Teach Your Children Well

One of the recent controversies has been over the the new content standards adopted by the Texas State Board of Education. These kind of things always spark my interest, in part because I used to teach.

In a recent article written by Lauri Lebo and posted at Religious Dispatches [to be found at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/churchstate/2498/], 10 of the egregious choices made by the school board are noted. These are:

1. Exceptionally Unjust: Conservative board members spent much time stressing that students need to learn about “American exceptionalism,” even as they removed the concepts of “justice” and “responsibility for the common good” from a list of characteristics of good citizenship for Grades 1-3. They also unsuccessfully tried to remove the word “equality.”

2. Disestablishing the Establishment Clause: A proposal suggesting that high school students be able to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others,” was rejected by religious conservatives.

3. The Enlightenment Ends Here: Board members voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from a world history standard about the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on political revolutions from the 1700s to today. Instead, they replaced him with theologians Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Then, because neither were Enlightenment thinkers, board members also removed the word “Enlightenment.”

4. A Free Substitute for Capitalism: Board conservatives banned the word “capitalism” from the standards, arguing that “liberal professors in academia” use the word in a negative way. The phrase “free enterprise” is to be used in its place.

5. McCarthy, Great American Hero: Led by McLeroy, board members voted to require students to learn about “communist infiltration” in the 1950s in an attempt to absolve Joseph McCarthy for his Cold War Communist witch hunts. McLeroy asserted inaccurately that McCarthy has been “vindicated by history.”

6. Expunge the (Brown) Socialist: The board took Dolores Huerta, co-founder of United Farm Workers of America, from a Grade 3 list of “historical and contemporary figures who have exemplified good citizenship,“ because she was a socialist. Inexplicably, socialist Helen Keller remained on the same list.

7. A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ But a Conservative: Students are required to learn about “conservative heroes and icons” like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. No similar standard is required for “liberal heroes and icons.”

8. History, Rewritten by the Losers: When studying the writings of President Abraham Lincoln, eighth-grade students in U.S. history class are also required learn about Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address as president of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

9. Declaring Culture War on Liberal Programs: Students are required to learn about “any unintended consequences” of the Great Society, affirmative action and Title IX.

10. As Goes Hollywood So Goes the Texas School Board: The board removed freedom fighter and Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated during Mass, from a standard about leaders who resisted political oppression. The reason? Because they hadn’t heard of him and, as one board member said, “he didn’t have his own movie” like Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi.

The primary justification made by some members of the Board for these decisions, and others, was that these were necessary correctives to counter the liberal agenda of professional educators.

I believe that any decision made about what is "truth" in history is affected by one's perspective. I also believe, though, that the people best able to make such choices are those who have spent their professional career studying such things. What would we do, for instance, if a group of people who believe the earth is flat were elected to a state Board of Education? Would we be willing to allow them to rewrite science standards to mandate that students be taught this view? I would not. What about you?

National Day of Prayer . . . Or Not?

Full disclosure time. When I served as the pastor of a church in Virginia, I lived in a county where there was a military facility. During my 5 year tenure, I was asked to speak at the National Day of Prayer event on base one year. I accepted the invitation then without question.

I think prayer is an integral part of the Christian's spiritual life. I think praying for my country and its elected leadership - at all levels of government - is a good thing. I also think one should pray for all people and for all governments. I think it would be good to pray for all humans to experience peace and justice. All of this can be done, though, without a formally mandated "Day of Prayer."

The way that the National Day of Prayer is done raises some questions for me now.

First, what is the background agenda of the group that is the prime mover for this event. For those who are not aware, the group known as "The Family" is the one who began and continues to sponsor this day. "The Family" is the group that has the now infamous house in DC where several elected officials live and receive guidance, including some who have admitted to adulterous affairs. This is the group who backs certain international governmental officials, regardless of what unethical things they do. Jeff Sharlet has written the definitive book on this organization. Do these many other dabblings color their intent to sponsor this day? Probably.

Second, I wonder why this event is a Christian only event. If we want to invoke divine blessings on our people, should we - can we - say that only Christians can pray? What statement is this stance making? Can we who live in a pluralistic society have a governmentally sanctioned day of prayer that excludes everyone else? Prabably not.

What is the solution? The easy thing, in my mind, is to cancel the event as currently structured. I know, however, that the political fallout for such a decision would be huge.

What do you think should be done?

Once More Into The Fray

If you read the comments section, you note that only two people actually responded to my wonderings about whether to continue this or not. That is not an overwhelming number on which to make a decision, but I will take up the blog again, at least for a while. Then, I will see what the response is to my musings.

