Sunday, September 30, 2007

McChurch - Setting the US Military Bar Too Low


By

Stan Moody

September 30, 2007

On Wednesday, September 26, 2007, General Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and thereby the most powerful military authority in the world, clarified at a Senate hearing a previous statement in the Chicago Tribune on gays in the military.


The clarification was as follows: “…we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not, through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God’s law.” He stated that he would be supportive of efforts to revisit the Pentagon’s policy so long as it did not violate his belief that sex should be restricted to a married heterosexual couple.


The standard, then, is Gen. Page’s upbringing. It must be noted that Gen. Pace will be retiring this week, thus removing the highest standard of military conduct and lowering the moral bar.


At the root of Gen. Pace’s problem seems to be a conflict between current government policy (“Don’t ask/Don’t tell”) and what he was taught as a child concerning homosexual sex. To put it in perspective, he sees the Law of God as preempting the laws of the nation he has so effectively served.


You have to wonder why the General did not heed Jesus’ command, “If your eye offend you, pluck it out,” and bow out graciously years ago. Instead, he rose to the top of the military establishment, a Herculean task indeed, and stands to collect a small fortune in retirement benefits at the hand of the very nation that offends his upbringing.


There seems to be something missing here.


If Gen. Pace was taught that homosexuality is counter to God’s law, he was also taught that masturbation, or “self-gratifying sex,” is counter to God’s law. He must have learned that lustful thoughts and their logical extension – “fornication” – are counter to God’s law. How, then, did Gen. Pace make it to the top with all that energy being expelled around him with few or no consequences?


He undoubtedly was taught that it was counter to God’s law to go to the movies, or to work on Sunday, or to covet somebody else’s possessions. What about his teaching to remember the Sabbath and to keep it holy? Undoubtedly, every childhood teaching that was counter to God’s law was screened through some kind of compromise in order for Gen. Pace to rise to the top of the military pyramid.


I have no answer for these questions. I must confess, however, that I am flummoxed over the ability of this obviously brilliant man to keep his sanity while skating around those things that he faced every day that were counter to God’s law.


Gen. Pace is addressing specific provisions in the Military Code of Justice against adultery and homosexual sex. Once those prohibitions are eliminated from within the Code, however, are they by implication then “condoned?” If they are, the Code opens the way to freely and openly practice any act that it does not specifically prohibit. That makes no sense, unless somehow the military has a selective view of morality, depending on whose ox is being gored.


Gen. Pace is correct, I think, in stating that “…the United States is not well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.” Failing to ban the behavior is, in Gen. Pace’s worldview, a making the behavior OK. Clearly, from our track record in Iraq under the leadership of Gen. Pace, we have not been well served, suggesting by his standards a direct correlation to immorality.


I would agree with Gen. Pace that all types of sexual misconduct are destructive not only to United States defense but to our nation’s vitality. Would that our military were all strong, upstanding people who did not drink much, were faithful to their wives (or husbands) and treated prisoners of war with dignity.


We heterosexuals have demonstrated no superior morality. The Code of Military Justice would do better to focus more on emotional, physical and sexual misconduct than on what specific of types of sexual acts were employed in that misconduct.


Outlawing adultery? In the world in which Gen. Pace was raised, not only the act but the thought would be sufficient grounds for dismissal, thoroughly gutting our military.


Thursday, September 27, 2007

McChurch - Billy Bob at the Cross(roads)

S.C. conservative movement at a crossroads


COLUMBIA, S.C. - Search the slate of GOP presidential frontrunners, and it's impossible to find a darling of the social-conservative movement.

That - plus considering that the Iraq war and not domestic policy is the key issue of the campaign - is leading to speculation that the religious right is at a crossroad in terms of its political power, and that the extent to which social conservatives hold sway in the next election and beyond might be determined within the next few weeks.

"I think a lot of people are wondering where the evangelicals are, when you have someone like Rudy Giuliani as a frontrunner," Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon said.

"What I think is it's sort of teetering as to whether they're going to come (out) in full force in this election," he said.

Among the GOP candidates who habitually score highest in national and early-voting state polls:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been criticized for his support of abortion and gay rights.

