Muslims Top Catholics; Fitna Update

Fox has a couple of interesting news items about Islam. The first reports:

Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population -- a stable percentage -- while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

Formenti offered a reason for the trends: "[W]hile Muslim families... continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer."

However, "Christians make up 33 percent of the world population, Formenti said."

So, combined, Muslims plus Christians make up just over half of the earth's population. Regardless of which sect is on top, monotheism is clearly dominant.

In other news, "Nations around the world are protesting the release of a Dutch lawmaker's anti-Islamic film." The film in question is Fitna. It's unclear to me whether YouTube videos referred to as "Fitna" that I was unable to watch are related to the Fitna in question, but it seems not. The link to the video that Fox uses works at this time.

The video contains three main elements: select versus from the Quran that endorse violence, recorded speeches by various Muslims that endorse violence, and scenes of Islamic violence. The movie does not demonstrate that Islam is inherently violent, but it does demonstrate that various Muslims have, in fact, endorsed and carried out terrorist violence. Indeed, the creator of the film, Geert Wilders, has received death threats. (I have read claims alleging that Wilders supports policies that I oppose, including censorship, but I don't know whether those claims are true. Regardless, he deserves freedom of speech and the right to live without fear of being murdered.)

If Islam does not promote violence, then it is up to the followers of Islam to prove it by abstaining from, preventing, and denouncing Islamic violence.

The story from Fox continues, "Despite their condemnation, the European leaders defended the right to freedom of speech and called on Muslims to react peacefully." At least freedom of speech remains a live issue. Unfortunately, "hundreds of Indonesian students took to the streets Sunday... demanding that authorities shut down websites carrying Geert Wilders' film."

And the group Muslims for Free Speech said... nothing, because, as far as I could find with a quick internet search, there is no such organization.

I did check the Minaret of Freedom; a search of "free speech" there pulled up ten hits, most of which are not relevant. At least the organization did criticize the use of legislation to censor speech:

Dutch extremist politician Geert Wilders finally releases his anti-Islam film online, but his project of incitement might be undermined by another Islamophobe as Muhammad (PBUH) cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says he'll sue over the film's unlawful use of his drawing…

* Online, a Violent View of Islam (Washington Post)
* Cartoonist to Sue Over Islam Film (BBC News)

…meanwhile the UN Human Rights Council passes an ill-conceived OIC-backed resolution using legislation rather than the free market of ideas to counter hate speech against other faiths:

* UN OKs Islamic Text Against Defamation (Associated Press/Washington Post)

The organization does not explain what constitutes "Islamophobia" -- apparently anything critical of Islam qualifies. Nor the does the organization explain why it thinks Fitna constitutes "hate speech."

There is, however, very obvious "hate speech" associated with Fitna: it is the speech coming from the recordings of Islamists, such as when one Islamic leader pulls out a sword while exhorting a crowd to behead Jews.

Update: I did find a release from "Young Muslims for Freedom of Speech:"

The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO) condemns any form of blasphemy that was displayed in the printing of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad. We are dismayed at the publications and voice our strong objection to this treatment of Prophet Mohammed and any other Prophet (peace and blessings be on them) as being insulting and unacceptable.

Khallad Swaid, President of FEMYSO said: "The freedom of speech is an important fundamental right, which is not to be compromised, but as everything else, has its limits."

"Where religious beliefs, regardless of the religion, or feelings are hurt, its limit has been exceeded." We welcome critical debate but this is an abuse of the freedom of speech which has deliberately provoked Muslims and fuelled hatred and this is unacceptable. Therefore we call on all sections of the media to be more sensitive and responsible and on the governments to take a more robust stance in condemning such offensive images. The FEMYSO [Forum of Eurpoean Muslim Youth and Studnt Organisations] condemns with the strongest terms any violence against people or objects and calls upon all Muslims to protest by peaceful means and respect our fellow Europeans who are not to blame generaly. This neither has been the way the Prophet Muhammad reacted at any time himself nor is it considered to be of civilised manner. He always searched for ways using dialogue to communicate, exchange and explain himself towards his counterpart. We also suggest to our member organisations to use this opportunity to introduce to their societies the life and character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who was always seeking justice and peace.

I find several things about this release interesting. At least the release "condemns... violence." Unfortunately, the release does not actually advocate freedom of speech. It does not condemn censorship, but it does claim that free speech "has its limits." It condemns the cartoons -- and, by implication, any criticism of Islam or even any portrayal of the image of Muhammad -- as "blasphemous." Moreover, the release blames the Danish cartoons for Islamic violence, which is absurd.

Peikoff's Eleventh Podcast

Leonard Peikoff has released his eleventh podcast. He discusses seven main questions:

1. Does a John Galt exist in the real world?
2. Is Objectivism hedonistic?
3. What should we make of Bill Gates's recent comments?
4. Are there evil geniuses in the world?
5. Does everyone appreciate art?
6. When does one develop a sense of life?
7. Is it possible to be moral but miserable?

Peikoff offers some interesting comments about Kant and psychology, but I was most interested in Peikoff's comments regarding the second question. Peikoff begins by discussing the nature of happiness; it is not a "state of emotional pleasure." Instead, it is a "long-term... enduring, fundamental pleasure" based on a relationship to reality. Hedonism suggests acting on whim. For Objectivism, happiness is not the standard of ethics, life is. Happiness is the result of a living a moral life. There is a "big difference between standard and purpose" in the Objectivist ethics, Peikoff explains.

By the way, the word is that Peikoff's podcasts will be made available through iTunes.

