Archive for December, 2010

Heading Toward a Post-Christian West

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

This past December 25th marked the first Christmas ever for a Britain composed of a non-religious majority, and, while a majority of Americans still identify with one of the major world religions, there are signs that the United States is moving in a similar direction. In the former case, secularism seems to be the path of choice for moving beyond a Christian-dominated worldview, while in the latter, it seems to be a combination of secularism as well as increased religious plurality. Either way, the ascendancy of Christendom might be said to have peaked, and to be undergoing a gradual obsolescence, at least in these two core incubators of Western thought. Is the West turning into a post-Christian society? If so, what are the consequences of this watershed transition?

In its annual review, the British Social Attitudes survey asked a representative sample of Britons whether they belonged to a religion and, if so, which one. 2010 was the first year in which a majority of those polled—at fifty-one per cent—reported that they belonged to no religion whatsoever, as compared with thirty-four per cent in 1985. Atheism, agnosticism, and other forms of secularism have become increasingly acceptable. Two of Britain’s three major political party leaders—Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, as well as Labour Party leader Ed Miliband—are open atheists (and yet, ironically, the country still has a state religion, and a queen who is its “defender”.) In the United States, where politicians are pressured into professing religious belief to appeal to the affections of the religious majority, a similar survey was completed in 2008 called the American Religious Identification Survey. According to that survey, fifteen per cent of those polled reported that they belonged to no religion. While this may look paltry in comparison to the vast proportion of British secularists, it is helpful to note that this percentage has nearly double since 1990, increasing from only 8.2 per cent. And while most of this growth occurred in the 1990s, the trend is still in the direction of secularization. Furthermore, the “Nones” (non-religious people) were the only group whose numbers grew in every single one of the contiguous forty-eight states.

However, secularism is not necessarily the only means with which to challenge the dominance of the Christian faith tradition. Many Americans have done this by considering their theological options—often in the form of alternative traditions such as Buddhism or New Age thought—and risking being labeled a hell-bound sheep that has strayed from the flock, as it were.

In a recently-published study on religion in America, researchers Robert Putnam of Harvard University and David Campbell of the University of Notre Dame concluded that, while Americans have never before been more divided over religion, they have never been more tolerant toward different faith groups, either. In the study, Putnam and Campbell found that highly religious people tend to be more conservative, right-wing, and Republican, whereas highly secular people tend to be more progressive, left-wing and Democratic; they also found a significant increase in openness toward different theologies and spiritual traditions: according to Putnam, “In [their] private lives, Americans have been busily building much deeper, closer, personal connections with people across religious lines, including across the line between religious and non-religious”. He adds that belief has become fluid in the U.S., since so many people are close to or familiar with very good people who hold different beliefs. This, he suggests, is partly why, according to the study, one-third of Americans have changed religions, while over one-third of American marriages consist of people from different religious backgrounds.

So, while Britons have shown a tendency to adopt secularism as their worldview, Americans have shown a compromise between greater secularization and religious fluidity. In both cases, however, the people of these nations have become increasingly suspicious of the validity and relevance of the Christian worldview.

What are the consequences of this ostensible paradigm shift? Religious conservatives might see it as a bad omen for physical health. A recent Gallup poll on religion (which controlled for demographic, economic, and geographic factors) found that more religious people score higher on a health and well-being index than non-religious or moderately religious people. One might assume, “Well, of course. Religion teaches you to take care of your body.” But critics (as well as the poll’s researchers themselves) point out that this does not mean that religion makes people healthier, because it does not constitute a causal relationship between greater religiosity and better help—rather, it merely shows a positive correlation between the two. They point out that religion might become more attractive to people who are already healthy, or that a third variable could increase both religiosity and well-being simultaneously. Furthermore, it might be argued that religion does not inherently promote good health more than non-religion; it is just that religion has been the traditional rulebook for promoting it in most societies and non-religion has not yet had the support or opportunity to establish and organize itself with this agenda in mind. It may be possible for any moral system, then, to promote physical well-being. So, it might be presumptuous to say that the increased secularization of the West is a harbinger of poor health for Western people.

It has always been an important mission of the ULC Monastery to forge a sense of solidarity among people of different backgrounds, whether religious or secular. Hopefully, whatever cosmological worldview predominates in the end, it will not lead to the persecution of members of the minority worldview. Share your thoughts with us. Do you think the West (and not just Britain and America, but France, Canada, Germany, and other Western nations) is becoming a post-Christian society? Do you feel this transition is good, bad, or inconsequential? Take advantage of our ministers’ networking opportunities or join our Facebook discussion board to express your opinion on the matter.

Read more about atheism, agnosticism, and secularism by visiting our Guide to Divinity.

