The Godless Constitution Chapter 7 - Sunday Mail and the Christian Amendment

What accommodations should be made out of sensitivity to the religious concerns of Christians?

Today that question might center around whether or not a Christian pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs or medical products he disagrees with (such as birth control or the morning after pill.

In the early days of this country the question centered around delivering the mail on Sunday. Should post-masters and postal workers, who were assumed to be Christian, be required to work on their Sabbath. What did the government of the United State's choice to ignore the Sabbath Day say about our relationship with God?

But of course there were good reasons for operating on Sunday. For small far flung rural communities, coming into town to attend services was a struggle; why compound the struggle by requiring a separate trip to get the mail. And travelers who used the mail coaches would doubtless seek other transportation options if forced to rest on the Sabbath. And people in the Western part of the country at that time wanted up to the date information in order to make their business decisions.

The authors point out that this debate also centered on the liberal idea of giving people a day off. Forcing the post office to close on Sunday may sound bad, but forcing people to work 7 days a week doesn't sound much better.

In this case the necessities of keeping the mail running won out until such necessities were alleviated by the development of the telegram and the railways.

The chapter also covers the Christian Amendment, which was an attempt on the part of the some to add an amendment to the constitution clarifying that this was a Christian nation. This issue sprang up during the Civil War, when emotions were naturally pretty high. In some versions this would have re-written the preamble, as follows.

We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, The Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the Nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.

Obviously many non-Christians and even smaller Christian groups (like the Seventh-Day Adventists) saw this amendment as a threat to their religious freedom. And both President Lincoln and the Congress felt no particular haste in addressing this issue, so it was allowed to die a quiet death.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 6 - American Baptists and the Jeffersonian Tradition

This chapter covers the interesting position Baptists held in the early Republic and how that position changed over time. Baptists were dissenters from the Calvinist beliefs of the Puritans, particularly on the matter of infant baptism. Despite having left the Puritan congregations, Baptists in New England continued to pay taxes to support them. Thus they came to the principle of separation of Church and State not through any process of cool reason, but simply because their personal experience had taught them not to trust the state when it meddled in Religion. This lesson led them to staunch support of President Jefferson, for his work in separating church and state.

The chapter also covers the church's' movement into the areas of what we might call moral guidance or social justice? If there was to be this barrier between church and state, in what areas might the various religious organizations properly operate? Some Christian organizations rejected the notion of supplicating Congress for help in approaching moral problems; others chose to embrace this idea.

The chapter ends with a discussion of the Southern Baptists, how they formed (in response to northern abolitionist sentiment in the Baptist churches), and how they have negotiated the political terrain in the intervening years. The authors compare the Southern Baptist position to the Amish position, which is interesting.

If all the religious people in the United States interpreted their religious responsibilities like the Amish, the nation would be in deep trouble. Refusing to join a political crusade to proclaim America a Christian nation is one thing the founders had in mind in writing the godless Constitution. However, regarding one's fellow citizens as sinners who should be ignored is an idea that is not part of our secular state. While it makes unthinkable a political party of religious correctness, it also makes any sort of nation impossible.

This passage makes clear that the authors are not advocating that religious people should be barred from political activities. Of course, they also note that Southern Baptist leaders have made overtures to the Conservative movement; a tendency which has only increased over the last few years.

The Godless Constitution - An aside on Mr. Jefferson

I do want to comment on last night's post on Mr. Jefferson, where my personal religious convictions may have bled into my writings on what he believed. And by may have I mean definitely did.

In other words, I may have overreached by suggesting that my personal beliefs on the experience with the divine aligned with Jefferson's thoughts on the subject.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 5 - The "Infidel" Mr. Jefferson

This chapter deals with, you guessed it, Abigail Adams. But it also mentions Thomas Jefferson and that is who I want to focus on. Jefferson is a key figure in the history of Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary America, and he seems to have largely shared the author's point of view. One could argue that their focus on Jefferson is a bit self serving. One Amazon review noted "a failure to discuss any evidence that is contrary to our authors' thesis."

I don't think this assertion is accurate; I've pointed out, for example, the author's see several positive effects of New England intermingling of church and state. That said, this is a book with a point of view, a polemic. They label it so in the first chapter. It is understood that polemic expresses a particular argument; if this Amazon Reviewer wishes an argument in favor of religious correctness, there are any number of sources he could turn. To criticize this book for not presenting completely both sides of the fence is to argue that the authors should have written a different book.

