Archive for the 'Religion' Category

According to a post over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, the UM Law School has been sued by a student legal group over being denied recognition due to bylaws that restrict their membership to those who share their religious beliefs. From the complaint:

In June 2008 CLS-UM began seeking recognized status as a student organization. In applying for recognition and later through counsel the chapter explained that participation in any of its activities or meetings is open to all, but that voting members and officers are required to agree with the Christian Legal Society Statement of Faith, including its interpretation that Christians should not engage in sexual activity outside the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The SBA Executive Board granted the chapter preliminary recognition, and then voted to recognize CLS-UM as a law school student organization. The Board informed CLS-UM that it was officially school student organization. recognized, and included CLS-UM in the SBA budget.

Pursuant to its bylaws, the SBA Executive Board then submitted the proposed student activities fund budget to the entire law school student body for ratification. No guidelines or instructions were provided to the student body to prevent viewpoint-based discrimination in the budget ratification vote. However, several students broadcast e-mails to the entire student body opposing recognition and SBA funding to CLS-UM, a sentiment vocally supported by some law school faculty members. In a closely divided vote the student body rejected the SBA budget. In response, the next day the SBA Executive Board derecognized the chapter stating that CLS-UM’s Statement of Faith requirement and its interpretation to prohibit sexual relationships outside of marriage for its voting members and leaders, violated an SBA nondiscrimination rule. The SBA Executive Board did not specify which part or parts of this rule CLS-UM was alleged to violate.

The group is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Conservative Christian legal organization.

Assuming the complaint states the situation accurately, I’d say they’re in the right and should win their suit. There have been a couple of these cases recently, notably at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, and the student groups have come out on top. It’s a bit absurd if you think about it. What’s the point of having groups formed around one idea or another if you can’t keep those who disagree with that idea out of the group? A Christian group should be treated the same as any other group, whether it be College Democrats or a skiing club.

Interestingly, ASUM seems to have recognized the group, even though the law school has not.

So, with the caveat that what I quoted from the complaint is accurate, here’s hoping CLS prevails.

On Thursday, now-presidential contender Fred Thompson said the following:

“we still get our basic rights from God, not government.”

It is a very loaded quote, but one that seems to be very simple.  Certainly some of this sites readers will agree and some will disagree.  You probably don’t need to ask what I think.  My question, and it is largely one for those would agree with Thompson, is this:

What ‘basic rights’ do we have, that in a Democracy such as ours, the people (government) could not take away from you?

Give me a good answer to that, and I might rethink Thompson’s statement.

Generally this denial of science is more easy for me to understand than the denial of evolution we discussed yesterday. I understand the fear and inability to comprehend let alone begin dealing with the magnitude of the problem. Really, consider the point of those that don’t believe that man contributes to global warming. How do you even begin the dealing with a problem of this magnitude? It is huge. Everyone drives, companies dump raw wastes etc etc. How do you fix all of that without harming the economy? This is compounded when you consider the fact that the Earth does not care about our artificial borders and so any valid effort would require global participation. If our brethren don’t live by the rules and we do then we would lose our ability to compete in the global economy.

See, I have been listening. I hear these arguments and I think that they are worth debating as we decide the best way to move forward. I am sure that the discussion I intended to have here will turn into that debate in the comments and that is OK. In fact, before I move on, I will take the opening shot. Imagine a world where we can’t grow crops because 2/3rd of the currently habitable world looks like it should be on a Sally Struthers show. What the hell do you think that will do to the economy?

What I don’t understand is the out and out denial of scientific evidence just because it does not suit one’s model of the world. Climatology is basically rocket science or brain surgery. It is complicated stuff and the intricate science involved is way above my lunch. I don’t trust one them at face value though, and I would not ask you to. However, when you have 99% of them moving towards the same conclusion using independent, verifiable, reviewed and validated methodology, who am I to say otherwise? When the vast majority of scientists in a particular field have concurred on a central fact, I have a tendency to trust them because I have an understanding of the scientific method. The only way that I can ‘debunk’ an accepted theory is to show that it is wrong using the scientific method. Why is the burden of proof on me? Because when the theory was growing legs, the burden of proof was on those that put forth the hypotheses in the first place.

