Universal Life Church

Once the site of a witch hunt resulting in the tragic deaths of over twenty people (some died in prison), the town of Salem in the U.S. state of Massachusetts has now become a haven for modern-day witches who have re-settled there in an attempt to reclaim their heritage. The outcome of this effort has been the creation of the Witches Education League, the aim of which is to educate the community and dispel harmful myths about witchcraft.

The W.E.L., which recently received nonprofit status, is the result of a merger of two local groups, the Witches Education Bureau and Pagan Witches Protection. The new organization will continue to host many of the events celebrating occult and pagan magical traditions which were originally hosted by the former two. One of these events is the W.E.B’s annual “ask a witch, make a wand”, in which local witches teach children how to make magic wands at Samhain (Halloween). (And, no, they don’t eat the children afterward.) The W.E.L. will also attempt to reach out to witches and their allies beyond the Salem area.

Members of the organization have explained its purpose in their own words, emphasizing the importance of interfaith dialogue between witches and non-witches. Sean Teehan of The Boston Globe quotes the W.E.L.’s vice-president, Teri Kalgren, as explaining the intent of the organization: “We’re not eating babies or drinking blood”, he quotes her as saying, adding that the organization promotes “a better understanding of what witchcraft is”—an ancient pagan religion which teaches reverence for nature and the environment. Mirroring this sentiment, a recent W.E.L. press release stated that “[t]here are many untruths about Witches and the craft, born out of hate, fear, or other issues causing these untruths to flourish and grow through the centuries” and that “W.E.L. encourages all to ask their questions and to learn about one of Earth’s oldest religions”. The organization also hopes to shed light on injustice against witches: Teehan quotes Kalgren as saying, “[t]here are still places out there where people do lose their jobs and have their kids taken away” because they practice witchcraft. It is through such efforts that the organization hopes to change the minds of people who still base their opinions about witchcraft on horror films such as Wicker Man and other products of popular culture.

Public relations and community outreach campaigns are crucial for witches, pagans, Wiccans, and other practitioners of earth-based religions, since persecution of witches or people perceived to be witches is still a problem in some societies. According to The New Indian Express, for example, a 17 year-old girl in the Indian state of Orissa beheaded her elder sister’s 60 year-old mother-in-law for casting a spell on her family which, the girl believed, caused her and her father to fall ill and the girl to fail her matriculation exam. (In fact, many spells are cast for healing or protection purposes.) What is perhaps most disturbing, and most ironic, about such cases is that the real victim seems to be the accused, not the accuser, and it is antagonism towards witchcraft, not witchcraft itself, which is driven by a harmful, irrational superstition; there is little, if any, evidence that the community is being cursed by a witch, but we do know that people are being punished—often cruelly—for crimes that have not even been verified. It is for this reason that education and outreach is crucial for the integration of witches into society, not just in the West, but around the world.

But Salem is a world away from Orissa, and organized efforts at education remain underdeveloped in many rural parts of Africa and Asia, hence it will be an uphill struggle to reach out to victims of persecution in less accessible parts of the world. Of course, that does not mean we should not persist, and this is why groups like W.E.L. are so instrumental. Indeed, the mission of the nondenominational Universal Life Church Monastery is to nurture solidarity among different faith groups with the understanding that we are all children of the same universe. After all, the sole doctrine of the church is to do that which is right, so long as this respects the rights of others and is within the law. Given the prejudice that witches have had to face, we want to hear about your experiences with witches and members of the pagan community. What have you learned about this ancient tradition, and how have your opinions changed as a result?

Learn more about witches, pagans, druids, and other followers of earth-centered beliefs and practices by visiting our Guide to Divinity. Alternatively, you can join our Facebook discussion forum to share your thoughts and stories.

Sources:

The Boston Globe

The New Indian Express

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Some materialists argue that people cling to a belief in life after death out of comfort because they harbor a fear of death. This claim is one of many that make up the skeptical argument against the notion of an afterlife. As it turns out, however, a brief review of the literature suggests the opposite to be true: people who believe in life after death have less fear of death, or else the afterlife they do believe in is not a very comforting one. We know this because of empirical research into near-death experiences, the faith-based confessions of materialists, and the fact that some afterlives are rather disturbing. Hence, belief in an afterlife cannot necessarily be attributed to wishful thinking.

