Religion statistics reinforce what we know

I typed up a draft brief that didn't make it into the RNS budget today, so I figured I'd post it here. The latest Pew poll shows that religion largely does not matter, because people are already firm in their convictions. This doesn't exactly support the idea that the economy is the election issue par excellence, but I think that's a pretty widespread - if not accurate - truth right now.

* * *

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s religion will not hold him back in November, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest national survey.

 The poll found little voter discomfort with Romney’s Mormon faith, even though 61 percent said it is “very different” from their own beliefs.

Six in ten voters correctly identified Romney’s religion as Mormon, nearly unchanged since the March GOP primaries. The majority of voters say either they are comfortable with Romney’s religion or that it does not matter to them, indicating his faith will have little impact in November.

White evangelicals and Republicans were found to overwhelmingly favor Romney over Obama – regardless of their feelings toward Romney’s faith.

Meanwhile, fewer voters correctly identified President Barack Obama’s faith – and more got it wrong – than before his election in 2008. Only 49 percent of Americans polled correctly identified Obama’s Christian faith. This is an 11-point improvement since 2010, but still below 2008 levels, when 55 percent correctly identified his religion,

Obama was incorrectly identified as Muslim by 17 percent of the population, a 2-percentage-point drop from 2008. Conservative Republicans were especially likely to believe this.

Despite a widespread view that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, a sizable number of voters do not know Obama’s or candidate Romney’s religion.

One-third of voters said they did not know each candidate’s religion.

The report concluded there is little evidence to suggest that concerns about the candidates’ respective faiths will have a meaningful impact in the fall elections.

A July 24 report found most voters say they already know enough about both candidates.

One Woman's Fight for Religious Liberty and Academic Freedom

Deep in the heart of Texas, a university instructor who won her case for church-state separation now finds her academic freedom may have been abridged. Sissy Bradford, an adjunct professor of criminology at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, recently lost her teaching position, months after questioning a display of crosses at the campus' entrance. Whether her dismissal is related to the cross contention forms the center of an intense debate over the limits of religious expression in American society.

[Parallel coverage appears in the New York Times and Texas Tribune.]

The controversy began last fall, when Bradford sent an e-mail to an administrator questioning the placement of crosses on a tower at the University entrance. A subsequent letter from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State facilitated the removal of the crosses. Though built on privately-owned land, the tower was taxpayer-funded and serves as a public face for the school. Private displays of religion are allowed on private land, but the tower seems to exist in a legal gray area, as the structure is publicly funded, promotes a public institution, and allegedly was intended to be gifted to the University.

The case raises a classic question out of religion and politics courses: can public funding be used to support religious displays? The answer to this question is generally “no.” There are some gray areas, but publicly funded institutions are generally banned from displaying religious emblems.

It is telling that legal action was not required to remove the crosses. Simply raising the issue was impetus enough to point out that this was an improper action on the part of the University. However, a cadre of voices defends the display – and criticizes Bradford for questioning the crosses' placement – even though Texas A&M is not religiously affiliated. I would venture to guess that this is not truly a matter of religious liberty for proponents of the crosses. Crescent moons at the base of the tower would surely provoke a tremendous outcry. And in any case, the real issue is that displays which associate a publicly-funded institution with a particular faith are inappropriate.

Thanks, jonrev at Wikipedia!

But could the crosses serve as purely historical imagery? Articles in the San Antonio Express-News from November 2011 report that the crosses were intended to reflect the historic design of the tower - a throwback to Spanish missions that once dotted the area. This argument from history/heritage is bolstered by the contentious 2005 Supreme Court decision that forbade displays of the Ten Commandments which favored monotheistic religion, but allowed displays that exemplified the Commandments as a basis for secular American jurisprudence. The 5-4 decision leaves plenty of wiggle room, but it is unlikely that the authenticity the crosses add to the tower justify their placement. The tower itself is far enough divorced from its religious roots that it does not serve as a religious symbol (witness Taco Bell). Crosses, on the other hand, still serve as powerful religious signifiers.

In the wake of her complaint and subsequent news coverage, Bradford, who is Jewish, was threatened verbally and received hate-filled e-mails and letters, including death threats. Support in comment sections of online articles was overshadowed by venomous hatred. She wrote in a December 5 statement to university police that her religious freedom was being abridged:

“I am being stalked & harassed & threatened by student(s) & community members because I am not a Christian. There exists a clear & prolonged pattern of unwanted communication, contact, threats, & invasion of privacy.” 

