I used to keep an eye on a lot of blog-friends. One of the things I noticed when I returned to semi-regular posting is that many of them have disappeared. That makes me a little sad. At this point, I think it’s time to start building again – so here’s a tiny little round up from my blogroll:

From Bene Diction has some questions about the Prairie Bible Institute and allegations of abuse.

The Episcopal Cafe hosts Giles Frasier’s comments on unity and Rowan Williams’ retirement as Archbishop of Canterbury. A tidbit:

His much more pressing task is to speak clearly out of the Christian tradition in a way that will resonate with those who no longer think that religious belief has anything left to offer.

At the same site, there’s a few non-roses to throw at the retiring Archbishop.

At Faith in Public Life, Paul Ryan fails the moral budget test.

At Mainstream Baptist, Bruce Prescott looks at the passing of employer-based insurance.

Reverend Mommy talks about third place (see explanation).

Debra Haffner’s Sexuality and Religion ask for survival help.

At Islamicate, bigotry in sports is examined.

And Rachel at Velveteen Rabbi (who will always hold a place in my heart for the blessing of my children) looks at Leviticus.

At this point, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut. In fact, so many people know that happened that no one actually knows what point Ms. Fluke was trying to make. If Limbaugh was trying to steer the public debate; then he won. Hands down. It doesn’t matter if he loses half of his advertisers – there will be others who take the time. What matters is that he completely derailed a serious public policy debate, and one that conservatives will lose support on if it continues.

Here’s my version of her argument. She attends Georgetown Law School, one of the top-ranked law schools in the country (ranked number fourteen last year – and it’s cost is actually one of the real bargains at that level). Like most graduate schools, students are required to have insurance, which is available through the school, unless they are covered elsewhere. Law school is considered a full-time endeavor and students are discouraged from working outside of school, and especially to have a full-time job with benefits that might interfere with their availability for school. Unlike most school insurance plans, Georgetown’s does not cover contraceptive medications. According to Ms. Fluke’s testimony, she pays around $3,000 a year – on top of her insurance premiums – to buy her contraceptive medication at full price.

Limbaugh’s argument is that she wants to force Georgetown to pay for her decision to have sex. This is a crazy argument. First of all, adding contraceptive coverage to their prescription plan would probably not even raise the rates the college has to pay. Second, if it did, at least part of that cost would be passed along to students. Third, if they wanted to isolate the costs of contraception to only those students who are interested in having it; then they could over it as a rider on their prescription policy.

Beyond that, Limbaugh’s argument descends into ridiculousness. He claims that those who pay premiums should then have some sort of claim on Ms. Fluke’s privacy, because they are paying to shield her from the consequences of her actions. But Limbaugh was famously treated for addiction to painkillers and not once did he offer to make a reality-style film for those who contribute to his insurance program.

The argument is that contraceptives are a drug of choice that allows a specific type of lifestyle – one that some people find objectionable. Great. Lipitor is also such a drug. High cholesterol is easily treated by switching to a vegan diet. So why should those of us (um, I better make that “those of you”) who don’t have high cholesterol have to pay higher premiums for someone else’s dietary decisions – decisions which are, after all, entirely voluntary?

On my drive home last night, I listened to a talk show where a caller voiced a religious objection to contraception (the caller actually said that women “need to be responsible with their bodies” as if preventing pregnancy when it isn’t wanted is somehow irresponsible). Instead of engaging the objection and overcoming it, the “expert” stupidly insisted that a person’s morality has no place in the discussion of public policy. This is the typical liberal response, and it’s why religious people often feel like liberals are outright hostile to them. And I actually will include myself in that group.

The religious argument against contraception is this: By separating sex from conception, people are able to have sex for other purposes…like pleasure. Since a woman doesn’t have to worry about the potential fathering or husbanding abilities of her sexual partners, she can decide to have sex with a man simply based on her belief that it would be fun. Of course, this makes Jesus very sad because he was totally against fun and sexuality being linked in any way, right? (This is sarcasm, okay?)

Funny, I can’t find a scripture that references that part of Jesus’ teachings. That’s because it actually comes from the Pope, not from the Bible. As a Protestant, I formally rejected the Pope’s station as the arbiter of morality in my life. However, I am fully comfortable with someone making that argument in favor of a specific public policy. It’s what they believe, and if they want to use that argument, they have the right to try and convince people of its veracity.

