Which Religion Should Be Our National Religion?

There's been quite a bit of Internet buzz about a question on a recent poll (PDF) where 57 percent of the respondents said they would support establishing Christianity as the national religion. Here's a snippet from the poll that includes that question.

It's a bit picky of me but I have a problem with questions 15 and 16. Global warming and evolution are not, like a faith, something you believe in, although many people would differ with that, especially those who don't believe in them because of their faith if you get what I mean. It would be more correct to ask if they think the current science that explains global warming or evolution is accurate.

Aside from the constitutional prohibition of establishing Christianity as the national religion, the issue I have with question 17 is that it's too vague. Christianity in itself is an amalgam of related faiths. There is no one Christian faith--unless you're a member of one that claims to be.

I would like to see the answers to this question:

Which Christian faith should be established as the national religion? Catholicism, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Mormonism, Methodist, etc., None.

Ask the question in that form and I bet the members of the various faiths, realizing their particular faith may not come out on top, would select None.

And some of them might remember what the United States Constitution says about the subject, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...", in order to ensure they, should they have a faith, are free to practice it, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

Cartoons To Kill For

An interesting perspective of the murders at Charlie Hebdo from Robert Crumb.

Nothing's Changed

I ran across this today.

Rachel Rieger figured getting diagnosed with celiac disease and having to rid gluten from her diet meant she could no longer partake of the wheat-based communion bread that represents a key facet of her Catholic faith. 

"It was tough for me to cope with," said Rieger, 23. 

She was thrilled when her priest in Cleveland, Ohio, told her the church allows a low-gluten wafer generally considered safe for people who suffer damage to their small intestine when they eat the gluten protein found in wheat, barley and rye.

One would think this wouldn't be an issue what with transubstantiation and all. But then all that is accessible to the senses remains unchanged.

This Is Cool

Found here.

Get Over It Already

As did freethinkers

Bishop Cupich of the Spokane Catholic Diocese, posted a short letter regarding the passing of Referendum 74. Within the letter, he says this:  

There is one major unresolved issue. The State has a responsibility to protect and support parents who marry and take on the risks and responsibilities of bringing children into the world. Does the State now intend to walk away from its historic role of upholding the unique contribution which a man and woman make to society when they marry and generate new life, as only they can, thereby continuing the human race? If not, what does it intend to do in this regard?  

Anyone have a clue as to what he is talking about? He mentioned something like this in a prior letter.
  
If the referendum is approved, the most immediate consequence is that the state would no longer grant special support and recognition of the irreplaceable contribution and sacrifice that wives and husbands make to society today as mothers and fathers who bring to life, rear and educate the next generation.  

But I'm still not getting it. What is the state taking away from wives and husbands who have children? What exactly is the "historic role of upholding the unique contribution which a man and woman make to society when they marry and generate new life"?   

Do the half of the couples that stay married get something more from the state than the half who divorce? Is the state withholding something from the couples who don't have children and therefore are not continuing the human race? If a childless couple adopts one or more children, does the state have the same historic role as if the couple had their own natural born children? Isn't it cool that in the questions I just asked, the respective genders of the married couple don't matter?

Marriage And The Good Of Society

Marriage and the Good of Society is the title of the latest anti-Referendum 74 missive posted on the Washington State Catholic Conference site. It leads off with an interesting premise.

This public policy debate is due in part to historic patterns of injustice toward persons with same-sex attraction. Thus, for many, the desire to redefine marriage has its origins in compassion for friends and family members who have experienced bias, unjust discrimination and personal rejection for their sexual orientation.  As pastors and the bishops of Washington State, we are sensitive to this suffering and reaffirm our commitment to protect and defend the dignity of every human person.  We also affirm the Church’s consistent teaching that marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman.

In other words, those with same-sex attraction have suffered. Washington state pastors and bishops are sensitive to this suffering. But they also want it to continue. The reason? Because the purpose of marriage is procreation.

Marriage is the foundational unit of  human society, because it exists for the good of husband and wife and the strengthening of their unique,  permanent, and faithful bond of love.  In addition, because human sexuality orders the transmission of  human life through man and woman, children “are part of the glory of marriage,” as St. Augustine wrote many centuries ago. Marriage is founded on sexual difference and ordered toward the fulfillment of  husband and wife and the procreation and rearing of children. This basic understanding of marriage and  family is “built in” to the very nature of man and woman. 