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, has been dubbed a flip-flopper on abortion, accused of only taking a firm, anti-abortion stand around the time he considered a run for president.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns state bans. Moreover, he supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

And Fred Thompson, the one-time senator from Tennessee who would like to swoop in as the savior of conservative Republicans, has been taken to task for his past lobbying on behalf of an abortion-rights group, and recently was scolded vehemently by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press.

"There is some (conservative leaning) with the top tier, but not as much as I would like," Carolyn McDonald, of Columbia, acknowledged Thursday while attending the Palmetto Family Council's forum for presidential candidates.

Religious right unsure

During the event's straw poll, McDonald voted for California Congressman Duncan Hunter. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee walked away with the win, garnering 38 percent, and Ron Paul came in second at 33 percent.

Thompson came in a distant third at 8 percent.

Straw polls are unreliable indicators of who will win the Republican nod when primary and caucus voting begins in less than four months.

But it's evidence that the religious right is torn and not fully committed to any frontrunner, University of South Carolina political scientist Blease Graham said.

Candidates themselves are trying to attract the GOP's religious base, but they are leery of alienating other constituencies, particularly in light of Republican losses in 2006, Graham said.

"It may well be ... that in the (wake) of that election, in order to build coalitions, Republicans may have to start from a moderate position," he said.

Much of the social-conservative base has lined up behind one of its own, such as Huckabee, an ordained Baptist.

That potentially puts people like a Huckabee in a strong position to wield power in the next Republican administration if they can bring in the conservative vote to whoever wins, Graham said.

Timeline for social conservatives

Huffmon believes social conservatives have about two months to change the nature of the primary/caucus race, if they can get issues such as abortion and gay marriage - instead of just Iraq and national security - back into the discussion.

If they are successful, it could vault someone like Huckabee into the first tier of candidates, he said.

"They would decidedly change the balance of power," Huffmon said.

Social-conservative leaders insist that their influence has not diminished since the height of the Christian Coalition in the 1990s. It simply has gone mainstream.

There's evidence to suggest they're right.

The last two appointments to the Supreme Court bench, for example, are staunch conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito.

Sadie Fields, who heads up the Georgia Christian Alliance, said social conservatives have moved beyond just influencing the decision-makers.

"Here in Georgia, it is that those people who started out at the grassroots, at that level, have moved into (elected) office," she said.

At the height of the Christian Coalition, Fields said, "we were playing defense it seems, far more than we were playing offense."

Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard agreed.

"People who were active then have now graduated and have taken positions of power within the Republican Party," Woodard said.

He said the university's recent Palmetto Poll shows exactly how pivotal the religious base remains.

According to the survey of likely Republican and Democratic voters in South Carolina, 66 percent of Republicans - and 64 percent of Democrats - attend church every week.

"I think that what it means is they're a very important part of the Republican base," Woodard said.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

If McChurch Can't Give Sanctuary to its Members...

Beliefnet: News

Monday September 17, 2007

Churches Weigh Whether to Join Sanctuary Movement

By Nancy Haught

PORTLAND, Ore. -- Jean Bucciarelli remembers the Sunday last May when someone urged her congregation to become a sanctuary church -- to actively support illegal immigrants who want to stay in this country.

"Someone said, `Let's just do it,"' she recalls. Some members of Ainsworth United Church of Christ were ready, but Bucciarelli wasn't.

Like most Ainsworth members, she still had too many questions.

"It is naive to go into something without knowing what you're getting into -- except that it sounds like a good Christian thing," says Bucciarelli, 68, a charter member of the church, which describes itself as a "multicultural, multiracial, open and affirming (of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people) just peace church."

The congregation decided to slow down but continue the conversation.

Congregants talked through June, when news broke of an immigration-enforcement raid on a local Fresh Del Monte Foods Inc. plant. They wrestled with many questions any religious group would:

Would sanctuary conflict with other church ministries? Would members be pressured to open their homes? Would they be breaking the law? What were the legal consequences?

The nationwide New Sanctuary Movement is about six months old. Its roots, however, go back to the Bible, where passages prescribe offering refuge to people unjustly accused of crimes. The movement last surfaced in the United States in the 1980s, when some churches sheltered Central and South Americans denied political asylum.

The most visible symbol of the New Sanctuary Movement has been Elvira Arellano, a Mexican woman who spent a year sheltered in a Chicago church to avoid deportation. She was deported last month after she embarked on a nationwide speaking tour; her son, Saul, 8, a U.S.
citizen, has joined her in Mexico.

