disoriented

Polygamy and Freedom of Religion

The dis-oriented author has been watching the Warren Jeffs story with interest. I knew that Jeffs was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. In the Jeffs case the issue was arranging marriages of underage girls rather than his own polygamy. I am glad that Jeffs is behind bars as I write these words.

But on the issue of polygamy at large, I find my views more conflicted.

I heard a radio talk show host asking people whether they could name the Five Freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. The host was discouraged because most listeners could not name more than one. Only one? I rattled them off to myself quickly:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Freedom of Religion
4. Freedom of Assembly
5. Freedom to petition the government for redress of a grievance

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supporters of polygamy, like those who held a rally in Utah last week, claim that it is a freedom of religion issue. While I think polygamy is wrong, I have trouble disagreeing with their point of view. The Mormon (LDS) Church disavowed polygamy in 1890 as a requirement for statehood. Many in the church saw this as giving up the true faith and selling out to the government.

Warren Jeff's Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) were born because the main LDS church changed their position on polygamy or plural marriage. Clearly I am opposed to forced marriages as performed by Jeffs, especially involving unwilling minors. But from a religious freedom point of view I have some trouble saying that the government has a vested interest in preventing consenting adults from entering into plural marriage.

I guess I see it in about the same light as gay marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction homosexuals marriage but like President I am not opposed to civil unions. If two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil relation and grant each other certain property rights and end of life decision making power — so be it. I still believe that homosexual behavior is sinful but I would not make it illegal.

I have the same view of plural marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction it but consenting adults, even more so because of the religious freedom clause of the first amendment, should have the right to enter into such a sinful relationship.

Some may say, "Wait a minute, I thought you were a Christian political activist!"

Indeed I am but I have no desire to live in a theocracy. In fact historically when Christianity has been the state religion — the results have almost always been bad.

Now, I do not believe that the government should treat freedom of religion as absolute. At the extreme few would argue that human sacrifices should be allowed even if they are a deeply held religious belief.

But in those areas that are not critical to public health and safety — I think the government should be very reluctant to place limits on our freedoms. Catholics may exclude women from the priesthood. I still feel that Bob Jones University should not have been forced to admit blacks. And consenting Mormon adults should probably be allowed plural civil unions.

Now, personally I disagree with the Catholic Church on the whole institution of the priesthood, I think Bob Jones University was completely mis-interpreting scripture in excluding blacks form campus and I think Mormons (LDS, FLDS or whatever) are a cult.

I believe these things because as an American I support the Constitution of the United States.

I suffer not a woman to teach ...

The dis-oriented author is a Sunday School teacher. In the past I have taught adult Sunday School classes and now I am teaching a young adult class. Of course I am not a young adult but my students are.

Last week the First Baptist Church of Watertown, New York removed, Mary Lambert, a Sunday School teacher, with over 50 years experience, because she is a woman. The church takes a literal interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The pastor of the church, Tim LaBouf, has come under fire because he also sits on the city council. The council is all male but the city manager is female.

In my opinion this whole situation could have been avoided — they should never have had a woman teaching men Sunday School in the first place

Critics have said that since Pastor LaBouf holds this view of women, he is unfit to serve on the city council. According to CNN, LaBouf responded:

I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to outside of the church.

This should not strike anyone as unusual. Many churches have clearly defined distinctions between the roles of men and women. While this is evolving most Baptists, some Lutherans, most Jews and Roman Catholics do not allow women to be pastors, rabbis or priests. It is only recently that many protestant denominations began to admit women clergy.

Had First Baptist never allowed women to teach men in the first place, there would be no issue today. In a press release, the church's board said:

In the specific case of Ms. Lambert the Board’s decision to remove her from a teaching position was multifaceted and the scriptural rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting was only a small aspect of that decision.[emphasis added]  Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her.

The scriptural rules were only a small aspect of that decision? Just what kind of Baptists are they? Either they believe it is the clear teaching of scripture or they do not. When I first read about this issue I said, "bravo". It is good to see a church standing up for their beliefs — now I am not so sure.

Heather has three Mommies

[Note: new post on polygamy and freedom of religion 9/1/06]

The dis-oriented author is not surprised. With all of the hype around homosexual marriage, it was just a matter of time before polygamy (or plural marriage) advocates came out of the closet. The HBO series Big Love brought polygamy into the living rooms of middle America. Now the FBI has added polygamist Warren Jeffs to it's 10 most wanted list.

