Fear and

(Cross Posted at Vim and Vinegar)

It's a hypothesis I've not heard said out loud, but I can't say that I'm surprised someone considered it - the meta-analysis of several studies have recently been completed testing the hypothesis that racism is linked to religion (Christianity). The results: "Religious congregations generally express more prejudiced views towards other races. Furthermore, the more devout the community, the greater the racism."

The study was published in the February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review, with the conclusion: "Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant." Again, I can't say that I'm absolutely surprised by this outcome - I've noticed that agnostics seems to be more willing to accept that others' ideas or habits may be acceptable, or that while what they believe might be right for them, there are no shoes that fit all feet.

Put another way by the Center for Inquiry article linked at the beginning of this post: "Religious agnostics would be people who combine a religious/spiritual attitude in living life with a humble admission that they don't know if their approach is the only right way. Religious agnostics are pluralistic -- they have no problem admiring how different people can enjoy different religious paths. And it is precisely this lack of dogmatism which permits humanistic values to shine through. Religious exclusivism defeats humanistic universalism, but religious pluralism enhances humanistic universalism."

Perhaps tolerance comes from accepting that we can't know the unknowable and accepting that someone else's ideas may be as accurate or inaccurate as our own.

Pray for President Obama

I would suggest that those who don't particularly care for President Obama should pray for his safety as well. Like him or not, just like President Bush was, he is our President. This is why it concerns me that the "Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8" T-shirts have been made and sold.

The verse by itself ("May his days be few; may another seize his position.") seems somewhat benign, but the intent behind it is anything but. The entire psalm can be found at this link, but for those who aren't much for clicking links, an extended portion of the prayer reads:

Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

I first heard about this prayer, known as an Imprecatory Prayer about 2 years ago. The context in which I first heard it was that it was being invoked by a Baptist Minister (a Reverend Drake) against Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). The reason was that he felt that AU was an enemy of God because AU "asked the IRS to probe the tax-exempt status of Drake's congregation. You see, generally, churches are tax-exempt, which carries with it the burden of not being able to campaign for political candidates. It turns out that Rev. Drake issued a statement endorsing Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate," (from my post linked above).

The problem then, as now, is that the concept of imprecatory prayer is being misapplied. The original intent for imprecatory prayers are to ask God to intervene against His enemies. There is no call in the prayer for enemies of individuals, and there's no evidence whatsoever that President Obama, himself a Christian, is an enemy of God.

While I can only speculate that the majority of people who would purchase this are members of the Religious Right, or the Right in general, it seems likely that these would be the individuals who came up with the idea of putting this clever little line on a t-shirt. This is interesting, because it wasn't too long ago that this group of individuals (the Right) had among their number people who openly called for sedition trials for those who opposed the President or his policies (see comments), or advocated sedition against the Democrats. I remember very clearly reading several comments on blogs that I followed where individuals were calling for sedition trials for anyone who opposed the Iraq war or other Bush policies. My question, then, is why would this type of act not be considered a form of sedition? Or do First Amendment rights only apply when it's a Republican or "Right" individual doing the talking? (FTR - I believe that the idea of protected speech is a good one, and don't advocate sedition charges, but think the hypocrisy is astounding.)

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this is that this type of inflammatory rhetoric by itself might seem shrewdly humorous, but the concern for me is that, much like what happened with Dr. Tiller's murderer or Charles Guiteau, all it takes is one person to determine that it was his calling to carry out this action to really wreak havoc, and I think that this lack of foresight by the makers of these shirts is appalling (and if that's their plausibly deniable intent, then its downright evil and nothing my God would ever approve of).

Some Conflict

Apparently, there's been a bit of a brouhaha over Georgetown University's covering of their religious symbols. This article at Religion Clause Blogspot contains an explanation as to why the University covered the symbols. Reportedly, it was to be "consistent with other policy speeches." Unsurprisingly, this explanation did not appease everyone. According to the article linked above, "Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society, said: 'It is such a sad commentary that Catholic universities are willingly hiding the most visible signs of their Catholic identity when hosting secular leaders.'"

