A New Challenge to the Separation of Church and State

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated in an interview last week, with BBC Radio, that he believes adopting certain aspects of sharia law would lead to better social cohesion of the muslim community within the UK. He believes that currently muslims are faced with "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". Let me translate that gobbledy-gook into plain English. He feels that many observant muslims are faced with the dilemma of obeying either their religious imperatives, as laid out by the quran (and the sharia interpreters), or the law of the land. He believes that muslims are being oppressed by having to submit to the common English law without recourse to their own sharia courts.

There are so many concerns which need to be separated and individually addressed here. Let me start first with muslim reaction in the UK. It is one of puzzlement. After recent talks of integrating the muslim community further into the mainstream of UK life and fighting feelings of alienation amongst the younger generation, one does not know what to make of the Archbishop's statements. Some raise practical questions: How would disagreements between sharia and secular law be resolved? Given the various sects, whose sharia would gain primacy? Others ask more penetrating questions: Wouldn't adoption of the sharia law actually achieve the exact opposite effect- that of further delineating the muslim individual rather than leading to further cohesion? Sharia is not renowned for its enlightened stance on most issues even if many in the world would willingly submit to it. What about the status of women? If sharia were formalized, would this not sow the seeds of discontent among other religious communities (like the hindus, christians, buddhists...) who could then ask to follow their own religious edicts instead of the national law?

Another aspect of this issue has to deal with the fact that by introducing muslim courts one would reintroduce an aspect of life most people may have been fleeing from, in the first place, by emigrating to a secular country. Rowan Williams wears the blinders of a religious man who cannot conceive of lives that do not revolve around religious conviction alone. There are plenty of younger people who are forced into arranged marriages and "honor" rituals in the UK, who have some recourse currently in the secular law of the land. Sharia courts would be a huge disservice to them. Indeed, he goes so far as to think that the introduction of sharia courts would somehow reduce these "cultural practices" by allowing for their legal monitoring. Huh? So sharia courts would bring to the fore that which was previously a hidden "cultural practice" but how would legal monitoring serve any purpose if sharia law considered said cultural practice correct?

Another set of questions raised by the Archbishop's comments relate to his motivation. Why would he be championing muslim rights to a separate sharia court? If one were to read or hear the full-text of his conversation with BBC's Christopher Landau, one will also hear other comments such as:
"What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences". [sic]
"An approach to law which simply said that there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands our loyalties or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the court - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy. But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that".
He goes on to make more confused noises while presenting examples such as whether a catholic adoption agency would be forced to consider gay parents under equality laws. His words swing between seemingly selfless championing of religious rights to incoherent ramblings about the trampling of the religious conscience by western secular democracy. One begins to wonder whether his true motivations aren't to strengthen judeo-christian religion and ultimately the church of England's position and re-establish it as the font of legal and moral authority in the land.

The danger of undoing the separation of church (mosque, temple, synagogue...) and state is very real in many democracies. There have been attacks on secular institutions and laws before. This attack from within is unexpected and therefore, the more dangerous. Williams states that most people are torn between their religious affiliations and the law and that their religious needs (which he euphemistically calls cultural practices) should get precedence. His suggestions would certainly strengthen the religious orders but I am afraid his fiction about a more cohesive society would remain just that. Let the Archbishop note that sharia law is accepted in many parts of the world and human rights have certainly not improved in areas under sharia law comparative to areas under secular law.

Quotes were taken from news stories on the BBC.

Do Liberals Need to be Told Whom to Vote For?

For a few years now I have received emails from MoveOn. I felt that MoveOn served to fill a gap in American politics where the right wing is often loud, vitriolic and brash. The liberal side of the political arena is usually represented by slightly anemic organizations such as PBS and NPR. These organizations, in their journalistic quest to appear objective, often end up not standing clearly for or against specific policies or decisions. MoveOn, on the other hand, draws its strength and voice from its avowedly democratic leanings. It has given all those stifled by Fox, Bush & Limbaugh hope and allowed them to pump their fists in the air and get behind a cause too.

MoveOn has been working tirelessly for the upcoming elections to mobilize the votes and return a democrat to the White House. While MoveOn started as a civic action group, it has metamorphosed into a two-headed organization - a civic action group and a political action committee. MoveOn PAC has been endorsing candidates and contributing to their coffers. American politics is, as it is, too institutionalized with various interest groups, lobbies and organizations trying to influence the electoral result with money. MoveOn, at least initially, stood apart as a grass-roots email-based movement of liberally-inclined individuals. While for the last couple of years, MoveOn gave Senator Clinton a lot of ether-time and generated support for her, it has now come out and endorsed Barack Obama as the candidate it wants members to back this election year. Why would an organization that served as a conduit for liberal opinions "decide" who the democratic candidate should be for millions of liberals?

