Americans increasingly are convinced — incorrectly — that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and a growing number are thoroughly confused about his religion. Nearly one in five people, or 18 per cent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 per cent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is down to just 34 per cent.

Some of this could be considered backlash for Obama’s apparent cardinal sin in promoting the principle of freedom of religion with respect to the plans to build a mosque in downtown NYC, near the World Trade Center site. Because everyone knows that the US is a Christian theocracy, and the Constitution be damned. And of course, freedom of religion simply means freedom to practice the “right” religion.

But between the conspiracy theorists who don’t believe Obama is American, the racists who question whether he’s black, white or purple, and now the growing segment of Americans who want to make an issue of his religion, you have to wonder where the percentage of Americans are who would honestly say that they do not care.

Why should Americans be so afraid of electing a non-Christian anyway?

It’s an obvious fallout of a culture that emphasizes that the personal is political, and that not only tolerates but expects its leaders to put personal religious conviction ahead of public interest when making decisions. The arguments haven’t changed much since Kennedy – a Catholic (gasp!) was elected in 1960. Separation of Church and State? Hogwash. They want a leader who is seen going to church and quoting the bible in speeches. Which is why any hint, suggestion or misconception about Obama is such a big story.

Us Canadians, in contrast, have a stronger tradition of making the distinction between the personal and the political. Jean Chrétien was a Catholic prime minister who refused to bow to religious pressure when passing legislation for same-sex marriage, for example. We expect our politicians to have personal lives that are just that – personal.

Barack Obama is Christian, not Muslim. But it would be nice to think that maybe one day, Americans would be happy to elect a Muslim president. Or a Jewish one. Or a Buddhist one. Or – imagine – an atheist one. Oh, the horror!

“Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems,” Williamson wrote.

In other words, “I’m not sorry for what I did; I’m just sorry it caused you headaches”. Has he been taking lessons from Mel Gibson?

Every joke I could make here would be just too easy, so I’ll let it speak for itself.

In the past, they’ve argued about the right to build succahs, to put up an eruv, and even to run a bus service to New York.

The latest issue? The right to work out:

It was an unlikely confrontation in an alley behind the Park Ave. YMCA.

On one side, Renee Lavaillante, sun-loving pilates practitioner; on the other, Abraham Perlmutter, member of the Hasidic congregation of Yetev Lev, who believes those women in tights are corrupting young boys at the synagogue across the street.

The clash between the two came to a head yesterday over the YMCA’s new frosted windows, which block out the sun – and the tights.

It’s tempting to write this off as just another example of the wider community’s intolerance towards the Hasidic population. But in this case, it’s actually backwards:

In all the above examples, the community was attempting to curtail the rights of the Hasidim. In this case, the Hasidim are attempting to curtail the rights of the community.

Part of living in a free society means that you’re entitled to your own beliefs, standards and values, but you can’t go imposing them on anyone else as long as they’re not breaking the law or hurting anyone. The Hasidic community may not like the fact that women in Montreal have the right to walk around – or work out – in tights and sleeveless tops, but the fact remains that they do. And, like it or not, the Hasidic community can’t go around throwing stones at people who walk the streets in shorts, either. This isn’t Meah Shearim, and I don’t condone it when they do it there, either.

The Hasidic community has a right to its feelings on the matter, but doesn’t have a right to impose those feelings on anyone else. We will all get along better when we recognize this.

“We must speak out now, because we’ve got nothing to lose,” said Dr. Wafa Sultan, one of four Middle Eastern women taking part in a panel discussion in Montreal yesterday to argue their position on the West’s response to Islam.

The four were keynote speakers at an Institute of Public Affairs of Montreal conference. They talked before the event about the place of women under the yoke of an increasingly fundamentalist Middle East.

[ . . . ]

Iranian-born Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a former Miss Canada, has been leading an international effort to publicize the plight of an 18-year-old Tehran rape victim sentenced to death under sharia law. Afshin-Jam recalled a peaceful rally held in Iran in which the protesting women were dispersed by extremist, heavily veiled women.

“They feel more powerful,” she said of the veiled women.

Sultan said many Muslim women are not freely choosing to wear the veil, but do so because it’s in their best interest.

Islam has other ways of enforcing a bias against women, Afshin-Jam said: “In Iran, 65 per cent of university students are women but the laws say women are not allowed to be judges.”

And under sharia law, it’s very difficult for a woman’s word to be taken seriously, she said.

In the West, “we cannot afford to lose our cherished freedoms to radicalism,” Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian, told the conference audience later in a Delta Hotel meeting room.

We often wonder where the voices are, speaking out against oppression and injustice. They exist; there are too few of them so far, they tend to get drowned out, and those who speak sadly – in this country where freedom of speech is cherished – often fear legitimately for their personal safety. But more and more, they exist. And we owe it to them to listen to what they have to say. Because the more people speak out, the more courageous the next people will feel… and the next… and the next.

I’m not religious by most definitions, but I’ve always liked the concept, and particularly the notion that we need to be forgiven by people before we can be forgiven by G-d. The latter part is personal, but the former is, I believe, a prerequisite for all people of any religion or background who live in a society. See, a sin against G-d, such as failure to keep Shabat or eating pork, could only potentially affect the person committing it, so it’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves what we choose to observe. However, sins against our fellow human beings cause real harm to people. It’s the so-called “victimless crime” argument; a crime becomes more serious due to the consequence of committing harm to someone else.

So, in that spirit, I ask forgiveness from anyone reading this who I may have wronged in the past.

And, if you’re in the process of doing the same, and one of the people you happen to have wronged last year is Stephen Colbert, here’s how to make amends:

• Sadaam’s judge doesn’t think he was a dictator. So what was he, then? A democratically-elected leader? A royal monarch? The winner of the first season of Iraqi Idol?
• The new Palestinian “unity” government appears likely to get its funding back from Europe, though the U.S. isn’t on board.
• Amnesty said Hezbollah committed war crimes, in what Charles Johnson over at LGF dubbed a flying pig moment. I’m shocked too. Amnesty gets so much more money and support when it’s directing its wrath at Israel.
• In a big sign of normalcy returning to the country, Israel’s getting its international soccer games back.
• Germany ordained its first rabbis since 1942. See that big middle finger in the air, you neo-Nazi assholes?
• Speaking of Jews and Europe, Pajamas Media is all over this under-reported story about the defamation trial that just begun in France against three Jewish citizens who questioned the French Channel 2 network for its coverage of the Mohammed Al-Dura affair.
• The Pope has pissed off Muslims, it seems, by making some statements that, regardless of their intent, will surely be taken way out of context. This could be a thing.
• Bibi said that Ahmadinejad is “more dangerous than Hitler”. You’d think such a normally-competent debater would’ve heard of Godwin’s Law, no?
• And in other news, Stephen Colbert’s bridge in Hungary looks like it isn’t going to happen, despite his large margin of victory in the online naming poll, due to the tiny problem of his failing to meet one of the qualifications – being dead. Whoops! (By the way, Budapest rocks!)

