The
Congregational
Church of
Manhasset (UCC)
We are a proud
part of
the
United
Church
of Christ.
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
1845 Northern Blvd.
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: 516-627-4911
FAX: 516-627-4963
Copyright © 2002-5
The Congregational
Church of Manhasset
Questions
or |
Page last updated
7-24-06
CONGOblog A weblog of The Congregational Church of Manhasset (UCC) Archives--February 2006
| 2.27.06 | A Small Well-Financed Right-Wing Conspiracy |
Yesterday's Washington Post had an op-ed by John Bryson Payne, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, about the continuing controversy in his church over homosexuality. He notes that the conservative wing of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part, is backed by a group called the Institute for Religion and Democracy.
The IRD has organized campaigns against the inclusion of gays and lesbians in most of the mainline denominations: Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and our own United Church of Christ. Much of the controversy erupting in the recent national meetings of these denominations has been organized by this group. Although the IRD holds conservative positions on a variety of social issues, the main thrust of their efforts has been the opposition of the inclusion of homosexuals into these church bodies.
Within our own denomination, the IRD has aligned itself with groups like the Biblical Witness Fellowship, a conservative group that is opposed to the national leadership of the UCC, especially its stance on homosexuality. Unlike the other mainline denominations, the UCC is smaller and generally more homogeneous. For example, after the vote was taken last year at the UCC General Synod to support gay marriage only 49 of the over 5700 UCC churches voted to leave the denomination. (On the other hand, 23 churches joined the UCC last year, however, and over 40 more are seriously considering doing so.)
The IRD has been financed by such notable conservative financiers as "Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the Bradley, Coors and Scaife families," names behind some of the biggest conservative thinktanks, foundations and political operations in America. Although this group presents itself as promoting "renewal" movements in mainline churches, in reality their aim is to promote a particular political agenda by manipulating the organizational structures of these churches. It's disturbing to think that so many well-meaning lay people in these denominations have no idea how they are being used as a part of a larger political agenda. Given the subject of Payne's editorial in the Post, it appears this group also supports anti-gay measures and even anti-gay laws in other countries as well.
I'm relatively new to the UCC having come out of a background in the Southern Baptist Convention. I grew up watching the denomination my family was a part of be taken over by a relatively small group of people with a fundamentalist ideology. I'm here to tell you that it's not fun, that is unless you're into condemning people to hell, working against the equal rights of women, bashing homosexuals and destroying the careers and livelihoods of everyone who doesn't agree with you.
That's why I am so happy to now be a part of the United Church of Christ. The motto of the God is Still Speaking Campaign: "No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here," means a great deal to me. I celebrate the fact that I am part of a denomination that is more interested in including the marginalized and oppressed than looking for still more people to marginalize and oppress. I would be more worried about the IRD and the Biblical Witness Fellowship if they seemed to have more traction in the UCC. Thankfully they do not.
Yet, the thought of a small group of people with an exclusionary and narrow ideology pushing their own agenda--especially with the funding they seem to be getting--is nonetheless disturbing in and of itself--even if it is happening in a church other than my own.
So, the next time you read of an uproar in a Christian denomination over homosexuality, don't assume the fight is fair or even a real expression of how things stand within that church. I hate to sound like you-know-who speaking of a "vast rightwing conspiracy" but I think it's fair to speak of at least a small well-financed one.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.21.06 | Clash of Civilizations--NOT! |
I've mentioned in a number of posts how much I dislike the phrase "clash of civilizations" as it is used by the mainstream media to talk about any and every conflict between Islamic extremists and anything Western. The phrase has been especially overused in the recent coverage of protests over the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. I was pleased to read an article at The Revealer by S. Brent Plate, professor of religion at Texas Christian University where he takes the phrase to task.
