Category Archives: Religious News

Disguised as a conservative Christian, Ivy Leaguer learns fundamentals of Falwell’s university


Article by Eric Tucker of the AP, quoted in Newser.com

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Each conversation about salvation or hand-wringing debate about premarital sex was unwitting fodder for Roose’s recently published book: “The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University.”

“As a responsible American citizen, I couldn’t just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there,” said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. “If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to.”

Formed in 1971, Liberty now enrolls more than 11,000 residential students, along with thousands more who study through Liberty’s distance-learning programs. The university teaches creationism and that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, while pledging “a strong commitment to political conservatism” on campus and a “total rejection of socialism.”

Roose’s parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell’s views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.

He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy — and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch “Gossip Girl?”

It wasn’t an easy transition. Premarital sex is an obvious no-no at Liberty. So are smoking and drinking. Cursing is also banned, so he prepared by reading the Christian self-help book, “30 Days to Taming Your Tongue.”

He lined up a publisher — Grand Central Publishing — and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for “hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls.”

Instead, he found that “not only are they not that, but they’re rigorously normal.”

He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies — albeit in a locked dorm room.

A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay — all names are changed in the book — is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.

Yet, some students also grilled him about his relationship with Jesus and condemned non-believers to hell.

After a gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in April 2007, a Liberty student said the deaths paled next to the millions of abortions worldwide — a comment Roose says infuriated him.

Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show “24.”

Roose would duck away to the bathroom to scribble down anecdotes or record them during lectures. He never blew his cover, even ending a blossoming romantic relationship rather than come clean. He revealed the truth on a return trip to campus. He grappled with guilt during the entire project, but said he ultimately found forgiveness from students for his deception.

“If he told me he was writing an expose or maybe if the book turned out to be what I considered unfair, then I might have been more troubled,” said Brian Colas, a former Liberty student body president who befriended Roose.

The university administration has been less receptive. Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. said in a statement that Roose had a “distorted view” of Liberty before he arrived and gave an incomplete portrait of the school.

“We appreciate Kevin’s generally positive tone toward LU but he admittedly comes from a culture that has very little tolerance for conservative Christianity and even less understanding of it,” Falwell said.

Roose said his Liberty experience transformed him in surprising ways.

When he first returned to Brown, he’d be shocked by the sight of a gay couple holding hands — then be shocked at his own reaction. He remains stridently opposed to Falwell’s worldview, but he also came to understand Falwell’s appeal.

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly — for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

He’s even considering joining a church.

Wedding Day in Iowa


A little over three weeks after the Iowa supreme court’s unanimous decision to legalize same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian couples queued up on Monday morning at the Polk County recorder’s office in Des Moines to embrace marriage equality.

Because of a furlough day in the Hawkeye State, Monday was the first day marriage licenses became available to same-sex couples. Sarah Kennedy, a liaison from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, was on hand at the recorder’s office as about 50 couples waited in line to obtain their marriage licenses. Couples began showing up at about 6 a.m., with the recorder’s office set to open its doors at 8 a.m.

“It was cold,” Kennedy says. “But it didn’t rain.”

Read the article at advocate.com and see wedding pictures.

Reinterpreting Eve, by Tabby Biddle in the Huffington Post


Not too far in the past, if a woman was assertive, demanding and purposeful, she was considered a controlling bitch. On the other hand, if a woman complained about her lack of opportunity and played victim, she was considered an annoying whiner. Today, many women are looking to each other for clues as to what it truly means to be a woman.

One of the great perks of being a woman is sharing intimately with other women. I have found over and over, no matter if I am talking with a CEO, an accomplished writer, a five star mom, a longtime healer, a talented artist, … that no matter what their successes, women feel a peculiar sense of self-doubt and inferiority. I have for a long time wondered what this is about.

As someone who studies spirituality and religion, I decided to reflect on our spiritual culture to seek some answers. When focusing on this, I saw that part of the issue could be the many thousands of years we’ve been living in a patriarchal spiritual, social and cultural system. This isn’t a criticism of men by any means, but a pointing out and curiosity about how that system has affected us, both as women and men, from the inside out.

In our culture our greatest spiritual role model, God, is a “he” in imagery and language. “He” is the one we are to please, emulate and be judged by. He is the one we pray to, seek counsel from and look to for solutions. If God is male in imagery and language, wouldn’t it make sense that girls and women who are not “hes” would feel a sense of inferiority, self-doubt and perhaps never feel that they are good enough? If this is the case, I wonder if women and girls deep down inside can ever truly feel worthy.

