Religion

From the Chicago Tribune:

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

 

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Apparently the atheist was testifying over an issue of whether or not a church should be getting a million dollar grant from the State.

Here's the bit from the transcript of the exchange:

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

 

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

 

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

 

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

 

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

As a 2nd Amendment supporting atheist I must be a real threat to society! Apparently I'm a threat to Chicago on multiple dimensional planes! I'm a danger to everything from children to the gods themselves!

I feel drunk with power. Mwahahahahaaa!!! We now return you to reality, already in progress...

The endless debate on evolution and/or intelligent design being taught in schools as part of science curriculum once again pulled me into some long discussions on the topic and in an attempt to organize my own thoughts and views on the subject, I wrote the following.  Unlike some of my other posts here I haven't shortened it down to a few paragraphs.  I figure I've been good enough to finally post at least one long post!  In this case it got quite a few Kudos from some anti-evolutionists who absolutely disagree with me on ID and creationist views over at RedState, so I figured I'd share here to get some feed back from folks who know I'm one of those derned drity shaven apes (in my opinion) or atheist, if you prefer:

Definintions:

In such discussions it seems to help to get the potential semantical disagreements out of the way first, otherwise one finds themselves into the frustrating circular discussions that keep coming right back to what a word or words mean... or in this case which meaning of the word is being used.

I'll be using the following definitions:

Philosophy:

2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Science:

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Scientific Method:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Evolution:

a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Intelligent Design:

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Theory:

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

All definitions I'm using here are from Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary as they are likely to be both generally accepted, easily verified, and of course scrutinized if need be.

Theories in Philosophy and Science:

Both philosophy and science have their theories. Some theories are used by both philosophers and scientists without much conflict at all while others create contradictions from one school of thought to another. The bigger difference is in the way such theories are vetted through either school of thought. Where philosophers tend to rely on speculative and logical processes of scrutinizing theories, scientists use the scientific method based on what we can observe and test in a manner that is repeatable and open to scrutiny.

To put it simply, a philosophical theory is only as good as its reasoning whereas a scientific theory is only as good as it fits observations throughout time.

A good analogy would be between a political philosophy and political science. The former stands on its reasoning and logic and will often be accepted with little to no available proof. Political science deals with how such theories play out in the real world with observable data such as voting results, polling results, criminal statistics, etc.

Evolution:

Like many other theories, evolution hypothesizes on something much larger than what can generally be observed or tested. As with the problem with being able to go back in time to observe the Big Bang or any means to replicate it, we cannot go back in time and observe if or how one species mutated over generations to become new species.

Doesn't this put all theories, including ID, on par with these generally accepted, so-called "scientific" theories?

The answer is, of course, yes!

Before evolution fans start grabbing their pitchforks and torches... yeah you, I see the torch... put it away. Thanks.

Before anyone gets too upset or happy over evolution and ID being put on par with one another, a pesky problem must be addressed, this is at the very beginning of the scientific process... which has a very systematic way of scrutinizing any theory before it is ever recognized as having any legitimacy. Without at least some observations that seem to fit the theory the theory is on par with a Lord Xenu explanation. The big moment for a scientific theory is when observations don't just fit the theory, but when the theory accurately predicts observations we haven't even made yet. Relativity being one of the greatest examples.

The more observations and tests that seem to confirm the theory, the far more accepted the theory becomes, even if there are parts of the theory that may or may not ever be confirmed. It's in the parts that haven't been confirmed that exists the possibility that further scrutiny could blow the whole theory out of the water or require modifications to it. This has happened time and time again with theories dealing with subatomic structure/energy, probably most notably with the black body observations that defied current theories... eventually giving birth to quantum theory.

Evolution theories have endured through similar observations, sticking points, corrections, etc. Not because every aspect has been vetted yet, but because our observations have generally fit within it. While scientists, philosophers, and others will scrutinize the yet unconfirmed portions of the theory and further scrutinize any observations that appear to conflict with the theory, that is all part of the scientific process.

