Religion

Midtopia has a nice article pointing out some of the hypocrisy in the “controversy” of Romney’s Mormonism versus the fears of some War-on-Terror hawks of Islam:

Which brings us to Romney. Because in his case I’m starting to see the roles reversed: Some liberals/Democrats bashing Mormonism (using sites such as this one) and conservatives/Republicans defending him.

All of which, with luck, gives us an opportunity to pause and think. Liberals should realize that by adopting the tactics of Islamaphobes, they become no better than those they oppose. Conservatives should realize that if the tactic is illegitimate when directed at Romney, it’s also illegitimate when directed at Muslims.

That assumes that bitter partisans can adopt some reason and logic when girded for battle in the political arena. Politics is ripe with hypocrisy, and while Sean Aqui makes an excellent point in highlighting it here… there are far too many political folks needing a close encounter with a clue-by-four to give me much hope of reason prevailing right now.

In the past few days, there have been a couple of observations made about how religious beliefs challenge security-theater requirements for identification cards.

First, via Election Updates, I came across this New York Times article:

The Mennonites, a plain-living sect whose members are similar to the Amish but typically more worldly, say the 2004 law conflicts with the Biblical prohibition against the making of “graven images.”[.]

Around Huntsville, community members say that more than a dozen families are preparing to move south to Arkansas, where state law offers a religious exemption to the photo requirement. Mennonite enclaves near Rolla, Springfield and Vandalia are also facing such a decision.

Missouri had an exemption similar to Arkansas’s for more than 30 years. That changed in the security crackdown after the Sept. 11 attacks. Now, those who object to the requirement must still be photographed, but they can have their pictures left off their licenses.[.]

Amish who have been allowed to cross the border into Canada and Mexico for medical treatment or to visit relatives without passports will no longer have that option starting in January. Those who object to having passport photos taken will effectively be unable to leave the country.

Combine that also with the photo ID requirements cropping up in several states. If no religious exemptions are made, presumably entire religious groups could be forced to choose between their beliefs and the right to vote.

Meanwhile, I remain unsuccessful in my efforts to avoid photo ID’s on the basis of one’s soul being eroded by photography. (What can I say? I hold a few old superstitions.)

In related news, we have this story from the Victoria Times Colonist (found via Election Law Blog):

Quebec’s chief electoral officer took the extraordinary step of unilaterally changing Quebec’s election law Friday in order to force everyone who votes Monday to show their face.

And a Muslim group said the entire controversy - which relates to Muslim women who wear full face veils known as niqabs - has been fabricated by news outlets that are “fuelling hate” toward Muslims and leaving some members of the community fearing for their safety.

Changing voting requirements on the business day before an election? Come on now.

The article goes on to mention that in other Canadian provinces, there are procedures in place to permit veiled individuals to vote - namely, the voter is required to provide some proof of identity, including having someone else swear to the veiled individual’s identity. Of course, in those provinces, there is no photo ID requirement either.

You may have noticed by now that I have a bit of an interest in the debate currently engulfing the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. The short version — the mainstream Episcopal Church is being deemed too liberal, particularly when it comes to homosexuality, and some folks within the Anglican Community domestically and abroad are seeking to sever ties.

This editorial which appeared in the Courant a couple of days ago does a pretty good job highlighting how the debate seems to be degenerating into a mess by folks who are missing a bigger point:

Further, the Tanzanian bishops declared that “the Anglican Church of Tanzania shall not knowingly accept financial and material aid from dioceses, parishes, bishops, priests, individuals and institutions in the Episcopal Church that condone homosexual practice or bless same-sex unions.”

For our congregation - and our family - the partnership was more than a feel-good exercise. Twenty Tanzanian teenagers who expected to start school in January did not, because the scholarship money we sent for them was not accepted.

A big issue I have with organized religion today is that so much energy is spent in posturing and politicing on issues that, in the grand scheme of things, really shouldn’t matter.