Let’s look at another part of our spiritual and cultural heritage that may also be contributing to women’s inferiority complex: The story of Adam and Eve. For many of us, we heard this story at a very young age. In my case, I was five. Whether as a child (or adult) we regard the story as myth or truly the creation story, it permeates our culture and has made its way into our unconscious systems. A review…

(Eve) was created out of man (Adam). She was then told by an Almighty man (God) not to pick a forbidden fruit (apple). She picked it (disobedience) – gave it to Adam (unsuspecting innocence) – and from then on was said to have committed the first sin. It was that simple picking (which perhaps was due to pioneering curiosity) that is said to have led to the fall of humanity from paradise and the introduction of evil into the world. Ha!

Assuming Eve as the archetype of woman, woman here is portrayed as undisciplined, disobedient, and a sinner. Looking at it this way, it’s no wonder that women have an underlying sense of blame, shame and in many cases, a fear of questioning male authority. With this story told to us at an early age, it seems like no mystery that as girls and boys we would internalize this.

When reflecting on all of this, my question became — what happened to the time when the Almighty, the Divine, our spiritual leader was in feminine form? What happened to the honoring of our Mother God, Gaia? What happened to the ancient goddess cultures?

According to Maria Gimbutas, world-renowned archeologist, matriarchal and goddess-worshipping cultures existed as far back as 6500 B.C. Aside from the questions of why and how the shift happened away from these cultures and toward our modern-day patriarchy, I think it’s important to look at how we would feel if our spiritual leader were depicted as a woman and referred to as a “she.” Would we feel any different? What is your reaction to even considering this?

I know there is a book called, “When God Was a Woman,” which I have not read yet — but have a feeling it might shed some light on the subject. I also know that some will argue that getting caught up in duality, the feminine and masculine, is not helpful. They will say that God is Absolute and holds no gender or form. My feeling is that all the talk in the world about this, before females ever get a chance to see themselves in the image of the Divine is like skipping from kindergarten to college. We’ve spent the more recent thousands of years seeing our spiritual leader in the image of a male and I think it is going to take more than saying God is Absolute to deconstruct our unconscious belief systems.

Just to make it clear I am not advocating for erasing a male God nor am I advocating for dethroning him with a female. What I am advocating for is a remembrance and honoring of a Mother God, the Divine Feminine, as his divine and uniquely different partner.

As our hierarchies of power are shaking down and interconnection and interrelatedness are shaking wide, perhaps we have an opportunity to redefine how we see ourselves in the world and how we, as women and men, can move forward together as partners creating a world in balance.

By Tabbie Biddle in the Huffington Post

Activist burnout: A pastor who now focuses on the gospel more than politics

A New York Times article explores balancing activism and pastoral ministry – or as the article suggests – a prophetic ministry vs a pastoral ministry. Here is a full reprint of the article.

BABY BOOMERS supposedly are divisive people, still locked in the political and cultural wars of the 1960s and ’70s. This, we’re told, is why Barack Obama, though technically a boomer (b. 1961), isn’t actually a boomer. He is alleged to be the next generation, a master of consensus who refuses to be bogged down in the old quagmires.

This view of boomers is outdated. It is true we’re a generation with strong opinions. Coming of age in the era of Vietnam, civil rights, feminism and gay rights, we would have had to be dead not to have strong opinions.

But to say boomers continue to promote societal division ignores a change that people go through as they age. It’s not so much that one’s politics change, it’s the need to broadcast them that does. It’s a realization that we can’t change others — not even our own children — as much as we’d hoped.

The Rev. Tim Ives, 54, a Presbyterian minister from Westchester County, has made this transition, which he describes as going from a prophetic minister to a pastoral one.

For 16 years, until 2004, he served the First Congregational Church in Chappaqua, N.Y. (One Christmas Eve, the Clintons attended his service.) Mr. Ives, who describes himself as politically liberal, loved his sermons. “This was always central to my ministry,” he said. “Telling stories gives the greatest joy.”

HE is a pacifist, and often spoke of the mistakes of Vietnam and the folly of war. “I’m very easygoing, but there are just things I believe are wrong, I believe are clearly stated in the Bible,” he said. “We must have nothing to do with violence. It was very important for me to be clear on that, to be right and not worry about people’s reactions.”

Most of his sermons weren’t political. But when they were, they had that prophetic fire. In March 2000, he used Mark 9:1-13 and the idea of righteous power and the kingdom of God to deliver an impassioned plea for gun control as the first anniversary of Columbine approached. “We have allowed, encouraged, looked the other way as we have become the most violent of societies,” he said that Sunday, adding: “If I am being too political, so be it. I cannot see an argument that can stand up to the moral responsibility we have to our children to get rid of these guns.”

