I've been thinking a lot about hatred and bigotry, in light of the comments on this post. It seems that we all have some latent, if not blatant, inherent bigotry. Last night, Scott posted a link to Ron Paul's comments about why Park51 should be allowed near Ground Zero. Scott picked one quote, I pick this one:
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam--the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
I have been thinking about my lifelong, absolute, defense of First Amendment rights. In case you have forgotten, there are five:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And yet, I am somehow disquieted. It's because of the Preamble to the Constitution, which says:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emphasis mine)
What do we say about religions, and religious "idealism" that deny liberty to those amoungst us? How do we balance the right to practice one's religion when members try to force some parts of that religion down other people's throats?
Yet another poll has demonstrated the religious tolerance of most Americans, and I guarantee that yet again almost no one will report it that way.
He cited the Time poll in which 47% of Americans believe Obama to be a Christian, and 24% believe him to be a Muslim. I had seen a different poll, and here is what Pew found:
There are several differences between the polls: first, Abt SRBI (for Time) phoned 1,002 adults after the mosque comments. Pew interviewed 3.0003 adults prior to the mosque comments. In addition, Pew has been doing this poll on a semi-regular basis, so they have in-house historical data. And it's astounding: the percentage of Americans who believe Obama is a Christian (WHICH HE IS!!!) has dropped over the past two years from about half to about a third, while the number of morons who believe him to be a Muslim has risen by 50% from 12% to 18%. Almost half of all Americans chose "don't know". Religious tolerance? Given a score card, these folks STILL can't tell the players.
After the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio, after the photos of Obama and family attending church, after everything he's said, and people still "don't know". And what could be included in "don't know"? Do they think he's Jewish? An atheist? Is it possible they actually believe he's a Muslim but don't want to admit it? To the right is a slightly out-of-date Gallup poll on how people view religions.
From that list, Methodists, Catholics, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Mormons all fall under "Christian". PLEASE don't tell me people think Obama is a Scientologist. It would seemingly drop his approval rating more than anything else. As an aside, the Gallup result seems to indicate Mittens might have a problem.
And honestly, I don't understand it. Personally, I believe that the less religion is tied to government, the better. Go for a seriously religious government, and you've got Saudi Arabia. Or Afghanistan. Or a host of others.
There is only one way I can think of to settle this "Is President Obama a Muslim" question, and it will never happen. Also, it depends on a big "if". It's even ridiculous on its face. Muslims require ritual circumcision. If Obama isn't....I'll leave it at that.
Yet another poll has demonstrated the religious tolerance of most Americans, and I guarantee that yet again almost no one will report it that way.
In a recent survey by Time/CNN, only 47% believe Obama is a Christian...and he has a 46% approval rate! Since it is certainly the case that there are some who know Obama is Christian but don't approve of him anyway, that means he is getting significant approval from people who don't know he's Christian.
Think about that for a moment.
Another result from the same survey: 55% of those surveyed would favor a Muslim community center and place of worship two blocks from their home--that's only 18% lower than the support a similar Jewish institution would get.
The result that 61% oppose "the building of the Muslim community center and mosque near where the World Trade Center stood" is, therefore, a complicated number to evaluate. Some of the opposition is from people who hold prejudices against Muslims. Some is from people who, in that region, want to defer to the sensitivities of people who lost loved ones on September 11. Some is probably from people who don't think centers connected to any religion should be built in the area (those people presumably don't understand how many churches, temples, and mosques are already there). And there may be other reasons as well--perhaps some people afraid of continued political backlash, for instance.
"Bias" and "tolerance" are sometimes tricky concepts to get at--46% of those surveyed did say that "the Islamic religion is more likely than other religions to encourage violence against nonbelievers" (reflecting confusion between the religion itself and current geopolitics) and there may be some people who answer differently to a pollster than they would at their kitchen table. Nevertheless, as in other surveys, it appears that most Americans understand and believe in our principles of religious tolerance.
The Supremes argued the Hastings College case on Monday. In the end, it's all going to come down to Anthony Kennedy. (Again, a reason to make sure that Obama nominates a liberal, but I digress.)
Here's the background: the Hastings College of Law is part of the University of California system, thus a public institution. The California schools have had a policy going back many years called "all comers" - that is, if you want to have a club on campus, and receive school funding, and meet on school property, you cannot discriminate against people who want to join your club.
In this case, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) wanted a club that excluded people. It didn't start out that way, but in 2004, CLS changed its charter to exclude gays and lesbians. The school cut off its funding, and CLS sued under the First Amendment rights of freedom of association and speech.
It's wound its way through the courts, and is now in front of SCOTUS. As you can imagine, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are all in favour of discrimination; Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor viscerally opposed.
Some of the conversation:
CLS lawyer Michael McConnell opened by telling the court that Hastings' all-comers policy is a "frontal assault on freedom of association" and "the right to form around shared beliefs."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: So what if a group "wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all handicapped persons?" Are you saying the school would have to "give it funds and otherwise lend it space?"
