Sports, especially team sports in the United States, are often a forum for prayer and praise. Perhaps it is the high stakes of winning games or matches, the allure of free agency pay for outstanding individual statistics, or the fervor of thousands of fans hoping for the “miracle” of pulling out the victory. There’s also a David and Goliath element–pulling for the underdog to turn a huge upset over the dynasty team–that many fans and players hold their breaths for. Sports figures are famous for pointing to the sky after a game-winning home run or touchdown, and many display crosses around their necks convenient for kissing after the final strike. For so many stars, God is responsible for successes on the field.

For Stevie Johnson of the Buffalo Bills football team, God is to blame for his dropped pass in the end zone during Sunday’s game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. After the game, Johnson used his all-important 140 characters on Twitter to blast God for the missed pass, saying:

“I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!!! AND THIS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW???!!! ILL NEVER FORGET THIS!! EVER!!! THX THO…,”

Grammar, punctuation, and spelling aside, this accusation is an odd one in the sports world. For some reason, so many players and coaches attribute successes to God and failures to, well, everything else. Not Johnson. He lambasts God for letting him drop the ball, and presumably trying to teach him a lesson. “HOW???!!!” is he supposed to learn a lesson? He doesn’t need God to answer that. I’m sure his coaches can. Even I can: Practice more, and take responsibility for your own actions.

Still, it’s strangely refreshing to see a sports star doing more than offering empty praise to God after success. In the egotistical world of sports, passing off responsibility for personal and team victories to God seems a bit counter intuitive (unless they think God is paying their salaries!) But publicly blasting God, while still equally ridiculous, is a bold move in the world of sports. But really, Stevie, don’t you think God would have more important things to do on Sundays than meddle in football scores?

For more on God and sports, check out the latest Humanist Hour podcast with Onward Christian Athletes” author, Tom Krattenmaker.

The Bible, some say, is the inerrant word of God. But what of the actual words? And how should those words be translated into English? Just last week a brand new English translation of the biggest-selling Bible, the “New International Version” (NIV), was announced. ( the last one was published in 2005, and the one before that, in 1984.) HarperCollins, the publisher, moves millions of these products every year; it’s good for business to toss in changes periodically, like auto manufacturers do, to help meet sales targets.

All the better if the changes arouse controversy. In 2005 there was a storm of protest as HarperCollins made sweeping changes to more gender-neutral language than God had originally used. For example, the 1984 edition had God saying right at the outset, “Let us make man in our image.” In 2005, this was changed to read, “Let us make human beings in our image.” So were thousands of other similar references, like “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” which was changed to “The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath.” The 2005 model was so hip, HarperCollins even advertised it in Rolling Stone magazine.

But now the empire is striking back. The new, improved 2010 model throws women back overboard, with God saying “Let us make mankind in our image” and Jesus saying “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Still, male cheerleaders remain disgruntled. Take I Timothy 2:12, which used to read “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Now it is toned down into “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

Some of the attempts at compromise simply produce bad grammar. Revelations 3:20 now reads: “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” I’d have had sore knuckles if I turned in a sentence like that to my 4^th grade grammar teacher.

Choosing Sources

The first step in translating the Bible is to decide what source to translate from. This is no easy task, because there are hundreds of different early versions of the Bible to choose from, each one a little different from the others. In fact, according to Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, there are more variations among the different early versions of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament. The committee of God experts in charge of producing the latest model for HarperCollins to sell says that “We use what Bible translators call an ‘eclectic text’ drawing on all the major published original texts, but making our own decisions about the textual variants found in those traditions.” In other words, they pick the parts they like from each one, and toss the parts they dislike, based on their personal knowledge of what God really thinks.

Take for example the story of the woman found in adultery, where Jesus says “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” This story does not appear in any of the earliest versions of the New Testament. When it does start to pop up, hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, it lands in different spots within the Gospel of John – one early Bible even plants it in the Gospel of Luke. It is virtually certain, therefore, that this little gem was not actually written by the author of the Gospel of John. So did the HarperCollins team leave it out, because it is not authentic? Of course not, because it’s the sort of thing the character they want to portray would have said, if he had only thought of it. Besides, they would sell fewer books that way.