Let’s go over the scientific method. Have you ever been to the city on a still summer afternoon around 5:30 pm and seen the could of carbon covering the city? Do you think that stuff has no effect? Now note that the more densely people are clustered the more polluted it is. These are not scientific fact though, they are only my anecdotal observations. That is how the scientific method begins, a simple observation. You ask yourself the question “Do these auto emissions contribute to global warming?” The next step would be to collect some data, look at trends and develop your hypothesis. In this case: Auto emission contribute to global warming. From there, you have to experimentally prove or disprove the hypothesis. Your experimental methods have to be documented, observable, reproducible. Now you can review what you have and form a hypotheses to explain the phenomena you have documented. Then you write about what you have done with copious amounts of details. Your work is reviewed by a panel of your peers and if they find merit it will be published. If further evidence backs your work, it will gain consensus. If further evidence disproves your work, it will be rejected.

You see, it is a rigorous process. While it is not perfect, it is a damn good system. Sure you can show examples where the occasional fraud has published a paper, but I think these exceptions go towards proving the rule.

While the biggest objections to man’s contribution to global warming have come from industry and a certain political party that may or may not be in bed with industry. I expected that, it really is a economic and lifestyle issue. What I did not expect was that it too would become a religious issue. Yesterday the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in America, approved a resolution questioning the science behind man’s role in global warming.

Southern Baptists approved a resolution on global warming Wednesday that questions the prevailing scientific belief that humans are largely to blame for the phenomenon and also warns that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will hurt the poor.

I have to ask, how many climatologist were part of this drafting and what is the point?

I just got an email from Emily Lockwood, the Online Strategies Manager from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Her email was about the policies of the new owners of Snyder’s Drug store in Great Falls. It seems that a lady went to have her birth control prescription filled. All she got from the pharmacist counter was the following note that reads “Snyder Drugs will no longer carry oral contraceptives.”

It could have been anyone, but this particular example comes from a 49 year old lady who does not use the pills as a contraceptive. When asked ‘why’, one of the new owners told her that the pills are dangerous for women.

Upon hearing this story, I put on my investigative journalism hat (it’s made of tinfoil) and called the pharmacy. I was told that this was the policy and that it had been the choice of the new owners, Stuart Anderson and Kurt and Kori Depner.

Far be it from me to make policy decisions, but isn’t this a bit… insane? Shouldn’t the safety of the drugs in question be left up to the woman, her doctor and the FDA? Did this decision really involve patient safety or was it purely religious ideology? Consider this ad that Anderson signed on to:

As health-care professionals, we call upon the American people to once again reaffirm the right to life for future generations of the unborn and join with us in our efforts to restore respect, dignity and value to each human life-born or unborn.

Now, I support an owners right to run their business in the way they see fit. However, I do take issue with folks hiding a religious agenda behind the guise of ’safety’. Additionally, while it is one thing to say that you do not want to sell certain products because it attracts the kind of business that would drive away your other customers (alcohol, nudy books), this is somehow more insidious as it attempts to say ‘I don’t believe in this in my personal life so I am not going to sell it to you and you are somehow wrong for wanting it’. I take exception with that. We are talking about birth control here, not a bag of slow-roasted puppy heads.

Someone told me that someone, somewhere wrote a letter to the editor saying that I didn’t support our troops (I would link to it if I could find it), and something about headlines in the IR. I can’t find the letter, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to respond.