As with many theories, finding holes in it typically necessitates adapting the theory or making the theory more comprehensive. It's rarely as dramatic as when the theory of Ether got tossed which got so blown full of holes to be almost completely relegated to the trash bin of scientific understanding.

While many young earth scientists believe there is ample evidence to do the same with Evolution, their conflict isn't just with evolutionists, whose theories depend on much larger time frames, but also geologists whose theories often require even longer time frames, astronomers with even longer time frames than them... right down to chemists and physicists with various theories with long time frames being needed for the substances we find on earth, space, etc.

Worse their proof tends to rely on observations that are in conflict with other observations, not simply the theory itself. With the development of quantum theory and the death knell of the theory of Ether as a medium for radiation in empty space... the observations made did not contradict other observations, but instead they merely showed the theory itself did not fit for all observations. It's one thing to say a theory isn't comprehensive enough or isn't an accurate description of how things work... it is a whole other ballgame to contradict the litany of prior observations themselves.

One example of this mentioned in my discussions was the alleged set of human footprints near dinosaur footprints in a highly weathered area of a dinosaur park. This of course would be a serious discovery if anyone could actually verify this to be the case, something the weathering prevented. Further it contradicts all other observations, outside of confirmed hoaxes, on top of being unverifiable. Unfortunately this particular example is typical of young earth "evidence" and as such most scientists pushing it come off more like conspiracy theorists than anyone credible. There are some out there who attempt to observe and test phenomenon that may back their theory who do not rely on such weak evidence as incontrovertible substantiation of the theory.

In my mind they're just as bad as scientists who push the yet unconfirmed and untested portions of any scientific theory as beyond scrutiny because it successfully explains other observations. Such an arrogant view of science comes closer to concepts of faith and religion most such proponents claim to despise as ignorant. Science, as a rule, demands scrutiny and doubt, especially of that which cannot be confirmed through observation... even within longstanding theories.

Intelligent Design:

As a philosophical theory, ID stands as a fairly credible and worthwhile topic. It can be argued in various ways and applications and with varying degrees of reliance on speculation versus logical argumentation. Similarly many scientific and even religious concepts can find a welcome home in the endless philosophical debates of our time.

But the big question here is whether or not it could also fit into a science curriculum. It's a theory that has some popularity in our society, but science isn't supposed to be about popularity (as much as many politicians seem to think otherwise on almost every issue). Science curriculum are based on theories that have had at least some confirmation through scientific testing. The exception to the rule seems to be advanced college courses specializing in topics where research is done towards confirming such things. And even then such research is based on observable phenomenon.

The central premise of ID is that everything was created by a designing intelligence... so how does one confirm that? In the realm of scientific testing, any observation/testing that can be repeated by other scientists would be a good start. Short of finding a "Made in Higher Plane" label on quarks, it's a rather puzzling problem. Humanity has been attempting to prove or disprove a higher intelligence forever and a day it seems with little luck. Neither side has much to sell scientifically as neither faith or the absence of evidence constitutes confirmation in science.

With the Big Bang theory there is at least astronomical observations that can be made today that seem to confirm what the aftereffects of such an incident would seem to be. Some may treat it as gospel inappropriately when other more comprehensive theories and alternative theories are still being debated and scrutinized (Super String Theories) to explain observed phenomenon and mathematical issues associated with Big Bang theory. Those folks would be misrepresenting the current scientific understanding of the theory. But this hurts the case of people who want to show the Big Bang to be indisputable fact, not that it isn't a valid scientific theory with some confirmation of observable phenomenon that seems to fit the theory and more comprehensive theories that also include the Big Bang concept.

ID is still left with its philosophical and logical arguments that are worth consideration in philosophical studies, but nothing to observe or test that would bring it into the realm of scientific credibility.

