TruthBook Religious News Blog

The City University of New York Board of Trustees approved the creation of a religious studies major at Medgar Evers College on Monday, over the objections of CUNY faculty leaders who said the new program would blur the separation of church and state by focusing not on the study of religion but on the practice of certain religions. Medgar Evers, a predominantly black college in Brooklyn, is now set to enroll its first class of students in the interdisciplinary program, which culminates in a B.A. in religious studies, this fall. The program aims to help students “explore how religion functions in and shapes the modern world and how it empowers, enlightens, limits, complicates, inspires and conflicts modern society,” the program proposal says. “Degree candidates will study and analyze the most important standard texts and investigate contemporary and historical religious practices from a global perspective, with emphasis on religions of the African Diaspora.”

The religious studies program has considerable support on the Medgar Evers campus and was approved by the college’s faculty in May 2006. Charlotte Phoenix, the college’s interim provost, said that the institution’s history of activism means that “if in fact there was faculty opposition [to the program] on this campus, everyone would have heard about it.”

At Monday’s meeting, Frederick P. Schaffer, senior vice chancellor for legal affairs and general counsel at the CUNY system, said he “saw nothing” to back up the concerns of some members of the University Faculty Senate who feared that the program might violate the Constitutional separation of church and state. The concerns, he asserted, were based not on the proposal but on the religious backgrounds of the program’s faculty and of the college’s president. Edison O. Jackson, the president of Medgar Evers, is an ordained minister who serves on the ministerial staff of an African Methodist Episcopal church in Bedford-Stuyvesant.

Faculty leaders, however, cited a range of perceived problems with the degree program as conceived by Medgar Evers. At a June 4 meeting of the trustees’ Committee on Academic Policy, Programs and Research, Lenore Beaky, vice chair of the systemwide University Faculty Senate and the senate’s representative on the board committee, read a statement from the senate’s executive committee that called the Medgar Evers proposal “seriously deficient in several important respects.”

One concern, Beaky said, was that “the proposal appears to promote the practice of religion to teach religion rather than to teach about religion.” The program, she added, “would be unconstitutional [because] as a public university we cannot violate the separation of church and state by favoring either religion or any particular variety of religion.”

The program, Beaky said, was “geared to … community experiences more suited to the practice of African-American protestant religions,” rather than the academic study of religion. She pointed to the religious affiliations of the college faculty who would teach in the program, as well the Christian affiliations of all of the scholars and others from whom Medgar Evers sought endorsements in its proposal.

Of the nine faculty members whose C.V.s are included with the proposal and who are to teach in the religious studies program, five focus their work on Christianity or African-American churches. Three others are scholars of philosophy and the fourth studies Islam in the black community.

Beaky also complained that students would also be required to do internships “requiring them to work closely with professionals, practitioners, and/or graduate professors in their field of choice in order to obtain hands-on experiences in the professional practices related to religious studies,” at least some at community and faith-based organizations. The proposal, Beaky added, confirmed that the program is “geared more toward the personal development of students — development as agents of change — rather than of their critical understanding of religions,” as would be expected of a liberal arts major in religion.

Manfred Philipp, chair of the University Faculty Senate and a chemistry professor at Lehman College in the Bronx, also criticized the program’s “sectarian” focus. At a public hearing on June 17, Philipp asked why there were no specific course offerings on Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and other Christian branches, while there were several courses on the religions of African-Americans and Caribbeans.

Phoenix, the college’s provost, responded by calling the groups Philipp listed as “sects” and suggesting that students could take independent study classes to learn about those groups. In an interview, she also proposed that students could do internships with those groups or research about them to fulfill the major’s requirements, adding that “the courses in the proposal are just the ones we’ll have at the beginning, but as the major grows, we’ll add more classes and more specific classes.”

Philipp also contends that the program offers several courses on “a specific brand of Christianity” — the Protestantism found in black churches — including a required upper-level course called “African Traditional Religions.” Students concentrating in philosophy and religion would also be required to take “Black Philosophical Thought” and students in the religion and social justice concentration would be required to take “Caribbean Religions and Social Justice Movements” and “The Role of the Church in the Black Community.” Other than a class on Buddhism and Hinduism required of the philosophy concentrators, all of the other required classes are surveys, such as “Peace Education,” “Religious Ethics” and “Philosophy of Religion.”

But Phoenix defended the religious studies major as “a way to explore how religion functions in and shapes the modern world.” It was not intended to be “an exhaustive look at every religion in the world — there’s no way we could cover them all,” she said, but rather a course of study focused on the “social science perspective” on modern religion.

“Our program is in no way trying to prepare students for seminary or sectarian studies, because that’s not what most of our students want,” Phoenix added, explaining that a survey of students interested in the religious studies major found that students were more likely to want to go to law school or to pursue non-profit or social service jobs than to go on to study divinity or become clergy members.

Jeremy Leaming, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said “the fact that some faculty say it may not be a very well-rounded program at the moment doesn’t amount to a violation of the separation of church and state.” Unless there is evidence that the program’s faculty are “trying to proselytize or inculcate Christianity or another religion,” he said, there are no grounds for objection to the religious studies program.

“Public universities,” Leaming added, “must ensure that religious study courses are just that, academic courses on religion, and not classes that should be taught at a bible seminary or a bible college.” He declined to comment further without more information on the program at Medgar Evers.

Labels: Christianity, CUNY, Medgar Evers College, religion, religious study, separation of church and state

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

When Prayer Reaches the Locker Room

The pre-game moment of silence and post-game prayer circle are familiar traditions to many college athletes. Coaches pointing to the heavens after a victory; players crediting a higher being for their performances — those sights and sound bites have become cliché. Faith and sports have a long history of intersecting, and every so often a case arises that revives the discussion of where to draw the line at public institutions.

Which brings us to Iowa State University, currently embroiled in a controversy over whether its football team — at the request of its head coach — should be allowed a spiritual adviser. Some faculty members are upset at the idea, and more than 130 have signed a petition saying that such a position creates a serious violation of the separation between religion and government.
A panel that advises the university on athletics issues has voted, 7-1, in favor of the proposal.

That recommendation now goes to Gregory Geoffroy, the university’s president, for consideration.

According to the job description, the “life skills assistant” would likely report to the athletics director. The person would serve those who seek counsel on “a variety of practical, moral, spiritual and personal issues,” and would not “pressure, coerce or proselytize team members.”

The adviser would have access to practices, games and other events, but any prayer led during mandatory team functions would have to be initiated and led by team members.

Iowa State says the adviser would not be supported by any state, university, athletic or foundation funds, but rather from donations made by private individuals.

Still, some faculty members remain upset. Hector Avalos, a professor of religious studies and co-author of the petition, said the title of “life skills assistant” isn’t fooling the faculty. He said it doesn’t matter who funds the position or whether it’s a volunteer gig or not.

“It’s a clear effort to Christianize the athletics department,” he said. “There’s a determination to prefer one religious group over another in hiring a chaplain. Once you start applying religious counseling, you can’t use a multi-faith approach.”

In an e-mail response to the petition (provided by Avalos), Jamie Pollard, athletics director at Iowa State, defended the position. “Much like we have offered our student-athletes access to drug and alcohol counselors, sports psychologists, nutritionists, hypnotists, physical therapists, learning specialists, chiropractors, physicians, etc., we are now going to also provide access to a spiritual advisor.”

Avalos said that as college teams become more diverse, the issue of bringing religion into the mix at public institutions will become all the more problematic.

Added Peter Roby, director of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University, where he was just named athletics director: “In my opinion it is a dangerous precedent because it can lead to some athletes feeling isolated and discriminated against ... I would let the athletes know what religious and spiritual resources are available on campus or in the community and let them access them as they see fit.”

At New Mexico State University, a confidential settlement has been reached in a case involving former football players who claimed they were discriminated against because they are Muslims. The suit alleges the players were dismissed because of their religious beliefs, and that while on the team they were asked to recite the Lord’s Prayer during team functions. (The settlement stipulated that the university denies wrongdoing or bias. As a result of the suit, the prayer has been replaced by a moment of silence.)

But coaches often say that prayers are directed at the safety of the players, and are not religiously based. Reports have documented coaches at the some universities taking athletes to churches before the football season in an effort to build team unity. The coaches say the trips are never mandatory, and that they cannot remember players complaining.

Pollard, in the letter to Iowa State faculty, indicated that for more than a decade, a local pastor has traveled with its football team and attended home games as his schedule permitted. Avalos said the “business-as-usual” defense doesn’t fly.