To Hell with Hell

According to one of Wes Morriston's friends, long ago Morriston insisted that Ghandi was burning in Hell and would continue to do so for all eternity. Now that Morriston has thought about the matter a bit more, he has concluded that, not only is Ghandi not burning in Hell, but nobody will suffer an eternity in Hell. Morriston presented his ideas February 21 at a THINK! lecture sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Morriston's complete lecture is available online in mp3 format; his lecture notes too are available.

I was worried when, early on, Morriston conceded that, if there is no life after death, the debate about Hell is rather pointless, but then asked us to suppose that there is life after death. Was this going to be a night of angels and pins? But Morriston's talk turned into a fascinating history lesson of various views of Hell, and an explanation of why many of those views contain faulty arguments.

Morriston argued, "If you believe in God, you probably shouldn't believe in Hell." His basic argument is that people, as finite beings, are incapable of doing something that would merit infinite punishment. If God is just, then he would not sentence any mortal being to an infinite punishment. (Morriston allowed for the possibility of a very long punishment.)

Morriston briefly reviewed the views of Hell by such Christians as Dennis Prager, Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, and Stephen Davis. [Actually Prager is Jewish.] He effectively responded to each argument in turn.

Edwards, for example, claimed about Hell, "The seeing of the calamities of others tends to heighten the sense of our own enjoyments. When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state..."

Morriston's most interesting arguments opposed the "free will defense for hell" of Lewis and Davis. The idea is that people "choose to be in hell" and "live their lives apart from God" (in Davis's words). Morriston offered three possibilities for why someone might make such a choice. First, a person might be ill-informed, but then how could the person reasonably be punished for that? Second, a person might be a "reasonable non-believer," which is different from "rejecting God." Again, why would this merit eternal punishment? Finally, a person might ruin his soul to the point where redemption is impossible. But then "why doesn't God fix their wills and restore their freedom?"

But doesn't Christian theology clearly maintain the existence of Hell? Morriston offered two responses. First, if the Bible really supports a belief in Hell (as eternal punishment), then something in the Bible is wrong. Second, it's not clear that the Bible does support a belief in Hell (as eternal punishment); Morriston pointed to an essay by Keith DeRose on the matter.

However, while it's all very interesting to look at some of the details of Christian theology, the supernatural realm does not exist, and that remains the most important reason why one should not fear spending an eternity in Hell.

Fitna and Free Speech

I have not seen the film Fitna, because, when I tried to watch it on YouTube, YouTube offered only the following messages: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." "This account is suspended." So I don't know what the film contains other than what I've read in the media, aside from a few minutes I saw before the videos were pulled. I am not at this point able to judge either the film or its creator.

The AP reported that the film's creator, Geert Wilders, "lives under police protection due to death threats." The article adds, "A Dutch court will hear a complaint lodged by Muslim groups seeking to bar Wilders from releasing the film March 28, but there is no legal barrier preventing Wilders from releasing his film before then."

The article states, "Wilders has not described the 15-minute movie [which appeared to be much longer on YouTube before it was removed from YouTube], due to be released by March 31, in detail but has said it will underscore his view that Islam's holy book is 'fascist'."

So Wilders has claimed that the Quran is fascist, and therefore various defenders of the Quran, in order to disprove his claim, are trying to censor his film or murder him.

Bush's Love

President Bush said the following about the U.S. military in an address regarding Easter: "These brave individuals have lived out the words of the Gospel: 'Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'."

I have several responses to this.

1. Unlike the mythical Jesus, American soldiers do not arise from the dead.

2. The proper purpose of the U.S. military is not to give U.S. soldiers the opportunity to find heavenly bliss, but to achieve earthly security for the U.S. (including its soldiers).

3. To paraphrase Douglas MacArthur [actually, George Patton], Bush shouldn't be trying to get U.S. soldiers to lay down their lives; he should be trying to get the other bastards (Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors) to lay down their lives.

4. The grain of truth to Bush's statement is that a moral individual can put his or her life at risk, if there's no better option, in order to save a loved one. And obviously soldiers put their lives at risk to protect their country, their loved ones, their way of life, and ultimately themselves. But the point of our nation's foreign policy should be to limit as much as possible the threats and harms to American citizens -- including soldiers. Bush's statement amounts to a rationalization for needless deaths of American soldiers for goals other than national security. And no reference to mythology can hide Bush's gross immorality on that point.

Coca-Cola Crucifixions

Invesco Field at Mile High. Coors Field. I can handle that. But Coca-Cola Crucifixions? That's going a bit far. Yet, according to the Telegraph, Coca-Cola and Smart Telecommunications are sponsoring a festival in the Philippines in which people reenact the crucifixion of Jesus, in some cases using real nails. The March 20 article by Thomas Bell carries the absurdly understated title: "Easter warning: crucifixion is bad for you."

The link also shows a Reuters photo of a man hanging from a cross with nails through his hands. Well, he's cheating a bit, because his arms are tied to the crossbeam with ropes, and the nails are pounded through his palms. As I learned in my childhood church, the nails actually went through the wrists, so that they didn't tear through the flesh between the bones in the palms. (You wouldn't want people falling off their crosses!) And part of the agony of crucifixion is that it's hard to breath while hanging from the wrists, so you have to keep lifting yourself up by the nails in your wrists, until you become too exhausted to do so and suffocate to death. The man shown in the photo doesn't look especially comfortable, but the ropes are denying him his opportunity to fully share in the misery of Christ. But, then, these people don't imagine that they can come back to life after decomposing in a tomb for three days, so they get to come down off their crosses before doing too much physical damage to themselves. (While I learned little in my church about, for instance, the Christian takeover of Roman government, I learned quite a lot about crucifixions.)

