Islamists in retreat in Somalia

The internationally recognized transitional government of Somalia, with the backing of Ethiopian troops, has taken control of Mogadishu and put the Union of Islamic Courts into full flight.

When the UIC first rose to power, I counseled patience. Somalis had endured 15 years of violent anarchy between clans and rival warlords; if the UIC could bring peace, they deserved a chance to try. Various sources tried to paint them as an African division of Al-Qaeda, but that was never particularly convincing; what mattered is how they governed the place. And they were almost certainly better than the warlords they replaced.

But they instituted a particularly harsh brand of sharia, with one cleric famously threatening to shoot anyone who didn't pray five times a day. Then they began to attack the transitional government, closing schools to send students to the front. They had not brought peace; they had brought continued war, fought with child soldiers.

But they miscalculated. Not only did they overreach and provoke an Ethiopian counterattack; the heavy casualties suffered in that fighting has caused the UIC to splinter, as clans withdrew their forces in an effort to preserve them.

The question now is whether the transitional government can establish firm control over the country. Already looting and factional fighting has engulfed Mogadishu, and no one is quite sure what hard-core UIC fighters will do: fade into the civilian population? Unleash a guerrilla war?

The Somali government has an opportunity to put an end both to the UIC and the warlords, if they act quickly and firmly and retain the support of the Ethiopian military. If they don't, then Somalia could fade again into anarchy -- and the Somali people's suffering will continue.

Ethiopia, Somalia, politics, midtopia

Ellison, Goode, Prager and the Koran

An update on the misguided uproar over Rep. Keith Ellison's Muslim faith.

When last we left the story, Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia was warning that if we didn't act soon, more Muslims might immigrate to this country.

Ellison responded during a CNN interview. He noted that there are already 5 million Muslims in this country, most of whom oppose terrorism and embrace the American dream as much as any other immigrant.

It's at the end of the video, not in the written text, but for me the best part is where Ellison notes that he can trace his American ancestry back to Lousiana -- in 1742. I wonder if Goode can beat that.

Goode, for his part, said he's not backing down. His quote is a little less coherent.

"I will not be putting my hand on the Koran," Goode said at a news conference Thursday.

That's good, Virgil. Nobody is asking you to. Then there was this gem:

Goode also told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration and do away with "diversity visas," which he said lets in people "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states."

Yeah, no way we should be letting those non-Europeans in.

Goode has been repudiated by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Virginia's senior senator, John Warner.

Dennis Prager, who started this whole flap with his ignorant commentary, has been chastised by the board of the Holocaust Museum, of which he is a member. Prager responded by making clear that he hadn't heard a word anyone has said.

Mr. Prager said Muslim American groups and others had pressured the museum board. “Everybody knows there’s no bigotry in what I said, but they felt they had to do it,” he said in an interview.

“I completely respect Congressman-Elect Ellison’s right to take an oath on the Koran, and regret any language that suggested otherwise,” Mr. Prager added in a statement, emphasizing that he began reaching out to the Muslims 20 years ago. “My entire effort in the Keith Ellison matter has been to draw attention to the need to acknowledge the Bible as the basis of America’s moral values. Judeo-Christian values are the greatest single protection against another Holocaust.”

Translation: "I respect his right. Except I suggested in my commentary -- which was also historically ignorant -- that Congress should prevent him from taking his seat, and in fact he should be forced to swear on a Bible."

Sure, Dennis.

Glad to see everyone piling on.

Goode, Keith Ellison, Prager, religion, politics, midtopia

Let's just get along -- my way

Katherine Kersten, one of the columnists most active in pushing the "War on Christmas" theme in recent years, is asking for a ceasefire. Sort of.

When an outspoken atheist such as Dawkins says "Merry Christmas," we may be reaching a consensus. American popular culture has appropriated Christmas, as it has Thanksgiving, and drained it of religious meaning.

Huh? It's a cease-fire as long as we all say "Merry Christmas"?

A ceasefire would be letting people say whatever the heck they want, and not getting bent out of shape about it. It would be nonbelievers saying they don't get offended by "Merry Christmas" and believers like Kersten saying there's nothing wrong with "Happy Holidays" -- essentially repudiating their words of the last couple of years.

From that unpromising starting point, Kersten goes on to lay out what believers and nonbelievers should appreciate about each other. While I believe she is sincere, her examples get a bit muddied.

For one thing, she seems to confuse "believers" with "Christian". For instance, she says nonbelievers should get credit for defining and expanding natural rights, and for coming up with political principles such as due process and separation of powers. That's generous, though it ignores the muddy birth of such principles, with many advocates being Deists and other nonChristian believers.

More broadly, though, she thinks believers (Christians) should get credit for ideas like liberty, equality and personal freedom -- and thus democracy.

That's simply incredible.