“At a public institution, it’s always a Constitutionally risky thing to do.”

— Elia Powers

Labels: Elia Powers, faith, Iowa State University, prayer, religion, spiritual advisor, sports

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Talkin’ ’Bout My Transpersonal Generation

By Jeff Davis

“Woodstock is where the consciousness revolution began, man,” Michael, the lanky guy next to me, said to the group, “and I was right here when it happened in 1969.” The actor’s voice, along with the two lavender plumes tucked in his headband, quivered as he spoke

Twenty-six writers and artists had packed into a small bookstore’s “sacred space” for a workshop. Lloyd, the middle-aged contractor who sat arms folded on my other side, shook his head and rolled his eyes as Michael spoke.

“I’m of the school that we’ll be judged in the end,” Lloyd said, “not for our groovy visions but for our good acts. What good are all of these visions if we’re not doing something to help others?”

Although the workshop description promised we’d explore how to communicate transpersonal experiences in stories and paintings, the workshop leader forfeited trying to espouse any wisdom for writers and artists and instead opted to let a dialogue unfold.

The dialogue made me, gray-haired and bespectacled, wonder where I sit — between Michael, the zealous optimist of all-things visionary, and Lloyd, the practical skeptic who sees promise in taking action to help the poor and destitute. Where do the Michaels and Lloyds converge?

There’s a growing number of us — in our 20s to 50s and even older — who recognize the value of such extraordinary experiences, not just for ourselves, but also for our families, our communities, the planet. Call us the transpersonal poly-generation. Forewarned by the ’60s’ dangers of visionaries’ self-delusion and self-indulgence, we sense, I think, that mysticism doesn’t have to be something “other,” outside of our everyday waking experience or apart from social activism.

Is there room for a respectable, dare I say, middle-aged and mainstream mysticism or spirituality that is integrative, that includes the ecstatic as well as the everyday, that includes beatific vision and progressive action? If so, what holds back some of the Lloyds among us from understanding and embracing such a way?

Poets and mystics from St. Francis to Blake describe those moments when, if for three-and-a-half seconds or four hours, the ego self vanishes and physical boundaries seem to dissolve, allowing for a glimpse into something more, something grander. Unity with all that is. Call it Godhead. Jack Kerouac’s It. Higher Self. Wakan-Tanka.

Whatever you name it, two-thirds of Americans in 1993 claimed to have had at least one such experience. That, according to The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center’s national survey.

Two-thirds? 66 percent is a marked jump from the consistent 40-55 percent reported by Gallup polls since the 1960s. Dr. Jeff Levin, who writes about faith’s role in physical healing, suggests that with every generation, we Americans become increasingly more interested in such matters.

In 1902, William James rallied for his fellow psychologists to take seriously what he called “religious experiences.” Thanks to Abraham Maslow’s later humanistic focus on “peak experiences” and Stanislav Grof’s founding of transpersonal psychology, by the 1960s, kissing God or death merited study as much as, say, dreams about cigars in Fidel Castro’s mouth or obsessively cleaning the kitchen sink.

In 2007, college students now can become transpersonal psychologists who study subjective experiences, biogenetic structuralists who examine how genetics and environment shape altered states of consciousness, or transpersonal anthropologists who explore the ways in which cultural signs and norms influence our mystical flashes. They can even join the new wave of “neurotheologists” who try to find the “God spot” in the brain.

Yet many of us — whether inside or outside that “two-thirds” statistic — either don’t value such experiences or may not recognize how mystical our lives might already be. Part of the hang-up may lie in how we define “transpersonal” and “mystical” experiences.

This ecstatic otherworld tenor may be part of mysticism’s bad rap. Those vision-seekers lured by nirvana’s song can grow attached to the ecstasy and suffer miserably otherwise as the rest of life just doesn’t measure up. We can become spiritually arrogant, imagining we have a high priest’s access to the spirit world among minions. Practical skeptics such as Lloyd, then, might think that transpersonal experiences are reserved for raving poets, beachside ravers and privileged gray-haired adolescents chasing after glimpses of God on the peaks of Tibet. Mystics drop out of society, we may think, and skeptics check out of mysticism.

“Ecstasy” means to “step out of what is.” Hence, one common definition of a transpersonal experience is one in which you feel “out” of yourself, “out” of the world, “out” of conventional time and space. But there’s more to mysticism than ecstasis. Gary Snyder’s poem “What a Poet Needs” suggests we need “the wild freedom of the dance extasy” and the “silent solitary illumination enstasy.” Enstasy moves us deep within the subtle body instead of out of it. What a poet needs, perhaps, so too an active visionary.

Labels similarly limit our perception. Psychologist Rhea White suggests that since we in Western culture typically view these experiences as “anomalous” or “non-ordinary,” then many of us won’t take them seriously in our daily lives. Instead White refers to them as “exceptional human experiences,” in order not to marginalize them.

Maybe these tastes of deep connection are simply another variety of potentially ordinary experiences. Transpersonal might refer to, then, not moving out of one’s self but rather expanding one’s sense of self.

Bliss is not exclusive. According to transpersonal psychologist William Braud, repeated and consistent evidence bears out that these experiences cut across class, race, as well as religious beliefs and practices.

Perhaps a sustainable mysticism or spirituality of visionary be-ers and doers is integrative and inclusive. Some of us may continue to seek peak experience after peak experience, while others may cultivate a continuous, integrated feeling of joy, well-being and connectedness, what Abraham Maslow described as a “plateau experience.”

A transpersonal life might focus less on getting “out” of one’s self and perhaps more on expanding one’s sense of self. Encounters with those we regard as others — the disgruntled neighbor with opposing political views, the manager of Office Depot, or your lover — become opportunities for connection. We might find ways to connect with food, with plants, with animals.

I think of the poet Lucille Clifton, who while cutting collards and kale in her kitchen, suddenly and unexpectedly tastes in her “natural appetite/the bond of live things everywhere.” I think of autistic author Temple Grandin’s heightened sensory perceptions that allow her to feel what cows and sheep feel.

A transpersonal life might consist of translating visions into action. Huichol shaman and author of Plant Spirit Medicine Elliot Cowan hears how plants vibrate and sing, and he communicates with their spirits; his experiences have helped uncover ancient ways to heal people’s maladies.

Grandin’s intuitive experiences with farm animals led her to design special handling facilities enjoyed now by a third of U.S. cattle. Long-time business consultant Gay Hendricks suggests that many CEOs are “corporate mystics” who approach business solutions with states of consciousness radically different from the consciousness that created the problems.

Aware of what ails the planet — from suffering local economies to dying bees and frogs to strained human relationships — these transpersonal visionaries, I suspect, hunger to tune in, turn on, and drop deeply, actively, consciously in.

Living this way, as with any practice, is not easy. There are no 7 steps or 9 principles that will guarantee that this transpersonal momentum will continue or manifest into any kind of quantum global awakening by 2012 — or 2112.

After all, of the 79 percent (256 participants) in one study who said they had had a peak experience, half of them said they had been reluctant to tell anyone. The reason? Fear (of course) muted these daily mystics, according to the study published in The Journal of Humanistic Psychology in 1991. These days, discussing such experiences may not get us branded as an exiled heretic, as happened to 18th-century scientist-turned-prophetic mystic Emanuel Swedenborg. But you might be safer, after all, to bore your friends with your weirdest dream than to divulge that you actually saw Joan of Arc this morning on your subway commute.

The Woodstock group at times did feel like a “Mystics Anonymous Meeting.” Hi, I’m Ivan. I’ve been talking with spirits for thirty years in my bathroom. On the other hand, I felt at home in this room of odd ducks who talked about everything from embodying Christ in the Garden of Gethsamene to seeing angels in tall grasses.

We conversed. And to “converse,” after all, suggests a “turning with.” One turns with the other. Although conversation likely once referred to a monastic mode of life devoted to conversations with God, out of the monastery our daily conversations can let us hear how “all that is” speaks through strangers and lovers. “The yogi’s everyday speech becomes a mantra,” so claims a passage from the Shiva-Sutras, a text that describes ways to be with all that is.

To further our journey toward a life that couples vision and progressive action, some of us can practice hearing the languages of pizza twirlers and grandfathers, of stones and sidewalks, and letting these multiple tongues enfold into us, and us into them.

“Voices. Voices,” Rilke writes, “Listen, my heart, as only/saints have listened” (trans. Stephen Mitchell). The wandering poet spent a lifetime trying to do so. Maybe some active visionaries have a head start.