There are several basic arguments around which the question revolves and which have been discussed in greater depth in a previous blog entry on the afterlife. Based on empirical evidence, NDE researchers have challenged the theory that near-death experiences are a product of hallucinations brought on by anoxia (oxygen deprivation), noting that hallucinations do not resemble the highly lucid, coherent consciousness reported during an NDE. They also argue that patients report having their experiences in minute detail while they are brain-dead, hence the brain cannot be functioning in order for chemicals to produce hallucinations. And researchers point out that some people actually have their experience immediately before injury, which also rules out the possibility of hallucinations brought on by physical trauma. Finally, researchers have called into question the assumption that people believe consciousness survives bodily death just because the alternative fills them with despair.

Why should we think that people who believe strongly in life after death actually have less fear of death?

Part of the answer can be found in a large-scale longitudinal study on near-death experiences conducted by Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel, which is summarized in his book Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. Van Lommel’s study is more reliable than the typical NDE study because it is prospective. This means that evidence was easier to obtain and verify because cardiac arrest patients were consulted, and their cases investigated, almost immediately after their resuscitation. (Evidence is harder to come by when reports are made several years later.) According to the results of van Lommel’s study, fear of death did not influence the occurrence of NDEs (van Lommel, p. 145). In addition, van Lommel and his team checked in on their subjects two years, and then eight years, after the initial interview. He and his team found that among people who had had NDEs, belief in life after death rose 36% after two years, reaching 42% after eight years. At the same time, they found that among the same people, fear of death had fallen 47% after two years, and 67% after eight^[1].

Additionally, the study suggests that the patients who had an NDE value ordinary earthly life as well as the afterlife. The results indicated these people’s appreciation of the ordinary things in life rose to 78% after two years, and to 84% after eight years^[1]. (In fact, some people who have had these experiences have informally adopted a motto: “Life is for living; the light is for later”.) So it is not very fair or accurate to accuse such people of caring more about the afterlife than about earthly life.

Thus, contrary to the claim made by materialists, strong belief in the afterlife actually corresponded with less fear of death, and greater appreciation of ordinary life.

In fact, there are suggestions that some materialists may find comfort in non-existence, further highlighting the reversal of assumptions about hope in an afterlife. British philosopher A.J. Ayers illustrates this point in a 1988 article entitled “What I Saw When I Died”, an account of an NDE he had. In the article, Ayers writes that his experience “slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death … will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be”. The key word is hope. By expressing hope that death will be the end of him, Ayers suggests in a sort of Freudian slip that there is a faith-based comfort to be had in the prospect of non-existence. Hence, Ayers provides evidence that some materialists believe in non-existence after death out of comfort, not out of reason.

On top of this, many conceptions of the afterlife are actually quite foreboding. Perhaps the most obvious example of a less-than-savory hereafter is the Judeo-Christian Hell, which is reserved for people who reject the sacrifice of Christ in the Christian faith (varying slightly from denomination to denomination), or people who do not subscribe to God’s laws in the Jewish faith. Hell is not a very appealing place, so clearly people do not always believe in the afterlife out of comfort. Indeed, some Christians fear death precisely because they fear the nature of the afterlife reserved for them. Additionally, a foreboding afterlife is the only afterlife in some cultures. In his book Life after Death: The Evidence, Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza quotes anthropologist Pascal Boyer as saying that for many of the tribes he has studied, “a religious world is often every bit as terrifying as a world without a supernatural presence” (D’Souza, p. 32). D’Souza cites the Fang people of Cameroon, who believe that the afterlife is dominated by witches and evil spirits who enjoy eating people. He also points out classicist Mary Lefkowitz’s argument that the Greek afterlife does not promise bliss, but rather a harsh, unpredictable, largely evil world. As we can see, some groups of people believe in a downright barbaric afterlife. Consequently, we cannot necessarily say that belief in an afterlife is a source of comfort to the believer.

In sum, it is not very true to say that belief in an afterlife or hereafter is a source of comfort for people who fear death: recent NDE research refutes this position, as do the confessions of materialists themselves as well as notions of hell and disturbing afterlives. As always, however, there are two sides to the argument, but to cover both is beyond the scope of a single, modest blog entry. For this reason, we invite you to tell us whether you think belief in an afterlife is a source of comfort to the believer, providing reason and evidence to support your case. How do we explain things like the van Lommel study, the words of A.J. Ayer, and the fact that some afterlives are more or less hellish?