Anyway, the article reports:

Many people in the Philippines consider crucifixion and self flagellation good for the soul, but it is bad for your health according to new government advice for penitents.

"We are not trying to go against the Lenten tradition here because whipping has somewhat already become some form of 'atonement for sins' for some of us," Health Secretary Francisco Duque the 3rd said.

"Getting deep cut wounds during whippings or lashings is inevitable and being so exposed during the course of the penitence, with all the heat and dust blowing in the wind, welcomes all sorts of infections and bacteria like tetanus," he explained.

Re-enactments of the Passion of Christ are common in many parts of the mostly Roman Catholic Philippines but frowned upon by the church authorities.

In San Fernando City 23 people, including two women, have signed up to re-enact the crucifixion at three "improvised Golgothas" around town. Four of them will use real nails.

The city government's website trumpets the preparations.

"The City Health Office (CHO) autoclaved all the nails to be used and will administer anti-tetanus vaccine to all the 'Cristos' to ensure their protection from possible infection," it points out. City officials will conduct an inspection of the Golgothas on Thursday. ... [Credit for link: Paul Hsieh]

Doesn't this juxtaposition of tatanus shots, made possible by germ theory and medical science, alongside ritualistic self-torture, strike anyone as, you know, odd?

Thankfully, here in Denver, reenactments of the crucifixion don't involve actual nails.

Voluntary crucifixion, while morally reprehensible, is similar to prostitution in that it should be legal for consenting adults, however stupid and self-destructive it is. But for the local government to sanction the event is -- I struggle to come up with an adequate adjective. Absurd? Ridiculous? Hysterical? Detestable? Horrific?

But maybe Coca-Cola can push the gig a bit further. Do you think sugar water can be subject to transubstantiation?

'A Drug-Using Atheist'

Christian columnist and professor Mike Adams recently admitted past drug use and commented on Obama's past drug use:

In addition to smoking marijuana -- sometimes laced with substances like PCP -- for a number of years, I also experimented with drugs like hashish, powdered cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines (including ecstasy). I regret my decision to use illegal drugs in my youth and I'm really sorry. Now that my past drug use is out of the way, let's move on to Barack Obama.

I may surprise a number of people by saying that I don't think Obama's past drug use -- including the use of powdered cocaine -- in any way disqualifies him from being President. I know I've had no trouble refraining from illegal drug use since I joined a Christian church many years ago.

I had not heard about Obama's drug use, but an article from the Washington Post confirms it:

Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself [in Dreams From My Father]: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind." ... Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.

I agree with Adams that Obama's past drug use does not disqualify him for the presidency (and Republicans can hardly argue the point, given the man they put into office). However, Adams suggests that the reason we can trust Obama not to return to drug use is that he converted to Christianity -- which is ridiculous. Many Christians abuse drugs, including alcohol, while many atheists do not. What's important is for somebody to build a better moral character. I personally know people who, in that process, became religious, but that's because they saw religion as the only alternative to the moral subjectivism that had troubled them. I also personally know people who, as they overcame drug abuse, either remained atheists or moved away from religion and toward a secular morality. (I particularly recommend Craig Biddle's Loving Life and Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics for their discussions of rational virtues.)

I started out as a Christian; then I became an atheist who abused drugs (particularly alcohol, but a few times other drugs). Finally I grew up, took a hard look at my past mistakes, and started to work hard to improve my character. (I'm still working out a few details.)

I know I've had no trouble refraining from drug abuse since I rejected first the Christian church and then a pragmatic subjectivism many years ago.

Faith Undermines Reason

On March 20, two men made very different remarks about the relationship between faith and reason.

For Father Jonathan Morris, "[H]uman reason [is] the great cultural meeting point for people of every race and creed. ... [Pope] Benedict sees rationality as the only suitable launching pad of all true faith..."

Yet, if it is reason that makes possible mutual understanding, what does faith contribute? Historically, while faith has brought together many people within various regions, as in the Egyptian Nile or the Christian Roman Empire, faith has also inspired the oppression and slaughter of internal dissenters, bloody wars between people of different faiths, and external conquest in the service of faith.

Every person has the capacity to reason, and reality is the final arbiter of what is reasonable. Reason means invoking arguments and evidence to establish what is true in reality. Faith, on the other hand, depends on alleged divine revelation and/or some authority. Men of reason may resolve conflicts by reference to a common standard -- reality -- while men of faith have no such "meeting point."

In an article titled "The Easter Masquerade," Keith Lockitch notes the irony of the dating of Easter, accomplished through precise scientific means, and the subsequent persecution of men of science by the church. Lockitch notes the "long history of the hostility of faith towards reason -- which continues to this day." He continues:

Violent clashes between the two are not only possible but unavoidable, and the notion that religion can coexist on friendly terms with science and reason is false. ...

Religion's alleged harmony with science is a fraudulent masquerade, extending only insofar as religious dogmas are not called into question. True defenders of science must be committed to reason as an absolute principle -- following facts wherever they lead and bowing to no authorities but logic and reality. And they must understand that the servile obedience demanded by faith is wholly incompatible with science -- and with the rational thinking on which all human progress and prosperity depends.

The relationship of faith to reason is wholly a parasitical one. Faith cannot survive without some practice of reason, else the faithful would soon die out, yet reason succeeds to the extent that it is freed from faith.

NYT on McCain: Forest, Anyone?

The New York Times is after John McCain (again). Michael Cooper writes in his March 19 story:

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan -- in a news conference and in a radio interview -- that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group. ...

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

So the chip of bark is that McCain made a minor misstatement about which terrorists Iran is training in Iraq.

