Two interesting pieces on Google News this morning to share. No comment from yours truly, as I’m up to my eyeballs in homework, but feel free to read and discuss amongst yourselves. (But remember to play nice in the God Blogging sandbox, please.) Here’s one on interfaith dialogue and here’s another out of the New Statesman that discusses how faith in science (think global warming) is now officially protected in the same category as religious belief. Hmmm. I guess that means that atheists really are, in spite of their fervent denials,  “believers.”

Interesting side note, the New Statesman (”created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas,” according to their Web site) being a United Kingdom publication, sticks w/ the King’s English usage so there are no periods after honorifics such as Mr. and Ms. and that completely makes me want to pick up a red pen. It also has a religion blog called The God Blog, which makes me feel like a copycat having God Blogging.

St. Peters Basilica, Vatican City; image courtesy scrapetv

The religion world was all atwitter yesterday when the Vatican announced that members of the Anglican Communion who want to become Catholic will be able to do so while still being, basically, Anglican. People have wondered, what does God Blogging think about this interesting development? Well, here goes. You might want to grab a cup of coffee.

According to Cardinal William J. Levada, the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Anglicans (Episcopalians in the U.S.) will soon be able to join fully with Rome while “preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.” He said the move to create “personal ordinariates” was to “regularize” something that was happening anyway.

In regular English, that means that what has heretofore been done on a case-by-case basis and required the shedding of all things Anglican to happen, will now be done en masse, with the possibility of whole congregations being absorbed into Catholic dioceses while they retain their style of worship and spirituality.

It also means that all the Anglicans who’ve felt marginalized, irritated, betrayed or furious at the Anglican Communion’s ordination of women and openly homosexual bishops now have a place to go. And according to Levada, they’ve asked to come to Rome.

Converts will have to make professions of faith to the truth of the Catholic Church’s teaching and the primacy of the pope (nits that split them from Rome years ago in the first place), but they can keep the Book of Common Prayer and their really cool choirs, all without having to deal with those pesky women priests or openly gay clergy. (They’ll still deal with plenty of closeted gay clergy, of course, because although Catholics operate under a don’t-ask, don’t-tell motto in Holy Mother Church, everyone in the pews can tell, even when the priest himself is unaware.)

Do not misunderstand the gravity of this move. We’re not talking an Episcopalian here or an Anglican there and we most especially need to understand that this exception wasn’t done primarily with lay people in mind. This is a clergy-driven process, with Levada saying between 30 and 40 Anglican bishops have “been in dialogue” with Rome about unifying while keeping their traditions. Most importantly, the Anglicans want to keep their own clergy who, diligent readers of God Blogging will recall, are frequently married. Married clergy are a no-no for Catholics – at least normally.

That is Problem No. One: The inconsistency in the Catholic Church’s teaching on life-long celibacy for its all-male clergy. I’ll let super-productive Catholic writer Woodeene Koenig-Bricker explain, as she did so clearly on Face Book yesterday (who said social networking ain’t got religion?):

I find the “mixed message” to be upsetting. It’s okay to be a married priest if you don’t start out Catholic, but it’s not okay to be a married priest if you begin as Catholic. … Either priests can be married or they can’t. Saying that some priests can be married and some can’t is sending a dreadfully inconsistent message. … This decision is going to have some major fallout in the future. If someone feels called to both marriage and priesthood, why wouldn’t they first become an Episcopal priest and then come to the Catholic rite? They can have both vocations if they take that route, but if they choose Catholic priesthood first, they have to deny their calling to marriage. .

Couldn’t have said it better myself. In fact, I said as much more than 10 years ago when I was covering the conversion of an Episcopalian priest to Catholicism after he was assigned to a parish in the Fort Worth Diocese. He, along with a smattering of other Episcopalian priests across the country who converted following an uptick in the ordination of women in the Anglican Communion, was pushed to Rome’s side of the aisle not because he (ta-da!) saw the virtue in the papacy but because he believed scripture forbid the ordination of women.

I interviewed a number of Catholic priests who complained then that they viewed this acceptance of married clergy converts to be an affront to the more than 25,000 Catholic priests who’ve left priesthood in the past four decades because they felt called to both marriage and priesthood (History buffs and fellow God geeks will recall that married clergy was allowed for centuries in the Catholic Church and indeed, the man we claim was our first pope, Peter, was married.) Additionally, they said the inconsistency was difficult to explain to the average kid who came inquiring with questions about the Church’s entrenched stance on celibate clergy when he’d just sat in Mass celebrated by an married Episcopalian-cum-Catholic priest.

So, the whole married priest thing is Problem No. 1, but Problem No. 2 is more concerning to me. That centers on the concept of conversion and my belief that rarely (if ever) does true conversion come as a result of being pissed off. If it did, I would have crossed over to the Anglicans years ago. But, in spite of my belief that some women are called to priesthood and that celibacy should be optional and that artificial birth control inside of marriage can be a moral choice, God keeps me Catholic and, perhaps shockingly to some, keeps calling me to deeper relationship inside a Church that makes me crazy sometimes.

