Last week I posted a survey encouraging readers to reveal their religiosity. I was curious about the demographic makeup of our readership after reading a number of comments on religion over the past few weeks. Rather than a simple poll, I thought I would add a small variation to capture an extra level of nuance. I had all sorts of respondents from strong atheists to animists, pagans, Catholics, a Discordian and a “technoshamanistic gnostic buddhist monist”. Below I will describe the questions and reveal the results.
Read the rest of this entry »

I thoroughly enjoyed Curzon’s informative post On the Origin of Religion from a few days ago. His write-up was well written and much of the commentary was thoughtful and stimulating (thought it did tend to stray off topic quite a bit). Truth is, when I saw the title of the post I expected a firestorm. Not so. But I was surprised at the overwhelming ratio of self-proclaimed atheists in the comments. Much of our readership is American, and I would have thought more religious folk would object to the scientific dissection of their belief. Maybe they felt unqualified or thought it unnecessary even to comment. Maybe they felt with so many atheists in the room, it was not a friendly environment.

So I am curious as to the religiosity of our readership. Of the contributors to ComingAnarchy.com, three are self-proclaimed atheists and one is a practicing Christian. How about the rest of you? I have set up a survey where everyone can share their views in an anonymous and nonjudgmental way. It is a very simple poll using Google Docs with only two questions. It will take you all of thirty seconds to answer so I encourage you all to participate. It is entirely anonymous, but if you would like to publish your answers you can do so in the comments below. I will leave the survey up for one week, then tally the total and write a follow-up next week.

NOTE: Please take the survey before reading any of the commentary below. We don’t want to sully the findings.

Take the Survey

UPDATE 2: And here’s the finalized version.

Read the rest of this entry »

In addition to this map, Gallup presents some interesting match ups of the religiosity of American states with various countries. And you thought Alabama and Iran had nothing in common.

I have been trying to think through President-elect Obama’s decision to have the purpose-driven pastor Rick Warren speak at his presidential inauguration. This choice has inflamed both the secular and LGBT community on the web including Andrew Sullivan and John Hodgman. I too had a serious WTF!? moment when I saw the announcement.

However, on further thought, I am starting to think that this is another sign of Obama’s pragmatic politics (a.k.a. what some idealists are calling “post-partisan politics”). Rick Warren is no ally of Obama, and a large portion of the American population is backing Obama. I think this is a matter of Team Obama kicking the ball downfield on the first down to wait and see whether Team Evangelist will fumble it. Obama offers Warren the chance to kiss the ring and come on board, and if Warren shoots his mouth on at the wrong time he relegates his team to the bench in the eyes of the American people (how were those last sentences for literary clichés?). If Warren plays along then Obama can continue his post-partisan policy-making without the direct opposition (an tacit support) of the evangelical movement that has so infected American politics.

Pragmatism, Machiavelli-style.

In pointing out that it was Lenin, not Darwin, who was the first leader of the Soviet Union, PZ Myers links to a piece on proselytizing evangelicals stirring up trouble in the US military. This time an evangelical chaplain argues that creationism is the solution to suicide in a PowerPoint presentation that was mandatory for about a thousand Air Force personnel. The presentation is titled A New Approach To Suicide Prevention: Developing Purpose-Driven Airmen and is based on the work of that odious ranch boss of Saddleback Church Rick Warren (who The Economist has called the next Billy Graham which is another shuddering thought).

The problem can be boiled down to this: Ex vi termini evangelicals must spread their faith. This is in direct opposition of the “pastoral care” approach used in the military which abides by both the diverse religious environment and the separation of church and state. The population of evangelical chaplains has been increasing in recent years and the problem with it. In 2005 NPR reported that “more than 60 percent of military chaplains are evangelicals.” The New York Times reported on the growing numbers of evangelical chaplains and the associated problems for military leadership. A recent paper published by The Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College has called the issue a a growing ethical dilemma.

Though I would love to see a military (and a society in general) based entirely on reason, I know that is not realistic. I appreciate every soldier’s sacrifice to his country, regardless of his religiosity. I agree with Colonel James L. Cook, Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy at USAFA that “issue is not the right of self-expression of the leader – the issue is the proper subordination of anything personal to the requirements for effective leadership.” The role of the chaplain is to console the soldier who maintains a personal religious belief system. It is a strictly a peripheral role in terms of the organizational goal of the military. For organizational and constitutional reasons the line labelled “proselytization” should be iron-clad and unbending. The military is for protecting the nation, not for increasing the god squad (by the way, isn’t that what the other guy does?)

The aforementioned Col. Cook related the following incident which expresses my thoughts exactly:

I had a cadet in class who once said to me, “I’m a Christian, and I believe witnessing to Christ is the most important thing I need to do in my life.” My response to her is the response I’d give to any officer who held similar views. I said, “I certainly respect your convictions. But if you sincerely mean that, I wonder whether you’re wearing the right kind of clothes. Why don’t you lose the uniform and pursue your vocation as an evangelist?”