Okay, I think that about does it for the ten-second catch-up. Or, as the BUZZ puts it, some “temporary relief from ignorance”.

Damian was, of course, referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial. However, I think the quote is a good one, and it popped into my head when I read about today’s ruling against teaching creationism in schools:

A federal judge on Tuesday banned the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution by Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District, saying the practice violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

[ . . . ]

The school district was sued by a group of 11 parents who claimed teaching intelligent design was unconstitutional and unscientific and had no place in high school biology classrooms.

Before you jump down my throat, I’m in no way implying that Holocaust denial is comparable to creationism. What I am saying, however, is that there’s a clear difference between fact and invention – as in the case of Holocaust denial – which I think we all recognize fairly easily. What many people fail to recognize, however, is that we must also make a clear distinction between fact and belief.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism (repackaged as “intelligent design” or whatever you rename it) is a belief. It is based on faith, not evidence, and cannot be proven for the simple reason that it cannot be disproven.

Today’s ruling banned the teaching of creationism because it violates the separation of church and state. I think the real reason it ought to be banned from science curricula is because it isn’t science. After all, there is no constitutional ban on teaching Holocaust denial in history class, and yet I’m sure we would all call for the dismissal of any teacher who tried, simply on the grounds that it’s wrong.

I have no objection to the teaching of creationist theory in a course about religion, humanities, or cultural studies. But high school biology teachers who teach creationism as scientific fact are muddling fact and belief. People are entitled to hold a belief, but when teaching science, they need to stick to facts.

And so, to restate Damian’s point, everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, but not his own facts.

Tropical Storm Wilma is the 21st named storm of the 2005 season and is expected to become a hurricane before heading to Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula and possibly the battered U.S. Gulf coast by the end of the week.

The last time this many storms formed since record-keeping began 154 years ago was in 1933.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit anachronistic that insurance companies still refer to “acts of God” in those words in their policies?

Still, I bet the religious nuts – the ones who believe that the end of the world is imminent – are having a field day this year. Hurricanes, tropical storms, earthquakes, tsunamis… it’s all way too biblical for my taste.

Still, as long as Muslims live in pretense, we will be affirming that we have something to hide. It’s not enough for us to protest that radicals are exploiting Islam as a sword. Of course they are. Now, moderate Muslims must stop exploiting Islam as a shield – one that protects us from authentic introspection and our neighbours from genuine understanding.

Manji has risked an awful lot to publish her besteselling book and a series of essays, give speeches, and become a visible force for change that has been too easily silenced through extremist intimidation. The least we can do is read what she has to say.

(Via Debbye).

Here’s Lynn on so-called “messianic Judaism”:

We Jews have been fighting this battle for nigh on two thousand years. Christians have been trying to explain to us where and how we went wrong since the dawn of Christianity. Whether it’s the threat of eternal damnation or death by the sword, the noose, the bullet or the gas chamber, whether it’s physical violence or gentle persuasion, we’ve been there and done that. We have all the tee shirts. Those of us with any historical education at all are way too familiar with these ploys to fall for them. Unfortunately, we live in an age when too many of us lack that education. Jews today are generally smarter about everything else and (except, perhaps, in Israel) stupider about Judaism than they’ve ever been. So we’re ripe for the picking. And, with a little help from their friends, the missionaries are eagerly anticipating the harvest.

Lisa eloquently sums up – as only she knows how – the overwhelming sentiment in Israel these days about disengagement:

The situation is heating up here; it’s not pleasant; it’s very complex; as usual, the people with the least power are paying the highest price; and I really wish this painful enterprise had been planned and executed in a more organized, sensitive fashion.

And closer to home, Debbye has some of the most reasonable commentary on the gay marriage issue I’ve seen so far from the right:

To reiterate: the one prospect I find insupportable is that of allowing gays to marry yet a future Conservative Party government suddenly declaring those marriages null and void. Try to put yourselves in the position of marrying, making plans for a future together and even making joint financial investments and then imagine being told your marriage is no longer legitimate.

Forget the circusy atmosphere we see on television and some of the wilder “activists” showcased by a sensationalist media and focus on the human face of this issue. Gay couples love one another – in probably the same variables of intensity and committment as straight couples – and I believe their love is entitled to respect.

The damage to the institution of marriage was done long before gays emerged from the closet. We can blame easier divorces, the pill, Roe vs. Wade, or the sexual revolution and even the “disposable society” but we simply cannot with any honesty blame gays much less instituting gay marriage.

Hmmmm, all women today. Well, I guess that’s fair, seeing as how the guys usually get all the linky love. Once I’m highlighting women bloggers, I should direct everyone to Meryl, Imshin and Allison while I’m at it, not for any particular post but more for all of them in general.

The sun’s come out and dried up all the rain. It’s gonna be a nice day.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that putting framed copies of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses violated church-state separation, but it allowed a commandments monument in a larger display on a state Capitol grounds.

The two 5-4 rulings on the politically charged issue of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property came in a pair of cases regarded as the most important of the court term concerning constitutional separation of church and state.

Display issues aside, I can’t help but wonder what the Ten Commandments are even doing in a courthouse in the first place. To quote the West Wing episode:

Sam: There is a town in Alabama that wants to abolish all laws except the Ten Commandments.
Tobey: That’s odd.
Sam: Well they’re going to have a problem.
Tobey: Because the Constitution prohibits religious activity in any form connected to government?
[ . . . ]
Sam: I just mean, some of those Commandments are pretty hard to enforce [...] Coveting thy neighbor’s wife, for example. How are you going to enforce that one?

Yeah, I’m not sure how a court of law would prove coveting. Do you get witnesses to comment on longing glances?

They include:

• Stronger guarantees that Charter rights will not override religious freedoms
• Justices of the Peace who do not want to perform civil marriages of same-sex couples will not have to do so
• Churches are not required to rent out their halls for same-sex weddings
• Religious educational institutions will still be allowed to preach that homosexuality is against God’s law, without being subject to hate crime laws

Except for the second point about justices of the peace not being required to carry out the law, these amendments seem reasonable and designed to simply guarantee religious freedom.

Still, you have to wonder whether Martin would have done this if his fragile grip on power hadn’t been threatened yesterday. I’m wondering if he’s even capable of taking a stand and stating clearly that bill C-38 will pass because it’s the right thing to do.

Newsweek magazine said on Sunday it erred in a May 9 report that U.S. interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, and apologized to the victims of deadly Muslim protests sparked by the article.

Editor Mark Whitaker said the magazine inaccurately reported that U.S. military investigators had confirmed that personnel at the detention facility in Cuba had flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet.

The report sparked angry and violent protests across the Muslim world from Afghanistan, where 16 were killed and more than 100 injured, to Pakistan to Indonesia to Gaza. In the past week it was condemned in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and by the Arab League.