Jeff Davis, author of The Journey from the Center to the Page (Penguin), teaches the discipline of yoga with writing around the U.S. He is converting his farmhouse and barn near Woodstock, NY, into a simple place where active visionaries can gather.

Labels: Americans, bliss, God gene, Jeff Davis, mystical experience, neurotheology, skeptic, spirituality, Temple Grandin, transpersonal, visionary, Woodstock

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Poll Says Americans Looking For Religious President

FAIRFIELD, Conn.— A nationwide telephone survey has found that nearly 61 percent of Americans offering an opinion believe that a presidential candidate should be a religious person. Just over 39 percent disagree with the concept.

The telephone survey, released June 14, was conducted by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, which polled 958.

In addition, 48.4 percent of the respondents said their own religious faith always or sometimes guides their views toward politics. An equal percent, however, (48.4 percent), said their own faith seldom or never guides their views.

When choosing a presidential candidate, 27.8 percent consider a candidate's specific religious affiliation relevant to their decisions. Another 66 percent do not and 6.3 percent are unsure.

Dr. June-Ann Greeley, assistant professor of Religious Studies and director of SHU's Center for Catholic Thought, Ethics and Culture, said that even though some voters consider a candidate's religious affiliation relevant, Greeley said it could either mean that they would vote for a candidate because of the candidate's religious affiliation or they would not support a candidate on that basis.

Either way, Greeley said, the poll shows that for most Americans, religion is important in selecting a candidate.

"We think we can understand something meaningful about a person, a politician, if we have a sense of his/her religious beliefs because, clearly, religious belief is still esteemed by a majority of Americans," she said.

The poll also shows Democrats emerging as the party of choice in the November 2008 presidential election.

Despite how survey respondents planned to vote themselves, 60.3 percent expect the Democrats to regain the White House while just 14.5 percent believe Republicans would retain the White House. One quarter, 25.2 percent, are undecided.

Labels: Americans, candidates, election, faith, politics, religion, Sacred Heart University

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, June 22, 2007

Marriage and Religion: a Package Deal

6/19/2007 - 5:45 AM PST

New Studies Reveal Close Relationship
By Father John Flynn, L.C.

ROME, JUNE 19, 2007 (Zenit) -

The fortunes of family life and religion may well be linked, say experts in recent studies. W. Bradford Wilcox, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, is the author of a research brief published in May by the Institute for American Values' Center for Marriage and Families.

"Churches are bulwarks of marriage in urban America," he affirmed in the brief "Religion, Race, and Relationships in Urban America." Wilcox started by observing that in spite of widespread concern over the breakdown of marriage and family life in contemporary society, so far little attention has been paid on religion's influence for the family.

His attempt to remedy this omission is based on a reading of data from the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study (FFCW), sponsored by Columbia and Princeton Universities.
The dramatic changes in family structures are graphically illustrated by Wilcox.

-- From 1960 to 2000, the percentage of children born out of wedlock rose from 5% to 33%.
-- The divorce rate more than doubled to almost 50%.

-- The percentage of children living in single-parent families rosefrom 9% to 27%.

Poor and minority families have suffered even more. In 1996, for example, 35% of African American children and 64% of Latino children were living in married households, compared to 77% of white children.

Wilcox argued that religion can influence family life in four ways.

-- Religious institutions promote norms strengthening marriage, for example, the idea that sex and childbearing ought to be reserved for marriage, and broader moral norms that support happier, more stable marriages.

-- Religious faith endows the marital relationship with a sense of transcendence.

-- In many religious groups there are family-oriented social networks that offer emotional and social support, plus a measure of social control that reinforces commitment to the marital bond.

-- Religious belief and practice provides support to cope with stresses such as unemployment or the death of a loved one. A greater psychological resilience, in turn, is linked to higher quality marriages.

Paradox

Wilcox does, however, admit that religious participation is by no means an automatic guarantee of a happy family life. In fact, what he termed "one of the paradoxes of American religious life," is the contradiction between the high level of religious practice among African Americans -- the highest of any racial group -- and the reality that they have the lowest rate of marriage of any racial or ethnic group.

Turning to an analysis of the data from the FFCW survey, Wilcox argued that it shows how religious attendance -- particularly by fathers -- is associated with higher rates of marriage among urban parents.

Moreover, churchgoing boosts the odds of marriage for African American parents in urban America in much the same way it boosts the odds of marriage for urban parents from other racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Paternal church attendance is particularly important for urban relationships, Wilcox maintains. If a father goes to church regularly, then he is more likely to enter into marriage and also to have a relationship of higher quality.

Benefits of belief

The arguments raised by Wilcox are similar to those put forward by Patrick Fagan in a paper published by the Heritage Foundation last December. In "Why Religion Matters Even More: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability," Fagan argued that "religious practice promotes the well-being of individuals, families and the community."

Among other points, these studies reveal that:

-- Women who are more religious are less likely to experience divorce or separation than their less religious peers.

-- Marriages in which both spouses attend religious services frequently are 2.4 times less likely to end in divorce than marriages in which neither spouse worships.

-- Religious attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability, confirming studies conducted as far back as 50 years ago.

-- Couples who share the same faith are more likely to reunite if they separate than are couples who do not share the same religious affiliation.

Moreover, Fagan pointed out, religious practice is also related to a reduction in such negative behaviors as domestic abuse, crime, substance abuse and addiction.

Losing God

Mary Eberstadt looked at the other side of the coin in the relationship between family and religion in an article published in the June-July issue of the magazine Policy Review. In the article "How the West Really Lost God," she reflected on the causes of secularization, a phenomenon particularly notable in Western Europe.

The thesis often put forward, Eberstadt observed, is that secularism came first and that this had a negative impact on family life in Western Europe. She argued, however: "At least some of the time, the record suggests, they also became secular because they stopped having children and families."

In support of her case Eberstadt pointed out that European fertility in general dropped well before the dramatic demise of religious practice observed in recent decades. Within Europe she cited the example of France, which saw fertility decline much sooner than in many other European countries, and is also a nation where secularism is stronger.

Turning to the United States she commented that the higher level of religious practice could be due to the greater number of children.

Evangelicals and Mormons, who unlike Catholics are not prohibited from using contraceptives, also have larger families. Maybe, Eberstadt posited, there is something about the family that inclines people toward religiosity.

She then examined the dynamic that exists between family life and religion. The experience of birth leads parents to a moment of transcendence. As well, the practice of sacrificing oneself for the good of the family and children may lead people to go beyond selfish pleasure-seeking. In addition, the fear of death, in terms of losing a spouse or child is a powerful spur to faith.

As for the well-known fact that women tend to be more religious than men, maybe Eberstadt argued, this is due to their more intimate participation in the birth of their children compared to a man's role.

While fertility rates in Europe and many other countries are now very low, this could change as the disadvantages of single motherhood and the social and economic consequences of shrinking populations weigh more heavily.

The authors of the studies cited here would probably be the first to admit that the interaction between religion and the family is complicated and that many other factors play a part in the strengthening or weakening of both. No doubt more research is needed, but these initial efforts point to some interesting relationships.

The natural family, Ebserstadt concludes, "as a whole has been the human symphony through which God has historically been heard by many people." A symphony unfortunately marred by many discordant notes today, but whose return to harmony would be of immense benefit.

Labels: church, family, marriage, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Happy for the Work

By Arthur C. Brooks

Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
ARTICLES Wall Street Journal

It is vacation season once again, giving occasion for the usual homilies about how Europeans are having a much better and healthier time of it than we are when it comes to work. You've heard it a thousand times: Americans "live to work," while Europeans "work to live."

By almost every measure, Europeans do work less and relax more than Americans. According to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Americans work 25% more hours each year than the Norwegians or the Dutch. The average retirement age for European men is 60.5, and it's even lower for European women. Our vacations are pathetically short by comparison: The average U.S. worker takes 16 days of vacation each year, less than half that typically taken by the Germans (35 days), the French (37 days) or the Italians (42 days).

Why these differences? There are two standard explanations, neither of which casts Americans in a particularly good light. First, we are emotionally stunted. According to Time magazine, "In the puritanical version of Christianity that has always appealed to Americans, religion comes packaged with the stern message that hard work is good for the soul. Modern Europe has avoided so melancholy a lesson."

Obviously, there is a point beyond which work is excessive and lowers life quality. But within reasonable bounds, if happiness is our goal, the American formula of hard work appears to function pretty well. Second, we are under the yoke of hard-bitten capitalism. London's Daily Telegraph reports that the heavy U.S. work effort does not result from a special affinity Americans have for work; rather, it is because we are "terrified of losing [our] jobs" in a labor environment in which workers have few of the protections Europeans enjoy.

