revised   08.07.23 --  Please reload/refresh....On the web since.1997.  WRITING A GUEST COLUMN....STYLE. Vern Barnet  Vern Barnett Vernon Barnett

click for information about these symbols of world religions and liberation movements

 
OUR WORK
OUR_APPROACH
OUR_TEAM
RESOURCES
KC_STAR_COLUMN
HELP_&_CONTACT_PAGE

Faiths and Beliefs

1994  #001-018
1995   #019-070
1996   #071-122
1997   #123-175
1998   #176-227
1999   #228-279
2000   #280-330
2001   #331-382
2002   #383-434
2003   #435-487
2004   #488-539
2005   #540-591
2006   #592-642
2007   #643-694
2008  #695-746
2009  #747-798
2010  #799-XXX
Previous critics

Star tag: Vern Barnet does interfaith work in Kansas City. Reach him at vern@cres.org
a column by Vern Barnet every Wednesday in The Kansas City Star.
[Star printed and Star web versions, and the version here may vary.]
copyright 2010 by Vern Barnet and The Kansas City Star.
We can include reader comment only when we see it.
How to find archived columns on certain subjects,
 2010 Columns
most recent at the top

 
SUNDRY COMMENTS
AND NOTES


HEARING GOD

Some folks conceive of God as a Supreme Being, external to us, to which they may pray. Others might think of God as their "Higher Power," resident within them rather than outside them. Actually, I think many folks (including some theologians like Cusa) in the Middle Ages had a better understanding of God than the Fundamentalists who have appeared in the last hundred years, largely adopting a "scientific" approach to truth (treating myths as literal truth). Throughout much of Western religious history, especially before the creed-centered Reformation and catechism-centered Counter-Reformation, God was mainly an awesome Mystery, such as Einstein wrote about in these words:

 "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."

 Nonetheless, I would find it difficult to say that God had spoken to me -- except in the sense that the wind in the trees, the waves on the ocean, the kind words from a friend, the majesty of the stars in the sky, the quiet but insistent voice of conscience speak to me of a mystery beyond joy and suffering that dwells deeply within me and that in those sacred moments I sense all around me, pervading the universe and all time.

 I confess I am troubled by both Fundamentalist talk of God speaking to them and by New Agers writing books about Conversations with God. Seems a bit arrogant to me. But then I remember the provocative words of William Blake:

 "The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert, that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.
   Isaiah answer'd, I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain confirm'd; that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote."

 So all I know is that  people, given  ignorance and frailty and genius and  insight use the word  "God" in many ways,  only a few of which do I fully understand.

==========
Village Voice 
Jan. 4 2010 
By Roy Edroso

Atheists Celebrate First-Ever Invite to Mayor's Interfaith Breakfast

Ken Bronstein was excited to notify us of a great coup: six members of his organization, the New York City Atheists, attended Mayor Bloomberg's annual Interfaith Breakfast this weekend. It's believed to be the first time nonbelievers have been invited, as nonbelievers, to the event. 

We asked Bronstein why atheists would even want to attend an Interfaith Breakfast, seeing as they don't, in point of fact, have faith.

"Oh, we have faith," Bronstein told us. "Just not in God."

A spokesman from the Mayor's office confirmed that the Mayor had invited the guests as members of NYC Atheists, and "in his remarks did certainly welcome those who, while not professing a particular faith, do love the city, recognizing the importance of working together for the common good of the people of New York City."

The Breakfast's more famous guests included Vada Vasquez, the teenager shot in the head last month and miraculously recovering from it.

Bronstein finds the invitation, like the mention President Obama made of nonbelievers in his Inaugural Address, a sign of a "dramatic shift" in attitudes toward unchurched Americans.

"When I first got involved with NYC Atheists five years ago," he said, "we had to put all our newsletters in envelopes, because most of our [regular-mail] subscribers didn't want peoiple to know they were getting mail from us. I don't have to do that anymore."

We were disappointed to learn that the atheists sat quietly at the breakfast at the New York Public Library, and did not give invocations, as representatives of God-based faiths did. "Maybe next year," says Bronstein.



COMMENTS
on reading
a prepublication
copy of
Religion and the Critical Mind: 
A journey for seekers, 
doubters and the curious
by Anton Jacobs

Jacobs begins by reminding us that prophets like Isaiah and Jesus criticized their own religious traditions, moves throughout Western history by sympathetically studying major critics of faith, including Voltaire, Marx, and Freud, brings us up to date with Postmodernism, and concludes with a stunning 12-point approach to religion that withstands every criticism leveled against it throughout the whole of history. A sacred gift! Wrapped in beautiful writing!

Religious leaders like Isaiah, Jesus, and Luther have lobbed fierce criticism at their own faith traditions, and secular thinkers like Voltaire, Marx, and Freud have attacked religion on many fronts. Jacob's beautifully written book appears as a fresh debate between the "new atheists" and religion's defenders rages. With both scholarship and humane vision, he clarifies the arguments by which faith may purify itself and the skeptics may find understanding. Whoever in this uncertain world reads this book will have a clearer path through what we cannot know to choose a life worth living.



COMMENTS
on reading
a prepublication
copy of
A collection of
essays by
Sheldon Stahl





















Sheldon Stahl was an economist, but his voice is that of the Hebrew prophets. Like them, he asks why the greedy pile up pelf while the needy suffer. He moves from the cost of a coat to the value of virtue, from the pecuniary to the priceless, from cash to character. With the precision of his prose, Stahl's numbers point us toward nobility. As the prophets of old explored the fields of justice in community and the world, so Stahl's essays, in our own time, expose the range between wealth and worth. A master of econometrics, he shows us the measure of humanity. Those of us who knew Sheldon will, in these pages, hear his voice again; those who encounter him for the first time will share in the blessing.
 
 
 
 

VINTAGE COMPLAINTS

THE PITCH
By Tony Ortega 
June 10, 2004

This pious porterhouse always gets a spiritual kick out of the liberal weenies at The Kansas City Star. Whether it's pointy-headed Bill Tammeus in Saturday's Faith section or bleeding heart Vern Barnet in his Wednesday column, our paper of record desperately wants to give the impression that the world is a big, wonderful place where all people of faith hold hands and hum "Kumbaya."
. . . . In the Strip's experience, Bill and Vern are way off. Religious people actually hate each other's guts. Too many of them figure they have all the mysteries of the universe solved, and anyone who disagrees is going straight to hell. In the meantime, they figure that salvation is a matter of attracting as many tithe-making suckers into their big tent before the end times.

LETTERS June 24, 2004
   I kind of understand Tony Ortega's take on Tammeus' pontifications and what appears to be a "not of this world" utopian view expressed by Vern Barnet. I would think, though, that given the alternatives, wouldn't he rather listen to someone who really does practice Christian teaching (or for that matter the peaceful teachings of any religion) rather than the ranting of a "my way or the highway" born-again?

Jim Skinner, Overland Park
COMMENTS Jul 1, 2004
   While you may not appreciate the work of Vern Barnet, calling him a "bleeding heart" is such a personal attack, and it should be apologized for. I have met Mr. Barnet only once, about six years ago at a retreat, but the memory of his kindness and genial demeanor stays with me today. Had the Christian Church been filled with people like Vern, I would still be a Christian today.
    Tony missed a wonderful opportunity to contrast a truly spiritual man against the worst Christianity can offer, a minister who attacks his own followers with insults and preconceived judgments. We are as God created us. Vern would have told you that.
Jeff Chapman, Kansas City
Mac Daddy: We know the Star’s new publisher will appreciate our advice.
By Tony Ortega 
Dec 2, 2004

•Personal revelations: We can't tell you how exciting it is to learn about the swank lives of Star reporters such as Posnanski, who was forced to live at the posh Raphael Hotel while his new house was being built. (It gave him such a deep understanding of homelessness that he promised to throw all of his loose change in a coffee mug to donate to Project Warmth!) That's classic, heartwarming stuff! And Rhonda Chriss Lokeman really tugged our heartstrings when she decided to find out what it was like to shop at a Target store. But really, for personal exposés, we have to hand it to your religion columnist, Vern Barnet, who recently outed himself as an atheist. Does this mean he gets reassigned to the bridge column or something?

 

No column I have ever written received so many responses, about 600 evenly deivided, as when I wrote about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. My son was attacked as I way of getting at me by one Christian couple, the incident reported by the police as a hate crime. What I wrote still makes sense, and the following column by Frank Rich brings a perspective on that troubled actor that the intervening years can now provide. Please click on the link to see the many links in Rich's column as it appears in The Times. Amazing. 
   My original column appears below, and follow-up colmns can be found in the 2004 archive.
Vern Barnet


New York Times
July 16, 2010
The Good News About Mel Gibson
By FRANK RICH

FOR Fourth of July weekend fireworks, even Macy’s couldn’t top the spittle-spangled eruptions of Mel Gibson. The clandestine recordings of his serial audio assaults on his gal pal were instant Web and cable-TV sensations — at once a worthy rival to Hollywood’s official holiday releases and a compelling sequel to his fabled anti- Semitic rant of 2006. A true showman, Gibson offered vitriol for nearly all tastes, aiming his profane fusillade at women, blacks and Latinos alike. The invective was tied together by a domestic violence subplot worthy of “Lethal Weapon.” There was even a surprise comic coda, courtesy of Whoopi Goldberg, who, alone among Gibson’s showbiz peers, used her television platform on “The View” to defend her buddy’s good character.

The Gibson tapes — in plain English and not requiring the subtitles of some of the star’s recent spectacles — are a particularly American form of schadenfreude. There’s little we enjoy more than watching a pampered zillionaire icon (Gibson’s production company is actually named Icon) brought low. The story would end there — just another tidy morality tale in the profuse annals of Hollywood self-destruction from Fatty Arbuckle to Lindsay Lohan — were it not for Gibson’s unique back story.

Six years ago he was not merely an A-list movie star with a penchant for drinking and boorish behavior but also a powerful and canonized figure in the political and cultural pantheon of American conservatism. That he has reached rock bottom tells us nothing new about Gibson. He was the same talented, nasty, bigoted blowhard then that he is today. But his fall says a lot about the changes in our country over the past six years. We shouldn’t take those changes for granted. We should take stock — and celebrate. They are good news.

Does anyone remember 2004? It seems a civilization ago. That less-than-vintage year was in retrospect the nadir of the American war over “values.” The kickoff fracas was Janet Jackson’s breast-baring “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl, which prompted a new crackdown against televised “indecency” by the Federal Communications Commission. By December Fox News and its allies were fomenting hysteria about a supposed war on Christmas, with Newt Gingrich warning of a nefarious secular plot “to abolish the word Christmas” altogether and Jerry Falwell attacking Mayor Michael Bloomberg for using the euphemism “holiday tree” at the annual tree-lighting ceremony at Rockefeller Center. In between these discrete culture wars came a presidential election in which the Bush-Rove machine tried to whip up evangelical turnout by sowing panic over gay marriage.

It was into that tinderbox of America 2004 that Gibson tossed his self-financed and self-directed movie about the crucifixion, “The Passion of the Christ.” The epic was timed to detonate in the nation’s multiplexes on Ash Wednesday, after one of the longest and most divisive promotional campaigns in Hollywood history.

Gibson is in such disgrace today that it’s hard to fathom all the fuss he and his biblical epic engendered back then. The commotion began with the revelation that his father, Hutton, was a prominent and vociferous Holocaust denier and that both father and son were proselytizers for a splinter sect of Roman Catholicism that rejected the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, including the lifting of the “Christ-killers” libel from the Jews. Jewish leaders and writers understandably worried that “The Passion” might be as anti-Semitic as the Passion plays of old. Gibson’s response was to hold publicity screenings for the right-wing media and political establishment, including a select Washington soiree attended by notables like Peggy Noonan, Kate O’Beirne and Linda Chavez. (The only nominal Jew admitted was Matt Drudge.) The attendees then used their various pulpits to assure the world that the movie was divine — and certainly nothing that should trouble Jews. “I can report it is free of anti-Semitism,” vouchsafed Robert Novak after his “private viewing.”

Uninvited Jewish writers (like me) who kept raising questions about the unreleased film and its exclusionary rollout were vilified for crucifying poor Mel. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News asked a reporter from Variety “respectfully” if Gibson was being victimized because “the major media in Hollywood and a lot of the secular press is controlled by Jewish people.” Such was the ugly atmosphere of the time that these attempts at intimidation were remarkably successful. Many mainstream media organizations did puff pieces on the star or his film, lest they be labeled “anti-Christian” when an ascendant religious right was increasingly flexing its muscles in the corridors of power in Washington.

Both George and Laura Bush expressed eagerness to see “The Passion.” There were reports (spread by the film’s producer and never confirmed) that the very frail Pope John Paul II had given a thumbs-up after his own screening at the Vatican. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which would publish several encomiums to “The Passion,” ran a sneak preview likening the film to “a documentary by Caravaggio.” Even The New Yorker ran a deferential profile of Gibson — in which the star said he wanted to kill me and my dog (though, alas, I had no dog) and have my “intestines on a stick.” Far more troubling was the article’s whitewashing of Gibson’s father’s record as a Holocaust denier. In the America of 2004, Mel Gibson, box office king and conservative culture hero, was invincible.

Once “The Passion” could be seen by ticket buyers — who would reward it with a $370 million domestic take (behind only “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” that year) — the truth could no longer be spun by Gibson’s claque. The movie was nakedly anti-Semitic, to the extreme that the Temple priests were all hook-nosed Shylocks and Fagins with rotten teeth. It was also ludicrously violent — a homoerotic “exercise in lurid sadomasochism,” as Christopher Hitchens described it then, for audiences who “like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time.” Nonetheless, many of the same American pastors who routinely inveighed against show-business indecency granted special dispensation to their young congregants to attend this R-rated fleshfest.

It seems preposterous in retrospect that a film as bigoted and noxious as “The Passion” had so many reverent defenders in high places in 2004. Once Gibson, or at least the subconscious Gibson, baldly advertised his anti-Semitism with his obscene tirade during a 2006 D.U.I. incident in Malibu, his old defenders had no choice but to peel off. Today you never hear conservatives mention their embrace of “The Passion” back then — if they mention Gibson at all. (Fox News has barely covered the new tapes.) But it isn’t just Gibson who has been discredited. Even as he self-immolated, so did many of the moral paragons who had rallied around him as a culture-war martyr.