Sources:

ARIS

Gallup

Opposingviews.com

The Cutting Edge News

The Guardian

The Philadelphia Examiner

    The Benefits of Online Ordination

    Monday, December 27th, 2010

    Weddings officiated by ministers ordained online are a highly popular topic here on the ULC Monastery blog, but many prospective ministers are still left with questions about how to carry out their sacerdotal duties from a legal perspective. Others are unaware of the benefits that such weddings offer friends, family, and other loved ones. The occasional anecdote helps illustrate how legal officiation by clerics ordained online works, and also how it makes a difference in the lives of bride and groom.

    One such clergy member is Anna-Megan Raley, a weblog writer for the Houston Chronicle who was recently ordained online by her close friend, Jessica Alexander, and Alexander’s mother. Alexander wanted to have a nontraditional wedding ceremony with as much involvement of friends and family as possible, so choosing Raley as her officiating minister was only a natural step in that direction. Interestingly, Raley not only presided over the ceremony itself, but also performed the function of bridesmaid, and even helped out with the decorations for the reception.

    Alexander’s concern over who did the officiating mirrors that of many modern-day couples. She wanted to find a wedding officiant she knew to bring together her and her husband in holy matrimony, not some stranger just because that stranger has undergone minister training in divinity school and earned a traditional ministerial credential. There is good reasoning behind this particular perspective. Judges, attorneys general, and other officials who have ruled against the legality of weddings performed by ministers ordained online have in the past argued that such weddings show irreverence for the solemnity of the institution of marriage. But who really shows irreverence? Total strangers can legally get married to each other /by yet another total stranger as long as they have the right set of chromosomes and $50 to give the city clerk for a legal marriage certificate—the two do not even have to love each other. Meanwhile, weddings performed by ministers ordained online are intended to make the even personally relevant and meaningful by involving individuals who actually care deeply for the union they are presiding over. So, one has to ask oneself: who is really being irreverent?

    But how to integrate loved ones into the wedding ritual is not the only thing on prospective ministers’ minds; they are also worried about the legality of online ordination. Exactly how legitimate are marriages performed by ministers ordained in online churches? Online ordinations in internet churches are generally recognized in most U.S. states, although laws pertaining to how such ordinations are recognized vary, as Monica Rohr of the Associated Press notes:

    Prospective brides and grooms should look into the Web site and local marriage laws, however, to make sure the ceremony would be valid. Although online ordinations generally are recognized, laws vary from state to state, sometimes from county to county. Some states require ministers to register after they are ordained. In Louisiana, parishes ask for a letter of good standing from the church, while Las Vegas requires a four-page application and background check.

    Despite this progress, traditionally there has been a struggle to have the ordinations of ministers in such churches legally recognized; occasionally, however, it still presents itself as a problem, as in Virginia and Washington, DC. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, enacted by the United States Congress in 1993, is one tool such churches have used to protect ministers’ sacerdotal rights.

    And why not get ordained online? It is surprisingly easy, after all, as Rohr points out in her story about Raley and Alexander: “Getting ordained requires little more than finding an online ministry that performs ordinations, and filling out a form with your name and address. Some Web sites require a nominal fee for paperwork; others don’t charge anything.” Some people are still uncomfortable with the idea of making it so easy and simple to become a clergy member or reverend for the purpose of celebrating the sacrament of marriage. However, it is hard to see why the right to perform such a rule should require formal, rigorous theological training if the heart and intention of the wedding officiant are in the right place. Besides, is spiritual insight not accessible to all based simply on a heartfelt desire?

    Needless to say, nondenominational online churches such as ULC Monastery believe ordination rights should be enjoyed by anybody with a sincere desire to pursue spiritual knowledge and to recognize the loving unions of couples using that knowledge. We invite our ministers to share their thoughts. Have you struggled in performing your duties as minister since becoming ordained, or has it been a positive life-changing experience?

    Source:

    Detroit Free Press

      A Stem-Cell Cure for HIV?

      Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

      A group of doctors in Berlin have announced that they may have cured an HIV-infected man with leukemia by using stem-cell transplants. Throughout most of the industrialized world, stem-cell research has become an acceptable means of curing disease, but in the religiously fundamentalist United States fears still linger over the use of stem-cells derived from embryos, which some conservatives view as human beings with their own rights. It may be a “no-brainer” for many, and galling enough to make some progressives roll their eyes, but it is nonetheless important to ask conservatives the question, would a real Christian support stem-cell research if it saved millions of lives, or released them from the clutches of the pharmaceutical industry?

      The Berlin patient, Timothy Ray Brown, underwent a stem-cell transplant using bone marrow from a donor with a genetic mutation that allows resistance to HIV infection. The mutation results in a lack of CCR5 receptors on CD4 cells, which is important since the HIV virus uses CCR5 receptors to infect CD4 immune system cells. In preparation for the transplant, Brown received total body irradiation and chemotherapy that destroyed most of the receptor-bearing CD4 cells; in addition, he received immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection of the HIV-resistant stem-cells. After a relapse of leukemia, Brown had to receive a second transplant; he also had to forgo antiretroviral treatment during the procedure.