The truth is that most Americans don't feel particularly shackled. To begin with, an amazingly high percentage of us like our jobs. Among adults who worked 10 hours a week or more in 2002, the General Social Survey (GSS) found that 89% said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their jobs. Only 11% said they were not too satisfied or not at all satisfied.

Of course, some would argue this statistic must be hiding big differences between people with "good" jobs and those with "bad" jobs. Presidential candidate John Edwards, in an argument fit for the French, tells us that we are two nations: "One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward."

No doubt there is great job dissatisfaction among people with low incomes and little education--the folks working in factories and on farms; the people who sell you socks and serve you lunch--right? Wrong. There is no difference at all between those with above- and below-average incomes: nine in 10 are satisfied, as are people without college degrees. 87% of people who call themselves "working class" are satisfied.

But even if we are satisfied with our jobs, might we still be happier at the beach? Imagine asking people something like this: "If you were to get enough money to live as comfortably as you would like for the rest of your life, would you continue to work or would you stop working?"

Certainly a high percentage would answer in the affirmative? Wrong again: In 2002, the GSS found that number to be less than a third of all workers. And once again, there is no difference between those at different levels of income or education. 69% of working class folks say they would keep working even if they didn't have to.

For most Americans, work is a rock-solid source of life happiness. Happy people work more hours each week than unhappy people, and work more in their free time as well. Even more tellingly, people with more hours per day to relax outside their jobs are not any happier than those who have less non-work time. In short, the idea that our heavy workloads are lowering our happiness is twaddle.

Obviously, there is a point beyond which work is excessive and lowers life quality. But within reasonable bounds, if happiness is our goal, the American formula of hard work appears to function pretty well.

This may be one reason why Americans tend to score better than Europeans on most happiness surveys. For example, according to the 2002 International Social Survey Programme across 35 countries, 56% of Americans are "completely happy" or "very happy" with their lives, versus 44% of Danes (often cited in surveys as the happiest Europeans), 35% of the French and 31% of Germans. Those sweet five-week vacations and 35-hour workweeks don't seem to be stimulating all that much félicité. A good old-fashioned 50-hour week might be a better option.

Arthur C. Brooks is a visiting scholar at AEI. http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26371/pub_detail.asp

Labels: Americans, capitalism, happiness, religion, retirement, vacation, work

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Religion And The "Evolutionists"

Category: Religion
Posted on: June 21, 2007 1:02 PM,
by Razib

Greg Graffin & Will Provine report on the results of the Cornell Evolution Project in The American Scientist. Emerging out ot Graffin's Ph.D. work it is a survey of prominent evolutionary biologists (see the full list) in regards to their views about religion and science.

Their conclusion is:

Only 10 percent of the eminent evolutionary scientists who answered the poll saw an inevitable conflict between religion and evolution. The great majority see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists, in contrast, tend toward the hypothesis that cultural change alone produced religions, minus evolutionary change in humans. The eminent evolutionists who participated in this poll reject the basic tenets of religion, such as gods, life after death, incorporeal spirits or the supernatural. Yet they still hold a compatible view of religion and evolution.

Labels: Cornell Evolution Project, evolution, religion, scientists

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

How Well are Americans 'Loving Thy Neighbor'?

By Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 21 2007 10:11 AM ET

A new survey recently measured how well Americans follow the biblical mandate to "love thy neighbor."

And nearly two thirds of survey respondents said they received at least one selfless act of kindness in the past year, according to the June survey conducted by Gimundo, a "good news" supplement. One third said they couldn't recall receiving any selfless good deeds.

Survey results showed that in the past year, 41 percent of respondents report they were given a shoulder to cry or were comforted in a time of need; 21 percent were helped with car trouble; 21 percent said someone bought something they needed but couldn't afford; 1 percent report someone saved their life; and more than 38 percent said they were surprised with a good deed not mentioned in the survey.

Women were most likely to receive good deeds than men. Fifty-two percent said they received comfort and 46 percent said they were surprised with a selfless act not mentioned in the survey compared to 30 percent of men in both categories. Forty-four percent of men said they couldn't recall receiving any specific good deeds.

Although the majority of people were on the receiving end of a selfless act, Keith Cohn, CEO of Gimundo, noted there's still a need to encourage more acts of goodness.

"It's great to be reminded that people are indeed committing selfless acts of kindness and generosity," he said in the report. "But there's still that fairly large group of people who either don't remember – or truly did not receive – a specific act of thoughtfulness. To me, that points out the need for us to share our stories of goodness with each other – either to inspire others to action, or simply to celebrate the good."

Among other key survey findings: those in the oldest age group were most likely to say they can't recall any good deed over the past year (52 percent) while only 17 percent of those who are 18-24 years of age said the same. Married respondents were also more likely than single adults to say they can't recall receiving selfless good deeds (42 percent vs. 25 percent).

The nationwide survey of 1,000 adults was conducted to mark National Good News Day on Thursday. Gimundo made the declaration for June 21, the first day of summer, to draw attention to the good news stories that exist amid constant media reports that focus on "the most salacious, violent, and awful aspects of human behavior," according to Gimundo founders Keith Cohn and Chris Chase.

Gimundo was founded less than two months ago not to replace the news but to celebrate positive events and human achievement and provide the public with a break from the negativity conveyed in news reports.

Labels: Americans, Gimundo, good deeds, good news

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Church-state disputes as human dramas

By CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN,
Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 20, 12:54 PM ET

"God on Trial: Dispatches From America's Religious Battlefields" (Viking, 362 pages, $26.95) — Peter Irons: Combining legal analysis with good storytelling, a lawyer-professor explores church-state disputes.

Nobody talks about how it feels to be right in the middle of an ACLU lawsuit in a small, fundamentalist town. But in a new book, a Texas woman who filed such a suit does exactly that. Surprisingly, her words might even make you laugh.

"I got the word out, very loudly in the community, if they burn a cross in my yard, I'm inviting everybody over for hot dogs and marshmallows," she tells author Peter Irons. "And that stopped them. Because they want you to be scared, they thrive on that."

One of the best elements of Irons' book, "God on Trial: Dispatches From America's Religious Battlefields," is a series of extended first-person statements like this, allowing real people involved in these disputes to explain themselves.

An atheist in one of these soliloquies, traces his nonbelief in part to a slap he received from a clergyman after asking an unwelcome question as a boy; and, in another personal narrative, a defender of a Christian religious display, who turns out to be Jewish, recalls his Holocaust-survivor parents' words about the danger of suppressing religious symbols.

"God on Trial" is a highly readable exploration of several church-state separation disputes that combines thoughtful analysis of the law with journalistic storytelling about the personalities and personal stakes on both sides.

Although Irons clearly has a viewpoint — he represented plaintiffs in one case he details, the longest-running church-state struggle ever, about a giant cross in a hilltop park in San Diego — he does not shortchange the positions of those who support prayer in school or Nativity scenes on the courthouse lawn.

He takes on the usual sound-bite views, for example, the notion that church-state separation is a "myth" without basis in U.S. history. In response, he notes that way back in 1785 the issue was real enough that a ban on religious taxation was taken up by Virginia's legislature.

And what about the idea that the United States is "a Christian nation"? Irons doesn't buy it, but in any event: Which Christians? He details intolerance and power-grabbing, pitting Christian sects against each other, from colonial Massachusetts to contemporary Texas.

Irons, a lawyer and emeritus political science professor, occasionally overdoes the legal detail. More often, his writing is lively, engaging and sometimes amusing. In one case where tempers are rising, a colorful judge roars: "Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child."

In the end, "God on Trial" illuminates our never-ending religious battles. It shows that these cases are not all the same, that some are harder calls than others. And it suggests that if we recognize that the antagonists aren't two-dimensional, maybe we can make some progress.

Labels: ACLU, Christian, church-state, Peter Irons, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Vatican's Ten Commandments for drivers

By The Associated Press Tue Jun 19, 3:23 PM ET

The Vatican's Ten Commandments for drivers:

1. You shall not kill.

2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.

3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.

4. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.

6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.

7. Support the families of accident victims.

8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.

9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.

10. Feel responsible toward others.

Labels: cars, commandments, driving, responsibility, road rage, Vatican

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Some 24,000 sun worshippers gather for ancient festival

SALISBURY PLAIN, England (AFP) -

More than 24,000 people from druids to fans heading for a nearby music festival hailed the sun rising on the longest day of the year Thursday at the ancient Stonehenge monument.

