A new poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows, with a 3.1 percent margin of error, that 13 percent of Americans believe Barack Obama is Muslim.

Beyond my obvious dismay that Americans don't know much about the people they're voting for, I'm troubled that insinuating that a candidate is Muslim is the fodder of a smear campaign. Apparently operatives have moved on from the Swift Boat/illegitimate black baby breed of underhanded tricks and decided to degrade politicians by implying their connection to a religion practiced by over a billion people worldwide. Great.

via Faith in Public Life.

The New York Times has a fascinating article up today about young Iraqis’ attitudes toward religion. Immediately after the war in Iraq started, the country saw a surge in religiosity—Shiites, who had been regarded as political insurgents under Saddam Hussein’s regime, were able to practice freely, and some soon translated their religious hierarchies into political power. But as the church moved more firmly into the public sphere, mosques and religious leaders became more known for their corruption and violent extremism than sagacity and piety.

Young Iraqis’ opinions on religion represent a profound but sad shift in beliefs:

“I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us,” said Sara, a high school student in Basra. “Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don’t deserve to be rulers.”

Atheer, a 19-year-old from a poor, heavily Shiite neighborhood in southern Baghdad, said: “The religion men are liars. Young people don’t believe them. Guys my age are not interested in religion anymore.”

Such disgust is, in one sense, a welcome change—young people in Iraq are starting to recognize the damage done by the inextricable tangle of religious extremism and terrorism, and their role as pawns in that system. But disillusionment with the whole of Islam and complete loss of faith in religious leaders is incredibly sad in a country that needs all kinds of healing right now.

The Muslim Students Association is featured in today’s New York Times, with an emphasis on inclusiveness and acceptance of Muslim students who are not quite as conservative as others.  The article opens with an anecdote about a Muslim girl in a short skirt walking up to a recruting table and asking to join the campus organization.  Although some members were uneasy and accused the girl of being “un-Islamic,” the president defended her right to join.

Muslim Students Association chapters are present at colleges and universities across the country, and like many other cultural and religious organizations, are trying to negotiate questions of morals and identity while fitting in with the larger mainstream campus culture.  On the one hand, an organization like the Muslim Students Association can be a safe-haven for students who feel alienated from the ways of life their classmates and roommates lead.  On the other hand, students who might be more assimilated or less traditional might also want to join these organizations—which might not make some members (and parents) very happy. 

Gene Nichol, the president of the College and William and Mary, stepped down today after a relentless smear campaign was waged against him by conservative lawmakers in Virginia. Ryan Powers, a former Center for American Progress intern and a senior at the College of William and Mary, has a great post over at Think Progress summarizing and analyzing the unfortunate series of events.

Nichol's greatest sins seem to have been his decisions to allow a student-funded organization to host a sexually themed art show and to have the university remove a crucifix from the non-denominational chapel on campus. He explained his decisions in an email sent to the school community this morning:

Former William and Mary President Gene Nichol.

(Image courtesy College of William and Mary) 

I know, I know -- it's "just symbolic." But how can a bill like this pass the House so easily? How can you pack so much pandering into one governing body? At least we now know there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on -- that separation of church and state isn't important.

If you think I'm overreacting, then read the bill's language. Maybe the bill's wording is just subtle enough to avoid it being outrightly constitutional, but for those of us who are secular and/or not Christian, it's hard not to feel threatened or insulted.

Since ancient times people worried about demagoguery.  Plato produced an indictment of rhetoric, Gorgias, and Socrates was sentenced to death for his inability to be swayed by the leaders of the time (on a trumped up charge of "corrupting the youth").  Today, we find demagoguery replacing facts, mainly in the form of religion.  The war in Iraq is peddled to church groups as a fight against the Muslim faith (see Ann Coulter's intolerant attack on Muslims sprinkled throughout Godless:  The Church of Liberalism) and spending on religion has seen a massive increase since Bush took office. Former Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, said, "I don't want to end up with an American-style of politics with us all going out there and beating our chests about our faith."  It may be significant to note that Blair is considered one of the most religious leaders Britain elected in recent years.  

