America's paradox: We want religion in, but out, of politics
By Sharon Schmickle | Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2008
"Keep religion out of politics," said a mega sign cruising St. Paul's streets on the back of a truck on Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention.
But a few blocks away, dozens of anti-war demonstrators marched with placards declaring: "Blessed Are the Peacemakers, For They Will Be Called Sons of God."
And Steve Ahlgren's sign said, simply: "1st John 4:7-21."
It was a biblical reference to loving God and loving one another, too. And Ahlgren, a lawyer from Lauderdale, insisted that religion expressed like that has a place in politics as a powerful force for good.
Religion in politics? Religion out of politics?
Both positions, paradoxically, express the view of America, one of the most devout nations in the Western world.
"Religion plays a crucial role, and it has throughout the history of the Republic," said Dan Hofrenning, a political science professor at St. Olaf College in Northfield.
It was a factor in the moral justification of FDR's New Deal, he said, and it was debated intensely when John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, ran for president. Religion provided moral authority for the civil-rights movement in the 20th century, and it played a role in women's drive for suffrage.
Indeed, religion trumps the issues for many Americans. And voters who perceive a candidate as sharing their own faith and a related set of values will forgive the candidate on a range of issues.
Religious and political differences
Putting together a religious and secular coalition is very difficult for a party and a candidate, Hofrenning said. Voters who pray often and rarely miss church are looking for expressions of faith, and candidates must respond. But many secular voters revolt at any hint of encroachment of the separation of church and state.
Hence, we have seen both McCain and Obama stumble in trying to have it both ways.
More vigilant about separation
A major quirk in America's political culture is that while we mix religion and politics, we are more vigilant than many other countries about separating church from state.
The religion-out-of-politics sign cruising St. Paul this week is sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which identifies itself on its website as "the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics)." Saying it is "critical to defend the separation between government and religion," the foundation also sent the sign to Denver last month for the Democratic National Convention.
Americans agree in theory with the ideal of drawing a line between church and state. But it isn't clear where they want it. In an August 2007 poll by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, a large majority (69 percent) of Americans agreed that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. However, a sizable majority (63 percent) opposed churches endorsing candidates during election campaigns. Just 28 percent said churches should come out in favor of candidates.
The voters' desire for faith in their leaders is reflected in media coverage of campaigns, according to another Pew project.
A relatively prominent topic
Researchers for Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism analyzed coverage of religion in the campaign through 16 months of the primary season, from January 2007 to April 2008. They found that when coverage of the "horse-race" aspects of the campaign was excluded, religion emerged as a relatively prominent topic. Religion garnered nearly as much coverage (10 percent of the stories) as race and gender combined (11 percent), even though the front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination were a black man and a woman.
"So despite the attention paid to Obama's former pastor, questions about McCain's relationship with his party's conservative religious base, interest in Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the surprisingly strong campaign of former Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, only 2 percent of all the campaign stories directly focused on religion," said the Pew report.
Candidates readily affirm faith
In other words, reporters may be a bit squeamish about focusing directly on a candidate's religion. The same is not true for the candidates themselves. We heard affirmations of faith at the Democrat's convention in Denver. We can expect more of the same this week at the GOP convention and in the campaigns afterward.
Marching through St. Paul on Sunday, Rick Robinson from Cedar Rapids said his line on where religion is appropriate in politics is drawn "at using God to push your own agenda forward." The use of force to put down other people and other religions "misses the whole point of belief in God," he said.
Although a week in Sydney could be attractive for many reasons, those who travelled Down Under for World Youth Day were looking for a spiritual experience and a glimpse of Benedict XVI, reveals a study.
This was revealed in “Pilgrim’s Progress 2008,” a study of the Australian Catholic University and the organizers of World Youth Day 2008 that compiled the experiences of youth day pilgrims before, during and after the event.
Benedict XVI presided at the July 15-20 event, which attracted the largest international crowd of any event in Australia's history. Some 400,000 attended the closing Mass at Randwick Racecourse.
Relying on 12,275 responses from English-speaking pilgrims from 164 countries who took part in Web surveys, and interviews during and after event week, the researchers seek to build an understanding of the spirituality of the pilgrims.
The survey results found that 85% of those attending the event in Sydney were participating their first World Youth Day.
Researcher Michael Mason said the report revealed that what the pilgrims most wanted from the week of activities and pilgrimage was "a spiritual experience and in that context, to see and listen to the Holy Father."
Age gap
Mason reported that pilgrims over 20 showed some marked differences from pilgrims 19 and under.
"The older group was very focused on spiritual values," he said. "They were making sacrifices to take a week out to come to World Youth Day 2008, so they were not messing around. Their spirituality was very full-on and so was their approach to [the event]; they saw it as sacred time.
"The younger group were unabashedly attracted to all the aspects of World Youth Day 2008 which naturally appeal to younger people; they loved the adventure of it, the excitement of being part of a huge youth crowd, travelling to a spectacular city, making new friends, celebrating. It might be a religious occasion, but it had lots of other appeal as well."
"The pilgrims were not just a random collection of younger Catholics; they were special; they took some trouble to get to this gathering; they wanted to be there," he said.
Mason said the biggest motivating factors to attend were: friends who were going, encouragement from others, such as parents and teachers, and personal contact with somebody who had been to a previous youth day.
He also said he was surprised to see such a "strong measure of spirituality among teenagers in this group."
"Nearly half of [the teenagers polled] are regular churchgoers, have a strong faith and a firm sense of Catholic identity."
Former New York Times reporter looks at growth of interfaith movements
Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times
Page one of two: Please click on "external link" for complete article
INSIGHTS: Arguing that interfaith understanding is crucial, Gustav Niebuhr says: "Religion is to the 21st century what ideology was to the 20th."
In 'Beyond Tolerance,' Gustav Niebuhr examines the ways various religions are reaching out to one another. But obstacles remain as many faiths preach that they are the one true way.
By Steve Padilla, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 30, 2008
Conflicts between religions continue to rock the world, but when Gustav Niebuhr looks out on the religious landscape, he sees what he calls the "possibility of community."
Niebuhr, an associate professor of religion at Syracuse University, detects an encouraging (he calls it unprecedented) trend: people of faith reaching out to those of other faiths.
* L.A. church exhibit offers a personal look at AIDS orphans in Africa
* O.C. man makes personal connection with Pope Benedict * Harvest Crusade at Angel Stadium takes on new urgency after the death of pastor's son
This is not to suggest conflicts between religions will end soon, if ever. Just this week, Hindu mobs destroyed more than a dozen churches and attacked Christians in India.
But in Niebuhr's work as a professor and, before that, a reporter on religion for the New York Times, he began noticing that, bit by bit, Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims were making efforts to learn about other faiths. Niebuhr explores the trend in his new book, "Beyond Tolerance" (Viking), and came to Southern California this month as part of a book tour.
He argues there is urgent need for interfaith work, given the way religion now sometimes splits, and endangers, the world in the way the Cold War once did. "Religion is to the 21st century what ideology was to the 20th," Niebuhr said.
The title "Beyond Tolerance" conveys one of Niebuhr's principle themes, and he discussed the work on a recent weekday before he spoke at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. Groups can tolerate one another, he noted, without really getting along. A lack of conflict doesn't necessarily mean cohesion.
"Tolerance is not enough because there's no educational component to it," Niebuhr said. "Tolerance doesn't bust down stereotype. Tolerance doesn't put a face on faith."
Niebuhr argues, with anecdotes and statistics, that thousands of believers from a wide variety of faiths are trying to reach across religious divides. He cites a 2000 study of 14,000 U.S. congregations by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.
The report, "Faith Communities Today," found that 7% of American congregations had participated in some interfaith activity, such as holding a joint religious service. It also found that 8% had collaborated with another congregation on a community service project.
