It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
These are the times when maps fade and direction is lost. Forwards is backwards now, so we glance sideways at the strange lands through which we are all passing, knowing for certain only that our destination has disappeared. We are unready to meet these times, but we proceed nonetheless, adapting as we wander, reshaping the Earth with every tread. Behind us we have left the old times, the standard times, the high times. Welcome to the irregular times.
The Secret Service has authorized people to carry signs as large as 3 feet by 20 feet at the Inaugural Parade in Washington, DC on January 20, 2009. How did the Secret Service arrive at a sign limitation of 3 feet by 20 feet? Does a sign measuring 4 feet by 21 feet conceal a weapon, or it simply too much freedom of speech? Regardless of any concern I might have with the Secret Service for their hypothetical sign restrictions on the wholly public Pennsylvania Avenue, they are eclipsed by the actual sign restrictions imposed on Inauguration goers by the Washington DC Metro.
For people who aren’t rich, aren’t part of a bus caravan, or don’t already live in DC, this is a practical speech restriction. Try cutting out a piece of cardboard measuring 18 by 18 inches, writing something on it, then stepping across a street to try to read those words. You’ll find that you can’t express anything more than a three-word thought.
I’m frustrated by this de facto ban on large and even medium-size signs, in no small part because it doesn’t make practical sense. I might be able to understand it if the Metro’s rule were meant to prevent a person from taking up more than one seat’s space in a crowded metro car. But my body measures 22 inches wide from the tip of one shoulder to the tip of the other shoulder, and the height from my lap to the top of my head measures 33 inches, making a medium-sized 726 square-inch sign an object that would fit within my personal space on a metro seat. If I wanted to stand a sign in the space in front of my seat, a space occupied by my toes, the sign could be as much as 52 inches tall and not impinge on anyone else’s space on the Metro, giving me a largish sign size of 1144 square inches. Unless I’m really missing something here, inauguration-goers face speech restrictions that are arbitrarily, unnecessarily stringent.
Yesterday I had a conversation with a friend who asked me why I felt inclined to stage a pro-constitution demonstration at the Inaugural Parade, “spoiling the special moment” of the inauguration of President Barack Obama. I started out my response by noting that the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances took priority over the desire for a “special moment,” but he looked irritated and walked away. Perhaps I need to change my approach.
Question: “What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?”
Transition Team Answer: “President-elect Obama is deeply committed to restoring the rule of law and respecting constitutional checks and balances. That is why he has pledged to review Bush Administration executive orders. President-elect Obama will also end the abuse of signing statements, and put an end to the politicization that has taken place within the Department of Justice and return that agency to its historic and apolitical mission of fair and impartial administration of justice.”
In that response, the transition team limits Barack Obama’s agenda to the important but incomplete area of checks and balances between the branches of government. The issues of signing statements and hiring prosecutors for political loyalty have to do with internal government process, not civil liberty. Most of the central threats to constitutional civil liberty protections under American jurisdiction have been implemented in law, not through executive order: the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA Amendments Act. Plans to deal with or propose revisions to these pieces of legislation are not mentioned in the Obama administration response. A further search of change.gov for “FISA” or “Patriot Act” or “Military Commissions Act” produces no documents written by Obama or his transition team.
The new Obama administration does not appear to be placing a significant priority on the restoration of civil liberty in America. That’s why we’re holding open a space on the parade route for people who want to bring the matter up. It’s a petition for the redress of grievance, and yes, my friend, that more than the specialness of a parade is what America is all about.
It’s not racist at all. No, really, it’s not! When the phrase “Whip A Nigger Today” appears on the $3 Bill, it is not intended to endorse racism or the re-establishment of slavery, but instead to acknowledge the nation’s heritage of slavery dating to the days of America’s founding fathers. Really. That’s all the phrase means: an acknowledgment of this nation’s history! Why would anyone want to remove the phrase? What do they have against history? Why do they hate heritage? Why do they hate America?
…phrases like “One nation under God,” “In God We Trust,” and “So Help Me God” aren’t intended to endorse or establish religion, but instead acknowledge the nation’s religious heritage that dates to the days of American’s founding fathers.
