"No man is killed for any reason more than in the name of God"?

"No man is killed for any reason more than in the name of God".

I saw this quote in a blog recently and starting thinking. This is often brought out as a criticism of religion, implying that religions are somehow violent and intolerant by nature rather than peaceful. But how true is it?

A quick look through history says that there is truth to this statement. A lot of people have been killed in the name of God. And before the 20th century this statement would likely be true, especially if one discounts disease under the heading of "killed" (counting disease, the plagues of the Middle Ages were easily more deadly than any sort of religious killing).

In the 20th Century religion has a reprieve. While there have been religious conflicts (the Arab-Israeli conflict, Northern Ireland, the breakup of Yugoslavia, etc) the biggest killers were communism (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and National Socialism (Hitler), both political ideologies. Other major killers are national / tribal conflicts which have killed millions in the Congo, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, and other nations. In the 20th Century religious conflict is dwarfed by these other conflicts.

Looking before the 20th century, there was certainly a lot of killing in the name of God, though some of it might be qualified. Much is made today of Islam as a violent religion, especially after the Sept. 11 attacks. However, while Muslims have engaged in wars of conquest, they have generally not engaged in a lot of bloodshed. There was little "convert or die" in the Muslim expansion of the 7th and 8th centuries. Rather, Islam was given a privileged position and people naturally converted to the official religion. Even conflicts which might be considered explicitly religious (such as the Mahdi in Sudan in the latter 1800's) were likely more a response to colonialism. In fact, much "religious" conflict might be more properly judged to be political revolt which uses religion as a rallying point.

So certainly religion has been the reason for much killing. However, it must always be remembered that religion is often an excuse for a war rather than religion causing the war. And even when a conflict is overtly religious, it is likely that the underlying causes are economic, tribal, or national differences which are encompassed in religion.

Destroying Shirley Sherrod or how conservatives shoot themselves in the foot

Andrew Breitbart has just confirmed all of the left wing critiques of conservative criticism of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. In the blog entry at http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/ he posted a couple short clips from a speech by Shirley Sherrod, an Agriculture Department employee to the NAACP. In these clips Ms Sherrod comes out as a black racist.

The internet and conservative media (e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity of Fox News) jumped on the story, demanding Ms. Sherrod's resignation, though she has already resigned by the time their shows aired. The NAACP was left accused of racism and trying to do damage control.

Since then a video of Ms Sherrod's full speech has been posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk). The full video shows not a black racist, but somebody who has learned the world isn't just about race. After coming out, Ms Sherrod has received apologies, a new job offer, and an apology from Bill O'Reilly (who should have done his homework, as he says in the apology).

By taking Ms Sherrod's comments out of context Mr. Breitbart has implied that since he couldn't find a real criticism of the current administration, he'd have to create one. It has lumped him in with MSNBC (when they showed a man holding a gun and implied the Tea Party movement is racist, cutting off the man's head since he was black) and others who distort the truth to fit their own political agenda.

Watching the full video, there are a lot of things conservatives can criticize. While Ms. Sherrod isn't racist, she does seem to have fairly left wing politics, dividing people into "haves" and "have nots". Mr. Breitbart could have written about this aspect of the speech, been perfectly accurate, but would not have stirred up near the controversy.

Even worse, while I don't agree with Ms. Sherrod's politics and she did push some government subsidized programs, the overall message of the speech was for people (blacks in this case as the audience was the NAACP) to be responsible and take responsibility for your life.

Mr. Breitbart might have done better praising Ms. Sherrod.,

Obama and Bill Cilnton's record

After President Obama's speech to the nation last week, Bill Clinton might feel a bit unappreciated. In the speech Mr. Obama called for a move away from the nation's current policies (favoring the rich at the expense of the average person). It's apparent from the speech he wants to move back to the good days before the Reagan presidency ruined the country. Mr. Clinton seems part of the overall Republican effort to destroy the common man.

Rush Limbaugh hypocrisy

Rush Limbaugh has again shown his interest is in the political outcome as opposed to any sort of principles. Speaking recently he encouraged conservatives to get rid of open primaries, which let Democrats choose the Republican presidential candidate (since anybody can vote in either primary).

This is the same person who spent much of last spring encouraging Republicans to register Democratic so they could throw the Democratic primary (oddly enough, by voting for Obama against the stronger Clinton if I remember correctly).

But it's been apparent for a long time that Mr. Limbaugh accepts most any means to the desired outcome.

Obama presidency predictions

Barack Obama is now the President. A few predictions:

First, expect Alan Keyes and perhaps others to file new lawsuits. Mr. Keyes has filed a suit claiming Mr. Obama wasn't really born in the U.S. and is not eligible to be president. Chief Justice Roberts' s stumble over the oath of office now presents the opportunity for claims that Mr. Obama didn't really take the oath of office and so isn't really president. If the lawsuit goes anywhere expect the left to claim that Justice Roberts intentionally stumbled in order to create the problem.

The Democrats are celebrating that they have control of the government, yet this may be their downfall. For at least the next two years they have nobody else to blame for any missteps. Of course, the Bush presidency can be blamed for several years, and the Supreme Court makes another target until new justices can be appointed. But eventually the excuses might run out. Though they may not, FDR was able to win reelection twice without solving the depression.

