The Utah Supreme Court this week reversed the conviction of Warren Jeffs for his role in the statutory rape of a fourteen-year-old girl. Viewing the facts of the case through the prism of Utah’s religious history reveals an ugly picture indeed.

Warren Jeffs helped run a small Mormon sect called the “Fundamentalist” LDS that is not a part of Utah’s dominant Mormon establishment, the LDS. Elissa Wall spent her entire childhood being brainwashed by this sect; recordings of Jeffs’ teachings were broadcast throughout her home on a speaker system. When Elissa was twelve, she discovered what happens to people who defy the FLDS prophet: her father’s disobedience was punished by having his family stripped from him and sent to another city, where her mother was “married” to an FLDS leader who already had several other wives.

When Elissa was fourteen, Jeffs ordered her to marry her nineteen-year-old first cousin, Allen Steed. According to the opinion, Elissa was aghast, and flatly refused to go forward with the wedding. Even her older sisters, who were already married to the reigning FLDS prophet, tried to plead her cause, but to no avail. At the time of the wedding, a devastated Elissa refused to say “I do” – but Jeffs pushed and pushed, until she finally mumbled “Okay, I do.” Jeffs then proclaimed “Now go forth and multiply and replenish the earth with good priesthood children,” at which point Elissa ran off and locked herself in the bathroom.

When Elissa resisted her husband’s sexual advances over the following weeks, Jeffs gravely informed her that she had to “repent” and be “submissive” – she “needed to go home and give [her]self to [Steed], who was [her] priesthood head and husband, mind, body, and soul and obey without any question.” Allen proceeded to rape Elissa repeatedly over the next two years.

Jeffs was charged as an accomplice to rape, which is defined as any sexual intercourse where the victim “expresses lack of consent through words or conduct,” or where the victim is younger than eighteen and a perpetrator who is more than three years older “entices or coerces the victim to submit.” It makes no difference whether the parties are married – though that’s irrelevant here, because no marriage license was ever issued. The accomplice liability statute is equally blunt: “Every person … who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.”

I have now read the court’s opinion several times, and I must confess that I simply can’t follow the logic. Maybe you can. It seems to say that Jeffs lacked the “mental state” to cause a nineteen-year-old to have sex with a fourteen-year-old, even though that’s exactly what he ordered them to do, over the girl’s most strenuous objections. My purpose here is not to debate the legal reasoning, but to paint the religious background that I believe contributed to a bizarre result.
Read the rest of this entry &raquo

We just passed the 175^th anniversary of an episode, inconsequential in itself, that kicked off a fascinating chain of events that may well have an impact on the 2012 election.

On June 30, 1835, a traveling showman named William Chandler rolled into the little town of Kirtland, Ohio. Chandler had purchased from the estate of a French adventurer named Antonio Lebolo a collection of genuine Egyptian mummies and hieroglyphic writings on papyrus, that Lebolo had stolen during Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt. Chandler’s investment was profitable, as Americans were willing to pay good money to gawk at such exotic artifacts. The problem with the hieroglyphics, though, was that no one knew what they meant. Except for one man: Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, who claimed to have a divine gift for translating “Reformed Egyptian.” So Chandler made his way to Kirtland, where Smith was then operating, to see if Smith had any interest in his collection.

Chandler hit a gusher. Smith instantly pronounced the writings to be the work of the biblical prophet Abraham himself, written in his own hand, and yes indeed he could translate them if given a little time. Shrewd businessman Chandler wanted cash; Smith raised the then-staggering sum of $2,400 from his congregation to buy the entire collection, including the mummies.

It took Smith several years to complete the translation, during which time he was occupied with other matters such as establishing a fraudulent bank, marrying dozens of wives, and touching off a minor civil war in Missouri. But when it finally was published in 1842, The Book of Abraham had a huge impact on Mormon theology. Among other things, it firmly established Mormon teaching on race.
Read the rest of this entry &raquo

[Rant & Reason welcomes new blogger Luis Granados, who also writes the blog God Experts. His bio is here.]

Talk about a made-for-blogosphere non-event. A cartoonist posts a clever take on the censorship of the South Park Muhammad-in-disguise episode (more on which you can see in my April 24 God Experts piece), showing entries in an imaginary “Everyone Draw Mohammed” contest. Next thing you know, someone picks up on it, and there’s a Facebook page with 8,500 members, all pledged to draw a picture of Muhammad on May 20, defying a Muslim ban on depictions of the prophet. Since every blogosphere action has an opposite (if unequal) reaction, there is soon angst and hand-wringing over such insensitivity to Muslims worldwide.

