A restaurant in Wiggins, Miss., will no longer offer a preferential discount to church-going patrons, thanks to the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Western Sizzlin’ Steakhouse promoted a “half off buffet” discount to customers who presented a “church member appreciation card.” The discount was valid only for members of three local Baptist churches.

In a June 11 letter, FFRF Staff Attorney Stephanie Schmitt warned the manager that the restaurant was in violation of the Civil Rights Act and that “it is illegal for Western Sizzlin’ to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion.”

The Civil Rights Act says that in places of public accommodation, including restaurants, every person is entitled to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations,” without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.

In a letter to FFRF on Sept. 11, restaurant management confirmed that the they will “discontinue including churches in our discount promotions and programs moving forward and will only offer them to other local businesses and companies that are not religious in nature.”

Thanks to a Freedom From Religion Foundation complaint, a teacher in Abbeville County Consolidated School District, Texas, will no longer be allowed to actively participate in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student club.

The Wright Middle School science teacher was the Christian group’s faculty sponsor, but actively participated in the group’s 2010 prayer meeting and praised the group’s Christian agenda. She stated in an article on the South Carolina FCA website that the 200-student prayer group was “very sweet and moving” and that at each FCA meeting they’ve had a student come to Christ.

A June 18 letter from Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert warned, “The Supreme Court has stated that public school employees, including teachers, must refrain from actively participating in religious activities while acting within their governmental role.”

An attorney for the District responded on September 14 that the District would “ensure that school faculty understand their role with regard to the sponsorship of religious [clubs] so that no further concerns will occur.”

The city of West Linn, Ore., rescinded an unconstitutional grant to Willamette Christian Church after a Sept. 28 Freedom From Religion Foundation letter of complaint.

It came to FFRF's attention that the West Linn City Council had approved a $1,300 grant to the church, ostensibly to start a teen center called The Summit. City staff purportedly spent considerable time on the proposal, with the regular fees waived.

Councilor Mike Jones, who later became a member of the church, was apparently the driving force behind the grant, fee waiver and overall proposal.

"Finding suitable after-school activities for middle school students and providing them a safe place to gather is laudable," wrote FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel. "Teen programming may be a genuine concern for the community, and while WCC is willing to address that concern to a certain extent, the record provides ample evidence that the city’s actions crossed appropriate constitutional boundaries."

It's clear that the center, which would have been managed by the YMCA on weekdays, had religious purposes, Seidel noted. "WCC has scheduled 'church-related activities' for twice as much time as teen center activities."

The schedule called for the center to be open 10 hours a week to the general public and 20 hours a week for church activities.

FFRF noted numerous public statements that the main use of the center would be for church activities.

"The primary effect is to help a church expand by funding new construction," Seidel wrote. "In other words, the council gave WCC $1,300 to expand their church space."

FFRF suspected the center would be another way to target children who would otherwise not attend WCC.

"The city had no safeguards against religious use or proselytization at the time the grant and waiver were approved, nor does the city have any way to ensure that YMCA involvement continues. WCC is leasing the space, setting the hours and has the final say in all decisions. Should they choose not to partner with the YMCA, the city has no recourse."

The complaint letter noted other problems with the proposal, including waiver of fees, parking impacts, city officials in their official capacity sitting on a church advisory board and Councilor Jones’ ties to the church.

While the city has not formally responded, FFRF has learned the proposal is dead, at least for now.

According to an Oct. 2 story in the Oregonian, Assistant City Manager Kirsten Wyatt told the newspaper the city decided to immediately rescind the grant to avoid controversy and a legal battle.

"Our options are either fight this or say, 'Hey, $1,300 isn't that much money,' " Wyatt said. "We're chalking this up as a learning experience."

View a PDF version of this letter here. 

Sheriff Jerry L. Demings
Orange County Sheriff's Office
PO Box 1440
Orlando, FL 32802-1440

Re: Orange County Sheriff using 40 days of prayer to lower crime

Dear Sheriff Demings:

I am writing on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (“FFRF”) and our local members who object to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office (“OSCO”) calling for 40 days of prayer to help fight crime. FFRF is a nationwide nonprofit organization, which works to protect the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. FFRF represents more than 18,500 members across the country including more than 850 members in Florida.

We are appalled and saddened by the random shooting of Danielle Sampson. We join with others in decrying this senseless violence, and demanding reform to get assault weapons off of our streets and protect innocent lives. Our organization, mainly atheists and agnostics, has just donated $250.00 to help the Sampson family pay for Danielle’s medical care at gofundme.com/supportdanielle. However, senseless and tragic violence is not an excuse to disregard the Constitution.

