Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.

Okay. So, yeah – check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.

More about the Church:

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

I have to admit – given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…

And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:

The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:

“God delivered me from homosexuality.”

Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:

Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.

Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I

n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”

McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.

Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?

I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog – I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.

That is to say, Upside Down World continues – the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership – Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.

I think I need to sit down now.

You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right – 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least – that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

Wow. That is some mighty disturbing news (here is the LINK, if you’d rather read the article), is it not, both in terms of Muhammad and bin Laden? Well, Joe Biden said this president was going to be “tested by an international crisis within the first six months,” and so he is. It’s a shame he’s too busy trying to garner more accolades from other countries* rather than dealing with the very pressing issues here at home, but I think most of us expected that, didn’t we?

And so this isn’t abstract, this is Private Long, the soldier whose life was snuffed out bu this domestic terrorist:

As of this writing, Obama STILL has not made a statement about the soldiers ambushed in Little Rock. His silence speaks volumes. Especially as he IS the Commander in Chief. But he has nothing to say about two US Army soldiers gunned down in broad daylight in one of our cities? Nothing?? Holy smokes. Like I said – that speaks volumes to me, and what it says is NOT GOOD.

I cannot help but wonder how these two soldiers’ families feel that Obama has remained silent this attack? Especially Private Long’s family, as they deal with their tragic loss with no phone call from the White House? Not to mention what it says to their fellow soldiers…What kind of impact is this having on them? I can only imagine… I know it’s having a pretty big impact on a whole bunch of us who care about terrorists attacks on our own soil of those who have given their lives in service to this country…And I do know that many of us extend out hearts and prayers to all of them, the families, the other soldiers, and the people of Little Rock.

The difference between the treatment and coverage of the murders of Dr. Tiller and Pvt. Long is getting some notice, though:

I hope that Obama will wait no longer to extend his sympathies to Pvt. Long’s family. But I’m not holding my breath…And that’s just sad.

* By the way, Obama has claimed that our country has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. This is laughable on the face of it, but if you want to read the actual statistics, and a great post on this topic as well as Obama’s latest Magical Mystery Tour, I recommend LisaB’s, “When Is ‘Hussein’ Not A Smear? When Obama Say’s It’s Not, OF Course.” I won’t keep you in suspense – we are nowhere CLOSE to having the largest Muslim population in the world. We have about 2.3 million Muslims here, nowhere NEAR as many as a number of other countries.

In this age of religious extremism and terrorists abusing religious ideology, a pacifistic religion like Buddhism must resonate well with everyone. Last week, coinciding with the full moon (aka Buddha Poornima), India, Sri Lanka, and many Southeast Asian countries celebrated the birth anniversary of the founder of the religion, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha.

Buddhism and Jainism were two religions that caught the imagination of parts of India about 2500 years ago. While Buddhism did not explicitly preach non-violence, Jainism did and influenced other religions including Hinduism in many ways — for instance, vegetarianism seen in Hindu culture is said to be an adoption of Jain philosophy. Though Buddhism flourished for centuries in India, it gradually declined for lack of royal patronage. Jainism on the other hand has survived to this day with some noticeable following.

Siddhartha Gautama was born in 563 BC (approximate date) into a royal family and led a life of opulence until he was about 29 when he was exposed to the vagaries of the real world outside his palace. He then rejected his princely way of life and in his quest for the truth, attained nirvana or enlightenment at the age of thirty five from which point on he opened up to share his thoughts with the populace. He was then given the title Buddha to mean the enlightened one. Here is more on the fundamental teachings of Buddha.

Buddhism enjoyed the patronage of many kings at its peak in India, most notably that of Emperor Ashoka from the 3rd century BC. Legend has it that Ashoka after surveying the destruction of what was his last battle decided to adopt the new religion and the philosophy of non-violence and helped spread it far and wide (See here for a brief introduction). Another well known royal to promote Buddhism was Emperor Harshavardhana from the 7th century AD (more here). He is also known to have followed Mahayana Buddhism.

The best archeological evidence of Buddha and the religion he founded is preserved in the Ajanta caves in Northern India. There are about 29 caves carved into the cliff side of a magnificent gorge along the river Waghora. Paintings and sculptures in these caves beautifully depict the remarkable life story of Buddha as seen through the eyes of his followers over a number of centuries. These paintings and sculptures were created by Buddhist monks and other artisans over a period of 800 years starting as early as 2nd century BC. As Buddhism began to decline, the caves fell into natural degradation and remained hidden for centuries before they were discovered by a British Infantry captain stationed in Madras in 1819 who was on the hunt for a tiger in the vicinity. Religious or not, this remarkable human history of magnificent arts and creativity takes my breath away. The pictures above show a reclining Buddha on his deathbed surrounded by his followers as seen sculpted in Cave 26.

See this audio slide show from the NYTimes for an introduction to the caves. An accompanying article can be found here . The picture above the fold is from Cave 12 and the one below is in Cave 26 (more pictures here).

In addition to the Ajanta caves, we find Buddhist sculptures dating from 500 – 750 AD in the nearby Ellora caves. The activity continued in the Ellora caves between the 6th and 10th centuries with Buddhist caves being carved in the beginning of that period. All three religions Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism are represented in the Ellora caves which many note is a testament to the long and historic religious tolerance in India. Below is a picture from a Buddhist cave, one of 12 in Ellora. More here.

I will end this brief post about Buddhism and Buddha with this perhaps mundane note. For a while I had a rule in my house of not having any religious symbols in any part of the house. Then I came across this beautiful idol of Buddha in an artsy store near Big Sur, CA and I had to have it. My Buddha is wearing a red shawl and his hair is perfect and I fell in love with him. He sits in the center of my living room now to everyone’s attention. In stressful periods in my life, I had a ritual — coming down the stairs every morning, I would call out jauntily “Hello Mr. Buddha, how are you today?” The days I didn’t feel like doing that I knew I had to calibrate my emotions as I stepped out into the world. But today I say to my beloved friend, “Happy Birthday, Mr. Buddha!” I guess it is possible even for an atheist to intellectualize and then personalize a benevolent religious figure.

[h/t to Preeti Aroon and her photo essay at FP]

“Church Goers Like Torture More!”

“The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists.”

“Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful.”

That’s what the headlines blare, based on a recent survey conducted by the research arm of the prestigious Pew Charitable Trust.

To briskly summarize, frequent churchgoers and White evangelicals, followed fairly closely by White non-Hispanic Catholics approve of the use of torture more than do mainstream Protestants, those unaffiliated with any religion, and non-churchgoers.

If we stop right here and try to figure out why these results are as they are (setting aside for the moment Eastan McNeal’s recent excellent post about the survey’s methodology), the mind runs happily amok with what feels like obvious reasons. My friends and I came up with a few:

“Maybe the Bible-thumping “torture-lovers” see certainty and intolerance as two sides of the same coin. It’s easier to dehumanize people who exhibit the attributes that are the object of the intolerance.”

“God and Country are one in the same to religious fundamentalists, so ‘not country’ is heathen and the welfare of such people is not any concern.”

“If you’re a fundamentalist of any religion (or ism) there is pure unadulterated and unquestioned Truth. Once you’ve got that on your side you no longer need to question things as much.”

“Anything designated as evil does not need to be treated as a human.”

“The more conservative active church goers are more likely to have a good/evil, black/white, us/them, heaven/hell, saved/damned mindset. Compassion can then be eliminated towards those on the wrong side of the comparisons.”