I confess I'm a little conflicted with this situation. On the one hand, I have no problem with a President requesting religious references be removed when speaking - he does, after all, represent ALL Americans, not just Catholic (I use Catholic because Georgetown is a Catholic university) Americans. On the other hand, however, the President is knowingly speaking at a Catholic university. I'm not convinced that by merely speaking in front of the dais provided by the location he selected for his speech that he would be endorsing that religion (conversely, I am CERTAIN that by covering said symbols he is not condemning that religion).

I don't know. I guess my inclination is to believe that this is much ado about nothing - an attack on a Christian by other Christians because he's not the Christian they want in office and are hoping to glean some advantage, from the p.r. this phony outrage causes.

More Separation of Church and State

From Lenni Brenner's book of writings from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson:

James Madison, Last Annual Message, December 3, 1816:
And I may not be allowed to add to this gratifying spectacle, that I shall read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to true liberty, and to the constitution which is its palladium, sure presages that the destined career of my country will exhibit a Government, pursuing the public good as it's (sic) object, and regulating its means by the great principles, to which they are so well allied; a Government, which watches over the purity of elections, the freedom of speech and of the press, the trial by Jury, and the equal interdict against encroachments and compacts,, between religion and the State; which maintains inviolably the maxims of public faith, (emphasis mine) the security of persons and property, and encourages, in every authorized mode, that general diffusion of knowledge which guarantees to public liberty its permanency, and to those who possess the blessing, the true enjoyment of it.
These contemplations, sweetening the remnant of my days, will animate my prayers for the happiness of my beloved Coutnry, and a perpetuity of the Institutions under which it is enjoyed.

Freaking Activist Judges

They just have no respect for the fact that the Alabama House declared America a Christian Nation! This Louisiana Judge just blatantly ignored this non-precedent setting posturing from the state of Alabama and strikes another blow to the heart of the true believers. And how did he come to this heinous decision? Because he, and he alone (who made him judge? oh, right.) determined that the distribution of bibles in public schools is religious activity with no legitimate secular purpose. The issue stemmed from the coercive nature of the school putting pressure on a student to take religious materials even if they don't believe in that religion's teachings.

Actually, this case was decided on summary judgment based on the written briefs, so it's likely that the school district intended to lose this case and just go for the appeal. In fact, the defense attorney stated that he thinks they have a good chance of winning on appeal. Fun.

More than just one letter

I once spoke with my father in law about Jefferson's meaning under the First Amendment regarding establishment of religion, and one of the things that came up was Jefferson's letter to the Baptists regarding the "wall of separation" between church and state. My father in law insisted that this letter was written solely to quell the Baptists' concerns and not to stand for Jefferson's opinion on religion an church altogether.

I'm only a few pages into Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State (edited by Lenni Brenner), but I came upon some notes Jefferson had written regarding religion: "No man has the power to let another prescribe his faith. Faith is not faith with[ou]t believing. No man can conform his faith to the dictates of another." (Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church an State p. 26).
In addition, the Virginia Constitution, written with much input by Jefferson who included in his drafts that "all persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution," had adopted the clause that "all Ministers of the Gospel of every Denomination be incapable of being elected Members of either House of Assembly or the Privy Council."

I'm only a few pages into this book, but I do clearly see the trend in Jefferson's writings towards keeping the clergy and the body politic separate. It's a shame that there are those on both the Religious Right and those opposed to the Religious Right who seek to simplify everything to one letter and injecting their opinions to the words written there.

Because if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist

When I was in high school, we had a dog named Izzy. He was a good dog - friendly and patient (and loud). He generally was well behaved, as you might expect a collie mix to be. Every now and then, though, he'd do something that he just shouldn't. I remember one day, we had gone out (maybe to church? I can't recall where). I had bought a package of Oreos that I had opened and had about 4 cookies out of. When we left, I left the cookies on the computer desk in the family room. Izzy was not a dumb dog; and he managed to figure out how to get the cookies off of the table (which was taller than he) and, being that he likes food, he proceeded to eat all the cookies.

