The new Indiana religious freedoms law really is both 'different' and troubling

The attached article provides an excellent explanation of what makes the new Indiana religious freedom law really quite different than the US federal religious freedom law and the other US state-level religious freedom laws.

In summary (read the article for important details), the new Indiana religious freedom law is different in two important ways:

1. the law allows "religious freedom" to be used as a claim or a defence in an action involving only non-governmental parties (i.e. one private party can sue another private party where the party suing claims that its "religious freedoms" have been infringed or a private party being sued by anyone else can argue that its "religious freedoms" are being infringed). All of the other religious freedom laws only apply if at least one of the parties in the lawsuit is a government entity.


2. the Indiana law protects religious practices “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 

The first difference is what allows a store to refuse service to a private individual or entity who "offends" the store owner's "religious freedoms" (the obvious current era example would be a bakery refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage on the grounds that the store owner's religion prevents them from serving homosexuals). The second difference allows claims or defences based on even somewhat "fringe" religious beliefs to be used in court.

These two aspects of the law should come together to provide all sorts of "entertainment opportunities" for court watchers in the coming months (assuming that the law survives that long in the face of the growing "boycott Indiana" movement).

For example, consider a situation where a store owner is faced with a devout Muslim lady wearing a niqab. Should the store owner refuse to serve the Muslim lady, they could find themselves the target of a lawsuit based on the new Indiana religious freedom law. The Muslim lady would be able to use the law to argue that her religious freedoms have been infringed since her decision to wear a niqab is at least encouraged if not, from her perspective, mandated by her religion. In contrast, the store owner will find it difficult to use the same law to defend their right to refuse service to niqab-wearing Muslim ladies as I doubt that there are many if any religions which prohibit or even discourage on religious grounds the wearing of unusual clothing including clothing which happens to cover one's face. I should add that the store owner may be able to successfully argue that they have an overriding need to be able to identify malfeasants on security camera video should a niqab wearing Muslim lady decide to rob the store.

One last aspect of this situation is also likely to provide even more "entertainment". It is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has long considered the US Constitution's Establishment Clause to prohibit US courts from delving into the question of what a particular person's religious beliefs actually require. For example, there have been various successful attempts to exercise a pastafarian's right to wear a colander on their head during swearing in ceremonies and on their drivers licenses (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2747880/Pastafarian-allowed-wear-spaghetti-strainer-head-driving-licence-photo-classed-religious-headgear.html).

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/30/3640374/big-lie-media-tells-indianas-new-religious-freedom-law/

Real Christians really are getting persecuted in America these days . . .

(this posting rambles a bit - apologies in advance)

Let's start by getting our terms clearly defined:

• a real Christian is someone who takes all of the teachings of Jesus including, in particular, his central message of love, seriously; depending on their personality and personal style, a real Christian may practice and/or possibly even teach their faith in a way which makes them really quite exemplar Christians
• a devout Christian is a real Christian who has a deep understanding of their faith
• a pretend Christian is someone who may call themselves Christian but, at best, pays little more than lip service to the teachings of Jesus including, in particular, his central message of love
• an extremist Christian is a pretend Christian who teaches and/or practices outright evil and hatred (in case it isn't obvious, there is a HUGE gulf between the typical pretend Christian and the typical extremist Christian)

The following article illustrates how real Christians are getting persecuted in America today. Please take the time to read the article before continuing with this blog posting.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/yes-there-is-christian-persecution-in-america-and-heres-what-it-looks-like/

Back so soon? Are you sure that you read the entire article? If not, please click on the link again and read the whole thing. It's pretty short and what follows may not make much sense if you haven't read the article.

The above referenced article is a classic example of what really bugs me about many so-called Christians in America and elsewhere these days. Practically everything that these pretend Christians complain about and practically everything they seem to stand for is absolutely incompatible with the actual teachings of Jesus including, in particular his message of love.

This is not to say or suggest that everyone who calls themselves Christian is a member of this lunatic fringe. I happen to have met and know quite well a fair number of real Christians (at least some of whom are clearly devout Christians) who really do try to take the teachings of Jesus to heart. There are also more than a few real Christians who have become quite prominent (Desmond Tutu and Pope Francis come to mind) if anyone happens to be looking for real world examples. Without exception, they all demonstrate through their words and deeds that the teachings of Jesus includes the notion that a Christian must love their fellow humans including, in particular, their fellow sinners.

And yet . . . when these same real Christians actually try to practice the teachings of Jesus, they often find themselves under attack (dare I say "being persecuted"). These attacks come from a variety of corners including rabid atheists and, of course, fundamentalists of a different religious persuasion. While attacks from these corners often cause the persecuted real Christians anguish and pain, it is the attacks upon them by the pretend Christians which must surely surprise if not actually hurt them the most.

