TruthBook Religious News Blog

White House Iftar

Tuesday night's White House Iftar had both a courtly feel and a common touch. Servers circled the ornate reception rooms of the White House with glasses of juice and bowls of dates at fast-breaking time. Prayers were led by a Muslim chaplain in the U.S. military.

Dinner attendees included Congressmen (Andre Carson, Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Rush Holt, Richard Lugar) and Cabinet Secretaries (Bob Gates, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius), but the loudest applause was reserved for the guest of honor -- an American Muslim girl wearing a headscarf who broke Massachusetts state records in high school basketball. She was seated at the head table, to the President's left.

Please click on "external source" for the complete article.

Labels: commonality. difference, Iftar, Islam, Muslims, President Obama, religion, White House

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Obama's special Ramadan message to Muslim world

August 21, 2009 |

Ramadan, as everyone knows, is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, a time to practice patience and modesty, pray extra and refrain from eating, drinking, smoking and sex from dawn until sunset.

...here in full is Obama's Ramadan message, as provided by the White House:

Please click on "external source" for the complete message

Labels: Muslims, President Obama, Ramadan

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, July 24, 2009

NIH nominee Collins smartly balances top science, real religion

By MICHAEL GERSON
Washington Post

According to one survey, just 7 percent of elite American scientists believe in a personal god — the kind to whom you pray. About 8 percent, however, affirm their belief in personal immortality — indicating that some egos are so large that they fill eternity.

Should it matter that President Barack Obama’s nominee to be director of the National Institutes of Health — the Supreme Court nomination of the scientific world — is part of the believing few?

Francis Collins presents a perfect test case. His qualifications are beyond dispute. As a pioneering gene hunter, he helped identify the genetic markers for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington’s disease and adult onset diabetes. He was in charge of the program at NIH that mapped the human genome, the biological equivalent of the Apollo space program.

Collins is also an evangelical Christian who sings hymns while playing the guitar.

For some scientists, this combination of scientific excellence and religious faith is contradictory — like being a geneticist and believing in unicorns or astrology. "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs," says Peter Atkins of Oxford University. "But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they (religion and science) are such alien categories of knowledge."

To which Collins, who has written and spoken extensively on this topic, replies that there are two categories of knowledge, two ways of knowing. And though they are different, they are not "alien" or contradictory.

For a further explanation, and the complete article, please click on "external source."

Labels: Francis Collins, Michael Gerson, NIH, President Obama, religion, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The New Muslim-Catholic Coalition

The New Muslim-Catholic Coalition

The political experts will decide if President Obama's speech at the University of Cairo on June 4 was a factor in the unexpected electoral defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon's elections on June 7. But while the international effects may be murky, a clear and immediate result of the Cairo speech is its impact on Muslims living in the U.S. Pride about praise of one's religious traditions from political leaders often adds votes and voices within U.S. society. Catholic America should know: this was part of our past journey to inclusion.

But more than a touchy-feely sort of thing is the likelihood that the Cairo speech will produce greater support for socialized health care and an end to Israeli settlements. Those Catholics in America who agree with the bishops and the pope have long supported a universal health care plan and a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel. With the President's speech, Muslims in the U.S. have been invited to make an alliance with Catholics.

Obama's speech aligned the U.S. treatment of Muslims and the Muslim world with the vision of Pope Benedict XVI. That's not my opinion, but one found in the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano and echoed by Archbishop Wilton Gregory who speaks for the U.S. bishops: "Both the pope and president concur that a dialogue of civilizations must supplant the specter of a clash of civilizations ... All Catholic Americans who hope for a more secure world, and peace among the religions, can feel grateful that the president underscored the indispensable role of religion in advancing educational, economic, and scientific goals."

Please click on "external source" for the complete article.

Labels: Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, Catholicism, interfaith, Islam, Israel, Pope Benedict XVI, President Obama

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Obama's Challenge to the Muslim World

by Feisal Abdul Rauf

The historic significance of President Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. Obama directly enlisted a religion to build global peace and to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, end nuclear proliferation and stop terrorism.

In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the "Clash of Civilizations," which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved.

Perhaps most important, he put religion at the core of the peacemaking process. For too long, Americans had come to fear Islam as an intolerant, violent religion. Obama cited examples from the Quran that belied those stereotypes. He emphasized the core similarities among Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism," he said. "It is an important part of promoting peace."

Please click on "external source" for the complete article

Labels: Feisal Abdul Rauf, Islam, Muslims, peacemaking, President Obama, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, May 08, 2009

President to proclaim National (but private) Day of Prayer

May 7, 2009

Though President Barack Obama insists that prayer is a private act, he will follow in the footsteps of previous presidents today, signing a proclamation to declare the National Day of Prayer then moving on to other business of the day. At the same time, the president has asked a federal court in Wisconsin to dismiss an attempt to abolish the special occasion.

In a lawsuit filed during the Bush Administration, the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims the day violates the separation of church and state. It asks the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and to order presidents and governors to stop issuing prayer proclamations such as the one expected from Obama today.

