Commandment Displays Allowed on Some Government Property

Well, here we go again. Given that the politicians have re-visited the flag burning issue, it was only a matter of time until the issue of the 10 Commandments on Government property came front and center again. Christian Conservatives are determined that they can pretend that non-Christians do not exist in the United States, and they believe that if they can display Christian imagery on public property that they can support this effort with the tacit approval of Federal, states and local governments. In other words, they can't make non-Christians go away, but they can sure pretend that they don't exist. And by using Government property for overtly religious displays, they can send the message that non-Christians need not apply in the United States. This is based on the misguided belief that prior to some mystical date in the early 20th Century there was no one other than Christians in this country.

Unfortunately, this recent decision by the Supreme Court is technically and legally correct. Within the context of a historical display, the 10 Commandments might be seen as being entirely proper. Let's face it, folks, the 10 Commandments are part of the basis for our moral code in the United States, and as such it's proper within a historical context. The problem is that a lot of Christian Conservatives have discovered this, and are still placing the 10 Commandments within a religious context, using other historical documents and items to justify it legally. They've found a work-around. It's likely that this recent Supreme Court ruling, while technically and legally correct, is just a way for the Conservatives to say "Look, here's the way to do it."

I'm sure that in the future you'll be seeing the 10 Commandments a lot more often on Governmeny property, alongside enough historical content to justify it. The Conservatives on the Supreme Court have delivered this method to their supporters on a silver platter. And quite frankly, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.

- Watch Alert Archived Post
- Original Article
Required Reading
- The Bill of Rights

Wiccan Father Still Fights for Parental Rights

I just posted an article to The Watch Alert archive about the Wiccan parents in Indianapolis (Thomas E. Jones Jr., pictured, and Tammie U. Bristol) who, as a part of their divorce decree, were prohibited by a judge from involving their son in their religion. I am incensed by this. This action is being quietly approved of by a lot of people who know nothing of the Wiccan religion. However, had this happened to a Christian family in Afghanistan the Conservative and Christian media would be all over it, using terminology such as "Christian persecution." I'm sorry, folks. You can have it both ways. If it would be a moral crime if it happened to a Christian family at the hands of Muslims in Afghanistan, then it's a moral crime that it happened to a Wiccan family at the hands of Christians in the United States.

Here's the logic of the court; according to Beverly Phillips, spokeswoman for Superior Court of Marion County, "This is not an attack on Wicca or the First Amendment. The judge and commissioner support the constitutional guarantee concerning freedom of religion. But this case is not just about freedom of religion. It's about the court's obligation to protect minor children from certain rituals that might be harmful to their well-being, whether or not those things are affiliated with a religion."

What? You're kidding me! "Certain rituals?" Which rituals would that be? Well, no one is saying it out loud, but we all know the answer to that question. She's talking, of course, about the ritual of killing animals and drinking their blood. She's talking about ritualized child abuse. She's talking about the potential for human sacrifice. Oh, come on. You all know what I'm talking about.

The problem is, these very dangerous stereotypes have nothing whatsoever to do with Wicca. You want to know what danger that child is in by having Wiccan parents? He might be taught to respect the Earth and all living things. He might be taught that anything he does, whether good or bad, will come back to him three times over. He might be taught that God or The Divine (or whatever term you would like to use) is not found in the stuffy halls of some church, but that God is everywhere and is in everything. He may be taught that to talk to God he doesn't have to check first with some priest or preacher to make sure he's doing it right.

Wow. That sounds really dangerous to me.

Christians should be up in arms about this, because the implication that the courts can decide the religious beliefs of our children is a violation of basic, fundamental American principles. If Christians remain silent this time because the rights being violated here are those of a Wiccan family, then they will have no right to complain later on when a court decides that some denomination of the Christian faith is unexceptable to mainstream America.

- Watch Alert Archived Post
- Original Article
Required Reading
- Malleus Maleficarum

Reality Sets In For Marijuana Advocates

The Federal Government's war against the American people stumbled into the mainstream press of late. Well, that was the intention, of course. The DEA went after some of the pot clubs in California that provided medical marijuana for patients (the clubs are legal in California, but are illegal according to Federal law). This, of course, was the DEA's way of making a statement. From a law enforcement standpoint, there are much more dangerous people that the DEA could be going after. But this, of course, is a quick and easy PR score.