Christianity led to democracy? Tell that to the Greeks, who invented democracy 500 years before Jesus was born. Or the Romans, who governed themselves with a Republic from 509 B.C. until Julius Caesar seized power in 44 B.C.

Liberty? Equality? Personal Freedom? The ancient Greeks.

Believers have played a major role in the development and enactment of various social ideals. Believers, for instance, were at the heart of the abolitionist movement in the United States (and Prohibition. Hey, we all make mistakes....). But it's an open question whether various movements should be properly connected to belief/nonbelief, instead of to individuals who happen to believe or not. And crediting Christianity with the original concepts ignores Christianity's status as something of a Johnny-come-lately to the world of philosophy.

Cease-fire in the culture wars? I'm all for it. But I'm not sure Kersten is ready yet.

religion, politics, midtopia

More Koran swearing idiocy

A Republican Congressman from Virginia, Virgil Goode, has thrown himself into the debate over Keith Ellison swearing in on a Koran.

If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

Oh! The horrors! Funny-sounding people with hard-to-pronounce names might move in next door! They might want to send their children to school with my kids! Aaaaahhhhh!!!

Nativists make no sense (didn't most of them come from Europe originally?). And they really get old after awhile.

immigration, race, Islam, politics, midtopia

Iran's Shiite ministate

To round out Colin Powell's "civil war" judgement, consider this report. It's from the Washington Times, which requires a big grain of salt; and it cites an undistributed Saudi report, which requires a doubly big grain of salt. But it asserts some interesting and specific things:

1. Iran has established a ministate inside of Iraq and actively supporting it.

2. The Sunni insurgency has an estimated 77,000 fighters -- with millions of supporters.

3. Shiite militias have about 35,000 fighters -- with millions of supporters.

4. The Saudis view the conflict as between Sunni and Shiites (and between Iranian agents and the remnants of Saddam's secret police), and so are helping fund Sunni insurgents -- not so they can fight the United States, but so they can fight Shiites.

Again, take all this with a very large dose of skepticism. The Saudis are biased, the Times is biased and there's no way to independently verify their claims. But it makes interesting reading, if nothing else because it provides some specifics about insurgent strength and frames a different way of viewing what's happening in Iraq -- and an illustration of the lethal complexity of the conflict.

terrorism, Iran, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Evangelism in the classroom

Here's a good example of why restrictions on religious speech in the classroom are necessary.

Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.

Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”

He also apparently told a Muslim girl that she was going to hell, although the story is unclear on that detail.

I'm not sure whether to be cheered by this:

Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.

“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.”

Or discouraged by this:

In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.

Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was “ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.” Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.

On the sidewalks outside the high school, which has 1,750 students, many agreed with 15-year-old Kyle Durkin, who said, “I’m on the teacher’s side all the way.”

Paszkiewicz is by all accounts a good teacher. But using his official capacity to proselytize his students in a history class is out of bounds. He has a First Amendment right to speak, which is why he isn't going to jail; that does not make such speech appropriate, however, nor protect him from disciplinary action by his employer.

education, religion, politics, midtopia

Prager gets an ally!

In the brouhaha over Rep. Keith Ellison saying he intends to be sworn in on the Koran, Dennis Prager has found a high-profile friend -- (fired) judge Roy Moore.

His take: Congress should refuse to seat Ellison in the name of religious freedom.

I'm not making that up.

Moore, you may recall, is the Alabama state Supreme Court justice who was fired for installing a two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of his courthouse in the dead of night, then refusing court orders to remove it.

He has the chutzpah to write the following....

To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience, which is the right of every person to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, without interference by the government.

...and then proceed to carve out a Muslim exception, justifying it by pointing to the words and deeds of extremist Muslims and saying such actions prove that Islam as a whole is incompatible with America.

That's like pointing to Eric Rudolph and claiming that Christianity is incompatible with the Olympics.

Moore's summation:

Enough evidence exists for Congress to question Ellison's qualifications to be a member of Congress as well as his commitment to the Constitution in view of his apparent determination to embrace the Quran and an Islamic philosophy directly contrary to the principles of the Constitution. But common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine.

Bleh.

Eric Rudolph, by the way, recently complained that the conditions of his imprisonment are designed to drive him insane. Sorry, Eric, but that train left the station years ago.

Eric Rudolph, Roy Moore, religion, politics, midtopia

Xenophobia

Where does the "War on Terror" end and simple racism begin?

In Texas.

A plan to build a mosque in this Houston suburb has triggered a neighborhood dispute, with community members warning the place will become a terrorist hotbed and one man threatening to hold pig races on Fridays just to offend the Muslims.

What did the Muslims do? They bought an 11-acre parcel for $1.1 million, on which they plan to build the mosque, and asked a neighbor to stop pasturing his cattle on it. He got mad and vowed to do pig races.