I am not going to claim that all pretend Christians make the sort of attacks on real Christians that are described in the above referenced article. That said, I am going to make the following observations and claims:

1. that extremist Christians are organized and that they exist in sufficiently large numbers in the U.S.* to be a real problem
2. that one could easily argue that extremist Christians are a 'cancer of sorts' on at least the US body of the Christian faith
3. that these extremist Christians are seldom actually challenged by real Christians (no doubt partially because challenging the faith of others is not something that many real Christians seem compelled or even particularly interested in doing)
4. that many if not most of the prominent self-proclaimed Christian voices in the U.S. today are extremist Christians

'nuf said.

* While extremist Christians certainly do exist elsewhere, the magnitude of the extremist Christian phenomenon in the U.S. really does make the situation there "different" somehow.

So nothing new then ...

Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has just published a study in which they reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy. Their conclusion and the now official position of the NHMRC is

“Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”

One does wonder why _any_ medical society or regulatory agency takes any position other than "you have got to be kidding" on the topic of homeopathy. And yet, there actually are medical regulatory agencies here and there around the world which, in some sense or other, purport to "regulate" homeopathy. Wouldn't this be akin to the Royal Society announcing that it will henceforth be regulating the practice of magic?

A classic if somewhat embarrassing to a Canadian like myself example of a jurisdiction which purports to "regulate" homeopathy is the Province of Ontario. Ontario not only has an officially sanctioned "College of Homeopaths of Ontario" which is listed as a "Schedule 1 Self Governing Heath Profession" in Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, it also has a "profession"-specific Homeopathy Act, 2007 which is scheduled to be proclaimed on April 1, 2015 (although it does suggest a certain sense of humour on the part of the Government of Ontario, this date is real - homeopathy really does become an officially self-regulated profession in the Province of Ontario on April 1, 2015). Check out the first couple paragraphs of Section 3 of the above referenced Homeopathy Act of 2007 to see just what is being regulated. The mind truly boggles . . .

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/11/homeopathy-not-effective-for-treating-any-condition-australian-report-finds

Evidence for Evolution

Just a cool video that presents some of the evidence for evolution. Feel free to click on the link to be entertained, enlightened, or maybe even offended. As they say - your mileage may vary.

http://statedclearly.com/videos/what-is-the-evidence-for-evolution/

The stated mission of the Stated Clearly folks is:

To promote the art of critical thinking by exposing people from all walks of life, to the simple beauty of science. We do this by taking complicated scientific topics like "What is DNA and how does it work" and creating short, information rich animations that explain the topic in clear language.

Tilting at Windmills (Chinese Communist Party style)

The Dalai Lama, the undisputed spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, has said that he might not reincarnate after he dies. According to him, this is a decision that is his to make and it is an option that he is apparently contemplating.

The Chinese Communist Party, an officially atheist organization which seems to agree that the Dalai Lama is indeed the current leader of Tibetan Buddhism, has decreed that the Dalai Lama must reincarnate after he dies. They further state that whether or not the Dalai Lama reincarnates is a decision that the Chinese Communist Party gets to make. They have also apparently come up with some way to insert themselves into the process of identifying who is the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama once the Dalai Lama reincarnates (don't be too surprised if the person that they identify just happens to agree with the Chinese Communist Party on essentially everything that comes up for discussion between them).

The Dalai Lama's position on this issue certainly seems clear and is undoubtedly consistent with the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism. To say that this does not surprise me is an understatement.

In contrast, the position of the Chinese Communist Party can only be described as a train wreck of truly epic proportions. Try as I might, I simply cannot feel even a teensy tiny bit surprised.

Sigh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/world/asia/chinas-tensions-with-dalai-lama-spill-into-the-afterlife.html

“No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away”

It may not sound like or be an earth-shattering statement but it really does seem to capture something at the heart of our culture if not civilization. How often have you encountered to notion that someone will love someone else always? How often have you heard someone say "they will be remembered always" or "they will be forever in our hearts" after someone has passed away? That we honour someone by committing to remembering them forever feels like only getting part of the way there (wherever "there" is) whereas saying that someone will be forever in our hearts, thoughts, prayers or whatever would seem to capture something that is really quite important to a lot of us.

All of this and more is captured in the notion that “No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away”. To think that Terry Pratchett, already a cultural icon for many of us, seems to have said this first adds yet another layer of coolness to him and his legacy.

http://www.littleatoms.com/words/terry-pratchett-no-one-actually-dead-until-ripples-they-cause-world-die-away