Sources:

Life after Death: The Evidence

Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife

Pim van Lommel

1. van Lommel P, van Wees R, Meyers V, Elfferich I. (2001) “Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A prospective Study in the Netherlands” in The Lancet, December 15; 358(9298):2039-45.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The most popular book in history will soon be coming to your local plasma-screen television set. Mark Burnett, the producer of reality television series such as Survivor, The Apprentice, and The Contendor, is planning to produce a ten-part miniseries called The Bible for the U.S. cable television channel History. The series will inevitably prove groundbreaking, but one big question remains: does a collection of religious stories really belong on a television channel which purports to be devoted to history? As is often the case, there are two sides to the argument.

Production on the series is planned to take place throughout 2012, while the series itself is expected to air in 2013. According to Bill Carter of The New York Times, the series will not be presented as a documentary from a third-person perspective, but rather as a scripted dramatization from a first-person perspective. Each of the ten parts will be about two hours long, and each of these will feature two or three major stories from the holy book of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition. Likely candidates include stories from Genesis like the Creation and Noah’s ark, Exodus, and the New Testament account of the life of Christ, but Burnett will also be working with lesser-known stories, Carter says.

Both Burnett and Nancy Dubuc, the president of History, have explained the inspiration behind the series.

Burnett suggested he was inspired by Cecil B. DeMille’s classic film The Ten Commandments and said he wanted to bring the same majestic, epic style to the television screen. Epic-style production “used to be the purview of major motion pictures” but are now available for television, he said, adding that “[o]nce in a generation someone gets to breathe new visual life into that book”. Essentially, for Burnett, the importance of the series lies in the powerful, moving cinematic effect created by portraying Bible stories onscreen.

This attention to the book’s cultural currency is echoed by Dubuc, who has argued that the Bible is an historically significant collection of works. Carter quotes her as saying, “[t]his is the most discussed, debated book in the history of mankind”, and that “[w]hat the book has come to represent, and the power of it and the importance of it is itself history”. What Dubuc seems to be saying is that the Christian holy book, being “larger than life”, has so influenced history that it has become the same thing as history itself. This does not make much sense, though. Something that affects history cannot be history itself. It is a paradox.

To solve this problem, let us make a distinction between history and Biblical tradition. We might argue that the Bible is a work of religious tradition, not a purely historical record of real events, and should therefore be treated as such.

To support this view, let us take a brief look at what history means. The word history can be defined as “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events”, while historical can mean “having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief”. According to Peter Seixas and David Lowenthal, the stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external research (i.e. Arthurian legend), are often classified as cultural heritage, whereas history deals largely with detached, objective investigation [1], 2. In this sense, history connotes the discovery of what really happened in the past, not the celebration of religious beliefs and traditions.

Given this understanding of the meaning of history, Dubuc’s view on the Bible seems questionable. She suggests that the book deserves its own series because it is “historically significant”. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the Bible itself is historical, or that the Bible has influenced history? If it means the latter, the series should portray the book as an instrumental tool in shaping the course of history, not as a repository of history itself, since it consists largely of religious stories, not factual events corroborated by external sources. In other words, the series should not treat the Bible as a source of history, but as a part of history. Yet Dubuc seems to conflate history with legacy, creating the misleading impression that religious stories within history constitute history itself. Unwittingly, Dubuc herself suggests this: “We’re not stepping back to examine anything that could be called a controversy. We are just telling the stories that are in it”. But that is the whole point of a television channel that markets itself as a source of history—to present religious literature within an historical framework, and not as the framework itself.

Additionally, History has been criticized for focusing on historical topics from a Western, especially American, worldview, which might explain why the channel is producing a series on religious beliefs cherished by Americans and Westerners. Maybe the people who run the channel are not trying to stimulate curiosity in its viewers about the outside world (or even produce high-quality educational content), but rather to re-affirm the traditions, beliefs, and biases already held by those viewers. Maybe it is this that lines their pockets.

Of course, we might be taking the format of History too seriously. After all, the channel does air non-historical reality programs such as Ice-Road Truckers, Ax Men, and Pawn Stars, so it is no surprise that it should also produce a dramatic series on religious stories and legends. That said, the Bible is arguably the keystone literary work in history, so it will be interesting to see how Burnett and his crew condense this collection of highly vivid religious allegory into an entertaining ten-part, twenty-hour visual experience. Such a feat has merit in its own right.

