At the recent Republican debate, the candidates were asked to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution. Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo all raised their hands.

And this is America, where people are free to believe anything they like. But these are people who are running to be the president of the most powerful nation on earth. The next president must be able to lead the world in dealing with the crisis of global climate change. The next president will probably have to revisit stem cell research. The next president will possibly have to deal with another epidemic. All of these things are difficult to do when you don’t believe in science. Just ask President Bush.

But these three guys raise their hands, and it’s buried in the middle of the story, after we finish talking about the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Why is this not the top story? If they had said they were athiests, it would be the top story. If they had said they were atheists, that would be the end of their careers in American politics. If they had said they were agnostic, that would be the end of their careers in American politics.

So many of our most celebrated figures are openly athiest, from scientists to artists, from business leaders to Karl Rove. But not one of the candidates running for president.

Why is disbelief in evolution more acceptable in American politics today than disbelief in God?

Why is this night different from all other nights?

Last week, I posted a response to a blogger named Cesario who listed her ten unpopular opinions about Shakespeare. I registered my opinions for nine of them, but had only a non-committal response for her suggestion that Shakespeare was “probably Catholic” by saying there’s no way to know for sure. Well, of course there’s no way to know for sure. That’s why she called it an opinion, Shakespeare Teacher.

First, let me provide some quick background. In the early 16th century, England, like most of Europe, was a Catholic nation. During the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII had a break with the Pope, partially over the question of whether he could divorce Catherine of Arragon (hint), and created instead the Anglican Church. After his death, his young son Edward VI and his advisors moved the country more solidly Protestant. After his death, came Queen Mary I.

Mary was of Spanish descent, and Spain was still solidly a Catholic country. She was the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Arragon, and was married to the King of Spain (hint). She converted the country back to being Catholic, polarizing the country even further. Elizabeth inherited this strife and brought back the Anglican Church, but tried to implement the via media, or “middle way,” a compromise that made nobody happy. But this was the world that Shakespeare was born into, so if his family was Catholic, they would have had good reason to hide it. But lack of evidence alone isn’t proof either way.

I just did a Google search for “Was Shakespeare Catholic?” and the more interesting results can be found here and here. Both articles conclude that there’s no way to know for sure. So let me ask your opinion.

In your opinion, was Shakespeare Catholic?

SuchShakespeareStuff is now Shakespeare Geek. I was checking out the links over there when I came across a post by someone named Cesario listing her ten unpopular opinions about Shakespeare. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I applaud people who are willing to post unpopular opinions, and I’d like to add my twopence to the conversation.

1. This stuff about Shakespeare being [someone else] is arrant nonsense.

Strongly agree. There’s no good evidence that this is true, and most of the arguments you hear are either elitist or overly-ambitious.

2. Twelfth Night is at its root a deeply creepy and disturbing play

Mildly agree. The play does have a dark side, to be sure. The Andrew subplot is creepy, the Malvolio subplot is disturbing, and did I hear Orsino correctly in the last scene? He’s actually going to kill Cesario to spite Olivia?

3. Shylock is not the hero of Merchant of Venice. He is the villain.

Strongly agree. If you’ve read the play, it’s hard to make the case otherwise.

4. The Macbeths have the best marriage in all Shakespeare.

Mildly disagree. I’ve heard Harold Bloom express this opinion, and I get the equal partnership aspect, but I find their relationship too dysfunctional and codependent to pay them this compliment. The title “Best Marriage in Shakespeare” is a dubious honor, but I think I’d have to go with Brutus and Portia. They seem like they have a really strong relationship. The fact that it can be torn apart by the assassination is a testament to the earth-shattering significance of that event. We won’t count the marriages at the end of the comedies, because who knows how they’ll fare?

5. Lear’s Fool is a subjective reality experienced only by Lear himself.

Mildly disagree, though I like your spirit. Both Goneril and Kent talk directly to the Fool, and others talk about him (such as the Gentleman that Kent meets in the storm). I do think there’s an alter ego reading possible here, but perhaps this is more of a symbolic idea than something that’s literally demonstrable in the play.

6. Hamlet: not really a play.

Strongly disagree. Hamlet is a play. It has searingly powerful dramatic dialogue, a story arc, and character development. There are some stage plays that I would say are not really plays, but Hamlet is a play through and through.

7. I Henry VI is a better play than Richard III.

Strongly disagree, though I think I Henry VI is highly underrated. I also think that Richard III is a much better play after you’ve read the three Henry VI plays. The characters in Richard III have a lot of history, and understanding that history helps explain a lot of their interactions.

8. Claudio and Hero = so doomed.

Strongly disagree. This is the stereotypical couple of Shakespeare’s day. These are the people who wed unthinkingly and play their roles, living happily ever after because they never consider that they may not. They are used by Shakespeare to contrast the much more interesting Beatrice and Benedick who question everything about love.

9. I think Shakespeare was probably Catholic.

No opinion, though there is some reason to believe he may have been. I’m hesitant to make any generalizations about Shakespeare based on his writings, because he was so good at speaking from so many different points of view that it’s impossible to know what’s really Shakespeare himself. Shakespeare may very well have been a soldier, a king, a murderer, a nobleman, a shrew, a fairy, a Moor, an ancient Egyptian queen, or a boatswain. He’s much too clever for me to guess.

10. Titus Andronicus is a farce and would be best played as a Monty Python skit.

Mildly agree. I don’t think the farce is intentional, but playing it as a Monty Python skit would be an improvement.

Remember Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2006? As the first Muslim elected to Congress, he naturally wanted to be sworn in on the Quran. This caused an uproar among such champions of liberty as Dennis Prager and Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) who felt that people of all religions should be sworn in on the Christian Bible.

Well, the story flared up for a bit and then seemed to fade away. But when the time came, Ellison ended up being sworn in on a Quran that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson:

“It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleamed from any number of sources, including the Quran,” Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

“A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system,” Ellison said. “This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”

I came across this via a post by my cousin, TheMediaDude. It’s an animated map of who has controlled the Middle East for the past 5000 years, and it is quite simply the reason why computers were invented:

There are some other animated maps at Maps of War including one showing the History of Religion.

What’s there is great, but there’s not much of it, so if you’re like me, you’ll start to get a thirst for more historical maps. You can quench that thirst at the University of Texas Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection.