This essay developed out of a trip with a friend to the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History; but I only completed it as an answer to a comment on Slashdot yesterday.

It got pretty good feedback:

• "...I'd just like to say that it is quite simply one of the greatest and most interesting posts I have ever read on Slashdot." (posted Anonymous Coward)
• "...this is one of those memorable posts that you wish you could give a bonus on top of some mod-points. If this is your own writing, please keep it up, it makes up for all the trolls and blabbering idiots out there." (geschild (43455))

and even those posting the praise themselves got modded up (!), so I thought I'd post it again, hoping to let a wider audience see it. Yes, it is my own writing -- and thank you for the generous praise (and mod points).

But more than just seeing, I'd like to see your comments, especially about what you think should be included in a calendar of the last "ten years" of humanity's history. Whether you have a sentence to describe a "minute" -- that is, a particular year --, an "hour", or an epoch, let me know what for you are the highlights of the calendar. What should be the brief description for each "day"? "Dark Age to Atomic Age" or "Feudalism to Democracy" or "The Last Day of Scarcity" for the last day?

Take a look, and let me know your thoughts. Here's the essay, as it originally appeared:

Part of the challenge of learning history or understanding evolution (human or otherwise) is to begin to grasp the enormous differences and the great epochs of time -- time far, far in excess of the span of any single human's life, time measured in the millions of years -- that separate us from our origins.

Let's play a game by pretending that every year only lasts a minute. It's 2004 today, so, by this game's metric, a "minute" ago it was 2003, and thirty-five minutes ago -- a little over half an hour ago -- Neil Armstrong, in 1969, set foot on the moon. In these terms, World War Two ended just a minute less than an hour ago. Three hours and forty-eight minutes ago -- in 1776 -- Thomas Jefferson declared independence for one nation while, essentially simultaneously in our terms, Adam Smith revealed an Invisible Hand that regulated commerce among all nations.

Each hour is comprised of sixty minutes, each day of twenty-four hours, for a total of 1440 minutes per day. So by our scheme, one "day" ago, 1440 minutes ago, an English King named Riothamus -- or Arthur -- had just recently failed to keep south-western England from plunging into barbarity in 564. Since Arthur's reign, the rest of "yesterday" saw the Dark Ages in Europe offset by the flowering of Islamic science and mathematics, the rebirth of Europe in the Renaissance, the exploration and colonization of most of the world by Europeans, and, an hour ago, the beginning of the atomic age. All this in one busy "day".

Even given the brevity of our metric, compressing one year of 525600 minutes into a single minute, it's still easily possible to recite the salient historical events on a year in the sixty seconds we are given, and even include our own particular history: "1903: first heavier-than-air flight; Grandma born." or "1943: Battle of Guadalcanal, Allied invasion of Italy, Warsaw Ghetto uprising against Nazis, Dad born."

But what's most interesting isn't those years, like 1943, crammed full of events, but the far greater number of years which our histories don't distinguish from one another. Two days ago, 48 hours ago, we come to the year 875 BC (since there's no year zero, 1 AD being preceded immediately by 1 BC). While I'm sure that a historian of that era could come with an interesting event of that year, the nearest I can come up with is the ascension of Osorkon II to the pharaoh's throne in Egypt the next year in 874 BC. The remainder of day two will be pretty packed: Rome will be founded and will reign for most of the day, Christ will be born and crucified in a brief half-hour - but will give rise to over a "day" of Christianity.

Going back another day, three "days" ago starts with the year 2315 BC, right in the middle of Sargon of Akkad's creation of the first recorded empire, in Mesopotamia - and the first writing with a known author, Sargon's daughter Enheduanna's hymns. After Sargon and his daughter, the day will see the beginnings of monotheism and Judaism, the founding of Athens and the fall of Troy.

Four "days" ago opened with 3755 BC, just six years after 3761 BC, the first year of the Hebrew calendar. This "day" saw the beginning of writing, the use of sails and potter's wheels, and the first cities.

Five "days" ago was ushered in with the year 5195 BC. During this "day", man began using ploughs in Europe. Toward the end of the day is 4004 BC, the year Bishop Ussher reconstructed from the Christian Bible as the Day of Creation.