At least this has the benefit of smoking out muddleheadedness so it can be shot at. Leading the charge was the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, who compared the plan to “Everybody Burn the Flag Day,” suggesting that just because we have the freedom to express ourselves doesn’t mean that doing so is a wise idea. The obvious difference for me personally is, I don’t want to burn the flag—I’m rather proud of what it stands for. But the taboo against depicting Muhammad is intolerable. Granted, some religious rules happen to coincide with common-sense values—“Thou shalt not steal” is pretty non-controversial. But threatening to kill someone for drawing a picture of Muhammad, disrespectful or otherwise, is idiotic.  The bigger the outcry, the sooner this thuggery will end.

According to Taranto,

The problem with the “in-your-face message” of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others—Muslims—as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world. 

The problem with this thinking is that it is essentially racist. The implicit assumption is that those brainwashed from birth into being Muslims, most of whom are black or brown, are incapable of responding to constructive criticism by changing their ways, so suggesting they do so lacks “courtesy.”

For almost all of Muslim history, a teaching far more central than the ban on depicting Muhammad was that of slavery. God commanded it repeatedly in the Koran, and Muhammad practiced it extensively throughout the body of traditions ascribed to him. Most black Americans are here today because their ancestors were captured and sold by Muslim slavers. In the Taranto view, criticizing slavery would be “an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world.” In fact, the anti-slavery agitation of the 19^th century did make an enemy of large portions of the Muslim world: the Mahdi’s 1881 uprising in Sudan was largely sparked by Britain’s godless crackdown on the slave trade. If Taranto were king, our deep respect for the cultural sensibilities of others would have allowed slavery to roll merrily along.

By far the most effective way to undermine the moronic idea that visual depictions of Muhammad warrant violent reaction is to ridicule it. If that earns us as many enemies as abolitionists like Voltaire and Paine had in their day, we’re in good company.

Ann Althouse reserves her crocodile tears for innocent Muslims. “Depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren’t doing anything.”

Now she’s done it. She’s gone and hurt my feelings. Here I am, all abuzz about participating in “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day.” I have my entry all planned out: not a caricature, but a tasteful, respectful, historically accurate tableau of the episode from the Sunna in which Muhammad personally beheaded 600 Jewish prisoners in the market square of Medina, while enslaving their wives and children.  (If I could actually learn to draw something like this between now and May 20, that would be a miracle.) I’m joining hands in fellowship with like-minded humanists in a common mission to preach the values we hold sacred: tolerance, freedom of expression, reason over revelation, and creativity. (And let me add, I don’t even like South Park.) Now Ms. Althouse bursts my bubble, telling me that I’m a bad person for putting into a picture what the sacred Sunna puts into words. I am hurt; I am offended; I may cry myself to sleep tonight. Ms. Althouse cares deeply about Muslim feelings—what am I, chopped liver?

What baffles me most about the whole South Park affair is why the person who threatened the show’s creators is walking free. This is America—the litigious society. Why is there no lawsuit? An American named Abu Talhah al-Amrikee (aka Zachary Chesser, a resident of Virginia) threatened violent death to Trey Parker and Matt Stone. In many states, the common law tort of assault is defined as “an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury,” and victims are allowed to sue for damages. If al-Amrikee/Chesser wants to try his snarky defense that he didn’t mean to threaten or incite, just to warn of what some other mean-spirited Muslim group might do, let him. At the very least, having to defend a lawsuit would surely bankrupt al-Amrikee/Chesser and his little hate club. Of all people, you would think Mr. Wall Street Journal Taranto would know that, this being America, little guys can’t tweak giant corporations with impunity. South Park is indirectly owned by Viacom—where’s Goliath when we need him?

Monday’s LATimes contained an interesting piece on the Bald Eagle. In essence, many Indian tribes have religious practices, such as the Sun Dance, that require Bald Eagle… ahem…parts. The Bald Eagle is a protected species—even more so than other listed species due to a special act of Congress—and so an obvious tension emerges; how can the federal government protect the animal while simultaneously protecting the religious rights of native Americans?

