i’m gratified to read that the texas supreme court has ordered the return of the yearning for zion kids to their parents. i’m not crazy about the idea of marrying teenage girls off to older men,¹ but there is that whole freedom of religion thing we’ve had for two centuries. i’d rather freedom from religion, but that’s just me.

in other religious news, the military has suspended a marine (hopefully by his toenails) for proselytizing to iraqis; i just wish they’d do the same to military officers who can’t keep their religious yaps shut when it comes to their own troops.

and go read freakangels. it’s good for what ails ya.
________________________
¹ for a postapocalyptic feminist perspective on flds-style family units, read the gate to women’s country.

the queen decides to honor salman rushdie with a knighthood, and iran’s response - it’s a clear show of hostility toward islam!

ugh. i’m reading hitchens’ god is not great right now. a good read to begin with, and this latest religious whine is just cake. religion poisons everything.

update: hey, look at that. the vatican’s jumping on the stupid train as well (albeit a different wagon in the train). stop funding amnesty international, pope rat has decreed - how dare they support a woman’s right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term?

*sigh* and i’m trying to figure out how to work in the tidbit that Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies, rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies. yay religion.

given the poor track record christians have through history when it comes to tolerating adherents of other faiths (despite the whole new testament god-got-over-his-vengeance-kick-and-learned-to-love thing), it should come as no surprise to me that a christian pastor would threaten a fellow christian with “forty years in prison” for what essentially boils down to a difference in biblical interpretation. but i still find it disturbing.

the circumstances giving rise to the conflict of interpretation certainly bear examination. in 2001, jake malloy enlisted in the army reserve. in 2005, four months after he found out his unit was to be sent to iraq, malloy filed for classification as a consciencious objector, prompted by the evolution of his religious beliefs. the timing is certainly suspect, but malloy convinced the officer assigned to investigate his case of his sincerity; her recommendation was that he be granted non-combatant status, but kept in the army. however, after malloy’s hearing, the army denied his application. he took a chapter 10 — “other than honorable” — discharge, rather than deploy to iraq or face court martial for disobeying orders.

did the army make the right decision? i don’t know. while it is unusual that the decision was at odds with the recommendation of the investigating officer, i wasn’t there. i didn’t hear the evidence. so i’ll set that issue aside.

what disturbs me is this: for approximately two-thirds of malloy’s hearing, his commanding officer — an evangelical christian pastor, in civilian life — grilled him on questions of theology in an effort to convince the examiners that malloy’s beliefs were not based on “real biblical or christian positions.” translation: malloy’s interpretation of the bible differed from his CO’s — which made malloy’s request for conscientious objector status the action of a coward who deserved court martial. so much for the loving god of the new testament, i suppose; the CO wrote, “…as a christian and as a pastor, i find [malloy’s interpretation of the bible] shameful, reprehensive (sic), and terribly flawed. i expect that viewed in the light of truth, and better biblical understanding, spc malloy’s actions will be seen for the cowardice that they truly represent.”

procedurally, this is disturbing to me because there is no military requirement that a petitioner’s beliefs be grounded in mainstream interpretation of the petitioner’s faith of choice, or even that the beliefs be grounded in any faith. the commanding officer’s faith-based arguments and badgering of malloy should never have been allowed in the hearing, as his (the CO’s) religious beliefs had no bearing on the legitimacy of malloy’s convictions. had the hearing been a formal legal procedure, the CO’s opinions on religion would never have been admissible — they were not relevant to malloy’s beliefs.

personally, this is disturbing to me for a very different reason. the bullying, holier-than-thou, and apparently vengeful commanding officer/pastor is none other than my brother-in-law.

the place: rhode island.
the year: 2006. (A.D.? of course it’s A.D… nothing happened in 2006 BC… well, not in rhode island, anyway…)

so, heritage community services has given rhode island — that state founded by an advocate of church/state separation and a woman who publicly said you didn’t need ministers to talk to god — an abstinence-only sex ed curriculum that discusses abstinence as a way to “honor [one’s] relationship with jesus.” (okay, so hutchinson might not have objected too much, but williams must be spinning in his grave.)

It also said that “girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts” and required students to disclose personal information about their sexual activities.

but wait! there’s more! heritage community services sells t-shirts emblazoned with “virgins are hot!” holy mixed messages, batman! won’t wearing that invite lustful thoughts??? perhaps it shouldn’t be a t-shirt, but a burqua. not only would the girls be modestly clothed, but it would have the benefit of guys not being sure exactly what was under it! in the words of my mother, “it could be a large, hoover vacuum cleaner.” a virginal vacuum cleaner.

i don’t often blog about religion, partially because i don’t give a hoot about other people’s religious beliefs as long as they don’t try to shove them down my throat. the last time i mentioned religion, i think, was this post about the differences between an evangelical christian education and a jesuit education.

however, there comes a time in every girl’s life where she’s sitting in the cafeteria trying to avoid studying for conlaw II, and reads a washington post article about “the war on christians.”

we’re not talking about the crusades here, folks. we’re talking about how

White evangelicals make up about one-quarter of the U.S. population, and 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. But three-quarters of evangelicals believe they are a minority under siege and nearly half believe they are looked down upon by most of their fellow citizens, according to a 2004 poll.

under seige? puh-leeze. of course, when tom delay puts it into perspective, it all makes sense:

“We are after all a society that abides abortion on demand, that has killed millions of innocent children, that degrades the institution of marriage and often treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition. Seen from this perspective, of course there is a war on Christianity,” he said.

yeah, we certainly abide abortion on demand. south dakota sure does? and new hampshire. hmmm.

but wait, we’ve killed millions of innocent children? delay must have numbers from iraq and afghanistan that i’m not privy to. as far as i can tell, we’ve only killed a couple thousand. maybe we killed more in vietnam. korea? oh, wait… is he talking about the abortion thing again?

i *heart* the comment about degrading the institution of marriage. let’s recap: people who love each other but happen to be the same sex wanting to get married: bad. opposite-sex couples who can’t stand each other wanting to get divorced: good. yeah, i can see how marriage is being degraded. BUT WAIT — since when is marriage the sole property of the evangelistic christian religion, anyway??? don’t hindus get married? muslims? jews? OMG, the evangelists are trying to corner the market on marriage! quick, someone stop them before weddings become even more expensive than they already are!

and the last gem: treating christianity like a second-rate superstition. well, mr. delay, that’s just paranoia speaking. it’s a first-rate superstition. after all, it’s a superstition that’s started wars, tortured millions, sent europe reeling into the dark ages… classy stuff.

rest easy, you kings of the bible belt, you princes of evangelism. you aren’t under seige. we’ll leave you alone if you leave us alone. the rest of us just don’t want to live in your world. and if the constitution holds, we don’t have to.