Six "days" ago, it was 6635 BC. This day saw the formation of the English Channel (!) as the glaciers melted, and the domestication of the cow.

Seven days ago, the first "minute" of the "day" is 8075 BC. This "day" sees the beginning of rice cultivation and the domestication of the cat.

Nine days ago sees the beginning of agriculture.

But Neandertals went extinct a full twenty-one days ago.

And it was a full month ago when the first humans of our sort (not Neandertal) entered Europe.

Human culture, in the form of rubbing red ocher on our bodies and burying our dead, began about forty-five days ago.

Sometime over three months ago, the total human population fell to about one thousands persons, in an evolutionary bottle-neck, and "Mitochondrial Eve" had her daughters, daughters who became the mothers of the entire now-living human race.

But it was a full year ago (half a million years ago in real terms) that our sort of human diverged from Neandertals.

Two "years" ago, modern humans were nowhere to be found; Homo erectus, with his stereotyped stone flaking, was the smartest biped.

Five "years" ago, Homo habilis appeared on the African savanna.

Eight "years" ago (in reality, about 3.9 million years ago) the dominant hominids were the Australopithecine.

And it was "only" ten "years" ago (five to six million years before present) that some mutation began the divergence of humans and chimpanzees from the same ancestral hominid.

But it was fully 125 "years" ago (65 million years ago) that the last of the dinosaurs died, allowing mammals to conquer the Earth.

It's been a long long time.

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - American liberty was found dead at the Supreme Court this morning. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you believe you don't need civil liberties because you're not a criminal, there's no denying its importance to the Founding Fathers. Truly an American icon.

The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554, ruling that Americans have no constitutional right to refuse to give their names when asked to by police. The Court, in the opinion written by Mr. Justice Kennedy, explicitly says that police can demand your name even without probable cause to make an arrest, in the course of a so-called Terry stop, because "[o]btaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests".

Slashdot previously discussed the Hiibel case in February.

I got metamoderated unfair for a flamebait rating on a post that made a mild sexist joke about how women have a peculiarly selective memory, which I suppose is fair enough. But-- it was in a thread where the original poster had made it clear that she was female and was reacting to the gender bias assumed around here--also fair enough. So, in context, the mild joke was actually flamebait.

Just a reminder of how metamoderation is time consuming, since to do it properly you generally need to look at the original context; and it is also a reminder of how 'nerd' denotes more than just someone who obsesses over the technical, but also lacks social graces. Well, no need for social clumsiness to include nastiness, so get a little sensitive to sexism, boys, if you want more X chromosomes in the neighborhood.

In order to gauge who Slashdotters' opinions in the upcoming United States Presidential election, I've added a series of five user journal entries, immediate "below" this one.

Please indicate which candidate you support for President of The United States by adding a comment to the journal recording tallies for the single candidate you support.

In order, the journals are for supporters of

• Republican candidate George W. Bush
• Democratic candidate John Kerry
• Independent candidate Ralph Nader
• Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik
• and finally a journal for supporters of candidates not listed above.

Please note that you should indicate the candidate you support even if he or she is not currently on the ballot in your state, or if you are illegible to vote for one reasons of age, residency, citizenship, or civil disability -- the point is to indicate support, not to predict the actual electoral outcome. But is you are illegible to vote, or your preferred candidate is not on the ballot, I'd appreciate your noting that, and the reason you can't vote for whom you support, along with your comment.

If the candidate or party you support is not explicitly listed, please add a comment to the fourth journal entry, "Supporters of a candidate or party not listed above", and begin the subject line of the comment with the party affiliation (if any) and candidate name of the candidate you support.

Please comment only in a single "candidate" journal. You may add a brief sentence indicating the reasons for your support, but please reserve longer advocacy or argument for this journal entry. Anonymous entries, multiple entries, and entries by the same user in more than one tally journal will not be recorded in the final tally of "votes".

(But multiple or anonymous entries commenting on the candidates or on this straw poll are more than welcome in this journal only.)

Thank you for participating in orthogonal's straw poll!

Please comment here if you support the election of Republican Party candidate George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States.

Please note: For purposes of the straw poll, George W. Bush is considered the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party.