Today, loosely organized religious groups and individuals in about 50 cities support families who risk separation if members here illegally are deported. The movement is public in its efforts and encourages immigrants to tell their stories.

In cities like Portland, New Sanctuary has not meant -- at least so far -- that churches or church members provide shelter. So far, leaders and people from about 20 congregations accompany immigrants to court and help them keep body and soul together.

Several local churches have supported "women of the bracelet," about 25 mothers arrested in recent raids, including from the Fresh Del Monte plant, and then released wearing electronic monitoring bracelets. The women may not work, must spend at least 12 hours a day at home and must check in regularly with authorities. They support their children with donations they receive for serving homemade enchiladas and tamales at church events.

The Rev. Mark Knutson, pastor of Augustana Lutheran Church, says his congregation raised about $1,500 for the women during its summer festival. Others have also organized baby showers for women who were pregnant or were new mothers.

Maria del Pilar Delgado of Mexico City, who's living in Northeast Portland, wore an electronic ankle bracelet after her arrest. On a recent evening, she sat at her kitchen table and went through bills. She needed $2,000 to appeal her deportation, $550 for rent, $200 for other bills and an undetermined amount for her American-born children, ages 7 and 9, for school.

"To tell the truth, I have lost sleep thinking about it," she says through an interpreter.

Women like her were on the minds of the people at Ainsworth as they debated whether to join the New Sanctuary movement. The people the church would help, the congregants agreed, would have to have a good work history and not have a criminal record -- aside from their immigration status. While some members did volunteer their homes, there would not be pressure on others to do so. If the church's actions were open, if they didn't hide immigrants and if they helped them follow immigration requirements, the legal consequences would probably be minimal, an attorney advised them.

Bucciarelli, who says she's used to living alone, was relieved. "I do think immigration is a mess," she says, "but at the same time, I'm not willing -- and most people would not be willing -- to risk a huge fine or big jail sentence. That continues to be a concern."

The question came to a vote at Ainsworth in July. Bucciarelli thought about abstaining. But after airing her concerns and listening to others, she voted to be a sanctuary church, as did a majority of the voters.

The Rev. Lynne Smouse-Lopez, pastor at Ainsworth, feels good about the decision because it was thoughtful and prayerful.

"I'm encouraged by their compassion for immigrants," she says. "It is a little overwhelming; we have so much on our plate already. But it feels good to say that I am a pastor of a sanctuary congregation."

Ainsworth is the second local church to formally join the New Sanctuary movement; Augustana Lutheran Church renewed its 1997 pledge in June.

Some churches have decided not to get involved for a variety of reasons: resources are stretched too thin or they believe that the New Testament calls them to support civil law whether they agree with it or not.

Knutson, the pastor of Augustana whose congregation has occasionally included undocumented workers and who welcomes immigrants to the church almost daily for social services, sees the movement in terms of priorities.

"Everybody wants a compassionate and fair immigration policy," he said. "But our first obligation is to the most vulnerable people, to extend hospitality to those who are new to the land."

Copyright 2007 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

McChurch - The Problem With "Evil"

“…a tale told by an idiot”

Stan Moody

September 25, 2007

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, 5. 5

MacBeth had it wrong. It is not life that is “but a walking shadow.” It is rather we players in the drama of life. In the words of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Life is real! Life is earnest!/ And the grave is not its goal;/ Dust thou art to dust returnest,/ Was not spoken of the soul.” More profoundly, he adds, “Not enjoyment, and not sorrow/ Is our destined end or way;/ But to act that each tomorrow/ Find us farther than to-day.”

Logic, mathematics and, I suppose, sociology are sciences of the interaction between fixed and variable elements. If we view ourselves as fixed elements in a variable world spinning out of control, we justify any action to restore order. That is the stuff of which wars and lawsuits are made.

MacBeth desperately condemns life as the variable element in his contorted, murderous existence. In fact, he himself has spun out of control in an objective, stable world that requires that the cumulative acts of the players be moving in a positive, contributing direction. The variable element – the human spirit – becomes the fixed reference point for the self-absorbed.

