In the News . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion and Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

Asking for Support for Jill

This posting will be a "no apologies given" request for your support for our daughter-in-law Jill as she prepares for her 2nd Team In Training Marathon to raise money for research in battling Leukemia, Lymphona, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma. Here is the official picture of Jill finishing her first race in San Diego -



Let me let her tell the story in her own words, but, just as a note, her fundraising website is at - http://pages.teamintraining.org/mid/rnrseatl09/jchittum:

Team in Training Round 2 Begins - Update and flash back

As I drove home from school tonight, I was chomping at the bit to get out and run since the thermometer in my car read 64. Sixty-four! Can you believe that?

After the last few weeks of single-digit temps, 64 was heavenly for a run. It was so nice to be able to get out and run without layering, stocking caps and all that junk.

I have officially launched my fundraising website for Team In Training. I hope to raise $4,100 for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society before the race in June. Mitzi and I attended one of the first informational meetings last weekend, and the kickoff is in early February.

Every one of us knows someone affected by cancer, and any strides forward in research for Leukemia and its related diseases will hopefully someday help all who are dealing with cancer. Just in the last few years, my friends and family have dealt with cancer of varying types.

The mission of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society is to cure leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma, and to improve the quality of life for patients and their families. Every five minutes, someone is diagnosed with a blood cancer. Every 10 minutes, someone dies from a blood cancer. LLS helps fund research, programs for patients and their families, and testing potential bone marrow donors.

My first marathon experience with Team in Training was life-changing. To see the enthusiasm, passion and devotion the TNT group has for the cause is inspiring. Training for and running the marathon is the least I can do to help patients and their families.

Every mile of every training run I was carrying the mental support of everyone who helped me on my journey. All of you who donated, all of you who took the time to say "Hey - how's that going?", all of you who sent your prayers - I couldn't have done it without you.

I'm asking for your help again. Please visit my fundraising page. You can donate online. I'll be updating both my TNT page as well as the blog with training updates and fundraising news.

When I returned from San Diego in 2006, I shared with all who supported my journey. Here is the letter from the end of the road:

HI EVERYONE!

I just wanted to send you a note to let you know that yes, I actually finally ran the San Diego Rock N Roll marathon on Sunday, June 4.

To answer the two most-asked questions right away:
1. Did you win? NO - I'm not from Kenya.
2. How long was it? 26.2 miles.

I finished with a time of 5 hours, 10 minutes, which was just about right on my estimate of the 5 hour range. The weather was perfect - overcast and about 65 degrees for the first 4.5 hours, and sunny for the last little bit.

Looking back, I think the marathon was the easy part. The training and fundraising for LLS was the tough part. Thank you to all of you for your mental and financial support throughout this process. They say you hit the wall when running a marathon, when you feel like you just can't go on. I never felt that. I had the support of all of you, and about 10,000 Team in Training spectators along the course. (My singlet had my name across the front, so people I didn't even know were cheering me on. It was like being a celebrity.)

At mile 22, as I passed zoo 2, a U2 cover band, playing "Pride (In the Name of Love)" I had my marathon moment. At that point, I KNEW I was going to finish that race. Dehydration set in as tears began streaming down my face. ;) It is one of my favorite songs, and about 100 yards past their stage, I finally spotted Adam there waiting for me. Later I asked if he saw me coming, and he said, "No, all I saw was this crazy girl running toward me crying." He thought for a moment that I was in pain. Nope, just overwhelmed. He ran with me for about a mile, then dropped off to meet me at the finish.

Again, as I crossed the finish line, I lost it. Some of you that are receiving this email have run a marathon before so you know that feeling. I think the tears and hyperventilation as I crossed were a mixture of elation, relief, exhaustion, pride, and love for all of the people along the way who told me I could do this. Hopefully, in my finish line photo, it looks mostly like a smile, but I'll probably look like a blubbering idiot!

With my TNT friend, Diana, I finished this race, walking only through the water stops. If you would have asked me six months ago if I would ever run 26 miles at a time, I would have said "Are you freakin' crazy?" But now I've done it, AND sat in a bathtub full of ice water for 15 minutes - that just might have been the worst part!

Thanks again for all of your support, and especially to those of you who have helped me raise $3,700 to help fight blood and bone cancers. With this race, the Kansas Chapter of TNT has now raised more than $1 million.

Have an awesome day, okay?!

> Love,
> Jill

Let me encourage you to support the effort.

Which would you choose?