That may not sound like much, Niebuhr writes, but with an estimated 335,000 churches in the United States, that translates to 20,000 to 25,000 congregations teaming up for such work.
"But the original survey provided a baseline for a second, more intriguing one five years later," Niebuhr writes. "This time around, the institute reported that the number of houses of worship participating in inter-religious worship had tripled to more than 22%, while the number that joined in community service had risen more than fourfold to 38%."
Niebuhr concludes: "A cultural shift had taken place." In the interview, he put it this way: "People are not beyond redemption. People can learn. People can cooperate."
What's prompting the shift?
Mass communication has made it easier to reach out beyond one's own group. He notes that in the 1990s, Hindu temples on the East Coast began holding open houses so their neighbors could learn about them.
This practice has been taken up by many mosques and for some has become a yearly event. This month, "Open Mosque Day" was observed by many Islamic congregations in Southern California. Look at many mosque websites, Niebuhr said, and you'll often find an option called "take a tour."
The interfaith movement -- and "Beyond Tolerance" -- were not prompted by 9/11, but the terrorist attacks helped shape them. Niebuhr was in Manhattan that day and reported on the World Trade Center attack for the New York Times. "You were in the presence of a crematory," he said.
He found himself thinking of religious tolerance and acceptance -- ideas already brewing for years -- and decided that if "tolerance is all we can manage," the victims of 9/11 deserved better.
As Niebuhr researched his book, he encountered a variety of efforts to reach out. He ran across a nun who organized discussions of about six people from different faiths; it was a small effort, but it was her way of building understanding.
He also frankly describes the difficulty of reaching out. Niebuhr writes of an effort by a group of Buddhists and Roman Catholics to forge ties in Los Angeles.
He quotes from a report by the group: "It challenged us to articulate to one another what we took for granted among ourselves."
Muslims combine worship, willpower as Ramadan begins
Tonight, minutes after sunset, Muslims around the world will begin searching the skyline for the new crescent moon. The sighting of that...
Mr. Aziz Junejo
Tonight, minutes after sunset, Muslims around the world will begin searching the skyline for the new crescent moon. The sighting of that sliver of light signals the start of the holy month of Ramadan, the ninth month of the lunar calendar and the month during which Muslims are required to fast as a form of worship.
Hearing the word "fast" may conjure thoughts of extreme hunger, weight loss or body detoxification, but across the ages, followers of the Abrahamic faiths have employed fasting as a form of discipline, following the examples of Jesus, Moses and Muhammad, all of whom fasted for God.
The month of Ramadan is sanctified by meticulous fasting from the pre-dawn to sunset. During daylight hours, Muslims abstain from all food and drink while controlling all desires. If one does this in complete devotion to God, we believe, her or his sins will all be forgiven.
When I was a child, preparation for Ramadan always came early, including the planning for special menus of healthy, traditional foods. "Foul Mudammas" made from fava beans with fresh-baked pita was a breakfast preference while Medjool dates and a variety of Mediterranean salads and soups were usually served for dinner. These were light menus, which allowed our bodies to better utilize reserves during the fast.
Days always felt longer during Ramadan. The delightful aromas of Mother's dinner preparation at the end of the day tested the limits of my willpower. I remember that my father was especially peaceful during this month, encouraging more reading of the Quran, saying extra prayers and, most important, storing the television for those 30 days.
This year, in an effort to increase my spirituality, I have decided I, too, will eliminate television for the entire month. I know TV serves many social purposes and helps some people relax, but turning it off for an extended time can be a way to reconnect with God, enjoy quality time with the children, or just eliminate the noise.
Each year, I look forward to the opportunities of Ramadan: getting in touch with my spirit and feeling at peace.
Television can bring us to tears, make us laugh, even inspire hate. Such a powerful medium must have some effect on spirituality. Without television, I anticipate being able to focus more on my spiritual self, creating a sacred retreat to awaken my heart with consciousness of God and all creation.
Fasting, I believe, not only strengthens willpower but improves eating habits, providing a sense of health and happiness.
I know the practice may be unpopular in a culture of instant gratification, a food channel and supersizing meals. You would think refusing food and drink all day would make one grumpy and irritable, but after a week of fasting I feel renewed, healthier and full of extra energy. At night, I fall asleep right away and wake recharged and alert.
Thinking about the effects on my body and mind, I recognize how much Ramadan has benefited me over the years, how much it has enhanced my self-discipline and faith. Knowing that fasting has always been a part of the Abrahamic traditions reassures me I have much in common with people of other faiths. As I practice prayer, reflection and am God conscious this month, I hope to experience the true spirit of Ramadan, the Muslim month of forgiveness.
Locals respond to ’Net poll on removing ‘In God We Trust’
Published: August 29, 2008 By Cristin Ross
MSNBC.com has launched a “Live Vote” Internet poll on its Web site, asking “should the motto ‘In God We Trust’ be removed from U.S. currency?”
Of the 7,230,365 votes cast as of 11:45 a.m. Monday, 78 percent of those participating in the poll voted to keep the motto, compared to 22 percent voting to remove it from U.S. currency.
“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Kevin King, senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church-Jacksonville. “I think most people, particularly in this region, have a deep faith and believe this country was founded on that.
The Daily Progress’s attempts to interview a local atheist were unsuccessful.
MSNBC’s Web site acknowledges the poll is not a scientific survey. Phone messages left at MSNBC offices were not returned as of presstime today.
The poll stems from an Associated Press article, also published on the Web site, chronicling the efforts of Sacramento, Calif., atheist Michael Newdow to get the motto removed.
According to the AP article, Newdow filed a federal lawsuit last week, claiming the motto is “an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.”
Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. The action followed a request by the director of the U.S. Mint, who wrote there should be a “distinct and unequivocal national recognition of the divine sovereignty” on the nation’s coins.
In 1954, Congress inserted the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. A year later, Congress required all currency to carry the motto “In God We Trust.”
“The placement of ‘In God We Trust’ on the coins and currency was clearly done for religious purposes and to have religious effects,” Newdow wrote in the 162-page lawsuit he filed against Congress.
Newdow’s latest lawsuit came five days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to an inscription of “In God We Trust” on a North Carolina county government building.
In doing so, the justices upheld the Richmond, Va.-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that “In God We Trust” appears on the nation’s coins and is a national motto.
“In this situation, the reasonable observer must be deemed aware of the patriotic uses, both historical and present, of the phrase ‘In God We Trust,”’ the appeals panel ruled in upholding the inscription’s display.
Newdow, a doctor and lawyer, used a similar argument when he challenged the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools for containing the words “under God.” In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled he “lacked standing to bring the case because he did not have custody of the daughter he sued on behalf of.”
An identical lawsuit later brought by Newdow on behalf of parents with children in three Sacramento-area school districts is pending with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, after a Sacramento federal judge sided with Newdow last September. The judge stayed enforcement of the decision pending appeal, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Like red, white and blue bunting, pastors and prayers have been prominently displayed in Denver at the Democratic National Convention – as they will be in St. Paul for the GOP.
Much of the appeal to God from political podiums is no doubt sincere. After all, most Americans are religious people who expect political gatherings to have invocations, benedictions and a fair amount of God-talk in between.
But beyond the benign rituals of civil religion, the mixture of God and politics in America can be a volatile brew, often poisoning the body politic with charges and counter-charges about which party is religion-friendly – and which candidate is a true Christian.
From Mitt Romney’s church to Barack Obama’s pastor, this year’s presidential race has been marked by some of the ugliest debates about religion in living memory. And all of the leading candidates have scrambled to reassure the so-called “values voters” that they are on God’s side.
It’s no accident that the first joint appearance of Obama and John McCain was held in a megachurch and moderated by an evangelical pastor asking questions about what it means to be a Christian.
Until now, at least, most Americans have voiced support for mixing God and politics. According to polls taken over the past 10 years by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans have favored the idea of churches’ speaking out on social and political issues.