On Sunday, Afghan Muslim clerics threatened to call for a holy war against the United States.

But… I thought the media was all controlled by an international Zionist conspiracy. Why would the Arab world trust it in the first place?

Now, it’s been announced that it will be phased out entirely by 2008.

In sharp contrast to the controversy stirred back in 1997, most people in Quebec seem to be backing this new plan, with polls showing about 75% in favour of the elimination of instruction and replacement of it with a “culturally inclusive” course about religion in general. Quebec is a fairly secular society these days, and it seems most people are inclined to accept that education belongs in the classroom and religious instruction belongs in the home.

As it happens, I agree. Ironically perhaps, since I’m a product of religious school myself.

Many Americans are surprised to know that religious instruction still exists in public schools here. It’s admittedly not been a huge issue since most of Quebec outside Montreal is overwhelmingly Catholic by denomination, even if their level of adherence to the religion varies. The Protestant schoolboards were mostly English and that was where most of the Jewish kids went if they weren’t attending private Jewish schools. By the time my generation attended, they were fairly secular and the religious aspect was mostly nominal.

But the system still created awkward situations. And in some cases even the new linguistic system as it stands can ostracize kids if they’re the only ones opting out of religion classes. That’s not cool. Montreal is a diverse, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city, and even if this diversity isn’t reflected province-wide, schools that offer only Christian instruction are really limiting when we consider how many religions coexist among the student populations.

Religion doesn’t really have a place in public schools, in my opinion. But parents should still have the option to send their kids to (heavily subsidized) private schools if they feel religious instruction is important. That’s what a large portion of the Jewish community does. I think we’ll be seeing more private Christian schools cropping up after 2008, to fill a need that the phasing out of such education in the public system will create. And that’s okay too.

It’ll be interesting to see whether this gets more press in the coming days, or how people will react.

I don’t really feel qualified to comment on the leadership of another religion. The media reports make him sound like a conservative hard-liner – but then again, he is the Pope.

However, I can’t imagine I’m the only Jewish person out there to be feeling a bit uncomfortable by the fact that Ratzinger was once a member of the Hitler Youth – even if it was compulsory… even though the Jerusalem Post spoke up in his defence.

Update: With such a serious topic as the election of a new Pope, we can always count on The Onion for some irreverent satire.

You scored as Buddhist. Buddhist 80% Jewish 55% Anarchist 55% Christian 45% Cult 45% Catholic 30%

At least all those years of Hebrew school amounted to something…

(Via Paul Jané).

Members of Grantsburg’s school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum “should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory,” said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

One of the key problems with many religions is their inability to accept natural facts and explain them. The Catholic Church maintained the Earth was flat long after it was proved that it was round, and that the sun revolved around the Earth long after the opposite was proved to be true. Millions of people today equate science and faith, believing them to be simply “alternate theories” of the same event.

This discounts the whole basis of science: proof, verifiable data, and a willingness to change theories in the face of new evidence. None of these are present in faith, which is a personal matter that has no place in public schools.

I think part of the problem in the evolution versus creationism debate is the word “theory” in scientific circles. A scientific “theory” is not just a guess. Science uses the term “theory” on the assumption that there is no such thing as fact, because new evidence could always emerge. But a theory is as rock-solid as it gets in science; it’s a conclusion drawn after experiments and supporting research. This leads many religious people to falsely assume that a scientific theory has equal validity to a faith-based one.

Personally, I don’t believe that these Wisconsin students will never understand that. I was educated in a religious school where creationism was taught over evolution, and I got over it. That doesn’t mean it’s right to mislead and falsely educate students just because of politics. Especially in public schools. It’s one thing for students to be taught that many people believe in creationism. It’s quite another for them to be taught that it’s as valid a theory as evolution. The politicos who made this decision should be ashamed of themselves.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the state can’t regulate personal religious beliefs.

“A claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion,” Justice Franck Iacobucci wrote for the majority.

“It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived-as-mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection.

“The state is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma.”

B’nai Brith, which intervened in this case, had the following reaction:

Allan Adel, National Chair of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights, reacting to the news, stated: “We are satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court, which has applied a broad interpretation to the Charter guarantee of freedom of religion and believe it to be in the best interests of all Canadians. The Succah ruling is an important, groundbreaking case that champions the cause of religious freedom in Canada and will have important ramifications well beyond the immediate facts of the case.”

Personally, I agree. While not religious, I tend to think that anyone should have the right and freedom to practice a religious belief that doesn’t harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else. The condo association had no real reason to ban the succahs, and people want to build them on their own private property. There are a lot of fine lines and open questions when it comes to religious freedoms, but this ruling makes sense.

Then the province of Ontario quietly approved its use. Under the 1991 Arbitration Act, sharia-based marriage, divorce and family tribunals run by the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice are expected to begin later this year. The move has so horrified many Muslim women that they’re vowing to stop the tribunals before they start.

“We’ve had a flood of e-mails from people, asking `How can we help?’” says Alia Hogben, president of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, whose 900 members come from a variety of Islamic sects.

They were outraged that Muslim women could be coerced into taking part in sharia tribunals or face family and community ostracism — or worse.

Why, they asked, should these women be treated differently from other Canadian women?

“When you come to Canada, you are a human being with full rights,” says Jonathan Schrieder, a Toronto civil litigation lawyer. Allowing sharia here — even a “Canadianized” version, as its proponents claim — “will subject Muslim women to a huge injustice.”

Indeed.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with religious arbitration being used voluntarily by members of a community, when it doesn’t contravene secular law. For example, Montreal – like many cities – has a Jewish beit din to decide matters of Jewish law, and members of the community can agree to subject themselves to its jurisdiction.

But what we’re talking about here isn’t voluntary arbitration: it’s an attempt to relegate Muslim women to second-class citizen status against their will. Even though the Ontario court ruling specifies that all parties must “voluntarily” submit themselves to the process, this is certain not to work because the very nature of Shari’a law makes the whole process open to unbelievable amount of abuse. No Canadian should stand for this.

Via LGF and Burnside, who are all over this one.

Former chief Sephardi rabbi Eliahu Bakshi-Doron yesterday advocated dismantling the Orthodox rabbinate’s monopoly over marriages – the first time any leading rabbi associated with the rabbinical establishment has publicly urged such a step.

[ . . . ]

In his speech, Bakshi-Doron gave several reasons why he thought the rabbinate’s monopoly on marriages must end. First, he said, the law has become irrelevant, as growing numbers of Israelis are choosing to marry in civil ceremonies either abroad or in Israel (the state recognizes civil marriages conducted overseas, but not those conducted locally). Second, he said, the law encourages hatred of the rabbinate, since it is seen as the primary expression of religious coercion in Israel.

Israel has been trying to work out the meaning of “Jewish democracy” for decades. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come, and other religious and secular leaders will speak out and work to change this law.

Oh, scroll down on the page past the movie review first. (Via Tainted Glass.)

