Religion, Politics, and Law

Relocating Faith

2009-04-29T05:00:00.001-04:00

Is it problematic to have a city comprised of people with the same religious beliefs establishing a community and implementing policy based on those beliefs? A segment about a Jewish community in Dothan, Alabama confronts this question of church and state in a segment by Kathy Lohr for NPR's program All Things Considered on April 9 entitled "Alabama Community Tries to Draw Jewish Families."

The rural city of roughly 60,000 is home to many different religions, but the local Jewish synagogue has been recruiting Jewish families, offering the incentive of up to $50,000 for relocation after seeing several residents leave the area. The Jewish community developed in Dothan after Jewish peddlers came to the area and eventually settled in the early 20th century. Now, the synagogue hosts 54 families in its congregation. Since the 1970s, families and younger members of the community have been leaving Dothan to pursue better economic interests elsewhere and to find a "dynamic Jewish community."

At face value, the project would look as though the community wants to maximize its social capital; however, one of the prerequisites for becoming a contributing member is Judaism.

The relocation program involves interviews, background checks and requires that families stay at least five years to keep the full compensation. Because the relocation program seeks to not only bolster the Jewish community, but also to alter the demographics of the city, the situation could potentially alter the ways in which the town operates. In a region of the country where White Protestant Christianity has historically dominated the culture and influenced policy-making, a change in demographic specifically based on faith could challenge the perceived status-quo of the majority religion. The situation also addresses how a dominant religion can establish itself in the political realm when like-minded people come together and form a community.

The Mayor Pat Thomas claims that the relocation program seeks to add families to the community who will contribute to the overall social dynamic and that dynamic happens to also be a part of the Jewish faith.

"This is recruiting quality families who are going to add to this community, and that's the aim of the Jewish community and synagogue right now. That's also our aim as well."

If the program is successful, the town will provide an interesting look on how religion permeates through local politics and community programs. Christianity has enjoyed the success of influencing all levels of government in the United States for over 200 years, now, in an increasingly pluralistic religious society, let's see what another faith can do to establish itself in policy-making.

Paterson on 'Guilt' And Gay Marriage

2009-04-29T00:32:00.003-04:00

The New York Times article from April 28th, 2009, "Paterson on 'Guilt' and Gay Marriage" is almost poking fun at Governor of New York David Paterson's explanation for why those who oppose or have been opposing gay marriage for a long time are still standing by their views. The explanation of Governor Paterson, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, is that the reason is guilt. Although he does take a pretty long time and way too many words to explain this viewpoint, what he's saying is not completely nonsensical, as the author of the article, Nicholas Confessore, tries to make it out to be. One of the comments on this article from a NYT reader sums it up very nicely (except for the offensive word "bigot"):

"Governor Paterson is saying that gay marraige is a recognition of gays and lesbians as people deserving full human rights. And thus if you vote that way now you would have to admit that you were wrong when you voted against gay rights before. Hence to avoid the guilt, you continue to oppose gay marraige.

He’s not talking about the hard core bigots in this case but rather people who are on the fence but unwilling to make the leap becuase of the guilt they would have to acknowledge about their past attitudes and actions (or inactions)."

In a way, Governor Paterson is making a similar point to Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail" when he talks about the real problem with the Civil Rights Movement, and that is the white moderates choosing not to do anything and rather stand on the sidelines and wait for something to happen with time. He talks about how their refusal to support the Civil Rights Movement, even if it was not to oppose it, was very detrimental to the movement because they had a lot of power and a lot of influence in society among the whites and their stance could have changed the public opinion. Similarly, the Governor is addressing the "moderates" in this case , or those whose personal beliefs are torn between what their religious institutions have been telling them and their personal moral values, or if their opinions have changed as they have personally become more tolerant on the topic of gay marriage. In a way, he is addressing the topic of guilt and the possibility of it being a reason of these moderates who are personally on a fence on this issue to not be in favor of gay marriage so that they will not feel ashamed and express their views freely if their opinions have changed from being against gay marriage to being pro gay marriage. I think this is intention of the Governor, although he does have a hard time getting his point across.

Link to the article: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/paterson-on-guilt-and-gay-marriage/?scp=7&sq=religion&st=cse

Teaching the Bible in the Classroom

2009-04-29T00:12:00.002-04:00

In this cover article for Time Magazine, David Van Biema looks into the highly debatable issue of using the Bible in a public school classroom. The majority of Van Biema's report is about his experience shadowing a teacher, Miss Kendrick, at a public high school in Texas. Miss Kendrick teaches a Bible-literacy class that is open, voluntariy, to all students at the school.

Van Biema reports that the number of classes involving the academic use of the Bible are slowly increasing in the United States. Teachers and Supreme Court judges are steadily learning that there is a difference in "teaching religion" and "teaching about religion." While controvery still exist (and probably always will exist) in having the Bible in the classroom, Van Biema claims it needs to be because it its historical importance and influence on many Americans' lives. Of course, he writes, the key is make sure that all religious text and faiths are taught equally; if not one can find establishment within the school and a violation of the First Amendment. Of course, some teachers are not prepared to teaching religion and many groups from the secularist to the religious fundamentalist fear that the teacher will misrepersent or promote one text over the other. Hence one of many reasons why the movement is only slowly growing instead of steadily.

As a future high school social studies teacher, I feel the Bible and other religious text have a proper and necessary place in the schools. In the global age we live in, it is ignorant and unprofessional for an educator not to teach these text that have such an impact on our lives. I understand the legal hoops and roadblocks that hinder the education of these topics, but separation religion and faith from American life is very hard to do. If the role of an educator is the create informed citizens ready for the world, then a basicaly knowledge of the major world religions, their text, beliefs, history, etc are all vital to this process. The courts and school boards must find a way to get around what some might consider unconstitutional and make it so that students can obtain the knowledge that has been absent from the classroom for too long.

Religious Right Opposes Sebelius Nomination

2009-04-28T22:14:00.002-04:00

With the outbreak of swine flu gripping the country, the Senate confirmed former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to HHS Secretary today. Sebelius has come under fire from numerous religious right outlets, like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America. According to a CNN article the groups said that "Given her propensity for abortion radicalism, her failure to pay her own taxes and her demonstrated lack of integrity, she will be a divisive force in this important office."

The office of HHS, especially during this critical point in our nation, should not be the focus of partisan political attacks. Gov. Sebelius' record in Kansas is one of honor and integrity. According to statistics released from her office, the number of abortions in Kansas declined 12.6 from 2001 to 2007 under the Governors watch. This is due in large part to an aggressive health care reform package instituted by the Governor that included ""adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women..., sex education and... a variety of support services for families."

I can understand why opponents of abortion would begin to attack Governor Sebelius for her own personal stance on abortion (although the Governor is a devout Catholic). But it makes no sense to drag a religious oppositional stance into the national dialogue. The facts show that Gov. Sebelius has done almost everything in her power to decrease the number of abortions in her own state, while abortions around the country declined at a substantial percent as well. It seems that the tired argument against abortion is running its course as the national percentage of abortions takes a downswing and the increase in sexual education and adoption programs increase. Perhaps now we as a country can move past the bitter partisan divide that locks our country into red and blue. The Department of HHS is not just about abortions, it's about protecting our American society from pandemics, disease, and educating our people about the dangers of unwanted pregnancy and unsafe sex. Governor Sebelius represents all that's good about healthcare reform. The religious right and Americans as a whole should stand with our new Secretary of Health and Human Services and begin to look past the partisan divide.

America is Not a Christian Nation

2009-04-28T21:01:00.003-04:00

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation/index1.html

The article America is Not a Christian Nation featured on Salon.com is an extremely thought provoking and creates the potential controversial debate and discussion surrounding the role of Christianity in American politics. Although written with a clear liberal bias, the article argues that the United States is not and never has been a nation founded on Christian principles, as many religious citizens and conservatives claim. On a trip to Turkey, President Obama said that the United States is not a Christian nation, thoroughly inflaming religious conservatives. In support of Obama's statement, the author, Michael Lind, cites the writings and speeches of George Washington, the Treaty of Tripoli, John Tyler, and others in making his case that America is not truly a Christian nation. The part of the argument I found most insightful was his analysis of the influence of John Locke on American political tradition and origins of natural rights theory and social contracts. Lind argues that although US politics was very much influenced by Lockean theory, he claims that Locke generated his ideas from non Christian Greek thinkers predating Plato and Aristotle.

I think that this article is extremely important considering the increasing plurality of American society. Labeling the United States as a Christian nation divides the population and makes legitimate citizens who may not practice Christianity feel like outsiders in their homeland. Although the article is obviously biased, it provides accurate information about some aspects of the relationship between Christianity and American politics. It will be interesting to see if there is any further discussion about Obama's comment or the perceived decrease in Christian influences.

2009-04-28T20:41:00.000-04:00

In her New York Times article on April 26, 2009, More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops, Laurie Goodstein writes about a growing movement among Atheists to go public with their views and hopefully attract a larger following of secular humanists. In Charleston, South Carolina, the movement has gained significant momentum and the group known as the Secular Humanist of the Low Country decided it was time to expand their movement to a national level. According to the article, the group claiming “no religion” is the only demographic to increase in all 50 states in the last 18 years. This reflects a decrease in the number of Mainline Protestants throughout the United States. This also illustrates the growing secularization of the American Population.

Goodstein also writes about how atheists are attempting to improve their public image. Herb Silverman, the founder of the Secular Humanist of the Low Country, compares going public as an atheist with the gay rights movement, and that someone who openly states they are an atheist has “come out of the closet.” As more atheist surface it will create a whole new “religious” group which will have a significant impact on American politics. Many atheists, according to the article, became upset with the way George Bush supported the religious right.

As a result the atheists have attempted to become more unified. By doing this they can begin lobbying in Washington in attempt to gain influence in political decisions. They hope to promote separation of church and state. Already they have seen relative success, as shown by President Obama’s inauguration speech in which he mentioned non believers. However, with their success it is more than likely this will create a situation in which mainline protestants and other Christian groups will attempt to unite together in order to negate the influence gained by atheists. So while there is optimism for atheists in politics, they still have a significant uphill battle.

Faith in Flux?

2009-04-28T17:14:00.002-04:00

A recent CCN article by Richard Greene argues that rather than Americans losing their faith - which has been inferred by several leading studies - they are simply switching between various faiths and denominations over the course of their lifetime.

The article uses Ingrid Case, an Episcopalian turned Quaker, as a case study to highlight the rather startling fact that over half of American adults have changed religion at least once in their lives. Gregory Smith, a researcher at the Pew Forum puts this down to the religious "free market" that exists in America, by which various denominations can cater - both theologically and otherwise - towards their niche target audience. The study indicates that more than 4 in 10 American adults are no longer members of the religion that they were brought up in as children.

But what is most interesting about the study is that it argues that "some factors that might be expected to drive people away from religion -- such as sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, or a belief that science 'disproves' religion -- actually play a very small role". The study seems to show that the moving between denominations and faiths is a more gradual change, rather than "carefully considered, conscious decision-making".

First of all, I find it astounding that a person's decision to change their faith is not based on careful consideration and conscious decision making. I realize that for many religious believers their faith is based on personal experience and emotion rather than simply the raw intellectual arguments for the truth claims of a specific religion, but surely there must be intellectual backing for those considering changing their faith?

Secondly, while the number of people who were raised Catholic and then became Protestant is 5%, the number of people raised protestant who have switched to a different protestant denomination is a staggering 15%.

There seem to be 2 options for this. First, evangelical Christians are realizing that science does indeed disprove the literal biblical story of 6 day creation and a young earth model, and are therefore moving towards mainline protestantism. Second, many mainline protestants are becoming unhappy with the more liberal tendencies of their church and are moving towards the more traditional, conservative branches of evangelical protestantism.

Certainly the data from the Trinity College survey would indicate that the second is the most likely. Perhaps this does indeed prove that "not all of this is the product of carefully considered, conscious decision-making" after all.

The Christian Right seen in a new light by some liberals

2009-04-28T16:23:00.000-04:00

The Christian Right is commonly portrayed in the liberal media as the antithesis of secular democracy. With Bible-toting evangelizers, protesters with pictures of aborted fetuses, and political leaders who often cite Bible verses, the Christian Right does not seem like a force for liberal democratic virtues, some writers outside the conservative camp disagree though.

I came across an article about a student from Brown University who spent a semester undercover at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell’s conservative Christian college, in order to write a book about his experience. The author, Kevin Roose, produced a story about “rigorously normal” students in a setting where he expected to find "hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls." While the Chancellor of LU, Jerry Falwell Jr., said, “We appreciate Kevin's generally positive tone toward LU but he admittedly comes from a culture that has very little tolerance for conservative Christianity and even less understanding of it,” the book still paints a surprisingly positive and normal view of a supposed conservative Christian training camp.

This article got me wondering whether there are other sources of praise for the Christian Right coming from a leftist perspective. I found an article in the NY Times reviewing a book by Jon A. Shields, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, titled “The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right.” This book argues that “Many Christian-right organizations […] have helped create a more participatory democracy by successfully mobilizing conservative evangelicals, one of the most politically alienated constituencies in 20th-century America.” The article explains that in his experience in training seminars for many Christian Right organizations the instructions given were: “Remain civil. Engage others in conversation by inquiring into their viewpoints. Eschew arguments based on religion or the Bible in favor of facts and reasoning that might persuade people regardless of their religious convictions.” He also argues that while there are many “radical” Christian activists these people are not the “representative figures that coverage in the news media often suggests.”

These books may be representative of the increasing involvement of Christian conservatives in the workings of politics above the level of purely social issues. As they realize the need to break the stigma of religious zealots, Christian conservatives need more support from the left such as these works by authors in the academia.

Why So Many Americans Switch Religions

2009-04-28T14:15:00.002-04:00

The Christian Science Monitor recently published an article describing the results of a new Pew forum survey titled “Faith in Flux." This survey examined how many Americans switch their religion in their lifetimes and why. It states that roughly half of all Americans change their religious denomination at least once in their lives, 28% join a new religion, and 16% remain unaffiliated. Many of those who are unaffiliated aren’t necessarily secular—they just haven’t found the “right religion” yet.
The article states that many people leave their religions at a young age, usually before 24. This makes sense since many people at that age are students in university settings and are exposed to new ideas and ways of thinking. The actual reasons for leaving differ for each person. Roman Catholics, for example, leave because they don’t agree with church doctrine. Young people may leave because they don’t agree with the church’s official position on abortion; clergy may leave because of the requirements of celibacy. Protestants, on the other hand, tend to leave because of “life changes” like moving, getting married, or sometimes because they don’t agree with church doctrine either.
Unsurprisingly, the article states that the “unaffiliated” is the fastest growing group in the past two decades. Some members of the unaffiliated group stopped going to church because they felt that religion was too “hypocritical.” One woman sought spirituality in her life and was disinterested in religion because it was “man-mad dogma.”
Despite all this, there are still individuals who seek religion in their lives because they seek community or spiritual fulfillment.
The Catholic church lost the most members and the Protestant Church is on the verge of losing more members. Immigration is a major reason why the number of Catholic church members is still relatively high and it’s also one of the reasons why Protestants are not the major religious group in the US anymore.
These statistics show that the US is still fluctuating religiously and that religious groups in this country are continuing to expand over the years. I definitely believe immigration will continue to shape religion in the US. More minority religions will emerge as a direct result of immigration, and Protestantism will no longer be the majority religious group. The numbers prove that more and more Americans are looking for unaffiliated or independent churches for spiritual guidance and I think the rates are only going to increase in the coming years. As for religion in the US, it’s obvious that religion will always be an important element in our American culture and will continue to shape the way we identify ourselves as a people.

Belief in the Non-Believers

2009-04-27T23:33:00.001-04:00

On April 26, 2009 the New York Times published an article titled More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops. In this article, author Laurie Goodstein describes the increase in the number of atheists, agnostics, and non-believers in Charleston, South Carolina. In February of this year, the local atheist organization put up a billboard reading, “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone.” Instead of receiving hate mail, the organization was overwhelmed with the positive reaction they received from large numbers of atheists, agnostics, and non-believers in the area. The article revolves around the increase in the number of atheists in American society and raises the question of what this means for the future of religion and politics.

I agree with the author that Obama’s recognition of non-believers in his inaugural address has the potential to be an important turning point in the perception of atheists, agnostics, and non-believers. It was the first time a President of the United States made reference to the value of non-believers. It is also important because, as the author cites, polls show non-believers are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group. An important tactic that Goodstein cites for the possible success and growth of non-believers is their adoption of a similar strategy to the gay rights movement. Goodstein explains that by relating non-believers going public with their beliefs to homosexuals coming out of the closet, non-believers will come out in mass support.

The implications of Goodstein’s article are very interesting. Even though the growth in number of non-believers still is not very large, I believe it has the potential to represent a drastic change in the relationship between religion and politics. Political parties will need to compete for the atheist vote if their numbers continue to grow and this has the potential to completely change the current relationship between religious groups and political parties, specifically the relationship between evangelicals and the Republican party. I think the New York Times article makes people question the future of religion and politics.

NC Sex-Ed and the Religious Right

2009-04-26T21:04:00.002-04:00

NC House Bill 88 is designed to give parents the opportunity to choose what type of public school sex education their children receive. It will not eliminate the abstinence-only track, it will simply add another track focused more on promoting risk management and healthy, safe behaviors.

Not surprisingly, lobbies of the far right are outraged by the concept that parents should be able to choose this. But let’s be honest, according to a poll on publichealthreports.org, 75% of Americans had premarital sex by age 20 and 95% had rounded the bases out of wedlock by age 40. While the NC Family Policy Council, a group with a predominantly White Evangelical Protestant membership who uses affiliated pastors as its prime method of gaining grassroots support, attempts to provide a statistical and secular reasoning for its vehement opposition to the bill, the fact is that they see recognizing the prevalence of premarital sex as an acceptant of sin. While I am fairly conservative on most issues, I also tend to be reasonable, and to me the idea of promoting a policy that is bad for our children so that a few religious folks can have a clean conscience about their promotion (or lack thereof) of sin seems selfish at best.

Now, a word on abstinence-only sex-ed from a former NC public school kid. In elementary school, we learned about the necessary body parts in a unit on “Human Growth and Development” that parents could opt their children out of. It was awkward, uncomfortable, and, given the fact that they didn’t tell us what to do with the parts we now knew so much about, pretty pointless for the kids with no prior knowledge. To this day, I have literally never been told by the Wake Count Public School System the necessary procedures for producing a child. Somehow, my parents knew (I assume there is a correlation between this knowledge and the fact that I even exist) and they were kind enough fill me in.