First off, I completely agree, little Loic and his tragedy, should have been the top story. Hands down, no questions asked.
Another point was raised: supporting our troops. One thing I said in my interview, and the reporter noted, is that I firmly believe that you can support our troops, but not the war.
Things get edited in reporting stories, for space and time, and I don’t blame the reporter. The Editor might have something to answer too. Yes, there was an inflammatory comment, taken slightly out of context, and without what I really said behind the statement.
I do believe that we should start to pull our troops out. I also believe that we have a duty to the citizens of Iraq to do the best we can to facilitate their new government, and to protect our own people. I believe that the troops are doing their sworn duty to the US, and I support them.
That is why I am speaking out against the war. For ours and theirs.
Who knows? 3 years from now people might point at me, and say how wrong I was. I am ok with that, because I believe, given all that I know now, that this is the right course of action to take.
Wars aren’t won. A truce is called. Someone claims to be the victor, and someone brushes under the rug that they might be considered the “loser”. No one wins when their beloveds die. And who are we to say that one person is more important than the other?
Wars aren’t won. Wars are fought. Wars end in a truce.

Isn’t it time to take another look at how we are approaching the “War” (military engagement) in Iraq?

They say hindsight is 20/20. I think it is time to take a look back, and evaluate.
How can that be a bad thing?

Recently, the Bozeman city council chose to have the ten commandments reinstalled in Soroptimist Park. Since this effort is to be privately funded, the city council decided that it gave them a free pass. The whole saga really is an interesting story. Read about it at New West. Now. it seems that the ACLU is going to look into the whole issue.

In discussing the issue last Monday, three of the commissioners said the monument didn’t necessarily promote one religion over another and didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that monuments featuring religious themes can be displayed on public property as long as they don’t imply government endorsement of a specific religion

Everyone here should know by now how ardent my support is for a strict separation of church and state. With that said, I want you to know that the argument that I am about to make is not made to play the devil’s advocate (no pun intended).

I would submit that we allow the public display of words of wisdom in public places if they come from secular sources, so why deny the right to display these words of wisdom just because they come from the Judeo-Christian bible? Aren’t sentiments about honoring your father and mother, not killing and not stealing pretty much universal beliefs among modern society? For the most part, they are. How about this one:

You shall have no other no other gods before me

Hmm. Since these are commandments of the Jehovah god, how is this not an endorsement of that god over other gods? I just don’t get it. Would folks be so into a big stone plaque in their park that said:

Muhammad is the FINAL and greatest prophet from God.

or

You shall have no god at all.

What if it were put on public land with private money? Would that somehow make it OK with people. You may argue that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. I would say yes, and my people that were seeking to escape the religious theocracies in the home world so they could worship as they please. They had absolutely no intentions of setting this country up as a theocracy. If a Christian theocracy is what you are looking for, America is not it. Jeff has a really good post covering many of these arguments.

So, again we are being assailed by some folks who want to claim that Christmas is under attack and some folks who want to attack Christmas. Most of what is being called attacks are statements like ‘We want to include everyone, so let’s say Happy Holidays’. Most of those claiming attacks say that godless liberals want to take the Christ out of Christmas. Really, I find it difficult to get excited about any of these argument. Why? Well, Christmas is an American holiday in my mind. One shared by all. I get pissed when Christians try to change Halloween into a ‘Harvest Festival’ for the very same reasons. No, I don’t think this means much. Just something for Bill O and Rush to yap about.

What really bugs me? The REAL war on Christmas. It seems that new reports claim that there will be no ice left in the Arctic by 2040. This will really destroy Christmas. How the hell is Santa going to keep the workshop at the north pole hidden without ice?? Ever stopped to think of that when you drive your stupid H2 to pick up your one kid from soccer practice across town?

Nope, who cares about ‘Happy Holidays’ vs ‘Merry Christmas’ or ‘Inclusive Celebration’ vs ‘Just Ours’ when Santa will likely die of heat exhaustion?

Judging from appearances, the religious right has a lot of power in this country. A good portion of Republican legislators attempt to present themselves as religious conservatives. People like James Dobson have a good deal of influence over quite a few people and they have the ears of many of those in power. You see that and then you look at the conflicts over religion in government that have flared up recently:

• “In God We Trust” not displayed prominently enough on some new coins
• The uproar over a Muslim Congressman being sworn in using a copy of the Koran
• Religious holiday decorations in public places
• Toys for Tots’s refusal (and subsequent reversal) to accept Jesus toys
• The singing of Christmas songs in public schools

While there are a few serious (Intelligent Design being taught in public schools) and semi-serious (Ten Commandments monuments in court houses) conflicts going on, most of this seems inconsequential and a little absurd. If this is the state of church-state separation, those of us who favor it are doing pretty well, all things considered. If this is all of their agenda the religious right can get into public view after six years of leaders who claimed to agree with that agenda, how powerful are they and is there much to be worried about?

