Xmas Hostilities Start Early This Year

I know it’s only August, but a school board member in Michigan insisted on getting a head start on The War on Christmas: 2009 Edition.

Jack Waldvogel, the school board treasurer at Petoskey Public Schools urged school district officials to designate the district’s winter holiday break as Christmas break this year. Moreover, as his email to his colleagues reveals, his motivation for taking this action was religiously based. The school board caved in to him at a closed meeting on August 18, 2009 and voted to make the change. The Freedom From Religion Foundation got a copy of Mr. Waldvogel’s email and has formally protested the board’s action.

If you want to read Mr. Waldvogel’s email, just follow this link and scroll down to page 3 (the first two pages are FFRF’s protest letter). It’s an edifying document, to say the least. If this case goes to court, it’s likely that the school district will lose and end up paying legal fees it probably can’t afford. If that happens, the heaviest costs – financial, educational, psychological and social – will likely be borne by the children whom the board is supposed to serve. I hope they don’t become “collateral damage” in Mr. Waldvogel’s stupid holy war.

– the chaplain

 

Bullshit About Death and Heaven

I came across a review of a recently published book that was written by an author who died some time ago. Since I haven’t read the book, I can’t comment on it. What really caught my interest, and is the subject of this post, is the first comment that was left in the comment thread:

Both Al and Normajean were officer colleagues, fellow bandsmen and dear friends. If ever Saints were taken ‘home’ too early, they were; perhaps God saw them as we did, a ‘couple’ and thought, even though only in their 40s, they ought to continue side by side….

What utter bullshit! The only thing this commenter wrote that I agree with is that Al and Normajean died far too young.

“Perhaps God saw them as we did, a ‘couple’…” That’s insulting to both of them. They were complete people in their own rights, not just X or Y’s “significant other.” Moreover, I was always taught that God saw people as individuals: each of us individually must stand before God’s Throne of Judgment, etc. So, which is it? Am I an individual in God’s eyes, or just the deacon’s significant other?

This leads to the second annoying idea, which is, “they ought to continue side by side…” This contradicts Jesus’ alleged teaching that “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” So, which is it? Is there marriage in heaven? Or, is this statement the result of someone trying to make sense of two tragic deaths? This question brings me to my last thought.

There is no good reason to believe that Al and Normajean were saints who were ‘taken home’ too early. There is no evidence that there is any god at all, let alone the Christian Bible-god, let alone a heaven in which God, Jesus, Al and Normajean are all enjoying “happily ever after” while the rest of us await our turns to do the same. It’s a nice thought, but nothing more than that.

I honestly don’t mean to be callous – I hope I’m not being so – but I can’t see anything more than pathetic wishful thinking throughout this person’s comment. Two people died too young and someone wants to make sense of it. Since this person’s comment contradicts at least two points of traditional Christian teaching (individual identity and responsibility before God, and no marriage in heaven), it looks as if, contrary to what Christians often say about the consolations of religion, this person’s theology fell far short of providing either consolation or a satisfactory rationale for these deaths. In the absence of both of those things that he expected from his religion, and in the apparent absence of willingness to probe those shortcomings and their possible implications, this comment writer resorted to what must have seemed like the next best thing – he made up shit. Oh, it’s a nice story, very appealing – Al and Normajan together in heaven, just as they were on earth. But, it’s not congruent with either the empirical evidence available to us thus far, nor with the traditional teachings of his religion. In short, it’s all bullshit. Bullshit masked with a nice sentimental scent, but bullshit nonetheless.

– the chaplain

 

Carnival of the Godless is Up

Another Carnival of the Godless promises some good reading. Go to Radical Atheist’s blog and check it out. Due to technical difficulties, you should go to Radical’s home page, where the links to the various articles work.

My piece, Appraising An Apologist’s Apology, made the cut.

 

Shoe on Other Foot is Still Poor Fit

You may recall that some churches held what they called a Pulpit Freedom Sunday during last year’s presidential election. Many bloggers – including me – decried this as an inappropriate intrusion of religion into the political arena. People had similar concerns when Saddleback Church hosted a presidential forum.

