Category Archives: Religion and Political Conflict

by

Christianity and Torture

Reading this article recently strikes me as yet another reason why I question the validity, dare I say the morality of Christianity.  At least in the fashion that it’s practiced in America.  It’s not that Christianity and Catholicism for instance have the market cornered on hypocrisy.  But because of the utter self righteous way in which many Christians paint themselves, believing that everyone should think and live as they do, I don’t understand how they can reconcile the Jesus in the bible as a savior who loves them and their agenda so much.  And so it is with a survey showing that 62% of White evangelical support torture.

Let’s examine just some of the opinions in this article for instance.  My response to these will be in bold:

Rev. Ronald Kuykendall, an evangelical pastor in Gainesville, Florida, says that the question is difficult to answer because everyone has a different definition of torture. He says he would support the torture of a terrorist if “the techniques used are lawful, necessary” and the ultimate purpose is to save lives.

Kuykendall says the New Testament (Romans 13:1-7) teaches Christians that “everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”

“The NT [New Testament] is clear that God grants the right of the ‘sword’ to the state to be used against wrongdoers,” Kuykendall says. “Just as I believe I don’t have a right to vengeance personally, I do believe that I can seek justice through the state and call the police on a robber, or a gunman threatening my life.”

Honestly I have no idea what he means or how this relates to torture.  But he really tried to get the scripture to endorse his support of it.  Is he saying that no matter what happens if it’s lawful then he supports it?  I would say that as a Christian he shouldn’t leave it to sinners to determine whether torture techniques are godly.  He doesn’t do that with abortion or gay rights.  Both have been lawful and yet people who share his beliefs are constantly on the fight to change the laws.  It’s as if he is complicit in support of torture but doesn’t want to get his hands dirty.  Let the “authorities” handle it.

Chuck Colson, the evangelical pastor who once served as an aide to President Nixon, answered the same question in an online discussion conducted by the Washington Post “On Faith” Web site.

Colson said that Christians are supposed to obey the law, but there may be times when there is a higher obligation, such as ignoring a “no trespassing” sign to rescue a drowning man.

“So it is with torture,” Colson wrote. “If a competent authority honestly believes that this was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified.”

Again, does the comparison to saving a drowning man (saving a life) compare to torturing a man? And who defines competent?  Should it be a Christian who does the torturing?  And what if the beliefs the “authority” has are based in prejudice more than evidence?  He can “believe” the cow jumped over the moon but does that make it right?  Is this the foundation on which he is willing to stand in the face of Almighty God?

  

Charles Kammer, a religious studies professor, says he was not surprised to learn that a majority of evangelical Christians support the use of torture in certain circumstances.

Kammer says that despite Jesus’ own commitment to nonviolence, Christianity as a whole has never embraced nonviolence. He says some evangelicals also confuse patriotism with piety.

“What’s good for America has often been seen as God’s will,” says Kammer, who teaches at The College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio.

“They think the torture of evil people is not bad, but may be morally required as a way of protecting the good people.”

Kammer said he is a Christian and does not support torture in any circumstances. He considers waterboarding torture.

This seems to make the most sense to me.  When I first thought to write on this topic, I thought to myself, “Since the days of Columbus and perhaps before, Christians have always killed, maimed, tortured, stole, and dominated people when it served their interest.  Why should 2009 be any different?  To say many confuse patriotism with piety is an understatement!  They believe, or at least say they believe that God is an American and that His focus is on preserving the American way of life that isolates and separates from everyone who do not share like beliefs. 

I talked to a co-worker of mine who told me that she didn’t believe that waterboarding was torture.  I asked her if she knew what waterboarding was and she said no.  I figured she had listened to Rush or Coulter.  (I swear Coulter is one of the most dangerous and sick thinkers I have ever heard.  She is definitely serial killer material.  Rush is a drug addict so I can’t take anything he says seriously.  But I digress)  Anyway, I gave her this link on waterboarding which show the lasting damage that it causes.  Read it for yourself and see.  Also, I said to her, “If it wasn’t so bad, why would the CIA bother doing it?  If one believes in torture, surely he wouldn’t do something that seems like a mere nuisance.”  She agreed, but admitted that she likes the feeling of feeling safe.  She liked the tough talk of Dick Cheney and felt that her protection was more secure with the mobster like approach.  In other words it’s better for your neighbors to fear you more than respect you.  

