Rev. Graham's teachable moment . . .

It's interesting to read these stories about polling data that reflects a significant portion of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Like this one: ("Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim.' As Pew Poll Shows, More Americans Confused About President's Religion." - ABC News) The interjections "correctly" :

At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today. But 43 percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.

And this article in Time: One Fifth (Wrongly) Think Obama’s Muslim - Newsweek And this ABC online article: ("The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim' -- Comments Come As Poll Shows One in Five Americans Wrongly Believes Obama Is Muslim" - ABC News) From inside the article:

The poll found that 18 percent of those surveyed wrongly identified Obama as Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today.

They seem to be falling all over themselves to remind Americans of what they SHOULD believe.

Personally, I think (a) that Franklin Graham's statement (as opposed to the MSM's characterization of it) is accurate, (b) that the MSM is dying to find a way to impugn and demonize Franklin Graham (how's that for "outreach"?!), (c) that Obama is probably less devout (about anything) than he wants voters to believe he is, and (d) that this op/ed, kind of like a stopped clock that is right twice a day, is worth reading (except for the last sentence which reflects a confusion between one's culture and one's practiced faith). According to the red letters in the Bible, a person is not born a Christian . . . it is an individual choice which is typically confirmed by "fruit."

UPDATE:
Aha! The MSM must be reading Michael Kinsley:Change of Subject: Still more depressing poll results: "Michael Kinsley has an on-point observation:

I blame pollsters themselves. They have created a world where everything is an opinion, nothing is a fact, everybody is entitled to an opinion, and every opinion is equally valid. The Pew press release about this latest poll is scrupulously neutral. It talks about 'the view that Obama is a Muslim,' as if it is just like any other view about the president's religion. Not a word in it hints that there might be a right answer and a wrong one . . ."

This is stupid. I guess Kinsley thinks that "push polls" are a more accurate view of what people think than plain ol' polls?

And the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn appears to share my skepticism about Obama's "faith."

Lastly, it's somewhat entertaining to watch Lefty journalists who are beside themselves that a segment of the public is skeptical of their guy. "The nerve of these morons!! these idiots!! They're in a full-court press on this, which is only going to backfire on them.

Let's not mix religion and politics

Michael DelGiorno is talking this a.m. about an article by Joseph Farah ("Obama: Never a Christian") in which Farah makes the argument that Senator Barack Obama is not a Christian. I'm glad that this issue was raised, not because it might hurt Obama's campaign for president (I'm definitely not a supporter of most Democratic Party policies), but because there are some things more important than politics. You need to read the op/ed to understand the rest of my post . . .

First of all, it is ironic to hear a 20-year parishioner of Jeremiah Wright's church claim to be a, "big believer in separation of church and state." Black Liberation Theology is the FUSION of religion and politics, to the point that the religion has no meaning at all.

But secondly, Farah is absolutely correct in concluding that Obama is not a Christian. Obama's religious beliefs do not square with any credible interpretation of what Jesus said about being a Christian or Follower of Christ. It's not about the good works--Obama has some character qualities that are consistent with Christian character qualities, and only God can judge the heart of a man. Rather, it is about what Obama believes or says he believes. And I think there are only a handful of public policies that are directly contrary to Biblical principles, so this isn't saying that support for a "progressive" income tax, for example, is "unChristian."

Next, it is important to plainly state that the fact that someone is not a Christian (by which I do not mean someone-who-lives-in-an-historically-Christian-culture), does not mean that I cannot or would not cast a vote for him or her. A person not being a Christian also has little to do with how I would treat them--certainly under the law, but even in a relationship.

Lastly, I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim. In fact, I am confident that he is NOT a Muslim; rather, I believe either he is an agnostic--who doesn't really know what he believes, a universalist--who has a definite belief that is broad enough to encompass most religions and subjective enough to mean nothing, or at the worst, a secularist who uses religious talk/verbiage to attract the "clingers".

As a Christian, I would be remiss (and I think that Farah is similarly motivated) if I allowed politics to muddle something as important as a person's beliefs that have eternal consequences.

Is marriage sacred or isn't it?

As a result of this post (What Marriage is For--which was more of a link than a full-fledged post), I and familiar middle-TN blogger/commenter dolphin have been going 'round about homosexuality and same-sex marriage and other things.

In what may be the end of his wit (with me, at least) dolphin made the following comment:

This is the funny thing when you push anti-equality folks long enough. For all their lofty talk about marriage as a "sacred institution" they really feel that it's nothing more than some vicious man-trap to either force men into having kids with their wife or not having kids at all. Really sad, because if that is what your most intimate relationship really means to you, you're missing out on a lot.

This started me to thinking, and it seemed to merit a post of its very own.