Jefferson believed that religion was a purely private concern. He was a religious person, spending a great deal of time studying the Bible, and described his own creed as "the philosophy of Jesus." Which is, I have to admit, close to what our current President has said. That said, he did not have a great deal of faith in priests or other church leaders. Rather he described them as "mountebacks" and "a band of dupes and imposters."

Obviously these kinds of comments did not endear Mr. Jefferson to the religious leaders of his day; particularly those religious leader who favored religious correctness. But Mr. Jefferson is consistent. If the greatest religious benefit comes from a personal and individual and private communion with God, and if priests or politically ordained religion can distract us from seeking that experience, well then they are obviously harmful.

There is, in the Book of Mormon, an extended parable about a vineyard, which we understand to represent the House of Israel or the Church of God. The Lord of the Vineyard, representing God, tends to his vineyard. At one point he returns to view the one of his vines, and laments it's condition.

47 But what could I have done more in my vineyard? Have I slackened mine hand, that I have not nourished it? Nay, I have nourished it, and I have digged about it, and I have pruned it, and I have dunged it; and I have stretched forth mine hand almost all the day long, and the end draweth nigh. And it grieveth me that I should hew down all the trees of my vineyard, and cast them into the fire that they should be burned. Who is it that has corrupted my vineyard?

48 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard - —have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?

This can be read many ways, I suppose. But I've always seen it as a metaphor for letting the trappings of religion distract one from the purpose of religion. The purpose of religion is to place one in harmony with God, which is a very personal process (which is one of the reasons I haven't felt to discuss religion overmuch in this blog). But one can be come distracted by the trappings of religion, the branches, so that one neglects the roots of religion; this experience with the transcendent.

And I believe this is one of the reasons Jefferson was right to describe a necessary wall between church and state.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 4 - The English Roots of the Secular State

This chapter, obviously, covers about the intellectual tradition from which American Secularism sprang from. Specifically it focuses on John Locke, who's writings were extremely influential on American thought.

One revolutionary aspect of Locke's thought was the shrinking of the Public Sphere and the enlargement of the Private Sphere. Under the medieval order, the religious practices of the community were everybody's business; under the new system religious practices were to be private and personal. One might share a congregation with one's neighbors, but one would not be required to share a congregation with one's neighbors.

The chapter also makes the points that the same forces that argued for a rejection of the specifically Christian state also argued for a laissez-faire economic policy. It is interesting that the modern forces of religious correctness have abandoned this policy. They believe in the power of the government to make men good but not in its power to make men good employers.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 3 - Roger Williams and the Religious Argument for Church-State Separation

I think I can do the next two chapters relatively quickly. This chapter covers Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island (your probably guessed that already). In specific it covers his argument against an established church, which was made on specifically religious grounds. It's easy enough to understand why people who aren't religious or people who are of a different religion than the dominant one would be in favor of a godless constitution. But there are valid reasons why you might not favor it even if you are of the dominant religion.

Incidentally, the authors words of praise for the tight intertwining of church and state in several New England states puts further lie to the suggestion that they want a Godless America.

Williams reasoned that the ability to govern, like the ability to farm, was not particularly tied to religion. It implicitly implied that an atheist might be as good at governing as a devout Christian. Of course, we have not had an atheist president and the current political climate makes having one unlikely.

He also noted that politics had a tendency to corrupt religion; the religious feelings and ideals, when appropriated for political purposes, lose their holy trappings and become just another ploy. Given the nature of politics (and I mean politics in all of our history), I can see his point. You can't take a silk scarf into a pig sty and expect it to stay clean.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 2 - The Godless Constitution

Yes, the second chapter has the same name as the book. Deal with it.

To start out this discussion let's check out an Amazon Book Review, of the predecessor to this book.

Kramnick and Moore imply in this book that the founders intended to create a godless nation. Be assured, I am the last person in the world to claim that the United States is a "Christian Nation." If it was a "Christian Nation" I would burn my Bible and become an agnostic! But these authors ignore the deep history of faith that the framers had.

This is a misstatement of what this book (and this chapter in particular) is about. The founders most certainly did not want a Godless Nation; on the contrary many of them believed in the ennobling influence of religion. But they wanted a Constitution that did not reference any particular God.

I don't hold this reviewer all that guilty though; it was clearly a review of the book's title, rather than the book itself. Doing that, you can't help but make mistakes.