Although I am not the most religious guy there is, I think Jesus is pretty cool. I suppose he, like everything else in the world, has been used to justify some awful things, but that doesn’t mean his message and life shouldn’t be looked up to. That is why this news saddens me a bit.

Joel Hunter, the man scheduled to take the reins of the Christian Coalition, has decided to decline the position. Believe me, I am not sad to hear the Christian Coalition suffer this loss, as they are far from my favorite group. What is sad is the reason Hunter decided to leave. Hunter was excited to work on issues that were important to him, such as the environment and poverty; issues he thought would be important to Jesus. The sad part, was that the Christian Coalition didn’t have the desire to work on those issues:

Hunter announced his decision not to take the job during an organization board meeting Nov. 21. A statement issued by the group said Hunter left because of “differences in philosophy and vision.” Hunter said he was not asked to leave.

What differences of philosophy could separate a Reverend from a religious organization? That would be politically divisive and extreme differences.

…the organization wouldn’t let him expand its agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage.

“They pretty much said, ‘These issues [environment and poverty] are fine, but they’re not our issues, that’s not our base,’” Hunter said.

I think it is pretty sad that an organization that claims to follow the teachings of Jesus has no desire to work on poverty issues. Say what you want about gay marriage and abortion, contentious as they are, there is no way to misinterpret Jesus when it comes to the poorest and neediest of us. Even if you really believe good Christians should oppose gay marriage and abortion; that cause shouldn’t hold a candle to helping your fellow man. Hopefully no matter which side of the aisle you are on, you can support that.  It appears that the Christian Coaliton has forgotten what Jesus really came to teach us; they only care about the ‘base’.

I have been busy lately with something quite different than politics, my family. And what a wonderful break it was. I also spent some time curled up on the couch, taking in a few of my old favorite holiday movies, and one struck a chord with me politically.

If you have seen the “new” Miracle on 34th Street, you might remember that the case hinged on the words “In God We Trust” which is printed on the back of our currency; and if the US Government can put out money, that is backed by the Government, and paid for by the people, then we as Americans are saying that we don’t necessarily need hard facts or evidence to believe in something bigger than ourselves.

The question I asked myself is “How do I feel about those words on the back of US Currency?”. Certainly not all Americans believe in God, and those of us who do, believe in all sorts of different Gods. I for one do not need hard evidence that he/she exists; I know it deep within myself, even more certainly than I know my own hair color.

One of the great things about America is that one of the reasons we got started in the first place, is to allow people the freedom to worship as they chose. Now there have definitely been more than a few instances where these rights were overlooked, just consider the Native Americans, but all in all, our government has, in the end, done the right thing, and stuck to the principle of religious freedom. And that makes me proud to be an American. A country where we stick our necks out for each other, even if we don’t agree with you, we believe in your right to be who you are. Don’t we? *Raises an eyebrow*

You like being able to say a prayer in public? Well, kiss that goodbye. A group of Arab scholars were removed from a US Airways plane after they were overheard saying their normal afternoon prayers in an airport terminal before they got on the plane.

An airport police report said a US Airways manager said three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. A passenger told police the men were praying and making critical comments about the war in Iraq. Some of the men also asked for seat belt extensions even though a flight attendant told police she thought they didn’t need them.

The police report said the flight’s captain had already decided he wanted the men off the plane after the passenger passed him a note pointing out “suspicious Arabic men.”

This is a lot to digest here, more than just religious freedom. All you have to do is call someone a suspicious Arabic man and they get kicked off a plane? Being critical of the Iraq war gets you kicked off a plane? Saying a prayer before boarding gets you kicked off a plane?

Think about that the next time you having dinner in a restaurant and want to say a little prayer. Do I have the ability to claim that you are a ’suspicious evangelical person’. Is it my civic duty, you might bomb an abortion clinic after all.