We always want to hear your side of the story. As a pastor or minister ordained online in a nondenominational church, do you like the way History plans to present the stories of the Bible?

Sources:

The New York Times

1. Seixas, Peter (2000). “Schweigen! die Kinder!”. In Peter N. Stearns, Peters Seixas, Sam Wineburg (eds.). Knowing Teaching and Learning History, National and International Perspectives. New York & London: New York University Press. p. 24. ISBN 0-8147-8141-1.

1. Lowenthal, David (2000). “Dilemmas and Delights of Learning History”. In Peter N. Stearns, Peters Seixas, Sam Wineburg (eds.). Knowing Teaching and Learning History, National and International Perspectives. New York & London: New York University Press. p. 63. ISBN 0-8147-8141-1.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

A British doctor might lose his job for recommending that one of his patients pray to Jesus Christ of Nazareth in order to recover from his condition. Often-times such cases are fairly clear-cut and violate some law or other designed to protect people from the imposition of religion and to ensure professional conduct, but the case at hand is a little trickier, and there are many things about it that deserve closer scrutiny. It is always a good idea to bar doctors from proselytizing to patients, but, to be fair, some practices make their religious affiliation known at the outset, governing bodies often target individual doctors while overlooking the religious nature of the practice itself, and there is some research suggesting that prayer and meditation have certain health benefits.

During a routine consultation in his office in Margate, on the Kentish coast, Dr Richard Scott, a former missionary turned general practitioner, suggested that the 24 year-old consider prayer, meditation, and reflection—specifically with Jesus in mind—in order to alleviate his condition. When the patient told his mother what Scott had suggested, she became outraged, accused the doctor of imposing religion on a vulnerable patient, and filed a formal complaint with the General Medical Council, which regulates medical practices in Britain. The GMC issued Scott a formal warning, which he rejected. According to Corky Siemaszko of New York Daily News, Scott told British newspapers, “I only discussed mutual faith after obtaining the patient’s permission” and “[i]n our conversation, I said that, personally, I had found having faith in Jesus helped me and could help the patient. At no time did the patient indicate that they were offended, or that they wanted to stop the discussion”, adding that, had that happened, he would have ended the conversation immediately.

But why all the fuss over a simple recommendation to pray? Normally it would seem fair to reprimand a doctor for making such a recommendation, but not necessarily so in the present case, for at least three reasons.

The first reason is that the practice Scott works for is open about its Christian values, so any patient seeking treatment from the practice would be aware of its Christian teachings and principles at the outset and would have the choice whether or not to seek treatment from such a place. According to Laura Passi of the medical publication Pulse, Scott stated, “[i]t’s well known that we’re are [sic] a Christian practice” and “[i]t’s completely explicit on the NHS Choices website, on our practice leaflets and on a plasma screen we have in the waiting room”, adding “that says that doctors are very happy to talk about faith issues but there’s absolutely no compulsion”. If a patient realizes that a practice is openly Christian, but that patient goes ahead and seeks the services of that practice anyway, it does not make much sense for that person to complain later about the Christian influence. It would make much more sense for him or her simply to avoid such a practice in the first place and seek the services of another, secular practice, of which there are plenty.

The second reason why reprimanding Scott would be unfair is that medical practices themselves are allowed to invoke religion, so it only makes sense to allow individual doctors to do so as well. If the GMC prohibits doctors from invoking spirituality as a form of healing or medical treatment, it should prohibit medical practices in general from doing so. Scott’s practice should not be allowed to distribute leaflets, host a Web site, or install plasma screen television sets that state the Christian values of the practice, for it is the same expression of religious faith whether coming from a plasma screen or a doctor’s mouth. However, apparently the GMC has no problem with practices invoking religious faith, therefore it should either bar both doctors and practices from doing to, or allow both to do so. But it is not exactly fair to punish a doctor for suggesting that a patient pray when the leaflets in the clinic lobby suggest the very same kind of thing.

Finally, the third reason why it would be unfair to punish Scott for his actions is that there is some suggestions that prayer, meditation, and religious thoughts might actually be beneficial to one’s health. In a previous blog entry, we discussed a study conducted at the University of Toronto Scarborough, and published in Psychological Science, which suggests that religious thoughts may help reduce stress. Of course, even if the evidence supports this theory, any recommendation to pray or meditate should be as secular and neutral as possible, without any attempt on the part of the physician to impose a particular religious viewpoint on the patient. Any such recommendation should serve a purely practical purpose.

