A 2007 study from the University of Minnesota looked at the acceptance of atheists in American society. Using new national survey data, it shows atheists are less likely to be accepted, publicly and privately, than any others from a long list of ethnic, religious, and other minority groups.
It's safe to assume that atheists are completely accepting of their fellow atheists' religious beliefs -- or, more accurately in this case, their lack thereof. That leaves only religious people with the distrust of atheists.
Atheists are so distrusted and despised by people of faith that less than half of all Americans would be willing to vote for an atheist to be their President. When faced with a laundry list of religions and ethnic minorities, almost forty percent feel that atheists do not at all agree with their vision of America (thirteen percentage points higher than the next most unagreeable group). When asked if they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry a member of this group, 47.6% disapprove of their child marrying an atheist (fourteen percentage points higher than those who would disapprove of their child marrying a Muslim, the second most disapproved group). These numbers are even higher among Americans of faith than they are in the general population.
While most religions preach tolerance and acceptance, it turns out most of their believers are anything but tolerant when it comes to atheists. Surprisingly, they're even more tolerant of people of different faiths, even though an atheist is the least likely to proselytize them.
Self-interest would dictate that a religious person would prefer to have an atheist in the Oval Office than someone of a different faith because the atheist would be the least likely to allow religious convictions to influence the decisions they make as President. Surprisingly, it turns out the atheist would be the last person they would want for their President.
Most parents would want their children to marry an intelligent spouse. Since atheists, on average, have an IQ almost six points higher than a religious person, it would seem that an atheist would be the more desirable spouse. Apparently, however, parents would prefer their child marry someone of lower intelligence over marrying an atheist.
While it's well and good to preach tolerance from the pulpit, god forbid you practice tolerance in your life.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Promoting family values: bigotry, hatred, and intolerance
In spite of all the chaos in the GOP, some of the Christian Right have managed to galvanize under a cause: to discredit and criticize America's first African-American President using whatever lies, fallacies, and deceit serve their purpose. Reading these screeds, there's a conspicuous undercurrent of racism and misguided religious condemnation. The latest example of this was an email from one Sally Opper that I read today:
First of all, Opper should be pleased that the Islamic community is calling for a day of unity. The Islamic community's right to worship on Capitol Hill is the same right that Opper has to openly worship Christ and it's a right that would one day protect her were Obama to do that what Opper seems to fear: turn the USA into an Islamic theocracy. If anything, Opper should be critical of Christian leadership for not organizing a similar event for Christians if she thinks what the Islamic community organized is so important.
But to try and somehow blame Obama for this event is just intellectually dishonest. Neither Obama nor his administration nor our legislature had anything to do with it. It was organized by Hassen Abdellah, a lawyer and president of the Dar-ul-Islam Mosque in Elizabeth, N.J. And to call out the "Our Time Has Come" tagline to the notice of the event as Obama's agenda absent any kind of evidence other than that it will be "held on Capitol Hill, beside the White House" (which is public property where people of all faiths have the right to gather and pray) is simply a flat-out lie.
I don't know anything about Truman or Reagan establishing a National Day of Prayer and, since Opper cited no sources on it, I can't respond specifically. However, I do know two things about it:
These kinds of lies and deceit are a very unChristian thing to do and, were I Christian, I'd be a lot more concerned with the hatred, bigotry, and intolerance Opper is trying to provoke in the name of Christ than I would be with this Muslim event. This kind of deceit and unwarranted criticism of the president -- who people of all faiths and people of no faith must deal with as our chief executive for at least three more years -- advances no one's cause, least of all Opper's. All it does is create more divisiveness and ignorance in America (at least among those who fall for her dirty tricks) and fractures America along religious and racial lines.
Subject: National Day of Prayer for WHAT??????It's a short and sweet email but it's replete with classic examples of deceitful attacks on the President. I wonder if Sally Opper is intentionally distorting this to get people up in arms against Obama on a fabricated accusation or if she simply lacks the logic and critical thinking skills required to recognize the fallacies and logic flaws in what she's provoking.