      The immunosuppressive treatment preventing cell rejection continued for 38 months, and colon biopsies were taken at intervals during this period to determine whether any disease had resulted from cell-grafting; immune cell samples were also taken from the gut wall to determine the presence of HIV infection. At the end of this phase of HIV/AIDS treatment and recovery, the CD4 cells bearing the dreaded, HIV-friendly receptor were undetectable, suggesting that the old CD4 cells has been destroyed by chemotherapy and replaced by the new batch of stem-cells without the receptor.

      Nevertheless, doctors were unable to detect HIV, and HIV antibody levels had declined “to the point that the patient has no antibody reactivity to HIV core antibodies, and only very low levels of antibodies to the HIV envelope proteins”, according to Keith Alcorn of Aidsmap.com. In addition, Brown developed a neurological condition seventeen months after the transplant which required a lumbar puncture to sample cerebrospinal fluid, as well as a brain biopsy, to for diagnostic purposes. In these samples, HIV was also undetectable.

      Brown’s ostensible recovery has been arduous—he underwent two relapses of leukemia and two transplants. When asked by German media whether he would have rather live with HIV than undergo such a grueling procedure, he responded, “Perhaps. Perhaps it would have been better, but I don’t ask those sorts of questions anymore”. Dr. Gero Hütter, who was in charge of Brown’s treatment, expressed optimism over the results, emphasizing the importance of changing social attitudes about AIDS/HIV recovery: “[F]or me it is important to have overthrown the dogma that HIV can never be cured. Something like this is the greatest thing one can achieve in medical research”.

      Whether one is supportive or critical of the use of stem-cell in fighting disease, the ultimate question is one of ethics. Although Brown’s treatment did not involve embryonic stem-cells per se, many rightwing, evangelical Christians view such procedures as a slippery slope in that direction. From a virtue ethics, standpoint, conservatives might argue that no procedure which might open the door to embryonic cell-transplants in the future should be undertaken, because embryos should be treated as human beings in their own right, and each individual human being should be protected no matter how many lives his or her death might save; from a utilitarian perspective, however, progressives might argue that, first, embryos should not be considered human lives, and, second, the use of individual embryos should be undertaken because of the number of lives they might save.

      Christians might want to ask themselves, what approach would Jesus Christ of Nazareth take if he were walking the earth today? Would he insist on protecting the “life” of an individual embryo even if this means leaving millions of other lives at the mercy of pharmaceutical companies, or would he insist that embryos are a precious resource for healing millions? It is ultimately a moot point, however, because the stem-cells used in Brown’s recovery were not derived from embryos—they were derived from the donor’s bone marrow. Furthermore, doctors do not intend to use embryos for further transplant to eliminate HIV—they plan on extracting them from the blood of umbilical cords. Nevertheless, the threat of taking the “lives” of embryos remains a chimera in the imaginations of conservatives.

      While Brown’s path to recovery should be considered carefully for its grueling nature, it should also be a source of hope and inspiration for the millions of people around the world living with HIV. It should also be considered with fairness and sound ethical reasoning by nondenominational, interfaith churches involved in ending HIV and AIDS—indeed, by any church which claims to be a wellspring of compassion and altruism. Give us your thoughts. Should churches support this new medical discovery, and, if so, why do so many religions seem resistant to it?

      Source:

      Aidsmap.com

        Pagans Hail Rare Solstice-Eclipse Overlap

        Monday, December 20th, 2010

        The last time it happened was 1554, the year Lady Jane Grey was decapitated for treason, Princess Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower of London, and Mary of Guise, mother of Mary, Queen of Scots, became regent of Scotland. Historically, it would have been an omen of either good or evil, depending on the divinatory interpretations of magicians and astrologers (such as John Dee, private occultist to Elizabeth during her reign as queen). This year, the winter solstice, which falls on 21 December in the northern hemisphere, will coincide with a lunar eclipse, an event during which the moon passes behind the earth’s shadow, creating a lurid, red glow on the lunar surface. These events also mark renewal and the return of light, and it is with this interpretation that many modern-day pagans will be marking the occasion.

        Yuletide—the Norse and Germanic period beginning with the lunar midwinter and on which the Christian Mass of Christ is based—is a crucial date in the “wheel” of the year. Because this date marks the shortest day of the year, it is a harbinger of the return of light and the renewal of life in neo-paganism, Wicca, and other earth-based religions. Nicole Cooper, a high priestess in the Wiccan Church of Canada in Toronto, explains the Wiccan philosophy about the winter solstice: “It’s a ritual of transformation from darkness into light…. It’s the idea that when things seem really bleak, [it] is often our biggest opportunity for personal transformation.” For pagans like Cooper, the relationship between living organisms and natural cycles, and the effect of these cycles on such organisms, is paramount; it is also a metaphorical reminder of the importance of change and rhythm in one’s lifestyle.