Anonymous entries will not be included in the final tally. All other entries, even those with text opposing the candidate, will be construed as support for candidate George W. Bush. If you support another candidate, please post in the corresponding journal entry.

Please add only a single comment to only one of the four tally journals. Additional comments or advocacy can be added to the latest journal entry which announces this Straw Poll.

Please comment here if you support the election of Democratic Party candidate John Kerry to the Presidency of the United States.

Please note: For purposes of the straw poll, John Kerry is considered the presumptive candidate of the Democratic Party.

Anonymous entries will not be included in the final tally. All other entries, even those with text opposing the candidate, will be construed as support for candidate John Kerry. If you support another candidate, please post in the corresponding journal entry.

Please add only a single comment to only one of the four tally journals. Additional comments or advocacy can be added to the latest journal entry which announces this Straw Poll.

Please comment here if you support the election of candidate Ralph Nader to the Presidency of the United States.

Please note: Ralph Nader is not currently the Green Party candidate for President; the Green Party may endorse Nader or may run their own candidate, David Cobb. Please comment here only if you will support Nader regardless of the Green Party's decision. If you intend to support the Green party candidate regardless of whether that candidate is Nader or not, please add your comment to the last journal in this series, for "Supporters of a candidate or party not listed above" candidates.

Anonymous entries will not be included in the final tally. All other entries, even those with text opposing the candidate, will be construed as support for candidate Ralph Nader. If you support another candidate, please post in the corresponding journal entry.

Please add only a single comment to only one of the four tally journals. Additional comments or advocacy can be added to the latest journal entry which announces this Straw Poll.

Please comment here if you support the election of Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik to the Presidency of the United States.

Anonymous entries will not be included in the final tally. All other entries, even those with text opposing the candidate, will be construed as support for candidate Michael Badnarik. If you support another candidate, please post in the corresponding journal entry.

Please add only a single comment to only one of the four tally journals. Additional comments or advocacy can be added to the latest journal entry which announces this Straw Poll.

Please comment here if you support a candidate or party for President of the United States other than the ones listed in the journal entries above.

If you're listing your "vote" here, please prefix your comment's subject with the name of the Party and Candidate you support. Anonymous entries, or entries not indicating a Candidate or Party will not be included in the final tally.

Please add only a single comment to only one of the four tally journals. Additional comments or advocacy can be added to the latest journal entry which announces this Straw Poll.

"He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph."

Christian Reconstrutionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that teaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstrutionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will. (Link)

There are five principles of Christian Reconstrutionism, summarized here:

First, Reconstructionists believe that God should be at the center of every activity, not just spiritual ones. Faith should be applied to art, education, and politics "no less than to church, prayer, evangelism, and Bible study."

Second, Reconstructionists are theonomists (theonomy: "God's Law"), meaining that laws are only righteous and just when they follow what the Bible -- primarily the Old Testament -- says. Law should serve three purposes: 1) To make other people Christian, 2) To provide a standard set of rules for all Christians, and 3) to maintain civil order. This has several frightening implications. Reconstructionists believe that non-Christian religions will be suppressed, that women will have their political rights stripped away, and that a return to slavery would be fulfilling God's will.

Third, Reconstructionists do not try and rationally come to a conclusion about whether the Bible is true or not. They believe in its infallibility regardless of evidence or reason. The Bible, being (they believe) the word of God, is above questioning. Similar to fundamentalist Muslims who believe the only book of any import is the Koran, Reconstructionists believe the Bible is the ultimate arbiter in all disputes, minor or major.

Fourth, Reconstructionists believe in the imminent return of Christ and a kingdom in his name will be established. The Left Behind series of books by Daniel LaHaye are a good summation of this belief. This ties into their literal interpretation and absolute belief in the Bible: some interpretations of the book of Revelation in the Bible purport to predict such a future. Due to their belief that the world must first be prepared for Jesus's return, they zealously pursue their political goals.

Finally, Reconstructionists are Dominionists. In the context of modern America, this means "[t]hat every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. The Christian Reconstructionist therefore believes fervently in Christian civilization" (Link).This belief has its origins in Genesis 1:6: "Let [humankind] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The overriding goal of dominionism is the absolute control of the government and environment, and that achieving this goal is the fulfillment of God's will.