Just Wondering?

It has been a month, more or less, since I last posted a piece. Granted, a lot has happened in that month that led to this long dry spell, not the least of which was the crash of my home computer. Yet, no one in that great cyber-world has seemed to notice or mind that "Michael's Voice" has been silent for so long.

I have been toying with the idea of packing this in. This may be the right time to bring this to a close. Any ideas from you?

Beck Strikes Again

This is one time, perhaps, that I wished I watched the Glenn Beck program. On the Religion News Service website, he has the "Quote of the Day."

The quote as run on RNS is: "I beg you, look for the words `social justice' or `economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes. "

I wish I watched that program because I would want to know the context for his remark. I happen to believe that justice is a major theme in Christian scripture and that scripture teaches and enjoins the person of faith to seek both social and economic justice. Thus, I have no clue what Mr. Beck was objecting to. Also, I wish I knew for what he thinks "social justice" and "economic justice" are codes.

When you check out a church website, do the phrases so condemned by Mr. Beck send you fleeing or do they pique your interest?

Use of Faith-Based Organizations for US Aid?

In a February 27 Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, Nicholas Kristof suggests that the US should continue funneling aid to countries through faith based organizations like World Vision. Kristof points to the increased involvement of US based faith organizations in distributing all types of aid to other countries. And, he points to the massive numbers of people already in place through World Vision.

He ends his piece with these words:

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.

A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.

If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.

That leads me to wonder:
- What do you think about using evangeical Christan or Catholic groups to distribute US aid?
- Would your opinion change if the distributing groups were the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or the Scientologists?
- Is there a potential problem with the groups using this aid money to gain converts or do you think that might be a problem?

US Foreign Policy and Religion

In a story from the Washington Post [link at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022605309_pf.html] comes a report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that recommends President Obama and the National Security Council should make religion "an integral part of our foreign policy."

The reasons for the recommendation are:
-- The influence of religious groups -- some with long-established and others with newly won voices -- is growing in many areas of the world and affects all sectors of society, from politics and culture to business and science.
-- Changing patterns of religious identification in the world are having significant political implications.
-- Religion has benefited from and been transformed by globalization, but it also has become a primary means of organizing opposition to it.
-- Religion is playing an important public role where governments lack capacity and legitimacy in periods of economic and political stress.
-- Religion is often used by extremists as a catalyst for conflict and a means of escalating tensions with other religious communities.
-- The growing prominence of religion today is deepening the political significance of religious freedom as a universal human right and a source of social and political stability.

In a point-counterpoint- counter-counterpoint approach, an advocate for implementing the recommendation writes that: Only by reaching people at their core religious values can diplomacy build coalitions that will produce a sustained peace. Any agreement must be built from the ground up by engaging religious organizations to provide a broad base of support and to promote reconciliation.

An advocate for not implementing the policy writes: When any country's foreign policy gets religion, disaster usually follows. What U.S. foreign policy should get is secular. This involves learning more about the religious and cultural beliefs of people in countries where we are engaged so we can more effectively communicate with them, determining what changes are both beneficial and doable and at what cost, and developing rational strategies to accomplish a mission.

Finally, an advocate for proceeding cautiously writes: Recognizing the power of religion in the world is the better part of wisdom for anyone working on international concerns. Thinking that any government, especially ours, can and/or should use religion as a foreign affairs strategy is a prelude to disaster. The foundational principle of religious liberty merits our government's strong support abroad as well as at home even if other governments fail to appreciate or duplicate a similar commitment.

Let me encourage you to read the full article and think about what position you would take. Then, consider sharing that in a comment here and with an e-mail to the White House.

The Prosperity Gospel Debunked

One of the staples of religious television is the prosperity gospel preacher. He or she may come in different guises, but there are two things, at least, in common with all of them. They all flaunt a conspicuous consumerism - expensive clothes and jewelry drip from them - and they all proclaim that God is just waiting to shower you with the same. From my perspective, they all are just hoping that ypou and I will buy into their message and send them money so that they can continue in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

From a story in the Mobile Press-Register written by Roy Hoffman comes a debunking of such belief. Karen Spears Zacharias has written a book entitled, Will Jesus Buy Me a Double-Wide?

Ms. Zacharias is a woman of "deep faith and strong conviction" according to the article. But, she has little good to say about these purveyors of the "get rich now from God" philosophy. Quoting from the article:

"The folksy Osteen," she writes in her book, "comes across as harmless but the gospel he's selling isn't. The wounded in this world are dying and despairing by the thousands while prosperity preachers are offering up home-brewed remedies of Entitlement theology. These charlatans are selling salve to the sick when salvation is what people really need to fix what's ailing them."