The difference between MacBeth and Longfellow is that Longfellow sees life as the unfolding of objective truth, demanding that our acts be measured by their impact on that truth. To “…act that each tomorrow find us farther than to-day” is to see ourselves, not as islands, but as bound together in a common mission – the pursuit of and defenders of life.

Lately, with the explosion of blogging on the Internet, my sense is that the Internet is fast becoming a forum for those who, like MacBeth, are standing on quicksand, lashing out at a world that fails to welcome their self-styled advances. The blogs are replete with the simplistic rants of the unstable but strangely confident – truly a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

C.S. Lewis, in his struggle over the compatibility of Hell with God’s justice and mercy (The Great Divorce), came to the conclusion that Hell, rather than being a punishment, is the act of a benevolent God who allows human beings to control their own destinies. God, as the fixed, objective element, says finally to those insisting on their own will, “Thy will be done.”

We have, therefore, in the interaction between people and objective truth (life), the division of humanity into “good” and “evil.” The “good” are those who believe in their unchallenged ideologies and little else; the “evil” are the rest of us to varying degrees. It is the “good” who fight to restore an out-of-control world to their own image by wrenching it from the hands of the “evil.”

The agenda is the conquering of the fixed element by the variable.

9/11, then, rather than being the insane acts of the few became, in our worldview, the evidence of MacBeth’s vision of life, a “poor player that walks and struts his hour upon the stage.” The world can only stabilize when the “good” crush the efforts of the “evil.” The problem is, of course, that the very process of eradicating “evil” in others only highlights our own.

“Evil” becomes a moving target. First, it safely retreats to the mountains of Pakistan, emerging in another forum at another time. Then it is hanged in Baghdad. It appears in places like Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Fallujah. It is imprisoned behind the “Wall of Separation” on the West Bank or the bank of the Rio Grande. As the “good” eradicate the “evil,” a strange phenomenon occurs. The world becomes more unstable, requiring a renewed advance by the “good.”

Finally, the champions of “good” sacrifice their lives and reputations. We learn the hard way that there is enough “evil” to go around for all of us.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

McChurch - Dumping the Angry White Males?


Avoid demonizing in pulpit politics
The Virginian-Pilot
© September 18, 2007
Last updated: 7:40 PM

Would Jesus build a big fence along the U.S. border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants?

If tithes were down to a trickle, would he spend his dollars on pre-kindergarten for poor children or more services for the mentally ill?

Would he punish a murderer who preys on gay people as severely as a killer motivated by racial hatred?

Religious leaders can have a positive role in debates on those issues.

However, modern-day problems facing Virginians and Americans are complex, and there’s room for healthy disagreement between and among Christians, Jews and Muslims.

In the end, each individual must decide which solutions fit best with his or her beliefs.

Pastors for Family Values, a new coalition of conservative Christian ministers, gathered last week in Richmond, vowing to help elect social conservatives to the state legislature who will support abortion restrictions and school vouchers.

The headliner was the Rev. Jonathan Falwell, whose late father raised a lot of ruckus during his day. The younger Falwell says he’ll carry on some of Jerry’s favorite causes, but he also is urging churchgoers to take a great role in caring for Virginia’s poor families and troubled youngsters. That’s a welcome focus.

Reverends, rabbis and imams can be a powerful voice for society’s oppressed, particularly when they work together.

For example, religious groups raised awareness about the scourge of payday lending on low-income communities, a problem many lawmakers have ignored as they have collected thousands of dollars in campaign contributions.

Sometimes, though, religious leaders become agents of division, seeking to marginalize those with different beliefs. Preachers with a penchant for labeling the opposition as a bunch of heathens sometimes forget their own human frailties until they, too, fall short of the glory of God — with the cameras rolling.

That doesn’t mean preachers have to censor their beliefs. If they feel abortion, the death penalty or no-fault divorces are wrong, they have the right to make their case.

Parishioners, however, should be cautious when their ministers start dividing the ballot into angels and demons, or claiming divine truth on issues that aren’t so simple. There’s a fine line between preachin’ and meddlin,’ and it’s up to the followers to know the difference.



© 2007 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com

Monday, September 17, 2007

McChurch - An Experiment in Civic Paranoia

Accommodating the faithful

Public schools go dark on Saturdays and Sundays, the traditional days of worship for Christians and Jews. And on Christmas, class will not be in session. But when schools provide foot baths for Muslims, critics cry foul. So what is acceptable in a country that has a wall between church and state?

