State of Belief--April 30

State of Belief is on Air America right now. I can't get the streaming to work--maybe I'll try to download and listen to the show later. Here's what's going to be on today's show... Several religious leaders join our effort to shut down the President’s Faith-Based Initiative – learn how you can take action! Welton & Margot Adler -NPR correspondent and Priestess of Wicca Margot Adler dispels our misconceptions about paganism. -Ever wanted a tour of the Mexican border? Borderlinks would like to give you one. -Plus: the Vatican rethinks condoms; the church-IRS battle heats up in Ohio, and the Southern Baptist Convention plans an exit strategy…from America’s public schools. Alternate link for comments

What fresh hell is this?

I've had this expression rattling around in my head ever since I saw it recently in a diary on My Left Wing. I know I'd heard it before that--probably from my brother--but didn't know where it originated. Here's what I found on Everything2.Com A line attributed many times to Shakespeare but actually it's from American author/critic/poet and wit Dorothy Parker. She is reported to have exclaimed "What fresh hell is this?" when her train of thought was interrupted by a telephone. She then started using it in place of "hello" when answering the phone or a knock at her door. In many ways she can be considered the patron saint of all tech support workers. Well, now that I've gotten that little aside out of the way, here's what got that expression *back* in my head recently. The National Day of Prayer Task Force car, that is to be driven in an upcoming Nascar race. Amazing how one picture can sum up so succinctly what troubles me about my country these day. It's hard to believe it's time again for the National Day of Prayer, which will fall on May 4 this year. But, while I was checking out the Faith and Values section of the Columbus Dispatch yesterday, there it was. Many people in central Ohio and the rest of the country will pause to observe the National Day of Prayer on Thursday. Ohio's event will take place 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. at the Statehouse. A Bible-reading marathon will again be held at the Franklin County Courthouse, 373 S. High St., beginning at 3 p.m. Sunday and ending at 10 a.m. Thursday. There is something disturbingly in-your-face about a Bible-reading marathon at a municipal building. Of course, I am well aware that expressing any such concern about that blurring of the line between church and state is likely to get one attacked for being anti-religion, as we saw in some attack ads during the 2004 election: In Franklin County, the battleground county in the battleground state, incumbent Democratic Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy was attacked for failing to support a resolution to create a national day of prayer. "Public prayer would be outlawed if liberal Mary Jo Kilroy was in charge," said a campaign mailing from Sen. David Goodman, her unsuccessful opponent. Goodman, a Columbus Republican, is Jewish. Of course, what I find ironic is that fact that I oppose any state "blessing" of one faith tradition over another *because* of my Christian values, not in spite of them. It's all about that "do unto others the way you would have them do unto you" thing. Why should that be hard to understand? And I'm hardly alone... Many people already know this, but for anyone who doesn't--or just for people who might appreciate the reminder in case they are thinking of writing a letter to the editor on this topic, Francis Bellamy, the Baptist Minister who first wrote the Pledge, chose his words very carefully, and chose *not* to include any reference to religion. In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there. Another Reverend weighs in... Barry Lynn objects to National Day of Prayer The executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State says Congress never should have established the event, which is observed each year on the first Thursday in May. Lynn says the National Day of Prayer has become a vehicle for Christian conservatives to promote their social agenda, including opposition to abortion and gay marriage. He notes that it's chaired by Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family's Doctor James Dobson. Mrs. Dobson says she would like people "to be praying about the institution of marriage, how God designed it." She also says she hopes Americans will repent and honor God. Kinda proving his point, isn't she? You can read more of what Rev. Barry Lynn has to say about the National Day of Prayer here. Alternate link for comments

Remembering Rev. William Sloane Coffin

I was saddened to learn that Rev. William Sloane Coffin died today. I know that he had been gravely ill for a number of years, and his death is not unexpected. But I'm still sad that I never had a chance to meet him. Here's part of an interview he did with PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly: Justice is at the heart of religious faith. It's not something that is tacked on. And justice is not charity. Charity tries to alleviate the effects of injustice. Justice tries to eliminate the causes of injustice. Charity is a personal disposition. Justice is public policy. What this country needs, what I think God wants us to do, is not practice piecemeal charity but engage in wholesale justice. And that's not only to erase or greatly reduce the wage gap and the living standards in America, but really to be committed to doing something about the horrible, really horrible poverty of at least one third of the people on the planet. If you want to do something good for national security, and every American should, take billions of dollars and wage war against world poverty. That would have a very sobering effect on terrorism. Terrorism now has a wonderful recruitment policy supplied by the United States foreign policy. If we were serious, with other nations, to engage the war on poverty around the world, that would stem the flow of recruits to the ranks of terrorists. Alternate link for comments

The "resurrection of the body"

