Inquisition

Guardian:

Pope Benedict XVI last night called off a visit to Rome's main university in the face of hostility from some of its academics and students, who accused him of despising science and defending the Inquisition's condemnation of Galileo.

The controversy was unparalleled in a country where criticism of the Roman Catholic church is normally muted. The Pope had been due to speak tomorrow during ceremonies marking the start of the academic year at Rome's largest and oldest university, La Sapienza. But the Vatican said last night it had been "considered opportune to postpone" his visit.

The announcement followed a break-in and sit-in at the rector's office yesterday by about 50 students and a furious row over a letter signed by more than 60 of La Sapienza's teachers, asking that the invitation to the Pope be rescinded.

The signatories of the letter said Benedict's presence would be "incongruous". They cited a speech he made at La Sapienza in 1990, while he was still a cardinal, in which he quoted the judgment of an Austrian philosopher of science who wrote that the church's trial of Galileo was "reasonable and fair".

For the record

House roll call on HR 1443:

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

Willard's problems are of his own making

Andrew O'Hehir, in Salon:

As the most prominent Mormon presidential candidate since his father, George, 40 years ago, or since Smith himself ran on a platform of "Theodemocracy" in 1844, Romney must negotiate between two opposing forces. The theology and tangled history of Mormonism is at odds with the quasi-theocratic nature of the contemporary Republican Party, which seems to have decreed that only Bible-believing Christians or their close allies may run for high office. Neither of these two forces is of Romney's own making, but it was the candidate, and his decisions about how to run his campaign, who ensured that they would collide.

As Christopher Hitchens recently complained in Slate, political reporters have generally treated the details of Romney's faith as a no-go zone. If the question were simply whether his beliefs (or anyone else's) should qualify or disqualify him from public office, I would agree that there was nothing to discuss. Moreover, only Mitt Romney can know how much of Mormon doctrine he accepts without question and how much he takes with a grain of salt. Even in the most dogmatic of believers and the most dictatorial of denominations, faith is fundamentally a private process of negotiation.

But you don't have to descend to Hitchens' level of anti-Mormon vitriol to recognize that Romney's religion, and how he characterizes and explains it, has now become the central issue of his campaign. It may even be the issue that ends his candidacy -- and some of that is no one's fault but Mitt Romney's. In transforming himself from a moderate, pro-choice Republican into an avid pro-life conservative, and in pandering to the party's white Southern evangelical base -- essentially presenting himself as a Christian fellow traveler with a few eccentric updates -- Romney himself helped make an evangelical vetting of his faith inevitable.

Nice

Spiegel Online:

When the Taliban destroyed two Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in the spring of 2001, there was an international outcry. But similar incidents are now occurring in northwest Pakistan, where radical Islamists recently blew up a sculpture of Buddha in broad daylight.

The phenomenon is new and disconcerting. Even the Pakistani government describes it as "Talibanization:" Parts of the country are now in almost exactly the same situation as neighboring Afghanistan was when the Taliban were still in power there.

This is especially the case in the formerly peaceful Swat region, where a militant Islamist leader has even proclaimed an "emirate." And just as in Afghanistan, the Islamists' hatred is directed, in part, against the traces left by the ancient Buddhist civilization in the region.

Will America ever grow up?

Associated Press:

Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

The report, which was based on a review of research into teen sexual behavior, was being released Wednesday by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

Kansas Steps Into the 21st Century!

AP:

The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday repealed sex education policies enacted last year, the latest move by the moderate majority to undo efforts by conservatives when they dominated the board.

One rescinded policy recommended that schools stress abstinence until marriage, while the other urged school districts to get parental permission before students could attend human sexuality classes.

On a 6-3 vote, the board replaced the policies with one that recommends "abstinence plus" sex education programs and leaves it up to the state's 296 school districts to decide whether to get parental permission.

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.

Atrios is angry

Atrios is an atheist, and it pisses him off that we focus so much on candidates' religious beliefs. It should. Any open atheist could never get elected president. And by demanding a religious purity test, we beg for dishonesty and hypocrisy. Bush is supposedly deeply religious, yet he's as selfish, greedy, dishonest, and blithe about causing violence as any president we've ever had. And, as usual, the media is as much to blame for this bullshit game as is anyone.

You know what I'd love to see? A candidate with enough courage, when asked about her or his religious beliefs, to simply invoke the U.S. Constitution. From Article VI:

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In other words, to all you media hacks who continually make candidates' religious beliefs a political issue: it's none of your fucking business!

I'm not an atheist, but it pisses me off, too!