Take, for instance, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. During the “Passion” wars, he had tried to blackmail Gibson’s critics by publicly noting that Christians are “a major source of support for Israel” and that Jewish leaders would be “shortsighted” to “risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie.” That evangelical leader was Ted Haggard, the Colorado megachurch pastor since brought down by a male prostitute. Gibson’s only outspoken rabbinical defender in 2004, the far-right Daniel Lapin, would be sullied in the scandals surrounding the subsequently jailed Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. William Donohue of the Catholic League — who defended Gibson in 2004 by saying, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular” — has been reduced these days to the marginal role of attacking The Times for reporting on priestly child abuse.

The cultural wave that crested with “The Passion” was far bigger than Gibson. He was simply a symptom and beneficiary of a moment when the old religious right and its political and media shills were riding high. In 2010, the American ayatollahs’ ranks have been depleted by death (Falwell), retirement (James Dobson) and rent boys (too many to name). What remains of that old guard is stigmatized by its identification with poisonous crusades, from the potentially lethal antihomosexuality laws in Uganda to the rehabilitation campaign for the “born-again” serial killer David Berkowitz (“Son of Sam”) in America.

Conservative America’s new signature movement, the Tea Party, has its own extremes, but it shuns culture-war battles. It even remained mum when a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down the anti-same-sex marriage Defense of Marriage Act this month. As the conservative commentator Kyle Smith recently wrote in The New York Post, the “demise of Reagan-era groups like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority is just as important” as the rise of the Tea Party. “The morality armies have failed to inspire their children to join the crusade,” he concluded, and not unhappily. The right, too, is subject to generational turnover.

As utter coincidence would have it, the revelation of the latest Gibson tapes was followed last week by the news that a federal appeals court, in a 3-0 ruling, had thrown out the indecency rules imposed by the F.C.C. after Janet Jackson’s 2004 “wardrobe malfunction.” The death throes of Mel Gibson’s career feel less like another Hollywood scandal than the last gasps of an American era.
 
 

 496. 040303 THE STAR'S HEADLINE: 
 Ghoulish 'Passion' secular, not sacred 
  (this version varies slightly from the published one) 

  In my opinion, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is not just a bad movie. It is evil. Those applauding it have a lot of explaining to do, far beyond its historical, biblical and linguistic treachery. 
     First, concerns about anti-Semitism, about which I wrote last August, seem justified. The Gospel of John was written to make Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews in the Roman Empire and downplays Pilate's cruelty. The movie exaggerates this theme with gratuitous stereotyping of the Jews. While it is unlikely that the movie will rouse many Americans to blame living Jews for actions of Jewish leaders in Jesus' time, Europeans may be more vulnerable. Jews world-wide are right to be alert. 
     Second, the overwhelming violence we see is Gibson’s, not the historic Christian interpretation. One wonders if he is explaining the torture, depravity and sadomasochist preoccupations of his other movies by commandeering a sacred subject. His fascination with brutality does not uplift me or commend the Gospel; it cheapens it with slick cinematic technique. 
     But my greatest concern is that the movie seems to celebrate the crude penal or substitutionary theory of atonement. This coarse teaching says that God's justice demands satisfaction for the sin of Adam inherited by all humanity, and that only through the suffering of Christ can we be redeemed from God's wrath. 
     Stated simply, Christ is punished horribly instead of you and me and newborn babies. 
     If I am condemned to death for murdering my neighbor, will any judge accept my son’s willing offer to die in my stead? Civilized folk don’t punish the innocent. 
     Why doesn’t God forgive humanity without this barbaric sacrifice? Would that not be a more convincing evidence of divine love than punishing His Son? 
     In honoring a vengeful and unjust God, Gibson assaults the senses and dismisses more mature ideas of God. He has reduced the glorious mystery of salvation to the ghoulish  payment of a debt. 
     More thoughtful Christians have developed other understandings of Christ’s atoning power, and in a future column I will discuss them. 
     The popularity of this irresponsible movie marks how dangerous the secular religious spectacle has become.
 


 
Some favorite columns
[under construction]

720. 080625
Sufi teacher raises a balloon 
[God veils himself to reveal himself]

 


 
 
Notes to myself

Column
D Brooks neuro theology challg
Dr bronnrr
Quiz sor grapes. Not to swift. Not fruit of action. Merciful. NT

People who think that the triangle always has one a total of 180° test for some of its three angles ha ha are two dimensional ha ha whereas people who understand the outer surface of a three-dimensional sphere understand test the triangle I'll always be angles the some of the angles of the triangles are more than 180°Deleece is curious where it basically comes from earlier Anglo-Saxon words related also to the Germanic leave that to love means what you give your heart to and when I say I believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ how that is what I give my heart to hand at the time importance is not an intellectual assets but rather a good experience that one has hot in the totality of one's being as one of firms commit a test call to the body of Christ and his divine workReciting the creeds is like participating in a class grand how musical event just as the words .2 what is beyond words so how one creed which may apparently contradict another creed does not do so anymore then you and the multidimensional universe of the holy leave it open 29th piano Sonata does not contradict Mozart's 31st since the idea is that the Eucharist. For example ha ha is a statement about the chemical never been accepted by theologian ,sub species aeternitas  You cannot solve a calculus problem using elementary artimateic, When we discuss anything both as simple and as compicated as Infinite Love, human language is inadequate.
A 3 year old cannot be exected to understand the full meaning of sexual orgasm.A spiritial novice is unlikely to access the depth of experience that a saint in the very same religion can.  It is unfair to expect an illiterate person to completely understand a performance of Shakespeare's Hamlet in the original tongue. It is criminal to insist that someone allergic to poison ivy must rub the plant all over his body. Would you expect a blind person to fully appreciate Las Meneis by Valasquez?  Similarly, for those who have not explored certain dimensions of spiritual life cannot be expected to relate to the experiences of those who have, It is only with patience, exposure, and sincere openness that a Christian may gain some understanding of the Hindu perspectice, and vice versa, for example. For those who have only an elementary conception of Christianity, the vision of Christian mystics will seem as nonsense.
Nomore obliged to tell you where I worshp than I need to tell you whether I wear boxers or brief. You seek to invadeg my spiritual intimacy while you have accused me of chartalanism. You have not earned the trust required for such a private knowldge.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. -- C.S. Lewis, /The Weight of Glory/ book
The thing is this works for the world of Christianity. But supose your religion enables you to see ultraviolet radiation- from the sun which normally cannot be erceived except by instruments - you see the wold differently than one narrowly-sighted.You cannot us your micowave to download your email.

Matthew|11:13  For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 
  Matthew|11:14  And if ye will receive  it,  this is Elias, which was for 
to come. 
  Matthew|11:15  He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 
  Matthew|11:16  But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like 
unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, 
  Matthew|11:17  And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not 
danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. 
  Matthew|11:18  For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 
He hath a devil. 
  Matthew|11:19  The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, 
Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and 
sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. 
 

  Matthew|13:10  And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest 
thou unto them in parables? 
  Matthew|13:11  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto 
you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not 
given. 
  Matthew|13:12  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall 
have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away 
even that he hath. 
  Matthew|13:13  Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing 
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 
  Matthew|13:14  And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which 
saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye 
shall see, and shall not perceive: 
  Matthew|13:15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and  their  ears 
are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they 
should see with  their  eyes and hear with  their  ears, and should 
understand with  their  heart, and should be converted, and I should heal
them.
 

Luke|8:10  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the 
kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, 
and hearing they might not understand. 

You seem determined to find fault with me. I confess many imerfextions. I hope you will find satisfaction in that.
 

If I am convinced that a person can be helped by such a religious discussion, and I am not  charged with "some other agenda," "being disingenuous," accused of being a "relativist, and implying that there IS NO truth," said to be "hiding" reflecting on my "motives," "playing games," repeatedly taking quotations out of context, "wishy washy talk," "simplistic" answers, that I "won't engage you in discussion: he like to be above it all and just sit back and act superior while others argue," accusing me of fearing loss of readership, and other 

PUBLICITY BLURB written as a courtesy at the request of Paul Goldman about his 2009 book of poetry, Wild Joy: Ruminations, used also to promote his CD with music by Tom Jacobs, 2010:

Our mystic poet transforms a vulgar phrase into the key to spiritual transformation: "Shift happens," cosmic, historical, personal. He writes with the freshness of an adolescent's first love and with the maturity of wisdom in declaring that "the bringer of joy unbounded brings deep sorrow,"  as shifts happen, at once both familiar and miraculous. These "chanted words connect like a string of rosary beads," to "reveal a new human, Homo Luminous." The wild, holy energy within this book can burst forth only from a "man who has lost himself in love," such as Rumi and other seers, whose poetry this volume now joins.
 

834. 100908 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
D r a f t

Sundays I can hardly refrain myself from weeping when, during the prayers, I hear the names of those serving our nation in Afghanistan and Iraq who were killed that week. Who can contemplate the meaning of their lost lives without grief?
   As another anniversary of 9/11 approaches, already tolling over 35,000 American casualties plus the multitudes of other nations affected and the three trillion dollars estimated ultimate costs, I worry that the traditional voices of faith are still discounted as unrealistic.
   * Jesus said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.” 
   * The Buddha said, “Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love.”
   * Muhammad said, “Better than prayers, fasting and giving alms to the poor is making peace . . . . Enmity and malice destroy all virtues.”
   Nevertheless, religions and governments have developed three categories for understanding attacks: crime, war and disease. The disease metaphor aligns best with early faith teachings. 
   Until 9/11, terrorism was treated as a crime, with focused resources leading to punishment. 
   When the  “War on Terror” was announced, enormous resources were committed, but Osama bin Laden remains at large.
   General Petraeus seems to include the third approach. What is the disease which manifests as terrorism and what are its breeding grounds? How can the disease be cured?
   We Americans need to ask these questions not just of the Afghans but also of ourselves.
   One symptom of our own disease is ignorance, as when folks still ask, “Why don’t Muslims condemn violence?” [when in fact they do.] As the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council said in a statement Aug. 23, “The terrorists did not commit a religious act on 9/11; it was murder. Overwhelmingly Muslims locally and worldwide immediately spoke out against the defilement of their faith on that day.”
   Here is balm to cure our own ignorance:
   * Sept. 11 at 8 p.m., Community Christian Church offers an interfaith program, “From Pain to Peace.” Visit www.dpfkc.faithweb.com.
   * Sept. 12 at 9:15 a.m., Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral presents Mahnaz Shabbir speaking about being a Muslim after 9/11.
   * Sept. 26 the Crescent Peace Society holds its 14th annual dinner at the Ritz-Charles. Visit www.crescentpeace.org.
   * Oct. 29 Greg Mortenson, who advises our military, will receive the Community of Christ International Peace Award. Famous for his book, “Three Cups of Tea,” he has [been successful in building] built schools in central Asia. Visit www.cofchrist.org/peacecolloquy/ for the brochure.

NOTES

Sept 11 details:  FROM PAIN TO PEACE: Easing Suffering - Creating Sanctuary. -- Join us for Interfaith Remembrance and Recovery From 911, Saturday, September 11, 2010, 8:00pm. -- Music, Speakers, Dance, Skylight over the Plaza. -- Participate in letting go pain and blame and embracing peace and hope.  This event is open to the public.  A freewill offering will be collected for Heart to Heart Int’l. Featured speaker is Dr. Jan Linn with Music by Musica Vocale and Dance by Tuesday Faust. Music provided by Musica Vocale, under the direction of Arnold Epley. Epley just retired from William Jewell College where he served 27 years as Director of Choral Studies.  He has also served as Conductor of the Kansas City Symphony Chorus and Fine Arts Chorale.  Pieces performed will include Virgil Thompson's "Fanfare for Peace" and Carson Cooman's "Canticle: Mosaic in Remembrance and Hope" commissioned by Harvard University for the one year memorial of September 11th.  This work combines some of the principal writings of five faith traditions - Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Baha'i - on the theme of remembrance, hope, and peace.  -  Readings from several faith traditions to include Jewish, Muslim (Ahmed El-Sherif), Christian (Fr. Mike Roach), Buddhist (Ray Porter), and Baha'i. -  Poetry and Interpretive Dance by Ron and Tuesday Faust.  The interpretation through dance is done to an original work by Rev. Dr. Ron Faust.--  Reception to follow on the west balcony of Community Christian Church overlooking the plaza. Presented by the Kansas City Disciples Peace Fellowship, http://dpfkc.faithweb.com. -- For information contact Jeff Hon (816-407-7756) or Ron Faust (816-468-1868). The church is located at 4601 Main.

Sept 12 details: The class is held in Founders Hall, 13th and Broadway, the new addition to the Cathedral. For information about Mahnaz Shabbir, visit www.cres.org/pubs/mahnaz.htm.

Sept 26 details: The 14th Annual Eid Celebration and Awards Dinner is Sept 26 Sunday 6 pm, The Ritz-Charles, 9000 W 137, Overland Park, 913-685-2600. Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, author of Green Deen: Islam's Perspective on Protecting Our Planet, is the keynote speaker. Adult $30, childen under 12 $20. Prepay by Sept 19. Visit www.crescentpeace.org.

Oct 29 details: The Peace Award Ceremony, free and open to the public, is at 7:30 pm, followed by book-signing at 9 pm, at the Community of Christ Temple 201 S. River Blvd. Independence, MO 64050. Visit www.cofchrist.org/peacecolloquy. More info: Jeanette Hicks,co-director (816) 833-1000, ext. 2224, or jhicks@CofChrist.or or Brad ext 2355.