My reply to that argument is this: The moral condition of someone’s soul is not my concern as a citizen, and therefore, it has no place in a debate of someone’s public policy. As a Christian, I can talk to them – reason and argue, even – and try to convince them of what I believe is the correct path in life. But the decision as to what they actually do must be their decision. By saving someone from the opportunity to sin, I also stand in way of their salvation.

This, incidentally, is the example that was set by Jesus. At no point did he argue that the Romans should be overthrown. At no point did he suggest that control of the Sanhedron should be seized by his followers so they could then force everyone to do as they believed. At no point did he even twist an arm to make someone do his bidding. Instead, he plucked at their heartstrings. He appealed to their better angels. He urged them to make the hard decision to become a better person.

As a final point, there are several examples of Jesus saving someone from the consequences of their actions. One of the overriding values practiced by Jesus was that of mercy and forgiveness. If we are to aspire to call ourselves his followers, I think we should follow that example as well.

So who cares what Rush Limbaugh says anyway? Was there anyone at this point who doubted his misogyny? He’s a pompous fool, but he has the right to expose himself as such – just like all the people who called Michelle Bachman gendered slurs. Or any other woman, for that part. Language generally says more about the person using it than the person being attacked by it.

But if we allow a policy debate to get sidetracked into a gender-war issue of language; then we will lose both the public agenda and the public policy debate, as well.

Today, the US Senate killed an amendment to a Highway Bill that would have allowed employers to cherry-pick what health procedures they would not want to cover for their employees, based on the morality of the employer. This amendment, which was purely symbolic because it had no chance of becoming law, demonstrates a lot of what is wrong with American politics, and also with American faith.

From the above article:

While Blunt’s amendment took a broad approach, the main issue involved whether religious employers should have to include coverage for contraception in health plans offered to employees at affiliated institutions, such as hospitals.

snip

Blunt’s amendment stated the president’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, imposes requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers and plan sponsors. While the law exempts some religious groups, it does not allow all those with religious or moral objections to decline providing coverage, the amendment says.

The short explanation of this is as follows: Federal law stipulates that employers must provide healthcare insurance, and, as part of that coverage, women must be allowed to have their contraception medication paid for exactly like any other medication prescribed by a doctor. However, some religious groups – those directly involved in ministry, I would say – are allowed to be exempt from this, based on the faith-based decision that contraception (or, at very least, contraceptives that are designated by faith, but not by science, as a potential abortifacient) is a morally evil action.

Personally, and based on my religious and political ideology, even this compromise should not be allowed. The Church claims spiritual dominion of humanity. It should be allowed unfettered opportunity to exercise its influence and its power in that realm – but that is its natural limit. To claim that the Church has the right to extend its power over the biological body of a human is to claim that the Spanish Inquisition was wrong on in the details.

It is helpful to refer to Marsilius of Padua’s masterpiece Defensor Pacis. The points I believe to be most cogent are as follows:
* The gospels teach that no temporal punishment or penalty should be used to compel observance of divine commandments.
Even if it correct that God hates abortion, and therefore contraception that may be used to induce abortion, or even all contraception; then it is still wrong to try and force individuals to adhere to that. A forced confession is no real confession. A forced faith is no faith at all. It may be true (from that perspective) that contraception is evil; but without the presence of evil, we cannot choose to follow God and eschew evil. If we are not given the choice between good and evil; then there is no evil, but there is no good. Without the possibility of damnation; there is no chance of redemption, no chance of salvation.

*It is necessary to salvation to obey the commandments of the new divine law [the New Testament] and the conclusions that follow necessarily from it and the precepts of reason; but it is not necessary to salvation to obey all the commandments of the ancient law [the Old Testament].
The New Covenant of Christ’s sacrifice means that humans are no longer bound to uphold every single scriptural law – a practice that was impossible from the beginning. The New Testament is entirely silent on the issue of abortion, and doesn’t even talk about contraception – and I’m sure that crude forms of both existed. Christ said, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This was after he had allowed his disciples to break kosher and to work on the Sabbath and all manner of things that conservative Judaism of his day considered evil. He gave his disciples a choice at every step of the way.

*No bishop or priest has coercive authority or jurisdiction over any layman or clergyman, even if he is a heretic.
Even in the case of direct ministerial employees, the Church has no authority or jurisdiction over their corporeal bodies, only their souls.