But she wanted my opinion as well.  So I explained to this person who has an  Assemblies of God background the virtues of neighbors this way:

You, your husband and children live in a home which resides in a neighborhood.  You have neighbors.  Perhaps you can get along ok if you held every one of your neighbors at bay with a gun.  Let’s say no one will bother you.  Everyone fears you and you feel safe. 

But let’s say you’re away from the house and someone is snooping around your property.  Well the neighbor to your right would perhaps alert you or the authorities, but they are mostly indifferent because you aren’t friendly neighbors and have no respect for one another. 

Let’s say you go out of town.  You can tell a good neighbor, “Look I’m going to be away for a couple weeks.  Please keep an eye out for my stuff.  Get my mail for me.”  Well a neighbor who likes and respects you will go the extra mile to secure your property and personal safety.  Which of these two neighbor situations make you feel safer? 

I said it’s the same with other nations.  When Bush and Cheney drew the line in the sand and said, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us,” (meaning if you don’t agree with everything we do the hell with you) it put us in a position of alienating nations/neighbors.  Perhaps that nation/neighbor wouldn’t be as excited to share information that they may have obtained about our nation’s safety that our own intelligence didn’t pick up.

I don’t want to give the appearance that war is not necessary at times.  Nor that I don’t believe a strong military is a vital part of national security.  But there are other areas that are important to.  And it takes wisdom to deliver balance and righteousness.  I simply can’t reconcile the beliefs of the Christian leadership to bear witness with my own spirit.  And this is one of the reason why it’s difficult to subscribe to believing and worshipping as they do.  Worst of all, (or not) it causes me to question and doubt the very foundations of their beliefs.

by

Catholic Priest: To Marry or Not!

The Rev. Alberto Cutie was removed from his duties after pictures showed him bare-chested with a woman.

I am not Catholic but sometimes I do find these subject matters interesting.  In the wake of this latest controversy with Rev. Alberto Cutie I listened to a program on the radio and they had a discussion with a religion reporter, a religion professor, and the editor of the Catholic World Report.

One of the topics they discussed was whether the argument for priest to marry or not is more of a political one than a religious one.  What do you think?

Should some priest be allowed to marry?  I say some because the program noted that it’s not uncommon for a minister who was married before converting to Catholicism and became Catholic priest.  They get to keep their wives and families as well as serve in their flock.  Is this hypocritical? 

Some believe that celibacy is a gift that is particular to a person.  So if he/she has that desire and gift it should be a choice but not a mandate.

I have also spoken to some Catholics who take the hard line that if one wants to be a priest, celibacy is what the proper order is and if you can’t hang then don’t be a priest. 

Anyone who wants to give an intelligent take is welcome to comment.  I would love to hear especially from practicing Catholics on both sides of the issue.

by

Follow The Money~What Do We Get For Our Investment

Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M. get the money, dolla dolla bill ya’ll – Wu-Tang Clan

Never were truer words said about religion.  Well let me back up a bit.  I can only speak for my experiences.  My history with the religious institutions that I have been involved with are such that the collection plate gets passed around many times.  I have seen building funds erected from start to finish.  Was urged to give my whole check as a step of faith.  (Which I did once) Saw money lines some of which I participated in as a much younger and ignorant man.  (If you don’t know what a money line is just leave a comment and I will explain it.) Heard sermons saying that the equity in my home was not my money but God’s money and should be brought in.  (Even I was never that dumb.)