“I want everyone to go home, write, e-mail, phone, snail mail your senators and Congress people,” he concluded. “Do it. Guns are about the wrong kind of power and they are killing us all. In Christ Jesus, amen.”

Occasionally, someone questioned a sermon. “I’d listen, I’d nod, I’d smile, but I’d still think they were wrong,” Mr. Ives said.

He assumed he would always be at that church, but after 9/11 things changed. He continued preaching against violence — making clear his opposition to the Afghan and Iraq wars — but now he could see his views were dividing the congregation.

“After 9/11,” said Bob Buzak, a member of First Congregational for 44 years, “people were saying: ‘We can’t just take this. We have to strike back at our enemies.’ Tim was frustrated he couldn’t get his point across. He could see he was losing contact with some of his congregation.”

Mr. Buzak, a retired music teacher, saw the strain. “To me he was quieter, more withdrawn from his usual outgoing self.”

Mr. Ives’s sermons grew shrill. One condemned the violence of Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ.” “I am so sickened by what I saw on the movie screen,” he told the congregation. “I am so sickened by what I read in the paper daily. I am so sickened by what passes for sanity these days, that I find myself very often near despair.”

He was certain he’d failed.

“I’d come to the point in my life I was no good for the church,” he recalled. “I was mad with God. Here I was taking up the fight for what I thought was a very important issue for God, and it wasn’t working out. I couldn’t understand my failure. I was so right.”

In 2004, after a run-in with a few of the trustees, he took the church by surprise and resigned. He cited the divisions he’d caused and a desire to spend more time with family — he has two children, now 10 and 13, and is married to Ann Guerra, an orthodontist. “I thought I’d never lead a church again,” he said. “I was spent.”

He began studying to become a psychotherapist.

For six months, he did not attend church. But he loves Christmas, and on a whim, during the third Sunday of Advent in 2004, he ducked into one near his home, the Presbyterian Church of Mount Kisco. “I was late,” he said. “I opened the door. Services had started. The first open pew, I sat down quickly as possible.”

And there, sitting beside him, of all people, was a trustee from his old Chappaqua church, a man he’d once exchanged bitter words with. “It could be a coincidence,” Mr. Ives said. “But I didn’t think so.” James Joyce would have called it a moment of epiphany, but to the minister it felt like God’s hand.

He believes he was being reminded that a righteous life is about more than being right. “God sat me down right next to the person he wanted me to reconcile with,” Mr. Ives said. “Life should be about trying to make room for your enemies, loving your enemies. I had missed this. I’d appreciated it academically, but I hadn’t got it spiritually.”

In the years that followed, Mr. Ives finished his studies to become a therapist and served as a fill-in pastor at several churches, before taking over as minister at the Scarborough Presbyterian Church in Scarborough, N.Y., a year ago.

When he interviewed for the position, he described in great detail the changes he’d gone through, and was selected from 75 candidates. Edwin Payne, a retired bond dealer who was a chairman of the search committee and describes himself as a conservative, said he was not concerned about Mr. Ives’s liberalism. “He’s more focused on a love for Christ,” Mr. Payne said.

While most parishioners are aware of Mr. Ives’s general views — he has mentioned he is a pacifist and has an Obama sticker on one of his cars — politics are no longer at the heart of his sermons.

“He seems to get such joy in just giving communion,” Mr. Payne said. “The way he celebrates the sacrament — it comes across to the worshipers, here’s a man who loves what he’s doing.”

Under Mr. Ives, the church has expanded the Passing of the Peace, with every member walking around the church and greeting everyone else. He has expanded the time spent praying for those in need.

“He has us pray for our troops, pray for our enemies, pray for Democrats, pray for Republicans,” Mr. Payne said.

MR. IVES said his politics haven’t changed a lick.

“I still feel the same about guns and I know I’m right,” he said. “If I thought giving that sermon would be the end of guns in this society, I’d give it again in a second. But it won’t. That sermon was more about placating my need to be right than about preaching the Gospel. It does more to defeat my case than help it.

“I’m standing up on a pulpit, no one can say a thing for those 20 minutes, what I say goes. It’s the wrong kind of power. It undermines the love. You can tell people to do the right thing or you can do the loving thing and get the same result.”

His most recent sermon was about Mary Magdalene somehow finding hope at the lowest moment in the darkest tomb.

Presbyteries keep ‘fidelity and chastity’ ordination standard

The website of the Presbyterian Church USA reports that there will be no change in the denomination’s policy regarding gay clergy. The official policy mandates “that church officers live in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. An amendment to change this policy was defeated, but in a closer vote than in the recent past, and the trend may be the biggest news.

The next big battleground will be the ELCA convention in Mpls this summer.

Here is the Presbyterian news release in full.