        But the overlap of Solstice with an ominous, blood-tinged lunar eclipse has special significance for people who follow the Wiccan faith, and it may not be as foreboding as it sounds. She points out that both events involve a transit through darkness, the overcoming of that darkness, and the return of light, adding that the combination of these two events only strengthens this symbolism. “The idea that [both] the sun and the moon are almost at their darkest at this point in time really only further goes to hammer that home”, she explains. So if it isn’t clear already, the significance of Solstice is the fact that it marks the darkest day of the year and the return of life-giving light, and a lunar eclipse occurring simultaneously with Solstice might be seen as a sort of microcosm of this turning point, a harmonic echo or mirroring of the sun’s own darkest hour.

        And one need not be a Viking or pagan Iron Age farmer to be affected by seasonal changes. Astronomical cycles affect the weather, which in turn affects all living organisms on the planet—around the world, people are affected by floods, droughts, monsoons, hurricanes, ice-storms, even the Seasonal Affective Disorder which curses the inhabitants of the world’s most northerly regions in the dead of winter. So, whether one is a Roman Catholic priest, Protestant pastor, Muslim imam, British Druid, or atheist—in other words, regardless of one’s membership in the great world religions—the cycles of nature have an impact on everyone. This fact becomes even more obvious as the sun’s own regression is reflected in that of the moon, and as people all around the world take out their binoculars to observe the phenomenon.

        It doesn’t hurt that the cyclical, transitional nature of Christmas is followed by New Year’s Day, when people in the West make resolutions to change their lifestyle habits. We invite our ministers ordained online to share with us what this rare coincidence of solstice and eclipse means for them. How will you mark this special occasion, will you incorporate it into your holiday festivities, and what will your resolutions be for the New Year?

        Source:

        Montreal Gazette

          Married Men are “Nicer”, Study Suggests

          Wednesday, December 15th, 2010

          According to a recent study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, married men tend to be nicer than single men, who tend to show more anti-social behavior than their married peers. The findings help create an even more detailed and balanced picture of the modern-day married male (as well as the benefits of marriage and weddings), along with other findings about marriage and sexuality that link male monogamy with higher intelligence levels.

          The study is the latest in a growing body of research suggesting that married men are more docile. Lead researcher S. Alexandra Burt, who is also a behavioral geneticist at Michigan State University, examined 289 pairs of male twins and looked for any behavioral differences which arose between married and unmarried twins. In the study, researchers looked at the twins at the ages of 17, 20, 24, and 29, and discovered that those who were more civil towards others at 17 and 20 were more likely to be married by 29. Previous studies have indicated that the domestic lifestyle that comes along with the union of two people in holy matrimony might make men less likely to commit crimes or harm other people.

          However, researchers are uncertain whether this is the exact reason for this difference between married men and single men. While it is possible that the married lifestyle inhibits aggressive behavior in men, it is also possible that some men are already nicer to be around, so it is easier for them to attract a woman and mark their success by celebrating the sacrament of marriage. Burt acknowledges the importance of considering both possibilities as combined factors. “The married men engaged in lower levels of antisocial behaviour [sic] at all ages”, she is reported as telling CTV.ca, but, she adds, married life seems to encourage this docility even more. It would seem, then, that marriage both demands and nurtures docility and humaneness in men.

          The study is just one of many which illustrate how men have been able to defy traditional gender norms often attributed to biological predisposition (the aggressive, logical, libidinous male versus the passive, emotional, sexually stagnant female). In another study on the way men behave in long-term relationships, evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa discovered that more intelligent men (but not more intelligent women) tend to be more monogamous than their less intelligent peers, who tend to be more promiscuous. The more intelligent men also tended to be more socially liberal, as well as atheist, agnostic, or non-religious.

          Kanazawa’s explanation for these findings is that polygyny (male promiscuity) is evolutionarily familiar whereas male monogamy is evolutionarily novel. What this means, Kanazawa says, is that polygyny may have been useful in the ancestral environment, when males needed to spread their genes among as many females as possible, but not in the modern-day environment, in which new demands require men to settle down with just one female. He goes on to explain that it makes sense for higher intelligence in males to correlate with higher monogamy in males, since both higher intelligence levels and male monogamy are innovations in evolution.

          Critics of Kanazawa’s study have argued that it does not necessarily show that more intelligent men are more monogamous, because more intelligent men may simply be better at lying about cheating and covering their tracks. The problem with this assertion, however, is the fact that the more intelligent women did not report being more sexually loyal than the less intelligent women—if intelligence makes an individual better at concealing his or her promiscuity, we would expect to find more intelligent women appearing as more monogamous, too, but they do not. So it is not particularly valid to claim that more intelligent men appear more monogamous because they use their intelligence to lie about cheating; indeed, the explanation that these men actually are more monogamous makes more sense if we assume the hypothesis that higher intelligence levels and male monogamy go hand in hand because they are both evolutionarily novel, and because more intelligent men are more critical of the example set by their ancestors.

