I like this blog title.

Jesus Needs New PR. And the pictures this guy finds are fascinating/weird/thought-provoking/disturbing. Like this one:


Apparently some church actually used this in an advertisement. I'm not too sure about the message being sent here, especially as people who see it might just crash into the building trying to figure out what the heck it means.

Finding Middle Ground Near Hallowed Ground

The controversy over the construction of a Muslim cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City continues unabated after weeks of heated rhetoric. I saw on the news today that over 60% of New Yorkers oppose the construction of the center and mosque.

We should never condemn the members of an entire group based on the actions of the most extreme members of that group. This particularly applies to religions. Would those of you who are Christian want to be judged by the excesses of the Crusades, or the Irish Troubles, or the Sex Abuse crises currently rending so many denominations in two? I would imagine most definitely not. In the same way, no one should condemn all Muslims for the actions of the Taliban, Muammar Qaddafi, or al-Qaeda.

In America, we often condemn Muslim countries such as Iran or even Saudi Arabia for their lack of toleration for those of other faiths. We are proud of our commitment to freedom of religion. Well, situations like this are where our values truly get tested. We only have values if we stick to them even when it is difficult and uncomfortable. It's easy to claim the high road when that road is smooth and easy.

Muslims have the right to worship freely in America, and unless we want to allow extremists like those who attacked us on 9/11 to succeed in their campaign to destroy America and what it stands for, we must resist the impulse to retreat from that value.

Having said that, it would also be wonderful if our Muslim brethren would be sensitive to the very real pain and trauma that still lingers in the wake of these attacks. They don't need to be told that the world will never be the same again, since their lives were changed as well by the terrible events of that day. It would be a sensitive gesture to reconsider the location of a Muslim cultural center and mosque so close to a place that was, let's face it, attacked by people who claimed a fervent if misguided devotion to that religion.

I would like to humbly suggest that a Muslim cultural center doesn't HAVE to be built at that location, and the greatest examples of charity, kindness, and concern for others enshrined within the pages of the Qur'an could be demonstrated by a willingness to consider an alternative location. If the group promoting this project truly wishes to advance understanding about Islam to a still-traumatized America, perhaps it could consider relocating this project to somewhere less sensitive. Frankly, a Muslim cultural center and mosque on this location would not go very far in its goal of promoting understanding and friendship for millions of people-- the very people I am sure they hope to reach out to in goodwill.

Let's search for a middle ground near this hallowed ground.

Atheists believing in God-- What will they think of next??

We heard the first part back in February, but now we read that one in five American atheists believes in God. What this really means is that the number of atheists in this country may be actually OVERSTATED. Here's a sample:

Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The report, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths....

The nationwide survey, which is based on telephone interviews with more than 35,000 adults from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007, is the second installment of a broad assessment Pew has undertaken of trends and characteristics of the country’s religious life. The first part of the report, published in February, depicted a fluid and diverse national religious life marked by people moving among denominations and faiths.

According to that report, more than a quarter of adult Americans have left the faith of their childhood to join another religion or no religion. The survey indicated that the group that had the greatest net gain was the unaffiliated, accounting for 16 percent of American adults.

The new report sheds light on the beliefs of the unaffiliated. Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70 percent of the unaffiliated said they believed in God, including one of every five people who identified themselves as atheist and more than half of those who identified as agnostic.

“What does atheist mean? It may mean they don’t believe in God, or it could be that they are hostile to organized religion,” Mr. Green said. “A lot of these unaffiliated people, by some measures, are fairly religious, and then there are those who are affiliated with a religion but don’t believe in God and identify instead with history or holidays or communities.”

Ummm, Mr. Green, I believe that, actually, the word "atheist" means one does not believe in any sort of God, by whatever euphemism one might employ. Glad I could help.

Read the whole thing.

If you've taught school, you may shake your head at this confusion, but you can't be surprised.

Of Autism and Worship

Should a church get a restraining order to ban the attendance of a family if they have an autistic child who appears uncontrollable?

What do you think?

What would you do?

The class was talking about the beginning of the Cold War. We were describing the basic tenets of Communism, and on the topic of personal freedom ( or actually the lack of personal freedom), it was mentioned that Karl Marx famously stated: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

We discussed the official espousal of atheism by the Communist party, and defined the word. We then were talking about how the freedom of religion was one of the most important freedoms to have, and when one of my students remembered it was one of the Four Freedoms listed by FDR against Fascism, I will tell you I almost burst into tears from joy.

But then one of my students suddenly burst out with this: "What if you don't believe in the devil? What does that mean? Am I an atheist?"

Be assured that I went back over the definition of atheism as the lack of belief in God, and explained that the refusal to believe in Satan did not make one an atheist. The kids then chimed in about how I wouldn't tell him what to believe nor what I believe because this is a public school (this is from my opening day speech). I suggested that he talk to his parents or a clergyperson, if he had one, and we moved on.

