Over at the conservative site, townhall.com, Dinesh D’Souza announced that he will be debating Christopher Hitchens on the subjects of God and religion. D’Souza has been considered to be one of the ‘great thinkers’ in the modern conservative movement. So how is this intellectual conservative defend Christianity and religion? He invokes laughable a prioric argument of Anselm of Canterbury, also known as the ontological argument for the existence of God.

For those who are unfamiliar with Anslem’s argument — later extended by Descartes — it can be stated simply as: “Humans can conceive of an infinitely perfect being (ie. God); This perfection is greater then any other perfection humans can conceive of; thus, the knowledge of this being must be a prioric, or innately known to be true; therefore this being, God, must exists.”

As any first year philosophy student will point out, Anslem’s argument is easily susceptible to what’s known as the ‘overload objection’. In other words, humans can conceive of any number of fantasitcal creatures which do not exist, pegasus, unicorns, and even invisible pink unicorns. The fact that these creatures can be conceived of but are nonexistent undermines the notion that God exists because we can conceive of God. We are left with the Anslem’s and Descartes notion of the ultimate perfection of God. We can only conceive of a single being of unmediated perfection - that being must be God.

This, however, leads to a different problem for D’Souza and others: that this perfect being is by no logical reasoning Christian. This is essentially the same problem suffered by Pascal’s Wager. We may argue that, perhaps, some God figure exists, but the arguments lead towards no evidence of the nature of that being. Even if we would blindly accept the a priori argument for God’s existence there is nothing in the argument to suggest that Christianity reflects the nature of God. If fact, we can conceive of an ultimately perfect being which is completely ambivalent towards mankind; thus, negating any need for religious devotion.

It is also worth mentioning, at this point, Immanuel Kant’s objection to the a prioric argument. Kant argues that mere existence is not a quality which defines the actual existence of an object. But that actual existence is defined by more specific properties of a thing.

Nonetheless, the silliness of D’Souza is to suggest that he can logically define or prove the existence of God in the first place. There is no rational argument which can prove the existence of God, and most conservative intellectuals have even given up trying. Even Michael Gerson, a conservative Christian and speech writer for George Bush, in a recent screed against atheists didn’t try to prove the existence of God, but instead focused on the necessity to believe in God. Gerson, like many conservatives, argues that man needs God to have moral order in this world and the next. God becomes an authoritarian necessity — an excuse to accept the ‘natural order’ and to defer unpunished injustices to the next world. For many rational conservatives this is the natural argument for the necessity, not the existence, of God.

D’Souza — who was once heralded as the new example of conservative intellectualism — seems to miss the fact that his argument for existence was dismissed over a hundred years ago and is now taught as a logical fallacy in most universities. It’s a fact that most conservatives would find it politically difficult to argue that religion is necessary for social order but has no basis in fact. This the primary reason why conservative theorists don’t engage in arguments about religion. Instead they leave those debates to the true believers. Those who — with no rational arguments — believe in their theology which supports the conservative authoritarian ideology. D’Souza is seemingly trying to bridge this gap between faith and the mind. From his essay it is abundantly clear that he lacks the intellectual ability to even begin such a meditation, let alone participate in any real discussion of the issues.

I want to make it clear that I have no love or admiration for Christopher Hitchens. I find him to be overbearing and much of his arguments flawed. His continued support of the war in Iraq has shown him to have lost any connection to a rational reality. His logic at a recent conference speaks for itself: sickening.

h/t Canadian Cynic

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America, they –

DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
…

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you’re not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That’s not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were - if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists

…

DEUTSCH: That isn’t what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or –

COULTER: Yeah.

…

COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

…

DEUTSCH: But that’s even a scarier thought. OK –

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is “Christ died for our sins.” We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.

Since her appearance, Coulter has been condemned by the Anti-Defamation League and other for being antisemitic or simply theologically ill-informed. Ann Coulter, ill-informed? Shocked, I am! Shocked, I say. . . But Ann, and her defenders, insist that she is not antisemitic, simply ‘pro-christian’. And they are correct; Ann is no more antisemitic then Christians have been throughout history. She is simply expressing a tenant of her faith — as a conservative evangelical Christian.