But, while the Times has consumed forests of newsprint through its years, neither that paper nor either of the Democrats running for president seem prepared even to glance at this forest:

"...Iran... has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq..."

How exactly does that qualify as anything other than an act of war by Iran against the United States?

Meanwhile, McCain has glanced at the forest and smelled the smoke from the fire raging within it. Unfortunately, I suspect that, if elected president, his response would be either to busily pump up his squirt gun -- or to try to douse the flames with American bodies. Neither approach is sane, but there is another alternative.

Obama's 'Perfect Union' Speech

Given a political problem that began with the words of Barack Obama's pastor, Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 had little to do with religion. The troubling comments of Jeremiah Wright, some of which I've reviewed, were typical of the far left, but they had nothing to do with religion. Yet the comments that Obama did make about religion are worth a look.

For what it's worth, I thought Obama's speech was masterful. The people still mad about his affiliation with Wright never would have voted for Obama, anyway.

I was surprised to hear Obama make such a strong statement regarding the motives of terrorism in the Middle East:

[Wright's view wrongly] sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

After describing where Wright went wrong, Obama then discusses what he appreciates about the man:

[Wright] is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Obviously if people want to voluntarily care for the sick, the poor, and people with disease, they are free to do so. But Obama believes that these Christian policies should be imposed through political force. He named four main policy issues in the speech: health care, education, jobs, and the war. His policies are typical of the left; he wants to expand federal political control of health care, education, and employment, even though existing political controls are the cause of problems in those areas. (Obama's plan to socialize medicine would disproportionately harm the very people he claims to chamption.) For decades the left has been promoting what is essentially a secularized and coercive version of the Christian ethos. The only difference with Obama is that he is explicit about the religious connection.

Nevertheless, the policies that Obama promotes, however much they violate individual rights and economic liberty, remain separable from religion. That's more than can be said for some of the policies that John McCain endorses.

Scripture and the Death Penalty

A recent exchange of letters in the Rocky Mountain News illustrates the utter futility of arguing for or against any narrow political policy based on scripture, especially in criticism of some standard or wide-spread Christian view. While it can be interesting to look at whether Christians follow the text of the Bible as an afterthought or minor polemical point, scripture can never be the center of discussion.

On March 4, Roger Balmer argued:

With regard to the death penalty, what is there about the following verses from the Bible that "Christian" America doesn't seem to understand: "Thou shalt not kill." "Recompense to no man evil for evil." "Love your enemy." "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath." "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

Of course, this was unpersuasive to a Christian who advocates the death penalty. On March 17, the Reverend Douglas Van Dorn (apparently of the Reformed Baptist Church) replied:

With regard to picking and choosing some verses from the Bible over
others instead of taking "the whole council of God" together, what is there about these other verses that some Christians don't seem to understand: "Whoever does [insert any number of sins] shall be put to death." "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." "They were given authority to kill with the sword."

There are only two answers. Either people intentionally create another God besides the one who wrote the whole Bible, or they ignorantly conflate laws that respect individuals ("Love your enemy," "Thou shalt not murder") with the lex talionis ("an eye for an eye") which respects the state, thereby inventing contradiction where none in fact exists. In the process, they deny the words of the New Testament that the one in authority "is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4).

So let us only briefly note the (rather large) problem that Van Dorn's phrase, "insert any number of sins," includes "sins" such as adultery, homosexuality, and dishonoring one's parents. If Van Dorn does not promote the death penalty for those cases, then he has fallen into the same alleged error of which he accuses Balmer. But that, as I have suggested, is irrelevant to whether the death penalty should remain in force. (My point here is not to argue for or against the death penalty, but merely to note that scripture cannot and should not answer the question as a political matter.)

To take another example, I ran a quick Google search of "bible abortion." Of the top four hits, two pages -- one and two -- claim that the Bible prohibits abortion. The others -- one and two -- claim that the Bible does not prohibit abortion.

As Sam Harris notes, in many cases the Bible says whatever its readers think it says. (On other matters, such as the exhortation to kill homosexuals, Biblical passages seem rather clear, though few readers of such passages take them seriously.)

But it simply does not matter what the Bible says -- about the death penalty, abortion, or anything else -- we do not and should not live in a theocracy, and political policy ought not have any basis whatsoever in religious teachings. I don't care if the Bible said, "The United States of America, and every state thereof, shall institute the death penalty for crimes of premeditated murder between the years 1800 and 2100 of the Common Era, and this passage shall take precedence over every other passage of scripture;" that would not be a legitimate reason to maintain (or repeal) the death penalty.

Any legitimate political policy rests on a secular foundation. While some secular reasons might have something in common with various religious beliefs, if the policy is not separable from religious doctrine, it is not legitimate.

Wafa Sultan Defends Liberty

Along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan is among the most courageous people in the world. As Rule of Reason pointed out, Sultan recently debated an Egyptian about religion. The video and transcript are available. Sultan said:

All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally.

The moderator of the television show said, "How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust? Are they allowed to talk about Christianity? That is the question. Cinemas were burned down in the West when they talked about Christ."

There is no legitimate comparison of free speech between the Muslim world and the West. The Muslim world routinely practices censorship and threatens to murder people for their speech. The West -- and especially the United States -- upholds free speech in almost every case. (The few exceptions should be eliminated.) The comment about cinemas being burned down is a fabrication, as Sultan pointed out.

Meanwhile, in Iran...

Iran's Culture Ministry on Sunday announced the closure of nine cinema and lifestyle magazines for publishing pictures and stories about the life of "corrupt" foreign film stars and promoting "superstitions."