In short, it seems unfair for the GMC to punish a doctor just because that doctor recommends that a patient pray in order to recover from his or her illness. First, the patient would have been aware of the Christian nature of the practice and had to choice to decline its services; second, if individual doctors should be barred from prescribing prayer, entire practices should also be barred from stating their religious faith; third, we must acknowledge arguments suggesting that prayer and meditation might actually be good for one’s health. At the same time, however, we must remain vigilant in preventing unwanted or inappropriate religious imposition in medicine—it must always be a choice—because such imposition can actually exacerbate stress or anxiety in a vulnerable patient, and this certainly has no medical benefits. In fact, we would like to hear your arguments in support of barring physicians from discussing religion with their patients.

Sources:

New York Daily News

Pulse

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

In previous blog entries we have discussed the definition of religion as well as the relationship between religion and technology. In addition, we have covered stories about how technology is being used for religious purposes (as with the Bible app for smartphones), and the use of retail stores to perform wedding ceremonies. In all of these cases, high technology has become inextricably intertwined with religious and ceremonial practice. Now there are suggestions that high-technology superbrands such as Apple, Inc., may in some ways constitute religions themselves.

The suggestion that Apple might be a religion, or at least provide a profound religious or spiritual experience, comes from a group of neuroscientists who conducted a study on the relationship between religion and the brain. Alyson Shontell of The San Francisco Chronicle reports on an upcoming BBC documentary on the subject called Secrets of Superbrands. According to the documentary, neuroscientists performed an MRI scan on the brains of Apple fans, then compared these to the MRI scans of people who called themselves “very religious”, and found that the same area of the brain was active in both Apple fans and the very religious. In other words, they suggest, Apple technology stimulates the same heightened emotions in people as religion does.

It is not only brain scans that suggest that Apple resembles a religion. The way Apple stores are set up, as well as the way in which they operate, uncannily resemble the inspiring, uplifting ambience of a church, temple, synagogue, or other house of worship. Renee Oricchio of Inc says that “Apple Apple stores often feature stone or other types of austere, simple flooring like a church with products mounted on pedestals like individual altars”. Apple store openings sometimes even resemble a Pentecostal or Southern Baptist religious service. “The scenes I witnessed at the opening of the new Apple store in London’s Covent Garden were more like an evangelical prayer meeting than a chance to buy a phone or a laptop”, Shontell quotes Alex Riley and Adam Boome of the BBC as saying. At this point, it almost seems as though superbrands such as Apple are deliberately capitalizing on religious zeal to attract loyal customers.

It is not hard to think of other superbrands which recall the same religiosity. Most of us who have stepped foot inside a Starbucks store are familiar with the grand, plush layout of the stores, the devotedness of staff, the philosophical thoughts and aphorisms printed on coffee cups, advertising slogans such as, “[t]his is what coffee tastes like when you pour your heart into it”, and even a book by Joseph A. Michelli with the inspiring title The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning Ordinary into Extraordinary. The ubiquitous coffee chain has created an inviting atmosphere with the attempt at nurturing a sense of community, much similar to a church lobby, banquet hall, or potluck.

It certainly seems as though superbrands make us feel good—they comfort us, provide a sense of camaraderie, and create feelings of excitement and anticipation. In addition, however, they attempt to cultivate a populace devoted to an image, brand, or product being advertised as the best, the sole truth, or the only right way. Just as right-wing, evangelical Christians claim that the only way to heaven is by accepting the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the geniuses at Apple persuade us that the iPod is the only true digital audio player—mounting it up on a pedestal for all to adore—while Starbucks tells us that the only real way to stay awake is to drink a cup of Starbucks coffee. In all cases, we are sold an experience of comfort and ecstasy on the condition that we accept the inimitable uniqueness of the entity conveying the product. In this sense, maybe Apple and all of the other superbrands out there really are religions of a sort.

Give us your thoughts as a pastor ordained in an interfaith church. Do you see a parallel between religion and big corporate brands?

Sources:

BBC News

Inc

The San Francisco Chronicle

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

On the Friday before Harold Camping’s prophesied rapture was to occur, KING 5 news visited our sanctuary to speak to our Chaplain, Brother George Martin Freeman, about the ULC’s position on the apocalypse.

From the article accompanying the video:

Seattle’s Universal Life Church, which welcomes all faiths,

worries people are giving up their livelihood on what at best is a gamble.

