Recession hits Galilee

With the absurd sales numbers of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life you might believe that God was at work. It might seem that only divine genius could promote Warren's manifesto to being the single best-selling book of all time besides the Bible. Or perhaps Warren really is a good writer and has a top-notch marketing team.

Last month, however, Warren's cultural fortress took a hit when Reader's Digest pulled out of a deal that would distribute Warren's Purpose Driven Ideas in the form of a monthly magazine. Times are tough at the Digest, whose circulation is down considerably in the last couple years.

This news might be a sign that Warren's operation is not entirely run by Divine decree: the market might play a vital role in his relatively new ministry.

We might even begin to wonder if there is a coincidence between the 2002-2007 market boom and his book's initial success.

Whatever the case, it looks like even Jesus might not be immune from Recession.

Just a hiccup

Social change doesn't usually come without a fight.

Maybe there are no guns blazing and bombs blasting, but social upheaval is not always met with open arms. The story remains the same when it comes to Gay Marriage.

But the proponents of the revised holy matrimony did not expect to have such a battle in Northeastern, liberal Maine. Looks like the Gay Marriage battle is far from over.

Perhaps this will give some much needed encouragement to the advocates against Gay Marriage, proving that even liberal states are not lost to the homosexual agenda.

Then again, a losing vote in one state does not indicate the absence of a growing national acceptance of Gay marriage.

As understood, however, social movements do not occur overnight.

Help me by not helping

It used to be that in American Politics Clergymen had easy access to politicians. Maybe to give advice or voice a concern, Clergymen would be welcomed by officials of all levels.

Not so anymore.

The Washington Post recounts a story about D.C. Reverend having trouble meeting with local politicians. Apparently, this used to not be the case in the D.C. area. Times have changed.

There was no such thing as putting a pastor on hold

Now Pastors don't even get an answer.

Why the shift in Politicians' view towards the spiritual leaders?

Whereas it used to be that pastors could offer needed advice, now they are a liability. Church wisdom seems old and superstitious. Plus, four years with a hyper-religious commander-in-chief did not help the matter.

Now, instead of a help Clergymen are a liability.

Don't mix medications

I am not convinced that religion and science are completely independent subjects. According to one reporter at the Guardian, however, they are entirely separate issues and should not be combined.

Her case is simple: religion is subjective, it involves personal belief; science is objective, it involves fact.

First off, I don't buy this. Scientists will be quick to explain that even scientific fact is somewhat of a faith-work. The whole issue of the philosophy of science is deciding at what point we should accept anything as fact? In other words, how many observations of the sun going up and down makes it a fact that the sun goes up and down?

But that's not my real problem.

The bigger issue is that religion and science are in some ways incompatible (perhaps not in all). If brain chemistry causes certain behavior in humans, it is hard to say they are sinners when science can give us a completely material explanation. Though this tension might be murky at best, religion and science are still not completely different departments.

Go figure

If I'm not mistaken, both Jesus, Paul, and Peter made it very clear to the young believers that they would be persecuted. And up until the legalizaiton of Christianity in ROme, Christians were persecuted relentlessly. It is somewhat of a surprise, then, that Christians are so upset at the recent ban on Nativity Scenes in the Washington State Capitol BUilding.

In some ways, we might have sympathy for the offended Christians. They have, after all, enjoyed a relatively nice time throughout the history of the United States. They have been, and still are, an overwhelming majority under the red, white, and blue.

Perhaps this is a perfect time for them to get back to their roots.

How's my new look?

CNN has not usually made it a priority to liberate Christians from negative stereotypes, but it's never too late to start. Anderson Cooper's report on the changing "breed" of Evangelicals mentions that Christians are beginning to focus on more salient issues than the old-time Evangelical concerns of gay-marriage and abortion. Now, Anderson reports, Christians focus on issues like AIDS, global warming, and hunger---far less controversial than their old favorites.



The shift is not a small event. It marks a fundamental transformation of the way Evangelicals look at the world. Their new focus is devoid of the murky morality surrounding abortion and gay-marriage. Hunger, aids, and global warming are surprisingly environmental: their old squabbles were surprisingly spiritual.

Hats off to 'em

The pro-lifers probably did win with the successful no-abortion addition to the new healthcare bill. And the event does not come without some insight to American politics.

While Conservative pro-lifers can be annoying, they must be dealt with in the American representation. Though the Country leans left, the conservative right cannot be entirely ignored.