The National Day of Prayer became law in 1952 under President Harry Truman following a six-week crusade in the nation’s capital led by Rev. Billy Graham. Members of the House and Senate introduced a joint resolution for an annual National Day of Prayer, "on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."

But the idea was not new. It had been proposed and rejected several times. In an 1808 letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it."

This is a short excerpt from the article, which can be accessed by clicking on "external source."

Labels: Freedom From Religion Foundation, National Day of Prayer, prayer, President Obama

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, April 27, 2009

Obama appoints The first Muslim American woman head of Gallup as advisor

Obama appoints The first Muslim American woman head of Gallup as advisor
Tuesday, 21 April 2009

The first Muslim woman appointed to a position in President Barack Obama’s administration met with lawmakers Monday and discussed her role on an interfaith advisory board the new administration hopes will broaden dialogue and understanding.

Dalia Mogahed’s dimpled smile shined from under her hijab, the Muslim headscarf, as she addressed senate staff and think tanks at a meeting organized by the Congressional Muslims Staffers Association to discuss American Muslim public opinion in the wake of a recent survey.

The Egyptian-born American who heads the Gallup American Center for Muslim Studies a non-governmental research center providing data-driven analysis on the views of Muslim populations around the world, became the first Muslim veiled woman to be appointed to a position in the White House.

"I am very honored to be given this opportunity to serve my country in this way," Mogahed, who will be Obama's window into the Muslim American community, told AlArabiya.net.

Last month, Obama signed an executive order setting up a new body at the White House called the “Office of Religious Partnerships” to support religious institutions and strengthen inter-faith dialogue and government ties. The advisory group, consisting of 25 religious and secular representatives, is to report to the president on the role religion can play in resolving social problems and addressing civil rights issues.

"The key idea of the council is to tap into the energy and wisdom of religious organisations and leaders who focus on faith groups to solve common problems," explained Mugahed.

Mogahed will brief Obama on what Muslims want from the U.S. in a bid to create channels of communication and correct erroneous image of Muslim Americans.

The advisory group will help define issues of concern to religious constituents including the effects of economic crisis on minority groups and the phenomenon of fatherless families. It will also seek to reduce the number of abortions and strengthen inter-faith relations between Muslims and Christians.

"The main premise behind the council is cooperation between faiths and helping them become a force that helps push society forward," said Mogahed. "These societal challenges are shared by all faith-based groups and it is our task to unite them against common challenges."

Mugahed will keep her full time job at Gallup while serving as an advisor.

Mogahed’s appointment comes at a critical time given the rising tide of Islamophobia in the media and within some academic circles.

Please click on "external source" to access the complete article

Labels: American Muslims, Dalia Mogahed, faith, Gallup American Center for Muslim Studies, interfaith, Office of Religious Partnerships, President Obama, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, April 17, 2009

Is Political Rebound Ahead for Christian Right?

By Tracie Powell, CQ Guest Columnist

President Obama raised a few eyebrows back home with his choice of words in Turkey, a Muslim nation, about religion.

“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values,” the president said.

A few days before, a new report revealed that fewer Americans identify themselves as Christians. The American Religious Identification Survey said the proportion of Americans who claim to have no religion has increased to 15 percent today, from 8.2 percent in 1990.

Still, I’m not ready to write an obituary for Christian conservatism just yet.

One only has to look at the response, such as in this video from groups like the National Organization for Marriage after Iowa and Vermont legalized same sex marriage and the Washington, DC council voted to recognize the unions to see how they are now shaping their message.

No, Christianity isn’t dead nor dying, neither is the Christian Right for that matter. It’s just slowing, perhaps temporarily, being replaced by a softer brand of religious expression, says David Roozin, Director of the Hartford Seminary’s Institute for Religion Research.

More progressive Christian leaders are making service, not condemnation, more in vogue.

One example of that soft side in action: a group of Christian leaders plan to converge on Washington later this month to discuss ways to end poverty around the world in 10 years. Sounds pretty lofty, but it shows a shift in values and a shift in understanding about what makes a person moral and righteous.

This is just a part of this excellent, two-page article. Please click on "external source" to access the entire article.

Labels: American Religious Identification Survey, Christian right, President Obama, Tracie Powell

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, April 10, 2009

Half of Americans lack understanding of Islam: survey

Press Trust of India / Washington April 06, 2009

More than half of Americans lack a basic understanding of Islam, while a sizable number hold negative views about the world's second-largest religion.

Most Americans think President Obama's pledge to "seek a new way forward" with the Muslim world is an important goal, even as good amount of number say that even mainstream adherents to the religion encourage violence against non-Muslims, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey showed that 55 per cent of those polled said they are without a basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam, and most said they do not know anyone who is Muslim. While awareness has increased in recent years, underlying views have not improved.

About 48 per cent said they have an unfavourable view of Islam, the highest in polls since late 2001.

Nearly three in 10, or 29 per cent, said they see mainstream Islam as advocating violence against non-Muslims; although more, 58 per cent, said it is a peaceful religion.