Let me say that I am pro financially supporting our houses of worship and faith.  They cannot function without our dollars.  If a church, mosque or synagogue etc. are helping people and are financially accountable to it’s membership then its a great thing.  Most of the charity work that’s done are through not for profit organizations of faith.  Too often however I see that many of our churches in particular (again from my personal experience) are more about building themselves up.  As congregations grow, so do the buildings and television ministries.  I think it’s cool that some ministries broadcast worldwide via television and radio.  But if you have ever looked at TBN or The Word Channel for instance, there are way too many.  They are just broadcasting their personal church services – they rarely have a global spiritual message.   It’s become a status symbol to have said ministry on T.V.  It’s a status symbol to have many ministers driving around in luxury cars, living in luxury homes, and wearing luxury suits to speak about god’s prosperity.

Am I against prosperity?  Certainly not.  I go to work most everyday!  I believe that ministers who make their own money selling books or within their privatized businesses that they invest in with their own salary for instance is the American way.  But far too many use the money of it’s donors to finance their lifestyles while the communities surrounding them are suffering.  I don’t believe we give enough back to the people who pour the wealth in.  I mean it’s sad for a person to belong to a church which operates in a multi-million dollar facility, give money to that organization and not be able to receive financial help if you need it yourself.  I can tell you most don’t do it.

Its also sad to see the rich and poor sitting next to one another in the same pews, and the rich not want to do anything to help or teach their brother or sister tp prosper as well.   I would think the faith environment is a great place to share ideas and help one another live the best life possible. 

Now any preacher will say that the money they ask you for belongs to God.  But if it’s not benefiting God’s people as a whole, starting with the people within it’s own circulation, then it’s missing the point.  Charity does start at home right?  Yet parishioners at too many churches cannot get financial support when in need.  The testimonies of most of your television ministries are utterly ridiculous in that they can send you pamphlets every month with color photos of the minister or the CD of the week.  You can be a “faith partner” and give mega dollars to them over a long period of time.  But if you lose your job and ask for an investment into your troubled household, NOT going to happen. 

I do know of one church that I have been involved with that believed in taking care of people before brick and mortar.  I know for a fact that they would go late on the mortgage if they had to if a member had need.  The pastor didn’t even collect a salary and still  may not.  I think he should get a salary but he knows that there is not enough in the budget yet. 

There is so much we can say here.  But the bottom line is that it’s up to US – the people who support these ministries to make people accountable to put the money where it needs to be.   Ministries are a great place to learn and benefit from collective economics where everyone who can participate can also benefit when in need.  Until we the givers become more smarter, spiritual, and more spiritually discerning for god-sakes, we are destined for to get more of the same.

by

Tolerance… Religious Betrayal or Necessary Recognition

 

I have never been a big fan of the word tolerance.  To me to tolerate something is to put up with it.  I’d prefer words like celebrate, or acceptance.  It does not mean one has to celebrate something that he/she is not comfortable with, but at least “acceptance” has less of an edge.  It seems more peaceful.  Words mean a lot and the way we use and phrase them in certain situations set the tone.  Still true tolerance is still better than what we get at times when we refuse to disagree with someone without violence of thought, feelings or action.  

Most groups in my opinion have their challenges when it comes to tolerance, acceptance, or celebration on issues that run contrary to their core.  These are not limited to religious groups either.  Take the controversy over Barack Obama’s ministerial picks for the inauguration.  The gay and lesbian communities, as well as pro-choice advocates lost their minds over Rick Warren and his personal beliefs which opposed theirs.  I wrote a piece on that and also posted a column that someone else wrote talking about how Warren did his best to avoid getting caught up in the machine of the media wars concerning gay rights and abortion.  Sure he has his personal beliefs which are noted for the record.  But I didn’t recall him trying to force that on anyone else.  True indeed he supported the gay marriage ban in California days before the election.  He succumbed to the pressure put on by other evangelicals and added his name to the very machine he sought to avoid. 