Currently, the federal government runs a depository of dead birds and has a licensing program. The licensing program has been plagued with problems—many people are apparently unaware of it—and the depository has a long waiting list for many Eagle parts. To avoid long waits, some Indians occasionally shoot birds without a license and find themselves fugitives as result of their religious beliefs.

Larger than the Indian issue, this does raise some moral and political questions for those of us who avow a separation and church and state. I think many people would agree the Indians have a right to these birds; Indians have been hunting and shooting the birds since before the Europeans arrived. Simultaneously, government has an interest in protecting all endangered species. How do we rectify these conflicting priorities?

We could make like the soviets and just outlaw religion. Problem solved. But, of course, that’s absurd. On the opposite end of the spectrum we could say any religious belief is a right, but that’s a slippery slope. The government would then be in the business of defining what is and isn’t a religion (granted they already do this for tax purposes but look at the fight it causes over things like Scientology). Also, someone could have some insane beliefs that direct them, for example, to extinguish a species that is the devil incarnate or to practice human sacrifice. Do we really want to play an even worse version of the snake-handler game?

Obviously, then, the answer lies somewhere between these two extremes. At some degree between zero and 180 is where we have been situated throughout history. The attempt to move the needle slightly one way is why groups like that AHA exist. Even though we claim to be proponents of religious liberty we cannot sit here and seriously say all peoples with a religious need have a right to shoot Bald Eagles at will. Defining that need is the purpose of the licensing program. To eliminate that is to open a can of worms so messy as to all but sign an extinction warrant for the Bald Eagle.

The current Bald Eagle services provided to the Indians by the federal government are pretty reasonable; they are by no means perfect, but the only other option I can see is to farm raise the birds. We do it with fish, why not birds? Is it even feasible, or will it devolve into the shame that is poultry production? Does a farm-raised bird even have the same essence as a wild one? Is that better, is that worse?

File this story from Florida under “you can’t make this stuff up.” Except, apparently in this case, they could (h/t to Friendly Atheist):

A Hillsborough public policy group whose Christian platform included a push for a state ban on gay marriage has embraced a new attack on an old target: the separation of church and state.

Ten billboard advertisements against what activist Terry Kemple called the separation “lie” are being put up across Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. Seven or eight of the billboard messages already are in place, and the rest will be by the end of this week, Kemple said.

What do the billboards say? They have quotes from our founding fathers, of course, each explaining why we shouldn’t separate religion from government. For example, the photo included with the article shows a billboard, black with white text, that says, ‘”Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” – George Washington.’

Apparently, though, there is a dearth of anti-separation quotes by the founding fathers — the billboard sponsors admit that some of the quotes that they use are completely fabricated!

Others carry the same message but with fictional attribution, as with one billboard citing George Washington for the quote, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

“I don’t believe there’s a document in Washington’s handwriting that has those words in that specific form,” Kemple said. “However, if you look at Washington’s quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there’s no question he could have said those exact words.”

Pardon me? Fictional attribution is a rather diplomatic way of saying that the quote is a lie. Making up a quote out of whole cloth, no matter if it’s plausible or not, and then attributing it to George Washington is a complete lie.

Certainly doesn’t put Christianity’s best foot forward, does it?

They may feel justified by some sense that their anti-separation cause is best served by lying. But I think it’s safe to say that most of us, whether we follow the Ten Commandments or secular morals, believe that lying is wrong, even for marketing purposes.

Their willingness to put lies on their billboards is ultimately a matter for their own consciences (some might say that it is between them and their respective god, which is another way of saying the same thing). Remember this, though, the next time a humanist billboard campaign is denounced for being somehow immoral — I promise you that it won’t feature fabricated quotes!

I’m sure you’ve heard of Randall Terry, who for years was the face of the anti-choice movement in the United States. Even though he hasn’t been the head of Operation Rescue, an organization that he founded, since 1989, he has managed to keep his name out there as a prominent anti-abortion and anti-reproductive choice activist. Although his star has faded in recent years, he is trying harder than ever to make a comeback to national prominence.

The Washington Post has an article today about some of Terry’s recent efforts to stay relevant and keep his face on the national anti-abortion brand. It begins with the startlingly creepy image of Terry and his acolytes smearing fake blood all over their hands and copies of the Roe v. Wade ruling while standing outside the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. And it’s all downhill from there, as Terry tells the journalist that using fake blood for his protests came to him in a “vision” (is that what he vaingloriously calls having a thought?) while he was planning ways to disrupt the hearings.