This will be a historic election in more ways than one. We have the possibility of having the first woman president or the first president of mixed race. But instead of letting the candidates fight for the hearts of the people, MoveOn wants to hand one an advantage. This is condescending in the extreme to the American liberal voter. Bringing out the liberal vote and spearheading policy movements is a good agenda. It is inclusive and it influences the electoral process in positive ways by fighting electoral apathy and encouraging political debate. But presuming to choose the right leader for a party or a nation is fractious and damaging to the political process. MoveOn PAC's actions may drive away some of the same voters its civic action group is trying to mobilize.

What's In A Name?

Nothing for a woman and everything for a man, it would seem.

Most societies around the world are patriarchal and one spouse's name is used as the whole family's name. So a woman who marries a Mann also becomes a Mann and her children are all Mann. There are a few notable exceptions. Among East Asians (most Chinese and Koreans, for instance) a woman retains her family name after marriage. Her children, however, receive the father's family name. There are also a few matriarchal societies where the husband takes on the wife’s family name (the Khasi of NE India are one example). However, as these matriarchal societies have “modernized,” many are adopting the custom of taking on their spouses name (if they are female) or retaining their own name (if they are male). It is strange that this asymmetry in naming exists across most societies. Most families even resign themselves to the fact that their family name will die out without a son and many will, therefore, try and try and try to make sons. I feel this gives people another reason to cherish sons over daughters.

Whatever the reasons behind the various naming conventions, they are outmoded and do not necessarily hold water anymore. If someone freely chooses (and I emphasize freely) to change their names to their spouses’, it should be a deliberate decision and not a default. But I know very few women who have retained their family names (ok so these names come from their fathers mostly, but c’mon, we have to start somewhere) and I know of only one male friend who changed his name to his wife’s, for reasons he clearly articulated to me. (Hats off to you Schua!) I also know another friend, whose family (himself, wife & 2 adult children- daughter & son) decided jointly to change the family name to include both parents’ last names. This was more than one-score years after the marriage, when the wife felt she should be able to retain her family name. How proud a moment for that whole family when everyone agreed and participated in that re-naming ceremony acknowledging both parents! (Go Jeanette and Tom!)

Women are achieving a lot today and deserve to be acknowledged entirely as individuals. If they choose to change their names to their spouses, then great, but by that same token, we should see more men choose to do the same. Or perhaps, we can entirely avoid name changes. After all you fell in love with the person, not the name (only, hopefully).

As for progeny, I agree with Marilyn vos Savant that kids should get both their parents name. Her solution however, is not a hyphenated name. She suggests that the male children get the father's last name and the female children get the mother's last name. There are many other such distribution rules that one could employ to ensure that both parents' names are given importance. That would be one more step towards creating a more equal society.

[Picture shows Schua with his son, Erik, at a Buddhist conference in London, 2005.]

Here's a response from my dear friend Trini:

Hey Rad great blog, I've finally been tempted to contribute my 2 pence worth! I'm pleased to say that for a society that coined the term "machismo" the Spanish approach is probably the closest to gender equality that I am aware of. Everybody has two surnames. Women (and men) keep their surnames unchanged when they marry, and all the children get a new surname based upon the first part of each parent's surname. So, e.g. when Ms Rockerfeller Skank marries Mr Busta Rhymes, all the children have the surname Busta Rockerfeller! There's still a slight inherent machismo even in this system, because the fathers name always makes up the first half of the surname, and because the children take both of the first halves (names they have essentially inherited from their grandfathers on both sides) then after a couple of generations the maternal lineage is lost to obscurity. Perhaps a fairer system would be to take the first half of the father's surname (thus emphasising the paternal line in the father) plus the second half of the mother's surname (emphasising the maternal line for the mother). I think the Icelandic system is pretty much like the one you suggested ie. male children get father's name and female children get mother's name, except its the mother's & father's first name that gets incorporated; thus men have a surname ending -son and women -dottir, eg. Magnus Magnusson is "Magnus, son of Magnus" and Bjork Guomundsdottir is "Bjork, daughter of Guomund" presumably. Actually I just looked that one up and it seems that although the mother's first name can be used, most of the time it is the father's name for both boys and girls. Shame. Basic strategy is a good one though.