People will cry "No! No! Look at this proof geological theories are wrong!" or "No! No! Look at this proof that evolution is wrong!" and never provide any scientific testing/data that has anything to do with showing whether or not intelligent designer is behind the creation of everything. Worse, their evidence tends to be of the conspiracy theory sort... it directly contradicts numerous other observations as opposed to being something that hasn't been tested or observed before that makes the theories they're contradicting look wrong. If scientists are supposed to take their word that their theory is sound based on a few shreds how are you supposed to convince them other theories are wrong in spite of far more overwhelming evidence? It just doesn't make any sense.

The Compromise:

Keep ID in philosophy courses. Keep evolution in science courses as long as it withstands scientific scrutiny.

ID is a philosophical theory attempting to understand the underlying truth behind the universe based on speculation and logic.

Evolution is a scientific theory attempting to explain and predict how things work based on the things we can observe.

Keep them where they belong. If you want public schools to teach ID push to make philosophy required course for high school graduation.

Everybody wins.

The Rub:

With this compromise, people who want to teach young Earth theory as science will probably face an even bigger uphill challenge to do so. They will be fired for pushing the conspiracy theories that are supposed to make us believe that some intelligent designer set things in motion exactly right so that the light from distant objects was set into motion just right so that they seemed to be there long before the universe, according to them, even existed... instead of popping up over time.

For those who want to promote science as some sort of new religion, they're going to have to face the fact that philosophy is an important and complimentary part of human understanding and the contradictions between what may be and what may be observed can not, and will not ever necessarily negate the other.

People will either have to accept the fact that science is not religion and religion is not science, or they will have to accept that they will have to beat their heads against the brick wall of what both are.

And of course: The Disclaimer:

The writer is a liberal (classical, not neo-marxist, Democrat, etc) Constitutionalist with a strong belief in limited central government, federalism, and liberty... including a strong support of religious liberty to believe, not believe, and most importantly to do so as freely as possible. I don't need a nanny state overseeing how I live, let alone how or what I believe or choose not to believe.

From today's News-Gazette, a follow-up by Champaign Unit 4 School Board to discussions on here last week:

A Champaign school board member questioned whether allowing students an excused tardy for them to pray at school is justifiable.

The issue came up at a school board meeting Monday evening.

School board member Greg Novak said the issue is not one of school prayer, but of allowing the students to arrive late for class because they were praying.

Novak noted the biggest discipline problem at the Champaign high schools is tardiness. He said the district must remain neutral on the issue of school prayer, and he questioned whether it was doing so by allowing the excused tardies.

Discuss.

From an email:

We received a legal opinion from our attorney regarding the practice of daily prayer by Muslim students in our schools.  According to our attorney’s analysis of legal statutes and case law, the District’s past practice of allowing the students a designated time and place to practice their religion is appropriate.  The District does not encourage or participate in the practice of said religion, but, neither do we inhibit the student’s practice of his religion.  Staff has reported that providing a designated place for a Muslim student’s daily prayer is less disruptive than forcing the students to seek random accommodations for the practice of their religion.  
 
I understand your concerns, however, to change our current practice could violate the rights of students.  This practice applies to all students.  Thank you for communicating your concerns.  
 
Arthur Culver

Discuss.

I use long titles because I am too undisciplined to write a coherent essay. On the other hand, lack of coherence is the coin of political discourse, so maybe my own lack thereof is a benefit in following politics. Discussion of politics and religion is way beyond incoherent, so we are all on our own there.
 
Romney is an interesting case. On one hand, his current ideology appears to be such that he is the only true conservative among the four frontrunners. He has a better resume than anyone else in the race, even marred as it is by the insufficiently pro-choice tack he took as governor of Massachusetts. He has repented, an option open to both Mormons and Christians. OK, I have implied that he is not a Christian and I confess I have not investigated that thoroughly. In fact, except for a brief and fairly distressing turn through the Book of Mormon, I don’t have much to go on. I will say that the religion of a candidate is important to me. So for instance, as a Catholic, I am interested to know that Giuliani is also. He is a Catholic in much the same fashion as Bill Clinton is a feminist. He is also an abortion rights and gun control candidate. The combination of his disdain for his own religion and for basic conservative principles is a deal breaker for me. I would certainly vote for him over any conceivable Democrat, but I sure wouldn’t like it.
 