When campus police failed to respond to her pleas, students offered protection by walking her to her car and defending her against verbal assaults.

But these students seemingly could not protect her from the administration. She was informed in May that she would not be teaching any more courses, even after she had confirmed with the school that she would teach four courses in the fall (on a "tentative basis," writes the New York Times). She is still listed on the faculty page of the University’s criminology department.

Here the religion issue transmutes into a political issue. Universities must follow internal rules and labor laws for hiring and firing. (Yes, even for adjuncts!) There was something strange about Bradford's sudden dismissal, and it was not difficult to sniff out.

The American Association of University Professors came to Bradford’s defense in a letter [PDF] to the university president, dated May 31, 2012. The letter details how Bradford was given many indications that she would teach in the fall 2012 semester: she received confirmation that she would teach four classes, and students had already enrolled. The dismissal seems at odds with academic due process outlined by the University’s own policies.

Because adjunct professors are generally viewed as part-timers, it is easy to drop an adjunct’s professorship because it is not a tenured position and often is expected to be short-term. However, the University must comply with its internal policies and the rule of law. The former seems to have been contradicted in Bradford’s dismissal. The latter would be contradicted if it can be proven that this dismissal was tied to Bradford’s expression of religious freedom, and questioning the display of religious imagery by a public institution.

Media reports seem to indicate a strong connection between Bradford's outspokenness and her dismissal, and this seems to be a continuing narrative in higher education. Untenured professors who espouse controversial ideas often find themselves without a job. But to question Christian iconography on promotional material for a publicly-funded school? That does not seem controversial at all.

Bubble Kings

Excerpt from my other blog, "The Word." It seemed applicable to some of the topics I write about on this blog, so I decided to include it here. For a little context on dialectical tensions, the difference between God's will and human action that informs and shapes the bible, take a look at a post on 2 Chronicles 10-16.

Read the Full Post.

For anyone that follows the economy, or are really sore about it, it might help to take a look at the cycle of kings presented in the Books of Kings and Chronicles in terms of bubbles (and while you're at it, read anything and everything by Matt Taibbi). Market bubbles, dialectical tension bubbles...Whatever. The point is that there is imbalance until the bubble pops.

Strict regulation [adherence to God's word] means things go pretty well, though there isn't much room to - you know - stretch out and test the limits. As regulations are chiseled away [i.e. kings fall from God's will] by human nature manifested by greed [and apostasy], things go well for a while, or at least people think they do. In reality, a bubble is forming, a pressure differential that arises from what is promised and what in reality exists [In the case of the economic crisis, money. In the case of the bible, adherence to God's word]. Just as in nature, the bubble cannot sustain itself, and it bursts. The bank goes under. Judah is invaded.

Here's where the metaphor gets really sick and twisted. For some reason these bubbles continue. For some reason they are allowed to happen. In the Bible, God allows for a certain degree of human freedom before he himself teaches his own people a lesson. Old generations are replaced, and the cycle generally finds a good king to lead again. In case of the financial crisis, the U.S. government allows for a certain degree of freedom before the whole thing comes crashing down on its own accord. And then it bails out the people who perpetrated the crime.

Allow me to take my metaphor too far: the state of safety is adherence to God. [And you can draw your own conclusions about the parallel metaphor.]

But I progress.

Read the Full Post.

Poetry, Christian Interpretation, Quantum Physics

I would encourage you all to check out the latest post at The Word, which now runs weekly on Tuesdays, by the way. It's a little looser now, a little more personal. For example, this week's post tackles the tale of David's early kingship through poetry, christian interpretation (inspired by Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth), and quantum physics (in particular the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

Let me know what you think!

God Is

I sort that I may construct
rough-hewn thoughts into
corpus - my dust and breath,

hurl abstract words
small as stones
into the slag heap,

saving, savoring concrete
words with which I raise my synagogue
foundation - writing, rhetoric, resonance.

I wish life was a stone
I did not have to cast
with the others as I

build my beautiful Babel,
my altar of witness that
sin is a mere word, that

sacrifice is meaningless, that
faith is ritual only, that
objects matter neither,

and that God is not written
throughout. With this
knowledge I build,

from the slag heap
construct my faith.

