Michael's Voice

Teach Your Children Well

2010-04-29T15:39:00.002-06:00

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?

2010-04-29T15:17:00.003-06:00

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

2010-04-29T15:14:00.003-06:00

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?

2010-04-10T18:35:00.002-06:00

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

2010-03-10T13:12:00.002-07:00

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?

2010-03-03T10:14:00.002-07:00

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

2010-02-27T16:57:00.002-07:00

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

2010-02-26T17:42:00.002-07:00

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 . . .

2010-02-21T15:54:00.002-07:00

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?

2010-02-17T21:01:00.003-07:00

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

2010-02-12T11:47:00.003-07:00

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

2010-02-11T18:39:00.002-07:00

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?

2010-02-04T19:17:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-26T09:07:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-22T09:42:00.002-07:00

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!

2010-01-21T19:11:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-15T09:13:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-14T19:28:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-12T10:25:00.002-07:00

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

2010-01-07T08:35:00.002-07:00

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?

2010-01-02T17:24:00.002-07:00

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?

7 Points of Commonality Between Religions?

2009-12-31T19:27:00.002-07:00

Jacqueline Leo, a Director at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, asserts that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism share seven common beliefs:

The Seven Shared Beliefs

1. Monotheism--belief in one God. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but the three are one according to the New Testament.
2. Divine revelation--truths are revealed through the word of God. 3. Daily Prayer--Muslims must pray five times a day; Jews are supposed to thank God every day for the gifts he bestows; and Christians who follow Catholicism are to pray seven times a day, while most simply say nightly prayers.
4. Muslims, Christians and Jews all participate in religious fasts. Christians have Lent, a 40 day period of denial leading up to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; Jews fast during Yom Kippur; and Muslims fast during the month of Ramadan.
5. Prophetic Tradition--all three religions believe in "messengers of God." Jews and Christians believe in Moses among others in the Old Testament; Muslims acknowledge many prophets of Allah cited in the Qur'an, the most important being Muhammad. All three honor Abraham as great prophet. Abraham believed in the one and only God. So if all three religions believe in Abraham, they would logically believe in the same God.
6. All three believe in almsgiving and charity.
7. All three believe in holy sites: Jerusalem for Jews and Christians, Mecca and Medina for Muslims.

Do you agree that these religions share these points? Do you think others do? Is it significant that these concepts are shared? What conclusions, if any, could you draw from this?

Whither Christianity in America?

2009-12-30T10:01:00.000-07:00

America has long been seen by sociologists of religion as an anomaly among the nations of the world for our adherence to religious beliefs. Religion within the other industrialized and educated countries in the world has been on the decline for decades. Many Western European countries see the number of regular and frequent attenders in church services in the single percentages. In fact, it was this observed decline that led many sociologists to posit a secularization of the Western nations with the expectation that America would soon join the others and experience a similar downturn in religious belief and religiosity.

Unfortunately for those sociologists and their predictions, America’s faithfulness to religion remained strong. Some of these scholars even acknowledged their error.

Yet, in 2009, there were some interesting poll results that call America’s faithfulness to religion in general and Christianity in particular into question. For example, the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey showed that the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation rose from 8% to 15%. Further, the largest concentration of such religiously unidentified was in the Northeast, the home of the Pilgrims and Puritans.

An April 2009 Newsweek poll showed that only 48% of Americans believed that faith will help answer all or most of the country’s current problems. This was a decline from 64% in a 1994 poll. And, 68% in the current poll said religion was losing its influence on American life.

Most telling, perhaps, are the results from a December 2009 Pew Research Center poll showing the amalgamation of religious views among Christians in America. From this research come the revelations that 17% of Christians believe in the “evil eye [the casting of curses]”, 22% believe in reincarnation, 23% believe in astrology, and 26% believe there is spiritual power in such things as mountains, trees, and crystals. None of these beliefs are accepted in traditionally orthodox Christianity.

So, what does all of this mean for religion in America? And for Christianity in America? Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing?

Old-Fashioned Christmas?

2009-12-23T18:33:00.003-07:00

Most Americans have a romanticized view of Christmas celebrations fueled by Bing Crosby's White Christmas and Clement Clarke Moore's Twas The Night Before Christmas. We see Christmas as a time of universal joy and family accord, even if we know of instances when that does not happen. We wax eloquently about celebrating an "Old Fashioned" Christmas.

But, how old fashioned a celebration do we want to have? The Boston Globe ran a story last weekend reminding us all that our romantized, idealized view of Christmas did not always prevail. The story can be found at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/20/christmas_was_a_riot/.

The author, Stephen Nissenbaum, reminds us that:
-- For about 25 years in the 17th century, the Puritans of Massachusetts banned any celebration of Christmas because, in part, there is no scriptural admonition for Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
-- Boston minister, Cotton Mather, saw Christmas as merely being an excuse for dancing and drunkenness, chambering [sexual activities] and wantonness.
-- In the 18th century, gangs of men in disguise on Christmas Day roamed from house to house demanding money or alcohol at the threat of violence.
-- And, that the promotion of items to purchase to give to others as Christmas gifts can be dated to the early 19th century.

We may want a purer and more spiritual celebration of Christmas, but looking for an old-fashioned Christmas is not necessarily be the answer.

Merry Chistmas everyone!

New Way To Proclaim CHRIST-mas

2009-12-22T18:50:00.002-07:00

For years, I have critized how our culture has commercialized Christmas. I shudder at the introduction of Christmas ornaments, decorations, and gift-giving ideas weeks before Halloween. I have worked diligently to communicate a better way to celebrate Christmas to churches I have served.

This week, I was alerted to a new company that seeks to provide the perfect solution to this dilemma by a member of our church. She had seen reference to www.bosscreations.net on The Colbert Report. According to their website:

The Christian holiday, Christmas, is intended to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. However, over the years the decorations and celebrations for this holiday have become increasingly commercial and unrelated to Christ. Unfortunately, the holiday has become less about Jesus and more about gifts and Santa Claus.

At Boss Creations, it is our mission to help you bring the Word of God into your home during the Christian holiday seasons. We hope that you will share the Word with your family and friends and that you will begin new holiday traditions with Christ as the central figure.

In recent years, our Christmas holiday has been made to become a generic holiday for all religions with many being forced to call it a "Holiday" season instead of Christmas season. We, as Christians, must take a stand and rescue our religious holiday. We at Boss Creations believe that one way to do this is to decorate with more Christian-themed holiday decorations including The CHRIST-mas Tree.

We have figured a way to enhance the tradition of decorating a tree for Jesus at Christmas by adding a cross that acts as a reminder of Him. By changing our tree to include a cross, we are making a statement that we want to keep our Christmas holiday! Our new tree and decorations ideas will not only help to enhance our celebration of the Christmas holiday but will help to enlighten those who may decorate for Christmas but may not be "Christians."

I would encourage you to visit their web-site to see their collection, including their CHRIST-mas tree.

This leads me to wonder. Are our options for the celebration of Christmas limited to excessive consumer spending or the use of evangelistic messages in our decorations? Is the use of such decorations the only way - or the best way - to honor Christ at Christmas?

This would certainly qualify as another battle in the War on Christmas, so what do you think? Would you use such a tree or do you have another way to honor Jesus the Christ at Christmas?

A New Front in the 'War On Christmas'

2009-12-20T19:06:00.002-07:00

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield in his blog on Belief Net referenced an article in Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper. The article, written by Morten Bethelsen, can be found at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135512.html.

Seems that a group in Israel, the Lobby For Jewish Values, has been distributing fliers condemning the celebration of Christmas by Israeli Jews and calling for a boycott of restaurants and hotels that put up Christmas trees and use Christian symbols. Further, this group is trying to have the kashrut certification, the kosher certificate, of restaurants that utilize Christmas decorations. This, of course, would have a devastating affect on a restaurant in Israel.

Quoting from the fliers, The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity. You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people's tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity.

What the foolish symbols are is not defined, but the intent of the warning is quite clear. These people believe that one cannot be a good Jew and have anything to do with Christmas. In this way, they are the mirror image of the conservative Christians in America who say that one cannot be a good Christian and wish someone a "Happy Holiday" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Again, from the Haaretz article, Samuel Scott, working at the Refuah Institute, raises this issue: The Jewish state wants to be two things: a Jewish state and a free, democratic state. But what is the solution when these competing priorities conflict? If all Israelis start celebrating Christmas (either as Christians or as secularized revelers), then it will arguably no longer be a Jewish state. If the government bans everyone from having anything to do with the holiday, then it will no longer be a free state.

Do those conservative Christians in our country believe that, if people quit saying "Merry Christmas", America will somehow lose some status as a Christian nation? And, what do we do with the reality of America as a country that welcomes all people of any faith or no faith? Do we want to force all of them to say "Merry Christmas" or else?

What do you think?

What qualities would you demand in an elected official?

2009-12-13T19:09:00.002-07:00

Most of us, even in our most cynical moments, would hope that the people for whom we vote to represent us on school boards, city councils, state senates, or in Washington would be honest, fair, and concerned about their constituents. In North Carolina, according to the state constitution, such a person must also believe in God. The precise wording, as quoted in the Post article written by David Waters, is: Article 6, section 8 of the North Carolina constitution states: "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

In a story carried by both the NY Times and the Washinmgton Post, we learn that Cecil Bothwell was elected to serve on the Asheville City Council, placing third in a six person field. Unfortunately for him, his political opponents raised the specter of his disqualification for office based on the state constitution. Unfortunately for them, the US Constitution trumps the state wording by affirming: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Also, unfortunately for Mr. Bothwell's opponents, he has affirmed that the exact wording of the North Carolina constitution wouldn't apply to him anyway. "I am not 'an avowed atheist.' . . . I don't 'deny the being of Almighty God.' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant."

So, do you think the NC provision should remain in force? Or, do you think that such a formal and official religious test for public office should be swept aside?

Are you still Christian or any other faith?

2009-12-10T09:29:00.002-07:00

With the spate of aggressive campaigns deriding people of faith and the number of scandals relating to the church, an important question to consider is: If you are a person of faith, why do you still give credence to that faith. Diana Butler Bass, in an interview about her book, A People's History of Christianity, approached that question. This can be found in its entirety at the Religious Dispatches site, http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/mediaculture/1466/.

The interview opened with this question and answer:
What inspired you to write A People's History of Christianity? What sparked your interest?
A conversation with a friend prompted the writing of A People’s History. About a dozen years ago, she quizzed me as to why I was still a Christian. Although I actually tried to avoid answering her, I eventually realized that I had remained a Christian largely because I am held in faith by history—the past provides me with spiritual memory and a community that exists through time. Many people, of course, reject Christianity on the basis of its history. Of course, Christians have committed much historical mischief and done outright evil things. But that’s not the whole story. There’s much in the tradition to be both admirable and imitated. So, I decided to write “the other side of the story,” the sort of history that enables me to stay Christian.

So, if you are a person of faith, why are you still one? If you are not a person of faith, why have you maintained that resistance to faith?

Religious News Part II

2009-12-06T16:57:00.002-07:00

The second item Joshua sent me reported on criticisms of President Obama for bumping the Charlie Brown Christmas Special from network TV with a side of innuendo about the President supposedly being a Muslim.

According to an article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal [ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/president_obama_is_a_muslim_te.html with a link there to the original article written by Mark Memmott, Russell Wiseman], the mayor of Arlington, Tennessee posted the following on his Facebook page -
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

The Commercial Appeal reporter notes that Glenn Beck also chimes in on the crtiticisms of the President for pre-empting Charlie Brown. Though, as I looked at the original article, Beck uses a decidedly different and more cutting approach.

Isn't it wonderful that people who do not support President Obama can continue to use baseless charges - President Obama is a Muslim; President Obama is not a US citizen; etc. - as legitimate ways to voice their criticism of the administration? I wonder how bumping the Charlie Brown Christmas Special can be equated with anti-Christian sentiment? True, Linus does quote from Luke 2, but the central theme of the show revolves around a forlorn Christmas tree, rescued by Charlie Brown, not anything about the gospel message.

Religious News

2009-12-05T15:30:00.002-07:00

My son, Joshua, sent me links to two pieces of news relating to religion.

First, from Foreign Policy magazine, is a critique of New Atheism. New atheism is distinguished from regular old atheism by its militant stance against religion. No longer content to disbelieve, the proponents of New Atheism call for an active campaign to discredit religion and adherents of religion. The piece, written by Robert Wright, can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/30/the_anti_god_squad?page=0,1.

The concluding paragraphs of the piece follow:

And there's a subtle but potent sense in which New Atheism can steer foreign policy to the right. Axiomatic to New Atheism is that religion is not just factually wrong, but the root of evil, which suggests that other proposed root causes of the sort typically stressed on the left aren't really the problem. Sam Harris, in discussing terrorism, wholly dismisses such contributing factors as "the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza," "the collusion of Western powers with corrupt dictatorships," and "the endemic poverty and lack of economic opportunity that now plague the Arab world." The problem, Harris states, is religion, period.

Most New Atheists aren't expressly right wing, but even so their discounting of the material causes of Islamist radicalism can be "objectively" right wing (as in George Orwell's assertion that pacifists were "objectively pro-fascist" regardless of their views about fascism).

Dawkins, for example, has written that if there were no religion then there would be "no Israeli/Palestinian wars." This view is wrong -- the conflict started as an essentially secular argument over land -- but it's popular among parts of the U.S. and Israeli right. The reason is its suggestion that there's no point in, say, removing Israeli settlements so long as the toxin of religion is in the air.
All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected. At the same time, as some New Atheists have now shown, you don't have to believe in God to exhibit intolerance and incivility.

Maybe this is the New Atheists' biggest problem: As living proof that religion isn't a prerequisite for divisive fundamentalism, they are walking rebuttals to their own ideology.

It seems as if Dawkins, Harris, et al are guilty of making religion the scapegoat for all the problems of the world. Do you buy what they are selling?

Is Modernist Religion Doomed?

2009-11-30T19:30:00.002-07:00

Father Longenecker, an Anglican convert to Catholocism who is serving a parish in South Carolina, asserts that modernist religion is doomed. Interested readers can read the entire post at: http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-modernist-christianity-will-die.html.