Because I am a religious person and try to be a faithful person, I am very careful not to inject my religious beliefs into my classroom. General ethical behavior, absolutely, but theology, no. Anywhere where students are taught, values are being transmitted, regardless of whether the students think they are picking up the signals or not.

I had a teacher in junior high who actively shoved her beliefs down our throats, including persecuting the Jewish kid in our class, and I ended up getting in trouble when I finally lost it and politely contradicted her. Of course, in one of my classes, one of my students attends my church, so it's not like it's a secret that I go to church. I consider the work I do with kids to be part of my ministry, but in a general improving- the-minds-and-upholding-the-spirits-of-my-students kind of way.

But this incident haunts me. He was obviously still thinking about it. What would you have done?

Did prejudice doom Mitt Romney's campaign?

Here's a report on the death of Mitt Romney's candidacy that has some pretty interesting claims (emphasis mine):

Mitt Romney isn't the only casualty in his failed presidential bid. The Mormon church, yearning for broad acceptance, also took a beating.

Extremists denounced Romney's campaign as a Mormon plot to take over the country. Some Evangelicals feared that a Mormon in the White House would draw more converts to his faith.

Mormon practices were picked apart, even ones that had been abandoned long ago such as polygamy. Romney tried to focus on politics, but was often asked about sacred Mormon undergarments.

"It is prejudice," said Richard Bushman, an emeritus professor at Columbia University, who is a leading historian and devout Mormon. "Underlying all these questions is that these beliefs are basically crazy so you've got to explain them to us."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anticipated some of the backlash and tried to get ahead of it. Well before the former Massachusetts governor officially announced his candidacy, Mormon officials started traveling the country, speaking with reporters and editorial writers about the LDS church and its political neutrality.

The goal was to protect the church. But nonpartisanship handicapped the denomination when it needed a vigorous defense.

"I'm not questioning the policy of neutrality. That's not in any doubt," said Michael Otterson, the church's media relations director. "But I think the very reality is that we've had to be very careful about choosing our words and not appearing to either be supporting or not supporting a particular candidate."

Before Romney ran, Mormons thought they were generally accepted in the mainstream, especially after their previous success in the world spotlight: the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics.

Yet, in November, half of respondents to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll said they had some problems supporting a Mormon presidential candidate. Among white evangelicals, more than half expressed reservations about backing a Latter-day Saint.

"I was surprised at the level of intensity and sometimes flat out animosity," said Lowell C. Brown, a Los Angeles attorney who is Mormon. "I had no idea. I'm in my 50s, I've been a Mormon all my life, I've lived in L.A. for 25 years, and it floored me."

Many Christians said they were raising legitimate theological concerns, not Mormon-bashing.

The news service of the Southern Baptist Convention, which considers the LDS church a cult, ran a six-part series through December explaining why they don't consider Mormonism to be Christian. (They also profiled a distant Romney relative who is Protestant and manages a Southern Baptist-affiliated bookstore in Salt Lake.)

In just one example of the practices that set Mormons apart, LDS church founder Joseph Smith revised — and in his view corrected — parts of the Bible.

Brown said it was "nonsense" to consider questions about Romney's faith simply a dialogue about religion. Mormons were especially outraged when GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist pastor, asked whether Mormons consider Jesus and the devil brothers. Latter-day Saints say Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

"If you're making a decision about whether or not to vote for someone because of their religion, you're flirting with bigotry," said Brown. He monitored the commentary on his blog Article VI, named for the constitutional provision barring any religious test for public office....

Mormon leaders posted videos on YouTube explaining their faith. A church elder, recently speaking to Mormon college students, urged young people to post about the Latter-day Saints on blogs — a major move for a denomination with a history of quietly answering its outside critics. After Romney's Dec. 6 speech in Texas defending his faith, a Mormon leader went on al-Jazeera television, the Quatar-based network, to discuss the church.

"Gov. Romney has, perhaps without intending to do so, rendered the church a service," said Robert Millet, a scholar of the church and professor at the LDS-owned Brigham Young University. "It's served as a kind of wakeup call for Saints themselves to the fact that we're not as well understood as we think we are. How can it be the case that Gov. Romney and his feelings about Christ and his feelings about religion have been so little understood?"

Hmm. How can it be that "Governor Romney and his feelings about Christ and his feelings about religion have been so little understood?"

Well, coming from someone who is NOT in any way a fundamentalist but who takes her faith pretty seriously, let me just say: Maybe because he kept dodging questions about his faith. Most people do not have either the time or the interest to read the Book of Mormon themselves (I did read it once after my mother got fascinated with something called Family Home Evening or something and we visited the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City.) If Romney hadn't acted like he had something to hide, a lot of suspicion could have been dispelled.

