I hate starting the week off with a depressing news article, but stories such as these are becoming all too common in a society that should be rooted in reason.

An 11-year-old girl from Weston, Wisconsin, died from diabetes after her parents relied on prayer to save her rather than bringing her to the hospital when her situation worsened.

Turns out the parents don’t actually belong to any organized faith:

“Her mother, Leilani Neumann, told The Associated Press that she never expected her daughter, whom she called Kara, to die. The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said.
…
“We just believe in the Bible, that’s all. …This is our faith.”

Her husband added that, “We believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.”

Leilani Neumann said the family is not worried about a police investigation into her daughter’s death because “our lives are in God’s hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do.”

But the worst news of all? The girl’s diabetes was treatable.

How many more children need to die before we all realize that prayer doesn’t work?

A judge in Scott County, Iowa has come up with a new solution to prison overcrowding–send offenders to church instead. According to a story in the March 20 Quad-city Times, Judge Christine Dalton has sentenced Pachino Hill to a church-run counseling program for charges of eluding and driving while barred stemming from a police chase from Rock Island to Davenport in October. Hill must also attend church for eight consecutive Sundays, pay a fine, and be on probation for one year. In fairness, Hill can choose two years in prison if he prefer. The optional prison sentence aside it’s pretty clear this is a violation of church and state. I mean even the idea of sending Hill to a church-run counseling program is pushing the envelope.

Two things come to mind: What happens if Hill acts out at the church and robs or injures a church member? And what happens next time? Who will receive the next would-be convict—Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Or should we check out some religions that we haven’t thought of.

In all seriousness, in America no one should be forced to attend church even as punishment. That isn’t coming out quite how I mean it but I think you get the idea. You can’t force someone to convert to any religion any more than you can demand that they have no religion. The state shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what citizens’ religion should be. And relating it to crime and punishment is even more incendious as it makes freedom dependent upon one’s beliefs. This absolutely should not be tolerated in a just society.

In Sunday’s New York Times, Paul Berman writes about “Why Radical Islam Just Won’t Die” and offers up his theories as to why it is that extremism survives in Iraq, as well as why it flourishes in the West, too. Berman states that,

Even in the Western countries, quite a few Muslim liberals, the outspoken ones, live today under a threat of assassination, not to mention a reality of character assassination. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch legislator and writer, is merely an exceptionally valiant example. But instead of enjoying the unstinting support of their non-Muslim colleagues, the Muslim liberals find themselves routinely berated in the highbrow magazines and the universities as deracinated nonentities, alienated from the Muslim world. Or they find themselves pilloried as stooges of the neoconservative conspiracy — quite as if any writer from a Muslim background who fails to adhere to at least a few anti-imperialist or anti-Zionist tenets of the Islamist doctrine must be incapable of thinking his or her own thoughts.

A dismaying development. One more sign of the power of the extremist ideologies — one more surprising turn of events, on top of all the other dreadful and gut-wrenching surprises.

This critique by Berman can also be extended, to some degree, to the humanist movement. For example, in the January/February 2008 issue of the Humanist, in a piece about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authors David Schafer and Michelle Koth conclude, in part, by saying,

Her approach is poorly informed about the past and present of Islam, ineffectual at best, mainly counter-productive, and at worst potentially catastrophic in its consequences. It is here, too, that the influences of her principal intellectual environments since 2003—the VVD Party in the Netherlands and the American Enterprise Institute in the United States—taken as a whole, have clearly discouraged her development as a well-balanced defender of human rights and security.

Schafer and Koth are perhaps correct in stating that,

Hirsi Ali’s prior experience of Islam was confined to her youthful and often painful life in Africa: the tribal variety in Somalia, the strict Wahhabi version in Saudi Arabia, and in Kenya the Islamist political formulations of the Muslim Brothers and even more radical Sayyid Qutb—all followed by her intense contact with mainly African (e.g., Somali and Moroccan) immigrant women who had suffered abuse in the Netherlands. She knew little about the complex history of Islam in other times and other places.

