The William and Mary Cross

William and Mary University's approach to dealing with a cross in its chapel sounds reasonable to me:

Nichol ordered the cross removed in October to make the chapel more welcoming to students of all faiths. Previously, the cross could be removed by request; now it can be returned by request.

I'm not quite sure I see the other side's point. They seem to be arguing that displaying a cross should be the default. In other words, Christianity is the default, and other, lesser religions can be present only upon special request. Generally speaking, it doesn't seem like it's too much to ask to make university chapels equally available for all religions.

Debating Religion

Ann Althouse blogs about a Nicholas Kristof piece in the NYT, where he states:

[There is] an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by [Richard] Dawkins — the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller “The God Delusion.” It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for....

[T]he tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is ... contemptuous and even ... a bit fundamentalist.

“These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style,” says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge.”...

Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.

This is quite a strange article by Kristof. It almost sounds like he is saying we shouldn't be debating the issue. But there is no doubt people on both sides want to debate it. That's not the problem. Rather, the problem, or one of the problems anyway, is whether one side is seeking to have the government promote its views over the others. To me, this seems very different than having Dawkins make his arguments, which I would guess that most people on the Christian Right welcome for the chance it gives them to respond.

Swearing on the Koran

Dennis Prager's piece arguing that members of Congress should not be able to swear their oath of office on the Koran has already been effectively refuted by Eugene Volokh. But I wanted to comment on one part of the piece. Prager writes:

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its
values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

My question is, what is the "America" Prager refers to? Certainly a majority is Christian. But there are many millions of Americans who are not: Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists and Agnostis, just to name a few. So, Prager is just wrong when he declares what "America" is interested in. "Many Americans," perhaps, but not "America."

Andrew Sullivan's Mormon Rants

Andrew Sullivan has a series of posts on Mormons (here, here, here and here) that seem to make several points:

• Mormons wear funny underwear
• Mormons made official statements that were racist more recently than most other religions made official statements that were racist
• Mitt Romney is a Mormon and he better explain all this

My sense is that Sullivan does not know any Mormons, and thus feels comfortable treating them as an odd group of people who are not part of mainstream society. Which is kind of how some Mormons treat gay people, ironically.

UPDATE: In an article, Sullivan says: "Personally, I have no interest in someone’s private faith in his or her pursuit of public office. Romney, to my mind, should be judged on his public record." It's a fine line here: talking about Romney's Mormonism in terms of its relevance for the public debate versus talking about it as something you have a personal interest in. Sullivan does seem to be walking a fine line.

The Muslim Veil

Proposals to ban full-length Muslim veils strike me as going too far. It seems to me there are several issues here that need to be balanced:

• religious freedom, i.e. the ability to follow the teachings of your religion (as you see them)
• security, or at least some people's perception of what makes society secure
• assimilation of immigrants or other cultures, religions, etc., and the benefits thereof

There may be others, but those are the main three that come to mind.

I don't think there is much of a security threat here. There may be one, but it's minimal. If it turns out that it becomes common to use the veil as a way to plot violent acts, I'll re-think this one. But for now, I'm not that concerned.

So, for me it's mostly about balancing the benefits of assimilation with those of religious freedom. While I think assimilation is a good thing, and I certainly encourage it, it is not uncommon for people to try to segregate themselves from society to an extent and maintain different customs (witness the Amish). So, generally speaking, I don't have a big problem with people who want to dress differently and hold themselves apart from society.

BUT, if these same people come back later and claim that society is discriminating against them because of their dress, I won't be very sympathetic.

So, my view is, don't ban it, but don't give it special protections either.