Nine Years Later

Nine years after 9/11, the emphasis seems less on the victims of the attacks than on the state of Islam within the United States and the world today.

"We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam."
-President Barack Obama, September 10, 2010

"We are all Americans, we stand together," Obama said. "I think it is absolutely important now for majority of Americans to hang onto that thing that is best in us: a belief in religious tolerance. We have to make sure we don't start turning on each other."
-President Barack Obama, September 10, 2010

"One of the things I most admired about President Bush was after 9/11, him being crystal clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam, we were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam ... to carry out their acts."
-President Barack Obama, September 10, 2010

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
-Former President George Bush, June 2003

"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness."
-Former President George Bush, as told to Bob Woodward in Plan of Attack, 2004

Muslim. In a country in which 49 percent of the population holds an unfavorable view of Islam, "Muslim" has become a pejorative term.

Muslim Muslim Muslim Muslim Muslim.

Oh crap, did I just say that out loud? Will I be able to keep my job over this? Can I say stuff like that on my blog? You bet I can, Muhammad! [No, come on, I'm just kidding, that was just for shock value.]

Somehow in this nation we have combined our ideas of Islam and radical Islam so that many believe that all Muslims are radicals that hate America. This is simply not true, Muhammad. Seriously. I have created a syllogism in an attempt to convey the current trend in American thinking:

1. Radical Muslims attacked America on 9/11
2. ?????
3. All Muslims are radical and hate America

That makes perfect sense, right? From there it's just plug and play, Muhammad:

1. Some Christians in the KKK hate blacks and Jews
   
2. ?????
3. All Christians hate blacks and Jews
   

Holy Martin Luther King, Muhammad, why did he hate himself?

Part of the problem is that a good deal of rhetoric distances "America" from "Muslims" when, in fact many Americans are Muslim. That's why I keep addressing you as Muhammad, Muhammad. America allows all religions to be practiced within its borders, even the peaceful ones in which jihad means an interior spiritual struggle and Islam means "submission." I know it's terrible, Muhammad, that we allow such awful people to practice religion in this country. I mean, Islam is one of the greatest orthopraxic religions around. You want faith? Try praying 5 times a day facing Mecca. Try fasting during daylight hours for an entire month - whether summer or winter. Oh, and your sacred text is non-translatable because to translate it would be to confuse the language.

Muhammad, is this not a pious faith?

News coverage of 9/11 today covered three topics:

1. Honoring the victims
2. The Park51 community center and mosque
3. Asshat Pastor Terry Jones and his Quran-burning stupidity
   

In the same way that Muslims have all become radical, these topics were all combined into the same idea, so that preventing the mosque honored the victims, burning the bible put a barb into Islam (which therefore honored the victims) and burning the bible challenged Park 51. I don't get it. The Muslims that are building the mosque are not the ones that attacked on September 11. Likewise, the Christian president that leads our nation today is not of the same type as the Christian Nazis that killed millions of Jews, gays, Catholics, etc.

But, Muhammad, you tell me President Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa and is a practicing Muslim-homosexual-polygamist-vegan-speed-freak on the side, besides being the Antichrist [thank the Lord the end is near!]. Well, Muhammad, you are much better informed than 82 percent of America.

This nation allows the freedom to burn the Quran, the Bible, the Cross, the Torah, the Rig Veda, and Beatles records. But before you do this, Muhammad, I recommend you read up on the religion you think you hate, and meet up with a few people from that religion. Get to know them, really. Then you will understand that they are human as well and they have faith with striking parallels to yours. Let us all get to know each other, each of us a Muhammad.

You may wonder why I have addressed you as Muhammad, this whole time. Well, Jesus, it is because that as Americans we are all in this together. Yes, Moses, Americans come from all sorts of faith. Buddha, that means your brethren may be Sikh or atheist or Wiccan.

Peace between religions, and religious tolerance in America, is a long way away. But we have had 9 years to at least figure out the difference between Islam and its radical variant. Muhammad, I weary of our hatred. Inshallah, let us find peace soon.

It has been some time since I last posted on this blog, and it will probably be a long time before I post next.

It was a busy semester, but I am graduating with a B.A in Journalism and a B.A. with Honors in English. Now it's time to apply to grad school.

In the meantime, though, I am taking up a project I essentially lifted from The Julia Project, made famous in the film Julie and Julia.