Overall, nearly two-thirds said Obama will handle the diplomatic mission "about right". Nearly a quarter, though, said he will probably "go too far". Nine per cent said it is more likely he will not go far enough.

Republicans are also more apt than others to hold negative attitudes toward Islam, with six in 10 having unfavorable views, compared with about four in 10 for Democrats and independents.

Perceptions of Islam as a peaceful faith are the highest among non-religious Americans, with about two-thirds holding that view. Among Catholics, 60 per cent see mainstream Islam as a peaceful faith; it is 55 per cent among all Protestants, but drops to 48 per cent among white evangelical Protestants.

There are deep divisions in perceptions of Islam between younger and older Americans as well: More than six in 10 younger than 65 said Islam is a peaceful religion, but that drops to 39 per cent among seniors.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone March 26-29 among a national random sample of 1,000 adults. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

In his inaugural address, Obama extended an offer to leaders of unfriendly Muslim nations that the United States "will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

Labels: Americans, Islam, polling, President Obama, religion, understanding

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, March 27, 2009

Obama Walks Religious Tightrope Spanning Faithful, Nonbelievers

By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- In the early days of his administration, President Barack Obama has developed an unusual pattern as he talks about religion: He regularly puts nonbelievers on the same footing as religious Americans.

It is a rare gesture for a U.S. political leader. But what makes Mr. Obama's outreach especially remarkable is that it is accompanied by public displays of faith that sometimes go beyond even those of his religiously oriented predecessor in the White House.

Mr. Obama speaks easily about his own faith. White House events, even those without a religious theme, often begin with a prayer. And the president said he would expand President George W. Bush's outreach to faith-based organizations.

At the same time, he has taken a series of policy steps that are troubling to religious conservatives, and pledged that decisions in his administration would be governed by science. He reversed Bush policies on funding for international family-planning groups and stem-cell research, and he has moved to rescind regulations that allow health-care workers to opt out of duties that offend their beliefs.

Mr. Obama acknowledged nonbelievers on the campaign trail last year, and, notably, in his inaugural address, where he said: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."

While nonbelievers welcomed Mr. Obama's recognition, the move could make some people uneasy. Americans are less comfortable with atheists than they are with many other minority groups, according to a 2006 University of Minnesota study. Nearly half of those surveyed said they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry an atheist, versus a third who said the same of a Muslim. People were more accepting of homosexuals, conservative Christians, immigrants, Hispanics and Jews.

A 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., found that 15% of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion, up from 8.2% in 1990. In 2008, only 0.7% identified themselves as atheists and 0.9% said they are agnostic.

Mr. Obama isn't the first president to acknowledge nonbelievers. When running for re-election, Bill Clinton spoke of the U.S. having more religious freedom than any other country in the world, "including the freedom not to believe." At the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast, George W. Bush recognized those with "no faith at all" among Americans of varying religions.

But Mr. Obama's frequent mentions of nonbelievers stand out, said Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist who studies religion and culture. In some ways, says Mr. Lindsay, it represents the continuation of a pattern in American public discourse. "The last 50 years has been a gradual evolving notion of what constitutes religious diversity," he said. First, he said, Jews were included. Later, after immigration increased from Asia in the 1960s, politicians began mentioning Buddhism and Hinduism. But rarely have atheists been included, he said.

Part of the explanation for Mr. Obama's references also may lie with his own story. He wasn't raised religious and only became a Christian as an adult, when working with churches as an organizer in Chicago.

"I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist; and grandparents who were nonpracticing Methodists and Baptists; and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion, even though she was the kindest, most spiritual person I've ever known," he said at National Prayer Breakfast in February. "She was the one who taught me as a child to love and to understand and to do unto others as I would want done."

Labels: faith, freedom, non-believer, President Obama, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, February 27, 2009

A Spiritual Guide for Economic Bailout

by Rabbi Michael Lerner

This is a very interesting and timely op-ed article concerning out present-day economic crisis - how it is different from any in the past, and how a different mind-set may be needed to solve it adequately.
Page 1 of 2 - Please click on "external source" for complete article.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously warned in November that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste." But that is exactly what the White House and Congress have allowed to happen. Secular progressives are disappointed, but spiritual progressives are doubly so. This is a crisis that demands the deepest of revisions of our worldview and economics.

Certainly the Democrats have managed to do enough-in the way of restoring some of the programs cut by the Bush administration, helping the states deal with their own increasing budget deficits, and even initiating several new programs-for Congressional Democrats to feel they have prevailed. Next comes an even more massive bailout for the banks.

The underlying message of these measures is clear: to get out of a recession bordering on a multi-year depression, ordinary citizens must spend more money on consumer goods. This would generate jobs and help staunch a wave of massive layoffs that threaten to push official (and usually under-estimated) levels of unemployment up to 10 percent or more of the work force this year.