“The police came and take us off the plane in front of all the passengers in a very humiliated way,” Shahin said. “I never felt bad in my life like yesterday. It was the worst moment in my life when I see six imams, six leaders in this community, humiliated.”

[snip]

Now, he said, his days of praying in airports may be over. “It’s terrible, unfortunately,” he said. “In America we have no freedom to practice our faith, to do our faith.”

What the hell is going on here? Is this just ‘OK’ because they are Arabic? The kicker? They were returning from a conference on religious tolerance.

What a fantastic exchange today at the U.N., regarding the some 340,000 people in the U.K. that listed “Jedi” as their official religion in the last census.  Excerpted from an exchange between a reporter and Kofi Anan’s spokesman.  

Question: Just one other question, and I don’t know whether it is for you or for Gail, but in England two Jedi Knights have appealed for recognition of what they call Britain’s fourth largest religion from the United Nations. I was wondering what the procedure was whereby the UN or the General Assembly would decide whether to recognize Jedi Knights as a religion.

Spokesman: As much of a geek that I may have been as a teenager where I saw Star Wars way too many times, unfortunately we are not in a position to recognize officially, the UN is not in the business of officially recognizing religions.

Question: I’m interested, does the UN recognize any religions?

Spokesman: The UN is not in the business of certifying religions, with or without light sabres.

Question: What they tried to do is say that their concerns should be recognized, turning an international day of tolerance into an interstellar day of tolerance, and I was wondering if the UN had any…

Spokesman: Mark, if I could be transported to another planet right now, I would. On that note, Gail…

That’s what the the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina told homosexuals today when they adopted a platform to excommunicate any member church that supported or affirmed homosexuals. This is not a small organization, there are over 1.2 million members.

“We certainly won’t be walking down the streets of heaven with people from Sodom and Gomorrah,” said Ray Seeley of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Canton.

“If they have a change in their lifestyle, I believe in bringing them in and loving them. If they do not change, they shouldn’t even ask to be baptized — that would be baptizing sin in the church. “

Hmm. I am sorry, but this just doesn’t match the Jesus I was taught about. Regardless of where I stand on anything, I have read most of the Bible, much of it several times. This has real world consequences people, there are real people who are likely to get kicked out of churches that they have attended for years. They will be ostracized by the communities that they have vested their time, energy and faith in. To be sure, there were some who remembered the nature of what Jesus taught:

“It seems so contrary to … Jesus in the Gospels,” Parrish said. “He was open, vulnerable, humble — a matter of inclusion that often got him in trouble with religious people. …We must each decide whether this amendment honors Jesus. … I say no.”

Sure, it’s a church issue, not a political one. homosexuals don’t have to go to Baptists churches. Right? Dan Heimbach of Richland Creek Community Church in Wake Forest supported the issue and said

“Because we are being challenged in this day and age on this issue, we need to back this up in our constitution.”

Find another country? Eh. A pox on their houses!

We need to repeal Montana’s constitutional ban on gay marriages. I know that this is a wedge issue that many people hold close to their hearts, but constitutions need not be used to take peoples freedoms and promote inequality.

Welcome to Montana Netroots. Montana Netroots is a collaborative blog by Montana netroots activist from all parts of the political spectrum. The idea is to create an environment where ideas and topics can be shared and debated in an open manner. While it is likely that politics will always be a central issue in this type of forum, we hope to cover a broad range of topics. Discussion can be spirited but personal attacks are not OK.

Over the last election cycle, we saw that several partisan blogs with relatively few posters dominated the entire sphere. While this is good in one sense, in another sense voices go unheard. These blogs are very important, but too often a few ‘loud’ commenters end up dominating the entire discussion. Too many important voices are drowned out when this happens. We hope to provide a place where folks can discuss the issues in an adult manner without fears of ‘personal attacks’.

While politics will invariably be a central theme, we want to be open any topic that is important to Montana. Additionally, we hope to be open to a wide range of authors. We are inviting authors now, so please contact us if you want to take part.