After listing ways that "the West" has included Islam for centuries, he offers a keeper of a concluding paragraph:
| Until we stop imagining the current conflict as a "clash of civilizations," there will be no overcoming the problems. And until we stop imaging each other in crude and disrespectful ways, the violence will continue from both sides. Here, as always, a deeper look into our shared past is a necessary salve to the "clashing" of civilizations presented in the contemporary age, and re-presented in the news media. |
Peace,
Chase
| 2.20.06 | Hooray for George W. Bush! (no, really) |
Alright, alright, I will admit it. I'm not a big fan of George W. Bush. Any reader of this blog will see that I have many complaints against this administration, although I hope it's also obvious that I do my best to try and be fair--however unsuccessfully. I've got all kinds of problems with the Iraq War, the domestic wiretap program, cuts in federal programs that help the poor and marginalized, Guantanamo Bay prison camp, political manipulation of voters using Christian language and symbols, the Patriot Act, denial of civil rights to homosexuals, and I can go on ad nauseum.
BUT...
I have to finally give Bush and his administration credit, however premature it may be. After several years of doing little to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan--even after the administration officially labeled it genocide--and doing much to actually block efforts that might have prevented the deaths of thousands--like cutting the funding for the African Union peacekeeping force, it appears that the United States under the leadership of George W. Bush is finally getting ready to do something to stop the slaughter, mass rape and forced relocation of tens of thousands of civilians.
Although the details are still being worked out in regards to what role the US military will play, it appears that Bush is essentially admitting the failure of past US policy towards Darfur and in a move of real leadership, going against the advice of some in his own administration.
Here's the article from Saturday's Washington Post about the change in policy: Bush Calls for More Muscle in Darfur.
The NY Times notes that the Bush administration is receiving pressure from Evangelical groups who are concerned about the issue. How wonderful it is to hear evangelicals actually being concerned about genocide rather than the latest fake controversy generated by Bill O'Reilly and his ilk.
No doubt the presidential ambitions of Sam Brownback and Joe Biden (who are co-sponsoring the bill to make this intervention happen) are also playing a part in something finally happening.
Whatever the origin of this change in direction, let me officially say that I do not care where it came from. All I care about is that the first genocide of the twenty-first century be brought to a halt.
I notice in the Washington Post article (and frankly anywhere else the US military and Africa are mentioned in the same sentence), the disastrous military policy in Somalia is mentioned. Yes, no doubt, the "mission creep" of that endeavor should be kept in mind, but I would sure like to hear somebody also mention Rwanda and the death of hundreds of thousands of people in that African nation while the world did nothing.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.15.06 | Everybody Limbo |
t wasn't until I moved up North that I ever heard of "baby limbo." I was horrified to discover that Catholics of a certain generation were taught that unbaptized babies who died went not to heaven (and not to hell) but to limbo--somewhere in-between (not to be confused with purgatory). A whole new geography of the after-life was opened up to me.
I understood the logic of the idea (albeit logic that I heartily disagree with): 1. You have to be baptized to go to heaven; 2. The taint of original sin is on every human the moment they're born; 3. Babies who die before getting baptized still are under the power of sin, so they can't go to heaven; 4. Nobody likes the idea of sending babies to hell and God surely is loving enough not to do that anyway, so they must go somewhere else; 5. The idea of limbo is developed!
In the last few weeks, it has come to light that the Roman Catholic Church is re-thinking this idea--although officially it was never an official doctrine of the church anyway. Thank goodness! Maybe somebody who actually decides this sort of thing in an official sense actually had to stand before grieving parents and try to tell them their innocent child who just died would spend eternity in a place other than heaven.
Of course, once you start down the path of considering the possibility that God may let babies into heaven without them undergoing a particular ritual, who knows where you'll end up? Maybe God will allow unbaptized grown-ups in too--non-Christians, atheists, fans of the awful CBS sit-com Yes Dear. Who knows how far the grace of God will extend?
Just for the record, when Jimmy and I baptize infants here at our church, we try to make it pretty clear that although we may call baptism a sacrament, we don't believe the ritual imparts salvation and we don't believe that without it the baby's eternal destiny is in question. Instead, we believe that the child is already in God's care, and the ritual of baptism is a time of celebration of this new life and a time for the family to make a covenant (a sacred agreement) with God to raise the child in the faith. Similarly, the church also makes a covenant to assist the family with the spiritual well-being of the child.
Limbo sounds to me like one of those doctrines that result from somebody arguing themselves into a corner--like prohibitions of birth control and prohibitions of wearing shorts in August even though you live in the hot and humid South (yes, I've been in churches that went along with this last one).