Translation

Once the sources are combed for “all the news that fits,” the work of translation begins. The earliest Gospel texts we have are written in Greek, a language not spoken in 1^st century Galilee. These were translated into Latin, the language of the western half of the Roman Empire, by Jerome in the 4^th century, in a work that became known as the “Vulgate.” When the humanist scholar Erasmus began comparing the Vulgate with the early Greek texts in the 16^th century, though, he found it riddled with simple errors – at the rate of better than one per page. So he produced a new, far more accurate translation, dedicated to Pope Leo X. Though Leo seemed pleased, others in the hierarchy were outraged, because it was different from what they had learned. Who cares about accuracy? At the Council of Trent, Pope Paul IV condemned Erasmus as “the leader of all heretics” and sought to have all of his books burned. Jerome’s inaccurate Vulgate remains the official Latin text used by the Catholic Church today.

One person who did like Erasmus’ work was Martin Luther, who translated it into German. When he got to parts that didn’t fit his peculiar theology, though, he simply changed them, or deleted them. The whole Epistle of James, for example, he dismissed as “apocrypha.” At the critical point of Romans 3:28 [KJV], “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” Luther chose to insert the word “only” in front of “faith,” since Paul had erred by not going quite far enough in driving home the point Luther wanted him to make.

Gender issues

Today’s gender issues are not at all new. Many Bible publishers have gone to great lengths to downplay the role of women, sometimes in the pettiest of ways. Acts 17:4, in the NIV and even in King James, says “And some of them were persuaded and joined with Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the pious Greeks, along with a large number of prominent women.” Prominent women? How un-Christian! Lots of Bibles, such as the “God’s Word” version, translate this as “And some of them were persuaded and joined with Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the pious Greeks, along with a large number of wives of prominent men” – putting women in their proper place.

Then there is the famous passage from I Corinthians 14 [1984 NIV]:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Ehrman and other scholars make a persuasive case that Paul never actually wrote this passage, and that it was written in later by a misogynist. It sticks out like a sore thumb, because the verses before it and immediately after it deal with rules of etiquette while someone is prophesying, such as not interrupting in mid-prophecy, and these words interrupt the natural flow. Moreover, some of the best early texts put this passage at other places in the Epistle, suggesting it was a later insertion like the story of the woman found in adultery. Most importantly, in the very same Epistle, just three chapters earlier, Paul says that women should wear veils on their heads while they are prophesying in church. How can they be prophesying in church if they are remaining silent? I guess that’s what is called a “miracle.” It would be even more of a miracle if the God experts rewriting the Bible decided to leave rubbish like this out of the books they are trying to sell – and we all know that the age of miracles has passed.

Luis Granados

Today the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank based here in Washington, DC, released an exclusive letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates responding to Sen. John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, about his concerns over the controversial repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) that prevents members of the military from serving while openly gay. The full text of Gates’ October 25 letter can be found here:

Previously, McCain’s opposition was grounded in the reasoning that DADT should not be repealed until the Pentagon working group completed and released its policy study on the ramifications of potential repeal on all levels of the military, including morale, structure, family readiness, and recruitment, among other factors. The report was due to be released on December 1. Gates recently announced that the Pentagon would instead release it a day earlier, next Tuesday, presumably to speed up the process of passing the repeal through Congress, which the Obama administration insists on.

Vague conclusions of the report’s findings have been leaked to the media, and it’s been fairly well publicized (save for at Fox News,) that the report finds no major negative consequences on the operations or personnel of the military if DADT ends. This should assuage Senator McCain’s concerns, based on his opposition, right?

Wrong.