Conservative and fundamentalist evangelicals believe that they have the only inside scoop on ’salvation’ and are the only true Christians. But good conservative evangelicals understand the God singled out the Jews in his operator’s manual, the Bible, as special. Pastor Hagee, the fundamentalist founder of the powerful Christians United for Israel, has built a religious and political empire on his theology of imperfect Jews. For Hagee, Jews combined with the state of Israel form a prophetic key which opens a magic gate and allows Jesus to return. Unfortunately, this prophetic ‘happening’ doesn’t bode too well for the Jews, as Bruce Wilson has pointed out:

Many Christian Premillenial Dispensationalists — the theological persuasion Pastor John Hagee belongs to — believe that the majority of the Jews currently living in Israel will be killed in the period of warfare that follows the “Rapture,” when “believing” Christians ( fundamentalist Christians, that is ) are bodily transported up to safety in heaven. The standard interpretation is that 2/3 or more of Israeli Jews will be slaughtered during this period but that a righteous “remnant”, who have realized the error of their ways and converted to Christianity, will survive what Christian Zionists often call the “final Holocaust” or the “second Holocaust.”

I am not trying to assert that Ann Coulter shares Pastor Hagee’s theology, simply that the belief that Jews are imperfect is one which is very prevalent in contemporary conservative Christian culture. Certainly Coulter and Hagee share similar notions of America’s role in the world. Both desire America to attack Iran, both view Islam as threat to world order, and both see secular conspiracies all around them. And, it would seem, that both share the notion that Jews need to accept Christ as their savior or messiah in order to be better human beings.

What Ann Coulter did this week was to speak a tenant of her faith, one which is not usually spoken out loud. She voiced a tenant that is understood among believers, but rarely spoken of outside of prophesy. For this she should be applauded. Her honesty and childlike recitation of dogma helps others to better understand conservative evangelical Christianity. Her words have helped spread a knowledge of her faith, and we can only hope that those words reverberate so that every American can understand the faith which has asserted itself as the true American Christianity.

Anyone who has had to go through the intro to western civ sections as a college freshman understands that it was the re-introduction of reason and logic from the ancients which fueled the expansion of western knowledge and civilization. Even as early as the fifth century St. Augustine wrote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

By rejecting the idea that reason should trump doctrine, Bitterman’s students are rejecting the very core of the class they are taking. They are telling their college that knowledge should not challenge their preconceptions or beliefs. By firing Bitterman the college has sided with this ignorance. Instead of telling the offended students that they should grow up — or perhaps find a different class — the college has said all students now must bathe in the ignorance of the few. They have sacrificed Bitterman to the modern inquisition of fundamentalism.

It is very apparent that if the complaining students have their way there would be no western civilization, and certainly no study of it. For they have decided to reject the fruit of the tree of knowledge and embrace ignorance. Unfortunately, they want to drag the rest of us to their fairy tale land with them.

Father God,

In our hearts we believe that you will hear our prayers and will put all these curses upon our enemies and on those who hate us, who persecute us. We will keep not silence, for the mouths of the wicked and the mouths of deceit are opened against us; they have spoken against us with lying TONGUES. They have compassed us about also with words of hatred, mockery, and deciept; and have fought against all that is Holy without a cause. In return for our agape love they are my adversaries, but we now resort to prayer. They have rewarded and laid upon us evil and slander for good, and hatred for love. Set a wicked man over them as judge, and let a malisious accuser stand at their right hand come Judgment Day.

When Liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes and her followers; when the wicked and mockers at Democratic Underground are judged, let them be condemned, and let their prayers for leniency be turned into sins. Let their days be few; and let others take their offices and charge. Let their children be parentless and their souses become widowed. Let their children be continual vagabonds as was Cain and beg; let them seek their bread and be driven far from their ruined homes.

IN JESUS NAME, I BIND UP EVERY DEMON COMING ACROSS THE COMPUTER LINES, AND I RETURN THEM AND ANY CURSES.

In Your Name, Amen.