Fast-forward to 8^th grade. We had a unit on STDs and the merits of remaining abstinent until marriage. This enlightening day of science class was conducted by our more or less incompetent guidance counselor. After she told us about “the slifalifalus,” “ghonnarear,” and “the HIV/AIDS,” we were reminded to stay “abstinence” until marriage. The STD education that was designed to serve me for the rest of my life came from a woman who could not conjugate the verb ‘abstain.’ I really wish I was making this up and I am infuriated by the fact that her salary is paid by hard-earned tax dollars.

The reality of this is that my fellow students and I were pathetically underserved by NC public school policies, which is probably why there were 5 pregnant girls in my high school and countless others who had dropped out to take care of their kids. At our football games, our record-setting 19 year-old running back would be cheered on by his two children.

The NC Family Policy Council, in continuing to support an abstinence-only program that obviously doesn’t address the needs of our students, is simply ignorant. While I can appreciate their desire to obey the religious and traditional ideal of abstinence until marriage, this policy stands in contradiction to serious issues of public health and education. In their policy briefing, they point out that NC schools have a zero-tolerance policy toward tobacco, drugs, alcohol, and firearms, and argue that premarital sex should be on that list. Let’s examine the distinction between the aforementioned vices. Tobacco is unhealthy no matter how you use it, drugs and alcohol are illegal for the relevant underage population, and the issue of firearms is pretty self-explanatory. Sex is not necessarily unhealthy and is (in most situations) perfectly legal.

The only valid point that the NC Family Policy Council makes is that 7^th grade is too early for children involved in the safe-sex track to be educated on contraceptive options and their respective uses. Ultimately, North Carolina needs to put an end to religiously motivated policy decisions and instead actually focus on what is best for our children, even at a slightly increased cost. House Bill 88 leaves the issue up to the parents so that they can choose whichever style they feel is appropriate. This education will make kids safer and smarter, not destroy the sanctity of marriage because, as studies show, 95% of us already manage to do that on our own.

Can Healthcare Workers Have a Conscience?

2009-04-25T20:04:00.004-04:00

Hours before President Barack Obama prepared to take office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Bush administration put a new law into effect allowing healthcare workers to refuse patients certain procedures and information on the grounds of religious or moral objection. The new Provider Refusal Rule expanded on the “conscience clause” of a 30-year-old law that had been in place to protect healthcare providers declining to perform abortions. The new law allows healthcare workers “from doctors to janitors” to withhold “services, information or advice” from patients on family planning, contraception, blood transfusions or other procedures they may find morally contentious.

The Provider Refusal Rule, however, may be short-lived.

According to a Reuter’s report, the Obama administration formally announced its plans to rescind the law in February, but is still in the process of reviewing the regulation. Repealing the law would be good news for many health organizations, like the American Medical Association, that believe healthcare professionals have an obligation—regardless of their personal views— to advise their patients of all health options available to them.

Not everyone has been happy about the new administration’s announcement, however. Criticism has come from the religious and medical communities alike. According to a Catholic News Service article, forty doctors, physician assistants, pharmacists, nurses and other healthcare professionals held a joint press conference at the National Press Club on April 8 denouncing the Department of Health and Human Services’ plans to undo the conscience regulation.

The press conference was hosted by Freedom2Care, a coalition of 36 medical and secular organizations “dedicated to protecting conscience rights.” Freedom2Care, along with the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life political women’s organization, launched a campaign to file 36,000 complaints against the Obama administration’s repeal. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ National Committee for a Human Life Amendment filed another 35,000 comments against the repeal.

Criticism has also come from within the Obama administration.

A letter submitted to HHS by Nathan Diament from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations included the signatures of four members on Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership Advisory Council, including Sojourners president Jim Wallis, Florida pastor Joel Hunter, Rabbi David Saperstein and Melissa Rogers of Wake Forest University.

As the media and political debates continue, the question still holds: can healthcare professionals have a conscience under the law? Critics of the repeal argue that getting rid of the Provider Refusal Rule would jeopardize healthcare providers’ right to practice their profession while staying true to their moral convictions, and would therefore, violate their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Critics of the rule, however, say that the conscience regulation as it stands sanctions denying patients services they may want or need. They further argue that accepting or declining certain procedures or health options should be left to the conscience of the patient, not the doctor. In the end, the debate on whether or not to rescind the Provider Refusal Rule seems to be pitting patient rights against healthcare provider rights. The debate is also a broader one of religion and politics. Does the government have the right to tell physicians and nurses to drop their consciences at the hospital door? If not, does the government still have a responsibility to ensure that physicians are transparent with patients about all options open to them?

It seems to me that the government does not have the right to dictate doctor conscience, but patients should also be informed if certain information about their health is being withheld from them. Strikingly a balance between the two, however, has proven difficult. So as the revision of the Provider Refusal Rule moves forward, the Obama administration will continue to stand in the middle of an ongoing tug-of-war between the right to know and the right not to tell, the right to care and the right to conscience, the responsibility to the patient and the responsibility to the doctor. In the end, whether the administration decides to repeal or reaffirm this new conscience regulation, it is unlikely that the heated debates over provider conscience will be simmering down anytime in the near future.

Related CNN video: "Healthcare's moral debate"

Same-sex couples get equal rights... except for one minor thing

2009-04-23T15:36:00.002-04:00

This morning the state senate of Connecticut voted to allow same sex couples to get married after a decade long struggle. This decision was met with the usual religious backlash, however, this case stands out for it allows religious institution to choose whether they participate. Therefore, churches are not required to "provide services, goods, or facilities for same sex wedding ceremonies."

Religiously affiliated persons against same sex marriage, although not completely content with the decision, have stated that this makes the situation a little better.

However, the decision was made in order to give the same sex couples full rights, and move past civil unions, so the question stands: are they really receiving full rights if the church is allowed to pick and choose its position?

I think what will be interesting about this case is that it will force individual religious clergy to make decisions for themselves rather than hiding behind the church and the law. No longer can religious leaders in Connecticut use the excuse that its not legal, and as a result, many will have to choose their personal stance, as well as that of their denominations on the issue.

The implications on the gay rights movement are significant, for it could mean that churches will consciously and willingly show their support, something that has rarely been seen in the past.

Is it really giving same sex couples full rights if the church can choose not to participate?

Who do YOU pray with: Problems at the Border

2009-04-23T01:42:00.004-04:00

Something unconscionable is afoot along our borders. Law-abiding American citizens are being verbally interrogated for hours on end about their religious and business affiliations. Their only mistake: being Muslim during America's War on Terror.
According to a new report issued this week by Muslim Advocates, and featured in a guest blog post on the Washington Post Web site by the group's Executive Director, Farhana Khera, Muslims are facing rough treatment at international borders and airports around the country.
The interrogations focus on matters of faith, political persuasion, and associations of the people in question. Despite the lack of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing or possible links to the enemies of the United States, those being detained are treated with hostile interrogation techniques and intimidation tactics.
This practice, though for the purpose of keeping the U.S. safe, is absolutely unacceptable. It amounts to little more than racial profiling at its worst.
The Supreme Court has ruled that any search that is done at international borders is automatically considered "reasonable" in the eyes of the Fourth Amendment. However, this ruling should not and can not be used as a blank check for border agents to aggressively interrogate U.S. citizens when there is no evidence of actual, or even possible, wrongdoing. At best, it is a perversion of the purpose behind the ruling and at worst, it causes citizens with equal rights and equal protection under the law to feel like second class citizens in their own country.
I understand the national security argument. It's important to ensure that Americans are safe within U.S. borders. But we cannot allow that pursuit to undermine the freedoms and protections of law that are afforded to every American citizen.
So to the border patrol agents: tone down the investigations unless wrongdoing is apparent. Searches are fine, and welcomed by most as a necessary part of staying safe. But stay kind, courteous, and not overtly suspicious, particularly of fellow Americans, until concrete damning evidence is found.

The Test of Discrimination

2009-04-23T00:36:00.001-04:00

An article on CNN.com is about a discrimination case that may be coming to the Supreme Court. The thing that is different about this discrimination case is that it is the white males who claim to be discriminated against. The article, High court asked to untangle reverse discrimination case says that there was a test given to firefighters to see how much they knew and if they did well on it they were supposed to get a promotion. After the test was given and scores calculated, they found that a larger number of white firefighters did well, while very few black firefighters did well. So instead of promoting the people who did well on the test, they decided that they should throw out the tests for fear of being sued. They claimed that since too few minorities did well, that they would not promote them because it could be seen as not promoting diversity, even though there was one Hispanic firefighter that did well too.

So, of course, those who did well and were scheduled to get a promotion were not happy with the decision, so they went to court. So far, the courts have had mixed feelings about the situation. The real question is how far is too far when dealing with affirmative action? I think this was way over the line. What if they did not do well on the test because they did not study for it? And what about those couple of white firemen who studied really hard to do well on that test, and then just to have it thrown out because your coworkers did not do as well as you? They should have looked into why there was such a race gap with the test, instead of deciding to throw it out completely. The clear fact is that those firefighters were not promoted simply because they are white, or put better, not black, and that is just as bad as if the sides were switched. This case will go to the courts, and as most court cases are, the ruling is not just for this particular instance, the whole system of affirmative action is going to be put on trial. This is good. We need the dialogue, because, as bad as discrimination is, reverse discrimination is worse because it so often gets brushed aside.

Have You Got a Plan B?

2009-04-22T23:37:00.001-04:00

The New York Times had an article today announcing that the F.D.A. is going to ease restrictions on the ‘Morning After’ pill or Plan B. It will now allow for girls as young as seventeen to purchase the drug without a prescription. This marked an overturn of a Bush administration health policy and was met by celebration by pro-choicers. The ruling came after Judge Edward R. Korman of the Federal District Court ruled that the age limitations placed on the pill were based on politics instead of health concerns.

Despite at first being hailed as a method that would make a sharp dent in the already high teen pregnancy numbers, Plan B it has had no effect on the nation’s abortion or teenage pregnancy rates. Unfortunately, this has not been the cure for unplanned teen pregnancy.

On the flip side, abortion opponents predicted access to Plan B would encourage more unprotected sex and abortions were wrong as well. Despite this, Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America was displeased because she claimed that the legislation had ‘complete disregard for parental rights and safety of minors.’

While Ms. Wrights misgivings about parental rights are understandable, anyone who has been a highschooler knows that there is a definite disconnect and oftentimes a lack of communication between girls and their mothers. Allowing girls to access Plan B over the counter is a good first step, but I think the reason it has failed to have an impact on unplanned pregnancies is the lack a comprehensive sex education that promotes contraception instead of abstinence. Why don’t anti-abortionists, in the meantime (since under Obama’s administration I don’t see them repealing Roe v. Wade anytime soon), support methods to reduce unplanned pregnancies through dissemination of knowledge to both teenage boys and girls about contraceptives such as Plan B. Reducing the demand for abortion, in my opinion, is much more important that the legality of it.

The Church has to move with Culture

2009-04-22T23:00:00.002-04:00

Tullian Tchividjian is right, the church is suppose to be in the world and not of the world but at the same time, the church must stay up-to-date with the times and adapt its operations in order to fit into the modern day lifestyle. In his article,"Church Should Counter Culture," Tchividjian overstates the efforts of the church to adapt its structure to fit in with a changing culture. The roots and essential functions of the church remain the same despite a willingness to modify traditions in order to appeal to a wider audience. For example, many churches have more casual dress codes today than 50 years ago because the leadership recognized that not everyone has disposable income to spend on clothes that they only wear on Sundays. Likewise, the church has begun to implement new programs to attract the youth; however, the overlying message of the programs remains the same and that is to bring people to Christ.

People like Tchividjian are too tied in tradition and have made the church more religious than spiritual and that is dwindling church membership more than people resisting change. Instead of being focused on keeping traditions, focus on saving souls. The church undoubtedly plays a role in the social and political lives and views of people and therefore must fit into people’s daily routines. One cannot expect church members to live double lives. Stay in tune theologically and let your church members take care of the rest.

More Americans Say They Have No Religion

2009-04-22T15:06:00.003-04:00

According to a relatively new survey (March 2009) by the American Religious Identification Survey, more the number of Americans who have "no religion" is ever increasing. This increase is a mere .8% from 14.2% from 2001 but is nonetheless noteworthy. The researchers who conducted the study claim that "no other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," referring to the fact that the number of non-religious persons has increased not only nationwide, but in every state as well.

Among the other facts the study uncovered was a sharp drop in the number of mainline Protestants and Christians overall. This would make sense, just like we discussed on class--the rise in non-religious people must come from somewhere, and mainline Protestants seem to be taking the brunt of that change. Catholics remain the largest single denomination, at 57 million members, while "non-denominational Christians" went from .1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent in this survey.

I wonder if any of these trends will continue. Like Professor Lienesch pointed out in class, it seems that people frequently say how America is becoming more progressive and secular over time, so I would be curious to see how these trends play out in the next few years. Some of this may just be cultural adjustments to a President who included in his inaugural address a mention of "non-religious" people. I wouldn't underestimate the value that this may hold to those who are now more open to speaking their mind to survey-takers.

I also found it a little strange that the title of the article clearly emphasizes the increase in Americans without religion, and yet that is only mentioned in the first line of the article. And a .8% increase over 7 years? That barely falls above the .5% margin of error, so it was an interesting choice to include that as the title. Then again, this is FOXNews, so they were probably just going for the most provocative title they could think of to maximize their hits.

Religious Intolerance and Guantanamo Bay

2009-04-21T13:26:00.001-04:00

Guantanamo Bay’s torture allegations have controversially filled headlines for years now, as garnering information has become a new face of warfare marred by deception and inhumane activities. Recent reports show the United States did engage in tortuous activities in order to learn information from suspected war criminals. It is clear that a new brand of warfare is among us, and dealing with the morality of acquiring information about the enemy flirts with decisions difficult for most to make. However, reports of religious intolerance by Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald show a brand of torture that is contradictory to the basic ideas of religious freedom in America.

There are clear religious overtones to the interrogations of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. They range in severity; from disallowing and withholding religious texts, to removing the pants of prisoners so they cannot pray. Rosenberg reports that in a legal brief issued in defense of the Army interrogation unit Lt. Col. Diane E Beaver, said “"Forced grooming and removal of clothing are not illegal, so long as it is not done to punish or cause harm, as there is a legitimate governmental objective to obtain information, maintain health standards in the camp and protect both the detainees and the guards." That is easy enough to understand, and certainly falls into a category of acceptability when considering some of the other things that have been reported from Guantanamo Bay. However, reports have shown the Army actually cares less about obtaining information when removing the pants. It is a violation of Muslim faith to pray unclothed, so when one prisoner’s pants were removed he asked if he could have them back just during prayer time. He was denied. If the Army was using them for the information they claimed, without religious intent, the prisoner should have been able to use his pants for prayer. This is a direct violation of religious freedom and tolerance. Even detainees should have the freedom to practice religion. It is just unusually cruel to punish a detainee in that way, as there are arguably little informative incentives to restrict them from such activities.

I understand that these are not American citizens and thus do not have First Amendment rights. However, America has a history of priding itself as setting standards for morality. Such blatant religious intolerance shows a weak acceptance of minority religions and viewpoints, and does not reflect the diversity of religion and tolerance that America has. There are right ways and wrong ways to interrogate detainees, but restricting them of religious practice to the point of shaving beards and stripping clothes cannot be tolerated if America wishes to keep its credibility as a tolerant nation. If America wishes to keep its moral voice credible, restricting detainees’ ability to practice religion cannot be a part of their interrogation techniques.

Volleys Over the Wall of Separation

2009-04-21T10:07:00.003-04:00

In the recent New York Times article "Judiciary Committee Finds Itself Under Heat," (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/nyregion/connecticut/29polct.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/R/Religion%20and%20Belief) Mark Pazniokas traces the proposal of and response to legislation in Connectict that would require treating Catholic churches more like corporations. Pazniokas explains,"The proposed changes would have effectively shifted control of parish finances from the bishop and pastors to the congregations, heresy to the Roman Catholic hierarchy." While the state senators argued that the changes would increase transparency and prevent further concerns over questionable usage, the reaction of Connecticut Catholics was swift and decisive in opposing the bill. Thousands of Catholics protested at the state Capitol, and due in large part to this backlash and the vocal opposition of Catholic leaders, the bill was unanimously killed in committee.

What makes this case intriguing is not just the issues at stake, but more so the language with which the dispute over the bill has been framed. Pazniokas calls the struggle "a religious war" and uses military rhetoric throughout, and it seems justified by the attitudes of the state senators and the Catholic bishops. The bill is considered by Connecticut Bishop William E. Lori to be just another in a series of state attacks on Catholicism in an ongoing war, with the government winning on issues of same-sex marriage and abortion and the Catholic lobbying arm having victories on state-assisted suicide. Several state senators, including the advocates of the bill, share this "us versus them" vantage in the way they talk about the Church's opposition.

It seems to me that the polarization that occurred in Connecticut over the same-sex marriage bill is responsible for this warlike framing of the church-state relationship. The religiously charged nature of that dispute, combined with Connecticut's solid blue-state status, did not allow the fervor of each side to be easily mapped on the liberal-conservative spectrum. Thus, unlike many other issues of religious import, for example abortion law, the same-sex marriage issue in Connecticut throughout the past five or six years has not allowed itself to fall on strictly political lines and thus the controversy has been primarily seen as between religious opposition to same-sex marriage and political support for it. Hence, while it may be impossible to confirm or reject Bishop Lori's claim that the recent financial bill was "a direct assault," the warlike church-state mentality is understandable in the wake of the same-sex marriage debate.

Christianity +Military = Forced

2009-04-20T15:28:00.002-04:00

My article is titled “Questions raised anew about religion in Military” and it looks at the debate surrounding what the proper role of religion should be in the military and whether a pro-Christian culture permeates the armed forces? According to the article there have been complaints of religious bias and proselytizing in the military. In an effort to keep the line between religion and secular issues separate, the military has enforced tougher restrictions. For example: Chaplains are encouraged to ascribe to pluralism. Military officials have also declared in memorandums that the military is a neutral place when it comes to religious beliefs all in an effort to distance itself from the accusations of religious bias. Regardless of these measures taken by the military many personnel and activists feel that there is forced religion in the military; due to the fact Christian groups like the Officers Christian Fellowship and the Campus Crusade for Christ’s Military Ministry have a great deal of influence on bases. Some groups have taken their negative view of religion in the military to the courts. The leaders of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a non-profit group brought a lawsuit against the Pentagon accusing them of a pattern of improper religious influence such as: Official military retreats at off-base churches, displays of crucifixes at military chapels in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much more. Reading this article I got the sense that leaders of the opposition to “forced religion” in the military want to completely remove any displays of Christianity at the military bases. It is good to want religious freedom, but it seems that they want it at the cost of surpassing another religious group. One of their complaints is that there are crucifixes at military chapels, if that is such a huge problem then there can be formal requests to place other religious symbols of other groups in the chapels. At the end of the day everyone has a right to practice their religious beliefs. Unfortunately for these opposition groups, the reality is that majority of Americans in one way or the other identify with the Christian faith. Like the military officials said it is up to the chaplains to implore a plurality approach in their teachings. But I feel that groups like Military Religious Freedom Foundation are overreacting. Can't we all just get along?

