A place for us to learn about science, old and new. A place for us to make sense of the world and rail against the nonsense. A place for me and you, dear reader, to exchange opinions on music, literature, and all that greets our senses.
It seems to me that there are two very different issues regarding the mosque (and cultural center). Whether the builders have the right to build it two blocks from Ground Zero, and whether one thinks it is a good idea to build it there. I believe President Obama tried to make this distinction, but, in part because he addressed the points on two separate days, it was in-artfully done (to be kind).
Let's be clear about the first point. There would be no objection to building a Christian church two blocks from Ground Zero. This country was founded, in part, by those fleeing religious persecution, and freedom of religion is fundamental to our society and our Constitution. As such, any attempt to prevent the building of the mosque (and cultural center) should be, and likely would be, ruled unconstitutional. But it goes far beyond legality. I think that to be true to the freedoms we hold dear, we need to support the right to build the mosque even if we strongly disagree with its construction. Supporting freedom means supporting things one does not agree with.
Note that this principle applies to the speech of those who oppose the mosque. They have the right to say it should not be built, and, like Voltaire, I will defend to the death their right to do so. But when someone uses their right to free speech to call for the rights of others to be curtailed, I think it is particularly important we use our right to free speech to call for those rights (here freedom of religion) to be respected.
Now, is it a good idea to built it there? Well, that depends somewhat on what 'it' is. If it really is a center designed to promote religious understanding, then Ground Zero would certainly serve as a powerful reminder to all who came there what horrible things rage coupled with fundamentalism can do. On the other hand, there are some who lost loved ones in 9/11 who will be traumatized by its presence. One can argue that they should not react that way, since the terrorist act was committed by a small sect of people (and sects in all religions have done awful things), but this is an emotional issue.
If one thinks it is a bad idea to build it there, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the builders to reconsider their location. But I think it goes against the idea of religious freedom to demand it.
In brief, I think there is nothing wrong with having misgivings about a mosque (and cultural center) being built two blocks from Ground Zero, but I think all of us need to defend the right for it to be built there.
[photo: Dramatization of a pilgrim praying freely in the New World.]
"Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are two different words for the same thing (with a bit more window-dressing in the second term). Creationism is not evidence-based and not, like all good science, open to falsification. It is a story written by people in a very different time, from within one of many religions the world has seen. If you choose to believe it as fact, that is your choice, but it is not science and has no place in a science curriculum. I have no objection to it being discussed in a comparative religion class, though.
There are real consequences to confusing creationism with science. For example, to deny the theory of evolution is to deny an understanding of how drug-resistant bacteria arise. Or avian flu. So if your physician tells you he is a creationist, I would find another doctor.
Action item:
Here is the contact info for Raymund Paredes (see story):
Higher Education Coordinating Board (Texas)
Raymund Paredes, Commissioner
Dr. Joseph Stafford, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Research
Contact: Linda Battles
Academic Affairs and Research
P.O. Box 12788
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: (512) 427-6200
Fax: (512) 427-6168
Email: linda.battles@thecb.state.tx.us or cheryl.rosipal@thecb.state.tx.us
Website: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/
[1/24/08 8pm]
Action item:
Also, the individual mentioned by David in the first Comment, Stephen Schafersman, is part of Texas Citizens for Science. For some reason, the Wikipedia page for TCS is up for deletion, perhaps due to creationist forces? If you have a Wikipedia login, please indicate that you do not want the page deleted (whichever side of the debate you are on).
Every religion incorporates a myth of how the world was created. This illustration depicts the creation myths of Hindism, Navaho, Aztec, Egyptian, Christian, Aboriginal, Jewish and Islam.]
I had been thinking that Huckabee was basically harmless, doling out religious pablum to his base. But this is quite scary. He says, "and that's what we need to do is to amend the constitution so it's in God's standards...". If this doesn't scare you, read on.
The US Constitution is the legal bedrock of this stable yet heterogeneous society. It enshrines the separation of church and state and protects the rights of believers and nonbelievers of all types. Inclusion of "God's standards" would be antithetical to the whole document. Whose God? Whose interpretation of her standards?
I think politicians use religion to further their own ends, usually in a divisive way. They play upon people's faith and drive wedges between us. When people are guided by unshakable beliefs, they can be convinced to commit unspeakable acts. So when a politician uses religious language, always ask yourself, "Am I being manipulated?".
Here is an interview with Lawrence Krauss about science and religion from Point of Inquiry. The interview is about half an hour long, so here's the main thing I got out of it. Krauss argues that scientists should convey what they have learned studying nature, particularly in the area of biological evolution, but that, in the end, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are outside science's purview. Thus he is somewhat at odds with Richard Dawkins, at least in style.