As the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist opined on the issue of God and the Pledge of Allegiance: “It is a secular act rather than an act of indoctrination in religion or expression or religious devotion.”
Gianfricaro is so right. Historical phrases like “In God We Trust” have nothing to do with the endorsement of religion or the expression of religious devotion. They just happen to pop up everywhere because they’re part of this nation’s historically historic history of heritage! Just like the heritage of slavery, hence “Whip a Nigger Today” on the $3 bill. Heritage! Just like “Women: Insufficient Non-Voting Chattel” on the $6 bill. By putting the declaration on the nation’s money, it’s not like our government is insulting women. No, no, no. It’s just a statement of this nation’s heritage.
Just before the new year, VJack issued a call for gays, lesbians and atheists to find common cause and to…
suggest that an alliance between the atheist and GLBT communities might be worthy of serious consideration. We have a great deal in common. We also share a common “enemy” in Christian extremists, a group determined to treat us as second-class citizens with restricted civil rights.
I agree that one place for atheists and members of the gay community to find common cause is in the recognition of civil rights — rights guaranteed under the equal protection clause of the Constitution in the 14th Amendment, which mandates that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” But Proposition 8 in California denied exactly that, and a major proponent of Prop 8 is being given special status in the Inauguration of our next president. Across the country, fundamentalist churches are trying to push preferential language for Christians and Christian institutions into the law, also subverting the equal protection clause… and President-Elect Barack Obama is in turn promising to funnel more government money to those churches. Rick Warren, the same preacher who pushed Prop 8 and is being given a special role in the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama, answered the question: “Does a person have to believe in God to be President?” with the answer: “I would say so.” Atheist Americans understandably feel the need to push back with the message that as guaranteed by Article VI, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The bottom line is that gays, lesbians and atheists find their constitutional liberties threatened on some of the same fronts, and that provides a common front for gay, lesbian and atheist political action.
For gays, lesbians, atheists and their allies in promoting equal protection under the law, there’s a space for you to make your voice heard during the Inauguration. An “Oath of Office” demonstration has secured a permit right in front of the Department of Justice building on the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route — and the purpose is to advocate for a return to constitutional governance. Equal protection for all — in marriage, in pursuit of public office, and in other areas of life — fits perfectly under the constitutional umbrella of this activist event. So please, go ahead and use that space. We all belong there.
Oath of Office Demonstration for a return to Constitutional Governance January 20, 2009, all day Outside the Department of Justice Building, south side of Pennsylvania Avenue west of 9th Street Web link: http://irregulartimes.com/dcoathofofficedemo.html
Some thematically-appropriate banners if you’d like to spread the word:
There was no religious benediction or invocation prayer at the Inauguration of America’s first President. George Washington’s Oath of Office did not include the words so help me God. Neither did Abraham Lincoln’s Inauguration ceremony include these religious elements. In fact, the use of Christian preachers to give prayers at the Inauguration, and the addition of the phrase so help me God to the Oath of Office didn’t really take hold until the 1930s.
If George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn’t need to insert Christian religious rituals into their inaugurations, why does Barack Obama feel the need to break with the weight of American tradition, as well as the Constitution, in order to do so?
Sadly, the reason Barack Obama is mixing Church and State with his very first act as President is that he’s seeking to build a political coalition with activists on the Religious Right. That’s a sad statement on the difference in stature between Barack Obama and America’s truly great presidents.
Barack Obama ought to remember that the Oath of Office is a promise to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes passages outlawing religious tests for public office and banning the government establishment of religion.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a lawsuit in order to force the removal of Christian religious rituals from the 2009 Presidential Inauguration. These rituals include the addition of the phrase “so help me God” to the Oath of Office, as well as a Christian invocation ritual and Christian benediction ritual, to be delivered by Christian preachers Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery.
I wholeheartedly endorse this lawsuit. At the same time, I do not trust that the majority-Christian Supreme Court will act to protect the rights of non-Christians. The Christian justices on the Supreme Court will certainly judge the Christian rituals in the Inauguration to be “benign”. That’s easy for them to say - they’re Christians after all. Most non-Christians regard the official government support of these Christian rituals to be far from benign, and a highly offensive corruption of the USA’s secular democracy.