His 10 reasons why he believes this is so include:
-- Modernists deny supernaturalism and therefore they are not really religious.
-- Modernism is essentially individualist and not communal. Each person makes up his own mind about matters.
-- Modernism is historically revisionist.
-- Modernists contracept and abort. They don't have enough children to train up in their religion, and those children they do have are often taught that freedom of choice is a higher virtue than commitment or duty in religion.
-- Modernists allow for moral degeneracy and that saps the strength out of real religion.
-- Modernists aren't actually much fun.
-- Modernists are dull. They've so little imagination and are so literal about everything. They do not rejoice over the seeming absurdity of religion.
I disagree with several of his points, and, in fact, think that his analysis could just as easily apply to his brand of "real" religion. But, what do you think?

Between Cox proclaiming the failure of fundamentalist and Longenecker the doom of modernism, who do you think is more accurate?

Is Fundamentalism failing?

2009-11-28T18:52:00.002-07:00

In a recent essay for the Boston Globe, Harvey Cox asserted that fundamentalist religion is and will fail. Interested readers can access the article at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/08/why_fundamentalism_will_fail/.

Cox believes that:
The very nature of human religiousness is changing in a way inimical to fundamentalist thought. The most rapidly growing spiritual groups today focus not on someone else’s authority, but on a direct encounter with the divine. Whatever else it may mean that so many people call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” it suggests they still yearn for contact with the sacred, but are suspicious of the scaffolding, the doctrines, and hierarchies through which it has often been conveyed.

He concludes:
But a tectonic shift in religion is underway, and the fundamentalist moment is ending. A new and promising chapter in the long story of human faith is beginning. Its untidiness often reminds me of the exuberant earliest years of Christianity. Maturity comes with time. Future historians may look back on the 20th century as a time when something called “fundamentalism” interrupted, but only briefly, the age-old human search for a way to live in the face of mystery, and to envision what Martin Luther King called a “beloved community.”

As one who came from a very conservative Christian community and who studied "fundamentalist" expressions of Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism and who has seen the power of that type of religion, I would not be as confident as Cox is. What do you think?

Culture Wars

2009-11-25T19:36:00.002-07:00

Conservative Christians in America, and elsewhere, define the "life-or-death" issues for the world as: homosexuality (and all things relating to equal rights for the LGBT), abortion, and the perceived discrimination against conservative Christians.

In case you doubt that, an influential group of conservative Christians crafted and signed a declaration - the Manhattan Declaration - proclaiming they were no longer going to acquiesce to the depraved culture and were going to stand up for their rights. Quoting from said declaration:
While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

I read this declaration this week as I read two other pieces. One was a news piece about pending legislation in Uganda. According to a story by Geoffrey York in the Globe and Mail,
The Commonwealth convenes for a summit this week amid growing furor over a proposed law that would impose life imprisonment on homosexuals in Uganda, whose President is chairing the gathering.

The law, proceeding through Uganda's Parliament and supported by some of its top leaders, would imprison anyone who knows of the existence of a gay or lesbian and fails to inform the police within 24 hours. It requires the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" – defined as any sexual act between gays or lesbians in which one person has the HIV virus.

The second was an essay written by John Shelby Spong who proclaimed,
The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished. A new consciousness has arisen. A decision has quite clearly been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

So, who do you think is right?

Scientology Debate Down Under

2009-11-21T09:39:00.003-07:00

Senator Nick Xenophon demanded an investigation of the Church of Scientology. He asserted: "I also believe the activities of this organisation should be scrutinised by parliament because Australian taxpayers are, in effect, supporting Scientology through its tax-exempt status. I say to all Australians: as you fill in your tax return next July or August, ask yourself how you feel knowing that you are paying tax and yet this criminal organisation is not.
"Do you want Australian tax exemptions to be supporting an organisation that coerces its followers into having abortions? Do you want to be supporting an organisation that defrauds, that blackmails, that falsely imprisons? Because, on the balance of evidence provided by victims of Scientology, you probably are."

There are two articles that summarize the issues available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-take-up-scientology-complaints/story-e6frg6nf-1225799494770
and
http://wl.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26378104-5014047,00.html.

I am not a supporter of Scientology, but the debate raises important questions in the modern world. Can, or should, the government define what is a legitimate religious organization? If so, what criteria do they use? If not, can any organization lay claim to the specific rights of a religious group? Should religious groups be granted tax-exempt status? If so, can any religious group be denied such status? Can, or should, the government forbid particular practices of a religion? If so, what standards should be used? If not, would this open the door to an "anything goes" on the religious front?

Why Go To Church?

2009-11-19T16:05:00.002-07:00

In a column at EthicsDaily.com, Barry Howard shares what Teddy Roosevelt said on the subject in a 1917 article in Ladies Home Journal. According to Howard, here are President Rooselvelt's reasons:

1. In the actual world a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid downgrade.

2. Church work and church attendance mean the cultivation of the habit of feeling some responsibility for others and the sense of braced moral strength, which prevents a relaxation of one's own moral fiber.

3. There are enough holidays for most of us that can quite properly be devoted to pure holiday making. Sundays differ from other holidays, among other ways, in the fact that there are 52 of them every year. On Sunday, go to church.

4. Yes, I know all the excuses. I know that one can worship the Creator and dedicate oneself to good living in a grove of trees, or by a running brook, or in one's own house, just as well as in church. But I also know as a matter of cold fact the average man does not thus worship or thus dedicate himself. If he strays away from church, he does not spend his time in good works or lofty meditation. He looks over the colored supplement of the newspaper.

5. He may not hear a good sermon at church. But unless he is very unfortunate, he will hear a sermon by a good man who, with his good wife, is engaged all the week long in a series of wearing, humdrum and important tasks for making hard lives a little easier.

6. He will listen to and take part in reading some beautiful passages from the Bible. And if he is not familiar with the Bible, he has suffered a loss.

7. He will probably take part in singing some good hymns.

8. He will meet and nod to, or speak to, good quiet neighbors. He will come away feeling a little more charitably toward all the world, even toward those excessively foolish young men who regard churchgoing as rather a soft performance.

9. I advocate a man's joining in church works for the sake of showing his faith by his works.

10. The man who does not in some way, active or not, connect himself with some active, working church misses many opportunities for helping his neighbors, and therefore, incidentally, for helping himself.

This is not as snappy as one of Letterman's lists, but do you think any of the reasons are still valid?

The Devil Made Me Properous

2009-11-17T21:26:00.002-07:00

In the BostonGlobe is an article [found at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/11/15/the_curious_economic_effects_of_religion/?page=full] linking religious belief and, most particularly, a belief in hell to developing economies. Quoting from the article by Michael Fitzgerald,
Among the most provocative findings have come from Robert Barro, a renowned economist at Harvard, and his wife, Rachel McCleary, a researcher at Harvard’s Taubman Center. McCleary, the daughter of a Methodist missionary, felt that she had seen religion change people’s economic behavior, and wondered why economists didn’t look at it as a potential factor in economic development. Barro found the idea intriguing.

The two collected data from 59 countries where a majority of the population followed one of the four major religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They ran this data - which covered slices of years from 1981 to 2000, measuring things like levels of belief in God, afterlife beliefs, and worship attendance - through statistical models. Their results show a strong correlation between economic growth and certain shifts in beliefs, though only in developing countries. Most strikingly, if belief in hell jumps up sharply while actual church attendance stays flat, it correlates with economic growth. Belief in heaven also has a similar effect, though less pronounced. Mere belief in God has no effect one way or the other. Meanwhile, if church attendance actually rises, it slows growth in developing economies.

There is, of course, a classic book by Max Weber entitled The Prostestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in which he relates the work ethic of Calvinistic influenced Protestant Christianity on the work ethic of the people. Simplistically speaking, it was the "work harder to win favor argument."

So, do you think that being a follower of Calvin, or a believer in God, or a fearer of hellfire and damnation makes any difference in economic success?

Bullying the LDS Church?

2009-11-14T16:54:00.002-07:00

SLC made the news this week as the City Council endorsed an act guaranteeing civil rights protections for homosexual and transgender persons. The bigger news was the endorsement of the legislation by the leadership of the LDS Church.

Now, a fax is being distributed in SLC, and perhaps elsewhere, claiming that the LDS Church had no option but to give their support for the act. According to the fax, "The LDS Church had to Stand [sic] as an "Entity" and protect itself. (publically [sic] they cannot come out and say this)". Further, the fax proclaims, "SHAME on UTAH GAYS for persecuting, harassing, using intimidation tactics, and staging scenarios to corner The LDS Church into endorsing their movement and to use the LDS Church as a backbone to sway the LDS voters and legislators to vote for thyeir laws!"

To this, I would make the following points:
-- It is preposterous for anyone to claim that the Utah homosexual community has enough power and numbers to bully the LDS Church into doing anything! That would be like some small group in Rome being charged with bullying the Catholic Church into doing something the church did not approve.
-- At the time the legislation was being considered, the LDS Church issued its statement of support by affirming it always supported equal civil rights for people. The fax is essentially saying that the Church lied about its support as a politically motivated and expedient move.
-- The fax claims that "All anti-discrimination laws containing sexual orientation in them, [sic] are made with the sole intent to promote the acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual behaviors as a lifestyle to the children." It seems that these laws are to protect people from being fired or being thrown out of housing solely because of their sexual orientation. Further, this claim suggests that some child can be forced to become a homosexual.

Crypto-Christians

2009-11-13T07:54:00.002-07:00

No, this is not part of the plot line of the next Dan Brown novel. It refers to a world-wide phenomenon of people who embrace the Christian faith, but, because of the threat of persecution, remain hidden among the general population.

Historically, adherents of various faiths, including Christians, have had to resort to extreme tactics to guarantee their safety. One needs only to think of the Jewish population in Spain in the 14th century or Christians in Japan in the 17th century to recognize that it has not always been safe to be a member of a particular religious group.

In a July 14, 2009 article in the Christian Century, Philip Jenkins writes:
The phenomenon of crypto-Christianity is likely to become much more common in the coming decades. Defensive tactics are scarcely needed when the vast majority of Christians live in self-defined Christian nations, but they become acutely relevant when millions of believers live in deeply hostile environments, in societies that are (for instance) predominately Muslim or Hindu.

The numbers of such clandestine Christians are not precisely defined, as you would imagine. Estimates put the size of this bloc of Christian belivers at 120 million. If this is true, writes Jenkins, crypto-Christians would constitute one of the world's largest religious groups.

It is extremely interesting to me that these groups of hidden Christians exist in an age when active, practicing Christians are almost extinct in Europe and are on the decline in America, the last bastion of religious adherence in the West. What does their existence say about the religious tendencies of human beings? What does their persistence in the face of persecution say about the nature and character of the religious enterprise in the West? Do they speak for the need of greater religious acceptance in all countries? Would they be as faithful if they were allowed to worship openly?

It's just the wrong thing to do.

2009-11-05T18:20:00.002-07:00

I saw that a church in Dayton Tennessee has on its church sign the following message: Eric Berry for Heisman. For those who do not know, Eric Berry is the starting strong safety for the University of Tennessee Volunteers football team. He was named an All-American last year and will probably be an All-American this year. He is also among the semi-finalists for two other prestigious college football awards. By all accounts, he is as good a person as he is a good football player.

BUT, I do not think that using a church sign to support his chances to win the Heisman Award is the right thing to do.

Disclaimers are in order: I am a graduate of the University of Tennessee; I am a college football fan; I am a fan of UT football in particular; I do realize the truth that, for many Southerners, college football is the one true religion. That said, I still do not think a church sign is the proper medium to show support for a particular player or a particular team. Shouldn't the church use that space to promote something else of greater importance - like justice or equality or caring for people?

Finale for Armstrong's "Think Again about God"

2009-11-02T16:49:00.003-07:00

The final two points that Karen Armstrong deals with science and politics. The statements she considered are simple: "God is the Enemy of Science" and "God is Incompatible with Democracy". The answers are equally simple: "He doesn't have to be." and "No".

Armstrong's comments on each topic are interesting. Looking at science, she wrote, The conflict with science is symptomatic of a reductive idea of God in the modern West. Ironically, it was the empirical emphasis of modern science that encouraged many to regard God and religious language as fact rather than symbol, thus forcing religion into an overly rational, dogmatic, and alien literalism.

And, in considering the relationship between religion and democracies, she centered on what many see as an inherent conflict between Islam and western style democrcy. She asserted: The 2007 Gallup poll shows that support for democratic freedoms and women's rights is widespread in the Muslim world, and many governments are responding -- albeit haltingly -- to pressures for more political participation. There is, however, resistance to a wholesale adoption of the Western secular model. Many want to see God reflected more clearly in public life, just as a 2006 Gallup poll revealed that 46 percent of Americans believe that God should be the source of legislation.

As a professional in the field of religion, I admit to a level of bias, but I think her concluding paragraphs are spot on:
Religion may not be the cause of the world’s political problems, but we still need to understand it if we are to solve them. "Whoever took religion seriously!” exclaimed an exasperated U.S. government official after the Iranian Revolution. Had policymakers bothered to research contemporary Shiism, the United States could have avoided serious blunders during that crisis. Religion should be studied with the same academic impartiality and accuracy as the economy, politics, and social customs of a region, so that we learn how religion interacts with political tension, what is counterproductive, and how to avoid giving unnecessary offense.

And study it we'd better, for God is back. And if "he" is perceived in an idolatrous, literal-minded way, we can only expect more dogmatism, rigidity, and religiously articulated violence in the decades ahead.

Thus, I agree that no one should buy into the argument that the things of God are passe in our society. This speaks to my belief that all people ought to become more informed of religious beliefs.

Parts IV & V

2009-10-28T08:24:00.002-06:00

"God is for the poor and ignorant" and "God is bad for women" are the next two characterizations of religion that Armstrong considered. Her answers are "No" and "Yes."

Certainly, the example of America, even with an increasing number of people who claim to be an atheist or to disdain organized religion, is enough to dispute the first statement. The USA is both the richest country in the world and the most religious.

Looking deeper, the major world religions all "developed initially in a nascent market economy" to quote Armstrong. Max Weber's classic "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" linked the religious fervor of protestantism and the development of modern capitalism.

That is not to say that religions embrace the unbridled and self-centered greed that is a core driving force for many in business. As Armstrong notes, To recover from the ill effects of the last year, we may need exactly that conquest of egotism that has always been essential in the quest for the transcendence we call “God.” Religion is not simply a matter of subscribing to a set of obligatory beliefs; it is hard work, requiring a ceaseless effort to get beyond the selfishness that prevents us from achieving a more humane humanity.

As for religion and women, Armstrong notes, Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. This leads to her affirmation of the initial statement.