• Letters like this one are encouraging and nice to see. But they’re also easy. Too easy. It’s simple to act upset and shocked when assholes firebomb an elementary school. It’s harder to face down other forms of antisemitism that aren’t so obvious but are just as harmful. I’d like to see a flooding of support for the Jewish community when there’s a suicide attack in Israel. Instead, we get finger-pointing and Israel-bashing.

• Speaking of the UTT fire, Geoff has photos (via Celestial Blue). Disturbing to see the building that way. I can’t bring myself to drive by. Though the attack happened in the elementary school’s library, the high school is attached and so I spent 5 years of my life inside that building on a near-daily basis. I’m too used to remembering it as the place I dreaded seeing as we drove up every morning… and was happy to be let loose from every afternoon … only because it meant long days trapped inside boring classes. It meant a school that was falling apart, with leaky toilets and an ever-present smell of rotten fish. It meant all the things that are a normal part of high school. It never meant fear of being harmed or attacked. What will the building mean to the current students?

• Lynn has the latest about the Mel Gibson movie, and its convenient messages in the Arab world. Here’s a hint: It’s not a hit in Muslim countries because of Monica Belluci’s breasts.

• Michele has done a lot to restore my faith in the education system. It seems that there are actually teachers out there who encourage kids to think for themselves and debate!

• In the meantime, I’ve concluded that Passover must be sponsored by the gyms and fitness centres. It’s been a long time since I’ve felt in such need of exercise.

Finally, let’s just pause for a moment and appreciate the wonderful thing that is a LONG WEEKEND!!!

Just as we are busy denying that the Jews control the world, it turns out that we do. Look what a wonderful job we have done publicizing Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ. Only we could take a film of unrelenting torture – by all accounts not a pleasant experience – entirely in Aramaic and Latin, and turn it into one of the best-selling movies of all time.

Haven’t seen it. Have no plans to see it. And somehow I think the publicity was generated more by the Christian religious groups than the Jewish ones. But why add fuel to the fire?

The crazy Sephardic rabbi Ovadia Yosef has made some new ridiculous extremist pronouncements for Purim.

He says it’s forbidden to dress in a costume of the opposite sex for Purim, it’s forbidden to wear a Kaffiyeh (i.e. no Arafat costumes) and …. as a crowning touch, now it’s forbidden to give a Purim basket to a member of the opposite sex (the baskets, known as “mishloach manot” are a Purim holiday tradition, a basket filled with cookies and candy that you give out to friends and neighbors)

Yep, who knows what that kinky basket-exchanging can lead to…..

Hmmm, I wonder how he would’ve reacted to my sixth-grade Hebrew teacher dressing up as a nun?

But whatever one thinks of Mel Gibson, Meryl has the scoop on Mel’s dad, giving credence to the theory that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Even if there’s no direct evidence that Mel shares his father’s extremist views, in light of the film and surrounding controversy, can you really blame a person for wondering?

France’s National Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to banish religious emblems from state schools, a measure meant to keep tensions between Muslim and Jewish minorities out of public classrooms.

Deputies voted 494 to 36 to ban Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses and to expel pupils who insisted on wearing them. It will not apply to private schools.

[ . . . ]

“What is at issue here is the clear affirmation that public school is a place for learning and not for militant activity or proselytism,” Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre said.

Er, no, what is at issue here is whether the public school system will actually deal with racism and militant activity, or whether it will just sweep it under the carpet. All this law will do is force Muslim girls out of the public system and into private Madrassas, where they will lose the opportunity to have a secular education. All this will do is force the militant wing of Islam underground in France, and insult all the mainstream Muslims by telling them that their symbol of faith is really a symbol of “militant activity”.

France is attempting to solve a serious problem by pretending it doesn’t exist, and we all know how well that works.

Unfortunately, personality conflicts – chiefly involving Dollard borough Mayor Ed Janiszewski and Al-Jamieh leader Ahmad Chaar – haven’t helped matters. Janiszewski cynically says Dollard’s opposition to the mosque is open to change, but the most likely scenario for that happening, he says, would involve his own death. In other words, over his dead body will al-Jamieh stay open.

Chaar, meanwhile, didn’t help matters when he rejected executive committee Robert Libman’s offer to act as mediator, saying Libman, as a Jew, is naturally biased against Al-Jamieh. This was an unwise and unhelpful comment, especially since one of the most vocal proponents of al-Jamieh’s right to exist is former Adat Reim congregation co-president Peter Nobel.

Hmmm… trading kindergarten-level insults and being obstinate about stupidities? Are these Dollard politics or Concordia politics?

Today’s Gazette had two stories. One was about a zoning dispute for a mosque in DDO:

Many prayers have been said at 241 Anselme-Lavigne Blvd. in the 15 years the building has had a religious function, but for the current Muslim occupants, the D.D.O. address is proving to be more of a curse than a blessing.

The Canadian Islamic Centre Al-Jamieh bought the property in December 2001 and has been fighting the borough for the right to stay ever since.

The dispute became public in fall 2002 when the borough changed the site’s zoning from residential to institutional, with the aim of moving out the mosque and putting in a day care.

Meanwhile, a group of Orthodox Jews is battling their condo association for the right to build succahs on their balconies:

Several religious organizations will side with five families as they argue that a condo rule barring them from putting huts on their balconies for about a week each year to celebrate a fall religious festival contravenes the Charter of Rights.

The case is considered one of the most significant in the court’s winter session because the outcome could determine whether private contracts can override the charter and human-rights legislation.

These two cases are quite different, of course. The first is yet another example of cities using every iota of red tape and zoning regulation at their disposal to prevent religious centres or houses of worship. I haven’t heard too many large-scale protests against churches, but a synagogue in Outremont is in an ongoing battle to expand, and the mosque in question in DDO used to be a conservative synagogue, which also went through its share of problems with the city. It seems people can only tolerate freedom of religion as long as religions other than their own are being practiced privately in a home, not publicly.

In the second case, I suppose a condo association should be allowed to have by-laws for certain things. But personal politics and petty squabbles usually play more of a role in those condo meeting votes than common sense. On the one hand, a communal succah for the building seems reasonable. But on the other hand, I’m willing to bet that the opposition to the balcony succahs has more to do with childish power jockeying than with any real concerns. Again back to Outremont, the worst case of this that I can recollect recently was a group of citizens lobbying to prevent the large Orthodox Jewish community in the area from putting up an eruv – a small, basically invisible wire that would encircle the area, allowing the religious inside it to “carry” things like baby strollers on the Sabbath. It wouldn’t have harmed anyone. In fact, there’s an eruv in Dollard but I only know about it by having been told. Nobody would notice. And yet, petty squabbles.