Political Conflicts Explained
-----------------------------

Much of the modern conservative agenda ties in closely with Reconstructionist beliefs, and are frequently in lock-step with them. Some examples:

Welfare - Reconstructionists believe that the state has undermined the church by many of its duties, specifically aid to the poor, indigent, and those unable to provide for themselves. Tom Albrecht, an avowed Reconstructionist, summarized this belief in a Usenet posting as follows:

The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the laws of the state.

In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the "gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of influence.

Environmentalism - Obviously if you believe that a divine entity has given the Earth to you for you to use as you will, you will be angered at those who seek to stand in your way. Further, environmentalists have a view of the future that conflicts deeply with the apocalyptic visions of Reconstructionists, leaving (they believe) no room for Jesus, the kingdom, and so forth. Taken together, it is easy to see why Reconstructionists hold a special animosity towards environmentalists.

Civil Liberties - Liberty and freedom are not terms that appear very frequently in Reconstructionist writings, since so much of Reconstructionism is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom.

Death Penalty - Since the Hebrew scriptures have many offenses whose punishment is death, Reconstructionists are staunch supporters of the death penalty. They feel the death should also be given to adulterers, blasphemers, heretics, homosexuals, prostitutes, witches, abortionists, idolators, etc., as proscribed by the Old Testament.

Slavery - There is debate among Reconstructionists about whether or not slavery should be reinstituted, but the fact that the debate even exists is telling in and of itself. Women in particular would have their status reduced to that of a slave.

Evolution - Since evolution flatly contradicts a strict interpretation of the creationist story told in Genesis, they are in deep opposition to it.

Income Taxes - For Reconstructionists, income taxes are antithetical to Old Testament teachings, and are therefore to be eliminated. Further, lowering the income received by the government will hasten a crisis which, they believe, will allow them an opportunity to replace much of the existant federal government with a more theocratic state.

Moderate Republicans - More traditional Republicans have a view of the state much different from their Reconstructionist counterparts, and are therefore sidelined by much of the Republican elite.

Israel - The nation of Israel ties heavily into Reconstructionist thinking, being the place they believe Jesus will first physically appear after his return. Further, since they believe that the Jews are ultimately doomed, they give little thought to the humanitarian violations visited upon the Palestinians by the Israeli government. Their only concern insofar as Israel is concerned is to make sure it continues to exist as a state until the Rapture comes.

Iraq - Iraq (Babylon) also plays a large role in their eschtalogy, supposedly destined to become a neutral player in world affairs, and a focal point of the events that occur during the end-times (Link). They are therefore staunch supporters of the war in Iraq, and are hypothesized to have been influential on Pres. Bush in his decision to go to war.

Conclusion
----------------

Reconstructionists would be of less concern if it were not so widely influential in American political circles. Rep. Tom DeLay, Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Rep. Ron Young, Sen. Sam Brownback, and others are all supporters of the Reconstructionist agenda. Pres. Bush's policies are more often than not in total synchrony with Reconstructionist desires, and he has been energetically embraced by them. Most of the current administration's policies can be tied together under a common thread when looked at as an execution of Reconstructionist thought, and this is truly frightening for Americans of all religious traditions.

Reconstructionism is an abhorent religious philosphy to those who value liberty, justice untainted by religious fervor, and a secular democratic form of government. Reconstructionism is based upon a twisted interpretation of the Bible, and gives little thought to putting the words of Jesus into action. It varies very little in its goals and pratices from the brand of Islamic fundmentalism forced upon the people of Afghanistan by the Taliban -- a totalitarian religious order, doling out justice according to their twisted interpretations of a religious text, and forcing the people to believe as they do or suffer violent consequences. They give no thought to the lessons learned by humanity throughout its bloody history, believing that all lessons were codified thousands of years ago when the Old Testament was penned, and that nothing new has been learned since. Further, it preaches that the highest morality is to spread the word of God, and that whatever means are used to get to that end are fully justified.

