OBL, Whitney, and the rise of American Theocracy.

Oh my! It seems my girl Whitney had quite a few admirers all over the world.

"Terror mastermind Osama bin Laden is so obsessed with singer Whitney Houston he thought about killing her husband, Bobby Brown, it was claimed last night.

"The suggestion is made by Sudanese poet and novelist Kola Boof, who claims she was bin Laden's sex slave for four months 10 years ago.

In her autobiography, Diary of a Lost Girl, she writes: "He told me Whitney Houston was the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen."

Boof, 37, who claims bin Laden raped her and held her prisoner in a Moroccan hotel, says he could not stop talking about the songbird, even though he disapproved of music.

"Osama kept coming back to Whitney Houston," she says in the book, excerpted in the magazine Harpers' Bazaar. "He asked if I knew her personally when I lived in America. I told him I didn't.

"He said that he had a paramount desire for Whitney Houston, and although he claimed music was evil he spoke of someday spending vast amounts of money to go to America and try to arrange a meeting with the superstar.

"It didn't seem impossible to me. He said he wanted to give Whitney Houston a mansion that he owned in a suburb of Khartoum.

"He explained to me that to possess Whitney he would be willing to break his colour rule and make her one of his wives.

"Whitney Houston's name was the one that would be mention constantly.

"How beautiful she was, what a nice smile she has, how truly Islamic she is but is just brainwashed by American culture and by her husband Bobby Brown, whom Osama talked about having killed, as if it were normal to have women's husbands killed." [Source] (h/t to Susan)

Damn, OBL had more love for Whitney that some of the racist mofos in this country. (And people wonder why I despise FOX and everything they represent so much.)

Anyway, tonight I want to blog about the "occupy woman's vagina" folks who have hijacked this contraception debate. Because we all know that blocking a woman's right to reproductive services is the republican thing to do.

President Obama, much to my displeasure, compromised with the Catholic Church in this debate. I hate to break it to him, but if he thought that the folks who are trying to score cheap political brownie points from this would back off, he would be wrong.  And the Catholic Church certainly isn't giving any ground. (Why should they? It's not like we are talking about pedophile priests or anything.)

"It's still clear that President Obama does not understand this isn't about cost--it's about who controls the religious views of faith-based institutions," Blunt said in a released statement. "President Obama believes that he should have that control. Our constitution states otherwise."

And who should have the control over a woman's body? If a------ fill in your religion other than Catholic--- woman chooses to work for a Catholic hospital or university and wants to buy birth control pills for whatever, are you telling me that she shouldn't be allowed because she works for a Catholic institution? (One that most likely gets some kind of public funding.) What about individual freedoms in this country? If a non Seventh Day Adventist man works for Andrews University and wants to buy a bucket of chicken in Berrien Springs, Michigan on a Saturday night, are you telling me that he shouldn't be allowed to because Adventist don't believe in eating meat? And if the poor guy gets a heart attack because of his love for the Colonel's cooking, are you saying that the Seventh Day Adventist health plan shouldn't have to pay for his hospital visit to clear out his arteries? Should an employer who is Jehovah's Witness be allowed to deny blod transfusions to one of his or her employees? Of course not. We all know a stretch when we see one.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church and their political soul-mates are trying to pull a fast one on the American people. This is not about religious freedom, it's about religious tyranny. Do you honestly believe that if men had to give birth to children we would even be having this debate?

I love what Wendy Kaminer wrote in The Atlantic:

"What accounts for the rhetorical excesses of the Catholic Church and its advocates on the campaign trail and in the media? They reflect some genuine outrage, no doubt. But, in part, the rhetoric is an organizing tool (which may succeed in wresting new concessions from the administration). And in part, it reflects larger rhetorical trends: We inhabit a culture of hyperbole, especially during election years. Every argument is a gunfight (to which someone mistakenly brings a knife), every gunfight is a war, and every war a potential apocalypse.

Still, while the fate of American civilization doesn't depend on this debate about the obligations of church-affiliated institutions to abide by secular law, the stakes are relatively high. As government workers are laid off and government programs shrink, the public role of private, tax-exempt non-profits expands. The stronger their right to dispense public funds and deliver public services according to sectarian religious dictates, the weaker our rights to a non-sectarian public sphere. It's a zero-sum game." [Source]

I disagree with her about one thing: the outrage expressed by church officials might be genuine, but the outrage expressed by the poli-tricksters rallying around this issue are as phony as a W's cowboy persona.

Will the Catholic Church support his religious freedom?

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion."

I thought that I would start tonight's post with a little Constitution Law, because issues associated with this amendment have been all over the news lately. My [right]wingnut friends are outraged for my Catholic friends because they say that his Oness and his folks are infringing on their religious freedoms. (Quick point: I am married to a good South Louisiana Catholic.) Apparently Catholics don't believe in contraception. Strictly au natural when you get your freak on.