LOUISVILLE ― Though the formal results await certification by the Office of the General Assembly, all unofficial tallies show that Amendment B — which would replace the current Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) constitutional requirement that church officers live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness” with a new section G-6.0106b of The Book of Order — has been defeated.

After voting on Saturday, April 25, the count is 69 presbyteries in favor with 88 opposed — one more than the majority of 87 out of 173 presbyteries required to decide the matter.

Last year’s 218th General Assembly proposed the amendment, which would replace the commonly-called “fidelity and chastity” clause with new language: “Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.”

The “fidelity and chastity” provision was added to the Book of Order in voting following the 1996 General Assembly. Two subsequent proposals to delete it have failed in presbytery voting ― following the 1997 Assembly by a vote of 57-114 and following the 2001 Assembly by a vote of 46-127.

The vote is much closer this year.

Twenty-seven of the 127 presbyteries that voted “No” in 2001-2002 — plus Western New York Presbytery, which voted to take “no action” last time — have voted in favor of this year’s amendment.

Two presbyteries that voted “Yes” last time — San Francisco and Sierra Blanca — have switched to a “No” this year.

One presbytery — Midwest Hanmi — is under the jurisdiction of an administrative commission of the Synod of Lincoln Trails and is not expected to vote.

If the remaining 16 presbyteries vote the same way they did in 2001-2002, the final tally would be 74-98 (with Midwest Hanmi not voting). Presbyteries have until June 28 of this year to vote.

The unofficial tally to date:

For (69): Albany, Arkansas, Baltimore, Boston, Cascades, Cayuga-Syracuse, Charlotte, Chicago, Cimarron, de Cristo, Denver, Des Moines, East Tennessee, Eastern Oregon, Eastminster, Elizabeth, Genesee Valley, Geneva, Giddings-Lovejoy, Grace, Grand Canyon, Great Rivers, Greater Atlanta, Heartland, Hudson River, John Knox, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Long Island, Mackinac, Maumee Valley, Miami Valley, Mid-Kentucky, Milwaukee, Monmouth, National Capital, New Brunswick, New Castle, New Hope, New York City, Newark, Newton, Northern Kansas, Northern New England, Northern New York, Ohio Valley, Palisades, Philadelphia, Redwoods, Salem, San Jose, Santa Fe, Scioto Valley, Sheppards & Lapsley, Southeastern Illinois, Susquehanna Valley, Transylvania, Tres Rios, Twin Cities Area, Utica, Wabash Valley, West Jersey, West Virginia, Western New York, Western North Carolina, Western Reserve, Whitewater Valley, Winnebago, Yellowstone.

Against (88): Abingdon, Alaska, Atlantic Korean, Beaver-Butler, Blackhawk, Boise, Carlisle, Central Florida, Central Nebraska (tie), Central Washington, Charleston–Atlantic, Cherokee, Cincinnati (tie), Coastal Carolina, Donegal, Eastern Korean, Eastern Oklahoma, Eastern Virginia, Flint River, Florida, Foothills, Glacier, Hanmi, Holston, Homestead, Huntingdon, Indian Nations, Inland Northwest, James, John Calvin, Kendall, Lackawanna, Lake Erie, Los Ranchos, Mid-South, Mission (tie), Mississippi, Missouri Union, Muskingum Valley, Nevada, New Covenant, New Harmony, North Alabama, North Central Iowa, North Puget Sound, Northeast Georgia, Northern Plains, Northumberland, Olympia, Palo Duro, Peace River, Peaks, Pines, Pittsburgh, Plains and Peaks, Prospect Hill, Providence, Pueblo, Redstone, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Fernando, San Francisco, San Gabriel, San Joaquin, San Juan, Santa Barbara, Seattle, Shenandoah, Shenango, Sierra Blanca, South Alabama, South Dakota, South Louisiana, Southern Kansas, St. Andrew, St. Augustine, Stockton, Tampa Bay, Trinity, Tropical Florida, Upper Ohio Valley, Washington, Western Colorado, Western Kentucky, Wyoming, Yukon.

Not expected to vote (1): Midwest Hanmi

“No” last time, “Yes” this year (28): Arkansas, Charlotte, Cimarron, East Tennessee, Eastminster, Grace, Great Rivers, Greater Atlanta, Lake Huron, Mackinac, Maumee Valley, New Hope, Newark, Ohio Valley, Philadelphia, Salem, Scioto Valley, Sheppards & Lapsley, Southeastern Illinois, Transylvania, Tres Rios, Wabash Valley, West Jersey, West Virginia, Western New York (“no action” last time), Western North Carolina, Whitewater Valley, Yellowstone.