Jeffs is the prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. FCLDS is a group that broke off from the mainstream LDS or Mormon Church after the church denounced polygamy as part of the agreement bringing the state of Utah into the union. Groups like Jeffs' believe that the LDS church sold out in the statehood deal.

This weekend in a group of Utah teens held a rally in support of polygamy.

Polygamy is against the Utah Constitution. State law defines polygamy as a felony. Even so there are large polygamist communities in Utah. The Utah state government has generally had a live and let live policy in dealing with polygamist. Unless there are complaints of child abuse (like in the Jeffs case), the state does not aggressively prosecute polygamists.

The rally was sponsored by Principle Voices a pro-polygamy organization. When I saw rally coverage on TV I noticed right away that the young people participating, did not have the stereotypical Mormon fundamentalist look. These kids were dressed conservatively but within the bounds of what one might see in any American high school.

A young man named Tyler (who did not give a last name) summed up there message by saying:

Because of our beliefs, many of our people have been incarcerated and had their basic human rights stripped of them, namely life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I didn't come here today to ask for your permission to live my beliefs. I shouldn't have to.

Heather has two mommies indeed.

The Cross

The dis-oriented author is an evangelical Christian. This Sunday I was sitting in church and the worship and lesson were focused on the Cross. We sang The Old Rugged Cross, The Wonderful Cross and Near the Cross. We talked about the symbolism of the cross.

It was only a few days later that I saw this image of a cross with Madonna raised on it during a concert — not exactly what I had in mind.

We talked about the cross seeming foolish to unbelievers.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:18 KJV

My pastor spoke about how hard it was to find cross graphics for projection. They were all too pretty. The cross of Christ was a device of torture, cruel even by Roman standards. As we prepared to partake of the Lord's Table (communion), I had an image of the cross in my mind.

Madonna's crucifixion during her Rome concert brought complaints from the Vatican. As a Christian I find it blasphemous. But I guess it is no more blasphemous than her "Like a Prayer Video" [disclaimer: The dis-oriented author has never seen Like a Prayer]

The 1989 video, according to Reuters:

... featuring burning crosses, statues crying blood and Madonna seducing a black Jesus.

I guess I should not be surprised at the antics of a non-believer like Madonna. Mocking and blaspheming is a part of her act. For her sake, it's a good thing that she chose to pick on Jesus not Mohammed peace be unto him. She could have caused riots all over the Muslim world.

On being a Christian

The dis-oriented author is a Christian. Denominationally I am a Baptist but I am equally comfortable in Bible Church circles. I consider myself a conservative Evangelical. I am also a student of mathematics, science, languages and history. As my book reviews on this blog show I have widely varied interests. I am not really a polymath, I am a dabbler. But from my father, I learned a love of learning.

People still find these interests incompatible with being a Christian.

Recently I flew home from Detroit and the woman sitting next to me struck up a conversation. I discovered that she has a degree in measurement and evaluation (a study involving both statistics and educational psychology). She had been a high school biology teacher in Wisconsin and now works for a testing company.

I was reading Jared Diamond's excellent, Guns, Germs and Steel which looks at the reasons human societies have developed over time. Diamond discusses several issues relating to biology and ethnobiology. So I recommended the book. Our conversation for that hour-and-a-half was wide-ranging. We talked about history, philosophy, the life of Richard Feynman, education, and of course our children.

Before we landed, I mentioned that I had worked for several years developing Bible study software. When I mentioned this, her face registered a moment of surprise. She recovered gracefully but I could see she was thinking how to reconcile something as backward and un-scientific as faith with the discussion we were having. She did mention some surprise.

I run into this from time to time. People who believe that I am too well-educated to be a Christian. That is part of the reason I enjoyed Don Knuth's unusual book, Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. Knuth is a renowned computer scientist and his three volume The Art of Computer Programming is a classic of the industry. Knuth is a believer and both writes and speaks about her faith. In his book, he suggests that maybe only 5-10% of his colleagues are religious in any form. If people look at me the same way they look at Don Knuth — I'll take that as a compliment.

At home, I have a stack of books on my desk that I am planning to read. They range from treatises on artificial intelligence and language understanding to a biography of Abraham Lincoln to a modern work on the Peloponnesian war. But next to all of these books (well not really next to since I read computer Bibles on my laptop and PDA) is my Bible. When I read the works of historians, physicists, mathematicians or even evolutionary biologists (like Diamond), they are not an affront to my faith — rather, I find that they strengthen my faith.