Jesus seemed to go to a lot of trouble to point out that the laws we find in scripture were meant for the benefit of humanity rather than the other way around. So, speaking as somebody who learned about Limbo only recently, I'm glad it's on the way out.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.15.06 | A Trip to Toontown |
I wrote on 2.7.06 about the Danish political cartoon controversy and about how shallow the media coverage of the controversy has been. I've kept an eye out this past week and little has changed as far as the blurbs and headlines are concerned. As far as the general media coverage is concerned, every Muslim in the world likes to burn flags, burn buildings and kill people--that is when they're not supporting Al Qaeda.
This matters to me, because I'm a religious person. Although I'm a Christian rather than a Muslim, I'm concerned any time a religious group is given treatment in the American media that amounts to little more than caricature. Also, as a Christian--that is someone who bears the name of Christ--I want to follow Christ's command to love my neighbor and even my enemies. So, I bristle when I see stereotypes substitute for news.
I've gotten to meet some of the Muslims on Long Island in the past year through the work of the Islamic Center of Long Island and our church's invitation to their president to speak at our church last November. I found every Muslim I met to be gracious and kind. I wish that this side of Islam were more prevalent in our media.
Here are some articles that I've found helpful in understanding the controversy of the Danish political cartoons that depict Mohhamed:
-
Sunday's NYTimes had an interesting op-ed by Martin Burcharth,
a Danish reporter. He describes "a climate of pervasive
hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark." Most disturbing
he says:
For 20 years, Muslims in Denmark have been denied a permit to build mosques in Copenhagen. What's more, there are no Muslim cemeteries in Denmark, which means that the bodies of Muslims who die here have to be flown back to their home countries for proper burial.
Conservative parties (backed by the newspaper that originally ran the cartoons) have gained political traction since the protests began. Also, after Danish flags were burned around the world, it began to be described in Denmark as a Christian symbol, since it has a white cross on it. This in a country considered to be one of the most secular in Europe (Burcharth says only 3% go to church once a week.)
Most interestingly, he describes some of the steps Muslims in Denmark originally took in the Danish legal system and the Danish political system in response to the cartoons. They were rebuffed at every turn. I have yet to hear this part of the story anywhere else.
- Hani Shukrallah has a great essay on Salon (if you're not a member you can read it for free by watching a commercial first). He takes on the the many folks referring to the so-called "clash of civilizations." Also, he points out the hypocrisy on both sides of the controversy and how we all lose when our common humanity is diminished:
Triggered by cartoons, the latest episode of the clash of civilizations is the caricature of a caricature, one in which our fundamental humanity is diminished, the almost limitless richness and diversity of that vast world of the intellect and the imagination that we call culture is flattened and shadowed over, the profound commonality of our human condition rubbed out, until finally all that remains is the horrible and the grotesque: the "liberal" West represented by a T-shirted female American soldier holding a prone and naked Arab on a leash, and the "devout" Arab/Muslim world represented by a masked and hooded terrorist holding a knife to a hostage's neck under a banner of "God is great."
- On the Feb. 10 episode of
WNYC's "On the Media," AbuKhalil, political science
professor at Cal State, offered some interesting analysis of how the
controversy is playing differently in Western and Middle-Eastern
media. I found his thoughts helpful and pretty much
fair-minded, but looking at his
blog, he seems to
definitely be coming from an anti-Bush, anti-Israel perspective that
didn't come through on the radio program, so read/listen with care
depending on your political perspective .
- Philip Rizk, a Christian aid worker in Gaza, offers what I think is a very Christian perspective on the controversy in an article in Sojourners. He writes that for Christians, the call to love one's neighbor must take precedence over our love for freedom of expression. In other words, loving one's neighbor doesn't mean ridiculing what they hold sacred. He writes:
The seeming impossible step to tend to one's neighbor, no matter who they are, must be taken today or misunderstanding, disillusionment, and hate will fester and grow out of control.
The idol of unquestioned self-righteous freedom must be abolished or else it will destroy the [global] village we live in.
