county that began every commissioners meeting
with a prayer. Christian congregation leaders were invited to give Christian
prayers and, in the phone book used to find the congregation leaders, the
commission had crossed out names that weren't Christian. The facts were good.
The issue was small. The ACLU won. In 2012, Americans United sued a school
district that was holding their graduation ceremony in a church. The church
refused to remove its giant cross from the front of the hall for the ceremony,
and the school was okay with it. One year, the church manned information tables
with religious pamphlets. Another year, they actively distributed the pamphlets
to the students.

This was a perfect set of facts. And guess what? We won.

We also need to build on these wins. Despite court wins in the past, cities and
counties continue to flaunt their disregard of the law when it comes to the
Establishment Clause. There's no reason to lose a suit against Chief Justice
Roberts for saying "so help me God" at President Obama's inauguration when we
can win suits against cities that continue to start their council meetings with
Christian prayers. The AHA has been great on this front. As a legal intern with
them this summer, I spent countless hours documenting illegal prayers at these
meetings and drafting cease-and-desist letters for them. FFRF needs to get more
active with this, too. There are real establishment clause violations happening
that give us cases we can win in court.

We just need to find them.

Finally, we need to act together in stopping lawsuits that are sabotaging our
efforts in court. LGBT lawyers have a conference every year to discuss legal
strategy. We need to be doing the same. There's not enough coordination between
the organizations' legal departments. Donors need to get active and informed,
too.

FFRF made $40,000 from lawsuits last year.
They spent $1,200,000.

If donors start saying they won't contribute to organizations setting bad
precedent, the unsuccessful lawsuits would end.

Conclusion

I want to stress that I don't think the FFRF is a bad organization.

They have a phenomenal group of lawyers and a great leadership team.

While I was President of the University of Northern Iowa Freethinkers and
Inquirers, I made it a point to get Dan Barker onto campus. He's a great writer
and spokesperson for the movement. I also recognize that the FFRF does some
great work. Many of their cases are settled before litigation even starts.

The FFRF does more work to find Establishment Clause violations than any other
secular group in the country.

I also recognize why FFRF takes the strategy they do.

We all have an intuition that when a right is violated, the courts are there to
protect us. And they should be! But, unfortunately, today they are not. I also
recognize the non-legal benefits to these cases.

They may set bad legal precedent, but they bring media attention to the movement
and sometimes lead to policy changes in legislatures.

Finally, I recognize that FFRF isn't the only culprit. Throughout this article,
I've referred to cases brought by Michael Newdow and other organizations.

Still, FFRF is the most litigious secular organization in the country today. And
the cases that they, and other groups, are taking to court are doing more damage
than good. The LGBT movement has shown us how to be successful in court. It's
about time we do so.

Footnote #1:

This only includes cases that can be easily classified as a win/loss on the
substantive or procedural merits of the case itself. Motions for lawyer fees and
most interlocutory motions were not included. A full list of cases used can be
found at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoLWJBKH_709dEJSNVVBREFvekJ6TlhkeC1\
iOER6X2c&usp=sharing. [↩]

Footnote #2:

I'm simplifying here. Each circuit has a large number of circuit judges, and
each case is randomly assigned to a three-judge panel. These panels are
typically bound by previous circuit decisions. A losing party can appeal to have
their case heard by all of a circuit's judges at once (an en banc review). An en
banc panel can then overturn previous circuit opinions. [↩]

Footnote #3:

For anyone curious, the relevant case law is Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653
F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1097, 181 L. Ed. 2d 978 (U.S.
2012) and Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Ga., 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). Both
circuits claim to agree with each other, but the cases are difficult to
reconcile. [↩]

This entry was posted in Law and Secularism by Trevor Boeckmann. Bookmark the
permalink.

-------------------------
-------------------------

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

> I started racing mountain bikes...
> and I'm still riding--not racing--today.

I've got one.

Maybe if you ever get out this way we can go for a ride.

I've also graduated a bit up to a couple of Honda 230L dual purpose rides; great
for getting around town and the mountain trails as well.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

> Let me try to show you the flaw in your logic
> by analogy (or simile or whatever it is).

You tried and failed, Ned!

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

> As a superior boxer might say of his bout with
> an inferior opponent, the myth (or superstition,
> or legal fiction) called government never laid
> a glove on me.

You left my legitimate analogy and the impeccable logic and gone off into the
weeds, Ned.

Now, as is often the case, you've gone to playing word games; this time with
reference to what we mean when we say "government" and how such "government"
operates through agents.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

> A man infected by the most dangerous superstition
> stopped me and put me in jail--for weaving, he said.