She also takes issue with interpretations of Bruce Wilkinson's monumental bestseller, "The Prayer of Jabez," that prayer being, in part: "Oh, that you would bless me, indeed, and enlarge my territory."

The "increase in territory," Zacharias says, is about the spiritual presence in one's heart, not financial domain.

These preachers tap into the same human need and hope that those who write about the laws of attraction in the universe by which a person can alter reality in order to attain wealth. Instead of praying, these other folks suggest that all one need is the power of positive thinking, which, come to think of it, is like most folks prayers.

I, obviously, disagree with the theological approach of these prosperity peddlers. I would not bother disagreeing with them were it not for the folks who jeopardize their families and themselves by sending them money or by acting on the promises made. There are some who suggest that a portion of the mortagage crisis was created by people acting on the belief that God wanted them to have a bigger house than they could afford. I would wish that these ministers who have made a great living from the contributions of folks who could ill afford to give would give away their fortunes and provide real help to the poor and struggling.

What do you think?

If you meet the Messiah on the Road . . .

There is a Buddhist proverb that goes, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." This harsh statement points out the truth that one who really is the Buddha would not make such claims for himself. There is not a comparable statement that I know of in any other religion, but I am certain the sentiment held by adherents in other religions would be similar. No true Messiah would so announce herself or himself to the world.

But, what do you do if you are not making that claim for yourself, but others are saying it about you? Such is the fate for a man named Raj Patel. In a February 5 story in the NY Times, Scott James tells the strange tale of what Mr. Patel's life has become. Writes Mr. Scott, "A native of London now living on Potrero Hill in San Francisco, Mr. Patel suddenly finds himself an unlikely object of worship, proclaimed the messiah Maitreya by followers of the New Age religious sect Share International."

It seems that Benjamin Creme, the leader of Share International prophesied on January 14 that the Maitreya had come. Mr. Creme did not name a name, but gave clues such as: born in India in 1972, travelled to London in 1977, dark-skinned, and a stutterer. All of this hit as Mr. Patel was making the rounds of the media outlets publicising his new book. With the details of his life available to anyone with a computer and the ability to use google, the faithful followers of Share International soon found that Mr. Patel fit all of the criteria defined by Mr. Creme.

The flood of e-mails from the faithful asking "Are you the One?" soon caused Mr. Patel to try to keep his personal contact information private. Unfortunately that has not deterred the true believers. Even Mr. Patel's denials that he is the Maitreya have worked against him, for, of course, the real Maitreya will not confirm that he is the real Maitreya.

Mr. Scott's story ends with this observation: “It’s incredibly flattering, just for an instant,” Mr. Patel said of his unwanted status. “And then you realize what it means. People are looking for better times. Almost anything now will qualify as a portent of different times.”

How would you respond to such claims made about you? What do you think this phenomenon says about the world?

Support for Israel . . . Or Else?

One of the tenets of conservative Christianity is that support for Israel, the nation founded in 1948, is mandated in scripture. I have heard many sermons using Genesis 12:3 as the foundation for this view. In recent years, this same verse has informed politicians as they pledged their support for Israel.

On the EthicsDaily.com website, run by a seminary acquantance, Robert Parham, is an article written by another person with whom I crossed paths in my doctoral work, Mark McEntire, that questions the legitimacy of that interpretation.

Mark, now a professor of religion at Belmont University, Nashville, TN - a Baptist oriented school - notes that Rep. Michele Bachman, R-Minn., evidently referenced this verse as a justification for the US government to continue that unquestioned and unwavering support for Israel, the nation. He indicates that there are some interpretive issues with using that verse in this way. Since I am not the scholar of Hebrew that Mark is, I will let his words come through clearly:

Bachmann was apparently referring to Genesis 12:3, in which God says to Abram, "I will bless the ones blessing you, and the one cursing you I will curse, and in you all the clans of the land will be blessed."

Interpreting this verse within the context of Genesis 12 involves several difficulties.

First is a discrepancy in the text. The primary Hebrew text presents the two participles in the first half of the verse as I have translated them above: the first one plural ("the ones blessing you") and the second one singular ("the one cursing you"). Other versions of the Bible, including all available Greek and Latin manuscripts, make both of these words plural. Therefore, it is difficult to tell whether God is threatening a curse on one specific entity, or placing a general curse on anyone who curses Abram.