Trade Fairly: Putting Consumerism in its Place

I am on the Fair Trade bandwagon. Living in Europe made me aware of the growing fair trade movement and made me appreciate how harmful our quest for "cheap" can be. Look, I appreciate value as much as the next person. Who wouldn't like to save their money and have it all too? Hmm... but what does having it all mean? Does it mean I buy every new gadget that I am told to by the advertisers?

Fair trade is a relatively new concept in the world economy and one which while itself positive, by its very existence, denotes the negative place we have arrived at where we have to demarcate positive consumerism from blind materialism. Products that are sold "fair trade" or traded fairly, try to assure the producers a livelihood that takes into account issues of sustainability, living costs for a family which include basic amenities such as water, education for children, food and health for family. But, you ask me, isn't this implied by all wages for any job around the world? The simple answer is no. Do you think that when you buy products, say from Walmart, that the Chinese worker in some factory is assured all these things? No, they are assured back breaking work at low wages, which they are grateful to have because the wages are better than they could have got had they stayed back in the rural setting with their family.

When I bring up "fair trade" with friends and acquaintances some have expressed concern. They feel that while some rich, Birkenstock wearing people may be able to purchase useless knick knacks which are overpriced, fair trade seems quite exclusive and wasteful to someone on a budget- much as organic products do still. This is not a bad argument at all. Fairly traded products do cost more than "walmarted" goods. Currently, however, very few products are widely available as fairly traded. These are chocolate, tea, coffee, bananas and in some specialty stores, handicrafts and fabrics. People can afford to spend a bit more on these few select products but what if most products were available in "fair trade" just as now organic labels are placed right besides the regular labels? I suppose then it would be only the rich, Birkenstock wearers who could afford them- or do I suppose wrongly?

If one were to take our consumption patterns as they are and ask people to buy fair-trade, then yes, few of us could afford to buy everything we buy right now. But do we need to buy everything we buy right now? For instance, we buy and buy and buy clothes. Do we really need or even use all the clothes we buy? A look on e-bay or most consignment stores will show you that a significant proportion of clothes are NWT (new with tag in e-bayese) or NWOT (new without tag). Similarly for household appliances, furnishings, sports paraphernalia (a friend got a bargain on a used-once bicycle at a garage sale for $50 a few years ago), toys, and you-name-it. We really don't need to buy as much as we do. If we were mostly buying only those things we need then perhaps, we could afford to buy most things at fair-trade prices. We could join the Birkenstock club. ;)

If you think about it, it is simple economics. Any rational producer would price their goods and services at cost+ rather than cost- (or below cost) in order to subsist and thrive. But in this completely skewed world economy, we have strange pressures that hollow out the producers of basic resources more than secondary producers & consumers. Vandana Shiva has an amazing article in Resurgence about how even as world wealth has reached new heights, poverty has remained undiminished and even grown with it. We can change the distribution of health and happiness on earth by paying more attention to our spending habits. Fair trade is one way to do it and no, you don't need to be rich to do it.

For information on pictures, please click on them and you will be taken to the copyright page.

Far From A Free Market Enterprise

So I have an American cell phone as well as a British mobile. I had to get the American cell phone for work since my former American employers thought it "professional." So I opted for one where I could pay as I go. This seemed the least wasteful considering how little I anticipated using the phone. My cheap phone is cumbersome. Each call costs me $0.18 per minute. I have to top it off with $20 every 90 days otherwise it dies. This is regardless of whether it still has a balance from the previous top-up.

When I was in the UK, I considered getting a phone and expected the system to be either the same or worse than in the USA since I always figured the US to be at the cutting edge of consumer services and technological innovations. To my surprise, a cheap mobile was really cheap in the UK. I got a phone that really was pay-as-you-go unlike my American cell which only purported to be pay-as-you-go. So if I never made calls then I didn't need to top up my British mobile. The cash I put on it never expired. In addition, I had coverage all over Europe on various networks other than only my own. Charges for making or receiving calls in foreign countries seemed steep but I had the option of using my mobile, should I need to, in an emergency. Further, within country calls were quite cheap and even cheaper if you chose to text, which explained why so very many more people on that side of the Atlantic are consummate texters. I learned a lot about using mobiles during my stay across the pond. I learned about SIM cards and how I could take them out and put them in other phones. That the casing of the phone was less important than the SIM. Yet, in the USA, hardly anyone knows this.

