It's the end of the world! (Unless you're in Mecca)

29 November 2009 at 11:33 PM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
When film director Roland Emmerich was writing 2012, his recently released movie, he envisioned intense scenes of destruction and desolation at landmarks worldwide. Most of them made it into the final cut, but one did not.

The Kaaba - Islam's most sacred site and the destination of the Hajj pilgrimage - was the one that got away. . . intentionally, of course. You shouldn't have to wonder why, but in case you do, Emmerich elaborated by saying that he didn't want a "fatwa on his head."

Besides, the Kaaba was not vital to the film's plot. I wouldn't know. I haven't seen the film, and you can thank my exquisite taste in movies (combined with the recession) for that. Anyway, this is just the latest example of one of the most frightening things about religion - the fact that it is taboo to criticize it for fear that you might offend someone. I'm not saying anybody needs to depict the Kaaba being destroyed for me to sleep at night. I'm just saying that it would be nice if we lived in a world where somebody could plausibly show that on screen and not receive death threats.

| 0 comments |

Ratzinger is old school.

at 10:59 PM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
I found an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times today concerning the current Pope's conservatism. Specifically, writer Kenneth Wolfe discusses how Pope Benedict XVI is "no fan of the past 40 years" of Vatican II reforms. Among other things, these reforms brought parishioners the Mass in their native languages rather than in Latin. Pope Benedict XVI, Wolfe claims, wants "a return to order and meaning" in the Mass service.

This is not the first time someone has taken notice of the current Pope's "old school" nature. Many people criticized one of his earlier actions, which was the reinstatement of a Holocaust-denying bishop excommunicated under Pope John Paul II. Liberal Catholics, who praised the Vatican II reforms and subsequent modernization of the Catholic tradition, have called out Benedict XVI for perhaps being a bit too old school.

At the very least, you have to assume that Benedict XVI knew about this bishop's past and his denial of the Holocaust. You would then have to figure that he chose to reinstate him despite that. I haven't studied it in depth, but on the surface it just doesn't seem like a great idea.

| 0 comments |

Legal challenges for the proposed Mormon temple in Phoenix.

at 9:27 PM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
As is customary with many proposed Mormon temples to be built outside of Utah, the Phoenix temple is encountering some legal issues before construction begins. And, as usual, the delay is related to the intended height of the temple's spire.

I remember when the local temple here in Newport Beach was under construction. The Church eventually compromised, and the completed spire was something like 30 feet shorter than was originally planned.

I'm not exactly sure why the height of a spire in your neighborhood really makes much of a difference. Say what you will about what goes on inside, but the temples themselves are typically very attractive. As far as traffic goes, temple attendance is spread over the entire day and well into the evening, so it's not like there is going to be a traffic jam for everyone to get there at one specific time each day.

Besides, the temple is going to be built either way. There may be some compromise, but when push comes to shove, the Church isn't going to lose a fight like this.

| 0 comments |

Can a vote be sinful?

28 November 2009 at 4:10 PM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
The relationship between religion and politics in the United States of America has always been complicated. As a general rule, we try to honor the principle of separation between church and state in this country. Some of us care more about it than others, but almost everyone probably agrees that keeping religion out of the government, and vice-versa, is a good thing.

Obviously, we have to be realistic about this. You cannot expect someone to leave their religious beliefs and personal convictions behind when they enter the voting booth. The role of the church, however, is something that does need to be regulated.

Enter the latest rogue pastor, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the local Catholic diocese in Rhode Island. He issued a statement two years ago calling for Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D – RI) to stop taking communion because of his stance on abortion. This all became public last week, when Kennedy publicly criticized Catholic bishops for letting an issue like abortion prevent them from backing health care reform.

For those unfamiliar with Catholicism, being barred from communion is no small punishment. Communion affects your standing in the church and in the afterlife; not receiving it is a big deal. The idea of a Catholic bishop standing in the way of a man and his communion because of a political position is almost unbelievable.

Even so, we have seen far worse in the past. Turn back the clock a year, when bishops all over the country went beyond the politicians and called out the voters themselves. Several bishops encouraged anyone that had voted for Barack Obama, a pro-choice candidate, to confess and repent before receiving communion again. A few even called a vote for Obama a mortal sin, which is to say that someone could actually spend eternity in hell for casting a vote in a democratic election.