But, I dared to look a little deeper at some other Pew survey work. It turns out that almost 50% of Americans believe that torture is acceptable “often” or “sometimes,” and that view has not changed significantly over the last couple of years. Republicans and Independents approve of torture more than do Democrats. Differences among men and women are small, as are differences regarding age and educational level. However a greater number of older people (33%) than younger people (23%) say torture should never be used. (Go seniors!)

But here is the bottom line. In the Pew survey, plenty of Democrats, mainstream Protestants, infrequent churchgoers, and religiously unaffiliated people DO believe torture is acceptable, and plenty of Evangelical Christians, non-Hispanic Catholics and frequent churchgoers are NOT in favor of torture. See the data for yourselves:

So, there is statistical significance and there is practical significance. In very practical terms, that means that if you meet up with an Evangelical Christian who attends church frequently or a Unitarian who attends services once a year, you might go with the probabilities and guess their view on torture correctly. And you will also be wrong often enough.

Your take?

I suspect there may be some pushing involved in that Pew poll, as there may be a coordinated push to break down the cohesiveness of what the democrat party believes is the foundation of the republican party, White evangelical Protestants.

Years ago I worked with Dr. Marvin Kottke, a research professor at the University of Connecticut. Dr. Kottke adopted a couple of booklets I had written on survey statistical sampling methods and analysis presentation for his classes. We all understood the importance of how you select who you survey and how you phrase and order the questions. From him we learned the importance of preventing your desire for a pre-conceived outcome from influencing any of the process going into the survey, collecting the sample and analyzing the results.

Kottke lobbied the Council of American Research Organizations (CASRO) to include “in the box” guidance for researchers. He believed that no study should be released without a boxed description explaining how the survey / poll was conducted. You have seen them. Xyz research interviewed nnn people between this date and that date and the margin of error is x percent with a confidence interval of y. More importantly, he argued, was to state WHO commissioned the study and WHY.

My booklets were written to accompany a computer program I had just released that allowed organizations to tabulate their own surveys. I feared that if people put garbage into my statistical analysis program that they would get garbage out or that they would misinterpret the raw data and present leading findings. If the user of my software was challenged on their methodology they could easily blame the new software so, to shield myself from that end, I offered a free education through these little books. What I did not realize or expect was that people were sometimes using my guides as instructions on how to pre and post doctor the polls to further their agenda.

I was attending a National Ski Areas Association conference in Nashville when I heard Dr. Kottke warn an audience: “Do not tell your researchers what you expect to find with the study you are hiring them to conduct.” No matter how honest we are we fear our desire to satisfy the client, and we don’t really have accurate formulas for calculating out of your quantitative results, our qualitative bias.

I am seeing more and more surveys released without the “box” of information telling me about the research methodology. A more troubling omission is the who and why. Who paid Pew to conduct a study on torture that included questions about religious faith? Why did the client do that? What were they expecting to find?

If the survey would have shown that black agnostic eggheads supported torture more, would the survey results have been released?

That, by the way, is a good question. Most surveys are buried because the results did not support the client’s desired narrative. If the survey showed that religious and non-religious people felt the same way then who gave the researchers the suggestion to break out whites from blacks? And if that did not create a measurable enough difference, why was the evangelical group broken out, from the religious breakout, and why was that the only group breakout published by CNN?

Without answers to the above questions, I doubt the sincerity of the poll, the pollsters, the media that would publish the selected results and, most certainly, the mysterious client who commissioned the poll.

By the way, the information that should have been in the box:

Data from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 14-21, 2009, under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates, among 742 American adults. Other religious groups are not reported due to small sample sizes.

Question wording: Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?
Pew

Pew’s own analysis of this poll showed that of the 742 respondents 188 were republican. They state that a number that low dropped the margin of error to 8% from 4% for the total sample. Also, using Pew’s own data from other studies, the number of people in the U.S. claiming to be evangelical is 19%, including black evangelicals. So the sample in this poll should have included at most 140 evangelical respondents and the margin of error should be stated as a number greater than 8%. These are assumptions because some of these sub-numbers are not published. The charts released indicate they surveyed 174 WEPs

The press is being biased and misleading in their treatment of the study. The above link goes to US News with a headline: Most Evangelicals and Catholics Condone Torture in Some Instances, when the headline actually could have read: Americans Split on Torture. According to the raw numbers 49% of the TOTAL sample says that torture can often or sometimes be justified. 47% say that torture can rarely or never be justified.

What was the intended goal when these cross-tabs were created and released to the public? Was this pure research or do some of you Christians out there now feel less likely to publicly embrace your religion?

Despite his obviously close relationship with his wife, whispers have persisted since he played Peter Allen that Jackman himself might be gay. “I’d be happy to go and deny it, because I’m not,” he says. “But by denying it, I’m saying there is something shameful about it, and there isn’t anything shameful. The questions about sexuality I find more here in America than anywhere else, because it’s a big hang-up and defines what people think about themselves and others. It’s not a big issue in Australia.” (Emphasis mine.)

Yeah. No freakin’ kidding. Ahem. But then I continued to read the paper, and came across a piece about the Presbyterian Church (USA), Fidelity-Chastity Ordination Standard remains in place in PC(USA). That is to say, they won’t ordain gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. That’s the bottom line. And I hope you catch WHY that is: Fidelity-Chastity Ordination Standard is the reason why. Because you know, we homosexual types can’t possibly be faithful in relationships, and generally speaking, we cannot get married in the United States (only a few states permit it). And then there’s that whole chastity thing if single, meaning, not legally married. So, just a bit of a burden on the entire GLBT community. Still, the article goes on to say the issue of ordination for GLBT people is not over, especially since the vote was closer than ever. But it is not to be yet.

That is the sad fact reinforced for Lisa Larges, a graduate of San Francisco Theological Seminary, who has been trying to get ordained for 23 years now. That is not a typo – twenty-three years. Just a month ago came the verdict detailed in this article, Synod court rescinds San Francisco Presbytery vote on open lesbian’s readiness for examination for ordination,Examination, not certification of readiness, is proper time for ‘scrupling’:

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Synod of the Pacific has rescinded a January 2008 decision by San Francisco Presbytery that long-time candidate and open lesbian Lisa Larges is “ready for examination [for ordination] with a departure.”

The court ruled on March 25 that the presbytery erred by prematurely considering Larges’ declaration of a “scruple” (conscientious objection) to G-6.0106b ― which requires of church officers “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

“The examination for ordination is the proper time for (the) Presbytery to determine whether or not a candidate’s departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity,” the court said.

If only the Presbyterian Church was as faithful to Ms. Larges as she has been to them. Can you imagine trying for so long for something you felt called to do by a higher power, something for which you were qualified in every way, except one – who you loved? Oh, and despite your qualifications, you are denied the opportunity to serve because of whom you love by an institution that is built on the very foundation of love, at least according to its founder. Wow. (There is more to the article above. Just click on the link if you want to read it.)

But you know, at least I haven’t heard of any Presbyterian ministers being brought to trial for being ordained and homosexual at the same time like the Methodists have. Coincidentally (yeah, right), the two who have been were both women. Oh, don’t think this was back in the dark ages or anything. Heck no, it was in 2004. And it wasn’t in some rural backwater somewhere. It was in Philadelphia, the city of Fraternal Love (that is the more accurate translation) How ironic is THAT? Anyway, the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud was defrocked for being in a monogamous lesbian relationship. Her congregation did not want this, I might add, and still employs her as a lay person.