The Never-Ending Religion vs. Darwin Clash

2009-04-20T01:20:00.002-04:00

In his article “The Conflict Between Religion and Evolution,” David Masci overlooks the never-ending 150 year old fight against Darwinism, how the dispute has recently grown in both size and intensity, and why is it still prevalent today. Analyzing the dispute from the beginning in the early 1900s to the present, Masci digs for the reasons that have caused the issue of teaching evolution to manifest into a national debate on values similar to the culture war issues such as abortion. In his evaluation of the period of the quarrel, Masci reveals that the opposition towards the teaching of evolution has itself evolved over time. From the Scopes Trial to today’s prevalent, national dispute, the arguments against Darwinism has shifted from Biblical Creationism to tactics such as intelligent design and a critical analysis of it as a unproven hypothesis.

In the last decade or so, local and state schools around the nation have presented intelligent design as an scientific alternative to evolutionism, which proclaims the belief that “life is too complex to have evolved entirely through natural processes without divine intervention. Besides this, other public schools have presented the theory of evolution to student as a theory, where the student have to analyze evolution disclaimers, so that Darwinism can be approached critically with an open mind. According to Masci, these alternative oppositions towards the theory of evolution has generated substantial support among American people with 63% of Americans advocating the belief behind intelligent design.

Overlooking this phenomenon, what is most interesting behind these oppositions against evolution is that there are religious and social incentives to fight against the possible theological, social implications of Darwinism, despite the fact that the scientific community has established evolution through natural selection as a fact. Therefore, based on Masci’s analysis, the perpetual struggle is a result of the constant battle to prove to society that Darwinism is a flawed scientific theory that should not be applied by any means to society, the human race, or to anything else because it depreciates God, religion, law, and justice. Thus, the impetus behind this ongoing struggle against evolutionary thought is to make sure that this denigrate way of thinking is never accepted as a fact that can be applicable to the way how the world and nature works. If no dispute against Darwinism never existed, then what would happen if Darwin’s theory was accepted as an ubiquitous fact that could explained how society and nature operates? Then, there would no be need for justice or law because everything would be a fight for survival, which would make murders and mass genocides justifiable and morals unnecessary.

Catholic Ambassador Woes

2009-04-19T20:32:00.002-04:00

In his recent article, Eric Gorski of the Associated Press discusses the often-overlooked decision of who will represent United States interests with the Vatican under Obama’s presidency. This issue is vital for a variety of reasons, as Gorski reports. Such reasons include potential disputes between the Vatican and the Obama administration over abortion, fears that dissent between the Vatican and the U.S. could encourage Catholic separatism, and also the careful decision of who the appointee should be. Gorski cites a variety of experts on the issues at hand, beginning with abortion.

In past years, the deciding factors about Vatican ambassadors have been their personal lives. The Vatican can reject any ambassador it feels does not meet the criteria of the position, which includes openly gay individuals or those they might consider to be ‘living in sin’. Though the Vatican looks more at the personal lives of appointees than their stances on relevant issues, all eight of the past ambassadors to the Vatican have been pro-life, including the Democrats. One of the possible first choices is Douglas Kmiec, a Reagan administration lawyer who endorsed Obama during the recent election. Kmiec is a professor of canon law and fluent in Italian, so he could be a valuable choice because he understands the Catholic and Italian cultures and also the issues facing relations between the countries.

While this decision is important, I dispute the notion that Catholic separatism is a real fear. In my research for my final paper, concerning the interesting relationship between the KKK and Protestant Churches, I read George Marsden’s book, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. In this book, Marsden chronicles the factors contributing to the rise of Fundamentalism in late 19th century America, including the great increase of immigration of Catholics. Protestants feared these Catholics would take over their nation, controlled from afar by the actions of the Vatican. The Ku Klux Klan arose partly out of this fear, though the Vatican undertook no real actions to try to establish this sort of control. Based on these historical events, I believe that the most important considerations for the selection of the ambassador are their understanding of both international politics and Catholic traditions and culture. Based on these criteria, the president can make a much better decision than would be possible if he were concerned wholly with the American response of Catholics to the ambassador.

2009-04-19T17:29:00.001-04:00

In this article in the Chicago Tribune, William Daley, the co-chairman of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign discusses a growing trend amongst the “Catholic hierarchy” in the U.S. where Catholic officials have been unnecessarily mixing religion and politics. Daley points to a recent event where President Obama was invited to speak at the University of Notre Dame. Cardinal Francis George reacted to this invitation, claiming that it “is an embarrassment to Catholics because the president disagrees with church doctrine on abortion and stem-cell research.” Daley responds to this comment by stating that George’s response is an embarrassment to Catholics and “furthers the divide among the church, its members and the rest of America.” Daley suggests that in today’s world, it’s in appropriate and unproductive for one religion to be so close-minded about its view of “morality” that it actually prevents its followers from gaining a broad education that can help them understand the issues in the world around them. According to Daley, “this requires that Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists sit down together and explore their common interests, concerns and dreams for the future.”

Although being true to one’s religion is critical in following its teachings, it’s unfair to discredit anyone’s word, be it the President or a neighbor, because they have different beliefs. George’s reaction, for example, is ridiculous because not only is it unlikely that Obama would have even mentioned stem cell research or abortion (two of the issues over which Obama’s beliefs and Catholic teachings clash), but hearing from someone whose views differ from yours can be an even more enlightening experience than learning from someone who’s views mirror your own.

In this blog post, Amit discusses the same issue, and questions whether or not it would be a good idea to have Obama speak at Notre Dame. Amit points out that the student’s support for Obama was may be due to the fact that they were less religious, but as several of those who commented on the blog pointed out, it’s more likely that the students are simply becoming more open-minded. According to Daley, this is a good trend because it reflects his idea that a nation can be both moral and religious, but the two don’t have to be exclusive. People of different religions can and should recognize and seek to understand each other’s beliefs in hopes of creating a general, nationwide sense of morality. The only question is which generation will win this struggle. Will the older Catholics and other religious leaders who close-mindedly believe very strongly in their religions still hold sway over the younger, seemingly more open-minded generations? Or will the sense of open-mindedness spread throughout the adults as easily as it has through the kids? I don’t think there’s any way this willingness to cooperate, comprehend other religions, and to put aside differences in beliefs in order to establish a common sense of morality and “form a more perfect union” of the people could possibly be detrimental to the nation.

"The Christian Mistake"

2009-04-16T18:34:00.004-04:00

I don't have the time to devote to this post, but I wanted to share this email from Jim Wallis (progressive evangelical leader and founder of Sojourners magazine). It's partially a response to a recent Newsweek article, partially his personal commentary on the relationship between religion and politics in the U.S. right now. The jist: the Religious Right was "a Christian mistake". Post your comments!!

"A Christian Mistake

In ominous red and black, last week’s Newsweek cover carried the headline, “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” The magazine’s cover story by editor Jon Meacham provoked a wide array of reactions from across the spectrum. Whether Meacham is ultimately correct in his observance of these trends and his interpretation of their meaning is yet to be seen. The 1966 Time magazine cover that asked “Is God Dead?” could not have foreseen the development of religion in American public life over the past 40 years, and we shouldn’t expect any more from Newsweek. What the latter cover has accomplished is to raise questions vital to both the health of the Christian tradition and for the public discourse of our nation. The question that struck me and the one I began to address in a short piece for Newsweek was that of the role of religion in public life and politics. Here’s what I had to say:

The Religious Right was a Christian mistake. It was a movement that sought to implement a “Christian agenda” by tying the faithful to one political option -- the right wing of the Republican Party. The politicizing of faith in such a partisan way is always a theological mistake. But the rapid decline of the Religious Right now offers us a new opportunity to re-think the role of faith in American public life.

Personally, I am not offended or alarmed by the notion of a post-Christian America. Christianity was originally and, in my view, always meant to be a minority faith with a counter-cultural stance, as opposed to the dominant cultural and political force. Notions of a “Christian America” quite frankly haven’t turned out very well.

But that doesn’t mean a lack of religious influence — on the contrary. Committed minorities have had a tremendous influence on cultures and even on politics. Just look at all the faith-inspired social-reform movements animated by people of faith. But Martin Luther King Jr. did not get the Civil Rights Act passed because he had the most Bible verses on his side but because he entered into the public square with compelling arguments, vision, and policy that ultimately won the day. Those faith-inspired movements are disciplined by democracy, meaning they don’t expect to win just because they are “Christian.” They have to win the debates about what is best for the common good by convincing their fellow citizens.

And that is best done by shaping the values narrative, as opposed to converting everyone to their particular brand of religion. Rather, they are always looking for allies around their moral causes, including people of other faiths or of no religion. The story of Christianity in America in the coming decades will be defined by a multicultural shift as well as a generational one. “New” evangelicals and Catholics, along with black, Hispanic, and Asian churches will now shape the agenda. But also included are the millions of Americans who say they are “spiritual but not religious,” finding homes in non-traditional churches, mega-churches that teach that true religion is found in care for “the least of these.” Making a real impact on the values and directions that a democracy will choose is, perhaps, a more exciting kind of influence than relying on the illusory and often disappointing hopes of cultural and political dominance.

Barack Obama stirred the pot around this exact question recently with his comment at a press conference in Turkey that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” This statement is not a new one for Obama. He expressed it clearly during a 2006 speech to a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference. He explained his position this way:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous hing.

The shift that Jon Meacham describes may be the best news in a long time."

The link to Wallis's Newsweek response: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/christiannation/archive/2009/04/10/a-christian-mistake.aspx

The link to Jon Meacham's original article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

Same-Sex Marriage in NY?

2009-04-16T17:18:00.001-04:00

In this article in NY Times, Governor Paterson of New York recently revealed a same-sex marriage bill that would allow these marriages in New York. Paterson compares the fight for homosexual rights to other civil rights movements, such as women’s suffrage and African-American rights. By linking this bill to such well-known and successful civil rights movements, he is hoping that the people of New York will take action and show support for this bill. Paterson, although a Catholic, stated that

“It is not the state’s place to define marriage in a way that excludes a segment
of the population from the legal benefits associated with marriage.”

It looks like Paterson is leaving the decision of whether or not gay marriage is a sin to the churches and attempting to enforce equal legal rights to all people. When asked about the differing statements of the new archbishop of New York on the matter, Paterson said that all religious leaders are entitled to their opinions, but that New York is a civil government and therefore should seek to provide equal rights to everyone.
In my opinion, Paterson’s statements are convincing in their ability to support the separation of church and state. Even if the church’s opinion of gay marriage is that it is sinful, every person should be entitled to equal rights under the law. By prohibiting gay couples to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples, the basic premise of American democracy of “equality for all” is compromised. The way Paterson relates this fight for equal rights to other, previous civil rights’ action is also a good analogy that makes the listener realize how America has changed and the necessity of change. It would be difficult to argue that African-Americans or women do not deserve certain rights based on one element, and Paterson makes this analogy that homosexuals should not be denied their rights based solely on their sexuality. It looks as though there is a lot of support for this bill in New York and it will be interesting to follow its progress to see if it joins the other four states that allow same-sex marriages.

I'm Not Dead Yet!

2009-04-16T00:45:00.004-04:00

In this “moral debate” on the Toronto Star’s website, there is an interesting discussion on what it means to be ‘dead’ in today’s world, where technological advances mean that a person’s body can go on living long after brain activity has ceased.

During most of the early stages of medicine, a person was considered dead when their heart stopped beating – which, due to advances in technology, became largely irrelevant, as “machines could keep a heart beating indefinitely.” Death then came to be defined as the point at which the brain ceased to register any activity – “brain death” – and this is, with some notable exceptions, still the accepted definition.

This distinction, however, is not always a clean one – in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, for example, an article questioned whether or not brain-death was what defined ‘life’ within a person. The author of the article goes on to say that continuing advances in technology will only blur the question further. He uses the example of heart donors: when is the appropriate time to collect the heart for donation? Sooner is of course better for preserving the heart, but what if there is a chance for recovery? Who gets to make that decision?

The points are certainly valid, and the debate is one that will surely have a large religious component. Ethics and religion are inextricably intertwined for many people, and it is sure to affect the medical field as technology grows ever more capable of extending life past what is currently considered ‘death.’ The Catholic Church’s stance will certainly play a large role in where the debate goes, especially given the prevalence of Catholic medical institutions in this country and abroad.

I certainly don’t have any answers, nor do I think any will soon be forthcoming, but it’s one to keep an eye on.

Religion vs Freedom

2009-04-14T11:06:00.000-04:00

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/04/as-california-goes-on-gay-marriage-will-iowa.html

In this recent article in LA times, Paul Thornton recounts the Supreme Court’s decision to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage in Iowa. The Supreme Court Justice was Mark Cady, and his main reason for repeal in his 69 page opinion was that he could find no “constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage.” He also seemed to scoff at the idea of civil unions, presumably because the almost-marriage implies a less legitimate union than a heterosexual marriage.
He stresses that it is not up to religion to determine what exercises are rightly free in a country that allows the freedom of religion, nor is it up to the constitutional government to determine the substance of someone’s religion.
He also mentioned in his opinion that it is a “religious undercurrent” that is intensifying the debate over same-sex rights, rather than a political one. He urges judges and other government officials to stay free of this religious debate and stick to the law. While I found Cady’s statement that there is no “justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage” interesting, I also found the comments on the article just as interesting. One person wrote, “Religion was once used to justify slavery also and this country finally put an end to that too.” Someone else wrote, “Why is it that conservatives, who have been preaching states' rights since the dawn of the republic, are so quick to deny the right of states to do things they disagree with? When logic fails, [they] appeal to a higher power.” Clearly, people have differing opinions on the issue of same-sex relationships, and there are arguments from the biological side to the religious side to the secular side.
I feel that letting religion determine constitutionality would be a fundamental error in our country’s functioning. One could then think up a “line of horrifics,” for issues that religion could influence in the future. However, is the constitution alone enough to dictate what’s right and what’s wrong? On the other end, one could think up other scenarios where morality is compromised because a specific act is considered legal. Another comment on this article states, “…the state [will have] no right to withhold recognition of plural marriages or sharia marriages, which, after all, are sanctioned by a lot more tradition and make a whole lot more sense in terms of reproducing society than 'gay marriages'.”
Religion is already engrained in our politics with presidential faith-based initiatives, “under God” in our pledge of allegiance, the Decalogue posted in governmental locations and countless other examples. Politics are also pervasive in religion. Does forbidding acts like same-sex marriage damage the sovereignty of our constitution? Or is it necessary to prevent similar issues from surfacing and disturbing the norm?

What Not to Wear

2009-04-11T14:14:00.003-04:00

In an article from The Legal Intelligencer entitled “3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cops Bid to Wear Religious Scarf,” author Shannon P Duffy reports on the final ruling in Webb v. City of Philadelphia, a case brought by officer Kimberlie Webb against the Philadelphia police department for their refusal to allow her to wear a khimar, a religious head scarf, while on duty. The case was unanimously decided by a three judge panel on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, supporting an earlier, lower court ruling in 2007. Webb had joined the police force in 1995 but did not request to wear a head covering until 2003, at which point her commanding officer denied her petition, citing the police department's policy against wearing any religious symbols or clothing when in uniform. Webb later showed up at work wearing her khimar and was sent home and suspended for neglect of duty and insubordination for going against the orders of her commanding officer on the matter. The court ruled in support of the department, arguing that the blanket policy restricting officers from wearing religious symbols or clothing did not infringe on Webb’s civil rights, specifically her freedom to exercise religion freely. Here, the Court cited that allowing Webb to wear a khimar would compromise a dress code which requires strict adherence in order to maintain “the essential values of impartiality, religious neutrality, uniformity, and the subordination of personal preference” within the department. Doing this, the court argued, would pose an “undue hardship” on the Philadelphia police department.

While I think it is important for public departments to maintain religious neutrality as they are publicly funded and are obligated to impartially serve their community, I’m not sure how swayed I am by the argument that granting Webb’s request would have burdened the department with “undue hardship.” On the one hand, because the police department in Philadelphia absolutely adheres to their religiously neutral dress code, I can understand why the department and the Court would want to avoid starting down the slippery slope of dress code exceptions. On the other hand, because Webb’s request to wear a khimar was motivated by, what she argued, was her religion’s mandate that her hair be covered; and her proposal was to wear the lower portion of her head scarf, which itself would be fastened by Velcro so as to not pose a safety hazard, tucked into her shirt in addition to always wearing her police hat on top of the scarf, granting Webb’s request just comes across to me as a benign exception to the dress code. In conclusion, while I generally agree with the state’s position of religious neutrality with regard to Webb’s case because it is a sweeping policy that restricts all public officers equally, I feel that I could be swayed to interpret the Court’s ruling as restricting Webb’s religious exercise rights given other state’s more relaxed position on the similar dress policies.

Religion on College Campuses

2009-04-07T19:41:00.000-04:00

In his article, Tom Krattenmaker proposes an argument over the role of religion on college campuses. In the past, college universities were places of science, technology, and innovation. Religion, however, did not play as major of an intellectual role. As he states in his article, Krattenmaker feels that universities centers of “liberal secularism, where religious faith goes to die.”

However, nowadays, students have become much more comfortable with their religion socially and privately. According to a UCLA study, sixty seven percent of college juniors tend to pray every night. Also, in the article, Mr. Krattenmaker describes how over fifty percent of students nowadays try to combine “spirituality” within their studies. At the same time, students are becoming increasingly more comfortable discussing their faith and religious views. As Dan Merchant said after his release of the movie Lord Save Us From Your Followers, he was surprised by their “openness to [a religious] conversation.”