833. 100901 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Stories help tell the real truth for us

A careful reader took me to task for relating a religious story he does not believe is true.
   I responded that religions are, in part, metaphors and stories. One can miss the point of sacred texts if one thinks only of facts.
   Here’s an example: fire. Think of a candle flame on a birthday cake, the Deepwater Horizon conflagration or Independence Day fireworks.
   Now look at Hebrews 12:29: “For our God is a consuming fire.”
   This is not a scientific statement. God is not subject to the three requirements for fire we learned in physics class: oxygen, sufficient heat and combustible material. To take the biblical wording literally is to miss the point.
   We do not lie when we tell the fable of the tortoise and the hare challenging each other to a race. The meaning is not defeated by the fact that tortoises and hares do not really converse. The meaning is the moral the story conveys: “slow but steady wins the race.”
   I do not have to believe in blue humanoids on a distant planet to contemplate the message of the movie “Avatar” about corporations despoiling nature.
   Without believing in witches, I can find wisdom about greed and power in Shakespeare’s play, “Macbeth,” though witches play an important part in the story.
   When the poet Shelly writes, “O wild west wind, thou breath of autumn’s being,” begging the wind to hear him, we do not think him demented though he addresses empty air. We understand he is really talking to us about ideals like democracy.
   I know atheists who are profoundly moved by Bach’s “Mass in B Minor” and capitalists who find the Shostakovich “Symphony No. 11 ‘Year 1905’” to be heart-rendingly genuine.
   When I view Thomas Hart Benton’s pin-up version of “Persephone” at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, I do not have to believe in the Greek goddess, much less that a Midwestern farmer actually spies her completely naked as he lusts for her.
   Hades, the god of the underworld, abducted Persephone. Her grieving mother  abandoned her duties to make crops grow until Hades agreed to return her to the earth for part of the year. 
   Her cheered mother resumes her agricultural chores, but neglects them when Hades requires her daughter in winter. 
   Who does not lust for springtime?
   Some truths are too big for science; they require metaphors, stories, images and sounds that point not to facts but to unmeasurable values.
   As Zen teaches, we should not focus on the finger pointing to the moon instead of the moon to which it points.

NOTES
   Persephone's mother's name, Demeter in Greek, in Latin is Ceres, from which we get the word cereal.
   The Zen saying, "The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon," parallels Alfred Korzybski's famous remark that "The map is not the territory."
   A parable guides us from its details to decisions for our own lives. 

READER COMMENT

FROM M.
   Very thought provoking piece this week, nicely written.  Personally I don't think the focus should be solely on the finger, or the moon, but at the "why".. why is the finger pointed at the moon?? 
   I have been very agitated of late, particularly since the July 4th holidays, and I am beginning to have concerns about the direction our nation and it's administration are going.  I was writing an "Unfettered Letter" as I occasionally do, but before I submit it, I would politely beg your input as I do not want to sound overly alarmist nor threatening in my attempt to draw attention to what I see as a growing and dangerous problem.
   I recently have been having dreams of being back in uniform, the general feeling is that there are fires burning in cities like Detroit and Chicago where capitalism has largely withdrawn and left a vacuum of poverty.  I know in my dreams that there are places in the nation where it is currently not safe, or even legal to travel.  My waking fear is that we are driving headlong into a conflict between those who feel they have the right to demand tolerance of anything by everybody, and those who stand up and draw a line as to what is and what is not "American".
   This is the letter I have written:
   A sinister spiral of impending violence has begun to coalesce around the heart and soul of our United States. 
   Demands by Muslim supporters for tolerance amid growing mistrust of Islamic motivations have begun to manifest as increasingly divergent emotions and opinions.  With every demand and accusation by one side, there is growing posturing for rejection by the other side. These sides are rapidly polarizing along increasingly opinionated lines. 
   Unless supporters of and opponents to the so-called "Ground Zero Victory Mosque" can find reasonable and common sense compromise very quickly, violence is inevitable. We may be literally on the edge of another American Civil War.
   When religious leaders DEMAND anything from Americans on their own soil, there will be an active and vocal rebellion against a perceived exercise of authority, particularly  by a religion so recently associated with instability and violence in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Kenya and Somalia. 
   Anywhere freedom of religion is allowed, demands made by a spiritual group for the sole benefit of that group will be perceived by some as invasive and inappropriate. 
   You cannot DEMAND tolerance without breeding intolerant reaction. Tolerance, like respect must be earned over time.
*****************************************************************
   I don't know how to warn people more clearly, Vern..
   I agree that people in this country should have freedom to practice their faith.  I do not agree that allowing practice of a faith gives that faith the right to make demands of an entire nation.  If the population of the United States has within it a large portion of people who find the location of a religious symbol offensive due to the national significance of that site, then the mere veil of "tolerance" is not enough to warrant the blatant disregard of the values of a significant portion of the population.
   If I decide that it is my religious "right" to practice a skyclad pagan ritual in a city park at dusk.. then I should expect to be arrested.  Why?  Because the practice of my sacred beliefs is being oppressed?  No.. I would be arrested because my actions and choices are offensive to enough of the population.  What's the answer?  Location, Location, Location.. arrested here.. noone gives a hoot there..
   I  would like to think that the American public has enough self-control to handle any perceived violation of our  sense of propriety with calm debate and reasonable compromise.  But you and I both know that there are elements in any group that will turn intolerance into action, despite consequences, or perhaps, in hopes of consequence.  Americans are afraid, agitated, some are stressed by unemployment, fearful of what the economy may do, dissatisfied with current administration, and bombarded by chicken little screaming about the sky falling every time another glacier calves off some ice...
   How much more can the weakest links take??
   I am beginning to be genuinely nervous Vern.. this is a bad time of year to be adding philosophical debate to the coming onslaught of the holiday season, winter, and taxes.. I just think this debate needs to be cooled for a while, but who's going to listen to that?

VERN'S REPLY --
   Why is the finger pointed at the moon? One won't know the answer by looking at the finger.
   Thanks for the compliment about the column. And your concern for our nation and the world.
   Your letter might be more powerful if it were clearer. I can read it several ways. I am not sure who you are complaining about. The people who are protesting the location of a community center approved by Christians and Jews that will serve people of all faiths with the inclusion of a prayer room for Muslims (just as the Pentagon has, 30 steps from where that building was damaged on 9/11) and whose protests endanger our nation by giving Al Qaida a propaganda bonanza and make the job of General Patraeus and our troups far more difficult as they seek allies among the populations where they are deployed -- or the planners of the facility further away from Ground Zero than strip clubs, betting booths, and two Christian locations?
   Have you read all of the facts and various views linked from my site and considered the views that follow the list of links?
   Or are you really writing about Glenn Beck? and his foray last Sunday?
   Or should your concern really be about the influence foreign-born media master Rupert Murdoch and multi-billionaire subversives like the Koch brothers? full New Yorker article --    Frank Rich NYTimes column.
   I believe every American should DEMAND that the Constitution apply -- "freedom and justice FOR ALL." Those who want to make exceptions are the ones in my opinion who are dividing this nation. They are the ones who cause me worry.
   The laws against public nudity apply REGARDLESS of faith. The laws of zoning apply REGARDLESS of faith, as Jewish Mayor Bloomberg so eloquently indicated.


832. 100825 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Wise voice needed in debate

O my teacher, you’ve been dead many years, but speak to me now about holy ground.
   In one of your early masterpieces, “Patterns in Comparative Religion,” you devote a whole chapter to sacred spaces. That book helped make your name, Mircea Eliade, foremost among historians of religion.
   As a diplomat before your exile from communist Romania, you knew the West’s role in creating the modern nation of Saudi Arabia with its extreme Wahhabi sect.
   You knew the U.S. overthrew the democratic government of Iran in 1953, and installed the oppressive Shah, which led to the revolution in 1979 and the taking of American hostages. 
   But you died before Osama bin Laden and others recruited terrorists because of such American actions, and tried to redefine Islam in part because American military bases were put into Saudi Arabia, which, because Muhammad lived, received revelations and died there, is considered holy ground.
   Who decides if ground is holy and if it is defiled?
   Now I hear you making three points.
  *A sacred spot is revealed not by a plaque but often by an event, as when Moses was told to remove his shoes as God spoke to him from the burning bush.
   The event can be life-giving, as with Moses, or horror. The Nazi incineration camps are holy because the evil was so enormous that we cherish those who perished and the lessons of that history which must persist with us.
   And Abraham Lincoln understood that Gettysburg was hallowed by those who died, inspiring us so that their deaths not be in vain. Ground Zero, you would tell me, likewise is hallowed.
   * A space is made holy because an event there transforms the world. It creates an enduring point of contact between the dead and the living. It changes how we see things wherever we are. 
   Teacher, you are right. Even as the World Trade Center was collapsing, people were saying, “Things will never be the same.”
   * Holy ground tells a tale. Some places, like Jerusalem, have competing narratives. When stories clash, holy ground may be desecrated.
   I was your student and next-door neighbor. I imagine you now on the porch asking about colliding chronicles: 
   “Will the nation to which my wife, Christinel, and I came say Ground Zero honors the faiths of all who died there, or accept bin Laden’s redefinition of Islam? Will only the churches, synagogues and the Buddhist center, along with the strip clubs, porn shops, bars and other businesses in the vicinity, give Ground Zero its transcendent meaning, and America its witness to the world?”
   Does Ground Zero consecrate America more by including or excluding one faith from its neighborhood?

READER COMMENT

Sixteen comments appeared under the column on The Star's web site as of a wwk later. All of the questions and objections have previously been addressed, so no further response to them has been made. Comments below are from emails sent directly to the columnist.

FROM L.M.
   It's me again.  In regards to  your article today "Wise Voice Needed In Debate."  I still know you are a nice guy, but yes, you are still naive. 
   Even though you didn't take a visible stand, I assume you were somehow criticizing me, and people like me, for complaining about the Muslims wanting to build a mosque, apparently, as close to ground zero as they can get.  Just as they have in other places where their violent activities have given them a victory over their "enemies".  I don't need to elaborate on this point because you know full well exactly what I am referring to.
   Also, you mentioned how the "burning bush"  (apparently God in some kind of weird costume) told Moses to "remove his shoes."  I find it difficult to believe that an unimaginable complex and powerful supreme being/creator of all gives a crap about whether or not one of his creations appears before him/her/it with their shoes on.  Why would such a creator hate shoes so much?  Or pork? or unveiled women? Or, in times past, eating meat on Friday? Or someone not wearing a goofy little kind of cap on their head?  The creator sure seems to have some unsupreme, quirky likes/dislikes.
   Besides, if the supreme creator thinks that somehow shoes are so filthy, what about the fact that by removing his shoes in the wilderness Moses has just now dirtied his hands.  Nothing was said about there being bathroom facilities available at the place where the burning bush existed so I have to assume that Moses continued to converse with God but with Moses now having filthy hands from handling his shoes.  Among other things this would mean that God placed the two ten commandment tablets into Moses filthy hands.  Very unlikely, I believe.
   In short, there are hundreds of stories in various religious books that clearly show those stories were created completely in the minds of mere mortals.  Anyone who will not, cannot, see that is naive.
   BTW, there is an answer.  It is just that it is unknown and unknowable .  At least in this world.  In the meantime, for a few thousand years, mankind has been busy making up fairly tales to give himself comfort.  I don't really blame mankind for that nor do I really blame you for preaching it.

VERN'S REPLY --
   You say, "there is an answer.  It is just that it is unknown and unknowable."
   I agree.
   Religions are, in part, stories. I find Shakespeare's Hamlet of great value even though I don't "believe" in ghosts. If I were describing the play, I would include in my description the statement that the ghost of Hamlet's father appears early in the play.  That does not mean I "believe" in ghosts. Similarly, when I describe the story of Moses, or of Krishna, or of Jesus, that does not mean I "believe" this or that or the other thing. I does mean I find some value, or others find some value, in the stories, and that is what I am pointing toward.
   I think we agreed to have coffee in September, and my calendar is a little clearer.Lemme know if you are free weekday mornings or if weekends are better for you and then let's find a time when you can come to Westport and I'll buy.

FROM P.S. --
   Thank you for your KC Star article yesterday.  I've been very disappointed at all the fuss about a Muslim cultural center in lower Manhattan.  Calling it "a mosque at ground zero" seems to be the deliberately provocative thing, not the proposal itself.
   You make a good point about objecting to Muslims at this site is acting as if we accept bin Laden's redefinition of Islam. 
   I hope that, among all the heated and sometime hateful comments, empathy and understanding are advanced also.

VERN'S REPLY --
  I agree with you about the provocation, started by Fox news and seemingly legitimized by a once-noble organization, the Antidefamation League. Most people do not yet have the facts. The  room for prayer used by Muslims in the Pentagon is just 30 feet from where the nose code of the airplane hit there on 9/11, and nobody has made a fuss about that. I share your hope that out of this somehow we will move forward.
   I really appreciate your taking the trouble to write; your response to the column encourages me!

steamy_pete wrote on kansascity.com/ on 8/26/2010 --
   There is one thing that is ultimately responsible for the terrorist attack that cost lives and destroyed so much more than concrete and steel towers. That one thing is fanatical pursuit of absolute faith. Specifics and particulars do not in any way diminish the fact that once again, blood has been shed in the name of FAITH, our excuse for killing each other for thousands of years. Still we fail to grasp the lesson. 
   To serve as a reminder of the dangers associated with absolute reliance on faith as a guiding principle for behavior, there is something that could be done to determine how close religion should come to this site. Determine the distance that the shadows of the Twin Towers covered, if all the ground around them was unobstructed. Any ground where the shadows of those towers should still be falling, no single faith should claim ground there. Faith-based lobbying has determined limits on distances certain businesses can operate from churches and schools, let the churches now accept and confess the blood that faith has shed over human history and by exclusion swear not to make that mistake again. Even now, when the wound is not closed on that supposedly hallowed place, the arguments, bickering, accusations, lies, and discrimination already point to the very reason this place is now of consequence, and the obvious answer is..
   Leave "God" out of it. "God" didn't fly those planes, didn't kill those people, and isn't telling me to take off anything in New York.