The concept of freedom of religion is an interesting one. It guarantees people the right to practice their religious beliefs without harassment. And it also guarantees freedom from religion to those who don’t wish to participate. That means no school prayers in public schools, no forced public worship of any kind, and basically that the government butts out. But it also means that if people want to wear symbols of faith or observe rituals, they should be free to do so, as long as they don’t compel anyone else to. If a Jewish child wants to bring Passover lunches to school for eight days every year, nobody should force him to eat bread. If a Muslim girl wants to wear a hijab to school, nobody should force her not to… assuming that nobody forced her to wear it in the first place, of course.

But how far does the public responsibility extend to ensure that people can practice their religion? Is a city obliged to rezone land to allow houses of worship to be built? Is a condo association obliged to allow succahs? What if I claimed that my own religion required me to play loud music at 2am every night and dance around in tap shoes. Would a landlord be denied the right to evict me for disturbing the neighbours?

The tricky thing about religion is that there’s no clear-cut line between legitimate, recognized religions and fringe ones. Who’s to say that a small group with 20 followers is any less entitled to the protection of the Charter of Rights than a religion with millions of adherents? What about different ideas on how a religion ought to be observed? If a Reform rabbi testified that a succah wasn’t really needed, but an Orthodox rabbi disagreed, who does the judge have to listen to? And how far is the public required to go to be accommodating? Rezoning land to build a mosque is one thing, but is a public place required to actually build and provide the prayer facilities, as student groups in some universities are claiming?

Obviously, there are no clear answers. But in these cases, we should ask ourselves about the intent of the people seking to block something. Are they doing it out of xenophobia or out of a legitimate concern? When a Sikh boy was denied the right to bring a kirpan to school, perhaps the parents who lobbied so hard against him were denying this boy’s freedom of religion and perhaps they were overreacting, but the bottom line was that their concern stemmed from the legitimate desire to protect their children against a perceived threat of a large knife being present in a classroom in the hands of a fellow student. But I suspect that the motives of the few DDO residents complaining about the mosque are not as honest. At the end of the day, I think it’s about making an honest effort to accommodate one another, to a reasonable degree. Unfortunately, the people involved in such squabbles are rarely reasonable or accommodating… and then you end up with news items like these.

President Jacques Chirac called on Wednesday for a law banning Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses from French state schools.

“In all conscience, I consider that the wearing of dress or symbols which conspicuously show religious affiliation should be banned in schools,” he said in a televised speech on the long controversy over the role of religion in French public life.

“For that, a law is necessary,” he added, urging parliament to pass legislation for the new school year in September 2004.

Great solution there, Jacques – let’s pretend racism doesn’t exist by covering it up and banning it. Sure.

The obvious solution has yet to be formally presented: the institution of civil marriage and divorce for all those prevented from creating a recognized conjugal unit today. Any country that does not guarantee this essential right fails to safeguard one of the most elementary building blocks of individual wellbeing.

The issue of providing marital privileges to all is now at the top of the country’s domestic human-rights agenda. As the country continues to contend with the way it treats its minorities and the population of the territories still under its control, it can also resolve this problem.

This year Israel can finally take the long overdue step of liberating hundreds of thousands of its citizens from the confines of an anachronistic system by enabling them to join together in marriage within their own country.

Israel needs to remove religious jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. It really is that simple. Religious people can still be married by an Orthodox Rabbi – just as they can in Canada, or the US – but those either not wishing to or unable to should have the civil alternative available. Israel has the responsibility of making this fundamental right available to all its citizens.

An 18-year-old student has filed a suit in Palm Beach County, Fla., against a private school, alleging he was expelled for telling a teacher he is gay.

Jeffrey Woodard claims that Jupiter Christian School expelled him three days after he was pulled out of Bible class by a teacher and asked in confidence if he was gay.

When Woodard answered “yes,” a school official called his mother and told her Woodard couldn’t attend an upcoming school retreat unless he and his mother, Carol Gload, met with the school to talk about his sexual orientation, according to the lawsuit.

“We were given three choices at the meeting — to get counseling, for him to voluntarily withdraw or expulsion,” Gload recalled.

[ . . . ]

School President Richard Grimm said last week that he could not comment on the issue because it involves private information about a former student, but he said the school’s policies are based on Biblical values.

Florida laws don’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So the sickest thing is that this student might actually have no legal recourse.

All this is assuming, of course, that he was expelled for being gay. There could of course be some other reason – maybe he failed all his courses, or assaulted a teacher, or set fire to the locker room.

But if it’s true he was thrown out for being gay, then I can only hope, for his sake, that his case causes enough public debate in Florida to make some changes. It’s time for people to stop justifying this blatant kind of discrimination.

Manji advocates a reformation she calls “Operation Ijtihad.”

“We have a glorious opportunity here in the West to revive Islam’s lost tradition of independent thinking. It’s a tradition called the ijtihad, which sounds a lot like like jihad (or holy war). And it comes from the same root, to struggle. But ijtihad is the very antithesis of violent struggle. It’s all about independent reasoning, independent thinking.”

Western Muslims must lead the way, she said, “because we already enjoy precious freedom to think and express and challenge and be challenged. All without fear of state reprisals.”

I’ve heard critiques of Manji’s writing style as overly prosaic and full of sweeping generalizations. I haven’t read the book myself so it’s hard to judge. But Manji herself seems fairly tough and thick-skinned to criticism – which, I suppose, one would have to be in order to withstand the inevitable barrage of criticism that’s sure to come her way for publishing this book. And that in itself, IMHO, makes it worth a look.

Dr. Nabil Hilmi, a dean at the University of Al-Zaqaziq, said Egyptian expatriates in Switzerland are mounting a massive lawsuit against “all Jews around the world” that seeks compensation for “tons” of gold they claim was stolen during the Jews’ exodus out of the country.

Hilmi described the suit in an interview with the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi.

“Since the Jews make various demands of the Arabs and the world, and claim rights that they base on historical and religious sources, a group of Egyptians in Switzerland has opened the case of the so-called ‘great exodus of the Jews from Pharaonic Egypt.’ At that time, they stole from the Pharaonic Egyptians gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, clothing, and more, leaving Egypt in the middle of the night with all this wealth, which today is priceless,” Hilmi told the paper, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

[ . . . ]

Hilmi estimates the nominal value of the 300 tons of gold purportedly stolen 5,758 years ago would be astronomically large. He figures the value doubled every 20 years and conservatively tacks on 5 percent interest.

Okay, never mind that the ancient Egyptians aren’t the same people as the modern ones . . . or that the bible isn’t exaclty admissable evidence in a modern court of law. But what I really want to know is, can the Jews counter-sue Egypt for 210 (or 400, depending on the interpretation) years of slavery?

A Ten Commandments monument at the center of a bitter dispute over the constitutional separation of church and state was removed from public view on Wednesday in Alabama’s state judicial building.

[ . . . ]

Some protesters were distraught over the removal of the monument. One protester screamed “Put it back, put it back” as others in front of the judicial building tried to calm him down.

I mean, it’s a monument. It’s a piece of granite. And while I believe that separation of church and state means that it has no place in a judicial building, normally I can see the other side of the argument too. But in this case, it’s people worshipping a big rock. That’s their right, of course, but I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that it went against their religion too.

