Nobody expects the Spanish Inkissition

In peaceful protest of the Catholic Church's stance against homosexuality and gay marriage, a crowd of activists staged a massive "kiss-in" session in front of Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday as he limbered through Barcelona inside his bullet-proof popemobile—on his way to a mass in the city's new basilica, the Sagrada Familia.

"The Church resists every form of denial of human life and gives its support to everything that would promote the natural order in the sphere of the institution of the family ... the indissoluble love of a man and a woman is the effective context of human life in its gestation, birth, growth, and natural end," the pope said at the mass.

Reuters has video of the kissing protesters.

(cross posted at Library Grape)

I'm not sure how I feel about this

But I have to admit it's pretty trippy.

Quote of the day

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." —Ann Coulter, 13 September 2001

Agora

Tyler Cowen:

I am surprised this film, set in ancient Alexandria, has not occasioned more controversy.  It is the most pro-science, pro-rationalist, anti-Christian movie I have seen -- ever. -- and it does not disguise the message in the slightest.  The director and scriptwriter is Spanish and Chilean, namely Alejandro Amenábar.  It offers a Voltairean portrait of Judaism, as an oppressed rabble, most of all responsible for the crime of having birthed Christianity.  There are some not-so-subtle parallels shown between the early Christians and current Muslim terrorists.
 
The visual rendering of antiquity is nicely done and without an excess of CGI.
Here is a positive New York Times review.  Here is a positive Guardian review.  Not everyone will like this movie.

I wouldn't call Agora anti-Christian in particular, but more broadly anti-fundamentalist.

It's my favorite since The Man From Earth (2007).

Miracles, deism, and the existence of God

A friend of mine was asked on a social media site:

How do miracles and other experiences that are beyond reason fit int this? How can deists "reason" that a supreme being created the Universe when there is no reason or proof that a supreme being even exists?

His response:

Although I would not absolutely rule out miracles, I would have to say that, after decades of paying (and praying) very close attention to purported miracles in churches that I went to and participated in, I gradually found it almost impossible to believe that a true miracle actually occurred in any of the situations to which I was party or witness. So while I wouldn’t theoretically rule them out, I would say that experience has taught me (and only after much resistance on my part) to hold in suspicion any purported supernatural cause. I say this in regard to things such as purported miracles of divine healings, supernatural revelations etc. but do reserve a stronger possibility of genuine miracles when it comes to personal prayer—i.e. I have had many experiences in prayer that seemed at the time to convey some sort of supernatural or preternatural knowledge. However, having the little knowledge I do about the nature of probability, I am somewhat inclined to attribute these personal prayer experiences to [chance] rather than to some supernatural agency.

In general I have found a natural approach to questions to yield far more fruit than a supernatural. Indeed I think this is the fundamental shift in the modern from the medieval era. While the later was quick to seek for supernatural causes behind things, the former seeks for natural causation. To cite a couple of simplistic examples:

-when seeking to know about the origins of the universe, I would consult the known scientific data rather than the book of Genesis.

-when seeking to understand some psychological malady, I would seek the advice of a psychiatrist over that of an exorcist.

I certainly wouldn’t dogmatically limit my horizon to the purely natural world—indeed I hope there is a supernatural cause behind and end to all things. But it just seems that A. The Universe operates mostly (if not entirely) under natural laws and B. All purported supernatural agencies (the Bible, the Church, a miracle worker etc) when closely examined are found wanting.

As to how a deist can argue for the existence of God, I suspect most would appeal to the same sorts of arguments made by other theists (i.e. Christians, Jews, and Pantheists etc.)—namely, from causality, morality, beauty, religious experience & teleology etc. However, at least for myself, I would state all of these things more as probable indicators or reasons for hoping rather than as proofs of God’s existence. In other words, while I hold to the hope that God exists, of eternal life and happiness for all etc. I don’t personally have the sort of knowledge to state my hope as a firm conviction beyond the ability to doubt.