Second is an interpretive difficulty created by an important aspect of Hebrew grammar. Biblical Hebrew uses singular and plural second-person pronouns that are distinctly different. In this case, the second-person pronouns translated as "you" above are singular. This is complicated, however, by the Bible's frequent use of singular, second-person pronouns that clearly refer to a group of people. Therefore, it is impossible to say with certainty whether in this statement God is speaking to and about just Abram, Abram's entire household at the time or all of Abram's descendants.

Finally, two words in the second half of the verse are difficult to translate. The word I have translated as "clans" is sometimes used in a rather precise manner to refer to extended family groups within ancient Israel's social structure, but sometimes it is used more generally to refer to people groups outside of Israel.
The word I have translated as "land" is most often used to refer to the ground, or the dirt of which it is composed. It is not typically used to refer to the "earth" in the way that modern English speakers most often use it. This makes it impossible to say for certain whether this statement of blessing and curse applies everywhere or in just one specific area.

These difficulties of text, translation and interpretation make the scope of the statement – in terms of chronology, geography and the persons involved – uncertain. This uncertainty is revealed in the Bible itself when Abraham pleads with God for the other half of his family to be included: "O that Ishmael may live in your sight." God responds by extending the blessing of Abraham to Ishmael and the 12 nations that will descend from him. (Gen. 17:18-20)

I am not calling for an abandonment of Israel, but I do think our national foreign policy ought to be driven by other concerns - like concerns for human rights, adherence to laws and international treaties,and openness to diversity within its borders - instead of a faulty interpretation of one verse of scripture. Certainly, the nation of Israel ought to be held to the standard of adherence to UN resolutions and mandates as every other country. Unfortunately, any criticism of Israel at all is taken as anti-Semitism or as flying in the face of scripture.

This continues to be an issue, since the current Israeli government has recently pledged to continue to build settlements in disputed territories. Those who argued against this pledge have been "tarred and feathered" in many quarters.

So, how should US foreign policy be guided - and by whom? Should we use one particular ideological interpretation to force us to one conclusion?

Remarkable Statement

In the December 7, 2009 issue of the New Yorker was a story about a Dutch politician, Ahmed Marcouch. Mr. Marcouch is a Moroccan born Muslim who now heads the district council of Slotervaart, which has a large Muslim population. In the article, he is quoted as saying:

Look, the fact that one is allowed to be an orthodox Muslim is a right. What people in the neighborhood fail to understand is that gays have the right to be gay. People - gays, Muslim, black, white - should never be forced to be untrue to themselves. The freedom of every individual to insist on his own identity must be defended.

This is a remarkable statement about tolerance. How do you respond to it?

Air Force Academy Incident, Part II

Dr. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, has weighed in on the controversy at the Air Force Academy's attempt to set aside a space for the Wiccans on campus to worship. In a February 5 "Guest Voices" column in the Washington Post On Faith section, Reverend Jeffress, as you might imagine is aghast that the Academy would have made any accommodations for this religious minority.

He began his piece by showing the reader that he is a sane and reasoned voice on religion since he disagreed with the Reverend Pat Robertson's remarks linking the Haitian earthquake to God's judgment on the nation. Then, Reverend Jeffress asserts, "However, the decision by Air Force Academy officials in Colorado Springs to construct an outdoor space for the worship of pagan deities is an open invitation for God to send His harshest judgments against our nation." The Reverend Jeffress then draws a parallel between the establishment of this worship space and the idolatry condemned in the Hebrew scriptures and asserts that idolatry now is no better than idolatry then.

He concluded his piece with these words, "I don't know the cause of the Haitian earthquake, the Indonesian tsunami or 9/11. But I can say without hesitation that any nation that officially embraces idolatry is openly inviting God's wrath.
This past week government officials testified they are "certain" of another terrorist attempt on our soil within the next three to six months. One would think this would be a good time to seek God's protection rather than kindle His anger."

I would make a few comments.

First, I noticed that Reverend Jeffress had nothing to say about the cross that was planted in the Wiccan worship space. From that, should I presume that this kind of religious vandalism is commendable since it evidently was done by Christians against non-believers?

Second, his use of God's judgement against the nation of Israel for their idolatry is not really applicable to America in 2010. America is governed by a secular government on the basis of laws built from a constitution that guarantees rights to all people who are citizens of our country. Ancient Israel was not.

Third, the presumption that no one deserves rights except for those with whom I agree and who agree with me is most dangerous. Many of the countries in the world today that we condemn are condemned because of that same attitude.