This rhetoric does matter to some people who view their churches and religious leaders as outlets for the word of God. To be fair, however, a majority of Catholics ignored these outspoken priests and voted for Obama anyway. This is all understandable, especially in the context of post-sex scandal Catholicism. After an entire organization systematically abuses children and covers up the evidence, it gets harder for people to trust that organization as a moral authority. But even this is beside the point. The real issue here is what these bishops are saying, whether it crosses the line, and what should be done about it.

Current law allows churches to take positions on political issues, but prohibits them from telling congregants which candidate to vote for in an election. Should a church do so, they risk losing their status as a tax-exempt organization. Given the two-party system in America, it seems to me that telling churchgoers who not to vote for is essentially the same thing as telling them who they should vote for. In other words, it is wrong and should result in the loss of tax-exempt status for the church in question.

Of course, the church could be given the option of removing the offenders. In my view, the Catholic Church should have to remove these men from the clergy and firmly remind all bishops and church officials that this sort of talk is unacceptable. If they do that, they should be able to keep their tax-exempt status. But if the church allows its priests to endorse candidates, directly or indirectly, and refuses to punish this behavior, I see no reason to allow them to do so tax-free.

It’s not an issue of trying to remove religion from the public square. Clearly, religious people are going to vote just like everyone else. But churches cannot be permitted to endorse candidates from the pulpit. Allowing them to do so puts everyone at risk, including the religious themselves. Furthermore, it encourages more dishonesty from politicians running for office, who already have to lie profusely to get elected. Giving churches permission to endorse candidates would result in some ridiculous campaigning. Every move and every word from every candidate would be an attempt to pander to one religious group or another, as if that isn’t the case already. An America where churches have that kind of influence is probably not the America that our founding fathers had in mind. We should honor them, and our Constitution, by keeping the church out of the affairs of the state.

| 0 comments |

More on the Prosperity Gospel!

27 November 2009 at 9:31 PM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows

Here's the text from my last New U article on the Prosperity Gospel:

The United States of America, while not an officially Christian nation, is certainly a nation populated mostly by Christians. Because of this fact, changes in American religion will always be accompanied by changes in America itself. Specifically, the teachings of American churches will influence the way Americans live their lives, at least to some extent.

For a very long time, Protestant Christianity preached frugality and revered the self-made man. Pastors instructed congregations that correct moral behavior and ethical choices would be rewarded in the next life, but that temporal success here on Earth was in their own hands. The great economist and sociologist Max Weber felt that this uniquely Protestant ethic, which encouraged people to take their well-being into their own hands, contributed to the very development of modern capitalism and the dominance of Western societies.

Today, many pastors and churches still honor these concepts, but there is a growing movement in American Christianity that is changing the way many people conduct their lives. It’s called the prosperity gospel, and it emphasizes material success in the here and now, as opposed to in the next life.

The basic idea that this prosperity gospel hinges on is the notion that God rewards the faithful with financial success. In the words of Joel Osteen, who is probably the most popular of today’s prosperity gospel preachers: “God wants us to prosper financially, and to have plenty of money.” For the rank-and-file churchgoer, this sort of instruction translates into one simple message: If I follow God’s commandments, I will have plenty of money.

Prosperity theology was initially slow to develop. But with the advent of television and radio in the 20th century, the movement gained traction. Oral Roberts, Billy Graham and other pioneers of the televangelist format adhered to the prosperity movement. Today, nearly all TV preachers teach some form of the prosperity gospel.

Prosperity theology sounds harmless enough at first, but it has done enormous damage to thousands of Americans, if not millions. The televangelists of the 1980s developed a particularly dangerous form of doctrine that challenged viewers to make donations as a gesture of faith. God was supposed to see this donation as a measurable display of a person’s faith, and the individual expected a financial reward from God as a result.

Some pastors, including those at Trinity Broadcasting Network here in Orange County, even challenged people with high levels of credit card debt to max out their cards in order to donate. This was supposed to be the ultimate act of faith, and televangelists went so far as to promise that God himself would pay off the credit cards that very month.