J. H. WROTE --
   A friend in Ohio sent this, and after watching the video and looking at some of the supporting documents I can't help but to send it to you in the spirit of opening your eyes to the reality of the "other side of Islam". I know that this behavior goes on in America every day. There is just too much evidence of the anti-American, anti-Christian behavior to deny any longer.
  Since you think nothing but good thoughts about your Muslim brothers, have "traveled widely" and "have many Muslim friends", reject the reality of their purported "charities" feeding Hamas and other terrorist organizations (albeit without the knowledge of the 'local congregations'), and you deny that many of the Islamic organizations want nothing more than the complete takeover of the Western World, then maybe some of this will help educate you to the "other side of Islam", the Jihad side. 
   You might ask your Muslim Imam buddy what he thinks about this and the countless numbers of mosques in the United States that knowingly or unknowingly support subverting the way of life in our country and the rest of the Christian World. Ask him, if you would be so kind, what he, and his congregation are doing to stop this behavior in our country. I would submit very little, otherwise we would hear about it! What a concept! You have an opportunity to find out some real proof and details (not just the Imam's opinion,) and report what your Muslim pals are doing to halt the Jihadist in America and elsewhere!
   And while you are at it, ask him if any of the 2.5% of the Muslim's assets each year go to LOCAL general purpose charities and how much goes to support only Muslim projects, AND any of the twenty-nine Islamic organizations in our country that support the Jihad called for in the film clip.
   You might find that there is truly an "other side" to these poor peace loving people.
   Maybe when you are done, you can write a editorial in our KC Star that at least acknowledges the Truth. You may uncover some good that we need to be aware of. We American Christian Lovers are so tired of hearing only the one-sided propaganda and opinions that are not based on the ALL of the FACTS.
   If you love your country, watch this film / video before it is to late for freedom in America.
   Oak is a group of 500 churches from coast to coast wanting to save the USA.
   People did nothing in Nazi Germany and then it was to late because the "evil one" had total power, over 60 million people died from WW2 ------------- read your history.
   They are coming fo us - and around the world the Muslims are telling us  "they will defeat us" from within".
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D5LmGVxwtI

VERN'S REPLY --
   I think I know more about Islam that you will ever know because I know about the complexity not only of Islam but also Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc,.I never said there were not wicked people who call themselves Muslim or that evil madrasses  (schools) that inculcate hatred do not exist, or that "charities" have not been misused (by many faiths!). The question is What are we going to do about it? Are we going to be informed or inflamed?
   I am afraid your answer is Inflamed. That will defeat us if we do not know who the enemy really is and who are natural allies are.
   [Attachment from THE WASHINTON POST Sunday, August 29, 2010; B03]
Five myths about mosques in America  By Edward E. Curtis IV
   In addition to spawning passionate debates in the public, the news media and the political class, the proposal to build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York has revealed widespread misconceptions about the practice of Islam in this country -- and the role of mosques in particular.
   1. Mosques are new to this country.
   Mosques have been here since the colonial era. A mosque, or masjid, is literally any place where Muslims make salat, the prayer performed in the direction of Mecca; it needn't be a building. One of the first mosques in North American history was on Kent Island, Md.: Between 1731 and 1733, African American Muslim slave and Islamic scholar Job Ben Solomon, a cattle driver, would regularly steal away to the woods there for his prayers -- in spite of a white boy who threw dirt on him as he made his prostrations.
   The Midwest was home to the greatest number of permanent U.S. mosques in the first half of the 20th century. In 1921, Sunni, Shiite and Ahmadi Muslims in Detroit celebrated the opening of perhaps the first purpose-built mosque in the nation. Funded by real estate developer Muhammad Karoub, it was just blocks away from Henry Ford's Highland Park automobile factory, which employed hundreds of Arab American men.
   Most Midwestern mosques blended into their surroundings. The temples or mosques of the Nation of Islam -- an indigenous form of Islam led by Elijah Muhammad from 1934 to 1975 -- were often converted storefronts and churches. In total, mosques numbered perhaps slightly more than 100 nationwide in 1970. In the last three decades of the 20th century, however, more than 1 million new Muslim immigrants came to the United States and, in tandem with their African American co-religionists, opened hundreds more mosques. Today there are more than 2,000 places of Muslim prayer, most of them mosques, in the United States.
   According to recent Pew and Gallup polls, about 40 percent of Muslim Americans say they pray in a mosque at least once a week, nearly the same percentage of American Christians who attend church weekly. About a third of all U.S. Muslims say they seldom or never go to mosques. And contrary to stereotypes of mosques as male-only spaces, Gallup finds that women are as likely as men to attend.
  2. Mosques try to spread sharia law in the United States.
  In Islam, sharia ("the Way" to God) theoretically governs every human act. But Muslims do not agree on what sharia says; there is no one sharia book of laws. Most mosques in America do not teach Islamic law for a simple reason: It's too complicated for the average believer and even for some imams.
   Islamic law includes not only the Koran and the Sunna (the traditions of the prophet Muhammad) but also great bodies of arcane legal rulings and pedantic scholarly interpretations. If mosques forced Islamic law upon their congregants, most Muslims would probably leave -- just as most Christians might walk out of the pews if preachers gave sermons exclusively on Saint Augustine, canon law and Greek grammar. Instead, mosques study the Koran and the Sunna and how the principles and stories in those sacred texts apply to their everyday lives.
   3. Most people attending U.S. mosques are of Middle Eastern descent.
   A 2009 Gallup poll found that African Americans accounted for 35 percent of all Muslim Americans, making them the largest racial-ethnic group of Muslims in the nation. It is unclear whether Arab Americans or South Asian Americans (mostly Pakistanis and Indians) are the second-largest. Muslim Americans are also white, Hispanic, Sub-Saharan African, Iranian, European, Central Asian and more -- representing the most racially diverse religious group in the United States.
   Mosques reflect this diversity. Though there are hundreds of ethnically and racially integrated mosques, most of these institutions, like many American places of worship, break down along racial and ethnic lines. Arabs, for instance, are the dominant ethnic group in a modest number of mosques, particularly in states such as Michigan and New York. And according to a 2001 survey (the most recent national survey on mosques available) by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, they represented the plurality in only 15 percent of U.S. mosques.
   4. Mosques are funded by groups and governments unfriendly to the United States.
   There certainly have been instances in which foreign funds, especially from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, have been used to build mosques in the United States. The Saudi royal family, for example, reportedly gave $8 million for the building of the King Fahd Mosque, which was inaugurated in 1998 in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb.
   But the vast majority of mosques are supported by Muslim Americans themselves. Domestic funding reflects the desire of many U.S. Muslims to be independent of overseas influences. Long before Sept. 11, 2001, in the midst of a growing clash of interests between some Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. government -- during the Persian Gulf War, for instance -- Muslim American leaders decided that they must draw primarily from U.S. sources of funding for their projects.
   5. Mosques lead to homegrown terrorism.
   To the contrary, mosques have become typical American religious institutions. In addition to worship services, most U.S. mosques hold weekend classes for children, offer charity to the poor, provide counseling services and conduct interfaith programs.
   No doubt, some mosques have encouraged radical extremism. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who inspired the World Trade Center's first attackers in 1993, operated out of the Al-Salam mosque in Jersey City, N.J. But after the 2001 attacks, such radicalism was largely pushed out of mosques and onto the Internet, mainly because of a renewed commitment among mosque leaders to confront extremism.
   There is a danger that as anti-Muslim prejudice increases -- as it has recently in reaction to the proposed community center near Ground Zero -- alienated young Muslims will turn away from the peaceful path advocated by their elders in America's mosques. So far, that has not happened on a large scale.
   Through their mosques, U.S. Muslims are embracing the community involvement that is a hallmark of the American experience. In this light, mosques should be welcomed as premier sites of American assimilation, not feared as incubators of terrorist indoctrination.
   Edward E. Curtis IV is millennium chair of liberal arts at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. He is the author of "Muslims in America: A Short History" and the editor of the "Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History." He will be online on Tuesday, Aug. 31, at 12 p.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
   For recent Outlook coverage of the New York mosque controversy, see Matthew Yglesias's "Anchor babies, the Ground Zero mosque and other scapegoats," Neda Bolourchi's "A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else' " and Karen Hughes's "Move the New York City mosque, as a sign of unity.


831. 100818 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Sensitivity or Prejudice?

I fear for my Muslim friends. In the past few weeks, emails from readers suggest an uptick in anti-Muslim sentiment. When I recently wrote about a Muslim leader who explained why the 9/11 terrorists violated basic Islamic principles, one of the nicer correspondents called me a “naïve idiot.”
   I’ve studied world religions for over 40 years including post-doctoral study of Islam, including in many Muslim countries. I arranged a metro-wide interfaith service the first Sunday after 9/11—the first time many Muslims dared come out in public after the terrorist attacks. I chaired the Jackson County post-9/11 Diversity Task Force which issued a 35,000-word report on our five county situation. I led the metro-wide day-long interfaith observance of the first anniversary of 9/11. I have many Muslim friends here and abroad. 
   After providing such background, my correspondent decided I might not be a naïve idiot. We’ve agreed to get together for coffee. I appreciate that.
   At a private dinner party, at Costco with a hotdog, at a book club meeting—everywhere people ask me about the proposed mosque near Ground Zero. The Star’s Mary Sanchez has addressed this and former columnist Bill Tammeus has blogged on the subject.
     A mosque has been in the area for 20 years. Christian and Jewish organizations endorsed the project. Almost 400 Muslims were murdered on 9/11 and one of the project leaders was himself injured in assisting first responders. 
   The Muslim member of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council has known the couple leading the New York mosque/community center project and their families for decades.
   Just hours after the project passed its latest hurdle with a 9-0 vote, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, himself Jewish, gave one of the most inspiring addresses on American religious freedom I’ve ever read.
   Closer to Ground Zero than the proposed mosque is the location for the restored St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church  and St Paul’s Chapel (Episcopal).
   While politicians and others have twisted a project intended to build interfaith understanding into a statement of Islamic triumphalism, the most moderate objection is based on sensitivity to the (non-Muslim) victims. 
   In the past, sensitivity to peoples’ feelings kept Jews out of Leawood and out of membership in the Kansas City County Club.
   When does sensitivity to others’ feelings become prejudice?
   Interfaith Council Jewish alternate member Barry Speert will discuss such issues Aug. 22 at 11 am at the Jewish Community Campus, 5801 W. 115 St., Overland Park.

NOTES: 
   Additional biographical information: For its first three years, I was the coordinator for the Christian Jewish Muslim Dialogue Group which included Rabbi Michael Zedek of B'nai Jehudah synagogue, Muslim leader Dr Rauf Mir, Father Thom Savage, President of Rockhurst University, Dr Robert Meneilly from Village Presbytrian Church and other prominent Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and Protestant leaders.
   The restoration process for St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is currently stalled.

Newsvine

READER COMMENT

FROM B.M.
   Thank you, Vern for your excellent article. I am grateful to live in Kansas City, where the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, founded by you and David Nelson, has enriched my understanding of other faiths. I have shared your comments on my facebook page. I have been writing about this on facebook recently, and one of my comments echoed yours. I think, in light of the backlash, that the organizers of the building project are brave to continue, as there are zealots who are eager to harm them. I have read a book by Imam Feisal Rauf, leader of the mosque which owns the site. As I wrote on facebook, he is very moderate, very American, and highly respected by religious scholars, such as Karen Armstrong. He is a strong supporter of interfaith activities and strives diligently to foster greater understanding among all faiths. 

AS OF AUG 21 ON THE STAR WEBSITE COMMENT SECTION,
   9 other comments appear but most do not address the perspective of the column itself and so no reply is offered..

J.F. WROTE --
  I usually find your religious views too liberal for my taste however, I wanted to write you and say that I appreciated the information that you shared in yesterday's column.  I understood from the news that this was a somewhat Muslim neighborhood with shops, cafes, etc; however none of the major networks had stated the fact that two other places of worship were to be built in the area as well. In fact, I heard on the conservative news Tuesday that the approval for the Greek Orthodox church to be rebuilt had been denied. I had heard nothing on either side about the Episcopal Church. This certainly puts a new slant on the Mosque being built in the neighborhood. Why are the networks not reporting the whole story rather than just their opinion of why/why not the mosque should not be built? 
Also, could you please provide references as to how I can verify this information about the churches being rebuilt as well as the proposed mosque?
Another impression that I got from the news is that the mosque is to be built on the site of the Twin Towers, not just near it.Thank you again for an excellent column on this subject.

VERN'S REPLY --
   News organizations rely on various sources that they can access quickly. This story was ignited by the ADL statement. Before then, few guessed it would draw much attention. Facts are still emerging and opinions vary widely. It is hard to get the whole story right away from any single source.
   I have put together dozens of links to news and opinions as well as my extended statement, Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring address, and a statement by a Muslim son of Kansas City who now works near Ground Zero. The link for all of this is http://www.cres.org/#ADL.  I also recommend Bill Tammeus' blog for today: http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
   I understood that the Port Authority had approved the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox Church. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Nicholas_Greek_Orthodox_Church. The idea that the mosque was to be build on Ground Zero was a flat lie, meant to inflame and politicize the situation. Muslims have been praying at 51 Park for months, not at Ground Zero. They need more space. They wanted to open it to the community with Y type facilities and an interfaith
   I read things I don't agree with, but I am better informed because of it. I admire you for doing the same, even when you disagree with what I write.
   Thanks for taking the trouble to send me your concerns.

F.C. WROTE --
   I read your column quite often as I always find it quite clear and unbiased. So when you implied that St. Nicholas had been restored at it's original sight I was appalled. I can only hope that this action was altruistic and not political. I would be interested in your explanation.

VERN'S REPLY --
  St Nicholas has not yet been restored, but the LOCATION, almost identical to where it once stood, as I understand it, for the restoration has been approved. In the editing process, the statement became: "Closer to ground zero than the proposed mosque is the location for the restored St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and St. Paul’s Chapel (Episcopal)."
   This was not intended to be a past tense statement, but a future tense statement indicated by "proposed," but I see that this is inadequate. The emphasis was on LOCATION, and it is the location for what will be the restored Church. The wording would have been clearer if the statement were, "Closer to ground zero than the proposed mosque is the location for St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church when it is restored, and St. Paul’s Chapel (Episcopal)."
   The printed statement is like "The location for the new Kauffman Performing Arts Center is near 16th and Broadway" which is correct but, I see, can be misleading because the Center is not yet completed and open.
   Thank you for holding me to the highest standard and for giving me a chance to explain.
   Please let me know if I have been clear with this apology.

F.C. ANSWERED -- 
   I accept your explanation and I hope in the future you will be more explicit to we uneducated readers.
F.C. WROTE AGAIN --
   I don't believe that comparing an islamic mosque which is obviously a slap in the face to many American with the little church is alright. That church was established in 1919 and stood there for over 80 years until the south tower fell on it destroying it completely. Whereas the proposed mosque is being built by the same religion as the ones who took credit for destroying said tower. I have read the quran and I know that for the most part islam is a peaceful religion it is also entirely jehadist which roughly means to subjugate. It is the only true religion and all people should only follow allah. Jihad through peace whenever possible but if not?