“I’m concerned people don’t search inside of their soul for their creator,” said Freeman, “or they listen to others who have no proof, no guarantee of anything.”

View the video embedded above, or visit KING 5 News.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear a case by eight groups seeking the right for parents to exempt their children from religion classes after the Superior Court of Quebec denied the parents’ request. The groups representing the parents hope to win the case in the coming months. With the controversy over Quebec’s public school religion courses, the question once again arises: what is the role of religion in public education? Depending on one’s perspective, Quebec’s religion curriculum could be viewed either as an objective treatment of the facts, or as an unfair imposition on students.

The curriculum, called the Ethics and Culture Program, was introduced into elementary and high schools in 2008 by the province’s Ministry of Education, replacing earlier religion courses. Allegedly, the purpose of the new program is to cover all major faiths found in Quebec culture, including Roman Catholic beliefs, Protestantism, Judaism, and aboriginal and indigenous spiritual traditions. A request by a contingent of parents from the town of Drummondville was originally rejected by the Superior Court in September, 2009, but Canada’s high court finally accepted the parents’ legal challenge.

According to representatives of the parents, the classes violate laws protecting the free exercise of religion. Eight groups are intervening on behalf of the parents, while two lawyers will be preparing arguments in their favor. One of these lawyers is Jean-Yves Coté, who belongs to one of the intervening groups. According to the CBC, Coté said, “We only seek an exemption” and “[a]lthough we don’t like the course, we don’t want it to be prohibited”, adding that the parents’ lawyers will try to argue how making the classes mandatory is an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom as protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, Richard Decarie, president of the Coalition for the Freedom of Education, argued that while some people do not want the curriculum to be taught at all, others simply object to the way in which it is being implemented.

It is this last point that most closely touches on the question whether religion classes are appropriate in the public school system of a pluralistic, secular democracy such as Canada. Are students being taught religion, or being taught about religion? It is one thing to teach students from an objective standpoint about religion as a phenomenon of human society, but it is another thing entirely to endorse religion as a thing which students are expected to appreciate, or to which they are expected to adhere. The Quebec Ministry of Education’s Ethics and Culture Program does list several major world religions to be covered in classes, but it is conceivable that these religions might receive privileged treatment over other religions, simply because they are commonplace in the population. In order to avoid bias, teachers would have to focus solely on how these religions have played instrumental roles in the development of Quebec society, carefully maintaining a neutral, objective tone and avoiding suggestions that any one religion is better than another.

This may prove to be a challenging task for teachers to undertake, and it still seems difficult to teach elementary school students—especially young children—about religion without leading them to believe, for example, that the Holy Bible of the Christian faith is superior in veracity and wisdom to the spiritual and mystical traditions of aboriginal and pre-industrial cultures. After all, young children still have relatively undeveloped critical thinking skills and are generally less capable of discerning between observation and evaluation, fact and opinion. Indeed, we are still teaching them the difference between the two in elementary school, so how can we expect them to understand it when instruction on religion comes from an entirely neutral position? Stringent efforts would have to be made to emphasize this. Given these considerations, the Supreme Court of Canada might at least grant parents the right to spare their children the confusing message, “So, did the teacher say that there really was a Great Flood and a Noah’s ark?”

We would like to know what you think. As a pastor ordained in an ecumenical online church which incorporates various faith traditions and religious backgrounds, should parents have the right to exempt their children from religion courses? Should such courses be being taught in the first place?

Source:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

As we fast approach the impending “apocalypse”, in which a handful of us will find ourselves raptured up, and the rest will be forced to remain on this earth, confused and with nothing to watch in the 700 Club’s time-slot on ABC Family, one of our more waggish staff members has composed his own list of predictions. We hope you enjoy them.

Harold Camping, a fairly unknown religious radio host, has recently garnered attention for predicting the world will end on May 21st, 2011. While a small percentage of the world goes into panic from the apocalyptic predictions of this religious zealot, we at the Monastery see through this religious rapscallion’s ruse. It’s not the first time the end of the world has been predicted and it certainly won’t be the last. So many of us seek salvation, searching for easy answers to aid us through the hard times in our lives. These careless predictions made by Camping are quickly ruining the lives of hundreds of his gullible followers, many of which have quit their jobs to pledge their own time and money to spreading the word of the approaching apocalypse. To take advantage of others spirituality and religious beliefs as a means of profiteering is a deplorable, morally corrupt act.