And let’s not forget the Lutherans. They want to defrock the Rev. Bradley Schmeling, a man they knew was gay because he has now found a life partner. The assumption being that he is having sex while still single (that whole pesky marriage thing again, you know). That’s right. He has been brought up on charges because he found someone with whom to share his life:

The Rev. Bradley Schmeling was chosen in 2000 to lead St. John’s, though some worried his sexuality could threaten its standing with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. But last year, the 350-member congregation threw a party for him and his partner, when Schmeling announced he had found a lifelong companion.

Bishop Ronald Warren of the ELCA’s Southeastern Synod, however, asked the 44-year-old pastor to resign. When Schmeling refused, Warren started disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage.

Holy Smokes.

I could go on, but you get the point. Hugh Jackman was putting it mildly when he said we have a “hang up” about homosexuality in this country, and our churches are right in the midst of it all. Not just the right-wing, evangelical, fundamentalist churches either, but mainstream denominations.

While I appreciate the optimism of some in PC(USA), I wish I could share it, but I can’t. When you have two major states passing anti-gay measures (Prop 8 in CA, an act strongly supported by Obama’s choice to lead his Faith Tour, Doug Kmiec, and Amendment 2 in Florida), and a President who campaigns with Donnie “Jesus Cured Me Of My Homosexuality” McClurkin; who counts as one of his closest friends and confidantes a man who is not just homophobic, but ACTIVELY anti-gay in the person of IL State Senator, James Meeks; and who chooses – HAND PICKS – a man who is actively anti-gay to chair the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, I just cannot muster the same level of hope for change in these mainstream denominations. Heck, I don’t have a lot of hope for our entire nation, not just for the churches (or synagogues, or mosques, etc.). Not in this time, and not with this president. I would love to be proven wrong, though, but I gotta say, I’m not holding my breath.

For the last 8 years, science has been distorted and minimized by the radical Religious Right that vowed, among other things, to push Darwin off the plank and instill “intelligent design” (a euphemism for “creationism”) in its stead. Whereas we are all free to believe whatever we wish, forcing students to learn about creationism in science classes not only violates the intent of separation of church and state but dummies us down on global scientific literacy rankings. One hoped that when George W. left office, science would get a lot more respect.

Looks like that may not happen, and it’s a crying shame because the religious right needs to scrutinize the Bible a little more carefully. They might be in for a big surprise.

Trina Hoaks reports that new Texas science guidelines require teachers to scrutinize “all sides of scientific theories,” and that includes the creationism disguised in its intelligent design costume. Oh, you don’t live in Texas? No matter. Texas bullies all of our children when it comes to what they want them to learn (or not learn).

The [Texas] Board reviews each textbook’s content, and if they don’t like it, they can hold the book hostage until the publisher agrees to change the content. Most publishers comply with this extortion and censorship, since with an annual budget for textbooks of $570 million, Texas “is clearly one of the most dominant states in setting textbook adoption standards,” says Stephen Driesler, executive director of the American Association of Publishers’ school division. Publishers will often have their books written to appeal to the Texas market, because it is so enormous, and thus “Texas-vetted” textbooks will appear in the public schools of most other states.

So why is this whole argument stupid in the first place? Because the Bible itself is downright Darwinian! Bear with me—this is interesting. Honest, it really is.

Using the King James version of the Bible, there is not one but two stories of the creation. The Religious Right ignores Book 1 and focuses exclusively on Book 2, a somewhat muddled tale wherein man comes first and all of the animals and other living beings follow along later.

Book 1 may actually be where Darwin got some of his ideas! Here we go.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

OK—we started with nothing.

3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

OK—we have night and day, nothing else.

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Ah ha! Firmament and water. Little stuff is…uh…evolving.

9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Yay, land and water.

11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.

OK, plants are growing on the land. No animals in sight yet though.

14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

OK, He got a little distracted here, went into the stars.

20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Back on track. Water life and birds. Coming right along up the evolutionary ladder.

24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Here they come—land critters! (But no sign of people yet.)

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And here we are—at the very, very end of the line! Evolved!

So, what’s the fuss about religion and science being at such great odds? I really never understood it since I was old enough to read.

I cannot help but wonder how in the world this young man with such a limited resume came to Obama’s attention, and out of ALL of the ministers in this country with far more experience and qualifications, this guy is the one Obama picked? But there he is.

I wrote a little about DuBois and Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives recently (”Gimme That Old Time Religion“), and Obama’s expansion of Bush’s range. And now, it is official. Obama kicked it off at the National Prayer Breakfast the other day. Wanna guess what particularly odious piece Obama did not remove from Bush’s plan? The hiring issue. You know the one. It’s whether or not a group getting federal money could demand the people they hired believed the same as the organization doing the hiring. And for now, the answer is YES. You may recall that on the campaign trail, Obama said this:

On the campaign trail last year, Obama vowed to reverse the Bush hiring policy. “As someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state,” Obama said last July in a speech that pledged to expand Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives. “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion.”

Except when you can, apparently. Naturally, all of the secular groups are crying foul, like Kathryn Kolbert of People For the American Way:

“President Obama needs to make good on his campaign promise that tax dollars aren’t used to unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of religion,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way.

She added: “It’s disappointing that today President Obama has missed an opportunity to put it into practice immediately.

Oh, sure – I just know Obama will get right on that, Ms. Kolbert. Hahaha – good one.

Funny, it wasn’t all that long ago that a spokeswoman for PFAW said:

“We’re glad to have a good seat at the table and that [the Obama transition team] is listening to all sides,” says Tanya Clay House, director of public policy for People for the American Way, which has expressed concerns about the propriety of federal faith-based initiatives. “The old administration listened to just one side of the argument.”

And look how well that “good seat” worked out for you, Tanya, not to mention the TAXPAYERS in this country. But I am just so sure Obama will come through for you, the other progressives at that wonderful table, and us. Right? Sure. Well, maybe, according to Mr. DuBois:

The newly named director of the Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office, Joshua DuBois, said that it was impossible to give a timeline for resolving the hiring issue and that resolution might come on a case-by-case basis, rather than in a sweeping policy directive.

“This is an area of unclear policy and practice, but we can now begin seeking the advice of government and outside actors and see what groups are doing on the ground,” said DuBois, who had previously served as religious outreach director of Obama’s presidential campaign. “The previous administration made decisions without understanding the state of law and practice.”

And the Obama Administration is different on that count HOW, exactly?? *Crickets* That’s what I thought.

And then there was the following article by Martha Burk at Huffington Post. Oh, don’t worry, I have the whole thing here so you don’t have to click over. Why? Because I care. Anyway, Ms. Burk is kinda mad about all of this whole because she claims that, “Obama’s Faith-Based Office An Insult To Women.” Oh, “Sweetie” – are you “feeling blue” because Obama is shoving women to the side again? May I ask, just what in his entire campaign history made you think he was going to NOT throw women overboard? Did you not get just a little inkling when he played Jay Z’s “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One?” (And frankly, this has been so well documented by now, it does not need a link.) Or did you think when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law, it meant he cared about anything more than a photo op? You know that he (and Biden) weren’t even one of the 54 co-sponsors of that bill, right? And you SURELY must have heard that he didn’t even pay women the same on his staff as the men for the same job, didn’t you? Yeah – he only gave them 78 cents compared to the dollar for the men. I mean, I know you write for Huffington Post and all, but c’mon – you NEVER caught how incredibly sexist he was to Clinton, Palin, and women in general?? Really??