"Not at all," McConnell responded. There is a difference between discrimination based on belief and discrimination based on status, he said. "We have only challenged the beliefs, not status."
Justice John Paul Stevens followed up: "What if the belief is that African-Americans are inferior?"
If belief is the basis for exclusion, then that is permissible, said McConnell. But exclusion based on status is not.
Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that figuring out the difference can be very difficult, so, he asked, what's wrong with the school just requiring any subsidized group to admit all comers, as Hastings has done?
That would mean, replied McConnell, "that if, for example, there is an NAACP chapter, it would have to allow a racist skinhead in."
It looks like Kennedy might vote the right way:
"Your argument, at its most fundamental level, is that religious organizations are different because religion is all about belief." But, he continued, "don't we also have a tradition of separation? That's the whole reason why church and state, for many purposes, are kept separate, so that states are not implicated with religious beliefs."
McConnell replied that separation does not apply to private parties, even when they are operating on government property.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushed the point. So, she asked, if this group believed that "only white men can lead the Bible studies, on your view, the school would have to give them a subsidy."
McConnell's response: "The freedom to believe is absolute."
This really is the crux of church v state: does "belief" which is a thought, not an action, take precedence over the rule of law, which says that government, and its monies, facilities, and associated institutions, may not discriminate?
To those of us on the side of truth and light, there is no question. We'll see when the judgment is announced whether SCOTUS agrees.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? Believe that Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ?
Whether or not you answer "yes" to either of those questions, how do you feel about being legally required to celebrate Christmas under fear of litigation? Suddenly, so VERY MANY THINGS to go to jail over.
Merry Hyatt has found allies in her quest to put an initiative on the ballot next year requiring public schools to play Christmas carols. [...]
The initiative would require schools to provide children the opportunity to listen to or perform Christmas carols, and would subject the schools to litigation if the rule isn't followed. [...]
"Bottom line is Christmas is about Christmas," said Erin Ryan, president of the Redding Tea Party Patriots. "That's why we have it. It's not about winter solstice or Kwanzaa. It's like, 'wow you guys, it's called Christmas for a reason.' "
Now, let's travel cross country to Washington, DC, our nation's capitol. Meet House Resolution 951, with 44 co-sponsors.
Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions by those who celebrate Christmas.
I know there will be some of you who will find this innocuous. "What does it matter," you'll ask, "If kids sing Christmas carols and everyone has to recognize Christmas?" Call me crazy, but isn't Christmas already the only religious holiday that is a national holiday? Don't we all, Christians and non-Christians alike, know when it is?
I'm going back to the First Amendment, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm thinking that the free exercise of religion part means if an American's religion is NOT Christian, or is NOT a religion (e.g. agnostics and atheists) he/she cannot be forced to accept another religion. It is appalling to me that a child could be forced to sing Christmas Carols. Talk about inculcation at an early age.
That House resolution, by the way, is the response to people CHOOSING to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Some stores, for example, have their employees say "Happy Holidays" to customers. It's more inclusive. It shows that Americans can celebrate the season in any way that suits them.
I don't know why people have a problem with that. Wait, I do....there are people who believe that their religion is the only acceptable one. You know them, they're the folks who brought you (not an inclusive list) the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Shiite-Sunni wars, the Nazi concentration camps, every genocide and ethnic cleansing, the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, etc., etc., etc.
The mark of a religiously FREE country is the right of its citizens to celebrate THEIR beliefs, or non-beliefs. I hope we still are one.
Today at sundown Yom Kippur begins. It is the holiest day of the Jewish year. Some religions have "holidays", the Jewish faith has "festivals" and "holy days" with Yom Kippur being the holiest: the day of atonement. Yom Kippur is held 10 days after the first day of Rosh Hashona, which marks the New Year.
Last week, Glenn Beck sent the following tweet:
Sept 28. Lets make it a day of Fast and Prayer for the Republic. Spread the word. Let us walk in the founders steps.
Keith Olbermann had a few choice words (about 2:10 in), and sort of understood, and meant well, but didn't quite hit the nail on the head.
"Yom Kippur is a day of atonement, prayer and fasting," Ari Rabin-Havt of Media Matters said."Glenn Beck's attempt to politicize this holiest of days with his far right agenda is not only disgusting, but shows a profound disrespect for the Jewish people."
But I believe it's even worse than THAT. It's not just the politicization of a religious holiday, it's the arrogance that the evangelical far right wing nuts feel towards all non-Christian religions. The contempt they feel for any human being, be they Jew, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic, atheist: ANYONE who does not believe as they do.
This is the United States: founded on religious freedom.
The evangelical right, and their spokespeople, talk about putting "religion" back in the classrooms, on the buildings, in every facet of life, but it's all code. They are never interested in "religion" only fundamentalist Christianity.
There is a reason church and state should remain separate: so that people can partake in their individual religions (or lack thereof) while government can work from a position of law. Shame on you, Glenn, you denigrated religion under the guise of "friendship" and "understanding."