We got home, and I saw the cookie wrapper lying on the floor in the doorway between the family room and the living room. I look at Izzy, and I point to the cookie package saying "look at that!" The dog looks away. I go over to where he looks and I point at the package again - and he turns his head the other way. This continues for a few minutes, with Izzy never looking at the package. His strategy was to pretend that if he didn't see it, it wasn't there. Except of course, it was there.

Tennessee seems to be playing a similar game with homosexuality, that if you don't talk about the Gay, then the kids won't catch the Gay. State Representative Stacey Campfield has apparently decided that it's important for the state to protect their children by introducing legislation that would ban any discussion on homosexuality in elementary and middle schools. I first read about this and the proposed verbiage at the First Amendment Law Professors Blog here.

The language of the bill is as follows:

The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of certain subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is an immensely complex subject with enormous societal, scientific, psychiatric and historical implications that are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp such issues. Notwithstanding law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall permit any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

The bill itself is a bit confusing, in my opinion. If sexuality is so complex a subject to discuss, then why only ban one aspect of it? Wouldn't it make more sense to put a complete moratorium on it, if you were truly concerned about the children's ability to understand?

It also seems to me that this phraseology could pose some future problems with the Religious Right. The wording would ban all "materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." A plain language interpretation of this bill would ban the Bible (read Leviticus lately?) - something that Religious Right has railing against for years. Additionally, the justification for this bill - that "the sensitivity of certain subjects are best explained and discussed at home" - is precisely the rationale many give for wanting to keep religion and religious education out of public schools.

I doubt this bill will make it very far, and I certainly hope it doesn't. Simply turning a blind eye to the Gay is not going to keep children from being gay. All this bill would do is demonstrate to a significant portion of the populace that their lifestyle is verboten.

Truth is Relative

I have said more than once on this blog that I oppose the teaching of Creationism in public schools. I think that as an inherently religious belief, it is one that needs to stay in the realm of one's religion of choice.

However, just because I disagree with the argument that Creationism even resembles science does not mean that I automatically accept the scientific theory as fact. I would suspect that I'm not alone in that belief, even among those who are not Creationists.

And that is why I'm annoyed that Dr. Gerald Weissmann, editor in chief of the FASEB Journal would say "this survey (conducted of 1000 voters, not exactly a failsafe cross-section) is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists."

One needs to accept for a moment that majority rule does NOT equal "truth." And when it comes to something as unprovable as how the Universe came to be, it's more a matter of faith, whether that faith be based on a Deity, or on Science, or whatever else you might believe in.

We Have Company

I've long supported the concept of separation of church and state. Many of my friends feel the same way. And, ultimately, many Americans feel the same way.

When you look at politics from the pulpit, you see that a majority (62%) of Americans don't want to be told who to vote for, or to have political speeches given from their religious leaders, which makes sense to me. Of course, I don't like the idea of anyone telling me who to vote for, so it would make sense to me to keep church separate from politics here to me.

Interestingly, in the article linked above, it shows that 29% of pollsters said they were less likely to vote for Giuliani now that Pat Robertson has endorsed him, as opposed to 6% who said they were more likely to. There were only 1000 people polled, so it may not have the highest rate of veracity. But still, that is something that Giuliani's camp might want to think about.

Designed Intelligently

I'd mentioned that NOVA was going to be airing an episode on intelligent design last Tuesday. It was pretty good. The program didn't really make any secret on the outcome, or who they thought should prevail, but it was pretty well-made nonetheless.

One of the things that struck me as interesting was that the supply of ID books ("Of Pandas and People") that showed up by an anonymous donor, which was testified to under oath in depositions by a minister advocate of ID (who also wanted to get Creationism back in school) who claimed he had no knowledge of how they arrived, when in fact he wrote the check from his personal account. I'm not certain, but I would argue that would be bearing false witness, and I don't know that one could justify violating one of the Lord's Commandments in an attempt to do God's work.

Americans United did a summary of the program, which you can find here. And you can download the episode on NOVA's website. It's a good episode to watch - it covers most of the bases.

Sidenote - the judge in the case was a Bush appointee, recommended for the position by Santorum.