At any rate, despite claims to the contrary, the Constitution was clearly intended as a Godless document. This was seen in the debates and attacks on the constitution for failing to exalt the Christian religion into a special place in our society.

Most states at that time (save Virginia and New York) contained some kind of religious test. Deleware's struck me in particular.

. . . in Delaware all elected and appointed public officials were required to profess "faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God forevermore.

Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity, and so, I assume, would not have been able to take this oath.

Of course that's another dirty little secret about the desires of those who wanted to impose a religious test for holding office; there were lots of Christians they weren't very comfortable with either. Catholics, Quakers, and the like were not desirable in high office.

Those who opposed imposing a religious test for high office pointed out the seemingly insurmountable problem that there was no religious uniformity in the United States.

If that was a problem then, it is doubly a problem now.

The Godless Constitution - An aside

I wanted to quickly expand on something I said in the last chapter, about how believing in a secular politics and a secular government has its roots in our history.

The problem with America is that it is largely founded on a series of disagreements. Our political history is a history of Americans disagreeing with each other. Thus in a confounding way, both sides of many of our national debates have deep roots in American history.

I find the current brand of Conservativism (or Limbaugh conservatism) to be small-minded and mean-spirited, but I can'd deny that Limbaugh is building on a certain American historical tradition (although, as we all know, he would deny that my liberalism has any American roots).

That is one of the reasons why the Right wing's constant attempts to portray their political enemies as un-American is so troubling; it's a denial of the spirit of conflict and discussion that this country's politics have been built on.

The Godless Constitution Chapter 1 - Is America A Christian Nation?

This is a question that has puzzled me many times; particularly when I am presented with somebody asserting vigorously that we are a Christian Nation. My first response is usually something along the lines of what do you mean by the phrase "Christian nation."

Given the tone of such pronouncements, I know it does not in fact mean "Statistically speaking, there are a lot of Christians in the U.S."

And such people are usually quick to deny that it means "Non-Christians should not have the same rights as Christians." The then move to the theory that Christians are persecuted in America (a theory one step removed from "White Males have it tough in this country" on the ludicrousness scale). So somewhere in between those two I would guess?

Kramnick and Moore have a term to describe the philosophy of those who favor the assertion that America is a Christian Nation; Religious correctness.

It [religious correctness] maintains that the United States was established as a Christian nation by Christian people, with the Christian religion assigned a central place in guiding the nation's destiny.

The authors do note the importance of the Christian religion in our nation and in our current culture; but they disagree on the notion that it has a special role in our political culture.

They also believe that the injection of religion into politics hurts both politics and religion. Religious leaders who stand on the public square suffer the same slings and arrows that every other politically active person or movement has to suffer. They quote Alexis de Tocqueville, who asked, ". . . what would become of its [religion's] immortality, in the midst of universal decay?"

I'd also like to point out something on the burden of proof in this book. Obviously Kramnick and Moore believe in the secular state (as do I). But even if you are not convinced that the secular state is the way to go, an honest reader of this book would have to concede that the proponents of a Secular Politics and Government have at least as much of a claim on the American tradition as proponents of religious correctness.

The Godless Constitution

This is the name of a book I read yesterday by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The full title is "The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State", which is an updated version of a book they wrote in 1996. Which makes sense; it's not like these issues have gone away.

As we are moving into the Christmas season, the time when the Bill O'Rielly's of the world are going to insist that liberals are destroying Christmas, I wanted to read a book that covered Church and State issues. Plus, this website usually shuts down over holidays, and I didn't want to do that this time; rather we will do a sharply focused series of articles about this book and the issues it raises.

I do want to be careful not to simply summarize the book; it's really quite good and you should read it yourself.

I should comment on my biases before jumping into this particular subject. For those of you who do not know, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; A Mormon. My religious heritage will naturally inform my discussion of this subject. My father was something of a church history buff and I have also been interested in the history of the church, so I have a strong sense of Mormon history.

Mormons believe, and I believe, that the Constitution was divinely inspired. What will be clear, however, is that I believe that the separation of Church and State, the Godless-ness that the authors reference, is, in a paradoxical way, divinely inspired.

So that's the agenda for the next couple of days. Hope you enjoy.

Gratitude

"Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies."- Charles E. Jefferson

Something to consider on Turkey day.

