Mayra. 21. Recent college graduate (BA in History with minors in Psych and Japanese Studies.) Queer. Preferred pronouns are she/her. Interests: the educational system, Homestuck, languages, feminism, GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) rights, sewing, theatre, Les Miserables, Ib, and writing/drawing. Fights windmills in her spare time.
Ask me something!
Submit something?
SLYTHERCLAW
{ wear }
WITCH OF RAGE
{ wear }
DOWN WITH THE CAPITOL
[ identify ]

 

I may have started a shitstorm

helvetebrann:

Have you ever seen this email?

You don’t think we’re in a war???

These are starting to show up around our country! After dinner she took a $1 dollar bill out of her purse and displayed it on the table. Underneath the words “In God We Trust” someone had stamped the dollar bill in red ink — NO GOD BUT ALLAH.

We asked her where she had gotten this dollar bill. She said it was part of her change in Alamosa , CO .

We took a picture of her dollar bill. If anyone tries to give you one of these dollar bills as change, please refuse it and ask them to give you a dollar bill that has not been defaced.

Send this on to everyone you know, please.

I may have hit reply all and responded to my family…

This is why “In God We Trust,” shouldn’t be on the bill to begin with.

1) The phrase was not added until 1956 to the bills.  It was added due to the Red Scare, when Americans were afraid of everything that could be associated with socialism.

2) The phrase violates the separation of church and State, which has been well supported by numerous Supreme Court cases that make it clear that a State endorsement of religion in any way, form, or shape is unconstitutional.  Putting in Allah We Trust is just as bad as putting In God We Trust on our money; they both impose a religious ideology on individuals.

3) The original motto “E Pluribus Unum” (meaning of many, one) is more representative of a a diversified America, does not impose any religious ideology on anyone, and was supported by our Founding Fathers.

Also, technically, this is not defacement of currency.  The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing defines defacement as the following:

“Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service. The United States Secret Service web address is www.secretservice.gov.”

This has not been made unfit for circulation nor has the user made the bill unfit to be reissued.  This is why you’ll find bills marked with things like, “Track George,” where you can find out where your dollar bill has been around the country.  www.wheresgeorge.com/

Neither bill, the Allah bill or the Track George bill, have been made unfit to be reissued.

No response yet.

Helvetebrann, I’m offering you a high-five through this reblog and copying your rebuttal for reference in case that irritating e-mail ever reaches my inbox. Thank you for being awesome!

Rule of Lord The Republican plan to nullify the courts and establish Christian theocracy.

lakrymosa:

livealifethatscompletelyfree:

WHAT THE ABSOLUTE FUCK???????????????????????

From Slate.com:

The Republican plan to nullify the courts and establish Christian theocracy.

124002711 Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann

Photograph by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

Is the United States sliding toward theocracy? That’s what Republican presidential candidates have told us for more than a year. Radical Islam, they’ve argued, is on the verge of taking over our country through Sharia law. But this weekend, at an Iowa forum sparsely covered by the press, the candidates made clear that they don’t mind theocracy—in fact, they’d like to impose it—as long as it’s Christian.

You can find video of Saturday’s “Thanksgiving Family Forum” on the Web sites of two organizations that sponsored it: CitizenLink and the Family Leader. Here are highlights of the candidates’ remarks.

1. Religious Americans must fight back against nonbelievers. To quote Herman Cain:

What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.

2. The religious values we must fight for are Judeo-Christian. Rick Perry warned:

Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers.

3. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian. Michele Bachmann explained:

American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were the foundation for our law. That’s what Blackstone said—the English jurist—and our founders looked to Blackstone for the foundation of our law. That’s our law.

4. No religion but Christianity will suffice. Perry declared, “In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. God created our government. Bachmann told the audience:

I have a biblical worldview. And I think, going back to the Declaration of Independence, the fact that it’s God who created us—if He created us, He created government. And the government is on His shoulders, as the book of Isaiah says.

6. U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:

Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.

7. Anything that’s immoral by religious standards should be outlawed. Santorum again:

God gave us rights, but He also gave us laws upon which to exercise those rights, and that’s what you ought to do. And, by the way, the law should comport—the laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying that it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. It’s not just—laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society.

8. The federal government should impose this morality on the states. Santorum once more:

The idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. … As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.

9. Congress should erase the judiciary’s power to review moral laws. Newt Gingrich suggested:

I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action.

Gingrich said the same strategy could secure the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and protects the right of states to disregard same-sex marriages performed in other states. In his words, “You could repass DOMA and make it not appealable to the court, period.”