It may be quite likely that criminal enterprises are involved in these clubs. After all, for someone to sell marijuana, it has to be grown somewhere by someone. Should it be any surprise that criminals would get involved in this? That's not the issue here. That's not what I'm talking about. What concerns me here is that the DEA, which is understaffed and underfunded for the job they've been given, is more concerned with making a big public relations splash that doing something about the problem of drugs in this country. What else can they do, really?

To put this in the proper perspective, consider this;

United States Attorney Kevin V. Ryan said the timing of the investigation, called Operation Urban Harvest, had nothing to do with a ruling by the United States Supreme Court two weeks ago that upheld the authority of federal officials over marijuana, even in the states where it is permitted for medical purposes.

Another of those frequent coincidences that happen in the Government?

"We're not talking about ill people who may be using marijuana," Mr. Ryan said. "We're talking about a criminal enterprise engaged in the widespread distribution of large amounts - millions of dollars, if you base it on historical evidence - of marijuana and other drugs, and money laundering their proceeds from these activities."

Hmmm. Well, that sounds impressive. Until you consider that according to the Federal Government, if you use marijuana at all you're a criminal engaged in criminal activities. If you sell marijuana and buy a gallon a milk from a convenience store with your profits, you have just laundered money. If you are arrested for possessing a half of an ounce of marijuana, that's enough to be charged with intent to sell and you can be prosecuted just as if you flew in a kilo on a private jet.

Now, before anyone gets themselves into an uproar, I'm not saying that there was no criminal activity here. I don't know all the specifics of this case. All I'm saying is that it has all the earmarks of a typical DEA public relations score. Consider the Joe Friday, tough guy rhetoric in this statement;

"This organization had been operating for over four years," Javier F. Peña, the special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in San Francisco, said at a news conference. "It is now dismantled."

We're the DEA. We're tough. We're effective. You're protected.

I feel so much safer.

Related Links:

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article
- U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency

Flag Burning Amendment Should Be A Non-Issue

I haven't addressed this issue lately, and some people have been wondering why. Well, it wasn't because I didn't catch it. Quite frankly, I've been waiting to see how it went. For those who don't know, it went badly. The House of Representatives approved a Constitutional Amendment to ban burning the American flag. This will send the issue to the Senate. And if the Senate approves it, then it will go to the States for ratification.

This scares the hell out of me.

Does it not seem that the only right that Republicans believe in is the right to bear arms? My, God. I realize that July 4th is coming up and ever two-bit Congressman worth his weight is going to be wrapping himself in the flag, but isn't this over-doing it a bit? A Constitutional Amendment? What the hell is wrong with these people? You can't find Osama. Americans can't afford health care. Our jobs are going overseas. The Bush Administration is slashing funding for just about every social program in the country. And this is all you guys can come up with? Flag burning?

I'm still looking around, trying to figure out which of my fellow citizens are the closet flag burners. We know that there must be a group of people somewhere who get together late on Saturday evenings in some sleepy little town in Connecticut to burn the American flag for the dark Lords and Masters. Why else would the United States Congress drop every other important issue to try to ban flag burning?

Ok, so I got off on a rant there. You have probably gathered how I feel about this. I've shared an excellent post by Helen Thomas with the Watch Alert list. Click here to read it if you're a Watch Alert member, or click here to go to the original article. Egads. What's wrong with these people?

A Long Overdue Change

Okay, troops. I've been goofing off for a long time while I waited for the inspiration that would provide a direction for The Watch. Long-time subscribers to The Watch Alert mailing list know that we've been wandering in the wilderness for quite some time now. Well, as it so happens, The Watch has devolved to a point where it's just me. It finally dawned on me that this means that I can now do whatever I please with it. Since The Watch has increasingly come to reflect my personal take on things, I've decided to follow that path.

Old-time Watch Alert members should not be alarmed. Well, not overly so. Some things will change. Much will stay the same. The point of The Watch will still be to alert concerned inviduals of things they need to be aware of, but now you'll get to hear what I think about it, as well.

I know, I know. Like I've kept my mouth shut in the past.

Anyway, I hope this will work for all of us.