At 4:58 am, following an all-night party on Salisbury Plain, dawn broke on the summer solstice over 5,000-year-old stone circle, one of the most famous prehistoric sites in the world.

Revellers wearing antlers, black cloaks and oak leaves huddled at the Heelstone -- a twisted, pockmarked pillar at the edge of the monument -- to cheer the rising sun.

"There was a very good atmosphere but sunrise was not very spectacular this year because of the cloud," said a spokeswoman for English Heritage.

A spokeswoman for the Druid Network said: "The Summer Solstice is a way of attuning ourselves back into the cycles of nature, connecting with the land and the turning of the seasonal tides."

Every June 21, the event draws together druids, revellers, hippies, New Age travellers and others simply wishing to experience the mystical annual event at the prehistoric monument.
When the sun rises over the Heel Stone to the sound of beating drums, some chant, some cheer, others meditate and the odd character has been known to cavort naked.

Although Stonehenge is open to the public all year round, restrictions were set up during the 1980s following violent clashes between the police and revellers at the summer solstice.

The stones stand between nine and 18 feet high and are arranged in concentric circles.
Historians estimate they were erected sometime between 3000 BC and 1600 BC.

The monument became a World Heritage Site in 1986 and despite years of research and study, the reason behind its construction remains a mystery.

Another all-night Summer Solstice party took place at the complex of ancient stones in Avebury, 25 miles north of Stonehenge.

Labels: nature, Stonehenge, Summer Solstice

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Religious leaders urge action on warming

Mon May 21, 5:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a "moral and spiritual issue."

In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

"Global warming is real, it is human-induced and we have the responsibility to act," says the letter, which will run in Roll Call and the Politico, two Capitol Hill newspapers.

"We are mobilizing a religious force that will persuade our legislators to take immediate action to curb greenhouse gases," it says.

The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism.

Top officials from several mainline Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church and Alliance of Baptists also signed the letter, along with leaders of regional organizations and individual churches.

Rev. Joel Hunter, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, also signed the letter, though that group has not officially taken a stance on global warming due to opposition from some of its more conservative members.

Labels: Christian, church, global warming, Islamic, Jewish, responsibility

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

S Koreans go online for divine

Mon May 28,
SEOUL (AFP) -

Online worship is thriving among South Koreans who are too busy to attend churches or temples, or who simply want to browse their preferred sermon, a news report said Monday.

Chosun Ilbo newspaper said some 135,000 people a day heard sermons on the website of
South Korea's largest church, the Yoido Full Gospel Church, compared to 40,000 or 50,000 who attended its Sunday services.

It said the number of religious websites on the country's largest Internet portal Naver was rising, with non-Catholic Christian churches accounting for 5,394, Catholicism 815 and Buddhism 1,439.

"It saves time and also allows me to pick whatever sermon I like," artist Lee Seong-Su, 32, who logs on to a church website at home on Sundays, told the paper.

In lieu of a collection plate, he makes an online donation.

Some believers in Won Buddhism, a religion indigenous to South Korea, observed Buddha's birthday last week only through the Internet, Chosun added.

It said priests were divided over the trend.

"The reality is that people are getting too busy to gather at a church service or Sunday mass," one told Chosun, describing the Internet as an effective evangelical tool.

But another priest hit back, saying: "A crucial part of religious activities is to meet with people. Salvation is in the temple, not on the Internet."

About 70 percent of South Koreans have access to broadband. The country also has East Asia's largest Christian population, after the Philippines.

Labels: Buddhism, Christian, church, Korea, online

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, June 18, 2007

Books may sell, but Americans still voice religious conviction

by Emile Lester

Despite a slew of new books on atheism, the real trend in America might be that Americans talk about faith instead of living it

Date published: 6/17/2007

HENRICO--Thomas Jefferson did it 200 years ago. Karl Marx did it 150 years ago. John Dewey did it 75 years ago.

They all heralded the triumph of reason and the downfall of faith.

Now the popularity of a recent spate of best-selling books by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins--criticizing religion and defending atheism--might seem to augur a similar outcome.

The predictions of Jefferson, Marx, and Dewey were wrong as applied to the United States in the past. Predicting the decline of religion based on the popularity of these new books is wrong as applied to the United States in the future.

More than 95 percent of Americans report believing in God or some form of Supreme Being, according to a recent Pew Forum poll. This percentage has remained virtually unchanged for the last 60 years, or ever since pollsters started measuring religious faith.

Indeed, Americans are embracing religions once spurned, but their skepticism toward atheism remains. Almost all Americans tell pollsters they'll vote for a Jew or Muslim for president, but in a recent Gallup poll only 45 percent say they'd consider voting for an atheist.

Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins are tapping into temporary disgust over how the Bush administration has applied religion to politics--but it would be foolish to bet this slight turn to secularism will become a widespread or long-term phenomenon.

Proclaiming belief in God has become woven into the fabric of our society. For better or worse, it's as American as apple pie and watching football.

But even if predicting the end of faith in America is far from right, it's not completely wrong, either. Professing religion is one thing, but taking it seriously is another. Religion in America, as religious scholar Robert Booth Fowler observes, runs "a mile wide but an inch deep."

"Moralistic, therapeutic deism" is what sociologists Christian Smith and Melissa Denton found when they recently conducted a nationwide survey of the religious views of American teenagers. That is, most teenagers ask not what they can do for their religion, but what their religion can do for them.

Boston University professor Stephen Prothero attributes this attitude largely to religious ignorance--which, he argues in his recent book, "Religious Illiteracy," is at an all-time high. Not knowing much about their own religion or any other, many Americans equate religion with moral restrictions, particularly about sexual activity that they would favor even if they weren't religious.

In short: The "religion problem" in America today is not that we're too religious, as Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins claim, but that we're not religious enough.

The First Amendment has always left Americans free to choose their own faith--and Americans have usually responded by exploring their religious options and creating many new ones.

We would be well-advised to take advantage of this new diversity by learning about these religions, reading their sacred books, and listening and talking to their adherents.

This doesn't mean we should all surrender our beliefs and partake in a United Colors of Benetton approach to religion. Exploration need not lead to relativism. But American religion has always been strongest when it engages with new ideas.

This engagement should extend to at least examining the critiques of religion made by Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins. Religious beliefs which don't challenge themselves, that great champion of free speech John Stuart Mill reminds us, soon become dead dogma.

If we don't heed Mill's advice, we might not become a land of atheists, but we might become something far worse--a land where religion has become uninformed and irrelevant.

Emile Lester, of Henrico County, is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Mary Washington. His report, "Learning about World Religions in Public Schools," co-authored by Dr. Patrick Roberts, is available at firstamend mentcenter.org.

Labels: atheism, faith, new ideas, religion, Stephen Prothero, therapeutic deism

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Cooking For Others Mirrors Christ’s Love For Us

LORRAINE V. MURRAY, Commentary
Published: June 7, 2007

I walk nervously into the kitchen and stare at the package of chicken. I am not much of a cook, but in a moment of sympathy, I signed up to prepare a meal for my neighbor, who has just been diagnosed with a heart ailment.

I study recipes in various cookbooks and say a few prayers, then I wrestle the chicken out of the package and into a marinade. When the chicken is finally baking, I find myself at a total loss about the side dishes.

Truly, I had planned to make the entire meal from scratch, but as the hours slip away, and I am still perusing cookbooks, I make a hasty decision: Head over to Rainbow Grocery and pick up some squash casserole and a few other tempting vegetable dishes.

Back at home, I test the chicken for doneness and am starting to feel quite weary. And then I realize that what I am doing is a daily event for women with children.

Since I have no children, I obviously have more time on my hands than mothers do, but time vanishes when I sit down to the computer each afternoon to write. Some evenings, supper is just a grilled cheese sandwich, with larger, fancier meals prepared by my husband on weekend nights.

In the past, I have prayed for my neighbor and her family, especially in the last few weeks of her most recent pregnancy, when doctors required complete bed rest for her.

But when the meal sign-up sheet came around, I was reluctant to add my name. I assured myself that prayers were enough because I didn’t want to subject the family to my pathetic attempts at domesticity.

Then one Sunday at Mass, I heard the words of St. James, who mentioned how feeble faith without works can be:

"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,’ but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?" (2:15-16).

It was time to add my name to the latest sign-up sheet for meals.

And now, as I survey the chicken, which appears miraculously crispy, I am glad I took that leap of faith. Soon, I am wrapping the chicken in layers of foil, tucking in the side dishes and heading over to my neighbor’s house.

