Forced to Choose: Science or Future With the Church

USA Today had a story this week about an Evangelical scholar who was forced out of his position with the church for posting a YouTube video about how he didn't deny evolution, and thought the church could run into trouble in the future by denying it.  Check out the story.  I'd love to show you the video but it had been taken down since he was asked to resign.  The organization that filmed it offers a more complete explanation here, and here's an excerpt of the description:

Waltke cautions, “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.”
We are at a unique moment in history where “everything is coming together,” says Waltke, and conversations—like those initiated by BioLogos—are positive developments. “I see this as part of the growth of the church,” he says. “We are much more mature by this dialogue that we are having. This is how we come to the unity of the faith—by wrestling with these issues.”

The greatest thing about this in my opinion? DIALOGUE!  I heard about it on a radio talk show called Jon Grayson Overnight America.  I'll confess - I don't usually listen, but a friend texted me and told me Jon and his callers were having an incredible debate on the air about evolution. The host did a pretty good job of defending the scientific, even if he wasn't thrilled to be talking about such a serious topic on a normally "fluffy" show.  The conversation went on for almost the entire hour, and one caller -GET THIS- discussed the Creation movie!!!  That totally made my day!

S.A.M.

Classes announced! History Debunked??

I registered for next semester's classes on Friday - and I can't wait for September.  I am taking a class on the history of Christianity.  This is a straight-up anthropology course so no theology.  That will be a first for me.  I spent the first 13 years of my education in private Catholic schools, so I can't wait to finally have a "religion" class without the spin.  I hope we cover EVERYTHING - rejected books of the bible, the Crusades, the politics of the early popes.  I'm hoping this class WON'T be a breeze for me, though, because it could be an excellent opportunity to toughen up my organized religion debates.

Speaking of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Easter was a great day for the History Channel.  I had a hard time tearing myself away for the family dinner.  I was happy to watch some educational stuff about the actual history of the bible or cathedrals instead of just "Was Jesus Real??" features. 

One show I am NOT excited about watching on the History Channel: The Real Face of Jesus.  Um... hasn't the scientific community pretty much dismissed the shroud as a medieval fraud?  I could have sworn I actually saw the story of the debunking on the History Channel.  So why would a fake shroud reveal a real face?  I'm sure the technology is cool, but why not apply it to mummies or something?  This is definetely a step backward for the History Channel in my mind.  Next step - find another ark.  :(

S.A.M.

Getting Ready for "Eostre"!!

(Art courtesy of www.thaliatook.com)

The pope is criticizing the New York Times for their coverage of the sex abuse scandal - which they are calling an Easter Week attack. (Check out some of the news coverage here.) Supposedly, the pope was personally involved in the initial decision to NOT punish the abusive priests. This seems to be the most fallible a pope has appeared to be in my lifetime, and I wonder if he WILL be pulled into a legal investigation. It poses some interesting questions that may not have been asked for hundreds of years - Can the pope go to jail? Can he testify in court? Can he be removed from office once appointed? I'll be anxious to see.

Speaking of Easter, here's a little Easter history from ReligiousTolerance.org:

The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:

~Aphrodite from ancient Cyprus

~Ashtoreth from ancient Israel

~Astarte from ancient Greece

~Demeter from Mycenae

~Hathor from ancient Egypt

~Ishtar from Assyria

~Kali, from India

~Ostara a Norse Goddess of fertility.

An alternative explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "alba" which means "white." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "Alba" also has a second meaning: "sunrise." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "sunrise" meaning was selected in error. This became "ostern" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "Easter".

Knowing that many Christian holidays are pillaged from prior religions, I was still surprised to learn how directly Easter was related to goddess worship - even in name! So, maybe as I celebrate spring in my new white dress and shoes, I can join my family in actually saying that I'm celebrating Easter... or rather "Eostre" (Goddess of Spring).  Just a little spelling difference.  :)

S.A.M.

