Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader feels he must point out the most intelligent thing written on the blog in a long time was just posted. Sadly, your Maximum Leader didn’t write it. It was written by your Maximum Leader’s bro Kevin in a comment to the last post. Here is the good part:

It’s unsurprising that people mix and match components of religious belief and praxis; that’s been happening since the beginning, and is a ubiquitous feature of human culture. Perhaps the issue to focus on, though, is what happens when mixing and matching becomes the prevalent ethos, and depth gets sacrificed in the name of breadth. Any particular spiritual practice takes time to master, and mastery is hard to achieve when you spend all your time gawking at the over-stocked aisles, but never buy anything. A lot of “seekers” miss this about true practice: it takes deep and serious commitment, no matter which path is chosen. Every major tradition contains some form of that admonition, but shoppers — dabblers — ignore it because they’re just too enchanted with all the variety that’s out there.

Of course, many mix-and-matchers aren’t flirting with twenty different traditions at once; at most, they’re supplementing their core practice with elements from just one or two other distinct traditions. I can use myself as an example here. As much as I respect the rich inner life found in Hinduism, I know that Hinduism doesn’t hold the same charm for me that Buddhism does. For me, it’s the Zen form of Buddhism, and just Zen, that has informed (and seriously altered) the nature of my Christian belief and practice. JuBus and others are in the same boat: far from being heedlessly promiscuous in their religious explorations, they’re looking for that one tradition that gives them a Jerry Maguire-style “you complete me” feeling.

The people who creep me out are the truly eclectic ones — the loopy folks who have utterly renounced the scientific mindset in favor of a hilariously incoherent worldview that allows all pantheons and doctrines equal air time. Sense, for these people, is far less important than sensibility. Rationality has left the building.

It’s also unsurprising to see that people still cleave to magical, folkloric nonsense. Healing prayer, evil eyes, ghosts, demonic possession, ESP, ancient astronauts, crystals, blah, blah, blah– these notions fill a need, I suspect, especially in modern societies where the romantic mindset is still cultivated, making the more classically realist attitude seem like cold comfort in the face of a mysterious and dangerous world. Alien abduction fantasies and 9/11 (or moon landing) conspiracy theories all respond to that same need as well. Superstition provides the illusion of sense without actually making sense.

Your Maximum Leader understands the impulse about which Kevin writes. At many levels he feels it himself.

Your Maximum Leader hopes that in himself the impulse hasn’t made him an idiot too. Jury may be out on that count…

Your Maximum Leader will go back to gaining childish delight from the Charmin Bathrooms in Times Square now…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader sees on the Reuters news wire that a new poll by the Pew Center for Religious and Public Life shows that a suprising number of Americans are superstitious idiots. The article doesn’t put it that way and is actually entitled: Many Americans Haunted by ghosts; look to astrology.

Here is a juicy bit:

The poll released on Wednesday showed that three-in-ten Americans say they have felt in touch with a dead person and 18 percent say they have seen or been in the presence of a ghost.

Other Pew surveys have shown that relatively few Americans would identify an Eastern religion or New Age spirituality as their core faith. But about a quarter of those surveyed say they believe in aspects of Eastern religions.

Nearly 25 percent said they believed in reincarnation and 23 percent said yoga was a spiritual practice. Twenty six percent said they believed “spiritual energy” could be found in objects such as trees.

A quarter said they believed in astrology, while 16 percent of U.S. adults think that an “evil eye” exists or that some people can cast curses or spells on others. Among black Protestants the evil eye figure is 32 percent.

What can your Maximum Leader say about this except that he weeps for the future.

Until he read this piece he thought that the worst thing he’s read/see/hear today was the drivel that President Obama was spewing out to a room of unfortunate Norsemen (and Norsewomen) and other dignitaries while accepting his Nobel Prize.

The “evil eye!” Really now! People actually believe that people with “powers” can use the “evil eye” to cast spells and curses… Other than the eyes that Elin Nordegen Woods is using on Tiger now, your Maximum Leader is unaware of a curse laden “evil eye.”

Sad. Just sad.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader saw an interesting headline on the wires today. Here it is:

Saudi female TV journalist gets 60 lashes.

When your Maximum Leader read the headline he thought to himself… “She must have been driving a car. Or perhaps she was out in public without a male escort. Maybe her head was uncovered by a gust of wind and her revealed hair startled a bunch of old men. Perhaps she spoke without first being spoken to?”

Then your Maximum Leader went ahead and clicked through and read the piece. Do you know why the woman got 60 lashes? Because she worked for a tv station that aired a program in which some idiot man bragged about his sex life.