Here, I would wonder whether it is the religion or the male's use of religion that is to blame. Just as human beings have been adept at using religion to justify their violent responses against others, so too, it seems, males have been adept to use religious rules of their own making to subjugate the female.

So, what do you think?

Thinking Again - Part III

2009-10-27T08:12:00.002-06:00

God Breeds Violence and Intolerance . . . is the third point which Armstrong thinks has been too readily accepted.

Certainly, it is easy to go through the recitation of wars and acts of atrocity that have been laid at the feet of religion - think Crusades, 9/11, religious suicide bombers, Muslim-Hindu violence in India, Protestant-Catholic violence in Ireland, the Inquisition, et al - and conclude that to be religious leads to violent acts. But, as Karen Armstrong puts it:
No, humans do. For Hitchens in God Is Not Great, religion is inherently “violent … intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism and bigotry”; even so-called moderates are guilty by association. Yet it is not God or religion but violence itself -- inherent in human nature -- that breeds violence. As a species, we survived by killing and eating other animals; we also murder our own kind. So pervasive is this violence that it leaks into most scriptures, though these aggressive passages have always been balanced and held in check by other texts that promote a compassionate ethic based on the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like them to treat you. Despite manifest failings over the centuries, this has remained the orthodox position.
In claiming that God is the source of all human cruelty, Hitchens and Dawkins ignore some of the darker facets of modern secular society, which has been spectacularly violent because our technology has enabled us to kill people on an unprecedented scale.

So, human beings may well be innately violent - nature red in tooth and claw - and that tendency may well be held in check by the power of religion. What do you think?

God and Politics Shouldn't Mix

2009-10-25T19:37:00.002-06:00

The second point that Karen Armstrong addressed is whether one's politics should be informed by, shaped by, or decided by one's religious views.

Certainly, we think, Americans know the answer to that one. We look with disdain at those countries where religion and politics overlap. We point with pride to our separation of church and state; or, at least, some of us point to that ideal with pride.

Truth be told, we know of many people in our country, just like millions more in countries around the globe, whose political understandings and religious understandings are one and the same. The current GOP candidate for governor in Virginia has a history of involvement with Christian Reconstructionism, for example. If you do not know about that movement, you should.

Armstrong's answer to the consideration of "God and politics shouldn't mix" was "Not Necessarily." In her concluding paragraph, she made this point:
Of course, the manner in which religion is used in politics is more important than whether it’s used at all. U.S. presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama have invoked faith as a shared experience that binds the country together -- an approach that recognizes the communal power of spirituality without making any pretense to divine right. Still, this consensus is not satisfactory to American Protestant fundamentalists, who believe the United States should be a distinctively Christian nation.

Obviously, if you are a person of faith or a person of no faith, that will have some bearing on your political views. That fact about you cannot not influence your perspective on some political question. Yet, the questions of how much, in what way, and what does this mean for those of other religious views continue to bedevil us. What do you think?

Thinking Again - About God

2009-10-23T11:01:00.002-06:00

The magazine, Foreign Policy, regularly has a feature that seems designed to have its readers re-think an issue. Hence the name of the piece, Think Again. This piece posits a "conventional wisdom" position related to the issue and then gives reasons why the conventional wisdom may be wrong.

This month's Think Again is penned by Karen Armstrong. It can be found at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/19/god_0. I thought it would be nice to feature the questions and counter-points in this forum.

The first piece of conventional wisdom to be debunked is "GOD IS DEAD." This idea goes back to Nietzsche in the 19th century and was the watchword of sociologists of religion in the 20th century. Many assumed that human beings would move beyond traditional beliefs about God and religion and become fully secularized.

This did not happen. In fact, at the end of the 20th century and into the 21st, the power of religion seems as strong as ever. This is true, despite the rise of the neo-atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al) and the rising number of people who claim no religious affiliation.

Armstrong concludes this section of her essay with these words:
These writers are wrong -- not only about religion, but also about politics -- because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.

Do you agree more with the neo-atheists or with Armstrong? Do you think the human search for meaning means that religion and God will always be part of the human endeavor?

WWJD?

2009-10-17T17:40:00.002-06:00

Several years ago, the acronym "WWJD" was seen and heard everywhere within the conservative Christian communities. The premise was simple. Following the outline of the 19th century novel, In His Steps, written by the Kansas Congregationalist minister, Charles Sheldon, contemporary Christians were enjoined to base their actions on what Jesus would do. Books were written using the concept as the guiding principle; sermons were preached on it; classes were taught on it.

Now, though, it seems that many conservative Christians believe that what following Jesus means is to be abusive toward others who do not believe as you do. Devotees of talk radio and attenders of political meetings seem more adept at hate filled speech than 'divine-love-filled' speech. Of course, you may think that this type of discourse is what pleases God. And, you may believe that Jesus would join in and be better at it than you.

Interestingly, during his prayer at President Obama's inauguration, Reverend Rick Warren addressed God with this request: "As we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ."

You have to wonder if current actions and comments by those who say they are Christians, and who often portray themselves as the only true Bible-believing, God-fearing Christians around, should be seen as fulfilling the intent of this prayer.

Book Burnings for God

2009-10-15T16:50:00.002-06:00

From North Carolina comes this story [as found at: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-pastor-bible-burning,0,7909354.story],

A church leader in North Carolina is burning versions of the Bible he doesn't agree with.

Pastor Marc Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton is building a bonfire on Halloween to destroy Bibles that aren't the King James Version.

His reason for burning the holy books?

"What we're doing is we're burning books that are satanic. I believe the King James version is God's preserve, inspired, in erect, infallible word of God."

The pastor also says well-known Christian ministers like Billy Graham and Rick Warren are heretics whose books belong on a long list of negative influences and should be thrown to the flames.

I am not quite certain what Pastor Grizzard means by his description of the KJV Bible in the 4th paragraph of the story, but it is obvious that he is following many others who hold the inerrant and infallible, God inspired version of the Bible is the KJV. Having been in Canton, NC, I can believe he and many others hold that view. This position certainly eliminates the issues of textual variations and the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words used. This position also gives ample justification to many who believe the society described in the KJV is the one they want to exist now.

I do not agree with this position. For my money, a person who is serious about being faithful to God ought to use a translation that is based on the best manuscripts available. The KJV does not.

Even with that, however, what purpose does it serve to burn other translations other than a self-seeking desire for publicity?

The Case for 'Faith', not 'Belief'

2009-10-12T18:23:00.002-06:00

In an article written for the Washington Post "On Faith" section, noted author Karen Armstrong discussed her new book. Here are part of her comments:

Why did I write "The Case for God"? I was becoming increasingly concerned about the nature of the discussion that followed the publications of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam HarrIs and wanted to bring to the table some of the things that I have learned from my study of world religion during the last 20 years

First, on both sides, the discussion was often aggressive and antagonistic. To quarrel about religion is counter-productive and an impediment to enlightenment. When we are talking about God, nobody has the last word because what we call God lies beyond the reach of speech. It also violates the Western rationalist tradition: a Socratic dialogue was a spiritual exercise and, Socrates insisted, would not work unless it was conducted throughout with gentleness and courtesy. Nobody 'won' the argument: a Socratic dialogue always ended with participants realizing that they knew nothing at all, an insight that was indispensable to the philosophic quest.

Second, on both sides people were equating 'faith' with 'belief'. This is a recent aberration and one that is peculiar to modern Western Christianity. We do not find it in either Judaism or Islam. The Middle English 'bileven' meant 'love, trust, loyalty, and commitment' it was related to the German 'liebe' (beloved) and translated the Greek 'pistis' ('trust, commitment, engagement') in the New Testament and the Latin 'credo' which derived from 'cor do' ('I give my heart'). It was only in the late 17th century that 'belief' came to mean an intellectual assent to a rather dubious proposition. Just look up 'belief' in a good, historical dictionary!

At this time, truth was becoming more notional in the scientific West. We were losing the more traditional form of faith which saw religion as a practical activity. Like driving, swimming, dancing or gymnastics, you learn the truths of faith only by constant, dedicated practice - not by reading texts or adopting a metaphysical 'belief'. Like a myth, a religious doctrine is essentially a program of action. It makes no sense unless it is translated into practical action that helps you to dethrone egotism, selfishness and greed by practicing compassion to all living beings. In the book, I try to show how doctrines like the Incarnation or Trinity were originally a summons to selflessness and compassion and that we only discover their truth by making these qualities a reality in our own lives.

Finally, in the pre-modern world people knew that it was very difficult to speak about God, because God could not fit neatly into a human system of thought. People like Aquinas, Maimonides or Avicenna would find much of our modern certainty about God frankly idolatrous. They knew that we could not prove 'his' existence, that even revelation did not provide us with privileged information about the divine but simply made us aware of what we did not know, and that all our God-talk - even the language of scripture - could only be symbolic, pointing beyond itself to transcendence, because when we speak about God we are at the end of what words or thoughts can do.

And this only sounds amorphous and vague if you are not a dedicated practitioner. If you don't 'do' religion - you don't 'get' it!

This is the second discussion I have found in recent days - the other being from Harvey Cox - drawing a clear and sharp distinction between faith and belief.

Do you think such a distinction can be made? Do you agree with Armstrong that people like Aquinas would find our certainty about God 'idolatry'?

By the Numbers

2009-10-10T20:27:00.003-06:00

Some interesting data has come my way.

First, there is a new Pew research survey that puts the number of Muslims in the world at 1.5 billion+. That means that 1 of every 4 people on the planet is a follower of Islam. Previous estimates had numbers that were similar - as in 1.1-1.2 billion - so this is not a complete shock. It does, though, underscore some realities for us. Christianity still has the largest number of adherents, but that numerical superiority is declining. That would speak to the need for us to know more about Islam and to understand it better.

Second, again according to the Pew Research Center, 57% of Americans support civil unions for homosexuals, while only 37% oppose it. Quoting from the report:
A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples, a status commonly known as civil unions.
This continues a trend that started in 2004.

Third, another report from Pew Research on what we called the "Generation Gap" when I was a teenager. This investigated the number of Americans age 16 and over who say there is a big difference between young people and their parents on the following issues:
Moral Values - 80%
Work Ethic - 80%
Technology Use - 73%
Music Tastes - 69%.

Do any of these reports generate any comment on your part?

Finally, a push for a 'Conservative' Bible.

2009-10-10T14:52:00.002-06:00

Scott Schlafly has a mission. He wants to produce a fully conservative Bible, free from all liberal bias. According to the Conservative Bible Project website (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project):

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
1] Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2] Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3] Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
4] Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5] Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6] Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7] Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8] Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9] Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10] Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

What do you think? Has your faith been corrupted by a "liberal" Bible? Do you think those early Christians who compiled the Biblical stories were guilty of liberalism? Do you see a need for this new version, which may or may not be true to the best manuscripts and principles of translations?

Health Care Thought Experiment

2009-10-06T19:52:00.002-06:00

In the July 19, 2009 NYT Magazine was an article by the utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer. Singer asserted in the article that health care should be rationed.

He begins the article with this hypothetical situation. Suppose you have advanced kidney cancer. Within the next year or two, it will kill you. Suppose there is a drug that will slow the spread of the cancer to the point that you might live an extra six months. But, the drug costs more than $50,000. Is the potential extra time alive worth the cost? Singer supposes that, if you had the money, you would probably pay for the drug.

He then alters the scenario. Suppose it is not you with the cancer, but some stranger who is covered by your health insurance. If this stranger gets the drug, and if others with the same diagnosis do as well, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is worth it? But, suppose, the drug costs $1,000,000 or $10,000,000? Is there any monetary cost at which you would say the drug is not worth the possible extra 6 months - whether for yourself or anyone else?

Let me add some other variables. Suppose as a result of providing the drug, even at $50,000, the health insurance carrier raises its rates so much that the company for which you work and through which you have coverage drops all of its insurance coverage. Or, suppose the carrier tells your company to fire you or anyone else who used the drug. Would you still take the drug? Would you support having it available to anyone else?

What is the ethical decision in this case?

The Glad Scientist

2009-10-04T20:31:00.002-06:00

In the Canadian magazine, The Walrus, is an interview with the Jesuit scientist Guy Consolmagno. It can be found at: http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2009.10-profile-the-glad-scientist/1/.

I am attracted to such conversations for many reasons. I have something of a scientific background and a scientific turn of mind. The battles between science and religion have a long history and have again become an important confrontation encounter between faith and doubt.

At the close of the article is this quote:

Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.” Rather than seeking affirmation of his own faith in the heavens, he explains that religion is what gives him the courage and desire to be a scientist. “Seeing the universe as God’s creation means that getting to play in the universe - which is really what a scientist does — is a way of playing with the Creator,” he says. “It’s a religious act. And it’s a very joyous act.”

Reactions? Comments?

Faith Versus Belief, a la Harvey Cox

2009-10-04T08:08:00.002-06:00

Harvey Cox has been a fixture on the American theological scene for more than 40 years. As a professor at Harvard and a prolific author, he has great standing within the religious community. In his new book, The Future of Faith, Professor Cox argues that Christianity is moving from an age of belief to an age of the Spirit. Religious News Service did an interview with him. Here is a snippet:

Q: What’s the difference between faith and belief?
A: I think of belief as having to do with subordination to ideas or doctrines, a kind of mental assent. Whereas faith is far more deeply rooted in life orientation. It comes from the Latin word “fides,” which means “loyal to.” I think the confusion of faith as loyalty or adherence to ideas or propositions is a mistake.

Would you agree with his distinction between belief and faith? Do you think Christianity has been characterized more by belief or faith? Which one describes you - are you a believer or a faither? What difference does it make to you and to your church?

Once more with Aurelius

2009-10-03T20:46:00.002-06:00

Something to ponder for the weekend from Marcus Aurelius:

Were you to live three thousand years, or even thirty thousand, remember that the sole life which a man can lose is that which he is living at the moment; and furthermore, that he can have no other life except the one he loses. This means that the longest life and the shortest amount to the same thing. For the passing minute is every man's equal possession, but what has once gone by is not ours. Our loss, therefore, is limited to that one fleeting instant, since no one can lose what is already past, nor yet what is still to come--for how can he be deprived of what he does not possess? So two things should be borne in mind. First, that all the cycles of creation since the beginning of time exhibit the same recurring pattern, so that it can make no difference whether you watch the identical spectacle for a hundred years, or for two hundred, or for ever. Secondly, that when the longest-and the shortest-lived of us come to die, their loss is precisely equal. For the sole thing of which any man can be deprived is the present; since this is all he owns, and nobody can lose what is not his.