A moment of silence for the moment of silence, please

I recently posted on the Illinois Congress override of the Governor's veto of the state mandated moment of silence. I commented that I thought the law was Unconstitutional.

I knew I wasn't the only one who thought so; indeed one commenter agreed ("Amen!"). But a higher authority than I or my good friend Photog has weighed in as well. The new law has been enjoined, according to this post on Religion Clause Blogspot.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think the law is vague, as does the judge. I think that mandating a moment for prayer (" silent prayer or reflection") is little more than saying "You all sit there so the Christians can remind you that they control this country," which is not the way this country was set up.

We'll see how this goes.

At a Certain Point...

It stops being a "I just don't get it" thing and turns into a "What in the world are they thinking?" thing.

In what should be considered a strange series of events, Senator Vitter (R) of Louisiana added "inserted [an] earmark into the Appropriations Committee's report on a bill allocating money for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. Apparently, he wanted to designate the funds for a Religious Right group called the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education." Here's the link to the article on Americans United.

While we're at it, why don't we provide several million tax dollars to a scientific group in Washington to rewrite the Bible - since there really isn't an "American" bible. I think the Founders would have wanted that. We know how important the marriage between religion and the Government was to them, after all. And, since we're all Americans, why does it make sense to read so many different versions of the Bible? King James, Revised, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard, New International, the Torah, the Koran, Etc.... It just confuses everyone. If we have one standard American Bible that we can use to promote better science education, then everyone will be able to learn and then NO child will be left behind.

How does it promote better science education by giving money to a religiously affiliated organization - other than benefiting those students who already know Creationism by giving them a test they can pass? I don't want the Government telling my children what or how (or if) to believe. That's my job as a parent.

Fortunately, the outcry was loud enough that Senator Vitter relented, but, really. Why should he have had something from which to relent in the first place? What don't the Religious Right get?

It's not just a Christian nation

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the People have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

I see this as something that makes perfect sense. I don't want any one Church telling my government how it should be run to the exclusion of all others any more than I want the Government telling me how and to whom I should pray and worship. But I'm not a part of any consensus.

Instead, what we get are Governors declaring "Christian Heritage Week." Because all those Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Wiccan students all need to know how Christianity shaped America. And, as Governor Gregoire puts it: "our Goal is to bring the awareness to adults and students throughout Washington that our nation is irrefutably rooted in biblical principles."

Bull. This nation is not a theocracy. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word God or Christ appeaer. While Christianity certainly made its presence known in the time of the foundation, the country was founded as a secular nation - hence the First Amendment, and Jefferson's letter to the Baptists (which, despite the Falwell apologists, DID intend to interpret the First Amendment), and the quote by Madison above.

This was a stupid thing to do, completely unnecessary.

More on Courts in Georgia

I posted a couple days ago, complaining about the 10 Commandments Display put up in a courthouse in Georgia with the intent of influencing juries. I disagree with the Church (in that case a Baptist church) making such an overt attempt to violate the First Amendment.

What I did not complain about, though, was people praying in the courthouse to try to influence the outcome. I did not complain about people bringing in crosses, or rosaries, or Stars of David, or other items of religious nature. This is because an individual's choice to practice their religion does not end by merely entering a Government building. And I'm sure the people of Georgia believe the same way, and would lose it if they were prohibited from doing so, or outright banned from the Courthouse.

Well, maybe if it was them, individually, or (perhaps) another Christian. But at least one judge in Georgia apparently believed it was all right to ban someone for allegedly practicing Voodoo in their court. Back in 2003, you see, a Georgie Judge in Macon county barred Catherine Tarver from his court because he believed she was practicing voodoo to influence the outcome of her son's murder trial. Ms. Tarver claimed she didn't even know what voodoo was, but an employee at the courthouse claimed to have seen Ms. Tarver breaking eggs and spreading chicken feathers and "voodoo powder" on the date of her son's pretrial hearing.