And although many Senators would have it that abortions would be publicly funded, they must admit that this is a triumph in the American experiment. Minority views were not crushed at the hands of a single-party government.

Who knows, maybe this will give the religious right its much needed steam?

Don't judge too soon

Richard Dawkins really wants people to be free to make decisions. It would be best, he assumes, if everyone happened to become atheist. To further this aim, he has launched a series of ads in promotion of the secular agenda. His latest ad targets peoples' view of children: they should not be labelled as belonging to one reliiong or another too soon.

Please don't label me

Two kids featured in the ad, however, apparently come from a Christian home. The parents, learning of the placement of their kids' photo, were delighted that an atheist's ad contained Christian front men.

They considered it as a jab against the atheist campaign.

I not so quick to presume the same opinion.

If Dawkin's ads are correct, even if the kids come from a Christian home, it doesn't mean that the kids are "Christian." Dawkin's point is to battle against the labeling, in general, so we couldn't say that the kids are Christian.

Maybe Dawkin's front men are better suited than critics understand.

Really, Haggard?

So it turns out that Ted Haggard is out to start a new church from his home in Colorado Springs. This announcement has invoked criticism inside and outside the Church.

Without going into specifics, those outside now have huge ammunition against the Church: after all, what does religion mean at all if there is no moral code?

In response, Evangelicals could say that Ted's story amounts to a testimony of the Forgiveness of Christianity.

Those inside the church, however, are not so excited about Ted's decision either. He was living a lie a relatively short time ago. Is now the time to tell people how to live when he proved he cannot do it himself?

Either way, Haggard's new church will face an uphill battle.

always the one you least expect

Evangelicals are getting tired of their age-old, boring issues. Abortion is so 90s. Gay marriage is inevitable. What about the climate? Therein lies the salvation of a dying Religious Right. But the new found interest comes with a tinge of irony.

Evangelicals in the last 20 years have made pains to preach the supposed apocalyptic story of Revelation. The Left Behind series has sold more books than any other. In short, Evangelicals are convinced that in the relatively near future, things are going to hell--after the rapture, of course!

So it probably comes as a surprise that Evangelicals are hopping on board the historically liberal fight against climate change--after all, isn't the climate doomed to burn in holy fire?

Maybe the Christians have moderated their eschatological roots. Or maybe they're just tired of losing.

You can't sacrilege a sacrileger

As far as jokes are concerned, Conservatives are an easy target. Evangelicals' bulls eye is even bigger.

A group at Wheaton college, however, has sought to retort to some of the easy laughs on the church through a new brand of Christian combat: making jokes. We usually don't think of churchgoers as the satirical blend, but in this case, they hold an air of smug acceptance that humor can not only create smiles, but capture hearts.

This approach elicits some interesting thoughts about the nature of humor in regards to religion. Jokes aimed at the church take aim against peoples' notion of the sacred. It's hard, however, to poke fun at a secular culture that lacks a firm bedrock for ideal.

Maybe it's time for the church to insult freedom of speech.

Gleefully insulted

Some Christians are upset over Glee's portrayal of Christians. According to the Times, the show makes Christians out to be "phony and hypocritical." Evangelicals, wanting to save the dignity of their religion, disapprove of satirical displays of their behavior.

The Times notes, however, notes that sometimes useful life lessons can come from unlikely, even negative, sources. Mentioning Harry Potter, the author explains that young Christians, like old ones, crave authenticity. It just so happens that authenticity might be offensive.

Call me a scoffer, but I am fascinated why Catholics are so vocal on the matter of abortion.

My reasoning is as follows.

Catholics believe that the earth as we know it is temporary.

Eventually believers will go to heaven and sinners will go to hell.

This post-earth state will last forever.

If the after-life trumps the temporary, however, why should the Catholics care what happens in the American Democracy?

So what if the abortionistas get their way when it's all going to hell anyway?

Double PLay

Mormons recruit well and sometimes they land sports stars to do their work. The kitsap sun reported a story last week about a baseball star turned mormon missionary. The LDS church is not without athleticism.

The guy reported in the story has given up, for the time being, a promising baseball career in order to pursue the missionary agenda. After playing at Oregon State, the new missionary was on the verge of playing in the professional realm when he decided to go after his religious duty.

