My God or yours? The meaning of Allah

What the recent controversy in Malaysia means for us Read more

Why consider religion first?

Jumping to conclusions about Fort Hood shooter’s motives is irrational, destructive Read more

Speaker contrasts views in age-old debate

Lecture outlines naturalism, evolutionary theory

Read more

Stop preaching:
You don’t have all the answers

Uncompromising belief in one faith unproductive, divisive Read more

The conversion of the Catholic Church

Church’s decision to accept Anglican converts suspicious Read more

Diverse panel discusses Jesus
in religion, history

Scholars and theologans discuss the essence of Jesus Read more

KEEPING THE FAITH:
Questions about a comparison:
death in two traditions

It is frighteningly easy for me to fall into the attractively simple idea Read more

One nation, under a revised history

In our school system today children are being indoctrinated. No, not by the Evangelicals, Jews, or Muslims, they are being indoctrinated by the secularists.

Our public school system today refuses to acknowledge the role of religion in America and the world. Texts books mention religion as a side note rather than presenting it with the respect and serious thought that it deserves.

This is something that must change. children need to learn about how religion has shaped not only America and its values, but also the world.

Religion is viewed by the right as a cause (Christianity in particular), and as a bane by the left. Religion divides and many people have passionate sentiments attached to it. But sadly many people are religiously illiterate.

Many people cannot even name all the ten commandments, many dont know who wrote the gospels, what holy books Muslims use or what are the four noble truths of Buddhism.

Christian conservatives champion the Bible, but many dont even know what’s written in the Bible. An overwhelming majority of children today cannot tell the difference between the different denominations of Christianity or even the difference between Judiasm and Islam.

America was founded by people escaping religious persecution and religion became the foundation of American colonial society. Pennsylvania was William Penn’s “holy experiment” for the Quakers. Rhode Island became a haven for several different denominations and Maryland was a haven for Catholics.

Colonies passed laws that required people to know the Bible and some of the basic catechisms of their denominations. People knew the Bible by heart and this not only spread a sense of morality in this new, strange world but also made many people literate.

People learned to read from the Bible and so American history has become inexerably tied to religion.

It is not possible to teach history or world literature without touching religion. Religion played a key role in the civil rights movement and the work of Rev. Matrin Luther King Jr.

The issues of abortion and gay rights are tied to Abrahamic religious thought. Thomas Jefferson wanted the American seal to be a depiction of Moses guiding the Isrealites out of the wilderness. Harvard University, the best college in the world, started as a college of divinity.

And there are many more examples of how religion has helped shape America.
This is not only limited to America. World history and politics are shaped by religion. How can people understand the conflicts in the Middle East without learning about the Crusades and the religious significance of Jerusalem?

The problems in Tibet and the exile of the Dhali Lama. Osama bin Laden and his motivations. The untouchables in India and the caste system. All these things involve religion and some form of religious literacy.

But textbooks avoid these things and mention them as an afterthought.

This attitude must change. The first amendment does stop religion from being established by the government and I agree that teaching religion is wrong. However, teaching about religion is constitutional.

As Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark said, American school children are being indoctrinated by the “religion of secularism.”

Professor debates theologian

An atheist UNLV professor and a Christian radio talk show host met Saturday in the Green Valley Evangelical Church to debate the existence of God.

Author, theologian and Christian talk show host Steve Gregg explained why he rejects scientific claims of evolution.
“There is something that is there that explains what has come about since,” Gregg said. “There are things we marvel on that science may not ever be able to explain.”

He went on to say that the founder of nature must be supernatural and that no one has shown that anything other than a deity made life.

“We don’t know that there is no God,” Gregg said.

Assistant professor of philosophy William Ramsey, who taught at the University of Notre Dame for 18 years, was given the chance to explain his views and some of the criticism he has faced for being open about them.

“I was once told [in Notre Dame], ‘What’s a nice place like this doing with a guy like you?’” he said.

Ramsey also said that, for him, things do not make sense if they do not fit well together – a criticism he found of theology.
“I feel that way with core Christian claims. They just don’t make sense to me,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to me that we need to be ‘saved.’”

Ramsey continued on to speak about salvation and why he believes Christians technically “kill the messenger” by devoting themselves to the idea that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

Ramsey ended his speech by saying he could not understand how a benevolent, loving and caring God would let bad things happen to human beings.

He said Orthodox Christians believe that suffering will happen to those who don’t believe in God.

“It is essentially a scare tactic saying, ‘You better believe in this. If not, bad things will happen to you,’” Ramsey said.
The focus of the debate was then turned to Gregg, who argued from the perspective of a religious devotee.