Now, I don't particularly believe in voodoo, and it's unclear whether Ms. Tarver believed in it. But what I do believe in is the right to practice one's religion free from government intervention. If the judge had said something to the effect of "we can't have chicken bits (apparently chicken blood and bones had been found in the past) in the courthouse from a sanitary perspective," or "we need to keep this outside," then I don't think there'd be much to worry about. But, by banning the woman on the grounds that she was trying to use her religion to influence the trial, he acted to suppress the First Amendment rights, violating the Lemon Test.

The problem becomes more egregious, because four years later, another court in Georgia, after a law enabling such to occur, places a religious display in the courthouse with the specifically declared intent of influencing trial outcomes. But, it's all right to do so in the name of Christianity, just not anything else.

Where the First Amendment doesn't matter

There are certain things I would like to see in this country, certain decisions I'd like to see the Court reach. I really wish that I had the opportunity to go talk to the Court, and some members of Congress, so that I could tell them how they should rule.

Unfortunately, I'm not Catholic, so I don't get that opportunity. Apparently, every year there is what is known as a "red mass." This is an annual event where the Catholic Archdiocese meet in DC to tell the Court how it should rule on issues important to the Catholic Church (such as limiting the Separation of Church and State).

This year, according to the above linked Americans United article, Archbishop Timothy Dolan told the justices in attendance (there were six), "It is a cherished part of our American heritage, then, to rejoice in a mutually enriching alliance between religion, morality, and democracy." Now, for those uninitiated to American History, the bulk of the Colonies' citizenry at the time of the Revolution were Protestant, not Catholic - which was viewed as a religion with some skepticism as recently as when Kennedy was running for President. So, it's unclear what alliance between religion and democracy was envisioned, but from the sounds of it, one would probably draw the conclusion of Christianity (conveniently forgetting the aforementioned distrust), and as such, necessarily the exclusion of Buddhism, Hinduism (Scalia would particularly hate this one, since America is based on The God of Monotheism, according to him), Islam, or any other non-Christian belief...

While I, like the poster at Americans United, have no problem with anybody attending any religious ceremony or participate in any religion they choose, I do have a problem when any religion uses the premise of a sermon to try to influence the Court.

FirstAmendment and the Military

When an individual enlists in the military, or takes the officer's oath in the military, he or she swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Now, it's no real secret that military members enjoy abridged Constitutional rights. For example, individuals living in barracks are subject to warrantless searches without probable cause. Additionally, military members are often given gag orders by the Commanding Officers or base commanders, especially regarding controversial topics.

However, it's paramount to note that the Military officially endorses the concept of free exercise of religion. When I was in basic training, we had a lesson on how to wed religious practices with the government activity (military being a federal entity, and all), and how having chaplains available jives with the concept of free exercise and does not conflict with the concept of establishment of religion.

Unfortunately, not everyone seems to understand that Free Exercise, even in the military, applies to even those who do not share their beliefs, and that this extends to those who believe in no Deity. The writers at Americans United report on a suit filed against an Army Major who allegedly threatened a soldier who followed procedure to convene a meeting of Atheists and non-believers. According to the complaint, the Major threatened UCMJ action against the attendees and threatened to prevent the specialist (e-4, just above a private, not yet an NCO) from re-enlisting.

Now, of course there are going to be people who support the alleged actions of this Army Major. We know this, because even in a country where people are free to choose whatever religion they wish to follow, people insist that some religions are wrong, or that they deserve to be discriminated against. Some people have suggested that Muslims should not be allowed to hold public office, such as Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota. I've heard it argued that because the Koran does not allow a person to swear to anything else, that his oath was not to be trusted, and thus, as a result of his Religious Faith, he should not be allowed to hold office - his religion failed the test, as it were. This despite the fact that the Constitution is quite clear in stating that No Religious Test shall be used in determining eligibility to hold public office (U.S. Const., Art. VI).

It's bad enough that things like this happens to public officials - to be derided for their faith. But it's even more egregious when such attempts to deny a person their right to believe, or in the above case to not believe, occur against those who are fighting for our nation, and for the freedom of another. And when it's a Commissioned Officer threatening a lower enlisted individual, that just tops it off.

Gotta Love Americans

First off, so many Americans don't get it. In a recent poll on the anniversary of Constitution Day, a majority of those polled (55%) said that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian Nation. I wonder how many of these respondents have read the Constitution...