Doing Battle With Prayer.

2009-10-02T11:05:00.002-06:00

Liberty Counsel has introduced a program encouraging their supporters to adopt a liberal. Among the liberals in need of prayer, with their own definition of why they need prayer, are: President Obama, Senator Snowe, Governor Schwarzennegger, Mayor Bloomberg, and the Unknown Liberal, to be selected by the pray-er. From their website (http://lc.org/media/9980/adopt_a_liberal.htm) they state: Please pray daily for the liberal(s) of your choice, so each can become a good influence on our Nation's culture. Prayer is powerful! It allows God to change the minds of those for whom we are praying. In fact, we fully expect that many of our adoptees will "graduate" from this prayer program with vivid testimonies of God having changed their lives and worldviews!

This follows Jim Wallis' call for his supporters to pray for Glenn Beck to change his mind on health care reform.

What do you think of using prayer in this highly public and politicized manner? Could this lead to public proclamations from one group or the other about which prayers were answered and, thus, showing which group God likes best? Or, do you think it is primarily a ploy by each group to pump up support from among their own faithful?

Maybe, we could pray for folks not to mis-use prayer?

My Prayer or No Prayer?

2009-10-01T08:53:00.002-06:00

Last Friday, Muslims from across America gathered in Washington to pray. Quoting from a Washington Post story written by Jacqueline L. Salmon and William Wan,
The event, called "Islam on Capitol Hill," is designed to highlight how U.S. Muslims can coexist with their fellow Americans. Hassen Abdellah, the lead organizer of the event, called on people to come to the Capitol to "pray for peace and understanding between America and its Muslim community."

Now, what could be wrong with that? Evidently, a lot, at least according to many conservative Christians. Again, referencing the Post story,
But this week, some conservative Christians have called the event a threat to Christian values. In a statement, the Rev. Canon Julian Dobbs, leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America's Church and Islam Project, warned that the service is "part of a well-defined strategy to Islamize American society and replace the Bible with the Koran, the cross with the Islamic crescent and the church bells with the Athan [the Muslim call to prayer]."

Christian evangelist Lou Engle said the Friday event "is much more than a nice little Muslim gathering. It's an invocation of spiritual powers of an ideology" that "doesn't have the same set of values that our nation has had."

This criticism was in addition to forwarded e-mails bemoaning the loss of the "National Prayer Breakfast" and the mainline media support for the Muslim event.

Are we now to the point where only Christians can hold 'prayer meetings' to pray for our country or our leaders? If a Rabbi leads a prayer at the White House or at City Hall, is this part of a well-defined attempt to Judaize America? If the Dalai Lama prays for peace and understanding between Buddhists and Americans, is he trying to replace the Bible with the Dhammapada?

In a pluralistic society, and when last I looked America does not have an official state religion, we recognize that our citizens will be Muslim and Christian and Jewish and Biuddhist and Hindu and .... We also should recognize that each of our citizens has the right to pray within the framework of her or his religious tradition for our country, for our leaders, and for other citizens, even if they go to Washington to pray.

It really is about people.

2009-09-29T18:40:00.002-06:00

In the maelstrom of rhetoric and protests, claims and counterclaims, assertions and refutations concerning the proposed health care reform, it seems one thing has been lost. People in our country live and die without adequate health care and health insurance and without the reasonable chance to get either.

60 Minutes has run stories of health care professionals who used to go to developing countries to give health care. Those health care professionals now run clinics in America because the need is so great here. News stories abound about the impact on health care costs for all Americans because of uninsured people seeking treatment in hospital ER's since that is the only option available to them. Other stories tell of people who lose coverage or are denied treatment options because of the dictates of the insurance companies.

This may all be theoretical to most of us because we may not know someone who has suffered in this way. On the Ethics Daily website (www.ethicsdaily.com), Jan Chapman tells the story of someone she knew, 25 y.o. Gaby Duffy who died. In Ms. Chapman's words:

Gaby saw her last sunset on May 9. She died in an Ottawa, Ill., hospital, where she'd taken herself after several days of high fever that she had tried to beat without the doctors she could not afford.

Gaby had no health insurance.

By the time she got to the Ottawa Regional Hospital and Healthcare Center on May 7, she had already lost the time needed to diagnosis and treat the fever. Tests were run to no good conclusion. On Saturday evening, after a good visit with her best friend, Gaby suffered an acute symptomatic seizure and died.

She was 25.

Would her survival been guaranteed if she had health insurance? Maybe not; we will never know. We do know she did not seek medical help until it was too late because she could not afford medical help because she had no coverage.

Should this happen in our country? Should young people and old people, children and senior adults, males and females, be denied medical help because they have no way to pay a doctor or their health coverage carrier - not a doctor - tells them they do not need a procedure or a medicine?

Do we have any responsibility for our sisters and brothers? Am I my sisters and brothers keeper?

News From The Fringe

2009-09-29T11:10:00.003-06:00

Last week, the Federal Appeal Court in Richmond Virginia ruled that the protests conducted by the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas were protected speech accroding to the First Amendment. This case had originally been brought by the family of an American soldier killed in Iraq. The funeral was picketing by members of this church carrying placards that indicated their joy over the young man's death and their belief that his death was part of God's judgment on America.

A judge was quoted as saying: "Notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words being challenged in these proceedings, we are constrained to conclude that the defendants' signs and [what it has on its Web sites] are constitutionally protected," Circuit Court Judge Robert B. King wrote in the majority opinion.

This is the church that revels in its hate-filled rhetoric against homosexuals, those who do not condemn hmosexuals as they do, Jews, Catholics, and other Christians and ministers who do not preach as their minister, Fred Phelps, does. I was one of the ministers condemned by Rev. Phelps when I was in Kansas. I suspect I am still on their enemies list.

I had planned to share some of their rhetoric about the places they plan to picket from the website, but I could not bring myself to post the quotations. If you are interested, you can find it.

In their comments are the following observations:
** God hates the world.
** President Obama is the Anti-Christ and became president as part of God's judgment on America.
** President Obama will soon turn on the Jews and begin killing them.

While I recognize their constitutional rights to free speech, I still despair that someone spews forth so much hate in the name of God.

Wisdom from Marcus Aurelius

2009-09-26T21:51:00.001-06:00

Wisdom for us all - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 2

Begin each day by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness - all of them due to the offenders' ignorance of what is good or evil. But for my part I have long perceived the nature of good and its nobility, the nature of evil and its meanness, and also the nature of the culprit himself, who is my brother (not in the physical sense, but as a fellow-creature similarly endowed with reason and a share of the divine); therefore none of those things can injure me, for nobody can implicate me in what is degrading. Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man's two hands, feet, or eyelids, or like the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature's law - and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction?

Interesting Numbers

2009-09-24T07:46:00.002-06:00

While I know that statistics can be - and often are - manipulated, mis-understood, and mis-interpreted, I came across two "survey" results this week that are interesting.

FIRST, from the website Worldwide Religious News, found at: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=31607&con=4&sec=76, comes the story of a correlation between the level of "religiosity" of a particular state and its teenage birth rate. Citing a NYT story, which I have not been able to track, the states with the higher levels of "religiosity", defined as high levels of agreement with statements like, "There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion" or "Scripture should be taken literally, word for word", also have high numbers of teen pregnancies.

Why? Quoting from the article, "How to explain the disconnect? It could be that more religious teens are having sex than less religious teens, hence more of them become pregnant. It could also be that the percentage of teens who become pregnant in each state is similar, but the percentage who terminate in the less religious states is higher, leading to more reported pregnancies and births (although the authors did take some steps to adjust for that.) Or it could be, Strayhorn suggests, 'that religious communities in the US are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself'."

SECOND, from an article in USA TODAY, [that can also be found at: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=31605&con=4&sec=74] citing further research done on results of the American Religious Identification Survey by folks at Trinity College, the % of Americans who claim no religious affiliation is rising. Now, 15% of the American population, nearly 1/6 of the population, are not part of any religious group. This makes them one of the largest "religious" groups in the nation. Statistically, a "None" would more than likely be a young, white male, raised in a religious home who probably accepts the idea that there is or might be some spiritual power, but does not attend religious services or participates in religious rituals.

I don't know what to think of either of these numerical revelations. What do you think?

For Reflection

2009-09-19T17:07:00.003-06:00

As we move into Sunday, the Washington Post had this article on Anne Graham Lotz, Billy Graham's daughter. This section caught my eye:

Lotz, 61, has been staying busy as an evangelist and author in her own right. Her new book focuses on the biblical story of Abraham. She said Abraham, considered the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, did not have a religion but a relationship with God.

"Religion is, I think, one of the biggest hindrances to finding God," Lotz said. "God described Abraham as a friend. . . . I want to know God in a relationship that one day he will describe as a friendship. God loves you and wants to know you. He's calling you to a personal relationship."

Christians too often feel their faith is fulfilled when they are saved and attend church, Lotz said. "That's such a shallow understanding," she said. A relationship can begin at church, she said, but it can't end there. "Being a Christian is a personal relationship with God, a thriving relationship, based on communication."

The problem, she said, is that too many people are "too reliant" on the church and that too many Christians "have fallen into a convenient pattern of allowing their church experience to be their sum total of experiencing God."

Growing up in the Graham house, Lotz said, she learned to keep Sunday as a day set apart. But people shouldn't rely on a kind of Sundays-only spirituality, she said. "If something happened and you could no longer go to church, if you were homebound and lost your friends at church, how strong would your relationship with God be?"

What do you think? Do you agree that religion one of the biggest hindrances to finding God? If so, what does that statement mean? Do you think attending church has become a convenient pattern for people? If so, what does that statement mean?

I know it has become en vogue to criticize churches and religion as somehow being the culprits in people's lack of spiritual experience. Yet, we must admit that anything can become a hindrance to deeper spiritual experiences. I would still say, however, that gathering as a family of faith can indeed be an important time in one's spirtual experience.

Divine Constitution, Part II

2009-09-18T10:24:00.002-06:00

I hope you have read the comments posted to the original "Divine Constitution?". Those reactions should generate some more thinking about the assertion of the Constitution as something given to us by God.

I wondered then whether Glenn Beck promoted such an idea. It is very possible that he does. Salon.com posted a piece about Cleon Skousen whose writings and ideas seem to be a major influence on Mr. Beck, by his own admission. That article can be located at: www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/.

In response to that last "Anonymous" comment on that previous post that I received, I would say this:

First, I stand by my comment that the words from the sign I mentioned were more in keeping with typical descriptions of Holy Scripture made by faithful believers than with someone who merely thinks the original writers may have been influenced by God. It suggests a level of divine truth that is meant to be seen as inerrant with every word given expressly by God - again, think of Holy Scripture - and that goes beyond mere human words.

Second, I have not read that any of the writers of the Constitution meant it to be more - or less - than a "Godless 'charter of negative liberties'". I know many people read their own views back into historic documents and those views may or may not be accurate.

Third, my reference to the 9 principles and the 12 values was only to set the stage for the sign. As I indicated, I have not paid any attention to the 9/12 project before, since I am not a devoted follower of Mr. Beck. I did find out, as I looked briefly at the website, that the project purports to be a call for all citizens to return to the sense of unity experienced in the country in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11. Yet, in Utah at least, as the SLC Tribune reported, the rally was very much a partisan political event with the speakers calling for a return of the Republican Party to national leadership.

Divine Constitution?

2009-09-16T07:26:00.003-06:00

Last weekend, SLC saw a 9/12 rally. For those of you who are like me and are not Glenn Beck fans, it would be instructive to search for the 9/12 project and read the 9 principles and 12 values that Beck says ought to define America.

The SLC Tribune ran a story about the rally with a picture. It is the picture that caught my eye. In it, there is a sign. While the wording on the sign is not all visible, the last phrase is. It reads:

We the People declare that We will Never
Yield to those who would place us in
bondage. We will live for the Constitution
and we will die for the Constitution, for we
know that it was inspired of God for all of his
Children.

Now, I am as ardent a supporter of the Constitution as any - though I come to different conclusions from the "patriots" on the airwaves about what the different phrases mean - and I marvel at the genius of those who produced it, but I question using that kind of language to describe the Constitution.

Asserting its divine inspiration places the US Constitution on par with holy scripture. It suggests that the Constitution should be considered inerrant. Implicit in such claims is that there is one and only one true way to read and understand the words.

Do we really want to make such claims? Is our country better served if we do?

I wonder whether those patriots who gathered at the state capitol in SLC believe that the original manuscript of the Constitution that relegated women and slaves to second or third class status was the way God intended it to be? I wonder if those patriots who gathered think that the amendments to the Constitution, with the exception of the "right to bear arms" of course, should be eliminated, since they were not part of the original "inspired by God" words? I wonder if this is what Glenn Beck is preaching to his faithful ones?

Death of James Pouillon

2009-09-12T19:36:00.002-06:00

On Friday, a lone gunman, Harlan James Drake, shot and killed James Pouillon, an anti-abortion protestor, as he was protesting outside a public school using graphic anti-abortion placards and Mike Fuoss, the owner of a gravel business and was on his way to shoot a third man before being apprehended by the police.

I do not know what Mr. Pouillon's pictures looked like, but I have seen many used by Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups. I do not feel they are appropriate to be used in a protest where school children can see them. That said, Mr. Pouillon had the right to express his views in every legal way.

All people of faith ought to pray for the friends and family of Mr. Pouillon and Mr. Fuoss.

Alister McGrath on Limits of Science

2009-09-12T19:24:00.002-06:00

In an interview that can be found at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred/2009/09/alister-mcgrath-on-science-and-religion.html, Alister McGrath says:

"For me, science is very, very good at answering lots of questions but ... not all questions. If you say to me let's talk about how the universe came into existence, we can talk about that scientifically. If we start talking about another question like 'What's the point of life?' or 'Why are we here?' that's a different kind of question. I don't think science answers that but I think there are answers we can find."

In this, McGrath stakes a position similar to many on the provinces of religion and science. Science helps explain processes in the natural world. Yet, science does not help us answer questions of meaning.

Dangerous Power of Religious Speech

2009-09-11T09:24:00.002-06:00

I engage in religious speech constantly. Through sermons and articles for a church newsletter, I communicate about things religious to the congregation I serve. Because of my position as minister, it could be argued that everything I say and do has religious overtones.

I preach and teach hoping to get people to think about their beliefs and what those beliefs mean, and how those beliefs affect their daily lives. Thus, I preach and teach with the intent of influencing people.