          At any rate, it would seem that if men want to avoid the inconveniences of prison sentences due to bar brawls or burglaries, they must be willing not only to do what it takes to attract a mate, but also find a wedding officiant, say the vows, tie the knot, and seal their commitment in the form of a wedding ceremony. Marriage may not be for everybody, but if it truly does reform men, it is an important consideration to make.

          We welcome the opinions of our ministers ordained online. As a man, have you experienced an improvement in your treatment of other people since being married? As a woman, have you seen a change in your husband since marrying him?

          Sources:

          CTV

          Psychology Today

            Celebrity Wedding Officiants Soar in Popularity

            Monday, December 13th, 2010

            Interested in a cheap, inexpensive way to make your wedding ceremony truly original? A growing number of celebrities, from actors to comedians, have been taking requests to perform wedding ceremonies as legally ordained ministers in the Universal Life Church. For many, the trend reflects a desire to eschew religious convention and make the institution of marriage more relevant to bride and groom by making it more accessible to friends and family—as well as admired celebrities.

            One of the latest to offer his services as a wedding officiant is Kevin Smith, writer, director, and star of films such as “Chasing Amy” and “Clerks”. Others have followed suit, including Jason Segel, star of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “How I Met Your Mother”, comedian Kathy Griffin of “My Life on the D-List”, and even Rev Run, member of the 1980s hip-hop group Run-DMC. ULC Monastery is not to be left out, however—recently, new wave pioneer and Talking Heads frontman David Byrne performed his first ceremony as a minister in the church.

            Smith’s weddings, performed at his theatre SModcastle in Hollywood, highlight the increasingly tight-knit relationship between technology and traditionally religious services. He even has his own Twitter feed advertising his services. Each ceremony, which consists of a comical, vulgarity-laden interview of the couple and a brief exchange of wedding vows, is part podcast, part televised confessional. It then becomes available as a streaming video on SModcatle.com. Perhaps best of all is the fact that it costs only $5,000—a smart way of cutting wedding costs.

            The ease and accessibility of legal ordination in online churches has meant that more marriages can be customized to suit the preferences of bride and groom. Griffin makes a similar observation in her usual tongue-in-cheek way: “I had my assistant spend 10 minutes filling out a form online”, said the irreverent satirist, joking that “[i]t’s really hard. It’s a lot of dedication to the Lord and a commitment to spirituality.” Referring to her marriage of a New Jersey couple, Griffin adds, “They picked me because they wanted people to laugh”. Of course, churches like ULCM do indeed take religion and spiritual beliefs seriously, but it is nevertheless nice to know that traditionally solemn ceremonies can be balanced out with a little bit of humor, too. After all, what really matters is to make the event appropriate and meaningful for those involved, isn’t it?

            Certainly, the wedding industry is seeing huge changes, for better or worse. The Universal Life Church Monastery strongly believes in the sacerdotal right of the individual to get ordained online. What do you think? Does tradition take precedence for you over originality and economic considerations? Would you pay for a traditional wedding ceremony held inside a typical church, or would you jump at the opportunity to be married by your favorite celebrity and save a few dollars in the meantime?

            Source:

            New York Times

              Court Deprives Agnostic Father of Child Custody

              Friday, December 10th, 2010

              A man Indiana is appealing a court ruling depriving him of joint custody of his children because he is agnostic. Craig Scarberry’s former wife was granted full custody of the children by a court commissioner because she is a Christian. The case is just one of scores popping up in the news recently in which U.S. citizens’ First Amendment rights have been violated by blatantly religiously biased government officials.

              When evidence was revealed that Scarberry had rejected the doctrines and tenets of the Christian faith and decided that the question whether or not God exists could not be answered, Madison County Superior Court 3 Commissioner George C. Pancol issued a ruling that deprived him of the equal joint custody he formerly enjoyed. According to Ashley Reich of The Huffington Post, the judge noted in the ruling that “the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother”, adding that “[w]hen the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively”. In his ruling, Pancol ordered that the agnostic’s visitation time be reduced to only four hours a week, and his custody, to once every other weekend.

              Scarberry, who believes the ruling is a violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, isn’t going down without a fight, however. Along with his appeal of the court’s ruling, he has planned a protest in support of equal rights outside the Madison County government office on 16th December.

              Reducing a person’s child custody rights because he or she is agnostic is utterly asinine. It is very likely illegal, as well.

              First, if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures citizens the right to practice their religion with impunity—that is, unconditionally—the judge’s ruling against Scarberry violates Scarberry’s First Amendment right, because it penalizes him for his religious opinions. Besides, it might be interpreted as a violation of the Establishment Clause too. (If Congress is barred from legislating religion, the judiciary, in turn, is barred from adjudicating such legislation.)