Apparently, the baseball talent is happy at his new post. Missionary work, one might imagine, is relatively rewarding. Afterall, the treasure is in heaven.

Perhaps when he is finished, our baseball star might get some divine favor on the ball field.

Mayor Cromwell

I really thought the era of religious rule was over.

But apparently near San Francisco, the divine decree is still heavy-handed and the rule of law. Well, maybe not that extreme. But when the mayor of the city of Vallejo announces his hatred for the "sin" of homosexuality, he has several practicers of mentioned act worried.

Sure, the mayor can hold his opinions. But when you're a public figure, going out of your way to proclaim your disgust with a lifestyle will not put you in a good position to govern.

Thanksgiving reminds us of taking a pilgrimage to escape religious persecution. But if we homosexuals can't flee to the Bay Area, where can they go?

Not the "Jesus" Right

Make no mistake, the religious right means business.

They want their agenda pushed hard. If that means a president must be ousted or some books must be burned, so be it. As long as "Christian" philosophy rules, the means are unimportant.

Last week, a Christian minister was "forced" to issue an apology in regards to some of his comments on the death of president Obama. Although the pastor originally thought that the Pslams gave him ample grounds to hold such a fancy, he has since "changed his mind" and now blesses the American commander-in-chief.

Though we might accuse this man as being a "flip-flopper," his apology is probably best for the ailing Religious Right. Their dwindling numbers don't allow for such unpopular comments.

The examiner reporter who mentions this story is keen to note that the pastor's original behavior is not much in line with Christ's teaching. Her observation is somewhat of a platitude, however. There is a reason, afterall, that the religious right is called the "religious" right and not the "jesus" right.

Do as I say, not as I do

As far as John Daugherty is concerned, irony has triumphed. Last week the faith-healer Daugherty died of cancer after undergoing standard medical treatment, which failed to save his belief-filled corpse.

It comes as a surprise to many that Daugherty opted to pursue regular medical help as opposed to his practice of faith-based healing. The healing industry, which he is prominent member, has afforded Daugherty a plentiful career--his insurance coverage must have been great!

Hold the platitudes

I have a hard time understanding what the Manhattan Declaration intends to accomplish. In one aspect, Christians, of all kinds, reaffirm their tradition beliefs in the sanctity of life, the preservation of marriage, and the freedom of religious expression.

But why now and why such a simple proclamation?

Historically, when groups are challenged, they seek to define themselves. At the beginning of the Greek Empire, the Greeks sought to establish what made Greeks special in light of their surrounding "barbarians." Similarly, the Hebrews sought to maintain their identity as a monotheistic group in light of surrounding Canaanites, etc.

Defining oneself as a group notes the strength or prevalence of opposition. The call for unity is usually a call under fire.

So as much as this declaration intends to ennoble Christians, it is most likely a sign of the strength of their enemies.

Losing the battle before it starts

Ray Comfort has some nerve. Recently he has reprinted Darwin's Origin of Species with a special introduction promoting intelligent design, a view mutually incompatible with evolution. Comfort's goal is to present two sides of a salient issue in American education: whether intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution.

Atheists around the country have resounded criticism of the move.

They say that Comfort is distorting a great piece of Scientific literature in order to "push his agenda."

However, the atheist response will probably remain in online forums. Since the Origin is in public domain, defacement is inevitable.

merry shopping

I find it incredibly surprising that Christians across the country want to put "Christ" back into retail shops during the Christmas Season. As most would notice, retailers have systematically weeded out Christian sentiment during the Christmas shopping binge. In place of "Merry Christmas," retailers have opted to use the generic, and benign term "Happy holidays." We wouldn't want to offend the 3% who don't celebrate Christmas afterall!

Christians lament this lack of Jesus in their sacred Holiday.

But it's interesting that Christians want Jesus back in the stores--when they feverishly search for gifts for all of their closest 150 friends. Maybe it's noble they want their savior in the midst of the materialistic splurge--when obligation makes them blow their holiday bonus on trinkets and knicknacks-all for the sake of their baby Jesus!

Maybe that's just what retailers need--some Christ-sanctioned sale! Instead of Black Friday, we'll call it buy-for-Jesus weekend!

no shirt no problem

Florida marks the spot for some of the latest activity by the ACLU. The row, over whether students can wear shirts that criticize other religions, relates directly with issues of freedom of speech.