We understand that over the next 40 days, the OSCO will be leading “nightly prayer vigils bringing OCSO and the faith community together to reduce violence.” This call to prayer appears on the official OSCO Facebook page. Below this text appears a picture (enclosed) of hands held in prayer with the official Orange County Sheriff’s Office Badge and the test “Operation Transformation: 40 DAYS OF PRAYER.”

Calling upon citizens to pray is coercive and beyond the authority of any government, let alone a law enforcement arm of the government. Citizens should not be made to feel offended, excluded, or like political outsiders because the Sheriff they support with their taxes imposes religious ritual on them. Put simply, your office is misusing its secular power to call for religious rituals and exhort citizens, regardless of beliefs, to participate in prayer.

It is a fundamental principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the government cannot in any way promote, advance, or otherwise endorse religion. The Supreme Court has said, “The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’” McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005), (quoting Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985).

As Sheriff, your overt promotion of religion using your official title, badge, and seal gives the unfortunate impression that the County supports and endorses particular religious rituals. The government is sending the message “to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members…” Id. (citations omitted). “This presents a problem for the Sheriff because the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from ‘promot[ing] or affiliat[ing] itself with any religious doctrine or organization.’” Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass'n v. Clarke, 588 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2009), (cite to Sup. Ct. omitted).

Apparently, the OSCO believes that this prayer will lower crime: “According to Chaplain Willie James Barnes, praying for safer streets is something that works. He was part of a similar project with Orlando police in 2008.  ‘It worked. We did it all over the city of Orlando, and I'll tell you the crime rate went down,’ said Barnes.”

The members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation believe that nothing fails like prayer. Prayer is the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate admission that the invoker is giving up, is transferring personal responsibility to an imaginary being. It is particularly vexing to see people congratulate themselves for praying or holding a prayer rally, instead of taking meaningful action, such as working for rational regulation assault rifles and those who purchase them.

Significantly, scientific studies  show that societies with less prayer have less violence:

“Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is deep and widespread. And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.  Furthermore, although there are some notable exceptions, rates of most violent crimes tend to be lower in the less religious states and higher in the most religious states. Finally, of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries, and of the eight cities within the United States that make the safest-city list, nearly all are located in the least religious regions of the country.”

Furthermore, “studies of heroic altruism during the Holocaust, found that the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews.” In fact, when any given factor of societal health or well-being is measured, invariably the less religious countries score better. The least religious countries of this world:

• Have the lowest rates of violent crime and homicide
• Are the best place to raise children
• Are the best place to be a mother
• Have the lowest rates of corruption
• Have the lowest levels of intolerance against racial and ethnic minorities
• Score highest when it comes to women’s rights and gender equality • Have the greatest protection and enjoyment of political and civil liberties
• Are better at educating their youth in reading, math, and science
• Are the most peaceful
• Are the most prosperous
• Have the highest quality of life.

The pattern of lower religiosity to higher societal well-being is not limited to an international analysis.  This trend also exists within United States.  Those states that are the most religious also have a high occurrence of societal ills.  States that tend to be among the most religious in the nation:

• Have the highest rates of poverty
• Have the highest rates of obesity
• Have the highest rates of infant mortality
• Have the highest rates of STDs
• Have the highest rates of teen pregnancy
• Have the lowest percentage of college-educated adults
• Have the highest rates of murder
• Have the highest rates of violent crime.

Prayer is ineffectual.  Public, government prayers not only conflict with the Constitution as pointed out above, but also with biblical teachings.  Christians who know their bible are familiar with the injunction of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, condemning public prayer as hypocrisy.  “Enter into thy closet and when though hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.” (Matthew 6:5-13).

To avoid the constitutional concerns and the divisiveness these prayers cause within the community the solution is simple: discontinue using your government office to promote prayers. While religious leaders are free to hold prayer rallies, the Orange County Sheriff's Department is not. Public officials should get off their knees and get to work.  Do something practical to help Danielle and prevent other such crimes.  Please inform us in writing of the actions that Orange County is taking to remedy these constitutional violations. May we hear from you at your earliest convenience?

Very truly,

Annie Laurie Gaylor
Co-President

This Sunday, Oct. 7, many ministers across the nation will purposefully violate the law from their pulpits. Called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” the day has been marked by the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) for preachers to openly endorse and oppose candidates for political office, in violation of IRS regulations and just in time for the November elections.

The IRS explains on its website:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office… [P]ublic statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

ADF encourages churches to blatantly break this law, then flaunt their unlawful activity by sending recordings of their sermons to the IRS. ADF publishes lists of churches that participate.