In his December 6 address on his faith, Romney said the following (boldface mine):

""There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

That's pretty vague, and is more about the interpretation of the Constitution than about religion. The problem is, Romney and his supporters wanted to have it both ways: they decried any "religious test for public office" while repeatedly using religion and religious impulse as an absolute means to attract voters to candidates who would otherwise be excluded as standing for platforms that are absolutely at odds with most citizens' self-interest and basic values. The Religious Right would not exist if it did not absolutely utilize a very narrow religious test for public office. So complaints about this standard being applied across the spectrum are just absolute nonsense. Even if you accept his claims about "secularism," Romney is guilty of the very thing he decries: he is deciding what is and is not a legitimate belief system or basis for behavior.

And unfortunately, for many of us who take religious principles seriously while eschewing fundamentalism, it all just seems like a smokescreen anyway. Those inclined to support politicians of Romney's ilk talk and talk about Christian values. Even a cursory examination of scripture demonstrates that there is often a focus on snippets of verses on marginal issues while entire emphases are ignored. Witness, for instance, the lack of discussion or substantive proposals for how to deal with the problems of poverty in this country or throughout the world. Exodus 23 and Leviticus 23 both command that the poor receive deliberate provision. The Book of Job inveighs against those who oppress the poor. The Psalms and Proverbs resound with warnings to do justice to the poor or face dire consequences. The Prophets warn that calamities befall those who crush the poor. Matthew and Mark tell the story of the rich young man who was commanded thusly: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." And it continues beyond these few paltry examples. However, regardless of how you feel about the tragedy of the practice, there is not one mention of the term "abortion" in the Revised Standard Version of Holy Scriptures. But you could never tell that by the emphases each of these topics receive at the hands of those who definitely do wish to impose their religious beliefs upon others.

As to Mr. Huckabee's question about whether Satan and Jesus are considered brothers by Mormons (which was a common belief in dualistic cults that threatened the early Church such as Arianism), all I can say is that in the Book of Mormon, there are several places where Satan claims to be a son of God-- but apparently just as all people are believed to be sons and daughters of God. In the Book of Mormon's Book of Moses, chapter 6, verse 22 it is explained, "Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen." So that question seems a bit mean-spirited and leading. But then again, a bit more transparency on the part of Romney would have allayed suspicions. After all, Mr. Romney has served as a Mormon bishop, and he certainly has appeared to be a sincere and intelligent person.

It was Romney's own discomfort with discussing the tenets of the very faith he attempted to highlight as a qualification for office that led to suspicion regarding the singular character of that faith. You can't be like Casablanca's Captain Renault claiming to be "shocked-- SHOCKED!" that religious questions are being used to vet you as a candidate as you yourself use religious values as a test against your opponents.

For unto us is born a savior!

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.

And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son.

She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock. The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.

The angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.
And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger."

And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying:
"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

When the angels went away from them to heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go, then, to Bethlehem to see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us." So they went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.
Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, just as it had been told to them.


A Merry and Holy Christmas to you, and may God bless and keep all of you throughout the coming year! May the light and love of the Almighty One lift you up through all your days!

Now THAT'S High Church!

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's the thurible from Hell.

Where were these guys when my friend Becky got married? That guy only did figure eights. Kid stuff.

And I have brought this to you, my friends, pure and "UNCENSERED."

Wishing you a blessed and peaceful Easter and Passover

I have spent the last four days basically living at church and playing loads of guitar--I've got blisters on my fingers! And yes, I get to sing "The Cameron Frye song" tonight at the Easter Vigil-- pray for me to keep a straight face and not slip up on the lyrics! We also have to stuff Easter Eggs for all the children of the "Easterpalians" who will be coming out of the woodwork tomorrow morning. So-- busy, busy, busy!

There are so many blessings I take for granted. So many people who love me. So many good friends, so many beautiful days, so much beautiful music. I pray that I take time to appreciate all of these things much more than spending time complaining about wishes that go unfulfilled. I want to laugh more and frown less this year. Of course, I have a teenager in the house, so that may be a real test.




As I consider the suffering of the cross and the suffering of the Israelites in slavery, I hope you will join me in praying for peace in the coming year. May our people-- all of our people-- be a light of justice and peace in the world. May we truly listen to the Word of God trying to lead a recalcitrant people in the wilderness of the Sinai as well as the wilderness of our own hearts.

Intelligent design and intelligent debate

Well, today there is this headline in the newspaper that caught my eye: President endorses teaching intelligent design. Quoth Mr. Bush: "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

Y'don't say! Can I hold you to that? Because I'm all about open, civil, intelligent discourse-- I just wasn't sure that many of the people Mr. Bush is courting with this pronouncement cherished the same goal.

