I have a long-standing interest in science, and in fact I came perilously close at one point to getting into veterinary research after completing my vet degree, and I also have a passionate interest in the relationship between science and religion. So that — combined with the 200th anniversary Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of “The Origins of Species” gave me the perfect opportunity to post an article entitled, “Four reasons Buddhists can love evolution.”

Related posts:

1. What Senator Brownback thinks about evolution
2. Wildmind Buddhist Meditation » Top 10 celebrity Buddhists
3. Military Buddhists

Marc Randazza, A First Amendment attorney based in Florida, has a pertinent comment about Roberts flubbing the oath of office:

The news outlets are buzzing with criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts for flubbing Obama’s Oath of Office — but the critiques seem to be all about him nervously reversing a few words. These critiques miss the issue.

After he painfully, and tortuously, slogged his way through the Oath of Office, Roberts appeared to add his own little bit to it as he asked the President, “So help you God?”

Article II, Section I of the US Constitution reads, in pertinent part (with “he” referring to the President-elect):

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.”

The words “so help you God,” are not in the Oath. However, since Chester A. Arthur, most (if not all) Presidents-elect have thrown in this little garnish. I previously opined that Mr. Obama could, if he wanted to, throw in a little extra props to his personal deity. In fact, if Obama wanted to end the oath with “The Snozzberries taste like Snozzberries,” he would have had every right to do so.

On the other hand, upon the completion of the Oath as it appears in Article II, Section I, Roberts next line should have been to either shut up or say “congratulations, Mr. President,” — not to ask Obama, “so help you God?”

Funny enough, Obama re-took the Oath of Office due to the fact that the word “faithfully” got moved around a bit, and thus there was some question as to whether Obama actually took the Constitutionally mandated Oath. While most agree that this was unnecessary, it certainly couldn’t hurt given that there are still tinfoil-hat wearing Palinites out there who think that Obama can’t be president because he was born in Hawaii.

It’s well worth checking out the rest of Randazza’s blog.

Related posts:

1. Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He “Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win”
2. Church to picket Obama’s grandmother’s funeral
3. Swearing on Jefferson’s Koran

At first sight I was a bit perplexed to see that a state law in Illinois requiring a moment of silence in public schools had been nullified by a judge’s ruling. After all, children are so bombarded with stimuli these days that some silence seems just what they need.

But continuing to read the article it turns out that the law is another poorly-disguised attempt to get prayer into schools. According to the judge, the “teacher is required to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning as well as the limitations on their ‘reflection’.”

A state senator commented, “I strongly feel and I still believe that children should have a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day.” The answer then is easy — remove the language requiring teachers to give instruction in prayer, and ensure that teachers are in fact specifically prohibited from touting the moment of silence as an opportunity to pray. Anything short of that is a back-door attempt to smuggle religion into the public school system.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.

“The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion,” the judge, Robert W. Gettleman, said in his ruling.

The ruling came in a lawsuit designed to bar schools from enforcing the law, the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. It was filed by a talk show host, Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his daughter, Dawn, a student at Buffalo Grove High School in suburban Chicago.

Judge Gettleman’s ruling was not a surprise. He had already ruled in favor of Mr. Sherman in two previous decisions.

As passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the law allows students to reflect on the day’s activities rather than pray if that is their choice, and defenders have said it therefore does not force religion on anyone.

But Judge Gettleman upheld critics like the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the law is a thinly disguised effort to bring religion into the schools.

The “teacher is required to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning as well as the limitations on their ‘reflection,’ ” Judge Gettleman ruled.

“The plain language of the statute, therefore, suggests an intent to force the introduction of the concept of prayer into the schools,” he ruled.

It remained unclear if Judge Gettleman’s decision would end the dispute or merely signal a fresh battle in a federal appeals court.

State Senator Kimberly Lightford, a Chicago Democrat and the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she hoped the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, would appeal.

“I strongly feel and I still believe that children should have a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day,” Ms. Lightford said in an interview.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Madigan said the attorney general was reviewing the decision and would have no immediate comment.

Judge Voids Illinois Law on Silent Time in Schools

Related posts:

1. Judge errs in sentencing woman to T.M.
2. “Not the business of schools to lead kids to inner peace”
3. Transcendental meditation in schools

Charles M. Blow has a short but interesting column explaining that the vast majority of Americans believe that good people who are not Christians can go to heaven. The sub-plot of the article is the disbelief that some people experienced when they learned this finding. That suggests to me that the tenets of hard-right evangelicalism have come to be seen as normative, when in fact they are a minority position that happens to have a lot of political traction and a direct channel to the media.

In June, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a controversial survey in which 70 percent of Americans said that they believed religions other than theirs could lead to eternal life.

This threw evangelicals into a tizzy. After all, the Bible makes it clear that heaven is a velvet-roped V.I.P. area reserved for Christians. Jesus said so: “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” But the survey suggested that Americans just weren’t buying that.

The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?

So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them.

And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.

What on earth does this mean?

One very plausible explanation is that Americans just want good things to come to good people, regardless of their faith. As Alan Segal, a professor of religion at Barnard College told me: “We are a multicultural society, and people expect this American life to continue the same way in heaven.” He explained that in our society, we meet so many good people of different faiths that it’s hard for us to imagine God letting them go to hell. In fact, in the most recent survey, Pew asked people what they thought determined whether a person would achieve eternal life. Nearly as many Christians said you could achieve eternal life by just being a good person as said that you had to believe in Jesus.

Also, many Christians apparently view their didactic text as flexible. According to Pew’s August survey, only 39 percent of Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and 18 percent think that it’s just a book written by men and not the word of God at all. In fact, on the question in the Pew survey about what it would take to achieve eternal life, only 1 percent of Christians said living life in accordance with the Bible.

Now, there remains the possibility that some of those polled may not have understood the implications of their answers. As John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said, “The capacity of ignorance to influence survey outcomes should never be underestimated.” But I don’t think that they are ignorant about this most basic tenet of their faith. I think that they are choosing to ignore it … for goodness sake.

Related posts:

1. Americans skipping sleep to work more
2. We’re doomed (Part 61)
3. Religion versus wealth

No related posts.