Now the pendulum is moving the other way. In a survey released by Pew last week, a majority (52 percent) now want churches to keep out of politics.
Here’s the surprising part: The greatest shift in opinion has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago a mere 30 percent of conservatives said churches should stay out of politics. Today, fully half of conservatives feel that way.
It’s not just conservatives generally, but social conservatives in particular who are re-thinking the role of churches in the political arena. In 2004, for example, only 25 percent of people who rated gay marriage as a top voting issue said churches should stay out of politics. Today, that percentage has risen to 50 percent.
While the causes of this discontent may be hard to pin down, I suspect that much of the shift in opinion is rooted in disillusionment with the political process. The strategy of some evangelical leaders to ally churches with the Republican Party hasn’t paid off. The same might be said of African-American churches aligned with the Democratic Party.
For some Americans, of course, any involvement of churches in politics is too much. On a billboard near the Denver convention, the Freedom From Religion Foundation proclaims: “Keep Religion Out of Politics.”
But for most Christians and for many others, faith by definition requires political involvement of some kind. Contrary to the freedom-from-religion crowd, the First Amendment doesn’t bar religion from politics. It protects the right of houses of worship to speak out on the public-policy issues of the day.
Pollsters may be asking the wrong question. It isn’t “Should churches keep out of politics?” but rather, “How should churches engage in politics?”
The “how” question is best answered when churches keep an arm’s length from political parties and partisan rhetoric – and instead focus on proclaiming a prophetic vision of the kind of society they believe God requires.
As Martin Luther King put it: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, never its tool.” 8-28-08
Indian yogi Paramhansa Yogananda, founder of Self-Realization Fellowship, argues that we are all one spirit. “When you experience the true meaning of religion, which is to know God, you will realize that He is your Self, and that He exists equally and impartially in all beings.”
Yogananda founded SRF in the United States in 1920, to make available worldwide the sacred spiritual science called Kriya Yoga—methods of concentration and meditation designed to attain “direct personal experience of God.” The yoga techniques are described in detail in Yogananda’s famous life story Autobiography of a Yogi.
One of the cornerstones of the SRF religion is that we are all connected by underlying unity, and that the benefits of yoga and meditation can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of faith. SRF honors a long line of masters, and addresses God as Heavenly Father and Divine Mother, Beloved and Friend. Sunday readings and service typically consists of a passage from the both the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.
The service ended with a few moments of meditation, an offertory and a prayer for healing and world peace, closing with “Om, peace, amen.” Folks milled into the book shop, socialized in the dining area and ate brunch on the back patio. I talked with Michael, who hailed from Scotland, and a man named Robert, originally from the South, who explained that the organization is run by volunteers and loaded me up with information on upcoming events, like visiting monastics, India Night and weekend retreats. I told them I was sorry there wasn’t more chanting, but that I loved the sense of inclusiveness.
“Yoga means ‘unity,’” Robert said as he led me out to the creek. After pointing out the crayfish with the excitement of a country kid, he added, “With things like yoga and meditation becoming more mainstream, I’m hoping the world is catching on.”
A survey conducted in predominantly Muslim nations shows an overall embrace of globalization, trade, and integration into the world economy. From Washington, VOA's Michael Bowman reports.
Conducted by the U.S.-headquartered group, WorldPublicOpinion.org, the poll surveyed the opinions of more than 5,000 people in Egypt, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Indonesia, the Palestinian territories, and Muslim areas of Nigeria.
"All of the Muslim countries we polled in, a majority or at least a plurality said that they thought that globalization, defined as the increasing connections of our economy with others around the world, is mostly good for their country," said WorldPublicOpinion.org director Steven Kull. "Egypt and the Muslim population of Nigeria - in those countries 8-in-10 said [globalization] is mostly good."
Overall, the poll found 63 percent of Muslims rating globalization favorably, with 59 percent viewing trade as beneficial.
When reservations about globalization were expressed, respondents did not focus on how the Muslim faith might be affected by growing international ties. Rather, the survey found Muslims concerned about the impact of globalization on the environment and job security.
Kull noted that these views are hardly unique to Muslims.
"The patterns we found here [in the survey] are no different than the patterns around the world. These sentiments are quite common," he said.
Kull added that the survey results dispel some common perceptions about Muslims.
"Many people assume that people in the Muslim world are uncomfortable with the notion of globalization, that they are afraid of the outside world undermining their culture," said Kull. "It is often interpreted that the negative feelings that the people in the Muslim world express toward the West are derived from as kind of separatist impulse, a desire to not integrate with the larger world. And while there clearly are negative feelings towards the West, it does not lead them to ultimately want to be separate."
The poll was conducted with the assistance of academic institutions in the countries surveyed.
VIDEO: Madeleine Albright Discusses “The Mighty and The Almighty: United States Foreign Policy and God”
VIDEO: Madeleine Albright Discusses “The Mighty and The Almighty: United States Foreign Policy and God”
By ReligiousLiberty.TV ? August 24, 2008
From Fora.TV - Recorded May 7th, 2006 - Madeleine Albright talks about The Mighty and The Almighty: United States Foreign Policy and God. The former secretary of state offers a provocative and very personal look at the role of religion in America’s foreign policy. She argues that understanding the place and power of religion, and knowing how best to respond to it, is essential if America is to lead successfully around the world.
Many people today are unaware that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all historically have taught that God has given his people two books, his word, the Bible, and his works, the book of nature. It is for this reason that for centuries clergy were required to study science as part of their seminary training. This is also why many scientists – until recently – were originally trained as clergy and later became scientists. Examples include Charles Darwin, Rev. Adam Segwick, a prominent geologist “who interpreted all sciences as aids to religion” and Rev. Jon Henslow who devoted his life to observing nature “for evidence of divine handiwork.”
This history explains why all branches of science were once called – not science, a word coined relatively recently – but natural theology. Old book lovers soon learn that when looking for old, pre-1900, books on chemistry physics, or biology, they often contain the words “Natural Theology” in the title.
In fact, our modern university system was originally established to train pastors. Only much later did theology – once called “queen of the sciences” – break off into a separate area of study. The language that science uses today to name everything from animals to body parts, as anyone who has studied biology or anatomy knows, is Greek and Latin. This is just one legacy of the ecclesiastical past of science. Even today the No. 1 reason people give for their belief in God is the existence of the wonders and beauty of the natural world, especially the living world.
Some people feel closer to God when communing with nature, leisurely strolling in a forest, or even resting by a stream or river enjoying the sounds of nature. This is a major reason why modern science was birthed in Christian Europe. Cathedrals were designed to imitate an old growth forest, and stained-glass windows designed not only to tell a biblical story but also to mimic the sun shinning through the trees as well.
This other book is important because the dominant reason, even today, why people hold to theism is the argument best articulated by William Paley in his 1802 book appropriately titled “Natural Theology.” Paley argued that if one came across a watch lying on the road, he would conclude that the watch had an intelligent designer. Likewise, one who studies science is led to ask the same question: Who is the intelligent designer of the universe and the life in it? Paley’s book of science argued in over 400 pages that, after studying the wonders of creation, one could only conclude that, like the watch, it must have had an intelligent watchmaker to explain its origin.
Likewise, the living creation must also have a creator behind it. Thomas Aquinas, often regarded as the greatest Christian philosopher who ever lived, eloquently argued that wherever complex design exists there must have been an intelligent designer. Life, the most specified complex machine in the universe, likewise must have had an intelligent designer. The key is not complexity, but specified complexity. A junkyard is complex, as is a modern jet airplane, but only the airplane is complexity specified for a purpose, to rapidly carry passengers in the air from one point to another.
And it is for this reason why ministers throughout history have preached from the book of nature, called science today, and should continue to do so.
As studying an artist’s art works is an important way to learn about the artist as a person, so, too, studying the works of God is an important way to learn about the Creator.