As an example of an imprecatory prayer, or curse, it’s pretty mediocre, but the mere idea of such a prayer would strike many as anti-christian. We can easily imagine that muslim fundamentalists pray for similar retributions against American citizens. The barbarity of religion begins when hate turns to prayer and then prayer turns to action. It seems that we are two-thirds there.

Much of what has been written on this case focuses either on the right to procreate, or the physician’s right to invoke objection of conscious. Neither of these arguments address the real concerns for society which underlines the case. For instance, what if Benitez was seeking a prosthetic leg and the doctor refused, either because he did not treat lesbians or because he felt that the injury which took her natural leg was a punishment from God, and he cannot in faith interfere with divine judgment? Certainly, one can live without either a prosthesis or a child, and obviously the right to a prosthesis is less personal then the right to procreate. However, in both cases the physician declares a Benitez less worthy of his or her medical care. The natural extension of this is a fractured society in which balkanized groups of citizens are unable to interact due to “moral objections”. If a doctor can refuse elective treatment based upon his religious judgment of the patient, why can’t a Muslim professor refuse to allow an atheist in his class? Why can’t a Baptist lawyer refuse to represent a Catholic? Why can’t a Mormon optician refuse to fit anyone other than Mormons? All of these are of median value when compared to medical care.

Doctors and nurses hold a special place in our society. They are charged with caring for their fellow women and men with the primary charge of first doing no harm. To allow them to pick and choose treatments and patients based upon their religious faith irreparably harms our society. It allows them to designate a class of citizens as less worthy then others. It fosters an inherent conflict between people of differing religious beliefs and values: the same type of conflict which has ravaged nations since the first prophet appeared from a desert. If we are going to abandon the notion of a pluralistic society then we must be prepared for the bigotry and violence that will eventually ensue. The doctors who refused to treat Guadalupe Benitez placed their moral outrage over the sworn duty of their profession: to first do no harm.

Fischer is not alone in her desire to bring religious zeal to our conflicts. For some time there has been an on going effort to evangelize those in our armed forces. Now comes Operation Stand Up (OSU). OSU is an evangelical group focused on providing entertainment and morale to US soldiers serving in Iraq. As they say on their site:

We perform these shows specifically for military soldiers. Our shows are specifically geared to be intriguing to the hard core soldier. Spouses and children are welcome but we make no bones about the fact that we are speaking directly to the soldiers of the greatest fighting force of in the world. No “mamsie pamsie” stuff here! Even our ventriloquist is rated one of the top 5 in the world and has soldiers busting a gut with laughter.

If all OSU was offering our soldiers is a Sargent Slaughter ventriloquist act one could hardly object, except perhaps on grounds of comedic taste. But speaking of their upcoming tour to Iraq the founder & CEO of OSU stated:

We are most excited about this crusade and yes we are willing to go to the front lines with a very encouraging word straight from God, to our troops. We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region.

This statement coupled with the fact that OSU is sending copies of the video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces in care packages to troops certainly suggests that they are attempting to theocrotize both the military and its operations. For those unfamiliar with Eternal Forces, the game play consists primarily of converting or killing non-Christians.

The fact that the Pentagon is both supporting and endorsing OSU should make us all a little queasy. Do we as a nation want our military to become a group of Christian Crusaders? At what point does personnel religious belief become the policy of of military — and what will happen to the people who that military is suppose to protect who don’t live up to that religious belief?

Jonathan Hutson has a good look at OSU at TalktoAction — wherein he examines the homoerotic merchandise offered on their website — the hyper-masculinity is very similar to that seen in illustrations by Tom of Finland.

h/t: Liz

Recently proto virtual-world Second Life banned in-world gambling using it’s native currency, Linden Dollars. This really shouldn’t have come as a shock to anyone, given the government’s recent war against online gambling. Linden Labs, who administers Second Life, could not take the chance that the feds would come and seize their business. States have lobbied hard to eliminate online gambling, as it undermines their total control of the industry: an arrangement which is ripe with enormousness state revenues and corruption.