Mel Gibson — Evangelical Hero

The dis-oriented author is an evangelical Christian. I am also a recovering Catholic. Therefore it was baffling to me when in 2004 the evangelical community made Mel Gibson a hero by embracing his film, The Passion of the Christ. Here was a decidedly Catholic view of the crucification made by a decidedly Catholic film maker. Not only Catholic but a pre-Vatican II Catholic reactionary.

The Passion of the Christ Sept through evangelical Christianity. Leaders like James Dobson endorsed the film and many Churches rented out entire theaters to show the film to their congregations. I must admit that I did not see the film and have no plans to — remember I am a recovering Catholic and I don't want to fall off the wagon.

The veneration of Gibson by the evangelical community is mis-guided, as it turns out this week, Saint Mel is also an anti-semite.

I am as big a Mel Gibson fan as the next guy. I enjoyed Lethal Weapon when it first came out. I am also a fan of the Patriot, Braveheart and We Were Soldiers. I think Gibson is a tremendously gifted actor but he is no saint.

In a Christianity Today interview, Gibson said:

"I've been actually amazed at the way I would say the evangelical audience has—hands down—responded to this film more than any other Christian group." What makes it so amazing, he says, is that "the film is so Marian."

Gibson himself points out the Marian nature of the film and wonders why evangelicals would endorse it. Why indeed?

Gibson even describes Mary as"

a tremendous co-redemptrix and mediatrix.

Co-redemptrix? Mediatrix? The Bible teaches that Christ completed the work of redemption by himself and the he is the only mediator between man and God. Gibson's positions on Mary are blasphemous.

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 1:3 KJV

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 Tim 2:5 KJV

Add to that the fact that Gibson is an anti-semite. According to the industry website TMZ.com when Gibson was arrested for drunk driving in Malibu he made racist statements to the arresting officer. 

The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"

Gibson has since made several public statements saying that he is not an anti-semite. His actions speak louder than his apologies.

Saint Mel? Evangelical hero? I think not.

The Unbound Bible

The dis-oriented author used to be in the Bible business. I worked in the Church group at Parsons Technology back in the day. While I didn't work directly on QuickVerse, the flagship Bible product. I worked on a Bible dictionary and a Bible atlas. Today I use the excellent Pocket Bible for pocket PC written by my good friends at Laridian.

I have been using electronic Bibles and concordances for so long that when I need a paper Bible, I have to borrow one from my kids.

Thanks to languagehat, I have found my favorite electronic Bible (and it's online).

The Unbound Bible at Biola University is the coolest thing since sliced bread. The Unbound Bible lets you search and view up to four parallel Bible Translations at once. This is not your normal KJV, NIV, NASB and RSV (in fact NIV is not included likely because of licensing). But where else can you see John 1:1 in English, Esperanto, Chamorro and Breton?

English (KJV)	In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Chamorro	Y tutujonña gaegue y Finijo, ya y Finijo güiya yan si Yuus; ya y Finijo güiya si Yuus.
Esperanto	En la komenco estis la Vorto, kaj la Vorto estis kun Dio, kaj la Vorto estis Dio.
Breton	Er penn-kentañ e oa ar Ger, hag ar Ger a oa gant Doue, hag ar Ger a oa Doue.

Religion Quiz

The dis-oriented author rarely participates in surveys of any kind. I was intrigued this week when I saw an online survey at QuizFarm.com asking, "What is your Theological World View?" My church recently hosted a World View Weekend conference. Our sermons and Bible studies  have been focused on a Biblical World View. We have looked at topics ranging from charity to homosexuality to war.

I decided to take the quiz and see where I fit on the spectrum. In examining the results I find myself only mildly surprised.

This is the results I received direct from the quiz:

You scored as Reformed Evangelical. You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are skeptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die. Reformed Evangelical 93% Fundamentalist 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71% Neo orthodox 61% Classical Liberal 32% Charismatic/Pentecostal 18% Emergent/Postmodern 18% Roman Catholic 4% Modern Liberal 0%

The results were really quite insightful. I have often referred to myself as a fundamentalist but anyone who has been in a Bible study with me would point out that I have strong Calvinist leanings. I am a recovering Catholic so even a 4% seems high and I am proud to say that I scored 0% as a Modern Liberal.

Yes I do take the Bible seriously because it is the Word of God. I believe that it is important to make sure that people hear the Gospel. And I find myself pretty much in sync with TULIP or Five Point Calvinism:

T-Total depravity
U-Unconditional election
L-Limited atonement
I-Irresistible grace
P-Perseverance of the saint

The results of this quiz fit me to a T -- you should give it a try.