I made a turkey for the first time and it turned out surprisingly good. Fairly moist. My only problem is that I am not so good at the carving of the turkey; so it ended up looking like something from, well, a movie with really poorly carved meet. Anyway I am reasonably satisfied, despite the fact that cooking said turkey and having it ready by noon required a wake up time of 3:30 (to get turkey out of fridge) and 5:10 (to prep turkey and put in oven). The stuffing turned out reasonably well. I screwed up the gravy; it's not the best. But it's not the worst either, so I suppose you have to take what you can get.

Actually I might use the gravy to make some Bangers and Mash. It might work well for that.

Anyway have a Happy Thanksgiving all!

Lies Lies Lies

Brent Bozell's latest article repeats a lie that we covered yesterday.

On Friday, House Republicans finally showed some spine and did something wonderful. They called for an up-or-down vote on withdrawal, and put everyone formally on the record.

So much for the most "influential Democrat" in the Congress. The House -- Democrats and Republicans -- handed Murtha (and the press) one of the most lopsided, humiliating defeats imaginable. The House vote for withdrawal: three in favor, 403 against. So much for that "growing" public demand for the removal of American troops. The headline should have been "Overwhelming House Majority Votes to Support Bush in Iraq."

Here is the Resolution Congressman Murtha put forward.

The text of the Murtha resolution:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. Military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. Troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Here is the bill that the Republicans cynically put up that was defeated.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Perhaps you can't see a difference between those two bills. Perhaps you can't see any difference between "immediately" and "at the earliest practicable date." If you can't seen the difference, I am a bit sorry for you.

Brent Bozell wants to pretend that their are only two options; either you want to pull troop out immediately, or you support President Bush's continuing the war for as long as he likes. A vote against this cynical vote is a vote for President Bush. How dumb does Brent Bozell think we are?

Well, dumb enough, I guess.

I Come to Praise Molly Ivins, not to Bury Her

Molly Ivins is really quite good, and her latest article is also quite good. It's about how the Bush Administration is dealing with the suggestion that the pre-war intelligence may not have been presented exactly honestly.

Dissent equals treason. Anyone who criticizes Bush is unpatriotic. According to this pitiful attempt at intimidation, to notice that this war is a disaster is the same as spitting on our soldiers. Stephen Hadley, Donald Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney have all played this card in recent days.

It's just plain old intimidation, trying to scare people into shutting up -- it's an old, ugly, mean trick, and it only works against cowards.

It's fortunate that there are plenty of people out there, like Ms. Ivins, who do not happen to be cowards.

Anyway the whole article is good, so go check it out!

A Plan vs. A Timetable

Cal Thomas's latest article makes the stunning admission that there are some similarities between Vietnam and Iraq. Specifically, he means that we could drop out of the war earlier than we should because of protesters and anti war types.

Vietnam and Iraq are significantly different, but Iraq could resemble Vietnam, if Murtha's advice is taken. We lost the war in Vietnam when we lost our will and failed to implement a plan for victory.

See Mr. Thomas wants us to implement a "plan for victory." This is different than a timetable for withdrawal. I'm not sure exactly how the two differ, but I am sure that it is so.

Oh I know. A "plan for victory" does not require the United States, particularly those who supported President Bush and this invasion, to admit that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Cal Thomas, unlike many of his colleagues, does at least present an idea of what victory in Iraq will look like.

Quitting before a stable democracy and self-sufficient Iraqi military is in place isn't a strategy. It is surrender.

Seems simple enough. A stable democracy and self-sufficient Iraqi military. Seems like that would take some time under the best of circumstances; but since our very presence drains the government of legitimacy and encourages insurrection, well, I guess Mr. Thomas is in for the long haul.

Oh, in case you didn't know, Republicans put up a measure calling for immediate and mindless withdrawal last week. It didn't pass, and many democrats, recognizing it as madness, didn't vote for it. Here's a parable that might help you understand this little tactic.

Once upon a time there was a magical shop known as Cost No More. An assistant manager by the name of Thor (son of Hiemdall) went and had words with the manager. "Verily oh manager, our marketing plan doth not draw customers as it should. I propose we enact a new marketing plan."

His manager, Thoth son of Orsirus, said, "Look Thor, If you are serious about this, the only thing to do is to tear down the entire store and rebuild from scratch."

Thor was taken aback and said "Nay, varlet. Such a course of action is far to extreme."