Romney is a Mormon. We are told by many, including Romney, that religion should not be a factor; to which I say "Good luck." In fact, the biggest strike against Romney for me is that he is apparently a practicing Mormon. I can’t help what I think, and I think Mormonism is a religion that can best be described as goofy. On the other hand, Romney and other Mormons I know don’t strike me as similarly goofy, so I temper my opinion by the thought that Romney may be no more influenced by his religion than Giuliani.
 
Anyway, I much prefer Romney’s current polical philosophy to Giuliani’s or Huckabee’s. McCain may have a conservate philosophy, but it doesn’t translate well to his politics. I factor their religions into my equation, along with everything else, and Romney comes out on top. Not because I am disregarding his religion, but in spite of the big negative his religion represents to me. If I had a choice between Romney and and similarly qualified mainline Christian, it would be no contest.
 
I am very suspicious of the motives of people who tell us religion should not be a factor, including my current favorite candidate person, Romney. What they are saying is that religion isn’t important. I am sure many of these people believe that. I could just as easily argue that political affiliation is not important, but like you, I tend to look at the political affiliation of all the candidates. I figure that since religion is more important than political affiliation, I should look at that also.
 
I am not trying to convert anyone here to Romney. I would rather convert you to the idea that you can look at any factor you like when you pick your nominee, and you shouldn't feel the least bit bad if religion is high on the list.
 
Adding to the incoherence here, did you know that Tony Blair recently converted to Catholicism? Of course you didn’t, the media think religion is not important. Would they have reported his conversion to Islam?
 
John

Some photos are simply beautiful and so simple in that beauty. Could this be the Face of God?

Depending on the source, either the community of Rossville wants to learn more about their witches, or hates them and are afraid their kids will start playing with potions and putting hexes on people.  Either way, the local religious community hosted an open meeting about it.

According to the News-Gazette last week, it was just a polite gathering organized by local churches to remind Christians to be Christians and to learn more about the Wiccans.  However, according to the Chicago Tribune, the local churches started blasting the Wiccans (complete with a billboard denouncing their beliefs) and organized the meeting to plan for "further steps".  About the only similarity to the story was that the guest lecturer gave a presentation on Wiccans and encouraged them to be Christian.

It's sad when the News-Gazette can't even get local news right, and they basically get scooped by the Tribune two days after their original story runs.

11:16 pm, homework's done.  Time for a good old fashioned throwdown covering everybody's favorite topic, what happened on 9/11 and what we should do about it.  This is bound to be a long one, but that's alright.  I have a fresh cup of coffee, I've done my pilates and my yoga.  I'm loose, and I'm ready to pound at the keyboard mercilessly for a good long while.  Don't expect this to be a pleasant ride, because it won't be.  I expect I'll piss some people off, and that's certainly intentional.  As Maya Angelou put it, "Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean."  Consider this post a cure for bitterness and a call to anger.

But first, a little light entertainment.  It's only 11 minutes long, and it's not safe for work.  It's not actually safe for family, either.  Watch this without the kiddies in the room, please, and prepare to be very, very angry.  Don't worry, the voiceover is in English after the original prayer is done, and the prayer is mostly translated later on.

Submission

So, now that I've got your attention, it's time to talk a little bit about Islam, Christianity, and the dangers of mixing these two cultures that are hell-bent on submission to an utterly ineffable "higher power", and willing to sacrifice their deepest inner needs in order to express their devotion.  Their servitude.  Their "calling".  My calling, for a brief and ever-so-slightly insane period in my life. Ya-Baha'ul-Abha!, I managed to break free!