In short I would disagree with the statement that there is “no reason” to believe a supreme being exists (for I can think of many reasons to believe) but would agree that there is “no proof”—if by proof, one means to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

While such a view of things will probably result in the loss of some (perhaps of most) dogma, I see no compelling reason why it should necessitate the loss of faith, hope and love and do hope this note finds you abounding in all three!

The trajectory of tolerance

Will Wilkinson gathers two heartening pieces of news, and shares this map:

Teach the controversy

Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming

Confronting the injustice of hell

A Dish reader:

I'm a Christian . . . I think.

I say, "I think" because a recent trip to India left me stumbling on the foundation of faith laid since my youth. I was raised in the church, by a fundamentalist, Baptist preacher father and an "amen" mother. It's true that at several points during the course of my life I have left the practice of my faith, but even in those willful and deliberate seasons I still knew God was God and I could just as soon call him Jesus if I wanted to.

India, for better or worse, has caused me to question all of that.

The temptation, mind you, is not to now let go of Jesus and embrace any of their hundreds of gods - though they are older and arguably more tangible and personal than he is . . . and more clear in their own assertions of divinity. No. What India did is place me squarely at the foot of the cross of Christ to wonder if it was big enough to shadow this whole, big, diverse, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., world.

Most people I spoke with in India shared the same gratitude and love for their beloved Ganesha that I did for Jesus. Does this, as the Bible has been traditionally interpreted to suggest, mean that all those beautiful, hardworking, sincere people are going to hell, forever?

For the first time in such a visceral way, the morality of eternal hell - a cornerstone in the Christian faith - struck me as severely lacking. I returned from India angry, incredulous, and disoriented in and about the faith that I had for years prior really made the compass of my life and work (yes, I work in a church). Hell, I didn't even know who to pray to or what to say if I did stumble my way into a quiet mind and heart.

My new-found discontent sent me into the arms of Karen Armstrong and others trying to find a scholarly approach to God, but what can a finite mind fully know of transcendent infinity? I went back to favorites like Lewis and still rebuffed against the exclusivity and "one way"-ness of my faith. In truth, atheism seems like the kinder position . . . except that would require that I deny the countless and real encounters throughout my life that I've had with God, His grace, His mercy, His provision, His joy, and His presence. But still I question, everything. All is not lost.

In my reading, I've stumbled on a book or two that have helped me shape my thoughts and put into words my present experience with Jesus and God. The most notable is If Grace is True by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. I don't agree with every position they take, but it resonates somewhat within my spirit. And, it gives me hope that the God I love is not morally inferior to me, rejecting some of his children while embracing others . . . but that he will claim every child as His own in the end.

I have to believe that, otherwise, I simply can't stay if what Jesus did isn't enough for everyone.

I totally understand where this person is coming from. Teaching the doctrine of hell is morally reprehensible, and should not survive scrutiny--either philosophical or experiential (from, say, visiting India.)

Blesed is she who comes in the name of the Lord!

I think Jesus touched her happyspot. (blame reddit)

By the way, this is at a public university in Texas. (As if you couldn't have guessed.)

Sentence to ponder

"I wondered why every self-respecting couple who identified as pro-life didn’t at the very least strongly consider adopting."

From a moving essay by a gay Catholic.

Edicts Benedict

Intelligent biblical literalism

There are odd fish in the sea:

Yesterday I had lunch with my philosophy professor... again (follow-up to this post)

Once again formalities were exchanged. This time a little more time was spent on “catching up.”

After all the pleasantries, I brought up the Catholic Church sex scandal and asked him his opinion. He replied that it is ignorant to view any church leader, from the ushers to the Pope himself as a moral authority. He reiterated his position that all human being were “flawed” and that none could be considered any more moral than the next. I quickly moved to the subject of the Bible.