What happens, then, if my sermons promote hatred for others? What happens, then, if my writings, proclaim divine judgement, to the point of death, on others? What happens, then, if someone in the congregation acts as God's judge, jury, and executioner on those others as a result of my words? Do I have any responsibility for those actions?

I have been thinking about this for a number of weeks. At the end of August, the Kansas City Star reported on the Bible study that Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of George Tiller, attended. The link to the article is: http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1414950.html. Here is a quote from the article from Roeder's roommate who was part of the Bible study group:

Clayman said Roeder took the abortion issue to the extreme.
"Scott believed that the Bible was literal, the word of God," he said. "Where he went astray was he had this crazy, fanatic doctrine that you could somehow justify killing somebody just because they were an abortion doctor."
Clayman said Roeder talked often about his belief that killing an abortion doctor was an act of justifiable homicide.
"When he brought up that in theory — but he never did threaten anybody when I was around — I said, ‘How can you repay evil with evil?’"
Clayman said investigators won’t find any conspiracy behind Tiller’s killing, especially among the members of the study group.

Obviously, the members of the group do not think that anything they said in the discussions had anything to do with Roeder's actions, but how can they be sure?

Then, there is an on-going controversy surrounding the Reverend Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Arizona. Frederick Clarkson has the best article I have seen, which can be found at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religiousright/1801/%E2%80%9C%5Bi%5D_pray_for_barack_obama_to_die_and_go_to_hell%E2%80%9D%3A_the_story_the_media_missed_.

Anderson is the minister who has prayed for President Obama's death and has proclaimed to the congregation he serves that both he and God want the President dead. In the congregation is Chris Broughton, who showed up at a speech by the President with an AR-15 automatic rifle and a handgun strapped on. He took this action the day he heard his pastor preach on why he was praying for President Obama to die and go to hell.

Somewhat disingenuously, Reverend Anderson distanced himself from any actions taken by people who hear or read his sermons. In an interview, as cited by Clarkson,

Interestingly, nationally syndicated liberal radio talk show host Alan Colmes conducted a particularly penetrating interview. When Colmes asked Anderson what his response would be if someone killed Barack Obama in response to his sermon, he replied: “I wouldn’t cry about it.”
Colmes said to Anderson: “You want the president dead…”
“Absolutely,” Anderson agreed. “Now that doesn’t mean I’m gonna kill him. But you know what? I believe he should reap what he’s sown.”
“[Obama] deserves to die, because he’s a murderer.”
“I’m not going to take responsibility for other people’s actions,” said Anderson. “You know, it’s ridiculous how I’m supposed to be held accountable for what anyone who listens to my sermons does.”

On this day, it is well for us to remember that religious speech, particularly that which calls down God's judgement of death on people, has a dangerous power to influence people to act.

Potpourri

2009-08-27T08:21:00.002-06:00

Responsibilities at church this week and some other things have affected my postings. I just realized that nothing has gone up since last Saturday. Here are a few items that have been rolling around in my brain.

First, as I was 'channel surfing' this week, I hit a commercial for a group of California Psychics. In the commercial was a guarantee that promised: if this was not the best psychic reading the customer had ever had, we will refund your money.

I was struck by that. How do you rate psychic readings? What constitutes a 'good' psychic reading versus a 'great' psychic reading? Aren't most psychic readings geared toward future events? If so, how long do you have to wait to be able to evaluate? I guess the only thing left for the psychics to promise is that their readings are 100% organic.

Second item. In the City Weekly, SLC's major alternative paper, was a story about Steven Jones, a former professor at BYU. Jones is a leading player in the alternative theories about 9/11. He is convinced that something more than the planes was involved in bringing down the buildings. His outspokenness in criticizing the official US government conclusions was a factor in his early retirement in 2006.

That raises a lot of questions for me. Is there an issue of academic freedom here? How closely do professors have to 'toe' the line - and whose line is it - in order to keep their jobs? What if Jones was denying the majority view on global warming or the Holocaust, would he have been able to stay at BYU or would he have been pushed out even earlier?

Third, there is a push to allow members of the Christian Church to be 'unbaptized.' This service is for folks who now do not believe and want to renounce their previous faith. There is a ceremony and an 'unbaptized' certificate.

I am thinking this is much ado about nothing. If a person no longer believes, then the original baptism should no longer have any significance for him or her. Why go through some ceremony to invalidate it? The 'unbaptism' rite seems to suggest that there is some inherent power in the baptism that must be deactivated.

Do you have any thoughts about any of this?

God and Weather

2009-08-22T13:23:00.002-06:00

Over the years, I have been asked to pray for certain weather to happen or not happen. Usually, the requests have come from farmers or from folks who have scheduled important activities outdoors. I typically comply with the requests without actually thinking that my prayers influence the global weather patterns or that it matters to God whether the annual 'John Doe family' picnic gets rained out.

Over the course of the years, there has often been a conflict between the prayers I have offered. Such as, when a farmer in the congregation wants me to pray for one thing to happen - like rain - and another family wants the opposite to occur - like sunshine. I have prayed for both of them. And most often, one of them did take place.

In the past week, I have read of two people who evidently think there is a stronger connection between the weather patterns and divine prayer. A minister has seen the 'Hand of God' in the tornado that hit Minneapolis where the ELCA are struggling to resolve issues relating to homosexual clergy. This minister is certain that God was sending a strong message to the ELCA to repent of their sins and turn from their wicked ways. And, a governor of a southern state was saying this week that, since he has been praying for no hurricane to hit his state - including having prayers placed at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, no hurricanes have hit his state.

I guess both of these men have more spiritual power and insight than I do. It seems to me that I remember reading about someone who said it rains on the just and the unjust alike, certainly suggesting that weather patterns are not used by God as punishment or reward. Maybe that person was not as spiritual as these two men either.

Same old stuff

2009-08-18T17:50:00.002-06:00

Over the last few weeks, I have been reading Simon Schama's book, Rough Crossings: Britain, the Slaves, and the American Revolution, in bits and pieces. It chronicles the rise of the anti-slavery movement in England, the response of slaves in the colonies to the Revolutionary War, the promises made by the British Army to many slaves, and the attempts to establish a colony of freed slaves in Sierra Leone.

While I have read only about 75% of the book, it is a tragic story. Slavery itself was a horrific thing, but the people involved made the situation much worse. The story is one of promises made and broken to the freed slaves, of unscrupulous white men lying and cheating them, of those same white men being protected by the laws, all of which served to deepen the tragedy.

Through it all, so far, it has been interesting to read, and be reminded of, the rationales used by the people in power - the whites - for keeping a people enslaved. Most of the reasons had economic factors. "We cannot free the slaves because to do so would ruin the sugar cane industry, the tobacco industry, the cotton industry, etc." "We cannot give this particular land to them, even though we promised it and signed a contract to do so, because it is too valuable. They can have this other land, which is not as good." In many ways, I feel like I am reading the story of how the European settlers have always sought to gain the absolute advantage for themselves in their dealings with indigenous peoples or with slaves.

There was indeed a strong free market, capitalistic, pressure for the white landowners to keep things as they were. That is why people of conscience and morality have to look beyond the free market reasons for taking, or not taking, a particular action to try to discern what the right thing would be. I wonder if we have gotten any better at doing the right thing. I wonder if we are any better than the slave owners in the 18th century? Or, is it just the same old stuff?

Bearing Witness

2009-08-16T15:56:00.002-06:00

One of the issues raised in opposition to interfaith dialogue by evangelical Christians relates to their desire to continue to bear witness to their faith. They wonder, "How can I share my faith with people who follow other religions if I engage in dialogue with them?"

The Christian Muslim Forum has proposed a set of guidelines that address this. The guidelines are:

1) We bear witness to, and proclaim our faith not only through words but through our attitudes, actions and lifestyles.
2) We cannot convert people, only God can do that. In our language and methods we should recognise that people’s choice of faith is primarily a matter between themselves and God.
3) Sharing our faith should never be coercive; this is especially important when working with children, young people and vulnerable adults. Everyone should have the choice to accept or reject the message we proclaim and we will accept people’s choices without resentment.
4) Whilst we might care for people in need or who are facing personal crises, we should never manipulate these situations in order to gain a convert.
5) An invitation to convert should never be linked with financial, material or other inducements. It should be a decision of the heart and mind alone.
6) We will speak of our faith without demeaning or ridiculing the faiths of others.
7) We will speak clearly and honestly about our faith, even when that is uncomfortable or controversial.
8) We will be honest about our motivations for activities and we will inform people when events will include the sharing of faith.
9) Whilst recognising that either community will naturally rejoice with and support those who have chosen to join them, we will be sensitive to the loss that others may feel.
10) Whilst we may feel hurt when someone we know and love chooses to leave our faith, we will respect their decision and will not force them to stay or harass them afterwards.

In my mind, the single most important statement in these guidelines is one that most witnessing faiths overlook. Satement 2 places the whole conversion process as a God thing. Our statements, techniques, or approaches may be helpful for someone to hear, but no human is the agent of conversion, despite claims made by many. The entire faith enterprise is God's bailiwick.

Having been "witnessed to" by any number of people from different faith or theological understandings, I wish more folks would adhere to these guidelines.

Are we all religious now?

2009-08-14T09:52:00.003-06:00

The website, The Immanent Frame, posted an interview with Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, who is Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Religion Program at SUNY-Buffalo, looking at the failure of the courts to deal adequately with the realities of lived religion in America.

Let me get you thinking by including two quotes. One from the interview and one from a previous post written by Professor Sullivan.

From the interview, which can be found at: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/08/11/religion-takes-the-stand/,

One of your posts on The Immanent Frame you title with the claim, “We are all religious now.” Can you explain what that can mean, for instance, to the fifteen percent of Americans who claim to have no religious affiliation, or to the New Atheists?
Yes, I mean it to refer to the phenomenon I will be describing in my new book, a new openness to seeing Americans as naturally “faith-based,” enabled, I believe, by a convergence between a broad range of humanistic critiques of scientistic understandings of the person, social scientific and biological; social and political movements that originated in the mid-twentieth century; and a contemporaneous shift in religious authority and anthropology from the church to the individual. The exclusivity of materialist/medicalized understandings of the entire range of human capabilities and experience, as well as ecclesiastical capacity to insist on orthodoxy and particularity, are both fast eroding in the face of these changes. It’s a next step in the radical disestablishment of religion in this country. This shift toward locating authority in the individual means that it’s much easier for people to move among religious communities, religious ideas, and religious practices in a much more ambiguous way, a way that is less determined by someone outside oneself. If people want to call themselves atheists, that’s fine with me, and I’m not telling them they’re not atheists. What I’m saying is that I think it is becoming socially, politically, and legally the case that people are understanding themselves in terms of a new revival of a holistic image of the human being as, in some sense, basically spiritual. I think that many people who would not call themselves religious would also at least assent to that notion.

And, then, from the referenced post, We are All Religious Now, which can be found at: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/11/27/we-are-all-religious-now/, and references a number of specific cases, is a comment on an opinion written by Justice Souter.

Souter’s dissent in Hein hearkens back to the Flast era, insisting that religion is special, that individual conscience must be protected by a high wall of separation, and that James Madison ought to still rule: “favoritism for religion,” says Souter, “‘sends the . . . message to . . . nonadherents’ that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.”

Souter’s is increasingly a minority voice. We are all religious now. As a leading architect of integrating spirituality into medicine says, “our belief [is] that there is a spiritual dimension in every person’s life, even in those who deny that there is.”

So, do you think that, with a redefintion of religion to emphasize the individual dimension and not the institutional one, that all Americans, even those who would deny such identification, are religious?

2nd Verse of "Church Conflict"

2009-08-11T13:47:00.002-06:00

Not too long ago, I remarked on the conflict that struck New York's Riverside Church and resulted in the resignation of its newly installed minister. Now, stories are emerging about conflict at Coral Ridge Presbyterian with its newly called minister.

The link to the full story is: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/sfl-coral-ridge-081009,0,1694944.story. The details are quite familiar to anyone who has ever made a study of such conflict.

The lead to the article sums up the story: Internal divisions at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church burst into the open this past weekend as six members were ordered to stay off the premises.

The six have called for the ouster of the Rev. W. Tullian Tchividjian, saying he is deserting the heritage of his revered predecessor, the Rev D. James Kennedy. In reply, the Fort Lauderdale church has accused them of spreading rumors and disrupting church unity. Among the six is Kennedy's daughter, Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy.

Stresses are common whenever a longtime pastor is replaced, observers say. But with a huge, successful church with long-entrenched traditions - and a new pastor nearly two generations younger - the effects are heightened.

The conclsion to the article is on target: To George B. Thompson Jr., of Atlanta, a specialist in church merger problems, the Coral Ridge ills are cultural. "We in society don't understand the complexity of organizations, religious or secular. People like Tchividjian could be doing what they think is right - even what they thought they were asked to do - and it still blows up."

Riverside and Coral Ridge are at two ends of the spectrum theologically. Riverside long known for its liberal ministers and liberal stances. Coral Ridge reached national prominence under D. James Kennedy as a politically and theologically conservative church. Yet, the storyline for each in this current controversy is remarkably the same - a new minister doing things differently than his predecessor sparks outrage among a small group of parishioners who then conspire to 'boot him out.' According to some statistics, 25% of all ministers will be forced to resign or retire. In the vast majority of cases, this effort is orchestrated by a small group of people in the church. Further, when a church does it once, it frequently does it more than once.

This revolving door for ministers is one of the tragedies of the contemporary Christian church in America. The most effective ministry by a pastor usually comes after she or he has been in a church for 10+ years. So, the church cuts off its nose to spite its face. The disruption in ministry that occurs when the church has to undertake a new search process has long-lasting effects on the life of the church.

Perhaps, someday, we will learn better. Till then, groups like Ministering To Ministers provides emergency care for the ousted pastor and family.

Religion Rejecting the World

2009-08-07T14:31:00.002-06:00

In keeping with a dominant theme in the last few posts, I came across a story carried on Religon Dispatches - found at:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/1618/my_womb_for_his_purposes%3A_the_perils_of_unassisted_childbirth_in_the_quiverfull_movement/ - dealing with a subset of the 'quiverfull' movement of conservative Christianity that calls for a complete rejection of any human system. After all, if you depend on any person, you are not depending on God.

