First that, now this. How many cheeks can these good angels turn?

What about "Out of many, one." don't you understand. The one is Christianity. Unless it's the Highlander.

"They say they want more religion in the public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion.”

Doh! what else. That's like conservatives complaining about liberal activist judges, but not a peep when their own side does the same thing...

I was raised in a religious household. You just don't do that to people who have dedicated their lives to God, no matter which God it might be. Everyone deserves respect, yes, but someone like a priest, pandit, rabbi, imam...I was raised to defer to them even more. This was humiliating-- especially for Christians who don't endorse how these fanboys/girl gone r3tarded think.

I can't think of a way that so-called patriots could be LESS American. :(

A N N A, I am not a lick religious, but this modern evangelical movement in America bastardise Christianity, and I think getting upset over their behavior is the road to madness. In any case, take heart. Even the Pope believes you are all just separate Christian communities, not part of one church.

You just don't do that to people who have dedicated their lives to God, no matter which God it might be. Everyone deserves respect, yes, but someone like a priest, pandit, rabbi, imam...I was raised to defer to them even more.

In my book, they deserve LESS respect. Not only are they delusional but they actively participate in involuntary indoctrination of immature children.

What these Jesus-freaks are forgetting is that Christ was a man of peace. He didn’t surround himself with the pious and faux-righteous; he called those people out, as he deliberately and controversially chose to befriend the lowest of the low, tax collectors, prostitutes and the like. Was there ever a better example of tolerance in the Christian faith?

Are you sure about that? All middle eastern/abrahamic religions are pretty blunt about hating polythiesm. I am sure Jesus was not a big fan of idol worshippers either.

Are you sure about that? All middle eastern/abrahamic religions are pretty blunt about hating polythiesm. I am sure Jesus was not a big fan of idol worshippers either.

It's really complicated and from what I can absorb at church, greyer than that. I wish I was brazen enough to take notes in church, because sometimes, the sermon is more like a fantastic, thought-provoking lecture by an erudite professor rather than a priest speaking from the pulpit...a few weeks ago, my priest said that he had a huge issue with other Christians who treated the bible as if it were a blunt object to bludgeon others with...in the same sermon, he answered the emailed question of a parishioner regarding whether non-Christians would go to heaven. I don't know why he chose Hinduism to include in his answer, but he told the entire congregation that yes, for example, Hindus were going to heaven no matter what fundamentalists said, because goodness is goodness no matter how or whom one worships. I have never been more happy to be Greek Orthodox than I was in that moment. So as far as my priest and I go, the "not a big fan of idol worship" doesn't apply...but then my church loves iconography, and that's a whole other debate. :)

Thanks for blogging this, Anna.

There sure looks like there's a lot of idiocy to go around here. I don't think we need accept at face value the disrupters' claim to being Christian. I wouldn't call them 'Christians and Idiots', I'd just call them 'Idiots'.

And I wouldn't accept the facile conflation of Hindus with Indians, and then both with Gandhi, in the Senator's statement either. There's a bit of idiocy in that too.

On the non-ironic comedy side, I thought the interesting item was a Hindu priest with the last name 'Zed'!

chachaji, I agree that Zed is a badass name. Especially for a priest. Although his ass was gone medieval on in Pulp Fiction.

Well now I better understand the context people keep hitting me with. It's really hard for me to believe, since I've never lived anywhere Hinduism was reviled. And I've successfully avoided living near such religious nuts for a number of other reasons.

Those fools not only claim to represent Christians, they claim to represent Americans. As one of the latter category, I am appalled.

What I'm curious about is the text of the blessing. Is it a translation of something in Sanskrit ? It sure does sound like it.

Those fools not only claim to represent Christians, they claim to represent Americans. As one of the latter category, I am appalled.

Word Nina, they suck at both. I'm embarrassed for them.

Suresh, tne NYT translation sounds like the Gayatri mantra to me.

There are two components to seaparation of state and religion.
The first is that the state should not abridge the freedom to practise any religion; and should not favor or engage with any particular religion.

The second is that the demoratic process should not be able to influence the state in religious terms.
This is not just a reiteration of the first: India is a prime example of the diff.
But it is also one of the rationales given by founding fathers for the separation of church and state: letting the democratic process and politicians loose on religion to milk it for votes devalues and desecrates religion. This has always happened in India. But it is happening in the US now as well.

The caveat is that with democracy and freedom to choose, it is impossible to go beyond the first component;
or even institute checks and balances.

Those fools not only claim to represent Christians, they claim to represent Americans. As one of the latter category, I am appalled.