McCain has pulled another concern out of his magic top hat, despite the presumable findings of the all-important report. McCain now claims that the report was a referendum based on opinion polls of service members, and that this method of gathering information and drawing conclusions is not comprehensive. Secretary Gates responds in the October 25, 2010, letter, that “I do not believe that military policy decisions — on this or any other subject — should be made through a referendum of Service members.” Rather, Secretary Gates points out that the methodology of the study included not just extensive surveying of service members and their spouses, but also visits to military installations, and other interactions with those whom the policy change would most closely affect.

As a veteran, a POW, and chair of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain should be a well-respected voice on U.S. military policy. He must also realize that his is not the only voice, nor is it the one that represents those serving in the military or at the Pentagon. In the face of a comprehensive and conclusive study and the support of Pentagon leaders such as Secretary Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, and Navy chief Admiral James Amos (who all have very vested interests in seeing the correct policy in place), now is the time for McCain to stop making up new reasons to stall repeal of DADT. His concerns were once valid. They have now been sufficiently answered. Making up new reasons to slow the Congressional process down seems rather unpatriotic.

President Obama returned from his Asian trip last week, with pundits around the world branding it a failure. Leaving economic issues aside, his sojourn in Indonesia prolonged his pathetic, already failed campaign of buttering up Muslims so they will love America enough to stop terrorizing us.

In a major address at the University of Jakarta, Obama said he would “focus on three areas that are closely related, and fundamental to human progress – development, democracy and religious faith.”

He then proceeded to lavish repeated praise on “the spirit of religious tolerance…that remains one of this country’s defining and inspiring characteristics.” He fleshed out the idea of religious tolerance as “the freedom to practice your faith without fear or restriction,” flattering Indonesia as a place where people can “choose to worship God as they please.”

But just how tolerant is Indonesia? Here are some clues:

Just this year, Indonesia adopted a new statute against blasphemy, defined to include “intentionally insulting religion,” with a punishment of up to five years in jail. Although Obama praised “the spirit of religious tolerance that is enshrined in Indonesia’s Constitution,” the country’s constitutional court has explicitly ruled the blasphemy law to be constitutional.

One of the first persons arrested under this law was, in fact, an American citizen. Luke Lloyd, age 64, got tired of being awakened every night during Ramadan by Muslim prayers blasted over a loudspeaker until 3:00 a.m. So he walked into the mosque and pulled the plug. Rude, undoubtedly trespassing, and downright grumpy? Yes. Deserving of a five-year jail sentence and destruction of his house by the congregation? Obama didn’t address that, because it would have confused his message.

Indonesia’s less-than-tolerant law recognizes only six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. Jews, Mormons, Taoists, and Sikhs (not to mention humanists) are required along with every other Indonesian to carry an identity card listing which one of the six they belong to.

Even within the favored six, those who “deviate” from official teachings can be jailed under the new law. This is a special problem within Islam, which has hundreds of thousands of followers of sects considered heretical, such as the Ahmadiyas. The spirit of religious tolerance which Obama gushed about resulted in a 2008 decree against the Ahmadiyas attempting to promote their views, followed by a proposal just last August from the government’s Minister of Religious Affairs to “disband” the sect throughout the country, because it disobeyed the 2008 law.
Read the rest of this entry &raquo

[Rant & Reason welcomes this guest post by Miguela Holt y Roybal]

Before I explain how much this author means to me, let me tell you a few things about him. Kurt Vonnegut, war hero and popular twentieth century author, was born in Indianapolis just three years after U. S. President Woodrow Wilson declared November 11th Armistice Day, a holiday commemorating the end of World War I, in 1919. “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with lots of pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service,” proclaimed the president to a nation still shell-shocked from the War to End All Wars.” Although the name of the celebration was changed in 1954 to Veterans Day to honor the service of all veterans, November 11th is a day still dedicated to world peace.

The irony of his birthday on Veterans Day was never lost to Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. He dedicated his life to promoting peace even though he fought in World War II and was proud of his service to our country. As a soldier who lived through the Battle of the Bulge, he knew the hell of war first hand. Vonnegut was taken prisoner by the Germans and sent to Dresden where the starving young man worked in a vitamin factory and risked beatings by sneaking teaspoons of the life-giving stuff. It was located in a meat storage locker with a cellar that on February 13, 1945, served very well as a shelter during the firebombing of Dresden by British Allied Forces.