If this isn’t an eye opener, then I don’t what is….
National Day of Prayer for WHAT??????
In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a National Day of Prayer.
In 1988, President Reagan designated the first Thursday in May of each year as the National Day of Prayer.
This year however, President Obama, decided to cancel the ceremony at the White House not wanting to offend anyone.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama declared the USA was no longer a Christian nation. Now see if you can wrap your brain around this: On September 25, 2009 from 4am until 7pm, a National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion will be held on Capitol Hill, beside the White House. They are expecting over 50,000 muslims that day in DC.
The website (yes, there is a very informative website) is: www.islamoncapitolhill.com. Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page: "OUR TIME HAS COME". Could it be that the REAL agenda of the President is becoming more plain????
First of all, Opper should be pleased that the Islamic community is calling for a day of unity. The Islamic community's right to worship on Capitol Hill is the same right that Opper has to openly worship Christ and it's a right that would one day protect her were Obama to do that what Opper seems to fear: turn the USA into an Islamic theocracy. If anything, Opper should be critical of Christian leadership for not organizing a similar event for Christians if she thinks what the Islamic community organized is so important.
But to try and somehow blame Obama for this event is just intellectually dishonest. Neither Obama nor his administration nor our legislature had anything to do with it. It was organized by Hassen Abdellah, a lawyer and president of the Dar-ul-Islam Mosque in Elizabeth, N.J. And to call out the "Our Time Has Come" tagline to the notice of the event as Obama's agenda absent any kind of evidence other than that it will be "held on Capitol Hill, beside the White House" (which is public property where people of all faiths have the right to gather and pray) is simply a flat-out lie.
I don't know anything about Truman or Reagan establishing a National Day of Prayer and, since Opper cited no sources on it, I can't respond specifically. However, I do know two things about it:
- Neither president could enact any such law without congress first passing it, and the current congress has brought no such bill to Obama's desk.
- If they did, it would be unconstitutional, so neither Truman nor Reagan should have signed such a bill if it were brought to their desk.
These kinds of lies and deceit are a very unChristian thing to do and, were I Christian, I'd be a lot more concerned with the hatred, bigotry, and intolerance Opper is trying to provoke in the name of Christ than I would be with this Muslim event. This kind of deceit and unwarranted criticism of the president -- who people of all faiths and people of no faith must deal with as our chief executive for at least three more years -- advances no one's cause, least of all Opper's. All it does is create more divisiveness and ignorance in America (at least among those who fall for her dirty tricks) and fractures America along religious and racial lines.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
This just in...
CNN is reporting that Senator Barack Obama is resigning from his church. I didn't know you have to "resign" from a church. If so, I owe someone a letter of resignation. I thought you just stop attending. Who would I address that letter to -- the church's HR department?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Atheists in the army
Freedom of religion in the USA is supposed to include freedom from religion. The Establishment Clause is supposed to apply to all Americans, including the troops. This is a basic right granted by the Constitution.
Ironically, the troops are the people making the greatest sacrifices in the name of freedom. Yet, the army is becoming a place of evangelizing to Jewish and Islamic troops. God forbid one be an atheist!
Last summer, US Army Specialist Jeremy Hall got permission to post fliers at Speicher base in Iraq announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the meeting got underway, Hall's Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against Hall, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. Earlier, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a prayer.
This intolerance in the military is not restricted to the Army and aimed only at atheists. In the 1990s, the Air Force published a Little Blue Book of core values highlighting religious tolerance. Nonetheless, it was discovered in 2004 that some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., had significant problems with evangelizing cadets. It was reported that Lt. Gen. William Boykin visited churches in uniform and gave inflammatory speeches. Speaking of a Muslim warlord he had pursued, Boykin said, "I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol," and our enemies "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."