As an individual, Barack Obama is free to practice whatever religion he wants. However, Barack Obama is not free to make his Christian religion a part of his official acts as President. Doing so is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, making Christian religious rituals a part of the Inauguration gives the impression that adherence to Christianity is a qualification for the Presidency. This violates both the First Amendment and the original body of the Constitution.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, the majority of presidential inaugurations have not included religious prayers of any sort. The first time such an inaugural prayer was performed was in the 1930s. If George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn’t need any official prayers at their inaugurations, Barack Obama certainly does not.
It is particularly troubling that preacher Rick Warren has been selected to give a government-endorsed Christian invocation prayer for the official Inauguration ceremonies. Warren presided over a shamefully-rigged theological testing of both Barack Obama and John McCain last year - live on TV from the Saddleback Church. Remember the lies about a fake “cone of silence”? It was Rick Warren who perpetrated that hoax. Rick Warren also has declared that he believes that only people who believe in God should be allowed to become President of the United States. Placing him at a place of honor at the Inauguration in 2009 is a purposeful slap in the face to non-Christian Americans.
Furthermore, placing the words “so help me God” in the official Oath of Office also establishes a religious test for public office. That’s clearly unconstitutional. Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution states: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The phrase “so help me God” was never used in any presidential inauguration until 1881, and has been used consistently for less than a century. It has not an integral part of the inauguration at all, but a corruption of the original inaugural ceremonies.
If you want to embrace religion, that’s your right. However, no one simply embraces religion - they embrace a particular religion. Without absolute freedom from religion, no religious American has the right to choose, with equality under the law, which religion to embrace. That’s why the addition of Christian religious rituals to the inauguration are offensive, not just to non-Christians, but also to Christians who believe that the Constitution, and not an official church, should be the foundation of law and freedom in the United States of America. As long as Christianity is favored above all others, in the highest important civic ceremony our nation has, there is no true equality under the law.
Christians are being placed on a level above everybody else in the USA. That’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional. Most significantly, it’s just plain disrespectful. Barack Obama says he wants to use the Inauguration to bring Americans together, but with his Christianity-only Inauguration using a bigoted extremist like Rick Warren, Obama is driving Americans apart.
Substantive plans for an anarchist protest at the January 20, 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama are moving forward at Come Out 2009, with a January 5 strategy meeting in the works and the following statement of purpose:
For all those disillusioned with our country’s electoral system, who believe government “of the people, by the people, for the people” means more than a choice between two parties every four years; for anarchists crusading for workers democracy and socialists fighting for workers equality; for minimum-wage workers, recent evictees, students unable to pay off their loans, union members who lost their jobs to low-paid workers overseas, housewives, illegal immigrants, teachers and seniors; to everyone who believes real change implies a change in government– the time has come to say: Enough!
President-elect Obama faces an America deep in economic crisis, a crisis caused by the irresponsible decision-making, short-sightedness and greed of the country’s most powerful businessmen and women. For our nation to recover, and to ensure this crisis does not happen again, we need the courage, ingenuity and wisdom of the entire American people. We don’t want businessmen and politicians making anymore important decisions. We are protesting in support of anarchism and workers democracy, a system of government where all 350 million of us are counted and heard. Where all Americans have the right to be involved in economic and political decision-making: direct democracy. In other words, we believe workers should control their workplaces and people should control their government.
I don’t plan to participate, but it will be fun to follow this vehicle of activism through to its destination.
I’ll be writing more, much more about this in the days to come, but here’s quick word: I have just received official permit approval from the National Park Service for a political demonstration on the January 20, 2009 Inaugural Parade Route. You’re invited to participate in a pro-constitution Oath of Office rally where citizens will hold signs at our secured spot outside the Department of Justice building right on the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route, on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, just west of 9th Street.
I need your help: can you spread the word? The page on which individuals can find up-to-the-minute information on demonstration logistics is right here — please link to it and grab the banner graphic you see here and on that page.