Finally, his concluding innuendo that God would use a terrorist organization to attack this country and kill innocent people because the Air Force Academy tried to make some accommodation for all of its students is abhorrent.

What do you think?

Should This Bother Us?

In a February 3 story in the LA Times, reporter DeeDee Correll documents new problems with religious tolerance or intolerance at the Air Force Academy.

You may remember the uproar a few years ago over charges that evangelical Christianity was being imposed on students, whether they wanted it or not. The administration at the AFA took very public steps to ensure that the religious preferences of all students would be respected.

Now, however, that good will may be gone. The AFA constructed a new worship space for cadets who are Wiccan. While there had been a space set aside for Wiccan worship, it was located far away from the living and training areas for the cadets. The new space was much more easily accessible. Then, on January 17, a cadet saw that someone had constructed a cross from railroad ties and placed it in the center of the new Wiccan worship area.

Is this something that should bother us? After all, we did not dishonor the space. Surely, we can see that this was in fun? Or, perhaps, it was more a case of the rights of the Christians on campus to express their views and promote their religion.

This is indeed something that should bother us. At best, it is symptomatic of the lack of respect people have for anyone who is different and does not quite fit in. At worst, it betrays the arrogance and intolerance that some Christians have toward any other expression of faith. I do not have to care whether someone paints swastikas on the wall of a Jewish Synagogue, because, after all, they are not Christians and should expect whatever they get. I do not have to care whether someone brings in dead pigs into a Muslim Masjid because, after all, they are not Christians and should expect whatever they get. Soon, though, I could be the one under attack and under pressure to conform because I am not considered to be a good enough Christian.

This incident should put us in mind of the words attributed to Martin Niemoller, a German Protestant Christian pastor:
First they came for the communists,
and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Fighting the evils of the Internet

In Israel, the Haredim, the ultra-orthodox Jews have called for a boycott of the internet. That by itself is probably not a newsflash. We all know the kinds of things available on the internet. And, we all suspect that the extremely conservative religious folks would have even more problems with such things than we do.

But, the sites that have prompted this boycott are sites run by people withing the Haredim community. Quoting from an AP story by Amy Teibel, "Ultra-Orthodox seek boycott of their own Web sites,"

Prominent ultra-Orthodox Israeli rabbis are targeting a new foe in the decidedly impious world of the Internet: They've demanded a boycott of their community's own Web sites, accusing them of disseminating "gossip, slander ... filth and abominations."

It's the latest flashpoint in a long-simmering battle by rabbis in the profoundly insular ultra-Orthodox, or haredi, community to preserve their influence over hundreds of thousands of followers in an era when the forces of technology are growing ever more powerful.

The ultra-Orthodox portals do not contain the seamy material that traditionally has been the main target of rabbinical ire. But the sites, which publish articles on politics, economics, health and religion, do offer freewheeling discussions with irreverent and unmonitored reader responses - including direct criticism of rabbis' authority.

Such ultra-conservative religious groups do not like for their members to be exposed to diversity of thinking or to those who would question the authority of the group's leadership or to any opinion that differs from the accepted line. In a tradition of very strict control, you would expect some level of success. Again from the article,"So far, the boycott calls in Israel have already claimed significant victories. At least two sites have shut down and key figures have resigned from another."

How do you respond to such a move? Do you think it is good that this boycott has already resulted in the limitation of access to the internet? Are gaining more knowledge and being exposed to more opinions always a good thing or something to be feared?

Hating the Other

America is a nation where the overwhelming majority of its citizens are affiliated with a Christian religion. This is true even though there have been recent increases in the numbers of people who self-identify as an atheist or as a non-affiliated religious or spiritual person.

This reality makes a recent Gallup poll most interesting. Under the auspices of the Muslim West Facts Project, the poll investigated what Ameicans thought of four of the major world religions: Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The report can be found at: http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/125315/Religious-Perceptions-America.aspx.

Here are some interesting facts - at least for me - from the poll.
** Islam elicits the most negative views with 53% of respondents saying they had either a "not too favorable" or a "not favorable at all" opinion of the religion.
** Most Americans know very little about Islam with 63% saying they had "very little knowledge" or "none at all" about the religion, even though 52% say they know someone who is a Muslim.
** There is some statistical correlation between prejudice toward Jews and prejudice toward Muslims with those who self-identify as having a "great deal" of prejudice toward Jews 32 times more likely also to have a "great deal" of prejudice toward Muslims.
** There is also some statistical correlation between those who attend a religious service more than once a week and reporting "no prejudice" toward Muslims.

What should "good" Christian Americans think about those who follow another faith? How much should "good" Christian Americans know about those other faiths? What do you think?

And, throw them under the bus!

Daniel Dennett, professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is one of the new cadre of individuals aggressively attcking religion and those who hold religious beliefs. In a Q&A in the Wasington Post, he was asked about the claims of media bias against religion, such as those recently made by Brit Hume. Professor Dennett's full answer can be found at: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/
daniel_c_dennett/2010/01/religious_no_longer_a_protected_class.html.

I found part of his answer provocative. Dennett said:
I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.

I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?

How do you respond to his comments?

Another Round About Haiti

Andrew Apter, professor of history and anthopology at UCLA, was interviewed by Thomas Rogers on Salon.com about Haiti's voodoo traditions, the ignorance behind the evangelical community's distortions and the real cause of suffering in the third-world country.

Is there any truth to what Pat Robertson is saying?
Of course not! Haitians are Christians. Pat Robertson's language is the reductio ad absurdum of the Christian right. It's so absurd it's almost funny. This notion of a pact with the devil is basically an echo of an old colonial response to the successes of the 1790s Haitian revolution.

What is this pact he's talking about?
Part of the revolution mythology is that one of the revolution leaders sacrificed a pig in Bois Caimin in a voodoo ceremony and made a contract with Petwo [Haitian voodoo spirits]. It may or may not be true, but to call that a pact with the devil is a gross misrepresentation of what voodoo is. It's about anything but the devil. He's imposing an evangelical religious order on a much more sophisticated practice, and he's turning it into a cheap invocation of Satanism.

This is hate speech. It's saying these people are damned. It's a frequent theme among some Christians that Haiti is being punished for this supposed pact with extreme poverty and humanitarian crises. Tragically, many evangelical Christians in Haiti may actually, in their own extreme confusion and suffering and desperation, believe that God is punishing them.

The reason Haiti is poor is because Europe imposed a blockade on trade after the slave revolt in 1804, and you have an extremely polarized class structure in which a few families stepped into the positions of the former colonial plantation owners. There has been a horrible cycle of plundering and autocracy within Haitian leadership.

Why do you think this kind of obsession with Haitian voodoo persists? There's a fascination with all things voodoo, not only in New Orleans but also on TV, on shows like "Bones," and it stems from the occupation of Haiti by the U.S. Marines in the first part of the 20th century. There were campaigns under certain Haitian governments in conjunction with the church to rout voodoo, but it didn't come close to working, because voodoo is part of everyday life in Haiti.

Do you think this has been holding Haiti back?
I think other factors are more important in holding Haiti back: the class structure, the dispossession of a largely illiterate populace, the links that the underclass increasingly has with drug gangs, which has generated a lot of violence, and the tradition of sweatshop labor. I think the backlash against voodoo is a kind of reflection of the problems, rather than a cause of it.

Pat Robertson Strikes Again

In the midst of the horrific tragedy of the earthquake and its aftermath in Haiti, we have Pat Robertson pronouncing a word of divine wisdom.
Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about. They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.

Unsurprisingly, CBN soon had to offer a corrective word. From its website is this official clarification:
Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Comments on Haiti
CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 -- On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.
Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN

I do not doubt Pat Robertson's compassion for people who are suffering, and I am glad that he prayed for them and is organizing relief efforts.

Nor do I doubt his theological miscue, though. The claim that "countless scholars and religious figures believe the country is cursed": is disingenuous at best. Many people may look at the overwhelming poverty of the country and feel that the people of Haiti have labored to overcome countless barriers to alleviating the situation without believing that the root of the problem was a voudon ceremony in the 18th century. Even presuming that the leaders of the slave rebellion in 1791 pledged their allegiance to the devil in exchange for freedom, what difference does that make for the people who were killed in the earthquake in 2010?

Unfortunately, Rev. Robertson, like many other Christians, are quick to lay the blame for great disasters at the feet of people who are affected by it. Somehow, the old adage that one reaps what is sown has been applied to hurricanes - think Katrina - and disease - think AIDS and cancer - and now earthquakes. Somehow, some people feel so much better thinking, "Well, after all, they had it coming."