Our goal of establishing freedom in the Middle East presumes that the freedom we establish will be one which allows for tolerance and social justice.  It presumes that Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, and every other brand of heathen out there will be allowed to live, work, and express their beliefs side by side with Muslims.  It presumes both equal respect and equal rights.   It presumes that the warring factions within the Ummah will be able to establish peace and agree to disagree, women will be educated, and society will enter a brighter day.

Very presumptious, really.  It's like assuming that Republicans and Democrats can agree to non-partisan solutions, only exponentailly worse in a way that people who aren't really familiar with Islam can't even begin to imagine.  There is no such thing as separation of Church and State in the Islamic faith.  It's all one.  

Factions are far more attractive to the humble masses than heretical leaders who challenge people to think new thoughts about very old and sacred ideas.   Humble obedience to God's Word is not necessarily compatible with a spirit of inquiry and a willingness to accept that the other party may be right.  People, by and large, simply do not want to be troubled with thoughts that disturb their view of right and wrong, good and evil.   They are trained from birth to not ask questions, and such has been the way of life for the followers of the Prophet, Peace Be Unto Him, for roughly 1400 years.  Are we going to undo that all in a single generation?  Bloody unlikely.  The ailment is common enough in our own culture, despite centuries of vigorous innoculations by the likes of Voltaire, Twain, Vonnegut, and many, many others

The idea of "Judeo-Christian" respect took several hundred years to develop in this nation, and only happened grudgingly in response to the horrors of the Holocaust, with the help of some very liberal Protestant theologians.  The religious freedom that let those liberal Protestant theologians thrive in this country, founded by zealots in an attempt to create a City upon a Hill, and still overflowing in the twentieth century with puritanical Acres of Diamonds, is predicated upon the heretical impulse expressed by seventeenth century theists like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, and continued by the likes of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.  The concept of Ummah, or the entire Muslim community of believers, contains the foundation for this sort of pluralism between Sunni Muslims and Shi'a Muslims in theory, but practice in the streets is quite a different thing from the lofty ideals that look good on paper.  Put mildly, the same heretical impulse that allowed us to develop a society that is at the very least nominally tolerant of diverse religious views is simply not sanctioned in the Qu'ran.  Quite the opposite!

One of my favorite quotes from a religious leader comes from Gandhi, in his essay Experiments with Truth, "those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means."  Pair that with one of my favorite quotes from Thus Spake Zarathustra:

"I know these Godlike people all too well: they want to be believed in, and doubt to be a sin.  I also know all too well what it is they themselves most firmly believe in.  Truly not in afterworlds and redeeming drops of blood:  they believe most firmly in the body, and their own body is for them their thing-in-itself.  But it is a sickly thing to them:  and they would dearly like to get out of their skins.  That is why they hearken to preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds."

I trust, dear reader, that you now have some idea where I'm going with all of this.  It's not a happy little place with flowers on the nightstand and a cool breeze coming in off the ocean.  It's the nuclear wasteland of our future if these lunatics are allowed to continue this pissing contest of whose Sky-Daddy is the most powerful and most merciful Sky-Daddy.

So let's return to that video for a moment, and the very important messages contained in it.  How many women and men have the courage (or the cause!) to do as this brave woman did?  Or, for that matter, what the brave man who created this masterpiece did.  It was certainly a risky topic to film, as evidenced by the fact that the director and co-author Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death a few short months after its release. 

I chuckled at a cartoon that proposed a memorial to 9/11 in the form of a gravestone with Osama bin Laden's name on it, standing on a lonely hillside with a baren tree, presumedly with its occupant sleeping The Long Sleep from which we do not Wake below.  But I think the gravestones of Salmon Rushdie and Theo van Gogh are more significant symbols in this war.  The lesson they bring to us is profound, shocking, and highly relevant; any man (or woman) sufficiently skilled in the art of rhetoric can exploit a people who are yearning to submit.  Kill Osama, and another glorious leader will rise up to lead the fearful and the devout, crying for the blood of the infidels and praising the holy martyr who has ascended to Paradise.  Indeed, these sheep are programmed by centuries of selective breeding and environmental conditioning.  All you need to do is convince them that God is on your side, and you have a following.