Further reading:
Christian Reconstructionism - A general description and history
Fanatics of the far right
Christian Reconstruction - Copy of a post made to soc.religion.christian
Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, And Theonomy
Operation Potomac - How Reconstructionists are taking advantage of the current trend towards "faith based" charities

I need election results for US House of Representative in the early 1800s (1800-1840, let's say). Please let me know where I can find this on the web.

(No, it's not for a homework project -- I wish I was that young. But it probably will turn up as a journal entry here.)

Thanks.

Nevermind, found what I needed

I already know the truth. the important thing is convincing others the righteousness of my views. Sometimes this will involve using techniques such as emphasizing certain things and deemphasizing others, I already know the truth. Contradictory information will be filtered accordingly.

Those who stand in opposition to me are deluded. I already know the truth. Spreading the word will involve dedication, determination, careful explanation. I must be flexible in tactics, otherwise the enemy will overrun me with their lies and deceptions. Endsmeans.

It is hardly worth mentioning that truth is frequently a malleable thing, determined to some degree by the structure of the argument and the amount of emphasis certain things deserve. If you can control the structure or emphasis you can control the outcome. The question asked limits the possible answers. All arguments must be framed in a favorable light, for we must triumph. The enemy does no different.

The audience is the important thing. Never, ever forget the audience. Every word uttered must be done in remembrence of their presence. Conversion is the goal. Conversion of the middle. Ridicule of the enemy. Strengthening of our side. Building our position. Incorrect facts cannot and must not be allowed to distract. They will be contradicted, and shown to be wrong.

Sanctimony is an extremely useful tool in achieving the goal of spreading the truth. If the opposition does something that is morally wrong they must be loudly shamed. It will be difficult for our cries of indignation to be too loud, too consisent, or too energetic. We already know the truth. The moral failings of our allies are to be forgiven out of simple necesssity and dedication, for we must stand together for our common cause. But our enemy's failings must be advertised so that people everywhere are aware of them and the obvious hollowness of their cause.

Hypocricy. If the enemy can be shown to be hypocritical, the battle is won. Hypocricy shows the lies of the enemy, lessens the worth of their words, distracts attention away from their lies. Hypocricy is far and away the most useful of tools, and should be kept in mind second only to the audience itself. It not only allows for sanctimony, but also shows the hypocrite to be unbelievable; a truly helpful combination. I already know the truth: the enemy is wrong, wicked, and self-destructive. Further, hypocricy causes the focus to shift away from our own (necessarily) clever use of rhetoric, and onto the enemy's own sinful behaviors.

Do not mock our allies. Ridicule must not be allowed to undermine our position. Do nothing that will lessen how righteous we are viewed, and are. Only ridicule the opposition.

I already know the truth, and that truth is that my position and belief is completely and utterly correct in every significant way. I am open minded, but determined in my belief. I welcome other opinions, but am experienced in the world. I cherish debate, but never forget the King of Lies. The opposition is full of baseless hate and determined to destroy me and my kind. I will not allow this to happen. I will counter their propaganda with the truth, and the tactics used are used defensively, to survive.

I am good, those who are like me are good. Those who differ from me in certain ways are bad, animal, reprehensible. Those who are like me are similarly aware of the truth, and the tactics we must use to win battles, and ultimately the war.

I already know the truth. I must spread the word for their own good. Follow me for yours.

Let me start with off by saying that I am an American, I have lived here my entire life. Born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.


So I was metamoderating and I ended up metamoderating a post from this thread and I was rather disturbed

Generally I hold slashdot users as a group more intelligent than the average person, so seeing bigotry - which is the direct manifestation of ignorance and immaturity - running around slashdot like wildfire was disturbing so say the least

Was This guy right in his criticism? Almost all criticism has some basis in reali ty, his has a fair deal. He has some misdirected ones like the guns thing, he needs to know his facts before opening his mouth on that one, however he does have a point on the others. Yes we are sue happy, yes Americans weigh way too much on average (side note: i used to be obese - I started eating heathly - and I don't mean "fad diet"). I could go on.

What was this guy doing? Trolling wonderfully, amusingly.
What did the average Bush-supporting wannabie do? Take the bait

Bush has encouraged divisiveness and bigotry since he took the office, one of his many "feats" of stupidity. Bigotry has gone up on America exponentially, it's pathetic. There is that entire "If you don't agree with the president you're unamerican!" CRAP - Then calling foreigners stupid names like "Eurotrash" for disagreeing too.