The Great Physician(s)

The dis-oriented author is a born-again Christian (readers will find my testimony of salvation on my personal homepage). I recall an incident in college, a friend of mine said:

You're a Christian? You're too smart to believe all that stuff.

In the media today there is an arrogance and condescension to religion and people of faith. This same arrogance spills over into academia. So imagine the surprise of researchers at the University of Chicago’s MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics when they discovered that a majority of physicians be-live in God..

One of the study researchers, Dr. Farr Curlin said:

We were surprised to find that physicians were as religious as they apparently are... There’s certainly a deep-seated cultural idea that science and religion are at odds...

Apparently the study authors expected to find that doctors, given their scientific background will have a naturalistic rather than religious point of view.

The study authors point out that 83% of Americans believe in God, in the meantime 76% of physicians believe in God. In fact 55% state that their faith affects their practice of medicine. I tend to think that their practice affects their faith.

Curlin goes on to note that:

... while medicine is science-based, doctors differ from scientists who work primarily in a laboratory setting, and their direct contact with patients in life-and-death situations may explain the differing views ...

I am not sure why anyone found these results surprising. Physicians deal with real life in all its gory details. They experience or at least observe the full range of human emotions. From birth to death physicians are there. Physicians may announce the most joyful news or bring news of a loved one's death.

Given the issues that many physicians face, it is no surprise that most physicians realize that neither they nor science are God. If one's religious convictions are deep-seated they will have an effect on the way one lives. Personally I am comforted rather than concerned about going to a physician who realizes that he is not the final authority.

Congress shall make no law ...

The disoriented author is always interested when news stories bring up issues related to our basic freedoms. The First, Second and Fourth Amendment issues seem to come up most often. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly; the Second gun rights and the Fourth freedom from unreasonable searches. I think these are hot button issues for me because it seems that these are the rights (along with the habeas corpus) that are most under attack today.

Three weeks ago, I was in Washington, D.C. on business. My work finished up earlier than expected so I had an opportunity to pay a long overdue to visit the National Archives.

As I pored over (through the glass of course) the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights I stopped at the First Amendment. I read again:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are many today who complain that our government has crossed the boundary between Church and State. That the increasing involvement of Evangelicals in government has established a de facto state religion. Reluctantly I find myself agreeing.

In violation of the First Amendment, the United States has established a state religion — and apparently, it is Islam.

Many critics of the Bush administration claim that the United States is becoming a Christian Theocracy. Theocracy Watch points out that the top seven senators scored 100% on the Christian Coalition's voter scorecard. Somehow, I just don't see it. Consider the following:

1. In 2003 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Ray Moore was removed from office for refusing to remove a 10 commandments monument from the State Supreme Court Building.
2. In 2005 after numerous courts failed to intervene, Terry Schizo was starved to death in Florida over the objections of evangelicals nationwide.
3. In 2004 a state District judge in Louisiana threw out, on technical grounds, a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage that had been approved y over 70% of the electorate.
4. A Google search for +graduation +prayer +ACLU brings up countless hits, many are cases where prayers have been banned from a school's graduation and valedictory speeches are now subject to prior editorial review by school officials.

There is an explosion in the growth of public school and even corporate tolerance and diversity training. These curricula often place Christians on the receiving end of indoctrination targeted at changing their core beliefs. What the Bible teaches is sin becomes simply an alternative lifestyle. Where the Bible requires Christians to evangelize the lost, we are told simply to accept their culture and faith as is. Our culture is decidedly anti Christian in its orientation (even anti-disoriented Christians). So if Christianity is not the state religion — what is?

It seems that it is Islam. Christians are being told in schools to keep a low profile and not evangelize or pray because those acts are intolerant. Yet consider the following:

1. The US Army has official policies on handling the Koran. These include not letting infidels touch it, only touching it with both or the right hand, touching only by Muslim chaplains or soldiers, etc.
2. Agents in the FBI's Seattle field office are getting instructions in how not to offend Islamic sensibilities.
3. In 2002, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill planned on requiring incoming freshmen to read and listen to selected suras from the Koran and discuss them.

In fact The Weekly Standard documents to what lengths US personnel must go to respect the Koran and the sensibilities of Islamic detainees.

If someone photographs a urine soaked crucifix (as did Andres Serrano), he gets a government grant and is seen as a hero of the artistic movement and freedom of expression. If some urine accidentally splashes on a detainee's Koran (provided for him by Uncle Sam) at Guantanamo Bay, it is inhumane torture.

I am not asking for a Christian theocracy, but I don't want to live in an Islamic state either.