My question concerned the book itself and how it was written and assembled. He told me of his theory that the Bible was “an evolution of revelation” and how god decided to reveal himself a bit at a time, as our “frail minds” began to seek more answers, thus the assemblage of the New Testament some 300 to 400 years after the founding of Christianity. We discussed the ecumenical councils and how, with divine guidance, god did not allow that which is not “true” to be admitted into the final works. We also discussed the various ancient writing that were included in the Torah and the catholic bible, but omitted from the Christian bible. He insisted that these other religions had been corrupted and god had excused himself from continuing to guide the editors of other holy books. I asked how he was able to obtain this information, and his reply was the simple fact that the bible is absolutely consistent throughout while the others were not was proof enough. He was able to name specific dates, locations and even the names and titles of the people involved in everything from the various books of the bible, to ecumenical councils, and even the names, dates of reign and age at the time of death of each and every catholic Pope.

At this point, I decided to throw out some biblical stories that showed inconsistencies. No matter which one I mentioned, he was able to twist words and definitions (claiming that the ‘original text’ is much clearer, and these inconsistencies were only because of misinterpretation errors) using the 4 Greek words for “love” as an example. I then mentioned the story of Jacob in Genesis, this being the one absurd story that I studied prior to our meeting. (Jacob wrestles with god and almost wins until god dislocates Jacob’s leg) I though if my professor claims the bible is “literally rue” then he, too would find this story absurd. Alas, he had a defense for this story also. Using the several parts of the bible in which god refers to himself as “we”, he insisted it was the “angel of the lord” who did the actual wrestling, and that the whole story literally happen. He said he could see how most people would find this story absurd, but that most people would not know the context, and if they did, they would understand that it was literally true.

At every turn he seemed to be enjoying my objections. He is the best biblical apologist I have ever met. Sometimes he says that those who are truly in search of truth will understand the bible, and at other times he says that errors and inconsistencies are non-existent in the original Hebrew and Greek text. Regardless, he had a detailed and well though-out answer to every question I presented to him.

When I claim god is barbaric, he would often agree and claim that morality is relative and god is moral, even when do not understand his actions. When I questioned god’s requirement of blood sacrifices, he told me it was necessary. When I asked why the rule-maker couldn’t come up with better rules for himself, he said the rules were made so that humans could understand, and that just goes to show the infinite wisdom of god.

He told me he has seen each and every Penn and Teller “bullshit” episode and has read every book by Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. He made it clear that this is his life’s work and his passion.

I had previously told him that I was a devout Christian in my youth, and he said that because of this I had won a place in heaven, despite my current (lack of) beliefs.

Finally, I asked him if it were not for the Bible, would he still hold to his beliefs. He basically dismissed this question, citing that the assembly of the bible was always part of “god’s plan”, and that without it, god knew human kind would never know his character. It is a necessary part of the eternal plan for mankind.

As we were leaving, he informed me that from this point forward, he would refer to me as his “atheist brother.”

Something about him makes me want to call him my friend.

The irrational barrier of faith

Via the Dish today, a thought experiment:

Imagine I discovered there was a paedophile ring running our crèche, and the Editor issued a stern order that it should be investigated internally with "the strictest secrecy". Imagine he merely shuffled the paedophiles to work in another crèche at another newspaper, and I agreed, and made the kids sign a pledge of secrecy. We would both – rightly – go to prison. Yet because the word "religion" is whispered, the rules change. Suddenly, otherwise good people who wouldn't dream of covering up a paedophile ring in their workplace think it would be an insult to them to follow one wherever it leads in their Church. They would find this behaviour unthinkable without the irrational barrier of faith standing between them and reality.

Yes, I understand some people feel sad when they see a figure they were taught as a child to revere – whether Prophet or Pope – being subjected to rational examination, or mockery, or criminal investigation. But everyone has ideas they hold precious. Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.

Reflections of an Agnostic Christian

A friend posted this as a Facebook note, and I think it worth sharing.

Reflections of an Agnostic Christian

The Truth is out there but as we now see through a mirror darkly, "we grope for it"¹. As lovely, inspiring and helpful as the Biblical text is, we go astray when approaching it as the definitive word of God.

While it is understandable and even desirable that there be a revelatory solution to man’s epistemological groping; in fact, a judicious assessment of biblical revelation warns that the flight to revelation advised by Christian authors and apologists² is unjustified, unwise and often significantly hinders the very pursuit of truth which first engaged one’s interest in revelation.