Now comes word that Second Life may ban bestiality among avatars. Controversy over alternative sex practices are nothing new in the virtual world. There has been, and remains, a long standing controversy over age-play, in which adults maintain avatars which appear significantly younger than themselves, and occasionally engage in sex acts with each other or with older appearing avatars.

Technology and sex have been intertwined since man first developed civilization. Some of the erotic pottery and writings of ancient Greece and Rome are still with us to, The great Print Culture of 17th century Europe gave us not only Shakespeare and Dunne , but also”Sodom” by John Wilmot, the first printed pornography. In the 19th century the new technology of photography was quickly adapted to nudes and erotic imagery. The first truly erotic and fetish films began appearing around 1910, less than tens years after the equipment became readily available. The availability of consumer computers in the 1980s spurred sex related bulletin board systems (BBS): there were Gay BBS’, Straight BBS’, Fetish BBS’, and a huge host of others that were simply a potpourri of sexual desire. With the first coherent Internet nodes came sex - alt.sex newsgroups, sex.* IRC channels, sex.stories ftp reservoirs, etc . . .

Technological sophistication does seem to bring to light more unusual sexual practices then seen in lower forms of technology. No doubt, Freud would argue that anonymity coupled with our unease with new technology is a breeding ground for perversity. However, human sexual imagination is not limited by technology. The various fetishes encountered in Second Life, or online in general, would not disappear if the technology to act them out ceased to be. At this point, the technology is simply a tool which allows human sexuality to be explored — it does not engender the desires it reflects. Thus it seems particularly silly, and perhaps overbearingly paternalistic, to suggest that certain sexual acts — virtual acts at that — between consenting players be limited in Second Life. Even in areas which are legally abhorred, such as age-play, there is adult consent, and therefore no law is, or should be considered, broken. Some elements in all societies are always preoccupied with the sexual practices of others. There is always a great wringing of hands and cries of sin and damnation. But these acts are never eliminated. The questionable acts are simply further hidden from the hand wringers. Advanced networking has allowed humans to explore their sexual desires and identities. The purpose of technology must include the furthering any understanding of ourselves and each other; otherwise, it serves no real purpose.

Given the amount of apparent sinning and perversity occurring in Second Life, it should come as no surprise that Catholics have taken a strong interest in the world. Recently, the Jesuits have decided to pursue an evangelical mission into the virtual world. There really is no better choice to journey to this badly rendered 3D wilderness then the Jesuits. They have missions in nearly every country in the world, and though the order contains many great scholars and thinkers, they are fanatical in their beliefs: as their founder Ignatius Loyola said, “I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.”

Of course, theology in Second Life raises far more questions then issues of sexuality. For instance, does an avatar have a soul? Is that soul an equal extension of the player’s soul, or is it a minor or lesser extension? Does praying in Second Life carry equal weight as prayer in real life? Can one receive virtual communion? Can one commit virtual sin? All of this should generate a great theological debate, not unlike the age old stercorarian debates in the church — which argue about the nature of the transubstantiated host during digestion.

Of course one must wonder what a good religious man will do when confronted by a twenty-something year old man, appearing as a 15 year old girl asking her parish priest for a spanking. . . . .

Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.

“I planned on sending him to hell,” he said.

There can be little doubt that Mr. Mangum is a bit touched in the head; yet, what is the difference between a man who brutally murders another because he is inspired by ‘god’ and a man who blows himself up in a crowded bus because he is inspired by ‘god’? Ultimately, the only difference lies in the volume of lives maimed and killed. Mr. Mangum may have only barbarically snuffed out one life, but he left behind the maimed lives of Mr. Cummings’ friends and family. Mr. Mangum’s act was designed to do more then kill one man, like a jihadi bomber, the act was framed to carry out divine justice.

I have written previously that the hate filled rhetoric of conservative christians will, eventually, lead to acts of violence. Many will dismiss Mangum as an extreme case, an aberration, but in fact Mangum was following the religious principles he was taught. He was following the literal Word of God, and as a principle of faith the Word cannot be questioned.