Why is it that, amongst our generation, students are more comfortable discussing their faiths? I personally believe that there is much more acceptance of various religions nowadays as there had been in the past. Perhaps, this is due to the integration of different faiths onto college campuses. As more and more immigrant families come to the United States, and raise their children to go to universities, more and more faiths are introduced onto these campuses. For this reason, I feel that the average university has a greater number of faiths represented than in the past. Therefore, students encounter and are forced to be more comfortable religion, thus making them more open to discussing it. However, is a mere presence of different faiths enough to make students comfortable with their own?

Rick Warren Uninterested in Same-Sex Marriage?

2009-04-07T19:20:00.002-04:00

In an article from U.S. News online, Dan Gilgoff analyzes a recent interview between T.V. and radio host, Larry King and evangelical minister, Rick Warren. With the controversy following President Barack Obama's decision to choose Warren to deliver the invocation at the 2009 Presidential inauguration, Warren has been in the political and religious spotlight as of late. In the article, Gilgoff relays the exchange between King and Warren when the subject of same-sex marriage was brought up in the interview. Warren states that he is “not an anti-gay or anti-gay-marriage activist” and claims that the public has a misconception of his views on the issue. This misconception, he admits, is not that he supports same-sex marriage; it is merely that he doesn’t “campaign” for or “endorse” it. When King proceeds to ask Warren what his thoughts were on the recent Iowa court decision permitting gay marriage, Warren dismisses the subject as something that is “not even [his] agenda”.

Throughout the rest of the interview, Warren changes the subject to center on issues that he is an activist for: rebuilding Rwanda and fighting against AIDS.
By adamantly stating that the subject of same-sex-marriage is “very low on his to-do list”, Rick Warren attempts to avoid a religiously-driven political debate. However, most people see this avoidance as dismissal. In recent years, evangelicals have been at the forefront of the discussion concerning gay-rights, especially marriage. To shy away from those beliefs that were so heavily supported in the past seems as if Warren believes that equal rights for same-sex couples are no longer important enough to be at the top of his “to-do list”. Is it right for such a prominent evangelical leader to blatantly circumvent the issue of legalizing same-sex-marriage, when millions of people are fighting so hard for it?

Mormons Conflicted over Immigrants

2009-04-07T18:35:00.001-04:00

In his article, Daniel González examines the appeal of the Mormon church to Latinos, who have recently flocked to the Latter-Day Saints in overwhelming numbers – and often illegally. Mormon missionaries have been proselytizing in Latin American countries, appealing to the Hispanic population by emphasizing the religion’s focus on strong family and cultural ties. When these people migrate to America to join the church, Mormons seem to uphold a no-questions-asked policy, which has been usurped to such an extreme that an estimated 70% of Latino converts are in the country illegally. Many Mormons take issue with this development; especially since the majority identify with the Republican Party, which is known for a strong anti-immigrant stance.

Historically, Mormons have been seen more as an insidious cult than as a faction of Christianity. 19th century Americans disdained their blind acceptance with the claim that the religion attracted criminals and fools who hoped to be purified and gain the status of a ‘king or priest,’ as founder Joseph Smith promised, since a Mormon baptism could even purify one who ‘had murdered all [his] days.’ It is interesting to note, however, that many Catholic organizations have adopted a similar no-questions policy, yet officials have only considered removing tax-exempt status from Mormon organizations. Are Mormons being judged unfairly because of their stereotype?

Regardless of how they fit into the whole moral spectrum though, the ultimate question is this: is it acceptable – or credible – that this organization allows law-breaking and then preaches morality? While it is true that the freedom of choice to break the law and immigrate lies with their converts, is it okay for the LDS church to leave the issue unaddressed rather than taking an active stance? This seems like a flashback to their polygamous days, when the Supreme Court ruled that Mormons were not permitted to act on principles of doctrines of their faith (today: compassion, acceptance, charity) if it meant breaking the law of the land…

Evangelical Inclusiveness

2009-04-07T18:01:00.003-04:00

In this article from the Christian Post, several prominent, conservative Evangelicals have recently pressed for new immigration reform, citing from the Bible that we ought to be “welcoming the stranger.” Leith Anderson, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has persistently urged the U.S. government to present new immigration reform this year, criticizing that current laws tend to break up families during the immigration process. Anderson urged Evangelicals as well to immerse themselves in the immigration debate because “those people we talk about, those immigrants, those aliens, they are us as part of the church.”

What was striking about this particular article is that we rarely see Evangelicals in this light. The Evangelicals in this article break from the “us versus them” mold of James Morone's Hellfire Nation that usually pervades their attitude, especially in regard to issues such as stem cell research, abortion, and same-sex marriage. But with Anderson there was no call to arms, nor any of the rabble rousing rhetoric that often accompanied a debate. In contrast to the “us versus them” mentality that has been so pervasive in their characterization, the Evangelicals in this article actually contend that “immigrants are not the 'others' … they are 'us.'”

Leith Anderson's views by no means encompass the popular Evangelical attitude toward immigration; in a poll conducted in 2006 by the Pew Research Center, about 63% of the Evangelicals polled believed immigrants were a “threat to American customs and values.” While the attention inevitably centers on the more noticeable and inflammatory figures who are commonly associated with this “us versus them” rhetoric, it is important not to lose track of a more holistic view of the Evangelical community, which includes figures such as Anderson who emphasize a dialogue that promotes inclusion rather than exclusion.

The Morality of Stem Cell Research

2009-04-07T14:59:00.002-04:00

Sorry for the unwitty title, but this subject actually came up in a family discussion back at home and I thought it was an interesting matter at hand. This article responds to a discussion regarding the morality of Stem Cell Research. With Obama's recent removal of the ban on stem-cell research government funding, many of the Religious Right have cried out against his decision, warning that it would be the beginning of a slippery slope that would lead to the moral decline of our nation. Susan Jacoby writes in her article that she believes this is untrue, as all advancements in science come with more corrupted uses, but we usually end up benefitting more than we lose.

While I am a supporter of stem cell research, I also understand the public's worry about the consequences of stem cell research as the beginning of a slippery slope towards moral decline. There are no historical precedents that seem to accurately mimic the situation we are in right now. With the issues of life surrounding testing on embryonic cells, this study becomes much more than just a scientific advancement for a greater good. If embryonic cells were to be defined as living individuals, the push towards embryonic cell exerimenting could be paralleled with experimentation on citizens of America. When put like that, it disturbingly reminds me of human experminentation in the Holocaust.

Honestly, it all becomes boils down to a issue of life in the future, but I was wondering where other people stand on this issue. I'm not talking about whether or not you believe that embryos deserve full rights, that debate becomes way too complicated. Instead, do you think that Obama's support for government spending in embryonic stem cell research is the beginning of a steadily increasing support for stem cell research? And where will this support reach its limits? Will we be artificially fertilizing eggs for the sole purpose of stem cell research if it reaches that magnitude?

Mormons, Marriage, and Moral Outrage

2009-04-05T19:41:00.004-04:00

This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=Mormons&st=cse&scp=2) examines the role of Mormon organizers in passing California’s Proposition 8. As reported by the article, Mormons were responsible for nearly half of the forty million dollars raised to support the measure. I was intrigued by the ways supporters strove to make the proposition “relevant” to voters. Apparently, they came prepared with two very specific scripts to support their arguments, one for religious voters, one tailored to nonbelievers. Supporters also raised vague, hypothetical claims, arguing that, without Proposition 8, religious people could be sued for objecting to gay marriage, and churches could lose their tax exempt status. One advertisement depicted an elementary school class attending a same-sex wedding, reinforcing fears that children would be “indoctrinated.”
I find it ironic, on some level, that Mormons would support these tactics. Not two centuries ago, Mormons were targeted for their own unusual marriage practices. In its time, Mormon polygamy was elevated alongside slavery as one of the “twin relics of multicultural barbarism” designated for extinction by the Republican Party. The LDS Church sanctioned polygamy was viewed as an abusive, immoral situation which enslaved women, corrupted marriage, and disgraced our nation’s values. Tales of polygamous debauchery and abuse, some real, some exaggerated, further stoked anti-Mormon sentiment in the east; this upset would culminate in armed incursions against the Mormons, as well as a series of court rulings limiting their religious practices and sovereignty.
I am not writing in support of polygamy, nor am I advocating for or against gay marriage. I’m just intrigued by the idea that modern Mormons have, in a sense, come full circle, to get on board with today’s moral panic.

Do we really have Freedom of Religion?

2009-04-05T19:09:00.003-04:00

Brad Hirschfield writes in his article Taking God Public about two different cases involving public displays of religion that were brought to the Supreme Court. One involves a case of whether or not to allow a monument of the Seven Aphorisms, a part of the Summum religion, to be displayed in a Utah park. In this park also stands a monument of the Ten Commandments. Hirschfield questions when lawmakers have the right to decide which religion is displayed over another. He claims that cases that allow the court to make the distinction between which religions are accepted or not threaten religious freedom. The other case presented in this article is one where a coach in New Jersey prayed with his team before games. The court determined that his praying was illegal. Hirschfield supports the decision, and says that people who have a significant amount of power in the lives of others should not be allowed to promote religion. Another point made in the article is that it is not the government’s place to make the country religion free. Hirschfield claims it is not a good idea to protect people’s rights by taking away those of others.

Hirschfield is contradictory in some points of his paper. He thinks that the decisions made are right, however he says that religious displays should not be illegal. A lot of people struggle with this issue, and there is no consistent way to determine if a religious display should be allowed. Some displays, such as one at the Texas capitol are allowed based on historical value. This does not seem to be a sure way to determine when a display should be allowed. Most cases can be argued from a historical perspective. In Mark Noll’s book, God and Race in American Politics, Noll shows how two different sides of a battle interpreted religion as favoring their position. The First Amendment is being used in the same way in today’s battles involving public displays of religion. The amendment is interpreted by both sides in order to fit their agenda. Is the court prohibiting freedom of speech when they rule against displays of religion? By allowing religious acts to occur, is the court promoting religion? Is the issue freedom of religion or freedom of speech?

The Archbishop and the Schismatics

2009-04-05T17:12:00.003-04:00

In a recent editorial, The Jerry Garcia of Canterbury, Mark Tooley discusses the portrayal of Rowan Williams, the embattled Archbishop of Canterbury, in an Atlantic Monthly essay written by Paul Elie. Tooley finds Elie’s enthusiasm about the Archbishop’s struggle to keep the Anglican Communion together dismaying. Tooley points out that Williams’ efforts to bring homosexuals into the Anglican Church without losing conservative Episcopalians have been mainly ineffectual and contradictory. Elie writes in glowing terms about how Williams must suppress his “pro-gay conscience” in order to keep conservative Americans and Africans from leaving, even going so far as to refuse to seat Gary Robinson, the gay Episcopalian bishop, at the last global meeting of bishops.

What I find most interesting about Tooley’s article is his insistence that Rowan Williams, by trying to balance pro-gay and anti-gay factions of the Anglican Communion, has actually misunderstood the main point of the battle. In numbers, most of the Anglican church is no longer American or British, but African and South Asian. Tooley asserts that liberal, mainly white Anglicans do not make up the majority of the church anymore, and therefore Williams, instead of merely trying to keep the two parts together, should actively engage with the dioceses in America that have split off as well as with the African and Asian members of the denomination. I agree that while issues like homosexuality are clearly important, leaders in non-Western countries have other, more pressing concerns. These would include the conflicts with Islam in sub-Saharan Africa, the HIV-Aids epidemic and global inequalities.

I think this has relevance for other denominations of Christianity, too, as well as for outside observers. Obviously, majorities are not always right. But a small group of mainly white Americans and other Westerners should not continue to assume that they have the absolute right to decide which direction the church is heading. In this case, the conservative non-Western majority might be better placed to comment and to lead in areas where the church is growing. This could be the only solution for holding the Anglican Communion together.

Good News for the Most Part

2009-04-05T12:28:00.003-04:00

On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that marriages between same-sex couples are legal. This decision overturns a 1998 state law that limited marriage to being between a man and a woman. See Iowa Decency.

The important question to ask in regard to the fitness of this ruling is why ever not? The court seems to have followed this line of thinking, as it looked for "persuasive justification" of the 1998 law, and found none. The majority decision, written by Justice Mark Cady likewise concludes that the 1998 law "does not substantially further an important governmental objective." Justice Cady is no doubt correct, for, when we speak of protecting the institution of marriage, what do we imagine we are protecting it from? Surely whatever threat from within (which I cannot fathom) gay married couples might pose to marriage is much less a threat than the blow dealt to marriage if significant portions of the population, having been denied access to the state of matrimony, decide that marriage is arcane and obsolete.

Indeed, the objections to gay marriage that national evangelicals registered since the 1980s have fallen through: where same-sex marriage is practiced, there have been no outbreaks of polygamy, no epidemics of aids, and not even one locust descending to show numinous disapproval.

The part of this ruling that does not make sense, however, is its definition of marriage, in the editors' words, as "a civil contract [that] should not be defined by religious doctrine or views." Why should "religious doctrine or views" be specifically excluded from the marriage discussion? Does Justice Cady believe that there is some actual religious doctrine condemning gay marriage? Or perhaps this reference is a jab at the religious factions who lobbied against the decision. If that is the case, then it smacks of judicial activism--why target a group by name when your ruling is otherwise concerned only with the law, not with politics?

Justice Cady's opinion demonstrates a trend that has begun since the Religious Right lost some political power over the last four years: namely, an insistent intolerance of religion in any discussion of government matters. If this progressive ruling and the similar accomplishments we have seen lately are to be part of a truly tolerant era in history, we must not condemn religion on account of its more rabid participants' excesses. That just wouldn't be (dare I say it?) Christian.

Religion's Disconnect with Society

2009-04-05T10:30:00.003-04:00

In the NY Times article, “Faith of our Fathers”, Timothy Egan analyzes the reoccurring role of religion in America. In light of the then recent shut down of a Texas polygamist compound, Egan parallels this event to that of the past, where Mormon men previously ignored the law in their polygamist practices, more to the point, society condemned such immoral “religious” actions. After Texas authorities removed 437 children from the polygamist compound, Egan wonders, “who opened the time capsule?”

Religion has long been used to justify acts that modern society judges immoral and absurd. “From the torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, to beheadings by Jihadist killers, to the sexual manipulation of children by early Mormons and their latter-day sects,” religion has been used as the blanket reasoning to silence naysayers who question the motives behind religious actions.

Even though Egan notes that religiously motivated illegal acts such as this “gave us all a glimpse into what a religion was like before it took on the patina of time,” it made me wonder whether religion has even changed that much over time. Certainly, there exists a large disconnect between religion and the general American population today, as many Mormons continue to act in defiance with polygamist leaders in utter disrespect for the law.

When Mitt Romney was defeated in last year’s presidential election, did religious groups who seem to be on the fringe of society at times (such as Mormons) realize their religion contrasted with social norms of American society? And as such, how important is religion to American politics? Many Americans fall short in connecting with this “homegrown American religion,” and many are unable to understand the logic behind their behavior. For a nation that seems to be wavering from religion in a shaky economic climate, (Limor’s post—March 31) is this yet another sign of religion retreating or will religion re-emerge to redefine and refill the void that leaves it out of touch with modern society?

Mormons Conflicted over Immigrants

2009-04-04T22:32:00.002-04:00

President Obama and Notre Dame

2009-03-31T19:10:00.001-04:00

In the article, “Obama Visit to Notre Dame Provokes Debate,” Katherine Seelye examines the controversy surrounding the announcement that President Obama will deliver the commencement address to Notre Dame’s Class of 2009. Many Catholic officials (Notre Dame is a Catholic university) oppose this invitation to Obama, claiming that his support of abortion and embryonic stem cell research defies Catholic teaching. For their support, these officials cite the 2004 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which stated that Catholic institutions should not honor those who act “in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” Despite these protests and an online petition with over 200,000 signatures that demand the invitation be revoked, Notre Dame president Revered John I. Jenkins has refused to do so.

However I feel that this issue can be looked at more broadly than one solely dealing with Obama and Notre Dame. The large outcry that has arisen from this situation could be largely attributed to the work of the religious right – as shown in Will Martin’s With God on our Side, these kinds of protests have been a hallmark of their success. While these large numbers of protests may seem, then, like a successful showing for the religious right, Seelye mentions something in passing that could be very troubling for its future: “70 percent of alumni opposed the invitation, why 97 percent of the senior class supported it.” This could be seen simply as the seniors wanting a famous figure and dynamic speaker at their commencement, but I believe it is also a sign that the religious right – and more broadly, the Republican Party – is losing its younger constituents. This phenomenon plus the original issue bring up a couple interesting questions: Is Jenkins, as president of a Catholic university, wrong to invite President Obama? And does the overwhelming support of the senior class to have Obama as commencement speaker mean trouble for the future of the religious right?

The Compromise of the Pro-Life Movement

2009-03-31T17:59:00.003-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=abortion&st=cse

Ross Douthat, senior editor of The Atlantic and Republican strategist, rejects “the iron law” that Republican political losses are blamed on the Party’s pro-life position. He suggests that during the 2008 presidential campaign, abortion was hardly brought up by the Republican Party, and yet, the loss will be blamed on abortion. Douthat acknowledges that the pro-life movement is being pressed to focus its energies on a “compromise” rather than “absolutist” position but he believes that in developing a grassroots movement, pro-lifers have compromised. He states that the movement is focused on establishing crisis pregnancy centers, outlawing only what they “see as the grisliest form of abortion,” etc. Part of the “compromise,” is that the movement is emphasizing other life issues, as well. Douthat wants to end the stereotype that everyone in the pro-life movement is apathetic to science. He suggests that the pro-life movement is becoming increasingly aware of science; for example, they suggested that in place of embryonic stem cell research, scientists carry out the same research with different cells. To further underscore the changing tide of the pro-life movement, Douthat suggests that Sarah Palin was a reflection of a “post-feminist” reality in the US. In conclusion, Douthat states that it is the pro-choice movement that has become absolutist and uncompromising after Roe v. Wade. The historical context for this argument is that abortion has been a compelling social and political issue in every election at least since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which struck down most laws restricting abortion.

I am not convinced that the Republican loss in 2008 will be blamed on abortion. So far, it has been blamed more on public discontent with the Bush administration’s handling of domestic and international terrorism. Some of Douthat’s other suggestions were also stretches to me. For example, the fact that the pro-life movement suggested that the scientific community carry out research with cells other than embryonic stem cells does not signal to me that the movement is becoming better versed in science – it simply signals acknowledgment of basic science. I do, however, think that it is an important point that not everyone in the pro-life community believes in creationism and has an antipathy for science – that there are a variety of views within the movement is very important to take into consideration.

Will the Republican loss in 2008 be blamed on the issue of abortion? Has the pro-life movement compromised?

