Recently, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.), a Pentecostal Christian denomination, said it would allow women to serve on local church councils – but like the Church of England, women cannot be ordained as bishops.

As quoted on the Pew Forum:

“This has nothing to do with women not being smart enough or good enough or qualified enough. The issue is, did God know what he was talking about? And whether we like it or don’t like it … if our rules, our standard, is biblical text, then we have to be faithful to biblical text even in a contemporary society that sees it as bigoted or old-fashioned.” — Britt Peavy, senior pastor of West Ward Church of God in Douglas, Georgia

Religion Transcends supports the Church of God’s efforts to work toward inclusion of women at every level. Here’s hoping religious groups continue to consider women’s roles and debate the sacred texts that seem to define those roles.

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

Orlando Health distributes a cultural toolkit, and Florida Hospital distributes a “Guide to Religion and Culture.” In addition, the University of Central Florida teaches courses to medical students, nurses, and health professionals focused on cultural sensitivity.

In the Orlando Sentinel, one hospital manager said, “A patient is the best resource for their culture. Some cultures are highly traditional. Being aware of what some of those cultural traditions are can affect their ability or willingness to follow medical course of treatment.”

Kudos to these institutions for being understanding and for proactively creating awareness of the needs of followers of various religions.

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

Catholic Justices: John G. Roberts, Jr. (chief justice), Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor

Jewish Justices: Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan (awaiting confirmation)

Per the U.S. Constitution, religion cannot be a factor in the choice for who will fill a government office. But people certainly think about it. With Kagan in place, the court will no longer have a Protestant voice – a fact some consider scary and others consider hopeful. For those in the latter category, they say it’s great that justices are no longer pigeon-holed into the “woman” or “Jewish” category but are welcomed into the court even if they don’t have a stereotypical role to play. They say it’s exciting that we’ve become diverse enough that we it doesn’t matter whether we have a Protestant in place. Not to mention the Supreme Court existed for almost 50 years before adding a Catholic to the bench and it took another 80 years beyond that to include a Jew.

Those on the other side say the Protestant voice isn’t going to be heard at that level and decisions won’t be made that fit within Protestant values (particularly related to abortion, marriage, etc.). Given that half the United States claims to be Protestant, the lack of a Protestant justice is, at the least, surprising.

The Wall Street Journal speculated as to why more Catholics and Jews than Protestants are becoming justices.

Of course, representation for everyone would be ideal. The court now includes African American and Hispanic justices, women and men, Jews and Christians. But how can we as a nation sit back and question the lack of a Protestant justice when the court is also lacking Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, LGBT, and Asian-American representation?

Perhaps when it’s time to choose the next justice, we should be considering all genders, all races, and all religions. And for now, we can sit back and be proud of the diversity we have attained so far.

Read biographies of the justices on the Supreme Court site.

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

Do you think a mosque should be built just two blocks from the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement plan to build a community center/mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero (in the former Burlington Coat Factory building). Earlier this month, the Community Board of Lower Manhattan voted to support the initiative.

Cordoba wants to send a symbolic message that not ALL Muslims support extremist ideologies – that in fact, most support a pluralistic Islam that respects other religions.

Responses:

-The mother of a 9/11 victim said she doesn’t want to look at a mosque near the 9/11 site.

-Muslim author-filmmaker Kamran Pasha said the terrorists of 9/11 “had no more to do with my faith than the Crusaders did with true Christianity.”

-One rabbi suggested Cordoba build the mosque but use it as a museum about the horrors of terrorism and extremism.

RT’s opinion:

First and foremost, Religion Transcends does not support any speech that tears down the religious beliefs of another human being. Sadly, in this debate, people are slinging mud and throwing out bigoted names for all people of the Islamic religion. One writer has even compared the mud-slinging to McCarthyism. Let’s have a diplomatic discussion, please. Speaking of someone’s religion is like speaking about their family name; you tear down a lot more than just a belief when you tear down someone’s religion.

On to the question at hand: I don’t see how America could disprove of freedom of religious practice. Isn’t it the same as the Swiss banning minarets atop mosques? Or the French telling Muslim women they can’t wear the hijab and burqa?  All religious followers should be permitted (and are permitted constitutionally) to follow the religion of their choice and to practice that religion in whatever (lawful) way they so choose. And anyway, intentions to increase interfaith understanding seem to be well-aiming.