Now it has suddenly dawned on us that there are probably 60 million Evangelical Christians in the United States and that they represent our staunchest supporters and friends. In fact, in recent years concern and devotion for Israel have become one of their highest priorities.

While I realize the sensitivity of looking a gift horse in the mouth, let me be candid about how uncomfortable – and that’s putting it mildly – the whole thing makes me.

Here is a story that is hardly new and that has been developing for a while. Some people, like Lieber, are from the “who cares about their motives, they’re helping us, and we sure could use all the friends we can get” school of thought. I see where they’re coming from. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree, or to like it.

Evangelical Christians are, of course, as free to practice their brand(s) of religion as anyone else. That doesn’t mean I have to like it when they start preaching to me about being “saved”. Nor do I have to overlook the fact that most of these millions of supporters of Israel are only doing so because they believe that the second coming of the Messiah will result in the conversion of all of us Jews to Christianity.

Frankly, the kowtowing and compromising of the principles of Israel – and indeed of Judaism – to these so-called “new friends” reminds me of the kid in the schoolyard who’s so lonely that he’ll attach himself to anyone willing to show the least bit of attention, even if he’s the laughingstock of the group.

The pragmatic approach would say that Israel can’t afford to dismiss the friendship of perhaps the most powerful lobby group that can influence the American government to see things in a favourable light. However, conscience would dictate that Israel can’t afford to overlook other things. The power of the religious right in the US means that other items on the Evangelicals’ agendas, aside from support of Israel, include encouragement of school prayer (Christian of course), denying homosexual rights, and trying to change the law to outlaw abortion, to name a few. And I can’t help but wonder if, sooner or later, Israeli lobbyists will realize that when you sell your soul to the devil, so to speak, it comes at a very steep price.

Okay, that last one is caused by people, not nature. But the rest of the occurrences – while some argue that global warming can account for the more extreme weather – all seem to be just a coincidence. And probably no worse than the kind of things that happen all the time.

But if I were a religious person, I might start to get a bit suspicious. Some of the stuff in the headlines lately has been way too biblical for my taste. I think I’d start wondering whether G-d was punishing us for something or other.

And that, to me, gives considerable insight into the psychological roots of religion in the first place. It must have just seemed too weird to people to think that natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or floods, would happen naturally and coincidentally. It was easier, perhaps, to attribute them to the greater plan of some supreme being. Because belief in G-d – like natural disasters – has the effect of making us feel small. I can see how it would be comforting to people – especially centuries ago when even less was known about these things than we know now – to think that someone was holding the controls upstairs, and that there was some rhyme or reason to the whole thing.

So then, the next thing to question would be, what exactly are we being punished for? That’s where it all began, I bet – finding targets. I can just see the allegations now:

“We’re being punished because of of the witches!”

*Killing spree with ‘witches’ burned at the stake*

“We’re being punished because of the nonbelievers!”

*Crusades, inquisitions, torture and forced conversions*

“We’re being punished because of the infidels!”

*Planes crash into buildings*

Hmmmm. So maybe we can’t relegate this kind of irrational behaviour into the dark ages. Or maybe the dark ages are threatening to swallow us up again. Certainly, if groups like Al Qa’eda are allowed to win this war against society, then that’s what will happen.

Is that what is at the root of it all? Simple human fear? It seems so simple, doesn’t it? I mean, it has to be more complicated than that. Doesn’t it? The explanation for centuries of war and religious persecution has to be based on more than the search for a scapegoat for G-d’s wrath.

But the bible is full of it. The ancient Israelites would lose a battle and a prophet would tell them it was because they had “displeased G-d” in one of many ways. Perhaps by not being religious enough, or united enough, or by assimilating too much into the surrounding population. It’s a common theme throughout the whole book that is the root of the major monotheistic religions.

Even today, the Vatican is threatening Catholic politicians with eternity in Hell if they don’t push forth a political agenda that continues the legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians. I somehow don’t find it so far-fetched to see the religious right campaigning on the basis that the SARS epidemic or the Mad Cow scare were “punishments from G-d” because of homosexuality. Or abortion. Or any of the other things they get all up in arms about.

We need to take a collective deep breath and use our brains before jumping to conclusions. Let’s recognize these events for what they are – either natural disasters, or man-made problems with reasonable cause-and-effect explanations.

And, more importantly, let’s recognize that, just because we can’t explain it yet doesn’t mean it can’t be explained. Human knowledge is progressing every single day. What made no sense whatsoever 1000 or 100 years ago can today be explained using modern science, technology, or understanding. Imagine how much more knowledge is still out there, waiting to be discovered! And isn’t it time to stop blaming religious vengeance for anything that we simply have yet to discover?

Update 08/07: It’s gotta be just a coincidence that the Gazette’s Mike Boone was thinking along the same lines when he wrote his column.

“As Prime Minister of Canada, [Chretien] has the moral responsibility to protect the equality of Canadians,” said Thoren Hudyma, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office. “There needs to be a separation between the church and state.”

I guess Bush would be exempt from eternal damnation as he has come out against gay marriage in the US . . . except that Bush isn’t Catholic.

In the meantime, Damian Penny disagrees with me that religion should and can be separate from politics. He makes the argument that because politicians are people with their own moral codes, that they cannot separate the source of those moral codes from their daily decisions and actions in office:

I’ve heard this “you should keep your religion out of your politics” argument dozens of times (especially during the 2000 federal election campaign, when people believed Stockwell Day was going to take the vote away from women ‘n stuff), and it’s always stuck in my craw. It’s one thing to say politicians shouldn’t impose their religious beliefs upon others, but if you subscribe to a particular belief system, how on earth are you supposed to divorce yourself from it when the time comes to vote on a particular issue? Religious belief is not really something you can pick and choose whenever its convenient. Everybody has a moral compass of some kind (indeed, the lefties who usually squawk the loudest about “keeping morals out of politics” are the most dogmatic, doctrinaire people around when it comes to issues about which they feel strongly), and for many – perhaps most – people, it will be founded in some sort of religious belief. And I just don’t see how you can put it completely to one side when pondering a moral issue.

In response, I would argue that the notion that morality need be founded in religion is a wrong and dangerous one:

It’s more than possible to be a moral person without being a religious person, and without grounding your morality in religion (which is a fallacious and dangerous link to make, but I digress).

What George Bush is doing is taking his religious beliefs, which are supposed to be personal, and politicizing them by imposing his interpretation of religion on 250 million citizens, some of which may share his beliefs and many of which don’t.

Now you may say, how is that any different than a president saying “my moral code says it’s wrong to kill, so I’m going to pass a law forbidding murder”. But it is different. There are concrete, natural reasons why it’s wrong to kill (a priori) that need not be based on a faith-based religious doctrine. It’s wrong to kill because fellow human beings have a right to life and killing causes grievous harm.