To close I leave you with a general breakdown of religion in the US military. “In general, the armed forces show lower religious affiliation than the civilian population…” The table also shows there are more atheists in foxholes than on the American street.

From America’s Military Population, Dec 2004.

The Economist reports on the situation of Faiza M., a Moroccan woman who married a French citizen and moved with him back to France. She applied for citizenship and was rejected on the basis that she wore a burqa, a “radical practice” that is “incompatible with the essential values of the French community, and particularly with the principle of sexual equality.” One (female Algerian) official is quoted as saying “[The burqa] is not a religious sign but the visible sign of a totalitarian political project preaching sexual inequality.”

Get over it. The burqa is just a piece of cloth. It is clothing and it is not the state’s role to intervene into what type of clothing people wear. The motto of France since the French Revolution is: Liberté, égalité, fraternité. This decision makes a mockery of France’s “essential value” of liberty.

The sad thing is that Faiza M. only started wearing the burqa at the request of her husband when they arrived in France. As long as it is her choice, she should be able to wear whatever she likes. If, however, she is being forced to wear a certain kind of clothing against her will, then the state should step in to protect her personal freedom. Religion cannot be used as a shield. Legal and religious institutions are rightly separated, and a country’s laws are applicable to all citizens equally. Using religion to flout the laws is unacceptable, like the Muslim woman in Florida who refused to reveal her face for a driver’s license photo.

Finally, I would just like to stress that I am by no means a Muslim apologist. All faiths have their whackaloons. The bottom line is: I am a freedom-loving libertarian, and am willing to defend that position.

There has been a round of religiously motivated censorship recently that I would like to draw everyone’s attention to.

First is the anti-Koran film Fitna which was pulled from LiveLeak due to threats according to the Underwire. Dan originally had the film embedded on his site when he talked about it a couple of days ago. You can still see a copy at Google Video.

Then of course is our favourite religious corporate organization, the Church of Scientology. They sued to stop the distribution of The Profit, a fictional film about a religious group that resembles the Co$. This event happened a few years ago but illegal distribution is still going on and the controversy is still active as of three days ago. Anti-Co$ hacker network Anonymous drew everyone’s attention to the film again recently. You can get the torrent at TPB (h/t DtB).

Lastly there is the PZ Myers episode last week of being expelled from Expelled. PZ is a biology prof and evolution blogger. Expelled is a creationist “documentary” about how “Big Science” shuts out the dissenting views on evolution. PZ went to a showing, was recognized while standing in line and kicked out of the theater. His three guests got in though, one of which was … wait for it … this dude! PZ blogged the incident and epic lulz ensued.

What to make of all this? Hey, the religious orgs are doing what they do: shutting people up and trying to control the message. Whether it involves litigation or violence, organized religion wants to build boundaries around the minds of believers and non-believers alike. The sad thing is that they have been surprisingly successful. However, I think this just makes them look worse in the end. I can’t wait for the day when transparency and rationality reign.

On the 15th of March, Anonymous took to the streets again in its War on Scientology. See the call to arms here. This is the second real life protest for Project Chanology. The date was symbolic: the 15th is known as the Ides of March, when Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The next protest is planned for 12 April.

I previously wondered if the War on Scientology is 4GW. John Robb thinks that Project Chanology is a open source insurgency. He offers some succinct analysis of what has been going on in the War against Scientology, and recommends that “it should be used as a template for other non-violent efforts.” I maintain that this is nothing new, at least since the inception of the internet as a tool for rapid organization (rather than mobile phones like the Zapatistas). I do agree with John that so far this has been well-played, and they have been careful not to overstep their bounds into “terrorist” activities, despite accusations from the Co$. Of course, without any type of control over their organization, it might be just a matter of time before a violent splinter group hijacks the Anon brand. Think of the failure of the second intifada. Furthermore, I wouldn’t put it above the Co$ to stage such an operation to sabotage Anon’s momentum. However, I think such an operation would backfire knowing the information gathering/collation power of the Anon hivemind. I am confident Anon could track down any n00bs or fakers. Whether or not that satisfies the MSM, and by extension the general public, is another matter.

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that hate groups in the US have surged to 888 in 2007, up from 602 in 2000.

See who and where they are. All hate groups profiled are race-based. Diversity Matters notes that much of the vitriol is directed at Latinos. I thought there would be more religion-based hate in America after 9/11 — besides the Church of Scientology accusing Anonymous of being a hate/terrorist group (see the Beard of Wisdom talk about it on YouTube). According to the ADL, religious hate crime motivations did see a bit of an uptick in 2002, but has settled back to about 18% of hate crimes, compared with around 50% for race-based crimes. I guess there are more racist crazies in America than religious ones. Then there are the religious-racist crazies. Looking at all this nuttery, I can’t help but think about how far America has come since the Sixties. I can’t imagine how bad it must have been.