One hundred and thirty five thousand people were killed and to the end of his days Vonnegut wondered why he and his fellow prisoners were not killed also. Dresden, the once magnificent European showplace, looked like the craters of the moon when they emerged from the meat locker into the still smoking ruins. The prisoners were ordered to pull hundreds of bodies out of basements but the city became so putrid that the liquefying remains of the citizenry were burnt with flamethrowers for expediency.

He defended his participation in World War II but reminded us of the human cost of wars. “One of the great American tragedies is to have participated in a just war. It’s been possible for politicians and movie-makers to encourage us we’re always good guys. The Second World War absolutely had to be fought. I wouldn’t have missed it for the world. But we never talk about the people we kill. This is never spoken of,” Vonnegut said in a 2002 interview.

Vonnegut was able to write about his war experiences in his masterwork Slaughterhouse-Five many years later finally publishing it in 1969. It was a bestseller and he was haunted by a terrible sense of loss and riddled with guilt about the riches he made from the book’s publication. In a speech he stated ruefully, “… not one Allied soldier was able to advance as much as an inch because of the firebombing of Dresden. Not one prisoner of the Nazis got out of prison a microsecond earlier. Only one person on Earth clearly benefited, and I am that person. I got about five dollars for each corpse, counting my fee tonight.”

The astonishing thing about all this is that Vonnegut tells us his story of war with exquisite humor as well as sadness. He’s been called “a moral mad scientist” and “the pinball wizard of cosmic cool.” However, his humor does not in the least take away from his serious themes about dark, foolish humanity and its responsibility for this messed up world.
Read the rest of this entry &raquo

It’s no secret that the swing towards the right in Congress will likely mean an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, a reduction in federal spending, and a louder voice for those “family values” we have all come to know and loathe. Another right-wing rallying cry of late is the criticism of the so-called elitism of the establishment. And the consequential clash of “family values” and “elitism” is polarizing not only politicians but also the American public.

The idea of “traditional family values” is a darling of the social conservatives. They’re pro-life (as opposed to pro-death? I prefer anti-choice to stick to the following pattern), anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption, anti-stem cell research, anti-practical sex education, anti-evolution—essentially this faction of Americans seems to be anti-facts. Legitimate, research-based scientific studies (including this one) reveal that having a set of gay parents does not make an adopted or natural child gay (Bailey, et. al. 1995, see page 8, “Implications”). Other reputable studies have shown that stem cell research can provide tremendous steps for treating degenerative diseases like ALS and Parkinson’s, and that birth control and abortion allow women to choose when they are financially and emotionally ready for a family, which in turn increases quality of life and reduces poverty.

How do we as a global society gather this evidence? Through the long and frequently arduous process called “The Scientific Method.” The stunning catalog of results that we can attribute to its use over the course of civilization is breathtaking. Without curiosity, problem solving, innovation, and trial and error, humanity would be without the wheel, fire, maps, cars-trains-aeroplanes, steam engines, aspirin, and of course, HDTV. The list is nearly limitless as it stands in 2010. Just as ancient Egyptians could never have envisioned a laptop computer, advances will inevitably be made in the future that we in our wildest dreams could never imagine.

The United States has been a world leader in technological, medical, physical, and military sciences, contributing not only to the greater scientific community, but also to citizens the world over in need of vaccines, transportation, communication, and answers to questions greater than themselves. Scientific progress is achieved through the distribution of grants by venerable institutions to a wide range of researchers and developers for subjects as minute as nanophysics to those as large as the elimination of epidemics.

Now, the New York Times reports that the 112th Congress will look to cut federal spending by targeting “research and development at nonmilitary agencies — including those that sponsor science and health research” with an overall cut of roughly 12 percent of President Obama’s projected budget for fiscal year 2011. Such a reduction—$65.9 billion to $57.8 billion—means that the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation will have enormous portions of their budget allocations redirected, likely toward tax cuts.