To progressives, this was a tremendously irresponsible misuse of the opportunity created by the crisis. The bank bailout was based on the old trickle-down economics that had been discredited by the years of Republican and neo-liberal policies that actually yielded the current meltdown. If you want to stimulate spending, progressives insist, give the money directly to those in need: Create a national bank to give loans to people who wish to buy homes or expand their businesses; provide funding to banks willing to forgive bad mortgages and renegotiate them to affordable levels; raise the minimum wage to a level that makes it a "living wage"; grant citizenship and rights to all the current illegal immigrants, making it easier for them too to spend more money on consumption; and fund a single-payer health care plan that would provide care for the 45 million-plus Americans currently uninsured (while simultaneously imposing strict cost controls on hospitals and other health-care providers).

Yet progressives too may be too limited in their thinking. The economic crisis is global and requires a global solution. Spiritual progressives insist that this is the moment for Americans to acknowledge to ourselves that our well-being depends on that of everyone else on the planet. Instead of each nation-state trying to develop policies meant to benefit only its own citizens, we need the world's major economic powers and representatives of the developing countries to cooperatively work out policies that dramatically reshape the way that we, the human race, produce and consume the resources of our planet.

A central part of such global thinking requires a new conception of efficiency, rationality and productivity. The old bottom line measured productivity and efficiency by how much money or material goods were produced. We need a "new bottom line" that evaluates corporations, government programs, laws, social policies, and even personal behavior by how much love and kindness, generosity and caring, ethical and ecological sensitivity, are produced and how much we are encouraged to respond to the universe with awe and wonder at the grandeur of all that is. Hundreds of years of capitalist excess made the old more narrow utilitarian attitude seem like "common sense," because it worked to generate an ever increasing accumulation of material goods.

But the societies that have bought into that old bottom line are now reeling from the economic collapse generated when tens of millions of people acted on the assumption that trumping all ethical and spiritual concerns was the obligation to maximize one's own material well-being regardless of environmental and human-relationship consequences.

Only a year ago it might have seemed "unrealistic" or "utopian" to imagine a new bottom line and a society reconstructed on that basis. But it is no longer so far-fetched when the government is spending trillions of dollars to repair a system that based itself on a fundamentalist belief that progress could be judged by how many things we accumulated. In my book The Left Hand of God (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006) I detail what this "new bottom line" might look like in our schools, corporations, health care, legal system and our approach to foreign policy.

Spiritual wisdom and daily spiritual practice may be needed by the entire human race in order of for us to develop the intellectual and psychological foundations for a green economy. There is a difficult balance to negotiate between improving the material well-being of the most oppressed and materially deprived citizens of the planet, while teaching the majority of citizens of the more advanced societies how to reduce their level of material needs. Many today feel deprived if they cannot get a new model car every few years or dramatic escalations in the capacities of their iphones and computers.

People have to get to the point where they no longer believe that their personal success is measured by how many new material gadgets, electronic devices, automobiles, apartments or houses, home furnishings, and exotic vacations they have.

Spiritual progressives believe it is time to bring into the democratic process a discussion of the kinds of consumption that are worth fostering and the kinds that actually contribute to the further erosion of our planet's life support system.

To some the conception of democratic control of an economy is going to be dismissed as nothing more than a slippery slope toward a "command economy" that failed when tried by the communists. Yet market fundamentalism is no longer an unchallengeable element of American faith, and the values of a New Bottom Line resonate not only with those of us whose spiritual consciousness already predisposes us to question the ultimacy of material accumulation but also to millions of Americans who can no longer believe that the planet can survive based on profligate consumption of its raw materials. Thinking through the details of building a society based on shared values and committed to treating the planet as more than a bottomless cookie jar-from which we can extract whatever we wish without fear of consequences-will not be easy, and will require the fostering of a new spiritual awareness. Too many liberals and progressives, lacking a spiritual and ethical foundation for making such choices, have simply embraced the notion that any kind of spending will get us out of the current crisis.

No wonder, then, that the Obama bailout seems so completely unfocused on achieving any particular social good (e.g. adequate health care, environmental repair, or elimination of domestic or global poverty). The Obama plan reflects the lack of direction or values orientation that bedevils most progressive thinking, and reminds us of the important role that spiritual progressives from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Mahatma Gandhi to Nelson Mandela have been able to play precisely because they have this other dimension in their thinking.

A spiritual progressive approach to bailout is badly needed for the U.S. This is the moment in which biblical ethics and the wisdom of spiritual traditions are actually more realistic than the plans of the capitalist economists. Ideas like the biblical prohibitions against waste; the command to be stewards of the planet; a legal system that obligates us to care for others (which thus transcends a system of rights based only on self-protection) -all these should no longer seem utopian, but instead recognized as matters of survival for the human race.