It could all be a misunderstanding:

Baker ... mistakenly thought the Muslims also wanted him off the land his family has lived on for more than 100 years.

Except Baker still seeks his revenge.

Though he now concedes the Muslims are probably not after his land, Baker said he is obligated to go through with the pig races, probably within the next few weeks, because “I would be like a total idiot if I didn’t. I’d be the laughingstock now because I’ve gone too far.”

Meanwhile, another resident has set up an anti-Islamic Web site that claims residents will have to listen to a call to prayer five times a day, keeps a running tally of terrorist attacks since 9/11 and provides the home addresses of some of the Muslim association members.

And the Sheriff has been fielding calls like this one:

Cynthia Blackman wrote Radack that the center was a security risk: “Would you and your family safely and comfortably live next to this 11-acre Muslim mosque and facilities?”

Xenophobia really brings out the stupid in people.

racism, Islam, religion, politics, midtopia

Quran dustup, revisited

A followup on the "controversy" over Keith Ellison's plan to be sworn in on a Koran.

Not only are Jewish and Muslim leaders alike demanding that Prager apologize; we have yet more examples of how he's simply wrong historically.

In his Nov. 28 column, Prager claimed that all members of Congress, including Jews, use a Christian Bible for the swearing-in ceremony.

However, members of Congress are sworn in together in a simple ceremony that only requires that the representatives raise their right hand. Individuals may carry a sacred text, but its presence isn't required. Representatives can bring in whatever they want, said Fred Beuttler, House of Representatives deputy historian.

In his column, Prager also claimed that no "Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon." In 1997, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), a Mormon, carried a Bible that included the Book of Mormon to his swearing-in ceremony. But Ellison's use of a Quran isn't without precedent. In 1999, Osman Siddique became the first Muslim to serve abroad as a U.S. ambassador, and he took his oath using both a Quran and a Bible.

I hope he continues to refuse to apologize. It's fun beating him black and blue with his own ignorance.

Keith Ellison, Dennis Prager, Islam, religion, politics, midtopia

Why atheism is not a religion

I've mentioned before that I'm an agnostic, for the usual reasons: I don't believe the existence of God can be definitively proven or disproven, so why waste time trying? Life's too short. And while I certainly hope there is an afterlife, I think that any God worth worshiping wouldn't base the entrance requirement on successfully picking the One True Faith out from the thousands of imposters.

I say that by way of explanation for linking to this thread over at one of my other homes, Blogcritics.org. It's the best explanation of why atheism isn't a religion I've ever read. And the comments discussion is outstanding.

I'm agnostic, not atheist, but since agnostics often get lumped in with their more-certain cousins I'm always glad to see a reasoned argument like this one.

My favorite paragraph:

One of the biggest selling points for the "atheism is a religion" trope is the common misperception that atheists know that there is no god. Certainly there are some who would say so, just as there are Christians who have no religious doubt whatsoever, but these are not (I hope) majority views. Insistence on the absolute correctness of your position is not a sign of either faith or rationalist purity; it's a sign of hubris and epistemological immodesty.

It echoes what I've said before: In matters of religion, it's always a good idea (and good for social harmony) to always consider the possibility that you are the one who is wrong.

Go give it a read. It's excellent.

atheism, religion, politics, midtopia

Idiots Anonymous

Hi. My name is Dennis Prager, and I'm a moron.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Why, you ask, does one's choice of holy book threaten our very civilization?

What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

In Prager's world, apparently, when an elected official takes the oath of office, he isn't only swearing to uphold the duties of that office; he's also swearing fealty to the Christian underpinnings of our country.

Prager might have a point -- an odious, xenophobic point, but a point nonetheless -- if he were actually correct. But he's not.

First, the use of a Bible in the oath-swearing process is a tradition, but not mandatory, as even the State Department points out.

As evidence of that, two presidents declined to use Bibles when they were sworn in. John Quincy Adams took the oath with his hand on a volume of law; Theodore Roosevelt simply used nothing.

Heck, if Prager had a clue he'd remember that the Founders specifically forbade any sort of religious test as a requirement for holding office. Article VI reads, in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And the presidential oath of office is studiously secular. From Article II:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So Prager is wrong on the particulars. But he's also wrong on a general level. Because the point of swearing on a Bible is not to show support for the Bible -- it's intended to be a sign of taking the oath of office seriously by swearing on something important to you. It's akin to a blood oath, or "I swear on my mother's grave" or "cross my heart and hope to die."

So Christians swear on the Bible, because (the thinking goes) swearing on their religion makes them that much less likely to break their oath. But the oath, not the Bible, is the important thing.

And in that context, forcing a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist to swear on a Bible is not just obnoxious; it's pointless. Because to a Jew, for example, an oath sworn on a Bible is no more or less binding than an oath sworn on a telephone book.

