Institutional Discrimination Against Nonbelievers

[Doug]

Mitch Kahle is in front row, dark shirt. Ponytail.

In April of this year he and Kevin Hughes of the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church protested official prayers in the Hawaii state house. During the opening session prayer, Kahle stood up and said he objected to the prayers in the legislature. He calmly sat down, and then Hughes made the same statement and likewise sat down.

Kahle and Hughes were escorted outside by security. Kahle was then tackled and roughed up.


One of the security personnel who beat him used to be a professional boxer.

Kahle and Hughes are suing for false arrest, assault, battery, false imprisonment, and a number of other charges.

See here.

==============================
Mitch Kahle, leader of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, was acquitted of a disorderly charge that stemmed from an arrest at a Hawaii
state senate session in April 2010.

On April 29, 2010, activists Kahle and Kevin Hughes objected to what they considered "unconstitutional Christian prayers" that began each session of the Hawaii legislature. Officials and security quickly arrested Kahle, while Hughes was taken to the hospital after a rough altercation. Although prosecuted, Kahle was ultimately vindicated when Judge Leslie Hayashi found him "no guilty" and ruled that: "The Senate's [Christian] prayers violate the constitutional separation of church and state."
See here. Video of judge's decision at the link.

[kwlyon]

I agree with the judicial decision. However, though I don't think they acted criminally, the behavior of these two individuals was certainly rude and unnecessarily disrespectful. At the very least, they should have waited to voice their objections until after the man finished speaking. There may be more to this story than is immediately obvious however, in general, speaking over someone is rude. Rude behavior is most often counter productive to any cause. That being said, rude behavior should not earn one a smack to the face and a police record. I can be rather rude myself from time to time....I don't think I would take kindly to being arrested for it.

**Okay...Just watched the END of the video...It's a good thing they did press charges. Their behavior was rude. Rudeness does not give those charged with defending our freedoms the right to physically assault us. Those officers had every right to escort those two from the primacies if they felt they were being a disruption...however there actions beyond that were quite unprofessional. It really is about time we begin to expect more professional behavior from our men and women in uniform. Are they not trained regarding how to handle people? I could have handled those two without loosing my head. I have ZERO training in such matters. Seems I am more fit to wear the uniform and that, my friends, is pathetic.

[Doug]

Jesus Won't Prevent Your War
But He's Sorry You Had to Die in It

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday (Jan. 4) a veterans' memorial featuring a 43-foot cross on California's Mount Soledad is unconstitutional.

"The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal."

The decision that the memorial in La Jolla, Calif., violates the Establishment Clause reverses a lower court decision but does not determine what will happen to the cross that has been the dominant feature of the monument since it was erected in 1913.

See here.

[Doug]

Army Faces Questions Over 'Spiritual Fitness' Test

WASHINGTON (RNS) The Army is facing questions over a "spiritual fitness" portion of a mandatory questionnaire, with some atheists calling it "invidious and not inclusive" of soldiers who are nonbelievers.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation learned in December that soldiers were being asked to respond to statements such as "I am a spiritual person" and "I believe there is a purpose for my life."

If soldiers received a low score on their spiritual fitness questions, they received an assessment that said "Spiritual fitness is an area of possible difficulty for you. ... Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal."

In a Dec. 29 letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh, the atheist foundation asked for an immediate end to the spiritual evaluation components of the Global Assessment Tool and related programs.

"It is ironic that while nonbelievers are fighting to protect the freedoms for all Americans, their freedoms are being trampled upon by this Army practice," wrote Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor.

...Capt. Paul Lester, a research psychologist with the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, said the follow-up "spiritual fitness modules" that are meant to help a soldier improve his or her spirituality are voluntary.

"If you score low, you are not required to take the modules," he said. "You take it at your own volition."

...Gaylor, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said a low score on a spiritual fitness questionnaire -- and what she called its accompanying "arrogant and condescending" response -- could be detrimental.

"It's the kind of thing that might make someone go out and commit suicide," she said.

See here.

[Doug]

See here.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the city of Cranston over a Christian prayer banner displayed in a high school auditorium.

...[The lawsuit] seeks monetary damages and demands that the banner be removed from Cranston High School West on the grounds that it promotes a particular religion.

...The plaintiff is sophomore Jessica Ahlquist. The 15-year-old atheist says the banner is offensive to students of other faiths.

...It has been displayed since the 1960s.

Last year, the ACLU asked the school to remove the banner after a parent complained. The Cranston School Committee voted last month to keep the banner.

Here it is:

[Doug]

See here.

The Central Arkansas Transit Authority and its advertising agency were sued today in federal court for refusing more than $5,000 in bus advertising aimed at atheists and agnostics.

The image above shows the proposed ad, which was to be put on 18 buses serving Riverfest crowds last weekend.

The Central Arkansas United Coalition of Reason news release:
Atheists Sue Little Rock's Transit Authority for Rejecting Godless Bus Ads
For Immediate Release

(Little Rock, Arkansas, June 1, 2011) A federal lawsuit was filed today against the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) and its advertising agent, On the Move Advertising, for declining to run $5,260.00 worth of bus ads aimed at attracting local atheists and agnostics. The queen-sized ads, to be placed on the sides of 18 buses serving Riverfest, would have said: "Are you good without God? Millions are." A blue sky with clouds was to be the background behind the words.

The Complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction were filed at 8:40 AM Central Time at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 500 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201, by the United Coalition of Reason (UnitedCoR). UnitedCoR is a national organization, headquartered in Washington DC, which focuses on organizing local atheist and agnostic groups into coalitions and funding their bus and billboard ad campaigns. Legal services were donated by the Appignani Humanist Legal Center of the American Humanist Association, also headquartered in Washington DC. The attorney of record is J.G. Schulze of Baker Schulze & Murphy of Little Rock.

The bus ads were to launch the new Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason (Central Arkansas CoR), a collection of 10 area atheist and agnostic groups. The ads would have directed inquirers to the Central Arkansas CoR website at http://www.CentralArkansasCoR.org , inviting them to consider joining any of the groups in the coalition. But after negotiations with On the Move Advertising and CATA failed in March and couldn't be revived afterwards, UnitedCoR opted to pursue legal action.

UnitedCoR filed a brief in support of its motion. In the brief, UnitedCoR alleges that CATA and On the Move violated UnitedCoR's free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. UnitedCoR asserts that the First Amendment prohibits CATA, as a governmental entity, from using its disfavor of the nontheistic message of UnitedCoR's ads as a reason for refusing to run them on its buses. UnitedCoR argues that CATA also may not impose burdensome requirements, such as a damage deposit, on speech it labels "controversial." Such acts, the legal brief states, amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against UnitedCoR's speech.

See here.