In the story, a Florida school forbade several students from wearing shirts offensive to Muslims. In response, the ACLU has charged the school district with limiting students' free speech rights.

It's not clear who will win this fight, but it stands to make a precedent with similar cases. If the shirts remain banned, school's can reasonably be said to have the right to limit free speech. If not, then the schools could be at the mercy of students' expressions.

An interesting thought to consider, however, is whether a similar fight would develop if the shirts mentioned a criticism on Christianity, instead of Islam.

Hate to say it

Americans, by a vast majority, favor the ability to publicly criticize religions. The same is not true in Muslim populations.

A major Muslim group, IOC, has proposed a debate within the UN to decide whether member states should punish people for "hate speech" directed towards religions.

The organization's concern is not unfounded. Hateful speech can trigger violence or make life difficult for any religious group--muslims included. The UN is relatively open to the notion of limiting free speech but it is hard to imagine that main members will find the proposal as entertaining.

Limiting free speech seems ironic, at best. The UN must be careful on such salient matters.

Freedom to Discriminate

The swiss are about to vote on a ban on Muslim Minarets in the country. The ban is controversial but it appears that the majority of Swiss believe the ban is a good idea.

Critiques feel otherwise. They think that the ban amounts to a specific discrimination against Islam. Other religions, they say, enjoy freedoms similar to the placement of minarets. Islam is

singled out.

.

The advocates for the ban are convinced that Islamic minarets represent a "conquering" of swiss territory. There argument is that muslim minarets have been used to "mark territory" in the past, the same being true today in Switzerland.

In some ways, however, one cannot blame the proponents of the ban. Islam, especially when state-enforced, is fundamentally against freedom of religion and thought, both things that the Swiss enjoy in plenty.

Disgraced

I almost feel that someone in politics should understand that the Catholic Church will not let doctrinal issues go ignored--whether you're a Kennedy or not.

So when the Catholic church barred Pat Kennedy last week from taking communion, I am not surprised. Shouldn't he know that the Catholic church is pro-life and that pro-choicers have no place in the church---especially if you're a public figure?

And spare me the riot

Last week Illinois Republican Rep. Donald Manzullo apologized for some comments he made in regards to terrorists. His comments were particularly inflammatory. Speaking about terrorist suspects, Manzullo said, "These are really, really mean people whose job it is to kill people, driven by some savage religion." Muslims who got wind of these words thought Manzullo was referring to Muslims, sui generis.

Turns out he wasn't refering to Muslims in general and was alluding to the extremist ones. His apology explains this rather un-poetically.

But the quick apology seems rather serious, given that it is common knowledge that when referring to terrorist's religion it is usually considered to be of the extremist sort--not the layman's blend.

So why so fast with the apology if most modern human beings should be able to flesh out Manzullo's words? The reason is simple. Manzullo, remembering the danish cartoon debacle, knows what offended Muslims are capable of: riots.

Aggressive skepticism

This year, like last year, the American Humanist Association is putting up a flurry of ads on Metro buses around D.C. One of the ads says, "No God? No problem! Be good for goodness sake!" Pictures of cheery-eyed non-believers accompany the slogan.

As one might imagine, the ads have garnered substantial attention--mostly negative. And in some ways you can't blame them. The ads blatantly charge God with being irrelevant to morality. Whether they're right is beside the point.

Slinging mud at politicians is one thing, but accusing God of irrelevance is another.

Nothing to persecute

In some ways it should not be surprising that there is an insurgency of atheist "clubs" around America's college campuses. With Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins proclaiming their lack of faith on rooftops, one can easily imagine that the young atheist troops are beginning to come of the woodwork. This "outing", however, is probably not a testament to their courage, but rather a sign of the times. The numbers are beginning shift in regards to Atheists in America. Although Religionistas still utterly dominate the American landscape, the small but growing percentage of young atheists, gives them enough people to make a crowd. It's hard to say, however, if this is a good thing.

Silent but Dangerous

According to Brad Greenberg of GetReligion.org, The Los Angeles Times has under-covered and under-praised the Southern California Megachurch phenomenon. Greenberg suggests that while there exists a dragon in LA's backyard, the Los Angeles Times has treated it like a small lizard, at best.

Although Greenberg finds the attitude towards the movement unjustified,to me the media's slightly negative treatment seems understandable.

The "Southern California Bible Belt" stretches from LA to San Diego, including well over 100 megachurches (those with over 2000 members)--the most in the country. But while the area boasts remarkable spiritual density, the cause may not necessarily be a religious revolution.