Muslims Speak Out

In the City Of Brass blog - "by Aziz Poonawalla approaches issues from the perspective of a Muslim of the West" - on BeliefNet comes the report about an edict, a fatwa, issued by a group of Imams condemning attacks on Canada and the US by Muslims. Here is the item:

Attack on Canada and the United States is Attack on Muslims
Over 10 million Muslims Live in North America

(Calgary) Twenty Imams affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada have issued a Fatwa today declaring the attacks on Canada and the United States by any extremist will be the attack on 10 million Muslims living in North America. This is the first Fatwa by the Muslim clergy declaring attacks on Canada and the United States as attack on Muslims. Following is the text of the Fatwa.

FATWA (religious edict)
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

We, the undersigned Imams, are issuing the following Fatwa in order to guide the Muslims of North America regarding the attacks on Canada and the United States by the terrorists and the extremists. In our view, these attacks are evil and Islam requires from Muslims to stand up against this evil. In the holy Qur’an Almighty Allah orders Muslims,
"Let there among you be a group that summon to all that is beneficial commands what is proper and forbids what is improper; they are the ones who will prosper." (3:104)
"Believing men and believing women are protecting friends of one another; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; they perform salat and give zakat..." (9:71)
"Those who, if We establish them in the land (with authority), establish regular prayers and practice regular charity and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong..." (22:41)
Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in a Hadith;
"When people see a wrong-doer and do nothing to stop him, they may well be visited by God with a punishment."
Therefore, it is an obligation upon us (Imams) to inform all Muslims around the world that Muslims in Canada and the United States have complete freedom to practice Islam. There is no single city in Canada and the United States where MASAJIDS (Mosques) are not built. In all major cities Islamic schools provide education to Muslim children about Qur’an and the Islamic traditions. Thousands of Muslims perform Hajj every year and travel to Saudi Arabia with complete freedom and respect. In the month of Ramadan, both Canadian and the United States governments recognize the occasion and greet all Muslim citizens. Muslims pray five daily prayers in mosques without any fear or restrictions. Muslims have complete freedom to pay Zakat (poor due) to the charity or a person of their choice. Muslims have complete freedom to celebrate their festivals openly, publicly and Islamically. Muslims enjoy freedom of religion just like Christians, Jews and others. No one stops us from obeying Allah and His Messenger (Peace be upon him). No one stops us from preaching Islam and practicing Islam. In many cases, Muslims have more freedom to practice Islam here in Canada and the United States than many Muslim countries.
In fact, the constitutions of the United States and Canada are very close to the Islamic guiding principles of human rights and freedom. There is no conflict between the Islamic values of freedom and justice and the Canadian /US values of freedom and justice.
Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA. They must expose any person, Muslim OR non-Muslim, who would cause harm to fellow Canadians OR Americans. We, Canadian and American Muslims, must condemn and stand up against these attacks on Canada and the United States.

May Allah save Canada, the United States and the entire world from the evil of wrong doers. Ameen.

Signed by:
1. Prof. Imam Syed B. Soharwardy - Calgary
2. Allama Imam Ghalib Hussain Chishty - Calgary
3. Allama Imam Syed Mukhtar Naeemi – Houston, USA
4. Allama Imam Muhammad Nasir Qadri - Montreal
5. Allama Imam Abdul Latif No’mani - Vancouver
6. Imam Hafiz Muhammad Zarif Naeemi - Airdrie
7. Imam Nizamuddin Sayed Qadri - Calgary
8. Imam Qazi Bashiruddin Qadri - Hamilton
9. Imam Osman Qazi - Toronto
10. Imam Saeed Ahmed Saifee - Toronto
11. Alimah Hafizah Sister Zaheera Tariq - Calgary
12. Imam Ayaz Khan Qadri - Calgary
13. Alimah Sister Fatimah Zohra - Toronto
14. Imam Shahid Bashir Lahori - Calgary
15. Imam Hafiz Intizar Ahmed Qadri - Montreal
16. Imam Sayed Sajid Qadri – Calgary
17. Imam Arif Mahmood Naqshbandi - Calgary
18. Imam Muhammad Anees Siddiqui – Calgary
19. Sister Shahana Kamil – Mississauga
20. Mr. Mushtaq Khan - Mississauga

I would make two points. First, I agree with the comments of Aziz Poonawalla that this message should not have been delivered as a fatwa and as specifically oriented to Canada and the US. I would call on you to read his comments for reasons why.

Second, this fatwa was issued on January 8. I have not seen or heard any reference to it in any mainstream American news outlet. People question why Muslims do not speak out against the minority of Muslims who engage in attacks, particularly on innocent people, well, they do speak out. It is most often the case that the general public are not in a position to hear because the news is not reported.