Although science is no substitute for religion, the scientific method—i.e. the testing of hypothesis by repeated experiment and subjecting these to critical review etc.—offers a more profitable way of evaluating truth claims than a religious appeal to some ultimate authority, such as the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church etc.

Many persons eager in the pursuit of religious truth, from the likes of Hegel, Spinoza, Paine and Bultmann to the reflective layperson, have felt truly compelled by the facts (and this often only have decades of struggle) to adopt some sort of critical approach³ to biblical revelation. Personally, it was only after some thirty years of resisting with all my heart, soul and mind, that I eventually adopted, in broad terms, the general paradigm of critical scholarship. Like most paradigm shifts, this shift in my thinking resulted from a whole host of facts and religious quandaries. Of course, now that I’m on the other side of this paradigm shift, I find the landscape much more pleasant than I had feared and, best of all, a great deal more congruent with my experience of reality. In short, I no longer feel at war with the truth, but rather surrendered to it.

For Protestants, the adoption of some sort critical approach to biblical revelation very often involves a concomitant loss of dogmatic confidence. For Catholics (& the Orthodox) the situation is a bit more complex in that Catholics while they, after many years of struggle, have both officially and on the popular level accepted the critical shift in biblical scholarship they continue to have recourse to another ultimate authority for truth—i.e. the teaching Magisterium. As they say, Catholics are not primarily people of the Book.

Personally, while studying at an evangelical seminary, and feeling the foundations of biblical authority give way under my feet, I myself found this recourse to another ultimate source of authority (i.e. the Church), a refuge (albeit, temporary), a resting place of traditional dogma as I continued my resistance to the onslaughts of the modern world, critical scholarship etc. And while I continue to find worship in this community very satisfying, my historical studies in Christian dogma have resulted in losing my confidence in dogma along the same lines that my biblical fundamentalism⁴, after much bumping up against reality, gave way to a more critical approach to the sacred text.

If not biblical authority nor church dogmatics, then what, relativism, atheism, what? While the new atheists would have us believe that atheism is the only alternative to biblical or dogmatic fundamentalism, there are other solutions. Hegel, Emerson and that god intoxicated man Spinoza, to name but a few, saw alternatives to Christian fundamentalism on the one hand and evangelical atheism on the other.

There are many alternatives to biblical or dogmatic fundamentalism and, while understandable and often a deeply ethical choice, atheism is but one among many. There are theists of every sort—from Pantheists and Deists to faith filled but liberally minded Protestants and Catholics. Some remain confident in more, others in less of the historic creeds of Christendom. You have some like Newton, Jefferson and Franklin who, while venerating Jesus Christ, believing in life after death, prayer etc, were or are quite doubtful about the manner in which Christology developed, and others who generally assent to the divinity of Christ, the Trinity etc. In short, a loss (or, as some prefer, a maturing out) of a Biblicism or dogmatism does not necessitate a loss of a faith—indeed, many report a strengthening of faith, hope and love—of feeling set free by the truth.

What is the role of reason in evaluating the role of the Bible or the various alternatives to biblical or dogmatic fundamentalism? Is reason, as attributed to Luther, really that [unfaithful] Whore?

First, nothing must be admitted that is contrary to reason. Reason is the one thing we have every reason to believe we have from God and the surest way for one to go astray is to admit things contrary to reason. Moreover, it is by one’s reason that one must stand before God—did I do what I knew to be right in my reason.

Second, many things exceed reason’s capacity. If God is a Spirit, we must worship him in Spirit in Truth. If God is ineffable, it makes perfect since that the natural man cannot comprehend the things of God. To quote Pascal, Reasons last step is to acknowledge that an infinite number of things lie beyond its grasp.

Third, since step one does not permit us to make claims about revelation that are untrue or highly improbable, proper responses to step two, while excluding any fidestic flight⁵ to the Koran, the Bible, the book of Mormon etc, may include certain forms of mysticism, agnosticism, prayer, faith or an agnostic faith life of prayer.