Perhaps the root cause of the megachurch expansion is an economical one. Orange County, the primary church hotbed, is largely republican and contains mostly upwardly-mobile middle class. It makes sense that in a megalopolis like the LA-San Diego divide that megachurches would present the best spiritual opportunity for the yuppies.

If the main factors in the mega-religious revolution are economical, it's easy to see why the media might give a big "so what?" to the symptoms of the times.

Holding back the Flood

It is easy to imagine why Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, is angry at the Simpsons and the FOX station. The Simpsons do not always hold back their irreverent jokes, especially when directed at the Church. It's no surprise that Donahue has made a stink about the latest jab at the Eucharist.

But how can you blame the Simpsons for making jokes about the Holy group? And shouldn't they expect this?

After all, the Church holds to beliefs that are directly contrary to the intuitive judgments of science. The Church stresses things that are largely unobservable, something that hits nerve with an empirically-minded population. Shouldn't the Catholic church expect such laughs at their activities that, to modern standards, are borderline absurd?

In some ways, jokes are far better than outright persecution. Perhaps, Catholics should be grateful for both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.

Let live and die

Let's agree to disagree

This seems easy enough. At least according to Ramdas Lamb, a religions professor at the University of Hawaii.

If we all let our doctrinal differences be as they may, focusing instead on more pressing and realistic needs, Lamb thinks the world will be a better place.

However, this solution might not be so easy. The religions that cause the most stir, fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam, revolve around doctrinal distinctions. They are also inherently proslytizing religions. To tell a Christian or Muslim to stop caring about Theology and stop making other people agree is essentially telling them to give up their faith.

Peaceful coexistence is death for fundamentals.

Straw Clergyman

From my possibly primitive understanding of warfare, I still know one thing: the best way to defeat your enemy is to know him. A misunderstanding of your enemy can prove fatal. The same is true in argumentation. Attacking a straw man can lead to either false victory or early defeat. When it comes to religion, certain groups find it easier to attack a straw man than to take on the beast in all her might. This is especially true of atheists towards religious groups.

Dawson makes the case that atheists often characterize religion in oversimplified ways, making it easy to attack. Responses by the church are often met with at least a dose of cynicism. In some ways, however, the church should expect this.

It is surprising, however, that people who pride themselves on intellectual honesty commit such obvious logical fallacies.

endorsements

Sports stars are great for endorsing your product. All that hard-work, fun, All-american success wrapped into an attractively built flesh makes a promising stage for any item--whether it's deodorant or gatorade. And what do the athletes get for their pitch? Money. And who can blame them for doing it considering that tacking on money to more money is down-right American--perhaps even plain-human. But what do athletes get when they endorse God on the air?

They get spiritual capital and lots of it. When they say,

Buy my religion and it will confer you similar benefits like fame and fortune

they don't get paid in cold hard cash, they get paid in spiritual reward--'cause God's good for it.

Next time I create a religion, I will make sure to use athletes as my spokesmen.

shrugging things off

When R. Crumb rewrote the book of Genesis in comic book form he created somewhat of a stir in the Christian community. Though he claims it was not

done for derision

it is hard to imagine that any pictorially-crude version of Genesis will not offend some holy-minded folks. And it has.

Genesis covers some

adult themes

and it is no wonder that drawing them out in comic form can make the Bible seem unholy itself. What is interesting about this story, however, is the relatively muted reaction from the Christian church. As of yet there are no letters to sue, motions of protest, leaders demanding the book to be burned, or any other rash response we could conjure up. For the most part, the Christian folks seem particularly docile.

This story, then, provides an appropriate comparison with the danish Muhammad-picture fiasco where there were protests galore.

Perhaps the differing responses have more to do with the religions themselves and not just how offensive the material is.

a response to Bill Maher and supporters

It's not that I don't agree with Maher's views concerning religion. Religion has caused what seems like more problems than solutions throughout history. I would not refute this sort of thinking, because I think it is entirely correct.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should vanquish every aspect of superstition--flushing the people's opiate down the drain. My worry though is whether this will be a slippery slope. If God is no longer real, what's next? Justice? This may seem far-fetched.