“Yes” last time, “No” this year (2): San Francisco, Sierra Blanca.

ELCA Presiding Bishop, Other U.S. Religious Leaders Meet King of Jordan


WASHINGTON (ELCA) — Four U.S. religious leaders — two Christian and two Muslim — met with King Abdullah II of Jordan here April 20 to discuss specific topics about the Middle East. The topics included the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians with a focus on concerns for Jerusalem, deepening Muslim-Christian relationships and the future of Arab Christianity in the Middle East, said the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Chicago.

Hanson organized the U.S. participants in the discussion, a follow-up to a meeting he had in Amman with King Abdullah II in January. Hanson invited three U.S. religious leaders to attend: the Rev. Michael Kinnamon, general secretary, National Council of Churches USA, New York; Imam Mohamed Majid, vice president, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Sterling, Va.; and Imam Sayid Hassan Al-Qazwini, scholar and religious leader, Islamic Center of America, Dearborn, Mich. The 30-minute meeting was private.

The discussion was an extension of a 2007 document, “A Common Word Between Us and You,” from 138 Muslim scholars to Christian leaders, calling for Christians and Muslims to work for peace. It declared that the world’s future depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.

In a conference call meeting with reporters afterward, Hanson said, “This is a critical time for us because we see in His Majesty King Abdullah II and in President Obama two global leaders who share a sense of renewed urgency in re-engaging the peace process.” Abdullah and Obama are scheduled to meet here April 21, Hanson noted.

“We also see in both of these leaders a deep commitment to interfaith relationships,” Hanson said. Religious leaders can diffuse rhetoric and religious extremism in the world and promote greater understanding between Christians and Muslims. That can contribute toward “a lasting and just peace in the Middle East,” he said.

“Having Bishop Hanson be the one who invited us to this meeting — it shows the relationship between the Christian and Muslim communities in this country, which we would like to be a model example for others (of) how people can work together,” said Imam Magid, a Sunni Muslim. Having Sunni and Shia Muslim representatives in the meeting with King Abdullah II “shows that the Muslim community believes in interfaith work, and they reach out to people of other faiths to work together for common ground. We would like His Majesty to help with interfaith work among the Sunni and Shia.”

Kinnamon said his presence signaled support for the position articulated by Hanson as well as “a broad array of churches.” The NCC is 35 member denominations, including the ELCA.

“We have spoken strongly together as churches about encouragement of a two-state solution, about great concern for the dwindling population of Christians, especially for Palestinian Christians and throughout the Middle East, and concern for interfaith relations as a basis for peacemaking in the region. I tried to speak about those issues,” he said.

Kinnamon said he told the king about “the very positive climate that’s developing between Muslims and Christians” in the United States. The NCC has been concerned about other issues such as residence permits and family unification issues in the Middle East, and construction of homes for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank.

“I emphasized with His Majesty King Abdullah the need for Muslims to have a dialogue with the Christians,” said Imam Al-Qazwini, a Shia Muslim. “I spoke about the fact that the majority of Christians do support Muslims and do understand where they are coming from. That is why Muslims need to reach out to the Christians and to establish a permanent dialogue with the Christians.” Al-Qazwini said he also spoke about the need for intrafaith dialogue between Muslims.

“Today was a blessed day for me to be talking to King Abdullah II and with Bishop Hanson. These are friends. I am so delighted to be with Christian leaders, and I am willing to move forward in the same step,” he said.

A rabbi’s view on teen sexuality


Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, author of The Kosher Sutra, offered his views on teenage sexual behavior in response to an Oprah show. Most of his article is reprinted below.

Here are my thoughts.

1. Sex is for adults in a mature and committed relationship. It is not for kids, and not only because they can get pregnant and contract an STD. Sex brings in its wake a tidal wave of overwhelming emotions which young teens are not equipped to assimilate, neither psychologically nor emotionally. Many studies have linked teen sex to teen suicide, especially for young girls. Sex creates an artificial sense of closeness and when the relationship terminates (and terminate it will) it leaves both with a sense of abandonment and severe loneliness. Moreover, when sex is experienced too early and without the proper emotional preparation it becomes an empty experience leaving the participants disillusioned and dissatisfied. This explains why so many teens suffer sexual burnout by the time they hit their twenties with grave ramifications for future relationships and especially marriage. In ‘The Kosher Sutra’ I discuss the shocking statistic that one out of three married couples in America are entirely sexless. I believe that one of the major contributing factors is the vacant sexual experiences that so many American men and women have in their teen years which gradually turns them off sex. Sex is also diluted when it is overused, especially in an inappropriate context. Later, when we try and draw upon its power to transform our relationship into one of exceptional closeness and pleasure we discover that it is powerless to do so.