Also, it's worth noting that the Founders provided the option of simply "affirming" their committment to their duties. And again, two presidents have done just that: Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover. This further demonstrates that the whole idea of "swearing on" something is simply a tradition, not something central to the process. Just like the words "So help me God" that most presidents add to the end of the oath.

Further, I believe members of Congress take the oath en masse, and nobody checks to see if they're swearing on a Bible, Playboy magazine or nothing at all.

Prager ratchets up the hyperbole later on:

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Note the logic: If it's not the Bible, it's the equivalent of "Mein Kampf."

That aside, the argument is fallacious. There are many religious objects and books that might be looked at askance if used in a swearing-in ceremony; but that has nothing to do with them not being the Bible. I doubt an Aztec would be allowed to take the oath while standing over a human sacrifice. And he definitely wouldn't be allowed to play soccer with the head afterward. But that says nothing about the use of something other than a Bible -- it merely demonstrates that some things are repugnant.

Ellison should be able to swear on a Bible if he wants to; he should be able to swear on a Koran if he wants to. He should be able to affirm his oath without swearing on a book at all if he wants to. The oath is the important thing, and his adherence to it is what he will be judged on.

Update: The Star Tribune did a cover story on the flap. It references a Eugene Volokh column at National Review Online that echoes many of the points I make above. While we both identified Pierce and Hoover as presidents who affirmed their oath rather than swearing it, he missed the fact that John Quincy Adams and Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible at all. On the other hand he notes that Hawaii governor Linda Lingle, a Jew, was sworn in on the Tanakh.

Further discussion of Volokh's column can be found at a companion post on his blog.


Koran, Prager, Ellison, politics, midtopia

Moderate muslims, Part II

As an addendum to my original post, we have two more examples.

In Pakistan, the lower house of Parliament amended the country's rape laws. Extramarital sex is no longer a capital offense, and rape victims no longer have to produce four witnesses to prove their case.

Senate approval is expected.

The picture is not wholly sanguine: Pakistan's law remains barbaric by Western standards, and radical Islamic and traditionalist groups protested. I would bet this law is observed more in the breach in Pakistan's tribal regions. But it shows moderates turning back extremist laws, a show of moderate power in a region where moderates can seem thin on the ground.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, a conference of Islamic scholars declared female "circumcision" -- a euphemism for removing the clitoris -- to be unIslamic, and said those who practice it should be punished.

The conference included Egypt's two top clerics.

Baby steps, perhaps, condemning obvious cases of injustice and barbarity. But it's a start.

Egypt, rape, Pakistan, genital mutilation, Islam, circumcision, politics, midtopia

Where are the moderate Muslims?

Here.

In Indonesia, gangs of Islamic radicals on "anti-vice" patrols (to bust up bars and movie theaters), are increasingly running into groups of cops, or pissed off citizens, who chase off the radicals (or arrest them.)....

In Bosnia, an Arab religious leader, a follower of the very conservative Wahhabi sect, accused a popular local religious leader of being a communist (that is, a Moslem leader that was less than truly Islamic during the decades of communist rule). This caused a major uproar, and the radical cleric felt compelled to make a public apology.

And here.

"The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks 'using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require.'

"Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

"I am not alone, there are thousands of Muslims with me in Las Vegas, and many more millions in America, who are proud Americans and who are ready to face your challenge. You hide in your caves and behind the faces of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't show your faces and you have no guts to face Muslims. You thrive on the misery of thousands of Muslim youth and children who are victims of despotism, poverty and ignorance.

"During the past two decades, you have brought nothing but shame and disaster to your religion and your world. .

And here, too.

Even the Saudi government is getting into the act, though their complicity in spreading radical Wahhabism sort of undermines their credibility.

If someone says they haven't heard Muslims speak out against these acts committed in their names, it's because they haven't been listening.

terrorism, Islam, politics, midtopia

San Diego ordered to take down giant cross

A cross that has stood atop a city-owned mountaintop in San Diego for decades may have to come down after a 17-year legal battle.

A federal judge moved to end a 17-year legal saga yesterday by ordering the city of San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad cross from city property within 90 days or be fined $5,000 a day.

“It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property,” U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. said.

The 29-foot cross was dedicated in 1954 at the site of a Korean War memorial. A resident sued in 1989 to have it removed. Several attempts to transfer the land under the cross to private groups have been disallowed. So now the cross will likely be moved to nearby private land.

The mayor of San Diego has indicated a willingness to continue fighting the case, but the city is strapped for cash and can ill-afford the fines.

This has become a cause celebre for conservative groups, in part because the original plaintiff was an atheist, and he received assistance from the ACLU. But the legal reasoning seems very clear:

In his ruling, Thompson said he has spent years hearing arguments over the cross, as have other courts.

