Yet, the factors I cite above are present and obviously important in the cases you mention, and it seems we would differ on what constitutes a “religion-inspired progrom”. Serbian slaughter of members of former Yugoslav states didn’t seem to have anything to do with the Serb’s taking exception to Islam (muslims in the former Yugoslav republics weren’t particularly traditionalist or devout anyway). Rather, the Serbian onslaught seemed to have everything to do with combating or punishing separatism.

I looked at the platform of the Democratic Unionist Party to find what, if any, “plainly theological” differences are at issue, and couldn’t find anything specific. What’s the beef, then? The DUP wants to stay with Britain. Again, you’ve looking at something a lot more like a tribal/national affiliation, one that just happens to correlate with religion: the Irish are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, the British Protestant; ethnicities culturally and politically affiliated with empire naturally gravitate toward the church of the empire, in empires that have a dominant church.

You mention India, and that is a problem. Oddly, though, you put Yugoslavia and India neck and neck in some ranking of the number of people killed in “religion-inspired pogroms”. Since we’re talking about the characters of whole societies vis-a-vis their sectarian politics, wouldn’t it be more fair to talk about proportions of the population, not raw numbers? Also, shouldn’t we be talking about where India stands in terms of development? Ignorance and poverty can make people violent about differences they’d tolerate or even embrace if they were better educated and wealthier.

I still don’t see how you get from “mixing politics and religion is bad” to “Obama and McCain appearing in an overtly Christian debate context is pissing on the Constitution.” You don’t seem to understand what the Constitution actually says about religion, or why it says what it says. Probably both candidates understand a lot more about what’s at stake here than you do, and especially Obama, a constitutional scholar.

>Republic of Eire still does not allow
>divorce, last I checked, and probably
>has other laws on the books reflecting >Catholic dominance.

India does not have a sectarian system of law, but it is in contention with ex-Yugoslavia as the country where the most people have been killed in religion-inspired pogroms in the post-WWII period. Religion doesn’t need legal sanction to be violent, narrow, provincial, and oppressive. However, the last round of anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat were directed by the party then in power in the state and national government, the “Hindu Nationalist” BJP.

As for the Republic of Ireland, you’re a little out of date. Ireland is actually a good example of of a country that is overcoming the baneful effect of religion on the state. Divorce and contraception were legalized in the 1990s, although abortion is going to remain illegal for the foreseeable future. There are several reasons for the liberalizing process. The first is the general mind-opening effect of the EU and of Ireland’s amazing transformation into a developed country. there is also an unrealistic belief that the island may be reunited in the medium-term future, so the Republic may need to absorb a large non-Catholic minority. The third is the clerical sex abuse scandal, which was much worse in Ireland than in the US.

As for Northern Ireland, many people there do think the conflict is really over religion. Most of the Protestants vote for Rev. Ian Paisley’s Democratic Unionist Party, for whom the issue is plainly a theological one.

I’d say you apparently don’t have an argument to make.

In any case, my point stands: we can’t avoid the mixture of religion and politics, but we can avoid having a religious legal system, and that seems to have worked pretty well.

I might add: what Stu sees as “mixing politics and religion” with such disastrous results all seem to have a lot more to do with frictions between antagonistic nations or tribes, or with imperialism, or with autocratic governments bumming some legitimacy off the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the dominant religion. Religious differences can become a lever, a wedge, or a chain, in those scenarios, but it is still ultimately secondary to the political forces. If something can be divisive in a conflict or binding in an autocracy, it will be used. If it isn’t, substitutes will be found — e.g., Marxism and ethnicity in the case of the Tamil Tigers, language and ethnicity if you’re an Ossetian or a Basque, etc., etc. One might as well say “differences in general don’t mix well”. Often, they don’t. That’s a job for the principle of equality under the rule of law.

Religion and politics will mix for as long as we have religion and politics. What you don’t want is mixing religion into LAW. It’s the Constitution that limits doing that, in our case.

All of the above countries *legislate* based on religious beliefs — though in the case of India, they legislate to accommodate *different* religious beliefs, which is arguably not the same thing, and arguably not nearly as bad. I’m against it in any case, at least at the federal level.