I will blog every day on stories from the bible - reading the bible cover-to-cover as a piece of literature. Hopefully I will learn something in the process. And if you are interested, maybe you will as well. Check it out at The Word.

I hope to update this site periodically, but really cannot promise anything. So come read a little scripture with me!

Writing Update

One thing I try not to do in my posts is apologize for not posting because I have been busy.

I am all but done with Narrative Journalism, having finished my long-form piece on beer and brewing in Ithaca. Right now I am looking to get it published somewhere, so I should probably stop posting extracts online. But I can't help myself. Here's the lede paragraph:

Tell me, O muse, of the drink of many flavors,
That’s traveled far and wide and drunken drinkers of old.
Many are the men whose hearts it heartened and speeches it slurred.
Pale ale to pitch-black porter, lightest lager to richest imperial stout,
I seek beer, served in pub and bar and brewed in home and brewery.
Through my own folly I fail, fool, drinking without discerning,
As though Dionysus himself kept me from learning.
Of these things, fermenter of imagination, tell me,
In my search for perfect beer in snowy Ithaca.

That's what it's all about, in a barley husk.

Previous chapters:
Trappist Westvleteren
Beer, in a Barley Husk
Driving to the Ithaca Beer Company (Excised from the final draft)
Trivia at the Nameless Bar (Significantly cut down in the final draft)

I was talking with a friend yesterday about how well all the pieces are turning out. It is amazing how much improvement comes with four years of writing. And as much as I love to lambast The Ithacan - for its rowing coverage [except for the women's team, which has a great reporter covering them this year], accent section, and pretty much anything else that catches my eye - I encourage everyone to pick up an issue next week, which will have a special insert of select narrative pieces produced in Narrative Journalism Workshop. Perhaps even mine.

At this point this post has been mostly about me. Allow me to direct you, then, to "Homebrewed Beer," the blog of a man I watched brew as part of my Narrative piece. He posts a recipe and detailed analysis for every beer he brews. It's pretty awesome.

Besides an eight-page research paper for my Biblical Interpretation class, the last bit of writing for the semester is my English honors thesis on the memetic use of "apocalypse" in the environmentalism movement. I am taking a look at the way environmentalists write about this "environmental apocalypse" and what it says about their outlook. Right now I am working on a section tentatively titled "Polar bears and other native populations."

Essentially the second semester of my senior year has been dedicated to combining my passions: beer and journalism (and poetry), reading and communications and writing and religion. After writing about what everyone else wanted me to write about for years, I feel very fortunate to be able to write about what I want. Hat tips to professors Twomey and Schack. Actually, what I just wrote is not entirely fair. Big hat tip to professor Cohen for inspiring me to blog and thereby continue writing about what I want to write about. Thank you all.

And if you've made it this far, thank you for reading

Three Stories of Gershom Gorenberg

Story One

"It's because I'm an Israeli journalist. If I were an Israeli heart surgeon they wouldn't be asking me this things."

I was eavesdropping on Gershom Gorenberg, the U.S.-born Jerusalem-based journalist who describes himself as a "left-wing, skeptical Orthodox Zionist Jew." He was speaking with Rebecca Lesses, a recently-tenured (deservedly so) professor of Jewish Studies following a supper Q&A with journalism majors and Ithaca College faculty.

This actually happened. I was reading an excerpt of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, an ethically questionable work. Capote didn't use tape recorders - claimed he could memorize everything. I can't. But I don't make up scenes either.

I was invited through Todd Schack via Jeff Cohen to attend this supper - wraps and pasta salad and cookies in swanky Park 220. It was an intimate affair: nine students, Gorenberg, and a handful of professors.

Israel. That's the magic word, isn't it? That's the powder keg of P.C., the sweating spotlit character on the world stage.

The first question was reductionist - which is fitting, as journalists by nature have to reduce things, distill them, boil them down to their most essential elements. This was the essence of the question: are American Jewish supporters of Israel supporting it on religious, nationalistic, or ethnic terms?

Gorenberg had just been discussing the intricacies of Israel. It's a nation, a religious nation, and Jews have traditionally identified themselves (and been identified by others) as an ethnic group. You can't separate them - they are all part of the identity.