In a book review on Slate.com (to be found at: http://www.slate.com/id/2208430/), Howard Gardner starts off with a thought experiment. He proposes, "You walk into a bookstore and see three stacks of books. The books are titled Born To Be Good, Born To Be Bad, and Born To Be Good or Bad. Which one do you pick up first? Fast forward. You have now scanned the tables of contents of the three books. The first book has chapters called "Smile," "Love," and "Compassion"; the second features chapters titled "Anger," "Jealousy," and "Spite"; the third has chapters on "Love vs. Hate," "Altruism vs. Selfishness," and "Honesty vs. "Deceit." Which book do you buy? Which are you apt to believe?"

Since many of our ideas about the nature of human beings come from our religious beliefs, I was intriqued by the possibilities. So, which book would you look at first? Which book would you buy? Is your choice based in any way on your understanding of the concept of original sin in human beings? Would you buy the book that would seem to agree with your belief that human beings are or are not born sinful OR the book that would seem to dispute the notion? Would you pass on both books that seem to have the answer and purchase the one that appears to be wrestling with finding an answer?

A Bit of Rilke

Looking at some of Rilke's writings, I found this:

Religion is something infinitely simple, simpleminded. It is not knowledge, not the content of our emotion (for all possible content has already been granted from the beginning wherever a human being engages with life). It is neither duty nor renunciation; it is not limitation, but in the perfect expanse of the universe it is a direction of the heart.

I found that poetic metaphor of religion as a direction of the heart as something wonderful to contemplate. How do you respond to it?

Any Surprises Here?

By now, everyone should know that America stands out among all "developed" countries - that is those with major industrial and economic capabilities - as the most religious. Various regions in America, though, vie for the distinction of being the "Bible Belt," or being the most religious in the most religious western country. According to a new poll put out by the Gallup organization, there is no contest.

After surveying 350,000 people nationwide and asking "Is religion an important part of your daily life?", people in the South answered affirmatively more than people in any other region. In fact, Southern states make up 9 of the top 10 states in the poll, with Mississippi (at 85%) leading the way. The other really religious Southern states are: Alabama (2), South Carolina (3), Tennessee (4), Louisiana (5), Arkansas (6), Georgia (7), North Carolina (8), and Kentucky (10). The only non-Southern states at the top, and here the issue could be debated, are Oklahoma at 9 and Texas tied with Kentucky at 10.

The least religious region is New England. 6 of the bottom 10 are in New England. Vermont takes the prize for having the lowest % respond affirmatively to the question at 42%

One surprise for me is the ranking of Utah. With 69% saying yes, Utah ranked behind Kansas (70%) and just ahead of Missouri, Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Indiana - all at 68%. I would have though Utah would have been higher than that.

What does this prove? Not much really. The survey did not define what being an important part of your life actually meant. So, two people could both say "Yes" and mean entirely different and, perhaps, contradictory things. The survey also did not tackle the question of what is religion. So, a devoted Druid and a born-again Baptist could both say yes, while the Baptist would assert that the Druid was not religious at all. And, many folks could have said yes simply because thay wanted to be thought religious, even if they really weren't. This is akin to those who say they go to church every week and don't.

Think about your neighborhood. What do you imagine the results would be if you and your neighbors were surveyed? Just think about it; it might be better not to do your own survey.

It was only a matter of time, I suppose.

In the midst of the euphoria over and celebration during the Inauguration of President Barack Obama, it was hard to imagine anyone in the country who was not thrilled about the results of the election. Even some Republicans were saying nice things about the new President.

Now, I can confidently say that the honeymoon is over. In addition to the widely quoted remarks made by talk-radio impressario, Rush Limbaugh, hoping that President Obama will fail, there was a post made on World Net Daily [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86469] the day before the Inauguration that may well sum up the response of many within the most conservative Christian groups.

Joseph Farah goes beyond Limbaugh's hope for an Obama administration failure. Farah calls for faithful Christians to invoke God's help in guaranteeing such a failure. The post is entitled "Pray Obama Fails" and insists that the Bible does not enjoin Christians to pray for the success of government when that government is "evil." Instead, says Farah, "nowhere does the Bible ever suggest evil rulers are to be obeyed." Further, he states, "I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straightforward Commandments. So you will not see me joining in the ritual of affirming Obama and his mission in public or private prayer this week – or any other week."

So, regardless of who your choice for President was, do you think you should pray for God to insure that President Obama fails? Do you think Obama's administrative goals are 100% at odds with God's? Do you think President Bush's goals were 100% in line with God's?