The Godfather II

Over the past week, the Godfather saga has continued.  (Okay, so that last statement makes it sound much more dramatic than it is.  Discussion of the topic takes up maybe five minutes of the time Josh and I spend together each day.  It is just a big issue in my mind.)

First, a few days ago, I was surprised when, having received no word from the priest, Josh said, "Oh, well.  If he won't give me the letter I just won't do it.  No big deal."  It was a plesant surprise for me.  I felt like he had taken a deeper look at the situation (or thought about the horror of "lying to God!") and decided that it was more important to be true to his own values and common sense than to jump through the hoops of a church in which he doesn't really believe. I thought the matter was over and done with.

Then, the priest replied. He explained that the letter was actually a certified form, and that he would try to get one for Josh - like he did before for Josh's friend's daughter's baptism. I guess I am less worked up now that I know that he was at least willing to just drop it instead of concocting a big scheme to lie to the church. Part of me wanted to call that priest up myself and ask him why HE was so willing to participate in this. Anyway, it has become a minor daily update between us and mostly an afterthought. The topic did stir the pot a little between us though. As I was drifting off to sleep last night while watching a rerun of a particularly good episode of Bones, Josh asked me why I like the show so much. I mumbled sleepily, "Bones is, like, ultra-rational and I like to hear her talk about religion and science and stuff." He said, "You can be rational and still have faith." I said something to the effect of, "Yeah, right." I was nearly asleep and only realized how awful that probably sounded to him, but I was too tired to defend myself and he was just quiet after that. At least it's out there, right?

On another note - CNN's Anderson Cooper is doing a week-long series about the Church of Scientology. Check it out! It's both well-researched and entertaining (and a little disturbing as well). I'll write more about this in the future.


S.A.M.

A Christian Against His Own

One co-worker whom I'll refer to as Bob is a serious Christian - bible study and all.  (He's the one who told his bible group that he worked with an Atheist.)  This morning, Bob was talking about how he caused a near-riot at his bible study discussion group this weekend by suggesting a different approach to the abortion debate.  He suggested that Christians have a bad image in the media (basically that they are right-wing fundamentalists) because they try to make politicians fight their battles for them, especially when it comes to abortion.

I thought this was a rather profound observation - and very true.  I'm not so concerned about the public image of religion (and I can think of a million reasons why it COULD have a bad image), but the part about having politicians fight their battles is actually true.  Bob proposed that they let politicians deal with the law and that Christians go out personally and work at pregnancy counseling centers, with youths at risk for getting pregnant, and within their own families.  His theory is that there are a lot of people who are personally against abortion but still think that this is a personal responsibility and that legally women should have a right to choose, and the church's attitude could be keeping them away from their church community.  I thought this was a surprisingly open-minded idea coming from him.  Actually, apparently, it was a little too open-minded for his group.  He said that one woman immediately began yelling that his idea would never work and didn't he understand the importance of making their ideas the law.  Wow.  How telling.  "Our way should be the only way."  What about freedom of religion or non-religion?  What if some religions stood by the right to choose?  Bob said he just was overwhelmed with negative feedback, for simply saying that WHILE HE AGREEED WITH THEM ABOUT ABORTION, they try a different approach.  THIS is exactly why Christians are viewed as close-minded.

Not being a Christian, I just stayed out of the conversation.  Had I said anything, it would have been that I was at least proud of Bob for respecting and understanding the intent to keep church and state as separate entities.  I'm sure he wouldn't like to hear my thoughts about the rest of his group.  And it IS true that religious institutions in America have been expressing a certain political power and pressuring politicians with access to their voting block (which is led by church leaders - those that church-goers are supposed to obey and learn from.).  Maybe he should have quoted the bible - Matthew 7:1-5.

Do not judge others, then you will not be judged. The way you judge others, that is the way you will be judged. How much you give to others is how much will be given to you. `Why do you look at the spot of dust in your brother's eye? But you do not see a big stick in your own eye! Why do you say to your brother, "Let me take the dust out of your eye"? And all the time you have that stick in your own eye! You are not true to yourselves! First take the stick out of your own eye. Then you will be able to see to take the dust out of your brother's eye.

