US Southern Baptist Convention Elects First Black "First VP"

This news was announced in the June 16, 2011 edition of the Christian Post:

In a historic vote, the Convention also elected its first African-American first vice president – the Rev. Fred Luter, who pastors Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans.

The irony of an institution that was originally founded on preserving slavery as a biblical injunction is apparently not lost on the Rev. According to The Associated Press, Luter said it doesn’t make him uncomfortable that people want to see this as a milestone for African-Americans.

“There’s no way we can get around it,” Luter said. “Here’s a convention that started on slavery. Years later you have an African-American one step away from the presidency. I can’t deny that.”

Yet "getting around it" is apparently exactly what Luter and his fellow SBC members have done. Luter failed to explain how exactly he or his brethren could believe in a literal interpretation of the bible while changing their position on slavery and blacks, a position which many objective observers would point out to be hypocritical and self-serving.

Luter is not the first African-American to hold an executive position with the SBC. In 1994, the Convention elected Rev. Gary Frost as its second vice president. The following year, the Convention issued an apology to African-Americas for supporting slavery, although also at that time failing to provide the doctrinal explanation for the foundational change in the organization.

VA Loses Court Case to Exclude JC From Mem. Day Prayer

Today's Christian Post triumphs Christian pastor's 'win' over the US Department of Veteran Affairs to be allowed to specifically refer to his deity, Jesus Christ, in a prayer invocation being held at the Houston National Cemetery over Memorial Day.  US District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled that the US government had no right to censor his prayer.

Although the ruling is contrary to a number of past court rulings and is still subject to appellate review, if it stands, it could significantly change existing church-state separation law.  The law for years has allowed the sponsorship of prayers at public and government-sponsored events as long as they were 'nondenominational' and did not specifically call out or refer to any particular divinity.  If this ruling stands, the government will be constrained from regulating any proselytization at government events. This would conceivably also include public school graduations, where Christian Supremacists in Texas and elsewhere have been quite aggressive in demanding the 'right' to promote their personal faith at such events.

On the surface, it seems yet another point where the Religious Right has successfully eroded the First Amendment in this country.

On the other hand, this might also provide an opportunity for pro-separationists to rally the troops and demand that the government redraw the boundary line where religion may participate in the government square. The issue that the judge sidestepped and which should have trumped in this case is whether the government had the authority to invite a pastor to give any prayer whatsoever at a federally-funded memorial service? In reference to the Arab proverb about the camel's nose in the tent, the camel has basically squeezed its entire self into the government's tent at this point, and it's time to kick it out altogether if the First Amendment is to mean anything at all.

Moderate Believers Better Off Without Church

New research finds the well-documented link between religiosity and happiness applies only to those whose faith is robust:



http://www.miller- mccune.com/ culture-society/ benefits- of-religion- limited-to- fervent-believer s-2-28722/

The benefits of belonging to a religious community don’t have to be taken on faith. Numerous studies have linked participation in a congregation with good physical and mental health, as well as higher levels of subjective well-being.  But a new paper offers a rather large caveat to those findings.

“While fervent believers benefit from their involvement, those with weaker beliefs are actually less happy than those who do not ascribe to any religion,” a research team led by Daniel Mochon of the Yale School of Management reports in the journal Social Indicators Research. “As commitment wanes, religious involvement may become detrimental to well-being, and individuals may be better off seeking new affiliations.”

They found that “[w]hile people who are highly religious seem to have the highest levels of subjective well-being, those with more moderate belief seem to suffer from their religious involvement.”

Specifically, those at the top end of the religiosity scale “reported significantly higher well-being” than those at the bottom. But those in the middle were no happier than the nonreligious, and those with moderate to low levels of religious belief reported lower levels of well-being than atheists and agnostics.

“Those with temperate faith can be harmed by their affiliation, and may be even less happy than those who have chosen to forgo religious affiliation altogether,” the researchers report.

Why would this be? Evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber, who was not involved with this study, arguably put his finger on it when he noted that religions, whatever their doctrinal differences, “promote the conviction that our existence is purposeful and our lives worthwhile.” This positive outlook “carries a substantial health premium,” he notes.

But if one is regularly hearing about this sense of purpose but doubting its veracity, it’s easy to see how any immune system-boosting benefits could be negated. Under such circumstances, it might be less stressful to simply abandon the shaky belief or find another that is a more comfortable fit.

The bottom line for churchgoers: If your faith is strong and you take comfort in being part of a community of like-minded people, you’re probably doing yourself some good. On the other hand, if you’re standing in a large, drafty building listening to a message that doesn’t really resonate, it might be best to respectfully take your leave.

Christians Need to Prepare for Normalization of Gay Marriage

The Christian Post included an article today from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler, advising Christians to "prepare for the normalization of gay marriage".

I can only applaud this acknowledgement and acceptance of political trends, if not acceptance of gay marriage as a moral right.  Mohler clearly continues in the rest of his article to hold that gay marriage is an abomination against Jesus and should continue to be opposed by Christians.