It's horrible claim for them to make no doubt, but not appalling in the least. How do you think Jesusland gets its reputation?

"Who's Zed?"

"Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead."

Is it a translation of something in Sanskrit ?

His closing 'Peace, peace, peace be unto all' sounds like it is a translation of the traditional 'Om shanti, shanti, shanti:hi'. I might be able to recall where the rest is from with some thought. Should watch the video first.

The issue here is not one of belief but decorum...I don't feel that any mainstream church would disagree with what these wing nuts said. Exclusive truth claims are central to all major denominations. The backlash will be over the embarassing delivery of the message. One of the things that I admire the most about this country is how well it functions despite the certainty that most people have that their neighbor is going to be tandoori roasted in the hereafter.

But why did he die, HMF?

I think Floridian will agree with me that Zed pulled the closing quote from Eliot's The Wasteland.

Judeo-Christian foundation

let's get more precise than this. though the first half a dozen presidents were arguably not particular christian in a sense that the protesters above would recognize (e.g., john adams considered himself a christian, was a theist, but he was also theologically a unitarian), by the 19th century this nation's identity was fundamentally protestant (even non-christian presidents who espoused unitarianism adhered to a sect which derived from congregationalist culture). in catholicism and freedom catholic historian john mcgreevy highlights exactly how hostile american was toward the "romish religion" until rather deep into the 20th century. anti-catholic sentiment was the cornerstone of several cultural and political movements in the 19th century. so when you say things like "judeo-christian," you're actually pointing to even a later assimilation of another religiou identity toward the american mainstream, that of judaism. the term judeo-christian didn't come into vogue until after the 1950s, a generation after the high tide of anti-catholicism abated (the 1930s klan, etc.). today we are seeing an assimilation of muslims and hindus into the civil culture, and no doubt buddhists and sikhs. the "growing pains" are nothing new and nothing unexpected. the billy graham who was making anti-catholic sounds during the run of j.f.k. is now a force for relative ecumenicalism.

Jeez, how awful must it have felt to be protested at in such a manner in front of an entire senate ? I think the pic says it all.

razib, I was wondering when you'd make your divine appearance on this thread. Now it's gettin' real!

I applaud the sentiment of your post. However I respectfully disagree that this country was started by people who were peaceloving people who simply wanted to practice their religion in peace. From what I understand through my studies and though visiting that fine educational institution "Plimoth Plantation" a couple of years ago, the people who came over here did so partly for the opportunities to "own land" (tell it to the native americans who were here before..eye roll..) and in part to be able to practice their fundamentalist interpretation on the Bible in a new place and to foist it on both the natives that were there as well at as the new boatloads of later people arriving from europe. Many of them felt that europe was getting too loosey goosey for them with too many liberal factions that they couldn't bear to witness. Sacrilage, you see. So the original settlers were quite rigid and intolerant imo. The natives who were here eventually got killed off or tricked into submission all because they didnt understand the Christian concept of God *or* the concept of land ownership; and in sharing the beautiful land that had existed for generations before the arrival of these settlers, teaching them how to plant food and survive, and also to some degree eventually buying into the notion that Christianity was the ultimate religion ( especially this extra rigid version), spelled their own doom. The early history of America, as we know it, is filled with appalling brutal stories such as the one in which native children who the missionaries so "kindly" agreed to school, were chained to each other with barbed wire as punishment for breaking one or more of the rules of "laws" laid down by these fundamentalist settlers and their progeny. So I would never say that this country was founded on peace and tolerance. Far from it.

Of all religions though, Hindu??? What good has ever come from Hindu? Somehow I don't think this is what the founders intended in their framework for a nation of religious freedom... hmm...

For more comments in this vein check out the comments following the article linked below.

Historian Barton says Hindu prayer before Senate raises concerns.

divine appearance on this thread. Now it's gettin' real!

Rahul, calling an atheist a real divine presence is to insult him...

New Orleanians found out today that there hasn't been fluoride in New Orleans drinking water since August 29, 2005. Given incidents such as this one and another in a neighboring parish (and the creatures here who think that the establishment clause does not imply separation of church and state), I suggest the introduction of valium in the country's water supply. Everyone will calm down, stop hating and be the gentler, kinder creatures of god that they purport to be.

I don't feel that any mainstream church would disagree with what these wing nuts said. Exclusive truth claims are central to all major denominations.

here is what the presiding bishop of the episcopal church in the united states said re: salvation:
Q. Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?
Bishop Jefferts Schori: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.

NPR: Robin Young: So you're saying there are other ways to God.