Peace,
Chase
P.S. You win a gold star if you caught my "Toontown" allusion
| 2.15.06 | Speed-Skating for Darfur |
Way to go Joey Cheek! Cheek is the American Olympic speed skater who just won the gold for the 500 meter race. He announced that he's donating the $25,000 award to help Darfur refugees. At the post-race press conference, he used his time to talk about the genocide. He's hoping his sponsors will match his donation. Nike has already agreed to send $30,000 in product to whatever charity Cheek wants. Now, that's the Olympic spirit!
Peace,
Chase
| 2..14.06 | My Country's Jesus Can Beat Up Your Country's Jesus |
Rob Borsellino of USA Today took a trip to Italy and rediscovered the Jesus of religion rather than the Jesus of politics and bigotry found in America. I take his point, because I'm no fan of the way Jesus is used by politicians, televangelists and power-hungry pseudo-church groups like the Christian Coalition. However, Borsellino's editorial doesn't address at all the way Jesus should affect our culture and its politics. He just seems to enjoy the Jesus he sees in Italy--in paintings, necklaces, churches, etc. I would hope that the two alternatives of Jesus and culture offered in this editorial (bigoted jingoistic Jesus vs. non-offensive culturally appropriate Jesus) are not the only ones. Surely there's a place for the Jesus we find in the Gospels--one who confronts the self-righteous, condemns those who ignore the poor and calls us to fulfilling lives.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.13.06 | Evolution Sunday--snowed under |
Yes, the weekend's blizzard proves that we humans have come along way in evolutionary terms, but we're still not evolved enough to handle 20 inches of snow. Due to the storm, pretty much everything was cancelled yesterday, although we did still offer our 10 AM worship service--attended only by Rev. Jimmy Only who happens to live next door to the church.
Among the other things cancelled was Jimmy's sermon and discussion "The Great Debate: Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism." This event came about (or almost came about) from a national movement of clergy opposed to the fundamentalist Christian view of science, especially the attacks upon teaching evolution in public schools. It's called the Clergy Letter Project, and it was started by Michael Zimmerman, Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, in response to a local school board's efforts to restrict the teaching of evolution. The movement picked up steam and slowly but surely gathered over 10,000 clergy "signatures."
Yesterday, churches around the country had events (sermons, discussions, etc.).as a part of what has to be the worst-named such event ever--"Evolution Sunday." I would have preferred something like "Faith and Reason Sunday." "Evolution Sunday" sounds like we're all celebrating Darwin in the same manner we celebrate MLK or some other figures in religious history. No offense to Charles D.--I think his theory is a fine one for what it's worth--but I understood the purpose of the coordinated church "teach-in" as promoting the idea that it's okay to use your brain if you're a Christian. Evolution is the issue at hand when it comes to folks who see faith and modern science in opposition, so I guess it's appropriate to name a Sunday after it. "Evolution Sunday," however, lacks any kind of poetic euphony, at least in my ears.
In any event, "Evolution Sunday" garnered some media attention, including a story in today's NY Times. Also, check out the Clergy Project web site where they have links to other media articles about the event.
Our own discussion of the issues involved will wait for a future Sunday--hopefully one without a blizzard--stay tuned for details.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.12.06 | Say a Prayer for Darfur |
Tomorrow Kofi Annan will meet with President Bush about a new UN peacekeeping force in Darfur and whether or not Americans will be a part of it. I've written repeatedly on this blog about the genocide in Darfur. I fail to understand how the world can sit by and watch this happen. As a Christian, I feel drawn to do what I can--even though that amounts only to phone calls to Congressmen, the White House and the UN--to stop it. As a minister of a church that contains members who have been directly affected by the Armenian genocide, I feel that it is also part of my job. So, I've kept up with news, I wear the green Darfur bracelet, make phone calls and write e-mails to government officials, and I pray. Yet, I watch as little has changed. The killings, rapes and violence continue in Darfur.
I'm praying tonight that something good will come out of tomorrow's meeting, but I have to admit I'm not hopeful. I was pleasantly surprised that UN Ambassador Bolton has led the move to get a UN force into Darfur, but I wonder if this is nothing more than an attempt by our government to look like it's doing something without really doing much. The Bush administration went so far several years ago to actually label this as genocide, but ever since has done little to nothing to stop it. Even the relatively small amount (around $50 million) it would have taken to fund the African peacekeeping force there was cut from the federal budget. All the while thousands and thousands have died.