Apparently not:

President Obama attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast yesterday and used the opportunity to tout the reconstitution and expansion of George W. Bush’s Office on Faith Based Initiatives. In his remarks the president said he didn’t want to favor one religion over another, or “even religious groups over secular groups.” But in fact, that’s just what he’s doing.

National women’s organizations have been lobbying Obama, who has said he is a feminist, to reopen the White House Office on Women’s Issues. So far the answer is a big fat no – women’s concerns will be under the already swamped Office of Public Liaison. That’s a tiny shop that’s chronically understaffed and overstretched. Even with the best intentions, there’s almost no chance they can interface with women’s advocates in a meaningful way, much less shape policy to overcome the many setbacks we inherited from the Bush years.

Hold the phone – you BELIEVED him when he said he was a FEMINIST? All evidence to the contrary, it would seem. Burk continues:

In a direct insult to women, George W. Bush closed the Clinton-era White House Office on Women’s Issues in his first week, then ensconced the first-ever church/state liaison office in the same space. For our new president to “keep the faith” with religious groups while short-changing women is equally insulting. There is no doubt that women are responsible for his election. Females went for Obama by 56 percent to McCain’s 43 percent, while men split their votes about evenly. The Jesus crowd, on the other hand, voted 60% against the president.

You know what was an insult, Ms. Burk? A man who said absolutely NOTHING in the face of sexist, misogynistic attacks like this:

Now THAT’S insulting, regardless of whether it was Clinton or Palin. It speaks to a mindset, and a pattern. Never mind Obama flipping Clinton the bird, or brushing her off his shoulder, again in Jay Z style (and again, if you haven’t seen examples of either one of these instances, you need to see an optometrist). Or promoting – PROMOTING – a young man who had a photograph of himself
groping a cutout of Secretary of State (to be, at that time) Clinton ON THE INTERNET, to be the top speechwriter position in the White House. So if you think Obama is a feminist, I would suggest you are unclear on the definition of “feminist.” Here’s one for you:

Feminism is the belief that women have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights as men do.

Nope – can’t see how you ever thought Obama was one. EVER.

Burk continues in her complaint about Obama shunning women for religion:

The newly constituted “office for faith-based programs and community partnerships” will be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal preacher and Obama confidant, who will preside over a task force of 25 or so religious and community leaders. This group will give DuBois advice, which will presumably be passed on to the president.

To accord this advisory panel so much power, while relegating women to the margins, speaks volumes. Religious groups gained a lot from the Bush years – access to the White House, and millions of dollars in federal money, some of which was used to proselytize. And don’t forget, almost all faiths consider women second class citizens; many actively campaign against affirmative action, the Women’s Equality Amendment, the international human rights treaty for women known as CEDAW, and civil rights for gays and lesbians. Keeping this act going – even if it is broadened to include “community members” – is not the change women voted for.

You so were not paying attention to the entire primary and election campaigns, Ms. Burk. Obama has been pushing this religious agenda all along, including using people like Doug Kmiec, a Prop 8 proponent, to push that agenda. He has surrounded himself with sexist, homophobic pastors who he considers his close friends and confidants. And you thought that this wouldn’t have an impact on where women fell on the totem pole with him?? Okey dokey…

But Ms. Burk continues, like so many of the women who voted for Obama, to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he has done NOTHING to deserve it:

It’s not too late for President Obama to change his mind and give the majority – women – a place at the table by re-opening the White House Office on Women’s Issues. If he really does support women as he claims, restoring the losses of the last eight years on reproductive rights, enforcement of Title IX, Medicaid funding, and employment protections should be given a higher priority than keeping the religious right happy for what promises to be a very short honeymoon.

Women’s groups are elated that the Texans are finally out of the White House. But if the new president wants their continuing loyalty, he ought to follow some good ol’ Texas advice: Dance with the one that brung ya.

Uh huh. MS. Burk, if I were you, I would not hold my breath for that. And you might want to consider removing those blinders or rose-colored glasses or blindfold that have kept you from seeing who Obama really is, especially when it comes to the treatment of women. It won’t change anything now – you already helped to get this sexist pig into the White House. But it will probably be better for your health to stop having unrealistic expectations of this man.

And it will be better for the country if the people who so blindly clung to his hope-y change-y message realized they were had by a marketing ploy, nothing more, and not re-elect this man. Now THAT is a change for which I dearly hope.

Oh, one last thing, Ms. Burk. Perhaps you might want to spend some time meditating on the following message, and consider that the next time you vote:

I’m just sayin’.

But first, just in case it’s been too long, here’s a reminder about Barack’s good friend and strong political ally, Rev. James Meeks, both a powerful Chicago pastor and a state senator, who can win elections solely through his church’s 22,000 members voting for him. Larry Johnson exposed who Meeks really is in April 2008’s “What Would Tip O’Neill Do About Barack’s Pastors? [Updated]“, an excellent expose of the ministers with whom Obama has surrounded himself.

But Meeks is special. He has been Obama’s friend, ally, and spiritual adviser for years now. Here’s a little reminder of who he is:

You can read more in SusanUnPC’s late April 2008 story, “Father Pfleger & Rev. James Meeks: Who They Really Are” and at least a dozen more NoQuarter articles exposing James Meeks. Not for the faint of heart, these two men, in their language or theology, as SusanUnPC demonstrates in her fine post.

Oh, and The Rev. Meeks is also connected with The Rev. James Dobson – yes, THAT James Dobson, from “Focus on the Family.” They are working together to abolish the separation of church and state. But don’t take my word for it. Check out this little blurb about James Meeks from the Southern Poverty Law Center highlights:

The Rev. James Meeks is a key member of Chicago’s “Gatekeepers” network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state. A stalwart anti-gay activist, Meeks has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level “family values” pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in “clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.”

With over 22,000 members, Meeks’ congregation was large enough to buoy his successful 2002 campaign for state senator. Last year, he ran for governor as a virtual single-issue candidate, drawing national support from Christian fundamentalists by boldly vowing to fight marriage equality at every turn. Meeks eventually dropped out of the race.

Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that “fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.”

Wow, right? Yeah. Funny, I sure don’t recall ANYONE in the MSM highlighting THIS little tidbit, or the connection between James Meeks and James Dobson. Such stellar journalism we have had the past 18 months. Hahahaha!

Anywho – it would seem that Meeks’ influence on Obama is coming out as this US News article, Crafting Policy Agenda, Obama Team Brings in Faith Groups, The president-elect and his staff have held about 15 meetings so far with religious groups would indicate:

In the eight weeks since Barack Obama was elected president, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism Director David Saperstein or members of his Washington, D.C.-based staff have attended roughly a dozen meetings with Obama’s transition team, on topics ranging from domestic poverty and the plight of White House faith-based initiatives to foreign policy challenges like bringing peace to the Middle East.

“This is the most extensive outreach and listening tour that I’ve ever seen a new administration take, and that is certainly true of their outreach to the faith community,” says Saperstein, who has worked with presidential transition teams going back to Jimmy Carter’s. “It’s quite remarkable.”

The effort is noteworthy not only for the number of Obama transition team meetings with religious groups—about 15 so far—but also because top Obama policy aides have joined the powwows. Melody Barnes, who will be director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and Heather Higginbottom, who will be the council’s deputy director, have participated in some of the meetings.