By T. Jeremy Gunn

A few months ago, I had dinner with a prominent Evangelical Christian who insists that Christians are "persecuted" in the USA. Although we had a friendly discussion — and he generously paid for my dinner — I did think he was exaggerating a bit. So I asked him two questions:

First, could he identify any country in the world where there is more religious freedom than in the USA?

He could not. Nor can I.

Second, could he name any time in the history of the United States when Evangelical Christians have had more religious freedom (and political influence) than they do now?

He could not. Nor can I.

(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)

There are, of course, several reasons why there is more religious freedom in the USA than elsewhere. One of them is that we have an Establishment Clause in our Constitution that helps keep the government from getting into the religion business. The unfortunate consequences of government financing religion and choosing religious beliefs can be seen all over the world.

The majority view

Another is that we have a healthy respect for the right of individuals and families to practice their religion without government interference. The United States is particularly good at accommodating the core religious practices of majority religions. Public schools do not (usually) hold classes on Saturday and Sunday (worship days for Christians and Jews). Public schools are also closed on two of the majority religion's most sacred holidays, Christmas and Easter, the latter of which is of course always on Sunday. Majorities may be more likely to notice the unusual accommodation for others and take their own for granted.

While some religious accommodations are constitutional and to be encouraged, some cross the line and promote particular beliefs.

For example, public schools should not spend taxpayer money to promote religious practices. They should not be buying prayer rugs, rosary beads, prayer rooms, crucifixes, a mikvah, baptismal fonts, altars, loudspeakers for the Muslim call to prayer, veils, or religious icons. The Constitution bars these actions not because there is anything wrong with them, but because it is not the government's business.

Nor should governments and public schools be promoting religious practices. We do not want public schools to post notices encouraging students to attend either mass or a Dianetics meeting, to observe daily prayers, to be baptized at age 8, to wear a turban, to cross themselves when they enter a church, or to wear a yarmulke. Religious practices should be encouraged by parents, religious communities and each student, not public schools or government bureaucrats.

So what about foot baths used by Muslims?

A controversy has developed over whether it is constitutional for public schools and universities to install foot baths that are used by Muslims to wash before prayers. Offering five daily prayers is one of the five recognized "pillars" of Islam. Muslims are taught that before conducting prayers they should wash themselves, including their feet. Though not all Muslims perform this cleansing, for many it is a necessary preparation for prayers.

Observant Muslims, attending public schools or universities in the USA, often use sinks in public restrooms to wash their hands and feet. These sinks do not become ritual objects because people use them to wash. There apparently have been complaints by other students about this practice. Some have complained that they do not like washing their hands in the same sink that others have used to wash their feet. Others have complained that water spilled from this activity makes restroom floors wet and slippery. In at least one case, it seems a woman slipped and fell, injuring herself.

So what can be done about this situation that would respect the free exercise of religion as well as honor the Establishment Clause's prohibition on government funding of religious practices?

Some schools have proposed to install "foot baths" in restrooms. This typically would include a water spigot about 18 inches above the floor with a small basin and drain to catch the runoff. (There would be no signs identifying the purpose, and it could be used by anyone, including a janitor filling a bucket.)

Would it be constitutional for a school to pay for this foot bath?

Many who opine on this relish accusing others of hypocrisy or inconsistency, whatever the position taken, and without bothering to read their target's actual position. (I mean you, The Wall Street Journal.) Others see the foot baths as a terrific precedent to help them promote their own religious beliefs in public schools.

What is permissible?

Recognizing that people who respect freedom of religion and civil liberties can legitimately disagree about this issue, let me suggest the following examples.

If there were a busy intersection in front of a megachurch, could a city erect a stoplight? Would the answer be different if the city paid the same amount to put up a sign encouraging people to attend Sunday services?

Or suppose that the pope came to town. Would it be appropriate for the city to pay for extra police officers for crowd control? Would it be permissible for the city to erect a platform and an altar for him to celebrate Mass?