2. The principal responsibility of a parent is to protect their child. Before we love them, before we inspire them, before we educate them, our job is to guard them from harm. If our children wished to drive a car without a license we would not give them driving lessons and the keys in the belief that it is better to have them drive safely than dangerously. Likewise, no matter how powerless we felt about stopping them from taking drugs we would not be going to the local pusher to get them a needle. This does not mean that I judge the mother who was on the show. She loves her son and was doing what she thought was best. But our responsibility as parents is to have the kind of everyday, loving interactions with our children that allow us to play an active role in their lives and guide them toward positive choices. We dare never abdicate our responsibility through the fear of our own impotence. Indeed, I believe if we give up on our ability to empower our children to make moral choices, they will later hold us accountable. Our children should respect our advice and our authority. That means that we can’t allow them to drift so far from our influence that we suddenly find ourselves powerless to prevent destructive behavior. Sure, we parents don’t want to alienate our children by being party-poopers. That’s why we have to balance discipline with inspiration, attention, and love. There can be no substitute for regular family dinners, outings, and inspirational parent-child conversation. If these central staples of family life are neglected, we will find ourselves in the position this mother did: feeling we have to go along with our child’s poor choice rather than prohibiting it for fear of harming the relationship. Which brings me to my next point.

3. We are not our children’s friends. We are their parents. They have many friends. They have only one mom and dad. While it’s wonderful to be popular with our kids, even that popularity must be experienced within the overall framework of parental authority. We know what is best for our kids. We are older, wiser, more experienced, and more mature. They must listen to us and we must take the unpopular stand of preventing them from engaging in activities that are harmful to them. We must tell our kids to turn off the TV and do their homework. We must tell our kids that if they are involved with drugs they will disappoint us greatly and we’ll be forced to punish them. And we must tell our kids sex is off limits and that if we see that their relationship is becoming too serious we will move to terminate the relationship. By all means give good, logical reasons. But be firm as well. Our children should of course love us. But they must also respect us and respect our guidance.

4. Fathers are the principal immunity for young girls to say no to sexual pressure. Where were the dads on the show? It is primarily a father who protects his teenage daughter from succumbing to the wiles of hormonal youths who want to use her. Girls who are close to their dads are not desperate for male attention and are thus granted an invulnerability to the charms of silver-tongued fifteen year-olds who tell them that if they really love them, they should prove it by going to bed with them.

5. By allowing our sons and daughters to have sex too early, we gradually lose them to strangers. They suddenly get deeply and intensely involved with a non-family member and become, for all intents and purposes, lost to their families. A fourteen-year-old girl should be much closer to her parents and siblings than her boyfriend. The former give her unconditional love that builds strength of character. The latter loves her for very conditional things like beauty, charm, and a willingness to get physical. This fosters insecurity and an erosion of self-esteem.

6. We must teach our young sons to respect women. That comes from telling them it in unacceptable to see a girl as a means to sexual ends or to pressure her into having sex.

7. Relationship experts should not be averse to discussing morality. Part of teaching men and women how to make love work is to emphasize the moral dimension. Dr. Laura Berman did an admirable job of asking the right questions that led the young girl to pull back from wanting to have sex. But we relationship experts should not be dissuaded from discussing morals as well. After discussing the issue of teen sex in all its aspects, there is nothing wrong with concluding definitively, as Gayle King did, that it’s a bad idea for all involved and that sex is a mature and intimate activity that is reserved exclusively for adults.

Click here for the full article on the Huffington Post

Who Speaks For American Catholics?


There seems to be a battle going on between the Catholic Right and Democratic Party-aligned groups such as Catholics United as to who truly speaks for American Catholics. On issues such as war and economics, while Catholics United usually stands where I do, on issues such as abortion, and stem cell research they do not.
So who speaks for me?

Abortion reduction; Overturning Roe v. Wade; Homosexual marriage; Embryonic stem cell research. These are all issues where I stand in polar opposition to the hierarchy of my Catholic faith. And while I stand in opposition to orthodox teaching on these matters, I still am a Catholic.

On some issues (artificial birth control, embryonic stem cell research and LGBT rights) I believe that Church teaching is incorrect and must be revisited. On abortion, while I have qualms with abortion for any reason beyond the first trimester, I also recognize for a woman it is quite often not a simple black-and-white, good-versus-evil decision. Beyond that, I still don’t know of any Scriptural authority that declares that abortion is murder. If anything,, most Judeo-Christian thought on the subject treat it as a matter subject to equitable calculation.

More often than not, the circumstances surrounding an abortion are filled with grey. Case in point: the nine-year-old Brazilian girl impregnated in an incest rape. Unlike the Brazilian archbishop who attempted to stop the victim’s abortion, most American Catholics would recognize abortion as the lesser of two evils.