Of course, that’s just anecdotal, personal evidence of how conversion doesn’t come from a place of anger. But think about these “disaffected” Anglicans. They feel betrayed by their church, and/or they disagree/doubt the movement of the Spirit in their church. If they think they’ll find it all peaches and cream in Rome, they are wrong. There’s more to becoming Catholic than just thinking, “Well, at least they don’t ordain women and consent to homosexual unions.” And if you’re coming over because you’re mad, well, chances are, you’ll still be mad.

Reading between the lines of Levada’s announcement yesterday, it sounds as if the personal ordinariate (with rules about implementation coming in a month or so) will create an Anglicized liturgy within the Latin, or Western, rite of the Catholic Church. It won’t, in other words, create an entirely new rite, like the 17 Eastern rites currently in union with Rome. Those churches follow ancient liturgical traditions of the East based in their culture (Greek, Marionite, Melkite, etc.), while being in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and placing themselves under the pope’s authority. The disaffected Anglicans will do much of the same – follow their liturgical and spiritual traditions while assenting to Rome, so the “there is no new rite” might be more semantics than anything else.

Levada said this is about “unity in diversity,” which plays well as a sound bite but not so well to the other folks who’ve wanted unity in diversity, like, say, nuns who are currently being investigated by the Vatican for not being “traditional” enough or those priests who left to marry. As religion writer and NY Times commentator David Gibson says, “For a church whose leadership has earned a reputation for reprimanding liberal Catholics who color outside the lines, these developments could be more than a bit frustrating.” Ya think?

You can tell that those supporting this move bend right and, sadly, they aren’t being very polite about their support. Rather, they’re showing their rude colors in comments about the Archbishop of Canterbury and the entire Anglican Communion. Example here and here and, shockingly because it comes from someone in the normally polite and sane Order of Preachers, here.

Interestingly enough, a lot of these folks are the ones who want to drag the Catholic Church back to the “smells and bells” times of pre-Vatican II, and yet the only reason these “personal ordinariates” work is because of Vatican II and its subsequent production of the new Code of Canon Law (Canon 372 to be specific).

Best case scenario for this new event: Everyone sees this as a step toward unification of the splintered Christian churches and plays nice. Worst case scenario: People are confused, particularly about married priests, nasty battles over church land and property ensue, and those remaining in the full Anglican Communion (including most U.S. Episcopal churches) feel slapped in the face in spite of years of ecumenical efforts. Time will tell.

If you want more info, here’s a great video analyzing the change, here’s a response from the Episcopalians in the U.S. and here’s some thoughts from a Dominican priest in Tucson.

An armed robber in Indianapolis shopping center ended up hugging the woman he was trying to rob and then praying with her before leaving with only $20 and the woman’s cell phone. A brief story on the event can be found here, and it is all over the news this a.m. All I wanted to add was that people frequently question the power of prayer because their understanding of God is so limited. They view God as a magician and prayer as the way you can get God to do your bidding.

But what anyone who has spent any length of time on their knees will tell you is that prayer doesn’t necessarily change events; it changes the person praying. And in that personal change, events can – as happened during the robbery – take a turn for the better. If you watch this video, it is obvious that prayer has some power. It just isn’t the power televangelists proclaim.

The only thing that would get me higher Search Engine Optimization on that head line is if I could somehow add the words “illegal immigration.” Alas, not this morning.

Today’s post is brought to you by the Letter P, for “perspective.” According to some interesting reading I’ve been doing of late, perspective has a lot to do with how people look at God (and sex, but that’s further down in the post). That perspective – or perhaps, a lack of it – is what makes some people really, really, REALLY angry at religion and/or people of faith. These people, sometimes called the “new atheists” by atheists of a more polite vein, confuse belief with religion and hop, skip and jump from a little old lady praying the rosary to lunatics killing each other in the name of a god they’ve made to fit their own political, ideological or tribal leanings. Like those in a fundamentalist religion who are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN they know what God thinks, these atheists are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN they know what all believers think. That certainty is what gets humans in trouble, in my experience.

For instance, if I say I believe in God, I am speaking from my own perspective and my own experience of the sacred, which may very well be different from yours. The God I imagine when I say that word may not be the God you imagine when you say that word. A million arguments could be avoided if we just asked each other to define our terms. As a really smart scientist I know has said, “When someone tells me he doesn’t believe in God, I ask him, ‘Tell me about the God you don’t believe in.’ Often, after hearing the description, I say, ‘Well I wouldn’t believe in that God either!’ ” It is all about perspective and experience. (continue reading…)

Some thoughts to begin your weekend:

1. Steven Waldman over at Beliefnet has a very touching piece this morning about Last Suppers. There’s been much chatter about the inclusion in health care reform of financial reimbursement to doctors who discuss end-of-life plans with Medicare patients. Anyone who has an elderly family member could have had the convo already, drilling down with Mom or Dad about just how much medical intervention she/he might or might not want. It is messy talk, this death stuff, but necessary the experts say. Waldman reflects on how Kennedy (according to NYTimes reports) wanted to have a good ending to his life, by which he meant doing things he loved for as long as he could, and then discusses what his good ending might look like. The post is good food for thought, good reflection on intentional living – and dying. I encourage everyone to read it.