Bishop Jefferts Schori: Human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them...with the ultimate... with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. That doesn't mean that a Hindu doesn't experience God except through Jesus. It says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships
http://www.azdiocese.org/bishop/epistle.html?id=44&page=1

i'm not a christian myself, but can we make a good faith effort to characterize the real variation in a religion of 2 billion??? reducing all of christianity to something like john 14:6 is like reducing hinduism to "worship" of cows.

Is that the Gimp next to him with his mask off ?

The NYT article fails to mention that the protesters, whose throats were hoarse from all the shouting, then went and refreshed themselves with a squishee at a neighboring Kwik-e-mart.

in the bible didn't jesus go to some game booths in a carnival (like the duck shoot, or the glass-and-ping pong balls one), win all these idols and then smash them to pieces? or he found them in some cereal boxes and then smashed them? like little league trophies? he did something like that to attack the polytheists, like Beige Seige said.

zed is an awesome name. though i have many others, one of the reasons i would keep my name in the event of marriage is because it's actually quite a cool one. if i came across a mr. zed, i would seriously have to reconsider.

i think the hindu priest in congress is both a good and a bad sign. i hate the idea of any religion-based prayer in legislature, but at least it's not being limited to one. i also like the fact that it was a non-hindu senator who initiated this event.

hypertree, I was going with meaning 2. But I do like to stir the cauldron a little bit.

I'm not saying the pilgrims were angels...I had a feeling a comment like yours would come and I addressed it in the first draft of this post before erasing it, since it felt a little OT.

Pilgrims...Their story has become a central theme in United States cultural identity.

My poorly-elaborated point is, no matter what the reality of their actions were, the idea of escaping religious intolerance is what many associate with pilgrims/early America. At least that's what I absorbed at whatever points in school when we touched on American history. Sometimes, the myth is more prevalent than the truth. The myth I was taught was that the pilgrims were religious outcasts seeking refuge in a new land, after being persecuted for how they worshipped. That's why I'm so offended by this stupidity. All of us poorly-taught ex-students of American history know this shit is hypocritical.

Many of them felt that europe was getting too loosey goosey for them with too many liberal factions that they couldn't bear to witness.

let's be specific: in the puritan colonies of new england religious intolerance was normative. quakers were sometimes hanged. they wanted to create a calvinist city on the hill, and this is the last area of the USA which had established churches (finally abolished in the early 19th cent).

rhode island & pennsylvania were characterized by religious freedom in part for ideological reasons. rhode island was founded by roger williams who wanted to plant the soil of dissent. pennsylvania by a quaker gentlemen (william penn). the middle atlantic colonies like new york and new jersey were more commercial enterprise and religious freedom was a matter of pragmatism and principle (i believe that the largest colonial jewish settlements were in new york and providence, two cities which represented the victory of religious freedom in the interests of practical tolerance and principled tolerance). the southern colonies were dominated by a nominal anglican establishment, which remained onerous enough that baptists welcomed the efforts of madison and jefferson in revoking the privileges and rights of the established church. maryland was originally a haven for catholic nobility but quickly became a typical southern colony. so the original character of the united states as diverse and variegated. that is a strength insofar as different groups can draw upon different aspects in their creative a founding narrative to inspire them today.

i also like the fact that it was a non-hindu senator who initiated this event.

a point for conspiracy theorists: the non-hindu senator is a mormon. arguably not a monotheist (mormons believe in a multiplicity of gods).

When people talk about "founding" and founding fathers, don't they mean post-independence anyway?
It was post-independence after all that separation of church and state was put in place.
One shouldn't expect Puritans to do that :)

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest ”shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion.”

good point by lynn. i'm also glad to see he didn't argue that such morning prayers violate the establishment clause, as the phrase "wll of seperation between church and state" appears nowhere in the constitution.

But I do like to stir the cauldron a little bit.

Rahul, that's like what Wiccan? Our Judeo-christian heritage would be mad at you now.

phrase "wll of seperation between church and state" appears nowhere in the constitution.

People have spent 200 years splitting hairs and heads on the establishment clause, and what it implies. Don't fall into this constructionist excuse.

if i came across a mr. zed, i would seriously have to reconsider.

Funny you mention it. Mr. Rajan, after his speech, circulated the biodata of his son to the senators asking if their friends and family knew any "homely" Indian girls.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm

Can non-Christians be saved? What about those who have never heard of Jesus, or the Gospel

thanks, razib. do you know anything about the approval of this sort of thing? i.e. i assume that even if sen. reid invited him, there had to have been some approval from other senators? does the fact that he is the majority leader make a difference?