Anytime a group is in a struggle, it’s difficult to learn how and when to pick battles.  I thought that to have a brain aneurysm over Rick Warren, a preacher who will not set Obama’s policy while disregarding Rev. Joseph Lowery, a pro gay rights advocate who also will not set policy, but will participate in the same ceremony was the wrong move.   The President Elect said all along during his campaign that he would allow differing voices to be heard within his administration, and he is keeping his word.  I also argued with several friends of mine, that at least Warren is not a hate monger.  If you look at the last eight years, there were no progressive ministerial voices at the White House.  As much as I disagree with some of the conservative voices out there – especially the extreme ones, I tend to figure their voices are strong enough that you cannot just shut them aside no more than they can shut me or my beliefs aside.  We can take turns running  Washington, overturning each other’s laws based on who has the majority, or we can try to dialogue with reasonable people who may disagree with us. 

For instance, is it not reasonable and possible that a Christian, or a Muslim may not believe that their perception of God endorses gay marriage?  Is it possible that a loving person of devout faith may feel that abortion is a sin under any circumstance?   Are we to just dismiss them as lunatics who need to be overthrown?   Its that kind of attitude that fosters this US against THEM mentality – where we never get anywhere. 

Some of my pro choice and pro gay rights friends simply reply to me that if the group were against rights for African-Americans that my stance would be different.  There is so much wrong with that statement – just on a personal level that I won’t get into.  Still I never bought into the idea that the gay and lesbian battle is the same as the ones being waged for African-Americans in this country.  But setting that aside, historically we have had to dialogue with adversaries for centuries on some level or another.  Lyndon B Johnson didn’t initially want to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He didn’t want to lose the Southern vote.  Kennedy didn’t want MLK to march in Alabama.  He asked him not to several times. You see it wasn’t just about the George Wallace’s and Bull Conner’s of the world that we had to deal with.  It was liberal thinking white people who were not fully convinced that they wanted blacks in their neighborhoods or dating their children – let alone have equal pay for jobs or god forbid be the boss.

  

I recall academy award winner Sidney Portier talking about how Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn were skeptical of what he would be like to act with on “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”  When they met, Hepburn didn’t even speak to him the first day.  Tracy was stand – offish too.   And they were liberals!  Portier knew that he had already won an oscar by that time, and if he were Paul Newman he wouldn’t have to take that crap.  And yet he understood that people like Tracey and Hepburn never met a black person who was not a janitor, a porter, housekeeper or cook.  They didn’t know any black doctors, teachers or lawyers.  So their scope was limited.  The hell we didn’t have to work with people who disagreed with us.  Hell most blacks do it everyday at work.  Sure it’s frustrating but it had to be done.  We had to and still have to pick our battles and not just try to overthrow every white person who does not see my freedom and passionately as I do. 

So why should the plight of gays any different?  Especially since many of them feel their battles are just like the one’s fought by African-Americans.  I’m just sayin.

by

Politics in the Pulpit~And The Identity of Jesus

Its funny how people talk about the separation of church and state.  Wherever there are strong church ties, the state has never been separated in reality.  Most every law on the books has it’s base within somebody’s interpretation of a  holy book.  This is the case in most major nations.  One could argue that even communist places such as China and North Korea have their own versions of church and state when it comes to the worship they require to be given to their political leaders.  I think the thought of church and state being intermingled are pretty acceptable to most. 

The issue in this nation in particular where one of our founding principles is freedom of religion, is that often that the followers of one religion, (most of the time extreme forms of Christianity) tries to rule over another.  This was particularly true when we look at the heavy right wing evangelical movement that helped produce two Bush administrations.   Bush who claims to be a born again Christian rode that Jesus train hard for two terms.

I still recall a church service I attended before the 2004 election where the preacher said, “I can’t tell you who to vote for, but God would not have you vote for someone who’s for killing babies.” 

