Go west, ol' people, go west!

Forgive the paraphrase of Horace Greeley's famous remark. The original comment does not really fit us anymore.

Tomorrow morning, we secure the truck and will load it with all of our worldly possessions. Count on us to pick the first weekend of the year in Georgia when the heat index might hit triple digits. Ah well, this might be one way for me to take off a few pounds.

I suspect that I will be incommunicado until after we arrive in Salt Lake City. Wish us well on the trip. I hope to be back in business on this site soon.

Religious wolf in "voice of reason" sheep's clothing?

According to a New York Times story today, written by Laura Beil, Texas is shaping up to be the new battleground between those who acknowledge the scientific legitimacy and educational necessity of teaching evolution in schools and those who oppose it.

The issue in Texas, though, is a subtle one. No longer are people who are anti-evolution demanding that the words "creator," "creationism," or "intelligent design" be included in state science standards. Now, they want schools to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. It does not have the high drama of the classic movie, Inherit The Wind, but this tactic could turn out to be an effective tool of the anti-evolution movement.

What could be wrong with doing that, you may ask? Isn't that the right and fair thing to do? Like everything else, it depends on what things are defined as "weaknesses" and how that material is presented.

According to the article, "The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse. Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement. “Very often over the last 10 years, we’ve seen antievolution policies in sheep’s clothing,” said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism. The “strengths and weaknesses” language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution."

In Texas, the opponents of evolution are within one vote of capturing a majority on the State School Board, which has the power to mandate a change in how evolution is taught. Dr. McLeroy, the chair of the state board, who does not think that there is any scientific justification for evolution and believes that earth is only several thousand years old, says that the debate is between two systems of science - a creationist one and a naturalist one.

There are problems with that view. First, by definition, a creationist view cannot be science. Science is science because it can be tested and proven right or wrong. Believing in a God-created universe is something that can NOT be tested; it is a matter of faith. Despite the scientific sounding claims proposed by its adherents, creationism is NOT science. Second, the understanding of "a creationist" system of science as it is promoted in the United States by conservative Christians follows one particular understanding of one of the creation stories in the Book of Genesis only. This perspective dismisses all other religious accounts of creation as mythological and not worthy of consideration. It seems to me that this movement ought to hold other religious understandings in the same high regard for consistency sake.

This conflict between science and religion is a long-standing one. For centuries, the church, or some in it, has been quick to condemn scientific advances as heresy, at best. It would be wonderful to think that we had progressed beyond this, but we obviously have not.

God and Karma get blamed for a lot.

Who would have thought it would come to this?

For years, I have been critical of various fundamentalist Christian ministers who have blamed God, or, more politely put, held God accountable, for a number of events from hurricanes and earthquakes to plane crashes and diseases. I have cringed as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, John Hagee, et al. loudly proclaimed that Event X happened because God was sending judgment upon the people of Y - and you can fill in the blanks.

For these ministers, with their theology based on the idea of God's complete sovereignty, that is absolute control, over human beings, human affairs, and the planet where humans reside and their companion piece of God's vengeful wrath being visited upon those who do not measure up to their standards, there is no alternative but to believe that everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, that takes place comes from the hand of God.

But now, instead of God being blamed for something, the idea of Karma is being "blamed" for the recent earthquake in China. That well-known theologian, Sharon Stone, she of Basic Instinct fame, has been quoted as saying that the earthquake came as a result of China's policy on Nepal and its conflict with the Dalai Lama. Now, Sharon Stone has apologized for the remark, but she shows that she buys into the same theological construct as Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, and Hagee. Whatever happens to us is because of some force or deity that is outside this world exerting its power over us and our affairs.

Where is the line we draw separating what God does and what is just a result of being human on Planet Earth? A plane crashes; was this caused by God, allowed by God, or a result of gravitational forces acting on an object? A person gets cancer; was this caused by God, allowed by God, or a result of a cellular pathology that can happen to any human? I have known many people of faith who have wrestled with the conflict between believing that God is intimately and personally involved with us and that God causes everything that happens.

Where do you draw this line? How much do you agonize over this in the middle of the night when something has happened to you or your family?

Not Welcome at Church

In today's on-line Washington Post Religion section are two stories about two people who were told they were not welcome at church.

One of the stories detailed the story of Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican and a firm foe of abortion and a veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, who had been denied Communion. His crime? He announced his support for Barack Obama.

If you think back to the 2004 election, you will remember that the Catholic hierarchy announced that John Kerry and other pro-choice politicians would not be allowed to take communion because of their views on abortion. Even during the Pope's recent visit to America, there were some slight tremors of controversy because many of the sanctioned Republican and Democratic politicians, including Rudy Giuliani, were seen taking communion.

The case of Mr. Kmiec is different, however. His doctrinal credentials are impeccable. He was denied communion because his candidate of choice in the 2008 presidential race, Barack Obama, is in favor of abortion rights.

The other situation involves a 13 year old. He is autistic, and his behavior, deemed "out-of-control" by church leaders, led them to tell his mother not to bring him back for communion.

According to the church leadership, their only concern is for the safety of the other parishioners. They allege that the teenager, who is quite large for his age, has hit a child and nearly knocked over elderly churchgoers as he raced from his pew, among other inappropriate behaviors. His mother claims the allegations made by church leadership are overblown and that, their real issue, is his autism.

Here are two separate situations in which a practicing Catholic was kept from taking communion, which is a REALLY serious thing in Catholic theology, by the church.

What do you think about this? Is a church within its rights to deny someone who wants to participate in a church ordinance? If so, what reasons are sufficient for this to happen?

For example, could a Protestant Church keep someone from taking part in the Lord's Supper, which, while important to it, does not have the same meaning as in the Roman Catholic Church, or could it keep a person from being baptized or having a child baptized? Could any church bar a person from being part of worship, from attending church camp, or going to Sunday School? If so, why?

If no church has that kind of right, what might that mean for their ministry or the integrity of their membership? If you were the one being denied, how would you feel?

Difficult questions, these. Unfortunately, these questions might become more common.

Pieces of life

My contributions to this site will be severely curtailed over the next several days. Vicki and I will be leaving for Salt Lake City this weekend, so we are in the last throes of putting the pieces of our lives into boxes.

Moving does things to me - most of them bad. There must be something about cardboard that brings out my cranky, curmudgeon side. I am usually the one of the family who is ready to pitch anything. Vicki never asks my opinion whether to keep something or not; she already knows my answer. In fact, I will frequently give my opinion freely whether I am asked or not. It is just that my opinion is rarely heeded.

Lest I sound too much like the Wicked Witch of Moving, let me defend myself a bit. I am the one who loaded a box of rocks to move from Tennessee to Kansas. They were not my rocks; they belonged to Vicki's parents. The rocks were not labeled; they bore no distinguishing marks; to the best of my knowledge, they were never taken out and looked at. They were just there. These were rocks that had been picked up at various vacation locations for years. Picked up; thrown in a box; never thought of again, until it was time to move.

Now, I can understand keeping one special rock that was picked up on your first date or your honeymoon. That rock would be special. That one would be worth keeping. Having a box full of rocks that all looked alike was not worth it, in my humble opinion, but I lost that argument, among many others.

Yet, there are things that I treasure and am glad to move. I still have the little pencil sharpener that Adam bought for me with his allowance at his elementary school's Christmas store. I still have the tile ash tray that Joshua made me in Cub Scouts. These items are symbols of the relationship that I have with my sons. Those pieces of my life I am glad to take.