2009-03-31T15:41:00.000-04:00

In his article “The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off”, Frank Rich describes the descending presence of vehement religious right activists and morally extreme Republicans. He uses the recent stem cell legislation Barack Obama signed into law to demonstrate how “family-values dinosaurs” like Falwell and Robertson are no longer in the political arena to cause hysteria about legislation that opposes traditional religious values. Furthermore, after Obama reversed the Bush administration’s restriction on funding organizations offering abortions abroad there was no commotion or protests demonstrating the shift away from Culture wars and into an era focusing on economic and social justice. In an interesting analysis of this phenomenon, Rich compares the current secular trend to a similar trend during the 1930’s. The 1920’s featured a long “moral crusade” for prohibition and the empowerment of the fundamentalist movement but once the stock market crashed and F.D.R was elected president, prohibition was repealed, there was a large expansion of the federal government and the fundamentalists began to retreat from the political arena. Similarly, the past 30 years featured a “moral crusade” led by the Moral Majority against abortion, homosexuals, and even unmarried moms but after the recent financial crisis and economic downturn the Moral Majority retreated and Barack Obama expanded government spending and reversed decisions to withhold funding from stem cell research and organizations abroad offering abortion. Rich contends that people have lost much of their confidence in organized religion and have less patience for the “intrusive and divisive moral scolds” that once pervaded the GOP. Although I agree with Rich that religious extremism has retreated from politics to a certain extent, I do not think this is a trend that will continue for long. The current economic crisis is not nearly as catastrophic as the depression and as a result, the economy should stabilize in a shorter time period and eventually put a greater focus on social issues. Additionally, the current social issues of abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research seem to be more polarizing than prohibition. While the prohibitionists retreated after their defeat, the religious right is not likely to sit back for 40 years and see the government trample over their traditional values. Even though it is unlikely that America will experience another “40 year exodus [from] these ayatollahs”, what will be the effect of the current retreat from politics? Will the Republicans and religious right come back stronger and revive the culture wars?

Balancing the Non-Believers

2009-03-31T13:47:00.001-04:00

An article published last week in the Wall Street Journal addressed efforts made by President Obama to include both religious and non-religious groups in his rhetoric. In the article, titled < a href”Obama Walks Religious Tightrope Spanning Faithful, Nonbelievers”, author Laura Meckler discusses the fact that Obama is the first president to mention atheists in an inaugural speech already addressing Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. She addresses the controversial move to place believers and non-believers on an equal plane, for the first time acknowledging the, for lack of a better term, “godless” part of American society.

Meckler also addresses complications that are already arising as Obama tries to balance religion and secularism in his policies, pointing out several of his policies which favor religious organizations and others that are “troubling to religious conservatives” in their support of science. The primary focus of her article lies in the question of whether this attempt to appeal to all sides will help or hurt Obama’s career as president.

While it is an undeniable fact that the United States is a primarily Christian country, many recent studies have indicated a growing decline in religion, and a slow increase, albeit small, in atheism. Personally, I feel that President Obama’s acknowledgement of non-religious Americans represents an important step in the development of American society. Such a step may prove especially powerful internationally, representing the growing tolerance and maturity of a country often faulted for its religious zeal. Still, I agree with Meckler that Obama’s attempts to appeal to all sides could easily backfire, since he risks losing his already tenuous evangelical support. Since Obama is also an open Christian, I also wonder how secular or multi-faceted he will allow his policies to become before he finds himself over-stepping his own religious beliefs.

Is Religion Republican?

2009-03-31T11:05:00.001-04:00

Is religion inherently right winged? This is an assumption we often make since religion in politics generally implies conservative viewpoints such as anti-gay marriage and a pro-life stance, but religion has also been a bastion of social welfare, labor rights and anti-death penalty; all positions we generally consider liberal. In the first part of his book review, Samuel Freedman tells the story of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin who left his Chicago Cathedral to teach at Fordham University. He spent time pushing for the opposition to nuclear war and then started a pro-life committee.
When we discuss liberal and conservative social values, it doesn’t necessarily mean one is right or wrong. Bringing up solely a moral issue will not pull out winners on either side because there are legitimate arguments for both. The death penalty for example: Opposing the death penalty is considered liberal, is a call for change in the current system, pro-human rights and is generally the position religious leaders take in the debate. Supporting the death penalty is a position generally taken by political conservatives who tend to be religious and believe the receiving criminal should never be back in society and perhaps deserves an eye for an eye for their misdeeds. When one side can argue the government should have no right to take a life, the other side can argue the criminal has much less of that right. Basically that argument will go in circles like many strong liberal vs. conservative debates. Another example that crosses religious and political lines is military strategy. Being pro-war is often considered conservative but many religious groups such as that represented by Cardinal Bernardin are anti-war. How could the church promote war? It can’t honestly do so.
Religion does not ascribe to every belief within right-wing philosophy, neither does it only ascribe to conservative social and moral values. Some republicans, George W. Bush being a good example, use scripture in their speeches, further giving the impression the right is the party for religion. So where is the line, how do we explain where these religious and liberal positions come from? Susan Jacoby in her book Freethinkers argues that liberal positions come from the “rational” side and conservative positions come from the “religious” side. This argument works in large part but at the same time is shaped by the religious right’s insistence on delegitimizing American secularism. Social values can also be attached to issues such as poverty and social welfare as well as foreign policy and the decision to go to war. These social issues are not considered religious even though they easily could be. Religious peoples in the political sphere have characterized the debate perhaps because what we consider to be the moral values today are still the most hotly debated. The other social issues such as foreign policy and welfare deal with morals as much as they do the economy, bringing more stakes into the argument. Other “moral” issues such as abortion and gay rights aren’t considered to be economic issues- even though poverty and benefits are an important part of both of those debates.
The piling of certain issues into religious political debate is one that doesn’t have to do with religiosity in particular but rather the way people have chosen to take them.

2009-03-30T20:56:00.000-04:00

In a recent article in Raleigh’s “News and Observer” Gary Robertson brings to light the fact that North Carolina law makers are investigating the idea of eliminating many state laws which serve a religious purpose. During the colonial period many laws and traditions were formed throughout many states which enforced restrictions on several goods and activities on Sunday, the typical day of rest of the Christian faith. It appears now many citizens of North Carolina are fighting to have these restrictions removed as their relevance has begun to decline as the state has become more religiously diverse.

The law prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday mornings before noon has existed since colonial times. ABC stores do not even operate on Sundays. The only way to hunt on Sunday is with a bow. All other forms of hunting are illegal on Sundays. For those individuals who work 6 days a week it eliminates their ability to go hunting. Although the laws are in place to enforce a novel idea, keep individuals from attending Church intoxicated or skipping all together, it is restricting people of another religion or less conservative Christians from doing something which is perfectly legal any other day. In effect, the state of North Carolina is discriminating based on religion.

The fact of the matter is that these laws are outdated and exclude unreligious people from participating in everyday activities. While I do not promote excessive drinking or the needless killing of wild animals, these laws serve little to no purpose other than frustrating a lot of people. It time North Carolina steps outside its traditional boundaries and eliminates its archaic laws which show its blatant partiality to Christianity.

Over Secularization

2009-03-29T20:37:00.001-04:00

In his article Slippery church-state separation, Stephen Strehle argues that religious influence on the government is not inherently bad. He believes much of the problem is the lack of the courts “defining religion in the first place” granting them almost limitless power. He believes that there have been many great government theories which spawned from religion and to keep them out in the future could be harmful. He says that early statutes on religion “rejected any permanent commitment to certain groups, but never pretended that religion or what is associated with the term provides no contribution to the people's concept of government a posteriori.” This has evolved into immediate court rejection of anything with religious affiliation instead of simply ensuring that the government is not directly supporting a religion. He thinks this over secularization could and may have in the past, prevented beneficial government actions.

I also think that often the courts are too scared of supporting a religion that they take excessive measures. This has led in several cases to churches being denied money to help the needy. One result of this is that some religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church have had to shift to supporting government initiatives to help the poor which are often inefficient with money being wasted on bureaucracy. And also as Marin makes abundantly clear in With God on Our Side, religious groups still have a substantial influence on government which cannot be completely ceased. The Republican Party often catered to the needs of the evangelicals. This practice leads to the groups which are lucky enough to attach to a major party having significantly more power than those which don’t.

Should courts continue to have the power to strike down any and all religiously charged laws? Has there been an over secularization of the US government to a point not called for in the Constitution? Is it beneficial to have a complete separation of Church and State?

Even multimillionaire thinks GOP's push for lower taxes is silly!

2009-03-29T20:24:00.004-04:00

In her column in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker comments one conservative multimillionaire philanthropist Howard Ahmanson’s switch from the Republican to the Democratic party. Parker notes that at a time when party fundraising is significantly down, the departure of a man who was one of the three main contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign in California is a significant blow to the GOP. The problem of course is not only financial, but also political, and his departure is shocking in two ways. First, it seems ironic that the some republican politicians have focused so much on lowering taxes that even a multimillionaire like Ahmanson got angry with the GOP. In a rare interview, the philanthropist reckoned that the party had to “downscale”, that is taking a more populist position. Ahmanson reckons that the tension between “the upscales and the downscales” as he calls it (that is between the upper and lower middle classes) results in a possible contradiction in the GOP’s policies.
As Thomas Franck argues in What’s he Matter with Kansas, that conservatives republicans in effect used moral and faith issues to lure the religious lower middle classes into voting republican, and while making little headway in those very issues that lower class conservatives find important, they succeeded only in promoting policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy that benefit not the lower but the upper classes. We have argued on this subject in class and some have pointed out that the rationale for lower taxation was that people could instead give more to charity. And indeed it seems that conservatives do in fact give on average three times more to charity. But is it possible that the GOP has, as Ahmanson argues, been focusing too much on the issue of taxation? Indeed the attitude of the California Republicans that argued there should be no tax increases “for any reason, no matter what” does seem not only “silly” but also stubborn, especially in the current economic climate.
More generally though, this shift of a major republican benefactor, though surprising in itself, does point to a broader trend that we have observed in our class and through some of the entries of this blog, wherein some evangelicals have started switching to the democrat side as the party appeals more and more to faith and slowly works “to take God back from the GOP” as Parker puts it.

The fight for same-sex marriage

2009-03-29T19:08:00.002-04:00

In "Gay Marriage, Set Back in One State, Gains in a 2nd", Katie Zezima writes about the setbacks same-sex marriage has recently faced in New Hampshire and Vermont. The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted on March 26th to legalize same-sex marriage. However, it is hard to view the bill’s passing as a gain because it is likely that Governor John Lynch will veto the bill. Vermont is facing a similar situation. The Vermont Senate approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage by a large margin, yet Governor Jim Douglas announced he would veto any same-sex marriage bills that reached his desk.
The fight to legalize same-sex marriages has many comparisons with African-Americans’ fight for civil rights in the 1960s. Zezima quotes Rep. Edward A. Butler, who invokes language reminiscent of the infamous court case Plessy v. Ferguson while discussing same-sex marriage. He says that “separate but equal is not equal”, the conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court when it overturned segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education. Due to the similarities between discrimination against African-Americans and discrimination against homosexuals, it may be of use to examine how African-Americans finally gained their civil rights. While they did exercise a long and difficult campaign against Southern whites, I think their ability to realize equality under the law was partly due to a change in thinking. It became impossible to justify discriminating against African-Americans as scientific studies continually proved the genetic and intellectual equality of African-Americans.
This comparison provides a grim picture for me for the future of same-sex marriage. Is genetic proof of lesbian and gay’s equality required in order for them to be granted the same privileges as non-gays? Even then, would ideas of what constitutes religious morality sit too strongly with the American people for us to grant this group their rights? I think what we can draw from the Civil Rights movement is that people’s personal opinions, in this case severe racism, should not come into play while shaping law. We can apply this same mode of thinking to same-sex marriages, in that people’s personal beliefs should be considered separately from what is just according to the Constitution.

An Evangelical Philanthropist Goes Blue

2009-03-29T16:44:00.002-04:00

In her article "Why a GOP Benefactor Switched Parties" Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker discusses the recent switch of Christian philanthropist Howard Ahmanson Jr., a former conservative stalwart, to the ranks of the Democratic party.

Ahmanson, a multi-millionaire who inherited his family's banking fortune, notes in conversation with Parker the main reason for the conversion—taxes. "Specifically, he was offended by the California Republican Party's insistence during a recent state budget battle that there would be no tax increases for any reason, no matter what. 'They're providing one issue, and it's just a very silly issue.'" Parker also says that Ahmanson is an issues-based benefactor, rarely donating large amounts to individual candidates.

The philanthropist was a major force behind the creation of Proposition 8, the California referendum that banned gay marriage in November 2008. He has also supported a pro-independent business Political Action Committee, as well as the Discovery Institute, which works to promote anti-evolution causes.

Ahmanson's philanthropic resume recalled William Martin's With God on Our Side, insofar as he seems a paradigm of the issues-based evangelical politics that Martin posits as a driving force behind the rise of the Religious Right. Public figures such as the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made their living designing social-political schemes to put Republicans in office—mainly by giving voice to evangelical Christians who had felt they had no place in government. Ahmanson was friends with R.J. Rushdoony, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. Rushdoony is credited as the inspiration for the Christian homeschool movement and was a noted Calvinist philosopher. Although Ahmanson doesn't share some of Rushdoony's extreme views—such as giving the death penalty to all homosexuals—he seems firmly entrenched in the Evangelical-Republican complex.

What does Ahmanson's sudden conversion mean for the Republican Party? It could be perceived as another harbinger of the collapse of the Christian Right, or an indication of a new Democrat-led order in state and national politics. I doubt that Ahmanson will change his views on fundamental social issues. He will likely continue fighting abortion and gay rights and other "liberal" agendas. He switched allegiances due to what he thought was a perversity of the California Republican Party–the unwillingness to tax. Perhaps this switch is indicative of something completely different than the downfall of conservative Christianity. Perhaps it is only the realist perspective of one of the wealthiest Americans realizing that Republican fiscal conservatism is not the solution to the international economic crisis.

How long will it be until another "dependable" conservative benefactor realizes it?

BAD Pope!

2009-03-26T17:52:00.006-04:00

“A Christian can never remain silent,” said Pope Benedict upon his arrival in Cameroon last week. But sometimes I wonder if he wouldn’t be better served by doing just that. (Article: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/03/26/world/AP-EU-Vatican-Pope-Message-Woes.html)

I wrote a post several weeks ago about the controversy Pope Benedict sparked in pardoning ex-communicated, Holocaust-denying Bishops. He sparked angry sentiments from the world’s Islamic community by making accusatory remarks about the violent nature of the Islamic faith back in 2006. And this week he’s back in the headlines with a move no less consternating or any easier to extricate himself--and the Vatican--from.

The controversial comment came in a statement just before his departure on a weeklong tour through Africa. In addressing the continent’s long and difficult struggle with HIV/AIDS, Pope Benedict argued that the problem "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.” (Emphasis mine.)

Now the Church’s position on condoms is no secret—avoid them. Exercise sexual abstinence and fidelity in marriage instead. There is truth to this message and nothing wrong with taking this position (although it’s all but proven that preaching abstinence does not work as well as handing out free condoms from a practical or public health standpoint).

But I do take issue with the second half of his statement. Nowhere, ever, has there been evidence that condom use has increased or even contributed to the spread of HIV. His comment is clearly rooted in personal belief and not scientific evidence (or reality). The tragedy is in its potential to undermine millions of dollars and years of effort put in by community organizations, NGOs, and even other faith based organizations that have been working hard to help alleviate the strain HIV has put on African societies.

France, the Netherlands, Germany, and the UN’s agency dedicated to AIDS work, have all come down on the Pope’s remarks. The BBC was even prompted to ask the question, “Is Catholicism good for Africa?” I find all of these responses reasonable given the potential ramifications in this situation. Governments and aid groups alike are already facing incredible difficulties in educating the general population on the facts of HIV/AIDS. Still, setting aside the argument over the most effective form of containing the epidemic, it is plainly irresponsible for a figure as revered as the Pope—someone drawing crowds of tens of thousands in places like Angola—to propagate such untrue information.

My concern in this is less for Benedict himself and his legacy as the 265th Pope, than it is for the Catholic Church as a whole. Its main PR man doesn’t quite have the political finesse of his predecessor and seems to be more like a bull in a China shop lately. I don’t doubt the benevolence or good intentions in his commitment to his faith, but he doesn’t do himself many favors by his lack of tact. (One source commented on the fact that he was chosen for the papacy in part for his longtime status as a Vatican insider and respected theologian. Unfortunately, the intellectuals behind organizations don’t always have the charisma and social capacity to pull off the public relations as well.)

I haven’t heard much on the issue since the comment broke the news. I admit, I’m crossing my fingers that there isn’t any more to report. I’m just thinking about the African women who have been trying to convince their husbands of the wisdom in using condoms, who now have to place their word against the Pope’s….

Other articles referenced:
“Pope tells Africa ‘condoms wrong’” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7947460.stm
“Pope warns Angola of witchcraft” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7956460.stm
“Pope: Condoms “Increase” AIDS Endemic in Africa” - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509488,00.html

What's in a Name?

2009-03-26T10:54:00.002-04:00

Sarah Pulliam of Christianity Today writes about the misuse of the phrase “religious right”. What we know today as the ‘religious right’ apparently doesn’t want to be called the ‘religious right’ anymore by the media. We generally define this term to mean evangelical Christians with very conservative views on moral issues such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and so forth.
The term was originally coined by Jerry Falwell in referring to his group, the Moral Majority. The term started taking on more negative connotations where people associated it with “hard-edge politics and intolerance”. The term also began to be used next to other labels such as “American Taliban” and “Christian fascists”. The media has the ability to characterize a debate and define players before they even get a chance to define themselves in the public’s eye. The language of a debate can sometimes pull out the winners and losers before the actual debate has run its course. Religious fundamentals are very upset with what they call the “misuse” of the phrase “religious right”. It has a developed a life of its own with negative connotations. Author Joel Carpenter notes, “These terms have a life of their own. There’s very little you can do to change them”. Part of the reason is that there are these extreme conservatives out there who are sometimes more outspoken than the more reasonable religious conservatives giving a bad name to the whole lot.
Another issue with the debate is that there is no real phrase we can replace “religious right” with. Focus on the Family’s Gary Schneeberger says the media should start using “socially conservative evangelicals”, but is this really going to change anything. It’s the same people who are saying they don’t want to be associated with the term “religious right” that now want to be called “socially conservative evangelicals”. The media will have to be tiptoeing everywhere in the land of political correctness for this new label not to become corrupted like all the other labels. It won’t be long before “socially conservative evangelical” will become the new “American Taliban” and they’ll have to come up with something else even more ridiculous like “time-honored religious sympathetics”.
Perhaps there is a deeper problem with the way the media portray this sector in general or a problem with the way religious conservatives are framing their arguments. There’s a reason why the “religious right” is conservative. They are traditionalists. As times change, conservative values have more and more rival opinions. It can be easier to adapt to a new situation than to keep an old tradition in the face of new challenges to the belief.