I have commented about this patriarchal movement that rejects any birth control and depends on God to give or to withhold pregnancy before. In case you wonder about the name, there is a Biblical reference that refers to children metaphorically as 'arrows', hence to have a 'quiverfull' is to have many children. Part of the rationale given by some in the movement is to increase the number of children in Christian families and, thus, compete against the high birth rates among other religious groups.

The story from Religion Dispatches, though, looks at a more radical portion within this movement who hold more extreme views. In the 'Home In Zion Ministries' group, primarily influenced by Carol Balizet, who in turn is influenced by Kenneth Copeland and the 'name-it-claim-it' teachings, the true Christian is one who rejects all human institutions and depends solely upon God for all things.

In their words:
We’re Home in Zion Ministries, and as our name may indicate, our goal is to encourage separation from the counterfeits of the world, and entrance into what is symbolically called Zion. This is a life TOTALLY dependent on God alone. We advocate home childbirth, home schooling, home healing, often even home churching, and other things which accompany a separation from the world and a return to the God-centered reality of the kingdom. We want to share the experiences and testimonies of the many, many families we know who have victories in these and other areas of kingdom life. We reach out to the "seven thousand" who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’

‘Satan has built himself a seven-headed system (or a system built on seven mountains) as counterfeits for these seven revelations of our need-meeting God. Seven intricate, self-perpetuating, man-glorifying, unholy organizations: government, commerce, education, science, the arts, medicine and religion, which claim to provide all the things that God has promised.’

As the Religion Dispatch article and the other articles it references, this 'Zion' based teaching has led to deaths and abuses among the followers. This certainly seems to be an example of the misinterpretation and misapplication of scripture. Yet, the beliefs expressed by this group are not that far removed by what is proclaimed in many conservative, though more 'mainstream', Christian churches. I have heard many sermons extolling the faithful to depend upon God, to turn their back on the world, and to live faithful and holy lives separated from the world. It is a short step from those sermons to this mind-set.

Religious Laws Trump Civil Laws? Part II

2009-08-05T11:51:00.002-06:00

On June 13, I referenced the conflict in Israel between the ultra-Orthodox Jews who believe that God's laws, as they understand and apply them, trump any civil laws. That conflict was about parking cars and driving on the Sabbath.

In the US, there have been cases of children who died because their parents followed their religious beliefs and prayed for healing rather than seek medical treatment. On June 23, 2009, in one such case in Oregon, a jury essentially acquitted a couple whose 15 month old died.

Here are two reactions to this case to generate some thought.

The first can be found on the site, Religious News Service, and is an interview with a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Shawn Francis Peters, who specializes in questions about faith healing. The interview was conducted by Lindsay Perra.

Q: What does the verdict say about the public perception of faith-healing?
A: Americans aren’t necessarily hostile to the concept of faith healing. In fact, there is openness to its possibilities. The trial may have been less about faith-healing and more about the way we view the responsibilities of parents. There was a sense among jurors that the parents were doing what they thought was right. As a society, we have to give parents the latitude to do that.

Q: So religious law supersedes civil law?
A: It was more that the jury just did not see a clear intent to harm the child or an overwhelming evidence of negligence. The jury never really got beyond the sense that the parents did not try to hurt the child, but in fact, did what they thought was right. Juries typically struggle with that and then go the other way.

Q: Are there constitutional protections that protect parents who fail to provide medical treatment for their children?
A: There really aren’t outright protections for these kinds of practices. There is certainly a First Amendment right for the free exercise of religion. But, in the realm of child health, it’s pretty clear that the state interest is in helping the health and welfare of the child. That takes precedence over the parent’s right of the free practice of religion. Some state laws have exemptions for faith-healing practices.

The second is a piece written by Susan Nielsen for The Oregonian.

We also should keep asking the questions that bedevil juries in faith-healing cases: Is it ever OK to seriously harm your child in the name of religion? If so, which religion? Other states that struggle with these questions tend to realize that holding citizens to different criminal standards, based on their religious beliefs rather than their conduct, leads to messy laws, messy trials, unhappy juries and more dead kids.

The Worthingtons, who shun modern medicine in favor of faith healing, stood trial last month on charges of second-degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment for the 2008 death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava. Prosecutors said the couple let the child die of pneumonia and a blood infection, complicated by an untreated cyst on her neck that affected her breathing. . . .

The Supreme Court correctly holds that the state must give great deference to parents. The ability to raise children according to one's beliefs and direct their medical care is a matter of fundamental liberty, deeply rooted in our laws and culture.

Yet these rights are not absolute. Beliefs are held sacred but conduct is not, and the government can intervene if parents endanger their children. As the high court famously ruled more than 60 years ago, "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children."

Do you believe that religious beliefs should trump any civil law?

Shermer & Ayala, Part II

2009-08-04T20:12:00.002-06:00

In a followup to the last post, there is at least one more point/counterpoint discussion between Michael Shermer and Francisco Ayala in the LA Times, which can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-ayala-shermer31-2009jul31,0,2221507.story. This time the question was: What do you think of the theory that religious belief and experience are wired through evolution?

Shermer definitely agrees. He sees the human tendency to make meaningful causal patterns in observing and interpreting data as leading to a sense of the existence of spirits and gods. Note his conclusion:

People are religious because we are social and we need to get along. The moral sentiments in humans and moral principles in human groups evolved primarily through the force of natural selection operating on individuals, and secondarily through the force of group selection operating on populations. The moral sense (the psychological feeling of doing "good" in the form of positive emotions such as righteousness and pride) evolved out of behaviors that were selected because they were good either for the individual or for the group. An immoral sense (the psychological feeling of doing "bad" in the form of negative emotions such as guilt and shame) evolved out of behaviors that were selected because they were bad either for the individual or for the group.

While cultures may differ on what behaviors are defined as good or bad, the moral sense of feeling good or feeling bad about behavior X (whatever X may be) is an evolved human universal. The codification of moral principles out of the psychology of the moral sentiments evolved as a form of social control to ensure the survival of individuals within groups and the survival of human groups themselves. Religion was the first social institution to canonize moral principles, and God -- as an explanatory pattern for the world -- took on new powers as the ultimate enforcer of the rules.

Thus it is that people are religious and believe in God.

Ayala approached the question from another perspective. He posited the view that it was the natural selection process that emphasized and rewarded intelligence that led to religious practices and understandings. Again, read his conclusion:

Seeking causal explanations for events in the natural world was one source of religious beliefs and practices. Humans live in complex societies, which need to be governed by laws and moral norms. Seeking justification for moral norms and social laws was another source of religious faith and cults. Israelites, for example, were told by Moses to observe the Ten Commandments because these were ordered by God.

But there is one more source of religion that also depends on our evolution-endowed intelligence: self-awareness and its consequence, death-awareness. Except for young infants, every person is conscious of existing as a distinct individual, different from other people and from the environment. Self-awareness is the most immediate and unquestionable reality of our experience.

Moreover, we humans are the only animals with full experience of self-awareness, which implies death-awareness. If I know I exist as a distinct human individual, I know I will die because I see other people die. Because we ceremonially bury our dead, we know humans are the only animals that are death-aware. All human societies have burial rituals, although the rites are very diverse. Ritual burial follows from death-awareness: If I know I will die, I will treat other dead humans with such respect because I want to be treated this way when I die.

Because we humans are aware of the transitory character of our existence, we develop anxiety over death. This anxiety is at least in part alleviated by religious beliefs and rituals, which give meaning to one's own life even though life will end. Anxiety about death is further relieved in the many religions that attribute immortality to the soul, either through successive reincarnations or in the form of life beyond death.

Evolution, by making humans intelligent, predisposed us to be religious.

Now, the question for you is simple. Does this human pre-disposition to be homo religiosus suggest that we can conclude there is nothing beyond the material universe? What do you think?

Science and Religion . . . Again

2009-08-03T16:01:00.002-06:00

The LA Times has had two point/counterpoint pieces written by Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skpetic, a magazine, and a contributor to Scientific American, and Francisco Ayala, a biology professor at UC Irvine, member of the US National Academy of Acience, and a recipient of the US National Medal of Science in 2001. The first piece I saw was on the relationship between science and religion, using Stephen J. Gould's understanding of science and religion representing two different, but not conflictual, magisteria. The link to it is: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-ayala-shermer30-2009jul30,0,1435073.story

Shermer concluded his piece with these words:
In conclusion, I go so far as to conclude that there is no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal. There is only the natural, the normal and mysteries we have yet to explain. God is a mystery, and the God of Abraham may very well be an eternal mystery for the simple reason that any god explicable through science and the laws of nature would, by definition, lose the status of supernatural and enter the realm of the natural. A god definable by science is not a god at all.

Here is Ayala's conclusion:
Just as many other religious authorities have said, Pope John Paul II put the matter correctly when he asserted that the "Bible itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its make-up in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. ... Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven."

I do agree with you, Michael: A god definable by science is not God.

There are many who would use the Bible as a science textbook and conclude that any discovery by modern science that contradicts their understanding of the teachings of the Bible is false. I feel they are wrong to use the scripture in that way. I take scripture very seriously. Scripture illuminates great truths about the reality of humanity and the relationship between the human and the divine; it does not, though, teach us biology or cosmology or physics. Nor should we try to make it do so.

Gotta Watch Out For . . . Those People

2009-08-01T18:53:00.003-06:00

I never thought I would compare anyone to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, but this Israeli politician has to be of the same ilk. I have posted the entire story from BBC with the appropriate citation at the bottom of the story.

Israeli MP blames quakes on gays

An Israeli MP has blamed parliament's tolerance of gays for earthquakes that have rocked the Holy Land recently.

Shlomo Benizri, of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas Party, said the tremors had been caused by lawmaking that gave "legitimacy to sodomy".

Israel decriminalised homosexuality in 1988 and has since passed several laws recognising gay rights.
Two earthquakes shook the region last week and a further four struck in November and December.
Adoption

Mr Benizri made his comments while addressing a committee of the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, about the country's readiness for earthquakes.

He called on lawmakers to stop "passing legislation on how to encourage homosexual activity in the state of Israel, which anyway brings about earthquakes".

Israeli court rulings in recent years have granted inheritance rights to gay couples and recognised same-sex marriages performed abroad.

Last week, Israel's attorney general ruled same-sex couples could adopt.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7255657.stm

Published: 2008/02/20 19:24:52 GMT

So, I guess, by Benizri's logic, any natural disaster or tragic calamity can now be blamed on granting rights to citizens of a country who happen to be homosexual. Of course, also by his logic, which confuses "cause and effect" with "taking place after", any number of other events, including the Ultra-Orthodox protests against opening a parking lot on the Sabbath that have taken place for months now could also be the cause of the earthquakes.

Spiritual or Religious?

2009-07-24T13:35:00.002-06:00

One of the common confessions of folks these days in discussing their life of faith is that "I am spiritual, but not religious." Somehow, these folks must believe there is something inherently wrong with any religious group and something inherently superior to having mostly undefined opinions about faith.

In the Spring 2009 issue of C21 Resources, a publication of Boston College, the lead article addresses this very issue. From the article is this quote,

Claims for being “spiritual” but “not religious” deserve probing. Without doubt, religious institutions, ever human, need to engage in more substantive dialogue, self-critique, renewal, and reform. And yes, more attention must be placed on spiritual practices as central to the “content” of the faith handed down. But one ought not conclude that spirituality is a substitute for religion.

A spirituality that is disconnected from religion is bereft of both community and tradition; it has no recourse to the benefits of a larger body of discourse and practice, and it lacks accountability. Such spirituality quickly becomes privatistic and rootless, something directly opposite to the Christian understanding of “life in the Spirit.”

How do you respond to that perspective?

***********************************************
This will be my last post for a week. Our church does a camp for 4th through 9th graders at a small Methodist campground above Coalville Utah. So, I will be "unconnected" until next weekend.

This would be a good opportunity for some of you to think about some of the questions I have posed and respond to them.

The Decline of Christian Churches

2009-07-23T11:57:00.003-06:00

The reality that Christian churches/groups/denominations/etc. are losing members is a long-known fact. Despite the visibility, appeal, and popularity of such mega-churches as Willow Creek, Saddleback Valley, and Lakewood, there are fewer folks who are actively participating in the life of the Christian church.

For years, the more conservative wings of Christian life pointed to the more liberal wings as the problem. In the 20th century, there was even a book written explaining why the conservative churches were growing, certainly suggesting that, if all churches followed their example, all churches would be growing.

Now, however, we have to reconsider these assumptions. Recent news from the Southern Baptist Convention about declining baptisms and shrinking church rolls and from the Anglican Church of North America - the conservative response to the liberalization of the Episcopal Church - about actual church membership numbers seem to suggest that the decline has affected all parts of the Christian church.

This news led Diana Butler Bass to comment on the implications of the recent news. In the Progressive Revival blog on BeliefNet.com, she wrote:

The old accusation – and theological threat used by conservatives against mainline denominations – that the denominations have failed because they are too liberal – is now being proved false by both qualitative journalists and quantitative researchers. Almost all Christian institutions are experiencing slowing growth and/or membership declines. The only growing Christian churches in North America are "non-denominational," and those congregations are difficult to classify theologically because they are so diverse.

What is causing the erosion of Christianity in North America? Most North Americans look at Christianity – especially as embodied in religious institutions – and find it wanting. I suspect that Christianity is in decline because it appears both hypocritical and boring. Although young North Americans express deep longings for a loving, just, and peaceful world, they don't find an equal passion for transforming society in meaningful ways in most congregations. And, sadly, many churches simply lack the imagination and passion that many spiritual people are searching for. Folks aren't looking for answers nearly as much as they are trying to clarify their questions and are hungry for accepting communities in which to ask them.

If you think about it, mainline liberal churches embody a theological vision of God's reign that resonates with contemporary hopes for social transformation. But they often lack passion, acting on God's dream for the world in business-as-usual ways. Conservative churches are chock-full of passion. But they are often passionate about all the wrong stuff – like excluding people and supporting the military-and-economic status quo that is destroying the planet.

Perhaps North American Christians are smarter than anyone suspects – that we are looking for congregations, communities and denominations that put the pieces together – passionate, imaginative, open, justice-seeking, inclusive, and loving gatherings of faith that actually live, as Jimmy Carter put it, "the teachings of Jesus Christ." If progressive faith communities can be both – transformative and passionate – we may be better poised to reach a new generation than the "decline" bellyaching of recent decades suggests. With the waning of conservative churches, it may well be the historical moment for the rest of us to step up the spiritual plate.