The Press Supervisory Board, a body controlled by hard-liners, also sent warning notes to 13 other publications and magazines on "observing the provisions of the press law," the ministry said on its Web site. ...

The ministry said it shut them down for "using photos of artists, especially foreign corrupt film stars, as instruments (to arouse desire), publishing details about their decadent private lives, propagating medicines without authorization, promoting superstitions."

That's rich: Islamic fascists imposing censorship to prevent the promotion of superstitions!

While there are some Americans who wish to impose censorship in the U.S. (who are in cases regarding alleged obscenity primarily motivated by religious beliefs), most Americans (including religious ones) are dedicated to the rights of free speech. While much of the Muslim world called for the murder of the Danish cartoonists, most of America stood up for free speech. To give just one example, the Rocky Mountain News published not only one of the Danish cartoons but various other cartoons offensive to various groups, as explained in an editorial and an article by the publisher, John Temple. Temple wrote:

I thought you might be interested in seeing what readers said, given that the Rocky Mountain News is one of the few American newspapers to expose its readers to any of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that are blamed for rioting across the Muslim world.

"Thank you," was the consistent message.

Indeed, the News, and people like Sultan, deserve our thanks for defending freedom of speech.

Hindu Hard-Liners

Actor Richard Gere found himself in a bit of trouble in India, as the Rocky Mountain News reported March 15 based on AP material:

India's top court suspended an arrest warrant Friday against Hollywood star Richard Gere, wanted for allegedly breaking public obscenity laws by kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty at a public AIDS awareness event last year, an attorney [Anil Grover] said. ...

Gere embraced and kissed Shetty on her cheek at the public AIDS awareness event in New Delhi on April 15 last year, prompting Hindu hard-liners to allege the pair had offended the sensibilities of India's traditionally conservative culture.

How dare Gere kiss a woman on the cheek during an effort to reduce AIDS! The horror of it all! Blindfold the children! Call the police!

Or the "Hindu hard-liners" could investigate that wonderful American invention: the Chill Pill.

Wright vs. Hagee: Pick Your Crazy

Mark Wolf of the Rocky Mountain News has collected some (shall we say) interesting quotes from two pastors tangentially related to the presidential campaign. Wolf writes, "Jeremiah Wright who recently retired from Obama's church, married the Obamas and baptized their children." And John Hagee endorsed John McCain. All links are originally from Wolf except for a link to Hagee's web page. What do these two Christian leaders believe?

Wolf points to a story from ABC about Wright:

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

So, to Wright, the fact that the U.S. bombed a nation that brutally attacked and waged war against the U.S., and the U.S. failed to side with Palestinian terrorist campaigns, means that the U.S. deserved or invited the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Wright's views are somewhat similar to those of Ward Churchill, who also used the line about chickens roosting with respect to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Wright's comments are reprehensible.

Hagee has taken heat for comments that he made regarding the Catholic Church. Hagee claims some of his comments were taken out of context. You can hear these comments for yourself in a video from Veracifier available through YouTube. Hagee's statements about the Catholic Church hardly reveal the extent of the man's lunacy. When Hagee makes the following remarks, he is pointing to a figurine of a person riding atop a horned lion:

This [it's unclear whether Hagee is pointing to the lion or the person] is the great whore of Revelation 17. This [the lion] is the antichrist system. This [the person] is the apostate church. In this cup [held by the person] if you will read it in the book of Revelation is the blood of the saints. This is talking principally about the blood of the Jewish people. Where? From the crusades, that happened back here [earlier on a timeline]. From the Spanish Inquisition. From the Holocaust. When Adolf Hitler came to power he said, I'm not going to do anything in my lifetime that hasn't been done by the Roman church for the past 800 years, I'm only going to do it on a greater scale, and more efficiently. And he certainly had done just exactly that. God has said, I gave you the time to repent, but you did not. You [the person], this false cult system, that was born in Genesis 10, and progressed through Israel and became Baal worship, God says, the day is going to come, when I'm going to cause this beast [the lion] to devour this apostate system [the person]. So you can see very clearly that, while the church is in heaven, this false religious system [the person] is going to be totally devoured by the antichrist.

The same YouTube video plays a selection of Hagee from a radio interview; Wolf includes the following text:

From an interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio's Fresh Air program:

GROSS: I just want to ask you one question based on one of your sermons that -- and this isn't about Israel. You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said "when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

GROSS: So I know you're very opposed to homosexuality, but you think that the whole city was punished because of things like the forthcoming Gay Pride parade.

HAGEE: This is true. All of the city was punished because of the sin that happened there in that city.

I don't think I need to criticize Hagee's comments in greater depth other than to denounce them completely. Anybody who actually believes what Hagee is saying is so detached from reality that rational discussion is probably beside the point. Hagee represents the mentality of the Dark Ages.

ARI on YouTube

The Ayn Rand Institute has released several videos on YouTube. Recent releases address the topic, "Reasons vs. Faith."

In one video, a questioner asks, By what standard does one evaluate the concepts of right and wrong in the absence of a supernatural being?

Onkar Ghate answers, "The standard becomes your life and its requirements." He goes on to explain some of those requirements and why they give rise to the need for morality in the first place. Finally, Ghate criticizes the notion that religion can offer legitimate moral absolutes. He offers the example of God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac. Such morality is actually a sort of "supernatural subjectivism," akin to personal subjectivism.

Other videos address the Old Testament, the foundations of capitalism, the clash of Western civilization, and other topics, and they are uniformly excellent.

Baptists Join Global-Warming Crusade

Yesterday I pointed out that Catholics have jumped on the environmentalist band-wagon. Gus Van Horn notes that influential Southern Baptists have declared "a biblical duty to stop global warming."