I think that helps to make my point of rebuttal, and it brings up a related
issue I earlier addressed.

That is, Ned, inasmuch as you prefer a certain degree of anonymity you get to
say anything and substantiate nothing regarding factual claims you wish to use
to try and make a point or two.

That's fine, but "we" are under no obligation to accept your alleged facts as
historical events.

That an agent of the government is able to arrest, book and jail a driver
provides some empirical evidence that the "government" is real and not
"imaginary".

Also, Ned, I don't think you ever addressed my earlier query about how it is you
account for that feature you were driving on when you were, allegedly, taken to
the pokey.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I thought this exchange was interesting.  It was in the context of some other
comments this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/ncgadmin

(1)

From: Michael W. Jones (aka Kaine Diatheke)
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 9:00 AM MT

My wife and I walked away from the church at large
because of its dishonesty and because of the harm
that it does to all, and since we care deeply about
those who suffer from its abuse, consciously &
subconsciously, we are attempting to un-church them:
detoxing them from religion might be a better way of
them from religion might be a better way of stating it.

(2)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 10:00 AM MT

Is there an on-line accounting regarding the
circumstances of your "walk-away", Michael?

(3)

From: Michael W. Jones (aka Kaine Diatheke)
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 10:35 AM MT

That will be published in a few years.

So, for now, I'm just in the prepping stages, i.e.,
for publishing x, y, and z....

(4)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 10:40 AM MT

I'm only a casual observer, Michael.

I've seen a number of prophecies from you regarding
upcoming publications. Are there any outstanding,
on-line references to your previously published,
possibly even "peer-reviewed", works?

(5)

From: Michael W. Jones (aka Kaine Diatheke)
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 10:50 AM MT

I am a strong advocate of peer review and my translation
model will certainly go through all of the processes before
its release, but one has to take into account the nature
of the work and the length of time for which it takes,
i.e., to do what should have been done years before my time.

There are various things that tie the hands of anyone who
deals with ancient mss and the rights to use them.

It's troubling, and yet, rewarding.

As of to date, none of my works have been released.

In my case, it's a contract thing, and I'm also thankful
that my work will be published in my later years rather
than in the years of my struggling.

lol Have a great day.

(6)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 11:00 AM MT

There's also the matter of some folks here who have
called you "Dr.", your use of the reference, and one
or more have even called you "Professor".

Did you write a doctoral dissertation?

Typically, those are publicly available.

What degee(s) have you earned and from what schools?

To what extent might your Ph.D. be qualitatively
distinguishable from that of Eric's daddy?

Perhaps you have an on-line biography like others so
often do, but I haven't run across one that answers
these basic questions that "inquiring minds" typically
find relevant.

-------------------------------
-------------------------------

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Great riding there for sure.
>
> I did a "hut-to-hut" ride in 2007 from Durango
> to Moab, UT, crossing the San Juan and La Salle
> mountains on single track and Forest-Service
> roads with my two daughters and their husbands.
>
> (I think their object was to kill me on some of
> the climbs.)
>
> On a rafting trip through the Grand Canyon with
> the same folks, one of our fellow river runners
> who lives in Boulder had a little earlier completed
> riding his mtb the entire length of the Colorado
> Trail.
>
> I was impressed--and jealous.
>
> Drove through Rocky Mountain NP, but that's all.
> My daughter Jenny and her husband, intrepid climbers,
> exchanged their vows while in a snow cave on
> one of the mountains in RMNP.

Now I am impressed--and jealous!

A couple of intrepid climbers were caught in an avalanche up at the Park this
week.  The woman has written one of the books on the subject.  Her male
companion did not survive.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> When your logic fails you,
> do you always shout "word game?"

That's like asking me if I have quit beating my wife! :o)

"When my logic fails"???????

I guess we are going to have to wait and see, if and when that occurs, how I
might respond!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://lezgetreal.com/2013/03/kentucky-governor-beshear-vetoes-forced-religion-b\
ill/

Kentucky Governor Beshear Vetoes `Forced Religion' Bill

Posted by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire
March 22, 2013.

(excerpts)

Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky has vetoed House Bill 279, known as the
`Forced Religion Imposition Act' by some.

People and organizations from across the state called on the Governor to veto
the bill even though Senate President Robert Stivers has promised to override
the veto; however, the override may not be possible.

HB 279 would have allowed for people to discriminate based upon their religious
convictions or beliefs.

This has been something that Christian Conservatives have been pushing since the
end of Segregation.

Many believe that the bill went beyond `freedom of religion' to `forced
religion' allowing people to impose their religious beliefs on others and giving
them legal authority to do so.