Is your local church gaining or losing members? If it is gaining, are these transfers from other churches or "new converts"? Is the wider church body to which you are connected gaining or losing members? Do you describe your church as conservative or liberal? If it is losing members, why do you think that is happening? What can be done to reverse the trend?

It's official. I'm a heretic . . .

2009-07-19T09:43:00.002-06:00

. . . at least, that is, according to a group of Orthodox clergy in Greece. This group issued a manifesto pledging to resist any ecumenical movement leading to closer relations with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

The reason? Simple. The Greek Orthodox clergy refuse to have anything to do with clergy or churches who are in error. They proclaim, "The Orthodox Church is not merely the true church; she is the only church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the synods and the fathers, and consequently she alone represents the true catholic church of Christ."

Just in case you may have some doubts on how bad the others are, this group describes the Catholic papacy as the "womb of heresies and fallacies" and Protestantism as having "inherited many heresies but also added many more." The only hope for everyone who isn't a member of the Greek Orthodox Church is to repent and become one.

Till then, I am a heretic, and you are too, probably. I will look for you in the place of eternal judgment.

Just Ignore the Godless Laws

2009-07-18T20:01:00.002-06:00

Another story about a conflict over an Ultra-Orthodox Jew in Israel. A story carried on the WorldWide Religious News and attributed to CNN reveals that a Jewish woman who was accused of child abuse was released from jail and given house arrest. The group of which she is a part does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel and its rule of law. Consider this segment of the story:

The woman, whom police have not named, is from a radical sect of ultra-Orthodox Judaism known as Toldot Aharon, whose members believe that the modern state of Israel and its laws are a man-made creation beneath the religious teachings of the Talmud, the authoritative body of Jewish religious traditions.

The case and the riots highlight the existence in Israel of extreme ultra-Orthodox religious groups that are awaiting the return of a messiah and that reject modern secular culture.

The woman was arrested by police after staffers at a hospital passed on suspicions that her son was the victim of child abuse.

Police officials said they had collected evidence indicating the woman purposely starved the child. Police also said they had reason to believe the woman, who is five months pregnant, physically abused two of her other children.

A case like this, of course, raises huge questions.

How can any state exist when groups of its citizens claim that they can ignore the law because it is only man-made and God given?

Do you agree that God's laws, as you understand it, take precedence over any man-made law?

If so, should "true believers" act according to their understanding of God's laws, without regard for any human system of law?

Is this happening in places other than Israel?

What do you do with a religious group that claims the state has no power over them because they will only follow God's laws?

Statistically Speaking

2009-07-16T21:02:00.002-06:00

Two sets of statistics came my way in the last few days. I found one in the June 30 issue of Christian Century. The other is in the Summer 2009 World Ark, the publication for Heifer International.

The World Ark numbers are straight to the point:
According to the US Goverment, the poverty threshold is now $17 per day per person;
According to the World Bank, the new international extreme poverty threshold is $1.25 per day;
The piece concludes with the stat that 45% of the world's children live in poverty.

The Century quoted a Democracy Corps Youth Survey conducted in August 2008 giving the top personal goals of young people aged 18-29. With the percent responding "very important":
80% - Paying off all debts;
78% - Finding a job you will enjoy;
75% - Finding a job that will make you financially secure;
66% - Buying a home;
59% - Giving something back to your community;
59% - Giving something back to your country;
54% - Having children;
53% - Getting married;
50% - Becoming more spiritually fulfilled.

I wonder what impact on the world we all could have if one of our personal goals was to make a difference in the lives of someone in our country or in another country who is living in poverty.

Saying "I Won't" to "I Do."

2009-07-13T17:08:00.002-06:00

It is fair to say that the issue of marriage is one of the major struggles in American culture. The debate on who can marry and why has dominated the news in the last few years. Now, in an interesting development, it may be that people at each end of the spectrum are embracing somewhat similar tactics as the debate continues to roil.

From the more liberal side of things, two UCC clergy began the Refuse To Sign movement, calling on clergy, congregations, and engaged couples to refuse to have a religious person sign the marriage license. Their point is that the state should extend marriage certificates to all people and that clergy and/or churches should decide whether or not to bless same-sex marriages. They believe that clergy become de facto agents for the state when a minister signs a certificate; thus, the clergy person is supporting the state's position on marriage. Supporters of this movement exhort couples to have marriage certificates signed by the court clerk or by a judge only until justice is done.

From the more conservative side of things, some conservative clergy and their parishoners are pushing the position that the state should have nothing to do with marriage at all. They feel marriage is a "holy estate," to quote a phrase, and the state should stay out of the process. These folks are motivated by a concern that the state may legalized a marriage relationship which they feel is unbiblical, immoral, and unscriptural.

So, both sides are trying to redefine the marriage process to achieve what they feel is the "right" thing to do.

How do you feel about all of this?

Jewish Conflict

2009-07-12T20:04:00.002-06:00

Over the weekend, two news stories about conflict between secular Jews and ultra-orthodox Jews in Jerusalem emerged.

The first from Diaa Hadid, an AP reporter, detailed how two religious Jews were stabbed and another beaten in a fight with secular Jews. The second AP story told how ultra-orthodox Jews threw themselves under the tires of buses and in front of waiting cars. Both stories dealt with opposition by the ultra-Orthodox community to a parking lot that was opened in Jerusalem last month in an effort to cut down on illegal parking in the Old City of Jerusalem. The controversy is because the parking lot is open on the Sabbath. The ultra-Orthodox believe that driving on the Sabbath is a violation of the Sabbath; thus, the parking lot should not be opened on the Sabbath.

So, how would you feel if someone decided you could not do something because it violated their religious understanding. Would you allow them to control your life?

Reflection for the weekend

2009-07-11T13:33:00.002-06:00

In an interview published in http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085; Articles > Volume 124 Issue 4 July/August 2009, Laurie Taylor interviewed Terry Eagleton about his new book, Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.

In the interview is this exchange:

But is the emperor really as well dressed as such critics allow? I decided to press him further about his theology. "You say that God made the world simply for the love and delight of it. But you don't mean 'made' in the usual sense of the word as you've already insisted that God did not create the world."

"That's right. Aquinas is saying that the relationship between God and the world is about the fact that the world is in some ways His. Not in the sense that my shoes are mine because I manufactured them but because at the centre of the world lies his love and freedom. God didn't create the world. He loved it into being. Now what that means, God knows, but that's exactly what Aquinas was saying. The concept of God is what will not let you go. He will not let you slip through his fingers. It's that kind of unconditional love. If you like, that's impossible. We can only know conditional love, but if you are to have some kind of authentic idea of God that's the place from which you have to start, not seeing God as some kind of manufacturer."

That is both an amazing affirmation of God and of doubt and wonder. How do you respond to this?

Living in the current economic reality

2009-07-09T12:14:00.002-06:00

Our son, Joshua, graduated from college last May. As is my wont, I picked up literature from the church where the Baccalaureate Service was held. Bethel College, Joshua's Alma Mater. has strong Mennonite ties, so the church, of course, was a Mennonite church.

The publication I picked up was the February 2009 issue of Beyond Ourselves . The editor, Stanley Green, wrote about an incident from his family's past from which 3 lessons for living, even in hard times, were learned.

1. Never stop being grateful for what you have (these, too, are the blessings of God).

2. Never be ashamed of what you have.

3. Always be willing to share, whether what you have is little or large.

These are indeed important lessons for all of us, even now.

Signs and portents of Michael

2009-07-07T12:50:00.002-06:00

The media has been in a frenzy for the past few weeks covering all spects of the death of Michael Jackson. I will confess that I was never a big fan of his. I might listen to one of his songs if it came on the radio, but he just wasn't my cup of tea.

With that disclosure, I cannot comprehend the public response to his death - People spending thousands of dollars to fly to LA; hundreds of thousands trying to get a ticket to the Memorial Service in the Staples Center; people queing up for hours to sign a card. His death was a tragedy, but in the way that anyone's sudden and unexpected death is a tragedy. As John Donne wrote, the death of anyone diminishes me.

Thus, I was floored by last night's newscast in SLC. A couple in Stockton California has discovered an epiphany of Michael Jackson in the stump of a cut tree branch. The camera zoomed in on the light and dark image of the stump, and, like every one of these miraculous sightings, it was the very image of Michael Jackson if you believed it was.

There were two things about the story that made it even worse for me. The first was that people in the neighborhood were already making pilgrimages to see the blessed image. Second, one woman was quoted as saying something like, "Michael Jackson meant a lot to the people of Stockton, maybe more even than Jesus did for some of them."

This, I think, is proof positive that the cult of celebrity in America has gone too far. What do you think?

The Downside of Ministry

2009-07-05T14:06:00.002-06:00

I was shocked by the news of the resignation of the newly installed minister at Riverside Church in New York. I had read there were criticisms of him, but there always are of a minister. Then I read Randall Balmer's piece on the situation. It can be accessed at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/oped/1606/by_the_way%3A_riverside_minister%E2%80%99s_abrupt_resignation_reveals_the_perils_of_the_pulpit/.

A portion of Balmer's piece resonated with me:

But for those who discern the call to preach the gospel, even for those of us who pursue ordination later in our careers, such concerns fade to insignificance. We approach our calling with energy, enthusiasm and idealism—and then run into the buzz saw of congregational infighting and politics.

Although the vast majority of churchgoers, in my experience, are decent and kind, parishioners less charitably disposed can find ingenious ways to make a minister’s life miserable: criticism of everything from comportment and grooming to sermons, salary and administrative style. If you’re decisive, you’re an autocrat; if you seek to build consensus, you’re a weak leader. Late in my father’s very successful ministerial career, the board of elders in a large and affluent congregation demanded that he personally reimburse the church for the photocopies he made for church business.

Some congregants, intent on disruption, can be more devious, striking by indirection. In my case (and, as I understand it, at Riverside), dissident members leveled criticisms at the minister’s wife and family. I’m inclined to follow the injunction of Jesus to “turn the other cheek” when criticisms are directed at me, especially when I’m confident that I’ve acted honorably. It’s a different matter, however, when the people I love come under attack.

Eventually, such sniping exacts a toll. I threw myself, heart and soul, into my parish, despite the fact that mine was carefully stipulated as a part-time appointment. No matter. The vestry (the governing body of the congregation) insisted on still more. Worse, by the actions of some in the congregation, I was asked, in effect, to choose between the parish and my marriage.

I requested that my contract not be renewed for a second year.

I am happy to say that I am moving into my second year in my church in Salt Lake City without experencing anything like what was described in the piece. Yet, even in the best of circumstances the demands and pressures of parish ministry take their toll. And, I have had such guerilla warfare criticism attack me and my family.

That may be why fewer younger people are going into ministry. That may be why the tenure of ministers is often measured in months. That may be why there is an epidemic of "forced resignations" in churches; not because of inappropriate acts by the minister, but because of the power game played by people in the congregation.

This reality is why I have been involved in the Ministry to Ministers organization for a number of years; currently, I serve as President of the Board. MTM helps ministers and families pick up the pieces of their lives after a forced termination, and that is a good and holy thing.

The Georgia Guidestones

2009-07-02T17:03:00.002-06:00

I am ashamed to say I had never heard of this until today. It is a shame, really, since this monument named The Georgia Guidestones was so close to me when I was in Georgia.

Just in case you, too, are in the dark. Let me give you a link that provides the official story and then summarize the stuff, should you choose not to do the investigation yourself. Here is the link: http://www.wired.com/images/multimedia/magazine/1705/Wired_May_2009_Georgia_Guidestones.pdf.

Now for the summary. Sometime in June 1979, a mysterious man approached the owner of the Elbert Granite Finishing Company with a proposal to construct a unique monument. The man purported to be one of a group of loyal Americans who loved God and who wanted to provide future generations, regardless what calamities and destruction might befall humanity, with a guide to living on earth. The stones would contain the same message in 8 different languages. The monument was identified with the hope to "Let These Be Guidestones To An Age Of Reason." It might be considered a hoax, but someone, or someones, paid a lot of money to erect this stone monument.

Here are the Ten Guidelines that purportedly will save humankind:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature;

Guide reproduction wisely, improving fitness and diversity;

Unite humanity with a living new language;

Rule passion, faith, tradition, and all things with tempered reason;

Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts;

Let all nations rule internally, resolving external disputes in a world court;

Avoid petty laws and useless officials;

Balance personal rights with social duties;

Prize truth, beauty, love ... seeking harmony with the infinite;

Be not a cancer on earth -- leave room for nature -- leave room for nature.

It has hit the news again because some in Georgia are taking exception to the benign purposes expressed for the construction and see it as a step toward the one world government that threatens all true Bible-believing Christians.

What do you think? Will these principles save the world? If you could delete one, which would it be? If you could add one, what would you add? If you came up with your own list of Ten, what would they be. [I would say you have to do more than recommend the "Ten Commandments" in whatever version you prefer to have your comments published here.]

Thinking about religion, a la Robert Wright

2009-06-25T08:02:00.002-06:00

At http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2009/06/24/evolution_of_god/print.html, you can read an interview with the author, Robert Wright. Wright, a self-confessed materialist, has written a new book entitled The Evolution of God. As the interviewer writes, there is something to offend everyone in the book. Here is a snippet from the interview to give you something to think about.

Do you think religions share certain core principles?
Not many. People in the modern world, certainly in America, think of religion as being largely about prescribing moral behavior. But religion wasn't originally about that at all. To judge by hunter-gatherer religions, religion was not fundamentally about morality before the invention of agriculture. It was trying to figure out why bad things happen and increasing the frequency with which good things happen. Why do you sometimes get earthquakes, storms, disease and get slaughtered? But then sometimes you get nice weather, abundant game and you get to do the slaughtering. Those were the religious questions in the beginning.
And bad things happened because the gods were against you or certain spirits had it out for you?
Yes, you had done something to offend a god or spirit. However, it was not originally a moral lapse. That's an idea you see as societies get more complex. When you have a small group of hunter-gatherers, a robust moral system is not a big challenge. Everyone knows everybody, so it's hard to conceal anything you steal. If you mess with somebody too much, there will be payback. Moral regulation is not a big problem in a simple society. But as society got more complex with the invention of agriculture and writing, morality did become a challenge. Religion filled that gap.
But it's easier to explain why bad things happen in these older religions. You can attribute it to an angry spirit. It's harder to explain evil if there's an all-powerful, all-loving God.
The problem of evil is a product of modern religion. If you believe in an omnipotent and infinitely good God, then evil is a problem. If God is really good -- and can do anything He or She wants -- why do innocent people suffer? If you've got a religion in which the gods are not especially good in the first place, or they're not omnipotent, then evil is not a problem.

