TruthBook Religious News Blog

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

Thursday, September 06, 2007

They can pray; can they lead?

September 4, 2007
Sandy Sasso

This past summer a survey by the Pew Research Center highlighted those characteristics that would make a person less likely to support a presidential candidate. Some of the results were heartening. The majority of respondents said that it made no difference if the candidate were black, Hispanic or a woman. When race, ethnic background and gender no longer determine a person's electability, then we have reason to celebrate.

Such knowledge about the American electorate might help to refocus the questions addressed to candidates. We can stop worrying about whether a person is black enough or woman enough or charismatic enough and start focusing on whether an individual is wise enough, visionary enough and knowledgeable enough to be president.

The survey offered other good news. More than half the people questioned indicated that it made no difference if a candidate were divorced or even had an extramarital affair. Perhaps this is an indication that Americans have decided it is time we stopped prying into candidates' private matters and making soap operas out of the lives of politicians. There is too much at stake for our country and the world.

The truth is that a person who might not be a good choice for a spouse might just be a great president. The truth is that we might just have more people interested in running for office if they had to worry less about skeletons in their home closets and more about domestic and international issues that will affect how secure we feel in our own homes.

But the survey pointed to some reasons for concern. The majority of respondents, 63 percent, indicated that they would be less likely to support a candidate who did not believe in God. That figure is more than 20 percent higher than the 46 percent of people who would be less likely to support a candidate who had no college education. And while Americans seem less concerned than in the past about what particular faith an individual politician affirms, a significant 39 percent would be more likely to support someone who is Christian.

There is reason to worry when issues of faith trump education, when what individuals believe is more important than what they know, when praying is of greater significance than learning.

Those running for office are well aware of the American predilection for belief in God. So they clamor to outdo one another in showing just how pious they are. They know that they have to be religious enough to get elected.

I am a member of the clergy, but I do not feel any more confident in a candidate's ability to run our country when I see him or her coming out of church, synagogue or mosque fresh from worship.

There is no doubt that belief in God can be good. It can be the foundation of moral character, responsibility and compassion. It can be a bulwark against complacency, selfishness and greed. But it isn't always. We all know of those who have professed belief in God and lived immorally. Everywhere in the world, there are people who oppress and go to war in God's name.

Religion can make good people better, but it can also make bad people worse by allowing them to believe without question that their decisions are already endorsed. The results of bad religion continue to make headlines in acts of terrorism, bigotry and violence.

We shouldn't be judging candidates by their professed belief in God or how many times they are seen attending worship services. It doesn't really tell us anything about how they would lead our country. We should rather be examining what policies they endorse, what they have to say about health care, education and poverty, about terrorism, international diplomacy and peace. In the end, that will tell us more about what they really believe in and what kind of leaders they will be.

Labels: clergy, God, leadership, Pew Research Center survey, politics, religion, Sandy Sasso