The AP's article continues:

The signers of "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change" acknowledged that not all Christians accept the science behind global warming. They said they do not expect fellow believers to back any proposed solutions that would violate Scripture, such as advocating population control through abortion.

However, the leaders said that current evidence of global warming is "substantial," and that the threat is too grave to wait for perfect knowledge about whether, or how much, people contribute to the trend. ...

Even before Monday's statement, religious activism on climate change had broadened beyond just liberal-leaning churches. The 1993 "Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation" became a guiding document for the Evangelical Environmental Network. The Rev. Rich Cizik, Washington director of the National Association of Evangelicals, became a prominent environmental advocate, trying to persuade conservative Christians that global warming is real. Polls of younger evangelicals found they considered environmental protection a priority.

Van Horn comments:

For anyone who still thinks that religion is any kind of a bulwark against the left or socialism, please note the priorities [noted in the article]. The codified oral traditions of primitive tribesmen from millennia ago are to be obeyed even if they contradict minor aspects of this agenda, and yet they somehow know that this "threat" is "too grave" to worry about whether human beings really do contribute to global warming!

Over the last few decades, conservatives such as Bill Buckley have tried to capture the evangelical movement to create a "fusionist" challenge to the left. Now evangelicals are dragging conservatives (even further) to the left on economic issues. Conservatives long ago adopted the welfare state and various economic controls as their own, and now they are increasingly eager to impose economic restrictions based on the environmentalist agenda (for example, see John McCain). What few conservatives remain who actually care about liberty, individual rights, and free markets are finding that it's hard to steer the wagon once it's hitched to irrationalism.

New 'Sins'

An article by the Associated Press alerted me to comments by Bishop Gianfranco Girotti regarding "new sins." Yet I found an article by Catholic News Service to provide a better overview:

In today's globalized culture, the social effects of sin are greater than ever before and deserve the church's urgent attention, a Vatican official said. ...

Bishop Girotti is an official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, an office that deals with questions relating to penance and indulgences. He made the comments in an interview March 8 with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. ...

Among the "new sins" that have emerged in recent times, he pointed to genetic experiments and manipulation that violate fundamental human rights and produce effects difficult to foresee and control.

He said other areas where sin has a social impact include drug abuse, which affects many young people; economic injustice, which has left the poor even poorer and the rich richer; and environmental irresponsibility.

In typical Catholic fashion, Girotti offers a grab-bag of real misdeeds and make-believe "sins."

It's not very big news that abusing drugs is bad for you; nor is this a new problem.

But, within the broader context of individual rights, genetic science does not "violate fundamental human rights;" it instead promises to alleviate human suffering. The violation of rights is to squash scientific investigation based on religious dogma.

Economic injustice is not properly defined by differences in wealth; on the contrary, in a free society differences of wealth reflect the just distribution of wealth based on individual production and voluntary association. Actual economic injustice arises when governments and criminals violate people's rights, including their rights to control their own income and property. Such violations of rights often impoverish some people and unjustly enrich others. But the Catholic Church is more concerned with encouraging political force in the economy, which violates economic justice.

Finally, "environmental irresponsibility," properly understood, means polluting somebody's particular property, a problem properly handled through the legal system. Responsibility does not mean buying into environmentalist hysteria, feeling guilty about producing and consuming life-enhancing goods and services, or pushing politicians to violate people's rights for environmentalist causes. It makes sense, though, for environmentalists and Christians to find common cause, for both movements thrive on people's guilt.

Iran Murders Homosexual

Back in September, when the United States government shamefully permitted Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- in fact a primary and aggressive enemy of the United States -- to enter the United States, Ahmadinejad claimed that there are no homosexuals in Iran. He said, "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

There's a good reason why Iranians don't admit to homosexuality: Iran murders homosexuals as a matter of official policy.

On March 9, the AP reported:

Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2005 but later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.

Mr Kazemi was told by his father in Tehran that his boyfriend had been questioned about his sexual relationships before his execution in April 2006 and named him under interrogation.

Mr Kazemi claimed asylum in Britain, fearing for his life if he returned to Iran but his case was refused late last year. He fled Britain for the Netherlands, where he is now being detained.

The article notes that the fate of Kazemi is now in the hands of the Dutch courts. I find it astounding that Britain refused to offer Kazemi protection. Absent important relevant facts not revealed by the AP, Britain's decision was inexcusable. Hopefully Kazemi will find protection elsewhere. If the United States had sensible immigration policies, he would be offered a (voluntarily funded) plane ticket to America.

Religious Tidbits

I've been sitting on several links of interest pertaining to religion.

On February 21 the Ayn Rand Institute issued a release that begins, "'Death sentences for blasphemy, such as the one handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan recently, are to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land,' said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute."

Diana Hsieh wrote a February 12 blog entry about an article discussing Protestant monks. Hsieh writes, "While these new evangelical monks don't embrace the asceticism and isolation of the Catholic tradition, the mere fact that some modern-day Protestants find the deeply religious ideals of the Dark and Middle Ages appealing should be cause for concern to secularists. Christianity was tamed by the Enlightenment, but not permanently. It can and will return to its dark and wild roots, if unchecked by reason."

The Undercurrent features a February 19 blog entry by Eric Brunner that begins, "An Iraqi Muslim man on U.A.E. television recently proclaimed that the moon is half the size of the sun, that the earth and the sun are flat, and that things that aren’t mentioned in the Koran are not to be considered in the matter. The man was on a show in which the contestants were debating whether or not the Earth is really flat or not, on a television station that is supposed to be the voice of the Iraqi people."