The regulations are in place so that nonprofit organizations (and their donors) do not receive a government subsidy in the form of tax exemption for their political endorsements. Imagine the political hanky-panky should churches be allowed to use their considerable wealth to directly endorse and influence partisan political elections, with no financial accountability to the public! Imagine the political candidates pandering directly for votes by marshalling congregations to directly campaign for them, as well as fund them. The purity of both church and state would be contaminated.

ADF, a theocratic group, believes that churches should be given special treatment, and be allowed to engage in partisan activity while maintaining their tax-exempt status. ADF has openly stated that one reason it promotes the Pulpit Freedom Sunday is because it hopes the IRS will enforce its regulations against a church so that it will have the means to challenge the restriction in litigation.

This brazen disrespect for the law is based on inaccurate constitutional claims. ADF claims the restrictions violate the Establishment Clause by excessively entangling the government with churches’ internal affairs. However, churches choose to be subject to restrictions on political activity as a condition of claiming tax-exempt status, just like all other groups classified as 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation. ADF claims the restrictions violate free speech protections, even though clergy are perfectly free to say whatever they like from the pulpit if they do not claim tax-exempt status, or to endorse as individuals outside a church context. Churches are not required to be tax-exempt, and the government is not required to subsidize churches’ political ideologies.

We encourage members and the public to be on watch for unlawful political activity at churches on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” or any other day. Please visit FFRF’s Churches and Political Lobbying Activity FAQ (http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14005-churches-and-political-lobbying-activities) for more information. See the FAQ for instructions on submitting a complaint to the IRS directly, or contact FFRF to do so on your behalf. Help us ensure that churches either stay out of politics, or render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Thanks to Maddy Zieger, legal intern

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Kountze Independent School District, Kountze, Texas, which had ordered cheerleaders to stop holding Christian prayer banners for football players to run through while entering the stadium.

A typical banner read, "But thanks be to God, which gives us Victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 15:57."

FFRF's local counsel, Randall L. Kallinen, Houston, filed the brief in Hardin County District Court.

FFRF Staff Attorney Stephanie Schmitt's Sept. 17 letter to Superintendent Kevin Weldon led to a decision to stop the banner practice. The Liberty Institute, a Religious Right law firm, then got a temporary restraining order against the district, which has also hired a law firm to defend itself.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has inappropriately weighed in on the case with a Sept. 27 letter to the school district, calling FFRF "menacing and misleading" for its objection to inappropriate religious promotion by cheerleaders at school events.

In its brief, FFRF takes issue with the plaintiffs' claim that the banners are an exercise of free speech and ask for denial of a temporary injunction: "The speech in question is government speech or, at a minimum, school-sponsored speech."

The plaintiffs, including parents of students, seek an order that the district must "cease and desist from preventing the cheerleaders ... from displaying banners or run-throughs at sporting events and/or censoring the sentiments expressed thereon."

FFRF asserts that such "broad language severely limits the ability of school administrators to lawfully regulate school activities. KISD is under no obligation to allow anyone to display run-through banners as part of festivities at sporting events."

"If the majority of the cheerleaders were atheists, would a court support their 'right' to hold up a banner insulting Christianity or all believers? The District has every right to simply prohibit all run-through and on-field banners."

FFRF contends that the banners are government speech because they are displayed in a context implying school endorsement and because the school has effective control over the messages. The Kountz message is "delivered to a large audience assembled as part of a regularly scheduled, school-sponsored function conducted on school property."

The brief also notes the distinction between government speech and school-sponsored speech and cites relevant cases.

"Cheerleading for the school is undeniably a school-sponsored activity and the banners displayed by the cheerleaders take place during a school-sponsored event."

U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner today dismissed the Freedom From Religion Foundation's lawsuit against officials of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for declaring 2012 as "the Year of the Bible," while at the same time chastening state officials for "premeditated pandering" for religious and political purposes and expressing alarm that it passed unanimously.

FFRF sued in March after the House passed the resolution Jan. 24 that exhorted citizens and government officials to "study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures." It challenged the resolution for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

In his Oct. 1 decision, Conner ruled that FFRF and its local plaintiffs had standing to sue, "which is a major victory in itself these days," commented FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. Conner also ruled that House officials had absolute legislative immunity. Conner, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, has notably also ruled against the Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Barack Obama.

While granting the defendants immunity for a "legislative act," Conner noted that the immunity "should not be viewed as judicial endorsement of this resolution. It most certainly is not."

Conner wrote, "At worst, it is premeditated pandering designed to provide a reelection sound bite for use by members of the General Assembly. But regardless of the motivation. . . its express language is proselytizing and exclusionary. . . . The court is compelled to shine a clear, bright light on this resolution because it pushes the Establishment Clause envelope behind the safety glass of legislative immunity. That is passed unanimously is even more alarming."

