Religion

Ed Brayton has an entertaining post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars about the lawsuit against Oral Roberts University and Oral’s son Richard Roberts by several former ORU faculty: The allegations are contained in a lawsuit filed Tuesday by three former professors. They sued ORU and Roberts, alleging they were wrongfully dismissed after reporting the school’s involvement in a local political race. Richard Roberts, according to the suit, asked a professor in 2005 to use his students and university resources to aid a county commissioner’s bid for Tulsa mayor. Such involvement would violate state and federal law because of the university’s nonprofit status. Up to 50 students are alleged to have worked on the campaign. ...

Taner Edis at the Secular Outpost comments on a recent article by Jon Haight about the benefits of religion, including its impact on generosity. I’ve previously offered some comments on evidence that conservatives and the religious are more generous than liberals and the secular and that believers are more generous than atheists. I’ll add that I doubt that studies of charitable giving dig deep enough to uncover whether the giving is going to charities like these. Is it really being more generous if your charitable donations aren’t being used to actually do good?

Comment for Peter S. Williams’ blog, which doesn’t allow comments except from the blog owner and team members: Charles Manson claimed to levitate a school bus in order to get it to the group’s hideout at Barker Ranch in Death Valley in 1968. His followers claim he did it, too. We know the school bus got there, because it was still there until a few years ago. The terrain up Goler Canyon Road is very difficult even for four-wheel drive vehicles. I don’t believe Manson levitated the bus (or that there was a single tree that bore twelve kinds of fruit, one for each month of the year, at Barker Ranch, as he also claimed). Do you? There are also numerous eyewitness reports of remarkable phenomena, including levitations, occurring at Spiritualist seances. However, the most exhaustively documented ones show that eyewitness testimony is at odds with what actually happened–a phenomenon that magicians are quite familiar with. If demonic activity results in such things as levitation, why is it not documentable through video recordings or testimony from witnesses trained in illusion and trickery? ...

P.Z. Myers comments on a couple of professors defending the literal existence of angels and demons. Intelligent design advocate and Discovery Institute Fellow William Dembski on angels: Peter Williams’ The Case for Angels is about…the theological rift between a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices, and the great mass of Christians who thankfully still regard them as real (a fact confirmed by popular polls, as Williams notes in this book). This rift was brought home to me at a conference I helped organize at Baylor University some years back. The conference was entitled ‘The Nature of Nature’ and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself. The activity of angels in the world would clearly constitute on way nature points beyond itself. Why is it important to know about angels? Why is it important to know about rocks and plants and animals? It’s important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture. And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise), they are able to rationalize away what they find inconvenient. This is what Bishop Sheen was getting at with the previous quote when he referred to the intelligentsia rationalizing evil, and this what Williams is so successful at unmasking in the intelligentsia’s rejection of angels. ...

Bob McCarty, a religious conservative writer, came to my attention for the first time recently when he touted Lauren Green’s historical revisionism about the United States, in response to the Kathy Griffin Emmy controversy. When I and others posted comments on his blog pointing out Green’s errors, McCarty accused me of “anti-Christian revisionist history,” cited some quotes from Thomas Jefferson which made reference to “God,” and stated that “I don’t have to read any more books about American history to know that this country was founded on Christian principles and values. Think ‘In God we trust’ and ‘One nation under God.’" In response to this latter point, I posted a comment which pointed out that those two phrases don’t support McCarty’s case regarding the founding of the United States and that Jefferson, while a believer in God, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. McCarty didn’t approve my comment, so I posted again to see if it was intentional: Bob: You didn’t approve/publish my previous comment responding to your Sep. 15 comment. I’ll try again. Your citation of “In God We Trust” and “One Nation Under God” as evidence of the U.S. being founded on Christian principles shows your lack of research–the former did not appear on coins until 1854 and on currency until 1957. The phrase “under God” wasn’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. I also suggested you read more of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, including his letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 10, 1787, in which he wrote “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Oh, and I also recommended that you check out the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams, which contains the statement that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Tripoli violated the treaty and a new treaty was negotiated in 1805 without that language, but it is significant that both the Senate and President approved that language.In my first pass at a comment, I also referred to the “Jefferson Bible," a version of the gospels which Jefferson produced by (in part) removing all of Jesus’ miracles. Once again, McCarty didn’t approve the comments, demonstrating that he’s intentionally suppressing refutation of his ignorant statements. It’s his kind of dishonesty that can persuade people to believe that Christianity survives only by hiding from facts and promoting the view that “reason is the enemy of faith." ...

What happens when you rely on the Bible (compounded by even misunderstanding that) instead of oil geology to decide where to drill for oil…

In an interview with Beliefnet, Arizona Sen. John McCain said that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation: A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think? I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.Apparently he, like Rep. Ron Paul, missed the fact that the only reference to God in the U.S. Constitution is the reference to the “year of our Lord” in the date. The Constitutional Convention voted not to open with prayers, Article VI says that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Constitution establishes a democratic republic with a strong separation of church and state by comparison to other nations. The Bible, by contrast, speaks of theocratic political systems with rule by priests and kings. In 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified and President John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 of which began with the words “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” (This treaty was quickly violated by Tripoli, and the renegotiated treaty of 1805 did not contain this article, but the important point is that this language was approved by the entire Senate and the President in 1797.) ...