How one comes down on the foot bath issue probably depends on how one answers these questions. The schools assert that the foot baths would be installed for reasons of hygiene and safety. If that is true, this would seem to be a practical and reasonable accommodation. On the other hand, if the purpose for the foot baths were to promote Islamic prayers, or to entice Muslims to contribute money to the school, or to respond to pressure by Muslims to accommodate their practices, these would be inappropriate.

If we are to have a country that genuinely respects freedom of religion for all as well as prohibits government promotion of religious beliefs, we ought to be able to solve this sensibly.

T. Jeremy Gunn is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on freedom of religion and belief.

Backlash

When schools have recently made efforts to accommodate Muslims, the backlash has been swift:

* After a Muslim student injured herself last year while washing her feet in a bathroom sink, Minneapolis Community and Technical College announced that it was considering installing foot baths. At least a dozen universities already have such facilities. The American Family Association issued an "action alert," in effect telling its members to lobby against the foot baths. College President Phil Davis received thousands of e-mails. Even the Minnesota Legislature jumped in. In April, it passed an amendment to prevent the state's public colleges and universities from appropriating funds for religious purposes unless the project accommodates all religions, or equal provisions are made for each. The amendment did not become law. MCTC — which has about 8,000 students, 500 of them Muslim — hopes to have a plan for the foot baths in place next year.

* The University of Michigan-Dearborn, home to 8,500 students, came under fire in June after it announced plans to install two foot-washing stations. Student fees will be used to fund the $25,000 project, which will be completed by January. Muslim students account for roughly 10% of the student population.

* New York's Khalil Gibran International Academy is a publicly funded secondary school that focuses on Middle Eastern studies, including classes in Arabic. This summer, the school was criticized in the New York media for blurring the line between secular and religious Arabic education. The founding principal, Dhabah Almontaser, resigned in August, citing media pressure. Amid protests, the school opened its doors to 55 students earlier this month. The Stop the Madrassa Coalition, a citizens group, rallied at City Hall. The school, backed by the city's Department of Education, says its focus is strictly cultural.

Compiled by Kristin Deasy

Saturday, September 15, 2007

McChurch - Creating a New Generation of Atheists

In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal

By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01

BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped.

Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell research.

"I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright, 59, a thoughtful man with graying hair and clear blue eyes. "Now I truly loathe any sight or sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe."

Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing number of vocal nonbelievers in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers, including "The God Delusion," by Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins.

New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more people are publicly saying they have no religious faith.

More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But especially in richer nations, and nowhere more than in Europe, growing numbers of people are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or anything other than this life.

Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion.

"This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in this country was very quiet until September 11, and now it is at the center of everything."

Since the 2001 attacks, a string of religiously inspired bomb and murder plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the London public transit system in 2005 and 191 on Madrid trains in 2004. People apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in Britain last year for trying to blow up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this month in Germany, authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that they planned to blow up American facilities there.

Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to accommodate Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, which now has as many as 20 million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer rooms in police stations, foot baths in public places and funding for Islamic schools and mosques, expensive legal battles have broken out over the niqab, the Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes, which some devout women seek to wear in classrooms and court.

Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science research, reverse abortion and gay rights and teach creationism rather than evolution in schools are also angering people, according to Sanderson and others.

"There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public, and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said.

Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising, academics say it's impossible to calculate how many people silently share that view. Many people who do not consider themselves religious or belong to any faith group often believe, even if vaguely, in a supreme being or an afterlife. Others are not sure what they believe.

The term atheist can imply aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't believe in God prefer to call themselves humanists, secularists, freethinkers, rationalists or, a more recently coined term, brights.

"Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe.

He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large, including India, Israel and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion, it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said.

One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in Europe: the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany, the group now has a few hundred members and an expanding number of chapters across the continent. "You can't tell us religion is peaceful -- look around at the misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie, leader of the group's British chapter.

She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in The Hague to launch the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and nonbelievers, and our goal is not to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth," but to make it a private matter that is not imposed on others, she said.

The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry.

Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime is the goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they could, for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because Christians have chapels.

Associations of nonbelievers are also moving to address the growing demand in Britain, Spain, Italy and other European countries for nonreligious weddings, funerals and celebrations for new babies. They are helping arrange ceremonies that steer clear of talk of God, heaven and miracles and celebrate, as they say, "this one life we know."

The British Humanist Association, which urges people who think "the government pays too much attention to religious groups" to join them, has seen its membership double in two years to 6,500.