Also worth a look on Waldman’s page, is this post on fact-checking the fact-checkers on the whole “abortion and health care” discussion. His bottom line is the same as mine: Neither those who say it is clearly included in talked-about bills or clearly excluded in that same proposed legislation are accurate. The devil, as they say, is in the details. (continue reading…)

Can you find your way to a hospital? When you get there, can you pay?

You can’t open any newspaper editorial page these days without seeing arguments for and against health care reform. You can’t turn on television coverage of Town Halls around the issue without seeing sometimes gun-toting – as was the case in Phoenix last week – and always sign-toting people protesting the public option as though giving health care to the most vulnerable among us (the very young, the very old, and the very poor) was akin to, well, acting like Hitler.

The comparison, of course, is specious, the crutch of those who cannot argue their case based on merits alone. It is also, as pundits on both the right and the left have explained, trivializing to the millions who suffered under Hilter’s cruel attempt to purify the human race.

But setting that craziness aside, we are still left with the problem of millions of Americans living without access to health care, and, for purposes of God Blogging, a question about people of faith and what they should do about it. According to the folks over at Faith For Health (and a couple of representatives of local Christian communities), believers should get pay attention to what radical discipleship calls one to when reflecting on health care reform. (continue reading…)

Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr; San Francisco Prop 8 Protest

Life threw me some curve balls yesterday, so I didn’t blog (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa), and the curves just keep on coming, so I’m blog-cheating today to spend some time in the batters box figuring out my next swing by just offering some quick takes. Discuss among yourselves.

1. Ever wonder who the top 100 writers of faith are? Neither had I until this popped up in my e-mail inbox. Ray Bradbury? Who knew?

2. The Wednesday Happiness posts draw interesting private e-mails with some extra tips. For instance, if you want to take off on your own happiness adventure, you could use the Happiness Project Toolbox. Or you could join happier.com, which is a Web site offering tools and tests to measure happiness, as well as webinars and links like this to happiness apps for your iPhone.

3. And speaking of Happiness, the tiny country of Bhutan actually tracks happiness. Everyone else studies the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but Bhutan also studies the Gross National Happiness. In the study, the country also encourages happiness. Here’s just a snippet from the GNH Web site, written by His Majesty King Khesar:

“Henceforth, as even more dramatic changes transform the world and our nation, as long as we continue to pursue the simple and timeless goal of being good human beings, and as long as we strive to build a nation that stands for everything that is good, we can ensure that our future generations for hundreds of years will live in happiness and peace.”

I love the line about “the simple and timeless goal of being good human beings.” If only all of us could do that.

4. Nearly half of all Americans don’t believe in evolution. These two scientists – who are also believing Christians – explain why religious folk need to “fear not” when it comes to the intersection of God and science. The column brought me back nearly a decade to when I was interviewing one of the Vatican astronomers who told me that, as a young boy, he hid an evolution textbook under his mattress so his devout parents wouldn’t find it. Most boys his age were sneaking porn magazines into their bedrooms; he had The Origin of Species. (This link is about the Vatican astronomers, in case anyone is interested in them, but Dr. Funes is not the one I interviewed for my story.)

5. Marriage has been on my mind alot lately, partly because I read “Why Marriage Matters” in a July issue of Time Magazine and “Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear” in the New York Times in the space of three days. The first is a defense of the intact, two-parent family and reports on statistics showing how much better off children are with two parents than are children of divorce; the second is about a wife who decided, against all popular wisdom, to stick out a difficult stretch in her marriage with zero help from her depressed and distant husband. They are both compelling reads about the price (and necessity) of commitment in our society.

But the other reason I’ve had marriage on the brain is because I have an old friend who has been with her partner for nearly as long as my husband of 27 years has been with me. The other night she did one of those Facebook lists and one of the questions she had to answer was “Married?” Instead of writing yes or no, she penned, “How do I answer this?” It struck me as heartbreakingly honest. She was pointing out the obvious: What do you call what she and her female partner have? It is like the saying, “If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ….” We may not allow homosexuals to legally marry, but those in long-term monogamous relationships are really no different than people in long-term heterosexual unions, are they? If stability in relationships is what we want – and what some argue we absolutely need for the success of our country – shouldn’t we support things that increase stability in all partnered relationship? And if someone has been with the same person for two decades, what do you call that if not marriage?