And a February 15 entry from The Undercurrent states, "[I]n Saudi Arabia yesterday, the color red was outlawed. The Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice symbolically forbade Saudi citizens to celebrate Valentine’s Day."

There's a new Colorado-based group called the Coalition of Secular Voters. I don't know anything about the group other than what's contained on its web page.

Father Jonathan Morris wrote for Fox News on February 11: "The Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowlan Williams, recently proposed the United Kingdom to establish separate courts, based on Sharia Law, for British Muslims. He says it will promote 'social cohesion' and will free Muslims from being forced to choose between 'the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.' The archbishop’s rogue proposal and subsequent rationale should serve as a warning for all Western countries, including the United States, where immigration influx is challenging cultural identity." But immigration is hardly the central problem. After all, immigrants aren't behind Father Morris's call to impose faith-based politics such as by outlawing abortions.

On a lighter note, The Denver Post now hosts a blog called "Higher Note" about Christian music. I don't suppose that there's anything particularly Christian about the music itself, but the idea is that the lyrics and shows promote Christianity. Just do not, under any circumstances, watch this video featuring "Faith + 1," which is not a "Higher Note" favorite.

'Crime Against Nature'

In looking up the original story by WCNC about the pastor in North Carolina who allegedly tried to solicit an undercover male police officer for sex, I read, "Graff is charged with crimes against nature..."

Say what? "Crimes against nature?" Could such a thing actually exist in modern books of statutes?

I looked up the statutes for North Carolina. Sure enough:

SUBCHAPTER VII. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALITY AND DECENCY.
Article 26.
Offenses against Public Morality and Decency.
§ 14‑177. Crime against nature.
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

You may read the entire Article 26 if you wish. It is a mixture of justified prohibitions rooted in objective law and and entirely non-objective, ambiguous, and even outright silly prohibitions. Statute 14-196(a)(1) offers another outstanding example of this latter category: "It shall be unlawful for any person [t]o use in telephonic communications any words or language of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious or indecent character, nature or connotation." And I thought Colorado's statutes were pathetic.

Incidentally, the entire Article 27 is devoted to prostitution.

There is no such thing as a real "crime against nature." Apparently the legislators of North Carolina missed this fact, but nature possesses no consciousness, and thus cannot be offended. Of course, "nature" in this context is euphemism for "God," and the statute is rooted in religious bigotry against homosexuals.

When a Pastor Falls

Unlike some critics of religion, I do not gleefully rub my hands at news of another fallen Christian. Such news neither wipes away the good character of many Christians nor excuses the sins of some atheists. Nevertheless, I think there are a couple of sober lessons to be gleaned from the following story:

According to NBC affiliate WCNC in Charlotte, N.C., police arrested the senior pastor at St. Luke's Lutheran church in Dilworth after a sting at Park Road Park where they say Robert Graff tried to solicit an undercover male police officer for sex.

"He's a great man, he's a wonderful man. I'm shocked,” one church member told the station.

WCNC's report says the 58-year-old Graff is married and has been the pastor at St. Luke’s for the past four years.

Of course, these are only allegations at this point. Yet, in light of the problems of other Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, Christians should bear in mind that it won't do to attribute every sin of every atheist to atheism while denying that any sin of any Christian has anything to do with Christianity. At least Christians should not overstate their claims that Christianity inspires universal moral virtue.

Neither a person's Christianity nor a person's atheism necessarily leads to wrong acts. Both Christians and atheists can lead good, moral lives or fall into misdeeds. However, I would argue that, in cases such as this, Christianity can sometimes play a negative role by encouraging repression. Homosexuals cannot be "cured" by prayer or indoctrination camps. Moreover, there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality (though infidelity is wrong regardless of sexual orientation), so Christianity (at least of a particular variety) tends to inspire both bigotry toward homosexuals and self-loathing and/or repression among homosexuals who accept anti-homosexual doctrine. (I do not mean to suggest that every male who solicits a male prostitute is generally homosexual.)

Meanwhile, I think people of all ideological stripes can wish Graff and his wife well in trying to get their lives back on track.

Was Moses on Drugs?

I'm not quite sure what to make of this March 4 story from RawStory (hat tip FreedomsPhoenix):

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

Following is the abstract of the article:

A speculative hypothesis is presented according to which the ancient Israelite religion was associated with the use of entheogens (mind-altering plants used in sacramental contexts). The hypothesis is based on a new look at texts of the Old Testament pertaining to the life of Moses. The ideas entertained here were primarily based on the fact that in the arid areas of the Sinai peninsula and Southern Israel there grow two plants containing the same psychoactive molecules found in the plants from which the powerful Amazonian hallucinogenic brew Ayahuasca is prepared. The two plants are species of Acacia tree and the bush Peganum harmala. The hypothesis is corroborated by comparative experiential-phenomenological observations, linguistic considerations, exegesis of old Jewish texts and other ancient Mideastern traditions, anthropological lore, and ethnobotanical data.

Notably, the journal makes the full text available for free. I have not yet read through it to see whether the claims are supported by real evidence, but the descriptive "speculative" did jump out at me from the abstract.

Yet I hardly need to entertain the notion that Moses may have been on hallucinogens to reject the claim that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush.

The more interesting implication is for the religious right's war on drugs.

The Absurdity of 'Revirgination'

MSNBC ran a story on February 28 about "revirgination." Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Look, if you've had sex, if you've had children, you are not a virgin. Get over it. No, even if you spend $5,000 for a new hymen -- and who wouldn't want one of those -- you are still not a virgin. (God forbid that the money go for anything that is actually of some value.)