A humanist group in the British Parliament that looks out for the rights of the nonreligious now has about 120 members, up from about 25 a year ago.

Doreen Massey, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords who belongs to that group, said most British people don't want legislators to make public policy decisions on issues such as abortion and other health matters based on their religious beliefs.

But the church has disproportionate power and influence in Parliament, she said. For example, she said, polls show that 80 percent of Britons want the terminally ill who are in pain to have the right to a medically assisted death, yet such proposals have been effectively killed by a handful of powerful bishops.

"We can't accept that religious faiths have a monopoly on ethics, morality and spirituality," Massey said. Now, she added, humanist and secularist groups are becoming "more confident and more powerful" and recognize that they represent the wishes of huge numbers of people.

While the faithful have traditionally met like-minded people at the local church, mosque or synagogue, it has long been difficult for those without religion to find each other. The expansion of the Internet has made it a vital way for nonbelievers to connect.

In retirement centers, restaurants, homes and public lectures and debates, nonbelievers are convening to talk about how to push back what they see as increasingly intrusive religion.

"Born Again Atheist," "Happy Heathen" and other anti-religious T-shirts and bumper stickers are increasingly seen on the streets. Groups such as the Skeptics in the Pub in London, which recently met to discuss this topic, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," are now finding that they need bigger rooms to accommodate those who find them online.

Wright, the teacher who recently declared himself a nonbeliever, is one of thousands of people who have joined dues-paying secular and humanist groups in Europe this year.

Sitting in his living room on a quiet cul-de-sac in this English town of 30,000, Wright said he now goes online every day to keep up with the latest atheist news.

"One has to step up and stem the rise of religious influence," said Wright, who is thinking of becoming a celebrant at humanist funerals. He said he recently went to the church funeral of his brother-in-law and couldn't bear the "vacuous prayers of the vicar," who, Wright said, "looked bored and couldn't wait to leave."

Now, instead of each morning silently reciting a favorite nighttime prayer, "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers . . . " (from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer), he spends the time just thinking about the day ahead.

He said his deceased mother, a Catholic, was comforted by her faith: "It kept her going through difficult times," particularly when his father left her when he and his sister were young.

"I really don't know how I will react if something really bad happens," he said. "But there is no going back. There is nothing to go back to."

Not believing in an afterlife, he said, "makes you think you have to make the most of this life. It's the now that matters. It also makes you feel a greater urgency of things that matter," such as halting global warming, and not just dismissing it as being "all in God's plan."

He called himself heartened that the National Secular Society, which he recently joined, is planning to open chapters at a dozen universities this fall. The rising presence of the nonreligious movement, he said, is "fantastic."

"It's a bit of opposition, isn't it?" he said. "Why should these religious groups hold so much sway?"

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

McChurch - The Great Cover-Up

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
Thoughts On The Larry Craig Scandal
by Chuck Baldwin
September 7, 2007

The recent bathroom sex scandal involving Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig has become a political hornet's nest. However, to those who are privy to the real-life goings-on among the political elite in Washington, D.C., this comes as no surprise.

Extracurricular sexual activity in Washington, D.C., is about as uncommon as thunderstorms in the summertime. The element igniting the fires of the media and the public in general, however, is that the Craig scandal involves another Republican legislator and homosexuality.

You see, Karl Rove and Company (along with their willingly gullible Christian pastor accomplices) have convinced rank-and-file conservatives, many of whom are Christians, that the GOP is the "family values" party. Some even go so far as to call it "God's Party." Obviously, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, et. al have done much to tarnish this image.

As a pastor for more than three decades, I have witnessed a plethora of sexual failures. Men and women, even Christian men and women, are all weakened with a sinful nature. Some are more vulnerable to certain sins than others, and with a current culture that is awash in sexual promiscuity, temptations of the flesh have never been greater.

The pastor side of me understands the need for redemption and forgiveness. If I was personally acquainted with Senator Craig, I would be more than willing to minister healing to him and his family. Of course, in Senator Craig's case, he has admitted no wrongdoing and asked for no help. Even God does not help a person who will not ask for it.

