Theology vs. Politics in Response to Rev. Wright

Joan Walsh and many other political pundits are on-target for the political impact of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's public comments on Senator Obama's Presidential campaign.

But the political analysis of Rev. Wright's comments show a gaping hole in religious literacy when it comes to liberation theology and its roots within the teachings of Jesus.

Most folks have heard the beatitude "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" in Luke 6:20 so long that they don't see the harsh politically-tinged social justice message in this Bible verse.

John Dominic Crossan (the former Catholic priest and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar) writes about this in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Crossan's exegesis of this verse takes us to a very uncomfortable place. The following quote is from Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, page 62:

Now what on earth does that mean, especially if one does not spiritualize it away, as Matthew immediately did, into "poor in spirit" -- that is, spiritually humble or religiously obediant? Did Jesus really think that bums and beggers were actually blessed by God, as if all destitute were nice people and all the aristocrats were correspondingly evil?
...

If, however, we think not just of personal or individual evil but of social, structural, or systemic injustice -- that is, of precisely the imperial situation in which Jesus and his fellow peasants found themselves -- then the saying becomes literally, terribly, and permanently true. In any situation of oppression, especially in those oblique, indirect, and systemic ones where injustice wears a mask of normalcy or even of necessity, the only ones who are innocent or blessed are those squeezed out deliberately as human junk from the system's own evil operation. A contemporary equivalent: only the homeless are innocent. That is a terrifying aphorism against society because, like the aphorisms against the family, it focuses on not just on personal or individual abuse of power but on such abuse in its systemic or structural possibilities -- and there, in contrast to the former level, none of our hands are innocent or our consciences are particularly clear.

Now in terms of a modern-day preacher saying "God damn America" like Rev. Wright did, it does not make sense from a personal or individual point of view.

But it does make sense when viewed an anti-oppressive liberation theology lens when applied to the very real and very ordinary systemic injustices our country has committed and continues to commit today.

It's probably fortunate for John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama that Jesus isn't alive today to be a personal friend.

Otherwise, they would have to explain their connection to this crazy preacher who is so anti-American in his sermons.

Bill Moyers Interviews Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Here's an hour-long interview of Rev. Jeremiah Wright by Bill Moyers -- worth checking out to understand the context of the YouTube soundbites from his sermons (and the web broadcast on one's computer doesn't interfere with Battlestar Galactica on Friday nights).

"Brick Testament" -- Bible Stories Told Through Legos

2 Samuel 11:2 -- "And from the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful."

The Brick Testament is worth checking out -- here's a brief explanation from the web site:

The Brick Testament is the largest, most comprehensive illustrated Bible in the world with over 3,600 illustrations that retell more than 300 stories from The Bible.

Launched first as a website in 2001, then as a published book series in 2003, The Brick Testament project is an ongoing one-man labor of love, constructed and photographed entirely by The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith.

Honesty, Ethics, and "Expelled"?

It's really puzzling to watch the efforts of some people to promote Expelled, a movie about "intelligent design" that is tainted with dishonesty in its production and marketing.

[The next paragraph has a correction that is printed in bold italic text. The correction comes from off-blog email between myself and Shawn Anthony.]

Shawn Anthony, a Brethren in Christ blogger who examined for one year Unitarian Universalism as a possible faith community during his M.Div. studies, has commented on Expelled on his blog. You can read Shawn's original post and the reader comments about this here.

My final comment on Shawn's blog (which may not make it through if he deletes it) is quoted here:

My concerns were not over the intelligence of those promoting Intelligent Design in the movie "Expelled" -- my concerns were with their honesty.

Is supporting dishonesty OK if it supports a cause one believes in?

Here are a few examples of the dishonesty behind this movie:

Richard Sternberg -- "Expelled claims that Sternberg was 'terrorized' and that 'his life was nearly ruined' when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination."

Guillermo Gonzalez -- "Expelled claims that Iowa State University astronomy professor Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his views on intelligent design. However, this shows a naïve and distorted understanding of the tenure process at a major research university. The tenure process involves intense scrutiny of a candidate’s accomplishments in order to assess his future potential; the beliefs or extra-academic opinions held by the candidate are not a factor. Gonzalez’s academic record is not as golden as Expelled would have you believe, and due process was rendered at every level of appeal. ISU was justified in rejecting his application for tenure."