You read that right. She worked for a television station that aired a show in which a man bragged about his sex life. Please note that she did not brag about her sex life (presuming she has one - which one hopes for her sake she does not). Neither did she appear on the program in question. She just worked there.

Oh… In case you are wondering, apparently the man doing the bragging got five years in prison and 1000 lashes. The female victim of Wahhabi justice seems to have gotten off easy by comparison.

Your Maximum Leader hopes to live long enough to see the Saudi legal system modernize to the 1700’s. He could send some Blackstone’s over there if it would help…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader always like to read Robert Stacy McCain’s stuff. He particularly liked today’s post about teen pregnancy, religion, and Margaret Tudor. It takes real talent to weave these items together. Bejeweled floppy cap is doffed in RSM’s direction…

That said… Your Maximum Leader, as longtime readers know, is a big fan of Richard III and not a big fan of Henry VII (or Henry VIII, or most of the Tudors for that matter - okay he is generally fine with Elizabeth I). Just because your Maximum Leader isn’t a fan on Henry VII doesn’t mean that he isn’t man enough to recognize Margaret Tudor’s positive influence on her son.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader happened to see little pieces of Michael Vick’s press conference today. Here are some thoughts your Maximum Leader had while watching…

He is happy with Michael Vick being allowed back into the NFL. He’s done his time and come close to ruination by his own actions. Although many people apparently don’t agree with him, your Maximum Leader believes that the brutal killing of dogs is not as bad a crime as killing another man. (There doesn’t seem to be much outrage at the actions of Donte Stallworth for example.)

Your Maximum Leader believes that the Eagles are a bad fit for Vick. More precisely, he doesn’t see what Vick brings to the Eagles. They would have been better served getting a wide receiver or two for McNabb. Vick brings distractions to the QB position that neither the team nor their fans need or deserve.

Your Maximum Leader wonders what brought Tony Dungy and Mike Vick together? The religious zeal for redemption and helping the fallen find redemption must drive Dungy in a very profound way. Your Maximum Leader has mused to himself in the past about the connection between religious zeal and good players/coaches in sports (football in particular). Many very sucessful and well-regarded coaches and players have been devout Christians. Dungy, Reggie White and Joe Gibbs leap to mind. Your Maximum Leader has mused that the same single-mindedness exhibited in their faith helps them be better at their sport. He suspects it does. The single-mindedness trait is strong in so many players and coaches. Where the single-mindedness doesn’t manifest itself in religion off the field it often manifests itself as tremendous egoism. At least that is the jist of the musing your Maximum Leader has done on this subject.

Your Maximum Leader wishes Mike Vick well. That said… Your Maximum Leader can’t abide by any Philadelphia sports team. So he suposes his well-wishes to Mike Vick are limited.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, for the most part, doesn’t have a dog in this fight; but he continues to read of the ongoing break up of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. He was motivated to post on this move mainly by reading this editorial from the Bishop of Durham in the Times of London. In it, Bishop Wright pretty much comes down and says that a way needs to be found that allows Episcopalians in the US who are aligned with the wider global Anglican Communion to stay so aligned. The offshoot of that position is that a break with those not aligned with the Anglican Communion need to be shown the door.

You know… About a decade back your Maximum Leader was acquainted with a fellow who would have bet serious money that the Roman Catholic church would see a major schism between those Catholics around the world and those Catholics in America. Your Maximum Leader thought it was highly improbable. But neither of us considered a schism within the Episcopal Church. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure why he didn’t. Afterall… Once you go down the path of splitting and forming your own church there are few roadblocks to doing it again. And again…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has a deep and abiding respect for those who have an artistic talent. Any type of artistic talent will do. Painting. Sculpting. Singing. Your Maximum Leader has a deep appreciation of the arts, but not much talent for it himself.

Well… Your Maximum Leader would like to share with you the blog of a friend. This friend has had a secret (okay, secret to your Maximum Leader) talent that reveals a great artistic ability as well as a deep font of inspiration. Your Maximum Leader’s friend Dan is illuminating his own Book of Psalms. You can clicky here to see his recent work.

Your Maximum Leader hopes you appreciate and enjoy Dan’s work.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader and his very good friend Smallholder had, in this space, a going debate about Gay Marriage a few years ago. Smallholder was disappointed in your Maximum Leader’s continuing adherence to marriage as a primarially religious institution from which gays should be barred. This discrimination irritated Smallholder then, and likely still does to this day. Moreover, this position has not endeared your Maximum Leader to a few gay people he knows.