I puzzled on this discrepancy for sometime. My expensive, cheap American cell had virtually no coverage in many parts of the USA. I couldn't use it anywhere abroad. Every couple months, I needed to top it up regardless of the fact that it still had money on it. And no one here even knew how to open text messages sent to them, let alone be able to text me.

From friends, from the news and reports on the web, I realized that the cheap mobile phenomena was not limited to the UK, but was even more rampant in continental Europe, sweeping through Asia and making inroads even in Africa. It brought good things in its wake in most places. While annoying loud talkers are annoying all over, at least there were some good things coming out of the cheaper phone phenomenon in other parts of the world. Young people starting out their careers did not need to pay for and maintain landlines in a permanent residence. Income did not differentiate who could or could not stay in communication with work, family and friends. New business enterprises emerged such as pay-phone systems in remote villages where women with phones could now provide a service and earn a living. The cellphone served as a business tool for farmers, cattle herders and fishermen who need to know which market is not flooded with produce and will fetch them a good price for their wares. Arranging meetings, changing venues and plans on the fly have become possible because of the ease of reaching another person on the go. In addition, studies are showing that the cellphone culture is fulfilling another primate need- that of "grooming." The number of just-keeping-in-touch types of calls expressing concern, support, and affection have gone up considerably.

I am not saying that only great things have come out of the revolution of the air-waves. On a negative note, cellphones have resulted in a lack of privacy as one is meant to be reachable anywhere, anytime. Cellphones have also been described as adult-pacifiers in that we never need to be alone or apprehensive anymore. The ubiquity of the instrument and the fact that another voice or presence is only a couple of key punches away diminishes individual introspection on phenomena and experiences. This leads to a dependency on others as well as the technology itself.

However, the imperfections of the system are more palatable when it becomes cheaper and thus, allows diverse usage thereby increasing convenience rather than imposing an expensive and burdensome system of limited uses. Yet, for some reason, those of us living on the western edge of the Atlantic do not seem to be innovating and enjoying the benefits of a cheaper communication culture. So much so that in America, the cellphone is regarded somewhat as a necessary evil and remains a communication conduit whereas it is fast becoming an indispensable lifestyle tool across the world. The reason the rest of the world has benefited from this technology while the Americans have not, has to do with free market enterprise or the lack of it with regard to the telephone industry in the nation that is the birthplace of this technology.

The airwaves are constricted in the United States by a few big phone companies which have done their utmost to choke out smaller competitors as well as name their own price for service. This prevents innovation. A landline, which should be more expensive given that it takes an employee to set up your house, wiring to be placed and connected and hardware to be installed, is cheaper in this country than purchasing a cell-phone where only the SIM has to be activated. I don't think I have seen this discrepancy anywhere else. Further, if you were to "inherit" a cell phone anywhere else but the US, you would have shops and services where they could "unlock" your phone in order for it to be used not only with the carrier you first purchased it from but with other SIM cards. This allows you the flexibility of passing on your phones or choosing different carriers when you travel without needing to own four different cell instruments. It also reduces waste. I have gone to a few different shops and kiosks since my return to see if anyone would unlock my instrument for me to continue using it with a new service without having to purchase a new instrument and contract. The results have been dismal. So my sister who was gifted a nice new NOKIA instrument with Hindi and English pad by my visiting mother, can't use it. Not only that, she can't afford (she is a graduate student) any of the "decent" cell-phone plans currently on offer by the companies. So she has decided she is going to get a landline at her new address.

There are four big cellphone carriers (Verizon, AT&T-formerly Cingular, Sprint and T-Mobile) who have currently cornered about 90% of the market in the USA. Virgin mobile, which on this side of the Atlantic is a little player, has managed to get a toehold but has been unable to expand sufficiently. If a multi-national company that large can't do it, do you think smaller companies have any chance in this market? And yet, this is considered the home ground of free enterprise and capitalism. American political representatives need to stop backing monolithic industry and start giving innovation and enterprise breathing room again.

For credits on the photos, please click on them and you shall be taken to the photographer's (Chris Jordan & Julie Ask) website/weblog. The cellphone landfill picture was found on Enviroblog and a link to original recycling article is also provided in the article. The other picture shows three Masai tribesmen. Thanks Chris, Enviroblog, Julie Ask and Jupiter Research.