Yesterday I listened to a Muslim extremist and the Reverend Moon⁶ both justify their positions by appeals to revelations. And what of the revelations of Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Hindus, etc? Reason must evaluate such claims if one is not to live in their own little religious bubble of delusion⁷.

I have a revelation from God—the truth. And while not every truth is presently self evident to me, there are compelling reasons for believing that the common natural reason shared by all persons as opposed to special revelations given to particular people is man’s proper mode for discerning truth.

What role then for the Bible? While an impartial assessment of the facts requires one to reject fundamentalist understandings of revelation, one may nonetheless find in the sacred text a place of inspiration, truth and beauty. Not being a definitive revelation, a final word on every subject, nonetheless leaves ample room for other options. Books of poetry are not worthless simply because reason doesn’t permit one to read them as history or science.

The critical approach to the Bible is not so radical after all. Most Christians already, perhaps subconsciously, approach at least a good portion of the Bible through critical lenses. With little effort we can all think of various Old Testament passages or even books that we have found various justifications for not taking all that seriously and without really troubling ourselves about it. Then there are other passages, such as the wisdom books or sayings of Christ in parables, that while, we find them very edifying reading, we don’t approach them as literal history etc. In some manner, the critical reader is simply extending this approach to the whole text. The critical reader of the sacred text may daily interact with the text on a devotional and inspirational level without being entangled in the errors that bedevil his more literalist co-religionists.

The Unsettling & Liberating Nature of Truth

Last evening we had dinner with some good friends, a married couple, who, religiously, might be described as evangelical Catholics. The dinner conversation centered on the religious doubts the husband and I discovered we shared in common. After much discussion the wife expressed concern that my evolving religious outlook might leave me without any foundation for morality. These and other similar questions are unsettling to people. If your life has largely been constructed around a belief that I have this special source, be it a book or religious leader like the reverend Moon or the Pope etc, that contains all, in one neat place, everything I need pertaining to life and godliness, it can be unsettling to contemplate the loss of this conviction.

I responded to the woman’s query by saying I didn’t think this was the right approach to choosing what to believe. I shouldn’t decide for or against believing something because I do or do not like the implications of doing so. Nothing is surer to deceive than the need to believe a particular outcome from the outset. This lack of faith in approaching the truth needs to be replaced with a firm confidence that the truth doesn’t deceive but rather sets one free. While giving up a single source approach to discovering truth may be unsettling at first, a general confidence in truth can become a very suitable replacement. Man sees through a mirror darkly and he generally discovers the truth about things only gradually and with much effort. Man’s discovery of what is right and moral is not dissimilar to his scientific discoveries—he makes gains with much trial and error. By way of example, think of how long it has taken society to largely embrace our present ideals of democracy, of human rights, of peaceful coexistence- to shed notions of slavery, of woman being men’s property, etc.

In reality an honest appraisal of history and of contemporary fundamentalist religious communities indicates a strong correlation between fundamentalist beliefs in revelation and resistance to moral and scientific advancement. In short, strong revelatory based beliefs frequently prejudice persons and communities against new perspectives and realities.

There is every reason to believe that we are indeed in need of another religious reformation—one in which a strong confidence in the discoverability of truth through reflection replaces slavish and childish single source revelatory beliefs. A reformation in which fear gives way to faith, in which religious servitude to the past gives way to the freedom to discover whatever truths the universe is prepared to unveil at this moment in humankind’s history. Yes we see through a mirror dimly but the Truth is out there and it bids us come, to hearken to its voice wherever and through whomever it can be heard—through art, philosophy, science, religious literature, people, events, history etc.—in short the logos or reason of God is to be sought and welcomed everywhere it can be heard.

Choosing the Right (ideal) Path for Me, or The Importance of Particularity.