Tonight I'll pray for Darfur. Tomorrow I'll make another call to the White House asking for the president to do something. Let's hope this will not be yet another genocide that the world regrets in hindsight but does nothing to stop when it had the chance.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.7.06 | Freedom is as Freedom Does |
As I mentioned in my earlier blog post today, religion reporting by the average journalist is pretty bad. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the coverage of the violent riots in the Muslim world over the last few days has been shallow and anything but illuminating. Most headlines, news clips, etc. that I've seen simply say Muslims around the world are rioting, burning things and so forth because some papers in Europe published unflattering cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Are Muslims around the world really such avid readers of European newspapers? Could there be somehow more to the story?
Before I say anything else, let me say that I agree with the disclaimer offered in the NY Times editorial today:
| The easy points to make about the continuing crisis are that (a) people are bound to be offended if their religion is publicly mocked, and (b) the proper response is not to go on a rampage and burn down buildings. |
I think there are a couple of points worth making about how poorly the mainstream media have covered this story:
- As Get Religion notes, the media is doing a poor job of pointing out the variety of responses Muslims have made to these cartoons. American Muslims have been restrained, as have the vast majority of Muslims in the world.
- Juan Cole, U. Michigan history professor, points out on his blog that, these protests are hardly spontaneous. The cartoons in question were originally printed FIVE MONTHS AGO. A few Muslim clerics began circulating them around the world combined with even more offensive cartoons that were never published. Are there just that many Danish flags laying around the Middle East or did somebody mass produce and distribute them in time for crowds to burn them in front of western reporters? In places like Syria, there are no spontaneous demonstrations. The government approves them all. Cole gives a country-by-country account of the protests and concludes that "Most of the caricature protests are a mixture of local politics and standard post-colonial anti-imperialism."
- As a nice article in The Daily Telegraph points out, there have been all sorts of folks in the political realm and media condemning the cartoons, but few have really taken the time to understand that these protests are largely orchestrated by extremists.
- As Get Religion, the Daily Telegraph column and a few other writers have noted, amid all the condemnation of the cartoons by folks in Western politics and media there has been little condemnation of the anti-Semitism so prevalent in the Middle-Eastern media.
- Yet, the European media, especially the papers that published these cartoons are neither innocent nor merely defenders of free expression. I find it hard to believe, as a German journalist maintained in the Washington Post today, that there is not a bit of anti-Islamic bias at work in the European press. Since the Paris riots, there's been a deluge of stories about how poorly immigrants from Muslim countries fare in Europe and that many experience prejudice and even racist violence on a regular basis.
My own thoughts on the matter are largely concerned with the way Muslims are being portrayed in the media. I feel that by watching the nightly news you could be left with the impression that all Muslims like to go out and burn flags for fun. This is simply not the case. Once again, the media treats a religious group as if it were a monolithic organization that speaks with one voice. As a religious person, I don't like it when I'm lumped together with people I consider to be extremists, so I'm not a fan of it happening to others.
In regards to the right to free expression that the European media is claiming, I would offer that just because one has the freedom to say something doesn't mean that one should do so. Yes, there must be a place for parody and protest of religious ideas and symbols in any free society, but that is different from publishing a provocative picture just because you can.
In our own culture, I would offer that there is a place for humor and protest when it comes to religion, especially Christianity ("This Week in God" on The Daily Show comes to mind), but there are also many, many cases of portrayals of religious ideas or symbols in our culture that range from the merely tasteless to the truly offensive (Kanye West dressed up like Jesus on the cover of Rolling Stone comes to mind). All freedom comes with responsibility--freedom of expression is no exception.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.7.06 | Journalism's Religious Illiteracy |
Thanks to avid CONGOblog reader Link E. for forwarding a column to me by Terry Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Mattingly's column," So a Reporter Walks Into a Church (rimshot)" makes a point that I've made before here on this blog and that has been made much more eloquently at blogs on religion and the media like The Revealer and Get Religion (a blog Mattingly helps to lead), namely: most reporters on the religion beat really don't know much about religion.
