I recently received the following e-mail:

AFTER THE GATHERING IN WASHINGTON, DC

So, what has “CHANGED” here?

The forwarder of this message was attempting to say something about the character of our new president by what his followers left behind at the inauguration. So, I thought it would be appropriate to provide a quiet reminder of the ‘garbage’ we are left with after the Bush years:

Faced with this, I would take a little litter any day.

Lately, my housemate and I have been having a heated debate about religious inclusion. He takes the position that governments should have an inclusionary stance towards religious groups in the interest of getting them on your side, and eventually liberalizing them out of their fundamentalist beliefs. Furthermore, he maintains that the benefits of this bridge building outweigh the risks to our separation of church and state. While he very cogently points out that secular government is not a mutually shared ideal, and therefore cannot be used as a nucleation point for reconciliation, I still believe that we can’t give these people any leeway: an inch of theocratic encroachment eventually amounts to a mile. He says I’m stonewalling religious people.

What initially ignited the debate was the the Israel-Palestine situation. He says that if Israel has any chance of ousting Hamas, it needs to beat Hamas at its own game; that is, move into Palestine, provide social services, and build mosques. His plan is essentially for Israel to appoint more liberal imams to run the mosques, and shepherd the masses to a more moderate interpretation of Islam.

I think this is a terrible idea, because it doesn’t address the core dispute between the people: the holy-land. Muslims want Jerusalem back, and while it’s true that the mutual antagonism over the years has obscured the root of the problem, it’s really a religiously motivated land dispute. Period.

Take for example the Sinai war. Soon after the creation of Israel, the entire Muslim world lined up at the side of Palestine, and basically attempted to choke Israel to death. They refused to let Israeli planes into their airspace, and wouldn’t let any ship coming from or bound for Israel dock at their ports. This ultimately culminated in Israel lashing out and invading the Sinai Peninsula, but it’s a good indicator of the importance of Jerusalem to the Muslim faith: it transcends borders. Any solution that does not take this into account will ultimately fail.

This is why if you went in and supplanted Hamas with Israeli funded religious and social programs, you could only get rid of suicide bombers and extremists temporarily. If there is anything we have learned from the existence Israel, it’s that you can deny a people their religious holy-land for a very long time, but they will continue to stew about it.

It’s clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at its core a religious problem, and as long as people are allowed to confound religious political issues, it will remain a political problem too. This is why regardless of the side you support, the values you should espouse should be separation of faith from government. I don’t see how demanding reasoned, secular diplomacy is stonewalling when your opponents are religious nutjobs refusing to even sit down and discuss diplomatic solutions with an ‘illegitimate state.’ Having qualifications for what should be considered rational discourse is not stonewalling.

Anyway, our debate moved on to Obama’s new ‘faith-based office,’ which I believe is an absolute waste of time. I know it’s in the interest of everyone to move forward together, but I don’t understand why we have to kowtow to people who unabashedly admit that the US would be better off as a theocracy. We have standards for rational discourse, and just like we would have a hot fire under our asses to shut down Nazi talk in Congress (sorry…Godwin’s law…), we can’t tolerate people telling us that their invisible sky fairy opposes stem cell research. Or that some holy book written by some bronze age desert people offers genuine insight on gay marriage and abortion. I’m sorry, that just isn’t the kind of reasoning I expect from the governing body of the most powerful nation in the world.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t seek to confront their beliefs — telling them that they’re idiots would be unproductive. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask them to base their political convictions on empirical evidence, and therefore keep god out of government. The problem is that if you place any limitation on these people they take it as an affront.

Take senator Jim DeMint, who is claiming that this stimulus package is actually an attack on people of faith because it specifies that any school facilities that receive federal funds for renovation may not subsequently be used for religious activities. He claims this is an infringement on existing liberties, because the activities are currently permitted, and may not be in the future.

Well no, not exactly. If you were getting free fruit from your neighbor’s tree, it wouldn’t be an infringement on your rights if that neighbor decided to cut you off. He would just be exercising his prerogative to keep his own fruit. In the case of the federal government, they aren’t supposed to be giving funds to religious institutions anyway, so this is really just enforcement of a previously ignored stipulations.

If you give Christianists an inch of political ground, they are bound to take a mile. They say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That’s why I think faith needs to keep its place.

An Illinois court has ruled that a ‘moment of silence’ statute is unconstitutional. The law mandated that public school students observe a daily moment of silence, for “silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.”

Naturally, Christianists are up in arms, saying that this is another attempt by a minority of secular-progressives to push their radical separation of church and state agenda on the embattled theist majority. However, the judge had a very interesting take on the statute:

The Statute violates this [the second prong of the Lemon test] because it prefers some religions over others. It is firmly established that “[n]either a state nor the Federal Government . . . can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

…[T]he ACLU has identified a number of religious practices that are neither silent nor still…

…These includes [sic] certain Jewish traditions, Muslim prayers that require a variety of postures and gestures including bowing and prostration, Native American religions and Krishna Hinduism.