What do you think?

Is this the way to go?

2009-06-24T20:10:00.001-06:00

In the May/June issue of Moment magazine, (the piece to be found at: http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-06/200906-Ask_Rabbis.html) various Jewish leaders respond to the question of “How should Jews treat their Arab neighbors?”

A wide spectrum of such leaders responded. The most provocative answer is this one from a leader in the Chabad movement.

Chabad
I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.

The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).

The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.

Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.
Rabbi Manis Friedman
Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies
St. Paul, MN

Do you agree that this is the way to peace in the Middle East? Is this the way “righteous” people should think, regardless of which side of the Middle East conflict that person is on? How is this any different from the position taken by extremists of any religion against their “enemies?”

Another One Bites The Dust

2009-06-23T14:22:00.002-06:00

The Southern Baptist Convention is holding meetings in Louisville, Kentucky this week. Their theme is "Love Loud: Actions Speak Louder Than Words."

One of the first actions taken was to "boot out" the Broadway Baptist Church of Ft. Worth Texas, who were suspected of not following the will of the Convention in regard to homosexuality. From the Associated Baptist Press story:
The SBC changed its constitution in 1993 to exclude churches that are welcoming and affirming of gays. Previously the amendment was interpreted to apply only to churches that take some formal action, like ordaining or licensing a gay minister or conducting a ceremony to bless a same-sex union, but in 2006 an SBC-affiliated state convention with a similar policy said a church could be expelled for simply being perceived as affirming homosexual behavior.

So, regardless of what a church actually does or actually says about homosexuality, if it is perceived by someone else as affirming homosexual behavior, it can be considered ecclesiam non grata and excluded. Just in case you are wondering, the Texas church got in trouble for deciding to publish a church directory filled with candid shots or group shots of all of its church members, including some who are homosexual, instead of using the traditional pictures of family groups.

Reports indicate that Broadway will not be the only church booted out. The First Baptist Church of Decatur Georgia is in trouble for calling a female minister.

Actions do speak rather loudly, don't they?

Are You In A Natural Family Or Not?

2009-06-22T15:54:00.001-06:00

Living at ground zero of the conservative cultural and political life in our country, Utah, is interesting. In a story last week on the Conservative movement in our local alternative press, the City Weekly, was a reference to the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society – a conservative think tank and its definition of a “natural family.” The Howard Center’s statement on a natural family is this:
The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of: the continuation of the human species, the rearing of children, the regulation of sexuality, the provision of mutual support and protection, the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and the maintenance of bonds between the generations.
Our use of the term "natural family" is significant in many respects.
First, the term signifies a natural order to family structures that is common across cultures, historical, and overwhelmingly self-evident.
Second, the term signifies a wholly defensible expression. "Natural" is not "nuclear," which would limit its scope, nor is it "traditional," which would burden its utility in public discourse. It is what it is, a totally self-evident expression.
Third, the term "natural" precludes incompatible constructs of the family as well as incompatible behaviors among its members.
Fourth, the "natural family" is a positive expression. It does not require a discussion of negative incompatibilities to define itself.
This proclamation raises some questions for me:
1) It suggests that this understanding of the structure of the family has some ancient tradition, dating back to the origins of the human race. Is this true? Is this proposition defensible?
2) It states that a natural family is a lifelong commitment. What does this mean for those who have been divorced and then remarried?
3) It suggests that a natural family is defined by the procreation of the human race. What does this mean for couples who cannot have children?
4) If a family does not meet all of these characteristics, does that mean it is an “unnatural family?” If so, what are the ramifications of this?

What do you think?

Where Do You Draw The Line?

2009-06-21T20:46:00.000-06:00

One of the on-going struggles in American society is between the views and practices of a religion and the laws and requirements of the civil society. In the June 14 NY Times was a story about the conflict between the Swartzentruber Amish sect in Nicktown, PA and the local sewage authority and the state Environmental Protection Department. The Swartzentruber Amish split from the Old Order Amish in 1913 out of fear that the Old Order were becoming too modern.

The current controversy is over the disposition of human waste. The state mandates that the members of the Swartzentruber sect install a 5000 gallon precast holding tank and allow the periodic testing of the waste’s content by an electronic meter. The group believes that both requirements are against their religious teaching because they are too modern. The state is concerned about health issues. The Swartzentrubers are concerned about holiness.

Who should win the dispute?

If you think the state, does that mean that the civil government should have broad control over a religious group’s practices? Or, control only in the case of practices that may affect health or other people? Where do you draw the line?

If you think the sect, does that mean that any religious group should be allowed to do anything, as long it is defensible by their belief structure? Where do you draw the line?

A Moment For Awe

2009-06-20T11:31:00.004-06:00

As we move into this weekend, during which we will experience the longest day of the year, the summer solstice, and observe Father's Day, at least in the US, I thought I would share with you a graphic I stumbled on in the Pew Forum Transcript of a conference in May featuring Francis Collins and entitled "Religion and Science: Conflict or Harmony?". Anyone who has read this blog for a while will realize that I have an abiding interest in the intersection of religious belief and scientific investigation. At any rate, as part of Dr. Collins' presentation, he shared this graphic of the Rose window in Westminster Cathedral and a view of the human DNA.

Another Type of Prayer

2009-06-17T15:14:00.002-06:00

In contrast to the imprecatory prayers employed by Wiley Drake, consider this prayer written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, while he was in prison, awaiting the final outcome of his sentence for being involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler.

O God, early in the morning I cry to you.
Help me to pray and gather my thoughts to you, I cannot do it alone.
In me it is dark, but with you there is light;
I am lonely, but you do not desert me;
My courage fails me, but with you there is help;
I am restless, but with you there is peace;
in me there is bitterness, but with you there is patience;
I do not understand your ways, but you know the way for me.
Father in Heaven praise and thanks be to you for the night’s rest,
Praise and thanks be to you for the new day.
Praise and thanks be to you for all your loving-kindness and faithfulness in my past life.
You have shown me so much goodness; let me also accept what is hard to bear from your hand.
You will not lay a heavier burden on me than I can carry.
You make all things serve for the best for your children.
Lord, whatever this day brings, your name be praised.

Praying for death

2009-06-13T09:07:00.002-06:00

Wiley Drake, a former 2nd Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention, a former VP candidate for the American Independent Party (running with Alan Keyes), and the current minister of the First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Vista California, has been much in the news lately. Drake proudly proclaimed that he had called for imprecatory prayer against George Tiller and is calling for it against President Obama.

Imprecatory prayer can only be 'against' someone. It is based on an interpretation of scripture, primarily of certain Psalms, Psalm 109 as one example, that God's people should ask God to bring calamity, destruction, and death on those they perceive as their own enemies or enemies to God.

Two quotes from the recent Associated Baptist Press stories - both written by Bob Allen - about Drake are illustrative.

Drake said he prayed nearly 10 years for the salvation of Tiller, medical director of the Women's Health Care Services clinic and an outspoken advocate for abortion rights. About a year ago, Drake said, he switched to what he called "imprecatory prayer."

"I said to the Lord, 'Lord I pray back to you the Psalms, where it says that they are to become widowers and their children are to become orphans and so forth.' And we began calling for those imprecatory prayers, because he had obviously turned his back on God again and again and again," Drake said.

Drake called Tiller "a reprobate" and a "brutal, arrogant murderer" who "bragged on his own website how many babies he had killed."

"Would you have rejoiced when Adolf Hitler died during the war?" Drake asked. "Or would you have said, 'Oh that is terrible for him to be killed'? No, I would have said, 'Amen, praise the Lord, hallelujah, I'm glad he's dead.'"

"This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler," Drake said. "So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead. Now I am sad that he went to hell, because he had a choice just like everybody else did. He could have chosen Jesus Christ and when he died went to heaven. But he chose the devil. He chose to neglect, he chose to reject Jesus Christ. And therefore on Sunday morning when he breathed his last breath there in the Lutheran church, he breathed his last breath, and he slipped into the presence of the devil. And I have a strange hunch and a strange feeling that there is a special, superheated, super-hot place in hell for people like George Tiller."

Quote 2 -

Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., and former running mate of American Independent Party presidential candidate Alan Keyes, said June 2 on Fox News Radio he didn't understand why people were upset with his comments quoted by Associated Baptist Press from a webcast of his daily radio talk show.

"Imprecatory prayer is agreeing with God, and if people don't like that, they need to talk to God," Drake told syndicated talk-show host Alan Colmes. "God said it, I didn't. I was just agreeing with God."

Asked if there are others for whom Drake is praying "imprecatory prayer," Drake hesitated before answering that there are several. "The usurper that is in the White House is one, B. Hussein Obama," he said.

Later in the interview, Colmes returned to Drake's answer to make sure he heard him right.

"Are you praying for his death?" Colmes asked.

"Yes," Drake replied.

"So you're praying for the death of the president of the United States?"

"Yes."

Colmes asked Drake if he was concerned that by saying that he might be placed on a Secret Service or FBI watch list, and if he believed it appropriate to talk or pray that way.

"I think it's appropriate to pray the Word of God," Drake said. "I'm not saying anything. What I am doing is repeating what God is saying, and if that puts me on somebody's list, then I'll just have to be on their list."

"You would like for the president of the United States to die?" Colmes asked once more.

"If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that's correct."

What do you think about all of this?

Religious Killers

2009-06-12T09:12:00.003-06:00

What do you call someone who kills in the name of his or her faith?

Some are called "terrorists." Others are called "heroes."

The words you choose to use depend a lot on the religious faith of the person committing the act of violence and your religious faith. It is significantly easier to call someone of another faith a "terrorist" than to use that same label for someone of your faith.

With the second violent attack taking place within the last two weeks - the murder of George Tiller in Wichita and the murder of Stephen Johns at the Holocaust Museum - this should cause us to consider how people use religious faith to justify violence. That might be a good discussion for the members of your faith group to have.

What do I call someone who kills in the name of his or her faith? I call them what they are - killers.

In Memoriam

2009-05-31T18:12:00.002-06:00

After getting back home following worship services, lunch, and various errands that always seem to consume Sunday afternoon, I was shocked to see the news of the murder of Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. Dr. Tiller was shot and killed as he served as an usher at his church, Reformation Lutheran. According to the latest news from the Wichita police, the man shot Dr. Tiller after the worship service had started. Nearby men tried to apprehend him, but he threatened them with his gun and then fled to his car. The suspect was finally apprehended near Kansas City.

On the Kansas.com website are various statements about this murder. Most express concern for Dr. Tiller's family and revulsion at this act of violence - even those who adamantly fought against legalized abortion. The comment from Randall Terry, though, begins with the flat assertion "George Tiller was a mass murderer." And goes on from there.

I am convinced that the suspect is going to use the "killing Hitler defense" to justify what he did. That is, he will claim that his action in killing Dr. Tiller prevented the deaths of untold thousands of babies, so, while it may have been legally wrong for him to kill Dr. Tiller or wrong according to the laws of men, it was morally justified or right according to the laws of God for him to kill Dr. Tiller.

I have a unique perspective on the work of Dr. Tiller and the Women's Health Clinic. While I was in Wichita, I was called at times by the clinic to talk to women - both young and old - and their families as they faced the decision to have an abortion or not. I was photographed by protestors. They tried to prevent my entrance into the clinic. I suspect, but cannot prove, that someone from the anti-abortion groups followed me to find out where I worked or where I lived and inflicted damage to my car.

Dr. Tiller has been vilified as a mass murderer who would do anything possible to coerce a woman to have an abortion. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I know. I have talked to women who came there; I have watched others in the clinic talk to these women. At every stage of the process, the intent on the part of the clinic staff was to allow the woman and their family enough time and enough space without pressure to make their own choice. These choices were driven by different issues - sometimes the woman's health and life were at risk and sometimes the unborn baby was already essentially dead. Regardless of the reason, no woman ever made her decision lightly. Whether she chose to continue with the abortion or to leave the clinic and never return, the decision was a tough one. AND, at every stage of the process, the clinic staff and Dr. Tiller showed their care and concern for the woman and for the family.

Further, we have to realize that these were women who met all the legal requirements to have an abortion. This was not something illegal and shady. Dr. Tiller scrupulously followed the law. He had to. Over the years, someone would bring some charge against him in an attempt to shut down the clinic. The former Kansas Attorney General Kline is the latest example. Both the court and the governing body for the medical profession exonerated Dr. Tiller.

That was just a few months ago. I wonder whether the suspect finally decided to take things into his own hands.

Dr. George Tiller was a caring, compassionate man. He was concerned that the women who came to him received the best possible care during one of the most difficult times of their lives.

Religious Interpretations Leading to War?

2009-05-26T09:54:00.004-06:00

I was shocked when I came across a piece detailing how former President Bush seemingly used a particular theological interpretation, premillenial dispensationalism [think of the Left Behind books], as a means of justifying the rush to war in Iraq. The article can be found at: http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/.

Here is a quote,
In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated. . .

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:
"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins". ...

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

There can be little doubt now that President Bush's reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam's Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.

Catching Up

2009-05-26T09:36:00.004-06:00

I was disconnected from the internet this weekend, but I am now back in the swing of things.

Updates to previous posts:

*** The Wisconsin woman who denied treatment to her diabetic daughter and relied solely on prayer was convicted. She faces up to 25 years in prison.

*** The Minnesota mother who stopped her son's chemotherapy treatments because the treatments were considered a "sacrilege" and went on the run with him is back home. The son is seeing the doctor again.

*** I indicated that I would share my feelings about some previous church-state related issues. I would encourage folks who have an interest in these discussions to look at the comments that have been left on them.

I am not in favor of posting the Ten Commandments on school classroom walls, in courtroom, on courthouse or city hall lawns, etc. or of having a resolution declaring "the Year of the Bible." Yes, the vast majority of the people who originally settled America and the vast majority of the people who live here now are Christians, or, at least, say they are. The ones who founded the country, however, DID NOT establish America as a single religion state. They were most deliberate in guaranteeing that NO religion could be used as a qualification for citizenship or service.

Granted, the Ten Commandments were not originally a "Christian" document, but the version used and the way it is used is most definitely oriented toward Christianity, and, specifically, Protestant Christianity. In the same way, the Bible that Rep. Broun wants to honor is the Christian Bible, and, most specifically, the version used by Protestant Christians. Both cases point up the misuse of religious scripture and religious symbols in my opinion.