GROW UP AMERICAN TRASH

Let me quote something for you children, you seem to have forgot about this

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The founding fathers put this there for a reason. I am constantly reminded by example that these so-called Eurotrash understand what America stands for better than the average American these days. How about some of you out there actually stop watching Friends/Survivor/Joe Millionaire/American Idol/insert so-called reality TV show of the moment here and USE YOUR FREAKING BRAIN. Read some philosophy, some history, try to figure out the motiviations behind the politicians in washington. Just do something to engage your brain


PS: ALWAYS Engage brain before Mouth/Keyboard/Mouse

A Moscow court has banned Jehovah's Witnesses from operating within that city.

As an atheist, I'm appalled and fearful for Russian democracy. But I'm also not wholly unconcerned about my own country, the United States of America. The Russian ruling is more obviously religious persecution, but less obvious persecution goes on here too.

I've seen several people comment that the Russian ruling isn't so bad, because, well, Jehovah's witnesses go door to door and are, well, annoying. One person went so far as to relate her fears that the Jehovah's Witnesses could recruit the vulnerable:

The Watchtower is a destructive cult that actively and aggressively recruits new members.... it is wise to protect the vulnerable from their "message" whenever possible.

Perhaps it was because I'd just finished re-reading, for the Nth time, Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, which ends with the martyrdom at the hands of a mob, of the leader of a "disruptive cult", perhaps it was just my strong faith in that marvelous secular Bible, the U.S. Constitution, perhaps it was my own sense of being a religious minority, but I composed the following response. Your comments, as always, are welcome:

And, meaning no offense to you or to anyone, at one time Christianity was a cult that actively and aggressively recruited new members. Or at least that's what (now Saint) Paul's Epistles (to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians) suggest.

Despite Paul's recruiting, the Christian cult -- or religion as it's now more usually referred to -- is very often credited with many fine accomplishments.

Speaking as an atheist, I have no particular axe to grind when it comes to debating the merits of one sect over another -- no sect has and none likely will overcome my incredulity. So believe me when I say that I am not enraging in any special pleading for the Jehovah's Witnesses.

As Christ said, the poor will be always with us (paraphrasing Matthew 26:11), and just so the vulnerable also will be with us always.

Protecting the vulnerable from used car salesmen (and I'm particularly vulnerable here) or spammers is one thing; but protecting them from the expression of beliefs, political ideologies, and indeed, theologies, smacks of condescension: if they are so vulnerable that they can't be trusted to determine their own faith, how can we trust them to decide their country's future in the voting booth? Shall we (re-)institute a literacy tests at the polling place and religious tests for office?

How shall we determine --and who shall determine -- what constitutes a "real" religion and what is an objectionable "cult" from which the vulnerable are to be protected? I have here some nominees for the position of Defensor Fidei, "Defender of the Faith": perhaps that Roman so unimpeachable that he was asked to be Governor of all Judea, Pontius Pilate? No? How about the well respected Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas -- he has some strong opinions on what's a real religion? No? Perhaps Uncle Joe Stalin -- he has some equally strong opinions about cults, especially cults of personality? No again? Is perhaps having a Defensor Fidei not so appealing when he's not of your sect?

And where does it end? Even if we agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are "bad cultists" -- and the Russian Orthodox Church, according to the article, very much agrees -- what about other Protestant splinter groups? As recently as 1770, the Colony of Massachusetts seized 400 acres of Baptist land -- in order to build a State-established church. Perhaps the Primates of the Russian Orthodox Church see the wisdom of the town fathers of Boston?

And what of those Latter Day Saints -- more popularly known by the derisive name "Mormons"? Are they a "cult" too? As late as 1846 the Saints were forced out of their community at Nauvoo, Illinois for -- among other things -- their "unnatural" practice of polygamy. Perhaps their habit of missionary work had something to do about it. God knows, it's up to us to fight for the sanctity of marriage against those dirty homos -- uh, I mean, religions founded in, even if no longer practicing, polygamy.