So what do we do?

We dismantle submission by holding a mirror up to the sheep and forcing them to see what they are.  Pure and simple.  We expose the impulse to "patiently endure hardship" for the toxic behavior that it is and demand that the global community stands up and thinks on its own two feet.  Nothing else can save us from the impulse to fall to our knees and wait silently for the axe to fall, trusting in God to make sure that it is "one of our guys" who holds the handle in his hand.  1/3 of the world are Christians, 1/3 of the world are Muslims.  Guess which 1/3 is more likely to pray devoutly five times a day?  Guess which  1/3 is more likely to be in the majority fifty years from now.  A hundred years?  Both sides are on a mission to convert the other side, and this is something that those of us who consider ourselves "moderates" cannot afford to ignore.  Those with heretical impulses are just as likely to be subjected to the witch hunts of the next century as every other brand of non-believer. 

You cannot tame one brand of submission with another brand.  There is no such thing as the "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" faith in the mind of the Muslim (or the Christian who believes in Christ and understands the Qu'ran, for that matter).  One all-merciful and all-encompassing ocean of faith mixed with another all-merciful and all-encompassing ocean of a different brand of faith simply means that the tsunami that results when the next fascist preachers (or secular leaders) come around to exploit them will simply be more destructive.  Civil War, religious tension, and economic instability are exactly the sorts of conditions that give rise to those sorts of leaders.  

We need to dry this impulse up.  We need to replace it with good solid stone that allows us to build a foundation for peace, resting not upon some notion of a "higher power" that demands us to turn to Him for guidance, but based instead upon the certain knowledge that human beings are fragile and error prone animals who will often resort to mean behavior and horde mentality.  The Sky Daddy is not going to save us from ourselves, nor is he going to clean up after our collective messes left over by a few millenia of sloppy logic.

A couple of articles for quiet contemplation while that flood of rage washes away the bitterness, and I promise to quit overextending the metaphor now:

Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law

<snip>It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."</snip>

And, on a somewhat more encouraging note, a German campaign to put the focus where it needs to be:

Ex-Muslims Demand Right to Renounce Islamic Faith

<snip>Controversially, 9/11 was chosen as the date to sign the "European Declaration for Tolerance." It aims to draw attention to what the former Muslims see as the lack of freedom of religion within Islam."</snip>

Reading through Language Log today, I came across this story. It tells of an increasing number of previously Spanish-only churches beginning to provide services in English, to reach out to "meet the demands of second- and third-generation Hispanics, keep families together and reach non-Latinos." This story continues the tradition of new immigrant groups adopting American customs and language in the second and third generations (e.g., the Italians, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese). It also removes the cultural arguments of a national language (e.g., "preserve English"). Of course, it doesn't remove the fiscal benefits of a national language - reducing the costs of translating all government documents into multiple languages.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

From a Fox News story about John Edwards’ blogers-in-chief, Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan:

Bill Donohue [President of the Catholic League] described the bloggers as "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots." Among the postings he cited for complaint was one by Marcotte that reads: "The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics."

Another posting by McEwan is headlined to address religious conservatives: "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"

Conservative blogs and pundits are in an uproar because a Democrat candidate has employed two intemperate, perhaps even ignorant, web consultants and Mr. Donohue and many others go on to demand Edwards fire these two. It would make a lot more sense for liberals to complain. As a conservative Catholic (not as common as you might think) I am rarely surprised at anti-Catholic views. In fact, much of the religious right, my strong political ally, is comprised of anti-Catholics, people for whom the Pope and many trappings of my religion are repugnant and anathema. So what, they aren’t calling for my head. The nature of actual religion, unless you are a Universalist, is a belief in absolute right and wrong, the logical corollary of which is someone else is absolutely wrong. This is not limited to religion of course, but it nonetheless causes all kinds of consternation and pretended consternation among people who should, and often do, know better.