Even the amazing biblical view of a society-wide sabbatical takes on an attractive allure. Imagine an entire society that stops its production for a given year, and relies on the food, fuel and wealth that has been accumulated during the other six years and now gets redistributed equally to everyone for the sabbatical year, meanwhile freeing the entire population from work so that they can participate in everything from job retraining to get new skills to pure vacationing with the planet to democratic assemblies in which people collectively define their societal priorities for the coming six years. A sabbatical year for every person once in seven years is a practical work benefit that should be a right of all workers. But this takes on a whole different meaning and opens up amazing possibilities for everyone if everyone takes off the same year, creating a festival of freedom and creativity that would be experienced by many as a far greater reward than any material benefits that they were giving up because their society had taken itself off the productivity grid for a year. Yes, there could be enough food and fuel and health care-though this will take careful planning for many years before implementation. But the idea itself points us into unexplored terrain: what if we really didn't have to work all the time, what if the world and our own personal world could survive on less? If, instead of appearing to be a huge sacrifice, the reduction of consumption was experienced as part of an exciting spiritual journey, it might just be possible for us to get off the juggernaut of endless material "progress" before it destroys everything.

Don't we need to work to have enough money to buy food? Well, this begs the question. We have enough food for everyone on the planet. Money has become the distribution mechanism, making it possible for some people to have way more food than they need or is good for them, while others living only miles away, don't have enough money to buy the food they need. The same is true of health care, education, and even energy. By having a year in which these goods are distributed equally and for free may be the necessary first step toward making it possible for people on the planet to imagine a world in which money is no longer the arbiter of essential goods and services.

Labels: bailout, money, President Obama, Rabbi Michael Lerner, spirituality, the economy

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, February 06, 2009

Obama Family Values

Joel Kotkin, 01.20.09, 12:01 AM EST
A model of proper parenting and spirituality for the next generation.

The new president's focus on family reflects an increasing emphasis among African-American leaders on the importance of parental values. Many prominent black activists initially scorned Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 report linking poverty among African-Americans to the decline of intact family units. But today, when roughly half of all black children live with single mothers, it is widely accepted that strong families represent the most effective way to reduce "the racial gap" in incomes.

Surveys reveal that people born between 1968 and 1979 place a considerably higher value on family, and a lower value on work, than their baby-boomer counterparts. Women in the former age cohort are actually having more children than their predecessors and, particularly among the college-educated, they appear to be working somewhat less.

And this family-friendly shift is likely to continue throughout the next wave of child-rearers. As Morley Winograd and Michael Hais suggest in their book, Millennial Makeover, the Millennial generation, born after 1983 and twice as numerous as Generation X, also enthusiastically embraces the notion of a strong family.

Indeed, three-fourths of 13- to 24-year-olds, according to one 2007 survey, consider time spent with family the most important factor in their own happiness, rating it even higher than time spent with friends or a significant other. More than 80% thought getting married would make them happy. Some 77% said they definitely or probably would want children, while less than 12% said they likely wouldn't.

What's more, the current state of the economy is likely to strengthen ties among family members. One-fourth of Generation X-ers, for example, still receive financial help from their parents, as do nearly one-third of Millennials. As many as 40% of Americans between ages 20 and 34 now live at least part-time with their parents, an option that will only become more commonplace in areas where home prices are particularly high and employment opportunities are sharply limited.

Yet even if family values are in ascendance, how they are expressed sharply diverges from the norms and attitudes typically associated with the Religious Right. In fact, on a host of issues--including gay rights, interracial dating and stem cell research--millennials trend more toward liberal views than earlier generations, Winograd says.

Attitudes concerning religion--the other critical part of the "values" issue--reveal a similar fusion of conventionality and pragmatism. Like other Americans, Millennials are far more religiously oriented than their counterparts in other advanced countries. Fully one-fourth of Americans in their 20s and 30s, observes Princeton sociologist Robert Wurthnow, consider themselves "very spiritual," even if they rarely attend church. A 2003 UCLA study found roughly three out of four college students deem their spiritual or religious views important, but most see their (older) professors as largely indifferent to such concerns.

Yet this spiritual orientation does not imply a shift toward any retrograde "moral majority" conservatism. Upward mobility among evangelicals and fundamentalists, as well as the increased racial integration within churches, has lessened the once-glaring gaps between conservative Protestants, particularly in the South, and the rest of American society. This liberalization is particularly acute when it comes to issues like homosexuality and censorship, but also extends to the role of women and the teaching of religion in public schools.

Labels: family, family values, Gen X, Joel Kotkin, Millennial Makeover, President Obama, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, January 30, 2009

Transformations in spiritual health through trials

January 28, 3:51 AM
by Thomas Hartmann, Philadelphia Health Examiner

This articles is the first page of a three page series of articles dealing with using spirituality to transform difficult problems of the material world. Please click on "external source" at the bottom of this article to continue...

President Obama could not have been elected without the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, was the pivotal moment of this historic shift in American society. Earlier this month America honored Dr. King with a national holiday.

How did Dr. King manage to successfully lead the civil rights movement, and what does his leadership have to do with health? After all, he was surrounded by a loving family and in good physical condition. This article concerns the maturation of King’s spiritual health as a result of the crushing pressure the leadership place upon him.

For a time during the height of the boycott, his household received death threats via mail and telephone, messages which had to be fielded by him or his wife in case the call was from a supporter.