“There is the feeling that these are not perfunctory meetings but serious meetings with people in policymaking roles who know the process well,” says James Winkler, general secretary of the public policy arm of the United Methodist Church, who says that he or his staff have attended nearly a dozen meetings with the Obama transition team so far. “This is not something meant to bring in the faith community to keep them happy but to solicit our views and ideas.”

I don’t know about you, but it makes me wonder why religious groups opinions are being sought in policy-making. Even Bush, whom I think most people would expect to operate this way did not, at least not on every issue:

Winkler said that during George W. Bush’s tenure, “we were never contacted by the administration” after an initial meeting with the White House Office of Public Liaison, which traditionally handles outreach to religious groups and other constituencies. Though Bush is a Methodist, a group of Methodist bishops was unsuccessful in repeated attempts to meet with the president in the run-up to the Iraq war, which the United Methodist Church opposed.

Yeah, so not as much of a surprise since they didn’t agree with his position.

But I wonder if the following IS a surprise to Obama’s followers (again, not to those of us who have been paying attention):

Heading up religious outreach for Obama’s transition team is Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal and onetime associate pastor who directed religious outreach for the Obama campaign. Mark Linton, the Obama campaign’s Catholic outreach director, is leading the effort to design an Obama administration version of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and Mara Vanderslice, an evangelical Democratic operative who has helped spearhead the party’s post-2004 religious outreach offensive, is now Obama’s outreach liaison to religious communities.

Don’t let this description of DuBois fool you. He, like Favreau, is young – in his mid-20’s. And while he may have been an associate pastor at his small Cambridge, MA evangelical/pentecostal church (gasp! Had he been anyone else – like a female VP candidate, this might have gotten some scrutiny.), he was not seminary trained. You can read more about him, if you wish, HERE. It is just amazing to me that he is the one heading up Obama’s religious outreach team. Out of all of the people available in this country to Obama for positions like this, he picks this young guy who has no real-world work experience (he went from college to a master’s program to a part-time law school program, according to the article). It is a bit mind boggling, actually.

But I digress. Back to the religious influence on policy:

Representatives from a handful of outside religious groups meeting with the Obama transition team expect these aides to stay on in the new administration.

The Obama transition team would not comment about its meetings with religious groups apart from issuing a brief statement from DuBois, the religious outreach director. “The Obama-Biden transition team is working with a range of religious and secular community groups to solicit their views on the transition process and our agenda going forward,” the statement read in part.

Interviews with 10 participants in the Obama transition team’s faith-based meetings paint a portrait of Obama aides recording priorities and concerns of representatives from religious denominations and advocacy groups, mostly of the left-leaning variety. Their policy priorities include economic relief for the poor, new protections for organized labor, a stepped-up campaign to combat global warming, improved access to healthcare, and guarantees that the United States will forgo torture in its war on terror.

Well, yeah, those sound like some pretty good issues – I think most of us would be fine with this list. But you know it doesn’t stop with helping the poor:

Some of the faith-based groups have also pressured the transition team to make a serious attempt to reduce demand for abortion by improving sex education and expanding government services for pregnant women.

There ya go. But wait – there’s even more:

Spokespeople for the social conservative advocacy group Family Research Council and for the Southern Baptist Convention—a huge, mostly conservative evangelical denomination—meanwhile, said that their organizations have not received invitations to meet with Obama’s transition team. Southern Baptist Convention public policy chief Richard Land says that DuBois called him to report that Obama had personally read a letter from Land urging the president-elect to push legislation aimed at reducing the demand for abortion. “Mr. DuBois told me that he wanted to keep the bridges of communication open and that the door was always open for us to voice concerns,” Land says. “I congratulated him on having picked Rick Warren to do the invocation at the inauguration.”

Of course he did. And there was much rejoicing throughout the land that Obama picked Rick Warren to participate in his “historic” inauguration. What? That wasn’t rejoicing? Whatever – it was Obama’s choice, ergo, it must be sanctified, according to the Obama faithful. Ahem.

And now, we get to Obama’s take on Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives, a program previously abhorred by liberals, but now that Obama is pushing it, it is a fabulous use of your tax-paying dollars:

Transition team meetings with faith groups focused on planning for a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Obama’s version of the faith-based initiatives office that President Bush launched during his first term. The meetings have included advocates of strict church-state separation, who have traditionally criticized such programs.

“It doesn’t bother me,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director Barry W. Lynn says of the Obama policy of having aides sit down frequently with religious groups. “It would only bother me if [Obama] starts implementing the policies of religious groups that are inconsistent with guarantees of the Constitution, and I haven’t seen that yet.”

Still, creating consensus around the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is emerging as an early challenge in Obama’s efforts to satisfy both secular liberal and religious groups. For instance, proponents of church-state separation want Obama to peel back Bush-era exemptions on employment nondiscrimination laws for religious organizations receiving federal funds—allowing Christian groups to hire only Christians—while some religious groups say they need such hiring discretion to maintain the religious component of their programs.

For now, though, those groups are happy just to have the incoming administration’s ear. “We’re glad to have a good seat at the table and that [the Obama transition team] is listening to all sides,” says Tanya Clay House, director of public policy for People for the American Way, which has expressed concerns about the propriety of federal faith-based initiatives. “The old administration listened to just one side of the argument.”

Wow – I guess Rev. Lynn forgets that his organization, Americans United, spear-headed major opposition to Bush’s faith-based initiative in a major position paper. Want to guess who signed on to that opposition? That’s right – People for the American Way (PFAW). I guess now that it is OBAMA who wants to do it, no, EXPAND the Initiatives, it is magically and miraculously a great plan – because they have “good seats at the table,” see.

And it looks like the two Jameses might just get their way with this whole abolishing of that pesky Church and State thing when this is what the opposition looks like. Nice job at “gate-keeping” there, AU and PFAW – way to stick to the courage of your convictions! And way to protect the Constitution. I mean, hey – why bother with that pesky little document as long as Obama lets you have a good seat at the table? You’re in the “In” crowd now, and that is all that apparently counts anymore to these groups.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds. It simply knows no bounds.

Ironic that on Inauguration Day, when President Barack Obama told Americans it was time to take personal responsibility and “grow up” as a country, some of his supporters behaved like spoiled children in booing George W. Bush.

And, sadly, neither Obama nor any leader in the public spotlight that day seized the moment to admonish the boorish behavior.

It would have been nice had Obama had the presence of mind in his inaugural speech to not only allude to scripture in saying it’s time to put away “childish things” but to also have told the boo-birds that their behavior was inappropriate and the embodiment of those “childish things.”

He might have said: “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me? When you boo the former president, you fail to understand what this solemn event is all about — the peaceful transition of power. This is not a football game. Nor is it a Third World bloodless coup. This is American democracy at work. If you can’t respect that, then leave. Now.”

Like I said, why the hell would Obama start now? He hasn’t bothered to say anything to any one of his minions at any point during the entire primary or election season, so why would he speak out for Mr. Bush?

And here is another little problem I have – him saying Obama should have said, “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me?” Um, what? Yes, we should all be happy for The Boy Who Would Be Dictator because this has nothing to do with our actual country. Wowie.