The real question this begs is: in terms of science, health, technology, and overall progress, can the individual best invest this money, or can the government? Yes, an immediate break in taxes directly infused into a paycheck is wonderful instant gratification, something deeply “American.” But what if that money could be pooled to contribute to say, cancer research, which is expensive, time-consuming, and not applicable to everyone equally? I know that if I develop cancer, I can’t cure myself with the $500 per year I receive in tax credit paired with my extremely scant knowledge of cancer research. Hyperbole aside, that seems to be the expectation of the newly-elected Republican House majority.

Underlying the fiscal shuffle in federal funds is that nagging disdain for the well educated elite, including scientists. After all, science teaches us that evolution does exist, abstinence-only sex education does strongly correlate to unwanted pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted infections, and that gay parents can raise healthy, well-adjusted children (gay or straight). But all of this undercuts dearly held conservative family values. One even wonders if the underlying fear, that no religious supporter of “family values” could dare openly express (for lack of faith), is that one day in the distant future, science could ultimately and conclusively prove there is no God.

In the meantime, until/if that happens, there is unlimited scientific progress that can and should be made, to improve, enrich, and save lives, regardless of individual worldview. For those who wish to stifle this progress, I request that you abandon scientific progress of the past. So put down your Blackberries, get rid of your cars, and never set foot in another pharmacy or hospital. Do feel free to collect your tax cuts…I’m just not sure what you’ll spend them on.

FYI: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09320/ (Charts of federal spending on R&D 1990-2009).

Anyone who counted out the influence and power of the National Organization for Marriage should think again. On Tuesday, three state Supreme Court justices in Iowa found themselves out of jobs after voters opted not to send them back to Des Moines for another term. This is the first time in Iowa history that voters have fired justices from the Supreme Court.

And what was their crime? Voting with the unanimous majority in Varnum v. Brien to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the state’s limitation of marriage to only between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. This ruling instituted marriage equality in Iowa in 2009, making the state one of only five states in the nation (plus the District of Columbia) that allow for full marriage rights for all couples. As reported in the New York Times, this vote was intended to send a message nationwide:

Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

The campaign to remove the three justices at the ballot box was heavily supported by the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association. The Des Moines Register reports that over $650,000 from these and other groups was spent on the campaign to remove the three justices.

As for the justices themselves, they saw something nefarious afoot. From the Times:

The judges declined requests for interviews but released a statement that decried what they called “an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.” The statement defended the system for selecting judges but offered what a veiled warning about populist impulses to remake the judiciary: “Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.”

Judicial retention elections are meant to serve as a democratic stamp of approval on the work of judges. For example, in Iowa the justices do not run contested campaigns; voters are merely asked on election day if they approve of retaining the justices in question, and more than fifty percent must vote yes for the judge to be retained. Justices usually do not campaign to retain their own seats, and receiving less than half the vote is rare. By the very nature of the judicial system, justices are likely to rule on controversial issues; with retention elections there is a great deal of risk that the work of the justices will be politicized. This fear was expressed by Joseph R. Grodin, a law professor and former California Supreme Court justice who was voted out in 1986 after a campaign asserting that he was soft on the death penalty. He told the New York Times:

Obviously it has an impact on the independence of judges and how they think of their role — I think that’s demonstrable…But more than that…I think the damage is not on judges, but that courts will come to be seen and judges will come to be seen as simply legislators with robes.

And if you look at the National Organization for Marriage’s victory statement about the Iowa elections, released yesterday, it is clear that they do desire to politicize the work of the bench. From the statement:

“The victories we have achieved this election are truly historic and stunning,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). “First and foremost, we wanted to defeat the judges in Iowa who had usurped the will of the people and imposed gay marriage in that state. The three judges were overwhelmingly rejected, sending a powerful message to any judge who thinks they can impose gay marriage by judicial fiat against the wishes of the people. We thank Iowa for Freedom, the American Family Association, and the Campaign for Working Families for working together to hold these judges accountable.”