Like I mentioned before, to describe marriage as a foundational unit of human society denies the stability of our society when the marriage failure rate is 50%. But the key here is the focus on having children. This position not only excludes same-sex marriage, but those who never marry, single parents, and married couples who either cannot or choose not to have children. Are they not part of society's foundation? Must society only rely on the 50% of marriages that succeed?

Approval of Referendum 74 would subordinate the union of children with their mother and  father to a legal entitlement for adults. By separating marriage from procreation and the responsibility of  men and women to raise children that result from their sexual union, the new marriage law would  abandon the state’s principal interest in this time-honored institution.

Again, trying to establish the singular relationship between marriage and having children. The state's principal interest is presumably the opposite-sex marriage resulting in children as a foundational unit. I have yet to hear that claim from Washington State. Nor have I seen the state follow up on marriages. "Are you having children? Why not?"

Faithful, monogamous marriages between one man and one woman will cease to be the legally-established social standard for uniting children with their parents, even though social science has established that children do best when raised in homes with married  mothers and fathers.

Opposite-sex marriages resulting in children will not be affected in any way. The approval of Referendum 74 will not suddenly cause Catholics across Washington state to abandon their opposite-sex marriages, call off their engagements, or break it off with their steadies. And a sly reference to a debunked study is disingenuous of the bishops.

Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become  legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique value of  children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers. No institution or individual could propose  that married mothers and fathers provide a singular benefit to children without being accused of  discrimination.

How ironic that the Catholic church wants to legally discriminate against same-sex marriage because it's afraid it's passage will result in a legal discrimination of those who promote opposite-sex marriage. Such logic is like saying outlawing slavery caused people the loss of freedom to own slaves. If Referendum 74 passes, the church may legally continue to refuse to acknowledge, conduct, or bless same-sex marriages just as it does for other marriages.

Our support for traditional marriage is not born of bias or intolerance toward anyone. Instead, our purpose is  to support the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in order to promote  the common good. We therefore urge Catholic people to uphold our consistent teaching on marriage for  the good of the Church, society, spouses and their children. Finally, we reject the redefinition of  marriage as a “civil contract between two persons.”

They may not intend to be intolerant, but the result is that they are being so. The church has always drawn a line between marriage in the church and a civil marriage. You can be legally married by the state or another religion and yet not be considered married by the Catholic church. The church can continue to do so for same-sex couples. Referendum 74 will have no effect on that.

The church fears that same-sex marriage will weaken society and is blind to the fact that society's reaction to their fight against same-sex marriage shows just how strong it is. Society is recognizing that it strengthens itself by including same-sex couples and granting them the same rights as opposite-sex couples. And the church is free to distance itself from the society it claims will falter if same-sex marriage becomes the law--with liberty and justice for all.

God Is On Your Side

Today we have an interesting exercise in compare and contrast. On one hand, a bunch of fervently religious people physically attack a symbol of a country from which a citizen created a movie they find patently offensive, killing the US ambassador and other diplomatic staff. On the other, we have a bunch of fervently religious people who want to impose their will on everyone and put (keep?) the flag and God in schools and every public and national ceremony.

The protesters on the wall then raised on the flagpole a black flag with a Muslim declaration of faith, “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet.” The flag, similar to the banner used by al-Qaida, is commonly used by ultraconservatives around the region.

"We as a Nation will stand up and join together and fight back to anyone who tries to remove it! If you live in the USA from another country respect our land, our Flag and our God. Please use the freedom of this great Nation and Respect the American way, by bowing your head if you do not agree with our ways."

The crowd chanted, “Islamic, Islamic. The right of our prophet will not die.” Some shouted, “We are all Osama,” referring to al-Qaida leader bin Laden.

"Atheists are 2% of population. Muslims are 2% of population. Majority rules. History rules. Tell the 4% to look the other way if they don't want to see the flag or hear God's name."

A group of women in black veils and robes that left only their eyes exposed chanted, “Worshippers of the Cross, leave the Prophet Muhammad alone.”

"The United States of America originated as a CHRISTIAN nation and a nation of FREEDOM, therefore those that want to keep GOD and our American flag at their public places and ceremonies should have the right to do so!"

All actions and behavior are justifiable if you have God on your side.

Let He Who Is Without Sin...