Mangum’s faith in the Word cannot really be questioned but his actions, and those who will follow him, should be treated most harshly. Conservative christians have been fighting the passage of HR.1592 (The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) for the past several months on the grounds that the law represents infringement upon their religious speech. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the present hate crimes statutes (see 18 U.S.C. § 245 and § 247) include religious belief and race among the protected classes. The current bill before congress simply adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the existing classes, as well as expanding local resources and federal jurisdiction. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this law would somehow prevent religious leaders from criticizing homosexuality. Existing laws have stopped no one, including myself, from criticizing religious belief or behavior; I know of no atheist arrested under these laws for mocking religion or speaking out against God.

HR.1592 adds additional penalties to existing crimes committed for reasons of bias. Some will argue that a ‘crime is a crime’, and no additional prosecution is needed. As a society we separate classes of the same offense all the time — the rape of a child is treated vastly differently then the rape of an adult. In a pluralistic society it seems prudent that we should treat some crimes as more heinous than others because they seek to undermine the fabric of our civil society. A murderer, for instance, targeting Jews simply for their religious beliefs commits a worse crime then a murderer who targets individuals for their money. This is because our society values religious diversity and it is cognizant of the historic tragedy of anti-semitic crimes. Sexual preference and gender identity are as core to ones identity as race or religious belief. There exists mountains of historical evidence to show that crimes based upon these two classes are prevalent and and often under prosecuted. The cold blooded murder of Mr.Cummings is simply the most recent, public, testament to this fact.

As Tom, at PurpleScarf, has pointed out: conservative christians seem to believe the entire notion of hate crimes is a joke. At the same time they argue that additional penalties to crimes motivated by the hatred of a victim’s sexual orientation constitute a burden upon their religious rights. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this argument is that conservative christian leaders seek to promote some level of violence. There is really no other explanation: we tolerate abhorrent speech regularly but action is prosecuted. As a society, we tolerate — and even accommodate — groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, neo-nazis, as well as numerous other supremest groups. Legal prosecutions of these groups have only occurred when criminal action was taken on behalf of the group. Ultimately, this is what concerns these religious leaders: that either they will be deterred from inciting criminal violence, or that their bigotry will be relegated to the same acceptance levels as that of the Klan. In either case, civil society wins, and perhaps the the brutalization that Mr. Cummings suffered won’t be repeated.

The last few days have wreaked a veritable theo-paluzza of christian supremacist essays. It seems, based on these, that conservative christians have moved beyond simply preaching that there’s is the best interpretation to christianity - or any relationship with the divine - to actively stating that no belief other then their’s is christian, let alone divinely inspired.

First up we the Miter Man, the heir to Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. This week his holiness reasserted the primacy, or central truth, that his is the one and only true church of God:

These ecclesial (sic) Communities [Protestant denominations] which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

Ie. No celebrate priest + No magic wafer = No God for You. To be fair, this has always been part of the catholic doctrine, and was hammered into us when I was a kid, but you’d think the church would have a somewhat more expansive view of the world and humanity after nearly 2000 years.

Next up, the battling Calvinist, Cal Thomas. On Tuesday, the pious pundit published an essay attacking the faith of Hillary Clinton. At the end of the piece Cal tries to suggest that he’s simply upset that Clinton would use faith a political prop: shocked he is; shocked I say! to discover there’s religion going on in politics. But make no mistake, Cal’s real problem is that he finds Clinton’s theology false:

Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns — such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other “do-good” pursuits — ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.

Yes Cal takes particular issue with the the notion that salvation is tied to good works — one can’t imagine why. Granted, this is an issue of hot theological debate, but Cal’s dismissing of it as just silly is sure to offend the Miter Man and his followers. As the catechism of the catholicism states:

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

But who you might ask could be more theologically unhinged then Battling Cal? In this ring we present Madman David ‘The Moralist’ McCullough. Crazed by the notion that Democratic candidates would participate in a debate on gay and lesbian issues, McCullough sat down at his 1961 IBM selectric, fed in some carbon paper, and began foaming away:

In the attempt by the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination America will see for the first time (or at least the ten viewers who get LOGO as part of their cable package) how far Democratic candidates are willing to pander to get a vote.
Does it take an entire broadcast hour for each of them to “out gay” the other one? Will Obama and/or Edwards show up in Chiffon? Will Hillary pass love notes to Etheridge?