It’s one thing to alter affiliations based on theological differences. However, when it comes to helping others…shouldn’t that transcend other issues?

More news on the ongoing schism within the Episcopal Church in the U.S., from the Memphis Commercial Appeal:

Delegates from a dozen churches in Memphis and across the South will ask the Anglican Church of Kenya to form a diocese and appoint a bishop for them in America.

The unprecedented request was given to Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, who was in Memphis over the weekend for meetings and services hosted by St. Peter’s Anglican Church in East Memphis. [...]

Nzimbi cautioned the U.S. delegates not to expect too much too soon. The next step might be to form an American deanery, a less formal collection of parishes, which could grow into a larger diocese headed by a bishop.

It’s still sad to watch a demonination fracture in a “them” versus “us” debate.

Also seen in today’s AJC:

Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton announced in Atlanta on Tuesday the creation of a Baptist organization they said would counter what they say is a negative image of their faith.

The New Baptist Convention was announced at the Carter Center by representatives of about 40 moderate Baptist groups that have distanced themselves from the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. Carter and Clinton — both Baptists — said the New Baptist Convention will look for solutions to problems such as poverty and racism. Carter and Clinton said they want to counter concerns that Baptists have been “negative” and “exclusionary” and promised an inclusive organization willing to debate openly all issues.

One of the things that has troubled me while watching the ongoing schism within the Episcopal Church USA is the level of hatred and inward, exclusionary focus that have been expressed by some.

I suppose that the same thing has been going on within the Baptist meta-denomination.

It’s nice to see that some Christians are getting some publicity for challenging the intolerant stereotype held of them by a few folks in certain circles.

Having been raised Episcopalian, I’ve been following the intra-denominational bickering between conservative and liberal Episcopalians with some sadness for years.

While the news in this New York Times article isn’t particularly surprising, I do find it particularly depressing:

In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant. Archbishop Akinola presides over the largest province in the 77-million-member Anglican Communion; it has more than 17 million members, dwarfing the Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million.

If all eight Virginia churches vote to separate, the Diocese of Virginia, the largest Episcopal diocese in the country, will lose about 10 percent of its 90,000 members. In addition, four churches in Virginia have already voted to secede, and two more are expected to vote soon, said Patrick N. Getlein, secretary of the diocese.

Two weeks ago, the entire diocese in San Joaquin, Calif., voted to sever its ties with the Episcopal Church, a decision it would have to confirm in a second vote next year. Six or more American dioceses say they are considering such a move.

In the last three years, since the Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives with his partner, as bishop of New Hampshire, about three dozen American churches have voted to secede and affiliate with provinces overseas, according to The Episcopal News Service.

The question of same gender marriage has re-ignited in the wake of this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that state laws require the legislature to change the law to permit gay & lesbian couples to marry, or to create a legal construct equivalent to marriage (i.e., civil unions).

I hold the position that the government ought to get out of the marriage business. Leave the definition of “marriage” to churches and social institutions, and simply package up the legal rights afforded to families under the heading of “civil unions”. A religion-based argument for this is as follows:

• Marriage comes from God
   
• The state cannot legislate whom God can or cannot join together in marriage. Any attempt to do so is at best silly, and at worst constitutes an attempt to give official preference to one set of religious views over others.
   
• There is however a societal benefit to having a civil package of rights and privileges associated with the creation of families.
   
• Therefore maintain that package of rights/privileges, but avoid the inherently religious question of who can/can’t get married by calling it something other than “marriage”.

According to Father Jake, the Episcopal diocese of Massachusetts seems to be approaching the question from the other direction, by considering a resolution to require marriages to be officiated by an agent of the state, and simply be blessed by Episcopal clergy.

Father Jake quotes the Boston Globe in providing an explanation of the proposed measure:

Episcopal priests in Massachusetts have been particularly engaged in the issue of gay marriage, because the diocese here has been strongly supportive of gay rights, but the national church’s regulations define marriage as a heterosexual institution. The local bishop, M. Thomas Shaw , a supporter of same-sex marriage, has decreed that local Episcopal priests cannot sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, but can bless those couples after they are legally married by clergy of another denomination or by a civil official.