What's Happening with Burma?

Just a couple weeks ago, I was so heartened by the buddhist protests that were shaking Burma and calling for a regime change. What happened? All the news that trickles out is basically about the last few remaining activists being arrested. The Web is restricted which means that another portal through which the world could catch up on what is going on through accounts of web-users is now frozen. The military regime has had a lot of experience making sure they have a choke-hold on this nation. Its resources are being slowly siphoned off to fuel international demands (well mostly Chinese) and its people are slowly being made poorer and hungrier even as the military gets richer and displays its wealth more and more ostentatiously (temple gilding, city building and weddings of family are some gaudy displays of wealth that have trickled out even as reports of people looking more needy are being made).

Nothing really happened despite newspaper editorials and the "little person" voices that were raised all over the world in solidarity with the Burmese. The Security Council made its usual ineffectual noises and ended up accomplishing nothing- but that is business as usual for the UNSC. China felt no pressure despite other nations and organizations singling it out as the single largest supporter of the military regime. An email petition arrived in my inbox asking people to sign up to ask China to change its attitude toward the military rulers or else face the consequences of the international consumer/ olympic fan. All this talk of the Olympics and the pressure China feels to look and sound humane in case it hurts tourism is bunkum. Of course, China would be very happy if many foreign tourists arrived to make China a legitimate international venue for world events. But enough people will be going anyway and in addition, there is plenty of audience within China to sell the tickets and make sure that the Olympic events don't look sparsely attended as happens when they are held in the developed world now. So no, the Chinese government is certainly not spending sleepless nights wringing its hands over the pressure(!) it is facing on the Burmese issue.

The Indian government didn't even acknowledge at any point that it had any real role to play in the Burmese revolt (this is typical of the hubris with which Indian politicians have wasted opportunities to help their own nation and another). It started out by going ahead as usual with its plans to hold talks about resource development with Burma. When Indians protested the duplicity of our government, one could almost hear the cogs spinning in the heads of the Indian politicians on how to spin this. They went with the tried and tested approach to dealing with things. Hypocrisy. On the one hand they changed their tune on the international stage by calling for political reform (too little, too late, but what is worse...) while on the other hand they finalized a deal to invest $103 m to develop the port of Sittwe for quite selfish reasons.

The north eastern states of India are beautiful and home to some unique cultures and tribes (not to mention resources as well). These people have been marginalized from the mainstream of India since Independence. No mainstream politician has ever done anything for these states other than make photo-op visits and send in the army to squelch the nascent secession movements that exist in these states (itself a result of long neglect and lack of economic development). Human rights violation are common in these states. Instead of bringing them into the mainstream by allocating resources to help the populace, the Indian government threw money into the army and developed specialized schools of counter-insurgency and guerrilla warfare in the NE states. Decades of military presence in the border regions have however, still not succeeded in killing the insurgency (fueled by high unemployment and feelings of desperation and alienation in the youth of these states). Recent attempts by China to claim some of these far eastern states as part of "One-China" may have also contributed to the Indian government's sudden sense of urgency in reclamation and development efforts that are economic in nature rather than military. This is where Sittwe and Burma come into play.

The port of Sittwe allows the Indian government to transport goods and services into the NE states more easily than the narrow land corridor which restricts such movement presently. It will also cut transportation costs significantly (some claim by upto 50%). In itself, this is not a bad idea. However, India has done itself and Burma a huge disservice by dealing with the devil in its short-sighted policy of "non-interference" and mutual "self-help". India would be served well by having and supporting a democracy in Burma for a few very important reasons. One. Democratically elected leaders are more reliable partners (for trade and policy) than military ones who are answerable to no one. Two. Democracy in Burma would staunch the massive centrifugal forces acting on the population and creating refugees along all Burmese borders. India should remember that it shares a 1000 mile border with Burma. Three. Democracy in Burma would mean economic development and growing prosperity (both non-existent in the Burma we know of now) and if our neighbor does well, it bodes well for us too as its trading partner. Four. Democracy in Burma would alleviate the ethnic insurgent movements that are located in the border regions of the nation and which complement and strengthen the insurgency across the border in India. The rebel bases are located in north western parts of Burma and legitimize cross border guerrilla warfare by demonizing the military rulers and their associates who are represented by the Indian army in NE India. India would do well to reevaluate and reassess its partnership with such a regime and rethink the gains to be had were it to openly stand on the side of democracy, as it should. Supporting the Burmese people will have a positive payoff. It is no longer if, but when the regime will crack.