After all the conflicts over government and religion since the Bush administration took over, what does the Bible say about the separation between church and state? 

The following story can be found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke:

"The Pharisees went off and made a plan to trap Jesus with questions.  Then they sent to him some of their disciples and some members of Herod's party.  'Teacher,' they said, 'we know that you tell the truth.  You teach the truth about God's will for people, without worrying about what others think, because you pay no attention to anyone's status.  Tell us, then, what do you think?  Is it against our Law to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor or not?'  Jesus, however, was aware of their evil plan, and so he said, 'You hypocrites!  Why are you trying to trap me?  Show me the coin for paying the tax!'  They brought him the coin, and he asked them, 'Whose face and name are these?'  'The Emperor's,' they answered.  So Jesus said to them, 'Well, then, pay to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor, and pay to God what belongs to God.'

Matthew 22:15-22

If the Bible is to be taken as the literal truth, God wants a distinction between church and state.  The role of religion should be in changing its followers.  Churches could take over where the government has thus far been deficient.  Instead of spending money on mega churches, lobbyists, and political campaigns direct finances to serving the community.  Day-care for single mothers, alcohol and drug rehabilitation, shelter for the homeless and food for the hungry.  If so-called religious demagogues took time to read the Bible and think about the views they are espousing they could realize the most pronounced feature of Jesus' character is his sacrifice for the people.  Jesus was in the business of helping people, not legislating for them.  He didn't want to impose a faith on the unbelievers, he wanted to help them.  One thinks now of how Mary Magdalene would be received by the "followers of Christ".  She would probably be told to get lost and to not expect federal funding for STD testing nor a subsidy on birth control pills.  True believers, step up.  For the rest of you, see the passages on the Pharisees. 

For further reading: 

American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips

Jesus is Not a Republican:  The Religious Right's War on America by Clint Willis

Tempting Faith:  An Inside Story of Political Seduction by David Kuo 

Via Kevin Drum over at the Monthly: Inside Higher Ed reports on,

a new study that suggests students who attend and graduate from college are more likely than others to hold on to their faith.... for all the talk about how intellectuals are out to destroy students’ relationships to their religions and God, the main obstacles to such relationships have to do with maturing and how young people spend their time.

I can't possibly imagine what young people might be doing on weekends instead of attending services while their in college. 

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

Lieberman’s claim is that Iran is a national security threat to the United States and to Israel. But the Orthodox Jewish Senator does not seem to speak for all people of faith when it comes to advocacy regarding this potential new war.

CodePINK, an anti war group of feminists, attempted to bring a delegation of Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, and Jewish activists who oppose the war in Iran to a meeting with Senator Lieberman. The Senator originally agreed to the meeting but backed out at the last minute. CodePINK did not, they showed up at the Hart Senate Office Building with at least 100 people ready to meet with the Senator – the antiwar group was met with a particularly hostile staff member who asked the police to ensure that all the activists leave the office. In compromise, the Senator’s staffer agreed to meet with three of the activists if everyone else would leave the office.

Here is what some of the activists had to say:

Kit Kimberly, a spiritual progressive, told me that “Without peace, spiritual people cannot be spiritual.” Similarly, Unitarian Universalist lay leader, Carol Waser, recently returned from Iran on an interfaith delegation sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. She went to Iran after feeling like Iraq was becoming more and more of a lost cause – but that stopping war in Iran before it starts is a feasible plan. She told me that it was her faith that drives her to strongly oppose Senator Lieberman’s call to bomb Iran.

Many people of faith oppose Senator Lieberman’s plan. The American Friends Service Committee, The Episcopal Church USA, National Council of Churches, Pax Christi USA, the Methodist Church, The Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Mennonite Central Committee have been actively involved in pushing for dialogue on Iran.  Additionally, the Reconstructionist Rabbincal Association (the rabbinic arm of the Reconstructionist Jewish Movement) stated in a resolution in March of 2007 that “a military strike against Iran would only result in another military, political and humanitarian crisis and would further strengthen Ahmadinejad’s regime and radical elements within Iranian society.” The RRA is the largest Jewish group to officially oppose US military action in Iran.