The tension took an immense toll, particularly after a middle-of-the-night bomb threat. He became concerned not only for his safety but also for that of his family, and considered giving up leadership of the movement. This sort of pressure may be familiar to anyone who has faced immense fear or hatred, whether as a result of war, prejudice, physical, or mental difficulties.

In short, King was not able to sleep, and went downstairs to the kitchen to fix a pot of coffee. There, he prayed aloud for guidance, acknowledging his utter inadequacy to cope.

Upcoming: The remarkable changes in spiritual health that are sometimes brought about through difficult trials.

Labels: health, leadership, Martin Luther King Jr., President Obama, tension

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

This Land Is My Land

Nica Lalli

President Obama acknowledged me in his first speech as president. He looked up from the podium on the steps of the capitol of this country and he seemed to look right at me, in my living room hundreds of miles and thousands of feet of television cable away. In one phrase he included me and made me feel part of the country I live in, the country I was born in, my country: The United States of America.

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness," Obama said. "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers." Including the words non-believers was a first. Never before has a president recognized people like me in the many others, sub-groups or factions that they might mention so as to be inclusive of all who call this country home. Never.

So January 20 was a big day. Not only did I watch as our first ever black president sworn in, not only did I feel immense happiness that the guy I voted for made it all the way, but on top of all that I, a non-believer, was welcomed in a whole new way.

During the inaugural events preceding the speech I was beginning to feel a little outside of some of the goings on. I am not hostile toward religion, and in fact I help out at my local church and volunteer at a soup kitchen in my neighborhood run by some very wonderful nuns. I knew that there would be prayers offered during the ceremony, and I knew that the oath would include the phrase "so help me God" and would be part of the swearing-in of the 44th President even though it is not mandated in the Constitution. Oh, sure, part of me was hoping that Mr. Obama would leave that part out, but most of me knew he wouldn't dare. I know that the president has to be religious. I know he has to go to church and close his eyes during prayers and talk about his relationship to Christ, and assure us all that he is not a Muslim even if his middle name is Hussein and his forefathers followed the word of the prophet Muhammed. I may not be religious, but I know I live in a country where a large majority of the population is Christian.

The part of the morning that made me feel most left out was when Pastor Rick Warren got up to deliver the invocation. Again, I was not surprised by his words but I did hope for a little more inclusiveness. Pastor Warren did not speak to me, or to anyone who differs with his views. Many other religious leaders manage to do both, stay true to their beliefs and open themselves up in a way that can allow for other ideas to be included - or at least acknowledged.

It is as simple as somehow stating that they understand the fact that in a crowd of 2 million there would be (statistically speaking) about 280,000 people who would fall into the non-belief category. That is 14 percent of the general population which, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, is the percent of the American population that has no religion or does not believe in God. Never mind figuring out how to acknowledge all the other religions that would also be represented, all the non-Christians who live in this country and vote and are as American as Mr. Warren. It has become too easy for people like Pastor Warren to think that this is a Christian nation. And during the last eight years it felt as if it was leaning heavily in that direction.

It took our newly minted President to remind us that indeed it is not. Our country has no religion embedded within its government and thanks to the Constitution it never will. It took a man who is part black, part white and whose extended family truly represents the new American family in all it's mixed up crazy diversity to remind us that the patchwork that is America is what makes this country so special and so great. I am honored to be part of that patchwork. And I thank my new President for thinking to include me, and the 42 million other Americans like me, in it as we face forward and work together to fix problems, celebrate greatness and overcome divisiveness.

Labels: inauguration, Nica Lalli, non-believer, President Obama, religion, Rick Warren

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Political, Spiritual Leaders, Educators Share Insight on Obama’s Historic Inauguration

Chico C. Norwood
STAFF WRITER

For many African Americans and individuals of African descent, the thought and reality that a black man is the most powerful individual in the free world sends chills through bodies.

What instances in American history contributed to this momentous, historical occasion? What advice would Martin Luther King Jr., who rose to similar heights and changed the face of the world, give to the new president? What sacred writings best define the new president?

The L.A. Watts Times asked these questions of educators, elected officials, community and spiritual leaders throughout the area.

What instances in American History do you think have most contributed to Barack Obama’s election as president?

“In terms of Barack Obama’s success in getting elected as the first African American president of the United States, he is the product of a long evolution fof Arican American culture, family values, political sophistication, and maturity and hope — out of African American culture, once we got it established about the middle of the 17th century in this country. African American culture, as opposed to African culture in America.

