America is not and its Christians should not want it to be "a Christian Nation."

Continue »

An historian of American religion knows that NOTHING going on today except from crackpots, matches the anti-Catholicism of non-Catholic Americans from the 1620s to 1960.

Continue »

First off, recall that Judaism and Christianity were born as "eastern religions;" we call their birthplace "the Middle East" and the early Christian spread was to "Asia" as in "Asia Minor." Islam originated even further east. I stress that because, while as "prophetic" religions, they countered many influences that today we associate with Hinduism, Buddhism, and the like. Still, in the sacred books there are many injunctions to "be still and know that God is god," to fast, and the like.

Continue »

"Our tradition," Christian "of the Lutheran persuasion," if it is true to Luther and the originating documents refuses even to try to answer the "why" the killing happened--except in respone to what can be known about the warped mind of the killer. That is, we cannot answer "why" one student was spared and another hit.

Continue »

Yes, Islam is a violent religion. So are Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest.

Islam is also a non-violent religon. So are Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest.

(The exception would be those which had not had much "earthly" power, such as Baha'i.)

How can they all be violent and non-violent?

Continue »

From 1890, when scholars first started computing, until the 1930s, not once was an article in a mainstream secular or religious publication favorable to the Mormons.

In the 1930s their reputation began to change when, in the midst of the Depression, word went around that "they take care of their own." Mormon versions of communalism did mean that the poor among them were better off than many others. If it meant that they were not dependent upon the federal government, this was a mis-impression: Utah, their stronghold, received as much help as other such states.

Continue »

First, does anyone care? Yes, millions do, with differing degrees of intensity.

Catholics, first. One faction cheers, because they are anti-ecumenical, consider Orthodox and Protestant members to be buzzing insects that distract Catholics who must swat them. Or, more charitably, because they fear that ecumenism portends relativism, and Catholic truth too easily gets given away. Another faction has begun to speak up in criticism, seeing it as an abrasive, arrogant, mistimed, and itself distracting word at a time when people of faith ought to pull together against common enemies. No doubt between them are most Catholics who more or less have always taken for granted what the Pope said of the Church and Everybody Else, but will not be stirred or alienated: they know Christian neighbors who seem to be doing far more than "playing at church" in ecclesial communities. I'd add a fourth element: those who are enraged by such expressions and think that "it's the same old Ratzinger," the old Inquisitor speaking up, but who hold their fire, in charity and so as not to alienate Rome.

Continue »

It is important to separate three questions:

First: should there be prayers to open U. S. Senate sessions?

Second: should Hindus and others of "other religions" be assigned the task of offering prayer there?

Third: is the extraordinary occasion of a Hindu prayer a good opportunity to debate the first question?

Continue »

Do all religions have essentially the same message, about love, compassion, and forgiveness?

I don't know "all religions," but I am fearfully confident that the 16-volume The Encyclopedia of Religion would lead me to many that obscure that message with so many practices and beliefs that it'd be hard to bring that trio forward. Some religious leaders would no doubt say that their faith is essential about, e.g., justice, and in their minds it might conflict with love, compassion, and forgiveness.

But let's give the Dalai Lama the general point about his generalization. He is a man of great good will and good effect, and I would not want to criticize him and his reaching out here. We do have to ask, however, what we do with such a hunch or such knowledge.

In my observation, the practices and beliefs of the separate religions, which do share many things, "get interesting" in the minds and hearts of billions of people when mediated through the stories that give them, animate them, and hold them to a faith. And we live by such stories.

So I am happy to look to the nearby zone and see Buddhists or Hindus being loving, compassionate, and forgiving. Yet we Christians, typically, are motivate to pursue love, compassion, and forgiveness, because of our particular story--e.g. of Jesus Christ--just as the Dalai Lama draws on particular Tibetan Buddhism and not generic religion.

As Santayana said, we do not talk "language," we talk "a language." The Dalai Lama is a great influence on helping people not be captive of and exclusive about their stories, beliefs, and practices, but believers and "behavers" ordinarily are not impelled by abstractions so much as by the concrete stories and what they represent, within, say, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

Most of the great scriptures of the "world faiths" have a vision of shalom, peace, and reconciliation. So far so good; the vision inspires many in each faith community. That is the up side. The down side is that all the scriptures also have texts which distance the believers from others and almost all of them get linked with power, as in the state, and turn exclusive. So individual rights, such as freedom of speech, are not high on the agendas and usually are not envisioned or granted at all. We call this Christian power relation "Christendom."

Christians fought for their own freedom of speech and belief; so far good, for three centuries. In the fourth century they got linked with power, and until the 18th century some version or other of Christianity helped 'run the show" at the expense of others.

In the 18th century, a fortunate coincidence of Enlightenment thought, which advocates freedom of speech, and dissenting Christianity, which was seeking freedom and company, linked; its fruit we see in our nation in the First Amendment.

So, while i believe Judaism and Christianity have great liberating texts, it took thousands of years before these texts got reread and employed to enlarge the zones of free speech. There are still limits in some places where Christians dominate, but most Christians live with and help sustain freedom of speech.

I can't speak for and about all the other faiths--Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., but I know that in general when they link with power they seek exclusive rights to airwaves and platforms. As for Islam: like Judaism and Christianity, its texts are ambiguous, on one page speaking up for the dignity and rights of all, including other People of the Book, and on many more pages, serving to squelch other voices.

Religions develop, and Judaism and Christianity, while drawing on ancient texts, keep evolving. In this sense, we could speak of arrested development in Islam. One wishes for it a multi-national experience of Enlightenment-style pushes for freedom. We don't hold our breath, but we can uphold those who want to see rights realized, against not all, but many odds in "Islamdom."

Is it a mark of the health or sickness of American religion that so many Americans have switched their religious affiliation in adult life or dropped out? The answer is "yes."

Before elaborating, let me say that both findings point to something that is almost inevitable in today's world, and that virtually all religious leaders are aware of the trends.

Now to separate the two issues:

Continue »

The Question: Pope Benedict's recent baptism of a well-known Italian Muslim has prompted criticism in much of the Islamic world. Has Benedict done enough to build bridges to Islam?

Every move Pope Benedict will make on his United States visit and everything he says will be observed, recorded, analyzed, and parsed--with good reasons. While his main mission is not to deal with Catholic-Muslim relations, anything he says on that front will draw most attention--even more than what he says on well-worn but still relevant sexual issues. By now most Catholics and their neighbors are familiar with and have fairly set opinions on birth control, abortion, and the like. How Catholics and Muslims, communities disproportionate in size in the United States, but not in the world, choose to relate will have consequences in a world threatened by aggressions, war, and terrorism and in a world where many recognize the need for reconciliation across the boundaries of faiths.

Continue »