It turns out, though, that this was not his first vision; as the Washington Post article states, in reference to the founding of Operation Rescue:

Terry, 50, was in his 20s when he founded Operation Rescue — the result, he said, of a vision from God that appeared before his eyes at a prayer meeting. The vision was, he said, a scroll with instructions to stop abortion. Along with the scroll, he saw thousands of people gathered in front of abortion clinics to save babies, and he saw himself being interviewed on “Donahue,” the popular TV talk show hosted by Phil Donahue.

After serving as a primary spokesperson in favor of federal interference in the Terri Schiavo case in 2005, the Post states that Terry had more or less faded from view for several years. But he is on the upswing once more, getting his name back in the press for the demonstrations against President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame University and his unbelievably hateful comments after the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. (Amongst other things, he said, “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God…Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God.)

And now he is attempting to lead the charge against President Obama’s middle-of-the-road Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Adele M. Stan of AlterNet attended Terry’s demonstration this past Sunday on the steps of the US Supreme Court, and reported on Terry’s demand that the anti-abortion senators filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination:

Terry made the camera operators move forward and adjust their mikes. “Pro-life senators have a moral obligation to filibuster Sotomayor,” he began. “Pro-life Republicans, pro-life Democrats seduce us with their words. They use our money, they take our man-hours, they take our votes, and then throw us away like a used-up mistress after an election. It’s disgusting! If Sen. [Sam] Brownback and Sen. [John] McCain and Sen. [Knute] Nelson and Sen. [Bob] Casey believe that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, then they must filibuster Sotomayor. You can’t say you want to overturn Roe on the one hand, and then vote for somebody who will uphold Roe on the other. It is treachery, hypocrisy, laziness and betrayal.”

He certainly sounds frustrated! Perhaps this ties into Amanda Marcotte’s assertion in the Guardian that Republicans overall have not made abortion front and center in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, opting to focus on race and gender-based attacks against her instead. Says Marcotte:

Anti-choice activists used to own the issue of Supreme Court nominations so thoroughly, they were able to bully George Bush out of nominating Harriet Miers, despite her anti-choice views, in no small part because they simply don’t trust women not to stick by their own. Obviously, with Republicans out of power, anti-choice activists can’t block the nomination, but now they can’t even get Republicans to consider their demands a top priority.

The most obvious reason is that gender has been demoted to a second-tier issue so that Republicans can work more efficiently with arguments over race against Sotomayor, playing off anti-Hispanic sentiment and rightwing folk beliefs about a Latino “takeover” to inculcate resentment in their base. Anti-choicers are feeling the sting of falling out of fashion in the circles of rightwing nastiness and resentment.

Marcotte goes on to say that she also believes Republicans may be a little more toned down on anti-choice rhetoric this time around because of the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller. Perhaps they don’t want to be associated with a movement that is so violent in the eyes of many Americans. She’s not optimistic, though, that this distance will last.

I would be shocked if the Republicans filibuster Sotomayor, and I’m sure she’ll sail through confirmation. So the real question here is, what does the future hold for Randall Terry after his stunts at the Capitol are over? The Post notes that some anti-choice activists are less than enthusiastic about his desire to be a more public figure once again:

Leaders of the antiabortion movement are cringing at Terry’s sudden return. They say his incendiary rhetoric and showy tactics turn off ordinary Americans and reflect Terry’s struggle to regain his glory years.

“It’s sad in a way,” said Fredericksburg antiabortion activist Patrick Mahoney, who was close to Terry at one time but, like others in the movement, is now estranged from him. “It’s almost like a heavyweight boxer who’s past his prime. The movement has gone by him.”

While I fear the harmful consequences of his horrific rhetoric and stunts, particularly because they could inspire further violent acts, nevertheless I do feel that Randall Terry serves a useful function for those of us that favor reproductive rights. With his stunts, his jugs of fake blood, his followers disrupting Senate Judiciary Committee meetings, and his references to having “visions” that guide how he organizes his protests, he does represent one idea very well: that his anti-choice position is on the outer fringe. He makes it clear that his strong belief that women should not have control over their own bodies is in fact an extremist position to be defended by fringe and even dangerous characters such as him, operating on the margins of society. His extremist tactics lay bare the extremist nature of the entire anti-choice stance. Even so, we cannot discount the constant threat that Terry’s ugly and explosive language poses. He represents the worst of the intertwining of religion and social activism, when a fanatic believes that he speaks on behalf of his god and that his actions bear a holy endorsement. And we certainly know what kind of trouble that can lead to.