However, where is justice supposed to be? Is it objective? Is it wired into the fabric of the universe? Perhaps justice is something we all think is real and there is no such thing. If we are going to rid ourselves of things unseen and unreasoned, justice seems an ample place to go. Why should there be such a thing as fairness? Or even goodness? Perhaps it's all in our heads? Modern psychology seems to be paving the way towards a conclusion like that one.

If it's our fancy to dismantle things unseen, then I fear morality is next on the list. If we can stab religion because of textual inconsistencies, what happens when the day comes when we can uncover mental inconsistencies through mental imagining, etc?

This is not to say I'm for religion. Nor am I for morality. But what an interesting society will develop without either of these notions.

Maybe a small dose of Kool-aid is needed afterall.

Justifiably afraid

Religionauts are justifiably afraid of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins' aim of destroying false notions like God, creationism, etc. give ample reason for fear. With every inch of popularity, Dawkins' ideas can reek havoc on those of faith.

One has to wonder whether Nietzches' words are coming to fruition,

God is dead, God is dead!

Religious groups are scrambling to mount a response, but they are far from pitting a chunk in the secular agenda's armor. Dawkins, Darwin, and countless other writers offer a simple explanation of how the world of organisms work. We evolved into what we have now. The rule of evolution becomes obvious from most angles.

On the other hand, the religionaut retort provides an explanation filled with exceptions and possible contradictions. Though this reviewer is no sucker for mud slinging, hypocrisy remains rampant in organized religion as well.

Looks like Dawkins' books could be producing more than just big profits.

unlikely career change

The last place you would expect a career journalist to end up is in the pulpit but that's exactly what Steve Scott has done at the shock of his peers.

Although he spent the bulk of his life doing journalism, Scott eventually has enough financial freedom to pursue a second love, the church. After getting some formal education on the stuff, Scott became minister. And apparently, he's not that bad.

But again, this is the last place you might think a journalist's career might go. Considering the events, people. and places they see it's hard to imagine that any journalist would have a heart for the ministry. If anything, devout atheism seems more appropriate.

This case presents a rare time when someone can be cognizant of the church's issues from the outside, avoiding cynicism enough to become a member of the inside.

Latter-day freedom fighters

Mormons know what it's like to be persecuted. Recently, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the LDS Church made a speech regarding religious freedom. He noted that Mormons are still under threat of their religious freedom. The comments are partially a response to the Prop 8 battle in California.

Initiatives provide an illuminating example of religion and politics, especially democracy. If mobilized in large enough numbers, a religious group can effectively vote their way onto the ballot and into office. They can do this with little respect to the secularized opponents. This, however, might not be an all bad thing considering the pride we take in democratic values. After-all, we do want to give what the people want. And if it turns out that they have a 67% majority towards extreme conservative social values, then they win.

That scenario, however, does not sound quite right. Though we would like to say that democracy gives us the ability to vote for who or what we want, would we want for us to be able to vote in social values tyranny. If this were acceptable, the smartest thing for any religious group would be to proselytize as many converts as possible, creating a massive voting bloc to rig elections towards certain, acceptable positions. But wait, hasn't this happened before?

From Paris with love

France's burqa troubles represents a coming issue in American politics. Sure, there's an ocean between that political nightmare and our domestic dreams. But there's a day when the French burqa-ban legislation will not just be a French issue.

It's hard to say exactly what will happen in the French government over what to do with the muslim headcovering cunundrum. A complete ban could create resentment and possibly even rebellion. Any prorated limitation might create said problems. The French government is in a sticky place to say the least. They have a substantial group of very-religious people living amongst a hyper-secularized government that values freedom. In the case of Islam, women and freedom are up for debate. Whatever the government decides to do, it could have very negative consequences.

By the book

If you were going to have a showdown in Lodi, CA it might as well be over God. According the NY times, Lodi has taken accustom to praying before city council meetings. As one might imagine, not everyone is pleased. Legal blows are ready to fire. Here is a very loose quote of the pro-side, "It's not big deal." And the opposing side, "it's a very big deal." In any case, this battle is headed to the courts very soon.

While the pro-prayer folks have a good point that the prayer is non-sectarian, non-divisive, and pre-gavel smash, I think there is an interesting issue to consider. Let's say for a moment that the prayer of the Lodi Councilmen does happen to work like they want it to. God, if He is there, listening, and willing, happens to grant all of the requests. How will that effect the meetings? It will be such that the proceedings have a heavy religious undertone, nay, an entirely religious undertone--hey, it's from God, remember. If that happens, then the charge of Church connected with State will uphold true--the policy will be divine.