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is slated to be the keynote speaker at Gonzaga University's Senior Commencement on May 13. That has upset some pious Catholic Gonzaga alumni who have started a petition to have the Nobel Laureate banned. The Cardinal Newman Society has its vestments in a twist as well and complains that "Gonzaga University is celebrating 125 years as a Catholic college by honoring a pro-abortion rights pro-contraception Anglican archbishop."

I checked out some of the remarks on the petition and I was impressed with this one.

This is unconscionable! We are to accept that his work on apartheid trumps all the other stances against the Church. Is he only going to speak on apartheid? Look at how outspoken he is on other faith matters!

Throw them stones! No doubt this person lead one of the many uprisings suffered by Catholic Churches all around the globe as predator priests and the Catholic leaders who protected them were unmasked one by one. Oh...wait...that never happened. Regardless, we wouldn't want to let the actions of pedophile priests trump all other stances of the Church, would we?

There's also a petition for those who support the archbishop and the university. Out of the comments posted there I found this gem.

I have been teaching nonviolence in a Catholic high school for 40 years. Please remind the Cardinal Newman Society that Jesus taught "Love your enemy", not "Ban your enemy".

And it looks like a lot of other people agree with him. The number of petition signers as of this writing stands at 8533 who love their neighbor and 707 stone throwers.

The Islamic Center In New York City

President Obama finally spoke up on this issue.

The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

How refreshing that he should stand up for the U.S. Constitution so strongly.

As to those who continue bleating about this because Muslims attacked us and trying to make it sound like all Muslims want to destroy us, those attackers are no more representative of all Muslims than the Reverend Fred Phelps is of all Christians.

And Your Point Is...

Today's Spokesman Review brings us a strange piece written by David Masci, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum. The title, "Science, Faith Aren't Mutually Exclusive," indicates to me it's about people who understand the science and have faith in a religion. Well, sort of.

A century and a half after Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” the overwhelming majority of scientists in the United States accept Darwinian evolution as the basis for understanding how life on Earth developed. But although evolutionary theory is often portrayed as antithetical to religion, it has not destroyed the religious faith of the scientific community.

Hmmm, so the main point of this article is the faith of the scientists.

According to a survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51 percent) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41 percent say they do not.

Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes “monkey” trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42 percent saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.

And it ends with this:

As for Darwin, his letters indicate that he was probably an agnostic who lost his faith not because his groundbreaking theory was incompatible with religion, but because of his grief after the 1851 death of his favorite child, his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. And even then, he may not have completely rejected the idea of a higher power. The concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.” The passage raises at least a little doubt as to how the father of modern evolutionary theory might have responded to the question on belief in Pew’s recent survey of scientists.

I'm baffled. What is the purpose of this article, get people to think that Darwin may have believed in God after all? That scientists may not be all wrong because some of them have faith or believe in God? What difference does that make? If you want to talk about the effect of faith on science and science on faith, then focus on this paragraph in the article.

And the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87 percent of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32 percent of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

Well, there's yer problem right there. Barely one-third of the American public believe the theory of evolution to be true. I could get into all the attempts the faithful have used to stifle the science involved, but that has been thoroughly documented over the years.

Interestingly, Buddhism gives its members a way to avoid the dogma trap. In "The Universe in a Single Atom", the Dalai Lama described how at age twenty he began a systematic study of Abhidharma cosmology, an important part of the Tibetan intellectual landscape. It describes a flat world around which the sun and moon revolve which he knew to be false.

He stated there is a dictum in Buddhist philosophy that to uphold a tenet that contradicts reason is to undermine one's credibility; to contradict empirical evidence is a still greater fallacy.

Now there's something you can believe in.

Paying The Price

The Rev. Joseph B. Fuiten, senior pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, has an opinion piece in the Tacoma News Tribune lamenting the price Christians paid for fighting and losing Referendum 71.

We failed in our message.

We failed in our methods.

We failed in our money.

Furthermore, I still have to wonder if God was in the effort.

I'd like to address each of these.

They failed in their message.

Essentially it was fear based. School curricula would likely be changed to teach children that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are normal. Marriage was being redefined. Free speech would be criminalized. Marriage needed to be protected. Children growing up in nontraditional families--as if this referendum would suddenly make them disappear if it was defeated?--are not as healthy emotionally and physically as children in traditional families. Even the Catholic church I attend handed out pamphlets imploring us to preserve marriage and protect our children.