As Proverbs 3:19 says “The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens.” Likewise, we can better understand the Lord by understanding the products of his wisdom.
Page one of two - please click on "external source" for complete article
For the first time in a dozen years, a majority of Americans believe that churches and religious institutions should “keep out” of politics, according to the annual Pew Religion and Public Life Survey.
It’s the highest level of public concern with faith’s effect on politics since Pew began asking the question in 1996.
The rise in Americans’ desire to separate religion and politics — from 44 percent in 2004 to 52 percent today — appears due to a surprising increase in conservative distaste for mingling the institutions — from 30 percent in 2004 to half of conservatives expressing the view today.
Among white evangelicals, 36 percent want religious groups to stay out of politics, a dramatic rise from 16 percent four years ago.
The findings come in the wake of the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday, when, in unprecedented fashion, both presidential candidates — Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama — joined popular evangelical leader Rick Warren at his megachurch for their first back-to-back campaign appearance.
But the study, the most authoritative national survey of politics and religion, was conducted prior to event, July 31 to Aug. 10. Conducted on mobile and land line phones, the survey had a large national sample of 2,905 adults, with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
In the survey, released Thursday, about half of Americans who view gay marriage and abortion as “very important” voting issues say churches should not be involved in politics. In 2004, only one in four voters who saw gay marriage as a top issue said the same, while a third of those who saw abortion as a top issue agreed.
Overall, 48 percent of Americans believe that social conservatives wield “too much” influence in the GOP.
Yet older adults appeared most irked by the mingling of religion and politics. Only 18 percent of Americans age 65 and older said churches should endorse candidates, while roughly a third of voters under age 50 believed a church support for a candidate was appropriate.
The public is also increasingly split over whether they feel “discomfort” when politicians discuss religion in the sphere of public policy, as both Obama and McCain did at length Saturday.
Yet more Americans — half in fact — still say it does not bother them “when politicians talk about how religious they are.” Forty-six percent said they were offended.
American religiosity, however, remains no less prevalent. The public appears to continue to support expressions of faith by public figures while feeling increasingly uncomfortable when that faith falls into the sphere of politics.
The public believes that a president should have “strong religious beliefs.” Fully 72 percent say so today, a modest uptick since 2004 — including 85 percent of voters who attend church at least once a week and 66 percent of independent voters. Equally, only 29 percent of the public believes there is “too much” expression of religious faith by political leaders.
At the same time, the public’s perception of Democrats' unfriendliness to people of faith has significantly improved, though the issue persists.
The 2008 World Values Survey found that freedom of choice and tolerance—and not simply wealth—have lots to do with a rise in happiness
by Matt Mabe
Happiness hunters have done it again. They've used an army of pollsters and a mountain of data to uncover the world's happiest countries. But this year, there are some unexpected winners—for unexpected reasons.
The World Values Survey, which has compiled data from 350,000 people in 97 countries since 1981, found Denmark to be home to the planet's most contented citizens (again) with Zimbabwe as the most miserable (again). Classic Scandinavian front-runners like Sweden and Finland were nudged out of the top 10 by Puerto Rico and Colombia. El Salvador placed a surprising 11th, beating out Malta and Luxembourg. Further down the list came the U.S., ranked in 16th place.
Directed by University of Michigan political scientist Ronald Inglehart and administered from Stockholm, the survey found that freedom of choice, gender equality, and increased tolerance are responsible for a considerable rise in overall world happiness. The results shatter the more simplistic and traditionally accepted notion that wealth is the determining factor, says Inglehart.
This year, the analysts were shocked by their findings. Reported happiness had actually risen in 40 countries and decreased in just 12. Inglehart, who has been involved in this research for 20 years, says the results defied conventional wisdom on the subject of happiness, which has held that levels remain more or less static. "We knew it couldn't happen," he says. "I said to myself, 'Do I dare report this?'"
Inglehart's team figured it needed a better explanation for the data. "Most of the earlier studies, including my own, were based on economic factors, which are something you can simply pull off a bookshelf and look up," he says. "If that's all you look at, then that's all you find."
What the survey found this year is that freedom of choice and social acceptance are the most powerful forces behind national moods. "Money's pretty powerful, but it's not the whole story," says Inglehart, though he maintains that a strong correlation still exists between high standards of living and happiness measures.
It's Not Just About Money
Generally, a rising global sense of freedom in the last quarter-century has eclipsed the contribution of pure economic development to happiness, he says. This is especially evident in developed countries with stable economies, where the freedom of choice gained through wealth has made people happier—not necessarily the wealth itself.
Social tolerance is another important factor in how happy a country rates itself. Over the last quarter-century, growing gender equality and acceptance of minorities and homosexuals has played a major role in those European countries found to be the most content. No. 7-ranked Switzerland, for instance, has elected two women as head of state in the last 10 years, while No. 4-ranked Iceland has recently passed laws guaranteeing virtually all the same rights to gay couples that married couples enjoy. "The less threatened people feel, the more tolerant they are," says Inglehart. Tolerance simply has a rippling effect that makes people happier. Gratitude Improves Attitude
While Inglehart does not profess to know the true secrets of happiness, he says that this most recent study has made the picture a bit clearer. In his opinion, benevolence and expressions of gratitude appear to be subtle but powerful ways to bring happiness into one's life and to extend it. Religion and solidarity in the community play a big role in this, he says, but any positive belief system can help. "Latin America seems to understand this," he says.
"In the old days I would have told you to work hard and save your money," says Inglehart. "It's different today. I just haven't nailed it down yet."
by Albert Mohler http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11580607/ 8/18/2008
Is belief in hell disappearing? "Absolutely," says Barnard College professor Alan Segal, author of Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. Segal's remark is found within a news story released by Religion News Service. In "Belief in Hell Dips, But Some Say They've Already Been There," Charles Honey traces the transformation of hell in contemporary America.
That figure, Honey reports, is down from 71 percent "who said they believed in hell" as recently as a 2001 Gallup poll.
He writes:
Skepticism about hell is growing even in evangelical churches and seminaries, says one theologian here, a bastion of conservative evangelicalism.
"In a pluralistic, post-modern world, students are having a more difficult time with (the idea of) people going to hell forever because they didn't believe the right thing," says Mike Wittmer, professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary.
"That's the biggest question out there right now: 'Would God send someone to hell if they were someone as good as me, but didn't believe what I believe?"'
It was easier to believe in hell 20 years ago when missionaries tried to convert people in far-flung places, Wittmer says. In today's global village, many live next to good, non-Christian neighbors and wonder why an all-powerful, loving God wouldn't eventually empty out hell, Wittmer says.
"I've noticed in the last five years how that view is making inroads even in conservative churches, whereas five years ago it wasn't even uttered or discussed," he adds.
Undoubtedly, much of this can be traced to currents in the larger culture, where non-judgmentalism, a therapeutic view of life, and a thoroughly modern view of fairness lead many to reject hell as a place of everlasting torment and punishment for those who never come to faith in Christ.
As Professor Segal observed, "They believe everyone has an equal chance, at this life and the next." Thus, "hell is disappearing, absolutely."
Monsters are everywhere these days, and belief in them is as strong as ever. What's harder to believe is why so many people buy into hazy evidence, shady schemes and downright false reports that perpetuate myths that often have just one ultimate truth: They put money in the pockets of their purveyors.
A related question: Does belief in the paranormal have anything to do with religious belief?
The answer to that question is decidedly nuanced, but studies point to an interesting conclusion: People who practice religion are typically encouraged not to believe in the paranormal, but rather to put their faith in one deity, whereas those who aren't particularly active in religion are more free to believe in Bigfoot or consult a psychic.
