Update [2006-2-11 0:2:48 by tikkun]: Up and coming news
Unless a quiet deal is cut, there will be significant breaking news next week of improper use of Diocesan endowment funds in the Episcopal (Anglican) Diocese of Albany. I can't say much more than that right now. Just keep eyes peeled for breaking information.

John Dorhauer, in his diary, Anatomy of an Attack: Part I, began a conversation about churches under attack. In this diary, I continue the conversation.

I am a member of the Episcopal Church, one of the mainline churches under attack by the Institute for Religion and Democracy, frequently called the IRD.

Since we were birthed out of the Church of England, a brief look at our English history provides an important insight into our present situation and personality.

In the 16th century, from the reign of Henry the VIII through Mary, the Protestant Reformation exacted a bloody toll in England. The political, social and religious fabric of the nation was under enormous pressure. Early in the reign of Elizabeth I, a new direction was charted. Queen Elizabeth refused to take sides in the theological disputes and through acts of Parliament she directed that the unity of the Church of England would be based not on doctrinal conformity (as the Protestants demanded) or on magisterial authority (as the Catholics required), but on a common liturgical worship.

Now that theological broadness is being sorely tested by attempts to impose a religious orthodoxy completely foreign to our common Church of England culture by groups both inside and outside the church. The diocese of which I am currently a member has fallen under the leadership of a rogue bishop who is working diligently to take our diocese out of the Episcopal Church in American along with the money and property that are attached to it. He is one of those wishing to impose orthodoxy on Episcopalians. One way he is subverting the will of the Episcopal church is by changing the rules for selecting a bishop. Another is by forcing the self sorting of candidates for bishop through the questioning process.

Because I believe that there is no afterlife --  no 'cosmic justice' that will provide compensation to people in the next world that which was unjustly taken from them in this world, we must be particularly careful what we do to our fellow humans. That which we deprive them of is gone for good.

This view is consistent with some religions. They believe that they should provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to the poor. They believe in advancing medical research (e.g., stem cell research) as a way of fighting disease in this world.

This essay is not about them.

Alonzo Fyfe
The Atheist Ethicist

This is a speculative posting, so please don't criticize me for taken the position expressed, I'm just wondering out loud.

The history of the world has shown that those societies which place a great deal of reliance on organized religion have had poorer economic and social progress than others.

Over at The Daily Kos, frontpager DarkSyde has another in his series of profiles of leading proponents of creationism and intelligent design. As in any field, there are people who are very competant, dangerous adversaries. Others are charlatans and hucksters.

The former and the latter make far more headway in advanding their interests, the less they are understood by opponents. DarkSyde clearly understands this and in his series, he presents the range, and writes about them in an way that is evaluative of their signficance, their strengths and weaknesses.  And while his writing has plenty of personality and humor, unlike many writers who take on these subjects, his style does not interfere with a well-informed and considered evaluation of the players in this field.

Let us step back and try to understand what makes a good portion of the New Right tick. There is a good reason neoconservatism is strongly allied with an ever increasingly radical Religious Right. If anything, the two movements dovetail nicely in order to reach common ends.

Again, as I'v stated before, the way to significantly weaken the Religious Right is to weaken its "current sponsor," Neoconservatism .

What did James Dobson know, and when did he know it?  That's what Max Blumenthal writing in The Nation wants to know.  

Christian Right consultant and now, Georgia GOP pol, Ralph Reed and former GOP super lobbist Jack Abramoff, and now admitted felon, persuaded Christian broadcaster James Dobson to use his national radio broadcast in part of a complicated scheme to help one of Abramoff's clients.  

At stake was the possible opening of an Indian casino in one state. Abrammoff's client, a tribe that owned a casino in a neighboring state didn't want the competition. So they hired Abramoff, who in turn hired Reed to whip up the Christian Right to stop the casino. Dobson claims he didn't know he was shilling for gambling interests. But Blumenthal points out that he isn't taking questions.

In a January 6 press release issued three days after Abramoff's indictment, Dobson declared, "If the nation's politicians don't fix this national disaster, then the oceans of gambling money with which Jack Abramoff tried to buy influence on Capitol Hill will only be the beginning of the corruption we'll see." He concluded with a denunciation of vice:  "Gambling--all types of gambling--is driven by greed and subsists on greed."

What Dobson neglected to mention--and has yet to discuss publicly--is his own pivotal role in one of Abramoff's schemes. In 2002 Dobson joined a coterie of Christian-right activists, including Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to spearhead Abramoff's campaigns against the establishment of several Louisiana casinos that infringed on the turf of Abramoff's tribal clients. Dobson and his allies recorded messages for phone banking, lobbied high-level Bush Administration officials and took to the airwaves. Whether they knew it or not, these Christian soldiers' crusade to protect families in the "Sportsmen's Paradise" from the side effects of chronic slot-pulling and dice-rolling was funded by the gambling industry and planned by the lobbyist known even to his friends as "Casino Jack."

Much more.

Why are so many of the passionate issues at the intersection of religion and public policy about symbolic matters?

Recent examples below:

Jay Stapleton over at the Worldnetdaily (aka Worldnutdaily) has written an article called "Praying through the Bush Window." (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48628) In that article he seems to be suggesting that he--and others--are praying for the deaths of four people, Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy. Now, he doesn't say that in so many words. He says this:

Here's my prayer list: Ginsburg - gone! Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy - gone! Installed in their place: God-fearing, Constitution-loving justices flanking Roberts on both right and left!

Supreme Court appointments are for life. The only way the "liberal" judges can be "gone" is if they retire or if they die. Stapleton doesn't seem to care which it is. In fact his phrase "banish them from the court" (see below) seems to clue us in to which one he thinks is more likely. If they retire, that would be their free choice. The only way God can banish them is to kill them off.

What is Evolution Sunday ?

On 12 February 2006 hundreds of Christian churches from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science.   For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science.  More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy.  Now, on the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups.  Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries.  And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.

The project has collected a large number of sermons, articles, and other resources on the compatability between Christianity and science.  These constitute a valuable resource for Christians - both clergy and laity - who need inspiration in terms of how to present there message, that Evolution and science, and Christian faith are quite compatible.

This project currently focuses on Christianity, but Michael Zimmerman,  project founder and University of Wisconsin ( Oshkosh ) Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences writes "while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions."

Here is the concluding paragraph from the letter which now over 10,000 Christian clergy members have noiw signed :

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
[ full text of letter here ]

A poster on my community shared this with me, and I figured that readers around Ohio State might want to attend this:

Dominionism
Presenter: Cynthia Burack
02/02/2006 7:30 PM
Caldwell 120
God gives Christians "Dominion" over the earth?

It is presented by Students for Freethought and appears to be open to the public.

If anyone here decides to attend, please post a diary about it. It is good to see this subject being examined in other venues.  

Via the Wedding Party:

ABC has decided not to air the reality show, "Welcome to the Neighborhood," a show where multi-racial couples, including a gay couple, vie for the community's vote to be their neighbor.

Rita Beamish of the  Associated Press filed an extensive and excellent report on the distribution of foreign AIDS funding to religious groups.

Aside from the potentially disasterous effects on AIDS prevention, it's another example of the religious right expanding its reach and solidifying its hold on funds and power.