Practitioners of these religions would, apparently, be excluded from praying according to their faith during the “period of silence.”

In other words, a moment of silence could be utilized by Christian children for prayer in school, but would by definition preclude the prayer rituals of other religions, and is therefore a ‘religious preference’ of the state — Christian children may participate in semi-organized prayer during school hours, while others may not.

What’s interesting to me is how the defenders of the statute want to portray its opponents: as bloodthirsty secularists who will attack something as simple as a moment of silence if there are intimations of religiosity associated therewith.

Well, it’s very telling that the people who are most outraged by this ruling are … Christians. If it were an innocuous ‘moment of silence’ as they claim, they would have as much to lose as an atheist. The reality, which the judge was apt to point out, is that the statute was a deliberately underhanded attempt to surreptitiously slip prayer back into the public school system — and surprise, surprise somebody finally caught on.

So now we get to listen to Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh drone on and on about how this is a Christian nation*, and how our morals come from god because the forefathers wrote in the Constititution that god endowed us with inalienable rights^†, and that they wrote his name on our money and into the Pledge of Allegiance^‡, and blah, blah blah.

Well you know what, I don’t in principle have a problem with god’s name popping up everywhere — he’s kind of our mascot, like the San Diego Chicken — but the moment these things are used as evidence that we have a national religion, or that I am less of a patriot because I am an atheist, then I want it off the money, and out of the schools and courtrooms, and stricken from the Pledge.

*See the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11.

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen…”

† Actually, that was in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is an explicitly secular document by design.

‡ There was no ‘In God We Trust’ on our money, or ‘under god’ in the Pledge until the 50’s. Look it up.

h/t Pharyngula

Here, I thought Rick Warren was going to be nothing but an embarrassment at the invocation. Turns out, his prayer was a great addition to the ceremony: classy, elegant, touching. Reminiscent of the Christians of old.

What was I worried about? Silly me.

h/t Pharyngula

House Resolution 847
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 11, 2007.

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;

Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;

Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;

Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;

Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God’s redemption, mercy, and Grace; and

Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

–

“With the We Like Christians Resolution of 2007, Congress hereby decrees that it likes Christians.

Although this may not effect any offical change in the governance of the United States pursuant to the First Amendment of the Constitution, we nonetheless find it prudent to run out the clock writing completely worthless and borderline illegal legislation.

On the agenda for tomorrow:

1. Adding to the congressional rubber band ball
2. Counting the tiles in the Capitol Dome ceiling
3. Heads up 7up

4. Something to do with taxes, or terrorism (if time allows)”

For the last couple weeks, I have been reading the book “End of Faith” by Sam Harris. Besides artfully derobing religious faith that we might gawk at its naked and unflattering truth, he provides a compelling argument about torture. It unfolds as follows.

If we are willing to accept “collateral damage,” which is a euphemism for the unintentional murder or maiming of non-targets in military operations as an inevitable consequence of modern warfare, then we should similarly be willing to accept torture. We accept collateral damage because we believe that the suffering or death of one is acceptable if it saves many from harm, and this is exactly the line of justification that could apply by extension to torture. In fact, Harris goes on to say that torture should actually be more acceptable for the following reasons:

• In a torture situation, the subject is guaranteed to be an enemy, but in collateral damage, the victim may well be an innocent, such as a child or non-combatant.
• Even if they are only suspected to be an enemy, torturees can at least be subjected to ’selection criteria’ that increase the likelihood that they are a desired target, while collateral damage is by nature indiscriminate.
• Torture can be controlled in such a way as to minimize or eliminate permanent bodily harm, whereas collateral damage will always be, well, damage.
• From a callously utilitarian standpoint, there is potentially something to be gained from torture. Collateral damage is, frankly, wasteful killing.

If this is true, why do we have such a visceral aversion to torture, but not to accidentally killing innocents? The reason is probably because the latter is something of a hypothetical. Our minds are in part removed from the end result, while torture is all too easily envisioned. It’s really the same reason we know intuitively that it takes a different kind of person to drop a bomb from 40,000 feet than it does to beat someone to death with a shovel, although the results are similar. It seems our minds have developed a knee-jerk negative reaction to killing, but the further we remove ourselves from the stimulus that induces the shock reflex, the easier it becomes to make the decision to kill. So, even though torture and collateral damage could both be seen as “inflicting harm on someone who may not deserve it, in order that we may further the cause of protecting the multitudes,” only one of them seems atrocious.

Whether you agree or not, the moral equivalence is worth noting.

Mr. Warren, you are testing my patience:

“I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, ‘I don’t need God,’” Warren preached, according to the Los Angeles Times. “They’re saying, ‘I’m totally self-sufficient by [myself].’ And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It’s too big a job.”