All nonsense. I'm reminded of the closing argument Clarence Darrow made while defending Henry Sweet for murder back in 1926. Darrow made clear that the real issue was race, not murder. (A wonderfully crafted speech I highly encourage you to read.) The real issue here was anti-gay bigotry. In that respect I think they were very effective making their message known.

They failed in their method.

As the reverend admits, they appealed to people who would likely agree with them--other Christians. And they fear mongered. They set up a web site just for this purpose adding to their claim to the high road when it comes to "values". Their video productions were emotional appeals to believers and offered nothing to dissuade or convince an open-minded person dealing in reality. Even the Catholic church, under the guise of a reasoned and rational argument, used "gay marriage" as a boogeyman. I think their method was very successful at conveying their message.

They failed in their money.

Hands down. (Select 71 in the Initiative list on the left) If there's a future attempt at legalizing same-sex marriage in the State of Washington, there may be a lot more money spent as was done in Maine. For example, the Catholic church in Maine, despite having to close parishes they couldn't afford to keep open, somehow managed to contribute over a half of a million dollars to help pass Proposition 1, defeating same-sex marriage. It will be interesting to see what the bankrupt Spokane Diocese does if legalized same-sex marriage is attempted in Washington.

Rev. Fuiten has to wonder if God was in the effort.

An interesting wonder. Why, because they lost? How many fights, battles, wars and arguments have taken place in which one or both sides claimed or was assured God was an ally? History has shown that the winner gets to claim the support of their divine being. The Great Spirit may have presided over the death of George Armstrong Custer at Little Big Horn, but God made sure it never happened again. There was no need for God to be in the effort this time. God's most fervent followers make God less relevant and that is what I think really concerns the Reverend Fuiten.

Pastor Fuiten should look at the email he sent back in May of this year when he listed reasons for not running a referendum. (The many replies from other religious leaders, attorneys, and friends are enlightening.) He knew this was a losing effort from the start. So why the anguish?

In support of my relevancy comment, Fuiten wonders if the reputations of Christians have suffered.

Was the referendum an effort blessed by God? Did the Kingdom of God advance because of the effort? I have not heard of people giving their lives to Jesus because of the referendum. I did hear from a non-Christian friend commenting about one of his friends. He wrote, “I noticed the anger building in him, and tried to soften his approach, but he’s fed up. Referendum 71 has turned him against Christians.” Neither is a Christian.

And who's fault is that? Small wonder when your most intense messages spread false fears. Intolerance is an attractive force for like-minded people and detestable to everyone else.

Like he said in his email, if they lose at least they make a statement of faith.

Fuiten continues.

We paid a price for the referendum. It was not just a question of the price we would pay if we didn’t run the referendum. We have to consider the price of doing it as well.

We clearly lost ground with some. Did we gain offsetting ground with others? I don’t know. I do know we all worked hard for what we hoped was the will of God. We did it mostly for the right reasons.

In our best motives, we might have done it for God’s glory. Unfortunately, it appears we have fallen short of the glory of God.

They worked hard for God's will and God's glory. And their statement of faith supporting intolerance has cost them.

If We Could Only Tell Them Apart

Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis, of the American Family Association tries to convince us that after Major Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood Muslims should be barred from the U.S. military. Why? Because

It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday's killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.

You could feel the impulses from here.

The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof.  And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. There are between 10,000 and 20,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. You'd think that with all the "jihadist impulses" there would be more massacres, more so among the civilians. But he continues:

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers.

No shit.

Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve.

Them danged Muslims all look alike. Hmmm, but the yellow stars were all used up. You'll have to use something else.

You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.

Trust no Muslim. Watch every Muslim. Children, turn your parents in. Especially if you're Muslims. I thought we had a jihadi-detector. Isn't that an inclined board and a bucket of water?

This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.

Of course it is.

While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.

Just look at how peaceful the Christian United States is.

And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.

Just as Christ taught, Fischer is turning the other cheek? And Hasan, imitating the Prophet, chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and plundered merchant caravans?

How do you talk to a person like Fischer?

Look What I Got At Church Today

And they'll know we are Christians by our love.

But Where Would You Hang It?