To Be Celibate, Or Not to Be...That is the Question

2009-03-26T10:31:00.002-04:00

For a millennium, the question of celibacy in the Catholic Church has been answered with a resounding yes, and that there is a wish to stick with tradition. However, in the New York Times article “On Eve of Retirement, Cardinal Breathes Life into Debate on Priestly Celibacy,” Cardinal Edward M. Egan comes under fire for his comments during a recent radio interview where he mentions the possibility for renewed discussion on the topic. In the interview on March 10^th, Cardinal Egan stated in regards to overturning the celibacy tradition, “I think that it’s going to be discussed; it’s a perfectly legitimate discussion. Further, he said that “I think it has to be looked at. And I am not so sure it wouldn’t be a good idea to decide on the basis of geography and culture not to make an across-the-board determination.”

This interview has sparked a spirited debate within the Catholic Church as to the true meaning behind the Cardinal’s words, mainly due to recent history when 163 priests in Milwaukee petitioned to reopen a discussion on celibacy, but were denied. With this all said, one question comes to mind; Is celibacy essential to the Catholic Church and would overturning this principle ultimately hurt the Church?

The idea must be discussed, and the longer the Catholic Church wishes to deny such a discussion, the more harm it will do to those wishing to become priests. Without showing some conformity to the modern day, the Church ultimately looks more like an out of date institution and less like an institution that is able to accurately connect with modern times and modern thought. If the Church wishes to strengthen its membership and increase its Priesthood, both which have been hurt in recent years, then reopening the debate on celibacy is a positive first step towards reversing these trends.

Making Plan B Available to All Ages

2009-03-26T01:45:00.001-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301275.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Abortion, teen pregnancy, and birth control are always hot topics and recent news concerning the FDA and Plan B, or the morning-after pill, will surely incite some people’s opinions about the whole issue. A federal judge has ordered the FDA to reconsider a 2006 decision that currently denies girls under the age of 18 from obtaining the emergency contraceptive pill without a prescription. Judge Edward Korman, of New York, not only wants Plan B to be available for 17-year-olds within 30 days, but to people of all ages without a prescription. That’s a pretty bold demand, but then again, he’s a U.S. district judge from the state of NEW YORK. Needless to say, this decision is upsetting many conservative groups within the nation. Wendy Wright, a spokesperson for the Concerned Women for America, stated that the ruling put “politics above women’s health” and intruded into “parents’ ability to protect their minor daughters.” She also asserts that easy access to Plan B hasn’t reduced the number of pregnancies and abortions, so lowering the age restriction or making it more accessible won’t improve present conditions. Other conservative congress members and advocacy groups point out that wider availability of the drug will “encourage sexual activity, make it easier for men to have sex with underage girls, and be the equivalent of an abortion.” Activists against this decision believe that there should be more tests to see if the drug is truly safe for underage girls, especially since many young women are taking Plan B multiple times as birth control and there aren’t enough studies about Plan B’s effects over time. Those on the opposite end of the debate also believe that the issue should be decided by science, not politics. The debate is definitely heated, but it seems as though both sides agree on one thing, and that’s the scientific aspect. I think science is the only way these groups will be able to come to an agreement. If science proves that Plan B has adverse effects for young women, obviously the conservatives would win this battle and if multiple uses prove to be harmless, then I’m sure the individuals at the Center for Reproductive Rights will immediately jump on the opportunity to make some changes. Obama has recently announced his plans to select a new FDA commissioner and to “insulate scientific decisions from political influence” so it will be interesting to see how this debate will turn out in the future.

Family First says the Catholic Church

2009-03-25T22:43:00.000-04:00

An article from the Houston Chronicle points out a current example of the Catholic Church trying to influence policy in a direction which would preserve the family and serve their humanitarian goals. The US Cardinal’s call for an end to the indiscriminate enforcement of immigration policies and violent police raids calls on Washington to employ tactics which would be less invasive of the family structure. In the implementation of immigration policies, families are often split up, deporting the parents and leaving the children either to the streets or foster care system. Cardinal Francis George, a speaker at the Chicago rally protesting immigration policies, does not condone immigrants breaking the law, neither does he condone the “separat(ion) of families, wives from husbands, children from parents, (would be) to diminish what God has joined.” The preservation of the family is one of the main foci of Catholic belief and the cause is readily served by the participation of Catholics in protesting immigration policies threatening the family.
Cardinal George also points to the immigrant voters may lose loyalty to those who support the violent raids and subsequent division of families. It is extremely important for the people to have faith in and maintain a positive image of the government. The support and implementation of policies such as militaristic raids on homes with fathers, mothers, and small children is a quick way to lose support for the program and develop antagonistic attitudes. Therefore it is important for US Customs officials and others responsible for the enforcement of disciplining those in violation of immigration policies to be cognizant of the dissidence coming from the Catholic community.

Newt Gingrich wants to renew American religiosity

2009-03-25T20:31:00.000-04:00

Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House, recently created an organization calling for a renewal of conservative evangelical and Catholic influence in American political life and aims to heal the rifts between social and fiscal conservatives. An article in the U.S. News and World Report discusses an exclusive interview with Gingrich and his plans for the organization.

Gingrich is working with David Barton, an evangelical activist, on meeting with conservative clergy and has partnered with the American Family Association to encourage participation in no-more-tax rallies. The organization, Renewing American Leadership, is also preparing a powerpoint presentation to show to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and other conservative economic groups in the hope that they will see religious conservatives as the saving grace of the conservative agenda and not continue to blame them for the recent failure in the fall election.

While Renewing American Leadership is focused on convincing the Republican Party that it’s socially conservative members are also its most consistent fiscally conservative ones, there is also an ambitious anti-secular agenda running throughout the organization’s rhetoric. Gingrich is quoted in the interview saying, “In the last few years I've decided that we're in a crisis in which the secular state, if allowed, will fundamentally and radically change America against the wishes of most Americans, you've had such rising hostility to religious belief that I wanted to reach broadly into the country and dramatically raise public awareness of threats to religious liberty.”

Not to mention David Barton’s sketchy history with anti-Semitic and racist groups, Gingrich and the organization have spoken out strongly against President Obama’s stimulus package as containing legislation that restricts religious liberty, dismisses Obama’s promise to reduce the need for abortions through his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and have written a 23-page report condemning the new Capitol Visitor Center as misrepresenting America’s religious past.

Obama Commencement Speech Causes Catholic Backlash

2009-03-25T20:11:00.002-04:00

In the FOX News article published Tuesday Critics Blast Obama's Commencement Speech, the author lays out the 64,000 signature backlash to President Obama's graduation day speech at the University of Notre Dame. The outcry raised from many Conservative members of the Catholic community centers around the Obama administrations rolling back of bans on federal embryonic stem cell research and the Democrats pro-choice views on abortion.

The Bishop of Fort Wayne, Indiana has decided not to join the commencement ceremony based on the differing ideological views of the Church and Obama. He states that, "I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well," the statement continued. "I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith 'in season and out of season,' and he teaches not only by his words -- but by his actions." The Bishop is completely within his rights to not attend the commencement ceremony. But I believe that he is denying the Catholic Church an open forum for opposing viewpoints. With the Pope's views becoming official Church doctrine, I find no fault in the University for wanting an open dialogue between accepted Catholic views and those of another individual.

Six sitting Presidents have attended the commencement ceremony at Notre Dame. Yet, the public has heard no outcry amongst Catholic officials when the President holds their own views. Is our society not one of open dialogue and new ideas? Yes. We absolutely are. No one has the right to silence dissenting viewpoints and I believe it entirely antithetical to religious institutions to try and do so. I'm not saying by any means that the Church is trying to quell Obama's speech violently. But even the attempt at quelling speech, even if one disagrees with it in principal is entirely un-American. Where are these same leaders outcry at George W. Bush's Iraq policy? Does the right to life not include wars? I believe these Catholic Bishops and laymen are making some hypocritical statements. It is my knowledge that the Church opposes the war in Iraq. Yet no fuss was made over W's address. So is it ok then, if you're Catholic, to call for the dismissal of an invitation to a President you disagree with politically and keep the one you do agree with?

The President of Notre Dame has said that the invitation and speech given by Obama will be a "basis for further positive engagement" in the national dialogue about abortion and stem cell research. I can't help but agree.

Leading Us to Towards the Light?

2009-03-25T15:33:00.001-04:00

In a recent article from The Detroit News, Rabbi Aaron Bergman argues that the reason organized religion has declined so dramatically is because leaders, both religious and political, are “losing their way.” He state that religious leaders are getting involved in “politics instead of justice,” implying that the two are unrelated and maybe even opposites.

He goes on to argue that he believes so much in the separation of church and state because “[he] loves them both too much to see them demeaned,” and at the risk of sounding exactly like Madison, that church would get in the way of good politics and on the other hand, politics would make religion “lose its soul.”

My question is: is it always the case that corrupt leaders lead to abandonment of religion, organized or otherwise? It would seem that I history, the exact opposite has happened. The most undemocratic and politically corrupt countries seem to be the ones that are in many cases, the most devoutly religious. Even when religious leaders “lose their way” the people in these countries seems to cling tighter to religion. We even see these leaders use religion as a way to get the people to do what they want; countless times we have seen terrorist commit atrocities in the name of their gods.

So why is the United States different?

No one is arguing that the U.S. has a completely innocent government or that the church has a completely innocent clergy, however the trend seems to be completely opposite than it is in other countries. Although many different factors play a role (values, economics, culture, etc.), lets pretend for a minute that all other factors are the same in all societies. Would the popularity of religion change strictly based on the actions of political and religious leaders? Would people cling to religion more? And should people continue to cling to and trust institutions that have become synonymous with corruption?

School of Jihad?

2009-03-25T12:43:00.002-04:00

Picture this. A religious school in a small, suburban community is looking to expand. The neighbors are concerned, though, worried that a bigger school will mean more traffic, more crowding, and more pollution.

Nothing out of the ordinary there—seems like a matter for the county commissioners. And if this were a Christian school, something like, say, Our Lady of Perpetual Something-or-Other, the issue would probably stop there. But this case isn’t so simple. The religious school in question is Fairfax City’s Islamic Saudi Academy.

The Washington Post reports:

At a public hearing last week, mundane neighborhood concerns were overshadowed by a longstanding dispute over the school's teachings and the perception that it promotes intolerance of other cultures…In 2007, a congressionally appointed panel found that some of the school's textbooks included language intolerant of other religions as well as passages that could be construed as advocating violence.

What was once a local issue has gone nationwide, as everyone from Congress on down is getting involved. One congressman went so far as to write to Secretary of State Clinton, complaining that the school’s textbooks “still contain questionable material.” The neighbors, naturally, are a little irked. They wanted to talk about school parking; instead, they’ve got to deal with people like this:

"The Islamic Saudi Academy's purpose is to train young and innocent Muslim children to hate and wage war into the future against our children," James Lafferty, a spokesman for the Traditional Values Coalition, a church lobbying group, said during the hearing.

Now that’s what I call hyperbole!

Religious schools will always be a contentious issue, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, or what have you. Critics, whether of specific religions like Islam or simply of religion in general, like to throw around words like “indoctrination” and “brainwashing.” Kids are impressionable, they say, and shouldn’t be subjected to a diet of religious orthodoxy.

Things get especially tricky where Islam is concerned. Over the past couple years, Americans have heard a lot about madrasahs, traditional Islamic schools. The media portrays them as terrorist factories churning out one jihadnik after another. No surprise, then, that some people are leery about the Saudi Academy.

In my opinion, though, these sort of fears are grossly overinflated. The Saudi Academy isn’t a terrorist training camp. It’s not a threat to national security. It’s not going to release a wave of suicide bombers into suburban Virginia. And if some of the textbooks are inflammatory? Well, that’s the concern of the school administration, not of Congress.

We’ve heard these arguments before. Less than a century ago, people suspected that Catholic schools were nothing more than fronts for the Vatican. Little Catholic kids were being raised to pledge allegiance to the Pope, rather than the flag. A lot of people tried to shut these schools down by claiming they were a threat to the country. These people weren’t necessarily anti-Catholic bigots, but their actions were bigoted nonetheless.

Not much has changed since then, it seems. I recommend that everyone involved take a deep breath. Congress, take a few steps back. Let the locals sort this one out.

Obama's Values and Catholicism.

2009-03-24T16:49:00.001-04:00

President Obama has some extremely liberal views including the belief in allowing abortion, which traditional Catholics find morally wrong and in violation of the Church. For this reason some of the traditionalists at the University of Notre Dame are disgusted with the thought of him as the principal speaker at the university’s commencement in May. One of the university’s longtime philosophy professors said having Obama speak at the university “is an unequivocal abandonment of any pretense at being a Catholic university.” He goes on to say, “Abortion is an essentially evil act, both from the viewpoint of natural morality and from the explicit teaching the Church…By inviting Barack Obama as commencement speaker, Notre Dame is telling the nation that the teaching of the Catholic Church on this fundamental matter can be ignored.”
I could not agree more. The principal speaker at a university’s commencement should not only embody the fundamental essence of the university’s values and goals in what he says in his speech, but his reputation and personal values and achievements should be a living example of who and what the students are aspiring to become. The founders of Notre Dame, the oldest and most esteemed Catholic University in the United States, certainly would not want their graduates influenced by a man who upholds values that contradict the foundation of Catholic beliefs.
Perhaps Obama would be a better fit for a slightly more liberal school, such as UNC. The UNC law school was split over the decision to have former attorney general in the Bush administration, Michael Mukasey, speak at the official commencement speaker this spring. Students and faculty argued that the felt they were endorsing him and his beliefs by having him as a speaker, and a multitude of individuals strongly opposed his standing on issues. If having an individual speak at a commencement ceremony qualifies as an endorsement, however, then the Notre Dame opposition to Obama speaking at the commencement is certainly justified when they say the decision is “shocking and disappointing.” A Catholic university should not be endorsing an individual who defends abortion. Blasphemy anyone?

Obama's Next Church

2009-03-24T09:54:00.001-04:00

Joseph Williams of the Boston Globe recently wrote an article about the next church to be attended by the presidential family. President Obama and his aids are currently searching around the D.C. area for a fitting church home for the president, Michelle, and their two children. The search for the new church home of the presidential family comes right after the controversy of Obama’s now former church and church minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. This was a significant issue for the Democratic presidential candidate and was a large blow for his campaign in many American’s minds. While I personally though little of this fiasco, it is no surprise that many Americans are concerned about what church the most powerful person in America attends.

Joshua DuBois is in charge of all the presidential faith-based initiatives and is the lead director on the search for the Obama’s new church. Many different churches, including Asbury United Methodist Church, Mount Cavalry Baptist Church, Foundary United Methodist Church, and Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church and Shiloh Baptist Church have contacted DuBois about being able to accommodate the presidential family. There is a concern from both the churches and the Obama family about the chosen congregation being able to adjust to the increased security, popularity, etc.

This is a very interesting dilemma for the Obama family especially considering the symbolism surrounding this next administration and ‘change’. With religion’s role in politics still on the forefront of social issues (see the aforementioned Rev Wright issue), the selection by President Obama for where to worship will be closely observed by the American public. When all is said and done, there is little the American public can really say about the Obama’s decision. Whether it is a conservative Baptist church or a more liberal Church of Christ, the decision comes from a religious family in search of a Christian congregation, not a political figure promoting the views of one denominational faith. It is important for us to separate the political side of our president from his religious side and realize that a man of faith lies underneath his job. President Obama’s decision about where he attends church should reflect little on his ole as our national leader.

Is Hijab a Hat?

2009-03-24T09:18:00.026-04:00

Apparently, the Navy Federal Credit Union, a Maryland bank, has a “no hats, hoods or sunglasses policy.” When a Muslim woman entered the bank two weekends ago to complete some money errands, she was asked to “do her banking in a back room” according to David Waters’ March 21st column “Under God” in The Washington Post. The Maryland Muslim was wearing hijab— modest dress, that includes a headscarf, worn by some Muslim women.

“Note to Credit Union:” wrote Waters in his response to this latest incident of hijab hassles, “A Hijab is Not a Hat.”

The Credit Union’s policy is meant to prevent robberies and identity theft, but has now put the label ‘shady’ on hijab as well. Waters points out that the Navy Federal policy does not make exceptions for Jews, Sikhs, Catholics and others who choose to cover their heads for religious reasons. Spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Ibrahim Hooper told a Post reporter, however, there has to be a way to reconcile security concerns with religious freedom.

Waters’ suggestion: common sense.

I tend to agree.

The Maryland Muslim’s bank encounter is by no means the first of its kind. A Muslim woman in Oklahoma was asked to pull her headscarf back in order to reveal her hairline for a driver’s license photo last year and declined. She was later allowed to take the photo when officials determined her face sufficed as a means of identification.

Usually, hijab-DMV squabbles and similar incidents are worked without much fuss. A compromise, like a written statement explaining the purpose of hijab, is typically enough to quell security panic attacks. When I went to get my driver’s license at a North Carolina DMV, I wrote just such a statement. It took two minutes, and I did not mind it at all. In fact, it was a chance for my DMV officer to learn something about my faith. The Muslim-woman-in-hijab and DMV photo stories are becoming so commonplace now that some DMVs do not ask for a written statement anymore, and the media seems to be getting bored of covering them.

The legal qualms about head coverings in ID photos and some public areas have not been completely settled however. Just last month Oklahoma state Rep. Rex Duncan proposed a bill to “ban all head coverings” in driver’s license photos. Duncan said this would include everything from cowboy hats to nuns’ veils. I presume hijab is safely included in that spectrum.

Luckily, Mr. Duncan’s bill did not make it through the Senate. Minnesota state Rep. Steve Gottwalt introduced a similar bill in his state, but the bill was quickly revised to allow for religious head coverings.

Anyone else seeing a pattern?