After that I spoke to a congregation I used to belong to, and I talked about how there are essentially two Jesus’ in this country.  One who is concerned about abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, and the other one who cares about the poor, justice, and a person’s inward character.  One Jesus who is concerned about all people and another concerned about Americans who believe in Christianity.  One Jesus who was for bombing Iraq and one who was not.  One Jesus who is for evengelism, and another for colonialism.  One Jesus is poking his nose in the bedroom and the other doesn’t care how  person gets off as long as it’s consensual between two adults.  I was in one bible study where I heard a preacher tell a married couple that it as sinful for them to give one another oral sex.  (They never returned.) 

Who gets to speak for Jesus or God as you know him in these matters?   I can tell you from personal observation, there is nothing in the bible confirming nor denying the ethicality of oral sex for instance.  I can also tell you that there are many lessons to be learned from from a Ted Haggard, the infamous evangelical pastor who had to leave his post after he was discovered to be involved with drugs and a male prostitute.  (mostly male prostitute)  After three weeks of “intense counseling,” with four ministers, Haggard was said to be totally heterosexual.  Just as a side note, Haggard himself has said to his congregation before he stepped down that he struggled with his sexuality for most of his life.  Tim Ralph, the minister who said Haggard was delivered from homosexuality, said that it was just a short phase for Haggard.  There was no word on whether the good reverend was delivered from drugs or not. 

I find it particularly interesting that Haggard pastored a huge mega church all those years before, and that the congregation obviously found some benefit from being ministered to by a gay drug abuser.   I am sure many people “accepted Jesus Christ” as their lord and savior.  There were prayers given by Haggard to his parishioners, and I am sure some of those prayers were answered.  And yet when this little secret came out, he was taken down.  I mean where was God before the scandal broke loose and why did the church prosper if Haggard broke all of the moral laws?  What sins are really bad and which ones are just ok? 

Religion and politics are always intermingled.  The key is how we treat one another who don’t believe as we do, and how we make these differences respectful and functional within society.

by

Religion and Political Conflict “The Deity Factor”

**The assignment for this Religion and Political Conflict class was to answer the question of why people threaten voilence or wage war in the name of religion.  It was written in September of 2004.  This is still my take, what’s yours?

Fighting for Religion

(The Deity Factor)

 

Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, “Who shall be first to go up for us against the Canaanites to fight against them?”  And the Lord said, “Judah shall go up.  Indeed I have delivered the land into his hand.”  Judges 1:1-2

 

            The first reason I can think of as to why people threaten violence and wage war in the name of religion historically is because they sense or feel a mandate by god.  That sense of what I call the ‘deity factor’ can be the ultimate motivation to cause one to wage war in a most fierce manner.  There is no higher calling for a believer to have than the calling from a deified figure.  There are a couple reasons that come to mind.  First when a person or a nation feels they have a call from On High, the deity factor says that the calling is coming from One who is all powerful and able to win any battle against any opponent. After all no one believes his god is second to another.  Second the deity factor allows the god the attributes of creation as well as life sustaining power for and over the creation, causing the created to be grateful for life itself.  This sense of gratitude is a powerful motivator in that one doesn’t mind giving his life in service in order to fight his god’s battles.  The thinking is that even a tragic death on the battlefield in this type of service carries with it eternal reward for he who fought the good fight.

 

            There are also other rewards within the text.  In this case the Canaanites were on land that the Lord of the Children of Israel had given them.  This was also the case in many instances in the bible, including in Joshua where the Israelites were to cross over the Jordan.

 

Moses My servant is dead.  Now therefore, arise go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving them-the children of Israel.  Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses.  Joshua 1:2-3

 

Joshua also got that deified assurance mentioned previously in verse 5 of this same text.

 

No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.  I will not leave you nor forsake you.  Joshua 1:5

 

            Sure there are tangible benefits to waging and winning these battles.  Some would include wealth in the forms of land expansion.  The winning side at times has an opportunity to take hold of the conquered treasures.  But the deity factor can cause one to wage war with no tangible advantages at all, but only for the glory of the god giving the orders.

by

BB&G Explores Religion & Political Conflict

I was watching Meet The Press on Sunday morning, and of course one of the topics featured was the current crisis between Israel and Hamas.  As Hamas fires it’s missiles and Israel advances via ground, I imagine this is partly because there is a new administration coming into power later this month.  The Bush administration is of course an unrepentant supporter of Israel.  And while Obama says he also supports the nation just approaching 60 years since their declaration of independence, I don’t think the limits are known to Jews.  They may find it to their advantage to get a foot in certain geological and political places before Obama takes over.