This bring me to some observations on groups such as Catholics United and Catholics Democrats, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. They do differ from the Catholic Right in that they understand that abortion is not the sole definer of a pro-lifer and that a pro-life perspective infuses economic liberalism.

I must disagree with my good friend Frederick Clarkson that the presence of these groups represents “creeping Religious Rightism in the Democratic Party.” Based upon my personal experience, these folks are drawing on a particular teaching on their faith (more on that below) known as Consistent Ethic of Life or “the seamless garment;” the notion that all life is sacred. When we talk about a Bill Donohue or a Robert Sirico opposing abortion at all costs, they are clearly illiberal cultural warriors. A strong case can be made that these icons of the Catholic Right are using abortion and LGBT rights as wedge issues primarily to elect laissez-faire economic conservatives.

Both Catholics United and Catholic Democrats have called out the hypocrisy of the Catholic Right on economics, war and torture. And although they ultimately oppose abortion and are using the idea of abortion reduction as a means to its elimination, that does not make them illiberal. A better description of their point of view clashing with pro-choice liberal was put forth by former Notre Dame President Theodore Hesburgh as one school of liberalism versus another.

But despite the fact that Catholics both Right and Left, see abortion as an evil to be eradicated, there are many other Christians both Catholic and non-Catholic who view abortion differently than Bill Donohue or Chris Korzen. For their rest of us, it is a matter of freedom of conscience. All things being equal, who am I to dictate to them how to follow their consciences?

As I said above, these groups are drawing upon certain Catholic teachings on abortion and related issues. But with that said, they fail to recognize the full measure of their positions with regard to non-Catholic America. I wonder if my good friends at Catholic United and Catholic Democrats understand that they are embracing a form of religious supremacy? While they most likely don’t see it that way, that is the only way to describe their desire to eliminate abortion. Because of this, they too do not speak for me as a Catholic.

While I’m uncomfortable with an abortion under any circumstance, I am even more uncomfortable with using the state to impose the tenets of any given theology. This is antithetical to the religious pluralism that is foundational to our constitution and to the common sense of a democratic society. Put another way, if my faith can do it to others, then someday another faith can do the same to mine.

Here is how I (and most of the Catholics I personally know) feel about issues such as abortion: these are matters of conscience best left to individual citizens to decide. Yes, I personally would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed in the United States, but I do not want to see access to the procedure limited in any way whatsoever. Beyond that, while abstinence-only education may be the desire of many religious folks, especially among the Catholic Right, it just isn’t realistic. The best approach is comprehensive, medically accurate sex education.

A few months ago I was discussing abortion with my uncle who is about eighteen years older than me. Like me he attends Mass regularly, but unlike me he is a conservative Republican. And yet he is pro-choice. He recalled the time before Roe — when women were found dead in sewers and back alleys from botched abortions. My uncle concluded that as much as he may not like abortion, he said he never wants to go back to those days.

So, once again the question must be posed: As a pro-choice Catholic, who speaks for me?

By Frank Cocozzelli in Talk to Action

In Harlem, Reaching Out to Muslims Through Hip-Hop


There is nothing typical about Jorge Pabon. He may be a hip-hop D.J. and dancer from the mean streets of Spanish Harlem, but he keeps the lyrics clean and women dancers at arm’s length.

As a teenager he emerged on the scene as PopMaster Fabel. But today he prefers to be called Shukriy, “the thankful one” — the name he took 20 years ago when he converted to Islam.

Now he is part of an “Islam and Hip-Hop” movement in the United States that is reaching out to Muslim young people via the hip-hop beat.

At a recent “Islam and Hip-Hop” concert in Harlem, young men in wide trousers and women in head scarves made waves in the air, trying to simulate Shukriy’s robotic movements. They did not touch each other unless they were a married couple.

Shukriy, 43, has come under fire from conservative Muslims who accuse him of sinning by dancing on stage with women or acting as D.J. for a mixed audience. Some argue that even listening to music is a taboo in Islam.

He dismisses such critics as the “haram police,” using the Arabic word for sin or taboo.

“I think it is absurd that some of the ultra-orthodox Muslims don’t see the chance of using hip-hop to extend the religion,” he said. “Hip-hop is the voice of the youth.”

He added: “I think, if you don’t like to see these things, then don’t come to the show. Allah will judge me.”

Rami Nashashibi, executive director of the Intercity Muslim Action Network, a nonprofit community organization in Chicago, said hip-hop of the kind practiced by Shukriy was becoming a global phenomenon among young Muslims, despite the critics.