It is that last point that I have in mind when I say that the Obama Administration should not have compromised and allowed church employees who are not members of direct ministry to be exempted without their consent. If the church should have no coercive jurisdiction over the body of their clergy; then why should they then have that power over the clergy’s secretary or janitor?

There is a sort of argument that can be made that says that the Church should not have to pay for a medical treatment it does not believe is morally in line with its teachings. The problem with this argument is that it is stupid. Should we discharge the Department of Defense because the Quakers believe in pure non-violence? Should we prevent the American Red Cross from holding blood drives among those who willingly participate because the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that transferring blood is evil? Should we do away with highway spending all together because it utilizes the evil technology that the Amish find objectionable?

I think it’s apparent that pretty much any action is objectionable to some and seen as absolutely necessary by others. If the Catholic Bishops and Evangelical Christians have the veto-power over parts of the healthcare legislation; then what parts of other legislation do other churches have veto power over?

The problem is that the Religious Right in America does not want to live in a plural society. This is not a new problem, and, given that adherents of the Religious Right are intolerant to other Christians, not to mention other religions entirely, it should not be allowed to throw stumblingblocks before our secular government. This is, in fact, the Paradox of Tolerance as identified by Sir Karl Popper and John Rawls. Rawls, who believed there is a place for the intolerant within tolerant society, wrote this (from the preceding link):

While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.

I would argue that when a highway bill is held hostage for a pointless vote about religious interference in healthcare that “the institutions of liberty are in danger.” The Republican Party, increasingly aligned entirely with the Religious Right, has become ever more intolerant and willing to grind the wheels of government to a halt whenever some bit of their “social conservatism” – codewords for “religious dogma” – are not given top billing.

I used to write that “the Religious Right is neither religious, nor right.” While I like the catchiness of that line, it isn’t exactly true. They are, of course, highly religious. But in their self-righteousness; they have forgotten that faith in America requires tolerance. In our long history of not living up to the promises enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, we have continually strove for a society that more closely adheres to those ideas. While I respect political conservative ideology; the truth of the matter is that religious conservative ideology is patently un-American and wants to turn back the tides of time and the progress of human rights.

What they would take from us is the very spiritual promise that faith holds for humanity: that one can grow close to God as their spirit dictates and as directed by the voice of God, however it may be discerned. In its place, they hold up a hollow sepulcher of faith, filled with the bones of choices made in our “best interest” by people who have no concept of what the details of our lives might hold. They are the Sadducees and Pharisees of modern life, and they are deserving of our respect no more than their historical counterparts were deserving of the respect of Jesus and his band of disciples.

Apparently, Jesus is a good name – but not so much a role model.

Christians in the U.S. who labeled themselves politically liberal or conservative told researchers Jesus wouldn’t necessarily agree with their social views if he were alive today, according to a study.

The conservatives said Jesus would probably be more against abortion and same-sex marriage than they are, and less opposed to helping illegal immigrants obtain citizenship. Liberals believe Jesus would be tougher than them on morality and more open on questions concerning fellowship.

I’m not sure about the “more against abortion” thing. “Conservative” is almost synonymous with “never allow any abortion” and it’s hard to see how Jesus could be more extreme than “never.” The same thing goes for same-sex marriage. It is interesting, though, that they seem to think “Jesus would be like us…but more so.”

Similarly, I’m not sure what “tougher…on morality” means. Especially since we’ve already eliminated abortion and same-sex marriage from the consideration. Are we discussing theft or cheating on one’s taxes? Are they the same thing?

Even more odd is the “questions concerning fellowship.” I can’t even imagine what that might me. Are there Christians who are against fellowship?

Still, it seems to appear that more liberal Christians are saying “Jesus is a lot like us…but not quite so much on some things.” Which seems to be a big difference from the conservative stance.

As it stands, this is pretty much a useless blurb. I can’t tell anything from it – even if it is only my personal bias that slants my interpretation of it.

I heard of this story via NPR, but I can’t find a link to the story, so I found this one instead. So here’s the meat of the article:

She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion. In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

Okay, the author probably didn’t mean “dense” as a jab at the collective intelligence, but…I took it that way and had a laugh at their expense.