-------------
-------------

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/officially-recognize-religion-pastafar\
ianism-whose-god-flying-spaghetti-monster/7fdgWT37

We petition the Obama administration to:

> officially recognize the religion of
> Pastafarianism whose god is The Flying
> Spaghetti Monster.

Followers of the religion of Pastafarianism are being
prevented from showing their devotion in public and
specifically in Driver's License photos.

Devotees can sometimes wear a spaghetti strainer on
their head to show devotion to the God of Pastafarianism

- The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This persecution has to stop.

Please officially recognise The Flying Spagehtti Monster
as the God of Pastafarianism and recognise Pastafarianism
as a real and proper religion with thousands of
followers/devotees.

If followers of this religion want to wear a spaghetti
strainer in official photos then they should be able to,
just as any other religious people. e.g., jews, Christians
or muslims are allowed to show religious headwear etc.
that pertains to their religion.

Created: Feb 22, 2013

Signatures needed by March 24, 2013 to reach goal of 100,000:

> 99,722

Total signatures on this petition:

> 278

------------------------------------
------------------------------------

https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

(1)

From: Sean Boatman
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 4:20 PM MT

"To reason with the non-Christian in a fashion
purporting to be independent of God or independent
of reliance upon revelation is to honor the
unregenerate's notions of "evidence" and "verification"
as legitimate and correct.

However, for the Christian, it is Scripture that
governs *every* aspect of his life, even his concept
of "evidence" and the way he reasons with skeptics."

― Greg L. Bahnsen

(2)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 4:30 PM MT

How would the above have anything to do with Sye Ten
Bruggencate's failure to be explicit in answering the
following questions with simple "yes" or "no" answers;
the reasoning, if time and interest, to follow by way
of discussion:

Sye Ten Bruggencate says:

- "The Proof that God exists
- is that without Him you couldn't
- prove anything."

The following is inferred therefrom:

Major Premise:

- IF you can prove something,
- THEN God exists.

Minor Premise:

- You can prove something.

Conclusion:

- Therefore, God exists.

Question #1:

Do you think the argument is so
constructed that if its premises
are true its conclusion will
follow as true therefrom?

- Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
- Other (add name) - ???
- Robert Baty - Yes

Question #2:

Do you think the minor premise
is true?

- Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
- Other (add name) - ???
- Robert Baty - Yes

Question #3:

Do you think the major premise
is true?

- Sye Ten Bruggencate - ???
- Other (add name) - ???
- Robert Baty - No

Please send your answers to the questions by email
addressed to:

Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

and follow the progress and discussion at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

(3)

From: Sean Boatman
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 4:50 PM MT

Robert,

I get that this is your favorite question to ask
over and over regardless of the forum.

But you miss the point after all this time.

The point is NOT to argue about a particular syllogism
but to account for the laws of logic themselves by which
ANY syllogism can be deemed to be logical or not.

If that's the discussion you wish to have, then let's
get to it.

But constantly banging this drum is getting tiresome
and missing the point so widely that it's breathtaking.

It seems your sole purpose is to promote your Yahoo
message group.

If Sye Ten Bruggencate wants to respond he can do so.

(4)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 5:00 PM MT

Sean,

Thanks for the speedy response.

Kinda funny that someone like you would come across as
complaining about the repetition when Sye has made a
career out of being repetitious.

However, there is a distinguishable difference between
Sye's repetitions and mine.

It's also kinda funny that someone like you would come
across as complaining about my reference to a much better
discussion venue when Sye baits people into his venue and
"proof of God" game in such a way as to have made him
famous/infamous.

My exercise is not intended to account for the laws of
logic.

Sye and other presuppositionals have their opinion about
that, and the source is not in dispute in this exercise.

As noted above, that issue may be relevant in the
after-exercise discussions.

Sye has already implicitly indicated his answers to those
questions are "yes".

I'm just having a little trouble getting him to explicitly
answer "yes", or "no", and then, if there is interest,
discuss any differences.

As long as there are folks like Sye around, it seems to
me that "banging this drum" will be justified and the
hypocrisy of those who think otherwise will be made manifest.

Like you say, if Sye or any of his fellow, like-minded presuppositionalists,
want to respond, they are welcome
to do so.

Sean, you might even try your hand at "giving an answer"
to those 3 simple questions.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

https://www.facebook.com/sean.boatman.9

(5)

From: Eric Preston
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 5:05 PM MT

Don't worry Robert, you're not the only one
Sean has accused of "missing the point all
this time".

(6)

From: Robert Baty
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013
Time: About 5:10 PM MT

Eric, thanks for the support.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------