The article goes on to say that the State Board of Education in Kansas-- always a bellwether in cutting edge educational thinking-- "is considering changes to encourage the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas schools, and Christian conservatives are pushing for similar changes in other school districts across the country." Luckily, not everyone in Kansas is so ready to acquiesce in this. In the words of Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, intelligent design is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," trying to sneak into the Ball under false pretenses.

Faith and reason: complementary attitudes in the search for truth, or implacable adversaries? My faith is so important to me that the last thing I want is a teacher attempting the tightrope walk of explaining it in science class. Although my own personal belief is that God's existence is proven by the wonders of natural laws that tick along in complexity, this is just that-- a very personal religious belief which I would never share in class. Now, do I mention religion in my history classes? Yes. I have to, since religion informs behavior throughout history. How can a teacher explain current challenges facing American society without discussing certain religious beliefs and how they influence human behavior? But do I tell students that they personally have to ascribe to the beliefs that I have to explain? Absolutely not. And when I do have students who have legitimate questions about their beliefs, I gently but firmly suggest that this is a discussion they should have with their parents or guardians or religious leaders, if they've got them. Period.

But this is more of a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"-- literally. One of the things alleged "conservatives" constantly decry is schools invading the prerogatives of parents, as with the teaching of sex ed, because it violates their religious beliefs. "This should be taught in the home!" it is cried. (Agreed! I would love to not have to teach this topic, but from what I've experienced, a majority of parents don't. My own parents were so embarassed by the thought of talking about this with me that they sent me to a class. My father can be reduced to stuttering incoherence by the mere word "menstruation.") I find it interesting that the people who are most concerned about schools usurping the role of parents don't see the hypocrisy of having schools teach religious doctrine. Further, many of the people who promote the teaching of creationism in schools also spend a majority of their time denigrating in the most vicious terms the intelligence, industry, capability and intentions of teachers in general when it comes to teaching supposedly "basic" topics like reading and writing. And now they want people they consider to be evil, or even worse, numbskulls, teaching religious beliefs, with their millions of interpretations, as science?

My Beloved Offspring are occasionally taught things with which I do not agree. That doesn't mean that I will demand that the teacher conform the day's lesson to my beliefs. That means that as, a parent, I pay attention to what MBO are studying, and then we discuss our beliefs in our home. I also do not send said offspring to sally forth into class the next day and argue the point with the teacher. It is my responsibility as a parent to attend to my children's religious education as a part of our home life.

Another problem is this: many people who denounce the separation of religious teachings from schools only want THEIR religion taught, to the exclusion of viewpoints which conflict with their beliefs. Hmm, how should be handle this conundrum? Obviously, a show of hands won't work, because if democratic principles applied in religion, we would all still be placing offerings before altars to Jupiter-- Christians were once greatly outnumbered by those who adhered to the Roman state religion, and that was before Christianity was divided up into dozens of denominations with competing dogma. Judaism as a minority religion worked so well against the same Roman juggernaut that the Jews were expelled from Palestine for a millenia or two. If those examples are to remote for you, we can look at the modern example of the former Yugoslavia, or northern Ireland as cautionary tales of what happens when religions struggle for supremacy. Once we start injecting religious interpretation into schools, the next big problem, is: Whose interpretation? The Roman Catholic one? The Baptist one? The Jewish one? The Lutheran one (would that be Missouri Synod or Evangelical)? The Hindu one? Even people within denominations and religions do not agree with each other on matters of doctrine.

Let's just say that Mr. Bush gets his way on this one. Many people of faith aren't going to be satisfied with intelligent design, either, since some believe that Adam was created from clay and divine breath (or, if we interpret that etymologically, as "inspiration"), and that he and his male descendants are missing a rib under his armpit (Shall we teach that in anatomy?) Intelligent design fudges on this issue, to say the least. Religious people, beware! Intelligent design is still the injection of a small part of an overall religious interpretation with which only a minority of you would agree. It is also highly presumptuous that the only religious beliefs which should be promoted in our schools are Christian beliefs.

Another article about this story on the 'net contained the following quote: John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views about evolution," he said. But does any one else see the irony of this championing of free speech in this context?

The concept of intelligent design is a Trojan horse for adding religious content with which you probably disagree to schools' already overburdened curricular load. Speaking of Trojan horses, I know of several teachers who have been challenged for teaching Greek mythology, since the stories once served a religious purpose-- suddenly, then the cry from the religious right is that we are teaching religion in the schools! Apparently some schools of thought ought not to be subjects for exposition, freedom of speech be damned. Perhaps we should make sure not to teach FALSE religions.

Okay. Which ones were those, again?