The Russian politicians are too preoccupied with regaining their position as the other "superpower" to be useful as a sane voice in the international arena. The paranoia and heavy handed governance of the Soviet era is making a come-back but this time hand-in-hand with a nationalism that smacks of 1930s Germany. Russia is no good to anyone, least of all its own impoverished citizens having taken on the worst of capitalism and merging it with a communist-type structure at the top levels of the government. The good things that existed under communism such as an excellent education program in the sciences, sports and arts however, are not to be seen. The Russia of today cannot stand up and speak against some of the atrocities seen around the world because it is either complicit in them or is trying its own brand of atrocities at home.

The USA with its sanctions is at best ineffectual as Burma is a cut-off country that does not rely on foreign trade. If the USA wanted to it could still have influenced the military regime by trying to strong arm those nations that support the Burmese regime but this would take a lot of political will and legitimacy- neither of which the USA has to spare under the current administration. The USA has a nuclear deal in the works with India and it should have held the Indians over the barrel. Similarly, it could have found ways to make the Chinese and Russian cooperate on the issue of Burma. When it needs to, the USA has not been afraid to go it alone or to force the world to see its way. Burma however, is small fish and one with little to offer the USA.

[Free Burma picture from REUTERS by Cheryl Ravelo. China Olympic picture found on multiple internet sites, no source listed. Map of India, China, Burma on BBC. Thanks.]

My Mistake

Since I moved to America in the early 1990s, I have heard it said so often that America is a christian nation. The oft-repeated statement, not only by common citizens but also by others in prominent positions of influence, overrode the geography and civics lessons of my junior school days where I had read about the American constitution and its secular nature. It came back to me only in a slightly embarrassing way.

When I was in England for my post-doc, a bunch of us friends used to go for lunch together and we would end up talking about all kinds of things. The conversation turned to religion and from there on to the separation of church and state. I knew that India was a secular country but I stated that the USA was a christian country. I expected the UK to be secular since it seemed like I heard a message of religious freedom often. As my Scots friend, Craig, had to remind me, in the UK the Monarch is the head of the Church of England. However, the UK still functions more or less like a secular state (since practicing christians are on the decline in the country and there aren't as many foaming-at-the-mouth born-again-christians as in the US). Craig also had to correct me about the fact that he thought the US was a secular country. I couldn't reconcile what he was saying with everything I had experienced since moving to the USA. But he was right. The USA is indeed a secular country but anyone living here at this time in history may get the mistaken impression that we do indeed live in Jesus-land (a little to the right of la-la-land). And I was no exception. Americans can be overtly religious in their convictions. However, this nation's founders were not, as many claim, religious and they certainly did not intend to form a christian nation.

Pan to the present times. Recently, for the first time ever a hindu clergyman was invited to offer the morning prayers at the Senate (why a government institution even needs prayer to get down to its business in a secular country is one question I haven't been able to answer satisfactorily for myself- I will have to wait till I meet my first senator). The prayer generated protests from the galleries and three people had to be removed before the prayer commenced. They felt that the hindu prayer was an abomination to the one true god and as christians and patriots, it was their duty to stop it. This country is being overrun by religious fundamentalists who blur the line between church and state with all kinds of equivocations such as confounding nationalism with religious duties (protecting the country, and more recently the environment too, in the name of Christ), health care issues with those of murder (look at abortion and stem cell research) and education with those of personal belief systems (teaching science is seen as an attack on christianity) . This is a slippery slope and one which takes the country back to a more savage state of development.

Religion should, at best, serve as a personal salve for those who can't get by with belief in self and reality. It cannot and should not be imposed upon others and a state should certainly not take moral lessons on policy and treatment of citizens from any holey book. We have some examples of places where the religio-moral principles from old texts have been used as law. We can see how inhumane such laws are in regions of the world where the sharia is applied. And yet, many in the USA, who would decry the atrocities of another religion continue to prevaricate and hold up an archaic text as their ultimate guide. They also perhaps believe that those who wrote the constitution of this nation held this text in the same regard (which they may well have) and used it as a guide for the document they wrote (which they did not). The constitution of the USA is a document of much sophistication and superior to the bible in that it is a living document, i.e., one that can be amended. It was my mistake to let the loud voices dripping with religion drown out the centrality of this document to the American polity.