Atheism Cafe

Alex Marshall-Brown is an actress and stuntwoman who recently was working on her laptop at a shady spot of grass in front of St. Paul's Lutheran Church of North Hollywood.  She was quickly accosted by a Karen and a couple of - Kens? - let's just say white males representing the church.  Karen actually claimed, while filming the scene from her cell phone, that Ms. Marshall-Brown was threatening her life for arguing with her.  One the white males went about nailing a "No Trespassing" sign to the shade tree and threatened to call the police. As he actually uttered the phrase "all lives matter", the second white male behind him smirked grotesquely.  Here is the video she took herself: https://www.facebook.com/alexmarshallbrown/videos/pcb.10105446046106991/10105447053583001/?type=3&theater What is apparent is the she can more than speak for herself, so I'm not about to describe the events for you. Watch the video. I will, however, take up what t

As your constituent, I am deeply concerned that the religious liberty which is our natural as well as national right, is being not merely infringed but wholly violated by the Roberts Court and the Trump Administration. In his decision for the recent Espinoza case, Justice Roberts actually claimed ( in a footnote no less ) that James Madison would agree with his ruling, which effectively raises taxes on American citizens to pay for the upkeep of the clergy. The document Justice Roberts was referring to is Madison's " Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments ," in which Madison said: As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Both Madison and Jefferson understood, and communicated clearly in many ways, that religious liberty depends on the separation of church and state. As Roger Williams and John Locke explained before them, the realms of the Magis

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : This Court’s decisions...confirm that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers. SCOTUS has ruled that teachers who teach at religious schools are clergy because they are promoting religion, and that the state is barred from protecting such teachers from discrimination which would otherwise be illegal under laws such as the Civil Rights Act. Alternately, this SCOTUS also holds - in this very session - that for the purposes of receiving public funds, religious schools are not promoting religion. Expect a broad realignment of forces hostile to civil rights with forces hostile to religious liberty, as the Roberts Court has now ensured that religious organizations are the last best hope for racists and theocrats. The Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania : Concerns that the exemptions thwart Congress’ intent by ma

In the short time since it was released, a great deal has been said about the Supreme Court's decision in the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case. A great of column inches perhaps, or words, but very little in terms of critical analysis. Chief Justice Roberts himself set the standard for misunderstanding the ruling when he described it as: A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious. The New York Times runs with this interpretation: Religious schools should have the same access to scholarships and funds as other private schools, the justices ruled, in a victory for conservatives. and The Washington Post reports the decision as saying: [ States ] that subsidize private education must include religious schools which is repeated by CNBC: Supreme Court says Constitution protects Montana scholarship program that indirectly funds religious schools