I don't know how common dolphin's perception is among those who share his view on this issue. I suspect, however, that most homosexuality apologists don't have dolphin's religious training/history or his interest in spirituality. Regardless, I think it is worth addressing.

On the issue of marriage's "sacredness," I perceive that dolphin is using the word "sacred" in some ethereal sense where it means something akin to "really, really meaningful in ways beyond description to someone/somewhere/somehow" as opposed to meaning "holy" or "of God." For me, my marriage is sacred in both senses, but that double-sided fact isn't particularly relevant in a discussion about what government policy should be on the subject, is it?

Marriage--as Maggie Gallagher's asserts, is not something unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition (or religion). I do believe that God designed marriage, and that marriage is an essential institution/element within any thriving society, but I realize that--like Nobel and his invention dynamite, God has not been responsible for how His idea has been used by mankind.

Yes, the institution of marriage is sacred, regardless of how poorly it is lived out or how slender is the cord connecting it to its author. Is it special--really special, for two people to be fully committed to one another in a love relationship? Sure, but it is not necessarily "sacred" and it is insufficient justification for a government to recognize/create and overtly favor an institution.

Philosophy of Santa Claus

Thank you (and curse you) ABC Family Channel for your 25 days of Christmas programming this month. Almost every night that channel has broadcast a baby-boomer-era Christmas program (typically stop motion animation) and my kids have enjoyed seeing them.

But it occurred to me on Christmas day--when my middle child asked me a question about Santa Claus, that maybe I should reconsider playing along (hook, line and sinker) with the whole Santa enterprise. Why? Because it seems pretty obvious that I undermine my credibility in urging my children to believe spiritual truths--which I think are true, when I unreservedly or without qualification promote a belief in a concept which requires "faith" but which I know is untrue. I think I haven't been careful enough to talk about Santa with the twinkle in my eye that typically signals to my kids that I'm using my imagination.

My wife had already handled the issue a couple years ago with our oldest (I wasn't aware of that) but we agreed that we'll wait for an opportune time to break the news to the littler ones. And, don't worry, we'll go easy on them . . .

Ignoring Noah's Ark

Aunt B is sounding off (here) about a post at Jamey Tucker's "Faith and Ethics" Blog. In lambasting Tucker for reporting on recent archaelogical investigation into a possible discovery of Noah's ark, Aunt B writes:

I said I was going to complain a tiny bit about Christians, and here's where I'm going to do it. Folks, you are practicing a religion. The Bible is not a checklist of archaeological digs you must fund in order to prove that your way is right.

There's supposed to be mystery and wonder and confusion. There's supposed to be awe and stuff beyond knowing.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go looking for whatever it is you want to go looking for.

I'm just saying that, when you put all your hope in fact, you're conceding the terms of the debate to secularists who, first of all, love to frame religion as a question of whether or not it's "real" just because it's so cute to watch you guys get all wound up and go off; and second, aren't going to be convinced even if you showed up tomorrow with the ark, a piece of the one true cross, and a tuft of Jesus's hair from which DNA tests could prove he had no earthly father.

And Kat Coble from a less-cynical perspective commented on Tucker's site thusly:

I've said this in another context and shall repeat myself here for good measure.

The time for idolatry of relics is past. Faith, as we are told in Hebrews 11:1 is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Christianity is about faith. Which is about believing in the unbelievable, in the things you cannot see. We serve a risen Saviour. How idiotic is that when you think about it? That is FAITH.

Hunting for old wood and the pinkie fingers of saints is a misguided attempt that cheapens the beauty of simple faith by attempting to tie it to bits of dust.

There is no majesty in these quests.

First, I think folks are confusing scientific proof with historical proof. While it might be futile to ask whether scientific principle supports a Biblical miracle, but it is relevant to ask whether evidence supports that a Biblical miracle occurred. If you accept the supernatural, you accept that it is possible for God to supercede natural law; that being said, if the Bible is inspired by God and it says that Noah used "gopher wood" to construct the Ark, then it calls into question the Bible's truth claims if the evidence contradicted that factual assertion. Sure there are many things about "faith" that we must take on "faith," and it could be a waste of resources to seek authentication for Biblical accounts of events. But unless you believe in some form of Universalism (and basically ignore Jesus Christ's exclusive truth claims) then it matters whether Biblical assertions are true or not.

But reading Aunt B's post I felt a bit like Harold Ford, Jr. likely felt sitting in campaign strategy sessions with Liberal Dem leaders prior to his senate run; thanks for the advice.

It's not "mainstream" Christian denominations that are causing traffic jams on Sunday mornings or buying up vacant acreage in visible locales. Likewise, it's not evangelical churches that are saying, "this doesn't have to be true to be educational/inspirational/motivational!!!"

