@M.Z., many things remain constitutional until they are challenged in legislatures or courts. And, the Constitution has provided for "equal protection under the law" for well over 100 years.

@Jason Kuznicki, are you distinguishing between "a civil marriage regime," ("the best we can do") and "civil unions," ("a pipe dream")?

How do you see civil marriage differing from civil unions?

What's the minimum necessary to be a Christian? Belief in Jesus Christ as God and redeemer of man?

Is that what is Anne rejecting as she quits being a Christian?

1954 sounded familiar. From the Wiki article on The Pledge of Allegiance, "The phrase 'under God' was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[11]"

ThatPriateGuy, maybe this will help. Tax code seems to date from 1954.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5579857_history-501_c__3_-non_profit.html

@Koz, once again with your generalized foolishness , I mean, bullshit.

Your thoughts are an excellent riff on "epistemic closure," and "managed ignorance" deserves a place in the political lexicon. (Balloon Juice should add it as a tag.).This aspect of today's Republican Party, movement conservationism, Real America or whatever name it travels under can't be pointed out enough.

Congratulations.

Mel,

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/mel_gibson/pictures/36714.php#highlighted_picture

@Francis, thank you for your note of sanity.

Rufus, when you first mentioned this project, on the post that has been taken down, I, sort of in jest, mentioned two illusions that I thought he might consider - religion and lower taxes. While I see the lower tax trope offered by the right as an illusion, bromide, I was not serious in suggesting that it might be a topic considered by Hedges. On the other hand, I was serious when I suggested religion as a source of illusion.

I have stayed away from any sort of research while reading the book so I did not know that Hedges was a former seminarian, that fact is not mentioned in the short bio on the dust jacket.

As I read the book I underlined. I also noted the times he mentioned, broadly, religion. In the first chapter I noted ten occurrences. None of these were complimentary. I will note only the first on page 6. "It is the stuff of classical myths, including the narrative of Jesus Christ."

So, I was happy enough to see him address a subject I see as a source of illusion, although it is not a major point of discussion.

I have no idea what Hedges believes regarding the soul but I have a pretty good idea that he has little use for religion.

The term you use, Jeremiad, to describe the book is accurate. Polemic also works.

A very interesting discussion at Reason. I like the Brink Lindsey essay, a lot, but I don't see it as in anyway foreshadowing a political realignment.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/where-do-libertarians-belong/

"Libertarians are already largely on the same page as liberals on economic...issues."

"...if libertarians hope to forge an alliance with the left, they are nonetheless facing a much steeper climb on matters of economics...."

Your two statements seem contradictory. I suspect your second statement more accurately reflects the differences between Libertarians and liberals/left.

@North, oh I gotta disagree. A lot of "commie" "dem" god stuff with BC. Pretty one note in my book.

@Koz, that ranks up there with your comment of a few days ago,

"Paul Krugman is Exhibit A for the proposition that liberalism is a mechanism for turning otherwise intelligent people into drooling idiots."

I'm getting the picture.

BTW, do you also post under the name Bob Cheeks?

@North, this approach seems to be a substantial change and one that might prove effective. Republicans, however, see it differently:

"Republican lawmakers say Mr. Obama is talking tough, but in practice is lightening up.

"'Even if discovered, illegal aliens are allowed to walk free and seek employment elsewhere' said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. 'This lax approach is particularly troubling,' he said, 'at a time when so many American citizens are struggling to find jobs.'"

Seems the opposite of "lax" to me.

@Mike Schilling, oh, it can work. Just need some talent to pull it off.

@North, the Obama administration is doing exactly what you suggest, targeting employers.

If you missed it, here is a NYT article, from a few days ago, describing an expanded push against businesses using undocumented workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/us/10enforce.html?scp=1&sq=illegal%20workers&st=cse

@Bob, I should be clear on MLK not being a religious figure. I mean in the sense of being venerated. From Wiki, "Veneration (Latin veneratio, Greek ???????, douleia), or veneration of saints, is a special act of honoring a saint: a dead person who has been identified as singular in the traditions of the religion. It is practiced by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic Churches, Anglican Communion, and Lutheran Church. Veneration is often shown outwardly by respectfully bowing or making the sign of the cross before a saint's icon, relics, or statue. These items may also be kissed."

"Like when he defaced the statue of Martin Luther King, because, after all, it’s just a big piece of stone, and then ridiculed black people for getting upset about it? (Or something like that.)"

Really? I'm not taking your word on that. I'd like some proof. If he did, shame on him.

In any case, MLK is not a religious figure AND religious folk deface other religious folks stuff. So intolerant. Gee, I think I remember reading something about religious wars. (Or something like that.)

@Mike Schilling, his intolerance is well founded.

@Mike Schilling, While I find it stupid speech I must also say that that judgment is very subjective, I find a lot of Catholic, religious, teachings stupid. On the other hand, millions find them persuasive.

From what I understand Howell was hired to teach a class on Catholicism at UI. Howell has ties to a Catholic organization, he is a believing Catholic, apparently a traditional Catholic. His email outlines what I would call the standard Catholic position on homosexuality. I find that position stupid but he was hired by UI to present the Catholic point of view. What did the administration think he would present? Something counter to Catholic doctrine?

If Howell can be let go on account of stupidity perhaps the people responsible for creating the class, or allowing the class to continue, should also be let go because of their stupidity.

PZ reaches a different conclusion. Myers:

"I think it entirely reasonable to boot Kenneth Howell out of UI because he's not very bright and doesn't meet the intellectual standards I expect of UI professors. Of course, part of the reason for his weird shortcomings is the fact that he's a professor of religion who is spitting up Catholic dogma, and one big problem is that a respected major university is offering courses in Catholicism taught by its adherents as serious philosophy, rather than teaching it as cultural anthropology by someone who can maintain a little distance from its weird precepts. Kick Howell out, but send the Catholic theologians packing right after him."

@Mike Schilling, I first became aware of Prof. Howell reading the PZ Myers blog a few days ago. Prof. Myers had a lot to say regarding the situation. Below is a taste. I think he is pretty accurate, "stupid speech."

Myers:

"I don't think it is hate speech at all.

"It's stupid speech.

"A letter that condemned students, that threatened students if they didn't agree with his views, that discriminated against a segment of society, or that denied people full participation in the culture for their views or background or private practices…that would be hate speech. This letter, though, is a pedantic and polite explanation of the views of the professor and of the Catholic church and of his interpretation of utilitarianism, and in fact is careful to say that he isn't condemning any individuals. We can't endorse using this kind of discussion as an excuse to expel people from academia — we want professors and students to be able to communicate freely with one another, without fear of retaliation. I see no sign that the professor was discussing the matter in a way that disrespects any of his students."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/honesty_about_sex_is_going_to.php#comments

@Jaybird,

"Is it fair to not want boneheadedness codified into law?"

Absolutely.

@Jason Kuznicki, who is making such an argument?

You invoke law and your distaste for "hate speech laws."

@ThatPirateGuy, Even if Prof. Howell takes civil action against the school I doubt that "government overreach" will be a cause of action.