Caroline Crocker -- "Expelled claims that Caroline Crocker was fired because she mentioned Intelligent Design in a class she was teaching. However, the evidence says otherwise. While there may have been grounds to fire her with cause, Crocker was not fired and continued to teach her course after student complaints; in addition, she did not just 'mention' intelligent design, but rather was teaching demonstrably false creationist material. We do not know for certain why Crocker was not re-hired for her non-tenure track job. Such positions carry no promise that contracts will be renewed. Only tenure-track jobs come with such an expectation, and only tenured professors have a guarantee of employment."

Biology professor PZ Myers was "expelled" from a private screening of the movie -- you can read the account of this incident here. For all of the moviemakers' claims about about intellectual inquiry and academic freedom, this action speaks much louder than their words. However, you may want to read Richard Dawkins commentary on this incident ("Lying for Jesus"). Here's a brief quote from his article:

"Now, to the Good Friday Fiasco itself, Mathis' extraordinary and costly lapse of judgment. Just think about it. His entire film is devoted to the notion that American scientists are being hounded and expelled from their jobs because of opinions that they hold. The film works hard at pressing (no, belabouring with a sledgehammer) all the favourite hot buttons of free speech, freedom of thought, the right of dissent, the right to be heard, the right to discuss issues rather than suppress argument. These are the topics that the film sets out to raise, with particular reference to evolution and 'intelligent design' (wittily described by someone as creationism in a cheap tuxedo). In the course of this film, Mathis tricked a number of scientists, including PZ Myers and me, into taking prominent parts in the film, and both of us are handsomely thanked in the closing credits.

Seemingly oblivious to the irony, Mathis instructed some uniformed goon to evict Myers while he was standing in line with his family to enter the theatre, and threaten him with arrest if he didn't immediately leave the premises. Did it not occur to Mathis -- what would occur any normally polite and reasonable person -- that Myers, having played a leading role in the film, might have been welcomed as an honoured guest to watch it? Or, more cynically, did he not know that PZ is one of the country's most popular bloggers, with a notoriously caustic wit, perfectly placed to set the whole internet roaring with delighted and mocking laughter? I long ago realised that Mathis was deceitful. I didn't know he was a bungling incompetent."

All of this gives creationism and intelligent design a patina of dishonesty. Unfortunately, this reputation for dishonesty can taint Christianity if they don't do anything about it.

This Intelligent Design Satire Is Probably Too Subtle

Renewal or Ruin: The IRD's Attack on the United Methodist Church

Here is Renewal or Ruin? The Institute on Religion and Democracy's Attack on the United Methodist Church:



The Institute on Religion and Democracy is a conservative political group which seeks to reduce the public influence of the mainline Protestant Christian churches in the United States and their joint ministry, the National Council of Churches.

A study guide for this movie can be downloaded here.

Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed (Expelled parody)

Here's the description of the "controvery" surrounding this alternative reproduction theory from the RichardDawkins.net web site:

Anticipating success with their feature film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Producers Mark Mathis, Logan Craft and Walt Ruloff have already leaked a teaser trailer for the film's sequel. Their "teach the controversy" slogan seemed to work well in getting the general public to believe that Intelligent Design is a viable alternative scientific theory to Evolution, so the team has moved on to promoting other theories that they feel are being suppressed by the scientific community. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed tells of how Sex Theory has thrived unchallenged in the ivory towers of academia, as the explanation for how new babies are created. Proponents of Stork Theory claim that "Big Sex" has been suppressing their claim that babies are delivered by storks. Furthermore, Stork Theory proponents warn of the serious moral dangers posed by teaching children that sex has a function. They point out that evil dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao all believed in Sex Theory, and they may have even had sex themselves.

There is also a late-breaking new development in the controversy, a new theory called Avian Transportation Theory.