Thoth replied, in a quiet voice, "Ah, then there must be no problems."

Simple enough. Liberals favor a timetable for withdrawal. Or a plan if you like that word better. Not just mindless withdrawal.

But of course it's harder to demonize the idea of a timetable for withdrawal.

Dennis Prager and Hatred

Dennis Prager is on my mind a lot this week. His latest article, "The Left Hates Inequality, not Evil," is his standard dishonest mish-mash. It doesn't even live up to that title. I mean he makes an argument that the left doesn't hate evil, but fails to argue that the left does hate inequality.

Indeed, halfway through his article he seems to forget the title.

As noted above, everyone hates someone, and that includes people on the Left. The problem is that because they don't hate evil, they hate those who oppose evil. That is how liberals went from anti-communist to anti-anti-communist.

By the way, it's interesting that Prager basically just accepts hatred as part of the human condition, rather than arguing that his followers try to rid themselves of that pernicious passion as much as possible. But I suppose he understands the implications of his writings and wants to ok hatred of liberals for his followers.

I disagree with conservatives and I find what some of them do hateful. But I try not to hate them and I encourage you not to hate conservatives.

I also don't understand the logic that because we don't hate evil, we must hate those who oppose evil? But whatever. In this cosmic drama that Prager has created, Conservatives are the good guys, and anybody who disagrees with Conservatives is the bad guys.

Prager can't, therefore, acknowledge that many liberals recognize the dangers and the evils in the world, but disagree over how best to handle those problems. He also can't note that there are certain evils, such as Corporate Malfience, that Liberals are willing to grapple while Conservatives look the other way. No when it comes to evil, Prager's little drama requires manly Conservatives to stand up and fight, while evil Liberals stab them in the back. Any situation that doesn't fit this model simply doesn't exist.

Monday Mail Bag

Hey Space Minions!

By the way I found a cache of old Junior Space Minion of Evil badges. You see Captain Starfaller, being a crazy egoist, had a club of kiddies called the Star Brigade. They would get a badge that said "Junior Cadet of the Star Brigade" and it would have their name on it. Anyway, I talked the director into setting up the Space Minions of Evil club, but before we could get it on the air, the sponsor nixed it.

Apparently some of the parents (the closed-minded ones) would think that a club of evil is somehow offensive.

Anyway the director did give me the leftover badges, but attempts to hand them out on my own proved, well, not very good. There were purses hitting my carapace involved. I'm a bit more sensitive to these issues now, and I do have to say that sidling up to a kid and saying "Hey want to join my Space Minions of Evil club?" really doesn't look all that good. Oh well.

I ought to put these on eBay or something.

Anyway on to this weeks comments and letters. Last weeks Catalogue of Commentators entry (on Dennis Prager) engendered quite a little debate (3 comments!). Bryant participated so I won't, but it's worth checking out.

An article on Brent Bozell's contention that President Bush deserves some credit for keeping us safe summoned forth this response from Random Goblin.

We don't know he has "kept us safe" since 9/11. He certainly didn't keep people safe in New Orleans. ahnd he certainly hasn't kept our soldiers very safe.

This little note, by the way gives a clue as to Mr. Goblin's origins. The adding of an unnecessary "h" to the word and is characteristic of retired British Army Colonels and Bostonians; and I know for a fact that Mr. Goblin is not from Boston. You are left to draw your own conclusions.

As for his comments, I agree. Or I don't. I haven't decided yet.

Being a Lobster, I don't actually have a spine.

Turning to the mail bag, we have a plethora of interesting letters. Let's start out with a letter who's first line could be a shoegazer album title.

Greetings to you, from little Fred Williams

Just Released, Jimmy and Mopes' latest chart topper "Greetings to you, from little Fred Williams." This conceptual album traces the story of a poor little 17 year old from Cote D'Ivoire who has $18,500,000.00 and nowhere to put it. Contains the hit singles "Oh Please Mr. Foreigner" and "Just Give Me your Bank Account Number Already."

We also got a letter from Ghana which starts with this thesaurus bursting sentence.

Forgive my indignation if this message comes to you as a surprise and may offend your personality for contacting you without your prior consent and writing through this unofficial channel.I got your contact from a profesional database found in internet while searching for a reliable and honest person that will assist me safeguard funds into an account.

Let's open up our dictionaries and help translate that first sentence.