But that was nothing compared to the question that came from Matt Mogweku, associate professor and chair of the journalism department. Like I said, I didn't record it. But this is the gist of what he said:

"When I was a boy growing up" (hand gesture to denote his height at this age) "I always wanted to visit Israel. Some people say, 'I want to go to Paris before I die.' I said, 'I want to go to Israel so I can die happy.' If I can go to Jerusalem..." (puffs out cheeks, denoting the grandeur of such a possibility). "But as I got older, and I began to read the news..." (rambles a bit). "I don't want to offend anyone here, but I started learning about Israel and nuclear weapons, and I thought, 'what is the difference between Israel and Iran?' I haven't seen any U.S. journalists or Israeli journalists writing about the question of nuclear weapons. I would like to know why no one is writing about this."

The essence of Gorenberg's response: Israeli journalists write about this every day.

But it was pursued more, and Gorenberg's frustration was evident, though he maintained his composure very well. Clearly he did not anticipate being put in the hot spot.

Then there were the questions about American journalists and Israel, even though Gorenberg said multiple times he did not frequently read American new sources. If you want news about Israel, you should read Israeli sources, because they don't get bogged down in reiterating the history of the issue, sacrificing precious words.

You might be thinking now, "Wait, Chris, you love it when journalists put people in the hot seat." That's true, but only when they do so fairly. Essentially Gorenberg was being asked to respond for Israel's government. Or being grouped with Israel and railed against. It is not Gorenberg that made these policies, and if you want to ask him about his views on it, you should ask him, rather than accuse him without reference to his writing or personal belief.

Story Two

Gorneberg then delivered a lecture in Emerson Suites to a small but attentive audience.

Images like the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque are symbols. It doesn't matter if important religious events ever happened there, because everyone "knows" that the did. The place is the composite of everything that ever "happened" there.

Also, the location cannot be called by neutral terms because any term used to describe it will instill the values of the describer. Al-Aqsa has the Muslim connotation, Temple Mount the Jewish. My corollary: "PSQ" will have an American, or at least English-language connotation with an English alphabet. It will be given by an outsider, like "Holy Land," which is only holy to the Big Three.

In any case, stories are what matter, because stories are what give our symbols meaning.

P.S. Before the Q&A portion, an announcement was made that all those that would like to discuss Israel politics without asking a question should do so on the Internet. Good call.

Story Three

Gorenberg closed this this beautiful story from the Bereishit Rabba, a midrash on Genesis. (Midrash is something of a rabbinic interpretation, but because of space considerations, and because I am a reductionist journalist, I will not discuss it here. I encourage you, however, to check out the Itche Kadoozy Show for all your questions on Judaism.)

This version of the same story of What Cain said unto Abel in Genesis 4:8 appears over at YU Torah Online.

And Cain Spoke unto Abel his brother.

About what did they quarrel?

“Come,” said they, “let us divide the world.” One took the land and the other took the movables. The former said, “The land you stand on is mine,” while the latter retorted, “What you are wearing is mine….”

R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in R. Levi’s name: “Both took land and both took movables, but about what did they quarrel? One said, ‘The Temple must be built in my area,’ while the other claimed, ‘It must be built in mine.’”

Judah b. Rabbi said, “Their quarrel was about the first Eve.” Said R. Aibu: “The first Eve had returned to dust.” Then about what was their quarrel? Said R. Huna, “An additional twin was born with Abel and each claimed her. The one claimed: ‘I will have her, because I am the first born,’ while the other maintained, ‘I must have her because she was born with me.’”

"It is appealing to suggest that this Midrash is portraying not just the specific dispute between Cain and Abel but from a universal perspective, presenting three reasons why wars break out.

"One reason is an economic one.
"A second reason concerns issues of power.
"A third reason is the religious one. Who will have the right to claim the Temple?"

Who will have the right to claim the Temple?

Two Poems

These I just rediscovered.

As they were written many months apart, I didn't intend both these poems to feature Buddhism, animals and death. But they do. I hope you enjoy.

I hope the mayfly I just killed was Buddhist

Death by newsprint –
the business section eclipsed the table lamp’s
mirthless glow as a story on Citgo’s Venezuela
trouble hit hard an unintended audience.

Perhaps he was meditating on death
or fashioning tiny mayfly prayer flags
from stray banana peel fibers,
which he’d dole out to other Buddhist mayflies

to place wherever Buddhist mayflies’ prayers need saying.
I’d like to think the life I took
just might have had a prayer
because Buddhist flies get another chance.