Thankfully, I do not have to spend my time pointing out all of the absurdities of "revirgination," for Diana Hsieh has already done the job. She writes,

Virginity is not even a real quality of a person: it's just an ignorance of and inexperience with sex. Ignorance of sex means incompetence at sex. So for a rational, value-seeking lover, virginity can only be an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of the pleasures of sex, not a positive value. For a person to seek virginity requires a mangled set of sexual values.

There is a very dark side to the story, though:

Dr. Red Alinsod's... typical patient [for hymen reconstruction] may have been born and raised in the United States, but with significant family in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, the Middle East. Without evidence a new bride is a virgin, she risks being rejected, or, worse, the victim of an "honor killing."

For many women around the world -- particularly in Muslim countries -- such threats of murder are difficult to avoid. But surely women "born and raised in the United States" might consider the option of not marrying someone with homicidal siblings. At the cultural level, when women have to lie about their virginity in order not to be murdered, that's a large problem, and surgery is hardly the appropriate remedy.

Religious Humor

Just today I came across the web page for The Real Old Testament, a humorous, and somewhat accurate, portrayal of events as described by the Old Testament. The video covers the Garden of Eden, circumcision, and the test of Abraham and Isaac, among many other events. It mimics the format of MTV's "Real World." The web page contains a lengthy preview; the film is for sale.

(It's still hard to beat Ricky Gervais's reading of Genesis.)

Pat Condell, a comedian, also jokes about religion, though his messages are quite serious in content if not in style. On his main page, Condell warns, "I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended." His podcasts and videos are available.

Will the 'Wall' Fall?

Troy A. Eid claims that we shouldn't take the separation of church and state so seriously because, after all, George Washington didn't. Eid writes for the February 15 Rocky Mountain News:

A bold new book, co-authored by a prominent Colorado attorney, takes direct aim at this conventional wisdom. In Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State, Denver's own Joe Smith and Tara Ross, a Texas-based lawyer and writer, counter Jefferson's wall-of-separation approach with that of the best-known Founder of them all, George Washington. ...

According to Washington, there is no wall. Instead, government should broadly encourage religious expression in order to strengthen public virtue - what might be called "values" today. The First Amendment, read in the way its drafters intended, means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs.

Smith and Ross carefully document their claim that Washington, not Jefferson, was in a far better position to interpret constitutional history based on real-life experience.

Ironically, Jefferson was minister to France from 1785 to 1789 and did not participate in the Constitutional Convention, or in the congressional debates that produced the Bill of Rights. Washington, in contrast, presided over that convention and was intimately involved in the process from beginning to end.

Notably, "Troy A. Eid is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the U.S. Department of Justice."

Eid was "Nominated by [three guesses] President Bush..."

On March 3, Robert R. Tiernan of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Colorado Chapter, replied:

The First Amendment was not the subject of the Constitutional Convention over which George Washington presided. Rather, the Amendment was later debated in Congress after the Constitution was ratified and Washington had become president. With Jefferson's help and advice, then-Rep. James Madison, a strict church/state separatist, marshaled the measure through the Congress and it was later ratified by the states as part of the Bill of Rights.

Beyond the historical debate, the First Amendment states clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Eid, on the other hand, claims that the "First Amendment... means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs." Eid has skipped right over the "establishment" clause to the "free exercise" clause. Yet both are necessary to preserve freedom of conscience, the broader intent of the First Amendment.

According to Eid's interpretation, the state may actively promote generic religious beliefs, so long as the state does not favor "any particular sect or set of religious beliefs," and so long as the state does not establish an official religion. Yet, aside from the fact that every possible state-sanction of religion would involve a "particular sect or set of religious beliefs," Eid entirely neglects our right to remain free from religion. Forcing someone to fund via taxation some religious program or ideology, against the funder's will, is a violation of the person's rights.

Eid presents a slightly more sophisticated variant of Janet Rowland's comment about the separation of church and state: "It's not in the Constitution. We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Rowland, the running mate of Bob Beauprez for the governor's race of 2006, got trounced in that election. Consistent with her pronouncement, Rowland promoted the spending of tax dollars for religious welfare and education.

Regardless of the weakness of Eid's case, he illustrates one point with perfect clarity: America's religious right has been enormously successful in advancing its agenda of faith-based politics.

Catholics "To End Abortion"

Recently I described and criticized the effort in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person. While the Catholic Church has not officially endorsed the measure, Catholics also wish "to end abortion," according to one spokesperson.

Electa Draper writes for the February 28 Denver Post:

"We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. Individual Catholics may choose to work for its passage," [Colorado Catholic Conference Executive Director Jennifer] Kraska said.

"At the same time, we recognize that other people committed to the sanctity of life have raised serious questions about this specific amendment's timing and content," she said.

Kraska does not reveal -- and Draper does not report -- what problems some Catholics find with the measure's "timing and content." But Kraska could not be more clear in her position on abortion -- a position that, far from preserving "the sanctity of life," would destroy the sanctity of life of some people.

Nor are other Catholics as hesitant, as Draper continues:

"It's a political, gutless position," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League.

"As a Catholic, it's the most scandalous thing I've ever heard," Brown said. "I can't believe that any bishop wouldn't want to be out in the front lines helping the petitioners. The sanctity of life is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church."

This issue is not limited to Colorado. Draper concludes:

The Colorado effort is part of a national movement to win Supreme Court review of Roe v. Wade, Brown said. Montana and Mississippi also have ballot initiatives in progress for 2008; Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon were working toward a 2009 measure.

Nobody can say the advocates of faith-based politics didn't warn us.