But to say that’s it’s “wrong” for gays to have the right to get married, just because of blind faith in religion, well, that has no place whatsoever in politics. Nobody’s telling Bush to be gay or to marry a guy. But if he’s going to tell all Americans that they can’t do it, he ought to have a damn good reason, and “my religion says so” just doesn’t cut it.

Damian responded by saying that religious codes of morality were the source for most of our secular notions on morality:

This does beg the question, where did the concept of a “right to life” arise in the first place? Most religions have a clear prohibition against killing other people (although, as everyone from the Inquisitors to Hamas illustrate, religious people will find no shortage of loopholes allowing them to get around this inconvenient rule), and that’s why murder was taboo long before secular philosophical arguments against killing gained popular currency. This is another area where politics and religion cannot be completely separated.

I think that is a powerful and persuasive argument that merits a response. I also think it’s wrong.

Rather than discuss this at length here, I’ll direct interested parties to this link to a philosophy paper I wrote on the subject. I’d post excerpts but in my egotistical opinion it’s better if you read the whole thing.

And for anyone who isn’t yet asleep, further reading can be found here, here, and here, among other places.

“As a little boy, I thought all Jews should be killed,” he says. As a young man, his virulent tirades against his purported enemy at a local radio school attracted the attention of a Pakistani Jew who quietly funneled him books on Jewish history and Israel, including Exodus by Leon Uris. When Sayyed took a closer look at the Koran, a different Islam was revealed to him: a religion of peace, free of the hatred that he argues has held his people back for centuries.

“I became vengeful, as if somebody had cheated me of my childhood, as if somebody had tried to make me a serpent when I was not a serpent. I blamed the mullahs and the clerics,” he says.

Sayyed argues – in a somewhat contradictory fashion – that either there is no Muslim moderate “silent majority”, or else they are not represented by the official Islamic organizations:

Why is it that every time I look at the White House or a senator’s or congressman’s office, every time I find an intern or employee who is Muslim, he is always connected to some Islamic center or mosque? [ . . . ] There are gatekeepers in the White House who are promoting Islamic radicals. So long as you call Islamic centers [for advice] on whom to invite to do American jobs, you will only get Osama bin Laden.

Sayyed is, of course, dismissed by most Islamic centers as being “controlled by Zionists” and somehow, this allows them to ignore the fact that people like him exist.

The 20,000 Canadian followers of Obi-Wan Kenobi pose little threat to the major religions.

That number came as a result of an e-mail campaign that urged people to respond “Jedi” when asked about their religion in the 2001 Census. Similar campaigns were even more successful in other countries such as Britain, where more people said they were Jedis than called themselves Jews.

Canada’s Jedis are concentrated in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

May the force be with you.

This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer–vertical and horizontal. I don’t have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.

To choose an example from football, when my team needs a field goal to win and I think, ”Please, dear God, let them make it!”–that is vertical prayer. When, before the game, a group of fans joins hands and ”voluntarily” recites the Lord’s Prayer–that is horizontal prayer. It serves one of two purposes: to encourage me to join them, or to make me feel excluded.

[ . . . ]

This simple insight about two kinds of prayer, which is beyond theological question, should bring a dead halt to the obsession with prayer in public places. It doesn’t, because the purpose of its supporters is political, not spiritual. Their faith is like Dial soap: Now that they use it, they wish everyone would. I grew up in an America where people of good breeding did not impose their religious convictions upon those they did not know very well. Now those manners have been discarded.

I agree with all of that so far. Individual prayer is fine. After all, I went to a religious school most of my life, where daily prayer was just part of the routine. But of course it wasn’t compulsory for me to have gone there – I could have gone to a public school where religion wasn’t forced down anyone’s throats. Prayer aimed at excluding those different from oneself is another story.

And here’s the kicker:

Because our enemies are for the most part more enthusiastic about horizontal prayer than we are, and see absolutely no difference between church and state–indeed, want to make them the same–it is alarming to reflect that they may be having more success bringing us around to their point of view than we are at sticking to our own traditional American beliefs about freedom of religion. When Ashcroft and his enemies both begin their days with displays of their godliness, do we feel safer after they rise from their devotions?

Good question.

The destruction of Joseph’s Tomb of the past two weeks is now “official.” Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz confirmed this morning, at the Cabinet meeting, Arutz-7’s report of the end of last week: Arab vandals entered the holy site in Shechem sometime in the past two weeks and turned the large stone marking Joseph’s grave into a pile of rubble.

Minister Natan Sharansky called upon the Foreign Ministry to publicize the photos of the destroyed site. “If we would have razed the gravesite of one of the founders of Islam,” Sharansky said, “billions of Moslems would have taken to the streets. It’s inconceivable that the world should not know about this travesty.” Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Sharon said they would in fact publicize the photos.

To see more photos of this disgusting violation of a Jewish holy site, see this site.

However, the reality of Christianity under Islam has often been difficult. “Over the centuries, political Islam has not been too kind to the native Christian communities living under its rule. Anecdotes of tolerance aside, the systematic treatment of Christians…is abusive and discriminatory by any standard….Under Islam, the targeted dhimmi community and each individual in it are made to live in a state of perpetual humiliation in the eyes of the ruling community.” As described by a Christian Lebanese president, Bashir Gemayil: “a Christian…is not a full citizen and cannot exercise political rights in any of the countries which were once conquered by Islam.”

[ . . . ]

Islam is the official religion of the Palestinian Authority. In addition, fundamentalist Hamas and Islamic Jihad have promoted Islamic influence on Palestinian society.

[ . . . ]

In addition, no PA law protects religious freedom. While asserting that all Palestinians’ “liberty and freedom to worship and to practice their religious beliefs are protected,” a PA Information Ministry statement also stresses that: “The Palestinian people are also governed by [Islamic] Shari’a law…with regard to issues pertaining to religious matters. According to Shari’a Law, applicable throughout the Muslim world, any Muslim who [converts] or declares becoming an unbeliever is committing a major sin punishable by capital punishment…the [Palestinian Authority] cannot take a different position on this matter.”

For all the people who complain about Israel’s Jewish character, this report should be an eye-opener.

It is a mistake to blame Islam (a religion 14 centuries old) for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran.

Pipes then goes on to defend Islam against common misconceptions, as well as to develop a reasonable thesis about how Islam needs to modernize.

This makes me wonder why all the people protesting against Pipes were so against him. I suspect it has very little to do with Pipes’s views on Islam, and more to do with his defence of Israel. Because to the extreme left, any defence of Israel is “racist”.

Judging by the horribly antisemitic character of the Raelians’ writings, I can’t help but wonder if this is just the precursor to some new way of targeting Jews. Call me crazy . . . well, no, actually, call them crazy.

Three journalists were formally charged Tuesday with slandering Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and harming Jordan’s reputation in an article that discussed the sex life of the prophet and his wife, Aisha.

