Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

obama on faith

Monday, November 17th, 2008

Link to transcript of interview with Obama on faith.

Several interesting quotes here.

In response to being “born again:”

…I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s [sic] best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

On faith’s role in policy decisions:

…you generally will not see me spending a lot of time talking about it [faith] on the stump.

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.

As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.

Now, that’s different form [sic] a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.

A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we’re all connected. That if there’s a child on the South Side of Chicago that can’t read, that makes a difference in my life even if it’s not my own child. If there’s a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that’s struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it’s not my grandparent. And if there’s an Arab American family that’s being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don’t think those two things are mutually exclusive.

truth and beauty

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

On today’s bike ride I flushed out what I believe to be a Northern Harrier. This one was really impressive; usually they seem kind of scruffy, commonly seen perched atop the street lights around here, but this one seemed well primped and groomed. It was in a tree to my right and took flight right over me, affording me a great look at the white and brown spots under its wingspan. It was big, too; it seemed like it had its own gravity, like I could almost feel the air disturbed by its flight.

And so, naturally, my mind turned to the metaphysical, and I contemplated the apparent discourse between religion and science. And this is what I thought:

The gifts of reason and science allow humanity to understand the mechanics of creation.

God is what makes creation beautiful.

Idolatry! Blasphemy!

Tuesday, April 18th, 2006

Well here’s something to stoke the fires a bit. With all the hoopla, boongaloo, and hullaballoo surrounding that Dutch paper that ran the cartoon depiction of Mohammed, and with South Park entering the fray, I pose a question: If showing Mohammed’s likeness is taboo, why can we write his name?

I don’t mean to disrespect Islam, but it seems to me that idolatry only happens when one chooses to worship the idol.

Frontline: The Insurgency

Tuesday, April 11th, 2006

I got caught up by Frontline: The Insurgency last night (hence my droopy eyes this morning). I highly recommend this show to anyone who cares about what’s going on over there. And if you don’t care, you might change your mind. It is however quite graphic and disturbing in some areas, so there’s your warning.

Mr. President, if you can please drag your ears away from your daffodil-voiced advisors and Fox News, please take a moment to watch. You have created quite a mess, and the only path to remediation is to understand your enemy.

A list of things that impressed me:

  • The devastating power of “improvised explosive devices.” Side note: can we please get back to simply calling them bombs? These things are absolutely massive and horrifying.
  • The factions within the insurgency, which range from nationalistic freedom fighters to hard-line religious fanatics.
  • The line (or lack therof) between politics and religion. For Islamic fundamentalists, there is no government before Allah: everything that is needed to govern is provided by the Qur’an. This is a concept that is very foreign to the Western world and must be understood before positive change can occur. I don’t believe that the majority of Iraqis believe in the fundamentalist hard line, however those that do are too often the images that we see.
  • A U.S. military commander made a comment that I will paraphrase: “We can’t lose in Iraq, but neither can we win unless we have the support of the Iraqi people, their military, and their police.” This is a very telling statement, and unfortunately the longer we’re not losing, the more resources and time we will spend in Iraq.

Ok, that’s all for now.

War on…

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

There’s a bunch of scuttlebut regarding an ongoing “War on Christians.” Behind the google search linky you’ll probably find my opinion about this new “war” better stated elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that I think the so-called war on Christianity is overblown zealotry. A time-honored tack used by fanatical religious leaders to rally the otherwise apathetic masses.

What irks me, though, is the attack on the English language and the historical context of religion in war. War gets people killed, violently. War is state-sanctioned mass murder. Using the word war to describe a perception of social and/or cultural persecution belittles its meaning. It makes the real thing seem a little less disturbing, and perhaps a more accepted fixture in our daily lives. I suppose I don’t need to mention the Crusades but I will. Christians throwing around the word war and crying persecution would do well to ponder how the wars of the past have shaped present culture.

So please. End the War On Language. Before someone gets killed.

State Recognition of Marriage and Civil Unions

Thursday, September 30th, 2004

Note: This was originally written some time in the year 2004. Sorry I can’t be more specific!

State Recognition of Marriage and Civil Unions

President George W. Bush summarized his opinion about gay marriage by stating “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”

While I don’t see anything wrong with his definition of marriage, his intent to create a legal definition based on his beliefs troubles me. There are two questions I will explore here:

  • What is the definition of marriage?
  • How does the state recognize marriage?

The first question cannot be answered with certainty. I say this because marriage is rooted in religion, and the definition therefore changes with religious beliefs and even further within religious sects. While the Christian Bible is fairly explicit when it defines marriage as a holy communion between a man and a woman, the Constitutional freedom to practice religion dictates that if the government is to recognize marriage, then it must recognize marriage regardless of how it is defined by differing religions.

This brings us to the 2nd question, which is now broader and troublesome: How does the state, which is Constitutionally bound to maintain separation between Church and State, legally recognize an institution whose definition is deeply rooted in religion? In order to do so, government must create a legal definition of marriage that is rigid enough to maintain law and order as well as flexible enough to satisfy any religious definition.

Civil unions provide an appropriate mechanism for government to legally acknowledge marriage. One of the great benefits of this legal definition is that it removes the religious context from marriage. It can be argued that civil unions degrade the sanctity of marriage, but this is not a strong argument. The sanctity of marriage is granted by the church in which the ceremony is performed; a civil union is simply the legal recording of the act.

President Bush’s comments about codifying his definition of religion are a violation of the separation between church and state. While he is entitled to his belief in his definition of marriage, the religious underpinnings of his definitions must be recognized.