VERN'S REPLY --
   My background (outlined in the column) is different than yours, perhaps, and that is why we may see things differently.
   I would hate to think that you would accept the word of Osama bin Laden in defining Islam, or his wicked acts. Throughout most of history, Islam has been far more tolerant of other faiths  than Christianity.
   If you are interested in a different view as to whether the mosque (inspired by a Sufi) is a slap in the face, you might want to read the Bill Tammeus blog for today: http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
I have gathered links of information and different opinions at http://www.cres.org/#ADL along with Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring speech and a son of KC who is Muslim working now near Ground Zero. You will learn that Muslims were buried near Ground Zero before the little church was built.
   My understanding from studying the Qur'an, the Hadith, etc also varies from yours.
   As I say, with different backgrounds and experiences we tend to form different opinions.
   Thank you for reading my column and taking the trouble to write.

J.P. WROTE --
   Mr Barnet you have said you have gone to seminary and have extensive study in world religions, yet not sure what you believe.
   I think it is great to have friends who are muslim, hindu, buddest but are not these people lost in their sins, they worship a pagan god do they not, yet you do not seem concered about their spiritual future
   You have previously said the Bible does not hold final authority for you, so I ask do you not believe that Jesus was who he said he was the True Son of the Living God?  If so how can you not want to present the Savior to these people
   There was only one interfaith meeting in the Bible with Elijah and the prophet of baal and this did not go well for the prophets
   Yes the muslims have a right to build on this site, however it would seem that they would be sensitive to the feelings of Americans who were killed there
, I have never heard that there was 400 muslims killed there but unfortunately muslims killing muslims is not news
   I pray that perhaps you need to take time away to re-read the Bible, still maintain friendships but with a great fconcern for their future

VERN'S REPLY --
   What I believe is not as important to me as I write the column as helping others to understand our neighbor's backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints. However, if you are interested in a statement of my faith in non-sectarian language, you can find it at www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view.
       I think you may not understand several of the faiths you mentioned as fully as would be helpful. For example, in Buddhism, the goal is not salvation as Christians understand it, but enlightenment with a rather specific complex of meanings that involve the cessation, rather than the preservation, of the self.
    I would hate to think that you would accept the word of a man so wicked as Osama bin Laden in defining Islam. You are right that Muslim fanatics are killing more Muslims than anyone else. This is why it is all the morre important to encourage wholesome efforts such as the proposed Islamic center that happens to be two blocks away from Ground Zero. Let the wonderful Muslims define their faith, not the evil ones. No group has been harmed by 9/11 more than American Muslims. Should we not be sensitive to them?
      I have taught in several seminaries, including Bible courses and church history courses. I faithfully attend my church services. Even though I recite the creed each Sunday, I do not know that it would be  useful for me to tell you that "Jesus was the true Son of the Living God" because what I mean by that is  problably very different from what the statement means to you. Jesus said, By their fruits ye shall know them. I value love and service more than the language in which different folks seek to talk about that which is far beyond human understanding. For me, faith is rooted in experience, not in belief statements.
    Thank you for reading my column and for taking the trouble to write.

A.W. WROTE --
   Thanks for your good column about Muslims and the NY cultural center brouhaha. I'm worried for my Muslim friends, too, and for our country in general that people can be so easily whipped into mean-spirited frenzies while ignoring issues that genuinely need attention.

VERN'S REPLY --
   I appreciate your note and share your concern. However, as folks learn the facts, I think this may turn around. I've collected some good (and bad) stuff at http://www.cres.org/#ADL and I especially encourage you with Bill Tammeus today http://billtammeus.typepad.com/ and Sameer's amazing response to Tom McClanahan http://www.cres.org/#Sameer. Eventually even the politicians will wear this out.

T.F. WROTE --
   Before I begin my comment, I should point out that while I was raised and educated in the Cathoic faith  (St. Peter's, Rockhurst,Notre Dame) , my own curiousity - probably perceived as weakness by my Catholic friends - has lead me to a large Methodist church in Johnson County.  This is not meant as a ringing endorsement of Methodism, only an indication of where I've been.  I don't even know where I'm going.  Good intentions but life is mysterious.
   I've always wondered why it is so difficult to balance belief in God and plain common sense.  Faith can be very temperamental and capable of inspiring terrible thoughts and actions.
   That's the bad side.  It can also be so very relaxing and forgiving and comforting, like a narcotic.  It's the mystery in between the two extremes that contains the grain of truth which is all we will ever know about God. 
   I always enjoy reading your column. 

VERN'S REPLY --
  Thank you for the encouragement of your writing with a bit of your background and perspective. I agree, life is mysterious! I like your way of pointing to the place between the two extremes where we might find a grain to truth about that which is infinitely greater than we can imagine. Thanks for being my reader!

M.R. WROTE --
   NYC has a monument to the 1st responders to 9/11 and one to people inside who died they will finish with one to the Islam martyrs-- some friends of mine are upset that the inman heading the project is assoc with moslem brotherhood

VERN'S REPLY --
   I do not know that Imam Rauf is connected with the Muslim Brotherhood as he is a Sufi. He may have reached out to the Brotherhood, as he reaches out to everyone, as Jesus sought the lost lamb.
I do know about any monument to Muslim martyrs planned for New York. The Islamic Center proposed two blocks away is not to honor martyrs but to provide services to people of all faiths, like the Y, and to give Muslims a place to pray. Please send me your sources so I may be better informed. I have collected a number of pieces of information and opinion at http://www.cres.org/#ADL.

A.S. WROTE --
   . . . The reason for me writing to you today is that I just read your article, "In defense of a mosque near ground zero". Quite honestly, it was a very good & well written article. It's unfortunate that most people don't realize that Islam is a religion of peace and teaches tolerance and promotes good. Not only Islam is misunderstood in the west but quite frankly many Muslims in general don't understand/practice Islam in the right way.
    Anyway, I wanted to extend my thanks to you for writing such a nice article on such a hot subject. I'm sure it will make an impact on a lot of good hearts.

VERN'S REPLY --
   . . . Thank you for your kind words about my column. . . .

D.W. WROTE --
   If you’d care to refute Frank Gaffney, Jr.’s comments, I’d certainly enjoy seeing what you‘d like to add. I tried to e-mail forward the article, but apparently ran into a problem.  It can be viewed, along with several comments by readers, on:
http://www.legion.org/magazine/9907/stealth-jihad
. . . Hope that Shariah law never becomes a part of our American scene!

 VERN'S REPLY --
   The information presented is in part accurate, in part terribly misleading, in part just plain wrong. One example, in Sunni Islam alone, there are four legal systems. I agree that the danger has not been adequately or accurately recognized. I suggest books such as Karen Armstrong's book The Battle for God, for starters. My brief essay on Terrorism appears at http://www.cres.org/pubs/mp05078aTerrorism.pdf
I suggest two redcent KC blogs:
Reza Aslan Rocks Kansas City http://revthom.blogspot.com/  Aug 18
A case for the Islamic center: 8-19-10 http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
   Thanks for seeking my opinion. If you would like a detailed analysis of Gaffney piece, we'd have to get together for quite a while.
   As a former member of the armed forces myself, I thank you for sharing the duty and joy of service to American freedom.

L.Y. WROTE --
   Bravo!!  Thank you from all of us with hearts and minds.  You have written the words I wish I could speak so eloquently. . . . 

VERN'S REPLY --
   . . . Thank you for taking the trouble to let me know my column was of some help.. . .

D.V. WROTE--
   I'm sure you've heard comments on your article both pro and con.
I would urge you to watch the following video, please.

VERN'S REPLY --
   OK, I watched the video which contains numerous inaccuracies and an amazing hate-filled ignorance of Islam, what happened on 9/11, and the actual situation in New York. There is no mosque proposed for Ground Zero (your Subject heading to this email). The Islamic Center (like a Y, open to anyone) is two blocks away. I think the sanctity of the site is worsened by the sex parlors and could only be improved by the Islamic Center.
   Now since I spent time obliging you, I'd like you please to read the Bill Tammeus blog http://billtammeus.typepad.com/ for 8-19-10. Bill lost a beloved nephew on 9/11. And Jewish Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring address after the 9-0 vote in favor of the Islamic Center: http://www.cres.org/#Bloomberg
Thank you.
   I've been to Cordoba. Inside the mosque -- inside -- is a Catholic Cathedral. That is triumphalism.
You are right -- I've studied this situation carefully. I have about 50 links to information and various viewpoints at http://www.cres.org/#ADL.
   Thanks for reading my column, sending me the link to the video, and for taking the trouble to be concerned. Your fellow citizen,

M.W. WROTE--
   Let me start of by saying how much I enjoy reading Faith&Beliefs.  Your world view seems to be much more compatible with mine than does that of many other of the religious writers, specifically those with ititials BG. 
   I was especially interested in your column today, as well as the editorial by Ross Douthat.  Both went a long way to explain the complexities of inter-faith understanding between Christian and Muslim beliefs. 
   I am not so presumptious as to think that you have the time, or inclination, to answer every email with a lengthy and though out response, but if I am fortunate enough to get one from you, and it enables me to gain greater insight, I promise to share it with all who are willing to listen to me.
   Very often I hear members of the Muslim faith discuss Islam, and almost without exception they say that the Koran discourages random violence in the furtherance of Jihad, and that Islam is a caring and peaceful faith.  Yet this is at odds with what is described as Islamic radicalism, and in portraying the genesis of that radicalism, Islamic schools and Mosques are generally cited as the source of indoctrination.  These two views seem diametrically opposed, but the two positions that I sense are zealotry or indifference.  There does not seem to be strong opposition to radicalism within the Muslim community, at least none that is publicly verbalized.  What I get from the side of indifference is tacit approval and an unwillingness to speak in opposition.  Thus, I remain unconvinced that Islam is a religion of peaceful resolution to conflict.
   Could it be because Islam is a religion with several branches, and no real central authority to set policy or interpret doctrine, for example as the Catholic Church is organized?  Or, as my greatest concern, is it a duplicitous philosophy that is willing to say one thing while doing another in furtherance of a goal that may not be in the best interests of anyone not a Muslim? 
   Any thoughts? Thanks . . . .

VERN'S REPLY --
  I apologize in being tardy in replying. Thank you very much for your kind words about my column.
   Let me see if I can make some comments about Islam that might be helpful to the concerns you raise.
   Islam, with roughly one and a half billion people, is an extremely complex and varied faith, from the peace-loving African American Muslims who for decades have worked to improve their neighborhoods, to the fantatical Wahhabi Islam in a nation that the West created and which we support with our addiction to oil, to the richly inflected forms in the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia.
   Normatively, compared with Christianity, Islam is not so much a religion of beliefs as it is correct practices. But what is correct? There are, just in Sunni Islam, four traditional legal schools. There is no "pope-like" authority that can speak for more than a tiny fraction of the world's Muslims. In my opinion, we should not believe someone as wicked as Osama bin Laden when he seeks to describe Islam, but rather the overwhelmingly virtuous Muslims who practice good will even though the US has done such things as overthrow a democratic government (Iran) and replaced it with a dictator, the Shah.
   Jihad means struggle, and according to Muhammad himself, the greater jihad is the struggle within each person to do the right thing. As I hinted in my column for July 28 http://www.cres.org/star/star2010.htm#828 , war in Islam has much stricter rules than the doctrine of a Just War in Christianity, about which I wrote 2008 March 19 http://www.cres.org/star/star2008.htm#706 and which was certainly violated by the US in the Bush 2 Iraq War.
   Mosques often have schools attached (as do Catholic churches), and in some countries some of these schools are  used to promote political and even military  purposes. While this does not represent Islam as a whole, it is a serious concern and more energy needs to be spent in replacing bad education with good.
   There is very strong opposition to violence in the Islamic world. Radical Muslims have killed more Muslims than Christians. But the media and political interests don't report statements protesting violence as much as focusing on violence itself. I urge you to consider the vastly greater number of legitimate and respected Muslim leaders, here and world wide, who condemned the attacks, compared with the irresponsible few who condoned such actions. I stood with the Interfaith Council the morning of 9/11, and before the press the Muslims (along with everyone else) emphatically condemned the attacks. But was that in the media? No, except for one radio station. For world-wide condemnation, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php and other sites.
   The charge that once was leveled against the Jews, that of "perfidy," is now, for political reasons, being leveled against Muslims. It is true that, during persecution from Christians after 1492 when the tolerant Muslim rule ended in Spain, Jews sometimes lied  and said they were Christians when threatened by authorities. It is true that the tiniest fraction of Muslims might lie for some purpose. But out of context texts cited in both cases contrast with the scrupulous dealings most Muslims have with each other and with non-Muslims.
   I have many Muslim friends here and abroad. No one has ever sought to convert me. On the contrary, my tradition has been cherished and honored, as is historically the pattern, with few exceptions.
   I recommend Karen Armstrong's little book, ISLAM: A BRIEF HISTORY. It contains a useful chronology and glossary as well as a fair assessment of the history of this great faith.
   I do hope these comments are helpful.Thank you for reading my column and for writing me.

I.M.M. wrote --
   It is the very nature of ideas/faith based in absolutes to come into conflict with each other unless the defining absolutes are resolved into something congruous with each other. 
   "A mosque near the Twin Towers site is inappropriate for the same reason that a church group picketing a funeral is inappropriate. It juxtaposes mixed motivations in an environment that will always stimulate discordant feelings and actions."
   I wrote that comment on your recent column in an attempt to illustrate that you cannot promote resolution at a defining example of discordant faiths.  Although it is an eventual solution to these kinds of events, sowing seeds of Interfaith Growth using such a site as a pulpit is self defeating and will not germinate on such tainted soil.  If interfaith ideas grow and bear fruit sufficiently to someday crack the substrate of such a significant event in American History, it will be the overall growth, understanding, and acceptance of each other that finally bears fruit on this sterile spot.  Attempts to transplant something living into that kind of place where it is not able to survive is not only futile, it is harmful to the greater body of Tolerance in trying to force human will in opposition with others, regardless how beneficial or healing the intention of that will may be.
   Let's not go planting olive trees in mud still black with blood.  We can however point to that place as a prime reason to plant olive trees where they WILL grow in the hopes that someday that wounded ground might heal and bear fruit.  THAT would prove that we are beginning to grow.. Together..
   Have a good weekend.  I will be out Saturday morning, probably at the intersection of Vivion and North Oak accepting donations for the March of Dimes and Bikers for Babies.  We will be at 4 or 5 intersections from 9 or so until around 2 unless it gets to hot to be safe for our volunteers.

