The automobile finds religion

InventorSpot:

A spokesperson for Iranian company, Iran Khodro, says its "Islamic Car" should be readily available throughout the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Africa, in three years.

The car will have options including a compass to find Mecca and a compartment for a Koran. Priced between $8,700 and $12,000, the vehicle is meant to appeal to buyers who would like a car designed with Muslims in mind and produced by a company that acts in line with Muslim values.

For the record

House roll call on HR 1443:

BILL TITLE: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.

Meanwhile

McClatchy Newspapers:

The Christian archbishop of Basra on Tuesday canceled the celebration of Christmas in that southern city to protest the deaths of a brother and sister, both Christians, as bombings and mayhem struck at cities throughout Iraq.

Archbishop Imad al Banna said Christians in Basra should still pray to mark Christmas, but should forgo such celebratory trappings as trees, gift-swapping and family gatherings to protest the deaths of Maysoon Farid, a 30-year-old cashier at a local pharmacy, and her brother Osama, 33. The two were found dead Monday night, dumped in a neighborhood controlled by the Shiite Muslim Mahdi Army militia.

Meanwhile, two police officers in Baghdad were killed by a car bomb that struck near the homes of two prominent politicians, while south of Fallujah, in the west, family members mourned a 9-year-old girl who they said was killed by U.S. troops.

Not something you usually see in the American media

Washington Post:

Muna el-Leboudy, a 22-year-old medical student, had a terrible secret: She wanted to be a filmmaker. The way she understood her Muslim faith, it was haram -- forbidden -- to dabble in movies, music or any art that might pique sexual desires.

Then one day in September, she flipped on her satellite TV and saw Moez Masoud.

A Muslim televangelist not much older than herself, in a stylish goatee and Western clothes, Masoud, 29, was preaching about Islam in youthful Arabic slang.

He said imams who outlawed art and music were misinterpreting their faith. He talked about love and relationships, the need to be compassionate toward homosexuals and tolerant of non-Muslims. Leboudy had never heard a Muslim preacher speak that way.

"Moez helps us understand everything about our religion -- not from 1,400 years ago, but the way we live now," said Leboudy, wearing a scarlet hijab over her hair.

She said she still plans a career in medicine, but she's also starting classes in film directing. "After I heard Moez," she said, "I decided to be the one who tries to change things."

Masoud is one of a growing number of young Muslim preachers who are using satellite television to promote an upbeat and tolerant brand of Islam.

The World Needed This

Corriere Della Sera:

Pope Denies Protestants Are Church
Full identity in Christ only in Catholicism. Storm over document approved by Benedict XVI

VATICAN CITY – Christ “established here on earth” only one Church that has its full identity only in the Catholic Church, since every other Church or ecclesiastical community lacks something with respect to that identity. This is the import of a document released yesterday by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, provoking alarm and protests from Orthodox and Protestant Christians.
The document itself, signed by the prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal William Levada, and approved by Benedict XVI, comprises only six pages and is entitled Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church.

Blogging Against Theocracy: It's Very Simple

Blogging against theocracy is actually very easy. There's only one point that needs be made: read the U.S. Constitution.

From Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

One of the strangest aspects to being a religious liberal is that your beliefs are often assaulted from both sides: right wing fundamentalists have taken what you consider to be one of the most profound and beautiful aspects of existence, and bastardized it into a hatemongering fascism; while some atheistic liberals, whose understanding of religion has been defined by the bastardized version, make blanket denigrations of what they apparently don't understand; and while it's impossible to briefly explicate a non-dogmatic spirituality, it is both possible and necessary to emphasize the single most important aspect of religious liberalism, as it pertains to American politics. It's from Article VI of the United States Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Bill Maher and Duncan Black (Atrios) are two of the most prominent American critics of religion's role in American politics. They are both atheists. Not that either would necessarily be interested, but both know that their atheism precludes the possibility of their ever being elected to high public office. Both are disgusted by this fact. They should be. We all should be.

To keep it in simple terms, Kurt Vonnegut is an atheist and a secular humanist; and while, from a purely literary standpoint, he may not be the greatest of writers, he is certainly one of the most humane. It would have been much to the world's benefit had most ostensibly religious American presidents shared just a fraction of Vonnegut's humanity.

It is an outrage and a moral failure that an atheist cannot be elected to high public office in the United States. It's also clearly not in the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

From Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Right wing religious nuts often claim that the Constitution is really meant to be a religious document. They point to the legitimate fact that many of the Constitution's Founders were deeply religious. For emphasis, they often come armed with quotes from the Founders' personal and public writings. To rebut the claim that these personal beliefs were intended to be part of the Constitution, critics burrow deep into the arcane writings of other Founders, including those of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It is not necessary to engage in such debates. There is only one argument that needs be made, to thoroughly and definitively eviscerate the right wing argument. It comes from another document written by the Framers, and adopted by the Founders. It's called the U.S. Constitution. From Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

If I've been repetitive, it is not without purpose. This simple fact cannot be overemphasized. It's salience in the debate over separation of Church and State cannot be overstated. It should be repeated, over and over, again and again. It should be inscribed on every federal office building. It should, in fact, replace the slogan "In God We Trust" on our currency. It is simple and concise, and its meaning could not be more clear. It is the only reference to religion in our Constitution. From Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It has become so standard for Presidential candidates to be asked about their religious beliefs, that none any longer even blink. Their answers are as rehearsed and ready as are their answers to any questions on any major political issues; but this question should not be a political issue. I would love to see a candidate have the courage to tell anyone who asks about their religious beliefs that it is none of their business. Religion is a personal matter, and what one believes or claims to believe about it does not in any way necessarily reflect on what kind of person they are, or how they will behave in office; more importantly, it has no place in our political process. All a candidate needs to say, to prove qualification for public office, is that she or he believes in the Constitution of the United States; and the Constitution includes the following passage, in Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Do our Presidential candidates believe in the Constitution, or do they not? They shouldn't be afraid to say so.