But it gets better. While nearly all (97%) of the respondents said that the right to practice the religion of your own choice is essential or important, only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religions. Perhaps they thought the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Christianity nor prohibiting the free exercise of any denomination thereof..."

And since it is a USA Today article, there is a chart next to the article.

Why, oh why do the activist judges hate America's God?

How could anyone view this as a First Amendment violation? There's a piece of state-owned land, the Mojave National Preserve. On this land, at various points in time, various people have put up crosses on this government-owned land. No problem yet, right? Then, some godless heathen makes the jackass decision to ask if he could put a Buddhist shrine up next to the cross. Who does this jerk think he is? This is one nation, under God, not one nation under some dead, fat asian guy. Of course the state says no. Well, naturally, someone decides to sue, claiming (get this) that by allowing the Christian cross but not allowing the Buddhist shrine, the state is showing favoritism of Christianity, thereby endorsing it over Buddhism and using, (you'll never believe this) such flimsy support as "the First Amendment" and "precedent" as their argument. And of course, because this is California, land of the activist, idiotic judges, this jerkoff wins. Unbelievable.

Well, Congress, always one to know where to intervene, then made a brilliant move and passed a law enabling the land to be donated ("traded") into private hands, so that the cross is not on Government property. You see, this means that the Government is not endorsing the True Religion, but a private individual at the Government's choice is endorsing it by placing a cross on HIS OWN PRIVATE LAND in the MIDDLE OF THE PRESERVE. Everyone's happy, right? Wrong. There's another lawsuit, this time alleging that the Government is trying to circumvent the injunction. And of course, the activist judges agree. Justice McKeown even went so far as to say so, "[t]he government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place. Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."

And like that, with a swift stroke of a pen, these heathens (you know they are heathens because they didn't rule in favor of God) undid the will of the people, turning themselves into Constitutional interpreters and legislators undoing what the People want. We have to put a stop to this. We have to find a way to make sure the minority of this country is kept silent and subject to the tyranny of majority. This is the last straw, until the next one.

Faith based initiative

One of the big arguments made by those in favor of the Faith-Based Initiative is that "it works." They suggest that by using Christian programs, criminals getting out of prison will not become repeat offenders. This program has been touted by President Bush in the past as well as other members of the Republican Party and by the Religious Right. Often, what those speaking in favor of the program are seeking is tax dollars to fund their religious programs, to try to preach to the people on the Government's Dime. Of course, this could easily be considered endorsing religion, or using coercive tactics, but try convincing a fundamentalist of that.

Case in point - in Oklahoma, the department of corrections has turned to a group known as Genesis One to help with inmates about to be released from prison. According to this article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the program does not currently receive tax dollars, but it might after this November, "under the terms of a new state law that requires corrections officials to partner with faith-based groups on reentry programs."

This law would then allow Genesis One to preach (basically) the word of God to whatever convicts it can get its hands on, and do so with the State's tax dollars. The program claims to be open to everyone, according to Americans United, but one of the fundamental requirements is that the participants must be willing to "accept God." In other words, the state would be paying money for the advancement of Christianity, which seems very akin to a Government Endorsement of Religion, which is prohibited under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Perhaps this could be considered justifiable if the program actually cut down on recidivism amongst prior convicts, but a five year study cited in the article has shown that the recidivism rate for non-participating individuals was the same 39.6% as with those who completed the Genesis One program (source cited in the article in Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Steven W. Taylor). So what we end up with is a government-funded coercive endorsement of Christianity that doesn't even reduce what it claims to reduce. But what does effectiveness have anything to do with it?

All Apologies

I blogged a few days ago about President Bush snubbing the widow of Sgt Patrick Stewart, the Wiccan soldier killed in Afghanistan. In the post, I said that President Bush should issue a public apology to Ms. Stewart.

It turns out, he did apologize the next day (Thursday). This was the good and right thing to do. President Bush even went so far as to say that the Wiccan religion should not be discriminated against. I'm not sure how much he believes that statement, but at least he said it, and he deserves credit for that, as well.

Kudos, President Bush.