Just passing on some news this morning: Chatter out there in religion land is the upcoming assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in Minneapolis on Aug. 17. Like the Episcopalians before them, the ELCA is battling a division in its ranks over whether openly gay pastors in committed relationships can lead congregations. A good article on the issue can be found here.

After you’re done considering that weighty topic, consider this: A Taste of Heaven has just hit the bookshelves. Its a cookbook featuring the food and drink made by monks and nuns. It’s a book heavy enough to be used as a doorstop, and you won’t find any pre-made ingredients in the recipes. Don’t know if they’ll get you into heaven or not, but there’s a free recipe from the book here if you want to try out religious cooking. Thanks to Lisa Hendey over at CatholicMom for tweeting the book’s debut and providing a peek inside the covers.

Proposed as a “constructive assessment and an expression of genuine concern for the quality of the life” of religious order sisters in the United States, the Vatican’s peek into U.S. sisters looks like it is going to be what many of those women feared: A test of their fidelity to Church teaching.

Two members of the Sisters Of Life congregation; source: communio blog

The investigation is not looking at cloistered communities, or nuns, only religious order sisters out in the world doing social work, teaching, hospital work, missionary work, etc. Neither is this examination being done in women religious communities in other countries – only the U.S., at least for now. Interestingly, the investigation – which was announced about seven months ago – is being run by the superior general of the Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a more conservative order of sisters. That choice alone speaks volumes. Or, maybe not. Still, one wonders why the head of the Sisters of Mercy wasn’t chosen….

Maybe the investigation (such a loaded word, that) is looking for happy things, good things, right things. Maybe the Vatican will want to know how the sisters are struggling financially to care for their ailing and elderly ranks, maybe want highlights of their unwavering service and unfailing example of faith in a world gone mad.

But it seems from the reports on the questions being asked, that that might not be the case. According to the Associated Press’ Eric Gorski, religion reporter extraordinaire, the working paper delivered to the heads of the 341 U.S. religious congregations of sisters wants to know if they attend Mass daily, how sound their teaching of doctrine is, and – here’s the clincher – “the process for responding to sisters who dissent publicly or privately from the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

The key in that sentence is the word “privately“. Rome has always frowned upon anyone viewed by the laity as in a position of leadership – either assumed (as is the case with most sisters) or official (as is the case with most priests) – speaking out publicly against official Church teaching. The Church, as a religious organization, has the right to defend its teaching, the right to hold whatever teaching it deems valid, and the right to discipline those who color outside the lines. I might not like it, I might find the approach of silencing and recrimination completely unpastoral, but no one can deny that the Church has the right to defend its beliefs.

But there’s never really been a problem when people dissented in private. People do it all the time – in bars, in coffee shops, at parish picnics. (And as someone who has a section for clergy in her cell phone, I can attest that many priests privately dissent from Church teaching, using their God-given brains and their experience of the lives of “good Catholics” to inform their consciences – so this isn’t a sisters-only activity.)

The Church, at least since Vatican II, has never said, “OK, you’re out because you said, in the privacy of your own home, that the Church should ordain women.” There’s always been that line between public dissent – which could “scandalize the faithful,” leading to sin – and private, where a Catholic holds forth with his/her conscience and God. Apparently, that line is disappearing, at least in the case of Catholic sisters, which, if true, is a sad state of affairs.

It is no secret that many religious orders are dying out and that growth is primarily being seen in more conservative groups – sisters who still wear habits, for instance. This is the same thing that is happening in religious orders of brothers, friars and priests, and, to a certain extent, in the younger generation of Catholics. Apologetics is a contact sport now if you talk to most Catholics under the age of 30. Some say this is a backlash against the really poor religious education that followed after the Vatican II Council. Others say it is that the documents of the council were poorly interpreted. Some say it is the Holy Spirit bringing a revival to the Church.

Methinks it is a sign of the times – people across the country are more conservative in everything. There’s been too much “let’s not judge” for too many years and now many people think we are, as a country and a culture, hanging on by our fingernails to the edge of the slippery slope. We might be, I’m not sure. But I’m pretty sure of the pendulum effect, and when things swing too far to one side, they tend to swing back the other way in a sort of natural correction toward the middle.

All change in any organization comes from dissent. And all dissent isn’t equal. It is one thing for a Catholic sister to support abortion; it is quite another to support optional celibacy for priests. I fear Rome may not want to see the difference. No where did Jesus say, “Be blind and follow.” It will be a sad day if the Catholic Church returns to the pre-Vatican II message that convinced believers they needed to do just that, and I hope they aren’t starting with the legions of sisters who have given their lives and their love in service to the People of God.

Newlywed couple in Iceland, 2006; wiki images

Interesting chatter out there about a study that shows that the states that have the highest percentage of Catholics have the greatest support for gay marriage. Wouldn’t be the first time the pew potatoes are out of sinc with Catholic leadership, not that the leadership much cares about that – Catholicism isn’t a democracy. See here and here for more discussion and links to the study.