The article states: "Marriage is still an institution Christians need to save, particularly in their own community."  Really?  Even though Christianity has historically took interest in marriage only in the past 400 years?  If Dr. Mohler not aware that Jesus never bothered to marry or to even talk about marriage; and his most influential supporter, Paul of Tarsus, considered marriage as something distasteful and to be avoided at most all costs. 
But the more interesting claim Mohler makes in the article is that 'God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman', and that 'only makes sense if one understands the Gospel.'  Given the above, one can only wonder if Mohler has even read his 'Gospel'.
One can appreciate why Jesus and Paul took little interest in marriage if one recognizes that Jesus' message of was apocalyptic: If the world is on the verge of coming to an end, and if God prefers virgins, why waste time polluting yourself with marriage?  Perhaps Mohler is not aware of the tradition of Catholic clergy needing to remain celibate coming directly from this understanding of the 'Gospel'.
Mohler continues: "It's interesting now that the world is so morally upside down that when we talk about marriage we have to make a distinction between natural marriage – heterosexual marriage – and this new thing that people are calling marriage," Mohler said.  "Ultimately, the worldview or the belief that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman only makes sense if one understands the Gospel."

Mohler's use of the word 'natural' makes one wonder what he thinks 'natural' means?  The idea of marriage being "natural" is a bit absurd.  To be 'married', a society has to first define marriage and then create an institution that will acknowledge and record those who are recognized as married.  Not a whole lot different from being certified as a doctor or a lawyer: You wouldn't know someone was married (or a doctor or lawyer) unless someone told you they were or provided a certificate or registration as evidence.  If you have no institution, or if you have no society, you can't have marriage.  But clearly people can create households and even become parents without being married: THAT's what seems 'natural'.  If Mohler is so big on 'natural', he should be advocating the abolition of marriage as an institution altogether.
But aside from all of that, if there really was a divine expectation for marriage to be heterosexual, why has gay marriage gotten as far as it has?  How is it that it seems, in Mohler's words, 'the cards are pretty much stacked' in its eventual acceptance?  Mohler really needs to explain why the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the Universe seems to have allowed the issue to get so out of hand, and why Mohler apparently believes that Christians need to step forward to do the work that God is either unable or unwilling to do.  (And what is it they can do that they haven't been doing already?  Have they not been holding regular mass prayer-fests to God for the past couple of decades to ensure that it remains prohibited?)  If it's not 'natural' for gay couples, then why do so many seek it out?  They seem to be able to stand in front of a minister or judge and say the same words as straight couples, and set up households just as 'naturally' as straight couples.  If it wasn't 'natural', wouldn't they have some gene or other biological or genetic aversion to it?On the other hand, it appears that it's 'natural' for most straight couples to eventually divorce; it's 'natural' for married people to be unfaithful to each other and have extramarital affairs; and it's apparently 'natural' for religious clergy to molest children placed under their care.  None of that provides much support for the concept of 'natural'.
Mohler not only seems to attack gay marriage as unnatural, he also seems to blame this trend on the world 'being morally upside-down'.  This is rather amazingly arrogant, as he presumes that the rest of the world is completely in opposition to God's (and certainly Mohler's) wishes.
This kind of framing ensures that Mohler continues to allow himself to be identified with God and paint the rest of the world as wrong and even evil.  But in fact, the only thing out of line here is that Mohler has a personal problem with gay marriage.  It's rather disgusting that he and other Christian conservatives would have the gall to presume that God agrees with them and that the rest of the world is simply in error.
Here's another way to look at it: Mr. Mohler, maybe you're wrong?  Maybe God has no problem with gay marriage, maybe it's just paleo-conservatives such as you who have a problem with it?   Maybe God is more upset with your intolerant rigidity than with gay couples who want to be happy?  Aren't there far more worthwhile causes to be spending Christian blood and treasure on, such as hunger and homelessness?  Or maybe in prayer and study to correctly understand what God wants?  But Mr. Mohler has the audacity to presume that he knows what God wants, even if God is unwilling to put his wishes into effect.  God wants Christians to be spending their tithings and their efforts on making sure that gay people cannot be given the same rights as straight people.

Is Islam a Religion of Tolerance?

Muslims have been defending Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance at least ever since Salman Rushdie was condemned to death in 1988 by then-Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomemei for offending the faith; and moreso since the publication of Muhammed cartoons in Denmark in 2005 sparked riots in the Islamic world that destroyed no less than three Danish embassies and caused the deaths of over 100 people.  Along with these alarming cases of violent intolerance have been efforts over the past several years by Islamic governments and religious leaders to promote blasphemy laws both in the west and in the UN to shield Islam (and, nominally, other religious faiths) from any criticism.

Such developments make it an uphill battle for those Islamic defenders to make their case.  So does the nature of blasphemy cases brought to trial in Muslim countries today where convications are almost guaranteed even for the flimsiest of justifications, often against minority groups, and the threat of death, either legally or extralegally through local mobs, looms for those who are convicted.  Pakistan, for instance, arrests an average of one person a week on blasphemy charges.  Among recent arrests was a young man who merely forwarded to his friends an e-mail that he had received that argued the Qu'ran was discriminatory in allowing Muslim men to have four wives while denying the same privilege to Muslim women; and a Christian couple who were accused of picking up a Qu'ran with unwashed hands.