And as I read Aunt B's comments about the Red Sea Miracle from the Bible, it occurred to me how those Jewish rubes sure went overboard with the whole "sea of reeds" story, seeing as it was just a wetland that their "God" helped them breach.

By the way, did you hear the one about the guy who decided to go to seminary? One day an Old Testament professor, teaching about the nation of Israel and the Red Sea, was explaining that the Red Sea was really the "Sea of Reeds" and that it was merely a swamp with shallow water. The children of Israel could simply wade across the swamp. Suddenly from the back of the room, the guy shouted, "PRAISE THE LORD!" The professor--unaccustomed to such outbreaks in class, asked the student what all the excitement was about. The young man replied, "PRAISE THE LORD! My God is so great that He could drown the entire Egyptian army in a few inches of water!"

Newsflash: Church failing to keep up with modern mores

I just read an op/ed by Oliver "Buzz" Thomas over at the USAToday blog (here) about the church and homosexuality (hat tip Flanktwoposition, though Roger surely hoped to enlighten rather than annoy me). Essentially, the author--who appears to be an attorney, a Baptist minister, and an author, equates the Church's longstanding position that homosexual acts are sin (and please feel free to comment if you resent my assertion that this is "the Church's" position) with the Church's position--at one time in history, that the Earth was the center of our Universe. Obviously, his point is that we need to acknowledge the evidence/facts and kindly take our welcome into the '90s.

I'm a little surprised that "Buzz" is a lawyer (though maybe he is simply doing what many lawyers do--advocating on behalf of a client, no matter the weaknesses of his position) but I'm really surprised that he is a minister. Here are some of the reasons:

First, I'm not sure upon which authority early church leaders based their conviction that the Earth was the center of the Universe. But beyond that, I haven't heard of too many examples lately in which scientists were dragged before inquisitors and then burned at the stake for not toe-ing the Church's line.

But giving "Buzz" a pass on that grandiose analogy, I'd be interested to hear what "facts" or "growing stream of scientific evidence" "Buzz" is alluding to on this issue. Certainly he is not referring to statements from persons who engage in homosexual behavior who--sincerely or not, assert that they have felt these urgings since as far back as they can remember? What sinful action does not seem "natural" or "innate"? I don't struggle with alcohol or substance abuse, but I can tell you that every person who does would claim that they cannot remember a time--after being exposed to the substance at issue, when they didn't feel compelled to indulge themselves. Thus, the author's faulty premise yields this whopper:

"If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?"

Ditto for this sloppy theological assertion:

The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

First, God doesn't judge us for being tempted (being "human"); heck, even Jesus was tempted. Second, it's lame to assert that people who engage in homosexual acts have no choice in the matter.

Next, the author repeatedly, flatly asserts that the Church's position on homosexuality constitutes "discrimination." Wrong. It isn't "discrimination against gays" to simply refuse to acknowlege it as normal or to refuse to condone it. Is it "discrimination" against adulterers not to award property rights to them if they are in a sexual relationship with a person who obtains property? No. Is it "discrimination" to not give tax deductions to people for rental properties or multiple properties they own for other purposes? No.

Next, I like how he points out that we have no recorded sermons from Jesus about homosexuality to prove that He was hip on it. There are a host of things left unremarked upon by Jesus, but that doesn't mean much. The context of the Gospels pretty clearly demonstrates that Jesus was intent on challenging the Levitical system and the works-righteousness so associated with the Religious leaders of the day. Jesus never mentioned that sex with children was wrong or that beating your wife was wrong or that slavery was wrong or that sexual harassment was wrong or that . . . you get the point.

And regarding not being judgmental, Jesus didn't say that there was no such thing as sin. Sure, He taught and modeled that we should treat "sinners" in a loving way (indeed, we all sin) and that we should remove the log out of our own eye before removing the thorn from someone else's.

Lastly, I'd be interested to hear about all the homosexuals being discriminated against in jobs, in filing wrongful death claims, etc. Unfortunately, I can match your incidents of discrimination example by example with people being "discriminated" against in America because they are deemed too devout or too Conservative. Sure, homosexuals may be treated differently, but those who choose to live this lifestyle are different, aren't they? Pardon the 95% of us who can hardly comprehend the driving attraction to people of the same sex, but we need a lot of convincing to accept that society has an interest in guarding such sexual relationships or elevating them to the level of traditional marriage.

Maybe "Buzz" Thomas' article will provide hay for homosexuality apologists (after all he's a lawyer and a BAPTIST minister!) and mislead some soft-headed Christians, but I think it is far from a compelling argument for the Church to jump on board the "gay" bandwagon.