Yesterday’s post about assisted suicide drew a lot of comments. One interesting trend was that people assumed (maybe because of the blog being about religion?) that my skepticism re: assisted suicide and the slippery slope of killing perfectly healthy people was a God thing. I never mentioned religion in the post, nor God, yet the ever complimentary, patient and polite Red Star tried to tie the Almighty in, as did a couple others. The Time article I linked to also didn’t mention God, so maybe readers should consider that one can be against assisted suicide for humanist moral reasons, not only religious ones.

My primary point was this: “… there may come a terrible time not too soon in our fast-moving future where the choice to die (signing a living will saying you don’t want a feeding tube, for instance) becomes subtle pressure on the dying to just hurry up and get it over with: “You had a good life, Daddy, don’t you think? Isn’t now the time to just let go? Let me get you some medicine.” ” That’s not someone saying they want to choose their time to die; it is someone “encouraged” to line up for the death drip by family, friends, societial messages, etc.

Migrant farm workers; credit: danhughes.tpus.org

Should society be allowed to regulate that or stop assisted suicide, especially in the cases of perfectly healthy people? Should we force people to keep living who don’t want to? Thorny questions, but one thing is clear: We are failing as a society if people feel pressured in any way to “choose” assisted suicide because they feel like a burden. The sign of a civilized society is the manner in which we care for those least able to care for themselves. Which brings us to the slippery slope and how illegal immigration could help eliminate the concept of “burden.” (continue reading…)

Weddings are normally pretty staid events, especially when held in a church, and especially where the wedding procession is concerned: The groom waits alone at the altar watching as the flower girl and ring bearer, then the bridesmaids/groomsmen, then the maid-of-honor and the best man, and finally, the bride, march down the aisle to, usually, classical music.

Then you have J and K, who decided to have their wedding party recreate the hysterical comedy act about the Evolution of Dance. I couldn’t stop smiling when I saw it, thinking, “How much fun!” But then, galloping on the heels of that thought was this:  That’s something that wouldn’t be allowed in most worship spaces. In Catholicism, it would be eschewed as not serious or spiritual enough, as though God doesn’t like to dance. Most Lutheran and Episcopal congregations would agree, as would Orthodox and Conservative Judaism and all of Islam and fundamental Christian sects. (I’m betting that J and K got married by a Methodist minister.)

But why wouldn’t it be allowed? Who are we worried about offending? Certainly not God. There’s a long list of what really bugs the Almighty, I think, including murder, needless war, greed, cheating, lying, stealing, talking smack. But dancing your way into your wedding? I don’t think so. The video is great, and linked below – a great way to begin your weekend. And if you don’t know about the Evolution of Dance – which is really why the wedding video is so funny – check it out here.

Wedding Entrance Dance on You Tube

When I first heard yesterday that Jewish rabbis were involved in a New Jersey corruption sting, my thoughts went out to the folks in their congregations because I remember the guilt-by-association feeling Catholics had when the clergy sex scandal broke. I found myself explaining – over and over again, amen – why I stayed Catholic and how just because .01 percent of priests were criminals did not mean all priests are awful. I watched as people wrapped a protective arm around children as they left Mass, passing by priests they’d known for years, and saw priests actually throw their hands up in a “I didn’t touch him” posture when little children ran up after services for a hug. The crisis caused a fissure in trust that has still not healed.

So, I wonder how Jews feel about five rabbis being arrested for money laundering in one of the biggest FBI stings ever. There is nothing like being betrayed by your religious leader, except, maybe, being betrayed by a parent. We hold religious leaders to a higher standard, as we darn-well should. They claim close relationship with the Almighty, they preach to those they lead about morality and ethics, they challenge those in their congregations to do good. In fact, Jews are admonished to practice the sacred duty of Tikkun Olam, which means “to heal the world.”

So how does laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars through Jewish charities in Israel translate into healing the world? And how does the Jewish community deal with the humiliation and shock? According to the Jerusalem Post, which did a great job of reporting the story, people were praying in Deal Synagogue in Long Branch, N.J., when the FBI stormed in to arrest their rabbi, Edmond Nahum. Spiritual leaders often tell worshipers to be open to surprises during prayer, but I’m pretty sure the arrest of your rabbi ain’t what they’re talking about.

The other thing that stands out in this is that these weren’t young rabbis – these were guys who should have known better. The youngest was 56, the oldest 87 (!!!!). (Then again, if we use age as a guide for acquired wisdom, Bernie Madoff should have known better, too. )

So, I ask – if you’re Jewish, how does this story make you feel? Do you think that religious leaders should be help to higher standards? Do you think the arrest of rabbis in a financial scandal will fuel racist thoughts about Jews and money? Discuss among yourselves – and in the comments below~

Not everyone thinks the same things are funny, but everyone can agree (and if you can’t, please leave the room right now) that Happiness Wednesday should include a good laugh or two. And since this Happiness Project is hosted on God Blogging, the two funny things I found last night surfing the Web are sort-of God related.

