The Treaty of Tripoli

The Corvallis Secular Society has placed a king-sized exterior bus sign designed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation on a bus in Corvallis, Ore., stating: "The United States is not founded on the Christian religion."

The advertisement quotes the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, which was negotiated under the administration of President George Washington, and signed by President John Adams.

The sign excerpts the exact quote: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

A lot of folks really need to see this sign...

Religion vs. Religion

In less than a month, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida plans to host "Burn a Quran Day" to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The pastor, author of the book "Islam is of the Devil," is using the burning to urge American Christians to "stand up" to what he describes as a monolithic Muslim threat. A Facebook page for the event has accrued thousands of "likes" and Jones has said people have been mailing him Qurans to burn.

What to think of this one... well, there sure is a lot of ridiculous bluster here. Jones is using a stupid tactic (burning books) to raise attention. Instead of getting his message out, he will be equated with censorship a la Fahrenheit 451. Of course, there is an element of that in these books burning (it would seem that this pastor would be thrilled if Islam were to be censored), but I think the larger meaning of this burning event is as follows: Christianity is being threatened by Islam and there are militant factions within Islam that are violently anti-American.

Of course, Jones and his ilk say it much more offensively than that, and that is what hides some actual viable criticism of Islam (and, oh, yes, there is MUCH to criticize). Furthermore, the city of Gainesville has not given the chruch permission to burn, but the church said it will do so anyway. I hope they all get thrown in jail for that.

The other side seems to be a bunch of whining babies, making statements like "Jones' burning will have great symbolic significance to a Muslim world already feeling under attack by the United States. It will cause undue harm to U.S. relations with the Muslim world and particularly the war effort." Ridiculous. We are to worry about how a free expression of thoughts and ideas (albeit a patently stupid one) impacts on the very people that are being targeted by the event?

So, bottom line, there is more stupidity here than you can shake a stick at. Maybe if we wait around long enough the various religions of the world will destroy themselves. That'd be fine with me... except, of course, that they'd probably take most of us down with them.

For the time being, I think I'll just sit back and laugh at everyone involved in this one -- both sides.

A French Racist Rears Her Ugly Head

A junior French minister has told young Muslims living in France they should dress properly, find a job and stop speaking slang.

Whereas finding a job is noble goal, the manner in which someone dresses, how they speak, and their culture are something that a government official should not be making broad generalizations about.

And, really, why should this idiot give a damn how anybody wears their cap (front to back or back to front)?

The world has enough diversity for us all to be individuals and not dictate how others live.

Proposed Burqa Ban in France

A call by French President Nicholas Sarkozy to prohibit women from wearing the notorious Muslim body garb, the burqa, has led to heated debate and the creation of a government commission to investigate the proposed policy.

On June 22, Sarkozy -- who in the past has opposed restricting the public proselytizing and display of religious symbols in the public square -- described the burqa as "a problem of liberty and women's dignity" that was "not welcome in France." He added that the full-body covering was less a religious symbol than "a sign of subservience and debasement of females" that resulted in "women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity."

While many secularists may agree, Sarkozy's proposal puts the government in the position of essentially creating a "dress code" for French citizens. It also raises serious questions about the strategies and limits in upholding the French cultural and political tradition of LAICITE, a term that refers to a robust separation of government and religion. As a political policy ensconced in French law, Laicite grew out of the effort in the 19th century to reverse the power exercised by the Roman Catholic Church over the country's educational and cultural institutions.

The Jules Ferry laws established free, secular education in 1881.

Separation was re-enforced in 1905 with new legislation, including the French Law on the Separation of the Church and the State.

This measure stressed the separation of government and religion, freedom of and from religious exercise, and restrictions on the public power of religious groups.

Today, LAICITE is supported by a wide range of civic and even religious groups, including anti-clerical movements, civil libertarians, freethought and Atheist/Humanist societies, and the Grand Orient of France, the nation's largest Masonic body. There are disagreements, though, on how far LAICITE should go; indeed, the dispute over the burqa highlights the conflict of individual freedom and "inappropriate" proselytizing in the public sphere.

Intelligence sources report that an "affiliate" of al Qaeda has
already threatened violence if the burqa ban becomes law. On the
other side of the political spectrum, Human Rights Watch warns that
such a law would be counterproductive. Islamic religious groups
say that the proposal stereotypes Muslims and is "insulting."

Ronald Sokol, international attorney and author of "Justice After Darwin," examined the proposed burqa prohibition in a recent op/ed piece in the New York Times ("MY Burqa Is None of Your Business, July 3, 2009). Sokol points out that the public display of burqas is not a widespread phenomenon in France, and may be, in fact, a guarantee of privacy and anonymity in public. "A state that proclaims democratic values cannot justify telling its residents what to wear or not to wear any more than it can justify telling them what to think or what to say or to which god to pray when no harm comes from the behavior, save the shock felt by those whose views and customs differ," warns Sokol.

There are other problems as well. Banning the burqa may fuel the ambitions and stature of a small coterie of Islamic fundamentalists who already criticize their brethren for being lax in religious practices. Muslims would see secularism, laicite, as a policy that must be enforced by government force rather than reason. And the policy could fuel the arguments of strident fundamentalists that "Islam is at war" with modern society.

A commission has been appointed by lawmakers to examine public policy is respect to the body garb. A report is expected in the next two weeks.