Tall tales
A tale last week by three men who said they have remains of Bigfoot in a freezer was reported by many Web sites as anywhere from final proof of the creature to at least a very compelling case to keep the fantasy ball rolling and cash registers ringing for Bigfoot trinkets and tourism (all three men involved make money off the belief in this creature). Even mainstream media treated a Friday press conference about the "finding" as news.
Reactions by the public ranged from skeptical curiosity to blind faith.
In a 2006 study, researchers found a surprising number of college students believe in psychics, witches, telepathy, channeling and a host of other questionable ideas. A full 40 percent said they believe houses can be haunted.
Why are people so eager to accept flimsy and fabricated evidence in support of unlikely and even outlandish creatures and ideas? Why is the paranormal realm, from psychic predictions to UFO sightings, so alluring to so many?
The gods must be crazy
Since people have been people, experts figure, they have believed in the supernatural, from gods to ghosts and now every sort of monster in between.
Figuring out why people are this way is a little trickier.
"It is an artifact of our brain's desire to find cause and effect," Cronk, the psychology professor, said in an email interview. "That ability to predict the future is what makes humans &39; but it also has side effects like superstitions [and] belief in the paranormal."
"Humans first started believing in the supernatural because they were trying to understand things they couldn't explain," says Benjamin Radford, a book author, paranormal investigator and managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. "It's basically the same process as mythology: At one point people didn't understand why the sun rose and set each day, so they suggested that a chariot pulled the sun across the heavens."
Before modern scientific explanations of germ theory, explained Radford, who writes the "Bad Science" column for LiveScience, people didn't understand how diseases could travel from one person to another. "They didn't understand why a child was stillborn, or why a drought occurred, so they came to believe that such events had supernatural causes," he said.
"All societies have invoked the supernatural to explain things beyond their control and understanding, especially good and bad events," Radford said. "In many places - even today - people believe that disasters or bad luck is caused by witches or curses."
Which raises the bigger question: With science having answered so many questions in the past couple centuries, why do paranormal beliefs remain so strong?
Related to religion?
Sometimes the belief in curses crosses paths with religion, as was the case in 2005 when televangelist John Hagee (whose endorsement was solicited and received by presidential hopeful John McCain) blamed Hurricane Katrina on God's wrath for a gay parade that had been scheduled for the Monday of the storm's arrival.
That might lead one to assume religion and paranormal beliefs are intertwined.
But in a 2004 survey, at the researchers at Baylor found just the opposite.
"Paranormal beliefs are very strongly negatively related to religious belief," study team member Rod Stark said this week.
Another study, of 391 U.S. college students done in 2000, found that participants who did not believe in Protestant doctrine were most likely to believe in reincarnation, contact with the dead, UFOs, telepathy, prophecy, psychokinesis, or healing. Believers were the least likely to buy into the paranormal. "This may partly reflect opinions of Christians in the samples who take biblical sanctions against many &39; activities seriously," the Wheaton College researchers wrote.
Cronk, the psychologist, did a small survey of 80 college students and found no connection between religiosity and paranormal belief.
But a 2002 study in Canada did find a correlation between religious beliefs and paranormal beliefs, Cronk notes. He figures that among other explanations, Canadians may not have the same belief systems as U.S. residents.
Religion vs. paranormal
Mencken, the Baylor sociologist, says sacrifice and stigma (for holding ideas outside the group norm) keep the paranormal at bay among the highly religious. He has two papers forthcoming that are based on a national survey of 1,700 people.
The first, to be published in the journal Sociology of Religion in 2009, reveals this:
"Among Christians, those who attend church very often (and are exposed to stigma and sacrifice within their congregations) are least likely to believe in the paranormal," Mencken told LiveScience. "Conversely, those Christians who do not attend church very often (maybe once or twice a year) are the most likely to hold paranormal beliefs."
A third group, which he calls naturalists, do not hold supernatural views, Christian or paranormal.
Another study to published in December in the Review of Religious Research, shows that those who go to church "are much less likely to consult horoscopes, visit psychics, purchase New Age items," and so on, Mencken said. "However, among those Christians who do not attend church, there is a much higher level of participation in these phenomena."
Educated to believe
Belief in the paranormal - from astrology to communicating with the dead - increases during college, rising from 23 percent among freshmen to 31 percent in seniors and 34 percent among graduate students.
Bader, the sociologist at Baylor, and his colleagues teamed up with the Gallup organization to conduct a national survey of 1,721 people in 2005 and found nearly 30 percent think it is possible to influence the physical world through the mind alone (another 30 percent were undecided on that point). More than 20 percent figure it's possible to communicate with the dead. Nearly 40 percent believe in haunted houses.
Media madness
Today's ubiquitous and often one-sided, promotional coverage of the paranormal, both on the Internet and TV, perpetuate myths and folklore as well or better than any ancient storyteller. Fiction and belief masquerade as fact and news, feeding the 24/7 appetite of the easily swayed.
Scientists are left with an impossible task: proving something does not exist. You can prove a rock is there. You can't prove that Bigfoot or a ghost or the god of thunder is not there. Bigfoot paraphernalia purveyors and cash-cow psychics know this well.
"Many paranormalists claim that their powers only work sometimes, or that they don't work if there is a &39; in the room," Cronk points out.
Or, in the case of the unsupportive DNA testing on Bigfoot last week, the top proponent, Tom Biscardi (who recently produced a film about Bigfoot and might be said to have an interest in garnering press coverage), simply dodged the mythbusting bullet by claiming the DNA samples might have been contaminated.
Science measures physical as well as mental benefits By Sandi Dolbee
August 16, 2008
Paul Livingston doesn't look like a victim. At 6-foot-7 and 330 pounds, he is taller than Michael Jordan and big enough to play offensive tackle for the San Diego Chargers. But 36 years ago, when he was only 6 years old, he became prey for a pedophile custodian at a Catholic school in Orange County.
Last summer, his lawsuit was one of more than 500 claims in a record $660 million settlement with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Then, in May, he took another step toward healing: During a weeklong program at a private institute near Napa, Livingston forgave his now-dead abuser.
“When I first heard 'forgiveness,' I could not imagine forgiving someone for doing such heinous acts to children. I thought it would be letting him off the hook,” says Livingston, who lives in San Diego. “Boy, have I been taught a lesson in life. Forgiveness is not about letting them off the hook. It's about continuing on with our journey. It frees up our soul, in a way. You let go of the anger.”
He says he can feel the difference. His acid reflux is gone. He's stopped yelling at his daughter. Livingston has discovered what science has been saying for years: Forgiveness is good for you. Literally.
FORGIVENESS
What it is: Researchers studying the health benefits of forgiveness generally define it as the process of letting go of the pain, anger and resentment caused by an offense.
What it isn't: Forgiveness isn't denying the hurt, nor is it having to trust someone who is not trustworthy or staying in a relationship that is not healthy. It is not instant; premature forgiveness could be a sign of low self-esteem or other problems.
Why it matters: Hundreds of studies have linked forgiveness to improved physical and emotional well-being. In controlled tests at the University of Wisconsin Madison, for example, researcher Robert Enright sums up the findings in two words: "Forgiveness works."
A new science is exploding. It's not about measuring the big bang or excavating the ice on Mars. This science is more homeward bound, dealing with a word that religions have exulted and people have largely eluded.
Since its emergence in the 1990s, the new science of forgiveness has mushroomed into hundreds of studies by researchers testing aspects ranging from the physical and mental health effects on college students seething over being dumped by their dates to abuse victims reeling from betrayal and people rendered paralyzed in accidents.
In journal after journal, year after year, the cumulative evidence is enough to even convince a team from “CSI.” Bag 'em and tag 'em: People who learn to forgive seem to have fewer cardiovascular problems and stress-related ailments, and generally feel happier than those still holding a grudge.
Just last month, the journal of Mental Health, Religion and Culture reported that people who forgave had decreased odds of depression – women more so than men. Another study published this year found that men generally have a harder time forgiving than women.