The first speaks for itself —- a dog in the worshipful posture of believers everywhere, bowing to The Almighty Bone.

The second is words not pictures, but very funny if you’re: 1. Christian; 2. an atheist with “intense” Christians in your circle of friends/family; or 3. a person who appreciates satire. Jonathan Acuff runs a blog called “Stuff Christians Like.” He describes himself as a Christian attempting to be a satirist.

“The goal of the site is to clear away the clutter of Christianity so we can see the beauty of Christ and I try to do that using satire as a vehicle,” he wrote in an e-mail. I don’t know if he’s successful in that goal, but many of his posts (which are being compiled/used as fodder for Acuff’s upcoming book of the same name) are laugh-out-loud funny, especially if – like me – you’ve spent much time around Jesus folk.  I’d never be able to come up with the hundreds of things he says Christians like, but when I read them, I realize the guy is spot-on.  Especially, with this post, which is the one that will brighten up your Happiness Wednesday. But if it doesn’t, that’s ok – I forgive you.

On our 25th wedding anniversary, I gave my husband a typical journalist gift: a puzzle of the New York Times font page from the day of our wedding. (We missed the paper that day.) It took us forever to piece it together because it was tiny black and white type and two large gray-scale photos. But as we soldiered on, we read the stories, and one stood out: A report from the Middle East about Israel and Palestine. Reading through it, we couldn’t help but grieve that these two peoples have been fighting for so long because neither can fully accept the other’s right to land.

The conflict is complicated and too much for this post, but the major sticking points all go to one thing: Both peoples have memories that go back thousands of years and they both refuse to forgive. A conversation I had with an Israeli media ambassador during a trip there nearly 10 years ago still rings in my mind. I had asked why the Israelis and Palestinians didn’t just share Jerusalem as a capital, and why Israel couldn’t recede back to its original boundaries. Live and let live, I said. The man’s answer? “You Americans and your 200-year-old country. You wake up in a world each day where you thrive on starting over, starting fresh. It is not that way here – we have HISTORY.”

The man may not have been a radical. But he, like many Israeli’s and Palestinians was willing to sacrifice peace for principle: This is my land. They took my mother’s house. I was here first. We won the war fair and square. Yada, yada, yada on into blindness and turmoil.

I will agree that, as the popular saying goes, that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Actually, I would ammend that to “the splintered, bickering Palestinian leadership” never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But the Israeli leadership isn’t much better. Case in point? Settlements in the occupied West Bank.

These outposts, supported by special “Jews-only” roads and water pipes that hijack a water supply from Christian and Muslim Palestinians in the West Bank, violate the Geneva Conventions prohibiting an occupying power from settling its own civilians on militarily controlled land, according to this incisive and personal look in Time Magazine. Barack Obama and just about every other world leader – not to mention the non-Jewish religious ones – want the settlements gone. Israel did rid Gaza of settlements, but it is limp-wristed when it comes to really getting them out of the West Bank. The military will fight off outlier settlements on the one hand while providing protection to the more suburban ones just a few minutes drive from Jerusalem.

The Time story tells of the Katz family, saying at one point, that even if the Israeli leadership would dismantle the settlements – or at least forbid expansion – people like the Katz’s would get in its way. And that’s because of Bad Religion (the theological concept, not the band.) Like radical Muslims who believe that the Prophet Muhammad called them to create a world in which Islamic law is the rule of the land, Jewish settlers believe they have a God-given mandate to settle the entire Holy Land because that is one of the preconditions for the Messiah’s arrival. Ironically, these folks are morally and financially supported by apocalypse-minded Christians who believe the Second Coming is predicated on the Holy Land being returned in complete to the Jews.

I wonder if any of these fringe groups has thought that the God they say created the world, a God of love and goodness and double-rainbows in monsoons, might actually prefer if they saved the earth he/she created instead of destroying it with bombs and belief systems producing all manner of un-godly behaviors.

(And to preempt the commenters who might say that Israel has the right to protect itself: Absolutely. However, give this some thought — Israel militarily occupies land that does not belong to it out of a perceived need for “safety.” They allow settlements in Arab land that they know really upset the average Palestinian, feeding an undercurrent of resentment that eventually boils over into hatred and violence. Instead of just getting rid of the settlements and arresting settlers, Israel drags its feet. Why? Could it be that Israel NEEDS to keep a certain level of irritation going on to make sure some violence occurs so Israel can always and forever claim, “We are under attack, support us.”  (Just sayin’.)