I ring the doorbell and out come two of the children, still wearing their school uniforms, along with Olive the basset hound, who greets me with a shout of canine delight.

My neighbor hugs me and thanks me profusely, and then, moments later, as I drive away, I picture the family sitting down to eat the food that came from my own hands.

I whisper a prayer that the meal will be tasty, and they won’t have to feed the entire banquet to Olive.

That was months ago. My neighbor is doing fine and the latest addition to her family, the cherubic Lucy, is scooting around with great enthusiasm.

Jesus came to show us the human face of divinity and to reveal the real-life components of love. That included feeding the crowds loaves and fishes, healing the blind and the deaf, and before His own death, giving us food for our immortal souls.

Cooking for my neighbor was such a small thing, but in tiny moments like these, sometimes we glimpse the larger miracle of Christ’s love for us.

He was the one who told Peter after the Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." He was the one who cooked fish for the apostles on the shore.

These days, as I remember my neighbor and her family in my prayers, I sometimes think ahead to the next meal I might cook for someone in need.

And I’m starting to realize that, by some mysterious logic, as we feed our brothers and sisters, Christ is feeding us.

Lorraine V. Murray is the author of three books on spirituality, available at www.lorrainevmurray.com. Illustration featured in the print edition is by her husband, Jef, who is the artist-in-residence for The St. Austin Review.

Readers may e-mail Lorraine at lorrainevmurray@yahoo.com.

Labels: cooking, food, Jesus, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

The real roots of crime

The Daily News

A new Ipsos Reid survey commissioned by CanWest News Service and Global National finds that half of Canadians think schools are more dangerous today than five years ago. They blame bad parenting, society's disintegrating moral fabric and violence in the media as the prime culprits. One-third of respondents identified absent, lax or poor parenting as the root cause of school violence, and about one-quarter citing a perceived "lack of morals, conscience and respect" as being to blame.

Only 15 per cent thought "gangs" are the primary cause of escalating violence in Canadian schools, and just 11 per cent blamed the availability of guns - notwithstanding the histrionics of anti-gun lobbyists and some fellow-travelling politicians such as Toronto Mayor David Miller.

Convenient scapegoats

The public gut differs from many politicians, the media and various special-pleading activists who continue to blame rising adolescent depravity on the Internet, guns, video games and Hollywood violence. These are convenient scapegoats for much deeper distempers afflicting our culture - ones the left/liberal, self-styled elites don't want to acknowledge or address.

The root of the problem is that an ideology of moral relativism has been uncritically assimilated by three or four successive generations, rendering many people incapable of judging right from wrong.

Interestingly, science tends to corroborate grassroots perception more than leftist social theorizing. In criminological literature, "bad" parenting is frequently portrayed as a risk factor for unhealthy social development and, in turn, antisocial behaviour.

For instance, a study by M.R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, (Stanford University Press, 1990) finds that a propensity to engage in crime is the prime cause of involvement in crime and deviant behaviours. It argues that ineffective parenting is the reason children fail to develop self-control - lack of which is a characteristic that persists across the lifespan, predisposing individuals afflicted to lifetimes of criminal behaviour.

Gottfredson and Hirschi contend that children raised in unstructured environments fail to develop the ability to control their behaviour, and are therefore prone to engage in risky behaviours that give them either a short-term reward or relief from momentary irritations. It is failure of parents to make the effort to instil internal control that leads to childhood, and later adult, misconduct.

The baby-boomer and boomer-shadow parents of today's crop of adolescents and pre-teens are arguably the most disastrously ineffectual cohort of parents in history. Steeped in the post-1960s cult of permissiveness and a constellation of other half-baked leftist notions, they have, in the main, failed miserably at executing their parental duty of nurturing ethics of civility, duty, self-control, and responsibility in their offspring.

Reflexive contempt for self-sacrificial virtue and rejection of real religion in favour of facile, feel-good "spirituality" have robbed these postmodern parents of the tools needed to combat the malignancies today's depraved popular culture inflicts on their children. Too many parents are themselves afflicted with "perpetual adolescence syndrome," identifying with their loutish kids against teachers and other authorities as agents of oppression to be opposed at every turn.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a philosophy professor at Clark University, says many of her students are "incapable of making one single confident moral judgment."There is really no such thing as right or wrong, they tell her. Each person has to work it out for himself.

"The trouble is," laments Hoff Sommers, "that this kind of answer, which is so common as to be typical, is no better than the moral philosophy of a sociopath."Today's kids have been deceived by aggressive advocacy of bad philosophical values - the sort that are big on "rights," and "self-esteem," very light on things like responsibility, respect, duty, honour, self-control, self-sacrifice and other quaint qualities that used to be revered as unquestioned virtues in our society.

Moral naivete

This increasing moral naivete combines catastrophically with a popular culture of violent, sex-saturated entertainment, dysfunctional family life, abdication of parental authority; social science quackery in the educational system and in the social work and judicial arenas; an aggressive consumer/materialist ethos; and the pervasiveness of drugs, booze, violent entertainment, and promiscuous sex in youth culture.

Under these circumstances, it's no mystery why some kids turn predatory. Until the parenting problem is addressed, there is no hope of turning the tide of youthful anarchy, anomie and alienation.

At least the new survey reveals that public perception is finally clueing in to the actual causes and nature of the distemper. Getting people to implement the remedy will be another matter.

cwmoore@gmx.net

Charles W. Moore is a Nova Scotian freelance writer and editor whose articles, features, and commentaries have appeared in more than 40 magazines and newspapers in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia.

Labels: Canada, morality, parents, relativism, self-control, violence

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Final goodbye isn't as hard as you might think

Monday, June 11, 2007

Experts say the most common theme in final conversations is love.

By JANE GLENN HAAS

What do you say to a loved one who is dying?

How do you say "goodbye" in a way that helps them – and you – when emotional stress is high and grief hovers?

"Final Conversations: Helping the Living and the Dying Talk to Each Other" by Maureen P. Keeley and Julie M. Yingling (VanderWyk and Burnham, 2007) may be the first communications text dealing with this specific topic. And as such, the book offers powerful tools to prepare and have "FCs" as the authors call "final conversations."

"Most of the people we interviewed lost a loved one years ago and they have processed the grief enough to just want to tell the story. In fact, they were excited to do it."

Yingling, a professor of communication development at Humboldt State University, and Keeley, a communications professor specializing in health issues at Texas State University, talked with 80 people in defining their work.

Q: Did you find any cultural differences in the way people want to say goodbye?

A: There is no difference in these important conversations. The most common theme is love. There is a real focus on getting the love message said before death.

Q: After the message is said, does everyone want to die surrounded by loving family members?

A: A lot of people send everyone away. A lot of people feel they want to be alone. My father did that. Most of the family was with him and about 11 p.m. he told everyone to go get some rest. He died two hours later. A lot of people just go by themselves.

Q: We've heard lots of stories about the dying seeing visions, seeing people already dead. These tales seem to confirm spirituality and life after death.

A: It seems most of the people we talked to have some spiritual belief but that ran the gamut. There were those who were born again and those who felt another way. We concluded the experiences of a dying loved one either confirmed what people already believed or encouraged them to look a little further into it.

Q: What about after death experiences of loved ones?

A: We didn't have that question in our original survey but people started telling us what happened to them after death. So we began asking and we were pretty amazed at how many people said 'yes' they had received a message or two. Most were very close to the parent or family member who died.

Q: It seems somehow bizarre that we need coaching, if you will, on what to say to loved ones who are dying.

A: Part of the problem is that in the middle of the last century, we got away from seeing death. We gave it over to medical professionals and walked the other direction. We didn't have to cope. Now the length of time between diagnosis and death is getting longer so people know they are going to die and the loved ones know.

Q: How do you talk to someone who is dying?

A: There is no model but once there, and once you acknowledge it, it feels natural and you do what you need to do. Death is part of life. We better welcome it and live our lives more conscientiously. People are so affected by these conversations they often take a turn in their lives and find more joy. I don't know whether it lasts but everyone reported that effect for them.

Q: You even talked to people who are angry at the dying person?

A: Yes. For instance, one young man's mother was an alcoholic and he had a horrible childhood. But he focused on a couple of good years he had with her and was able to say, 'I forgive you. You were a good mother.' When the end comes, you aren't going to get any more chances so you better resolve it.

Q: What about the dying who go into a coma and can't talk?

A: Just be physically close. That's important all the way through. Somehow, I believe they hear you and are taking in your message. Just keep talking or hold their hand. Your presence is calming and loving.