What we’re talking about here is something that became uniquely a creation of folk here after the second, third and fourth generation. …

One of the first principles was family is crucial — that we have to make sure that we get strength and (sustenance) from family… Another thing was education, that essentially what we have to do is find a way … reading, writing, arithmetic — because education was going to be our key to moving forward in the future… Another thing was to know that things would get better. Know that we could develop our artistic ability in terms of our ability to adjust and be resilient and to more than just survive but transcend — if all of us were not going to be able to make it, then enough of us had to be able to make it to pass the baton on to someone else and we keep on going.” — David Horne, associate professor of Pan African Studies at California State University, Northridge

**********

“The evolution of the hip-hop movement was a contributing factor to President Barack Obama’s election as president. Among the most vocal supporters of … Barack Obama’s presidential bid were hip-hop icons like Nas, ’Lil Wayne, Mos Def and Jay-Z. With celebrity endorsements like this, it was just a matter of time before Obama tapped into the psyche of the national black youth community, which then galvanized a movement around his candidacy. Pro-Obama recordings helped provide the soundtrack for the movement to those artistically inclined, while the more technologically savvy of the hip-hop generation organized via the Internet and mobile phones to throw their support — and money, of course — behind the candidate… The hip-hop generation employed its tenacity to politics, utilizing new communication avenues, from social networking and texting to rhymes, beats and blogs…

The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), a nonpartisan research firm, commissioned a survey that found 66 percent of young people it polled voted for … Obama. …Obama won the White House having won the largest percentage of votes from the second biggest youth voter turnout in this country’s history.” — Karin L. Stanford, Ph.D., associate professor of Pan African Studies at CSU

*************

“What would Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. tell Barack Obama right now?”

“Like me, you are rooted in faith — faith expressed in your values and in your commitment to empower those who have been left behind in our society. You started out as a community organizer; now you are the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. Lead with your faith. Lead with your values. Keep working to involve and inspire the next generation so that they will be ready when it is their turn to carry the baton. Keep working to bring about the change we need.” — Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles)

***********

“Dr. King once said that ‘A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.’ After the historic election of our first African American president — a feat unimaginable for a generation of Americans struggling to achieve equality on the most fundamental level — it’s now time to shift gears and focus on Dr. King’s message of consensus and governance.

I believe Dr. King would be proud of President Obama’s genuine commitment to bring all Americans to the policy-making table. Dr. King would ask the president to uphold his vow of bipartisanship, while reminding him to stay true to his progressive roots and vision for a brighter tomorrow.” — Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

***********

The “Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would tell President Barack Obama that though he was elected president of the richest nation in the world, many of God’s elect are still suffering from poverty… Martin Luther King would tell President Barack Obama how proud he is of this accomplishment, but his election is simply a weigh station on our nation’s journey to equality, freedom and dignity for all people. Until all of God’s children have the same opportunity to become president through a quality education, affordable health care and housing, and livable wage employment with benefits, the election of a black man without the lifting up of black people is nothing more than window dressing … changing the display while the contents of the store remain the same. Dr. King would tell Barack Obama to remain true to his message of change.” — Eric Lee, executive director Southern ChristianLeadership Conference-Los Angeles

***************

“I think he would remind President Obama of two important speeches that he gave: One entitled ‘I Have a Dream,’ and (the other) entitled ‘Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam.’ And I would think Dr. Martin Luther King would respectfully admonish President … Obama to take seriously the content of those two speeches and encourage him to do all that he could to make real the promises of democracy.” — Mark Ridley-Thomas, newly elected Los Angeles County Supervisor, Second District

************

What Scripture comes to mind when you think of Barack Obama and why?

“They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up on wings as eagles. They shall run and not grow weary. They shall walk and not faint.” — Isaiah 40:31

To wait is not to sit idle, but to exhaust your energies to achieve your goals, and then to take a deep breath in “waiting” on the Lord. The timing is secondary. The assurance is primary. From day one in 1619, when the first African slave stepped off of the ship in Virginia, until Jan. 20 … we have “waited” upon the Lord.

“Romans 13:1 says ‘Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.’ ”Rev. Cecil L. “Chip” Murray

*************

“God clearly has not designated every person in every leadership position that has existed in the history of the world, but he has chosen the positions or offices. However, in some cases it is clear that God has selected the person, and in President Obama’s case I truly believe God has appointed the man named Barack for the office of president.” — Fred Price Jr., pastor, Crenshaw Christian Center.

Labels: Antonio Villaraigosa, Cecil L. Murray, Chico C. Norwood, David Horne, Eric Lee, Fred Price Jr, Karen Bass, Karin L. Stanford, Mark Ridley-Thomas, President Obama

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, January 23, 2009

The greatest American innovation in religion is tolerance

Andrew Brown
Wednesday 21 January 2009

Watching Obama's inauguration with its repeated invocations of the deity, both formal and informal, it struck me how astonishingly prolific America has been in religious inventions. A short list of religious ideas invented in America would include at the very least religious toleration (from Rhode Island) from the 17th century, the open-air revival meeting (from the Great Awakening) from the 18th, Adventism, and Mormonism, from the 19th century and Pentecostalism and Alcoholics Anonymous from the 20th.

Then there are all the American innovations which are either questionably religious, like worshipping your own constitution or the "free market", or were in some sense pioneered in Europe, like theocratic model settlements. This last also falls into the third category: American religious innovations that were ultimately unsuccessful, along with Christian Science, utopian communes, and, let us hope, scientology.

But the successful American religious innovations have all spread round the world. They have not just become ideas, but transnational cultures bound up with ritual and strengthened by myths about their own history. There has been nothing at any other period of history like that fountain of social invention emerging from one country or civilisation.