              Second, the claim that the parents could not communicate effectively because of their religious differences is irrelevant. So what? That a Christian mother does not communicate effectively with her agnostic husband due to their religious differences does not mean that the agnostic husband cannot be a good father to his children. In other words, that the parents are on different levels religiously has nothing to do with how the father treats his children. This argument also applies to the statement that “the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother”. So what? A person can practice a religion different from that of his or her partner and still be able to care properly for his or her children.

              Quite simply, the judge’s ruling constitutes blatant discrimination on the basis of creed. Freedom of and from religion—with impunity—has always been a fundamental tenet of the Universal Life Church Monastery, so we hope that Scarberry succeeds in his appeal to overturn the judge’s ruling and secure justice for himself and his children. We invite our ministers ordained online to share their thoughts on the matter. Should a father be deprived of equal joint custody of his children just because he does not know whether or not God exists?

              Source:

              Huffington Post

                Arkansas Mulls Bible-Based Curriculum

                Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

                A proposed bill filed at the Arkansas state capitol would compel Arkansas public school districts to develop Bible-based curricula. Allegedly, the bill as it presently stands would not compel schools to implement such curricula in the classroom, but many questions remain regarding its constitutionality. The case illustrates one of the latest attempts by conservative lawmakers to insinuate religion into government by contesting the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, there are at least two problems with the argument offered by the bill’s supporters: first, the Bible cannot be treated as an actual history book, and second, there is strong evidence that the Establishment Clause was in fact intended to keep religion out of government.

                The unfunded bill, which was pre-filed by Senator Denny Altes, is competing with others for consideration in next year’s crammed legislative session in Arkansas, raising doubts among some lawmakers as to its importance. Compounding the bill’s relative unimportance are questions about its constitutionality and whether or not it blurs the boundary between church and state. According to the bill, the Protestant Christian version of the Bible would be taught to students as a work of literature from a detached, objective perspective, and not with the intent of advocating Biblical beliefs. Still, in light of the more pressing concerns of tight budgets and economic problems, the bill is not a priority for many lawmakers.

                One of the arguments used by the bill’s supporters is that the Bible is the world’s most popular history book, therefore it should be treated as a valid academic text in schools. According to B.J. Steed of Little Rock’s KTHV broadcasting corporation, Altes told the media, “We’ve got the world’s most popular history book and we’re not using it in the classroom.” The claim that the Bible is popular, and therefore should be taken seriously, constitutes a fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum, or “appeal to popularity”. That a belief is popular does not mean it is correct, because a belief can be popular and still be incorrect. For example, it is popularly believed among right-wing, evangelical Christians that the first woman was created from the rib of the first man, yet biologists and anthropologists can refute this claim with our current understanding of how human beings are created. In turn, the claim that the Bible is a history book can also be refuted with this proof, because an historical event is impossible if it defies the laws of nature, as in the story of Eve’s creation. So, no, the Bible cannot be deemed a valid source of history for public school education.

                Another argument used by the bill’s supporters is that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was not intended to keep church out of government. This argument can be illustrated in the following statement by a commenter on KTHV’s Web site:

                This is where everyone gets it all wrong. the amendment about this is not about keeping the church out of the government. it was written to prevent the government from enforcing a single religion on the people of the USA. Of course this is all misrepresented by others who want to promote the downfall of patriotism in this country. [sic]

                This argument is tenuous, because it seems to contradict the words of Thomas Jefferson himself in his 1802 letter to the persecuted Danbury Baptist Association. In that letter, Jefferson explained to the Danbury Baptists how the purpose of the First Amendment was to separate religion and government:

                Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]

                Here we see Jefferson use the words church and religion synonymously. The famous phrase “thus building a wall of separation between church and state” is introduced by the claim that the role of government does not extend to opinions based on religion. He repeats this reference to religion in the following sentence, stating quite clearly that it is acts respecting religion which Congress should be inhibited from. (The italicized, bracketed text was blocked out by Jefferson so as not to offend his Republican peers from the eastern states, as he explained in the letter’s margin.) And we know that during his tenure as ambassador to France, Jefferson did influence the drafting of the Bill of Rights, since he wrote a 1789 letter to James Madison exhorting him to support it; Madison presented a package of twelve proposed constitutional amendments only three months later. All of this would apply to individual state legislatures too, since Jefferson refers to the legitimate acts of a generic “government”. Given these facts, it seems reasonably straightforward that the purpose of the Establishment Clause in the minds of its conceivers was to keep religion out of government.

                Supporters of Arkansas’s proposed bill will likely exploit any loophole they can find to get the bill passed, despite the strength of the opposing arguments, but interfaith online churches such as Universal Life Church Monastery that believe strongly in the separation of church and state can at least count on the possibility that it will be pushed to the side as economic and budget considerations take precedence. We are always happy to hear back from our legally ordained ministers. Tell us what you think. Should the Arkansas legislature pass a bill requiring public schools to develop Bible-based curricula?