As far as prayers go, it’s pretty innocuous. It barely mentions God and it really doesn’t promote religion beyond the fact that it is, in fact, a prayer. But that, all by itself, is enough to set it aside. If a prayer is not religious; then what is it? There is no such thing as “secular God” so there is no such thing as “secular prayer.”

Katherine Stewart shows a remarkable insight when she writes:

Under our Constitution, religion is something special, something that is and ought to be treated differently from every other kind of activity. I bring this up because some of the recent jurisprudence on church/state issues is based on the very opposite view: that religion is just like everything else.

Defenders of the status quo – the idea that Christianity has a special and protected place in American society – too often want to argue both sides of the coin. The prayer, or religious exemptions to law, should exist because there is “something special” about them. But if people don’t like the prayer or exemption, they should ignore it as if it were not special after all.

It’s hard for me to get behind that argument.

On the other hand, atheists make it particularly hard to be sympathetic when they say things like this:

Does she empathize in any way with members of her community who want the prayer to stay?

“I’ve never been asked this before,” Jessica said. A pause, and then: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

Yes, she is saying that the purpose of this lawsuit is to save us from our own beliefs. Sigh. I don’t need that. I don’t need it when the Baptists want to tell me that I don’t understand God’s will and I don’t need it when the atheists tell me there is no God. I’m an intelligent man and I can make up my own mind – and I have done so. Even if I am wrong, I have the absolute right to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Jessica has said:

“This isn’t about religions anymore, it’s about the constitution and it always has been and those of you who are bringing religion into this need to stop,” she said.

Which part of the Constitution, Jessica? Yes, the part that deals with religion. Demanding that religion be taken out of a religious question is as effective as arguing a fish out of the water. It is also dishonest and, at best, self-indulgent.

It’s about religion. Religion holds a special place in our Constitution – mainly that the government will not endorse any specific form nor stop people from worshiping as they feel they must. Just be honest about it, on all sides.

It is possible that the Supreme Court would allow it to stand – like they did in the case of the Ten Commandments monument in Texas. Because it was part of a larger display, it was fine. But if it is part of a solitary display, that includes no other culturally significant features than to acknowledge and promote the Christian God…then it is not fine.

So here are a couple of suggestions for Cranston:
1) Remove or cover the words “Heavenly Father” and “Amen” from the display. It is now a wonderfully secular exhortation of morality and effort.
2) Allow an atheist to post a similar moral exhortation without reference to God.

I don’t understand the need, on both sides of the issue, for people to enforce their view as the only correct one. Yes, I know both sides think that only they are right. That doesn’t mean they have the right to impose their belief, or to utilize public spaces to promote it. Arguing otherwise is promoting tyranny and double-sided logic.

The Washington Post has a short article relating poll findings from the Barna Group (here is the Barna Group’s write-up on their findings). As with most such polls, it is the results in light of themselves that I find interesting.

Barna Group, an evangelical company based in California, found that 46 percent reported no change [in their life from church attendance]. About a quarter of Americans said their life was greatly affected by church attendance and another quarter said it was somewhat influential.

Remember this as the foundation for the rest of the numbers. Otherwise, it’s just interesting that nearly half of the people who go to church are not being changed by the experience…which could mean a number of things. It could mean that they simply found a church that says things they agree with. It could mean that they aren’t really paying attention. It could mean that what they hear simply isn’t relevant to their daily lives. We just don’t know.

The second thing to note is the polling methodology. Barna writes:

This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted in the OmniPoll? (part of Barna Group’s Barna Poll series). This study consisted of a random sample of 1,022 adults selected from across the continental United States, age 18 and older. The research included 150 interviews conducted among people using cell phones. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Minimal statistical weighting was used to calibrate the aggregate sample to known population percentages in relation to several key demographic variables

All this means is that it was pretty standard, which is a good start. I wonder about the 150 cell phone calls…firstly that it’s only 150 out of 1,022, and secondly that these people actually answered a call from someone they didn’t know and answered these questions. I wouldn’t. I’m definitely in the “don’t bother me” section of such things.

The problem lies earlier when they write, “…Barna Group surveyed Americans who have attended a Christian church sometime in the past…” So someone who hasn’t attended church in fifty years (or more) would still be included. Given the problem churches have with ongoing attendance, this is absolutely going to skew the numbers downward. I think a better method might have been to pick churches at random and then poll their membership. Or perhaps asking, “Do you remember the last time you went to church?” and if they said, “No.” then their response should not be counted because if you can’t remember it, it isn’t likely you can answer questions about it.

