A while ago, I went back to being a bit of a lurker around here. I had been one for a long time, and then started making comments and the occasional diary (though I was never very prolific), and then something happened. Some of the folks around here might remember it: the Great Religion Wars. We might remember the vigorous defenses of religion in the public square, and the equally vigorous defenses of the separation of church and state. We might remember some of the pejoratives that were used: anti-Christian, invisible sky giant, etc. Let's just say that, as a Christian, a semi-pro theologian, and someone who works for a progressive seminary, I felt a little less than welcome at the time. Perhaps that's putting it a little strongly: I just got tired of feeling like I had to defend my presence in the Democratic party. So, I went and sat on the sidelines.

And then Jeremiah Wright became a "problem".

I've been reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (I bought it during vacation and thought I'd finish, but since returning to work I've been stuck just next to the end for days, sigh). One of the things that has struck me about the book -- and it struck me fairly quickly -- was both its textual reliance and insistence on propositions. Textual reliance because Harris seems to believe that in most (if not all) religions, and especially the Western monotheistic religions, are contained nearly in their entirety in the sacred text(s) of the specific religion. Insistence on propositions because, well, he seems to believe that religions can be reduced to a set of propositional statements with which one either agrees or disagrees.

I would have left this diary until I'd finished the book, but davefromqueens recently wrote a diary that seemed to take a similar approach. It occurred to me that I've seen or heard similar arguments many, many times: "Here's a statement in (insert name of book) that isn't true as a proposition, therefore the entire book is false/fictional/not-to-be-trusted-on-anything."

I know, I know, religion has no place in politics; politicians shouldn't ever speak in religious language or at religious events; religion is the cause for most, if not all, of the suffering in the history of the world; religion is the enemy of rational thought; every instance of religion in the public square is a sign of creeping theocracy and the impending end of freedom and liberty; etc., etc., etc. (Do I sound bitter? Sorry.)

But bear with me for a moment, because, as someone who does theology -- I can only hope to one day become a real theologian -- I believe that theologians do have something to teach politicians, and that thing is absolutely vital in face of the threat posed by the Bush administration and American imperialism.

Originally, I was going to do a series of diary on religious (il)literacy that was based around the idea that many people don't really understand the vocabulary and the ideas that are prominent in religious scholarship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how easy it is to boil down a huge field of scholarship to a few diaries (or even a lot of diaries) and maintain any interest. So, instead, I'll devote the 'Religious (Il)literacy' space to, um, misconceptions about religious topics on DKos and in the news. I con't promise regularity, but I'll promise substance.

Today's topic: The Christian Left. I'm not, I should point out, talking about the religious left, but only because it's too large and diverse to whittle down to a diary entry.

This diary and the comments that went with it got me thinking (in all fairness, so did this one, and this one, and, well, let's face it... I could probably name every diary I've read on DKos, but I'm not going to). What it (they) got me thinking was this: a lot of us are religiously illiterate, insofar as there's good literature out there.

That's nothing to be ashamed of, most of us are probably illiterate in a variety of fields: some of us are scientifically illiterate, some mathematically, and some of us in any number of other fields. That doesn't, of course, mean we don't know anything, it just means we don't know as much as, maybe, we should. And that's unfortunate. Nothing to feel bad about, just unfortunate.

As has already been covered on DKos, there was an NYT article over the weekend detailing how some Democrats might be considering backing off on ethics reforms. However, since I've only been able to find a small amount of analysis, I thought I'd add my two cents. In fact, I'd propose that we need to go as far as reasonably possible in tightening ethics rules.

Yesterday I posted "My Two (Penguin) Dads I: Altruism", about how the somewhat controversial book "And Tango Makes Three" might be used to teach about altruism, especially towards the huge number of homeless and abandoned children in the world. I while ago, I also posted a diary on the history of marriage in/and the church, available here. I recommend at least taking a glance at those before covering this one, though it's not necessary.

In 2005, "And Tango Makes Three", a picture book based on the true story of two male penguins raising an abandoned baby penguin, was published. Apparently, some people are upset by what have been described as the 'homosexual undertones' of the book.

Since the NJ ruling yesterday, and the Ford comments, and kos's post on the Ford comment, and... well, you get the idea... at least one diary and a few comments have shown up suggesting that there ought to be two separate 'institutions' of marriage or similar to it. One would be for religious institutions (specifically the 'church' in the diary and some of the comments) and the other for the state. One religious, one legal. The rationale seems to be that marriage was originally a religious institution and then became something the state did.

So, to correct that misapprehension, here's some history:

Earlier today, this diary pointed out that some 100 U.S. troops had signed An Appeal for Redress, a document that urges Congress to remove all American troops and bases from Iraq. Last night, this diary suggested that the Bush Administration is seriously considering quitting Iraq. Personally, I would love it if it were possible to bring all of our troops home and simply leave Iraq in peace. The problem is, our getting out, after all that we've done in and to Iraq and its people, isn't going to leave peace behind. Rather, it will leave little more than a path of destruction and the continuing deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Maybe this will come to nothing, but a piece in the Washington Post on Saturday, and a post on TalkLeft on Sunday made me want to write. We see a lot at DKos about the 50 state strategy, and about framing, and occasionally we see diaries and comments and stories about religion. Now, usually, I find, the first two topics get a warm reception, while the third gets a lukewarm reception, if not a flamewar. So, when I saw a story about how some Democrats were thinking about taking the Democratic message into 'religious' America (and, specifically, 'Christian' America), I thought it might be a good idea to get in before a fight started.

Crossposted at eccleioleft.blogspot.com

I was at a lunch for the visiting committee here at CTS this afternoon, and one of my tablemates pointed out during conversation that power is not something we take a hold of. Rather, power takes a hold of us. This is important to remember today as we watch the top tiers of the Republican political apparatus face charge after charge of corruption. Sojourners has this to say on the subject, pointing out the hypocrisy of Christian organizations:

(more below the fold)