Religion & Ethics Editor Sandi Dolbee was one of 10 participants this summer in the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science and Religion.
Dolbee's project was on the science of forgiveness, particularly how the ancient religious virtue is being popularized by studies showing that it has mental and physical health benefits.
Perhaps it's ironic that the midwife for this birth was a theologian and ethicist. The late Lewis Smedes, of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, knew the God stuff. He knew the world's religions considered forgiveness a virtue. From Hinduism's Bhagavad Gita to the Koran of Islam to Christianity's Lord's Prayer, scriptures extol forgiveness as a heavenly attribute.
But Smedes was convinced that forgiveness was good for the forgiver, as well. And he wanted researchers to put it to the test. Everett Worthington Jr., a psychology professor at Virginia Commonwealth University who became a pioneer in forgiveness research, remembers Smedes' message this way: “We can do this. We can study it scientifically.”
The first challenge for researchers was the word itself. Just what is forgiveness?
“Forgiving does not mean excusing, forgetting or pretending that an offense never occurred,” says Julie Juola Exline, associate professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. “Forgiveness also does not imply that you trust the person who hurt you. Forgivers still seek le gal justice in some cases, and they may take steps to protect themselves from being hurt again.”
Instead, forgiveness is a letting go of the “bitter, grudging, vengeful feelings.”
It is a decidedly secular definition, far short of the radical forgiveness preached by Jesus, who told an offender to go and sin no more and offered forgiveness to his executioners even as he was dying.
“I think Jesus was an exemplar of forgiveness,” says Ken Pargament, a clinical psychologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “We're not Jesus. For other human beings, forgiveness is a process.”
Part of that process is empathy, “putting yourself in the perspective of the person who hurt you rather than just demonizing them,” Pargament says.
Earlier this year, a Mayo Clinic journal reported that people who held grudges had increased blood pressure and heart rates, part of a mounting body of evidence, including a previous study of more than 2,000 twin pairs in Virginia that found that forgiveness related to less nicotine dependence and less drug abuse.
Other research found that HIV-infected patients took better care of themselves if they successfully forgave themselves and others. So did recovering alcoholics. People suffering spinal-cord injuries tended to cope better with their health situation and their treatments if they had forgiven.
Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, an associate professor of psychology at Hope College in Holland, Mich., decided to see what physical effects people exhibited when they remembered the transgressions against them. She focused on heart rate, blood pressure, facial muscles and sweat levels.
When people remembered the transgressions, the bio-markers showed elevated stress and tension. When she had them think about forgiveness, she says the results were significant. “It had this fascinating quelling effect,” she explains.
Witvliet also made headlines with a study of forgiveness involving 213 Vietnam military veterans experiencing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her team found that vets who had trouble with forgiveness experienced more problems with PTSD.
As for the immune system, the theory is that unforgiveness is a personal stressor, which means every time it is felt, it triggers a stress reaction. Cortisol, a hormone produced by the adrenal glands, rushes to the body's defense, contributing energy, suppressing inflammation and even regulating the deposition of fat in the body. Too much cortisol, however, can interfere with the immune system over time. “Our bodies aren't designed to operate that way,” is how Worthington puts it in an interview from Virginia.
Researchers aren't ready to pronounce forgiveness as a cure. While forgiveness seems to contribute to a healthier existence, mentally and physically, the field of research is still too young to know exactly what part it plays in the human jigsaw. “I think we've got a long way to go,” says Witvliet, the Hope College researcher.
This is particularly true about long-term research, which could better define the role of forgiveness and unforgiveness in cumulative health and disease.
But those who have toiled in this field the longest – psychologists such as Worthington in Virginia and Robert Enright of the University of Wisconsin Madison – are bullish.
In an e-mail from Northern Ireland, where he spent much of the summer working on a forgiveness curriculum for schoolchildren, Enright says he now is more impressed with the power of forgiveness to heal than when he began his research two decades ago.
Worthington also is adamant. “It is not going to be refuted,” he says. “It's going to be refined.”
By Adam Goldstein, Special to the Rocky Thursday, August 14, 2008
* Nonfiction. By John Zogby. Random House, $27. Grade: B
Book in a nutshell: Americans will face the challenges of the 21st century with creative approaches to consumerism, a cooperative worldview and an inclusive view of spirituality.
That's according to Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, a polling company that canvasses about half a million people every year to gauge public opinion on everything from the best laundry detergent to the most promising political candidate.
In The Way We'll Be, Zogby draws on his company's vast network of surveys and polls to try and predict popular trends and attitudes for the near future. Specifically, he seeks to chart general shifts in the American attitude toward a host of issues, from materialism to religion, from environmentalism to the latest take on the American dream.
His results point to a populace much less taken with the traditional signs of status and success. In survey after survey, he finds respondents more apt to be satisfied with less material wealth and more spiritual satisfaction.
Zogby's data also shows that the current generation of 18- to 29-year- olds, what Zogby terms "first globals," are more than willing to make adjustments in the face of dwindling natural resources, threats to the environment and international tensions. His results reveal a young generation tempered by the immediacy and inclusiveness of the Internet, one that's more likely to hold broad and inclusive spiritual views in lieu of rigid definitions of religion and one that's more willing to cooperate on the international stage to find solutions to pressing problems.
Best tidbit: Zogby draws on polls showing more moderate political trends among evangelical voters and a shift toward spirituality across the political spectrum as symptoms of a larger domestic movement. "A new American dream characterized by lower expectations, less want and more civility has begun to emerge; and as that has happened, a new American consensus is being born."
Pros: Zogby's exhaustive data points to heartening trends at work in the U.S. As the cost of living balloons and traditional sources of energy begin to founder, it seems the American populace is willing to innovate, cooperate and sacrifice to find solutions.
Cons: Zogby spares few details in describing his polling procedures, an element that tends to obscure the larger messages of his data.
Final word: A fascinating glimpse into how we'll be.
When I speak with my own clients and various members of established spiritual groups, churches, and synagogues about the topic of self-forgiveness, invariably I get the same response. “Self-forgiveness? I don’t need a workshop on self-forgiveness. There are too many people that let themselves off the hook already.” However, when I ask the question, “How well do you take care of yourself?” often I hear the following responses:
• “Well, now that you mention it, I do always seem to put myself last. It’s true, I am exhausted all of the time.”
• “I don’t have time to take better care of myself. I’ve got too many obligations, and I don’t want to let anyone down.”
• “Of course I hold higher standards for myself than I do for other people. Isn’t that normal?”
• “Yes, I am terribly afraid of making mistakes, and I push myself pretty hard to be the best I can be. So when I make a mistake, I do feel stupid and worthless, like a complete failure, actually. But, this is how I’ve become as successful as I am, driving myself to go that extra mile.”
Medical research has shown that chronic periods of stress increase cortisol levels, which over time tax our immune systems. Psychological research has shown that people who drive themselves too hard eventually show symptoms of irritability, problems with sleep, decreases in energy, concentration, enthusiasm, optimism, and creativity. Spiritual literature points to the necessity/commandment of taking time for rest. Without rest the soul cannot be refreshed. Furthermore, from the spiritual perspective the ability to say, “I can’t do it all” is the first step toward humility. Unfortunately, the secular community seems to have lost its bearing in terms of understanding the difference between humiliation and humility. Regardless of belief, many of us could benefit from being reminded of the fundamental difference between these two states of mind.
Harsh, critical standards come from somewhere. Perhaps, it was a parent who was never quite pleased enough with your accomplishments; or perhaps, there was a complete lack of parental interest or encouragement for any of your true interests. Perhaps, you were told to put other people first and that taking time for yourself was selfish. Whatever the message, the real danger lies in not questioning these influences. Part of adult development requires us to reflect upon the values and standards we live by, to assess whether the way we are managing our lives is more of a cost than a benefit to our well-being.
