(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?

There are some things I don’t like about American culture, but stories like this one in the Times Online really make me glad to live here:

A group of Afghan women who braved an enraged mob yesterday to protest against an “abhorrent” new Afghan law had to be rescued by police from a hail of stones and abuse.

The protest by about 200 women, unprecedented in recent Afghanistan history, was directed at the Shia Family Law passed last month by the Afghan parliament which appears to legalise marital rape and child marriage.

The rally, staged by mostly young women with their faces exposed, was a highly inflammatory act of defiance in a country as conservative as Afghanistan. It provoked a furious reaction from local men and a rapidly expanding mob threatened to swamp the demonstrators as they tried to approach the Afghan parliament.

The Times Online article quotes supporters of the law:

Those in favour of the new law chanted “Down with the Christians. Down with the apostates.” At one stage both sides chanted “We want honour and dignity for women” — reflecting their starkly different interpretations of the new law.

“We think those who oppose this law in fact oppose the Koran,” said Nesa Naseri, a female student of Sharia Studies who took part in the women’s counter-demonstration.

“This law does not approve rape, it is rather about loyalty of wife to husband and husband to wife. Rape is what you can see in the West, where men don’t feel responsibility for their wives and leave them to go with several men.”

If “loyalty of the wife to husband” implies that she must have sex with him when he demands, I’m thinking the word ‘rape’ is appropriate. It might also have something to do with the statistic quoted in the Times Online article that 57% of all Afghan brides are under the age of 16. By the way, in the first line the word ‘abhorrent’ is in quotes because that was President Obama’s reaction to the bill. I’m with him.

New Development:

In an article today entitled “Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai vows to change Afghan marital rape law“:

KABUL, Afghanistan – President Hamid Karzai said Thursday that the controversial law permitting men to rape their wives will be changed.

…

The law has drawn international criticism, and Karzai’s comments came a day after several hundred protesters demonstrated against it. Critics say the law bars women from opting out of sex, effectively legalizing marital rape.

The measure applies to the 20% of Afghans who are Shiite Muslims. It was part of a massive piece of legislation aimed at bolstering the nation’s Shiite minority.

Over the weekend I read that during a congressional hearing, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) tried to argue against a cap & trade policy because… here, you have to read it for yourself:

SHIMKUS: It’s plant food … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? … So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.

I did the usual laugh-through-my-tears routine and moved on. But I found out that there was more. Moments later, he concluded his questioning by saying:

The basic finish for this comment is “the Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”

Yes, he’s using passages from Genesis to inform his policy decisions. As it turns out, he had given a speech at the beginning of the hearing about his religious beliefs:

For those of you who can’t watch the video, he reads passages from the New Testament, professing to believe it the infallible word of God. After closing the book he says: “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.”

Many people have asked me how religion is harmful. This is the harm. Any time we encourage (or allow) people to trust faith as a legitimate knowledge source, we run the risk that their faith will be contrary to reality. Our observations of this world have indicated that global warming is a threat. Representative Shimkus’ faith instructs him that there is no danger. We have a problem.

Eventually the real-world evidence might build up to the point that he is forced to ‘reinterpret’ those passages, but I don’t want to wait and see.

What I DO want is for members of our secular government to make decisions based on secular reasoning–without being influenced by their beliefs about the supernatural. If Representative Shimkus is unable do that, then he is unfit to perform his job.

Since when do more than 270 plaintiffs enjoy losing?

Mike Newdow’s email went on to say that the dismissal order in Newdow v. Roberts “now sets us up to file an Appeal as the appellants, thus providing us with the opportunity to submit a 14,000 word Opening Brief and a 7,000 word Reply Brief in the Court of Appeals.”

On March 12, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed our case challenging the infusion of religion into Barack Obama’s inaugural ceremony.

Judge Walton was disingenuous in his ruling that “the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that an injunction against any or all of the defendants could redress the harm alleged suffered by plaintiffs” while at the same time noting in a footnote that the plaintiffs had filed an amended complaint that would (in my opinion) have likely cured any defects. For example, Judge Walton could have: (1) declared the acts of Chief Justice Roberts appending “so help me God” to the constitutionally prescribed presidential oath and the Presidential Inaugural Committee for allowing sectarian prayers in the invocation and benediction to be violations of the First Amendment, (2) enjoined the federal defendants and others unnamed in future inaugurals from doing the same and (3) awarded the plaintiffs nominal damages.