Interesting article: Most don’t expect to rise from their graves Most Americans don’t believe they will experience a resurrection of their bodies when they die, putting them at odds with a core teaching of Christianity. The findings of a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll surprised and dismayed some top theologians because they seem to put Americans in conflict with both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed, ancient statements of faith meant to unify Christian belief. The Nicene Creed, adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicea under Roman Emperor Constantine, concludes with the famous words: "We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." Similarly, the Apostles’ Creed professes a belief in "the resurrection of the body." Thirty-six percent of the 1,007 adults interviewed a month ago by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University said "yes" to the question: "Do you believe that, after you die, your physical body will be resurrected someday?" Fifty-four percent said they do not believe, and 10 percent were undecided. My husband, of the "Church of the Restful Sabbath" was raised in a family of "Bible-believing Christians" (Apostolic, I think) and said he had never heard of that belief. I tried to explain what I remember about it, but it's been a lot of years since I learned about that in Catholic schools. But the words "rise from the grave" made me think of bad horror movies more than any Christian teachings. I don't recall ever being taught that we would have the *same* body in the next life. For those of you who were raised in a Christian denomination, what were you taught about this? If your understanding of this has changed over the years, how? Alternate link for comments

Thoughts on the religious-political "spectrum"

This post can also be found as a podcast here. If you want to go directly to mp3 download, click this link. I opened the paper this week, looking to see if there was any coverage of the new We Believe group, or of the upcoming lecture/discussion with Jim Wallis. I was terribly disappointed to find, instead, that The Other Paper had a cover story entitled "The Dwindling Religious Middle". Isn't that a bit premature? In my experience, there isn't even widespread awareness yet of faith voices speaking out from a point of view *other* than the far right. I am sure, for example, that many more people were aware of the Justice Sunday events than the diverse, interdenominational events that were held in response to them. I have often heard secular progressives complain that people of faith are not being vocal enough in countering the message of the religious right. I find that very frustrating, because the truth is, there are, and always have been such voices, but they simply don't get as much press. The Other Paper, which *has* given front page, in-depth attention to pastors like Rod Parsley and Russell Johnson, seems intent on being part of the problem. When they finally do get around to acknowledging the people of faith who are advocating a more compassionate, neighborly way of putting faith into action, it is only in the context of describing the plight of the "religious middle". In my mind, the fact that a letter Rev. Tim Ahrens sent out to dozens of area pastors in November has blossomed into a new organization built around the common ground shared by diverse people of faith should be, by itself, front page news. But the Other Paper article glossed over that news on its way to covering the plight of ministers who do not want to be political. There are a number of things I find troubling about this article. The first is that, even though it is an "alternative" publication, the article falls into the same tired black and white way of seeing the world as most mainstream news sources. Right versus left, with us or against us...can't we please just *try* to have some dialog that doesn't force a dichotomy where one doesn't exist? From the article: Wallis would like to position himself as a moderate, but the fact that he is embraced by the left probably gives away his proper place in the political-religious spectrum. Well, thank you for speaking for him. Without translating the words *he* chooses into stark, black and white terms, people might be forced to grapple with the notion that the political-religious spectrum is just that--a spectrum, with a whole range of hues and gradations. But you notice what the writer just did--he conveyed the message that Wallis is *really* aligned with the left, but didn't *quite* say it is so many words. He left himself some wiggle room--some plausible deniability. Getting back to the idea of a spectrum, there really is a full continuum of viewpoints, from liberal to conservative on any number of issues. Someone may be more conservative on issues of personal liberties, but more liberal on economic issues, for example. Or vice-versa. Of course, when you step into the voting booth, you typically are faced with a series of either-or decisions. Do I vote for this candidate or that one? Yes or no on this particular issue? In a time when this country has a president known for such stark statements as "You're either with us or against us", and when the religious leaders who get the most media attention frame political issues in similarly stark terms, it is easy to fall into that type of black and white thinking. But that doesn't mean that they *should*. Certainly, anyone who wishes to call him or herself a *journalist* should be able to see that issues are more complex than that, and, if they are worth their salt, they should be able to find a way to communicate these complex issues to the public in a way that can be understood. We *must* learn to find common ground and work to create win-win outcomes. The We Believe group, in my opinion, is on the right track. Look at the home page--the tag line is "Uniting diverse religious voices to achieve social justice". By implication, David Niven casts We Believe as liberal, even though they represent a broad range of positions on the spectrums of faith and public policy. I'm sure there are members who, on the "hot button issues" of homosexuality and abortion, have views that are similar to those espoused by Rod Parsley and Russell Johnson. But they disagree with them on other issues, and have covenanted with the rest of the membership of We Believe to work together on issues where they share common ground. The group, as a whole, shares the "strong belief that we must act and speak in public ways to support the poor, the children, and those who are voiceless and unrepresented in our times". And that is precisely who suffers if we continue to perpetuate the myth that issues of faith and politics are black and white and center around a couple highly divisive issues. It pained me and, yes, even angered me, to see the needs of those Jesus called "the least of these" go unaddressed while people of faith were persuaded of the dire need to vote for a constitutional amendment to make same sex marriage even more illegal in Ohio than it already was. Sometimes it's okay to be angry, and injustice makes me angry. It also angers me, with so much at stake, to see people who purport to be journalists taking their cues from people who, for their own political purposes, want to paint issues of faith and politics in stark, black and white, "with us or against us" terms. They need to do better than that, and, as much as I don't need something else on my to-do list, it's our job to call them on it when they start dumbing things down to the point that they are misrepresenting the truth. Oh, and did I mention that I *really* have enough to do already, thank you very much. But then I hear about people like Maggie Kuhn, and I feel inspired, humbled, and a little sheepish that I'm not doing more... Maggie Kuhn, the Gray Panthers charismatic leader changed the face of society with regard to the elderly. She was a committed, hard-working woman who at age 65 began an organization that continues her tradition of fighting for a better life for all. Her advice for those who want to make a change in the world is, "Go to the people at the top - that is my advice to anyone who wants to change the system, any system. Don't moan and groan with like-minded souls. Don't write letters or place a few phone calls and then sit back and wait. Leave safety behind. Put your body on the line. Stand before the people you fear and speak your mind--even if your voice shakes. When you least expect it, someone may actually listen to what you have to say. Well-aimed slingshots can topple giants." Okay, *fine* Maggie. You do make a compelling point. Guess I just need to "keep on keeping on". Now, I just *know* that slingshot is around here somewhere... UPDATE: Please check out the whole article and share your thoughts with the writer if you feel so inclined. You can select David Niven from the drop-down menu here http://www.theotherpaper.com/topwriter_submit.html Something I mentioned in the podcast that didn't make it into this post is the fact that the other big issue I had with this article is the portrayal of ministers "staying out of politics" as a positive or desirable thing. There IS NO getting away from politics. It touches everything. It is, in fact, "made of people". And if we just keep trying to respond with charity to the new ways the far right finds of trashing every safety net we have, there's no way we'll ever be able to keep up. The "least of these" will be much better off if they get *justice* than charity, but we can't work for justice without getting some politics on us.