VERN'S REPLY --
   Thank you for your opinion. In my view, given the history of this project, the best place for it is at 45-51 Park. I have written extensively under the 50 or so links at http://www.cres.org/#ADL. There you will also find Jewish Mayor Bloomberg's address following the 9-0 vote in favor of the Islamic Center, and a statement by a Muslim son of Kansas City who works near Ground Zero. I especially commend Bill Tammeus whose nephew was killed on 9/11 and whose blog http://billtammeus.typepad.com/   presents "A case for the Islamic center: 8-19-10," with his reasons for saying "the Ground Zero area is exactly the right place for this kind of Islamic presence."
   I find your comparison of a place of worship and respect open to the entire community to picking a funeral like comparing a generous reception to a jailing.
   Thanks for your good work on behalf of others.

V.A. WROTE--
   I am surprised by how many people are opposed to building a mosque close to ground zero.  My husband, to my surprise said "I don't think it is appropriate to build a mosque there".  I argued as long as people obey zoning standards they should be allowed to build what they want... this is America, if it were a church would you have a problem with it, and he said "Yes, unless it is a house of faith that accomodates Muslims, Christians, and Jews, I would have a problem with it", considering the local.  I wanted to pass this idea on.  Has anyone proposed a universal house of worship like this?  Seems it would be a great way to bring people of different backgrounds together.  I have no idea how to build it, but it should have separate worship spaces for each of the three major religions.  (maybe even space for Buddhists and Hindu worshipers), and then a common foyer for everyone to pass through on their way to their worship house.

VERN'S REPLY --
  The goal of the Center is multifaith. The Imam, much respected, was a frequent guest at the Bush White House and is now oversees seeking to build support for America. How can American Muslim soldiers answer the Afghans when they ask why so many people are opposed? The place is 2 1/2 blocks away from the edge of Ground Zero. In between are sex parlors, gambling outlets. In the neighborhood are synagogues, churches, a Buddhist center, etc. The center went through community building and zoning processes, all approved. Most people have no idea what is going on and politicians are inflaming the situation. Jewish Mayor Bloomberg gave a wonderful speech in favor, many faith leaders are now lending their support, and Bill Tammeus argues this is the best spot in the world for a mosque. You'll find plenty of information and different points of view in the links at http://www.cres.org/#ADL where you'll also find s powerful statement by a Muslim son of Kansas City who now works near Ground Zero. I especially like the items I've starred, including the blog by Bill Tammeus.
   To summarize --
   SECURITY
      1. Local zoning and other requirements, including community consultation, have approved the project. To make a local issue national and international endangers our security these ways:
      1a. Muslim soldiers and sailors in nation-building roles are subject to taunts from the very Muslim populations we seek to help.
      1b. Domestic tranquility is threatened by encouraging other locales to raise religious objections to mosques in their communities and encourages plans such as the Sept 11 Burn a Qur'an Day.
      1c. It damages the image of the United States most with the very groups whose help we need to succeed in building security against terrorism.
   DISCOURAGING MODERATE ISLAM
      2. It defames Muslim leaders who have worked for decades for interfaith understanding,  Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself has been used by both the Bush and Obama administrators to build understanding abroad and was a frequent guest in the Bush White House. He appears in such popular books as The Faith Club, one of the three writers of which is from the KC metro area. His own book, What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West, has been widely praised. The criticism conflates Islam with terrorism.
   IGNORANT ARGUMENTS
   Specious arguments perpetuate ignorance and oppression.
      3a. Giving too much weight to "sensitivity" begs the question of "being sensitive to whom?" This is like saying to Jews (as was said) we have folks who are sensitive about Jews, so they can't buy in Leawood, or be members of the Kansas City Country Club. It is like saying We have white folks who are sensitive to riding the buses with black folks up front, so they have to sit in the back of the bus. No group has suffered more since 9/11 than Muslims. Muslim slaves are buried nearby. The demand that the mosque be moved parallels the "wait" demand made on Martin Luther King, Jr, who said, "I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was 'well timed' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity."
      3b. The "defiling Holy Ground" argument is weakened by porn shops, bars, gambling outlets, and other sleazy enterprises closer than the 51Park Place.
      3c. The charge of Islamic triumphalism  belies ignorance of the nature of the building, both appearance and context, and the project mangers have already compromised by changing the name from "Cordoba House" (uses as a weapon be people ignorant of its meaning) to "Park51," its address.
      3d. Muslims, like folks of other faiths, work in the area. There are, within the immediate neighborhood, sites for several Christian Churches, several synagogues, a Buddhist Center. The Muslims have been praying on their private property for some time already; they need an expanded facility which would be open to the community, like the Y. 
      3e. Questions about financing for the project, raised as if there are no answers, exemplify McCarthyism and presumptive questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
   In his blog for  8-19-10  Bill Tammeus argues that  "the area near Ground Zero in New York is exactly the right place to locate an Islamic center" -- http://billtammeus.typepad.com/
   Thanks for writing. let me know if this helps. My column for next Wednesday is about sacred space.

J.B. WROTE--
   I wanted to let you know how much I admire you for speaking out boldly on the issue of the negative response Americans in general have to Muslims.   We all have to keep working to educate, but sometimes the hearts and minds of others refuse to open.  Still I know we will continue to try. . . .

VERN'S REPLY --
   I appreciate your encouragement and your work for understanding.

J.S. WROTE --
   Vern, just want you to know you are appreciated for being a calm, reasoned, peacemaker--especially in these vitriolic times when religion and politics seem to be one and the same.
    As for the mosque situation, yesterday morning on NPR a commentator stated that while plans for building the prayer room/community center were announced last fall, it didn't become a hot-button issue until outsiders began making hostile statements recently. He said people of manhattan and NY are quite accepting. Sounds like the radical right-wing to me.
    A commentary by Ross Douthat (NYT) in today's paper does shed some light on the situation--if anyone cares to be enlightened.
   It seems like another situation similar to same-sex marriage in California. Things were going smoothly until the Mormon Church began it's campaign to bring an end to it. Millions of dollars of church money and time and support were spent denying gay American citizens equal rights. In my opionion, Christ himself would lead the charge for equal rights.
   Sadly, so many of these hot-button issues are fueled by religious bigots. So much hatred being expounded by Christians that I can easily understand Anne Rice's announcement that she was giving up Christianity.  Why aren't REAL Christian pastors and followers  speaking out. Until they do, evil will continue to corrupt our wonderful nation. 
    I have listened to Religion on the Line Sunday mornings for many years, but when John Perk joined the group, the hate and division began.  His comments on gays a week ago were absolutely dispicable.  Chuck (Buddhist) and our beloved Rabbi Zedek were quick to defend them, however, and to gently condem John's words.  Many Sunday mornings it is difficult to listen to the deeply religious espousing hate and bigotry in the name of their religion.
    Again, thanks for your input and your voice in the wilderness.

VERN'S REPLY --
   Thanks for your kind words. I did not hear the NPR report, but I know it is accurate. It seems that the Antidefamation League, a Jewish group which has a long and noble tradition of defending religious liberty and seeking to heal prejudice, has been subverted. From examining its website section on Israel, it seems to be more in line now with the wealthy radical right-wing AIPAC rather than peace groups within the Jewish community like J Street. It looks like an effort to discredit Obama's work to bridge the divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians and generally weaken the President. My heart is broken. the Leagues' carefully worded original statement was the match that ignited this controversy by pleading "sensitivity" on July 28, less than a month ago.
   While the New York Time's Ross Douthat column certainly is thoughtful, I prefer the column that appeared the same day by the Washington Post's conservative columnist Michael Gerson.
   I've collected dozens of articles about the subject at http://www.cres.org/#park51
 I especially recommend the four items in the off-white box above the main list of links.
   Thank you also for writing me about the recent Religion on the Line program. I am sorry to hear the problems and gladdened that Rabbi Zedek, a truly remarkable voice, and Lama Stanford, who has done so much for interfaith understanding, were able to respond.
   I appreciate your taking the time to write me. Thank you for reading my column!

J.B. WROTE --
   Thank you so much for your continuing dialogue in the Kansas City Star re our sensitivities and prejudices. 
   I totally believe that education and getting to know each other is the key to acceptance and learning to get along.  Only then will we realize we are more alike than we are different.
   In this regard I will lead a study of The Faith Club at our Disciples Women's Ministry group at First Christian Church North Kansas City for 12 months commencing September 13.  The writers' style lends itself to a readers' theater approach and easy participation by all attendees.
   You probably know the book well, but in the invent you missed it in the stacks, it is the story of three young mothers (Muslim, Christian & Jew) getting together after 9/11 to write a children's book to highlight the connections between their religions.  And the project nearly derails, because of their misunderstandings.  The Christian mother, Suzanne Oliver, grew up here in Kansas City.
   May God continue to bless you in your interfaith work.

VERN'S REPLY --
   Please forgive my tardy reply. I'm still working my way through the emails this week! But I'm especially grateful for yours because of your plan to lead a study of THE FAITH CLUB, which, as I recall, includes references to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. I had the pleasure of visiting with them three years ago and I'll be bold to attach my photo with them!
   I would be grateful to hear from you about the 12-month study your group is making of the book. Is there some way you can take a measure of attitudes before and after?
   Thank you for your generous words and your own work building understanding among people of the world's faiths!

K.R. WROTE --
   Mr. Barnet, thank you for your 8/18/10 column regarding the controversy surrounding the building of a mosque near Ground Zero.  I cannot imagine that Americans would have an issue if a group of Christians were responsible for the 9/11 attack, and a group wanted to erect a Christian church in that same spot.  I believe the mosque controversy stems from religious bigotry and ignorance, and it makes those of us who claim to desire to be more Christ-like look very bad.  I greatly appreciate your learned words of wisdom on this issue, and I pray that your words will touch the hearts and minds of those who will punish good and decent Muslims for the cowardly acts of extremists.  History (both American and World) demonstrates that certain Christians have also engaged in cowardly acts of terror, and I know I don't want to be condemned for their acts.  Thank you again, Mr. Barnet.

VERN'S REPLY --
  Please forgive my tardy reply. I'm still working my way through the emails this week!
   I do appreciate your writing! As I Christian, I am ashamed that my faith was used to murder thousands of black people as the Bible was recited, crosses were burning, and men in hoods rejoiced, and that Christians raided and killed Indians for their lands. But forgiveness is the way. If we want safety, the last thing we need to do is embarrass our Muslim soldiers who are trying to present a favorable picture of the US as they seek to help rebuild other countries.
  I've put Mayor Bloomberg's inspiring address on my website, along with Bill Tammeus explaining why the Islamic Center should be built as planned, and the thoughts of a remarkable Muslim son of Kansas City now working near Ground Zero on my website, http://www.cres.org/#park51.
   Again, I appreciate your reading my column and responding so thoughtfully.


830. 100811 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Episcopal 'servants' moving on

Complete texts of interviews follow.

Who is a minister? What is a bishop? From different ends of the career telescope, two Episcopalians, one a bishop-elect, the other a bishop retiring, see the answer to both questions in servanthood.
   After six distinguished years as dean of Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral, the Very Rev. Terry White, was elected June 5 as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky where he will be consecrated Sept. 25.
   White told me, “Jesus said that he came not to be served, but to serve. Servanthood is at the heart of our call as the baptized community.”
   Retiring in March, the Rt. Rev. Barry Howe, Bishop of the Diocese of West Missouri, agreed that “all are ministers of the Church. The laity are to represent Christ in their daily lives” and in the life of the Church as servants.
   “The Bishop is only different in the sense of being the chief pastor in a diocese, to guard the Church’s faith, unity and discipline, and to ordain others for carrying out the sacramental ministry of the Church.”
   As servants, all people in an Episcopal diocese have a part in choosing their bishop. Howe said the process “comes from the people, and not from any ‘decree from above.’”
   He said ministry includes serving those hurt by “the evils of wealth and power used to promote selfish goals” that “separate peoples, causing injustice and enslavement” to the end that  “God’s love is known and celebrated.”
   Similarly White said, “The collective wealth of the nations comprise more than enough resources to ensure peace, justice and dignity for all, and heal mother earth. We must set aside our need for control, our sense of entitlement, and our selfishness, that we might open our hearts and minds to all our sisters and brothers.”
   White added, “A great privilege over the last six years has been to work closely with a bishop who valued the unique ministry of the Cathedral as a parish church, the Mother Church for the diocese, and a house of prayer for all people at the heart of Kansas City. 
   “Bishop Howe’s pastoral commitment to his priests and deacons, and his consistent call for all the baptized to love and serve their neighbors, are but two aspects of the episcopate I pray I, too, can model as I serve the clergy and people of the Diocese of Kentucky in the years ahead,” White said.
   In a farewell message, Michael Thomas, former senior warden of the Cathedral, wrote to White of his ministry, “In an age of shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, you are a refreshing exception. We will never know with what constancy you have interceded with God on our behalf, but we know we have been blessed because of it.” 

EMAIL INTERVIEWS -- RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 
about the Eucharist, roles of laity, priest, dean and bishop; about how an Episcopal bishop is chosen, about the Cathedral, about the work of the church and the future of religion, 

BISHOP HOWE: 1. The roles of the ministers of the Church are summarized very adequately in our Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer.  What is absolutely essential to understand is that all are ministers of the Church.  The laity are to represent Christ in their daily lives; and according to the gifts given to them, to carry on Christ’s work of reconciliation in the world; and to take their place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church.  The Bishop is only different in the sense of being the chief pastor in a diocese, to guard the faith and unity and discipline of the Church, and to ordain others for carrying out the sacramental ministry of the Church.  A priest of presbyter is to share in the overseeing of the Church with the Bishop as a pastor, preacher of the Gospel, and one who administers the sacraments of the Church.
   2. The selection of a Bishop does indeed begin with all the people in a Diocese.  A group of laity and clergy are chosen as a Search Committee, and they do all the work in confidence leading up to the announcing of several candidates for election.  The election then takes place by lay and clergy electors from each congregation.  Both the clergy and the laity must agree by majority votes in separate ballots.  It is a process that comes from the people, and not from any ‘decree from above.’  In fact, the retiring Bishop is not involved at all, except to preside at the electing convention.
    3. The major opportunity in the present and the future for all Christians is to focus upon the central mission exemplified by Jesus Christ in his ministry.  That mission is to work together as a community in serving those who are less able to deal with the powers and forces of the world that can be so destructive.  In ministering to these people, the Church identifies the evils of wealth and power  used to promote selfish goals, and the evils of destructive actions that separate peoples, causing injustice and enslavement of so many.  When the true mission is carried out, lives are transformed and the awareness of God’s love is known and celebrated.