Perhaps that example slights to the mythological blend, but a similar example could provide insight. It could turn out that when those parishioners ask for wisdom from the Almighty that they in fact devote themselves to acting according to some religious standard. Maybe this is just good wisdom, but maybe its a slippery slope.

ad absurdum

A recent Princeton study suggests people become more religious as they get older. The study confirms predictions of Mill, Weber, etc. and anyone who has ever been to a church. Here are some inferences I will make about the next 30 years if this and other trends hold true.

The baby boomers are turning 70, 80, and 90 in the next 30 years. The resulting geriatric phenomenon will render churches full and conservative on the rise. The Religious Right will triple in size, giving a 85% advantage to the Republican party in the 2020 election. The divine dictator that the group will elect will institute mosaic law, enact prohibition, and mandate the compulsory reading of The Purpose Drive Life. .

Hasidic Molestation

Molestation is endemic not just to the Catholic Church. While the priesthood's celibacy may be a contributing factor to the problem, sex abuse occurs in most sections of society. In some ways it should make perfect sense to hear that the realm of Hasidic Jews is not immune, but it is still surprising.

This case provides, I think, an interesting point to the human experience. While the Hasidic order did offer somewhat of a cover-up, sex abuse seems to be prevalent everywhere there are humans. Religiosity seems to give a shield from the media, but does not provide a vaccine to the crime.

Kid's movie not for Kids

Christianity Today's reviews may have a slight bias towards conservative morals, but it seems they got it right on the review of Where the Wild Things Are. The reviewer makes the case that the movie expresses themes that might be a little too stark for the virgin minds. Their motives however are hard to pin down. Could it be that the Bible or other moral code floating around has made a statement that kids should not watch certain movies? Perhaps the sacred texts mention a general rule that guides the reviewer's pen? Or could it be that it's just good judgment?

Though it might seem that the goal here is to disregard the review due to a biased jury, it's not the case. The review is plain good judgment. But my question is whether good judgment has to be clothed in spirituality for it to be powerful. Can things be bad for kids just because they are unhealthy, or does there have to be a divine decree?

trading Apples for Apples

Why are those religious folks so against gay-marriage anyhow? Slate magazine published an article several years ago answering the question of why gay marriage doesn't fly with orthodoxy. And you guessed it: either it's going to undermine the very fabric of our society or it's just plain wrong. Two hefty charges against love between the same-sex.

Steven Waldman, the article's author, goes ahead to slay these accusations. But he could have taken a different route to tearing down the arguments. The first one is especially interesting. Gay marriage, the religious people suppose, will destroy the structure of our society by cheapening the faithful bond between a man and a woman that apparently is society's base support. Waldman argues that gay marriage will not cause said calamity. I say, not only will gay marriage not lead to the downfall of the race, it wouldn't be replacing a natural structure anyhow. Though the research could turn out to be limited, marriage is arguably an artificial fix for societal problems that arise with populations over that of small-band societies. If marriage is somewhat symbolic now, then it has hard to say that it is living up to its solutonesque origination. And if marriage is merely symbolic, letting homesexuals marry would simply be replacing a symbolism for a symbolism. Society might thus be saved from doom.

a sucker for chaplains

Last week the Washington Post published an article on a preacher that has caught President Obama's eye. The guy is an ex-military type, broad-shouldered and all. And apparently he delivers sermons that the President finds "powerful." Perhaps, it figures considering the views that the preacher carries on his hip that are by no means pacifist. But this doesn't mean Rev. Carey Cash has a slight to militarism; in fact, that's not the issue. The issue is whether it's good that every so often Rev. Cash spiritually pumps up Obama to be some better person, or Christian, or leader, or whatever.(Most of these sermons happen at Camp David by the way). Should we want our Pres. to be given a spiritual pep rally even at all? What if he were to change his mind on a policy issue because some Rev. provoked a heartfelt transformation? Yeah, the Church might be separate from State but too close to Obama's ear, if even for a short time.

Separate or die

The resident jeffersonian will have to admit that even in the most secular government, if the members and constituents hold even nominally to a religion, then policy and public opinion cannot ward off all religious incubation. Religion in America is not subtle. And its ubiquity is only matched by its influence. The subsequent posts will be about relevant discussions to religion, politics, and the media in America.