Among those feeling the heat was the son of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's (MRFF) founder, Michael Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. His son, a Jew and a cadet at the AFA, was subjected to Christian evangelizing. Another alumnus of the AFA, Col. David Antoon (ret.), took his son to an orientation at the AFA in 2004. His son, Ryan, experienced an overt evangelistic approach during part of the orientation.
So what's a more tenable situation: to be a Jew or a Muslim in the US military? It seems that neither one is. But when it comes to being an atheist in the Army, you'd best follow the policy for gays: 'don't ask, don't tell.'
Ironically, the troops are the people making the greatest sacrifices in the name of freedom. Yet, the army is becoming a place of evangelizing to Jewish and Islamic troops. God forbid one be an atheist!
Last summer, US Army Specialist Jeremy Hall got permission to post fliers at Speicher base in Iraq announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the meeting got underway, Hall's Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against Hall, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. Earlier, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a prayer.
This intolerance in the military is not restricted to the Army and aimed only at atheists. In the 1990s, the Air Force published a Little Blue Book of core values highlighting religious tolerance. Nonetheless, it was discovered in 2004 that some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., had significant problems with evangelizing cadets. It was reported that Lt. Gen. William Boykin visited churches in uniform and gave inflammatory speeches. Speaking of a Muslim warlord he had pursued, Boykin said, "I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol," and our enemies "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."
Among those feeling the heat was the son of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's (MRFF) founder, Michael Weinstein, a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. His son, a Jew and a cadet at the AFA, was subjected to Christian evangelizing. Another alumnus of the AFA, Col. David Antoon (ret.), took his son to an orientation at the AFA in 2004. His son, Ryan, experienced an overt evangelistic approach during part of the orientation.
So what's a more tenable situation: to be a Jew or a Muslim in the US military? It seems that neither one is. But when it comes to being an atheist in the Army, you'd best follow the policy for gays: 'don't ask, don't tell.'
Islam in the 21st century
My father used to pose two questions about the Jewish sabbath to me for pondering. The sabbath begins Fridays at sunset and end the next day at sunset. If a Jewish person were to live exactly at the South Pole and use the clock to time when to begin and end observing the sabbath, which time zone would he choose? If he were to instead time the sabbath using the actual setting of the sun, a single sabbath would last for months instead of hours in the winter.
Space travel creates a similar dilemma for Muslim astronauts. With the start of Ramadan, Islamic astronauts must fast from sunrise to sunset. That's only ninety minutes in orbit. And the praying postures -- standing, bowing, kneeling, and prostrating -- are a challenge in zero gravity.
To address such issues, the Department of Islamic Development in the Malaysian National Space Agency (MNSA) held a two-day conference in 2006. The conference produced A Guideline of Performing Ibadah at the International Space Station (ISS). The solutions they came up with for Ibadah seem quite arbitrary. It's as if religious symbolism is suddenly irrelevant when it's inconvenient.
For example, if the schedule on the ISS conflicts with the daily prayers, Muslim astronauts could perform them "in Jamak (combined) and Qasar (shortened), without the need to Qadha' (compensate) the prayer." It's as if the Department of Islamic Development prioritizes the ISS mission over Islamic duty. "Using the eye lid as an indicator of the changing of postures in prayer" is their solution to prayer in zero gravity. You can't make this up, folks! Insofar as determining the direction of Qibla (facing Mecca during prayer) is concerned, if you don't choose one of their first three options, you can face "wherever."
The timing of the prayers and fasting are both dealt with the same way. The Muslim astronaut calculates it according to a 24-hour cycle based on the time zone of where they launched off the planet. Although a pragmatic approach, what does this say of the validity of the religious symbolism behind the Earth-based rules?
A Muslim must perform ritual washing before worship. They can't get away with it on the ISS because the only thing more precious than water is oxygen. Instead, they perform tayammum (dry ablution) "by striking both palms of hands on a clean surface such as wall or mirror." Again, I'm not making this up!