While her views on Islam aren’t based on years of study, her intense, personal understanding of the religion also cannot be dismissed. Though what she dealt with is not the form of Islam practiced by every Muslim, it is also difficult to argue that she is taking her stand purely because of the ideology of the VVD Party, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Indeed, as the West continues to encounter Islam, not only on grand geopolitical scales, but everyday at the corner store or in a school hallway, it is imperative to recognize the vast and heterogeneous nature of Islam. What is perhaps forgotten, then, is that this also extends to the varying types of critiques of Islam. For Schafer and Koth to deride Hirsi Ali’s analysis of Islam simply because her view doesn’t conform to their understanding of the religion leads them down the same narrow path that they’re alleging Hirsi Ali has taken. It’s unfortunate that Schafer and Koth have fallen into the trap that so many others on the Left have fallen into.

A shocking article published in The Nation, written by social critic and 1998 Humanist of the Year Barbara Ehrenreich, takes a scathing look at presidential contender Hillary Clinton and her involvement with an ultra-secretive conservative group known as “The Family.”

Also known as “The Fellowship,” members of The Family are Capitol Hill legislators that gather for Bible study and group prayers. Hillary has been an active participant since winning the Senate in 2006, and evidence shows she was involved in The Family’s activities as early as 1993.

Perhaps this is nothing more than a gathering of dedicated religious leaders for private group worship. But Ehrenreich suggests it goes far beyond that, referring to an upcoming book by Jeff Sharlet, who uncovered the following:

The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes–knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.

At the heart of The Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum. They get to use The Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family’s young women’s group. And, at The Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already powerful.

Humanists often say that religion shouldn’t play a role in politics, but that doesn’t mean it does anyway. So when the time comes, how will Hillary explain her relationship with “The Family” to the millions of church-state separation supporters in America?

It’s always troubling for me to see the emptiness of the rhetoric and the lack of coherent arguments that has emerged from our movement regarding the liberation of Iraq. T.F. Kelley’s recent online column for the Humanist is unfortunately no different in this regard (for a more nuanced view of Iraq at this five-year anniversary, check out a Week in Review article from the New York Times). I am continually astounded that when the topic of conversation turns to Iraq, we, who claim the mantle of critical thinking and humane values, suddenly cannot help but point out the conspiratorial hand of Big Oil, and the supposedly secular utopia that was built by Saddam. Only two of Kelley’s points appear to require any serious rebuttal.

Kelley writes, “I don’t believe it’s a ‘tragedy of the Left’ to be unwilling to apply the idea of justice for all by supporting an illegal war, not one declared by Congress and in contradiction to [the] will of the United Nations.” If Kelley wishes to be told by politicians and bureaucrats what is ethical and what is not, he is free to do so. However, considering the social and legal struggles humanists, atheists and all freethinkers have fought for, we know that the institutions that we as a society have created are not always fully just, and that what is right and wrong is not always the same as what is legal and illegal.

The implied claim by Kelley that liberal hawks did not apply any rigorous or critical thought to the question of Iraq in the lead up to March of 2003 is laughably ridiculous, at best. By simply typing “liberal hawks” into Google, readers will find a plethora of articles by liberal hawks discussing amongst themselves the difficulties in rendering a decision on this matter, as well as articles about the choices – and reasoning behind those choices – that were made. Liberal hawks were not drawn into the right-wing culture of fear created by the White House, but they also refused to stand alongside a Left which is becoming increasingly isolationist in it’s outlook. Our first and foremost concern was, and continues to be, the people of Iraq. Kelley may not wish to acknowledge that, but the weight of evidence easily available on the Internet belies his claims.

At the end of his essay, Kelley speaks of the Iraqi boys in the photo that accompanied the print version of my article. It’s encouraging to see him show some concern for their wellbeing. I wonder, though, if Saddam were still in power, would Kelley still have been concerned about their fate? Or would they simply have been someone else’s problem?