So, let your Maximum Leader throw some stuff out there for you all to read over (and maybe think about). Your Maximum Leader has not changed his opinion that marriage is a fundamentally socio-religious institution that is meant to give a permenant bonded status to a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and child-rearing. Over time, this relationship as become a cornerstone of civil society. As such it has had legal benefits attached to it. Because of these legal benefits, many people believe that marriage as an institution should be open to all loving couples who want to partake of it.

Your Maximum Leader still firmly believes that marriage is a hetrosexual institution. But he understands the legal benefit argument put forward by many who disagree with him. There is a libertarian streak in your Maximum Leader that doesn’t like the state telling him that he can only allocate resources (or benefits) that he has accrued (or otherwise earned or paid for) to specific people - namely his family. If your Maximum Leader wanted to put his friend Kevin on his health insurance policy (and pay the corresponding premiums) that choice should be available to him. It is not of course, and this is one of the instances of injustice that supporters of gay marriage frequently cite.

Your Maximum Leader has, at least privately - and perhaps on this blog (although he can’t find a link right now), maintained that “the government” shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. We live in a free (at least for the moment) society where many people do not share religous beliefs. We also live in a secular state. Knowing this it seems reasonable to allow a general “civil union” be be an option for all couples who might want to get some legal benefits that currently accrue only to married people.

You might be saying “Self, my Maximum Leader seems to be making a semantic distinction here.” Perhaps he is. Perhaps supporters are making their own semantic non-distinction.

Anyhoo…

Your Maximum Leader read an interesting article on the WaPo web site the other day. Here is said interesting WaPo article: Straight Couples in France are Choosing Civil Unions Meant for Gays. Some tidbits from the piece:

The PACS [Civil Solidarity Pact] was introduced a decade ago by France’s then-Socialist Party government. Parliament approved the measure only after a fierce debate because, although its wording was deliberately ambiguous, the arrangement was understood mainly as a way for gay couples to legalize their unions even though under French law they are not allowed to marry.

In passing the law without making it specific to gays, however, France distinguished itself from other European countries that have approved civil unions or even marriage for same-sex couples. As a result of that ambiguity, the PACS broadened into an increasingly popular third option for heterosexual couples, who readily cite its appeal: It has the air of social independence associated with the time-honored arrangement that the French call the “free union” but with major financial and other advantages. It is also far easier to get out of than marriage.

…

But even though their arrangements are now socially accepted, unmarried couples living together have found they face financial and administrative disadvantages compared with their married friends. Joint income tax returns can lower the annual bill considerably. Inheritance laws make transferring property to someone who is not a legal spouse more expensive and more difficult. Dealing with the French administration can be an ordeal without legal documents attesting to a place of residence and a social status.

…

But PACS unions are also seen as more appealing than marriage because they can be dissolved without costly divorce procedures. If one or both of the partners declares in writing to the court that he or she wants out, the PACS is ended, with neither partner having claim to the other’s property or to alimony.

So by taking advantage of the PACS, French couples get the legal benefits of marriage (like transfering property, establishing residency and joint tax returns) but aren’t married. Indeed, the PACS seems to be growing in popularity throughout France.

Your Maximum Leader’s French language skills are not good enough to find out if French homosexuals are outraged because they still can’t get married - even though a substitute institution with the same legal benefits exists.

Your Maximum Leader believes that an institution similar to the PACS would be a viable option in the United States.

Carry on.

UPDATED: Our friend FLG writes in the comments: “Tangentially, couples who do get married in France must get married in a civil ceremony regardless of whether they will subsequently be married in a church or not. So, a Catholic couple will have a small ceremony at City Hall, and then go to a church for the religious ceremony. However, only the first is legal binding.” Your Maximum Leader thought he knew this fact. He also meant to make reference to France’s history (since the Revolution) of strict secularism in public affairs. Alas, your Maximum Leader often publishes ill-thought through crap on his blog so he didn’t make this point. All in all your Maximum Leader would prefer to see the US go towards a more secular approach to benefits and couple’s legal status. Religion can flourish where it is not interfered with by the state.

Carry on… (Again.)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wanted to take a moment and thank our commenter/reader Old School Lady for her recent comment. Your Maximum Leader did spend some time this weekend meditating on the notions of justice and revenge. As satisfying and bashing someone’s head in with a cricket bat might be, it isn’t always a good theory of justice to which to adhere.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader had not weighed in on Robbo’s recent post concerning the appelation of the sacrament known as Confession, Penance, or Reconciliation. This is mainly because your Maximum Leader (in addition to being a bad man) has used all three appelations rather interchangably.