“Consistently, every court that has addressed the issue has ruled that the presence of the Latin cross on Mount Soledad, land which is owned by the city of San Diego . . . violates Article I Section 4 of the California Constitution,” he said in his order.

I'm not the sort to get all offended by a giant cross overlooking a city -- I actually think the big statue of Jesus that overlooks Rio de Janeiro is pretty cool. But this is about the law, not my personal lack of offense. And the law makes sense. It is wrong for our government to have a cross represent all Korean War vets, as if they were all Christian or even believers. And it is wrong to use city property to promote one religion above all others.

One could argue that the cross has historic significance. After all, we wouldn't move the cross if it was hundreds of years old. Southwestern states operate old Spanish missions as historic sites, for example, and the religious symbols are part of the presentation.

But presenting religion in a historic context is clearly distinct from promoting it. More to the point, the San Diego cross has scant historic value, being less than 60 years old. That is not enough to overcome the importance of the government being seen as neutral on belief -- and nonbelief.

The solution is simple, and has already been planned: move the cross to nearby public land. The cross is preserved and it is still highly visible. But you will no longer have one religion using the levers of governmental power to promote itself.

ACLU, San Diego, religion, politics, midtopia

Running from the "evangelical" label

Conservative partisans like to taunt liberals for shunning the "liberal" label. "What are you ashamed of?" they ask. "Is there something wrong with being a liberal?"

No. But conservatives have spent the better part of 20 years actively trying to turn "liberal" into a dirty word. Not by addressing the principles of liberalism -- which might not be possible anyway because liberal covers a pretty wide swath of ground. No, they did it by using "liberal" to describe any words or deeds committed by anyone on the left side of the spectrum, thus tarring every liberal with the actions of their most extreme members -- including many people who are so far left that they wouldn't be considered liberals by either themselves or mainstream liberals.

Which is why it is not hard to find people who seriously believe that all liberals are socialists or communists. That's plain ignorant, but it's a mark of the demonization campaign's success. It's been so successful, in fact, that rather than deal with that baggage liberals have tried to find new undemonized terms such as "progressive".

That's why I found this New York Times article pretty interesting. Turns out that conservative evangelicals are facing the same problem.

The evangelical movement as it is known today emerged in the 1940's and 50's as a middle way between what many Christian leaders perceived as theological liberalism in the mainline Protestant denominations and the cultural separatism of the fundamentalist movement.

Today, with the term, "evangelical" often equated with "fundamentalist," many in the movement are even discussing whether the label evangelical should be jettisoned completely, said David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine.

"I did sit in a room with a number of key leaders, some Christian college presidents, some representatives of major college ministries," he said. "They were seriously discussing whether the word evangelical should be used anymore, or should we call ourselves classic Christians or historic orthodox Christians."

Will liberals now ask "Hey, what are you ashamed of? Is there something wrong with being an evangelical?" I hope not.

Will conservative partisans now stop the taunting? I hope so. That's the great thing about reckless polemics: eventually they come back to bite you in the ass.

evangelical, politics, midtopia

Islam's Reformation

I recently had an e-mail exchange with a reader who said that the problem facing the world today is Islam. Not radical Islam, not Islamic terrorists, but Islam itself.

He pointed out, correctly, that much of the violent behavior is justified by either the Koran or the Hadiths (collections of sayings and deeds attributed to Muhammad). His main thesis was that Islam is not a peaceful religion, it is a violent one, and thus cannot be accomodated; it must be opposed.

Even if you believe this, there are lots of reasons not to act on that belief -- not making instant enemies of the world's 1 billion Muslims, for example. I know moderate Muslims, so they do exist. Even "battle of civilizations" proponents should want such Muslims on their side, simply because it makes the battle more winnable.

But that's not the point of this article. What I'm reaching for here is historical context. I do not pretend to be a religious scholar, but this is what I see unfolding in Islam today.

Most major religions are born out of conflict and tribulation. Judaism arose from the beliefs of the wandering tribes of Israel; Christianity arose from the torture-death of a Jewish heretic and rabblerouser; Islam arose among the warring nomadic tribes of the Middle East. The notable exception to that rule is Buddhism -- which is also, not coincidentally, the most peaceful of the major religions.

Thus Jewish scripture is full of stories of conquering land, slaughtering enemies, condoning polygamy and slavery, and horrific punishments for violation of minor religious laws. Christianity, being an offshoot of Judaism, adopted those same stories, renaming them the Old Testament. And despite the New Testament being a modification or even wholesale replacement for the Old, the Old Testament is still cited on such matters as homosexuality and adultery, as well as when invoking the awesome power of God and the penalties for defying him.

