Do what I say or be killed

I find this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400992.html) an interesting example of what happens when the religious force their ideologies on the non religious - they rebel. But the converse is also true. When the non-religious force their ideologies on the religious, religion grows - If you think that's a load, then just check out the growth of the church in China.
Anyway, maybe this is why Christ taught his followers to "turn the other cheek," and other such peace making skills like love your enemies.

science AND religion. How novel

A friend of mine sent this article in the NY Times(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25books.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=46a4047f0ae196fc&ex=1154491200&emc=eta1)
along to me about three scientists who've authored books, saying that faith and reason, science and belief in God can co-exist.
I have to say I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see and hear that there are scientists, professors and other intellectual elite who advocate this sort of cooperation and that science and religion don't have to negate each other. And when I say warm and fuzzy I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic. I really do get a warm glow. While I haven't read these books, I've added them to my ever-growing list of books I need to get to.

But the article gives us a bit of a picture of why these scientists believe the two can co-exist as well as some interesting tid-bits from two opponents to the idea of science/religion cooperating (Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins - two staunch evolutionists and believers that becoming an atheist is akin to bravery. I wished the author would have added comments from some religious folk who also don't buy the idea that science and religion can mix, just to make it more balanced and to show that there is this type of mentality on both sides of the science v. religion debate.)
While I'm not so sure bravery is involved in atheism, Dennett and Dawkins are atheists themselves and have seemed pretty adamant on challenging religion, even calling it a disease.
For the record, Drs. Dennett and Dawkins, I'm not quite sure that insulting people is the way to sway the religious masses away from their beliefs.

At the same time, I get pretty disgusted with religious folks who use science when it suits them and dismiss it when it doesn't. It's also rather irritating when the religious dismiss science, reason and even thinking out of hand for the old stand by excuse of "I just have my faith. You just gotta believe."
In my estimation, that is pure laziness and really doesn't win any converts - at least potential converts who have more analytical minds.
One of the scientists admit she would love to talk about science in church and with the faithful, but most of the religious aren't intellectually prepared for such conversations. That is just sad, not to mention embarrassing.

And while I do tend to agree with the author's last paragraph:
"This is where the scientific method comes in. If scientists are prepared to state their hypotheses, describe how they tested them, lay out their data, explain how they analyze their data and the conclusions they draw from their analyses — then it should not matter if they pray to Zeus, Jehovah, the Tooth Fairy, or nobody.
Their work will speak for itself."

I would also mention, though, in conjunction that depending on your worldview, whether theistic, pantheistic or atheistic, you're going to look at the results and interpret those results through those lenses. I would say very, very few of us are so completely objective that we can look at evidences without the hue of the glasses we wear coloring what we see. So, I think it's a bit optimistic to say, "can't we just all get along," but I do think there must be more dialogue and less name-calling from both sides if for no other reason than getting down to the truth. Because, really, if Christ is who he said he is then why is science so taboo in some religious circles? If God is truth, then isn't all that is true from God? Besides, don't we all want to follow the truth no matter where it leads? Who wants to follow a lie or delusion - scientific or religious?

American ingenuity to get rich or die tryin'

OK. I suppose we knew it was coming, from an American no less. The heir to the throne of the Jesus/Mary Magdalene union has arrived. *sigh*
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-07-17-magdalene-book_x.htm

Let's see who can yell the loudest

In a bid to close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, abortion advocates and opponents have called in the troops, reserves and standbys. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-16-abortion-protest_x.htm
One side has 200 supporters, the other 300 supporters and both are promising more for a yelling match that may simply just scare away the women seeking the services of this particular abortion clinic.
While I must say I find the practice of abortion repugnant, there is a larger and deeper issue here that we Christians forget I think. Now I know this is going to burn some Christians out there because of their strong moral core, but it really has to be said ... again.
Please explain to me what good protesting at the doors of abortion clinics serve? Please explain to me why women who feel driven by the desperation of their situations to have their children aborted must receive additional abuse as they show up to likely take one of the most difficult steps of their lives? Why is it that these women feel they must even take the steps toward abortion clinics? Could it be a colossal failing of the church that they feel as if an abortion is an option? Why, I wonder, are we blaming these women - many of whom may not even be Christians and therefore do not have the spirit of God to impel them away from such a decision or impel men and women to not have sex without a marriage commitment - when it is the church's fault (our fault) that many of them believe it is their only option?
I know of a woman who made a mistake (as we all are prone to do), had sex, got pregnant and had no means to bring up a child. The woman went to the people of her church to confess, and she was turned out. Rejected. She believed she had no other choice. She had an abortion. She, in turn, rejected the fellowship of Christian believers because of their treatment of her. I wonder what would have happened if the church would have come behind her, supported a decision of life for her child while not condoning her actions to have sex but understanding that, yes, we all do make mistakes. But each of us try to go and sin no more.
I often wonder what Christ would say passing by a woman on her way for an abortion, feeling the desperation and hopelessness of her situation burying her beneath a pile of emotion, sorrow and regret. While I despise the whole flippant "What would Jesus Do" marketing drivel that sells plenty of doo-dads, I think of the woman at the well and Christ's reaction to her or the adulterous woman (though I know there is manuscript evidence to suggest this story is not original to the Bible). But the same point applies, I think.
Instead of stones, I see at least some religious people outside abortion clinics as the pious holding the stones ready to stone the adulterous woman standing before Jesus. But instead of stones, they're holding placards and pictures and hurling words of condemnation instead of words of charity that admit, "I'm a sinner too, but there's got to be a better way."
In my estimation, Christians should not even grace the sidwalks of abortion clinics in protest. Instead, we should work behind the scenes with women who feel like they have no other options, embracing them with love and understanding as sinners ourselves without words of condemnation. In this way, we show the love of Christ using less words and more action.