Well… In the serindipity that is the world sometimes… What should come across the AP news wire but this story: Vatican secret confession tribunal opens up. The article reads:

One of the Vatican’s most secrecy shrouded tribunals, which handles confessions of sins so grave only the pope can grant absolution, is giving the faithful a peek into its workings for the first time in its 830-year history.

The Vatican has long lamented that fewer and fewer Catholics are going to confession, the sacrament in which the faithful can receive forgiveness if they sincerely confess their sins to a priest.

To combat the decline, the so-called “tribunal of conscience” invited the public into the frescoed halls of its imposing 16th-century palazzo for a two-day conference that ended Wednesday.

The aim was to explain what the Apostolic Penitentiary actually does, and thereby encourage more of the faithful to go to confession, said Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, the tribunal’s No. 2 official.

“Even though it’s the oldest department of the Holy See, it’s very little known — specifically because by its nature it deals with secret things,” he said. “We want to relaunch the sacrament of penance.”

This was quite intriguing to your Maximum Leader as he’d never known such a tribunal existed. And he also never knew specifically that there were sins so grave that only the Pope could grant absolution. He had assumed that there were probably real “doozy” sins that required going to a Bishop. He supposes that at some level he might have assumed that there were sins so serious one would need to get in contact with Rome (at least) before granting absolution.

Well… The list of sins handled by the Apostolic Penitentiary was not at all what he thought. According to the AP piece they are: “defiling the Eucharist… priest breaking the seal of the confessional by revealing the nature of the sin and the person who sought penance, or a priest who has sex with someone and then offered forgiveness for the act.” Your Maximum Leader assumes that this is not a comprehensive list, but this short list includes three items that have actaully never entered into your Maximum Leader’s mind. (Because he isn’t a priest he’s never really contemplated the two; and it has never crossed his mind to defile the Eucharist.)

One wonders if the act of confession dealt with by the Apostolic Penitentiary actually ends with the penitant coming and confessing to the Pope personally. Your Maximum Leader would assume that it would have to be a face to face encounter. He doubts that the Pope would sit in a little confessional and open the screen to hear the confession.

This reminds your Maximum Leader of one time he went to confession. Many years ago he happened to be on the campus of Catholic U and walked into the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was during one of the times they offered Confession, so your Maximum Leader decided to make a confession. Up to this point in his life, he’d always gone into the little dark confessional and waited for the screen to open and get started. Well, there was some construction in the area where they normally have the confessionals. So he waited in a side chapel in front of a nondescript door. People would go in, and after a time would come out. When it was your Maximum Leader’s turn he walked in and found himself face to face with a priest sitting in a bright room with two chairs. There was a moment there when your Maximum Leader considered walking right out without opening his mouth. He was used to the dark. Used to the annonymity. Used to hiding what he was doing. But there was no hiding here. Bright light. Open chairs. Face to face (almost eye to eye) contact.

It was one of the most difficult things your Maximum Leader ever did; making his confession that day.

In retrospect it seemed the most fulfilling as well. There was something very comforting about seeing the priest and making a personal connection.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wishes he had thought of this first. Alas, your Maximum Leader is not as bright as Ilya Somin over at Volokh. Should we hold belief in creationism against candidates for political office? It is a great post that causes one to examine one’s political prejudices. Here is the core bit:

Consider the following widespread religious beliefs:

1. Belief in the virgin birth of Christ.

2. Belief in the resurrection of the dead.

3. The belief that the Red Sea parted, enabling the Israelites to escape from Egypt.

4. The Bible’s claim that God wiped out nearly all life on Earth in a great flood (with only the denizens of Noah’s Ark surviving).

5. Belief in the existence of the Devil (a view held by 71% of Americans).

All of the above are contradicted by science, empirical evidence, or both. Yet few argue that endorsement of any of these beliefs should be a major strike against candidates for high political office, including the presidency. As an apparently believing Protestant, Barack Obama presumably adheres to at least 1 and 2 on the above list. Yet virtually no one claims that he is thereby unfit for the presidency. I don’t see why believing the items on the list above is any less irrational and unscientific than believing in creationism. One could argue that people can legitimately embrace these beliefs “on faith” irrespective of evidence. Perhaps so. But belief in creationism can be justified in exactly the same way.

Somin makes excellent points here. Your Maximum Leader supposes that the creationism bit is such a hotly contested issue is because #1 and #2 on Somin’s list seem to be “special cases” of divine intervention. But most people who have been educated (at least minimally) in the scientific method have a real tough time with rejecting emperical evidence that supports evolution as a theory. Your Maximum Leader would never have gone and extended the same line of critical thought to the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, or existance in a Devil. Perhaps this is just intellectual sloppiness on your Maximum Leader’s part. Indeed, it likely is intellectually sloppiness.