A mayfly’s samsara:
eat shit and mate.

I would have sent an incarnation onward as a station
on Nirvana Railways, giving it a second or third
hundredth shot at bodhi, which for Buddhist mayflies
is realized simply one day at time.

- - -


“The Badgers are on fire!”

Billy’s callin’ – I let it ring
because I know he’s watching
the Wisconsin game too, and wishes
to discuss the ten unanswered points,
and the announcer’s absurd observation.

I wonder if they’re worried, the badgers,
confronted with their abruptly
existential condition, combusting spontaneously like
frantic badger-shaped logs soaked in kerosene,
sputtering like stuntmen or popping like prop jobs,
these also on fire.

Or are they transcendent little furry burning monks,
tranquil as a phoenix in its last moments aflame
with foreknowledge of impending rebirth?

I imagine shouts of “FIRE!” in the Kohl Center –
spectacle of the unexpected. Still the squeak
of high tops, the quickening cadence
of leather on maple continues
as the home team smokes its competition.
Bucky bravely stands, sentinel on the sidelines,
mascot-ed head immersed in a Gatorade cooler.

Things aren't so different

Perhaps I've been reading too much apocalyptic literature.

Bailout
- a prayer -

By the East River, there we sat and wept, when we remembered Wall Street

Great animating Spirit,
maker, breaker of bonds,
that draws the cycling tides
round our knees or out to sea
in black night or red dawn,
that shades green our eyes
as earth grays, is concretized,
hear our prayer.

Through our neglect of custom
we have fallen from Your favor.
On our own account we no longer savor
Your richness. How quickly we
have learned the cost of our actions.

Is our smoke displeasing,
factories replace ox and kid –
is this foul incense?
Our machines slaughter stock
for us now, is this displeasing?
Have we not fallen
toward Wall Street and prayed?
Must we ourselves dash the blood
upon your altar, above our doorframes,
renounce our old ways, forsake
Detroit’s sweet machines?

Accept our new sacrifice,
one point one trillion backed
by your people, allotted by our priests,
loaded on Your people’s backs.

To You, oh Economy, we offer this gift,
as our fathers shed blood
so the sun might rise
as our mothers pinched us,
so we might shed tears
and again the sun
might greet our eyes.

Amen.

Politics as a Religious Experience

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I think it's sensational that Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama. Apparently so does Matt Drudge, his headline reading, "Obama Picks Latina." So this is a black man nominating an...American...whose parents are Puerto Rican...who is a...no! a woman? That noun ends in an "a" - it's feminine!

Oh will the diversity never end!?

Let's take a look at the current Supreme Court breakdown:

John Roberts: White Male, Roman Catholic
John Paul Stevens: White Male, Protestant
Antonin Scalia: White Male, Roman Catholic (half Italian)
Anthony Kennedy: White Male, Roman Catholic (Not a "real" Kennedy)
David Souter: White Male, Episcopalian
Clarence Thomas: Black Male, Roman Catholic (Succeeded Thurgood Marshall)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: White Female, Jewish
Stephen Breyer: White Male, Jewish
Samuel Alito: White Male, Roman Catholic

Okay, that's:
89% White vs. 75% of the population*
89% Male vs. 49% of the population*

*Based on 2000 Census

So clearly we're under representing women and minorities, right? But just take a look at the religions:

56% Catholic vs. 25% of the population
22% Jewish vs. 1% of the population
11% Protestant vs. 51% of the population (Protestant meaning Christian but not Catholic)
11% Episcopalian vs. 1% of the population

Oy vey! How did all those Jews and Catholics get into the Supreme Court?

While we're diversifying the Court by increasing both the woman and minority categories, we're gaining another Catholic, making 2/3 of the Court Roman Catholic and wiping out Episcopalians entirely.

But even without her nomination, I've noticed a very disturbing trend in the homogeneity the United States Supreme Court (that's homogeneity as in "sameness," not "gayness"). A full 44% of the Supreme Court is controlled by men named John or Anthony. Where are all the other names? So far a Christopher has not been chosen, though John has been the name of 9% of all Supreme Court Justices to have served.

Indeed, the lack of diversity is a shame.

Though I walk throught the valley...

The separation of Church and State.