There are other practical reasons to avoid a war in Iran. Martha Perez, a political science student at American University explained that already with a War in Iraq, many students are struggling financially as they have seen federal financial aid dwindle. Undoubtedly, the military costs should the US invade Iran would economically hurt America’s students even more.

The general call to action at Senator Lieberman’s office was to stop the next war now. Iranian activist Dorna Mohaghegh, "the real question is not if Iran with a bomb is a threat – Iranians don’t want Ahmadinejad with a bomb, as it would be Iranians, not Americans who would be hurt most. The real question to ask is what the result of the US going to War with Iran will be. Will it simply get rid of their President, or will it provide an impetus for Iranians to rally around their unpopular President in self defense?"

Almost half of Harvard undergrads are virgins, while the national virginity average for college students is one-third.

This Crimson article is actually about abstinence ideologues on campus, but I thought that fact was funny.

Following up on posts by Jr, Dana, and Siddique, I'd like to add Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, to the list of conservative commentators lacking shame and tact: 

We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals—and humans—arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as “cheap.”

I’m not at all saying that the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution.[**really? THEN WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH?] I don’t know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin. However, when we see such death and violence, it is a reminder to us that without God’s Word (and the literal history in Genesis 1–11), people will not understand why such things happen. 

The real criminals here? the separation of church and state, Roe v. Wade, and atheism. Outside of this being entirely untrue -- I'll point you to the work of  Gary Jensen, Steven Levitt, and, yes, Immanuel Kant -- Mr. Ham's little screed is profoundly insulting to the victims of Monday's tragedy. 

Ugh. Rule 1 of blogging: If you don't have anything constructive to say, shut the hell up.

“Today, these drivers are objecting to contact with customers who have alcohol, pork or dogs with them; tomorrow it may be refusing to allow women with bare heads in their cabs. [...] No one has forced the Somalis to become taxi drivers. If their religious views prohibit them from having any contact with people who do not share those views, they shouldn’t choose jobs in the public service sector.”

"The fact is, Ashcroft's overt religiosity unnerves secularists, and even those Christians and other believers who think religion belongs in church, or perhaps at home, but never in the workplace. But for the very devout – whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh or Buddhist -- their religion permeates all they do. For some, it affects the way they dress. For others, the way they speak. For all, the way they behave. [...] The free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees...[citizens] the right to practice as much or as little religion, and in whatever manner, as they see fit."

"Of course the Somali drivers could have sought a reasonable accommodation for their scruples. They could have courteously explained to passengers that they can’t touch alcohol and asked if the passengers would carry the bags containing alcohol themselves. If they did so with genuine civility, I expect most passengers would oblige."

Ann Friedman has written an In These Times tribute to Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kissling, who was once a nun for six months, is a national progressive leader on abortion rights, access to contraception, LGBT rights, and stem cell research. She’s also a favorite target of extreme right-wing Catholics like Bill Donahue, whose Catholic League instigated the Edwards blogger ruckus last month. When Kissling stepped down, Donahue tarred her as anti-Catholic, saying, “I hope she takes her tapestries of Tibetan Buddhist deities with her when she exits her office, as well as any New Age paraphernalia she may have acquired over the years.” But as Ann reports, “For 25 years, Kissling has pointed out that criticizing church doctrine and agitating for reform is not anti-Catholic.”

Indeed, polls show that Catholics are more accepting of premarital sex, homosexuality, and birth control than Protestants, and about two-thirds accept abortion in at least some circumstances.