What fascinates me as gas prices slowly rise again in the midst of this conflict, is the age old source of the initial conflict, religion.  In this case the beef between the Jews and a particularly radical group of Palestinians. 

I grew up experiencing and participating in various denominations of Christianity.  For a time I considered myself a rather devout Christian.  Now what that means to the reader is certainly subjective as we will get into later on.  I have also questioned and taken Christianity to task on differing subject matters.  I studied religion in college as well, and that really gave me an insight into how the religious beliefs of man determine lifestyles, laws, treaties, alliances and enemies.  It is the oldest and most consistent source of conflict in the world.  And when taken to such extremes, it seems as if it will never end.  Take the discussion on Meet The Press.  One of the guest was Jeffrey Goldberg, a Jewish American writer who currently writes for The Atlantic.  He had occasion to speak with Nizar Rayyan a late military leader of  Hamas who was said to be killed on New Years Day.  In his column from January 2,  Goldberg had asked Rayyan about the possibility of peace between Israel and Hamas.  This is what he wrote:

The question I wrestle with constantly is whether Hamas is truly, theologically implacable. That is to say, whether the organization can remain true to its understanding of Islamic law and God’s word and yet enter into a long-term non-aggression treaty with Israel.  I tend to think not, though I’ve noticed over the years a certain plasticity of belief among some Hamas ideologues. Also, this is the Middle East, so anything is possible.
 
There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: “The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don’t need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.” There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. “Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.”

And there you have it.  This guy’s way of looking at his faith, or so he said was that no way his God would allow another people to live peacefully and that the only reason for a cease fire was to load up weapons and artillery for future battles.  Now don’t get me wrong, I have opinions on this as well as other conflicts both current and historical.  This “Deity Factor,” a phrase I coined in college which I will post later explains this perfectly.  But that is not the purpose of this post or the series which I plan to explore for the week.

My question is how do we deal with religion in the 21st century.  I see religion as a binding entity that has helped a lot of people.  I see it as a unifying force that allow great things to be accomplished among followers.  Through it people learn discipline, submission, and servant-hood as there is a recognition of a higher power beyond human domain.  Religion has sparked many humanitarian efforts all over the world through aid in the midst of wars and natural disasters for instance.  Equally, religion and religious ideology has also been the source of most wars around the world.  Historically, one religion cannot exist without some group of another trying to eradicate it from the earth in the name of said religion.  Religion has divided nations, torn brotherhoods asunder, killed babies and colonized generations of people.  People have ravaged lands, raped women, burned people alive and even attempted to wipe an entire ethnicity off the face of the earth – all in the name of religion and a brand of faith.

As sophisticated and technologically sound as we are in this nation with our computers, internet, satellite and space shuttle capabilities etc., primal religion and faith are still the straw that stirs the drink of American thought and motivation.  I don’t care how secular some say this nation is, make no mistake about it;  A major play in this past presidential election as well as the two previous are fundamental religious beliefs among Americans. 

This week I would like to explore that thought, provoke some conversation and get the opinions of ordinary people about the state of religion and how it effects our lives.  Of course we can’t cover every aspect, but I would like to start the year by exploring what is THE most significant factor of political and personal thought. 

Is it possible to exist with a people who don’t believe another people should exist?  Are we too radical in our approaches, not just them but us?  (Whomever us is) Do we question the origins of our own beliefs enough?  Do we respect others who do not believe as we do?  Are we doomed to just fight one another until the end of the earth?  All this week as we cover different topics surrounding religion, I invite you to just talk about it.  Maybe we can come up with some ideas, perhaps start a positive movement.

Peace