What will happen is that each of these candidates will have to also later face the same “faith-based” audiences that they have been attempting to woo in recent weeks. Heaven forbid, but Obama might even have to make a follow up appearance in Rick Warren’s pulpit to announce the results of his most recent AIDS test. And what will they have to say then?

See here is the unrelenting truth, put as plainly as humanly possible:

Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on. So the candidates can not have it both ways.

Wow - what a rant: you got lesbians, a couple of references of cross dressing, and a little AIDS jab - just to remind us that even though the disease is killing millions of people a year, it’s still a ‘gay thing’. For the Madman, it just inconceivable that churches exist which welcome gay and lesbian parishioners. Christian churches which actually, allow gays and lesbians to serve as deacons, ministers, and even bishops. Dave makes it clear, these institutions just aren’t christian — of course this is bound to annoy some Episcopals and other denominations. In all fairness to The Moralist, a good half of his rant is devoted to the fact that the Democratic candidates will not appear on Fox News for a debate. He opines that they are simply afraid of the unbiased sharp wit of Brit Hume — a man who has dedicated more air time to John Edwards hair then any other newscaster. I would assume that that the Mr. Obama, and the other candidates, simply believe there is more substance in debating gay and lesbian issues then there is in receiving tonsorial tips from Mr. Hume.

Finally, we come to the fitful, fearful, fundamentalist, American Family Association. These defenders of all things American and religious issued a fatwa warning their followers of the gravest threat to America yet: Hindus. It seems that Rajan Zed, a hindu chaplin, was to deliver the open prayer for the US Senate on Thursday. The very idea of this sent them into a fit of conniptions:

WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto “One Nation Under God.”
. . . “And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration [of Independence] when they talked about Creator — that’s not one that fits here because we don’t know which creator we’re talking about within the Hindu religion.”
Barton says given the fact that Hindus are a tiny constituency of the American public, he questions the motivation of Senate leaders. “This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world,” he observes. ” . .
And while Barton acknowledges there is not constitutional problem with a Hindu prayer in the Senate, he wonders about the political side of it. “One definitely wonders about the pragmatic side of it,” he says. “What is the message, and why is the message needed? . . .”

Yea, what did India ever give us — except for sine, cosine, the modern decimal numbering system, the concept of zero, and metallurgy. But what have they done for us lately? The apoplectic AFA just can’t fathom the notion that maybe the message we are sending is one of religious tolerance and diversity. For them diversity is a simple matter of which jesus you worship: avenging jesus or salvation jesus. Yesterday, of course, some of the possessed, heading the AFA’s call to save our nation from the horrors of polytheism interrupted Chaplin Zed’s prayer. Shouting “Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer which is an abomination in your sight.”, they were handcuffed and removed. Their final words while being ejected were “we are Christians and patriots”. While one, obviously, cannot argue with the former, the latter is open to grave skepticism.

As an atheist, of course, I find all of this a little sad and amusing — like watching a group of children argue as to whose father can beat up whose. As a human being and an American, I find all of this more then a little repulsive and appalling. As one commentator to some of these events pointed out, he was reminded of the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Others have pointed out that our religious tolerance has as a nation has fostered internal peace and theological growth. I have generally seen religion as a primeval force for division and disharmony, other have argued that it is the great motivating force to bring about a unified humanity. At this point, the evidence appears to be on my side.

It seems a group of atheist students at the University of Texas, San Antonio, have set up an interesting program to trade pornography for bibles — not vice versa, however. I am not sure that the two, bibles and porn, are mutually exclusive though, that one would have to give up the latter for the former. Rick Hawkins, paster at UTSA, stated: “I don’t know one believer that would take his Bible and turn it in for pornography.” But paster Hawkins may put too much faith into his flock. A poll conducted last year suggested that 50% of, self-proclaimed, Christian men consumed pornography, and 20% of Christian women admitted to do so as well. One would assume that good Christians possess more then a single bible, making such an exchange less of a burden.