Ex-Muslim and now-atheist activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently appeared at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to debunk claims that Islam is a religion of tolerance.  She pointed out that "tolerance" does not mean the same to Muslims as it means to those of us in the West: "The Prophet Muhammad defined the state of peace and tolerance as a moment when the entire world submits to Allah and embraces Islam," stated Hirsi Ali.

She pointed out that, according to Sha'r'ia law, "it is the duty of every Muslim male to wage war" until the entire world is converted to Islam.  Until then, any ceasefire or accommodation is only temporary until Islam can gain the upper hand.

Hirsi Ali underscored the danger of presuming that Islam is or can ever be tolerant in the Western sense.  Among the four main sources of Islamic jurisprudence, including the Quran and the Hadith, the former Muslim said she found explicit commands to conquer and guidelines of how to go about that. The sources describe in detail how Muhammad, who carried out over 60 military campaigns, defeated his enemies through deception, surprise, overwhelm and other guerrilla tactics.  Muhammad emphasized the need to conquer at any cost and promoted the use of any tactic available to do so.

Because of the Muslim mindset of conquering-at-any-cost, Hirsi Ali argued that so-called "tolerant" or "moderate" Muslim groups are not groups that have foresworn Islamic dominance or have accepted the idea of a religiously plurastic society, but have instead embraced the western ideas of diplomacy and persuasion as only temporary strategies to gain legitimacy until Islam can gain the upper hand.

Not ever having been a scholar of the Qu'ran, I took Hirsi Ali's talk as a motivation to actually read some of it.  I chose Surah 2, "The Cow", because it is the longest Surah in the Quran and appears almost at the start of the book, and I presumed that the earliest chapters would probably be the most informative to someone who wanted to learn about Islam.

I was not prepared for what I found.  I had expected a narrative or instructional style of writing as I was accustomed to finding in other religious books such as the Bible, Hindu scriptures, or eastern mystical writings.  Instead, I was taken aback at the level of vituperation I found.  Despite the title of the surah, the theme is not anything about cows. The surah is primarily a long rant of insults and threats of "doom" against anyone who questions Muhammed or Islam.  The theme is repeated endlessly throughout the surah: "A painful doom is theirs"; "Theirs will be an awful doom", etc.,etc.  Except for a small section about 2/3 of the way through that describes women as "filth" and inferior to men and their menstruation as a disease, the rest of the surah merely fills in details of the depravity of non-believers, why Allah made them this way, and calling upon believers to slay the non-believers, throughout also reminding us that Allah is "the relenting, the merciful."  A mixed message, to be sure.

One of the more notable passages comes at verse 23, where the Surah challenges doubters to "produce a surah as of the like thereof"; and then mocks them for even contemplating doing so, promising that they will fail and they will be tortured forever in the fires of hell for their doubt.

About 50 verses in, the Surah tells, in a rather incoherent and mocking way, the story of Moses leading the Jews from Egypt.  The point appears to be made at the end when the Surah proclaims that the Jews lost their special privilege with the Lord and "became apes, despised and hated."  Then around verse 68, the Surah (finally!) tells a story of Moses demanding that a particular cow be sacrificed to the Lord.  He seems to have a lot of trouble identifying the specific cow to be sacrificed, although it is eventually found and killed.  Then Moses rambles something about using a piece of the sacrificed cow to resurrect one of their kinsmen killed in a disagreement, and how this proves the power and protectiveness of Allah.

But the Surah goes on for another 220 verses, most of which remains obsessed on hurling insults and threats at nonbelievers.  The Surah ends with the telling sentence: "...give us victory over the disbelieving folk."

One odd bit about the Sutah is how it repeatedly mentions "pay the poor-due" - to be precise, "Establish worship and pay the poor-due".  I presume that this means provide for the poor, in which case it seems charitable; but the connection with the phrase "Establish worship and" might instead imply that it's some part of the worship ritual.  One of the few calls for ethical behavior, it repeats this phrase no less than four times.

Verse 42: "Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth."  A nice sentiment, I suppose; but stands out glaringly against the rest of the Surah that seems to be much more about making threats at nonbelievers than about disclosing truth or falsehood.

Given all of this, I am a bit perplexed at how Muslims can possibly justify their faith as one of tolerance or of peace.  Of course, most Jews and Christians do tend to ignore the commandments in Leviticus that call on violators of God's laws to be killed; but the Bible simply lays out what those laws and punishments are, it doesn't call the reader to go to war and avenge Yahweh the way the Qu'ran apparently calls on Muslims to avange their Allah.  Without the denouncement of such bloodthirsty and intolerant passages in their religious texts, it is impossible to take either the Muslims' or the Christians' and Jews' claims of peace and tolerance seriously.