It seems that the shoe is now on the other foot. Yesterday, On Wednesday afternoon, President Obama held a conference call and a webcast with over 140,000 religious leaders across the USA to urge them to encourage their congregations to support his health care plan. I am calling this out as an inappropriate intrusion of politics into the religious sphere. I say this even though I support health care reform and have no affection for either religion or religious institutions.

These two events are opposite sides of a coin, or mirror images of each other. Religious leaders should not use their pulpits as forums from which to preach their political preferences, and presidents should not use their office as a forum from which to push their policies as religiously correct positions.

Yes, religious people vote their consciences, as do non-religious people, but they should not let the religious foundations of their positions dominate public discourse. They should appeal to the public on secular grounds, not religious ones. Similarly, presidents should not appeal to the religious sensitivities of a select contingent of their constituents to garner support for their political positions. They should appeal for support of their policies on secular grounds alone. President Obama (in what can only be construed as an act of political desperation) committed an egregious act of spiritual abuse yesterday by implying that religious adherents who don’t support his plan may not be acting according to the dictates of their religions.

Perhaps those religious people who supported Pulpit Freedom Sunday and other intrusions of religion into electoral politics will now have a better understanding of why those behaviors were wrong. Just as importantly, I hope that President Obama – who, as a Constitutional scholar, clearly should have known better – will also learn, sooner rather than later, why his behavior was wrong. The ill-designed shoe of religio-politics fits both feet equally poorly.

********
Update – I’m disturbed that the conversation with Jewish leaders (and arranged by them):

…was supposed to be off the record….

Why keep the conversation “off the record?” Did anyone really think a conversation involving approximately 1,000 people would remain a secret? Obama’s conversation with Christians, which was initiated by a Christian organization, was publicized beforehand.

A rabbi who participated in the “private” call wrote this on his blog:

The role of religion in advocating political policy is an area in which I am both interested and concerned…. As I understood the intent of the call, the point for Obama was to have community leaders sympathetic to his agenda correct “misinformation” about his health care plan or the larger need for health care reform, in particular for use in their High Holiday sermons…. I do not know to what extent the President sought out religious leaders or the religious leaders proposed the audience with the President. In either case, I find the blurring of church and state to be disconcerting….

Another report of the “private” conversation notes:

…The prayer he recited is thousands of years old, he said, and yet the suffering it describes – people dying before their time, by plague and by famine – still persists.

“We have the opportunity to quench the thirst and ease the hunger of those who are suffering here in America,” Mr. Obama said, according to one rabbi. (Participants were asked to keep the proceedings confidential; some described the call on the condition they not be quoted.)

Many religious leaders prefer not to make overtly political pitches to their congregations, and one rabbi asked Mr. Obama how to reconcile the sanctity of the high holidays with the partisan politics of the health care reform fight. The president responded, another participant said, by framing it as a moral rather than a political question….

Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman, said in a statement: “There will certainly be rabbis and congregants on all sides of the debate, but one thing common to all Jews is Tikkun Olam – the commitment to making the world around us a better place – and today no issue is more central to that work than making our health care system work better for all Americans.”

Some other things President Obama told his listeners:

“…this debate over health care goes to the heart of who we are as a people….”
“…I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform…”
“…tell the stories of health care dilemmas to illustrate what is at stake…”
“…we are God’s partners in matters of life and death….”

– the chaplain

 

Governor Huckabee’s Middle East Solution

I don’t want Mike Huckabee to ever become president of anything more significant than a local PTSA. Check out some of his wisdom re: Israel and Palestine:

Former U.S. presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Tuesday there should be no Palestinian state in the West Bank and endorsed Israeli settlements there….

– snip -

Speaking to a small group of foreign reporters in Jerusalem, Huckabee said the international community should consider establishing a Palestinian state some place else. “The question is, should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.”