That being said, if building this mosque would incite violence, anger, or further damage to the 9/11 victims’ families, then our system has a responsibility to stop that threat.

The issue isn’t cut and dry. I would agree with the rabbi when he suggests we leave it up to the victims’ families. If the families say go ahead and build, then Cordoba should respect them enough not to hold a celebratory opening day on the same day they grieve the loss of their loved ones. Let the mourners have their space and time to mourn. And let Muslim-Americans be Muslim-Americans.

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

If you’d like to understand the motivations behind modern-day terrorism and grave acts committed in the name of religion, I recommend When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball and Terror in the Mind of God by Mark Juergensmeyer.

I would also recommend a new film, Not in God’s Name: In Search of Tolerance with the Dalai Lama (South Carolina ETV/Paradise Filmworks). This movie was released to public TV stations this spring and is now available on DVD.  The film explores India, which houses eight religions. The film explains how those religions peacefully coexist…and why sometimes they do not. The filmmaker interviews the Dalai Lama (no stranger to conflict resolution) who recounts the causes and solutions to conflict in the name of God. Here is the trailer:

Through these media you will learn how religious violence often starts with political conflict, economic hardship, or socio-cultural divisions and disagreements. If we as humans can get to the root of these problems, we may find that religion can be a catalyst for peace and relationship-building – instead of a device used to tear down, judge, and destroy. We may find, as the Dalai Lama says in the film, that we are one family. And that we don’t have to blame religion for tearing us apart.

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

In this article, Crabb said she didn’t want to suggest prayer is wrong; rather, she wanted to send a message that the government cannot endorse any one religious message from any religion.

President Obama’s role
President Obama did not put an end to the National Day of Prayer. Initially he had said he would proclaim the day but would pray privately (instead of publicly, as the day calls for). Crabb’s ruling stops him from being able to call for the celebration. Obama’s administration says it will appeal the ruling.

The American Center for Law and Justice has also filed an amicus brief to have the decision overturned. The group represents 31 members of Congress.

The Graham issue
The National Day of Prayer Task Force had organized an event at the Pentagon for the National Day of Prayer. Franklin Graham, son of Christian evangelist Billy Graham, was set to speak at the event. But after 9/11, Graham had called Islam a “wicked religion.” So Muslims called for him to be removed from the National Day of Prayer event, and the Pentagon withdrew his invitation. Following the withdrawl, the National Day of Prayer Task Force backed out of the Pentagon event.

Their anger hasn’t died down. But it all seems kind of moot if no one will be able to publicly celebrate the National Day of Prayer.

It seems both sides could be argued – of course Americans would like their freedoms protected without having government tell them what to believe. But does removing a long-held celebration suggest that what’s being celebrated is wrong? What do you think?

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

2005
Cardinal Joseph Ratziner becomes Pope Benedict XVI.

Mid-March 2010
The pope apologized to victims of priest sexual abuse in Ireland.

March 25, 2010
A New York Times report claims the pope, when he was just Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, decided not to defrock (fire) a priest (Rev. Lawrence Murphy) who had sexually abused deaf boys in America. The fallout hit media across the world, pushing the story that the pope does not take sexual abuse seriously. Critics of the pope continue to use a 2001 letter to prove that the then-cardinal “conspired to keep sexual abuse cases secret” and point out that the pope never pushed for a trial against the Rev. Murphy. Pope supporters say the then-cardinal DID investigate when he needed to and was likely responsible for having a cardinal-molester quit the priesthood.

April 2, 2010
The pope’s personal preacher, the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, compares the attacks against the pope to anti-Semitism.

April 4, 2010
Cantalamessa apologizes for his remarks and says the pope didn’t know he was going to make the comparison.

April 6, 2010
Two cardinals, speaking on Vatican Radio, called the accusations against the pope an anti-Catholic hate campaign, “targeting the pope for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.”

April 9, 2010
In the morning, the pope says he’s willing to sit down with child sex abuse victims.

But by the afternoon, the Associated Press claimed to have obtained a 1985 letter proving that the then-cardinal had stalled on defrocking Rev. Murphy. One journalist is calling for the pope’s arrest.

Other opinions about what to do with the situation:
America Magazine
Newsweek/Washington Post’s On Faith

April 13, 2010
Vandals sprayed graffiti on the birthplace of the pope.