This article may run counter to what many believe is a dangerous and growing trend toward too much self-absorption, too much of “The Me Generation” gone amok. Although it is true that we have seen evidence of an increase in self-centeredness and a decrease in generosity, I find that this is only half of the story. What is equally true is that we have seen an increase in the pressure to perform both in adults and in children. We work longer, have less free time to relax, the pace of life has increased, and we have an inflated, even grandiose expectation of what it means to be successful.
What would happen if an internal shift began to occur? What would it feel like to hold ourselves with a gentle hand? What if we were able to tell ourselves that rest isn’t something that has to be earned? What if we began thinking about self care as a spiritual responsibility? What if we thought about any decision we made by asking ourselves whether this is helping us take better care of our souls?
Patricia Gianotti, Psy.D., a licensed psychologist with Woodland Professional Associates, has an expertise in couples and individual therapy; she also leads seminars, workshops, and retreats on topics that focus on ways of bringing a sense of spirituality more into daily living.
New Barna Group Survey on Religion and the Presidential Election
August 12, 2008, 10:27 am Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Senator Obama seems to be ahead of Senator McCain among most faith groups.
Among Catholics, he leads 39 percent to 29 percent. But he has slipped since June.
What’s interesting to me about polling, although I know nothing about it, is the formulation of categories. Here is what the article says about categorizing evangelicals. Anybody know if they have as complicated an approach to categorizing Catholics?
Understanding Evangelicals
One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person’s religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.
Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.
Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.
Page one of two. Please click on External link for complete article.
Michael Gerson, Calgary Herald Published: Sunday, August 10, 2008
In a recent investigative profile, The Associated Press tells the depressingly familiar story of televangelist Kenneth Copeland.
His ministry's private jet and lakeside mansion. The complex web of ranching, oil and media interests that benefits his extended family. In this case, there is no taint of hypocrisy. Copeland practises what he preaches -- a doctrine that God wants his followers to prosper in very material ways.
This prosperity gospel combines two of the most powerful forces on Earth: the profit motive and the power of positive thinking. At its best, it inspires hard work, generosity and the avoidance of life-destroying vices. At its worst, it is religiously infantile.
"I believe God wants to give us nice things," says evangelist Joyce Meyer.
"I think God wants us to be prosperous," pastor Joel Osteen assures us. "I think He wants us to be happy."
Whatever ethical problems such leaders may or may not have, they face a large theological challenge.
A religious system that promises happiness and "nice things" is difficult to reconcile with the faith whose founder had "no place to lay his head," urged his followers not to store up "treasures on Earth," and called on them to deny themselves and take up a cross of suffering.
This has never made the best marketing message. What company would adopt the electric chair or the hangman's noose as its logo?
Christianity has always dealt in hard truths -- God is not a means to our own ends, suffering is unavoidable in lives bounded by mortality and often wrecked by failure.
Suffering for the sake of suffering is useless; it is merely masochism.
But when suffering cannot be escaped as the health-and-wealth preachers promise -- or even nobly endured as the stoics promise -- it may perhaps be transformed.
"If you and I can share our pain," said the late theologian Henri Nouwen, "suddenly we find grace and joy coming in. In your tears and anguish and struggle, you suddenly discover community, you suddenly discover friendship, you suddenly discover affection, you suddenly discover forgiveness, you suddenly discover healing.
"All these things come through vulnerability."
In this odd faith where the poor in spirit are blessed, the highest ideal is suffering for others -- though most of us do precious little of it. This model of spiritual leadership has nothing to do with conventional measures of success and influence. It is found in the medical missionary who buries his or her life in the forgotten relief of forgotten suffering. In the dying pope who speaks for the vulnerable by exposing his own shocking vulnerability.
One of the most vivid literary pictures of this leadership comes from a strange source -- a self-loathing, self-described "Catholic agnostic," prone to prostitutes, opium and suicide attempts.
In Graham Greene's "The Power and the Glory," set in the 1930s, Mexico's authorities destroy churches and hunt down priests for execution. An unnamed whiskey priest -- disguised and constantly moving -- doggedly performs his sacramental duties while knowing he is a spiritual failure. He has a mistress, a child and a problem with alcohol. But stripped of dignity, respect and possessions, he discovers an identification with the poor around him.
Faith leaders reach out to get men in the pews By Teri Greene
Women are the majority in 21 of 25 Christian denominations, according to the recent U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, and some local pastors say they see those statistics reflected in their own churches. And while it affects the congregation, it hits families especially hard.
Some area churches are doing everything they can to encourage the presence of men in the sanctuary and in the community as outreach volunteers. A new approach
Nationwide, many churches are brainstorming new ways to bring in the men.
One simple difference
A basic difference in the way men and women see themselves, as people and as members of the faith community, could be the factor behind the under-represented male population in many churches, some pastors say.
Many pastors acknowledge this difference between the genders when it comes to religion.
Sixty-two percent of those who attend church regularly as adults say that as children they went to church with both parents, according to a new survey of 1,007 adults by Ellison Research, a market research firm in Phoenix. If only one parent went to church -- usually the mom -- the likelihood of the adult regularly attending dropped to 50 percent. If neither parent took them to church, 33 percent now attend.
Women can have a key role in turning the negative trend around - or at least finding ways to compensate for it -- said Katrina Todd, public relations director at Pilgrim Rest. As a woman whose husband often has to work Sundays, Todd sees how problems can easily arise.
"I think sometimes our roles get reversed, because the men are taking on more hours at work and the women pick up the slack and do what's needed," she said. Finding 'home'
But sometimes, it's more complicated, Todd said.
"I have spoken with some female friends and sometimes it's an issue of, they can't come to a common ground of the denomination, so the mom just decides, 'I'm going to go on with this denomination,'" taking the children with her and leaving dad at home.
Hoomes said it may just be a matter of whether the man is receptive to the church his wife and family are attending.
"My experience has been that churches appeal to individuals based on their own preference and past experiences," said Hoomes, adding that men of all ages serve in leadership positions at First Baptist. "Our pastor, Dr. Jay Wolf, describes worship styles like restaurants, different choices to meet different needs."
Todd's advice for women facing this dilemma: "Just encourage your husband and decide you will go to church wherever you feel the spirit together," she said. "Say, 'Let's make this decision as a family. What's going to be the best church to fulfill our needs? What has the best ministries - for youth or marriage, or whatever we need? Let's go out and research together and find out what's going to work for the family.'"
The way the church sees men is an important factor, said Gilbert, who acknowledges that the number of men in his congregation has begun to grow.
"We're not focusing on how bad they are," Gilbert said of church members in men's ministries. "We're saying, 'What can we do to better equip you to deal with the pressures of being a father or husband?'"
He said increasingly popular culture is bashing men, and that needs to be reversed.
"Men are saying, 'At what point do I feel welcome?' Here, we have somebody helping men to improve," Gilbert said. "Women have led us, carrying the household, doing more than they were called to do. Men need to go further, to step back and take their rightful place, becoming leaders in their households."
Hell: Some believe it exists, others fear it, many do not
Posted by Charles Honey | The Grand Rapids Press August 09, 2008
Believers in hell decline
...for more and more Americans, hell is a myth. In a survey released this summer by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, just 59 percent of 35,000 respondents said they believe in a hell "where people who have led bad lives, and die without being sorry, are eternally punished."
That's down from the 71 percent who said they believed in hell in a 2001 Gallup survey. And it is lower than the 74 percent who said they believe in heaven in the recent Pew poll.
The heaven-hell gap is reflected locally. In a 1999 Press survey of West Michigan residents, 84 percent said they believed in heaven compared to 72 percent for hell.
Skepticism about hell is growing even in evangelical churches and seminaries, says one local theologian.
"In a pluralistic, post-modern world, students are having a more difficult time with (the idea of) people going to hell forever because they didn't believe the right thing," says Mike Wittmer, professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary.