In the U.S., despite waves of religious fanaticism, it hasn’t mattered how religious the President has been, or how religious Congress has been. It says right there in the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law ….” And that seems to have been quite enough of a bulwark against theocratic takeover. In case you haven’t noticed.

McCain and Obama did not “piss” on the Constitution because nobody, not even a sitting President, can even let the tiniest urine drop fall on it without breaking the law. And even sitting Presidents are (ultimately) not above the law. They might (and have) dangled above it briefly, but they fall, and the jaws snap on them, one way or another.

In this case, there were no laws broken. I doubt there ever could be. The prohibition against Congress making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” probably also prohibits it from making laws telling politicians (or anyone else) what religious events they can or cannot walk into and participate in. Call this a loophole if you want; I call it good constitutional design.

I am not religious. I’m just not an anti-religion bigot. Has religion been a net negative thing for humanity? I’m with Daniel Dennet on that question: I don’t know, I think it’s something that should be considered scientifically. Should Creationism (including ID) be taught in biology classrooms, along with standard evolutionary theory? I’m with Michael Balter on that issue: I don’t know, I think it’s something that should be tested scientifically. From what I can see from what few experiments have been done so far, Creationists should actually *fear* the discussion of Creationism in biology classrooms, because it helps students reproduce the real scientific thinking processes that led to the acceptance of natural selection, and that tends to lead more students to accepting standard evolutionary theory. And from what I’ve seen so far, the First Amendment continues to provide protection against theocratic take-over, even after almost 8 years of a president who thinks God told him to run for president.

Screw your “metaphors”, Stu. I’m an empiricist. Just empirically: you’re full of it.

Oh, I see: “loophole” is a metaphor, “pissing on the Constitution” was a metaphor, so they were pissing through a loophole.

Once you’re in metaphorland, you’re never wrong. You might be mistaken, but not wrong.

I did NOT write “isn’t the best way to resolve the dispute about *evolutionary theory* ….”

See the difference?

Here’s a way you’d do that experiment:

“First-year biology majors were divided into four sections. Two groups were assigned portions of Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker,” a pro-evolution book, as well as a book advocating intelligent design called “Icons of Evolution.” These groups also viewed a short animated creationist film and read an online rebuttal of creationist ideas, as well as materials on the nature and history of science. The other two groups read only evolutionary materials.”

And here’s what happened:

“At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so — and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/opinion/edbalter.php

The gist of opposition so far to trying this in high schools seems to be that high school students aren’t smart enough. But … isn’t that yet another hypothesis that ought to be tested by experiment, not simply declared “obvious”?

Creationism *used* to be the scientific consensus on the origin of species. Now it isn’t. What happened? Science happened. Science is a process, not Revealed Truth. Expose students to the actual process by which scientists entertain and discard hypotheses, and students come out with more respect for it. But teach it as Revealed Truth, and students will just learn what it takes to pass exams. Which is better? Which approach produces citizens with more capacity for critical thinking?

I’d say you’re a fool.

I said they were “pissing all over the Constitution,” meaning that they treated the principle of secular government with contempt. I’d say holding a Presidential debate over religion, in a church, moderated by a minister, abuses a loophole in the First Amendment, not that it violates the letter of the law.

And, yes, the taxpayers did pay for some of it if the McCain campaign accepts public funding. More indirectly, they are running for an office that draws a tax-funded salary. If I interviewed for a job as an imam I wouldn’t expect to have the interview in a bar.

Taxpayers didn’t pay for the Rick Warren event. And “you shouldn’t do X” is nothing like “it’s unconstitutional to do X”. Candidates discussing their religious beliefs is nothing like the government passing laws impinging on religious freedom. You say the latter is a strawman, but that’s absurd and grossly dishonest, since you are claiming that the latter is a “metaphor” for the former.

But not unconstitutional, which is why Jefferson didn’t claim that Adams violated the constitution in 1796 when he made Jefferson’s religious beliefs a keynote of his campaign.

Oy. You couldn’t have picked a worse analogy, thereby making *yourself* look like someone who can be written off. Balter advocated public debates between scientists and creationists; that has nothing to do with “putting it to a scientific test”.

“That is completely inappropriate in a secular republic.”