Mr. Frederick’s shock continues:

But no one mustered the courage to say that. While I thought Obama’s speech was otherwise thought-provoking and worthy, he missed an opportunity to call out these boors and chastise their behavior. By not doing so, I am afraid that Obama essentially condoned this kind of mob intolerance. There is already a hateful mean streak among some Obamamaniacs. Left unchecked, it can fester into something quite un-American and un-democratic.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.” And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the “one-finger salute,” thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Where in the HELL Has this man been? Clearly, he cannot distinguish between the mantras of the Obama Party and the REALITY of the Obama Party. How many, many times have we written about this, the cruel, aggressive, demeaning, sexist, even misogynistic behavior of Obama’s followers, and that is just toward Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!! It would seem Mr. Frederick’s blindfold and earplugs served him well if he was unaware of these, um, “shenanigans.” The “one-finger salute? Like the one Obama gave to Clinton detailed in THIS article?

He continues:

Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let’s also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be “jailed.” Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church’s way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

But of course. Target the Mormons, thus the Senate Majority Leader (why does everyone always forget that Harry Reid is a MORMON, and ANTI-Choice? I just don’t get that.) So, yes, Janeane, let us completely deny that even before the election, the NY Times was predicting that it would be OBAMA’S supporters that would vote IN Prop. 8. That, in fact, was the reality. It was the African American community coming out in droves that tipped the scales, as detailed HERE and HERE.

Mr. Frederick does touch on the issue of race, too:

There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright’s racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate — no matter the color of the person who makes them — and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up. (Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Well, that is just laughable – to expect the most juvenile, petulant, arrogant, immature, empty-suit to tell his minions to grow up. HAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, maybe when he does.

Beside that, though, is the convenient amnesia of Mr. Frederick regarding what the Rev. Lowery said at the inauguration (h/t to LisaB), highlighted in Pat Racimora’s article, “A Profound Prayer Until..>Wrong Turn!.” To recap, he said this:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Holy cow. Yeah, I think that qualifies as having a racial component.

But it also begs the question WHY Rev. Wright’s incendiary, separatist comments were not addressed more fully? And why his connection, as well as Louis Farrakhan’s, to Obama was continually glossed over by the majority of those in the MSM? Because they were afraid of being called racists? Or because they knew it would be real trouble for Obama if they actually did their job and exposed the belief system in which Obama was a willing participant? Some of us were paying attention, though. Do a “search at: NoQuarter on Rev. Wright, and you will get page after page after page of articles that at least have some mention of him, if not dealing with him directly (far too many to link to here), beginning with this one in March.

Same goes for the “boorish” behavior of Obama’s supporters. The Palin (and Clinton) t-shirts? The intimidation/bullying at the caucuses? “Iron My Shirt” buffoons? Obama turning away from Clinton without greeting her at the SOTU? Obviously, I could go on and on with examples, all of which have been well documented at NQ and other sites. Which raises this question: where in the hell has this guy been, expecting Obama to change his stripes NOW? Just because it was Bush being booed? Because at no time has Obama acted like a “grown up” when his crowds have gone off on his competition – not once. He has been their role model for boorish behavior from debates to rallies. So for anyone to expect anything different now just because he was sworn in a few times is nothing short of delusional.

So to recap, it is way past time to take off the blindfold and take out the earplugs. The booing? Typical. Comments like Garofalo’s? Typical. Intimidation of dissenters? Typical. (Don’t believe me? Just ask the Justice Department since they are suing the Black Panthers.) Racial division by clergy? Typical.

This is who Obama is. To expect him to challenge behavior in which he himself engages is nuts.

(1) My question: Where did this girl learn to talk to her father like that? Just wondering … (as I chuckle wickedly to myself) …

Obama’s Daughter On Inaugural Speech: “It Better Be Good”

As the final preparations are made for his historic Inauguration on Tuesday, pressure is mounting for President-elect Barack Obama– including from his own children. Speaking to the Washington Post, Obama gives an account of his family “field trip” to the Lincoln Memorial where there is an inscribed copy of the 16th President’s famous Second Inaugural speech. At this point, Obama’s 7 year-old daughter Sasha asked her father if he would be giving a similar speech. Obama describes the interaction to the Post:

“And I said, ‘Well, actually, that’s a short version, but yeah, I will,’ ” Obama recalled. “And then Malia says, ‘First African American president — it better be good.’
“So I just want you to know the pressures I’m under here from my children.

The family’s “field trip” was a symbolic gesture to Lincoln, to whom Obama has frequently been compared. Obama’s children clearly have equally or even higher expectations of their father. This sets them somewhat apart from their mother, who throughout the campaign has insisted that her husband is merely human. Ta-Nahisi Coates, in the January/February Atlantic delves into this quirk extensively, explaining why Michelle Obama was initially viewed as an “Angry Black Woman” during the campaign and why that really isn’t the case at all. The article gives an enlightening account of the value the Obamas place on family. …

(2) SensibleWoman e-mailed this story to me. She noted in her e-mail, “It aggravated me to listen to Rick S. ‘calling out’ Joe the Plumber (whom we all KNOW isn’t a journalist) after going through the ‘08 Election year NOT getting enough info from those we THOUGHT were journalists.”

The thoughts of Rick Sanchez, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, if you ask me.

(3) Did you know that film legend and environmental activist Robert Redford is an enemy of the poor, and a racist to boot? Nope? Me either.

Protesters label Redford an enemy of the poor
Oil and gas drilling » Clergymen link famed moviemaker’s stance to racism.

Hollywood’s Sundance Kid is hurting poor people.
So say some East Coast ministers and conservative activists, who took to the streets in front of a downtown Salt Lake City theater on the eve of Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival to accuse the actor of holding down low-income Americans with his opposition to oil and gas drilling near national parks in Utah.
The protesters, led by the Congress of Racial Equality’s national spokesman Niger Innis, suggested Redford should “relinquish his wealth” and live like a poor person. They complained that the filmmaker’s anti-drilling stance could lead to higher energy prices for inner-city residents, forcing them to accept a lower standard of living.
The clergymen prayed for Redford “to see the light” and linked his environmental activism with racism.
“The high energy prices we’re going to see this winter are essentially discriminatory,” said Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. of the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., chairman of the High-Impact Leadership Coalition, a petroleum industry advocate.
A month ago, Redford, a trustee of the National Resources Defense Council, voiced support for a federal lawsuit aimed at blocking the Bush administration’s “morally criminal” attempt to auction 103,000 acres of scenic redrock desert for oil and gas drilling near Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument. …

And what else is going on in the world?

“Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.”

Israel is right to attack Hamas in Gaza. The Palestinians are wrong to have elected Hamas as their leaders. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, Gaza is being lead by an illegitimate terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel. This “government,” put in place by Palestinians, has repeatedly attacked Israel with hundreds of rockets, suicide bombers, and decades of unthinkable bloodshed and fear.

Israel is not trying to win a popularity contest on the world stage, and nightly news showing civilian causalities is heartbreaking and does nothing to endear the world to the Jewish state. But Israel is following the American model of toppling the Taliban: if you support and harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. Hamas is aware of anti-Israel sentiment and they have a history of fabricating “atrocities” to inflame the world against Israel.

The American Left distrusts power, the military, and the use of force. As the bumper sticker says, they’re “already against the next war.” But I’ve noticed another disturbing trend: left wing anti-Semitism.

Before I point this out I want to make two points. First, I am not Jewish; my ancestry is English and Christian. Secondly, I understand that most people who oppose Israel’s current actions are not anti-Semitic.