Nica Lalli, author of Nothing: Something to Believe In, writes a fantastic opinion article in USA Today about the questions atheist parents often get when asked about how their children are raised. Do atheists raise their children as atheists? Do they learn about organized religions?

The answers to these questions aren’t always the same for every atheist parent. It would only be natural that a child raised in an atheist household adopt the beliefs of their parents. An atheist parent isn’t going to church on Sundays or praying before meals. But does that mean we are indoctrinating children into atheism?

Lalli points out that children can learn about all religions—in addition to learning about atheism, humanism, and other non-religions. Encourage freedom of choice, and your child can make his or her own decision as he or she gets older. Whether you believe in God or not, a child shouldn’t have to be forced into any belief system. Giving your children the opportunity to explore the vast and diverse beliefs and nonbeliefs out there is the best way to go.

I made a comment in a post “My Supporter Has Wilder Views than Yours” about how Senator John McCain, when asked about the support of John Hagee, replied, “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. … They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

It’s frustrating that this can’t work for Senator Barack Obama. On March 14, he came close to having to disown his pastor of twenty years and has had to let Rev. Jeremiah Wright go from an unpaid and largely ceremonial role on the African American Religious Leadership Committee.

Obama repeated the view, which is his standard response on the campaign trail, that voters should focus on what he himself believes, not the words of his longtime pastor, who retired from Trinity United Church of Christ in February.

Is it lack of political savvy or is Obama just not going to stick up for his friends when it’s not politically expedient?

McCain knows Hagee and may have even courted his endorsement. Hell, Hagee endorsed Bush, although I can’t remember if it was as big a deal then as it is now. But McCain didn’t reject Hagee. Obama is now rejecting a twenty-year relationship. You have to read this blog, Obama’s judgment Wright or Wrong, to get the full force of the impact of this turn. I can’t say it better.

I’m nervous about Obama’s need, real or perceived, to dump people when the going gets tough. I don’t know if it’s the media or the pressure of an ugly election, but religion is definitely not working in Obama’s favor.

Listen to heart-wrenching testimony from Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans from Winter Soldier, a four-day event that’s currently in day two and will last until Sunday. The description from Iraq Veterans Against the War:

The…event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan—and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans’ health benefits and support.

Find out how to watch or listen here.

This morning Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! broadcasted Vietnam vet’s testimony from the first Winter Soldier, held on January 31, 1971. Names and places have changed, but otherwise the testimony from then and now are eerily similar, particularly with regards to policy, enforced by military higher-ups, of abuse of detainees and innocent civilians.

On Tuesday a Judge ruled that a lawsuit would go forward against a Santa Ana History teacher who was making disparaging remarks against Christians during his class. James Corbett had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by his former student, Chad Farnam, and his parents. Farnam tape recorded some of Corbett’s lectures, thus bringing us the now infamous line: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” This situation is quite similar (in the reverse) to the Matthew LaClair case where he recorded a teacher proselytizing a type of Christianity to his students.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a reason to say that Chad Farnam was less courageous than Matthew LaClair, and given what we know now, I can’t say that this teacher is much different from the other teacher. More people are jumping behind Corbett because they seem to think he was trying to engage students in intelligent discussions. Just because a conversation seems to start from a secular proposition does not guarantee an enlightened discussion or even a free discussion. Certainly, opening with, “When you put on your Jesus glasses” isn’t likely to encourage everyone to feel like they can join in the conversation or keep to facts rather than opinions.