Church of England

For something non-political, a prediction of sorts.

N.T. Wright is a very well known theologian, academic, Anglican priest, and most recently Bishop of Durham. Wright spent 20 years as a university professor before being moved into official Anglican roles -- Dean of Lichfield Cathedral, Canon of Westminster, and most recently as a bishop. It isn't clear whether Bishop Wright initiated the move away from academia or if others have moved him into it. He continues to publish scholarly and popular works, but much slower than in the past.

My own thought is that the Anglican establishment looks on Bishop Wright as a candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a conservative / traditionalist in his theology and beliefs yet is not strongly dogmatic and open to discussion and the ideas of others. He is well respective by liberals and conservatives, including many who differ from his views.

Look for Bishop Wright as a candidate if a new Archbishop is to be appointed.

Deception and today's election in Colorado

Colorado votes on a dozen or so voter initiatives today. This election is the most deceptive I've seen in over 30 years of voting. I'm not talking about political candidates (though there are enough scandals for conspiracy theorists to have a field day). Rather, look at Colorado's proposed amendments. There are 18 ballot measures. The way Colorado law works, the measures can be constitutional amendments, voter initiated laws, or voter repeal of laws. Most are consitutional amendments since these have to stay in force. Some proposals are regular laws, but the legislature could turn around and repeal the laws easily. Voter repeal of laws is rare, my understanding is that the legislature routinely marks laws as "emergency" to make them immune from a vote.

There are four main categories of initiatives today. Social conservative, pro business, anti business, and various tax initiatives. All new or increased taxes must be voted on in Colorado (and tax receipts over a set limit refunded) so there are always tax initiatives.

On the social conservative front, amendment 46 bans affirmative action, but is phrased as banning preferential treatment (e.g. ban discrimination) on the basis of race, sex, etc. Amendment 48 bans abortion by defining a person as being from fertilization. While 48 is clear, 46 is phrased as an anti-discrimination law (though it is against affirmative action, which many feel retores discrimination).

The pro business amendments are really anti-union. There are three, two of which don't even mention unions. Amendment 47 enforce "right to work" by outlawing required union dues. Apparently in response to the Governor issuing an executive order unionizing state workers (opponents view), actually only authorizing unions.

Amendment 49 limits the number of things public employers can withhold from paychecks. Now the deception begins. The primary effect of this law is to prohibit witholding union dues from paychecks. It is written to allow all other types of common withholding (charities, benefits, retirement, savings, etc). Proponents call it "non-controversial". Opponents never say what it does, just that it hurts workes.

Similarly, Amendment 54 is phrased as prohibiting campaign contributions from those who receive government contracts. But as written, it is only "single source" contracts, which as phrased is primarily labor unions (presuming most government contracts are by competetive bid). Here again proponents sahy it's not controversial, saying it doesn't silence unions, they just can't receive sole source contracts (in other words, a labor agreement with government). Opponents again don't say what it is, they just oppose it.

On the anti-business side, we have Amendment 53, which makes corporate executives liable for violating any law. This means violating any civil business law has just become a criminal offense. A late tax return (the accountant forgot to mail it) leaves the business owner criminally liable. Proponents say it's to reign in corporate fraud (popular today with the banking crisis, which will require a corporate scapegoat at some point). One note says it was done in response to Amendment 47 (right to work).

Amendment 55 requires that employees be fired "for cause", and lists the allowed causes. Low business income is not allowed, it says "documented economic circumstances which adversely affect the employer". It applies to businesses employing at least 20, but non-profits must employ at least 1000. Government is also exempt, of course. This one at least isn't so deceptive, other than that it apparently exists in response to amendment 47.

Amendment 56 requires employers provide health coverage, and 57 rqeuires "safe workplaces" and allows workers compensation recipients to sue. Interestingly, these 4 anti-business measure have been withdrawn. While they are still on the ballot, they won't count. Comments say that this was in response to a $3 million payment payment by business.

The tax increases all have their proponents and reasons. The increases generally have earmarks for the money, though in a deceptive manner (as has been done in the past) -- money is directed to a certain use such as education, but there is no guarantee that existing funding will remain. So the earmarked money goes to its purpose and the general state funding is reduced.

There is also the (standard these days) attempt to remove the effect of TABOR. TABOR, in addition to requiring votes for tax increases, requires that excess money be refunded to the people rather than kept by government. Amendment 59 earmarks all excess money to K-12 education (though doesn't protect existing funding, of course). Not mentioned is it appears to repeal a guaranteed increase in education funding which goes for a few more years.

Finally, the state is attempting to clean up the plethora of constitutional amendments. Since the only way to prevent the legislature from repealing a voter initiative is to amend the constitution (which is now a very long, messy document after 130 years of amendments), Referendum O makes it harder to propose consitutional amendments and requires a supermajority of 2/3 in the legislature to modify or repeal voter legislation. This is not too bad, but again the opponents are deceptive (misreading a provision on the number of signatures per congressional district).

So we see great polarization (extreme anti union and anti business proposals) along with the usual deception. The union and business amendments point to a much more polarized environment which seems to be appearing across the country (and even around the world).