TruthBook Religious News Blog

By Sharon Schmickle
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

When Pope Benedict XVI lands at Andrews Air Force Base today, he will be welcomed by a nation that is teeming with religious intensity surpassing anything he could hope to find in Europe.

A good share of the religious rhetoric has as much to do with politics as with spirituality in this highly charged election year. And a good share of the religious tension comes within the ranks of Catholics themselves, who disagree with Rome and each other over birth control, the role of women in the church and other issues.

But this pope already has taken bold strides into broader issues that are roiling America in its pews and in its streets. Catholics and non-Catholics alike will be listening for his message on the Iraq war, the environment and the moral state of the nation.

Pope Benedict has consistently opposed the Iraq war from its beginning. On Palm Sunday this year, he thundered, "Enough with the bloodshed, enough with the violence, enough with the hatred in Iraq!"

The pope's main reason for visiting the United States is to speak before the United Nations on Friday, said the National Catholic Register.

Still, pundits don't expect to see the pope launch a direct broadside against President Bush's foreign policy or to comment on the U.S. election, said the Associated Press.

The pope's itinerary also calls for him to address leaders in Roman Catholic higher education, pray at Ground Zero and hold Masses in the new Nationals Park in Washington and Yankee Stadium in New York. His 81st birthday is Wednesday, and a party is planned in Washington.

The environment

At the United Nations, the pope also is expected to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a moral cause for Catholics, The Independent of London reported.

Benedict has earned the title "green pope" for his emphasis on a duty to "protect creation" and safeguard the poorest on the planet from the effects of global warming.

"Before it is too late, it is necessary to make courageous decisions that reflect knowing how to re-create a strong alliance between man and the earth," he told a youth audience in September.

Vatican City recently became the world's first carbon-neutral state, offsetting its carbon footprint by planting a forest in Hungary and installing solar panels on the roof of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Clergy sex abuse

Some Catholics are disappointed that the pope isn't visiting the Archdiocese of Boston, where the clergy sex-abuse crisis erupted in 2002 and then spread nationwide, the AP said.

However, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone — the Vatican secretary of state — told the AP that Benedict will address the scandal during his trip and "will try to open the path of healing and reconciliation." A likely forum could be when Benedict speaks to priests during a Saturday morning Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York.

Diverse voices

By several measures, the United States is one of the most devout nations in the developed world. But the faithful often disagree vehemently. And, whether or not he sees it, the full flavor of that diversity will greet the pope. Groups advocating a stronger role for women, gay marriage and peace are prepared to demonstrate along the papal route.

Some Catholics also will urge the pope to remonstrate against mass consumerism, rampant free enterprise, and the neoconservative agenda for global democratic revolution, said the feisty American Conservative magazine.

They may not be disappointed. The Conservative predicted the pope will speak to such issues, reflecting themes of a forthcoming social encyclical, which is expected to be published on May 1.

"The document may touch on subjects that make many conservatives blush," the Conservative said.

Labels: Catholic, environmentalism, Iraq, Pope Benedict XVI, priest sex scandal, Sharon Schmickle, Unites States

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, January 17, 2008

U.S. religious freedom is being eroded, advocates say

Page one of three: Please click on "external link" to view entire article

Misconceptions and ignorance are weakening the Constitution's 'first freedom.'
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the January 16, 2008 edition

Reporter Jane Lampman talks about the First Freedom Awards.They are heroes in a battle most Americans think has already been won. On Wednesday evening, they are to be honored for their contributions to strengthening religious freedom at home and abroad.

Although the US is home to the greatest experiment in religious freedom ever, and the great majority of Americans support that principle, surprising gaps in knowledge and understanding remain when it comes to practicing that freedom. And support for it seems to rise and fall.

Only a slim majority (56 percent) of Americans said in a 2007 survey that freedom of worship should extend to people of all religious groups, no matter what their beliefs (down 16 points, from 72 percent in 2000).

"A great many Americans don't define religious liberty as a universal right for everyone," says Charles Haynes, one of the honorees. He is senior scholar at Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, which conducted the survey.

At the same time, others see a weakening in federal courts in recent years of the First Amendment provisions relating to religion, a development that could endanger the rights of minority faiths.

Freedom weaker, now

"It's a disquieting fact that the First Amendment clauses are now very weak provisions, not giving the robust protection ... that historically and for much of the 20th century they did provide," says John Witte, professor of law and religion at Emory University in Atlanta and another of the honorees.

In an era when the US is promoting democracy and freedom of conscience around the world, such knowledgeable people say, it's crucial to get the experiment right here at home.

One organization seeking to boost understanding and respect for this fundamental freedom is the Council for America's First Freedom, based in Richmond, Va. The council sponsors a variety of public education programs, including a nationwide high-school essay competition.

And each year on Jan. 16 – the date in 1786 when Virginia passed the nation's first law guaranteeing religious liberty – the council hands out First Freedom Awards to individuals whose actions have made a significant difference. The three 2008 recipients have advanced religious freedom domestically and internationally:

• For two decades, Dr. Haynes of the First Amendment Center has helped local school districts and communities across the US find common ground to resolve conflicts over religion and values. He recently helped the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe draft guidelines for the study of religions in European classrooms.