From the Adult Swim series “Moral Orel,” a song by the Crucifolks, “Reason is the Enemy of Faith”: Reason is the enemy of faith, my friend A head that's filled with knowledge soon is too bloated with its own weight to fit through heaven's gate So think with your heart it's the only organ for salvation think with your heart don't deduce yourself to eternal damnation think with your heart 'cause you know that the almighty sees us think only with your heart whoever heard of the bleeding brain of Jesus? think only with your heartMore on Moral Orel here. UPDATE (October 4, 2007): The comments on this post got way off track from what this song is saying, with olvlzl riding his own hobbyhorses to the extent that I think he completely missed the point. When he says to me, "If you don't agree with the song lyrics, I'm glad to hear it," I can only wonder if he bothered to read them. The lyrics are parody, expressing an extreme Christian anti-intellectualism that sees not only education but reason itself as something evil and in opposition to faith that must be avoided at all costs. Of course I disagree with that, as does anyone who values reason. What makes it funny is the extreme to which it takes the view--but what makes it disturbing is that there are anti-intellectual Christians who see knowledge and attempting to seek it as evil practices. They are the sort who say that all the knowledge they need is in the Bible (and these are often the King James Version only sorts, as well), so there is no need to read anything else. olvlzl, by contrast, is looking at the reverse position, that there is no need for faith. But that's not what the song is about, or what "Moral Orel" is about. olvlzl (2007-10-03): Ok, I expect everyone here who holds this belief, and it is a belief, but more about that in a minute - anyway, I expect that all of you rigorous rationalists will hold absolutely no ideas which you have not entirely proven or demonstrated with sufficient rigor so as to be the product of reason. If you do you are guilty of the intellectual crime of faith. No idea of which you have not mastered the proof can be held without it being to a greater or lesser extent the product of faith. That include the faith that scientists, who even as a group have demonstrated their fallibility, have gotten those particular ideas right. And, most of all, I expect you will hold no ideas about which no physical evidence exists since literally any idea you accept about them will be the product of some kind of faith. Atheism is a statement of faith about something which can't be known, at least it is when it asserts as a fact that there not a God or anything supernatural instead of the entirely, rock solid and honest statement "I don't believe there is a God". There is no assertion that can be made for or against the idea of a supernatural God which is not the product of reliance on that which can't be known, faith. Every single person who has an active mind relies on ideas held on the basis of faith. If this ditty is correct, then reason doesn't exist, at least not in human beings. ...

Jeremy Hall, an atheist soldier stationed in Iraq, attempted to form a meeting of his fellow atheists, after receiving permission to do so from an Army chaplain. That meeting occurred on August 7, and was attended by Hall’s supervisor, Major Freddy J. Welborn, 44, an evangelical Christian who broke up the meeting and threatened to charge Hall with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as to block Hall’s reenlistment if the group continued to meet. Hall filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon and Welborn for injunctive relief to prevent such unconstitutional abuses. In response to his lawsuit, Hall has been assaulted by fellow soldiers and threatened on blogs with being killed by friendly fire. (There have been some allegations, not substantiated to my knowledge, that Pat Tillman’s death by friendly fire may have been the result of his outspoken atheism.) Welborn, who was initially misidentified in the lawsuit as Paul Welbourne, was tracked down via his MySpace page, a visual monstrosity which says that he is a member of the “Department of Eternal Affairs,” his primary occupation is “Bible Study,” he has a Bachelor’s Degree from Tennessee Temple University with a major in “Pers. Evangelism” and minor in “Biblical Worldview,” and he attended Tara High School from 1976 to 1983. (In fairness to Welborn, the heading says that the school information is for “MAJ Freddy & HIS Girl,” so the dates probably include “his girl”’s high school career along with his own, rather than indicating that he took seven years to get through high school.) The U.S. military has had a serious problem with Christian evangelicals who don’t understand what freedom of religion means. Earlier this year, the Pentagon Inspector General’s office issued a report that officers who appeared in uniform in a recruiting video for Christian Embassy, a group that promotes Bible studies by senior government officials, violated military rules by doing so. Two years ago, evangelical Christians proselytizing at the Air Force Academy led to a review of the Air Force rule for chaplains which says that there can be no proselytizing those of other religious faiths, but it’s perfectly acceptable to proselytize to “those who are not affiliated." A lawsuit against this evangelizing was thrown out of court last year, but the rule for chaplains with the double standard was revoked. More on the Hall and Christian Embassy cases may be found at the Questionable Authority blog, as well as the links in this post. UPDATE (March 7, 2008): Hall has updated his complaint to include a charge that he has had a promotion blocked because of his unwillingness to “put aside his personal convictions and pray with the troops." UPDATE (July 10, 2008): The government has filed a motion to dismiss (at the last available moment to do so), arguing that Hall lacks standing to sue and did not take advantage of all available remedies within the military to pursue his complaint before suing. UPDATE (April 26, 2008): The New York Times has now covered this story. (About time!) UPDATE (April 28, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars asks the question of why Hall had to be transferred out of Iraq for his own safety, rather than the commanding officers telling the troops to leave him alone or be punished. UPDATE (October 18, 2008): Hall has withdrawn his lawsuit on the grounds that he will soon be out of the military and suspects the case will be dismissed for lack of standing once he’s out. A second case filed by Dustin Chalker will continue.

In Red Oak, Iowa: A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted. Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday. “I’m just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job,” Bitterman said. … Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a “fairy tale” in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.Even most Christians on the planet don’t think that the Adam and Eve story is literally true, so it’s hard to see why this would even be a controversial statement in a western civilization class. The quotes in the article from the school suggest that Bitterman was fired for something else (a “personnel issue”), but the firing immediately following the class with the student threatening legal action seems to support his account. ...