It was a bible study class, after all.

S.A.M.

To Godparent or Not to Godparent

Joshua's brother has asked him to be a godfather to his niece.  His family is Catholic, and Josh was raised Catholic, but being the black sheep of the family, he left the church and often expresses his frustration with the doctrines of organized religions.  For those of you not familiar with Catholic protocol, you must have a letter from your parish recommending you to be a godparent, otherwise known as the back-up teacher of religion in the event that parents fail to properly indoctrinate the child.  Josh's brother and sister-in-law are, I'm sure, aware of Josh's split with the church, but they see godparenting as the opportunity to establish an extra-special relationship between their daughter and her uncle.  They mentioned that they would want Josh to take care of her if something happened to them, and traditionally, in the Catholic faith, a godparent is likely to step in as guardian when a child is orphaned.  In reality this is taken care of legally in a will.

When Josh asked for my ideas about how to get this letter, I had some really mixed feelings. I teased that no matter how he got it, he would be lying to God (he believes in some sort of a supreme being).  I said it jokingly, but deep down I was probably trying to use "religion" to guilt him into doing the right (meaning consistent with his beliefs) thing.  Hey, that's what religion is for, right?  I mean, to all of the people involved, this is more of a personal honor and family tradition, but something that is blessed by the church.  To the church, this is a Catholic vow, though.  To his brother, Josh is a great person with a good and honest heart, more than worthy of caring for his daughter.  To the church, Josh is another drop-out hoodlum.  What Josh cares about is his brother and niece, and he is determined to fulfill the request.

Besides, Josh already IS a godfather to a close friend's daughter.  He is pretty sure that if he pulled it off once, he can pull it off again.  He had a past co-worker who is a priest write him the holy letter of recommendation.  I said he might as well try tracking the guy down and seeing if he was willing to write out another churchly white lie.  My other suggestion was to go to the church up the street, say he just moved, and try to join their parish.  I told him that he would have to start going to church if he did that though - at least until he got the letter.  He said it would interfere with his work schedule, which it would, but I pointed out that the church isn't going to buy that.  (Look, I'm just reminding him of the guilt that is required when dealing with the Catholic Church!)  I'm sure that Josh will find a way to get this done.  I'm proud of him that he a person of such integrity that people feel he is the best person they know to mentor their children.  I'm a little disappointed that he doesn't talk to them more about his feelings about the church and maybe look for an alternative.

I've read about "atheist Jews" who do not believe in God but still practice because they feel that the Jewish traditions connect them to their family and heritage.  I can understand that, even if it is not something in which I would personally participate.  But now I imagine that such a lifestyle must be wrought with trouble.  As long as the church is not open to the questioning of God and his role in the universe (and I have heard that, at least, the Jewish faith is more open than most to this), one is required to lie to participate.  Maybe it is an unintentional fail-safe for the church - it keeps people from slowly drifting away from the church by holding their traditions hostage.

When Dixie had her children, she invited me to come to their dedications as an honored guest.  They do not have godparents (she is not catholic, rather some denomination of Christian, so I don't believe it is required) but her children, who address me by my first name, no "Miss" or "Aunt" before it, clearly know that I am a dear friend of their mom's, someone they can look to for advice, protection, or love, and that I hold a special and unique place in their lives.  I'd like to pose this as an alternative to Josh, but he obviously already knows this and has decided to try to stick with his family's traditions.  As I've mentioned before, I put on the kid gloves when it comes to Joshua and his faith.  I'm not sure that love SHOULD be exception-making, but sometimes it is.

S.A.M.

This is so disheartening.... (Also movie news!)

Check out this post from the blog "Small Dog. Big Stick." It is an explanation of the "true" story of creation.  If this was written by someone who truly believes it... wow.  There is no excuse to be so uneducated in this country.  I mean, this person isn't even educated in any church's (that I've heard of!) doctrine.  This is just a ridiculous, mean, mad-libs story.  Let's all hope this was just a prank.