                Sources:

                KHTV

                  Jefferson and Religious Influence in Government

                  Monday, December 6th, 2010

                  In a December 1st letter published on Knoxnews.com, Vaughan D. Hall responded to a November 18th letter urging readers to do more research into the writings of the U.S. founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, in order to understand their intention of using the First Amendment to bar religion from the public sphere. Hall responded by criticizing the author’s assumption as reflecting superficial research in itself. However, Hall’s response is problematic for several reasons: first, Jefferson’s writings do not exactly show acquiescence to the influence of religion in government—if anything, they challenge it; second, if Christian services are allowed to be held in the House of Representatives, it is only fair to allow other religious services—including atheist ones—to be held there as well; third, even if the writings of the founding fathers do allow for religion to influence government, this does not mean that religion should influence government.

                  In the original letter, the author mentions Jefferson’s January 1st, 1802 response to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, a group of persecuted Baptists in Connecticut, and argues how this letter proves that the First Amendment is intended to bar religion from the public sphere; in response, Hall argues that the letter, if placed in its proper context, does not imply this. He argues that,

                  The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the young republic might institute a church established by law as Jefferson, a Republican, believed the major opposing political party, the Federalists, desired to do. The Danbury Baptists were concerned the Constitution as written was not specific enough and desired reassurance that “no man ought suffer in name, person, or effects on the account of his religious opinions.” Jefferson, seeing an opportunity to respond to the Federalists [sic] charges that he was an atheist, used his response as a political statement supporting the Republican belief that these were things that belonged to the kingdom of Christ.

                  Given this context, suggests Hall, Jefferson was concerned chiefly with preventing government from legislating religion, but also with proving to the Federalists that he was not an atheist by admitting that there existed a separate, divine mediatorial authority to deal with religious matters. He did not intend, suggests Hall, to exclude religious influence per se from the legislative process.

                  But what is the legislation of religion if not the influence of religion in government? Clearly, if a lawmaker’s personal religious beliefs are affecting their decision-making, they are passing laws on the basis of religion. One might argue, “technically, this isn’t passing a law respecting an establishment of religion—just bits and pieces of it.” But that, too, is a means of establishing an entire religion. A legislature can establish religion in an insidious, piece-meal fashion through individual laws rather than through one all-encompassing bill. At the end of the day, what’s the difference? Besides, right-wing, evangelical Christians would be the first to decry an incremental legislation of sharia law by invoking the First Amendment’s establishment clause, so why shouldn’t progressives adopt the same tactic in preventing the legislation of, say, the Pentateuch? So, yes, religious influence in government can and does lead to legislation respecting an establishment of religion. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

                  Hall then goes on to point out how Jefferson supported religious influence in government by participating in religious ceremonies held in public buildings. In particular, he mentions the services held in the U.S. House of Representatives and in various government offices:

                  Jefferson saw no problem with religion extending into government as shown by his attendance at a religious service held in the House of Representatives on Jan. 3, 1802. He continued to frequently attend weekly church services held at the House during the remainder of his two terms, also granting permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings.

                  The use of government facilities for prayer, sermons, and other church activities, Hall would have us believe, not only proves that Jefferson and his peers were devoutly religious, but that religion should be allowed to influence the legislative process.

                  This is not necessarily so. First, the fact that the founding fathers used the House to conduct religious services does not mean that they believed their services should influence their decision-making. There is a difference between using a government facility to conduct church services on one hand, and passing laws to reflect those beliefs on the other. It hardly makes sense that Jefferson would mention a “wall of separation between church and state” only to break down that wall by insinuating his religious beliefs into the decision-making process. Besides, if Christians are allowed to worship inside the House, it is only fair, then, that other religions be allowed to worship there too—including pagans and atheists. Understandably, many atheists avoid describing their belief system as a religion, given the term’s connotations of blind faith and group mentality, but this is one of those times when it might behoove them to do so. Christians are constantly saying, “Atheism is a religion too!” Well, if atheism is a religion, and if religion should be allowed to influence government, then atheism should be allowed to influence government every bit as much as Christianity. But the differing doctrines of the world’s religions conflict with one another, and they cannot all be satisfied without creating contradiction, so what is the best way of avoiding such conflict? By taking a position of neutrality and excluding religious influence from government.

                  Finally, even if the founding fathers did intend for religion to influence government, so what? We’ll just amend the Constitution. One might argue, “The letters of the founding fathers allow religion to influence government, therefore it is good for religion to influence government.” But this statement is fallacious. First, it presents an is/ought fallacy by stating that something is a certain way, therefore it should be. That something is a certain way does not mean it should be, because the terms is and should are not equivalent. Second, it might be seen as an appeal to authority, which posits that a statement is correct because the person who made it is in a position of authority or respect. That a statement is made by an authority figure does not make the statement correct, though, because that authority figure (in the present case, the founding fathers) might be wrong. If religion should influence government, this conclusion should not be arrived at by an appeal to authority or tradition; it should be arrived at through ethical reasoning and a careful consideration of present-day exigencies.