Let\'s not forget Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

13:6 If thy brother ... entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God

So in their minds, aren\'t they just being consistent -- even mild, when you get down to it.

I could be wrong but I don't believe a Hindu pundit has ever opened the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha session by offering a Hindu prayer. I don't think the two Sabha's even have an opening prayer, Hindu or otherwise. No value judgment. Just an observation.

Anna ~ I LOVE the way you wrote this post, you (as usual!) stated very articulately everything that was fuming inside of me when I read this article. :-)

Sigh...not deuteronomy.

I don't know why he chose Hinduism to include in his answer, but he told the entire congregation that yes, for example, Hindus were going to heaven no matter what fundamentalists said, because goodness is goodness no matter how or whom one worships.

Are you sure he was a priest? He sounds too closely resonating the philosophy that a Hindu would give and which a muslim or a christian would find blasphemous. Plus while Hinduism is widely regarded as a monotheistic religion, I wish people realized that at least in Vedantic philosophy the belief is that there is but one Bhraman - the supreme entity and the various Gods are but manifestations just like we are. The difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions is more in terms of the path to salvation I zink.

Also no offense - I am just trying to understand/learn, but I do happen to live in the glorious Bible belt (am almost tempted to talk about the wonderful BBQ for lunch but thats for another time) and I have had discussions with some colleagues of mine who are of the firm opinion that the whole thing of 'accepting Jesus into your heart' is the only way for going to heaven and they are pretty sure thats what the Bible says. Thus if this priest is giving us another interpretation, is he really interpreting the Bible in a more general sense or is he giving his own philosophy (admirable though it is, his views of tolerance).

This was humiliating-- especially for Christians who don't endorse how these fanboys/girl gone r3tarded think.

Erm. We really need to develop a consistent logical approach to issues of religious extremism around here. If mainstream Muslims should not be "humiliated" when some self-identified Islamist commits a terrorist act (a sentiment I think Mutineers would agree with), then why should mainstream Christians be "humiliated" when some Jesus-freak fundies decide to disrupt a Hindu priest's prayer?

IMO, this was the act of fringe fundies -- upsetting, sure; but not indicative of any broadly significant attitudes.

.Sigh...not deuteronomy.

well, which is why we quote the code of manu about untouchables every time we talk about hinduism.

The Vatican "abolished" limbo recently, and said that unbaptized infants could jump into EB-1 category and there were "theological and liturgical grounds for hope" that they would be in heaven. Since limbo vanished, and that were pre-Jesus christians used to hang out, the belief is that they are also most likely in heaven. As for conservative Protestants, they have no limbo, whereas Lutherans, episcopals etc. put everybody in a waiting room till the day of judgment.

Mormons have some saving ceremonies and can retroactively dispatch people to heaven. I remember there were many controversies about this, because they performed some such rituals for Jews who died during the holocaust.

Don't know about scientologists.

Those fools not only claim to represent Christians, they claim to represent Americans. As one of the latter category, I am appalled.

I think this is a fringe incident and not to worry too much about. Atleast America is way better off than most countries on issues of religious freedom. It doesn't figure in the state department's countries of concern as far as I know
But a technical question if church and state are well separated in America why are they having prayers in the senate ?

Deuteronomy is also specific about groin attacks:

25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

That settles it. The author was a man.

People have spent 200 years splitting hairs and heads on the establishment clause, and what it implies. Don't fall into this constructionist excuse.

given the pro-zed sentiment on this thread, rahul, i'm glad to see we're all strict constructionists now.

.So in their minds, aren't they just being consistent

no, selectively consistent. they aren't following all 612 commandments. christians who go back to the hebrew bible have to be selective in how they quote things because they don't follow most of the laws, and there is christian precedent in the views of st. paul which justifies their rejection of the law. jews who follow 612 commandments also have plenty of "work arounds" to get by in the modern world (please google how orthodox jews in israel manage to keep milking cows on saturday even though they're not supposed too).

Tolerance, are you PG's doppel-ganger?

#49 Priya "But a technical question if church and state are well separated in America why are they having prayers in the senate ?"

My point exactly! See #42.

given the pro-zed sentiment on this thread, rahul, i'm glad to see we're all strict constructionists now.

SFU dude. you're such a pest sometimes.

Tolerance, are you PG's doppelganger? Spot-the-PG is a fun game. I'm really enjoying it.

i think the rationale is that the chaplaincy is a service to the senators, who are generally religious, not to the state. the analogy would be with chaplains in the military.