The Washington Post reports today on how pro-marriage equality organizations have recently been targeting the Mormon Church with advertisements and campaigns:

As more states take up the debate on same-sex marriage, some advocates of legalization are taking a very specific lesson from California, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated both fundraising and door-knocking to pass a ballot initiative that barred such unions.

With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.

In particular, the article mentions web ads sponsored by the anti-Proposition 8 organization Californians Against Hate. The ads (which can be viewed, along with their accompanying documentation and campaign information, here), appeared on newspaper websites in three states on the East Coast but were apparently rejected by at least some newspapers for being insulting against the Mormon Church.

Why is the Mormon Church in particular being targeted by pro-marriage equality ads? The Washington Post explains how it may have played a big role in the narrow margin of passage for Proposition 8:

A torrent of last-minute contributions from church members across the country financed well-framed TV ads in the final weekend of the campaign. Opponents’ analysis of campaign-contribution reports indicated that Mormons contributed more than half of the campaign’s $40 million war chest.

The Mormon Church seems to be reluctant to actually take public credit for working for the passage of Proposition 8. The Washington Post notes that the Mormon Church was involved with an anti-marriage equality campaign in Hawaii in 1998 and spent $400,000 of church money but requested that the Catholic Church take the lead when it came to the public image of the campaign. This may have something to do with Mormons’ overall low favorability ratings with the American public in general, which declined to 37 percent last year. Perhaps, for this reason, the Mormon Church doesn’t feel that the most effective public face for the anti-marriage equality movement would be a Mormon one.

When it comes to marriage equality, is it fair to target the Mormons? While I am certainly against stigmatizing any particular individual based on his or her religion, the institution of the Mormon Church is fair game for criticism for its strong support for the suppression of LGBT civil rights. The institution has inserted itself into this issue to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funding and resources for anti-gay campaigns. This is a campaign of bigotry, and the institution must be held accountable for it in the court of public opinion. In particular, Californians Against Hate has been working to illuminate areas that the church seems to prefer keeping quiet, such as the participation of top Mormon leaders in the creation of the the National Organization for Marriage, the national anti-marriage equality organization that drew attention for its laughably poor attempts to frighten people about same-sex marriage.

My one caveat is that I do not want to see this particular focus on the Mormon Church come at the expense of looking at the broader picture of anti-LGBT bigotry. In the end, for a successful campaign to reinstate marriage equality in California and to bring it to other states, the religious and non-religious alike are going to need to understand marriage equality as an issue that is fundamentally about civil rights and equality. This will require massive outreach, but it can be done; indeed, a movement to repeal Proposition 8 is already under way.

James Dobson is such a pessimist these days. From God and Country, this is what Dobson recently told his radio listeners (hat tip to PZ Myers):

I want to tell you up front that we’re not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.

There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can’t stop them.

We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn’t pay any attention to it because they don’t have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation… As I see it, there is no other answer. There’s no other answer, short term.

He sounds frustrated.

I was skeptical the last time James Dobson’s pessimism was on full display — it seemed to me that he was just trying to energize his supporters with a little doom and gloom. But his words now express more of a sense of capitulation. He’s not even asking his supporters to take action, just to pray (I suppose that they might consider that to be taking action, but the Dobson has never been shy about demanding much more worldly acts from his followers).

I am extremely reluctant, however, to ever count the Religious Right out of the political picture. What do you think? Will the Religious Right make a comeback? Or are Dobson and his ilk destined for permanent marginalization in an increasingly secular America?

The House of Representatives voted yesterday 249-175 to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes that were motivated by the victim’s gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or disability. The bill also lifts the previous restriction that the victim had to be engaged in a federally protected activity when attacked, such as voting or attending school. Additionally, the bill expands federal assistance to state and local authorities for the investigation of suspected hate crimes.