DEAN WHITE: 1. In the Eucharist, the life of the Risen Christ nourishes each disciple, and through each believer, flows through the Church. Jesus said that the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve. Servanthood is at the heart of our call as the baptized community, and indeed, the Cathedral's commitment to be a servant church is one of the community's greatest strengths.
   2. A great privilege over the last six years has been to work closely with a bishop who valued the unique ministry of the cathedral as a parish church, the mother church for the diocese, and a house of prayer for all people at the heart of Kansas City.  Bishop Barry Howe's pastoral commitment to his priests and deacons, and his consistent call for all the baptized to love and serve their neighbors, are but two aspects of the episcopate I pray I too can model as I serve the clergy and people of the Diocese of Kentucky in the years ahead.  I have enjoyed a wonderful relationship as dean with my bishop, and I look forward to having the same relationship with the dean of my cathedral in Louisville.
   3. Episcopalians, Christians, people of all faiths, and all people of goodwill, have both the opportunity and means to embrace the greatest opportunity in history. The collective wealth of the nations comprise more than enough resources to eradicate hunger, provide clean drinking water, ensure peace and justice and dignity for every human being, and heal mother earth. In order to achieve these goals, we must set aside our need for control, our sense of entitlement, and our selfishness, that we might open our hearts and minds to all our sisters and brothers. For Christians, this means to empty ourselves as Christ emptied himself on the Cross. If we are to be great in the Kingdom of God, we must become servants. Humility is perhaps the single greatest virtue the church catholic must nurture if we are to make God's vision for humanity a reality.  I say again, we have the opportunity and resources.  Have we the will?  I think we do, especially when I look at the youngest generation, who is not only the Church of the future, but the Church today.

A FAREWELL MESSAGE

FORMER SENIOR WARDEN MICHAEL THOMAS:  Terry, As you move to your next calling as a bishop of the Church, you leave behind experiences that we will always identify with you. For me, every time I hear of a hole-in-one, I will think only of the one I witnessed. In Bible study when I see the tribes of Israel recounted, I will look with amusement for that lost tribe you identified wandering aimlessly amongst us.  And of course, every time I see someone struggling to pull their life together in the face of loss or failure, I will remember with what great compassion, discretion and deliberate care you ministered to your parishioners and your staff.
  Montaigne wrote that "There are few men who would dare place in evidence the secret requests they make of God." In an age of shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, you are a refreshing exception. We will never know with what constancy you have interceded with God on our behalf, but we know we have been blessed because of it and we thank you for it.  The people of Kentucky have chosen a Churchman to lead them. Do not forget that you have friends in Kansas City who are praying that your success there will lift the whole Church. Godspeed, friend...To the Whites!

READER COMMENT from D.
  Thank you for such a nice article on Bishop Howe and Dean White. Epsicopal servants are often unnoticed, and this was a very nice way of acknowledging these two men. One story you might enjoy about Bishop Howe: For the past several years, the youth of the diocese have participated in "Missionpalooza". We stay at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Westport from Tuesday evening through Sunday afternoon, and during the days groups of teens and adults go to various sites in Kansas City to serve those who are struggling in different ways. Bishop and Mary Howe are usually there one night, and for the past few years, have helped to serve dinner to the teens who have been out all day serving others. I think that's a strong statement about how they feel about serving. Many people have trouble seeing the good in teens, more have trouble serving them. This bishop serves them. He is a great role model for each of us. Thanks.


829. 100804 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
 United in selfless love

I like the premium wedding, the full celebration of a couple’s commitment in the company of their families and friends.
   But this was a budget wedding. I was honored to officiate, and after the potluck reception I was honored to help take out the trash. That’s how good I felt about it.
   The young couple had planned an outdoor affair for their 100 guests, but you know what happened. When the skies opened, the groom skillfully led his buddies to rearrange the chairs and tables in the reception facility so the wedding could take place inside.
   Weddings planned for the summer, especially outdoors, should be short but complete. You want the wedding to sparkle, but not from beads of sweat.
   I had met the couple once some years ago for chai. Now, eight years into their relationship, they are husband and wife.
   Nowadays, no matter how much brides love their fathers, they often resist the idea of being “given away” as if they were property. So I recommended, and the couple agreed, that I would ask, “Who presents this woman to be married to this man and blesses their love?” The dad or mom or entire family can respond, “We do.”
   Then I asked, “Who presents this man to be married to this woman and blesses their love?” with a parallel response.
   With same-sex couples in states where such marriages are not legally recognized, I suggest the phrase “united with” in a similar formula.
    In much of the last 2000 years, weddings had little to do with romance, but we’ve come to expect an affair of the heart. Whether union, marriage or some other word is used to describe the commitment, the idea of two becoming one is tricky.
   On one hand, the couple remain two people. A shallow notion that each can satisfy all the needs of the other can be neurotic, certainly co-dependent, even idolatrous and sinful.
   Still, the ideal expressed in Genesis 2:24, that two shall be “one flesh” is what many couples hope for.
   In a reading often used at weddings, Kahlil Gibran counsels, “let each one of you be alone, even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.”
   On this occasion, however, the couple chose a poem by Jalaluddin Rumi, the Sufi, describing bliss: “You and I sitting on the verandah, apparently two, but one in soul, . . . you and I unselfed . . . .”
   This is the mystic’s vision, a love in which one empties oneself for the other, as when in God we are “unselfed,” completely open to the divine and thus find fulfillment. For then, paradoxically, in selfless wedded love, our larger identity and our eternal nature is revealed. 

READER COMMENT

GABRIELMICHAEAL wrote on 8/4/2010 --
   “The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of MEN AND WOMEN in the sacrament of marriage." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
   In Theology of the Body John Paul II relates that God is a communion of love and that we are destined to share in that exchange of love. God imprinted in our bodies and sexuality the call to participate in a "created version" of His eternal "exchange of love." God created us MALE AND FEMALE so that we could image the love within the Trinity by becoming a sincere gift to each other. Then sexual love becomes an image of the giving and receiving love in the heart or inner life of the Trinity. This understanding of marital intimacy helps us appreciate John Paul II's view that human sexuality within marriage is far greater than one can imagine.
   In addition to imaging the Trinity, sexual love is also meant to image the union of God with humanity. Speaking of the communion of MAN AND WOMAN and the life they get in marriage, John Paul II writes, "In this entire world there is not a more perfect, more complete image of God, Unity and Community. There is no other human reality which corresponds more, humanly speaking, to that divine mystery" (12/30/81).


828. 100728 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Knowledge conquers fear

A recent column about diversity within Christianity and other faiths drew some vehement responses. 
   One critic wrote that “the IRS recognizes well over 2000 different ‘Christian’ churches.” He said this means “at least 1999 churches” are wrong. He thinks diversity is harmful.
   An official with the IRS, Michael Devine, told me the IRS has no such list.
   On the other hand, Imam Ahmed El-Sherif embraced religious diversity as he led a class about his Muslim faith at Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church recently.
   He quoted the Qur’an 49:13: “We have made you different nations and tribes that you might know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the most righteous.”
   The church invited him to present a six-part series Sunday mornings through Aug. 22.
   The class asked me to report  why he said the 9/11 terrorists were un-Islamic. Here are three of his points:
   *Anyone who commits suicide “exits Islam.” El-Sherif told of a tragic case in which a Muslim student committed suicide. He offered pastoral care to the grieving family, but since the student, by his act, could no longer be considered Muslim, El-Sherif  could not provide an Islamic burial. When the terrorists killed themselves they left their faith, no matter how they might have been led to think about their horrific acts. 
   *In Islam, covenants may not be violated. A visa is a covenant  that one will visit a country in peace. The terrorists violated this rule.
   *In Islam, only defensive war is permitted. Even then, non-combatants may not be harmed and property may not be destroyed. Innocent people, including many Muslims, were murdered in aggression on 9/11. The damage was astounding.
   The word Islam actually means the peace that comes from the submission to God. The terrorists violated God’s peace.
   Brian Van Batavia chairs the church’s committee arranging the series. He said that “in order to love our neighbor, as Christ commanded, . . . we are to understand and appreciate them. Fear is caused when there is a lack of knowledge. Learning about other faiths helps us grow as Christians, and then we learn to love them.”
   He noted that many folks have questions about Islam arising from “various sources of misinformation.” He said it can be “hard for people to get past preconceived notions about others.” He hopes this series “will help breakdown some of these barriers.”
   Increasingly churches like Pine Ridge are replacing the ignorance arising from our fear of diversity with knowledge and neighborliness.

EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN VAN BATAVIA
   1. Why are folks at Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church interested in learning about other faiths? Are there ways in which learning about other faiths deepens one's own, or develops a sense of community, or a discovery of commonalities or enjoyment of differences?
   In general terms, we want to love our neighbor. The Adult Education Committee, for which I am the Chairperson, tries to provide meaningful, educational, and Christ-centered studies that will help lead us as Christians to a greater understanding of our own relationship with Christ. 
   2. What special interests or concerns may folks have in learning about Islam?
   Obviously the U.S.¹s recent history with populations from Muslim nations has caused this particular study to raise questions within the church populations. Media outlets and various sources of mis-information have fostered these issues. This is the point; I hope these questions are answered. Sometimes it is hard for people to get past preconceived notions about others. Hopefully, this study will help breakdown some of these barriers for these small parts of the larger populations.
   3. You mentioned that last summer Rabbi Alan Cohen led a series on Judaism and some folks were surprised to learn that there are different forms of that faith, disagreements within Judaism -- folks were surprised because  they assumed other faiths were uniform for all followers of that faith. Do I remember this correctly?  And would you say this in itself was an important thing to learn?
   Rabbi Cohen was the gateway to the study on Islam.  His sincere love was easily recognized by anyone that heard him speak last summer. I may have been the person that learned the most by his presence. It is vital that we as Christians, and any citizen, are mindful that every faith is open to the interpretation and practices of each individual follower. I do not agree with every part of my own faith with my own very smart wife! Just as there are many groups in the U.S. that claim to be Christian, but conduct themselves with non-Christian values, other faiths have the same types of extremists. We as Christians hope that we are recognized by our love.

ADDITIONAL NOTES
   Islamic rules of defensive war require that an enemy in retreat may not be pursued, even if the enemy retains the capability of lauching a further attack. Pre-emptive strikes are forbidden.
   The column was cited on Muslim World TV and Religion Review and World News.

READER RESPONSES

BEN_YAHOODwrote on 7/28/2010 --
   Sigh. There you go again, Vern, whitewashing Islam. I guess you think no one has ever heard of the "Muslim conquest," or knows how to use Google ...

CHOTOCK wrote on 7/31/2010 -- 
According to your article here, Muhammed was not a Muslim, since he, and his sons, waged offensive wars to spread Islam. Very interesting

VERN'S REPLY --
   Regarding the previous comment: Muhammad had no sons who survived childhood. According to the Qur'an, Muhammad was extremely reluctant to fight and was a master diplomat, entering Mecca after the Hegira without any blood being shed. The battles he did lead are regarded, in context, as defensive. Islam spread rapidly. Within a century after his death, Islam spread from the Iberian peninsula in the West past the Indus River in the East. Some credit the notion that there is but one God which assisted both in religious toleration and the fantastic exchange of culture and learning with the integrating power of the one-God idea. For a fair and interesting summary of this early history (and through the 20th Century), I recommend Karen Armstrong's little book, ISLAM: A SHORT HISTORY. Also, THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO ISLAM provides a view of its history.

JIM HOEL writes --
   To Vern Barnet: Somehow I think your article left out a lot about the Imam El-Sherif's beliefs regarding suicide.
   Maybe you and the "diverse" Presbyterians are being showing your "ignorance" by believing and publishing the dis-information in your column.
   Don't you think that in the period since 911 we would have heard that Islam abhors suicide? 
   All we see and hear is "kill the infidel" and "give us Sharia Law" while Islam in general remains silent on the fact that their "terrorist brothers" are breaking any laws, let alone the tenets of Islam!
   Your column is a bunch of tripe designed to lull Christians and other "infidel" faiths into believing this drivel while the Muslims quietly take over the world.
   You don't get it; just like the rest of the world. This topic is no about diversity, it is about reality. 
   In the least you could have said that this is just what the Islamists want us to believe. 
   If you want your own copy of a sermon entitled "What's Really In A Mosque", send me your mailing address. 
   Then you might realize that "diversity" is another word for "roll over and die!", and then maybe you can "replace the ignorance" in your mind.
   We will not forget 911! 
   You should be ashamed to write and publish this garbage trying to justify the atrocity.
   Blue Springs, MO, Retired Person, jhoel6@comcast.net

VERN'S REPLY --
   Dear Jim, Please remember that there are extremists claiming to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. The overwhelming Muslim world condemned the 9/11 attacks, but that is not in the news.
   I have traveled repeatedly in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as visiting Muslim sites in this country. I have studied Islam both as part of my doctoral preparation and during my 40-year career in the ministry. I have dozens of dear Muslim friends in Kansas City, some of who save Christians and Jews every day in their work as physicians and are part of the civic leadership. Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations. They abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I also have many, many friends of other faiths as well.
   The biggest problem I have with your email, Jim, is that mu column explicitly condemns the atrocity (and provides three reasons of many reasons why "The terrorists violated God’s peace."  but you are obviously misreading it because you say I am "trying to justify the atrocity."
   When someone writes me and turns what I have written into the opposite, I wonder if that person has had a terrible personal experience or has been afflicted by narrow propaganda. In either case, I am sorry.
   On the other hand, folks who lost relatives in 9/11, still grieving, who are Christian, have followed the teachings of Christ and, while cherishing the memories of those so violated by the viciousness of 9/11, seek to find ways to heal rather than deepen misunderstandings.
   I would also like you to know that I led the city-wide day-long observance of the first anniversary of 9/11. The loss I experienced personally in 2001 will stay with me forever. However, while protection of our nation is necessary, we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately assess the enemy, and that cannot be done without making the kinds of distinctions you seem reluctant to make.
   My mailing address is below and I will read the sermon you wish to send me. But please know I consider myself to be quite informed and as an unusually experienced citizen. I can identify unfounded and unChristian prejudice and hatred a mile away.