Floridian and priya, it is because there is legal disagreement on what the establishment clause in the Constitution actually means. Does it mean no religion in the public sphere, or all religions in the public sphere?

also, "in god we trust" was added to the coinage in the 1950s during the anti-communist phase (it was godless remember). the court held that it was a patriotic statement or something. *shrug* i don't get law.

@Rahul: thou shalt not taketh me by my secrets. Respect my authoritay!

Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament. Even if the OT was not explicitly repudiated, the New Testament is supposed to have superseded the Old, at least in my understanding. And if Christianity isn't, at some level, an implicit, practical accomodation of the 'pagan' and 'idolatrous' traditions of the earliest converts - deifying, for example, not only the Christ figure but also Mary, and canonizing a whole bunch of others - then I don't know what it is! Positing too much of a distance between 'Christianity' and 'idolatry' (note the quotes) is dishonest, both to the practice and the theology of Christianity (my opinion only!).

or all religions in the public sphere

of course that is not really possible. the operational accommodation between prominent religions and our government means that some religions will be favored over others. are we going to add friday as a day of rest to respect muslims? in practice many muslim masjids have added "sunday school" for religious instruction because most people in this country are christian and that is a practical day to instruct children. the fundamentalist christian protesters do have a good theological point even if it is no longer universal within christianity. islam sanctions animal sacrifice, how would jains feel if local politicians frequented these events in the spirit of communal harmony?

#57 Razib "the analogy would be with chaplains in the military."

But the military has always been equal opportunity in this regard. So are the Indian armed services, by the way. Chaplains in the military perform basic religious functions, the last rites being one of them. If they were used to launch wars, as in opening the senate session, I will have a problem.

This is not exactly the prayer-in-schools argument. What business do politicians have servicing their personal religious beliefs when they are on the public's time, and the public includes a vast array of religious beliefs as well as atheists.

amen sister.

@ardy, you've lived too long in the bible belt(;) haven't you heard it said, man shall not live by bread alone) . christians have been arguing about this from the 1st century on. feel free to make up your own mind after doing your research.

Positing too much of a distance between 'Christianity' and 'idolatry' (note the quotes) is dishonest, both to the practice and the theology of Christianity (my opinion only!).

i think a little psychological nuance is necessary here. christians will object when you point out that the baptismal ceremony has precedent in mithraism, that christmas is on the same day as the birthday of the solar deity (a common festival before christmas was established at that date) and that their theological formalisms tend to draw heavily from the neo-platonic system (to the point which many self-identified christians like isaac newton considered orthodox christianity utterly debased by pagan philosophy). but as non-christians one can look at these phenomenon and note the historical conditions under which the religion arose.

the same can be said for any religion. muslims will object when you point to the innovations in their faith vis-a-vis christian & judaism which seem to import pagan arab practices. pharisaeic jews will object when you point to the clear and obvious zoroastrian and hellenistic influences on their post-exilic religion. some hindus will deny that early indians who were within the indian tradition were beef eaters.

Does it mean no religion in the public sphere, or all religions in the public sphere?

i think the best interpretation is that religion has equal standing to other systems of thought. to give it lower standing is to violate the free-excersise clause.

What business do politicians have servicing their personal religious beliefs when they are on the public's time, and the public includes a vast array of religious beliefs as well as atheists.

i think in practice the line between personal religious beliefs and public policy is rather blurry. as an example, abolitionism and civil rights were promoted by both religious and irreligious folk were religious and secular reasons respectively. just because the former use divine justification for their politics doesn't make their cause any less legit than secularists.

I have met nuns and individual Catholic priests who would agree that Hindus and good atheists find heaven, but they all admitted to being in respectful disagreement with the Pope. I don't know enough about the Orthodox church,but in Russia I do know that the priests have been working with the far right to discourage "Hindu" groups like ISKON.

I think the various churches have had to soften their responses in light of flagging lay participation. Imagine how many more Anglicans would flee if their Hindu/Sikh spouses were denied heaven? They have had to accept priests with more universalist outlooks given the huge shortage in seminary enrollments

i think the best interpretation is that religion has equal standing to other systems of thought.

that's moot, operationally religious thought has a higher standing. if you say you can't do something because your religion says you can't people will engage you. if you say you can't do it because your have a philosophical objection people will look at you like you are nuts. within religion there is a difference between those which are 'respectable' and those which aren't. neutrality is a verbal facade, not reality.

SFU dude. you're such a pest sometimes.

are you telling me to go to canada? I'd say "go to hell" but your demand would still be harsher.