Islam, too, contains a contradictory mix of violence and peacemaking, a product of the tribal culture it sprang from, as well as the practical realities that Muhammad straddled the secular/sectarian line. He founded a major religion, but he was also heavily involved in efforts to unite the tribes and turn their violent energies outward, into a conquering force that swept the region. It's no coincidence that the Koran is more forgiving and peaceful than the Hadiths. The task is trying to separate the words of Muhammad the prophet from the words of Muhammad the general and tribal nationalist.

Admittedly, it's more complicated than that. The Koran and the Hadiths are somewhat similar to the Jewish Torah and Talmud. One is the core religious text; the other is a collection of explanations and traditions. But in the case of the Hadith, the authenticity of many sayings is suspect, and as a result there are many different Hadiths. Reconciling them will be a major challenge. But the main point is that the Hadiths are less authoritative than the Koran.

From those usually violent beginnings, most religions seem to undergo a predictable growth arc -- from persecuted sect to evangelical expansion to established religion that persecutes its own sects in turn. At some point there is a schism among believers, which is either settled -- violently, for the most part -- or results in a split, such as the Protestant/Catholic split in Christianity or the Sunni/Shiite split in Islam.

Eventually a religion has to reconcile its violent, expansionistic origins with the reality of being part of the establishment. And that means repudiating the more extreme aspects of their origins. Hence no mainstream Christian denomination follows Jewish dietary law, even though Jesus was a devout Jew. No Jew or Christian thinks slavery is divinely approved, even though the Old Testament had no problem with it. Most of Leviticus has been discarded wholesale.

In addition, most religions discover that religion and secular power don't mix well, nor does intolerance and enforced orthodoxy. So over time most religions get out of the governing business, and allow all believers to follow their conscience. Christianity managed that trick just a couple of centuries ago -- and still hasn't shaken the impulse entirely.

Such growth didn't happen easily, and it didn't happen overnight. It takes a long time for a religion to mature. It's no coincidence that the oldest major Western religion, Judaism, is also the least evangelical and most tolerant; Jews resolved their major schism thousands of years ago. Christianity is younger, and resolved its contradictions just a few hundred years ago, although the effects linger in certain quarters.

Islam is the youngest of the three. I submit that what we are seeing today is Islam passing through the same painful adolescence that both Judaism and Christianity endured centuries ago.

Let's look at the timeline. Christianity was born in the 1st Century. The Reformation came 1,500 years later, and took a century of warfare to resolve -- and was preceded by centuries of religious warfare, such as the Crusades.

Islam was founded in the 7th Century. And now, 1,500 years later, it is at the same stage of development as Christianity was 600 years ago.

The parallels are striking. The 1400's began with the Spanish Inquisition, which eventually led to the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain. Elsewhere there was a brisk business in burning heretics at the stake, notably John Huss and Jerome of Prague, burned for spreading the writings of John Wycliffe.

This led to the rise of the Hussites, which in turn prompted the first interChristian Crusade, a 13-year war between the church and the Hussites that the Hussites won.

All this bloodshed merely laid the foundation for the Reformation, which would convulse the entire 16th Century in violence and horror. And religious wars also marked the 17th Century, notably the Thirty Years' War that began in 1618.

But Christianity emerged from all that a more mature religion. Split, of course, between Catholics and Protestants, but with armed force no longer a desirable option for enforcing orthodoxy. Two centuries of war had, quite simply, worn everybody out. They were ready to embrace tolerance if that was the price of peace.

And so it is, I believe, with Islam. We are unfortunate enough to be alive during Islam's bloody transition from its medieval origins to modernity. The good news is that eventually moderate theology should win the day: the more violent parts of the Koran will be devalued, and any conflict between the Koran and the Hadith will be resolved in favor of the Koran, since the Koran is God's word and the Hadith is not.

The bad news is that it could take 100 years or more, and the fallout and human cost could be very, very high.

There is reason for optimism. The world is not as backward a place as it was in the 15th Century. The West has learned the lessons of religious violence, and can serve as an example and guide for resolving Islam's internal conflicts. So while the Islamic Reformation is and will be violent, it can be expected to take less time than the Christian Reformation did.

Our job, therefore, is to encourage and support the moderate reformers while opposing and undermining the medievalists. It will take patience, money, intellectual firepower and an acknowledgement that it will proceed in fits and starts. But the entire world will benefit from Islam shedding its medieval past. If ever there was a project well worth undertaking, this is it.


terrorism, history, Reformation, religion, Christianity, Islam, politics, midtopia

An agnostic defense of religion

You may not know it to look at me, but I am an enemy of religion.

Well, some people say that anyway, based on two simple facts: I'm agnostic, and I believe the government should stay as far away from religious speech as it can.

This seems to be a sectarian version of "if you're not with us, you're against us." To true believers even a declared neutral on religion is an adversary. By such logic, there is no such thing as neutral. "Neutrality" is simply code for "doesn't support", which of course means "opposes."