If Iowa judges are limited to making rulings that are only supported by the majority of Iowans, then obviously the power of the judiciary in Iowa to defend the State Constitution would be completely neutralized. Why bother having a judicial branch with the power of examining constitutional questions at all? Of course, I strongly suspect that the language of direct democracy is merely what the NOM finds convenient in making its argument against marriage equality. As the struggle to defend marriage equality continues, arguments against it will evolve, especially in light of the fact that support for marriage equality continues to increase across the United States.

In the meantime, expelling the justices from Des Moines does not change the fact that marriage equality remains in effect in Iowa. But it could send a chilling national message that the Religious Right will pour resources into campaigns around the nation opposing other justices who make rulings perceived to be too friendly to LGBT rights, therefore staying the gavel of justices who want to side with, well, justice. This is the most pernicious effect of Tuesday’s judicial retention election in Iowa, and it could have national consequences. But the lesson is learned: in future elections of this nature, outside organizations on the side of marriage equality will have to get down in the mud a little bit too, spend some money, and work to defend the judges who rule in favor of equal rights under the law for all.

On Tuesday in Oklahoma voters faced an odd referendum question: whether the Oklahoma constitution should be amended to bar Oklahoma courts from deciding cases based on Muslim Sharia law.

At first, this just sounds like more right-wing Muslim bashing. Which it is. There is no real Islamic threat to Oklahoma, where Muslims comprise less than 0.1% of the population; if anything, Oklahoma is the land of Timothy McVeigh-style Christian terrorism. I am sure the politicos who dreamed this up are being paid handsome salaries out of the campaign contributions they are attracting. But not all right-wing Muslim bashing is necessarily misguided. Sharia actually is a serious threat to American values, and even though Oklahoma lies far from the front line of battle, every reaffirmation of those values helps.

Sharia is the system of law that developed in the territories conquered by Arab barbarians in the 7^th and 8^th centuries. To a limited extent, the rules of Sharia are derived from the Koran, which is supposed to have been dictated by God to the prophet Muhammad. The Koran contains only a handful of rules, though, nowhere near a comprehensive legal system. Most of Sharia derives from the “traditions” of the sayings and habits of Muhammad, the overwhelming majority of which were fabricated out of whole cloth centuries after his death. When the conquerors wished to impose the laws and customs of their homeland on the conquered peoples, they did so by claiming that those laws and customs were the will of God, as evidenced by such-and-such newly minted “saying of Muhammad.” The whole idea that the sayings and actions of Muhammad should be a guide for the conduct of others is never mentioned in the Koran at all, which repeatedly describes him as “a plain warner.”

The problem with basing a law on the will of God as expressed through his prophet, rather than basing it on just being a good idea, is that it is awfully tough to change it. Muslims are certain there aren’t going to be any more prophets, so the law of 8^th century Arabia is applied in 21^st century Muslim majority countries. Just last week, a prisoner in Iran had his hand cut off for stealing – the second time this month that has happened. This was done with the rest of the inmates as an audience, suggesting that future amputations may be carried out in full public view.

In “moderate” Malaysia, women are caned for engaging in sex outside of marriage, and it took an international outcry last March to prevent a woman from being caned for drinking a glass of beer. In less moderate Saudi Arabia, a woman was sentenced to 90 lashes after being kidnapped and gang-raped – because she was in a car with another man when she was attacked. Just last year, the Indonesian province of Aceh changed its law to permit death by stoning for adulterers.

Sometimes Sharia rulings are curious. Earlier this year in Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdul-Mohsen al-Obeikan ruled that if a woman needs to appear without her veil in front of an unrelated adult male, such as a co-worker, she should breast-feed him, because that establishes a mother-son bond to eliminate the need for head-covering. Birthday parties and taking flowers to the sick are forbidden, though, because there is no tradition of Muhammad authorizing them, and they therefore “imitate God’s adversaries.” Dogs may not be kept indoors, because they are “filth.”
Read the rest of this entry &raquo