Forgive my anger aroused by something unjust, mean, or unworthy if this message comes to you as a surprise and may offend your totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person for contacting you without your prior consent and writing through this unofficial wood or steel ledge projecting from a sailing ship's sides to spread the shrouds and keep them clear of the gunwales.

I don't know if that made the sentence any clearer, now that I look at it.

Anyway that's all for today; hope you all have pleasant weeks, and be sure to get your Junior Space Minion of Evil badge, once I figure out how to sell them.

What Kind of Blog is this?

Hi Everybody. : )

For those interested in this question, he's the answer.

Your Blog Should Be Red

Your blog is full of intensity and passion. You are very opinionated - and people love or hate you for it. You have the potential to be both a famous and infamous blogger.

What Color Should Your Blog or Journal Be?

Link via The Countess.

God and Science

Suzanne Fields has written an interesting article on the intersection of Scientific Theory and Religious Belief. The only problem is that I'm far from sure what point she intended to make.

Fields starts out repeating an argument by David Sloan Wilson that religious beliefs might be a survival characteristic.

The Wilson argument rests on a Darwinian analysis of what contributes to evolution. Darwin wrote that tribes with a high degree of fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, always prepared to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would triumph over other tribes and thus be more likely to survive. This view perceives society as a single organism; since religious men and women historically aim to encourage such traits within their community, Mr. Wilson believes they were favored by natural selection.

I'm not exactly sure how to take this. It seems to suggest that we should build religious society, regardless of whether such religious belief is founded in reality or not. But many, if not most, religious people would argue that their beliefs are based on reality. That's sort of the point, isn't it?

At any rate, Fields larger point seems to suggest that Religion and Science are not as intrinsically antagonistic as some would say. I gather she supports intelligent design, but prefers the more scientifically rigorous versions of that theory. But mostly she wants this argument to stop generating so much heat and noise without accomplishing anything. Not sure I disagree with her, although we would, presumably, disagree on who is responsible for keeping up the pressure.

Christmas chronicles

You can expect me to be all over Christmas stories this year. Or, to be more precise, stories drummed up by the right wing to suggest that Liberals hate Christmas.

Today's article is by Michelle Goldberg over at Salon, and it is a review of a book by Fox Anchor John Gibson called "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought." This being Salon, she does a very good job taking the argument apart and explaining why it's crap.

The basic problem with the argument is that it overreaches. There's no doubt that a few school boards or city councils have made some wrong calls in an attempt to avoid potential legal problems. But does that translate into a "liberal war on Christmas?"

incidentally, Ms. Goldberg points out that the ACLU, the villain in this conservative fantasy, has regularly defended the Christian's right to freedom of speech.

Ironically, when school officials do go too far, the ACLU is likely to challenge them, on the grounds that the government can neither promote nor restrict religious speech. "A lot of the things the ACLU does to help religious people and religious students are not high-profile cases; they don't get much attention," says Haynes. "The Christian student who is told she can't bring her Bible to school, the ACLU gets those kinds of calls, and often it doesn't become a lawsuit, but they will quietly tell the school you can't do this, you have to treat everyone fairly."

Indeed, one case that ACLU president Nadine Strossen loves to talk about is that of Rita Warren, a retired woman who calls herself the "Lone Ranger of the manger" and whose life mission is to put nativity scenes in public places. When she placed a plastic creche on the lawn in front of the government building in Fairfax, Va., the government ordered her to remove it. Warren called the ACLU, and they discovered that the city of Fairfax had allowed others to erect displays on the property. "Once the government allows displays of any kind to be placed on public property, it can't then discriminate against some display because of the viewpoint," says Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. "The government could not discriminate against her religious display any more than it could take specific action to promote her religious display. It has to treat us the same."

Interesting. But don't worry; the correct answer to this argument is that a few moments of clarity don't make up for all the other bad things the ACLU, apparently, does.

Of course Mr. Gibson and Mr. O'Reilly (also very concerned about this issue) are also worried about stores like Wal-Mart and Target choosing to have their employees say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas."

Wal-Mart could chain their employees to their cash-registers, have people whipping them with asbestoes whips, and Gibson and O'Reilly would defend their right to run their business as they like. But such businesses do not, apparently, have the right to instruct their employees what holiday greeting to give.

Anyway it's an interesting article; well worth checking out.

New Logo, New Quote!

Hi all! : )

Once again we are changing the logo, but nothing else; just because it's easier. And new quote too. Have a good week.