That may be helpful when trying to construct an "us against the heathen hordes" mindset, but it doesn't really comport well with reality. I send my children to Lutheran preschools; I have written frequently about Abdul Rahman, and will write about other religious freedom cases in the future; I strongly support individual religious liberty. I respect the role of religion in society. I have tossed change into Salvation Army kettles.

I just happen to think that religion is not a government concern. It's one of a whole host of things -- like, say, clothing styles -- where government should not have a role. As citizens, we all have a right to practice our religion as we see fit. What we do not have is the right to use the government to promote our religion.

An agnostic who supports religion
I was raised Presbyterian, so I have more than a passing familiarity with Christianity. But I'm an agnostic for the classic reason: I don't believe the existence or nonexistence of God can be proven, so why waste time on an unsolvable puzzle? It's fun to noodle on, but not really worth the investment of serious study. If He exists, great. If He doesn't, okay. I guess I'll find out when I'm dead.

Same thing with "Is there an afterlife?" Nobody knows, so any attempt to reason it out or "prove it" inevitably devolves into finding an explanation that is comforting to you. I sincerely hope there is an afterlife, and we all owe religion a "thank you" for coming up with the concept; but believe in it? Can't do it.

Does that mean I think believers are gullible, easily deluded saps? Hardly. Just because they cannot prove to me that God exists doesn't mean that they have not had His existence proven to their own satisfaction. Perhaps they've had a personal experience with God. Perhaps they see God's presence in the structure of the world around them. Who am I to say they're wrong?

So though I'm agnostic, I'm not hostile to religion. We discuss religious topics with our children, including the main tenets of the major religions. Why? Because I want my children to be able to make their own religious choices. As they get older we'll discuss religion in greater detail, even take them to church/synagogue/temple if they want. I see my role as providing information, not telling them what to believe.

Government, belief, and public policy
I think people should be free to worship as they please. And I respect religion's role in society. Why, then, do I think government should be studiously neutral on religion?

Two reasons: public policy must have a rational, logically defensible basis; and government is for all people, not just the adherents of any single religion or group of religions.

Public policy: Personal, untestable, unprovable beliefs have no place in formulating government policy. As an individual, I'm free to believe that redheads are agents of God's evil twin. Does that give me the right to enact anti-redhead laws? Not in a country that respects individual rights. In order to discriminate against a group or behavior, I must mount a logical public-policy case for doing so. Religious belief may inform my views as a voter or a legislator, but it cannot by itself be a basis for law.

Government for all people: If the government expresses a preference for certain religions, it is by necessity excluding those who believe differently. Our government belongs to all of us, in all our myriad beliefs or nonbeliefs; and thus it should not express a preference for any particular religion.

Blue laws -- which force businesses to close on Sundays -- are a perfect example of laws with no rational reason for existing, and which put government muscle behind one particular religion. If you don't believe in working on the Sabbath, then don't -- but don't use the government to force everyone else to take the day off, too.

Does this mean I'm trying to push religion out of the public square? No. Because individuals are free -- nay, encouraged -- to keep religion in the public square. Only the government should remain neutral and silent.

An analogy: If I don't want cars driving on the sidewalk, am I anticar? No. I just believe they belong on the road, not on the sidewalks. Similarly, religion belongs in individual discourse, not government discourse.

There are gray areas, of course. Religion should not be discriminated against, either. Religion plays a role in our society; its contribution can be recognized and acknowledged by the government just like the government recognizes the contributions of other groups. But the emphasis should be on recognizing the contribution, not the religion.

This, by the way, is why I generally support Bush's push to make faith-based organization eligible for government grants. Religious groups should be treated just like everybody else; they should receive neither favorable nor unfavorable treatment merely because they are religious.

As the above example demonstrates, trying to find the proper place for religion in a religiously diverse society is not an "attack on God." It's common sense, the accomodations that allow us to coexist peacefully with our neighbors as equal citizens.

Religious issues
Being agnostic, or defending everyone's right to believe what they want, doesn't mean I lack opinions on religious issues. I frankly enjoy religious discussions because of the big questions they raise. But these are debates about the shape of religion, not its existence.

For example, I'm not a huge fan of organized religion. Organized religion is all about claiming stewardship of the One True God. Since that's an unprovable claim on the face of it, they have to resort to secondary measures to attract and keep a following. Eventually the church's continued existence becomes an end in itself -- an end that while not totally separate from honoring God is at least distinct from it.

The whole concept of Hell is a great example. Many religions claim something along the lines of "we are the one true faith; believe in us or suffer for all eternity." This has always struck me as a transparent organizational tactic, not something that God would do. What kind of God would create a world that contains thousands of religions, and then say to each of us: "Pick wisely, because only one of them will get you into heaven"? If that is indeed the kind of God we have -- petty and sadistic -- then I for one choose not to worship Him even if He exists. No God worth the name plays shell games with people's souls.