The "blatant use of legislative resources" contravened "the spirit — if not the letter — of the Establishment Clause," Conner wrote scathingly.

He concluded, "At a time when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces massive public policy challenges, these resources would be far better utilized in meaningful legislative efforts for the benefit of all of the citizens of the Commonwealth, regardless of their religious beliefs."

"The Establishment Clause, prohibits all government speech endorsing religion — without or without coercion. The government is precluded from taking a position on the merits of religion, contrary to the clear import of the Year of the Bible Resolution in this case," said Barker.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Lawrence M. Otter, Doylestown, Pa., and Richard L. Bolton, Madison, Wis., on behalf of FFRF and 41 named Pennsylvania members.

FFRF is considering its options.

A Freedom From Religion Foundation letter of complaint Aug. 21 about a wrongful religious tax exemption in Wichita, Kan., resulted in the property being put back on the tax rolls and back taxes assessed.

Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott wrote to Sedgwick County Appraiser Mike Borchard after being alerted by a Wichita FFRF member about a residence owned by Grace Baptist Church, which is the home of a local politician. The home has been exempt from property taxes as a church parsonage since 1996.

Elliott noted, "It is our information and understanding that the use of the West Haskell [Street] home does not qualify as an exempt use. Michael O’Donnell II lives at the home. He is the son of the senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church. We understand that Mr. O’Donnell is on the Wichita City Council and also works as a communications director. He is running for state office and filed forms with the Kansas Secretary of State listing 1435 West Haskell Street as his residence."

"The Wichita Eagle reported that Mr. O’Donnell rents the house from Grace Baptist Church and that Mr. O’Donnell 'promises that he lives where he says he lives.' It appears that the property has not been used exclusively as a home for an acting minister who regularly conducts religious services in a long time," Elliott wrote.

While the county appraiser has not officially responded to FFRF, a Sept. 27 story in the Wichita Eagle reported that the property is going back on the tax rolls because it is not being used as a church parsonage.

Mark Clark, deputy county appraiser, was quoted, “We have reviewed the situation and we do believe the property should be taxable. So we’re processing the paperwork to make it taxable from 2010.”

Pastor Michael O’Donnell said the church will refile a tax exemption request, "essentially appealing the appraiser’s ruling," the Eagle reported. Under state law, there is a presumption that property is taxable. The church will have the burden to show that the house is exempt. It's not known yet how much the church could owe in taxes or why 2010 was the date chosen.

The property is currently appraised at $76,100. County records show no general property taxes have been billed since at least 2002.

The younger O'Donnell, who has now changed his original story to the newspaper, accused FFRF of having "a political agenda."

Not so, responded Elliott, “We’re an apolitical group, a nonprofit that does not get involved in elections or campaigns, but we are concerned about state-church issues, including churches abusing tax privileges, which was the case here.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh against the Connellsville Area School District for maintaining a Ten Commandments momument at the Connellsville, Pa., Junior High School.

FFRF, on behalf of local plaintiffs "Doe 4" and "Doe 5," seeks a declaration that the display is unconstitutional and an injunction requiring it to be moved, nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The state/church watchdog filed a similar suit Sept. 14 against the New Kensington-Arnold School District for maintaining a Ten Commandments monument at Valley High School in New Kensington, Pa.

FFRF is a Madison, Wis.-based nonprofit membership organization with 18,500 nonreligious members, including about 675 in Pennsylvania.

The monument, which is between 5 and 6 feet tall, is near the main entrance by the Junior High auditorium. When the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the monument in 1957, the building was the high school.

The complaint states that the continued presence of the Ten Commandments on district property is an unconstitutional advancement and endorsement of religion. The complaint also notes that the display "lacks any secular purpose," citing Stone v. Graham, a 1980 Supreme Court decision which ruled the Ten Commandments may not be posted in public school classrooms, because "The pre-eminent purpose" for doing so "is plainly religious in nature."

Pittsburgh-based attorney Marcus Schneider represents the plaintiffs. He wrote to Superintendent Dan Lujetic on Aug. 29 demanding that the district "permanently remove the Ten Commandments monument from school property" and provide notice of removal to Schneider by Sept. 7 or FFRF would file suit.

The district promptly contacted Schneider, agreeing to remove the marker. It was first covered with plastic and later with plywood, although vandals apparently removed both materials several times.

After at least two rallies were held in favor of keeping the momument and intense public pressure, the school board voted Sept. 12 to "delay any further action concerning moving the monument from its current location . . . until further notice and pending further legal action."

On Sept. 14, a large wooden box was used to cover the entire monument.