How would conservatives be better off if these two women were fired? I suppose conservatives could calculate that if Edward’s fired them he would alienate the extreme left which is so important to the Democrat Party these days. If that is a correct calculation, Edwards would know it also and is unlikely to comply. As a partisan Republican, I like to see this kind of boobery. We already know how they think, and even after remarks like this, they deny this is how they think. Why not encourage them to speak their minds. Hire more of them. Hire them to blog. Catholics, enjoy the public bile and come over to my party.

The penumbra has stretched recently to encompass, in addition to all kinds of weird privacy and twisted contraception practices, the idea that free speech ends at other’s offense. I and the rest of my co-religionists may take offense at anti-Catholic sentiment, but a far worse thing would be unexpressed anti-Catholicism. And that goes for unexpressed racism, unexpressed anti-semitism and unexpressed boobery. Each of us needs to know what the other is thinking, or in many cases, not thinking.

At the top of the list of all the pathetic lessons not learn from the left is the propensity to moral censorship. We should not be calling for the abolition of Democrats praying with Islamic preachers, for the abolition of anti-Catholic speech, for the suppression of hurtful comments (or for the abolition of people who dance wrong in Indian costumes, for that matter). We should instead listen, criticize and above all, remember. Especially when it is time to run political ads.

John

An article by VDH listing important tactical changes needed in Iraq if a troop surge is going to do any good.  Included in the list are such suggestions as going on offense, like the Ethiopians, and closing down the borders with Syria and Iran as much as possible.  I really like this guy.

And this from Walter Weber about potentially overturning the Flast decision which allows uninjured citizens to contest government expenditures that allegedly violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  "The normal rule in federal court is that a citizen can only file suit against the government if he’s been injured."  This would be a huge victory for religious conservatives should the Roberts Court actually do this.  It would also really fire up the left.

No test will be given, but good students will get their reading done :-)

Have a good weekend - Go Illini!

A Catholic priest was recently convicted of complicity in Rwandan genocide.

Last month, another priest and a nun were also sentenced in connection with the atrocities.

Unlike Fr. Joseph Tiso in WWII, the Rwandan clergy at least did not appear to be in leadership roles.  I grew up Catholic, and although I'm no longer practicing, I can't help feeling deeply disappointed.

In all the media coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's recent speech at his old university-amid the almost endless calls for apologies, for putting words in context, countless effigies burning, murders for honor-no one actually published the speech, or even the full paragraph of the offending language so we could put it into context.  I, your tireless reporter, spent half an hour digging around the Vatican site and reward you with this chance to see for yourself what the Pontiff was driving at.

It is clear that the point of this highly intellectual exercise was not even related, except tangentially, to Islam.  The offending statement was itself actually a quote from a 14th century Byzantine emperor in the midst of an eight year long siege by Islamic armies.  As a result, the emperor was apparently not in the mood for mincing words about his Muslim contemporaries' propensity for spreading Islam by the sword. The emperor, complete with an insult to Mohammed, points out that conversion by the sword is "unreasonable" - in the philosophical sense. That is, it is contrary to reason to use compulsion to bind humans to a system of belief.  In quoting this source Benedict was not even addressing Islam in his larger point about misguided attempts to divorce God from reason, though the point clearly applies with at least as great force to Islam as it does to science and Western sectarianism.  I won't say you will enjoy the Pope's speech, but it should, as most close studies do, warn you about relying exclusively on the media for anything more complex than the body count. Speech. 

John

Can you believe that in a Republican blog I had to create the religion category for this article?