Muhannad Mubaideen, 29, Roman Haddad, 28, and Nasser Qamash, 33, were also charged at the trial’s opening with “destabilizing the society, propagating perversity and circulating false rumors.”

The charges, outlined in an indictment sheet read out at Jordan’s military State Security Court, are considered misdemeanors punishable by up to three years in jail and a fine.

Under the law, the verdict and sentencing are irrevocable.

Yeah, sure, good ol’ freedom of the press.

I used to think the Raelians were just a bunch of cranks with some wacky ideas, but basically harmless. Than I found the Rael-operated “Subversions.com”, a “politically incorrect” “news” website which features one of the most shocking blood libels I’ve ever read: that the Israelis murdered 1,000 Palestinians, “most of whom were women and children” in Jenin. Not even the Palestinians themselves, nor the most hysterically “anti-Zionist” segments of the British media, wrote anything this vile.

Mind you, the Raelians don’t just pick on the Jews. They say say the U.S. Secret Service killed John Lennon and the followers of “Reverend” Jim Jones, and they even accuse the French of murdering members of the “Solar Temple” cult in 1994-95 and planning their own “concentration camps” for minorities. Still, the front page, which rants about “Americano-Israelian terrorism” and purports to show a Palestinian baby murdered by the IDF, makes it clear who their main target is.

Fuck you, Rael. Fuck, fuck, fuck you. Fuck you and the spaceship you rode in on.

Damian, I couldn’t agree more.

It’s scary as hell. Sure, the announcements of this week’s cloned babies are almost certainly hoaxes, but even the idea of them being true is frightening. Is this really who we want owning the technology to clone people? Imagine what kind of people these bigoted freaks would create. A world full of Raelian clones is not the planet Earth I want to live on, that’s for sure!

We visited Sheikh Raad Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement (he received us with eyes beaming and talked about the abandoned mosques in the ruined villages throughout the country and about the danger looming to the Al-Aqsa mosque, and about how the Jews had no right to Al-Aqsa. You know, he said, even according to the Israeli historians, even according to Ha’aretz Magazine, the Jews have no right to Al-Aqsa: The whole story of the Temple Mount never happened).

Upon reading this, I thought to myself, there it is! Right there, in black and white. The Palestinians believe their religious claims are valid and those of the Jews aren’t – why? Because there are more secular Israelis than secular Palestinians!

It seems so obvious. While there are many Christian Palestinians, and Muslim Palestinians are among the most secular Muslims in the mideast, they’re still overwhelmingly more religious and inclined to believe their holy texts than are Israelis. Israel is sharply divided between religious and secular, with religious communities battling for more control but with a huge secular population ready to throw out all claims attached to Jewish history or biblical ties.

As a secular Jew myself, I guess this affected me even more than it might affect someone religious. Do I believe in the bible as literal truth? No. Do I respect the right of others to believe in it? Absolutely! This is, after all, what freedom of religion is all about.

I support the right of religious Jews to believe in the Torah, of religious Christians to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, of religious Muslims to believe in the Koran and in the words of Mohammed, and of the Raelians to believe we all came from aliens if that’s what they friggin’ want!

But what the Shavit article exposes is what we’ve always known: that religious intolerance is behind much of what is being falsely portrayed as a secular movement for Palestinian rights. Salah’s rantings come from the perception that Islam is right and Judaism is wrong, and, as with most matters of faith, to him this is an unshakeable belief – as unshakeable as my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow.

It’s much easier to delegitimatize your enemies if you believe yours is the only true religion. And it’s easy to claim rights over land if you believe your holy text is right and theirs is wrong. To us, it seems like a double-standard but to them there’s no contradiction at work here; it’s simple truth.

That, right there, is what Israel is fighting. Not reason. Not a willingness to compromise. Not openness to logic or even centuries of hatred. Israel is fighting an enemy engaged in what it perceives to be a holy war. And people who beleive they are backed by the heavens aren’t going to compromise or see the other side anytime soon. It’s a zero-sum game to them.

Despite the fact that this is evidently a hoax, human cloning will be a reality in the not-so-distant future. I had the opportunity, while on vacation, to discuss the potential ethical ramifications with several people including a relative who’s a very knowledgeable professor, and what emerged was fascinating and more than a little disturbing.

The question was this: assume, for the sake of argument, that human cloning can be done safely without risk of harm to the mother or the baby (this assumption can’t be made right now but it will be reality soon enough). Would it then be ethical to clone human beings?

My argument was that the process itself would be ethically neutral, as simply another technology, but that the ethical questions would emerge in terms of the motives and the potential consequences. It was pointed out to me that technology is not necessarily neutral, since there are purely negative technologies, with sole purposes of creating harm (such as those used to create atom bombs, for example).

But since scientific knowledge inevitably moves forwards, it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. So if the technology to clone humans will inevitably exist, what are the ethical ramifications?

Motive is one. Will the technology be used to genetically engineer “perfect” babies? Is a Gattaca-like universe not far off? Or will it be used to help infertile couples, cure terminal diseases, and better the lives of all? Who will control the technology – democratic governments, or the wealthy?

Then of course the questions of consequences emerge. Will we create a world in which men are unnecessary? Can clones be considered as human as “natural” babies? More so? Is this merely another stage of evolution at work – the next step, so to speak? Is something inherently wrong because it’s “unnatural”? After all, plenty of unnatural things are considered perfectly fine – everything from in-vitero fertilization to giving a woman in labour an epidural. Is our knee-jerk negative reaction to human cloning more of a conditioned disgust rather than a well thought-out objection?

Despite all of this, I still think human cloning is dangerous, and my instinct is to say it’s unethical as well. Canada is in the process of enacting legislation against it and I’d probably support it. But all these questions are bound to come up again soon, and the Raelians may be forcing our society to deal with them sooner rather than later.

Judaism is much more than a set of religious beliefs and practices. Secular Humanistic Jews have a strong connection to Jewish history and culture and are committed to the future of the Jewish People. Secular Humanistic Jews rely on reason, rather than faith, to understand the world and believe that human intelligence and experience are capable of guiding their lives.

Secular Humanistic Jews believe that Jewish history is a human saga, a testament to the significance of human power and responsibility. We identify with the experience and culture of the Jewish people and we celebrate our Jewish identity at holidays and special moments of our lives using practices, rituals and language that are consistent with our secular beliefs and ideals. We enrich our knowledge by studying the collected teachings and experiences of the Jewish people, as well as modern ideas based on rational inquiry.

There are other interesting quizzes at SelectSmart too. According to the Mideast Selector Quiz, I’m an average Israeli (but choice #2 was Israeli far-right wing, which makes me wonder how they define “far right wing” based on the answers I provided). Last place in that quiz was Palestinian suicide bomber . . . I wonder if they track IP addresses of anyone who takes the quiz and gets that as a result? Perhaps they should start.

Oh yeah, and apparently I should move to Alaska, read Nietzsche, and vote for the Marxist-Leninist party in Canadian politics (as you can see, some of these quizzes are more accurate than others).