However, there is a virulent strain of antisemitism on the American Left. I believe that the moral equivalence argument and analogy between the State of Israel and the Nazi regime is anti-Semitic. The atrocities committed by the Nazi clique, mass murder on an industrial scale (some camps murdering 20,000 souls per day), was an evil so grotesque and nearly beyond comprehension that special care must be taken when speaking about an event which cost so many innocents their lives.

Israel is a secular, multi-ethnic democracy who is defending herself against a terrorist organization. Hamas like Al-Qaeda, is an off-shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan, Australia, and the United Kingdom.”

The allegedly intelligent blogger, Joseph Cannon, has posted an image based on Nazi propaganda. The soldier’s Swastika has been replaced with a Star of David. As if this wasn’t bad enough, Cannon then uses select quotes from the Bible’s books Deuteronomy and Joshua to attack the secular Jewish State. This selective quoting of religious texts to attack a people is a familiar form of religious bigotry perpetrated on Muslims and Christians today and, historically, on Jews, as if Jews today have to answer for every word of a 5,000 year old religion. Cannon is engaged in Jew-baiting, and it’s despicable.

Additionally, Cannon uses the canard that Israel possess “stolen” land. He writes: “keep in mind that this story is about land theft, pure and simple. The Lord is here the ultimate fall guy, the original Nuremburg excuse: ‘Hey, we didn’t want to commit genocide; we were only following orders.’”

It’s unfortunate that Cannon uses the Nazi tribunals and religious text as a comparison to a secular democracy defending itself from terrorists’ attacks.

Cannon’s writing then veers close to Der Stürmer, the anti-Semitic rag of Nazism:

Too many Jews learned the wrong lesson from World War II. The victims of persecution came to equate strength with a willingness to persecute others. Like many other peoples in many other times and places, a large number of Jews were seduced into the false belief that the hardest heart beats longest.

But history teaches a very different lesson. Hitler’s Germany did not last. The Third Reich was destroyed for its evil. Germany was divided like an earthworm. Yet it recovered. Who can deny that — in the long run — the best thing ever to happen to Germany was the eradication of its government and its (temporary) loss of national sovereignty at the end of World War II?

~snip~

Israel must be destroyed, just as Hitler’s Germany was destroyed. All Jews throughout the world must forevermore rid themselves of the lunatic, racist dream of “Jewish state.” Jews living in Israel will either agree to live in a single multi-ethnic democracy in which everyone ruled (directly or indirectly) by the government has an equal vote — or they will die in their madness.

The madness of Cannon’s thesis is his shameful omission of Hamas’ terrorism, the numerous murders, suicide bombers, rockets launched at innocent Israeli citizens, and kidnapping of IDF soldiers. He deplores the establishment of a Jewish state, but ignores the goal of Hamas to establish an Islamic state. Nor does he mention that Israel does have non-Jewish citizens, including Muslims, Druze, and Christians. His rage is directed at the idea that a people can establish a homeland, but clearly he is uneducated at the plight of Jews in pre-World War Two Europe. He claims that “too many Jews learned the wrong lesson in World War Two,” but he fails to note that the assimilated Jews of Europe were nearly all murdered exactly because they had no where to turn when anti-Semitism reared its ugly head.

Cannon then goes on to say that the “Old Testament,” is evil:

In my explorations, I have never found any other “sacred” text dripping with the inexcusable bloodlust and hate one can find in the Old Testament. My sympathies now lie with the Gnostics, who considered much of that book evil

Cannon is referring to the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. His ignorance is profound. The Jewish Torah (as it’s called in Judaism) and the Old Testament are not identical. This shows his utter ignorance and bigotry. But of course Cannon is not alone.

In a similar vein, a commentator named Alibe on American Girl in Italy’s recent post writes:

The current war between Hamas and Israel is not war. This is the equivalent of The Germans clearing out the Warsaw Ghetto. Gaza has been a ghetto. Israel has treated the people of gaza as less than human. They have tried to control every aspect of life in Gaza. Just as the Nazis tried to control the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, the Israelis have morphed into the Nazis and now use the same thinking the Nazis did.

Besides the author’s ahistorical understanding of the Holocaust, the analogy also falls apart when you point out that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were not launching rockets at the civilian population of Poland nor did they have it as their charter to destroy the nation of Germany — although Germany’s anti-Semitic propaganda claimed they did.

As I wrote on the same post:

Land was not “taken away” from Palestinians. Jewish holocaust survivors [and others] fought the British who controlled a colony the British called Palestine, which was never a Palestinian state. In fact, there has never been a country called Palestine. There’s a democracy in that region, called Israel, which continues to be attacked by a terrorist government, called Hamas. Israel is now dismantling this terrorist organization, an organization — by the way — whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and who has killed thousands of Israelis.

Israel is open to criticism. And friends of Israel, like Larry Johnson, have been critical of this military action against Hamas in Gaza.

Liberal antisemitism is hateful and ubiquitous. A Daily Kos diarist, Susan Jumper, wrote that she’d like to “gas” the Jewish Sen. Joseph Lieberman, and others on her post compared Sen. Lieberman to a dog that should be killed.

Similarly, during an anti-Israel demonstration in Florida, protesters shouted:

“Did Israel take notes during the Holocaust? Happy Hanukkah.”

And:

To the dozen or so supporters of Israel gathered across the street, one demonstrator shouted: “Murderers! Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven.”

While it’s inflammatory to call someone a Nazi, I believe it’s anti-Semitic to call Israelis Nazis. Just as it’s correctly verboten for whites to use the N-word, it’s equally offensive to engage in this not so subtle form of Jew-baiting. Barely disguised anti-Semitism (or the outright murderous fantasies of Daily Kos’ Susan Jumper, Joseph Cannon, and the protesters in Florida) have become très chic in Europe and the United States. We can argue over matters of policy, but false comparisons, attacks based on religious texts, and code words have no place in our discourse. It’s important to point out that words have implications, and it’s clear that anti-Semitism is being implied.

As Israelis say about the Holocaust, Never Again. Never again.

Back to my YouTube and Google search to find those two artists: my search took me to this page (play the music if you like; I ‘m sure you’ll like it). Out of curiosity, I dug around that page more and the owner of the folder turned out to be a Pakistani physician. His page is a treasure trove of Hindustani classical music and I am ecstatic to have found it. What also caught my eye in his profile were two simple lines he proclaimed as his philosophy. It said “MUSIC KEEPS THE MULLAH AND OTHER EVIL ELEMENTS AWAY FROM YOU ~ A RAGA A DAY KEEPS THE MULLAH AWAY.”

It appears that this rational person can look at what is wrong with his religion and say it openly. I will go out on a limb to say that millions of such people in middle Pakistan, middle India, and everywhere exist.

In fact, some of the sanest comments come from people who are in the middle of such conflicts but don’t have a voice.

Watch this video from Al Jazeera.

What was interesting to me in that video was the young couple who spoke against extremism on both sides, extremist Islamic militants and erratic but government initiated extreme response in the name of war on terrorism (think Iraq would fit into that category?). What was frightening to me was the young son of the slain leader of that madrasa saying that Sharia law has to be implemented in Pakistan. He even quoted the basic reason for Pakistan’s existence since independence in 1947 — a Muslim state that the founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah created resulting in the partition of India. I see an identity crisis in Pakistan as we saw exemplified in that video, between the modern young couple with a cosmopolitan outlook and the religious fanaticism of the militants and a government or Army interested in its own welfare.