M. Zuhdi Jasser speaking to the Center for Inquiry Sunday about the politicalization of Islam

M. Zuhdi Jasser is a man on a mission. He identifies himself as a devout and practicing Muslim, and no one, including those Muslims who disagree with him, can dispute that. He’s a medical doctor in Phoenix, but his passion for the past six years has been to spread the word that the politicalization of Islam and those who believe in that politicalization, is a grave danger to the United States and the rest of the world. He does that as the founder and president the Pheonix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He writes prolifically (see his recent Huff-Po post on Shari’a law here) and gives talks across the country.

It isn’t a popular message and even speaking before a fairly friendly crowd in Tucson Sunday, Jasser was questioned roundly. Appearing before about 100 mostly 60-somethings at a Center for Inquiry group meeting, Jasser preached his gospel of separation of mosque and state, saying that’s the only way religious Islam can be practiced in freedom. This separation, he said, is threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he contends has a strong toe-hold in the U.S. (The MB’s official site is here, and some history about the group from other sources is here.) Jasser says the MB lays in wait until Muslims are a majority of the country and then, according to Jasser, the rules of engagement will shift, and the MB’s goal of establishing an Islamic nation-state will crank into high gear.

It may be all fear-mongering, and some of those in attendence said it was. But I’d just finished reading “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and some of what Jasser was saying rang true for me. There is a radical fringe group of Muslims who want nothing more than to take over the world and have us all move back to a third century reading of the Quran. They want a theocracy, and they are willing – Jasser says – to work patiently until that is brought to pass. Or, as 9-11 appeared to teach us, they will work violently to bring it to pass. (Best quote of the talk: “You’re helping the Muslim Brotherhood every time you fill up with gas … remember 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.”)

By all estimates, only about 1 percent of Muslims are radical, but as one Imam told me a few years ago, “That’s still about a million people who are really angry at the West.” Radical Islamists read the Quran literally and believe this world is nothing compared to the world to come, so they have no problem hastening this world’s end.

Jasser is a reformist Muslim, one who believes much of the Quran was written for a specific people at a specific time. He think Muslim women need equal rights, that Sharia law is “horrific” and that the government really, really needs to stay out of our life. One would think he’d be in good company with groups like the  Council on American-Islamic Relations, but he’s not. He doesn’t like them, and they don’t much care for him, according to Ahmed Rehab,  the executive director of CAIR-Chicago and a spokesperson from the group’s national office.

“The problem with Zuhdi is this conspiracy of Muslims laying low ready to take over the country,” Rehab said in a phone interview from Chicago. “Its an extremely irresponsible reading of Islam. To say so runs against logic – there are all these families here organized, laying low. It makes no sense. We’re here just like everyone else, and we’re working like other minority groups to attain our rights. … Our position is that there is a minority of radical Muslims who are adverse to democracy and our freedoms here and we are working to educate against that position.”

Rehab, who said he debated Jasser in a PBS special a number of years ago regarding a film AIFD made, said CAIR doesn’t want a theocracy and that “our only struggle is for equal opportunity, like any minority…. We make the same observation (as Jasser) that there is a radical group out there, but the problem is he extrapolates that minority radical onto the mainstream.”

Jasser did do that Sunday, roundly saying that CAIR and other Muslim American groups are “in the dark” or “blind” about how the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating mosques in the U.S. He even claimed that the Muslim American Society is “the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.” So, I guess the question is, who to believe? A lone voice crying in the wilderness who believes his religion is wonderful but “political Islam” is a major problem, or the spokespersons for the Muslim civil rights organizations in the U.S. who say Jasser is playing to neo-cons? What do you think?

Here are five interesting things going on in the world of religion that might give you food for thought for the weekend … or maybe something to do if you can bear getting out in 110 degree weather.

1. Starting locally, M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder AIFD and a Muslim, will be participating in a discussion Sunday (July 19) on “A Strategy to Defeat Radical Islam: A Muslim Perspective on the Only Way to Eradicate the Threat of Terrorism.” The talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, will be from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. in the DuVal Auditorium on the University of Arizona campus. If you aren’t in church on Sunday morning, join the Center for Inquiry at 10 a.m. for a showing of the film The Third Jihad at 10 a.m., also in the DuVal Auditorium. Jassar founded AIFD in Phoenix in 2003, according to the organization’s Web site, “as an unmistakable expression of American liberty and freedom in an attempt to take back the faith of Islam from the demagoguery of the Islamo-fascists.”

2. Following along the skeptics-are-us theme, uber-atheist Richard Dawkins is funding an atheist children’s summer camp in Somerset, England right now. According to this story, “Alongside the more traditional activities of tug-of-war, swimming and canoeing, children at the five-day camp in Somerset will learn about rational scepticism, moral philosophy, ethics and evolution.” Dawkins isn’t personally involved in Camp Quest, which started in the mid-1990s in Kentucy, but he’s funding England’s version through his Richard Dawkins Foundation.