Being open to the logos or truth wherever it is found needn’t mean being endlessly adrift. Or to draw upon your reflections, loving the Universal should take on some Particularity. Acknowledging that my spouse is not the only suitable mate in the world doesn’t prevent me from saying she’s perfect for me, from making a lifelong commitment to her. Holding pluralistic views of religions needn’t prevent me from living out my life in a particular religious community. Rejecting fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, while perhaps complicating things, needn’t prevent me from hearing God speak through the sacred text—from hearing Christ bid me to give up my fears and get out of my boat, from hearing God speak as the good shepherd and guardian of my soul. Intellectually a person may find it difficult to have many convictions/certainties beyond a general theism and yet practically still choose a particular community to live out this general theism. I suspect there are lots of persons sitting beside me at Sunday Mass, particularly middle aged men, who, while having lost their previously held certitudes about the creeds of Christendom, nonetheless find the liturgy to be a beautiful expression of their religious sentiments. Perhaps in their youth they found such inconsistencies as unworthy of their commitment but with experience one learns the truth of Emerson’s adage:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

While the practical desire to live, to worship and to critically evaluate in an integral fashion may result in a practicing Christian (albeit my agnostic Christian), a just evaluation of the limitations of religious knowledge makes going beyond this pragmatic commitment to an all in sort of exclusive commitment to a definitive revelation seem, to such a person, rash and disproportionate to what can be known by him with any certainty. The desire to live shouldn’t mean a definitive ending to ones questions, a sort of fidestic commitment to one revelation or set of dogmas. Truth is not an item on one’s checklist, which one day is complete and now we move on. Religious truth, like every other human endeavor, must be subject to constant review and assimilation of facts and experiences. As tempting as it may be to see religion as somehow in an epistemological category of its own, not subject to the limitations and revisions of other fields of human inquiry, the facts and history of religion (i.e. including the evolution of Christianity out of Old Testament/ near eastern religion) demonstrate otherwise.

Even if Truth is Eternal and therefore, at least in some sense, absolute, our perception of it is provisional and therefore in many ways relative. Given our epistemological limitations, any once for all commitment to particular views, religious or scientific, seems foolish. Nor are such commitments essential to finding real meaning and stability in life. One needn’t live in denial of our limitations in order to make stable commitments. It is enough to commit oneself to the larger commitments of loving and serving the truth wherever one finds it and to whatever degree I can perceive some aspect of it at the present. I needn’t make exaggerated claims about what can be known with certainty. In a profound sense, our situation calls for a larger surrender, a deeper trust to the Universe, an acceptance to life as we find it rather than as we would have it.

Endnotes:

1. He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us. For 'In him we live and move and have our being,' Acts 17:26

2. For example, how Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, argues that because we are blind epistemologically God has given us the spectacles of His Word.

3. From Wikipedia: Biblical criticism is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings." It asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition and the message it was intended to convey.

It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.

4. Wikipedia: For religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic and authoritative word of their religion's god or gods. This does not necessarily require that all portions of scripture be interpreted literally rather than allegorically or metaphorically - for example, see the distinction in Christian thought between Biblical infallibility, Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that their god or gods articulated their will clearly to prophets, and that followers also have an accurate and reliable record of that revelation.

Since a religion's scripture is considered the word of its god or gods, fundamentalists believe that no person is right to change it or disagree with it. Within that though, there are many differences between different fundamentalists.

5. Wikipedia: Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means "faith-ism."

Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs. The term fideist, one who argues for fideism, is very rarely self applied. Support of fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Pascal, Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not supported by their own ideas and works. There are a number of different forms of fideism.

6. From Moon’s Website: At Easter time in 1935, Jesus appeared to the young Sun Myung Moon as he was praying in the Korean mountains. In that vision, Jesus asked him to continue the work which he had begun on earth nearly 2,000 years before. Jesus asked him to complete the task of establishing God's kingdom on earth and bringing His peace to humankind.

The young Korean was stunned by this encounter, and especially by the request that had been made of him, and at first he refused. However, after deep reflection, meditation and prayer, he pledged his life to that overwhelming mission.

After personally accepting Jesus' call, the young man set out to discover its very meaning. If Jesus called him to complete his mission, it meant that Jesus' mission was incomplete. Was not salvation through the cross all that man needs? What was it that Jesus had left undone on earth? If sin is not completely solved, then what is the actual root of sin?