Their success is often taken to be an endorsement of the free market in religions: more precisely, it is argued that this is the outcome of consumer choice, as opposed to some nationalised model of religious provision. But to see these belief systems as choices made by rational and autonomous adults is to misunderstand what made them successful and what distinguishes them from the failures.

In the shopping model of religion, nothing much hangs upon your choice. If it doesn't fit, you can give it back, or go to another church. And of course a lot of American religion runs like this, but when it does, it doesn't last. The ones which have lasted and spread are those whose adherents feel that they don't have a choice. They are not deciding what to believe. They are recognising what is true.

This is most obvious in the case of AA, where it is also explicit. The convert is told that unless they understand the world in a certain way, they will die; and so far as anyone can tell, that's actually true. But of course this isn't and doesn't have to be denominational. As it happens, the three AA members I know best are all Christians, but that, I think, is because they are all journalists more or less specialising in religious affairs. But they are none of them proselytisers and I know slightly a couple of alcoholics who were distressed to have to invoke a higher power to stay alive. It went against all their principles. I want to get some of them to write about this experience, but that's for later.

If you don't convert, as to Pentecostalism or AA, then the inevitable quality of the religion has to arise from childhood. I think this is much less effective than conversion as an adult. If it were really the case that childhood indoctrination is impossible to break, the Catholic church in Ireland would never have collapsed: what happened there was broadly speaking that an entire generation which had been brought up as Catholic children stopped as adults believing and performing the rituals of belief and then failed to pass on either to their children. If these ideas about indoctrination were true, this could not have happened at all. But it did happen, for reasons which aren't entirely clear, but which seem to go back to the generation before the one that lost its faith: it's not enough to bring children up in certain beliefs, or rituals. What's needed is that life should continue to reinforce the message that these rituals work, and that the beliefs are true even if you can't see why.

Incidentally, there is of course nothing uniquely religious about a belief that is true because it just is. I have absolutely no idea why Australians don't fall off the bottom of the planet. I know there is a force called gravity, and that it works and accelerates things at 32ft per second per second. But I have absolutely no idea why this should be the case; it's just a given fact about the universe. Actual religious faith can work that way too. It doesn't appear to the believer as a willed belief, but as a recognition of brute truth.

This is of course extremely frightening. It's not much fun from from the inside, but it's even worse from outside and that's why I think that the greatest American innovation is the first: religious tolerance. It demands the ability to marry an experience of inner compulsion with the terrifying understanding that other people may have inner compulsions which are just as real and compelling, but entirely different from yours. This is horribly unnerving when you understand it applies even to of members of your own tribe. But it now seems to most Americans a simple brute fact about human nature, which they understand their constitution to say with its talk about the separation of church and state. Of course, that means they can't understand people who don't think the American constitution is a vehicle of universal truths, but then no tolerance is perfect and this one has just been proved a little wider than anyone thought possible a year ago.

Labels: America, Andrew Brown, innovation, President Obama, religion, tolerance

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Inauguration prayers and sermons

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The fact that religion played an important role in today’s inauguration received a lot of notice in the news. See here a Los Angeles Times article on how “Obama’s religion-studded inauguration joins a long history” of inaugurations. However, how much of that was coverage of substance with regard to the faith-issues?

Rachael Zoll of the Associated Press noted about a week ago that a Muslim woman and rabbis would be offering a prayer at the inauguration’s National Prayer Service. The article is a preview of sorts that announced that The Rev. Sharon Watkins would be delivering the service’s sermon. Watkins happens to be the first woman president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and is based in Indianapolis.

Fortunately for religion readers in my neck of the woods, The Indianapolis Star’s Robert King picked up on this story, and my front page this morning had a nice religion-oriented feature tied nicely into the inauguration:

Watkins made history in 2005 when the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), whose general offices are in Indianapolis, made her the first woman to lead a mainline denomination. But this latest achievement is prompting a renewed round of congratulations from women who now look at her with the pride she felt that day at Yale.

“It seems to give a moment of hope and opening that the aspirations of girls and young women can be wide open,” she said.

Watkins, 54, met Obama last summer in Chicago when his campaign called together a diverse group of faith leaders to offer the candidate lessons about their concerns and pet issues.

“He was not reticent to come back with his own opinions,” she said. “There was some pretty good give and take.”

So much, in fact, that the meeting bordered on contentious. But Watkins offered a closing prayer that, she was told later, seemed to have a calming effect. She doesn’t know whether that landed her the sermon Wednesday. But she will take it.

Unfortunately, the article is not long enough to give the reporter the necessary room to expound upon any of the larger issues such as how this selection reflects Obama’s own faith and worldview and a deeper look into Walkins’s own religious views, but it is a start.

The key will be to see whether the media follows up on any of these prayers and sermons to give its readership an in-depth view of what was said and what those words meant.

As a quick but incomplete survey of what is out there, see Zoll’s report on the prayers here and Newsweek’s Lisa Miller here.

Labels: inauguration, prayer, President Obama