Yesterday I attended a panel discussion, “Has the Religious Right Lost Its Way? Religious Leaders from the Left and Right Discuss the Future of Faith in Politics,” featuring Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition; Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and Rev. Jim Wallis, president and executive director of Sojourners. The event was held to discuss the forthcoming book, Personal Faith, Public Policy, co-authored by Perkins and Jackson, in which the pair argues that the Evangelical movement is not, in fact, dead (as so many pundits are quick to report) but merely regrouping and expanding in breadth to include issues such as poverty, the environment, race, and immigration to its primarily pro-life/pro-marriage platform. They also made the point that “Religious Right” is actually becoming a misnomer—one of the Evangelical movement’s main focal points is to transcend categories of Republican or Democrat and to reconfigure themselves as Independents, or as Wallis put it, the “ultimate swing vote.”

I agree that—for better or worse—the power of Evangelicals isn’t extinguished, only perhaps waned. The pendulum will inevitably swing back. And in terms of socio-political movements, the power of faith should never be underestimated or devalued. As long as the wall between church and state remains strong I welcome the moral imperative to change society that can be derived from religion. We should be focused on protecting the environment and alleviating poverty, and if religion is compelling people to do so all the better. It’s only when religious movements try to impose rather than promote their morality by using the government to force it on others—such as in the case of trying to outlaw abortion—that I have a problem.

The most compelling portion of the event was an exchange between Perkins, Wallis, and moderator Michel Martin of NPR’s Tell Me More, during which health care made an entrance. Perkins made the argument that it’s wrong to force pregnant women to test their fetuses for Down syndrome but then not offer them government aid if the test turns out to be positive, leaving them in the heart-wrenching position to choose between abortion or the astronomically high cost of raising a Downs child. (My two cents: bravo for Perkins. It’s hypocritical to claim to want to reduce the abortion rate but then not make the costs of raising a child more affordable. Now when are we going to talk about comprehensive sex education?) Martin challenged that that’s a good argument for universal health care, which is eschewed by the Religious Right. Perkins said he agreed there needs to be more affordable health care but that it shouldn’t come from the government—do we really want to rely on an inept government for our health care needs? He called for more personal responsibility as a solution (so in a more free-market system people might be more likely to rethink eating from McDonald’s three times a week if they knew they’d have to pay later on if they developed heart disease). Wallis jumped in, arguing that health care should be a universal right—if a person is genetically predisposed to cancer it’s not a matter of personal responsibility. Wallis reasoned that government isn’t the answer or the enemy; we need to strike a balance between personal responsibility and the responsibility of society to take care of those in need.

In the March issue of the Atlantic, Walter Russell Mead suggests that evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more moderate as they mature into the mainstream, shedding their more strident tone as their influence grows in politics and society. One example of this, of course, is the move beyond the longstanding focus on gays and abortion, toward “creation care.” This past weekend, writing in the Washington Post (registration required), E.J. Dionne Jr. proclaims the death of the culture wars, not because one side or the other has finally emerged victorious. Instead, as we head to presidential elections this fall, voters simply have too much on their minds — for example, the liberation of Iraq, the state of the economy, the place America stands in the world—and don’t have the time to be worried about “values,” like they could in the past.

It’s too early to tell if this really is the trend both authors see it to be (just between reading this blog and the Humanist, it seems a case can be made that the religious right is not mellowing out that much). But if we grant the authors their assumptions, what does it mean for the humanist movement? Of course, on a philosophical level, humanism is so much more than just a reaction to religion. But when it comes to day-to-day activism in the public square, not only are we out there pushing our worldview forward, we’re doing all we can to push back against most everything the religious right is spewing out. What would happen if evangelicals continue proselytizing on an individual level, but no longer tried to impose their views on the rest of society through legislation? Or, what if they started promoting viewpoints that our movement could support?

Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?

This is an issue that we already face as we work with religious liberals on those issues of common concern. But our agreement on various issues are arrived at by very different means, and very different routes. If we truly are facing a trend of a religious right that is more moderate, or of a religious right that is simply less relevant, the question then becomes where does that leave us, and where do we go from there?

