What qualities would you demand in an elected official?

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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?