"I have met nuns and individual Catholic priests who would agree that Hindus and good atheists find heaven, but they all admitted to being in respectful disagreement with the Pope."

here is a summation of a document approved by the current pope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

i think it is a bit muddled and complex. when it comes to religion, usually it's like economics. "on the one hand...and on the other." even fundamentalist christians are like that. ask them why jesus did not return with the passing of the generation and they'll give you gibberish about how generation really means the jewish people (right....).

are you telling me to go to canada?

low blow & touche. i'd never ask anyone to freeze in that gods forsaken land.

I don't think they were fools for exercising their right of 'Free Speech', unlike some other countries where they burn people in their cars with their 6 year old kids for their religious beliefs...remember Graham Staines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines

unlike some other countries where they burn people in their cars with their 6 year old kids for their religious beliefs...remember Graham Staines?

right, they're better than savages. *clap clap* you sir hold christians to a high standard indeed!

also, "in god we trust" was added to the coinage in the 1950s during the anti-communist phase (it was godless remember). the court held that it was a patriotic statement or something. *shrug* i don't get law.

Ceremonial Deism.

Of course, one might point out the logical inconsistency of fighting tooth and nail to retain words in, e.g. the Pledge of Allegiance, that, by the definition of CD are devoid of religious significance. But I don't make the rules ;-)

@63: "What business do politicians have servicing their personal religious beliefs when they are on the public's time, and the public includes a vast array of religious beliefs as well as atheists."

I am presuming that prayers are said during the initiation of proceedings in the senate so that senators 'don't be evil', by reminding them of their Gods. In mainstream America, atheism is somehow synonymous with a lack of moral fabric. One believes that since an Atheist doesn't believe in God, he/she will have no reason to NOT do 'bad' things.

Consequently, it is going to be very hard to remove God from either 'in god we trust' or in these Senate meetings. Taking away God, for them, is like unleashing the devil in us all. The Atheist movement has a long, long road to travel to convince America that we are as 'good' as any other, and till then, these references to God will continue, and we will have to make do with round-robin 'equal opportunity' prayer sessions like the one that was interrupted today.

I don't think they were fools for exercising their right of 'Free Speech',

There's a way to speak freely which doesn't involve being an asshole.

HMF on July 12, 2007 06:11 PM · Direct link
It's horrible claim for them to make no doubt, but not appalling in the least. How do you think Jesusland gets its reputation?
If you are convinced America is Jesus land, why did you or your folks run away from Hindu land to Jesusland? Is life somehow better in Jesusland?

that's moot, operationally religious thought has a higher standing. if you say you can't do something because your religion says you can't people will engage you.

you have to distinguish between society and government. one strand of first amendment interpretation, which i agree with, is that the 1st amendment is value-neutral, giving equal protection to all philosophies. the privileged position religion enjoys in society, does not necessarily mean it should be reflected in law. in fact, if it is, you have a good argument for an establishment clause violation.

I think the various churches have had to soften their responses in light of flagging lay participation. Imagine how many more Anglicans would flee if their Hindu/Sikh spouses were denied heaven?

Interesting comment, given that has been a lot of debate and dispute about the related topic of what keeps people loyal to a religion. Some argue that increasing ceremony and requirements on believers actually is better for a religion in terms of encouraging people to commit to it.

If you are convinced America is Jesus land, why did you or your folks run away from Hindu land to Jesusland? Is life somehow better in Jesusland?

well, as a point of fact most american hindus probably don't live in jesusland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

If you are convinced America is Jesus land, why did you or your folks run away from Hindu land to Jesusland? Is life somehow better in Jesusland?

Warning. Not only is conflating "Hindu" with "India" as wrong as your misunderstanding of what or where "Jesusland is", so is your tone.

the privileged position religion enjoys in society, does not necessarily mean it should be reflected in law.

doesn't necessarily, but you know it is. christian scientists have passed laws which prevent them from being prosecuted from several states, catholic priests confessions are inviolate, and religious prisoners can get special meals (i have even heard that some prisoners convert to islam or hinduism because the food is better!).

re: jesusland. in one true god sociologist of religion rodney stark argues that in the states we would term 'jesusland' there is a difference from the rest of the united states insofar as the 'civic religion' is still explicitly christian. one of the issues that americans from the south and non-south have when talking is that this variant assumption cause clashes.

razib, I was just going to pull up the prisoners example for Manju's point.

also, though i'm an atheist, as a pragmatic matter i can see why religion should be treated differently. as a matter of psychology people really give a lot more shit about being christian or muslim or hindu than they do about being pragmatists or positivists or existentialists. that's just how the gods made the world and made people's psychologies.

razib, you are much less of an atheist than an earlier guy who used to comment. His handle used to be razib the atheist.