Judge Walton also held that our plaintiffs lacked standing because “none of the plaintiffs in this case have standing to challenge the defendants’ actions as pled in the complaint because they have identified no concrete and particularized injury.” This, too, is disingenuous, because the District Court had in its possession over 250 sworn statements alleging injury. Again, the Judge Walton erred.

I have spent many hours researching federal cases in which the court said that a plaintiff who personally witnessed government sponsored prayer lacked standing. To no surprise, the only cases that I have found are Newdow I (Newdow v. Bush, 2001 presidential inaugural), Newdow II (Newdow v. Bush, 2005 presidential inaugural) and now Newdow III (Newdow v. Roberts, 2009 Obama inaugural). Coincidence? Conspiracy?

I have a simple answer. Newdow I, II and III were just too hot to handle.

Newdow (i.e., Newdow III), like its predecessor cases, was too hot for the District Court because, like Abington Township School District v. Schempp, Newdow it would uphold minority rights over majority rule. (Schempp, consolidated with Murray v. Curlett, is the landmark 1963 Supreme Court decision that held school sponsored Bible reading and prayer to be unconstitutional.) And you know about the uproar over little kiddies not being denied their God given right to say their prayers in school. Imagine the excruciating squawking of the megachurches if Mike Newdow and the other plaintiffs win.

As I have said elsewhere, Newdow is foundational – it would take monotheistic (Christian preferred) religion out of the executive branch (where it doesn’t belong anyway). What would be next? Congressional chaplains? “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? The national motto of “In God We Trust”? Or military bands playing “God Bless America”?

The Christian Right can’t afford to lose this one and the courts know it! Or the dominoes will fall.

“Out of sight, out of mind” goes the saying.

So many may think that because the 2009 presidential inauguration is history, a lawsuit brought by Michael Newdow, 30 other individuals, and 11 organizations to prevent the infusion of religion into the ceremony is over. Not so.

Newdow and I are now working on a brief – due February 23rd – to explain to Judge Walton why he shouldn’t dismiss the suit. There are so many reasons, including (1) the plaintiffs were in fact harmed and seek a declaration from the court that their Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act rights were violated and (2) the unconstitutional practices (the Chief Justice adding “so help me God” to the presidential oath and the sectarian prayers in the invocation and benediction) are likely to repeated in 2013, 2017, and so forth if they aren’t enjoined by the court.

While there are a number of hurdles in this case, the inability of the judge and most Americans to recognize the “harm” caused by the religious practices at the presidential inaugural ceremony is most troubling.

In truth, this is a common human shortcoming. When things are going our way, we often fail to recognize that others may be suffering. (I’m trying to be nice by not calling it tyranny of the majority.)

The following is a description by Professor Christopher C. Lund of the harm caused by legislative prayers:

A government whose legislative prayers are acceptable to one religious group but not another makes the latter group feel unwelcome, and it ends up exerting pressure on the disfavored group to change their religious ways.

See Lund, Legislative Prayer and the Secret Costs of Religious Endorsements, page 25. This description applies equally to executive prayers (like the religious activities complained of in Newdow v. Roberts) and public school prayer cases. I encourage all Rant & Reason readers to read Professor Lund’s 56 page article for an excellent discussion of the issues.

Rather than rant on, I invite readers to express in your own words whether (and how) you felt harmed by the infusion of religion into the 2009 presidential inauguration ceremony, or not.

In his inaugural address, President Obama recognized the different groups that make up America. Not everyone was pleased.

With that one line, the president “seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively white,” said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as white, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’”

The majority of Americans are white and our founders expressed white European values, so we must be a white nation, right?

Oops, I seem to have misread the original quote. The real wording was:

With that one line, the president “seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian,” said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’”

Let’s look at ‘that one line’ that offended: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”

Is Jackson saying that American culture is defined by whichever group is largest, and that we should ignore any and all minorities? Of course, Obama didn’t mention culture, only the nation. Looking at the individuals who make up our nation, there are most definitely Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious citizens. Looking at the more abstract concept of ‘nation’, our governing principles dictate that we are a secular nation.

No matter how you look at it, America is not a Christian nation any more than it is a white nation. It strives to be secular just as it strives to be colorblind. When Michael Newdow tried to remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, many dismissed it as pointless. How would people feel if the phrase were “One white nation under God”? Declaring America to be a white nation or a Christian nation is incorrect and marginalizes the millions of good American citizens who are not in the majority.

As a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show ‘Janet Parshall’s America,’ Jackson commented: “Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don’t think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.” He’s right about that. We’re not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation. We are a nation made up of a diverse group of people, organized around secular principles. And that is one of the best things about us.