The measure has yet to be taken up by the Senate. It has proven to be quite controversial, with the House vote coming in almost entirely along party lines. Religious Right organizations mobilized their constituents to speak out against the measure. Focus On the Family claims to be responsible for 5,000 messages to Congress against the bill.

Why is it controversial? Let’s look at a few of the objections to this legislation:

Representative of the Religious Right case against hate crimes laws is an editorial from today’s edition of the right wing newspaper the Washington Times, which concluded:

Once homosexuals become a special class protected by hate-crime legislation, the back door is open to prosecuting those who speak out against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Yesterday’s House vote was really about creating thought crimes to further the liberal agenda.

That unsubstantiated assertion (that the bill creates “thought crimes”) was ominously illustrated with a photograph of George Orwell.

In a piece dripping with contempt towards the LGBT community, Matt Berber puts it in more drastic terms:

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

Um…no. This is the often repeated lie of the Religious Right, but this simply isn’t the case. Let’s get a few things clear about this bill.

First, this is a hate crimes bill, not a hate speech bill. Commentator and attorney Glenn Greenwald explains the distinction:

Hate speech laws and hate crimes laws are entirely different, since the former punishes the pure expression of ideas while the latter involves the commission of actual crimes, usually quite violent and serious crimes. One can easily and coherently oppose the former but support the latter.

While critics have been drawing on cases from Europe where people were prosecuted only for what they said, what they are referring to are laws against hate speech, rather than hate crimes. Many countries in Europe have these kinds of laws; thankfully, the United States does not, because Congress cannot just legislate away the First Amendment. This bill does nothing to criminalize hate speech.

In fact, the language in the actual bill is clear that the defendent’s actions, not thoughts, are what will be on trial:

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.

This law isn’t about punishing what the criminal thought; it’s about punishing what the criminal did. It does nothing to prevent a pastor from sermonizing against homosexuality from the pulpit, or for a newspaper to publish anti-gay editorials (don’t worry, Washington Times!), or anything relating to speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion. It does nothing to prevent religious activists from rallying against marriage equality. Anyone that tells you otherwise doesn’t understand the bill or is simply lying.

Another objection to the hate crimes bill is that, as an issue of fairness and equal protection, crime victims should not be treated any differently based on the motivation behind the crime. In other words the punishment should be the same for a criminal whether he committed assault because the victim was gay or because he wanted the victim’s wallet. This is reflected in the comments by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TN, when he was speaking against the bill:

“All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted,” Smith said. “Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system — ‘equal justice for all.’”

“Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim,” Smith said. “It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime.”

What this argument fails to recognize is the particular threat that hate crimes have towards society. For one, when a person is attacked because he or she is identified as being part of a particular group, the attack is, in essence, against the entire group. For example, if racist graffiti was spray painted on the home of an African American family, would it not be clear that the action was taken to intimidate not only that particular family, but any other African American family in the area that may subsequently fear being victimized by a similar crime? The group of victims encompasses those that are given reason to fear after the attack. Hate crimes are a way of sowing terror among the particular group that is the target of hate. This is more detrimental to society than many other types of crimes, and the punishment for the perpetrator should reflect this accordingly.

The new hate crimes bill is, unfortunately, not going to end violence that is motivated by hatred. But it will give law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to deal with these crimes and ensure that the criminals receive a just punishment.

(Crossposted at Friendly Atheist)

The Pew Forum is a reliable source of interesting surveys. This most recent one shows how strongly various religious groups believe that global warming is occurring and if so, whether the warming is caused by humans or not.

One number that does puzzle me is the 36% of Black Protestants who believe the Earth is warming, but due to natural patterns and not human activity. It’s twice that of the US population as a whole, and triple that of the unaffiliated. Why would that be?

But otherwise, the findings don’t surprise me. The most likely group to believe that humans are causing a global warming? Those unaffiliated with a religion, at 58%. Those least likely? The self-identified White evangelical Protestants, at 34%.

I’m guessing there are confounding factors – White evangelical Protestants are more likely to live in the South, so perhaps it’s their geographic location that causes them not to believe the Earth is warming instead of their faith. It’s a classic correlation vs. causation conundrum.

But I don’t think we can dismiss the notion that faith affects people’s environmental views. Not when we have examples like Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) who read from Genesis in a congressional hearing and proclaimed that “The Earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth, this Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”

On the other hand, we have to ask: why are these Hong Kong Christians building a full-scale replica of the ark?