What is the alleged normative superiority of monotheism anyway....
Originators of "Western Civ" were all poly--Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Vikings, etc.

I think the various churches have had to soften their responses in light of flagging lay participation. Imagine how many more Anglicans would flee if their Hindu/Sikh spouses were denied heaven? Interesting comment, given that has been a lot of debate and dispute about the related topic of what keeps people loyal to a religion. Some argue that increasing ceremony and requirements on believers actually is better for a religion in terms of encouraging people to commit to it.

I think ritual is important, everyone loves a parade. It's dogma that turns many people off. I think people also want an emotional experience which is why Pentecostalism and charismatic Christianity are succeeding far beyond what you would expect if you were to compare them on a $/heathen soul basis with Catholicism etc.

Tolerance on July 12, 2007 06:37 PM · Direct link
Let\'s not forget Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

While quoting Deutronomy might seem incredibly clever,Deutronomy does not apply to anyone unless you are with a band of jews fleeing the pharoah's army in the middle of Sinai surrounded by cultures which practiced sexual orgies and baby sacrifices to demons.
The old deteronomy is superceed by the New Testament which can be encapsulated by 'love your God', and 'love thy neighbor'

i am razib "the atheist." i dropped the handle when enough people didn't assume i was muslim, but i will switch back to be clear.

I know you are, razib. God, do I need to put a smiley after every comment? GOD? :-)

Let's face it, Fundamentalist [fill in the blank... Christians, Muslims, Hindus, &c.] are all idiots, and rarely really respresent any of the values that their respective religions espouse. This gets tiresome.

'love thy neighbor'

All the more reason such disrespect infuriated me.

Let's face it, Fundamentalist [fill in the blank... Christians, Muslims, Hindus, &c.] are all idiots, and rarely really respresent any of the values that their respective religions espouse. This gets tiresome.

SM Intern on July 12, 2007 07:19 PM · Direct link
Warning. Not only is conflating "Hindu" with "India" as wrong as your misunderstanding of what or where "Jesusland is", so is your tone.

Well, I don't think you are being diligent enough in censuring people making ridiculous statements calling America as 'Jesusland'...I think you should be careful of statements which descibe India as Hinduland or America as Jesusland.

Let's face it, Fundamentalist [fill in the blank... Christians, Muslims, Hindus, &c.] are all idiots

Or is it that Fundamentalists, by their definition, are fully religious, which is at odds with values of contemporary society?
Perhaps "problems" of fundamentalism are nothing more than a conflict between religion and secular humanism.
Moderates walk the line, fundamentalists and atheists don't.

Razib?

34: Razib, as I understand it, Mormons are monotheists. Their notion of the Godhead is the same Trinity as that of say, the Catholics; so unless we're now considering Catholics to be polytheists, I don't think any conspiracy theory would hold water.

59: I believe the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance at the same time and for the very same reason (the anti-Communist scare).

christian scientists have passed laws which prevent them from being prosecuted from several states,

never heard of this. has scotus ruled on the constitutionality of such laws?

catholic priests confessions are inviolate,

probably squeaks by the establishment clause because some secular forms of communication are privileged by the states (attorney-client, spousal in some states, physician patient, etc.) in other words, if the states/people are allowed to privileged communications, they should be allowed to privileged religious ones too, if they choose.

and religious prisoners can get special meals (i have even heard that some prisoners convert to islam or hinduism because the food is better!).

Their notion of the Godhead is the same Trinity as that of say, the Catholics

that's false. mormons believe that the father, son and holy ghost are separate entities. they also believe that there maybe a multiplicity of gods and that righteous mormon males may become gods of their own universes.

I think you should be careful of statements which descibe India as Hinduland or America as Jesusland.

You are the one who said "Hindu land" and that is exactly what I am being careful of-- the comment which got my attention asked someone why his parents left "Hindu land". Leave his parents out of it, please.

so unless we're now considering Catholics to be polytheists

muslims and jews have both debated whether christians are polytheists (see the ashkenazi jewish debates about whether a christian church could be reused as a place for jewish religious meetings contingent upon whether it was a polytheistic religion or not). i think the consensus is that they aren't polytheists, but muslims and jews have no doubts about each other.

shaad, you are correct - it was added after a campaign by the knights of columbus. this addition was the focus of newdow a few years ago, but they never got to the substance of the issue because of some technical issue (standing). it would be interesting to see how the supreme court would rule if it got that far again.

Organized religion pretty much sucks. Keep it at home. There are far too many low IQ religious zealots, that cause way too much harm to society in the name of almighty. I would like to see the disappointed faces of all these zealots in afterlife....if there is such a thing

actually, regarding the prisoner issue, i have to think about that more. i understand the law requies states to accomdate religion. hmmm.