Conservative Christians say that it's because the media is liberal. As Mattingly points out, some on the other side of the coin just say that most journalists are second-rate hacks. I would simply say that in my humble opinion, the news media (especially the cable talk show type) is focused almost exclusively upon politics and whatever ratings grabbing stories they can find (Jon-Benet Ramsey, celebrity breakups, etc.). Both types of stories are relatively cheap to produce and don't require a reporter to know that much. Stories on politics tend to amount to getting somebody on the "right" to take one side of an issue and somebody on the "left" to take the other, warm 2-3 minutes in the oven and it's ready to serve. Religion stories tend to be more nuanced (so do politics for that matter) and producers, execs, reporters, etc. are really not interested in investing time to learn the terrain. That's why, for example, the average American's view of Islam is a suicide bomber in Israel or Iraq rather than of the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims around the world.
Anyway, Mattingly's column is worth reading. The example of Newsweek's latest gaffe is somehow hilarious and tragic at the same time.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.6.06 | Bonhoeffer tonight on PBS |
Tonight at 10 PM on PBS channel 13, the award-winning documentary Bonhoeffer will air. Bonhoeffer, one of the 20th century’s most important theologians, ran an underground seminary in Nazi Germany while the official churches in Germany fully endorsed Hitler’s leadership. Eventually, Bonhoeffer was executed after plotting to assassinate Hitler, even though he was a pacifist. Bonhoeffer is best known for Letters and Papers from Prison, a collection published after his death. He also developed the idea of “religionless Christianity” in his works The Cost of Discipleship, Life Together and Ethics. He is an amazing figure, because he had several opportunities to leave Germany and to have a successful career as a minister and theologian in relative safety, but he chose instead to remain in Germany and to work with Christians who opposed the fascist rule of the Nazis.
Most disturbing about this era in German history is the way the mainline churches of Germany capitulated to and were manipulated by Hitler and the Nazi party. I've read that the documentary contains footage of Hitler preaching from the Bible from the pulpit of a German church. It's a truly horrifying image of the Church's ability to deceive itself and to substitute the causes of nationalism and politics for the Gospel of Christ.
There are a number of links to information about Bonhoeffer and this particular documentary about his wife:
- The PBS page about the documentary has lots of helpful links about Bonhoeffer, the Holocaust and Jewish-Christian relations
- Journey Films' official web site for the film offers video clips, background information and articles on the German Church's endorsement of Hitler
- The International Dietrich Bonhoeffer Society Site--one of the most detailed resources on the web
- Speaking of Faith, the wonderful public radio show on religion, has a great interview with Martin Doblmeier, the movie's writer, director and producer along with links, resources and excerpts from Bonhoeffer's writings
I hope you will catch the documentary and/or take a look at some of these resources. Bonhoeffer's life and thought are dramatic and he stands as a modern martyr of the Christian faith. I recommend reading Letters and Papers from Prison as a good starting point to his writings.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.6.06 | CONGOblog in United Church News |
I picked up the latest copy of the United Church News, the newspaper of our denomination the United Church of Christ, and there was an article about UCC churches that have weblogs. I'm glad to say we made the article! Woohoo! Read it here.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.3.06 | Intelligent Thoughts on the Bible |
When I saw that the NPR show Fresh Air was going to have a professor from Brandeis on to talk about his new book, How to Read the Bible, I thought who needs another book like that? I've got a shelf full. Out of a need to have some sort of talking in the background while I work, I played the interview and was delighted with how interesting it is.
Marc Svi Brettler is the chair of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis and his book is about reading the Hebrew Bible (what us Christians pejoratively call the Old Testament) from his perspective as a Jewish scholar. The result is a reading that treats the Bible as an anthology of different writings rather than as one book (my own perspective) and therefore doesn't expect the Bible to always present a consistent view of a particular issue. I think Brettler offers a unique and very helpful perspective on several current events in America's culture wars including the battle over Creationism vs. Evolution and the display of the 10 Commandments on public property such as courthouses. His discussion of whether the 10 commandments should actually be more or less than 10 is a fascinating one.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.3.06 | Intelligent Thoughts on Intelligent Design |
Thanks to Howard M. for passing along a link to an address by Cornell's interim president Hunter Rawlings on the debate in public schools and universities over the teaching of evolution, creationism and intelligent design. It's worth reading because it is a well-reasoned argument for a scholarly debate over the relationship between science and religion that is simultaneously protective of free inquiry and a respectful view of all involved. Here's a bit of it:
We continue to have scientific imperialists who believe that only science can be looked to for answers to all answerable questions and that those areas where science cannot provide answers are unimportant. And we have religious imperialists who assert that all questions are appropriately directed to faith-based sources for answers.