Q: Has this research changed your attitudes toward your own death?

A: It has. I used to think I would like to have people around me for a while. To make it a more joyous time. I didn't think about my own, how to put it, spirituality. Now I want people close to me around me and I really sort of want to go more quietly. I will be approaching some other kind of experience with my own spirit.

Reach Julie Yingling at jmy2@humboldt.edu

Labels: death, love, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

A pious nation?

Though the United States is considered a deeply religious country, a glance at America today reveals a society divided by wealth and poverty, tainted by violence and often oblivious to the common good. A country of believers? Perhaps. But saying is one thing, doing quite another.

By Tom Krattenmaker

There can be no doubting the piety of American society in this, the first decade of the 21st century. It's old news by now: The powerful influence of conservative Christians on culture and politics. An outwardly Christian president in the White House. Survey data showing the vast majority of Americans pray, believe in God and consider religion important in their lives.

"Pious," however, means something different than "religious." While both convey devotion to God and ultimate truth, "pious" also suggests showiness, sanctimony, even hypocrisy — a gap between words and action. Such a gap, unfortunately, seems glaringly on display when we survey the social landscape around us. If one is to judge by our care for the common good, American society today is more pious than consistently and truly religious.

Let's start with violence, a phenomenon hard to square with New Testament teachings about living in peace and Old Testament commandments not to kill one another.

The massacre at Virginia Tech this spring might seem an extreme case. Defenders of gun rights warn against overreaction, claiming that mass shootings, however horrific, are quite rare. In truth, Virginia Tech-style massacres happen every day, albeit in less dramatic form. Statistics show that gun violence kills close to 30,000 people a year in America, or about 80 a day — more than double the number slain in Blacksburg, Va. Is this what one should expect of a country guided by Jesus, the "Prince of Peace"?

Then there is the violence projected by our government. Here, too, it is impossible to claim that America is a peaceful nation in the image of Christ. Under the Bush administration, the United States has pursued an aggressive foreign policy and a war in Iraq that theologians struggle to justify with Christian doctrines about morally defensible war. Certainly, the case can be made that dangerous forces left our government with no choice but to fight. But the question must be raised again: Is our behavior as a nation consistent with our ostensibly Christian character?

'Do unto others'

Although debates have raged for centuries over the essential meaning of Christianity and other religions, few would argue against the central importance of the Golden Rule. This is not merely the bias of a liberal writer. Asked by CNN recently to define Christianity, Richard Land, leader of the theologically conservative Southern Baptist movement, said, "It means to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

How as a society are we living up to this religious imperative? We could do better. There is something deeply irreligious about the growing gap between our wealthiest and poorest citizens.

Surely, conservative-minded believers will respond that charity and philanthropy flourish today, that Christian compassion is best expressed through means other than government. They're partly right. Americans, religious and secular alike, have reached out impressively to Gulf Coast flood victims. We have donated billions of dollars to charities, churches and educational institutions. Americans shovel snow from neighbors' driveways, volunteer at soup kitchens and shell out for more expensive energy-saving light bulbs to curb our impact on global warming. On the national policy level, President Bush has on occasion lived up to his creed of "compassionate conservatism," especially with his efforts to combat AIDS and poverty in Africa.

But stories of individual big-heartedness cannot forgive a general direction in our politics that leaves shocking numbers of children without health insurance and decent educations.

The Bible has been playing a prominent role in the intensifying debate over immigration. Until very recently, the most outwardly religious people took what can be argued is the irreligious stance. According to 2006 polling data, white evangelicals — a group characterized by its taking the Bible very seriously — favored a more conservative (read: inhospitable) policy toward immigrants than other U.S. citizens. This, in spite of numerous passages in the Bible that emphasize hospitality to strangers and compassion for all God's people.

Compassion and faith

As is happening on this and other issues, the myth of the evangelical monolith is being exposed. More evangelicals are publicly embracing care for the earth and service to the poor, broadening an agenda that seemed stuck on hot-button social issues. And groups from across the Christian spectrum have been speaking up for immigrants. May these compassionate stands of religious America become ever more the norm.

For now, we have what we have: A society of decent individuals who usually do the right thing — but a culture nonetheless marred by violence, greed and politics that often display a hard-heartedness unbecoming a country like ours. We may disagree about the manifestations of our social morality deficit — conservatives will emphasize abortion and sexual immorality; liberals, economic injustice — but we can surely agree that we're capable of something finer.

Given that many social ills have grown worse during a time of Christian revival in the public arena, it's tempting to blame religion. Tempting, and also wrong. It's increasingly obvious that those who led us to our current state have heeded political ambition and expediency — citing faith when it's helpful, jettisoning it when it's inconvenient.

And on goes the pointless argument about whether America is a "Christian nation." Whether this country is Christian depends entirely on how we define the terms, of course. Our Constitution: secular. Our history and culture: religious.

And what do we mean by "religious"? If we're talking about rhetoric, volume and public display, it has been a very religious time indeed. If we mean behavior that creates peace, extends compassion to the less fortunate and reaches out to strangers outside our borders, we have a way to go. If we are a Christian nation, shouldn't we more consistently behave like one?

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Labels: Bible, charity, Christian, compassion, faith, God, Golden Rule, government, Jesus, piety, politics, religion, Unites States, violence

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, June 11, 2007

Back of the Book

Back of the Book
by Dr. George Barna

Barna's Annual Tracking Study Shows Americans Stay Spiritually Active, But Biblical Views Wane

It is hard to miss Americans’ comfort with and interest in spirituality. Most adults say that their religious faith is very important in their life. Two-thirds of the nation’s adult population firmly embraces the idea that their most important purpose is to love God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength. However, a deeper look at people’s full array of spiritual beliefs and behavior calls into question the sincerity of their commitment.

Every year, The Barna Group explores the state of America’s faith, examining various facets of people’s spiritual activity, faith identity, commitment and religious perspective. According to the 2007 survey, while their spiritual activities and religious identity have changed little compared to recent years, the area undergoing the most change is what Americans believe.

How Beliefs Have Changed

The 2007 study of the nation’s core beliefs found that five out of six theological perspectives have shifted in recent years away from traditional biblical views. This includes perspectives about three spiritual figures: God, Jesus, and Satan.

Most Americans still embrace a traditional view of God. Currently two-thirds of Americans believe that God is best described as the all-powerful, all-knowing perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today (66 percent). However, this proportion is lower than it was a year ago (71 percent) and represents the lowest percentage in more than twenty years of similar surveys.

Few adults possess orthodox views about Jesus and the Devil. Currently, just one-third of Americans strongly disagree that Jesus sinned (37 percent) and just one-quarter strongly reject the idea that Satan is not a real spiritual being (24 percent). Each of these beliefs is lower than last year and among the lowest points in nearly two decades of tracking these views.

The other changes in beliefs include greater reluctance to explain their faith to other people (just 29 percent strongly endorse this view) and the willingness to reject good works as a means to personal salvation (down to 27 percent from 31 percent).

Given these shifts, it is ironic that the only religious belief that was unchanged from previous years was the belief that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches. Not quite half of Americans (45 percent) strongly assert this perspective.

The 2007 study showed that among the ten activities studied, Americans are most likely to pray. More than four out of every five Americans (83 percent) said they had prayed in the last week. This was followed by attending a church service (43 percent) and reading the Bible outside of church worship services (41 percent). Notably, just one-quarter of adults possess an active faith, meaning they engage in all three of these activities (pray, attend church, and read the Bible) in a typical week.

Perspectives on the Research

David Kinnaman, who directed the study, indicated that "most Americans do not have strong and clear beliefs, largely because they do not possess a coherent biblical worldview."

This report is based upon telephone interviews with a nationwide survey by The Barna Group with a random sample of 1006 adults, age 18 and older, conducted in January 2007. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. Statistical weighting was used to calibrate the sample to known population percentages in relation to demographic variables.

George Barna is an author, pastor and the founder of The Barna Group in Ventura, Calif., a firm specializing in conducting research for Christian ministries and non-profits

Labels: Americans, Barna Group, belief, Bible, faith, God, Jesus, prayer, religion, Satan

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

In US, faith is never far from politics

By Ed StoddardCHARLOTTE, N.C., (Reuters) -

Three former presidents honour mega-preacher Billy Graham at the dedication of his library. Days later the three top Democratic contenders for the White House openly talk about faith in a televised forum. Church and state may be separate entities in the United States. But faith and politics have become inseparable.