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t immediately disqualify anyone for political office solely on the basis of being a creationist. He does start to examine their other beliefs more critically however once that flag is raised.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wishes you all a Happy Easter.

He especially wishes Robbo a great Easter. You are an inspiration. Your Maximum Leader wishes he could join you as you finish crossing the Tiber.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader and his lovely wife Mrs Villain got to talking about religion today. Here is a little bit for you to puzzle on…

Assume there is a God. Assume that there is some form of “afterlife” (heaven, hell, different planes of existance…).

Now… Start thinking… A person who has lived their whole life in accordance to their understanding of “God’s will” dies. A person who has lived a life in opposition to their understanding of “God’s Will,” but shortly before the moment of death recognizes the error of their ways and is genuinely contrite and seeks mercy. Are these two people accorded the same treatment in the afterlife? Should they be? Is this even a topic on which we should expend any thought whatsoever?

Mrs Villain was getting a little expasperated at your Maximum Leader’s take on this hypothetical. But it made for 20 minutes of interesting conversation.

Carry on.

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factórem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
passus, et sepúltus est,
et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t think of himself as a basher of Islam. He believes that a significant portion of the Muslim world lives under a rather twisted interpretation of Islam. He says this not as a Muslim, but as a man firmly rooted in the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. There are aspects of Islam that a praisworthy, and there are plenty that leave your Maximum Leader just scratching his head wondering what the hell is going on.

To wit:

Two years ago, a knock on Fatima and Mansour al-Timani’s door shattered the life they had built together.

It was the police, delivering news that a judge had annulled their marriage in absentia after some of Fatima’s relatives sought the divorce on grounds she had married beneath her.

Now, your Maximum Leader believes that his own lovely and intelligent wife, the wonderful Mrs Villain, married beneath her station. She is a wonderful and giving woman - and marvelous mother (and frankly your Maximum Leader is… well… a man). But to think for a moment that Mrs Villain’s relatives can sue in court to have his marriage annuled is beyond the pale.

Excursus: Let it be known that your Maximum Leader is, here and now, declaring that no man is good enough for either Villainette. He will sue any man that attempts to marry one of his daughters by claiming they are beneath the girls station.

So… To continue with Fatima and Mansour’s story…

Fatima said her husband, a hospital administrator, followed Saudi tradition in asking her father for permission to marry her in 2003.

“My brother reported good things about him, so my dad accepted his proposal,” said Fatima, a computer specialist who was 29 when she married.

She said her father knew that Mansour came from a less prominent tribe than hers, but that he did not mind because he “cared about the man himself.”

A few months after the wedding, several of Fatima’s relatives, including a half brother, persuaded her father to give them power of attorney to file a lawsuit demanding an annulment, she said.

Then her father died, and Fatima said she had hoped the case would be dropped.

But on Feb. 25, 2006, police knocked on the couple’s door to serve Mansour with divorce papers — which said his marriage had been annulled nine months earlier.

Your Maximum Leader admits that this is one instance where he is willing to overlook a little pontificating by the Assocated Press (who ran this story). The story, like your Maximum Leader’s reaction to it, is rife with an undercurrent of shock that this sort of thing can happen in a “civilized” country. Of course that last line implies that Saudi Arabia is a civilized country. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure that his definition of civilized and the Saudi’s would be quite in line. It is at times like this when your Maximum Leader wants to go all Charles James Napier on some foreign country.

Excursus: Can your Maximum Leader try and coin a phrase? He’d like to see “going Napier” or “pulling a Napier” but into the lexicon as meaning “to subdue a nation or tribe by force.” Your Maximum Leader means this in the most positive way of course. Frankly, your Maximum Leader would like to see the more foreign policy based on “pulling a Napier.” But it isn’t going to happen… Sadly…

Anyhoo… According to the AP article, if King Abdullah doesn’t reverse the al-Timani’s annulment Fatima (who is incarcerated by the way - with her children - whom your Maximum Leader supposes are bastardized by the annulment) says she will kill herself.

Your Maximum Leader tries to be a modest Christian at times and doesn’t easily bandy about his thoughts on someone’s eternal fate. He knows that status of one’s soul is determined by the Almighty. And in a case like that of the al-Timani’s, if Fatima were to kill herself because of the injustice done to her, your Maximum Leader would hope divine retribution is severe on those who drove her to the fatal act.

Carry on.