One Nation Under God is an interesting picture (The site may be slow from being overloaded by gawkers). Jesus is holding the U.S. Constitution and he is flanked by historical figures of America's past. In front of him are people representing various vocations. As you mouse over the picture, there's some text either explaining who the person is and/or what they represent. There are religious overtones to just about everything. I know, what a surprise.

Irony moment: Martin Luther King, who railed against the Vietnam war, is memorialized by placing his last name on a black soldier.

Selective remembrance of history moments: Benjamin Franklin sired numerous illegitimate children and Thomas Jefferson had relations with slave that resulted in offspring.

Huh? moment: Some of the fifty stars shine brighter than the others. It's up to you to determine which states' stars have dimmed.

If you don't have anything nice to say moment: Business Woman.

Burn in hell moment: The smug, liberal left, education-controlling, equal-to-God professor holding "The Origin of Species".

Mixed message moment: The immigrant who is shocked by the greatness of Christ and yet it's okay not to be Christian in America.

Whew! moment: The school teacher, presumably also a member of the liberal left controlling our educational system, is valued for teaching our youth.

Re-Retranslate Thuh Bibel Gooder

There's a project over on Conservapedia to rewrite the bible and remove all the liberal (i.e. inaccurate) terms, translations, etc.

Here are possible approaches to creating a conservative Bible translation:

* identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as "government", and suggest more accurate substitutes
* identify the omission of liberal terms for vices, such as "gambling", and identify where they should be used
* identify conservative terms that are omitted from existing translations, and propose where they could improve the translation
* identify terms that have lost their original meaning, such as "word" in the beginning of the Gospel of John, and suggest replacements, such as "truth"

There are several striking advantages to a conservative approach to translating the Bible online:

* participants learn enormously from the process
* liberal bias - and lack of authenticity - become easier to recognize and address
* by translating online, this utilizes the growing online resources that improve accuracy
* supported by conservative principles, the project can be bolder in uprooting and excluding liberal distortions
* the project can adapt quickly to future threats from liberals to biblical integrity
* access is free and immediate to the growing internet audience, for their benefit
* the ensuing debate would flesh out -- and stop -- the infiltration of churches by liberals pretending to be Christian, much as a vote by legislators exposes the liberals
* this would bring the Bible to a new audience of political types, for their benefit; Bible courses in college Politics Departments would be welcome
* this would debunk the pervasive and hurtful myth that Jesus would be a political liberal today

At the bottom of the page where the references are listed they have this:

The committee in charge of updating the bestselling version, the NIV, is dominated by professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook. As a result, the revision and replacement of the NIV will be influenced more by political correctness and other liberal distortions than by genuine examination of the oldest manuscripts. As a result of these political influences, it becomes desirable to develop a conservative translation that can serve, at a minimum, as a bulwark against the liberal manipulation of meaning in future versions.

Note that their link to the NIV (New International Version) makes no mention of all the liberal bias.

The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible is a leading evangelical translation. More than one hundred scholars, beginning in the late 1960s, undertook the project of retranslating the Bible for the best extant (existing) originals in Hebrew and Greek texts. Their goal was that the translation be:

an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a "thought-for-thought" translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.


Regardless, the translators of the leading evangelical translation of the bible are still "professors and higher-educated participants who can be expected to be liberal and feminist in outlook." Apparently lower-educated people don't have that "problem."

Referendum 71

I went to the Protect Marriage in Washington site to see what they have to say. I was invited to watch their Marriage is Sacred video so I did. I wanted to include the video here but when I tried I got this:

That's odd. You'd think they'd want to spread the word as much as possible. Anyway, the video just stresses that God (emphasized by the narrator each time he says it) specified that marriage is between one man and one woman. I have a point of order. Since they start off with "in the beginning", shouldn't Adam and Eve be naked instead of wearing togas?

Overall, the site contains plenty of "the downfall of our society" predictions and the emotional appeals of protecting marriage and protecting children. There's a heavy reliance on religious appeal.

The sacredness of marriage is hardly under attack by same-sex couples. Such alleged sacredness has been diminished for years by divorce and adultery among opposite sex couples. And the religious have proven they don't have a monopoly on even what they consider to be moral behavior.

I'm for approving Approve Referendum 71. I see no harm in treating non-married couples fairly and giving them the same protections and responsibilities as married couples. Because even if you've taken all the legal precautions, that doesn't mean things always work out the way they should.