Deutronomy does not apply to anyone unless you are with a band of jews fleeing the pharoah\'s army in the middle of Sinai surrounded by cultures which practiced sexual orgies and baby sacrifices to demons.

So I\'m a lawyer - you don\'t have to be a jerk about it :)

it would be interesting to see how the supreme court would rule if it got that far again.

This supreme court. 5-4, with Breyer writing a passionate and emotional dissent.

Or is it that Fundamentalists, by their definition, are fully religious, which is at odds with values of contemporary society?
Perhaps "problems" of fundamentalism are nothing more than a conflict between religion and secular humanism.
Moderates walk the line, fundamentalists and atheists don't.

this is a complicated question. my own opinion (and that of many scholars) is that fundamentalists are a relatively new movement (the first "fundamentalist" revolution was sola scriptura based movements against roman catholicism during the reformation, a later one was the late 19th century american one against influences percolating in from germany and the higher criticism). it isn't necessarily easy to place them at the antipode from contemporary society: fundamentalists of all stripes are often very selectively traditionalist. consider the rejection of older styles of religious worship by fundamentalist groups. the fundamentalists do reject the mainstream, but that is not because the mainstream is necessarily secular. salafist movements in the muslim world are rebelling against the local sunni establishment (hanafi, maliki, etc.). protestant fundamentalists rebelled against catholicism, not secularism.

and of course by their own definition fundamentalists are fully religious. but so are non-fundamentalists. religion is a matter of interpretation, even fundamentalist religion (after all, fundamentalists except for some salafists in saudi arabia don't accept the geoncentric universe implicit in the older abrahamic texts).

So I\'m a lawyer - you don\'t have to be a jerk about it

What is with the backslashes? You're not typing on the Unix command line!

Perhaps "problems" of fundamentalism are nothing more than a conflict between religion and secular humanism. Moderates walk the line, fundamentalists and atheists don't.

HyperTree: I think creating a dualistic antagonism between "religion" and secular humanism is reductive and simplistic. As ANNA has many times illustrated, Christianity can be (and is) more nuanced than a fundamentalist interpretation of Biblical Scripture. Again, insert religion of choice in the blank. It's the old argument about whether religions are static, fossilized sets of beliefs and behaviors, or changing, evolving institutions like law and government.

I think you're right on in saying that both fundamentalists and atheists don't walk the line; I find both irritatingly inflexible.

"i understand the law requies states to accomdate religion. "

but in practice it only accommodates some religions. no state could accommodate all permutations of dietary restrictions after all (muslims are easy insofar as they can eat kosher food).

What is with the backslashes? You\'re not typing on the Unix command line!

Actually, I bootstrap my OS with toggle switches in binary every time I leave a comment.

I think you're right on in saying that both fundamentalists and atheists don't walk the line; I find both irritatingly inflexible.

as an atheist i can say that many of "my kind" admire fundamentalists because we believe that they encapsulate the real nuttiness of religion. but, as i've gotten older and read more i have to the conclusion that that's a cop-out because even fundamentalists engage in a lot of interpretation. fundamentalism strikes many atheists as authentic because they often fulfill many of our caricatures, but that doesn't mean that they really have more legitimacy than a more nuanced understanding of religion.

p.s. and just to be clear i do think that fundamentally all religion is rooted in psychological impulses no different from a bunch of papuans circling a wooden phallus which represents their god or some such superstition. but the reality is that there is still a lot of variation in how religion plays out in the world no matter its fundamental root assumptions (e.g., religion has been the inspiration for art & ethics, to name two points.

but in practice it only accommodates some religions. no state could accommodate all permutations of dietary restrictions after all (muslims are easy insofar as they can eat kosher food).

really? then how to explain this from rahul's link:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld a federal law that requires state prisons to give inmates access to religious programs, ruling in favor of a Satanist, a racial separatist and other followers of non-traditional religions.

does anyone know the name of case in which this was decided?

100 & 102: Personally, I don't particularly care whether Mormons are labelled polytheists or not (a single deity is one too many for me). That said, I'd like the labelling to be consistent. If Mormons are polythesists, then so are Catholics. Finally, "righteous Mormon males" do not "become gods of their own universes" according to their scriptures. They merely seed new worlds for the "Lord".

really? then how to explain this from rahul's link:

i said in practice. muslim, hindu and wiccan prisoners have encountered a lot of resistance in getting their religious customs accommodated. they have to take it to the courts where their co-religionists plead their case and 'reasonable' accommodations are sometimes made. but