What he is ostensibly saying here is that god provides special assistance, or guidance, or insight to Christians that he withholds from the non-religious. We should be sincerely worried if our leaders are making policy decisions based on divine revelation. Even if you are religious, and believe that god does talk to people, there is no guarantee that it would be Yahweh whispering you his secrets, and not the early stages of dementia.

We should seriously consider whether being religious makes you a better decision maker, as Warren would suggest — if the evidence bears out that fact — because I have a sneaking suspicion that it doesn’t. There are all those well attested statistics about religious states having higher divorce rates, higher violent crime rates, more spousal abuse, and so on and so forth.

Another thing worth noting, is that in the population at large, around 10% are atheists, while among the educated (academia, doctors, lawyers) only 10% are not. What that means is that if we exclude atheists from consideration, we are excluding precisely the people who are most likely to be qualified for the job.

One final thing that bothers me about the Christian mindset (especially of people like Rick Warren, who has made a fortune telling people that “god has a plan for you“) is the inherent contradiction that lies in simultaneously maintaining that it is obscenely arrogant to be spiritually “self-sufficient,” and at the same time that god has mapped out your life from beginning to end because you are an agent of the creator of the universe. I mean, come on. Christians are so important that the person who created the vastness of space, and trillions of stars and galaxies, and the laws of quantum mechanics gets bent out of shape over the goings on in their bedrooms, but I am arrogant for believing in evolution? Get real. Presumably Warren wanted to say that the president should be humble — someone who doesn’t fancy themselves god. With that, I can agree, and by extension, I don’t want someone in office who thinks themselves a hand of the creator, because that is a slippery slope to divine right to rule. In that respect, atheists are more qualified for public office, because humanism is by nature humbling. We recognize that this life is a precious gift, because it is all we get. We also appreciate the sheer insignificance of life, when compared with the size of the universe, so I think we manage to pass the humility test.

I therefore think it unfair that Warren bars atheists from consideration for elected office, and I feel a little discriminated against. But I guess you can add me to the ever growing list.

h/t Andrew Sullivan

You know, I hate Rick Warren. I hate everything he stands for: his bigotry, his mega-church, his shitty books that unfailingly show up at any event considered remotely milestone-ish, his fat neck, and his religion. But the more I think about him speaking at the inauguration, the less I care.

When we were in the thick of the election, and there was all that business about Obama and Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers, and the “clinging to guns and religion” comment, we liberals (I still have a bit of trouble calling myself that) got together and said “Listen, here is a guy who has some shady associations, and may have made some divisive, if not hateful remarks, but he can do some good, so let’s get behind him.” We did, and we asked his detractors to do the same. And now that guy is going to be the president.

But, as much as I hate Rick Warren, he is exactly that kind of person. He has Christianists eating out of his hand, and I think we can put aside the ideological differences long enough to let him have this speech. The unifying potential here is too great not to make the compromise.

I am anticipating that my 1.5 frequent commenters may say that we can’t negotiate with hate, but let me point out that we are not electing this scumbag as president. We are letting him make a speech. Believe me, if Warren were ever up for any position of authority, I would be right there with you protesting it every step of the way.

I will probably plug my ears when he gets up there and starts in with “Purpose Driven Life for the President,” and gets all mushy-wushy about the sky god, but you can’t win ‘em all. The important part is, I really don’t think there is anything to be gained on the secularization front, or on the gay rights front from making a row about this speech.

Stewart takes on Huckabee

Huckabee still gripes me a bit, but I dig his borderline anarchism. Plus, this episode is nice, because it has two people really drilling down to the core of their arguments for/against gay marriage. Civilly.

However, someday, I want to see a conservative sit down with a liberal to discuss gay marriage, and say “I won’t use the word ‘definition’ if you don’t use the term ’segregation’,” and see the debate go from there. Both sides get hung up on these token arguments, and they never get anywhere.

When I first read this headline, I had to do a doubletake to make sure it was December 1st and not April.

I mean seriously, this president is leaving office with the second lowest approval rating of all time, the nation at war(s), a failed economy, and having drastically lowered America’s world standing, but there are still people willing to give him awards? Oh, right, Christians.

Rick Warren, mega-pastor and master of irony, invented this award specifically for the occasion. I guess we should expect nothing less from a man whose claim to fame is as a leader of self-described “sheep,” who consider it a virtue to ignore reason.

The medal is to be awarded for

“alleviating…pandemic diseases, extreme poverty, illiteracy, self-centered leadership and spiritual emptiness”

Well, I sure as hell can’t speak for everyone, but here on the home front diseases are up, poverty is skyrocketing, literacy is down, I am feeling pretty ignored by my leadership, and lack of spirituality is at a lifetime high.