Back in August of 2006 Germany not only gave a 27-year-old lesbian asylum because she would face persecution if she was sent back to Iran, its ruling set a binding precedent for similar cases. But today in Britain a gay Iranian teenager and a 40-year-old Iranian lesbian are leading the cause for an immediate moratorium on deportations of gays and lesbians seeking asylum because they are afraid they will be persecuted or even executed if they return to Iran. The following is from the Islamic Punishment Act, which carries provisions for homosexual acts:

Art. 110: The prescribed punishment for homosexual relations in case of intercourse is execution and the mode of the execution is at the discretion of the religious judge.

Art. 111: Homosexual intercourse leads to execution provided that both the active and passive party are of age, sane and consenting.

Art. 112: Where a person of age commits homosexual intercourse with an adolescent, the active party shall be executed and the passive party, if he has not been reluctant, shall receive a flogging of up to 74 lashes.

Art. 113: Where an adolescent commits homosexual intercourse with another adolescent, they shall receive a flogging of up to 74 strokes of the whip unless one of them has been reluctant.

Articles 114 to 126 establish how to prove homosexual intercourse.

Articles 127 to 134 relate to lesbian sexual relations. Punishment for sexual intercourse among lesbians is 100 lashes. If the offense is then repeated three times the punishment is execution.

The Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted. But Omar Kuddus of Gay Asylum UK demanded that Britain follow the example of the Netherlands and Germany in imposing a moratorium on all deportations involving gay and lesbian Iranians. He asked: “How many more young Iranians have to die before the British Government takes action?”

Would you trust the reasoning of a society that places a death penalty on crimes it’s willing to ignore if the perpetrator is discreet? Would you want to bet your child’s life on their ability to be discrete? Would you trust that the religiously zealous around you wouldn’t need to know what you were up to in your private life, especially if they thought you were odd or just disliked you?

We have to get past this just-don’t-flaunt-it-and-you’ll-be-okay reasoning which has often been foisted on women and now GLBT people. Most often it is pushed on them to their detriment. It is obviously out of date and (especially in the situation in Iran) dangerous. We must let people have the property of their own identity before we can truly call our society humanist.

Charlotte Allen hosted a Q&A on the Washington Post website today to respond to the reactions to her inflammatory opinion piece asserting women are dumb. Read the transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/04/DI2008030402153.html

I managed to get three of my questions in, although I do feel they were given short shrift by Allen:

Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.

 

Washington: Do you believe caring for children, men and the weak is something that should be valued less in society? I ask because you seem to imply that they are tasks only fit for the dim, and unworthy of an intelligent mind. What do you think about men who are caregivers?

Charlotte Allen: Quite the opposite: I think that caring for children, men, and the weak are the most important things that can be done. It’s women who have devalued them by mocking stay-at-home mothers, etc.

 

Washington: Were you trying to start a constructive debate with your opinion piece? Do you think that’s happened? I think by concluding that women are “dumb” because of real sex differences that exist just pisses people off, and thus precludes any real debate on this issue—and it’s something I think should be explored openly. Name-calling doesn’t get us anywhere.

Charlotte Allen: I called no names, but to be quite honest, I wasn’t trying to start a debate, constructive or otherwise. I was just expressing my views.

Read a rebuttal to Allen’s piece that was posted on the WP website here.

I have to admit I’m starting to wonder if Allen’s opinion piece doesn’t actually signify something good after all. In Allen’s Q&A session she argued that men are lampooned all the time as idiotic oafs but women are off-limits, unfairly so. I don’t know if I completely agree with that (surely it’s not hard to think of instances in which popular culture makes fun of women), but it’s certainly much more mainstream acceptable to poke fun at those who have power in society (i.e. men). Maybe the fact that a media powerhouse such as the Washington Post would publish a “humor” piece that pokes fun at women means that women have truly risen above their historically weaker status in society–both institutionally and socially. Maybe this is an important turning point, rather than the display of crass cattiness I first thought.

Or, you know, at least in addition to.