"That's the biggest question out there right now: 'Would God send someone to hell if they were someone as good as me, but didn't believe what I believe?' "
It was easier to believe in hell 20 years ago when missionaries tried to convert people in far-flung places, Wittmer says. In today's global village, many live next to good, non-Christian neighbors and wonder why an all-powerful, loving God wouldn't eventually empty out hell, Wittmer says.
"I've noticed in the last five years how that view is making inroads even in conservative churches, whereas five years ago it wasn't even uttered or discussed," he adds.
Americans' optimism and tolerance for diversity complements a growing view of God as benevolent, not judgmental, other experts say.
The believers
The Pew survey showed the biggest believers in hell are evangelical Protestants, African-American Protestants and Muslims. Sizable majorities of Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, as well as atheists, agnostics, and the rest of the unaffiliated, say they do not believe.
Islamic beliefs
At the Islamic Center and Mosque of West Michigan on Burton Street SE, Imam Sharif Sahibzada also listens for the devil's footsteps. Though faithfully following God, Sahibzada says he nevertheless fears hell.
Jewish viewpoint
Although many Jews believe in neither hell nor heaven, others have varied views of the afterlife, says Rabbi David Krishef of Congregation Ahavas Israel.
One is that souls go to a place called Gehenna, often translated as hell in the Bible. It is derived from a burning valley south of Jerusalem where garbage was dumped and children sacrificed. Their souls are purified in a kind of purgatory before most go to heaven, but some are so evil they are punished or utterly destroyed, Krishef says.
He tends to believe in the latter as the fate of unrepentant evil-doers such as Hitler, Osama bin Laden and Yigal Amir, the assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. In any case, the morality by which one lives is the key, he says. Press Photo/Lance WynnCarmella Conway, 85, a Dominican Sister at Marywood Health Center, said she believes in a gracious God who relies on people to help save others from hell.
Helping others
How we live can keep a lot of people out of hell, if you ask Sister Carmella Conway.
She is a Grand Rapids Dominican Sister who spent 55 years teaching religion. She believes in a gracious God who relies on people to help save others from hell, both on earth and beyond.
"We can transform the world by helping others," Sister Conway says following a morning Mass at Marywood, the Dominican motherhouse. "We're kind of guilty if anybody goes to hell."
Starvation, war, lack of charity: These sins make life hellish for many, she argues. Between God's grace and people's faithful work, very few if any will go to hell, she says.
"I think we're going to be surprised when we get there," she adds with a smile.
So does Sister Marjorie Vangsness, 91, who flatly says she does not think about hell.
"I think about the fact God loves us unconditionally, and that God has given us union with God," says Sister Vangsness, a native of Iron Mountain who taught at Aquinas College. "I'm inclined to go along with those who think maybe there's nobody in hell, that God helps all of us to be with him."
Ultimately, we need to accept the mystery of life after death, she says. Sister Emma Kulhanek agrees, but is confident about where she will go.
"If we live as we can best live, then I'm going to heaven," says Sister Kulhanek, 78, a former teacher and principal. "There's a lot of pain just in this world. It's what we do with it that makes the difference."
-- The New York Times News Service contributed to this story
The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life have published a report that confirms my suspicions about the use of religion on the campaign trail. The study found that we are in the midst of an election for a Pastor-in-Chief rather than a Commander-in-Chief.
An analysis of over 13,000 news stories from January 2007 through April 2008 revealed that religion is playing a disproportionate role in this election. Religion accounted for roughly ten percent of all stories that did not focus on political strategy or tactics. By comparison, foreign policy issues garnered 14 percent of these stories, and stories about race and gender only made up 11 percent.
The United States is in the midst of two wars, one of which is costing our taxpayers $6 billion every month. Terrorism represents the greatest foreign policy crisis of our generation. At the same time, American society is being transformed as Senators Clinton and Obama challenged traditional stereotypes of who is best fit to be president. And despite these profound changes and challenges, religion is receiving almost as attention in the media as foreign policy and race/gender issues. And the scary thing is that George W. Bush, who revolutionized using religion for partisan gain, isn't even on the ballot.
There is much blame to go around that explains this troubling trend. The presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle were more willing than ever to seek the endorsement of religious leaders, incorporate religious rhetoric into their speeches, and promote their religious affiliation as a misguided proxy for sound judgment and clear vision.
Both Senators McCain and Obama had some buyer's remorse after seeking the support of controversial clergy. But candidates cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to use clergy for political gain and then discard them when it no longer fits their agenda.
The media deserve much of the blame as well. Last summer, CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Senator John Edwards to name his biggest sin. Multiple debate moderators asked various candidates to name their favorite Bible story.
These types of questions have no bearing over a candidate's ability to serve as president. The media are the staunchest supporters of the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and press, yet it appears they have not read Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits imposing a religious test for public office.
The problem is not that religion is being incorporated into the presidential campaign. Rather the problem is that religion is being used as a divisive tool instead of a unifying power. The candidates need be less concerned with appearing "holier than thou" and focus instead on explaining the role their values play in their political worldview. The media needs to stop asking irrelevant (and irreverent) questions about the candidates' religion and start asking the candidates to outline their views on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
If we can nurture a more positive relationship between religion and politics, a survey result like this one would be encouraging rather than lamentable.
One-third of employers have seen clashes in the workplace about religion, and experts expect that number to rise. Training managers on ways to mediate conflicts as well as educating employees and supervisors on the issue is important.
By Kristen B. Frasch
Personal clashes about religion are not that uncommon in the workplace. Yet, most organizations do not have a policy addressing the issue.
That's according to a recent study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), which found that one-third of 278 employers surveyed worldwide have seen worker conflicts in the workplace linked to religion.
And even though personal friction over religious beliefs is not all that uncommon, nearly two-thirds of those companies say they do not have a written policy specifically addressing religious bias.
At the same time, it seems clear many organizations are still unsure about how to handle religious differences at work, researchers say.
According to the survey respondents, just 12 percent of companies have a written definition of what is considered to be a "religious belief."
More than half (56 percent) of the employers surveyed report they use in-house mediation to resolve religious disputes.
Other findings of the survey:
* More than half (55 percent) of surveyed companies provide flexible scheduling to allow people to attend religious services, yet only 33 percent offer paid time off for religious holidays.
* Three in 10 (31 percent) companies said that unsolicited sharing of religious views has been a problem in the workplace.
* Thirteen percent said that, because of their religious beliefs, employees have refused to do certain work or associate with certain co-workers.
* Six in 10 (61 percent) companies said they have made an accommodation for an employee, based on the worker's religious beliefs.
In 1999, a Tanenbaum survey found that 20 percent of respondents said they had been, or knew someone in their workplace who was, a victim of religious bias. Also in that survey, 66 percent of respondents said even if they were not personally affected, they saw indications of religious bias in the workplace.
Deborah Weinstein, employment law professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in Philadelphia, cautions that a larger number of respondents would be needed to translate the i4cp survey results to the entire global corporate environment. Nevertheless, she agrees the results are hardly surprising.
"Accommodating religious beliefs and practices at work, and educating workers concerning respect for differences -- not only in religion, but in cases of national origin, disability, sex, age and race, too -- is highly challenging for businesses," says Weinstein, also president of The Weinstein Firm, a Philadelphia-based workforce legal and counseling consultancy.
"Educating everyone at work about religious tolerance, especially managers, is extremely important so they know how to handle requests for accommodation or conflicts around religious differences," she says. "But this isn't the only area of diversity that cries out for increased training," she adds, also noting the increase in harassment claims arising from national origin after 9/11.
"To the extent that national origin correlates with religious differences," says Weinstein, "HR needs to be prepared to address incidents of disrespect and, more importantly, to make prevention a high priority. Training is the best way to [do this]."