Unlike the original Stork Theory, the modern, sophisticated "Avian Transportation Theory" (ATT) merely points out that there are gaps in the orthodox Sex Theory, and that current sonogram imaging is unreliable. Moreover ATT does not specify that babies are necessarily brought by storks but by "large birds unspecified" (although many individual ATT theorists PRIVATELY believe it is a stork).

Science Teacher Fired For Not Teaching "Intelligent Design"

Hat tip to Expelled Exposed web site for pointing out this YouTube video clip:



Description from YouTube: "Chris Comer, a Science Teacher in Texas was Expelled for not teaching Intelligent Design in her science class. It's a scary day indeed when our science teachers get fired for recognizing that creationism is not science."

Countering Ben Stein's Propaganda Film

Here's a suggestion from PZ Myers (the author of the Pharyngula science blog) about what we can do to counter the deceptive propaganda message in the Ben Stein's new movie - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

We need to get the NCSE's (National Center for Science Education) counter-site to the hideous little propaganda film, Expelled, to rank higher in the search engines. The way to do this is for lots and lots of you to link to the Expelled Exposed site with the word Expelled. It's not hard: just copy this code into a blog post.

<a href="http://expelledexposed.com/"><i>Expelled</i></a>

Whenever you write about the movie, use that link. Do it a bunch of times, if you want. It's more effective if many people use the same link every time, though, than for one person to be repetitive.

Response to Steve Casey's "Darwin's evolution also supports racism"

Here's my response to Steve Casey's op-ed column in the Shreveport Times ("Darwin's evolution also supports racism," 29 February 2008):

Dear Editors,

I'm responding to the mistaken interpretation of evolutionary biology presented by Steve Casey ("Darwin's evolution also supports racism," 29 February 2008).

Yes -- it's true that some bigots have misunderstood Darwin's theories and the later refinement of these theories.

Yes -- it's true that these misunderstandings were used to support racism, sexism, economic classism, and other types of unjust oppression.

However, we need to keep in mind that this is simply a reflection of a flawed humanity using any available intellectual framework to support injustice and evil in the world.

People have used in the past and still use the Bible and religion to promote injustice.

For example, Exodus 21:20-21 does not condemn slavery but does regulate the severity of whippings. Ephesians 6:5-6 does not condemn slavery but tells slaves to obey their masters.

Because of this lack of scriptural support for abolishing slavery, Christian politicians like Jefferson Davis wrote that slavery was " ... established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."

The Christian minister Rev. Alexander Campbell wrote "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."

These examples are not intended to condemn Christianity or the Bible but rather to point out how nearly any collection of ideas (religious or scientific) can be misused to support injustice.

It would be intellectually dishonest to quote evolutionary biologists from the mid to late 1800s or a school biology textbook from 1930 to defend the assertion that evolutionary biology is racist today. To do so would be the same as quoting Christians from the mid-1800s to defend the assertion that Christianity and the Bible are pro-slavery today.

One of the most successful ways to eliminate those things that harm us in the world is through the scientific methods that has brought us evolutionary biology. Through the imperfectly-human but eventually self-correcting methods of science, we know today that the "science" behind Victorian-era racism and sexism quoted by Steve Casey was flawed (I would recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould for an excellent introduction to this history of racism and science).

Some religious leaders use the findings of science to change how they read the Bible. This is one way that religion can reject racism, sexism, bigotry, and superstition.

We are seeing this reformation of religion through science happening today in the changing views on homosexuality in Christianity. The current anti-gay doctrines promoted by some Christians today will be rejected in time through the same process that Christianity used to become anti-slavery and anti-racist.

Sincerely,
Steve Caldwell

I submitted this as a letter to the editor and it wasn't published. I'm now recycling this as a blog post.

Thanks.

Funny Unitarian Universalist Quote ...

This isn't a quote from a Unitarian Universalist but a quote about Unitarians from a reader of the Pharyngula science blog responding to PZ Meyers' response on the recent Pew Report on American Religion ("America: slouching towards the Enlightenment"):

"I'm still not getting up early on Sunday to hear crappy music with a bunch of touchy-feely neckbeards, but let's give the Unitarians their props for an interesting history."

I guess we could add this to various reasons for not attending church currently in the UU blogosphere.