And with that, I will see you all on Tuesday morning.
Antonin Scalia gave an interview to a right wing religious newspaper. You can read it here. The major part of the interview is Scalia's view on how it is WRONG for the American government to remain neutral in issues involving religion. He believes that religion should be PREFERRED.
A few of the gems:
I have been here for a long time now - 23 years. In that time, I think the Court has become more receptive to the needs of religious practice.
[T]he court [...] adopted the so-called principle of neutrality - which states that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion. This is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe.
It has not been our American constitutional tradition, nor our social or legal tradition, to exclude religion from the public sphere. Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion.
Scary stuff.
People say that Scalia is a bright guy, but I'm thinking that he hasn't realized that when there is true religious "preference" on the part of government, you end up with places like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc., where people are stoned to death for breaking religious laws. Admittedly, that's the Koran not the Bible, but in case you've forgotten the West Wing episode where President Bartlett quotes the internet letter to the Laura Schlessinger stand-in, I've put that whole letter after the jump. I wonder how Scalia's religious views jibe with the smiting, killing and selling into slavery parts...
He did say one thing of interest:
If and when I am placed in the position of having to render a judgment that makes me an instrument of evil, my recourse is not to lie regarding the meaning of law and come out the other way but to step down from the bench and perhaps join a revolution.
HHMMNN. If Scalia actually is a man of conscience and honour, he should step down NOW. Unlike Spunky Palin, I CAN name a litany of Supreme Court decisions. But in the same vein that I don't list out the state capitals just because, I'll spare you and just pick one: Boumediene, et. al. v. Bush wherein the Court ruled that habeas corpus applied to Gitmo detainees. Scalia disagreed. It is pure evil to deny human rights to human beings.
Last week, on Olbermann, I heard Keith remark that Afghanistan had passed a law legalizing the rape of a woman by her husband. It was one of those "this just cannot be happening moments". But yeah, it's true. While the law affects Shia and not Sunnis, it's pretty clear on where women stand:
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."
President Obama was very clear in his comments about his feeling about this law: "I think this law is abhorrent."
Personally, I agree with the President, although I'm not convinced "abhorrent" is a strong enough term. There is not a term strong enough, in my mind, to codify the violation of a human being.
Still, this whole situation raises a number of very interesting points. "Conventional wisdom" holds that people are religious because it gives them a moral compass and non-believers are "heathens" and "devoid of morals". As we all know, "conventional wisdom" is often wrong.
In yesterday's USA Today, there was an op-ed (6 April, page 15A) called No religion? No problem. It discusses the fact that recent surveys indicate that the fastest growing "religious" group is "no religion at all", currently comprising about 20% of the population. Newsweek has an article this week called The End of Christian America, which details the decreasing percentage of Christians in America. Is it possible that all of us non-practicing types will rise up against religion on moral grounds? How is it that a religion codifies rape (along with preventing women from leaving their houses for any reason without permission from their husbands or fathers) while those of us who have either given up religion all together or only show up for a few things a year out of respect for elderly parents find this sort of "religion" intolerant and intolerable? Why is it that the most extreme sects of religions are the ones that are so restrictive on their members, especially their women? (It's not just the Muslims...this sort of denigration is found in many religions.)
And then there are the political ramifications. The United States, along with other NATO allies, is engaged in Afghanistan, and the clarion call is out for more troops, and more money. None of the NATO countries condone rape; in fact, we all have laws against it. We prosecute, we jail. Should we be fighting for a country that legislates what we find abhorrent?
Yesterday, news broke that Karzai had agreed to have the law reviewed. This in the face of huge international outcry. However, the review is by the Afghan Justice Department, and could take many months, potentially taking until after the scheduled August elections.
The American Religious Identification Survey came out yesterday for 2008, and it turns out that, as a country, the United States is less religious than we used to be.
I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure that somewhere, someone is taking this data and plotting it on a map and coming up with the conclusions that the more blue states tend to be even less religious than the red states. I'm waiting for the CD and county breakdowns.
So here's my thought: what if even the red states become less religious? What does that do to the IIE's ability to organize through churches? My guess is that the more right wing someone is, the more likely that they are religious: that is, the evangelical base of the Republican party isn't wavering. Not now. Not ever. Therefore, it may be that by being able to organize in churches, it could conceivably increase their wing of the party. This may become important as the IIE feels out which branch will become their most dominant.
A side point is that as people become less religious, they become more moderate in their views of "social issues", thus leading to the possibility of compromise. Things like "abortion should be legal and rare" rather than outlawed. My hope for this moderation comes from Republican Nancy Reagan, who yesterday praised President Obama's lifting of the stem cell ban.
It's hard to quanitfy, but there is no discounting the affect of the religious right on the Republican party over the past 30+ years. It's hard to imagine that if more and more people give up religion that this won't also have a profound affect on that party.
