In the News . . .

There have been several remarkable items in the news over the last several days involving religion, religious people, and religious ideas.

**** You may have heard about the controversial Roman Catholic Bishop, Richard Williamson, being re-instated, that is un-excommunicated, by the Pope. He was excommunicated in 1988 for denying the reality of the Holocaust.

Obviously, many Jewish groups and human rights groups protested the re-instatement as sending a bad signal to the world that legitmized Holocaust denying.

In a Financial Times story, it seems that Bishop Williamson holds other views not quite in step with the modern world. Quoting from the FT piece,
"Now, denying the reality of the Nazi gas chambers is clearly Williamson’s worst offence. But it’s worth taking a look at some of his other public statements down the years. For example, in a 1999 newsletter that comments on Nato’s war against Serbia, he asserts that Western leaders have “long been controlled by Judeo-masonry”. Two years later, he complains that “women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterises our times”. His opinions on women display iron consistency. In 1991, there’s a letter entitled “Women’s trousers are an assault upon woman’s womanhood”. This sets out the case that “women’s trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose … represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God”. Apart from Jews, freemasons, Western systems of government and modern women’s apparel, Williamson also rages at Hollywood and the global entertainment industry by bashing the rock group Pink Floyd (a “revolt against everybody and everything”) and ‘The Sound of Music’. “By putting friendliness and fun in the place of authority and rules, it invites disorder between parents and children,” says Williamson of the 1965musical starring Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer."

Anti-trousers, against education for women, anti-Sound of Music, and railing against the world Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, I wonder how much credibility the Bishop is given in theological and ecclesiastical matters.

**** The Roman Catholic Church is re-instating the use of indulgences. You remember the big flap in the 16th century between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church over this very issue. Luther contended that the church did not have the last say in how sin was to be judged. That privilege was God and God's alone. Thus, selling such indulgences was a sham and took advantage of people.

From a NY Times story, comes this news,
"According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day."

**** Finally, in a piece from the Washington Post, comes the news of an attempt in Arkansas to override the state constitutional ban on atheists holding public office or testifying in trials.

From the story, "Arkansas is one of half a dozen states that still exclude non-believers from public office. Article 19 Section 1 of the 1874 Arkansas Constitution states that "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.""

I thought the US Constitution took precedence when it asserted that there should be no religious test for public office, but I guess not. I wonder whether there will be enough members of the legislature with the courage to vote for the resolution that calls for the amendment of the state constitution overturning this prohibition.

Religion and Evolution

With today being the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, it seemed fitting to look at some aspect of the intersection of science - specifically evolution - and religious belief. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released poll data in January showing the % of the adherents of a particular faith group who accept evolution as the best explanation of the origins of human life on earth.

There were several things that caught my eye. First, less than half (48%) of the general population agree with the statement. I wonder whether that is a reaction to the wording "origin of human life on earth." If the researchers had worded the statement differently, would the results be different? Then, this may just show a continuing rejection of evolutionary thought as characterized in the 20th Century Scopes Trial and in the recent attempts by school boards to mandate the teaching of "Intelligent Design."

Second, I was struck by the the overwhelming acceptance of the statement by the Buddhists, the Hindus, and the Jews as compared to everyone else. Isn't it interesting that these three groups evidently do not see any threat to their religious teachings or contradiction with them and evolution.

Third, I was not surprised by the low % accepting the statement from the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Protestants. Having come from an Evangelical Protestant group, I was quite surprised that even 24% of them said they agreed.

Since it seems that evolution will continue to be a controversial topic in America, I wonder: Which group are you in - accepting or rejecting evolution? Do you find that your position fits the majority of your faith group or are you in the minority? Do you think that public opinion should dictate what is taught in science classes in public schools? How would you feel, as one who accepts evolutionary thought, being in a school that teaches "Intelligent Design?" Or, how would you feel as one accepts "Intelligent Design" in a school that teaches evolutionary thought?