Pork and alcohol are prohibited in the Muslim diet. If there's any question as to whether or not the food served on the ISS is halal (anything permissible under Islamic law), the Muslim astronaut is permitted to eat on a "basis of not to starve." That's very thoughtful of the MNSA. Visits to the ISS typically last well over forty days.
We also learn from the Department of Islamic Development that, "according to Islam, traveling to space is encouraged." Apparently, Mohammed had foresight centuries ahead of his time. I'm curious to know on which passages of the Q'uran this edict is based.
So the next time you think the Amish have it tough in contemporary American society, try being faithful to Islam in the 21st century.
Space travel creates a similar dilemma for Muslim astronauts. With the start of Ramadan, Islamic astronauts must fast from sunrise to sunset. That's only ninety minutes in orbit. And the praying postures -- standing, bowing, kneeling, and prostrating -- are a challenge in zero gravity.
To address such issues, the Department of Islamic Development in the Malaysian National Space Agency (MNSA) held a two-day conference in 2006. The conference produced A Guideline of Performing Ibadah at the International Space Station (ISS). The solutions they came up with for Ibadah seem quite arbitrary. It's as if religious symbolism is suddenly irrelevant when it's inconvenient.
For example, if the schedule on the ISS conflicts with the daily prayers, Muslim astronauts could perform them "in Jamak (combined) and Qasar (shortened), without the need to Qadha' (compensate) the prayer." It's as if the Department of Islamic Development prioritizes the ISS mission over Islamic duty. "Using the eye lid as an indicator of the changing of postures in prayer" is their solution to prayer in zero gravity. You can't make this up, folks! Insofar as determining the direction of Qibla (facing Mecca during prayer) is concerned, if you don't choose one of their first three options, you can face "wherever."
The timing of the prayers and fasting are both dealt with the same way. The Muslim astronaut calculates it according to a 24-hour cycle based on the time zone of where they launched off the planet. Although a pragmatic approach, what does this say of the validity of the religious symbolism behind the Earth-based rules?
A Muslim must perform ritual washing before worship. They can't get away with it on the ISS because the only thing more precious than water is oxygen. Instead, they perform tayammum (dry ablution) "by striking both palms of hands on a clean surface such as wall or mirror." Again, I'm not making this up!
Pork and alcohol are prohibited in the Muslim diet. If there's any question as to whether or not the food served on the ISS is halal (anything permissible under Islamic law), the Muslim astronaut is permitted to eat on a "basis of not to starve." That's very thoughtful of the MNSA. Visits to the ISS typically last well over forty days.
We also learn from the Department of Islamic Development that, "according to Islam, traveling to space is encouraged." Apparently, Mohammed had foresight centuries ahead of his time. I'm curious to know on which passages of the Q'uran this edict is based.
So the next time you think the Amish have it tough in contemporary American society, try being faithful to Islam in the 21st century.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
The Establishment Clause
The Supreme Court got one decision right last month. They got the other one wrong (at least in my opinion). Of course the court in Texas should be able to exhibit the Ten Commandments. But the court in Kentucky should also be able to display them. However, the Court came to both conclusions for the wrong reasons.
Call me a strict constitutionalist, but I believe that it does not matter what Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptists regarding the wall of separation between church and state. All that matters is what it says in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
To me, the operative words are "shall make no law." Therefore, when Justice Moore displayed the Ten Commandments in his courthouse (in the more [in]famous case that occurred in Alabama), I had no problem with it. After all, no law was made by Congress related to the display. In my totally moot opinion, I thought it was a bad decision when Judge Thompson ordered the display removed and also when the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision (although I thought it was right for them to remove Moore from the bench, not because of anything having to do with religion, but simply because he defied court orders).