I choose to believe that if there is an afterlife, and the entrance requirement is based on what you do on earth, then the criteria will be things like living a good, honorable life, regardless of what particular creed you subscribe to.

(To be fair, I think the common depiction of Hell is a distortion. The most reasonable definition of Hell I've come across describes it simply as "the absence of God." That's simply a truism: If I don't believe in the Christian God, then when I die I will not go to the Christian heaven. It does not imply, however, that Hell is unpleasant: fire, brimstone, devils, demons. And it leaves open the possibility of me going to a different heaven, or the Elysian Fields, or Limbo, or whatever. Or being reincarnated.)

Or you can get into a discussion of why we should worship God. Doing so voluntarily out of simple joy or gratitude makes sense. But few religions present worship as merely an option; it's the whole point, and often demanded by the God in question. Yet it seems to me that any God worth having wouldn't care a whit about being worshipped, and thus Gods that demand worship probably don't deserve it.

Is evolution opposed to God? Only if you think that God couldn't have chosen evolution as one of the mechanisms of creation. Is science opposed to God? No; science looks at the how of things, not the who or the why behind it. It's only a conflict if your faith requires belief in easily disprovable things.

The questions go on and on. They're great; they're interesting; they make us think. They are why religion exists: to try to tackle the big questions, explain the unexplainable. It's an ambitious undertaking, and it produces some first-class philosophy. And the redemptive power of religion has transformed lives and societies.

That is what religion does for us, and why it is valuable.

But religion, like any social tool, can also be used for ill. The religious wars that wracked Europe, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burnings, Islamic terrorism, militant Jewish settlers -- all show belief being twisted to bad ends. And it usually occurs when one religion gains undue influence in secular government and starts using that government to further its own agenda.

So let each religion compete in the public marketplace of ideas. Let us build a society that knits together fervid and disparate beliefs into a vibrant whole. But let us agree that for any of us to be free, all of us have to be free. And that means keeping the government out of religion. For the government that today promotes your religion can tomorrow suppress it -- and society will be the poorer for that.

church and state, establishment of religion, religion, politics, midtopia

Abdul Rahman backlash?

In a comment on my last post on this topic, KnightErrant reports that more Christians are being harassed or arrested in Afghanistan.

US-based Christian news source, Compass Direct, reports that more Christians have been arrested for their faith in Afghanistan in the wake of the release of Abdul Rahman. Compass, a news service that tracks persecution of Christians mostly in Islamic countries, says harassment of the Christian community has been stepped up.

Compass says two more Christian converts have been arrested in other parts of the country, but further information is being withheld in the “sensitive situation” caused by the international media furor over Rahman.

Reports of beatings and police raids on the homes of Christians are filtering out of the country through local Christian ministers.

The reports are uncorroborated, and the linked site is anything but unbiased. So take it with a grain of salt. I'd put it in the category of "news to watch for".

Christianity, religion, Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, midtopia

Abdul Rahman, religious refugee

Abdul Rahman has turned up in Italy, which has granted him asylum.

I suppose we should be glad that he will live, instead of being executed by the Afghan government or lynched by people inspired by the bloodthirsty calls of Afghan judges, mullahs and legislators.

Of course, he now has to start his life over in a strange land. And -- coincidentally, of course -- the family members that turned him in will now get default custody of his children -- which, you may recall, is how this whole case got started.

Religious law leads to all sorts of stupid things, like this case of a man divorcing his wife while he slept. But what separates the Abdul Rahman case is the response. In the divorce case, everyone criticized the move; one Islamic scholar called the elders "totally ignorant." In the Rahman case, authority figures all across the country supported the concept of executing someone for their religious belief.

It's going to be real embarassing when the United States is forced to put Afghanistan and Iraq on its list of human rights violators.

religion, Italy, Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, politics, midtopia

Humanity triumphs, but justice hedges

Abdul Rahman, the Afghani who faced execution because he converted from Islam to Christianity, has been freed. The court hearing the case dropped the charges, citing lack of evidence.

The relief is tempered by two facts.

The case was referred back to prosecutors, who could refile the charges if they address the court's concern. So this is a reprieve, not a victory.

In addition, the "lack of evidence" claim is a bit odd, considering Rahman confessed to the particulars.

Bottom line, there is nothing to prevent another convert from being charged and executed under the same law.

So this clearly is an effort to avoid the PR debacle of a conviction and execution, while refusing to address the underlying problem: Does the Afghan constitution rule the country, or does a particularly atavistic brand of Islamic law?

That fight will need to be fought sooner or later if Afghanistan is to become a truly free society.

Abdul Rahman, Afghanistan, politics, midtopia