With this said, May 21st, 2011 is quickly approaching.  I’ve learned a great deal from reading about Harold Camping in the last few days and I have a few predictions of my own to make.

Prediction #1:

The Apocalypse will take place on May 21st, 2011.  Mr. Camping’s followers have already paid for billboards and radio ads,  it would just be stupid on my part to pick another day to predict the world to end.

Prediction #2:

The dead will rise from their graves to walk the Earth. However, instead  of devouring human flesh these Zombies will all develop severe chronic fatigue syndrome and simply return back to the Earth.

Prediction #3:

Though Jesus will not make his return to Earth, actor Jerry Lewis will make an early return to television with his popular Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon. 45 years and counting!

Prediction #4:

You can gain Salvation but not through constant repentance for your sins. Rather you can only gain Salvation by signing up for a free trial on Netflix, where 2009′s Terminator Salvation will be streaming for free!

Prediction #5:

A select few Evangelicals will all ascend to their own ideal heaven where they will watch television for hours, eat junk food, donate money to various unspecific causes, and predict a 2nd apocalypse.

Prediction #6:

After several months of suffering, a great sense of calm will envelope the Earth. It is at this time that Love will become the only form of currency…that is to say, the only form of currency other than Cartons of Cigarettes.

Prediction #7:

As Fire and Brimstone fall forth from the sky, local Weathermen come up with very entertaining things to say.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Scientists believe they may have discovered a habitable planet circling a small star relatively close to the earth’s solar system. While many exoplanets have been discovered in recent years, this one has proved to be the most promising candidate for a planet beyond earth that harbors Earth-like life. But if life is discovered on this or some other planet, what will be the implications for the religious and spiritual beliefs of earth’s inhabitants? As it turns out, the discovery of extraterrestrial life may either challenge or reinforce one’s beliefs, depending on the tradition one follows.

The conclusion was drawn by a team of scientists at the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace in Paris as part of a study published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. The planet, named Gliese 581d, sits within the “habitable zone” of its host star, the red dwarf Gliese 581. This means that the planet is just the right distance from its star to allow liquid water to form on its surface. (If the planet is too near its host star, the water will boil away; if the planet is too far away from its host star, the water will freeze.)

However, habitable does not necessarily mean habitable for humans—the carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere would almost certainly asphyxiate a human, so most likely very different creatures (if any) will have emerged on this planet through the process of biological evolution. The common denominator is liquid water, which is viewed by scientists as the universal medium or solution for the emergence of life. In addition, even though the star system is only twenty light-years away, it would still take the space probe Voyager 1 three hundred millennia to reach it, which means that humans will have to come up with something like warp-speed or worm-holes to get there before they die—and such technological feats require an astronomical amount of energy.

But what would the discovery of extraterrestrial life imply for the major religions of the world?

For most evangelicals, it is problematic. The belief that humans must accept the blood sacrifice of the Christ-avatar to redeem themselves and go to heaven might be entirely undermined by the discovery of intelligent aliens. If the fall of Adam and Eve and the resulting revelation of Jesus Christ meant to correct their error were earthly events, either aliens do not need Christianity since they have not yet fallen (having no Adam or Eve), or they cannot accept the sacrifice of Christ since they are ignorant of it in the first place, hence they are doomed to eternal torment in some extraterrestrial space-hell. Evangelical Protestants would then need to send missionaries to places like Gliese 581d to convert the alien heathens and help them escape such a fate. But it is not exactly fair for God to have such expectations of aliens, or to punish them for failing to meet them, and yet most evangelicals are not very willing to change their theology either, which is probably partly why they prefer the assumption that aliens do not exist.

If one is Catholic, the problem is slightly more complex. Many are familiar with the recent decree by the Vatican that the existence of extraterrestrial life would not necessarily conflict with the teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. Because Catholics believe in papal infallibility, they can share the pope’s acceptance of alien life. Yet the papal decree about aliens does not necessarily mean that aliens can go to heaven. In addition to the gospel, believe Catholics, sacraments and rites such as the Eucharist and the absolution of sin by a priest, as well as adherence to Church teachings on these things, will grant one access to eternal paradise. The problem is that on a different planet, it is very unlikely that a church exactly like the Catholic Church, with the same rites, sacraments, and religious literature, will exist, therefore the inhabitants of that planet have no resources to get to heaven. Again, it is not exactly a fair expectation on the part of God, and yet few Catholics are willing to relinquish their cherished beliefs, so they are forced to assume any aliens created by God will automatically suffer eternal torment in hell.