Back in the Post, we find this: “Two-thirds of respondents said they had felt “a real and personal connection” with God while attending church.” Remember that only “about a quarter” had felt their lives had been changed by attending church. So if everyone who felt their lives changed also had a personal connection with God…then 5/12 (about 41 percent) of the people who felt a connection with God were not changed by the experience. That’s interesting to me because one would tend to think that connecting to the Almighty (or whatever one calls it) would change them. Apparently not. Maybe 41 percent of people were told by God, “Everything is just fine like it is. Don’t change a thing.

Next we find this:

Among weekly church attenders, 44 percent said they felt God’s presence every week and 18 percent said they had that experience once a month.

Unfortunately, we aren’t told how many of the 1,022 people who were polled attend church weekly. SO this is a factoid devoid of any meaning. We also aren’t told what weekly means – how many weeks in a row does one have to go before it is “weekly?” If they miss a single week, is their status revoked? If so, how far back into the past or forward into the future does that revocation reach?

This is the next factoid:

Of those who attended in the previous week, 50 percent could not recall walking away with a significant new understanding.

Again, we have no idea how many people this is. Two? Nine hundred and twelve? Such details matter.

“Significant new understanding” is also undefined. I understand that they are letting people define that however they want, and that should result in more positive responses than if it were defined for them. In that light, it is surprisingly low.

What it does managed to do is show some real researcher bias in that it supposes that the purpose of going to church is to get significant new understandings of faith/God. Somehow, I think that by the time someone has gone to church “weekly” for fifty years or so, they probably are not looking for that. The can find deep meaning in the service without it being a learning experience. It may simply deepen their faith or increase the level of a significant older understanding. It’s important to understand how unimportant this question is, because Barna says it is “One of the most significant gaps uncovered by the research was the fact that most people cannot recall gaining any new spiritual insights the last time they attended church.” In this case, at least, we are told that “most” means 61 percent.

Flipping back to the horse’s mouth, we learn that “connecting with God is perhaps the most important outcome facilitated by churches.” Yet “most” (meaningless term) “describe these encounters as rare.” What does that say about churches failing in their most important outcome? And who says this is the most important outcome?

Churches score much better in the categories of “feeling cared for” and “helping the poor.” However, there is a significant minority of people who don’t identify this at all.

Also, the size of a church doesn’t seem to matter appreciably.

Dan Wetzel has it right:

Tim Tebow’s pastor, Wayne Hanson, says he knows why the Denver Broncos are 7-1 since installing Tebow as quarterback – it’s the player’s faith.

“It’s not luck,” Hanson said according to TMZ. “Luck isn’t winning six games in a row. It’s favor. God’s favor.”
snip
Very few people, even the ultra religious, believe God cares about the result of a football game. There are plenty of believers on the other teams also.

There are few subjects that I feel confident in speaking for God on, but I’m pretty confident that God doesn’t care about football games. If he did; then football would have been around for much long. Perhaps Moses would have said, instead of “Let my people go!”, “I’ll see you on the gridiron, Pharoah!”

But there are a few things missing from Wetzel’s observations.

Like: “It’s been a magical ride and one, no doubt, that has aided the image of, and interest in, Evangelical Christianity. A likeable spokesman will always do that.”

Gee, I thought Jesus was the Evangelical Christianity spokesman. I REALLY haven’t seen any evidence of anyone anywhere being interested in Evangelical Christianity “because Tebow does it.” And, for the record, if they did, it would wrong-hearted of them to do so. Evangelical Christianity teaches that Christ works on a person’s heart…not Tebow. Even if Tebow were giving lengthy sermons to the masses after each win, theologically, it would still not be Tebow doing the work. At best, he’d be the tool in the hands of the Master.

Then there is this earlier statement, which I can only characterize as “bat-guano crazy”:

Comments like these aren’t helping Tim Tebow. And they aren’t helping gain acceptance for the faith Tebow is willing to serve as public representative.

Newsflash: Christianity is not accepted in the American mainstream!

Wha?

Get real. Please.

According to the latest iteration of Wikipedia’s “Religion in America“, Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, with some 76% of us claiming to be Christian and 26.3% claim to be evangelical Christians. In a ranking of US and Canadian Churches, Southern Baptists rank second (with over sixteen million members) and the Church of God in Christ ranks fifth (with over five million members). Both of those are evangelical denominations. There are more Christians in the US than in any country in the world.