The rest of the address is worth reading since Jimmy will be preaching on the issues of creationism vs. evolution, faith and science, etc. on Feb. 12.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.3.06 | Vote for Justice in Africa |
Today, I received an e-mail from the
One Campaign that provides more information about what Bono said at
the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday. Here's a link to the
full text.
Here is a highlight:
|
Here’s some good news
for the President. After 9-11 we were told America would have no
time for the World’s poor. America would be taken up with its own
problems of safety. And it’s true these are dangerous times, but
America has not drawn the blinds and double-locked the doors.
In fact, you have doubled aid to Africa. You have tripled funding for global health. Mr. President, your emergency plan for AIDS relief and support for the Global Fund—you and Congress—have put 700,000 people onto life-saving anti-retroviral drugs and provided 8 million bed nets to protect children from malaria. Outstanding human achievements. Counterintuitive. Historic. Be very, very proud. But here’s the bad news. From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There’s is much more to do. There’s a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response. And finally, it’s not about charity after all, is it? It’s about justice. Let me repeat that: It’s not about charity, it’s about justice. And that’s too bad. Because you’re good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can’t afford it. But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment. 6,500 Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about Justice and Equality. Because there's no way we can look at what’s happening in Africa and, if we're honest, conclude that deep down, we really accept that Africans are equal to us. Anywhere else in the world, we wouldn’t accept it. Look at what happened in South East Asia with the Tsunami. 150, 000 lives lost to that misnomer of all misnomers, “mother nature”. In Africa, 150,000 lives are lost every month. A tsunami every month. And it’s a completely avoidable catastrophe. |
Right now MSNBC has a story on Bono's talk and is conducting a live poll about whether or not politicians should follow Bono's advice. Head there and vote yes. It's not a scientific poll, but who knows? Maybe some congressional aid reads MSNBC articles.
Peace,
Chase
| 2.2.06 | The Man in Black |
I saw the Johnny Cash film Walk the Line today. I thought it was good not great. What was great, however, was Reese Witherspoon's performance as June Carter Cash. She deserves the Oscar as far as I'm concerned.
I've read that a whole bunch of Cash's religious struggles (not to mention a whole lot of his struggles with drugs later on in life) were left out of the film. From a religious perspective, however, one of the great moments comes when Cash, fresh from kicking his habit, announces to his managers and record company executives that he is doing a concert at Folsom Prison and wants to produce a live record of it. When one exec complains that Cash's audience is made up of "church people, good folks who don't want to hear you singing to men doing hard time," Cash responds, "Well, they're not Christians then."
Peace,
Chase
| 2.2.06 | The National Prayer Breakfast |
The National Prayer Breakfast in Washington is usually something I groan about, because usually it's a time for politicians to suck up to members of the Religious Right and for everybody involved to blur the distinctions between the role of government and the role of people of faith. Today's breakfast seemed to be a little different.
First of all, unlike in previous years, there were representatives from not only Christian groups and denominations but also Muslim and Jewish leaders participating in the program. The line between faith and politics may be blurred but at least the blur is crossing over into more than just Christians. If it is truly a "national" prayer breakfast, then prayers should be heard from people of multiple faiths--any Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs want to join in? Let's hope so.
Second of all, Bono was there to make a pitch for the One Campaign noting that the US gives less than 1 percent of its federal budget to help the world's poor. I've read in a number of interviews that Bono has refused to be critical of specific governments and administrations opting for praising them when possible and refusing to alienate potential donors. I would guess that he was biting his tongue once again when he received pats on the back but no commitment to increase the United States' aid to the poor.
Over my breakfast, I'll be praying that politicians on both sides of the aisle listen to the words of the Bible and then choose to give even a small percentage of the money they waste in pork projects to help people literally dying from treatable diseases.
Peace,
Chase