• Mr. Witte, director of Emory University's Center for the Study of Law and Religion, has led major global projects related to religion and human rights among scholars from the major faiths; the projects have broken new ground on key issues.

Labels: Center for the Study of Law and Religion, Christianity, faith, first amendment, First Amendment Center, First Freedom Awards, Jane Lampman, religion, religious freedom, Unites States

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, August 11, 2007

A non-believer - say it isn't so

A non-believer - say it isn't so
August 11, 2007

You can be gay, black or even a woman, but America will not tolerate a president who has no religion.
Anne Davies

Pete Stark found himself in a unique and slightly uncomfortable position earlier this year. The longtime Democrat congressman for the Oakland district near San Francisco had responded to a survey from the Secular Coalition for America which offered a $1000 prize to the person who could identify the "highest-level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of 'nontheist' currently holding elected public office in the United States".

To his surprise, that was him. Stark was the only one of 535 federal politicians prepared to admit he had no religion. For a few brief weeks he was the poster-boy for the humanists in a nation where, according to Pew Foundation research, eight out of 10 people say they have "no doubt God exists" and that "prayer is an important part of their daily lives".

In the immediate aftermath, Stark's staff worried about the backlash. Would his office be targeted by fire-and-brimstone Christians, prophesying his imminent damnation? One or two callers promised to pray for Stark's soul, but for the most part, the callers felt Stark was championing a position held by a significant but silent minority.

Fortunately, at 75, Stark is not planning to seek higher office. If he had been, he had just committed political suicide.

Being an atheist is the biggest handicap a person could have to being elected US president - worse than being gay or a woman, according to a Gallup poll in February.

More than 53 per cent of people surveyed said they would not vote for an atheist. They would prefer a homosexual president - 43 per cent said they would not vote for a homosexual - or a woman president (11 per cent said they would not vote for a woman).

And it seems that these days being black or Catholic or Jewish is hardly a barrier at all, with each of these factors being named as a bar by fewer than 7 per cent of voters.

That the US remains so concerned that its leaders be people of faith is surprising.

In most industrial societies, the level of religiosity declines as the society becomes wealthier and more sophisticated, according to John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which regularly surveys attitudes towards religion in the US.

Yet the US remains a highly religious place. Not the most religious place on the planet, but certainly more religious than Europe and Australia.

Labels: Anne Davies, atheism, God, Pew survey, politics, prayer, Unites States

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Our civil religion defines us

By Lloyd Omdahl,
Published Saturday, July 14, 2007

The issue of separation of church and state reared its divisive head in Fargo when the City Commission voted to move a monument proclaiming the Ten Commandments off of city property. Defenders immediately circulated petitions to initiate an ordinance that would prohibit removal of any monument that had been on city property over 40 years.

The 40-year provision will not save the monument. Court rulings have been fairly clear on the issue, requiring the inclusion of artifacts and sacred objects of other religions to demonstrate the neutrality of government toward all religions. In other words, the Ten Commandments must be secularized.

Centuries of experience with oppression arising out of an unholy integration of government and religion provide plenty of arguments for defending separation of church and state. Nevertheless, we have seen a growing affinity for integrating religion and government.

It isn’t that the merging of religion and government is something new in America. Over the past four centuries, Christian denominations have left their mark on the public square in a wide variety of ways. As a consequence, the idea of a Christian nation (perhaps an oxymoron) has grown into a civil religion.

In his recent book, Who Are We?, Prof. Samuel Huntington, a highly respected Harvard political science professor, discusses civil religion and explains that “civil religion enables Americans to bring together their secular politics and their religious society, to marry God and country, so as to give religious sanction to their patriotism…”

He saw four manifestations of civil religion in the United States.

1 The belief that the American system of governments rests on a religious base. This view is common coin among religious leaders looking for a rationale to justify a greater integration of church and state.

2 The belief that Americans are God’s chosen people. Emanating from the Old Testament, this myth has been used to justify several wars and genocide in the name of “Manifest Destiny.” (Example: Within 15 years of establishing their Godly “city on the hill” at Plymouth, the Christian colonists slaughtered the neighboring Pequot tribe for its land and praised God for delivering the Indians into their hands.)

3 Religious allusions and symbols in rituals and ceremonies are commonplace. On the political scene today, we see numerous references to God, faith and prayer, invoked to meet political and religious expectations.

4 Public ceremonies take on a religious flavor. The best examples of this characteristic are the presidential inaugurations featuring prominent religious figures invited to bless these secular events.

According to Huntington, America’s civil religion is a nondenominational, national religion that is not expressly a Christian religion, even though it is Christian in its origin. Then he offers his most compelling observation. Two words do not appear in civil religion statements and ceremonies, he says. Those two words are “Jesus Christ.”

“While the American Creed is Protestantism without God, the American civil religion is Christianity without Christ,” he concludes.

