As I’ve mentioned a number of times already, I’m a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. I think The God Delusion is a book most people simply owe it to themselves to read. And one of the most interesting points is how religion is often used as a defense for some truly abhorrent behavior.

Case in point, we have a teenager in Chicago using religion to defend the fact that he wants to wear an anti-gay T-shirt to school.

Heidi Zamecnik, 17, is asking the court to order her school and Indian Prairie District 204 to allow her to express her anti-gay beliefs on April 19, the day after the 11th annual “Day of Silence” is scheduled to protest harassment of gays in schools.

…

Heidi’s father, Carl Zamecnik, declined to comment Wednesday night on behalf of his family, and he referred calls to an attorney.

Because of her family’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” against homosexuality, “they wish to share their conviction that true happiness cannot be found through homosexual behavior,” the suit says.

Now, if she wanted to go back to her freedom of speech, it would never hold water. If she said she had the constitutional right to express this because of free speech it would be thrown out.

Now try and imagine if this were against any other minority. There’s defense in the Bible to speak out against Jews, people of another race, women, other religions, etc. If she tried to go to school with a shirt that said something to the effect of “NO JEWS” or “JEWS KILLED CHRIST” try and ponder the defense for that. And the story ends on a hilariously ironic note:

The suit says Heidi suffered unlawful discrimination, humiliation and punishment by school personnel merely because they didn’t agree with her viewpoint.

Wow, the poor girl got discriminated against merely for expressing her discrimination.

This just gets more and more interesting. The House already authorized the issuing of subpoenas to Rove and the gang, and now the Senate committee has done the same. What’s most interesting, though, is that it appears to be a severe majority opinion, and the debate is getting firey.

Most Republicans argued that it would be better to negotiate with the White House before engaging the White House in a protacted court battle but agreed with the majority Democrats that any interview of White House staffers should be in public and under oath (or at least transcribed).

Democrats pointed out that Bush, either as a tactic or a matter or truth, said there would be no negotiaton.

And that’s the thing. I don’t want anyone to be subpoenaed. If this can be settled without them, I’m just fine with that. What I am not fine with, however, is Bush’s insistence that nothing be on the record, nothing be public, nothing be transcribed, and nothing be followed up on. If they’re willing to go on the record, under oath, and allow things to be verified, plus open themselves up for later questioning, then there’s no need for subpoenas.

The thing is, if they’re just telling the truth about everything, what’s the problem? This logic also amuses me.

Some Republicans argued issuing subpoenas could set a constitutional crisis in motion.

“Not only is the authorization of the subpoena now unnecessary but I think it might ultimately prove counterproductive,” said Senator Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. “We need to think about the damage to the relationship between the [White House and Congress].”

Jon Kyl was a senator during the Clinton trial, and for those curious here’s what he had to say about the acquittal.

What is striking about this case is the President’s persistent, sustained, carefully calculated, deliberate and callous manipulation of the judicial process for over a year. . . .

An acquittal in this case will make it much harder to deal properly with similar conduct in the future. We will be hard pressed to perpetuate a double standard, so the lowest common denominator of conduct will be established as the permissible norm. And this cannot help but weaken the ability of courts to enforce truth-telling and prevent obstruction of justice.

The precedent set by this case may not change the law overnight, but this unforgettable episode is now part of the institutional life of our country. The chief magistrate perverted justice and remained in power. The lesson is corrosive. Like water dripping on a rock, it eventually makes a deep hollow in the American justice system.

So it’s safe to say Jon Kyl didn’t mind it back when the republican-led Congress was attacking Bill Clinton nonstop. But just asking questions to White House staff members to see if something was illegal? Why, that would cause a constitutional crisis!

Please.