My own view is complicated, but I promise I will eventually write some posts on it. For now, let me say that I definitely agree with Krauss' criticism of Dawkins. I also agree wholeheartedly with Lawrence's call for greater scientific literacy, which is one of the motivations for this blog.
[I should mention that I've met Krauss several times, and he is involved with Science Debate 2008, but I don't think any of that has colored my view of this issue. Krauss gets involved in many things. If you're reading this Larry, I just want to know, do you sleep? :) ]
In the last few years, the title of this post has become contro- versial in the US. Perhaps out of a fear of not offending anyone, there has, for a number of years, been a trend toward removing the word "Christmas" from "Merry", "Tree", and most sacred of all, "Sale" ;). I understand and agree with the impulse of not wanting to offend people, but I also recognize in a religiously and politically diverse world, one has to try to be tolerant in receiving words as well as saying them.
On the other hand, I don't think you should say "Merry Christmas" to someone you know it will offend. What for, to prove a point? Is that in the spirit of the season? [also discussed: divinity of Jesus.]
In fact, I almost always either say "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays" unless I think the person would prefer I say "Merry Christmas" or refer to another specific holiday, e.g. "Happy Hanukkah". The point is, intent matters and so does context.
For example, the title of this post is not a greeting to a specific person, nor any statement about the relative worth of one holiday over another. It is not a statement suggesting that you, dear reader, must be merry about Christmas. It is expressing my feelings about the season. Nor is it an expression of any religious beliefs (in my case at least). It is just my expression of joy at this time that I have always loved.
I love Christmas because it is a rare time for my family to come together. It is a time to sing carols and eat, drink, and be merry. It is a time to celebrate life. (I should say that I have found the Winter Solstice also to be a good day for these, which is fitting since the date of Christmas likely traces its origins to the Solstice-timed holidays of Saturnalia or to Sol Invictus.)
Christmas is not a religious holiday for me personally, because I don't believe that Jesus was divine. But I have come to think that Jesus was an amazing person. He was one of the first to preach nonviolence, and love thy neighbor. There have been others. For example, Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are worthy of our reverence too.
It's too bad that much of Christianity bears so little resemblance to what Jesus seems to have been striving for. In fact, given that Jesus never wrote a word, it is amazing that any of his message managed to survive all the people who have been involved in constructing and making use of a religion about him (like the Roman Emperor Constantine, whose Council of Nicaea decided many things including whether Jesus was a deity or not).
Anyway, think of the message, love thy neighbor. And of course, eat, drink, and be merry. Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Solstice, and Merry Christmas!
There is a concept in US Constitutional Law called originalism, which says that one should read the US Constitution literally, down to the last comma, to divine and adhere to what the Constitution's authors meant. This line of thought says that the Constitution is a dead document, incapable of evolving with the times, except by the brute force of a Constitutional Amendment. I find this concept similar to the one that says one should base morality on a literal reading of a religious text, such as the Bible. Things have changed a lot in the last few thousand years, so even if you believe the Bible was a perfect source of morality back then, I hope, gentle reader, you agree that some things in it are out of date.
So it was some interest that I read this rather pedantic sounding Opinion piece in the New York Times called Clause and Effect, by Adam Freedman. His point is that people who have been trying to interpret the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the one usually called the right to bear arms, may have it all wrong because
"In the 18th century, punctuation marks were as common as medicinal leeches and just about as scientific...Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible."
The Amendment is usually written
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is very confusing, especially because of the commas. Does the first part of the sentence modify "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? He argues yes, and what they probably meant was
“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
He might be right, he might be wrong. But what we need to do is be guided by the basic principles of the Constitution and apply them to today's world. Today there are weapons no individual should have, weapons whose possession diminish the security of the state and its citizens. It seems pretty clear to me that limiting use of such arms is consistent with the spirit of the Second Amendment. We can debate where to draw that line another time, but let us at least agree that there is a line, and that the right to bear arms is not absolute, independent of what the commas in the statute mean.
And more broadly, let us always use common sense and context when basing a decision on any moral or legal source.
It seems to me that there are two very different issues regarding the mosque (and cultural center). Whether the builders have the right to build it two blocks from Ground Zero, and whether one thinks it is a good idea to build it there. I believe President Obama tried to make this distinction, but, in part because he addressed the points on two separate days, it was in-artfully done (to be kind).
The Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research is trying to start a master's degree in "science education". Here is an article from the Austin American-Statesman (thanks DG): Leading scientists oppose creation institute's degree plan. (see contact info below to take action.)
In the last few years, the title of this post has become contro- versial in the US. Perhaps out of a fear of not offending anyone, there has, for a number of years, been a trend toward removing the word "Christmas" from "Merry", "Tree", and most sacred of all, "Sale" ;). I understand and agree with the impulse of not wanting to offend people, but I also recognize in a religiously and politically diverse world, one has to try to be tolerant in receiving words as well as saying them.