Charles Barkley on Moral Theology and "Fake Christians"

This video clip is pretty cool (hat tip to the Friendly Atheist blog)

fake christians
by luvnews

"Color Me Blind"

Description from YouTube -- "While planning a diversity rally a misguided group of activists fail to see eye to eye with their newest member."

"Avant Garde Performance Art and Children's Theater Meet ... "

Enjoy this clip from A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant (a satirical musical about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, written by Kyle Jarrow from a concept by Alex Timbers, the show's original director).

Making Ubuntu Linux Easier to Use

If Ubuntu Linux wants to be a serious contender for use on desktop and laptop computers, then it needs to improve wireless networking support, DVD playback support, and proprietary multimedia playback support.

For example, the "native" audio format for Ubuntu is the "ogg" open-source format. Yes -- I've been told that the ogg format technically superior to the "mp3" format that is commonly used for internet audio. However, ogg's use is limited mostly to the open-source Linux community. Yes -- it's technically true that the mp3 format is a proprietary format.

However, most Windows and Mac OS users are expecting mp3 audio for podcasts and other online audio recordings. If a church wants to publish sermon podcasts that can be used by a majority of computer users, support for proprietary formats like mp3 is essential.

Automatix is a system utility that automates the setup of these proprietary multimedia formats on Ubuntu Linux.

And the Automatix and Ubuntu teams are starting to work together in order to improve the ease of use for future Ubuntu Linux users (target release for this is Ubuntu Linux 8.04 due to be released on 24 April 2008).

2007 UU Blog Award Nominations

Here are the four blog entries from my blog that I'm nominating for the 2007 blog awards:

• How Do Our Churches Survive in a Non-Religious World? (11 September 2007)
• Pornography and Liberal Religion (23 June 2007)
• Do We Really Talk Too Much About Sex? (5 May 2007)
• "What about those who have never heard about Christ? Is is fair they be 'damned' just because they were never exposed to Christianity?" (24 February 2007)

Thanks for your consideration.

Unitarian Universalism Being Noticed Outside the UU Blogosphere

Unitarian Universalism gets some positive press on Greta Christina's Blog (described as "Sex, atheism, politics, dreams, and whatever"). Greta's latest blog article is about the importance of good sexuality education and how commercial erotica does a very bad job at filling in for the current lack of factually-based and sexuality affirming sexuality education in the US.

The article is titled "All I Really Need To Know I Learned From Porn -- Or Not."

Here's the "money quote":

"If you think your kids aren't seeing porn, think again. Even before the Internet, kids and teenagers were looking at porn. (How many of us swiped our dad's Playboys for a peek? I sure did.) And with the Internet, the horse is definitely out of the barn

So do something. If you're not comfortable talking frankly with your kids about sex yourself -- and I have more sympathy for that position than you might imagine, I sure didn't want to talk with my parents about sex -- you need to make sure they have a way to get the information they want and need. Get them books. Point them at the Scarleteen or San Francisco Sex Information websites. Send them to the sex education programs offered by the Unitarians. Make sure there's an adult in their life they can talk about sex with. Or suck it up, get over your discomfort, and talk to them yourself."

And Hemant Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" blog noticed the UU-themed discussion questions on my blog for his book I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith through an Atheist's Eyes:

Unitarian Universalist Discussion Questions For I Sold My Soul on eBay

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Complete PDF Download)

I just finished reading Hemant Mehta's I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith through an Atheist's Eyes. Hemant is also the author of the Friendly Atheist blog.

Writing as an atheist who was raised as a Jain in an Indian-American household, Hemant's observations in his book allow us to ask what our congregations look like to newcomers.

At the end of the book, Ron Lee has provided discussion questions for individual reflection and small group discussion of the issues raised in the book.

The discussion questions provided by Ron Lee assume a more traditional Christian point of view and are not applicable for most Unitarian Univeralists. Many of these discussion questions are not applicable for Unitarian Universalist Christians as well.

What follows is my attempt to re-frame these discussion questions for use in Unitarian Universalist faith communities.

The entire collection of study questions can be downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat PDF document.