Christianity VS Buddhism, Round 2

I comment on this without seeing the origin of the conflict. I read reports that FOX news person Brit Hume called on Tiger Woods to become a Christian, since Buddhism, which Mr. Woods is reported to follow, does not offer the kind of redemption and forgiveness that Christianity does. Subsequently, I saw the brief snippet in which Mr. Hume made his comments on YouTube, but I do not know the context of the discussion.

That said, I support Mr. Hume's rights to hold his own beliefs about Christianity and Buddhism. He also has every right in the world as a person to share his beliefs with any other person. I do not agree with him as a journalist using the bully pulpit of the FOX News channel to call for someone's conversion. I can imagine the uproar from FOX should the editor of the NY Times use the editorial page to call for Roger Ailes to convert to Islam.

With all of that as background, I read with interest the piece on Religion News Service which called on Robert Thurman, Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University to gain clarification about Buddhism, redemption and forgiveness. Here is part of the interview:

Q: Was Hume correct that Christianity and Buddhism do not offer the same kinds of redemption and forgiveness?

A: I don’t agree with that. Not only is his idea of Buddhism wrong, but his idea of Christianity is wrong. The implication that unethical behavior such as Tiger Woods committed will be forgiven just by turning to Christ is a misrepresentation of Christianity. It’s undervaluing the Christian emphasis on ethical behavior. It’s like the Muslims who think they can blow people up and go to heaven just because they were shouting “Allahu Akbar” when they died. It’s the wrong idea that you just have to believe, not behave.

Do you agree with Professor Thurman? Or, do you think it is enough for someone to say that they are a Christian or a Buddhist or Muslim without giving evidence in their lives that they really have embraced that faith?

2012? or 2011? Are You Betting on Either?

For centuries, Christian individuals have sought an answer for when the end of the world as we know it [TEOTWAWKI] will occur. A number of different years have been put forth, including, but not limited to: 100, 1000, 1033, 1844, 1914, and 1978. Obviously, all of these previous answers were wrong.

Recently, much hype has been given to the year 2012 as the definitive date. This is based, at least in part, on an assumption based on an ancient Mayan calendar. The calendar in question inexplicably ends at 2012. This has been interpreted as a prediction of TEOTWAWKI, and Hollywood has gotten in on the act, so there must be something to it, right?

Now comes another contender. In an article (found at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/01/BA8V1AV589.DTL) written by Justin Berton, Harold Camping declares without any doubt that May 21, 2011 is the date. Camping, a Civil Engineer by training, who runs Family Radio, an evangelical Christian radio ministry that beams the gospel message in 48 languages, and has been studying the Bible for 70 years, has a mathematical formula, based on his interpretation of the Bible, that proves the point. From the article:

By Camping's understanding, the Bible was dictated by God and every word and number carries a spiritual significance. He noticed that particular numbers appeared in the Bible at the same time particular themes are discussed.

The number 5, Camping concluded, equals "atonement." Ten is "completeness." Seventeen means "heaven." Camping patiently explained how he reached his conclusion for May 21, 2011.

"Christ hung on the cross April 1, 33 A.D.," he began. "Now go to April 1 of 2011 A.D., and that's 1,978 years."

Camping then multiplied 1,978 by 365.2422 days - the number of days in each solar year, not to be confused with a calendar year.

Next, Camping noted that April 1 to May 21 encompasses 51 days. Add 51 to the sum of previous multiplication total, and it equals 722,500.

Camping realized that (5 x 10 x 17) x (5 x 10 x 17) = 722,500.

Or put into words: (Atonement x Completeness x Heaven), squared.

"Five times 10 times 17 is telling you a story," Camping said. "It's the story from the time Christ made payment for your sins until you're completely saved.

This is not the first time Mr. Camping has ventured a prophecy about TEOTWAWKI. In the early 1990's, he assured all of his followers that September 6, 1994 would be it. So, they gathered in their Sunday best, holding open Bibles, and waited - in vain, as we now know.

The previous error is not discouraging some of them now, however. Again, from the article:

Rick LaCasse, who attended the September 1994 service in Alameda, said that 15 years later, his faith in Camping has only strengthened.

"Evidently, he was wrong," LaCasse allowed, "but this time it is going to happen. There was some doubt last time, but we didn't have any proofs. This time we do."

Would his opinion of Camping change if May 21, 2011, ended without incident?

"I can't even think like that," LaCasse said. "Everything is too positive right now. There's too little time to think like that."

There are some obvious unproven and unproveable assumptions in Mr. Camping's analysis, but such things could not deter true believers. So, which date are you betting on: 2012 or 2011? Or, are you like me and putting your faith on neither?