How I was called a fanatic for defending religious liberty against statism.

-or-

Why Christians want Hegemony, why Christians Suck, and why the ASA sometimes sucks too.

In 2012 I spoke up in favor of civil rights. Only to be chided by a high priest of Christianity named George Murphy.

Here’s what I said:

“I need to say something pro-Islamic here. We have the case where Muslim tax drivers don’t want to convey alchohol. The question is whether government can “unlicense” that sort of concientious objector to force them out of the marketplace and take away their livlihood if they are unwilling to yield away their conscious. Seems to me the answer is no, government needs to accommodate the cab drivers, and the public can best be served by putting something on the cab to the effect “No Alcohol Transported”. So the rider moves on to a friendlier cab. But listening to some Democrats it seems after they would get done government will be taxing the Muslim taxi drivers to pay for alcohol stamps. Because religious conscience doesnt count with them. Remember – they came for the Catholics first and they are coming for you next.”

I wasn’t sure what teachers in public schools had to do with cab drivers. Teachers are agents of the state. Cab drivers are not agents of the state. Yes, George Murphy, scientist, philosopher, activist, board member of the ASA, was indeed confused. Did George want cab drivers to be made agents of the state so the state can intrude into the affairs of ride sharing?

I replied,

“No, thats absurd. You really don’t understand that what goes on in a private association is different than what goes on in a government agency? We begin to see the root of your confusion.”

George ignored this, dismissed me, and talked down to me in his typical fashion. Why? because he wants to bully creationists. BTW, let me explain that I am neither a creationist nor a libertarian. I merely believe in civil rights.

So, conflating the issue of over-regulation of Muslim religious beliefs with government payments to religious institutions seemed like a red-herring and surely is another topic altogether. Anyway, he called me a fanatic for advocating simple libertarianism, as follows:

I replied,

“Muslim cab drivers using contraceptives? Say what?”

But here was my final actual reply:

Reposted from Can Congress Force a Reprehensible Action?

When you go monkeying with what a church believes, trying to dictate what they spend money on, or trying to get them to take government money or support a government program they think is evil, well, you have to be a bit careful. The following seems good guidance on such matters. This is from Epperson v. Arkansas. “the State may not adopt programs or practices in its public schools or colleges which “aid or oppose” any religion. Id., at 225. This prohibition is absolute. It forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition [393 U.S. 97, 107] of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma. As Mr. Justice Clark stated in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, “the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them . . . .” 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952). The test was stated as follows in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 222: “[W]hat are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution.”

Now, that’s about schools per se, where the state has a vested interest.

But does the state have a vested interest in forcing Americans to purchase car insurance? Seems to me the interest is somewhat less, and may be on very weak ground. That strengthens the mentioned principles.

What is it about “the prohibition is absolute” that is soooo hard for cretins and cavemen to understand?

George stopped replying after that. His purpose had been all along to inhibit other people’s beliefs, even though this is ruled against in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 222.

I dropped my membership in the ASA after that because George Murphy was a board member. It was very clear the ASA was being bent off it’s statement of faith and toward the purpose of protecting certain Christian religions and factions (and religious viewpoints such as George Murphy’s interpretation of Christianity) from views distasteful to him and his fellows.

Ten years later I have rejoined the ASA. Perhaps I should reconsider.

The organization seems to not be behaving towards the ends of suppressing the beliefs of other people in the fashion of the “woke brigades”. I think they certainly gave aid and support to the wokeness movement. Christianity may become banned in America thanks to their efforts. That is one of the fruits of piety.