Of course, those Catholics are also not to be trusted, are they? Did you know that the Pope plans to subjugate this country, by a steady influx of Catholic immigrants! Or so the Know-Nothing Party told us (no, I mean the real Know-Nothing Party, not the party of George W. Bush!) as late as the 1850s. But even as late as 1928, anti-Catholic prejudice -- slanders that he was for "rum, Romanism, and rebellion" -- helped to ensure that Al Smith wasn't elected president. Instead, lucky us, we got Herbert Hoover.

On reflection, it seems that there are so many religions to protect the vulnerable against, doesn't it?

But perhaps the real message, the real "Good News", is that it's precisely this persecution of minority religions -- derisively called "dangerous cults" -- that led to the United States enshrining in its secular Bible, the Constitution, an absolute right of religious freedom. It's no accident that Baptists have historically -- despite the recent behavior of the Southern Baptist Convention -- been strong proponents of religious freedom: they have a equally long history of persecution.

There's also a reason why religious freedom and political freedoms like that of speech, assembly, and petitions for redress are tied together in the same Amendment: because once any government begins to presume to police the innermost dictates of your conscience -- your religious beliefs -- that government is also well on its way to telling you for whom to vote -- or well on its way to declaring that there's no need for you to vote at all.

So we should not fear just for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow, we should fear for Democracy in Moscow. And the Russian Orthodox Church should remember, as it suppresses the Jehovah's Witnesses in favor of the Orthodox Church, that not too long ago the State's power was used to suppress the Orthodox Church in favor of official atheism and Joseph Stalin's Cult of Personality.

Finally, let me point out that despite that glorious First Amendment, religion persecution -- official, government sponsored religious persecution -- still goes on in this country (just as the First Amendment did little for the Mormons in the 1830s). As an atheist, I see my faith -- for the lack of faith is, at base, a faith too -- derided every day that Congress opens with an official prayer -- a practiced recently declared constitutional by a Federal Court (but then, it was a (Supreme) Federal Court that decided Dred Scott and Plessy, too).

I see my faith dismissed on every piece of U.S. Currency, with the words "In God We Trust". And worst of all, I see young children coerced every day they go to State schools, to pledge a loyalty oath that includes a reference to a monotheistic God. I see that no one in the U.S. House or Senate professs my faith -- and that no member of the U.S. Supreme Court has ever been one of my co-religionists. And indeed, my people are all too often accused of being members of a dangerous cult, too.

I only hope there are a few historically minded Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Latter Day Saints, and Catholics who might understand that neither my faith nor theirs is safe so long as a tyrannical majority can decide what is, or is not, suitable belief -- whether suitable belief for them, or me, or Michael Newdow's daughter.

This reminds me of those Yes (Prime) Minister episodes I have been watching for the past weekend, with the entire establishment playing rear-guard Humphrey-an style...

A woman architect, and from a minority culture/religion too... presumably she does not build the phallic-shaped monstrosities one requires to get a peerage in Britain.

From the Independent:

Spurned at home, British designer wins architecture's 'Nobel prize'

By James Burleigh

22 March 2004

A female architect who is based in Britain but has yet to win a commission in the UK has been awarded her profession's equivalent of the Nobel prize, it was announced yesterday.

Zaha Hadid, 53, is the first woman to win the coveted Pritzker Architecture Prize in its 25-year history. Now a British citizen, the Baghdad-born designer's relatively small collection of Modernist works has already vaulted her into the top league of a profession dominated by men. She is the third Briton to have been awarded the prize.

...

Ms Hadid has not had any of her projects completed in Britain and her career in her adopted country has been marked by several high-profile setbacks. Most notably, political in-fighting scuppered her radical design for the Cardiff Bay Opera House in Wales in 1995. In November last year she narrowly missed winning the chance to design a new classical-music headquarters for the
  BBC at its otherwise dreary White City complex.

In a recent interview Ms Hadid said that she had been stigmatised in Britain, where her firm won plenty of competitions, but rarely saw them into reality because of "dodgy" rules that allowed organisers to take a different course.

The citation from the Pritzker jury said Ms Hadid's path to worldwide recognition had been a "heroic struggle." Lord Rothschild, the chairman of the jury, referred to "the forces of conservatism" being responsible for her inability to complete a building in London.

...