But ETs do not create a problem for all religious and spiritual traditions—in fact, some of these traditions embrace the idea, and some are even founded on it. A great deal of New Age thought and spirituality accepts the reality of such beings, in part because this particular collection of faith traditions does not typically include the hard-and-fast Christian doctrines that would by definition relegate aliens to hell. Similarly, Buddhism and some other eastern philosophies emphasize certain practices, beliefs, and traditions which are so generic that any intelligent being could theoretically subscribe to them. Sometimes these teachings may sound specific, but one might also view them as metaphorical or symbolic representations of universal ideas and phenomena. And some more controversial theorists even propose that some of the gods of ancient man are in fact deified extraterrestrial beings with highly advanced technology, which man described in terms they could understand. So there are many faith traditions that are compatible with the existence of intelligent life beyond earth.

Some religions have a vested interest in debunking the claim that aliens might exist, because the authority of such religions would wane as people began to realize that their associated theologies did not account for such beings; however, other religions which allow for or presuppose the existence of aliens would begin to flourish as people’s beliefs were validated by the discovery of such beings. If and when such a discovery is made, those who cling to cosmologies denying the existence of life beyond earth will be forced to seriously re-examine their beliefs. To refuse to do so would only reflect stubborn pride.

Tell us what you think as a minister in a nondenominational church, given your familiarity with the stories of different religions. Would the discovery of intelligent life beyond earth challenge your beliefs, or validate them?

Learn more about the different mythologies and creation stories of the world’s religions by visiting our Guide to Divinity.

Source:

Science Daily

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

For a moment it looked as though the United States Navy would finally allow chaplains to perform same-sex sacramental wedding ceremonies, and in fact it reached this decision last week, but only a couple of days later decided to review this decision under pressure from U.S. Republicans, who argued that it would violate DOMA—the “Defense” of Marriage Act. But the problem with this attitude is that it blindly takes the law for granted, while also ignoring potential issues of religious freedom.

Originally, Rear Admiral M.L. Tidd, the chief Navy chaplain, released a memorandum stating that chaplains would have the right to officiate same-sex weddings in places where they are legal once the U.S. lifted its ban on gays serving openly in the military, but the memorandum was revoked when sixty-three right-wing, fundamentalist Republican lawmakers wrote a letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus protesting the decision. Consequently, the Defense Department and Navy attorneys decided upon the review. The reasoning behind the review, argued the Republicans, was that accommodating same-sex marriage using federal facilities or federal employees would directly violate DOMA, the federal ban on same-sex marriage.

The first problem is with the blind reliance on DOMA. By citing DOMA, opponents of Navy chaplains performing same-sex marriages are relying on a legal technicality to advance a mean-spirited and discriminatory practice. If federal law states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, one might argue, the law should simply be changed. Just because a practice is legal does not mean that it is right or good—it means only that it happens to be sanctioned by lawmakers. Indeed, just a few months ago, this archaic and irrational law came under the scrutiny of U.S. president Barack Obama himself, who ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending it on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Thus, not only is a practice not necessarily right just because it is legal, but it might not even be legal in the first place.

The second problem relates to the issue of religious freedom. In some churches same-sex marriages are recognized and validated as equal to those of heterosexual marriages, thus, one might argue that, theoretically, by barring clergy members from blessing same-sex unions, the Defense Department is restricting the free exercise of religion for these chaplains, as well as the couple they seek to marry. If anything is illegal, it would be such a ban, since it would seem to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which aims to prevent any legislation which might curtail a person’s religious freedom.

The Navy’s vacillation on allowing chaplains to consecrate same-sex unions is certainly disheartening for those of us who believe in justice, but hopefully with President Obama’s injunction against defending DOMA, some initiative on the part of advocates, and some good, old-fashioned common-sense reasoning, the Navy will not reverse its decision, and the Defense Department will refrain from curtailing the religious freedoms of military chaplains. Who knows how the Army and Marine Corps will handle the issue in their own chaplaincies, but it only makes sense that if priests, ministers, and other clergy members be allowed to officiate same-sex unions in the Navy, they be allowed to do so in the other branches of the military as well.

Source:

Reuters

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•