For God’s sake, let’s use common sense. The government’s concern with personal identification for security reasons is by all means legitimate. When you are responsible for 300 million plus individuals, you can not know them all. A uniform, reliable system of identification needs to be in place for everyone’s safety. However, we cannot let that system infringe on religious freedom without grave reason. Hijab and religious head coverings that do not hurt anyone and do not obscure identification do not warrant alarm.

My question is, if I decide to wear a hat, sunglasses and pop my hood on top of my hijab does that…? Yeah, that would be going too far, and I would not be one to abuse my constitutional freedoms like that!

Don't Like it. Don't Open it.

2009-03-24T09:13:00.002-04:00

The New York Times published an article in regards to the military and a breach of their policy of religious neutrality. The Air Force is investigating Col. Kimberly Toney for sending out an email that contained an “inspirational” story located on a Catholic Web site. The religious nature of the story, about a disabled man’s faith in God, is under scrutiny due to the military’s pledge of religious neutrality. Many recipients of the email felt the email and the website were in violation of military policy. They were even more disturbed to find a satire of President of Obama dressed in Nazi uniform and labeled “a veritable forerunner of the Antichrist” on the website. Col. Toney has since apologized for the email but is still being investigated and no action has yet been taken.

Currently the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is suing the Defense Department over the issue of religious bias in the military. The head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has said the issue is a “textbook case” of improper religious influence. I am aware there is an issue of slippery slope when speaking of the strictness of separation of government and religion, but at times it garners more attention than it deserves.

This controversy seems a bit blown out of proportion. I find the major issue is the portrayal of the military’s Commander and Chief and not the issue of religion in the “inspirational story.” The military has chaplains, though unaffiliated with any denomination, I am sure would be found to be predominately Christian. This does not seem an issue, so why is an email? With the military’s rampant discrimination based on gender and sexuality, it seems that there are bigger issues for the military to be concerned about. An emailed link is fairly harmless. Don’t like it, don’t open it. There was no coercion to view the site and no repercussions if you didn’t.

Blasphemy!

2009-03-24T08:53:00.003-04:00

The state of Pennsylvania denied a man corporate designation for his business based on its name because state law does not allow blasphemous content according to a March 20 article by Samuel G. Freedman in the New York Times.

George Kalman claims that his choice of name for his business, I Choose Hell Productions, LLC, was based on his existential view on life—life can be hellish, but it is still better than suicide. However, this name was considered blasphemous by the state of Pennsylvania under a 1977 statute that prohibits, “words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name,” in the names of corporations. The law was initially legislated in 1977 in order to regulate corporate names, in particular one man’s application wanting to name his shop the God Damn Gun Shop.

After applying for designation in 2007, Kalman filed a lawsuit against the state last month seeking to have the Pennsylvania law struck down as unconstitutional.

One could possibly rationalize that the state was trying to keep the names of its businesses more respectable (though respectability is not a compelling state interest) and less profane. However, the same policy that denied Kalman’s plan approved corporate designation for names like Devil Media, Vomit Noise Productions and Satanic Butt Slayers—all of which could be considered blasphemous and offensive.

This case is one of many cases in the United States taking on old-fashioned laws on blasphemy, many of which were created under the assumption that the U.S. was a Christian country in the more socially conservative period of the late 1800s. Most of the laws define blasphemy in Christian terms citing God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and “Scripture,” according to the article. There is no consideration for other practicing religions or the non-religious. Such laws still exist in Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming along with Pennsylvania.

These laws were also justifiable for their time because they also condemned content containing sexual immorality, like pornography. However, laws have since been created specifically regulating pornography in the last century.

The Pennsylvania law suggests that the state government has the authority to determine what is or is not religious based on speech, while it fails to designate the standard by which it is able to do so. Legislation that assumes citizens are of a particular religion, or have a religion at all, does not offer an equal, non-discriminatory application of the law, and thus, must be revisited.

The fact that Pennsylvania was able to pass and maintain a law that suggests recognition of a particular religion in the late 20th century demonstrates that American governments are still defining the line separating church and state. While the government does have the ability to regulate content and speech that is profane and obscene, it does not have the ability to restrict proclamations or attacks on religious views.

Kalman’s intentions were not to condemn any religion, but to incorporate his own view about life into his work. However, in doing so, the state of Pennsylvania felt that he was also decrying “America’s God.”

Death Penalty: Legally Wrong or Morally Wrong?

2009-03-24T01:41:00.002-04:00

http://ncronline.org/print/12509

In this article which appeared in the National Catholic Reporter, many issues surrounding capital punishment were addressed. The article aims to explain both sides on the question of repealing the death penalty in the state of Maryland.

Leaders such as Governor Martin O’Malley, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti , Kathy Saile and more all hold arguments in favor of the repeal. Reasoning for their favor ranges from the death penalty’s cost to its jurisdictional bias to the killing of a potentially innocent person. However, Maryland as a whole is represented by a majority vote supporting the death penalty and rejecting its repeal.

What is most interesting about this article and political issue in Maryland isn’t the formal arguments in favor of the repeal; instead it’s the faith-based arguments for the repeal. The article mentions a Catholic family in Frederick, Maryland who suffered a tragic loss of a murdered father. The family, while admitting their initial anger, was adamant about testifying for the repeal. They said that, “In the end, it really deepened [their] faith” and they “realized that the death penalty would have never freed us.” They also mentioned that they “considered the grief and pain it would inflict on the murderer’s parents.” Kathy Saile, the director of domestic social development for the bishops’ conference, said that capital punishment was an ethical issue for Catholics and devastating because of the value Catholics put on life.

However, while mentioning that he believes the death penalty is “costly and ineffective,” Governor O’Malley states that “the core beliefs of his Catholic faith” support the “dignity of every individual and responsibility to advance the common good.” He also feels that the US has a duty to cater to a more altruistic reputation rather than a smiting one.

Another public figure, Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger, feels that the formal arguments given by the above leaders for repealing the death penalty are illogical and based on skewed facts. He counters the opinion to search for dignity in people by saying that “there are just some criminals out there who are so bad that they cannot live in any society, including jail.” He also counters the jurisdictional and racial biases by addressing the right and legality of jurisdictional penalties in addition to the lack of proof for intentional racial discrimination. Lastly, he contradicts the costly-and-ineffective bit by claiming that the number they came up with was “ludicrous” because of all the expenses included in their “analysis.”

It seems that some of the political arguments for repealing the death penalty are unsound, leaving faith-based reasoning to be the most pervasive and substantiated. Many public figures like Governor O’Malley seem to be confident in their legal reasoning; however, it seems as though what’s really driving their opinions is their faith, whether they would admit it or not. Is faith enough to repeal the death penalty? Moreover, is the Christian faith enough to override legal reasoning and repeal the penalty? Are there other important figures whose faith or lack thereof could determine whether someone lives or dies?

Pennsylvania Court Rules AA Not "Religious"

2009-03-24T01:34:00.001-04:00

Recently, a Pennsylvania appellate court ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is not religious in its purpose a therefore could not claim protection under Religious Land Use laws (the reason the case was brought before the court is because residents of Abington Township wanted to prevent the meetings from occurring at a local building). This event is an excellent example of the increasingly blurred line of what is religious in what is secular in a modern society.

Alcoholics Anonymous Began as a spiritual organization—springing off an Episcopal church in New York. In addition its church roots, AA meetings still include prayer and seven out of its twelve covenant guidelines reference God. All things considered, AA seems to be just as much of a religious organization as my university life group. Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania court ruling on this case did not see things this way because the defendants could not prove that Glenside, the building used, is a house of worship or that the means are administered by a spiritual leader.

What makes this case interesting is the fact that had AA and Glenside been deemed religious in their purposes, they would have been protected under the law and would have been able to continue to house their meetings in the same location. Some would argue that the Religious Land Use laws should be unconstitutional given that the Establishment Clause calls for Congress to make no law respecting religion; however, these laws unquestionably do and in cases like these favor religious purposes.

This case shows that what is considered religious and what is not can be difficult to decipher in a society that has been, since its inception, entrenched in religious foundations and principles. Religion has found a way to play a crucial role in society by means other than just the church and in turn has found a permanent place in American politics.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/03/court_rules_aa_not_religious.html

Keeping the Faith, Ignoring the History

2009-03-23T23:41:00.000-04:00

In this NYT op-ed article published on Feb. 28th Susan Jacoby addresses the issue of giving government aid to religious organizations. She goes back to the issue of violating the First Amendment, saying that funding for faith-based initiatives is too complicated and that the federal government should not provide help to these groups in any way. She is criticizing Obama for his support of faith-based initiatives (especially towards the end of the article). She starts with Bill Clinton and points out that “he signed a welfare reform bill that included a “charitable choice” provision allowing religious groups to compete for grants.” Of course, she then continues to George W. Bush and talks about how he used executive orders for money for his faith-based programs, especially from the Christian right. She finds the Christian left at fault too for encouraging funding for religious groups instead of opposing it. She doesn’t think Obama is doing any better. What Jacoby has a hard time believing is that religious groups are capable of being involved in any time of activity without proselytizing. Another good point that she makes is that the people who are being serviced by religious groups are usually in need of a lot more than a meal or material possessions; they need moral support, hope, something to believe in. They are very vulnerable people, and they will be more likely to want to believe in something that they wouldn’t necessarily consider otherwise. They could also just be pretending to believe to get a place to sleep, for example. Whatever the case is, Jacoby doesn’t think it’s good. She also thinks it is risky to have programs funded by the government, since the government can also stop this funding at any point. Although I agree with Jacoby on many levels, as a former participant in religious service trips I think religious groups are so involved in community service in the US, and that their service has a positive effect, that their service is in fact needed, if not necessary. However, I think that within the next couple of decades, as more atheists come out of their shells and secularization is encouraged this dependence will decrease and then it will all go back to the First Amendment, and to the question of why the government has been funding these groups in the first place.

Where Does Faith "Go"?

2009-03-23T20:55:00.004-04:00

In Deepak Chopra's blog in The Washington Post, he discusses the interesting conclusion that people do not "lose" faith, but rather "shift" it to other (frequently more secular) pursuits. But the recent loss in church attendance does not signal some sort of secularization of America; rather, it shows that, in hard times, people often put their faith in things like community and volunteering. Behind this, Chopra purports, is the idea that many people in America are open to spirituality, but within an much more inclusive framework, not one that excludes people because their beliefs differ from their own (he specifically mentions Christian fundamentalism). Chopra ends with the claim that "as long as faith is placed in a positive value... the decline in church attendance isn't a crisis", but simply evidence that there are other ways for Americans to get their dose of spirituality without working through the religious/church system.

While I agree with Chopra's claim in principle, it will take a lot more than anecdotal evidence that volunteering has increased in times of recession to sway my mind. He makes the claim that "America is a secular society, based on faith in democracy, technology, opportunity, the law, and above all, science". I find this statement quite ludicrous, to be honest, particularly the latter portion about science. If this were the case, would we have not one, but two "rising stars" of one of the two major parties, Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, mocking the use of government funds on fruit fly research and volcano monitoring? This may be more of a recent phenomenon, with the rise of the neoconservatives and the Christian Right, but it's nonetheless important to note. As for the "rule of law" claim, I don't think I need to use specific examples to illustrate how that was thoroughly obliterated throughout the past 8 years (but just to humor you, Scooter Libby pardon? Firing of Justice Dept. attorneys? Gitmo?)

On the other hand, I definitely agree that "the worship of money was prevalent for the past eight years". From all the stories, proven or not, about how the Bush Administration handled various aspects of the Iraq War, handing out no-bid contracts, Blackwater, questionable connections between Halliburton and VP Cheney, and disappearing money, I think this is a great way to sum up the past 8 years. I might even take it a step further and say that it wasn't so much a worship of money, but a blatant disregard for the principles of our country and throwing them out in favor of profiteering.

When all is said and done, Chopra does hit some good points but, overall, I'm just not convinced. If we can pull ourselves out of this recession and put ourselves actually back on the track of respecting science, democracy, and law, then I'll believe what Chopra says. Until then, well, I remain skeptical.

Time to Get Off the Swing: Israel Weakening as a Politically Deciding Issue amongst American Jews.

2009-03-23T20:26:00.001-04:00

In contemporary American politics the issue of Israeli support has swung votes within the American Jewish population. This has proven powerful in its abilities to decide elections in the past, but with the unveiling of a recent report by Hilary Krieger of the Jerusalem Post, disagreement over US-Israeli relations within the Jewish vote may be declining which could show a halting swing factor. The Israel swing vote is so vital that George Bush went to great lengths to attract Jewish voters concerned with Israel in 2000. He aligned himself with advisors who were specialists in Jewish related foreign affairs. He actively courted a Jewish vote despite his awareness that the Jewish popular vote would inevitably fall to Al Gore. The result was a 10 percent increase from his dad in 1992. In any election that could be the difference in winning office or defeat. In one as close as that one it is at least intriguing to consider how Bush would have fared had he not courted that portion of the Jewish vote.
To very little surprise Obama won the Jewish vote in 2008 in the upper 70 percents. What’s more surprising are recent reports implying a declining relationship between explicitly supporting Israel in American foreign policy and sustaining that portion of the Jewish electorate that has proved amazingly powerful despite their relatively miniscule population. The swing that recent politicians have rarely intrepidly confronted appears on the verge of disappearing. According to this report, there is less separation in the American Jew camp, which should calm the fears of Israel being a deciding factor in elections.
At midnight March 20th Barack Obama started his “Middle Eastern Engagement” with a message welcoming in the Arab New Year. But, more specifically he addressed the Iranian leaders who he hopes to foster peaceful international relationships with despite historical and cultural differences. Although simple in its diplomatic nature and a tiny first step up this mountainous political task, he mentioned how we are all linked by this time of renewal and realizing common dreams. Obama cleverly plays on their season of new beginnings, hoping to ameliorate disastrous political relationships with peaceful intent. However, not so well hidden in this diplomatic game is the glaring fact that such pressure on Iran is perilous ground to trek for the general safety of Israel.
Was this the “change” American Jews voted for? One would think not. US-Iranian engagement must spark fears into the American Jew constituency, especially the ones most associated with the swing factor. The evidence appearing in the Jerusalem Post suggests the contrary and a rapidly declining swing factor before our eyes. Although suspicious in their inabilities to give concrete numbers, the article states that “large majorities of American Jews support Barack Obama's active engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if that means exerting pressure and publicly disagreeing with Israel.” The data was collected via an email based survey which clearly limits its credibility, although it is said to have “accurately represented the American Jewish demographics.” Nevertheless, the results are intriguing. Despite Obama’s possible pressure on Iran and the terror this could cause Israel, American Jews are still backing his plans in large numbers. If these numbers are as large as the article indicates and this is not an exaggeration of American Jew beliefs, then days of Israel as an election deciding issue are over.

God Protects Kentucky?

2009-03-23T00:06:00.000-04:00

In this amusing article from late last year, Rex Huppke reports for the Chicago Tribune that apparently God has “been put in charge of keeping [Kentucky] safe from terrorism.” According to the article, Democratic Representative Tom Riner, a former Baptist preacher, inserted a line in a homeland security bill “requiring the state to acknowledge formally that safety and security in the state ‘cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God’” – to be put on a plaque somewhere in the state’s Office of Homeland Security. Riner, who is a staunch accomodationist, felt the language was necessary because “[Christianity is] part of our history” and that “if we don’t affirm the right to recognize divine providence, then that puts that right in jeopardy.”

When Kentucky resident Edwin Hensely brought the bill’s language to the attention of the national advocacy group American Atheists, the group immediately began to mobilize to declare the bill’s unconstitutionality. Hensely called the bill “absurd,” and other atheist activists see it as an attack on non-believers, calling it “part of a pattern of Christians trying to use government as a weapon for imposing their beliefs on everybody.”

Though the bill is “flagrantly unconstitutional,” in the words of Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman, I found each party’s line of reasoning rather amusing and representative of the stereotypical accomodationist/separationist debate. From the proud, self-righteous accomodationist comes the argument that “religion is an inherent part of the fabric of our nation, and we should be reminded of that at all times,” while from the beleaguered and oppressed separationist comes the cry that “our beliefs (or lack thereof) are being suppressed because God was mentioned on a plaque in the Office of Homeland Security.” As Koppelman notes, “one man’s ‘suppression of history’ is another’s ‘abiding by the First Amendment’.”

So, what do we learn from this example? Perhaps nothing more than “if you put God on a government building, expect a lawsuit” – but that certainly hasn’t deterred anyone yet.

Archbishop Denies Catholic Politician Communion

2009-03-22T22:35:00.001-04:00

In a recent editorial in The Kansas City Star, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City wrote that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius should refrain from taking communion. Naumann contends that because of her more than 25 years of supporting legalized abortion, which he believes involves the destruction of an innocent human life, Sebelius “consistently support policies that permit [sic] intrinsic evils.” Naumann feels that Catholics in public life have an obligation to promote policies in line with the Church’s fundamental teachings, his fear being that the failure of public figures to do so will ultimately lead others in error. The archbishop states that Sebelius does not have the right to “redefine Catholic teaching regarding abortion as well as our understanding of the Eucharist” with her policies. Historically, the largely Protestant American electorate always feared that pressure from the Catholic Church hierarchy would play too large a role in shaping the policies of Catholic politicians. During the 1960 presidential campaign, Senator John Kennedy, a Catholic, consistently had to confront voters fears that the Vatican in Rome would have an improper role in his decision-making. In a 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy professed his strong belief in the separation of Church and State and explained that there would be no influencing of his policies by the Catholic Church. Kennedy said that he believed in an America where “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.” Naumann is engaging in the same type of behavior that voters, who were suspicious of Catholic politicians, believed would happen and Kennedy rejected. Naumann is using his religious stature and authority over Sebelius in an unfair attempt to influence her governance.

Can I pray in my moment of silence?

2009-03-22T22:04:00.002-04:00

An article on the website for The Dallas Morning News entitled “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Texas Law Requiring a Minute of Silence in Schools” tells of a court decision to allow Texas public school to have a moment of silence before the start of each school day. Texas had passed a law requiring that there be a mandatory moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance. The problem for some parents comes in with the explanation of the moment of silence. Students are told that there will be a moment of silence in which they can “pray, reflect, meditate or engage in other silent activities.” One couple with three kids in the Texas public school system, claim that mentioning prayer in the description was the advancement of religion and claim that their daughter was told by a teacher that it was “a time for prayer.” The federal court however decided that the moment of silence is not explicitly religious and offers time to be quiet and prepare for the day as well as fostering patriotism (I guess you could be reflecting on the pledge you just said). Ultimately the courts ruled the Texas moment of silence constitutional, but the parents are still deciding on whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

After a period of fierce anti-establishment rulings, the courts are beginning to find a balance. The never-ending question of how to protect the religious freedom of the people with out making others feel left out is still left up to debate. Most would agree that the state should not endorse a particular religion, but does this mean that any hint of religion needs to be stamped out. We forget that the state is made up of people. It is not some abstract entity that is able to be completely fair and unbiased. The people are the state and people have beliefs, the same way they have moral standards that stealing is wrong or ideologies such as believing that democracy is the best form of government. No matter how much anyone tries to remove these beliefs and be completely unbiased, it cannot happen. Our beliefs are who we are and splitting the two is not possible. That being said if the state is the people and people have beliefs then it only makes sense that the state will have these beliefs contained in it. Therefore trying to stamp out all religion from government is an impossible task. Does that mean the state should endorse religion? Of course not; the people who make up the state do not all believe the same thing. They all have beliefs but not the same ones.