Still, I suspect that this is about restricting the rights of women when it comes to their own bodies . It is not about being outraged that Catholics are not being allowed to practice their religion without the "evil" government telling them what to do. (BTW, most Catholic schools already provide contraception coverage in their health plans for their employees, and 28 states already have a similar law in place.)   I just wish that all these outraged wingnuts were around when Catholic priests were practicing their own form of birth control by getting their freak on with young boys.

Anyway, all this talk of religious freedom got me thinking about my favorite religious group here in A-merry-ca. Where are all the A-merry-can people and conservatives rallying around religious freedom for them?

"Rastafarianism - The Rastafarian faith is similar to Semitic religions. They believe in the same god and in the same prophets. However, the Rastafarian people also believe that the Ethiopian emperor Haille Selassie was the next messiah. The Rastafarians are usually associated with a "back to Africa" mindset however this is only a minor role in the religion. Rastafarians are against any type of tyranny. They are against any type of oppression. Originating in Jamaica. The frontman of the religion is Bob Marley, by and large he was the person who most led to the spread and proliferation of the Rastafarian religion. They typically use their sacrament, Marijuana, during religious services to become closer to god. Rastafarianism is one of the less then 2,000 official religions recognized by the United States Government.

Marijuana - A naturally occurring herb. It's active ingredient, Tetrahydracannibinol, is best known for the "high" it gives it's users. This high is most commonly defined as a body euphoria, with increased sensory appreciation and awareness. Marijuana is the most widely used illegal psychoactive in the world. It has been used for over a millenia, accounts are seen in manuscripts spread throughout the history of the world. It use to be sold in American pharmacy's until it became a controlled substance in 1937 due to the Marijuana Tax Act. Which is interesting because both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, two of our founding fathers, grew marijuana on their farms. (Marijuana)

Precedents Supporting Religious Use of illegal Sacraments
A. Volstead Act - The act in 1919 that banned the creation, consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages exceeding .5% alcohol by volume. The government made an exception for the Christian churches to continue using wine as a sacrament during their religious gatherings (at the time, a controlled substance).
B. Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Bill Clinton signed this act in 1993. It strengthened the rights citizens and religions have in the united states. It reads "that there now must be a compelling state interest to infringe on alleged religious liberties"(Justices). The argument now becomes, does controlling illegal substances count as a compelling state interest and thus give them the right to infringe on religious liberties.

C. UDV and their "Tea" - The Uniao de Vegetal is a Brazilian church which has roughly 130 members and is located in New Mexico. The sacrament of their official religion is a hallucinogenic tea made with DMT a scheduled substance just like marijuana. They became allowed to use hallucinogenic tea as of a March 31st 2006 court decision by the supreme court. According to the Christian Century, a religious journal, Chief Justice Roberts is quoted as saying "If such use is permitted... for hundreds of thousands of Native Americans practicing their faith, it is difficult to justify denying consideration of a similar exception for the 130 or so American members of the UDV who want to practice theirs,"(Court). The question now becomes why is this Brazilian religion with their equally illegal tea given preference over Rastafarians and marijuana? If the substances in question are of equal value in the eyes of the government, then why are Rastafarian not granted this very same right to sacrament of choice. Are these Brazilians with their official religion somehow more entitled to their constitutionally guaranteed rights then Rastafarians?

The United States of America is a great place, however it's historical treatment of the Rastafarian people and their constitutionally guaranteed right to use their religious sacrament, marijuana, have been unequal which violates the separation of church and state which can overtime bias our society. What needs to be done is clear. It is our duty as citizens and as people with a vested interest in the outcome of this government/society to campaign for the legalization of marijuana for the religious use of the Rastafarian people to keep our government unbiased. The government has made exceptions for the Christian people during the Volstead Act in 1919, and for the Brazilian church UDV during the RFRA Act in 2006. Why not for the Rastafarians? We can make a difference. Go out and vote for the NORML political organization. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Bibliography
"Justices OK use of hallucinogenic tea." Christian Century Vol. 123 Issue 621 May 2006 14. 18 Oct 2006 .
"Court protects `religious' marijuana use.." Human Events Vol. 52 Issue 723 Feb 1996 pg. 5. 18 Oct 2006 .
"Marijuana." As a Drug. Taima. 18 Oct 2006 ." [Source]

Hell even the Santeria folks get more love than my 12 Tribe of Israel and Nyabinghi friends. But I see a little light at the end of the tunnel, so maybe all is not lost.

Anyway, here is hoping that all these passionate defenders of religious freedom will stand up and defend religious freedom for all A-merry-cans. (Oh, and Jamaicans....)

*Pic courtesy of Harmonist