President-elect Obama’s picks of Rick Warren (Saddleback Church) and Joseph Lowery (SCLC) to deliver the invocation and benediction at his inauguration are most unfortunate for two reasons.

First, the selections show Obama’s disrespect for freedom of religion — namely, that government may actively endorse and promote religion — notwithstanding the fact that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits such an entanglement.

Second, assuming that it is permissible to flagrantly disregard the Establishment Clause, then his picks are ill-advised because they are non-inclusive of humanist, freethinker, atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, etc. philosophies and religions.

Bottom line, Obama is starting off on the wrong foot. He should have “changed,” by dropping the religious invocation and benediction.

In response to the story UNC cuts Christmas trees from its libraries I was asked for my opinion about whether there is any legal problem with a library at a public university displaying a Christmas/holiday tree.

My answer was: “No, not as long as I don’t have to either put it up or take it down, or it doesn’t have religious ornaments on it.”

Strictly speaking, a tree with colorful lights, tinsel and beautiful ornaments can be legally put up in a public building any time of the year, including December. To this extent, it’s not a separation of church and state issue.

But if there is anything else on the tree or underneath it of a religious nature, then my answer is: “It all depends.”

There have been three Supreme Court decisions which collectively hold that (1) government cannot erect a display that endorses a particular religion and (2) if government permits a private party to put up a religious holiday display, it must let persons of different faiths or no faiths to put up holiday displays. (NOTE: a permit may be required and reasonable rules governing time, place and manner are permissible.)

The inspiration behind President Eisenhower’s push to insert “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Rev. George Docherty, died recently on November 27 at the age of 97.

Rev. Docherty was concerned that the Pledge without a reference to a deity could apply as well to communist Soviet Union when he gave his February 7, 1954 sermon with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln’s Pew at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church. He urged that the Pledge be amended: “To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life.” (Rev. Docherty’s obituary in the Washington Post.)

Bills were introduced in Congress the same week and Eisenhower signed into law adding “under God” to the Pledge within four months. Call that the miracle of Communism.

Now that President Eisenhower, Senator McCarthy, the Soviet Union and Rev. Docherty are gone, it’s time to restore the pledge to its pre-1954 language — as we are not now or have ever been one nation under a god or gods.

The authority of our governments flows from the people, to be used for the benefit of the people. We are not, however, so conceited to change the Pledge to read “one nation under Ourselves” even though it’s the truth.

One “change” President-elect Barack Obama is not likely to effect early in his administration is a change in the ideological tilt of the Supreme Court.

The Court is very divided – frequently voting 5-4 on major cases involving socio-religious issues. This division is reflective of the cultural war gripping the United States.

Thus while Obama’s victory is a modest coup for liberals, it is widely believed that the first three justices to retire will be Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter – all in the liberal camp – and therefore, replacement opportunities are not expected to have a significant impact on the direction of the Court.

Rather than wait for a vacancy to be created by a retirement of a justice from the conservative ranks, I have embarked on a mission to lay the foundation for overruling the Court’s horrendous decision in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) which held that the display of a donated Fraternal Order of Eagles Ten Commandments tombstone on the Texas state capital grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause.

I must admit that the task appears to be overwhelming. Indeed, I must be crazy to think that that I can persuade one member of the High Court’s majority to change his position on whether permanent religious symbols on public property violate the Establishment Clause.

And so, crazy as I am, I took the first step by filing a request with the Supreme Court on November 10, 2008 asking Chief Justice John G. Roberts to postpone oral arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum until the Court publicly disclosed a literal translation of the Hebrew on the tablet Moses is holding in the South Wall Frieze of the courtroom.

Not surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts ignored my request. But I did obtain a small victory. I believe that I forced Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, and the attorney who argued the case for Pleasant Grove, to admit during Summum oral arguments that “the words on the Court’s frieze are ‘steal,’ ‘murder,’ ‘adultery’ in Hebrew” (rather than “Thou shall not steal,” thou shall not murder” and “though shall not commit adultery”). This produced a startling admission from Justice Ginsburg in reply: “Yes.” (See transcript at page 9.)

What is the significance of all of this? The justices of the Supreme Court have taken an important first step in recognizing that the Ten Commandments are not displayed in its own courtroom as is often asserted in its own decisions and the briefs of Christian Right legal centers.

Hopefully, the friend-of-the-court brief I submitted on behalf of AHA and six other secular and religious organizations in Summum plus my recent letter will ultimately have a positive impact on judiciary’s recognition of an Establishment Clause violation caused by the presence of an Eagle’s donated Ten Commandments tombstone in Pleasant Grove’s Pioneer Park.