From The Daily Mail:

The findings were described by researchers at the Centre for Social Cohesion think tank, which commissioned the poll, as ‘deeply alarming’.

But a prominent Muslim student group called the report ‘weak and unrepresentative’ and said it undermined ‘positive work carried out by Islamic societies’.

The Centre for Social Cohesion, founded last year to study religion and tolerance, has drawn attention to the extremist influence of Islamic societies and study centres at British universities.

The survey was based on a YouGov poll of 1,400 students, 600 of them Muslims, at 12 universities with influential Islamic societies.

These included eight in London, among them the London School of Economics, Imperial College, and the School of Oriental and African Studies, and the universities of Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester and Manchester.

It found that a large minority of Muslim students express views that are strongly socially conservative or which suggest they are open to extremist thinking.

And the critics respond:

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies called the survey mischievous.

Its president Faisal Hanjra said: ‘This is yet another damning attack on the Muslim community by elements within the academic arena whose only purpose seems to be the undermining of sincere efforts by mainstream Muslim organisations to tackle the threat of terror which wider society faces.

‘The report is methodologically weak, it is unrepresentative and above all serves only to undermine the positive work carried out by Islamic societies across the country.’

Even if these numbers are a bit exaggerated, which may or may not be the case, it should be chilling that anyone could justify killing another person in the name of religion.

(via hoverFrog at the FAForums)

If a baby is born, it seems obvious to me that it would be an atheist — at least in the sense that it has not yet been taught the concept of God, so it can’t possibly believe in a God.

It’s the very reason Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, says it would be tantamount to abuse to give a small child a religious label (like Christian or Catholic). How can it be religious when it doesn’t even understand the implications of the theology?

Psychologist Olivera Petrovich begs to differ.

In fact, according to The Age, she believes “infants are hard-wired to believe in God, and atheism has to be learned.”

An interview with her in Science & Spirit shows it’s a bit more complex than that, though:

Petrovich: … I’ve also established that children’s natural concepts of God aren’t purely anthropomorphic. They certainly acquire a conception of God-as-man through their religious education, but no child actually links the representation of, for example, God-as-Jesus with the creator of the world. Rather, their images of God the creator correspond to abstract notions like gas, air, and person without a body. When you press them, they of course fall back on what they’ve been told, saying things like, “I know he’s a man because I saw him on the telly,” or “He’s just like my daddy.” These are very rational responses, but they’re not natural conceptions formed by children. Rather they’re imposed by the culture in which the children live.

So to be clear, the God belief she refers to is not a God who answers prayers or judges your every thought. It’s a very vague notion of God. Definitely not a God belonging to any particular faith.

Also, it’s curious that her subjects are not infants. Rather, they’re kids who have a few years on them… at least four-years-old.

There are some very interesting comments at The Age Blogs. Barney Zwartz asks these questions to his readers:

… Are Dr Petrovich’s findings surprising? If you disagree, do you have counter explanations, or do you dismiss such belief as an evolutionary anachronism that we are outgrowing? If you agree, how far can the argument be taken? For example, Dr Petrovich’s findings do not favour any particular theological system. Should any or all or be encouraged by these findings?

(Thanks to Pseudonym for the links!)

I’m no expert on the Bible or anything… but I’m pretty sure this depiction of Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus is just a bit inaccurate:

Barefoot and wearing a sari, with a bindi on her forehead and a naked baby on her shoulder, the woman in the picture is unmistakably Indian. So is the man behind her, clad in a loincloth and turban.

It’s the Bible for Indian people, created by the Society of St. Paul, in an effort to convert Hindus.

The notes even quote Hindu scriptures, such as the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics, to help to explain Christianity to prospective converts. “We wanted to show the parallels between the themes in the Bible and in Indian religions,” Father Tony Charanghat, a spokesman for the Archbishop, said. “We’ve put the sacred text in a local context.”

…

For example, when Jesus tells disciples to turn the other cheek, the notes compare this to Gandhi’s creed of non-violence. Conservatives say that such devices corrupt the Bible’s original meaning, while Hindu nationalists say that they amount to blatant proselytising.

…

… It features 27 sketches of typical Indian scenes: one shows a family in a slum beneath skyscrapers. Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa also feature in lengthy notes interpreting the text for Indian readers.

So far, the 30,000 published copies are selling like hotcakes.

You know, I want to believe tailoring the Bible to fit other cultures is not going to work… That the subjects will hear the stories, but they’ll find out someone’s been lying to them about the details. And the whole conversion plan will backfire.

I want to think that… but unfortunately, I don’t think the people being targeted know enough to question what they’re reading.

I doubt they would be as enthusiastic, though, if they knew the people writing these “special” Bibles had no regard for their ancient religions/cultures at all and just wanted to find a way to convert them.

They wouldn’t be so enthusiastic if they knew the publishers just saw them as brown people with targets on their back, needing to be “saved.”

I’m also surprised Christians would let this happen without condemning it at all. Where’s the uproar from them? Isn’t this changing the sacred “word of God”?

(via The Invisible Pink Unicorn)

My friend Greg Epstein, also the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, has written a piece for the On Faith blog about the need for Humanist/atheist chaplains in the military.

He writes that the non-religious are not trying to eliminate religion from the military. Certainly, anyone can practice their faith as they wish. What we are against is proselytization of one particular faith over other faiths or no faith.