Please take the pledge before your lawmaker is deemed unpatriotic

We live in an oddly schizophrenic country - Amen? There isn't one extreme from which we will jump to the polar opposite it seems. Now, I realize these two incidences are in two not only geographically distanced areas but also areas that may view "religion" in general in fundamentally different ways, but, seriously ...
Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56310,00.html) we have a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 that the infamous Pledge of Allegiance with it's "under God" phrase (which was added in 1954) cannot be recited in the classroom. Of course, the Supreme Court over ruled the decision in 2004 on a technicality: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40279-2004Jun14.html.
Not to harp on old news from two and four years ago - so today we have a North Carolina legislature passing laws requiring school children to recite the pledge (mostly it seems they voted this way to keep people from thinking they're "unpatriotic").
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/459757.html

As offensive as it may sound, it goes against my grain to recite the pledge since becoming a Christian (even with the "under God" bit) because I just don't feel comfortable pledging my "allegiance" to a government or flag or anything else for that matter besides God. Given that, I'm not opposed to, offended by, angered by or intimidated by the recitation of the pledge by others. But neither am I incensed when someone else (like above mentioned atheist who brought the suit claiming that reciting the pledge is unconstitutional and that his daughter shouldn't have to be subjected to such a phrase as "under God") finds reciting the pledge repulsive.

But either outlawing it or requiring it (even if for two entirely different reasons) seems to go against the principles on which this country was founded - basic human freedoms. If I don't agree with your measley pledge, I shouldn't have to recite it. BUT if I find the pledge to be one of the most heartfelt of allegiances to this great nation then by all means I should be able to recite it. Besides that, you can't legislate - especially in a country built on the ideals of freedom - the recitation of a few phrases, which champion these freedoms.

Besides, if the kids in North Carolina classrooms don't recite the pledge, are the pledge police going to break down the door and come arrest them? So, I have to wonder: what really is the point of a pledge law (either requiring it or outlawing it - "under God" phrases and all) in North Carolina or anywhere else for that matter?

Consistency or bust

I had to agree with Charlotte Allen's Op-Ed piece in the L.A. Times: shttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-allen9jul09,0,2668973.story?coll=la-home-commentary

If, for a moment, we can take the hierarchical politics out of religion - specifically Christianity - we have to admit that the thinking pew sitter just wants something that's real. Can you blame them? People need consistency. Really, you can't claim to be Christian and then dismiss it's basic tenets (Well, you can do that if you really want to, but then why call yourself Christian? Why not just say, I'm a member of the Episcopalian religion, or I'm a member of the Presbyterian religion). If you claim to be Christian and then start dismantling the religion, then you have an inconsistent worldview - because, let's face it, one's worldview (whether seen through the lens of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism) must either be consistent or fail. And who wants to claim to be a part of something that completely dismisses it's own basic tenets. You end up looking silly in the end, don't you think? To me, it's sort of like saying, "I'm an U.S. citizen, but I'm not an American," or "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat meat." How does that work? So, when you say you're a Christian, but deny the divinity of Jesus or move toward beliefs that don't seem to line up with Christian teaching, can you really say, "I'm a Christian?"
And this could be why people are leaving what they perceive to be "liberal" churches - people are finding that they're part of something that's inconsistent and so are moving on to places where their religion follows it's own basic tenets.

Givitaway, givitaway, givitaway now

I'm torn, as I often am when it comes to Christianity and what it means to be a Christian.
As I was reading this Washington Post article today http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001525.html, I found myself once again split between what it means to be an authentic believer and a believer taking on an air of religiosity, rejecting bona fide acts of charity in the name of Christ simply because they're not done in the way I think they should be.

As I was reading the article, I had the distinct feeling that there is something vaguely wrong with the brand of Christianity it was selling, while at the same time I was sort of chastising myself for ranking on people who just seem to want to do something good in their community.

I couldn't quite put my finger on why I found the article somewhat unappetizing until I got to the last paragraph, in which a woman who had just gotten $10 of free gas in the name of God said that she would be visiting the church that was offering the incentive.
And that's when it hit me that it seemed like a cheap (though not in monetary terms since the "Soul Factory" handed out four grand in free gas) advertising ploy to bring people to church. It seems to me that if you have to give stuff away to get people to come to church and to get them acquainted with God then you're not letting God speak for himself. It almost seems like you're saying that God's love and mercy and forgiveness aren't enough. How about three gallons of free gas to go with that mercy? Even Christ didn't just give it away, though it was free to anyone who wanted it. He told followers to count the cost before they decided to commit to him. You don't just quit your job to buy a yacht and cruise around the world for a year. You count the cost - how will this effect my family, my finances, the rest of my life? And at the same time you don't go buy a yacht and then decide half way through your trip that sailing the globe just isn't for you. You decide before you buy the boat if sailing is really what you love.

I also couldn't help but wonder while reading the article how giving away three gallons of gas to anyone who wants it is an act of authentic charity? Would it not be more of an act of charity to identify families in the community who have to choose between groceries or putting gas in the car to get to work to buy the groceries and the gas? How much more would that $4,000 in gas have helped them?
And what about doing our acts of kindness in public for all to see? But maybe the accolades of others are reward enough - I know I often get caught in that vice.

But then come thoughts that I'm simply being pharisaical. I thought to myself, "You don't know how that little bit of gas in the name of Jesus may have truly touched someone's heart so that they will come to know Christ in that authentic way."

But I still have to wonder if God really needs all the free advertising.