The politician, a Southern Baptist preacher and a two-time former governor of Arkansas, praised Israel for giving Muslims access to Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock — also once the site of the ancient Jewish temples — even though the presence of a mosque there “could be considered an affront.”

“Israel is a place where they’re going to allow other cultures and religions, but don’t ask the Jewish people whose homeland it is to completely yield over their ability to live within the context of their country,” said Huckabee….

Just where does Governor Huckabee propose to establish a Palestinian homeland? Oh, look at that; he didn’t propose anything other than, “not in Israel.” That looks a lot like a NIMBY argument to me. But, the area is Palestine’s backyard too, which why I’m wryly amused by his reference to the “Jewish homeland.” The Palestinians were living in that little strip of paradise long before the Zionists moved into the neighborhood. The current “Jewish Homeland” is, in large part, a consequence of Western Christians seeking to relieve their guilty feelings after they comprehended the horrible scope of the Holocaust. Do I think the Israelis should be removed from area, then? No. The fact is, both Israelis and Palestinians have lived in and staked claims on the same little strip of paradise for decades now. Therefore, forcibly removing either group from the area is neither feasible nor conscionable. That’s why a two-state or bi-national or some other such solution may be the only viable option for peace in that region.

The most ironic sentence in the entire article is, “don’t ask the Jewish people whose homeland it is to completely yield over their ability to live within the context of their country….” Apparently, it was okay to force the Palestinians to do exactly that 61 years ago, but Israel is not subject to similar expectations now. Again, I don’t think Israel should be asked to move, but the Israeli state that was forced upon the Palestinians, in their homeland, was not a just decree.

Even more disturbing than Governor Huckabee’s position is the affirmation he’s receiving from right-wingnuts (selected comments from OneNewsNow):

Yeah to you Huckabee!! May God bless you greatly for your stand with Israel!! It is their land, given to them by God, and who should stand against the Almighty Creator of us all!!!

God said it, some people believe it, that settles it.

Great article and Huckabee is 100% right!! Woe to anyone who comes against Israel – just read the Bible! All of the land was given to Israel. How would we feel if someone came and tried to take a part of the U.S. from us?

The irony of the last sentence in that comment is priceless!

Thank God some politicians actually know their history and understand all of the facts in this issue. Hear o Israel ! The Lord your God is One God and the State of Israel…..One State !

Oh, my. Did someone tack on a little addendum to a Bible verse? Isn’t that a no-no?

Huckabee’s position is Biblically and historically correct. The Palestinian homeland was to be historically in Trans-Jordan (now Jordan).

Oh, I get it. We should move the Palestinians to Jordan and move the Jordanians to … where?

I also agree with Huckabee and many others who have already posted. This land along with the temple mound belongs to Israel and God will NEVER let Israel be divided and lost again. We are too close to the end times now and the Temple WILL be rebuilt on the Temple Mound according to scripture. It will be good bye mosque!

“Close to the end times….” Would those, perchance, be the same end times that Jesus predicted would occur in the first century? Oh, no, of course not – they’re the updated, accurate end times that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins documented in their stunning literary accomplishment, the Left Behind series.

Huckabee is totally correct. If you refer to the Bible that is Israel’s land which God gave them and is to remain their land. Whoever says for them to give it up had better get down on their knees and ask God to forgive them for being wrong.

Has Christianity has gotten stricter in recent years? It used to be that one only needed forgiveness for sinning. Now, apparently, we need forgiveness for errors too. Or have mistakes always been sins? I guess the answer to that question depends on which theologian one asks. (Just keep asking until someone gives an answer one likes, then declare that answer to be the right one).

I agree that people have rights to believe whatever they want to believe, but I find it unsettling that a significant number of Americans actually want to base foreign policy on the scribblings in a dusty, old book. Sadly, there are a number of conservative Jews and Muslims who want to do the same (with their particular dusty, old books, of course). Will there ever be peace in the Middle East? Perhaps not. But, I think that Governor Huckabee’s solution – which I hope is not based on his religious beliefs – is less likely to bring about that state of affairs than some of the others that are on the table.

– the chaplain