I realize I’m taking a risk with this analogy, but to me, the vitriol that the Bill Donahues of the Catholic community reserve for the Frances Kisslings -- social justice thinkers who are in line with their own constituents’ beliefs -- parallels quite neatly what sometimes happens to Jewish Americans who are critical of AIPAC and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. As Ezra pointed out last week, 87 percent of American Jews are progressive, so it’s no surprise many of us are uncomfortable with AIPAC’s alignment with conservatives, particularly those of the literalist Christian variety who support Zionism because they believe all Jews need to relocate to the Promised Land before Jesus makes another showing. And far from being hawkish on Iran (as AIPAC is), more than half of American Jews oppose military strikes there. If you’re interested in alternative media voices that express the progressive views held by millions of American Catholics and Jews, I highly recommend Conscience and Tikkun.

Some evidence this week that more progressive evangelicals are strengthening their position within the larger movement: The National Association of Evangelicals rejected a call from James Dodson, Gary Bauer, Paul Weyrich, and other prominent conservative Christians to maintain a singular focus on abortion and gay marriage and abandon environmentalism (which the movement calls “creation care”). Then, as part of the same meeting, the NAE board endorsed a strong anti-torture statement written by Evangelicals for Human Rights, a group with members who have vocally supported expanding the evangelical agenda beyond divisive cultural battles. “Our moral vision has blurred since 9-11,” the statement reads.

The NAE represents some 45,000 congregations nationwide, though it’s unaffiliated with powerful groups including Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention. But more and more, it seems that many Christians are as frustrated with the Bush administration’s record on the war and the environment as the rest of us. Are such evangelical voters more likely to sit out the 2008 elections than grit their teeth and vote for pro-choice candidates? And how much compromise should progressives make on social issues to win their votes?

Cross-posted at TAPPED. 

According to the Secular Coalition for America, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) became the first member of Congress in history yesterday to self-identify as a non-believer in any God. Stark is pretty cool. A member of the Progressive Caucus, he's been against the Iraq war since day 1, and health care and the enivornment have been his major concerns in office. He has a perfect 100% legislative score from NARAL: Pro-Choice America, the League of Conservation Voters, and the ACLU. And though he calls himself an atheist, Stark is also Unitarian. Cool! Just like I'm Jewish, but atheist. And if I ever run for office, yes, you can quote me on that.

The Hindu fundamentalists are at it again—this time, the Times Online reports that Sikh and Hindu girls are being forced to convert on college campuses in the U.K. through “groomed conversations” and friendships with Muslim boys.

"The men aggressively target vulnerable university students by using the fear of being dishonoured to force them to convert, community leaders have told The Times. Many befriend their victims, then threaten to tell their families that they are in a sexual relationship with a Muslim. Some teenagers are said to have been drugged and photographed in compromising positions.

Many comply because they are so afraid of shaming their parents or being rejected by their communities." 

Wait a second…Sikh and Hindu girls are converting to Islam, abandoning the faith in which they were raised, in order to avoid being rejected by their community??  This makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Well, although I work for the ACLU, I tend to disagree with civil libertarians—on a lot of things.  For example, I feel that religion and spirituality plays a very important role in many of the communities I am a part of and work with, although it doesn’t play such a role in my personal life.  Countless liberatory movements were rooted in spiritual and/or religious traditions—just as countless wars and murders were rooted in spiritual and/or religious traditions.  And although I’m acutely aware of Christian privilege in the U.S.—I mean, I sure wish I could have had time off of school or work during Diwali—I’m not going to run around trying to get every Christmas tree uprooted in every City Hall across the country.  Frankly, I have better things to do.

But reading this article on an evangelical aftercare/re-entry program for prisoners, my separation of church and state sensors popped up.  It’s not that I oppose religious groups assisting ex-cons—hell, with the sorry state of re-entry services we have in the this country (although we gleefully lock people up without second thought), a large chunk of ex-cons would be completely screwed if it weren’t for religious organizations’ assistance.  But it’s this part that got to me:  “Although inmates volunteered for the program, the judge, Robert W. Pratt of Federal District Court, found that they had been induced to join it to get safer housing and more accessible treatment options.  Judge Pratt also found that they had been penalized if they dropped out or failed to fully participate in mandatory religious activities.”

In a perfect world, that would be the headline of this New York Times article.

Instead, we live in a world where a breakdown of the First Amendment led to a ban on tape recorders.