That being said, it behooves me to address the underlying problem behind the Larry Craig scandal. The real problem that this scandal unearths is the widespread influence that homosexuality has within the GOP. Ladies and Gentlemen, the GOP elephant is not red; it is pink. That is a fact that rank and file conservatives within the GOP either don't know or don't want to know. But it is getting harder and harder to keep that fact a secret.

If anyone really wants to learn the facts about how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party, I encourage them to read Alan Stang's blockbuster new book entitled "Not Holier Than Thou," which is published by Patton House. Here is Alan's web site:

http://www.alanstang.com/

Alan was one of Mike Wallace's original writers. He was a business editor at Prentice-Hall. He is a radio talk show host, and has done stints on the American Freedom Network and the Republic Broadcasting Network. He is the author of several books, as well as hundreds of feature articles in national magazines. His book, "Not Holier Than Thou," is an in-depth look at how homosexualists have taken over the Republican Party in Washington, D.C. It is an eye-opener, to say the least.

Stang notes that as far back as 1989 the Washington Times published a monumental front-page story that began, "A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and US and foreign businessmen with close social ties to Washington's political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal."

Remember, that was just the first paragraph, and it appeared not in a liberal newspaper, but in the conservative Washington Times.

Stang also points out numerous homosexual prostitutes that have had free access to the White House under Republican administrations, including the current one. Stang also notes that Karl Rove's father was a homosexual, a fact that may have contributed to his mother's suicide.

Obviously, everyone on the planet knows that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, is a lesbian. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Dick Cheney, Lynne, wrote a lesbian novel entitled "Sisters"?

Stang also reminds readers that President G.W. Bush was "a member of Skull & Bones at Yale, which apparently involves bizarre, secret sex rituals including coffins. He has visited the Bohemian Grove in northern California, the site of other secret sex rituals."

Should we be surprised, therefore, that despite campaigning as a born again Christian, President Bush has not repealed a single pro-homosexual Executive Order given by President Bill Clinton or that he has appointed as many (if not more) openly gay men to high government positions as did Bill Clinton? The list includes high profile homosexuals such as Michael Guest, Stephen Herbits, Scott Evertz, Mark Dybul, Israel Hernandez, Joseph O'Neill, Arthur James Collingsworth, and on and on. According to Stang, "He [Bush] has given organized sodomy considerable control over the federal government."

Obviously, homosexuals have not been limited to the Republican White House. As the Times stated, the GOP congressional caucus is also shaded in pink. Remember David Dreier and Mark Foley? And please don't forget the cross-dressing Republican presidential frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.

Remember, too, that it was the Republican Newt Gingrich who came to the defense of homosexual Democratic Congressman Barney Frank when he was discovered running a homosexual prostitution ring out of his apartment. Of course, Newt has a lesbian sister and has often publicly praised homosexuals in Congress for the "courage" they show by running for office.

The list of this kind of nonsense never seems to end. Get Alan Stang's book, and read it for yourself. You'll see how Mitt Romney routinely facilitated the homosexual agenda while he was Governor of Massachusetts and how California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger currently does the same thing.

It is no hyperbole to say that the Larry Craig affair is merely the tip of the iceberg--and it is a very big iceberg.

All of this is not to say that homosexualists do not hold sway over the Democrat Party also. They do. The difference is, conservative Christian voters have been thoroughly duped into believing that the Republican Party in general, and President G.W. Bush in particular, are above it all. They are not. They are in it up to their eyeballs.

Sooner or later, conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, and other traditionalists must wake up to the reality that both major parties in Washington, D.C., are immersed in all kinds of corruption. We must clean house! And I mean the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the White House. We cannot depend on the two major parties to police themselves or to be faithful to their duties to the American people. We must begin electing independent men and women to public office. Men and women who have not been bought by big money interests. Men and women who truly understand their constitutional obligations. Men and women who adhere to basic honesty and integrity.

Obviously, we have good men and women running in almost every race. The problem is the media (which has its own problems with integrity) will not give such people a fair hearing. Furthermore, most people (conservative Christians included) have bought into the antiquated "they can't win" mantra, which precludes them from supporting the really good people who accept the challenge to enter a political race. Accordingly, people victimize themselves through self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the meantime, homosexualists will continue to dominate both major parties and we will continue to be subjected to Larry Craig-type scandals. One would think that, sooner or later, the American people would have enough.

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070907.html