                  Sometimes when events are placed in their context, they are done so with the effect not of clarifying their meaning or significance, but of distorting them and rendering them utterly meaningless and amorphous, until they lack any common sense whatsoever. Most likely, though, Jefferson possessed some measure of common sense about the danger of theocracy (even if he was a misogynistic slave-owner), given his and his peers’ understanding of the religious persecution that plagued Europe in the centuries preceding the drafting of the Constitution, as well as their literacy in Enlightenment philosophy. In light of the context, then, perhaps our interpretation (for authorial intent is not always of prime importance) should be that it is inappropriate for lawmakers to dabble in religion while on the clock.

                  Sources:

                  Knoxnews.com

                  Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter

                    Is Marriage Going Out Of Fashion?

                    Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

                    According to a recent poll, more Americans than ever before believe that marriage is becoming obsolete. The results reflect a decreasing reliance on marriage for economic survival, as a growing number of alternatives offer single people a pathway to self-sufficiency. Rather than a basis for economic stability, suggests the study, marriage is becoming the end goal for individuals who have already achieved financial success and stability. The study further illustrates the new weddings trends that are changing face of marriage—in particular, its transition from an economic alliance to a commitment of love.

                    The poll, conducted by TIME magazine in conjunction with the Pew Research Center, reveals that approximately 40 per cent of Americans polled believe that marriage is becoming irrelevant, an increase from only 28 per cent in 1978. However, only one quarter of single people polled said they did not want to marry. In addition, 80 per cent of married people polled said their marriages were at least as happy as, or happier than, their parents’ marriage. At first glance these results may seem contradictory—if modern Americans think marriage and weddings are going out of fashion, why do such a large percentage of married Americans report so much contentment in their marriage?

                    In fact, the results show not necessarily a contradiction, but rather an increasingly complex and sophisticated portrait of the institution of marriage, explains Stephanie Coontz, professor of history and family studies at Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Washington. Coontz supports this observation by pointing out the contrast between modern, college-educated women and college-educated women of the 1960s, who had very different reasons for marrying:

                    On the one hand, marriage as a voluntary relationship based on love and commitment is held in higher regard than ever, with more people saying that love is essential to marriage (Consider that in 1967, two-thirds of college women said they’d consider marrying a man they didn’t love if he met other criteria, such as offering respectability and financial security.)

                    Coontz goes on to say, “as an institution that regulates people’s lives, marriage is no longer the social and economic necessity it once was”, adding that people “can construct successful lives outside marriage in ways that would have been very difficult to manage 50 years ago”, and that “they have a far greater range of choices” about whether, when, and how to perform a wedding ceremony or organize their marriage, and they often arrive at this decision with their partner after a significant period of cohabitation, in which they are able to gauge their partner’s viability. These observations suggest that modern women rely less on men for their livelihood, and thus the primary reason for marrying a man has become love, not security. This is due in large part to the availability of resources through means other than sacramental wedding rites, a fact that has forced people to redefine marriage to suit contemporary needs and desires, allowing them the luxury to be pickier about their selection of partner.

                    In addition, Coontz points out, women have found it necessary to gain an education and support themselves financially, not only for personal fulfillment and a sense of completeness, but also because there is no guarantee their husbands will not abandon them or die unexpectedly.

                    But the growing correlation between marriage and success also highlights the gap between rich and poor. The reason for this, explains Coontz, is that if people are looking for partners who are already established with successful careers before they partake in the benefits of the institution of marriage, poor people are inevitably being left out. In the past, men would be expected to rescue women from poverty through marriage, but nowadays men are looking to marry successful women requiring little support—and this has become a realistic option with women having entered the workforce and making up the majority of university graduates; meanwhile, successful women, too, desire a mate who can pull his weight financially. The irony is that the poor and financially unstable are being excluded from the very institution that might help them build a more secure and stable life. But the poor, Coontz argues, value marriage and family life just as much, if not more so, than the rich, so this discrepancy is an important policy issue for lawmakers to consider.

                    All of this does not necessarily mean marriage is totally on its way out, or that the poor cannot be included; what it really points to is the postponement of marriage until later in life, when both partners can be sure to contribute to the family financially, and this fact should not discourage the poor from finding an incentive in marriage, simply by virtue of the fact that it offers benefits for them. Wedding officiants and ministers ordained in online churches such as ULC Monastery will still have plenty of work cut out for them, too—it is just that their clientele will be older and mature, and an increasing number of couples will be seeking an affirmation of love certificate or certificate of commitment rather than a fast-track to obtaining a legal marriage license.

                    Feel free to share your thoughts. Is marriage becoming an archaic, outdated institution, or is it simply being redefined to suit contemporary needs?

                    Source:

                    CNN

                    Pew Research Center