… we simply [ask] legislators to eliminate any publicly funded religious proselytizing, and to ensure that non-religious soldiers are not systematically discriminated against or denied opportunities that their religious counterparts are awarded. If the military can take care of these basic conditions, Humanists or other nontheists like me will get along with it just fine.

Greg also answers the question of why taxpayer-funded chaplains are in the military in the first place. Isn’t that a violation of church and state?:

So why does the military even have publicly funded chaplains? One of the most common justifications is that by taking servicemen and women out of the rhythm of everyday life and sequestering them for military purposes, undue burden is placed on their first-amendment right to free exercise of religion. This may pass muster from a legal point of view, but let’s face facts: it has little to do with why we have chaplains.

Military chaplains exist because military life, by its nature, involves dealing with death. When people are about to die, in danger of dying, or even when they are merely contemplating death as we all do from time to time, they ask questions. Who am I? Where did I come from? What is the meaning of my life? What do I value most deeply and what will become of it — and of me — when I am gone?

So what about the rest of us, who have no need for supernatural or religious-based explanations for those big questions?

That’s where Humanist chaplains in the military would come in handy:

If the military is going to serve its soldiers fairly, the time has long since come to do more to reach out to this [non-religious] population. Why not take a bold step and recruit Humanist chaplains for all branches of the armed forces? There are plenty of gifted people graduating from places like Harvard Divinity School who are Humanists and yet would like to work in the ministry, but are unsure what kind of job would be available for them.

…

Perhaps we should call on the US armed forces to make a good faith effort to hire Humanist chaplains proportional to their numbers of Humanist, atheist, agnostic and non-religious servicemen and women within the next five years. I’d happily volunteer to consult with the armed forces and help them identify qualified, energetic, patriotic candidates for such positions—not to volunteer them, but some of my students at Harvard would be perfect. Maybe you know someone who would be too.

I know there are members of the Armed Forces who read this blog.

I’m curious what they think about this idea. Would they make use the Humanist Chaplains if provided? Would they care either way?

Do those of you not in the military think this is a worthwhile goal to pursue?

What comes to mind when you think of the Book of Leviticus?

Christianity Today asks that very question:

… Leviticus often becomes that graveyard where read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year plans go to die. Skeptics know it as ammunition for homosexual haters or as a target for animal-rights activists. Many Jews regard it as awkward and outmoded. To slog through it can be unbelievably tedious. Which is why most of us [Christians] don’t.

But what would it look like to take Leviticus as seriously as we take the rest of the Bible? For believers in Yahweh, this is no rhetorical question. Inasmuch as we consider the Bible to be God’s Word for God’s people, we don’t have the luxury to pick and choose which parts to heed.

Pastor Daniel Harrell of Boston’s Park Street Church decided to follow the book (since it’s so often ignored in church) and have others do it with him:

After much cajoling and some well-placed pastoral guilt, I recruited 21 people from our congregation to become Levitical guinea pigs for a month… Our attempt at living Levitically would be done as New Testament Christians in 21st-century America.

It started out relatively easy:

Some people in the group ate kosher and wore linen trousers (in January no less). Just about everyone did a version of Sabbath keeping. Several men didn’t shave. Another went as far as to build a tabernacle in her 600-square-foot apartment as a reminder of God’s presence. One woman remarked how getting dressed each morning suddenly became a very slow and intentional process. “Fast girls aren’t holy,” she discovered.

So when do we get to the animal sacrifices? The part about avoiding women who menstruate? All the parts about the evils of homosexuality?

They don’t really talk about those… even when they say they’re following the Book of Leviticus, they simply ignore the crazier parts. Which seems to defeat the purpose of everything.

Even A.J. Jacobs in his book The Year of Living Biblically stoned an adulterer.

Oh well.

If you’d like to read more thoughts on the month-long pseudo-experiment, there is a Facebook group all about it.

This picture of kids huddled over an iPhone is in dire need of a caption:

(via Glocal Christianity)

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know I have a tattoo fetish (ambigrams = awesome) as well as a strong desire never to go through the pain of getting one.

But they’re still fun to look at.

And Carl Zimmer has a bundle of awesome science-related tattoos.

Like Darwin Kong:

Chris writes, “I teach science at a public school in eastern Mass. This tattoo was taken from a New Yorker cartoon that my wife and I both have hanging in our classroom’s (she teaches science, too). Most people think it’s her Dad…there is a resemblance. When told it’s Charles Darwin, too many people reply, “Who’s Charles Darwin?”. It’s kind of sad. I call this Darwin Kong, the establishment trying to destroy Darwin for the same reason it destroyed Kong, it just didn’t understand him.”

Plenty more where that came from.

(Thanks to Rose for the link!)

Another classic set of conversations with my students:

…

From a class of seniors:

[Bell rings. Kids are running out of the classroom.]

Student 1 (Running out the door): Have a good day, sir!

Me: What was that? Sir?! I’m not that old!

Student 2 (Running out the door): You’re getting there…

…

From a lower-level Geometry class…:

Student 1: Mr. Mehta! I found a math video online that you have to watch!

Me: Oh? What is it? I’ll check it out sometime tonight.

Student 1: 2 Girls, 1 Cup.

Me: … [Internal struggle over the proper way to react]

Regarding the approval of Bible classes in Texas:

Discuss!

(Cartoon by Ben Sargent)