And while we’re at it, this:

“Tebowing,” as it has become known, is one of the things that Jesus spoke against, according to the Bible. Matthew 6:5-8 reads:

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

You would think Tebow’s pastor might want to talk to him about that. Apparently, you’d be wrong.

I found this article to be interesting:

The study, by sociologists Elaine Howard Ecklund of Rice and Kristen Schultz Lee of the University at Buffalo, found that many atheists want their children exposed to religion so that they can make up their own minds on what to believe. In addition, church may provide a better understanding of morality and ethics, and occasionally attending services may ease the conflict between spouses who disagree over the value of religion to their children, the study contends.

The research, published in the December issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, was based on in-depth interviews with 275 scientists at 21 “elite” research universities in the United States. Sixty-one percent of the participants described themselves as either atheists or agnostics, and 17 percent of the non-believers had attended church more than once in the past year.

This is both encouraging and discouraging to me.

It is encouraging because it shows that people are willing to expose their children to a variety of experiences in order to help them become well-rounded individuals who are grounded in the culture in which they live. It shows an open-mindedness that I find rather refreshing. They have made up their mind that they do not believe, but are willing to allow others – including their children – to feel differently. In fact, they are encouraging them to do so.

It is discouraging because it also says that atheists feel pressured to go to church just to get along with the people most important in their lives. The do not believe and they see the whole process as so much empty time spent wishing they were elsewhere. Yet they are pressured to accept what they find unacceptable to such an extent that they find it impossible to refuse.

It also shows that there is a very real level of ignorance about Christianity, not just among its adherents, but among those who study it as well. Don’t the spouses of agnostics/atheists realize that there is no spiritual value to a person going to service with no belief in it? Why would they push their spouses to be dishonest about who they are?

As well, there are denominations who do not express a creedal philosophy about even the existence of God. The Universalist Unitarian Church, for example, believe that each person is free to determine their own belief as to the existence of God. I have to wonder where this group fits in with the research – and how many scientists who go to other churches would gladly go to a UU group.

Or what about the Ethical Union? If scientists are pressured to go to Christian services; then are their spouses willing to go to Ethical functions? How about the slightly more churchy (in that they meet on Sundays and such) Ethical Society (or Ethical Culture Society)?

This is the most disappointing, but possibly most honest, statement in the article:

Columnist Michael Kinsley confessed to being a “nonbeliever” in the Los Angeles Times last month. In an op-ed piece he conceded, “That puts me in the only religious grouping in America whose members are effectively barred from any hope of becoming president, due to widespread public prejudice against them. There will be a Mormon president, a Jewish president, an openly gay president before there will be a president who says publicly that he doesn’t believe in God.”

I agree with him. And given the predilection of fringe religious groups to have apocalyptic beliefs, it is frightening that such a person would be judged to be more ready to be President than a sane person who would not try to destroy the world.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has gotten me thinking about the business of banking. Currently, I use Chase Bank for my financial needs – which are fairly limited. I use a direct deposit of my earnings and pay most of my bills online. I carry a Visa Debit Card, which I use most often when I purchase something (I rarely use cash). So if my needs are not specialized – if pretty much any bank can be my bank – then why am I using a bank that was so integral to the creation of the financial meltdown that has pulled our economy into a morass?

There really isn’t any good reason. It’s convenient not to have to change banks. But it is not responsible for me, as a consumer, to reward such a poor steward of my money. As a Christian, it is unconscionable that I should continue to reward such an immoral business – which continues to be profitable while the rest of the country suffers.

So the question becomes: Where do I move my business. There are several small banks in the area, and I am researching them to decide which one I like best. But I know that even small banks are in the business of business. And small businesses pay into organizations that buy lobbyists just like the big boys do. So while trading to a smaller (potential) criminal is better than staying with an enormous criminal…it isn’t quite as satisfying as I’d like.