“Hip-hop has become a space where young Muslims can express themselves and not feel like an alien, but feel respected,” said Mr. Nashashibi, who has taught courses on hip-hop and Islam at the University of Chicago. People like Shukriy “are the reason Muslims have been so respected within hip-hop.”

He added: “He was part of the hip-hop movement from the beginning. He is a very proud Muslim and a proud Puerto Rican.”

Shukriy turned to Islam after a career odyssey that took him from street corners around Times Square, where he danced for coins as a youth, to dazzling cities around the world as a professional dancer and hip-hop choreographer.

His résumé includes prizes like the Bessie Award for choreography in 1991 and the VH1 Hip Hop Honors in 2004. But with fame, he experienced misfortune.

“One day you walk on the Champs-Élysées,” he mused, “and the next day you find yourself on 123rd Street in Spanish Harlem with junkies.”

He said he has faced discrimination in his career, both because of his Puerto Rican background and as a Muslim.

Still, he said, “I am thankful for lots of things, but especially that Allah has showed me the right way for my life — and therefore my name is Shukriy.”

But at first his name was Jorge. He was born into a Catholic family in Spanish Harlem. His father left when he was 4 years old and his mother worked three jobs to support the family.

Like most Puerto Rican families then, they were quite religious. He went to Catholic school and to church every Sunday. But music and dance were also part of the culture, especially salsa.

“My twin brother, our two older sisters and I listened to music day and night, and we would all dance together,” he said. “It is in our blood, you know.”

As a teenager he lost the family’s passion for religion but not for music. “I started to hang out with other people from Spanish Harlem — it was a gang environment,” he said. They danced on the streets, tried new moves and had small competitions.

Then in 1980, he and a couple of his friends choose the corner of 42nd Street and Broadway as their stage. Large groups would gather to watch them perform. “Then some club owners came and asked us to dance in their places for money. And this was the start.”

He danced in the 1984 movie “Beat Street,” now a hip-hop classic. That led him to the stage of the Kennedy Center in Washington. In 1986 he was the first American hip-hop dancer to perform in Cuba. “The career developed so fast that I couldn’t believe it,” he said.

With other hip-hop dancers, he performed around the United States and in Berlin and Paris. But in the late 1980s, the film and music industries lost interest in hip-hop. The international assignments stopped and he fell into a depression. “From 1988 until 1989 I worked in galleries and a bicycle shop,” he said. He drank a lot, fought and nearly lost his bearings.

Two friends, also dancers, warned him that he risked throwing his life away. They started telling him about Islam, but he was not interested in religion. Still, when one of them gave him the Koran, Shukriy promised to read it.

“My plan was to prove them wrong, but actually the words touched my heart,” he said. Within a couple of days he became a Muslim. It was 1989.

When his family learned that he had converted, their reaction was “not good,” he said. His oldest sister broke off contact with him. His mother “thought I had stopped believing in God,” he said, until he bought her a Koran in Spanish and she read it.

He started to question many of the things he had done in his life. He stopped drinking alcohol and eating pork. But though he altered his behavior, he never changed his look: a long ponytail and a trimmed beard.

His focus today is teaching as an adjunct professor at New York University and in the Muslim community.

“I like to teach kids of all faiths as a tool for self-empowerment, cultural consciousness and an emotional and physical outlet,” he said. Lots of younger Muslims are fed up with politics and were especially troubled by the Israeli assault on Gaza. He sees dancing as a way for them to express their frustration.

He still performs at concerts and festivals, some of which he organizes with his wife, Aziza, who also converted to Islam.

“There are different ways of making a move in a dance,” he said. “And sometimes it is the same with religion. People have different interpretations and different ways to call people to Islam. I chose music.”

By SOUAD MEKHENNET, in the New York Times.

Study: Evangelicals Trail Other Faiths on Global Warming


(RNS) While a majority of white evangelicals believe there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, only one in three says human activity is the cause, according to a recent survey.

As the world celebrates Earth Day, a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows significant disagreement among U.S. religious groups on climate change and its causes.

Nearly half of all Americans blame global warming on human activity, according to the survey, but only 34 percent of white evangelical Protestants do the same. Seventeen percent of that group say natural patterns are the cause, and 31 percent are not convinced that the earth is warming at all.

That stance is at odds with black Protestants, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and religiously unaffiliated Americans, all of whom are significantly more likely to accept evidence of global warming, according to Pew.

Black Protestants (39 percent); white, non-Hispanic Catholics (44 percent); white mainline Protestants (48 percent); and religiously unaffiliated Americans (58 percent) are all also more likely to attribute climate change to humans, the survey found.

Daniel Burke

Religion News Service, quoted in the Pew Forum