Sun Myung Moon studied the Bible and many other religious teachings in order to unravel these mysteries of life and human history. During this time, he went into ever deeper communion with God and entered the vast battlefield of the spirit and flesh. Through denying his personal desires he overcame temptations of knowledge, wealth and physical pleasure. He came to understand God's own suffering and His longing to be reunited with His children. He learned the difficult steps that humankind would have to take in order to return to God and establish true peace on earth.

By 1945, he had organized the teachings which came to be known as the Divine Principle, and he began his public ministry

7. My son Jake showed me this YouTube video on the religious bubble of delusion.

Fundamentalists and the atheists who love them

Ross Douthat on why Richard Dawkins insists Pat Robertson is a "true Christian".

"Twenty words you can't say in Alabama"

From the Economist's peerless Democracy in America blog:

Every politician says something he has to walk back once in a while. In the case of Bradley Byrne, a Republican candidate for governor of Alabama, it was

I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not.

Mr Byrne was battered by so much criticism that he quickly trudged to a Piggly Wiggly grocery store to hold a press conference and recant. Claiming he had been misquoted, he said

I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it.

Mr Byrne's momentary hesitation about the literal truth of every word of the Bible makes him the religious hippie in the Republican field. James Potts, another runner, thinks that public property should be allowed to display monuments to every faith—except Islam: "Either you accept our way of life or you go back to another country that is Muslim." All supported voluntary school prayer. All but one thought that public-school teachers should be allowed to teach from the Bible.

The one dissenter on that last question? Roy Moore, the judge famously stripped of his job as the state's chief justice for installing, then refusing to remove, a 5,200-pound granite monument to the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Yes, nearly all of the Republican candidates are running to Mr Moore's right on the role of Christianity in public life. Mr Moore's reason for not wanting to teach from the Bible in school was not, of course, because the Bible isn't perfect. He argued that government teaching of scripture could ruin it. Good to see that anti-government orthodoxy can still, sometimes, trump religious orthodoxy, in today's GOP.

"I just want my normal gay son back."

LOUISVILLE, KY—At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He's a member of his school's swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

"I don't know what's happening to me," Faber admitted to reporters Monday. "It's like I get these weird urges sometimes, and suddenly I'm tempted to go behind my friends' backs and attend a megachurch service, or censor books in the school library in some way. Even just the thought of organizing a CD-burning turns me on."

[..] "It's like I don't even know who I am anymore," the frightened teenager said. "Keeping this secret obsession with radical right-wing dogma hidden away from my parents, teachers, and schoolmates is tearing me apart."

[..] According to Faber, his first experience with evangelical Christianity was not all that different from other gays his age.

"Sure, I looked at the Book of Leviticus once or twice—everybody has," Faber said. "We all experiment a little bit with that stuff when we're growing up. But I was just a kid. I didn't think it meant anything."

Faber's instinct was to deny these early emotions. But recently, the Louisville teen admitted, the feelings have grown stronger, making him wonder more and more what life as a born-again right-wing fundamentalist would be like.

"The other week, I was this close to picketing in front of an abortion clinic," the mortified teenager said, his eyes welling up with tears. "I know it's wrong, but I wanted so badly to do it anyway. I even made one of those signs with photos of dead fetuses and hid it in my closet. I felt so ashamed, yet, at the same time, it was all strangely titillating."

Faber's parents, although concerned, said they're convinced their otherwise typical gay son is merely going through a conservative Christian phase.

"I caught him watching The 700 Club once when he thought he was alone in the house, and last week, I found some paperbacks from the Left Behind series hidden in his sock drawer," his mother, Eileen Faber, said. "I'm sure he'll grow out of it, but even if he doesn't, I will love and accept my son no matter what."

Faber's father was far less tolerant in his comments.

"No son of mine is going to try to get intelligent design into school textbooks," Geoffrey Faber said. "And I absolutely refuse to pay his tuition if he decides to go to one of those colleges like Oral Roberts University where they're just going to fill his head with a lot of crazy conservative ideas."

He added, "I just want my normal gay son back."