Talk about a strawman. The question isn’t whether the Rick Warren event was “inappropriate”, which is your personal judgment, but whether it is in any sense a violation of the U.S. Constitution. It isn’t. You lose.

Since I doubt there are any creationists on this board, I hate to start up this much rehashed topic, but here goes. What you suggest has already been done. Nearly all credible biologists think that evolution is the theory that best explains the data we have as of now. The theory will change over time and maybe one day be replaced by a new theory that matches the evidence even better. If a credible alternative scientific theory emerges, it should be taught.

Not every claim about the world is a scientific theory. Theories are formulated by hypothesis testing and empirical observation. Creationism is a dogma derived from religious mythology. It has the same scientific status as Rastafarians’ belief that God wants you to smoke marijuana, Hindus’ belief in reincarnation, and any other of the thousands of religious myths available around the world.

Science classes are for science, not for every imaginable belief. If we are going to teach the six day creation, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and orbiting teapot “theories” in Biology class, which topics are we going to drop to make room? Maybe photosynthesis?

Anyone who wants to teach whatever particular religoius beliefs he chooses is free to do so when he is *not on the taxpayer’s dime,* and any politician is free to believe any religion he wants, but should keep it out of politics in a country that is supposed to have a secular government.

>“pissing on the Constitution”
Michael, that’s what they did, metaphorically. They sought votes by detailing their specific religious beliefs. Madison and Jefferson would have found this contemptible and repulsive. If you don’t believe that, try checking out Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Iran, Afghanistan, India, and on and on for a practical view of what happens when religion and politics mix.

Really? I thought the purpose was for these two Christian candidates to express the role that Christian faith plays in their lives, so that people to whom this clearly matters (including, obviously, the Stu Nimms out there) can make their own decisions based on what they see and hear. I’m sure a lot of Christians didn’t watch (partly because it doesn’t matter to a lot of them, they vote based more on other criteria) and I’m sure a lot of non-Christians did watch and got something out of it that’ll help them make their decision in November.

I’m also pretty sure that the vast majority of Americans, Christian or not, upon hearing someone call this sort of event “pissing on the Constitution”, would think: “Well, that’s one voice I can write off as not being worth listening to.”

Religion and politics will mix for as long as we have religion and politics. What you don’t want is mixing religion into LAW. It’s the Constitution that limits doing that, in our case.

All of the above countries *legislate* based on religious beliefs — though in the case of India, they legislate to accommodate *different* religious beliefs, which is arguably not the same thing, and arguably not nearly as bad. I’m against it in any case, at least at the federal level.

In the U.S., despite waves of religious fanaticism, it hasn’t mattered how religious the President has been, or how religious Congress has been. It says right there in the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law ….” And that seems to have been quite enough of a bulwark against theocratic takeover. In case you haven’t noticed.

McCain and Obama did not “piss” on the Constitution because nobody, not even a sitting President, can even let the tiniest urine drop fall on it without breaking the law. And even sitting Presidents are (ultimately) not above the law. They might (and have) dangled above it briefly, but they fall, and the jaws snap on them, one way or another.

In this case, there were no laws broken. I doubt there ever could be. The prohibition against Congress making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” probably also prohibits it from making laws telling politicians (or anyone else) what religious events they can or cannot walk into and participate in. Call this a loophole if you want; I call it good constitutional design.

I am not religious. I’m just not an anti-religion bigot. Has religion been a net negative thing for humanity? I’m with Daniel Dennet on that question: I don’t know, I think it’s something that should be considered scientifically. Should Creationism (including ID) be taught in biology classrooms, along with standard evolutionary theory? I’m with Michael Balter on that issue: I don’t know, I think it’s something that should be tested scientifically. From what I can see from what few experiments have been done so far, Creationists should actually *fear* the discussion of Creationism in biology classrooms, because it helps students reproduce the real scientific thinking processes that led to the acceptance of natural selection, and that tends to lead more students to accepting standard evolutionary theory. And from what I’ve seen so far, the First Amendment continues to provide protection against theocratic take-over, even after almost 8 years of a president who thinks God told him to run for president.

Screw your “metaphors”, Stu. I’m an empiricist. Just empirically: you’re full of it.