Watch Irregular Times for more information and more ideas about getting the word out in the days that come. If you have expressed dismay at the erosion of constitutional liberty over the past eight years, I sincerely hope that you can make it to this demonstration and express your commitment to the Constitution and a return to the rule of law in America.
Intolerant position: Rick Warren does not have the right to speak at the Inauguration of Barack Obama, and his name must be withdrawn. Fie! Withdraw in shame, Rick Warren! Go live in a hole!
Liberal position: Rick Warren has the right to say whatever he wants, and if Barack Obama wants to invite him to speak at the presidential Inauguration, I can’t stop him. But when Barack Obama — known for his thorough vetting — invites a man he’s had multiple contacts with to speak at his inauguration, and when that man has repeatedly expressed support for policies of bigotry along lines of gender, sexual orientation and religion — plus the whopper of God-Sanctioned Holy War — and when Barack Obama explains his choice with a reasonable-people-can-agree-to-disagree-reasonably argument, then such a choice sends a message that these bigotries are reasonable. It communicates to Americans that even if he does not exactly agree with Rick Warren’s positions, Barack Obama finds them to be within the realm of the reasonable. Americans like myself who believe religious discrimination, sex discrimination and anti-gay discrimination are unreasonable therefore find themselves distraught and dismayed, not just with the behavior of Rick Warren but with what Barack Obama’s choices reveal about his political compass. Considering Obama’s ever-lengtheninglist of concessions to politicalforcesalignedagainst freedom in America, Barack Obama should not be surprised that he is losing the benefit of liberals’ doubt.
Rick Warren has repeatedly referred to actions that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs as a “Holocaust,” equating the hundreds of millions of women who have had abortions, who have IUDs and who have taken birth control pills with Nazis. A few mainstream news outlets have mentioned this.
Rick Warren not only has declared that “I could not vote for an atheist president” but has also affirmed that in his view “a person has to believe in God to be president.” Not one mainstream news media outlet has reported this.
ABC News has yanked video excerpts of it from YouTube, and they haven’t posted a transcript online either, so all I can provide you is a copy of my own transcription from August 2008 of Rick Warren’s conversation with Cynthia McFadden of ABC News:
Cynthia McFadden: I have heard you say you want to understand what their personal relationship with Jesus is…
Rick Warren: Yeah.
Cynthia McFadden: …Does that mean a Jew or a Muslim would be out as far as you were concerned as president?
Rick Warren: Not at all, not at all. I could vote for a Jewish president easily. The only kind of president I don’t think I could vote for would be an atheist. I could not vote for an atheist president because I just think that is pretty arrogant. I think that the presidency is too big for any human individual. And I think we do need God.
If that isn’t enough for you, consider this conversation between Larry King and Rick Warren on August 18, 2008:
Larry King: Does a person have to believe in God to be President?
Rick Warren: I would say so. I couldn’t vote for a person who was an atheist because I would think that, I think that the presidency is a job too big for one person, and I would think that there’s a little arrogance that says, “I don’t need anybody else.”
Video:
The mainstream media may not care about this particular endorsement of unconstitutional bigotry by the man Barack Obama picked to be the public face of his inauguration, but a fair number of Americans do. For those people, here’s the documentation of Rick Warren’s religious, anti-atheist test. Please do what you can to spread the word.
Saturday, December 20 just may be the busiest day of shopping left before Christmas at malls and plazas around the nation. With that in mind, Join the Impact has called for a nationwide set of demonstrations at shopping places around the country on December 20. The events are being give the collective name Light Up the Night for Equality, and the plan is to appear in shopping places with t-shirts that read “2nd Class Citizen,” to make the point that as Americans go about their Ho-Ho-Holiday shopping in a festive spirit of the season, there is a class of people — gay and lesbian Americans — who do not possess the full set of rights held by everyone else.
There’s a fair amount of dissatisfaction among the rank-and-file local organizers of this event with the “2nd Class Citizen” message, and Join the Impact’s justification of the slogan — documenting the many ways in which gay and lesbian people are treated like second-class citizens in this country — doesn’t address the core of the complaint: for people to label themselves, even bitterly, as “2nd Class Citizens” is defeatist. I agree: the message really ought to be a strong statement that gay and lesbian people are NOT second class citizens, and that they should have the same rights as everyone else.