“I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks,” said the Rev. Margaret (Mally) E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth.

It’s an interesting idea, but I think the resolution ought to be re-worded.

It’s understandable that Massachusetts Episcopal priests feel bound to offer the sacrament of marriage only to opposite-gender couples, but OK to bless the unions of same-gender couples. (I disagree with that position, but I understand it and will accept it as a “given” for this post.)

Therefore, I think a better approach would be to rephrase the resolution to exhort priests to not sign government marriage certificates…at least not as agents of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

That provides essentially the same distinction between “church marriage” and “state marriage” that I seek by proposing that the government get out of the marriage business.

Two articles touching on Christian evangelism have caught my eye recently.

First, from his Livejournal, Cahwyguy points to an article at jewsonfirst.org on a couple of lawsuits against the Indian River, DE schools for a bit too much co-mingling of Christianity and public education. The entire article is worth a read.

Many of the church-and-state lawsuits against municipal entities which I’ve been aware of previously have seemed to me to be best resolved by the plaintiff growing a thicker skin. However, some of the allegations in this suit, if true, are clearly beyond the thick-skinned expectation. For example:

When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son “Jordan Doe” was left alone when his classmates went to Bible Club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club regardless of his religion.[.]

I’m not an advocate of “keeping religion out of schools”, mind you. I just have a problem with government employees advocating a particular religion (or a particular flavor of a religion) over other faiths/agnosticism/atheism.

Also seen while surfing: a New York Times article on the erection of an adaptation of the Statue of Liberty in Memphis:

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of [Lady Liberty], but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown.

And in place of a torch, she held aloft a large gold cross, as if to ward off the pawnshops, the car dealerships and the discount furniture outlets at the busy corner of Kirby Parkway and Winchester that is her home. A single tear graced her cheek.

I’ve seen many folks online comment on the ostentatiousness of the display and the ethics of blending nationalism with religion. However, a different pair of thoughts strike me:

• How much did that 72 foot statue cost?
• While the congregation is certainly within its rights to spend money to make such a dramatic expression of faith and opinion.I wonder if there wouldn’t have been a better use for those resources, like combating poverty and illness.

I haven’t blogged too much about some of what I’ve been sadly observing on the net regarding the church I grew up in. However, this WaPo article was too much for me to not comment on:

On June 18, the Episcopal Church’s General Convention elected Jefferts Schori to a nine-year term as the denomination’s presiding bishop, making her the first woman to head any branch of the Anglican Communion, the worldwide family of churches descended from the Church of England.

Although she will not take up her new role until November, six U.S. dioceses already have rejected her authority, and that number is rising. Many church leaders expect that by the time she takes office, about five more, for a total of 10 percent of the nation’s 111 Episcopal dioceses, will have joined the rejectionist camp.

The six currently wayward dioceses are Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Central Florida, San Joaquin (CA), Fort Worth, and Springfield (IL). That doesn’t include scattered individual parishes that are considering bolting as well.

Some of the blueness I have over the matter is seeing an organization that for so many years managed to find a moderate path, focusing on common ground splinter apart over one or two seemingly irreconcilable issues. The vitriol from the right and the left in this matter is huge, and there seems to be intense pressure for folks in the middle to pick their sides.

This just isn’t right:

At the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in the small town of Fernley, Nev., there is a wall of brass plaques for local heroes. But one space is blank. There is no memorial for Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart.

That’s because Stewart was a Wiccan, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion — a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle — to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers.

The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Baha’i and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists.

It seems to me that if you are going to have a government that is obliged to be neutral when it comes to the standing of different religions or a lack of religion acknowledge the faith on memorials to those who have died for the country, that acknowledgement should be done regardless of the deceased’s faith.

If you’re curious about which faiths’ symbols are currently permitted, the official list is available at the VA’s website.