Who would ever have imagined that Justice Clarence Thomas would agree with me today? In his view, when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it means exactly that and nothing more than that. Congress "shall make no law," but the states may do so, if they choose to. "This case would be easy," Thomas said, if the court would simply "return to the original meaning of the [Establishment] Clause."
On the other hand, I oppose the words "under God" being part of the Pledge of Allegiance (and I don't utter them when I make the Pledge). I agree with the Federal appeals court that ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. The words "under God" were not part of the Pledge for most of its history. It wasn't until 1954, when Congress made a law adding the words to the Pledge (and again in 2002 when Congress made another law ratifying it) that they became part of the pledge. The key here, in my moot opinion, is that Congress had to make a law for the religious establishment to come into effect.
The reason I repeat "my moot opinion" is because it's irrelevant what I think or what Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers thought. They intended the Constitution to be a living document capable of governing a dynamic society over the centuries. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to make final decisions of constitutionality according to the context of the times in which it makes its decisions. That's why I'm so disappointed with the Supreme Court in effect "punting" when the decision came to them. I can't see how, if they chose to hear the case, a majority could have decided any way other than to find the words unconstitutional.
The same principles apply to today's decision. The court in Texas should be able to exhibit the Ten Commandments simply because Congress had no role in establishing the exhibit. Its historical nature is irrelevant -- at least in my opinion, but not the Court's. Likewise, the court in Kentucky should also be able to display them because there is no legislation formalizing the Ten Commandments as part of that court's law. However, the court disagrees with me on this matter, too.
That being said, I guess all of this writing was just a big waste of time. After all, as I said, my opinion is moot. Our Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret it, not me. Therefore, I'll defer to the Court's decision, whether I like it or not.
Call me a strict constitutionalist, but I believe that it does not matter what Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptists regarding the wall of separation between church and state. All that matters is what it says in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
To me, the operative words are "shall make no law." Therefore, when Justice Moore displayed the Ten Commandments in his courthouse (in the more [in]famous case that occurred in Alabama), I had no problem with it. After all, no law was made by Congress related to the display. In my totally moot opinion, I thought it was a bad decision when Judge Thompson ordered the display removed and also when the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision (although I thought it was right for them to remove Moore from the bench, not because of anything having to do with religion, but simply because he defied court orders).
Who would ever have imagined that Justice Clarence Thomas would agree with me today? In his view, when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it means exactly that and nothing more than that. Congress "shall make no law," but the states may do so, if they choose to. "This case would be easy," Thomas said, if the court would simply "return to the original meaning of the [Establishment] Clause."
On the other hand, I oppose the words "under God" being part of the Pledge of Allegiance (and I don't utter them when I make the Pledge). I agree with the Federal appeals court that ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. The words "under God" were not part of the Pledge for most of its history. It wasn't until 1954, when Congress made a law adding the words to the Pledge (and again in 2002 when Congress made another law ratifying it) that they became part of the pledge. The key here, in my moot opinion, is that Congress had to make a law for the religious establishment to come into effect.
The reason I repeat "my moot opinion" is because it's irrelevant what I think or what Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers thought. They intended the Constitution to be a living document capable of governing a dynamic society over the centuries. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to make final decisions of constitutionality according to the context of the times in which it makes its decisions. That's why I'm so disappointed with the Supreme Court in effect "punting" when the decision came to them. I can't see how, if they chose to hear the case, a majority could have decided any way other than to find the words unconstitutional.
The same principles apply to today's decision. The court in Texas should be able to exhibit the Ten Commandments simply because Congress had no role in establishing the exhibit. Its historical nature is irrelevant -- at least in my opinion, but not the Court's. Likewise, the court in Kentucky should also be able to display them because there is no legislation formalizing the Ten Commandments as part of that court's law. However, the court disagrees with me on this matter, too.
That being said, I guess all of this writing was just a big waste of time. After all, as I said, my opinion is moot. Our Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret it, not me. Therefore, I'll defer to the Court's decision, whether I like it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)