"This is basically a very religious nation, people have very intense feelings here about religion," said Carroll Doherty, associate director at the Pew Research Center. "It is unlikely that a nonreligious person would be elected president," he said. This distinguishes the United States from most of the developed world.

Although figures are disputed, polls say that more than 40 percent of Americans attend religious services at least once a week, more than double the rates in western Europe, where the sacred and the secular seldom collide in the political sphere. "The strict separation of church and state in the U.S. actually fosters a broader role for religion in public life," said Matthew Wilson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

"It means religious institutions have long felt very free to publicly criticize the government and public norms," he said, pointing to the historic role of churches in the anti-slavery and civil rights movements. The growth of the "Religious Right" -- a social conservative movement aligned with the Republican Party -- over the past three decades has also brought faith forcefully into the political realm.

It is part of a broader backlash to a perceived "permissiveness" in popular culture that has helped politicize U.S. religion. How that translates into politics was highlighted in a survey by the Pew Research Center earlier this year, which found that being an atheist was a bigger negative for candidates running for president than smoking, being gay or being Muslim.

A revealing 63 percent of those surveyed said they would be "less likely" to support a presidential candidate who did not believe in God.Never holding elected office before ranked second on the negative scales among the several traits that people were questioned about. Being gay, Muslim or a past drug user were next in line.

The most positive qualities were previous military service and being a Christian, with 48 percent and 39 percent of respondents respectively saying such traits would make them more likely to support a presidential candidate.

The religious left and right

The same survey found a "wide partisan" gap with 61 percent of Republicans saying they would more likely support a Christian candidate compared with 32 percent of Democrats. But the Democratic number -- a third -- is hardly small.

This helps explain why the leading Democrats for their party's 2008 presidential nomination did their best on Monday to come across as pious on a televised forum about faith. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards were all trying to woo the "Religious Left" - faith-based organizations that see moral or Biblical imperatives to help the poor and care for the environment.

"Faith -- I mean, not only my faith, but prayer's played a huge role in my life. It does every single day; it's what gives me strength to keep going," Edwards said. Clinton said her faith had pulled her through the fallout surrounding her husband's infidelity while he was president. Obama evoked Biblical passages to care for the needy.This was an invasion of territory normally held by the Republican Party.

Some on the Religious Left see this as a mistake. "I think the Christian left is the counter-balance to the Religious Right but we're making the same mistakes," said Jan G. Linn, a pastor and author of the book "Big Christianity: What's Right With The Religious Left.""The Democrats are going to use us just as the Republicans have used the Religious Right," he told Reuters by telephone from his Minnesota base.

Mistake or not, Democrats clearly see a Christian base which they hope to energize -- just as the Republicans have appealed to their evangelical base through strident opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Faith has never been far below the surface of political power in America -- a fact driven home last week when ex-presidents George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all appeared on a podium with the aging Billy Graham.

At a dedication to a library honouring America's most famous evangelist, the former presidents all spoke warmly about Graham's impact on their spiritual lives. Graham offered spiritual guidance to many American presidents but his distinctly apolitical approach also evokes another era, when faith and politics did not publicly mix to the extent they do today.

Labels: Billy Graham, Christianity, Democrat, faith, politics, religion, religious left, religious right, Republican

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Where the Candidates Kneel

Where the candidates kneel
Posted by dpulliam

In case you were wondering, the Associated Press reports that presidential aspirants include seven Roman Catholics, three Methodists, three Baptists, one Episcopalian, one Presbyterian, one Mormon and one who is "simply" a Christian.

With religion being an increasingly frequent topic in national politics these days, I’m starting to wonder whether a candidate’s religious affiliation will join party affiliation and locality after the candidate’s name. OK, that is probably not going to be considered by the editors of The Associated Press Stylebook. Do you readers think this survey is atypical of the AP? And are reporters focusing more on candidates’ religion this year than in previous elections?

Fortunately the AP did much more with the story, and in an accompanying article it sorted through some of the issues coming up in the next election:

Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs — even when they would rather not.

Indeed, seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters — even saying during a debate that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher — the personal faith of candidates for the 2008 election has become a very public part of the presidential campaign.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters. Obama’s campaign holds a weekly conference call with key supporters in early primary and caucus states whose role is to spread the candidate’s message to religious leaders and opinionmakers and report their concerns to the campaign.

There is so much more that could have been done with this story, and maybe AP has plans to look closer at what the candidates believe. There are certainly some compelling religion stories among these candidates beyond the frequent articles on Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and Democratic candidates’ attempts to get religion.

For example, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Methodist, is looking for a new church near his new house. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is a member of St. Aloysius Catholic Church in Cleveland who attends services "not often," according to the AP. And Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a Catholic, attends services "when his schedule permits."

Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor (Catholic), Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. (Catholic), and Romney are the only candidates who said they attend services weekly, regardless of their travel schedules. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on the other hand, tries to attend Mass daily. When he’s in Kansas, he also attends Topeka Bible Church with his family. As a friend asked, how does he square that theologically?

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s answer that he is a Catholic, but his "personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," is somewhat refreshing. But since when did Giuliani ever keep his faith to himself? Reporters shouldn’t allow candidates to get away with lame answers that are inconsistent with the candidate’s past remarks.

But that raises one of the difficult challenges of covering religious and politics. Just how much can you press on public figures on their private faith?

Labels: Associated Press, candidates, faith, politics, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Díos Ha Muerto?

Peggy Levitt

"God is Dead," declared Nietzche, or if he wasn't yet, many people were certain he would be soon. So, when the Pew Survey finds that more and more Hispanics claim no religious identity and that their rates of church attendance decline the more time they spend in the United States, it should come as no surprise. Becoming more secular is what they are supposed to do.

Such surveys, while extremely valuable, are based on an incomplete view of religion. They assume that religion can be compartmentalized -- that just as we go to work from nine to five, so we pray on Friday or Sunday and that is that. But, for many people, religion is an all encompassing way of life. They don't just put it back in the box when they put their prayer book back in the pew. Faith guides how they live their everyday lives, who they associate with, and the kinds of communities they belong to, even among people who claim they are not religious.

Most people could not separate Irishness from Catholicism, Indianness from being Hindu, or what it means to be Pakistani from what it means to be a Muslim because they believe that religion and culture go hand and hand. They have a much broader understanding of what religion is and where to find it than many Americans. They see religion and spirituality as routinely spilling over into the workplace, the schoolyard, the health clinic, and the law office.

When people put up "saint magnets" on their refrigerator doors, light candles in honor of the Vírgen, or decorate their dashboards with photographs of their gurus, they imbue the quotidian with the sacred. When a Latino family celebrates its daughter's fifteenth birthday or a Hindu son invites his elderly parents to live with him, it is a religious as well as a "cultural" act.

What's more, many people never enter a formal house of worship to express their faith. They have no experience belonging to a single religious community with whom they pray on a regular basis. They are comfortable worshipping at any temple or mosque because faith is an individual rather than a collective affair. You can do it at home or in the park just as well as in an official sanctuary.

And, just as the walls of religious buildings are permeable, so are the boundaries between faith traditions. Many people come from countries where they have always combined elements from different faiths. Brazilian Catholicism, for example, has always incorporated indigenous, African, and Christian practices, giving followers permission to be many things at one time. Though loathe to admit it, Dominican Catholicism integrates many Haitian practices. For many people, then, boundary crossing, or combining elements from different faiths, is the rule not the exception. So when surveys sound alarms that Latino Catholics are defecting to Pentecostalism, we can safely assume that at least some people belong to two congregations at once.

While it is clear that more Hispanics claim "no religion" after they have lived for some time in this country and that their church attendance declines, this doesn't necessarily signal they are becoming less religious. Faith takes many shapes and sizes it. It rears its head in many places. To really understanding the changing dynamics of religious life, we need to know where to look.

Labels: culture, faith, Hispanics, Pew survey, religion, tradition

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monthly Archives - Previous Articles
03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010

News Archives Predating March 2003

RSS Feed

Blogroll Me!

Blogarama
The Urantia Book : Pictures of Jesus : Angel Pictures: Inspirational Quotes : Life After Death : Story of Jesus : Truthbook.com : Urantia : The Urantia Book

EXPLORE TRUTHBOOK

The Urantia Book

Jesus in the Urantia Book

Quote of the Day

Urantia Book Video

Urantia Book Audio

Discussion Forum

Art Gallery

Heartwarming Stories

Humorous Stories

Life's Toughest Questions

FAQ

Spiritual Studies

About Us

News and Blogs