"The indefinite covering of the highly conspicuous Ten Commandments monument has neither remedied the impermissible coercion that Plaintiffs previously endured, nor has it had the effect of squelching the message of religious endorsement that the district continues to send," the complaint noted.

Doe 5 is an atheist and member of FFRF who views the monument as usurpation of parental rights and who does "not subscribe to the religious statements that are inscribed on the monument." Her child, Doe 4, attends the junior high school and comes in regular contact with the prominent monument. It is within view of students boarding or exiting school buses and participating in outdoor gym classes.

The complaint notes: "FFRF and Doe 5 contend that a public school district has no right to instruct its captive audience of impressionable students on which god to have, how many gods to have, or whether to have any gods at all."

Freedom From Religion -Albuquerque, the Freedom From Religion Foundation's chapter in Albuquerque, N.M., is placing a paid advertisement in the the Albuquerque Journal on Monday, Sept. 17, "Constitution Day." The U.S. Constitution was ratified on Sept. 17, 1787.

The ad takes umbrage at the religious-right spin of regular Hobby Lobby ads, which seek to portray the United States as a Christian nation.

"We feel it is important to respond to the full page 'In God We Trust' ad placed by Hobby Lobby in the Albuquerque Journal on July 4, which we have researched and found to be very inaccurate and deceptive," said Ron Herman, director of the chapter.

"Freethinkers can all celebrate the fact that the founders of our nation were first among nations to adopt a godless and entirely secular Constitution, whose only references to religion are exclusionary. It's not a coincidence that the U.S. Constitution is the longest-lived constitution in the world. Much of the success of this 'living document' is due to the fact that it places sovereignty not in a divinity, but in 'We the People,' " commented FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

FFRF has 18,500 members nationwide, including over 200 in New Mexico. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has received word that the Tucson City Council has permanently suspended its decision to grant $1.1 million to the Catholic Diocese of Tucson to repair the Church’s Marist Building.

FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel had written an Aug. 7 letter to Mayor Rothschild of Tucson, warning that it was unwise policy for the city to offer $1.1 million to repair a religious building it does not own.

“If you truly believe the best policy is to repair the Marist building then the diocese should sign the building and property over to you free and clear. Alternatively, given the neglect the diocese has shown for a piece of Tucson history, consider seizing the property through eminent domain. Title should not remain with the diocese if the taxpayers are paying $1.1 million.”

Ward 6 Councilman Steve Kozachik, who was one of two council members to vote against the original funding scheme, noted at the time: “The Catholic Church has neglected it for a decade. If they were serious about this building, they could cancel one of their pro-life ad blitzes and pay for it in a heartbeat.”

Seidel echoed this point in his letter to the Mayor: “The diocese is perfectly willing to spend money to restore its other property. Last year, the church spent $75,000 to restore a crucifix.” He pointed out the diocese just spent $1.1 million raised in the ‘Treasures of the Heart campaign’ to restore St. Augustine Cathedral next door to the Marist building.

According to a Sept.11, 2012, memo by City Manager Richard Miranda, “the diocese of Tucson has informed city staff that they wish to retain ownership of the Marist College so that it can be used by them and the local parish.” Miranda explained that because of the diocese’s position, the grant “can not be accommodated” and the city will “take no further action regarding a potential agreement for the use of [grant] funds for the stabilization of the Marist College.” The city has already begun allocating the grant funds for other projects including road and water tower repairs.  

“This is a major victory for taxpayers and for the constitutional principle of separation between state and church,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “It pays to complain, or rather in this case, our complaint stops an unconstitutional payment.”

In a recent exposé, The Economist estimated that the Catholic Church in America spent “around $170 billion in 2010 . . . For purposes of secular comparison, in 2010 General Electric’s revenue was $150 billion.” (This same article estimated that “sexual-abuse cases have cost the American church more than $3 billion so far.”)

Seidel’s letter reviewed details on the diocese’s healthy finances despite bankruptcy after payouts for more than 100 credible allegations of sexual misconduct with minors involving 26 priests.

"About six months ago, Anita Bryant in her speaking to God said that the drought in California was because of the gay people. On November 9, the day after I got elected, it started to rain. On the day I got sworn in, we walked to City Hall and it was kinda nice, and as soon as I said 'I do,' it started to rain again. It's been raining since then and the people of San Francisco figure the only way to stop it is to do a recall petition."

“What a blessing to know there’s a devil, and that I’m but a pawn in his game / that my impulse to sin doesn’t come from within, and so I’m not exactly to blame.” 

"... I’m not so confident to say that I’m an atheist, so I’d prefer to say I’m an agnostic."