With that in mind, I’ve designed and made an alternative available: an I am Not a 2nd Class Citizen t-shirt. Further, recognizing that for numerical reasons alone the movement for same-sex marriage equality just won’t succeed without the participation of a variety of allied straight people, I’ve made similar designs available that declare my son/daughter/mother/father/sister/brother is Not a 2nd Class Citizen. They’re all available on our Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Affirmative t-shirt page. Wear these to express your activism in a positive and affirmative way.
Rick Warren: 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people who, people who believe that life begins at conception, would say that’s a Holocaust for many people. At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?
John McCain: At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.
Rick Warren: Ha ha. Okay. We don’t have to go longer on that one. Ha ha.
You heard him. Abortion is a Holocaust. That makes women who have abortions Nazis.
“Ha ha. Okay. We don’t have to go longer on that one. Ha ha.”
Oh, yes we do. If fertilized eggs have human rights from the moment of conception, then there are implications, including making birth control pills and IUDs illegal instruments of murder and turning women’s wombs into zones controlled by the government. That makes Pastor Rick Warren’s vision a fervently radical one.
Barack Obama knows about Pastor Rick Warren calling pro-choice women Nazis. He knows about Rick Warren’s radical vision. Obama was there that night. Obama was even asked the same question. And Rick Warren has repeated the sentiment since.
Barack Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. Barack Obama just chose Rick Warren to speak for him on Inauguration Day.
Gee, Senator Obama, could you vote against the FISA Amendments Act? No? I see. Well, could you at least not use it when you are elected… Oh, you plan to use it? Ah. Um, well…
Hey, President-Elect Obama, do you plan to continue to issue signing statements to curtail laws passed by Congress? You do? But, er…
Ahem. Excuse me, President-Elect Obama, are you going to shut down the American indefinite detention facilities around the globe not named “Guantanamo”? What? You didn’t hear what I said? Well, let me repeat mys… no, wait, Mr. President-Elect, sir, golly, don’t walk away, um…
While we all watch President-Elect Barack Obama prevaricate and yet cling to hope that he will rescue us all in demigodlike fashion, the American Civil Liberties Union has been doggedly and successfully pursuing justice on the same issues. This week, a lawsuit pursued by the ACLU has resulted in a federal court ruling that the FBI cannot issue the “national security letters” of the Patriot Act, demand the warrantless surrender of personal information and papers, and then force its victims to remain silent about it. At the very least, the ACLU got a federal judge to declare, the FBI must prove that shutting citizens up about being pillaged by government agents will serve a purpose in our great War on Terror.
While Barack Obama talks the civil libertarian agenda away, the ACLU delivers.
Did you make a campaign contribution to Barack Obama? Have you made a donation to the ACLU?
On the social activism site Change.org, the ideal of restoring our civil liberties through the repeal of laws like the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act has gained a total of 1,270 votes. That’s about 500 more than the idea had when Jim wrote about it last week.
However, the issue of the restoration of American liberty as guaranteed in the Constitution is only in second place in the Change.org category of Criminal Justice. In first place, with 3,521 votes, is the ideal of legalizing recreational as well as medical use of marijuana. In third place, with several hundred votes, is the ideal of ending the War On Drugs. In 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th place, each with several hundred votes, are more requests to legalize marijuana.
Look, I don’t want to make this a harsh anti-drug message. Personally, I don’t care much about other people getting high, and I can see some benefits would come with legalization of marijuana.
The thing is, when activists prioritize the right to get high by smoking a joint over their constitutional rights to things like a fair trial, free speech, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure, that bothers me. It indicates to me that people are more interested in entertaining themselves than they are in defending the foundations of our democracy.
I wholeheartedly endorse this lawsuit. At the same time, I do not trust that the majority-Christian Supreme Court will act to protect the rights of non-Christians. The Christian justices on the Supreme Court will certainly judge the Christian rituals in the Inauguration to be “benign”. That’s easy for them to say - they’re Christians after all. Most non-Christians regard the official government support of these Christian rituals to be far from benign, and a highly offensive corruption of the USA’s secular democracy.
Contact Us