Middle Pakistan is hurting from inside even as its army and the feckless government hurt its neighbors, Afghanistan on the one side and India on the other. Take for instance the Mumbai attack — since the attack about a month ago, nothing much has been done to identify the real culprits even though everyone knows who they are; Pakistan flip flops in the mounting evidence of the responsibility of its terrorist groups for the attack — it wants more evidence. US back pedals from holding Pakistan fully accountable and gives its wishy-washy assurances to both countries. As M.J.Akbar in his Op-Ed summarized aptly, Taliban on the one side and Pentagon on the other, Pakistani Army marches on, terrorizing the world including its own:

It is always useful to apply the Agatha Christie principle in any mystery: who gains from murder? Who gained from terrorism in Mumbai? There is only one winner: the Pakistan Army. The disgrace into which it had been dragged by Pervez Musharraf has been erased; it is wrapped once again in the blanket of confrontation with India. Zardari’s amateur attempts at a peace deal with India are dead, a prelude perhaps to his own decline. He will no longer attempt to encroach into ISI space. Pakistan’s generals are proving to be excellent tacticians. They have maneuvered impressively through the terror-crisis to emerge with the local Taliban on one arm, and the Pentagon on the other.

What will the US do?

Meanwhile, my new found Pakistani friend and I realize that there is more that we have in common than we think and it is not just limited to good music. We want peace and stability, economic growth and educational opportunities. We want less of religion and more of the secular and the rational. We recognize that there has to be a private and public aspect to religion — the private and the individual affair with one’s religion cannot intrude on the public space where many are affected. We realize that religion as a private individual affair will prevent political leaders or terrorist elements from playing on one’s emotions for their nefarious needs using religion. Unfortunately, we also know that much of this is easier said than done, especially in developing countries where poverty and illiteracy take over one’s better judgment. The lone terrorist captured in the Mumbai attack comes from a poor family in eastern Pakistan without much prospect for a normal life. The terror group Lashkar-e-Toiba and the lure of a couple of thousands of dollars for his recruitment were enough for the misguided young man to join the group which carried out the attack on Mumbai [more here]. It is no secret that some of the tens of billions in US aid would have found its way to Lashkar via Pakistani Army and ISI.

But how did the extremists come to have so much power in the name of religion? I would say by mixing political grievances with religious indignation — tapping anger as a community organizing principle, where else have we heard that? There is nothing else as potent as telling someone that their religion is being attacked and their way of life is being rejected, rightly or wrongly. The case in point — take a look at this video of a British Mullah — he is apparently quite popular and has a following there. It is inconceivable to me that he has a platform and a voice under the guise of freedom of speech. That he does and it is democracy. But where is what should be an equally vocal opposition? At some point shouldn’t saner voices drown this guy’s hate-filled speech?

What if ordinary people registered their opposition when their religious leaders play politics or spread hate and discrimination? What can religious and other community leaders do to voice their opposition to the abuse of their religion by miscreants in their community?

Will this video below count as a healthy opposition to religious leaders run amuck or will it be dismissed as religion bashing?

Complex emotions and complex problems. While we search for the common ground, let us do so by reclaiming the power in being secular and rational. No religion is perfect.

I come from a land of spiritualism and superstitions, of belief in a supreme unnamed being to 100s of big and small, male and female deities worshiped in every street corner, the purported high and the low; while I can be dismissive of the low, I am also reluctant to acknowledge the high. The word spiritualism as defined by people like Deepak Chopras or Eckhart Tolles of the world annoys me. Anybody who really gets the meaning of that word, will perhaps lead a quiet life without trying to make a cottage industry out of it; they will at least not have the ego to delude themselves into thinking that only they can help others — they will certainly not go on Oprah’s show.

If you sensed my irreverence, you will see that I am not that removed from India’s heritage of religious dissension which has been alive and well from first millennium BC. The group of early dissenters from India’s past were called Lokayata or C[h]arvakas and unfortunately much of their writing has been lost and whatever evidence is there of their existence comes from other philosophers’ works trying to refute their way of life. These Indian atheists had a long presence in its rich history even until as recently as the late sixteenth century when Akbar’s chronicler, Abul Fazl recorded their active participation in Akbar’s multi-religious conferences. Some well known thoughts and ideas attributable to their writings are cited by the Nobel prize winning economist, Amartya Sen in his book The Argumentative Indian. Quoting Sen:

In addition to the denial of God, there is also a rejection of soul, and an assertion of the material basis of the mind: ‘ [from these material elements] alone, when transformed into the body, intelligence is produced, just as the inebriating power is developed from the mixing of certain ingredients; and when these are destroyed, intelligence at once perishes also.’ Along with these radical beliefs about the nature of life and mind, there is also a philosophy of value, which concentrates on identifiable pleasure, not any ‘happiness in a future world’. There is recurrent advice on how to live: `While life is yours, live joyously!’ There is also an acrid and cynical explanation of the cultivated survival of religious illusions among people: `There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world… it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmins have established here all the ceremonies for the dead — there is no other fruit anywhere.’

That last line is quite a dig at the caste system and the Brahmins. Seems to me that these ancient atheists were a vocal non-conforming group motivated by truth and honesty criticizing the orthodoxies of the day. Their fearlessness in accepting the world as is without superficial religious constructs, is also commendable. Godlessness of such groups however, will actually scare some religious people for whom godliness and morality go together. But do they have to, God and morality?

The connection between religion and morality is at best tenuous. For a contemporary treatment on morality without religion, read Hauser and Singer in an Op-Ed written for Free Inquiry (Dec 2005/Jan 2006, Vol. 26, No 1), a publication from the Council for Secular Humanism:

How do we know that believers and atheists approach moral problems in similar ways? Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally “obligatory,” “permissible,” or “forbidden.” 1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ______. 2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond, and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______. 3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospital’s waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person’s organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person’s organs is _______.

If you judged case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then you are like the 1,500 subjects around the world who responded to these dilemmas on our Web-based “moral-sense test” (http://moral.wjh. harvard.edu). On the view that morality is God’s word, atheists should judge these cases differently from people with religious background and beliefs, and when asked to justify their responses, should bring forward different explanations. For example, since atheists lack a moral compass, they should go with pure self-interest and walk by the drowning baby. Results show something completely different. There were no statistically significant differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with approximately 90 percent of subjects saying that it is permissible to flip the switch on the boxcar, 97 percent saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby, and 97 percent saying that it is forbidden to remove the healthy man’s organs. When asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others forbidden, subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that cannot account for the differences in play. Importantly, those with a religious background are as clueless or incoherent as atheists. These studies begin to provide empirical support for the idea that, like other psychological faculties of the mind, including language an mathematics, we are endowed with a moral faculty that guides our intuitive judgments of right and wrong, interacting in interesting ways with the local culture. These intuitions reflect the outcome of millions of years in which our ancestors have lived as social mammals and are part of our common inheritance, as much as our opposable thumbs are. These facts are incompatible with the story of divine creation.

Read the rest of that article for a fascinating discussion on religion and morality.

So many of today’s problems around the world seem to emanate from highly dogmatic religious fervor of all kinds. It is perhaps better to put aside one’s religiosity and enter the world with just the humanity that our long and enduring civilizations have taught us. Bertrand Russell in his essay Why I am not a Christian speaks for me when he says:

We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world — its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.