10. Courts that get in the way should be abolished. Gingrich again:

The simplest first step which I would take is to propose—and I hope this will be a significant part of the campaign next year—I have proposed to abolish the court of Judge Biery in San Antonio, who on June 1 issued an order that said, not only could students not pray at their graduation, they couldn’t use the word benediction, the could not say the word prayer, they could not say the word God, they could not ask people to stand for a moment of silence, they couldn’t use the word invocation, and if he broke any of those, he would put their superintendent in jail. I regard that as such a ruthless anti-American statement that he should not be on the court, and I would move to literally abolish his court, so that he could go back to private practice, as a signal to the courts.

Biery’s order was an overreach. In fact, it was overturned two days later by an appeals court. But he’s only the first target of the anti-judicial purge. The next words after Gingrich’s threat came from Santorum, who said: “I agree with a lot of what has just been said here. I would go farther—one step farther, Newt. I would abolish the entire Ninth Circuit.”

11. The purge of judges should be based on public opinion. Gingrich once more:

Part of the purpose of singling out Judge Biery and eliminating his job is to communicate the standard that the two elected branches have the power and the authority to educate the judiciary when it deviates too far from the American people. And I think you would probably take that approach.

12. Freedom means obeying morality. Santorum concluded, “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.

William Saletan’s latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:

actually perry

that hole in my soul can only be filled

by in-and-out.

LILY

TAKE ME AWAY TO FINLANDIA

I DON’T WANT TO LIVE HERE ANYMORE

anticapitalist:

helvetebrann:

I am furious.  This is a teacher who graduated from the same teaching credential program as me.  Once I say my piece, I will be removing her from my friend’s list.
I do not associate with people who believe that it is ok to use their position of power to brainwash children into thinking that they need to and can “accept Jesus” into their hearts.
This disgusts me.  She works at a public school.  FUCK THAT SHIT.
(P.S. I am Tiffany.)

The fuck?
>.<

Fuck conversion. Let people believe what they want. Attempted conversion from a position of power is mental warfare.

anticapitalist:

helvetebrann:

I am furious.  This is a teacher who graduated from the same teaching credential program as me.  Once I say my piece, I will be removing her from my friend’s list.

I do not associate with people who believe that it is ok to use their position of power to brainwash children into thinking that they need to and can “accept Jesus” into their hearts.

This disgusts me.  She works at a public school.  FUCK THAT SHIT.

(P.S. I am Tiffany.)

The fuck?

>.<

Fuck conversion. Let people believe what they want. Attempted conversion from a position of power is mental warfare.

nerdling:

“Maranatha,” after taking a bit of a facebook hiatus after I schooled her for her White Woman’s Tears, came back and decided to ask if Harry Potter books were too demonic for Good Christian Children or if they were ok to read. And of course most of her friends jumped on the HARRY POTTER IS TEH DEVIL!!1!!1!1 bandwagon. 

My response?

I will never understand people who believe in an all-powerful god who created the heavens and earth, listens to their every thought, and can be obliterated by a children’s story. If you’re that insecure in your god’s existence, your kids will pick up on it. Kids are smart. For me, one of the first things that led me to atheism was my neighbors’ adamant belief that I was going to hell for watching The Smurfs and playing with My Little Pony unicorns and pegasuses (pegasi?) because God didn’t create them so the devil made them to tempt me. Huh? Regular MLPs were ok, despite the fact that God didn’t create pink horses with purple manes and flowers on their butts. It just made no sense to be so paranoid over something like that.
If your faith is so tenuous as to be threatened by Harry Potter, by all means stop your kids from reading them! Just don’t be surprised one day if they figure out the truth - an all-powerful god who’s weaker than a fictional wizard isn’t much of a god, and they’re better off not wasting their time trying to appease him all the time.

And now we wait…


Reblogging for the explanation in the middle. If your faith is so tenuous that it risks destruction if you’re exposed to happy cartoon ponies or school-age wizards, you should probably focus more on strengthening it… on your own. Meanwhile, leave the rest of us alone.

Geez, I used to see people at my church who thought we needed to SAVE THE CHILDRENZ from various secular things (for the sole reason that they were secular, seemingly), and while I hadn’t quite developed the “Harry Potter is not capable of destroying Jesus” counter-argument yet, I was still very skeptical. I mean, really? If the powers of friendship and the struggle against evil aren’t ‘suitable for children’, you should probably shield the children from the New Testament first. 

Yeah, I said it.