The religious middle is dwindling?

Just a reminder about my blog, Faithful Ohio, which I try to keep updated with events and commentary. I've asked (and am asking again) for people of faith in Ohio to submit guest commentaries and notices about upcoming events. Something I'd appreciate some commentary on, and *not* just from people in Ohio, is the cover story in this week's edition of The Other Paper. It's about The Dwindling Religious Middle. Particularly this part... But to Pastor Rogers, issues like poverty and homelessness are why churches should stay out of politics. "Politics has distracted us from the job," he said. "It's distracted us from what we're called to do. Politics is polarizing. You can't do effective work when you're polarized." "These religious groups spend time and energy proving their political points while ignoring the horrible wrongs all around them. If you took the money spent on campaigns, that would be a lot of food to feed the hungry." "That just bothers me," he said with a sigh. "It's a basic human flaw. We really insist on being right, don't we?" Rogers is actively involved in the Free Store, which provides basic household items to those in need, regardless of religious backgrounds or political perspectives. "No one bothers talking or arguing about politics there," he said. "The political-religious battle in the newspaper is less important when you're clothing a single mother and her children, keeping the family in a warm apartment." I have started my own response to the article, but haven't had a chance to finish it yet. One thing people should be aware of is the fact that the We Believe group, which is mentioned in the article, is about uniting *diverse religious voices*. The point is to get away from issues that are polarizing and find issues that appeal to our common values that we can work together on. And when the minister says that people have tried to get him to be more political, while I don't know this for sure, I think he might be saying that people have pursuaded him to join B.R.E.A.D., a 10 year old organization made up of some of the same people as We Believe, and focussing on social justice issues on which a broad range of faith perspectives can agree.

We believe! Ohio launch tomorrow

Finally, sane religious voices are joining together to counter these folks. http://www.theocracywatch.org/ohio.htm I know I've been wanting that since...well, I have no idea how long, but for a bloody long time, that's for sure! The launch of the group We Believe! Ohio is tomorrow. If you've ever wondered aloud where were the moderate, sane religious leaders countering the far right, well, here they are. But they're going to need some help if they are to be heard. Here is the time and location of the launch event/press conference: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:00 AM The First AME Zion Church 873 Bryden Rd. Columbus, OH More details can be found here Please do anything you can to help spread the word that, as the little people in Horton Hears a Who collectively shouted, "We are here!" We will need a pretty powerful microphone to be heard over the money and media access of the far right.