Only One And One-Half To Five Percent

From a story in the Guardian from a couple of days ago.

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

He added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.

In a nutshell: There aren't that many, it's not just us and it's more likely to happen elsewhere.

I feel better already.

Let's see, there are something like 400,000 priests in the world. If you apply the numbers to today's population, does that mean anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000 could be involved in child sex abuse? Probably not because we've seen how well the church has been "busy cleaning its own house"--well after the fact.

The Enemy Within

Today's Spokesman Review brings us yet another Cal Thomas column. Cal is worried that Muslims are working from within to undermine our country.

If you were an enemy of America seeking her destruction, you would add to your pursuit of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons the undermining of this nation from within. You would do this largely through deception, putting on a peaceful face while subtly plotting ways to bring America down.

That tactic was on display Friday in Washington as a crowd estimated at 3,000 Muslims gathered to pray. The organizer of the rally, Imam Abdul Malik of Brooklyn, N.Y., told Americans what we like to hear: “What we’ve done today, you couldn’t do in any Muslim country. If you prayed on the palace lawn there, they’d lock you up.”

Cal points to Malik's Facebook page as proof of his perfidy. So I took a look at it myself. The page has five whole posts on it. The one Cal is pointing to is the very first one from last January.

"Democracy is not revelation, and democracy does not equal freedom, for in democracy you have apartheid, you have slavery, you have homosexuality, you have lesbianism, you have gambling, you have all of the vices that are against the spirit of truth; so no we don’t want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy! That’s what we want.

...

You’d better wake up! You’ve got the best message and the best example, you’ve got to know that you are the lions of the jungle don’t turn in into a pussy-cat!"

It sounds like many of the complaints shared by those who claim we are a Christian nation. And it sounds just as inspirational as many Christian exhortations. Change "Islamize" to "Christianize" and you essentially have Thomas's position. He rails against moral depravity all the while espousing biblical guidance. Malik's position is no different except for the religious text he is using. And that's the key for Thomas. He paints all Muslims as a dangerous foe from within and cherry picks arrests of alleged terrorists as proof. It's the Crusades all over again for Cal.

Someone posted a compliment on Malik's Facebook page for his khutbah. In response, someone had to spread that Christian love.

The enemy within indeed.

See You At The Pole

This is the 20th year of See You At The Pole, an event where students meet at the flagpole of their school and pray. You can find a little more background here. Each year has a different theme. Here is this year's theme from the SYATP web site:

A young man named Josiah began one of the greatest revivals and awakenings in the Old Testament. Josiah had become king of Israel at the age of 8. Scripture tells us that at the age of 16, he began to pursue God passionately. Like his forefather, David, he began to show signs of godliness early on and gained the respect of the people. 2 Kings 22:2 states, “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in all the ways of his father, David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.”

This resulted in radical obedience — getting rid of everything that did not honor God and challenging everyone around him to do likewise. These actions resulted in a mighty move of God in his day — actually, one of the greatest ever!
...
How about you? Do you desire to see a mighty move of God on your campus? Are you pursuing God passionately? Are you serious about radical obedience? Are you determined to get rid of anything and everything that dishonors God and ready to challenge your friends to do the same? (Emphasis in the original)

Pursue God passionately, radical obedience and getting rid of anything that dishonors God. I can't relate much with pursuing God passionately. I've met and known people who do or claim to. I usually find--in general terms--that a higher level of passion equates to a lower level of critical thinking especially when facts conflict with religious teachings. I've known well-educated people who believe the Earth is only five, six or ten thousand years old. And there are those who don't believe in evolution which makes as much sense as not believing in gravity, as if science is something to be believed in.

Radical obedience is a particularly disturbing part of the theme. I notice an interesting choice of words. First, in relating the story of Josiah, they use the words "getting rid of everything that did not honor God." And then they say "...get rid of anything and everything that dishonors God." This sounds like an extension of the "if you are not with us, you are against us" binary view. If something doesn't honor God then it must dishonor God which is a pretty radical view to take especially when you apply it to people. The question is, in this radical obedience how does one determine if something or anything dishonors--or does not honor--God? Well, the Bible does contain a myriad of rules. Let's have a look at some of them.