HOWEVER, I think the chances of real sentiments such as those expressed in this letter would be greatly reduced if more people were exposed to the true stories of science, even in drama form.  ;)

Yes, Creation came.  I watched it immediately, of course!  My first impression:  What a sad tug-at-your-heartstrings story.  I was in tears at one point.  Darwin's struggle with the loss of his faith (and the loss of his daughter) was brilliantly tempered with his struggle to raise his children in a loving supportive way that was not the norm at the time.  I couldn't help but giggle at his daughter's joy when discovering a starfish - it was a portrait of a child's pure potential realized - a little girl learning. Scenes like that were set against a scene in which his doctor (which seemed to be one of the few fellow men of science whose opinion he trusted - in fact entrusted with his life) tells him his problem was a lack of faith.  I could imagine that he just had sickening feeling that he was completely alone in his struggle for his life - the he was the only one with enough of a scientific understanding of life to be responsible for his health.  Maybe he felt the guilt of taking his daughter to a doctor who was not all Darwin thought he had been.  The disappointment must have been excruciating.

In addition to the theological drama, the movie was filmed in a very compelling and haunting way.  The timeframe shifts, and you are never really certain if Anne is alive or dead, and you get the feeling that Darwin is experiencing the same incomprehension.

Really, it was an excellent true-story drama that was well-acted, well-produced and simply well-done.  I didn't find it any more controversial than an episode of House, and I really can't comprehend anymore what the problem is with releasing this movie.  It comes highly recommended by your Sweet Atheist Mistress.

S.A.M.

Some people cry over romantic movies... I cry over scientific ones.

A while ago, a friend told me that she heard an NPR interview about a movie depicting Charles Darwin's life. I was excited, but never heard anything more. I decided to try to find out what happened and I found this.

In a nutshell, it is an article from England about how no distributor in the US would TOUCH the movie Creation, fearing controversy and backlash. Yes, the life of a 19th century naturalist is way too hot for the American public to handle. This movie, which has gotten great reviews around the world, won't ever be seen or heard about by most Americans because we are so afraid of being offended (or confronted with a view that might clash with someone's religion) that we are doing a better job of censoring ourselves than the FCC. Think about it - we live in the country where a movie showing (in gory detail) the execution of Jesus Christ or a movie about college-age kids getting naked and sleeping with each other is acceptable. However, a scientist's struggle between science and faith is supposedly something we can't handle.

This isn't some B-movie or documentary that Americans wouldn't turn out for anyway. It stars a number of actors and actresses that Americans would recognize. The trailer looks like one of those big-grossing dramas about a family facing a difficult situation. It is a TRUE STORY, too. But apparently Americans can't handle reality.

The article cites a recent poll showing that less than 40% of Americans believe that evolution is true. I blushed with embarrassment when I read that. I have to wonder if this is how the rest of the developed world sees us - as a religious country that eagerly ignores modern science and facts in favor of the beliefs of centuries ago. I was ashamed to be lumped in with this. I talked to friends (who DO accept evolution as true - they are educated, after all) who were surprised with the statistic, and generally angry about the fact that they had never even heard about this movie that they can't see.

I can't find a region 1 DVD available anywhere online, but I'm efforting a blu-ray, and I plan to have a viewing party.

And I thought that shows like House and Bones were making progress... (sigh) Clearly, I have been overly-optimistic.

S.A.M.

Has America DEvolved?

I was reading an excerpt from Richard Dawkin's upcoming book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," and was floored by this disturbing fact:

"More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals,
and think that we - and by implication all of life - were created by God within
the last 10,000 years."

Maybe I was naive to imagine that America was smarter than that. At LEAST I would have thought that, while religious, a pretty high majorty of the country at least attended a high school biology class. I was sent to 13 years of catholic schooling and I came out having learned about Darwin's theories. I don't ever actually recall being told that Intelligent Design was an option. I know ID has really taken off in the past 10 years or so, but... wow.