Early this year, several female Muslim students at Harvard University felt uncomfortable exercising at a campus gym due to their religious and cultural beliefs. They approached the school to consider opening at special hours for women only, and Harvard agreed.

Now several students are unhappy with the new policy because it discriminates against men. According to a recent AP report on this issue:

The policy is already unpopular with many on campus, however, including some women who consider it sexist.

“I think that it’s incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that’s supposed to be for everyone,” said student Lucy Caldwell, who also wrote a column in The Harvard Crimson newspaper critical of the new hours.

Student Ola Aljawhary, who is Muslim and works out elsewhere on campus but is not one of the women who requested the change, rejected that argument.

“The majority should be willing to compromise,” she said. “I think that’s just basic courtesy. We must show tolerance and respect for all others.”

I wrote a blog post previously on the issue of building foot baths in bathrooms at the University of Michigan in order to accommodate Muslim men and women, and my argument for that can be applied here.

Where do we draw the line? First special hours for Muslim women to exercise without men. What next? Faculty-only exercise hours because the older generation are uncomfortable seeing constant reminders of younger, fitter versions of their previous self? Will this lead to hotel pools or public beaches accommodating religious minorities? Let’s be serious.

It would be impossible for Harvard to accommodate everyone’s special needs, and this should be no exception. I’m in favor of showing sensitivity toward religious beliefs; perhaps a smaller building funded by private donors could be built on or near campus that would be satisfactory. Or even a special room in the gym for women-only, provided the same workout equipment in that room can be found in another room that’s accessible to all. But you can’t win ‘em all.

Or so the Washington Post says. In one of the most insulting, inflammatory opinion pieces about sex differences I’ve ever read, Charlotte Allen asserts that because of gender differences in spatial perception ability, car accident rates, and even literature tastes, women are dumber than men. She ends her piece by suggesting women might just well be happier if they stayed home and took care of others:

So I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home… Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are…kind of dim.

Well. Maybe romance novels aren’t the most mind-expanding book list choice, but at least we can read.

Allen is seeing an awful lot in a few minor differences between men and women. Certainly it’s true that women perform worse on average than men on spatial perception tasks (it’s actually a subject I’ve taken up myself in a past issue of the Humanist), but there is still far more variation in ability among the sexes than between. Plus, even if the differences were huge and across the board, difficulty with direction a dumber sex does not make. Moreover, Allen herself relates data that shows IQ is pretty much level between men and women anyway, so shouldn’t that pretty much clinch it? Maybe she just really hates Eat, Pray, Love.

I certainly don’t think that differences between sexes is a topic that should be taboo—the more we understand about ourselves the better off we’ll be. But to conclude that the science proves women are dim is purely asinine. Shame on Allen, and shame on the Washington Post for tacitly endorsing such drivel.

John McCain found himself being confronted by reporters wanting to know about one of his supporters, Reverend John Hagee. A San Antonio pastor with a worldwide broadcast ministry, Hagge has linked Hurricane Katrina to the gay rights movement or at least to the activities of gays in New Orleans. That doesn’t seem that radical for a televangelist but then there is Hagee’s opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is “the great whore of Babylon” and “a cult.”

“This is the apostate church,” Hagee said. “This false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ.”
Senator McCain had what I thought was a reasonable response. “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy,” he said. “They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

I don’t think it will do, but I think it came across better than senator Obama’s handling of the support of Louis Farrakhan in the Feb 26th debate.

Obama: “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

Russert: “Do you reject his support?”

Obama: “Well, Tim, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy.”

Are these two men, Hagee and Farrakhan, just part of the followers that would attach themselves to any presidential candidate or has religion become so important that it is necessary to examine these links and try to guarantee that the candidates do not agree with the views of these men? I mean we don’t seem to examine every business that gives a candidate money, or should we? Should nothing go unchallenged during a campaign? I don’t care for the mixing of religion and politics, but is it more important than which corporations have the candidate in their pocket? Maybe I just have campaign burn out early this year.