Cultural fairy tale bustin'

Madatoms:

Growing up Jewish, I was very bitter about Christmas. And for everyone saying, “Well, you have Hanukah!” No. Hanukah is not the same. You don’t even get off of school for Hanukah, and it’s mostly about your parents giving you a present to shut you up so you won’t complain about being Jewish during Christmas and possibly convert later in life. There are hardly any Hanukah songs, and the ones we’ve got sound sort of like death hymns. If you’re lucky, you get, like, one non-denominational snowman decoration hung up, but he’s usually wearing a red and green scarf. Even Frosty loves Jesus, and he doesn’t even have a soul. Or legs.

I remember having a major crisis when I realized that Santa was only going to visit the Christian boys and girls. That seemed wholly unfair; why should they get free presents just because of their religion? Isn’t that discriminatory? So I asked my parents about the whole Santa Claus thing. They confided that there was no Santa, but I shouldn’t tell my Christian friends.

That is the moment that I realized I had the power to hold something over the other children at school, torture them mercilessly, and kill their childhood by revealing that there really wasn’t a Santa. It was the ultimate retort in any situation. You don’t want to play four square with me? Well, fuck you, there’s no Santa, it’s just your parents.

You say you sat on Santa Claus’s lap at the mall? Nope, that was just an unemployed fat guy in a red suit. Oh, your precious Santa Claus is going to come down the chimney and bring you lots of wonderful presents for being such a good girl? Think about the logistics of that. How is he going to come to every house in the whole world in one night? Even if he skips my house, he’s still got like a billion more to go. As fat as that guy is, I feel like running around so much after sitting on his chunky ass all year is just a recipe for a heart attack. Or is that what you wanted for Christmas, Sally? A big, smelly Santa corpse of your very own?

Inevitably, these conversations ended in tears as I watched my classmate’s sweet naiveté die, but at least I felt better about myself.

No wonder people hate the Jews. Pass the latkes!

A digger adds:

My Brother-in-laws family is very religious. Their son told my son there is no SANTA. My son then told their son there is no GOD. I guess we are even.

France to ban head scarves in all public places

The story:

France's ruling party says it plans to present a bill to parliament next month, which would ban the wearing of full Islamic veils in all public places. The party says the move should be seen as "a law of liberation."

A redditor comments:

As a French/American dual citizen, I have a possibly different perspective on this.

If this were the United States, I would be very much against this law, for entirely libertarian reasons. The United States is a nation of immigrants, and while there are always various groups trying to claim that their particular immigrant culture is somehow more "American" than someone else's (witness anti-Hispanic sentiment, for example, or the number of people that think that English ought to be legislated as the national language, or whatever) for the most part the concensus that thankfully eventually emerges is that unless you're Native American, you can stuff it -- your particular culture has no particular monopoly on what it means to be American, and no amount of whining will change that.

France, on the other hand, is not America. Unlike the United States, it is not a country of immigrants. There is such a thing, fair or not, as "French culture", and without making any sort of value judgment here, full-veil mandating sects of Islam do not qualify.

France has been relatively willing, despite not being founded on the principles the US was founded on, to welcome immigrants from other countries. Much of this perhaps was not altruistic, but rather fallout from France's ill-advised forays into colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Certainly much of France's muslim population are in France now because they fought for France in the Franco-Algerian war in the 1960s and were forced to abandon their homes essentially because they chose the wrong side in that war -- something that France has been terrible about recognizing, frankly.

But I guess what I'm saying is that ultimately, the sort of "cultural chauvinism" that we have great disdain for here in the United States -- which this law would be an example of, in my opinion -- is a bit different in France (and in the rest of Europe, too). European nations have histories dating back millenia, they didn't develop their cultural heritage by melting together the traditions of myriad peoples over the last 250 years. That mixed character is precisely what makes the United States great, but the whole world is not the US.

Ultimately, if France decides that it wants to draw the line somewhere, if they decide that they want to be a secular society and that they don't like the symbolism they feel the veil represents, why shouldn't they ban it?

It's their country, after all -- and "they", unlike Americans, are a well-defined group.

I tentatively agree.

Religious debates of old

Via the Dish, a video interview with Reinhold Niebuhr from 1958.