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part X)

This post is a continuation of the Unitarian Universalist re-framing of the discussion questions at the end of Hemant Mehta's I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith through an Atheist's Eyes. Hemant is also the author of the Friendly Atheist blog.

The discussion questions for the book's Introduction can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part I)

The discussion questions for Chapter 1 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part II)

The discussion questions for Chapter 2 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part III)

The discussion questions for Chapter 3 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part IV)

The discussion questions for Chapter 4 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part V)

The discussion questions for Chapter 5 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part VI)

The discussion questions for Chapter 6 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part VII)

The discussion questions for Chapter 7 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part VIII)

The discussion questions for Chapter 8 can be found here:

UU Discussion Questions For "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (Part IX)

Chapter 9: What Works on Sunday Morning and What Doesn't
(1) Is there anything in the author's overview that gave new insight or a new perspective on how your Unitarian Universalist congregation comes across to newcomers? If so, what were the insights?

(2) Does the author include any critiques of the churches in this chapter that you feel are unfair or clearly based on a misunderstanding? How would you clarify those issues for the author? Do you think some aspects of your Unitarian Universalist congregation might lead to similar criticisms? If so, would these criticisms be unfair or based on a misunderstanding? Why or why not?

(3) The author is pointed in his criticism of boring preachers, pointing out that regular church attendees seemed to be as bored as he was. Then he praises skilled speakers: "Imagine the best and worst teachers you had in college. The best ones made you want to listen ... They ignited a passion inside you. The best teachers (and the best preachers) connect with something inside you that makes you not just listen, but moves you to act." Are you surprised that an atheist who repeatedly appeals to reason and logic is so attracted to communicators who generate passion? How can Unitarian Universalist ministers and speakers -- in personal interactions and in group settings -- communicate the way he is describing?

(4) Hemant recommends that pastors videotape their sermons, but to turn the cameras toward the congregation to record audience's response and level of engagement. Is this a good idea? Do you think this would be useful in your Unitarian Universalist congregation?

(5) In suggesting that churches sponsor debates between Christians and nonbelievers, Hemant argues that it would show outsiders "that Christians are confident in their beliefs, so much so that they're willing to present their teachings in a setting where the other side of the argument is also presented." Do you think this suggestion could be applied to Unitarian Universalist congregations as well? Why or why not?

(6) The author is sensitive to the frequently expressed attitude among Christians that nonbelievers are "them" and not "us." He writes, "I found that because I was an atheist, I was seen as the enemy." Are there ways that Unitarian Universalists also divide into "us" and "them" groups? Is this done intentionally or unintentionally? Is this done as an adversarial act or as an establishment of theological boundaries for the congregation?

(7) The author recommends that churches provide regular opportunities for people to ask questions of the pastor. "Wouldn't it be great if immediately after the sermon there was a room I could go to where I could have my questions answered?" he proposes. In his church research, he found only one church that schedules regular question-and-answer sessions (this was Ted Haggard's church). Why do you think more congregations don't provide regular opportunities like this interaction for visitors, seekers, and long-term members where they can raise questions? In Unitarian Universalist settings, this often referred to as "talkback." Many Unitarian Universalist growth consultants advise against "talkback" after the worship service. Why do think they do this? What do you feel about this recommendation?

Two Online Quizzes on God and Philosophy

Hat tip to the Friendly Atheist blog for these online quizzes from The Philosophers Magazine.

Here's a brief description of these two quizzes:

Do-It-Yourself Deity (What is God?)
In an attempt to resolve any disagreement surrounding the meaning of the word "God", TPM has assembled a crack team of "metaphysical engineers" who have devised a new computer-modelling virtual environment in which to test the plausibility of different conceptions of God.

Here's how it works. You are invited to select from the list below the attributes which you believe God must have (or the attributes that a being deserving of the name God must have). Metaphysical engineers will then model this conception of God to check out its plausibility.

Battleground God
Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

In this activity you’ll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, you’ll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you’ll be forced to bite a bullet.


Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing.

No online quiz (even the Belief-O-Matic quiz) is the last word on any religious conversation. But these are good conversation starters.