Of course, none of these rewards ever came. Prosperity theology tends to appeal to the very poor. That has meant that these challenges from televangelists have only served to place lower-income people in an even worse financial position. Donations came in by the millions, and televangelists bought luxury cars, private jets and dozens of homes across the country with the money.

This may sound like robbery in its pure form. But, unfortunately, it is almost impossible to prosecute religious organizations in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled long ago that it is not the business of the Court to test the truth or falsity of religious doctrine. For prosperity gospel preachers, this means that because the prosperity gospel is a religion, they can aggressively market for donations, receive them and do whatever they want with them. A court of law cannot stop this from happening, because it cannot rule that any religion is illegitimate.

The prosperity gospel is controversial. There are many evangelical Christians who are aware of the dangers of prosperity theology. Some actively preach against it. Rick Warren, the founder of Saddleback Church here in Orange County, told Time magazine: “This idea that God wants everybody to be wealthy? There is a word for that: Baloney.” Referring to the many poor Christians who live faithful lives, he asked, “Why isn’t everyone in the church a millionaire?”

Warren donates 90 percent of his income to charity and lives off the other 10 percent, a lifestyle he refers to as “reverse tithing.” Of course, Warren is a rich man, so 10 percent still leaves him with a comfortable lifestyle, but his reverse tithing stands in stark contrast to the extravagant lifestyles lived by prosperity televangelists.

Unfortunately, despite the reservations of some evangelicals, the prosperity theology is finding fertile ground for growth. Mainstream Christianity is becoming increasingly affected by it. The notion that God rewards faith with money is spreading in both conservative and moderate churches. The average, reasonable person with a mind firmly grounded in reality should be able to figure out that prosperity theology is completely ridiculous, but this is not stopping the movement from gaining ground.

Prosperity theology advocates are making baseless promises on behalf of God; this is something that I firmly believe no human being has the right to do. These men are proof that religion, while a beautiful and important tradition and a vital expression of humanity, can be used for the worst possible purposes when placed in the wrong hands.

| 0 comments |

On the Intelligent Design of Species.

18 November 2009 at 11:59 AM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
Today, there were people on campus handing out doctored copies of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. I had already heard about the "Kirk Cameron edition" of Darwin's book, but I figured I wouldn't end up having to turn one down in person. In case you aren't aware, here's the gist of it: A Christian minister has added a 50-page introduction to the book that, among other things, connects Darwinism with Hitler's Holocaust and "reveals" some of the hoaxes and false principles of evolutionary theory. If you can bear it, here is a video of your favorite Growing Pains star himself, explaining why we should all care:



Now, to be fair, the book is old enough at this point to be "public domain," so the added text is perfectly legal. And clearly, everyone has the right to express their opinion, regardless of whether or not it is based on sub-par methods of argumentation. I've taken it as a general rule that if you have to invoke Hitler to win an argument, there probably isn't much else of substance on your side of the discussion. I highly doubt that Cameron, or any of the people passing the book out, have even bothered to read Darwin's book in its entirety. (I haven't, either... But I'm not the one altering it.)

The evolution debate is as heated as ever, but I hope people can see this for what it is: An attempt by far-right Christians to use emotion and half-baked rhetoric to win an argument that they have been losing for exactly 150 years.

Anyway, on second thought, I may have to pick up one of the free copies being passed out on campus.

| 0 comments |

The Prosperity Gospel.

17 November 2009 at 3:53 AM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
There is an excellent piece in the current issue of The Atlantic that assesses the role that American religion may have played in the economic recession. Columnist Hanna Rosin discusses a shift in what Americans are hearing from the pulpit. To paraphrase (hopefully without putting words in Rosin's mouth): The self-made, hard-working Protestant man of the past took his temporal salvation into his own hands and produced for himself and his family; today's believer, however, wants his rewards from God and he wants them now.

The article brought to mind Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, a groundbreaking work that considered Protestantism the major player in the development of the modern Western economic system. Weber felt that post-Reformation Protestant Christianity inspired its adherents to work out their own happiness. God would surely bless the faithful in the afterlife, but happiness in this Earthly existence was in the hands of individuals.