The addition of religious symbols and rituals to the public square, such as monuments of the Ten Commandments, gives strength and legitimacy to a national civil religion that becomes a substitute for personal faith. In the final analysis, all of the meaningless religious rhetoric and trappings in the public square are alien to the teachings of the New Testament.

Omdahl is former N.D. lieutenant governor and retired University of North Dakota political science teacher.

Labels: Christianity, civil religion, Jesus, Lloyd Omdahl, Samuel Huntington, separation of church and state, Unites States

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

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

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Study suggests Muslims in America more mainstream than in Europe

By Robert Marus
Published May 24, 2007

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- One of the most comprehensive studies of its kind suggests that Muslims in the United States are far better assimilated into the nation's culture -- and far less likely to espouse extremist beliefs -- than their counterparts in Europe.

The stark contrasts between the two groups may have something to do with the American traditions of religious freedom and church-state separation, according to experts in the field.

And a majority of all American Muslims surveyed believe it has become harder to be a Muslim in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Overall, the study of more than 1,000 Muslims living in the United States found that 78 percent of adult Muslims think suicide bombings are "never justified" in defense of Islam -- a far higher percentage than among European Muslims. Nearly two-thirds of Muslim Americans believe there is no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

The survey, titled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream," also found that American Muslims have income and education levels comparable to the population as a whole, despite the fact that two-thirds of adult American Muslims are immigrants.

While only 13 percent of all American Muslims believe that suicide bombings could be occasionally justified in defense of Islam, that figure was 25 percent among those under 30. In addition, native-born African-American Muslims are far more likely than the general Muslim population to have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

And while American Muslims are more likely than the population as a whole to believe that most Americans can be successful if they work hard enough, African-American Muslims are much less likely to agree with that proposition.

Nonetheless, American Muslims' tolerance of suicide bombers is much lower than corresponding figures for European Muslims, according to Pew surveys conducted last year. In the United Kingdom and Spain, about one-fourth of all Muslims said suicide bombings could be justified, while a third of French Muslims agreed.

One significant difference between American Muslims and the population as a whole is their support for the U.S.-led "war on terrorism." A 55-percent majority of interviewees believes the battle is not "a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism," while only 26 percent believe it is.

In a similar vein, less than 50 percent of American Muslims believe the United States made the right decision to use force to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. A wide majority of the overall U.S. population believes attacking Afghanistan was justified.

Overall, however, the survey suggests Muslims are integrating into society as rapidly as did previous waves of immigrants, while their European counterparts have encountered much more difficulty in integrating into society.

Diana Butler Bass, a religion scholar who writes for a religion-and-politics blog jointly sponsored by Beliefnet and Sojourners magazine, said the American tradition of religious liberty explains the vast difference between Muslim life in parts of the world that are otherwise culturally similar.

"With its contrast between the U.S. and Europe, the Pew study suggests that the separation of church and state works to create a more generous, open, and safer society in regard to terrorism," Bass wrote in a May 23 entry on the “God's Politics” blog (www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics).

"At its best, America has a heritage of Christian liberality, intellectually influenced by Christianity but open to a wide range of ideas and peoples through the practice of religious toleration," she said.

Bass concluded by saying that some conservatives' appeals to a unified "Christian America" as "the way to defeat Islamic extremism" are proven misguided by the Pew study. "The path to peace between Christians and Muslims is that of religious freedom, separation of church and state, and appreciative toleration in the best traditions of liberality," she wrote.

Labels: Muslims, suicide bombings, survey, terrorism, Unites States

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Americans Split Over Religion in Politics

Americans Split Over Religion in Politics
April 7, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Adults in the United States are divided in their perception of the role organized religion currently plays in public life, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates released by Newsweek. 32 per cent think organized religion has too much influence on politics, 31 per cent say it has too little influence, and 29 per cent believe the balance is adequate.

In June 2005, U.S. president George W. Bush defended his decision to allow access to federal funds for faith-based organizations, saying, "Building a more compassionate society requires that we mobilize our nation’s armies of compassion to help the poor, the sick, and those who hurt. America’s faith-based institutions change hearts every day. And we depend on the work of these organizations to bring hope to harsh places."

In December 2006, American journalist Amy Sullivan discussed the importance of religion in presidential elections, saying, "In 2004 only one of the primary candidates had any staff member who was reaching out to religious constituencies and to voter. At this point it looks like perhaps not all but at least a majority of candidates in 2008 primary will have somebody on staff focused on religious outreach and religious strategy, and that’s a sea change in the space of four years." 36 per cent of respondents think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years, 23 per cent say it has decreased, and 37 per cent believe it has stayed roughly the same.

Polling Data

Do you think organized religion has too much influence on American politics today, too little influence, or about the right amount?

Too much influence
32%

Too little influence
31%

Right amount
29%

Don’t know
8%

Do you think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years, decreased, or stayed about the same?

Increased
36%

Decreased
23%

Stayed about the same
37%

Don’t know
4%

Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates / Newsweek
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,004 American adults, conducted on Mar. 28 and Mar. 29, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Labels: elections, faith-based initiative, politics, Princeton Survey Research Associates, religion, Unites States