April 18, 2010
The pope sat down with eight Maltese victims of priest sex abuse. The victims had asked for the meeting. During that time, the pope prayed with them and said he would do everything he could to bring justice. The victims say they support the pope, one saying they now feel like a “convinced Catholic again.”

Created by Religion Transcends, 2010

Recently, Religion Transcends writer Jackie Walker reported on apologies from the Catholic Church, on behalf of Religion News Service (see “Got a Complaint? Chicago Catholics Want to Listen”).

In this article, local-level parishes were apologizing to disillusioned members for any actions by Catholics or the Catholic Church that may have caused them to leave the church.

Now, the pope is apologizing to victims of sexual abuse in Ireland for the wrongs of some Catholic leaders. This apology marks the second formal apology by clergy in the last four months to victims of priest sexual abuse in Ireland.

Religion News Service quotes some victims’ agencies as saying the apology isn’t enough; what’s truly needed is prevention of priest sexual abuse.

What do you think? Is an apology enough? Is it a start?

Created by Religion Transcends, 2009

That’s what Tracy Simmons of USA Today wants to know.

Simmons recently published an article about the typical holiday stamp – the secular kind that include things like Santa, snowmen, etc.

Of course, Simmons notes that the U.S. Postal Service offers a Christmas stamp along with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa stamps. The government has also developed an Eid stamp (to celebrate Islam’s Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha holidays).

The Eid stamp controversy

Apparently a forward has been making its way around the Internet recently, claiming that the Eid stamp was developed after 9/11 and therefore celebrates Muslim terrorist attacks. The e-mail claims that the stamp is a threat to Americans.

The original e-mail can be traced to Mayor Johnny Piper of Clarksville, TN. What the mayor didn’t realize is that the stamp was actually developed by the Bush administration ten days prior to 9/11/01. Its intentions were the same as the Christmas and Hanukkah stamps — to give Americans a way to celebrate their religions, not to promote terrorism.

What about Buddha?

Simmons asks, should the government also develop a Buddhist stamp and a Hindu stamp? It probably comes down to supply and demand. If there is a demand for the stamps, the government will be more likely to develop those stamps that will sell. But in principle, a government that produces stamps for one religion ought to produce stamps for all religions – or leave religion out of postage altogether. What do you think?

Created by ReligionTranscends.com, 2009

Why are Anglicans leaving?
The Anglican community has had a bit of a shake-up across the world, the result of a series of controversial decisions:
• The ordination of women (to become deacons/priests)
• The blessing of same-sex unions
• The election of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopalian Church (U.S. Anglicans)

Learn more about the sexuality/clergy debate on ReligionTrascends.com.

Some Anglicans prefer that the Anglican Church reform itself rather than lose its members to the Catholic arena. If changes are not made, as many as 1,000 Anglican priests could be heading to the Catholic Church.

What’s the big deal?
The big deal is that this flies in the face of history. The Anglican Church began in the 6th century as a part of the Roman Catholic Church (the English portion, since Anglican means “of England”). When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Catholic Church in 1517, he sparked a number of reformations and separations that would later come to be called the Protestant Reformation. It was around this time that discontent among Anglicans came to a head. Then in 1536, Henry VIII formally separated the Anglican Church from Roman rule. Some like to point to the Pope’s refusal to grant Henry VIII a divorce as the final straw. But the Anglican Church points to a number of issues Henry VIII had with Roman rule, divorce being just one issue among the many.  Reuniting the churches or merely pulling dissatisfied Anglicans into the Catholic fold seems to indicate a reversal of heated positions taken in the 16th century. But the Vatican seems to be attempting to ignore the politics of the past to bring unhappy church-goers into a church they can enjoy. Of course, this brings up a number of questions:
1. How will priests who have taken a vow of chastity feel about preaching alongside married priests?
2. Is this really just about getting numbers into the Catholic Church?
3. Should the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops be enough to cause Anglican priests to break with their tradition?
4. At what point should an Anglican priest give up the prayer books and adopt Catholic practices?

Despite stark differences, both groups do share roots in the Bible and in historical Christianity. We hope the two churches can continue to work together to realize their similarities and find compromise amidst politics. Perhaps in the process they can also bring members who have been flung aside back into the fold, transcending exclusivity in favor of love.

Created by ReligionTranscends.com, 2009