“In a Christian point of view, heaven cannot be tainted with bad people,” Gregg said. “God wants people that are repentant for their faults and sins.”

Ramsey took the floor again to say that he believes there has to be reason for every single fact and that he is perfectly happy believing in facts alone.

To this, Gregg responded by saying that the miracles of Jesus were consistent with who he claimed to be.
Gregg asked Ramsey what it would take to convince him that there is a God. Ramsey responded by saying that he would require clear-cut evidence.

“I need to walk out of here and look up to see the stars arranged in a way that tells me, ‘Hey Ramsey, I exist,’” he said.
In one last question from Ramsey to Gregg, the professor asked the theologian why God makes it so difficult to believe and stays silent.

“Seeing is not necessarily believing [to everyone],” Gregg responded. “You believe what you are willing to believe and don’t believe what you are not willing to believe.”

At the end of the debate, both sides took time to express their respect for one another, with Ramsey adding that he believes there is an openness to atheism that has not always existed in the philosophy at large.

Establishment clause versus the free exercise clause

[TAKE OUR WEB POLL]

Constitutional vagueness leads to arbitrary decisions

Time and time again, mankind has argued over the meaning of a few words to determine the fate of millions who will be affected by the interpretation.
Religious texts are one such source of contention. In the U.S., an entire branch of government was created to resolve conflicts over the interpretation of words: the judicial branch.

Courts have been able to define and refine laws for centuries to clarify and extend those that were initially expressly included in the U.S. Constitution.
But one amendment has far outdone the others in the amount of heated discourse it has caused: the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution starts off with some words, which at first seem to imply a clear meaning: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The writers of our constitution chose the issue of religion to address first, which hints at the seriousness of religion-related issues in their society.
The importance of the role of faith hasn’t diminished more than 200 years later – debate over what is allowed and what is not continues on.
What academics and constitutional scholars know but many others don’t understand, is that often the establishment clause and free exercise clause contend.

This conflict results in arbitrary rulings that often seem contradictory.
Take this scenario recently brought up in England as an example: A nurse wears a necklace with a crucifix to work. She identifies with the Christian faith and claims that she has been wearing the necklace for 30 years.
The hospital trust claims that wearing any kind of necklace is prohibited for the purpose of safety. The nurse claims in return that many on staff have violated the “no-necklace” policy for years without reprimand.

Would the hospital be establishing a religion if it allowed her to wear a crucifix even though it is against dress code? Or would the hospital be infringing upon her freedom to practice Christianity if it decided to fire her on those grounds?

Most cases are analyzed on an individual basis. The courts have to determine which clause to uphold when they are in conflict – the establishment clause or the free exercise clause – by analyzing each situation separately.

Many times, courts will decide differently on cases that might look almost exactly the same, for technical reasons or a slight differentiation. This is why these cases can take years to solve and many times they end up in the Supreme Court.

But the courts’ decisions on many cases seem to be subjective: Many cases have troublingly arbitrary and unpredicted outcomes. The founding fathers have left us in a state of confusion, even though their intent was clear.

This issue is nowhere near universal consent and we must continue to challenge the establishment because for all we know the most facially neutral law could be ruled unconstitutional, or vice-versa.

Last month this issue was again brought to light nationally when some high school football students were baptized at a voluntary school trip to a church service in Kentucky.

A high school football coach “took about 20 players on a school bus late last month to his church, where nearly half of them… were baptized.” Apparently, the school district’s superintendent was there and did not object. The coach claimed that being baptized would bring the team together.

None of the students were given permission forms to have their parents sign and many of them were baptized without the knowledge of their parents, even though the church’s pastor “said that he requires minors to obtain their parents’ consent to be baptized.”

Even though the pastor knew that the kids belonged to a high school football team, in his defense he claimed: “Sometimes 16-year-olds look like 18 years. We did the best we could.”

But how can anyone assume that every high school student is 18 years old? Most students don’t turn 18 until their senior year of high school or later. It’s like assuming anyone in college is at least 22 years old.

Of course, the real issue of concern is not why the pastor baptized these students. The issue is whether or not the school district was establishing a religion by using a school bus and a school event as an opportunity to baptize students.

The necklace case seems harmless enough: if the hospital allowed other staffers to wear necklaces in the past, then the crucifix necklace should be allowed.

But some cases are easier to judge than others: It seems to me that the coach and pastor were both pushing their religion on the students.

WEB POLL

Next Page »