The state contains many beliefs and the wording of the Texas moment of silence allows for the inclusion of these beliefs, even the Christian ones. I think the parents who sued the school are showing more discrimination than the school. The school is making an effort to include time for all ways of thinking and yes, to give the kids who want to pray the chance to do so. The parents are discriminating against the religious of the school, saying that the religious are below them and the student who chooses reflect instead of pray. They are on a witch hunt for anything they do not personally believe in. The children are not being forced to pray in the time given and since prayer is silent, no one know who is praying and who is not, therefore there is no alienation effect for those who choose not to pray. It seems to me that in this case the parents are blowing everything out of proportion. Making people feel discriminated against is bad but the inclusion of prayer in a list of options of activities does not seclude but include and in fact by forcing the schools to omit prayer as an option is discrimination in itself. State established religion is bad (and not present in this case), but restricting the free speech and free exercise of others is much worse.

Equal protections for public and private?

2009-03-22T18:04:00.006-04:00

In a recent New York Times article, “Religious Leaders Battle Abuse in New York,” author Paul Vitello describes the backlash from Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jewish officials over the Child Victims Act, a bill that would give people who were sexually abused as children a one year exemption from the statute of limitations during which they could take their case to civil court, regardless of how long ago the alleged incident of abuse occurred. At the close of the year, the statute of limitations, currently five years, would be extended to ten years after the victim has turned eighteen. While this is not the first time the bill has been brought before the State Legislature, the previous Republican majority consistently voted against the bill, despite longstanding support from New York Governor David Paterson. However, with a new Democratic majority in the State Senate and a solid possibility that the bill will go through, a coalition of Catholic and Orthodox Jewish leaders have come out in strong opposition to the bill’s passage, arguing that it is a direct attempt to bankrupt the Catholic Church and other religious institutions that have been similarly marred with charges of sexual abuse. Opponents contend that the bill “unfairly singles out religious and private institutions,” as public institutions operate under established state law that requires all claims made against a public employee or agency to be filed within 90 days, or, in the case of abuse against a minor, until 90 days after the victim has turned 18. Proponents argue that just because the bill does not redress sexual abuse against all victims, it does not mean the bill should be abandoned entirely.

While I think the discrepancy between the treatment of public and private institutions is problematic, and that the bill should apply universally, the claim that representatives of the Catholic Church are making, namely that the State government is trying to bankrupt the Church by giving sexual abuse victims the opportunity to take legal action against their alleged abusers seems to border on outlandish. While the State does seem to be protecting public workers at the expense of abuse victims, the State, in applying the law to all private institutions, does not seem to be targeting any church or private, secular organization. Moreover, that these religious organizations are coming out so strongly against this bill seems to contradict the social justice initiative and moral fiber that ground religious teaching. While the State does appear to be unfairly protecting agencies and workers, the argument that not only does this law explicitly discriminate against the Catholic Church and other religious institutions but is moreover an intentional attempt to financially dismantle the Catholic Church in the state of New York, and consequently, should not be passed by State legislatures, comes across as the Church protecting its employees at the expense of its members who have suffered abuses. I think it’s enormously unfortunate that the State’s protection of its employees has given these religious lobbies the leverage to potentially block a bill that would extend the rights of sexual abuse victims.

Does the GOP need a makeover?

2009-03-22T13:36:00.001-04:00

In a post-election America where the "40-and-under bloc went overwhelmingly for President Obama," will the GOP have to reinvent its image to survive? Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. definitely thinks so, as outlined in the article "Huntsman takes aim at GOP" This up-and-coming Republican presidential contender for 2012 is an affluent Mormon-- already a hard sell for a party that has long been linked to evangelical Christianity. However, his religion may not prove to be his greatest obstacle to winning the GOP nomination, although it probably won't help. What many Republicans would object to-- indeed, are already objecting to-- is his call for a dramatic transformation of the GOP to combat "sweeping demographic and political changes that threaten to consign Republicans to a long-term minority status and confine their appeal to narrow sections of the country." While his economic ideals are still staunchly conservative, he believes that when it comes to morality and social issues, such as civil unions, abortion, and the environment, a more compromising, progressive stance is crucial.

While the majority of Republicans would find fault with his vision (according to the article, seventy percent of Utahans, his own constituents, disagree with his views) it is true that over the past twenty years or so, there has been a movement within the Republican Party towards a moderate stance. Thomas Frank has studied the emergence of this moderate faction within the GOP in Kansas. As Frank explains in What's the Matter with Kansas?, the "Mods" are often so opposed the social conservatism of the more traditional Republicans that many will go to great lengths to take power away from them-- even as far as to vote Democrat. As both Frank and this article point out, the Democratic candidate is often preferred by this "highly educated, socially moderate and affluent" group, and in the last presidential election, Obama definitively won them. With a group of Republicans defecting from their own party, it certainly seems as though something needs to change.

The fact that the Democrats have won over Republican voters should not cause the GOP to despair, because the process can easily work in reverse. The core Republican values-- smaller government, lower taxes-- have become overshadowed by their conservative social agenda. In fact, many Americans no longer differentiate between the GOP and the Dems by their views of federal power, but as the pro-life and pro-choice party, the anti-gay and pro-gay party. In today's society, a moderate stance on social issues is becoming the norm. If the GOP could just capitalize on this fact, they could win over voters who have a conservative outlook on government but have previously been scared away by an unrelenting moral platform. Based on this, I think that Huntsman might just be the one to reignite the GOP--though whether or not Republicans think so remains to be seen.

Upholding the First Amendment in the Military

2009-03-22T13:07:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago the New York Times ran an article titled “Questions Raised Anew About Religion in the Military.” The article raises the question of where the line is between free practice of religion and state-sponsored Christianity in the US military. The debate centers on a law suit recently brought against the military that accuses them of ignoring laws and policies banning mandatory religious practice. While the author does not give his opinion one way or another, he gives a voice to each side of the argument through interviews with representatives from the Army’s Chief of Chaplains Office and individual soldiers involved in the law suit.

The most recent incident against the military is the use of an interview with Terry Bradshaw in an official military production dealing with depression, suicide, and the importance of faith. Bradshaw is quoted as depending on Christianity to get him through his depression. The film then leaves the Bradshaw interview and discusses the importance of faith in dealing with depression. The military claims that Bradshaw’s testimony is simply representative of an individual’s reliance of faith; it does not say that all soldiers must rely on faith. Representatives of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation argue that Bradshaw’s testimony does just that; it forces soldiers to believe that religion is the key factor to coping with depression. While I am a strong supporter of separation of church and state, in this case I tend to side with the military. Isn’t it their job in a pluralistic society to present soldiers with many different paths to recovery? To really show that Bradshaw’s interview is merely his personal opinion, however, they should include interviews with other men who have dealt with depression without relying on faith.

The article then points to several other instances where the military has blurred the line between church and state; on all of these issues I tend to disagree with the military. For example, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who is an atheist, was forced to participate in a homecoming ceremony that began and concluded with a Christian prayer. Another plaintiff received a “negative evaluation” (which resulted in the loss of his pilot’s license) just four days after writing an article in his local newspaper complaining about the use of prayers in “Jesus’ name” in other homecoming ceremonies. A memo distributed at the Air Force last month specifically pointed out that cadets should not “be made to feel that they would get better jobs by going to optional Bible study sessions.”

All of the incidents above are blatant violations of the first amendment. Every soldier in the military is risking their life to defend this nation and the ideology we were founded upon; this includes the separation of church and state. I understand that in war faith can be very important to a soldier’s mental and physical health. But we live in a pluralistic society; to give preference to one soldier over another is not right. What about the non-Christians that risk their safety every bit as much as Christian soldiers who depend on Christianity to survive? Should we sacrifice their needs? Every soldier should feel that they have the option to practice their religion, but the military should not endorse religion. It is not their place to say one soldier’s lifestyle is better than another. Isn’t the whole point of having soldiers wear uniforms and have the same haircut to unite them as one? Forcing religion of any kind upon all soldiers is divisive.

More Secularism in the Future?

2009-03-21T15:28:00.002-04:00

In his article "God Will Provide---Unless the Government Gets There First," Wilcox examines the trend towards secularism in the US. He first attributes it to the lower marriage rates, noting that religious participation is often catalyzed by family life. This seems to be a valid point based on Falwell’s emphasis on family values. Wilcox then points out that there’s another imminent threat to religious participation levels---the government. Under Obama’s plans for larger government welfare programs, church charities and programs will be more extraneous and people will be less likely to feel compelled to get involved with a church organization in order to help society.

In the Civil Rights Era, discrimination led African Americans to turn to religion for community and support in their crusade for equal rights. Likewise, when people are experiencing hard times, they turn to God and the religious community as a means of emotional and financial support. If the government attempts to keep the poor at higher standards of living, religion will be a less important solace. This is not to say that the government should not follow through with plans of increased welfare simply because it risks diminishing the importance of religion---that is a matter to be argued when discussing the pros and cons of faith-based initiatives.

Wilcox duly notes that many are drawn to religion by faith alone, but I think he is correct in predicting that increased welfare could have adverse effects on already decreasing religious involvement. Even if some people initially come for the faith, there are others that may stay for the faith, but wouldn’t have come in the first place but for the support. Of course, whether or not religious involvement is decreasing is also up for debate. According to Wald and Calhoun-Brown, religious involvement in the US has remained relatively stable.

The New Young Evangelical Left

2009-03-21T01:13:00.000-04:00

In his article, “Liberalism Misses the Point of Personal Faith”, Bryan Weynand argues that a new generation of young evangelicals are rebelling against their traditional religious affiliation with republicans and accepting a new liberal out look. This, according to him, is because of their focus on social justice and the Democratic Party’s image as the ‘compassionate party’ versus the republican party which is seen as the one that just doesn’t care about the troubles of those less fortunate (18). He plainly claims that this is false—and that the Republican Party is the one that stills believes in compassion while the Democratic Party “lost faith in it long ago”. He founds his argument on the fact that democrats tend to favor higher taxes, which he equates to “thievery”, taking away the ability for individual citizens to donate to charities on their own. Because liberals favor higher taxes for the collective good, he argues that they have lost faith in the ability of individuals to be good on their own and therefore that a shift in the evangelical electorate is contradictory to their faith—a faith which emphasizes free will and choice. The irony in his argument arises when Weynand seems to rant about the importance of free choice ignoring the fact that the evangelical right seeks to take away the rights of many citizens to choose an abortion or choose to marry someone of the same sex. Their very philosophy is one that seeks to take away choice. So is the new generation of evangelicals (which is quickly becoming more liberal and left-leaning) a good fit for the Democratic Party? (A notion Weynand ferociously combats) I believe the answer depends on one’s perception of the Democratic Party. Is it a party dedicated to instituting compulsory charity through high taxes or it is legitimately a party dedicated to seeking social justice and more equal opportunities for all American citizens—to giving or taking away choice?

Christianity dying out in America?

2009-03-18T22:58:00.002-04:00

A recent survey by Trinity College, Connecticut suggests that America is becoming less Christian. The CNN article that evaluates the American Religious Identification Survey states that there are four principle reasons why the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Christians has dropped from 86% to 75% in 20 years:

1) The radical shift towards individualism
2) The rise of evangelical Christianity, and its connection to the Republican Party
3) The child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church
4) The fact that it is becoming more socially acceptable to be a non-believer

So, is this study the first sign that American Christianity is failing? Are these figures causing alarm bells to be rung in churches across the nation?

I think that this article is interesting for two reasons. First, it suggests that America is not, and perhaps has not been for some time, the last great bastion of Christianity in the developed world that it appears at first glance. As a foreigner myself, it has always baffled me why America is so religious in comparison to secular Europe. One thing I have noticed is that in America there is a much greater taboo around the idea of declaring yourself a non-believer. For this reason I think many people identify themselves as Christian even though they do not believe in any of the core Christian doctrines. In a sense they are 'cultural Christians', in which their Christianity acts as an identity rather than a supernatural belief system. The survey suggests that over the last few years it has become more and more socially acceptable to declare yourself a secularist - and this does of course account for the decrease in numbers of Christians - but I suspect there are still a huge number of 'cultural Christian' Americans who are still not comfortable in making this identity step. Even if the taboo around atheism is decreasing, and Presidents are now publicly acknowledging "non-believers", it has not been completely broken yet.

Secondly, the article suggests that it is the more liberal, mainline churches that are losing members. People who once associated themselves with these churches are either moving towards the more orthodox strands of Protestantism and Catholicism or are declaring themselves secular. For example, "born again" or "evangelical" Christianity is on the rise, with around 8 million Americans now associated with mega-churches.This does not surprise me. A similar thing has happened with the Church of England: those who did not actually believe started to feel comfortable admitting this publicly, while those who did hold faith found the CofE theology too liberal and vague. So what will the future hold in store for the American,liberal, mainline Protestant churches? Will their numbers continue to drop?

If so, in 20 years time will America have changed from a country that is 75% 'Christian' (including all the 'cultural' Christians) to a country that is only 50% Christian (but with all the Christians actually believing in the core tenants of the faith)?

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, remains optimistic that people will indeed return to the Christian faith. He suggests that as the economy continues to deteriorate, people will "be driven to religion". Perhaps Perkins is right. As the secular Enlightenment thinkers argued: when resources are in abundance, the need for religion will decrease, but when times get hard and resources get scarce people return to religion for security.

Sign O' the Times

2009-03-18T12:18:00.003-04:00

Coming soon to a bus near you: a monumentally stupid war of the words between atheists and believers. This may be the most piddlingly insignificant religious conflict since Scientology had it out with “South Park.”

The trouble all started in England, as trouble usually does. A group of atheists purchased signs on the sides of buses reading "There's probably no God: Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Humorous? If you’re an atheist, probably. Offensive? Maybe, if you happen to be a theist. Immature? Definitely. But a threat to religion? Hardly.

But some religious folk didn’t take too kindly to these signs. Chief among them was Alexander Korobko, a Russian millionaire apparently unfamiliar with the phrase “turn the other cheek.” Ring a bell, Alexander? Said by some guy, two thousand years ago, beard, did some tricks with loaves and fishes?

Korobko immediately sprang into action:

Korobko said an initial batch of 25 buses would take to the streets of the British capital with posters (twice the size of those posted by the atheists) picturing Moscow's 14th-century Holy Trinity-St. Sergius monastery and bearing this advice: "There is a God. Don't worry. Enjoy life."

Ka-POW! Take that, nonbelievers!

My favorite part is how Korobko made sure his ads were TWICE as big as the original, atheistic ones. We all know how words magically become more powerful when they appear in bigger font.

I have two questions for Korobko:

1. Do you honestly think that any atheist will, upon seeing your signs, clap his hands over his eyes and cry out, “My God! I finally see the light!”
2. If yes—do you really want somebody like that in your religion?

Perhaps I shouldn’t scoff. After all, there are a few important issues at play here. Among them: should people be subjected to religious propaganda against their will?

Should I be allowed to purchase a billboard across the road from a church, so that I can put up a sign saying, “There Is No God?” Better yet, what if I took out an ad in an atheist newsletter saying “Enjoy Your Time in Hell”? Am I exercising my freedom of speech, or am I being an obnoxious jerk who deserves to be silenced?

I think religions should welcome challenges of this kind. Religion, after all, is meant to be tested. You should never take you religion lightly; it’s your soul that’s at stake. If you find your faith beginning to waver after reading a billboard on a bus—maybe that means it’s time to do some soul searching.

Oh, well. This might be stupid, but at least nobody is being burned at the stake. Holy wars just aren’t what they used to be.

Religion on both sides of Stem Cells

2009-03-17T22:44:00.003-04:00

President Obama announced Monday that federal money will go to conducting embryonic stem cell research on a limited basis, reversing the Bush Administration policy.
While this action is not wholly unforeseen - Obama has stated before his support of this type of research - one particular excerpt from his address raised some flags, and became the focus of an AP article about the role of religion in the embryonic stem cell debate.
Obama said "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."
Most are aware of the religious argument against using embryonic stem cells; the leadership of both the Catholic and Evangelical Protestant communities are outspoken opponents on sanctity of life arguments. However, this is a whole new spin on the tired debate.
Obama seems to be saying that there is a religious obligation to engage in this form of stem cell research in order to help save the lives that already exist.
In some ways, I suppose it is similar to the concept of allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother in that the potential life of a fetus - or in this case an embryo - is sacrificed for the life that already exists. Obviously this isn't a perfect analogy; other methods of determining cures to diseases are possible without destroying embryos, but stem cell research seems to offer one of the most promising ways of finding those cures.
Bringing in religious support for embryonic stem cell research complicates an already opaque issue. Many white mainline protestants - 58 percent - believe that relieving the suffering of those afflicted with disease is a more compelling interest than that of the embryo. Interestingly, 59 percent of white Catholics feel the same way. Most Jews also agree; the Jewish tradition teaches that an embryo does not become a life until at least 40 days after conception.
At the end of the day, though, the real question is how much the government should allow religious arguments to drive the debate over the federal government providing funding. The government has a responsibility to decide whether this is valuable research warranting further study, not whether God would want the research undertaken.
Already through the abortion issue, the government in essence has said that until a fetus is viable outside the womb it does not hold the same right to life that the rest of us enjoy. Roe v. Wade laid out this precedent when the Supreme Court began talking about pregnancy in trimesters. The third trimester is where the fetus is viable outside the womb, and so it is where States can make abortion illegal. Any time before that, abortion cannot be outright banned. At the developmental stage of embryonic stem cells - essentially at the beginning of the first trimester - the ability of a woman to abort a pregnancy is virtually unimpeded by law.
Given that view, the use of embryonic stem cells for research - particularly life saving research - seems to pose no legal problems. Thus the government should have no qualms funding it, provided the research is valuable to society.