The Bible is pretty clear about banking – interest is not to be charged to fellow believers (also, profiting on food is a no-no – sorry restauranteurs)>. Yet this is so often overlooked that it might as well be cut out of the Bible. While conservatives like to crow about being “real Americans” and having a “Christian nation”…there is not a peep about the scriptural principles of banking. Muslims, by the way, are way ahead of us on this. Consider this:

An innovative approach applied by some banks for home loans, called Musharaka al-Mutanaqisa, allows for a floating rate in the form of rental. The bank and borrower form a partnership entity, both providing capital at an agreed percentage to purchase the property. The partnership entity then rents out the property to the borrower and charges rent. The bank and the borrower will then share the proceeds from this rent based on the current equity share of the partnership. At the same time, the borrower in the partnership entity also buys the bank’s share of the property at agreed installments until the full equity is transferred to the borrower and the partnership is ended. If default occurs, both the bank and the borrower receive a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of the property based on each party’s current equity.

The closest I can come to an example of this for American (Episcopal) Christians is The Episcopal Federal Credit Union in Phoenix, Arizona (which is, oddly enough, a division of the United Methodist Federal Credit Union). Or the Episcopal Community Federal Credit Union in Los Angeles. I’m sure these run by more traditional banking practices, but it is still a step in the right direction.

I have no idea how one starts a bank. I have no idea how one starts a bank based on non-traditional, but scripturally sound business practices. I don’t even have an idea in whose ear such a whispered idea might take wing…but perhaps someone will read this and take the idea further.

I came across Feminism and Religion, a blog run by and for divinity students wrestling with topics of ethics and feminism. It has been a real treasure for me to listen to women from a variety of faith traditions wrestle with what it means to be a feminist and to be a person (potentially) dedicated to helping tend the spiritual well-being of others. They certainly don’t need my input, and I’m writing here so that whatever I add can be taken as an addition to what they say, and not in any way a corrective or a critique.

The post I want to deal with is this one dealing with the “problem” of men. It is difficult for me, as a heterosexual man, to hear myself referred to as a problem. Yes, patriarchy is the default position throughout the modern world and women are denigrated, abused, and violated in every country, and all too often without any thought of punishing their assailants.But should I be held responsible for all of the crimes that men commit throughout the world simply because I have mismatched chromosomes?

The knee-jerk reaction is to say, “No!” The reasons for that should be fairly obvious. But thinking closer on this issue reveals that, while I am not actively promoting patriarchy or attacking women, I do benefit from a position of status in society simply by being male. This was brought home to me anew when a colleague of mine (who is a woman) was discussing with me the difficulty she encounters as a teacher with international students who come from very heavily patriarchal societies. This is nothing I’ve ever had to contend with. This is what privilege means: to never even be aware of the struggles others encounter.

So I shouldn’t be held personally responsible for things I’ve never done, but I should be held responsible for understanding the privileged position I hold, and understand that it blinds me to the struggles others face. I should be held responsible for attempting to understand what they see when they look at me, not only as an individual, but as a symbol of an institution and society that still reinforce patriarchal as the norm.

It is a painful experience for me to hear others talk about how they have been hurt. To be blunt, I’d really like for them to simply not talk about it – because it makes it easier for me to enjoy my life without their pain getting in the way. Ignoring or minimizing their experience also relieves me of the responsibility to be an agent of change in the world. More than that, though, my knee-jerk reaction is a reiteration of the violence done to a person in the first place.

Part of my spiritual growth has been to resist this reactionary part of my being. To open my ears and my heart and simply become a witness to someone’s testimony of pain and abuse. It is an exercise in carefully planned vulnerability. It is an exercise in willfully experiencing heartbreak, again and again, because there is no end to the pain in the world.

So I read the comments that spoke of how women have been injured by simply insisting that they be allowed a “sacred space” for women only. My personal belief is that a person should be allowed to approach their spirituality in whatever fashion makes it more meaningful. Some need solitude, some need a congregation. Some need silence, some need clanging bells and a choir. Some need to be sheltered from men.

But I would be disingenuous if I were to stop with that. I do not believe we create a more peaceful world by sowing discord. We do not have a more just world by sowing injustice. We don’t create a more equal world by promoting inequality. We never find truth by closing our eyes to our own failings.

If radical feminism’s only answer to every problem in the world is to shoot for a world where no men exist; then it is a fool’s errand. If there is no chance at redemption for anyone who has a penis or a Y chromosome; then radical feminism has aligned itself with the iron-clad thinking of every two-bit dictator and oppressive ideology – including religious fundamentalism – that has ever existed. If the purpose is to improve the plight of women; then this approach will simply make enemies of those who should be allies. That’s a plan to fail. And one I simply cannot endorse.