3. Saudi Arabia, after pressure from clerics and some of the public, has decided to ban public cinemas. The problem here is not the government, according to reports in the Jerusalem post, but clerics and followers of the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. You’ll recall that Wahhabis reject any religious innovation coming after the third century of Islam. This orthodox branch of the Sunni sect of Islam believe that films have the potential to ruin the Islamic fabric of Saudi society. You know, Harry Potter could lead all the young folk to become witches or something. Odd that they think its ok to cut off hands and that that atrocity doesn’t ruin the fabric of society but a little Proposal might.

4. And speaking of Harry Potter, the Vatican’s newspaper this week sponsored a face-off with two writers, one who argued the HP books teach lessons about love and self-giving and another who argued that the books teach that “with secret knowledge, one can control others and the forces of nature.” Interestingly enough, all the quad-rillions of HP readers over the past decade have yet to produce a giant increase in witches, warlocks or teenagers controlling the forces of nature, so I don’t think the books or movies are near the threat people think they are. And the movies are especially fun to watch if you’re playing “Who is the Jesus figure?” while watching them.

5. Finally, God is being asked to solve the financial crisis – at least in Washington State. Several hundred people showed up on the Capitol lawn in Olympia yesterday to pray for financial relief and were encouraged by pastors to act on their faiths and volunteer help for those struggling to get a job, put food on the table or keep a family together. This is an example of good religion – in that it calls on humans to do something for each other. It will be interesting to see if this brings the community together.

Have a great weekend and remember to love your neighbor.

Legislation signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last week will prohibit schools from enacting or enforcing policies that single out religious expression for different treatment than that for “similar activities,” according to reporting from Capital Media Services. It is odd legislation that will probably lead to more trouble for schools than they need.

According to the new law, a student can’t be marked down on an assignment if she expresses a religious viewpoint if the assignment required a viewpoint be expressed. Ok, fine, except that will open the door for kids – and their already too-involved parents – to cry “religious discrimination” if the student’s paper gets a bad grade. The teacher may argue that the student’s work is shoddy, but the parents could easily contend that said teacher is biased against the student because there was religious expression in the work. How will one be able to prove that it is the student’s faulty reasoning or poor spelling that resulted in the ‘C’ and not the fact that he claims Islam is the only true religion? (continue reading…)

Like people born with an innate interest in athletics, animals or alcohol, I was born with an innate interest in God and the billions of people who claim to know him (or her). Exhibit A: My first memory is as a 4-year-old praying with my elder cousin, the one who later became a nun. Exhibit B: My bedside table currently holds 15 books. Nine of them have to do with religion or spirituality. Exhibit C: My cell phone has a section for clergy.

You can find my religion reporter street cred on the “About” page, but here is full disclosure: I was born and raised Catholic, although for years I’ve been what one might call “Catholic under protest.” That means I strongly disagree with some Church teaching, yet cannot leave the faith. This no doubt bugs any number of too-young-to-know-better priests and a couple of should-know-better bishops I’m acquainted with, but after many a vocal battle with the Almighty, I’ve accepted that I’m Catholic for good.

Things I love: The Church, usually through the Pope, holds up a high moral standard in a world that all too often lacks any standards whatsoever. She frequently and fervently offers a voice to the voiceless in a world that would prefer to marginalize the poor, the immigrant, the uneducated, the unborn. (Not only that, but according to some pundits, Pope B-16 is the only person who truly gets what’s up with the economic crisis.)

And … things that grate: The Church forbids former priests to return to active ministry after they left the priesthood to marry – while allowing married Episcopal priests to convert to Catholicism and pastor parishes with their wives and children in tow. (Feel free to shout out, “What??? That makes no sense!”) And don’t even get me started on the bans on outdoor weddings or lay preachers.

All that said, God Blogging (and more) is not solely a Catholic blog, although with 25 percent of Arizona’s population claiming that faith as their own, news of the Church is of interest and will be discussed. (continue reading…)

Image by ashley rose, via Flickr

The Arizona State Senate gave final approval Tuesday to new restrictions on abortion access in the state. While it may seem, on its face, a good thing, the bill – which passed 16 to 12 – conflates a number of issues.

Parental notification is a no-brainer. Parents of minors under 18 have to give permission for vaccinations, getting wisdom teeth pulled, hospital stays, etc. The risks involved with surgical abortions require parents be informed – or a judge deem that the child is from such a horrific family that she and the judge can make the decision alone. (And if it is such a horrific family, the parents of the girl seeking the abortion should probably be sterilized so they can’t procreate anymore, but that’s another blog, and sterilization is something most pro-lifers are against, in spite of evidence such as this and this that some people should NEVER be allowed the privilege of having children.)

A second part of the bill is likewise a smart move, IMHO. It would forbid abortions by anyone except a qualified physician. Right now, Planned Parenthood in Arizona can provide abortions by nurse practitioners with specialized training. Again…. just seems like a no-brainer when we’re talking health and safety to have a qualified doctor doing surgeries of any type. (continue reading…)