This stands in contrast to what Rosin describes as the prosperity gospel, which has been pushed by pastors and televangelists across the country. This new strain of American Christianity proclaims that God is ready and willing to bless you right now, in this life, with immense financial rewards. All you have to do is show God your faith, and according to most of the prosperity gospel's advocates, this may be done with a "small donation." Unfortunately, this get-rich-quick version of religious belief has put millions in corrupt pockets while stealing the last mite from Americans stuck in poverty.

You should really go read the article. It's great, and I won't be able to do it justice. I will try to take on the subject matter, however, in an opinion piece that will be published in UCI's New University on Monday. I'll be sure to post a link on TNK for those who may be interested.

| 0 comments |

Catholics pretend (again) to hold the moral high ground.

at 3:34 AM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
Apparently the Washington, D.C. Archdiocese of the Catholic Church is trying to blackmail the city into backing off on a proposed gay marriage law.

D.C. lawmakers are pushing legislation that would allow same-sex marriages in the district. The Catholics have responded with a threat to cut social service programs in the city.

The Catholics are worried that the new law, while not forcing the Church to perform same-sex marriages, would nevertheless require the Church to honor laws banning discrimination in other areas. Unfortunately, the Church's threat to cut aid complicates the decision, because thousands of poor people in the area receive assistance from Catholic groups. The city is probably going to pass the measure anyway and see what happens. One would hope that a group claiming to honor the teachings of Jesus would not stop helping those in need because of a change in local laws.

| 0 comments |

The polarity of Catholic politics.

13 November 2009 at 1:23 AM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
There's a great article in The Wall Street Journal right now that discusses the influence of the Roman Catholic Church on the health care bill passed in the House of Representatives last week. Basically, the Catholics were instrumental in lobbying Congress to add the abortion restrictions to the bill at the last moment. The article also makes a great point: the Democrats' strategy of running centrist candidates in order to win seats in Congress has backfired. Sure, you get the guys in office, but then they're too moderate and stuff like this happens.

There is a very interesting polarity in Catholic politics. On one hand, you have a church that is very conservative on major social issues such as gay rights and abortion. On the other hand, you have a church that is generally progressive about social welfare. That's how you have a group that supports health care reform, but is dead set on making sure that reform doesn't include funding abortions.

Even to this day, Catholicism exerts a powerful influence on our public policies.

| 0 comments |

Mormons throw a bone to the SLC gay community.

12 November 2009 at 6:09 PM | Posted by Tomorrow Never Knows
Gay rights activists in Utah are understandably excited this week, as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has endorsed legislation that actually gives rights to gays that live in Salt Lake City.

For those of you who don't know, most of the people running the government in Utah are members of the Church. When the Church comes out and publicly supports a bill, the state government will pass it unanimously... which is exactly what happened. It is now illegal in Utah to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their home because of their sexual orientation. You can thank the Mormon Church, not the state of Utah, for the new laws.

Before I jump to criticize, let me at least give credit where credit is due. Congratulations to the Mormon hierarchy for backing the new laws after decades of decidedly anti-gay political moves. It's refreshing to see something like this come out of the Church's leaders. We have consistently heard from top-ranking Mormon leaders that while the Church is against gay marriage, they are not anti-gay, and they do not preach hate or discrimination. Finally, we are seeing tangible proof that they mean what they say.

Of course, the other side of the story is that it took until 2009 for a state in our great country to decide that firing someone because they are gay is a bad thing. Hell, without the endorsement of the Church, it may not have happened for another few decades. My opinion is that this was a move meant to show the gay community that the Church may have its standards, but it isn't officially hateful. Mormon people may not like gay people much, but the leaders are trying to say that they don't really mind them so long as they don't want to go out and get married. You decide if it worked or not.

So, gay rights activists in Utah, enjoy this moment of happiness and be grateful. But don't forget: The Mormon Church is still against gay marriage, and they have the resources to make sure it does not become legal in states with a large Mormon presence. In that sense, nothing much has changed.

| 0 comments |

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)