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

We hear these all the time, especially with the increasing emphasis of equal rights for same-sex partners among the states. As a society we don't put gay people to death. But some of us tend to use their "sin" as a justification or distraction when a gay person is killed for being "that way". Regardless, the Bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong. But that is not the only rule we need to be radically obedient to.

Leviticus 20:10 - If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Nowadays we are pretty forgiving of adulterers. And we certainly don't put them to death. But I'm sure some of the spouses being cheated on wouldn't mind bringing that one back.

Leviticus 11:10 - But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.

Deuteronomy 13:9-10 - These you may eat of all that are in water: anything that has fins and scales you may eat, but anything that does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you.

Radical obedience would presumably put Red Lobster out of business, affect the menus on a multitude of restaurants and destroy the livelihood of the lobster, crab, and shrimp boaters. And worst of all, there'd be no more Deadliest Catch programs.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 - If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Killing a child or sibling because they switched to another religion is not a common practice in our country and we generally frown upon it in other cultures. Radical obedience would presumably set that straight.

In past See You At The Pole days I have seen groups of students circled around the flag pole at different schools in Spokane. Going past one this morning, I stopped to observe for a while because I was curious as to what they'd be praying for. Surprisingly, there were two adults, a man and a woman, present. I have no idea who they were nor do I know the four young people who were present. But I was a little surprised because I was under the impression these are student-led events and not intended for adults because the students were supposed to be reaching out to fellow students. Regardless, while I may have been a curiosity, nobody really paid me any attention other than exchanging "Good morning" with the man.

Three of the young people were wearing black t-shirts with "I (re-bel)" on the front. I don't know what, if anything, was on the back--the young man I was near had a shirt on over his--so the significance of the phrase in this context is lost on me. These three were the most fervent as expressed by their nonstop side-to-side swaying, continuous "Thank you, Father" and "Thank you, Jesus" exhaltations, lips moving in presumably silent or whispered prayer, and the occasional upraised hands and arms. The others stood quietly with heads bowed. However, there was a typical teen moment when one of the swaying girls took a moment to check her cell phone all without interrupting her prayer.

The prayers were hard to hear because of a lawn mower on the school grounds and nearby passing traffic. The ones I caught were for poor people, our country, our leaders, and the hungry. One person would pray out loud for a while and when they stopped another would pick up. The woman prayed that all the students and teachers in the school would accept God and change their lives accordingly. Overall, it seemed--whether purposely or not--the prayers dealt mostly with the pursuit of God. Nothing was said about radical obedience and removal of all that dishonors God. Three other young people joined the group one at a time during my ten-minute stay. Given that this school has about 1600 students these seven have their work cut out for them if they're reaching out to the others, especially if the other students are using the critical thinking skills they're supposed to be learning.

How We View Two Tragic Events

In one the parents watch and pray as their son dies a slow agonizing death.

Zachery Swezey lay in his parents' bed, his breathing labored.

When he fell ill March 15, the 17-year-old Carlton boy's parents, Greg and JaLea Swezey, thought he had food poisoning. But over the next three days, they realized it was something else, perhaps the flu. He'd had a fever, and was vomiting with severe diarrhea.

During those three days, aunts, uncles and grandparents came to his bedside to pray. On March 17, his father did not call a doctor or an ambulance. Instead, he called elders from their church. They came to the house and anointed Zakk with olive oil, and prayed for him as Zakk's family waited outside in the hall. Members of the Church of the First Born, the Swezeys believe in faith healing.

At midday on March 18, Zakk told his mother he loved her, and asked for his father to come to his bedside.

Shortly before 1 p.m, his breathing slowed. His hands got cold and turned a bluish color. With both of his parents at his bedside, Zakk Swezey died.

An autopsy later revealed the Pateros High School student died of a ruptured appendix.

In the other story a parent puts her child in an improperly installed car seat.

Eileen Jensen’s daughter Chloe was riding in a loosely installed, rear-facing car seat in the front passenger seat during the 2006 collision, police said. The car’s airbags deployed, which – combined with the impact of the crash – caused the baby’s injuries.

She died from her injuries 10 months later, but “her brain stopped developing that day,” said Spokane police Officer Teresa Fuller.

In both cases we have a child dying with a parent's involvement. And yet one generates a stronger sense of outrage than the other. One makes us feel a stronger need for punishment. And yet the other child's death was almost certainly preventable.

What is it that lets us to make allowances for a belief system permitting such an abdication of responsibility?