RESPONSES INTERSPERSED (Vern)

JIM HOEL wites again --
  OK. Here we go.
   I've now mailed the CD, you should get it by Friday.
   Please listen to it (63 minutes), and arrive at the conclusion that the good pastor didn't see or hear the things that he stood in front of his audience and attested to (Tounge-in-cheek).
  I do understand that there are good Muslims doing good work.   Just please don't try and foist the notions like your Imam does. Let him write his own opinion editorials. You should not give credence to falsehood.
   I HAVE KNOWN AHMED EL-SHERIF FOR MANY YEARS. HE IS A MAN OF INTEGRITY WHO HAS RECEIVED MANY AWARDS, DONE SUCH THINGS AS RAISE MONEY FOR CHRISTIANS WHEN THEIR CHURCHES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, WORKED INTERNATIONALLY FOR PEACE AT RISK OF HIS OWN LIFE, AS FOR EXAMPLE TAKING AID TO WAR-TORN COUNTRIES, CURRENTLY WORKING ON A PROJECT WITH A JEWISH FRIEND TO BENEFIT CHILDREN IN BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. PLEASE READ ABOUT HIM AT http://www.cres.org/pubs/ahmed.htm .
  I also thank you for reinforcing something that I heard on the radio the other day. It was that liberals, when presented with the facts of any topic, are instructed to deny that they can be true, and attack and accuse the other party of hatred, racism, and general ignorance. Anything to change the subject.
   I HAVE NOT CHANGED THE SUBJECT. YOU JUST HAVE. WHY DO YOU BRING LIBERALISM INTO THE CONVERSATION?
   The whitewashed suicide topic (bombers think that is the way to heaven), violation of a covenant, defensive war, and peace points fly in the face of the realities of the world.
   YOUR STATEMENT HARDLY CONVINCES ME THAT YOU ARE BETTER INFORMED THAN I.
   And your pal doesn't state what "his branch" is doing to stop the "other Islamists" from their terrible misbehavior and the "misinformation" that their deeds portray.
   I HAVE LIMITED SPACE IN MY COLUMN. HE AND OTHER MUSLIMS I KNOW, BITH SHIA AND SUNNI,  HAVE WORKED WITH OUR GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS TO BRING ABOUT A BETTER WORLD.
  Best wishes in your endeavors.
   I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WISHES. AND I WISH YOU WELL, TOO. KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP BRING ABOUT A BETTER FUTURE.

SONDRA HERTZOG writes --
    You plainly show you have no knowledge of this article you wrote.  Please educate yourself, so you do not lead others astray.  We are in great peril in this country from within.  People like you fall right into their hands.  It is time for you to investigate what you report before you report it.  It is also time for the Liberals in this country to stop crying race and diversity.  Just look at the facts as they apply to all humans.  hertzog71784@netzero.net 

VERN'S REPLY --
   Dear Sondra -- Why do you say I have no knowledge about the matter about which I wrote?
   I have traveled repeatedly in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as visiting Muslim sites in this country. I have studied Islam both as part of my doctoral preparation and during my 40-year career in the ministry. I have dozens of dear Muslim friends in Kansas City, some of who save Christians and Jews every day in their work as physicians and are part of the civic leadership. Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations. They abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I also have many, many friends of other faiths as well.
   I would also like you to know that I led the city-wide day-long observance of the first anniversary of 9/11. The loss I experienced personally in 2001 will stay with me forever. However, while protection of our nation is necessary, we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately assess the enemy, and that cannot be done without making the kinds of distinctions you seem reluctant to make.
   I recognize that individual personal experiences and propaganda can make it difficult for individuals to understand a larger reality. That is why I write the column. Thanks for letting me know about your perspective.

STEVEN LEWIS wrote --
   Vern, you do a great job defending the indefensible. You could have been a member of O.J.'s "Dream Team." slewis5@kc.rr.com, www.mcckc.edu/~lewis

VERN'S REPLY --
   Dear Steven, 
   I do not defend terrorism.
   I do not defend extremism.
   I do not defend attacks on innocent people.
   I do not defend attacks on non-combatants.
   I do not defend perverse destruction of property and hope.
   I do not defend criminals.
   I condemn terrorism.
   I condemn extremism.
   I condemn attacks on innocent people.
  I condemn attacks on non-combatants.
   I condemn perverse destruction of property and hope.
   I condemn criminals.
   My column gave reasons why all but those wrongly claiming themselves to be Muslim also condemn terrorism, etc.
   I see you teach biology at Penn Valley. I imagine you have a sense of the value of life. Please know that among the many wonderful Muslims in town, for many years, are many teachers and physicians who serve and save lives of Jews, Christians, and people of all faiths or no faith. Muslims in every profession and line of work.
   I have traveled repeatedly in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as visiting Muslim sites in this country. I have studied Islam both as part of my doctoral preparation and during my 40-year career in the ministry. Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations. They abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I have many, many friends of other faiths as well.
   When someone writes me and turns what I have written into the opposite, that I am defending what is condemned, I wonder if that person has had a terrible personal experience or has been afflicted by narrow propaganda or perhaps has a political agenda. Whatever the case, I am sorry.
   On the other hand, there are folks who lost relatives in 9/11, still grieving, and, while cherishing the memories of those so violated by the viciousness of 9/11, seek to find ways to heal rather than deepen misunderstandings.
   I would also like you to know that I led the city-wide day-long observance of the first anniversary of 9/11, with Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc participation. The loss I experienced personally in 2001 will stay with me forever. However, while protection of our nation is necessary, we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately assess the enemy, and that cannot be done without making the kinds of distinctions you seem reluctant to make.
   I cannot defend ignorance.
   I cannot defend prejudice.
   Let us build a community of safety for all people.

STEVEN LEWIS continued --
   I know you don't defend terrorism, Vern. The problem is that you tell us what "true" Muslims believe. Are you saying, then, that you know more about Islam than the numerous Ayatollas who have condoned actions such as the World Trade Center attack? The problem with using religion to defend religion is that those who advocate the use of terror can use the same tactics legitimately. The answers to our human problems do not lie in ancient holy books! Sincerely,

VERN continued
   Steven, I  urge you to consider the vastly greater number of legitimate and respected Muslim leaders, here and world wide, who condemned the attacks, compared with the irresponsible few who condoned such actions. I stood with the Interfaith Council the morning of 9/11, and before the press the Muslims (along with everyone else) emphatically condemned the attacks. But was that in the media? No, except for one radio station.
   For world-wide condemnation, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php and other sites.
   Yes, I am saying I know more about Islam, which I've studied as part of my doctoral work and explored on five continents, than the comparatively few evil Muslim leaders who distort their faith for political ends. continued
   Religion can be, and has been, used for the most wicked of actions. So has politics. So have ideologies. I suggest that discriminating between various persons and groups all claiming the same label, whatever that is, can be useful, and in fact may be necessary, if we are to deal with our problems. It is also important to recognize when we are misunderstood and why. I find that the after-effects of colonialism are important dynamics that need to be kept in mind as we seek to communicate with other peoples.
   I don't see how those who perpetrate or advocate terror can use religion "legitimately" to justify their activities.
   I do not believe I said that the answers to our human problems lie in ancient holy books. Did I? Ever? That was Ronald Reagan who said of the Bible at a 1980 convention of evangelical Christians in Dallas: “All the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book.” I wonder if you are bringing other issues into your reading of my column. I do think that scholarly study of those texts, and "secular" materials, great literature, art, the history of science, and all, can give us useful perspectives on our current problems, which I group in three arenas, environmental, personal, and social. I have given this a great deal of thought and, while I am glad to hear others' thoughts as well, I do not benefit from having others tell me what I think. With that understanding, I would be happy to hear your thoughts.
   Thanks for taking the trouble to write. I am glad to have you as a reader.
   And a follow-up.
   I wonder from what you've said about religion if you might be a Freethinker (agnostic, atheist, skeptic, etc). I want you to know that I have repeatedly written favorably about Freethinkers, attended and spoken at such local groups, had coffee with a good atheist friend of mine yesterday, etc. Some readers of some of my columns have identified me as an atheist. If you are a new reader of my column, let me know and I'll forward links to several columns where I've expressed appreciation for skeptics. One of my prize possessions is a letter actually from Bertrand Russell (I wrote a column about that), and I'm eager to recommend a forthcoming book (I've seen the proofs) that traces the history of criticism of religion.
   If you are unaquainted with any of the several wonderful Freethinker groups in town, I can also put you in touch with them if you like. If I have guessed wrong about your perspective, please excuse me. I try to be helpful to people of all persuasions and help them to understand each other.

STEVEN LEWIS continued --
   Vern, I don't expect you to recall me, but I attended UU services in Overland Park while you were pastor there in the early 1980s. I occasionally read Billy Graham's newspaper column instead of the funny pages. I read yours because I often find it insightful. My previous emails to you have all been congratulatory on columns I found particularly enlightening. I view the various "bibles" as more historical curiosities than documents to guide my life. I've concluded that Holy Book table tennis, where one tries to convince the other of what a real believer should believe or practice, is a deceptive practice even if it is directed toward dissuading a terrorist from terrorism.
   I fully support, of course, scholarly discourse that tries to reconstruct the intentions and meanings, both hidden and apparent, to the people who produced these documents .... and to the effects these documents have had on humanity
   I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true Muslim" or a "real Christian," whether they kill for a god or help the helpless for a god. Most likely I would prefer the behavior of the latter, although I would feel more comfortable if they helped the helpless for the sake of the helpless. Suggesting that true Muslims or Christians are the ones that do what you think their Holy Book "really" intended for them to do gives license to others to cite alternative chapter and verse that suggests true Muslims or Christians should be killing for their faith.
   Even in the hands of college graduates these ancient books can be like handing a loaded pistol to a child. They should carry with them a health warning like cigarettes!  Best to you.

VERN continued --
   Steven, When people -- even college graduates, as you say -- tell me they are reading the Bible, I usually discourage them. If they insist, I tell them at least get Cliff's Notes so they will have some background. There are some excellent books that can guide one through such ancient texts. I agree with you -- I'd like all Bibles to come with a warning label --- "Misunderstanding this can lead to fatal errors!"
   However, understood in a scholarly context, and selectively in devotional contexts, the Bible and other scriptures can reveal the thirst the human animal seems to have for transcendence and provide the benefit of vicarious experience, just as Shakespeare and Dante and Homer can.
   But, Steven, it isn't just ancient texts that cause problems. I've seen too many people become suicidal, for example, in part from reading A Course in Miracles (c1976). Religion can be dangerous!
   I do think it is possible to identify "normative" Christianity and "normative" Islam, although this is still a matter of some judgment. For example, while there are unitarian Christians, normative Christianity is Trinitarian. Parallels can be made within other faiths, although not necessarily in terms of belief where belief is not an important identifier in certain faiths (Hinduism, for example).
   Thanks for writing and reminding me a bit of your background.

FATIMAH EL-SHERIF in Egypt writes --
   In reference to your July 27th article... I wanted to say thank you. You always put the words so perfectly together. Making me proud to be a Kansas City native and to have grown up in such a diverse and respectful community.

WILLIAM DUNNING writes --
   Mr. Barnet, I enjoyed reading your article, “Knowledge Conquers Fear.”  You included a few points that were quite a different take on what I “thought I knew.”
   I would be very interested to hear the Imam.  I have been reading on Islamic topics; Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, (who seems to have a ‘fear and loathing’ sort of view) Just begun on Robert L. Esposito, and Karen Armstrong just got picked up from the library today. Any other suggested reading?
   I do have my very own Qur’an.  I find it hard to navigate, but Warraq notes that it is one of the better English translations. 
   Where is Pine ridge Presbyterian?  What day and time does the Imam make his presentation.  Reservations necessary?  Admission/donation?
   Please let me know, or point me to a web site that would give the information.  I’ll pass it on to others who may be interested.  The Imam is doing a good thing. Thank you.

VERN'S RESPONSE --
   Dear Mr Dunning, The Pine Ridge Presbyterian Church is located at 7600 NW Barry Road, KCMO 64153 ph:(816)741.5118. Here is the church website:  http://pineridge.org/SiteResources/Data/Templates/t1.asp?docid=568&DocName=Home
   The Sunday class runs 9:30 to 10:45 as I recall, bu I am sending a copy of this email to Brian Van Batavia, who arranged the class in case I am wrong. I'm also sending a copy to Imam El-Sherif as I think Brian will be unable to attend this one Sunday. There is no charge for this class. At any rate, I am sure you are most welcome! There is no charge for this class.
   You can read a somewhat dated bio sketch about El-Sherif at http://www.cres.org/pubs/ahmed.htm.
   The Qur'an is difficult to read and understand without information about the historical circumstances of each passage. It is really a kind of poetry, which makes interpretation a problem for those unfamiliar with the idioms and modes of expression. As with the Bible, it is easy to take things out of context and thus misconstrue the actual meaning of a text.
   You have made good book selections. I especially like Armstrong's short  ISLAM: A BRIEF HISTORY. It contains an excellent list of books for  further reading which I cannot improve upon. Espositio, a Catholic expert on Islam,  has written many books on the subject. Paul Findley's book SILENT NO MORE presents a side the American public does not often hear. Even THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM contains some useful insights. [WHAT'S RIGHT WITH ISLAM IS WHAT'S RIGHT WITH AMERICA is by the American Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. and No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam and Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in a Globalized Age by Reza Aslan.]
   Thank you for reading my column! And taking the trouble to write me! Best wishes,

JANET BAKER writes --
   Good morning Vern, "Knowledge Conquers Fear."  So true!  I am also passionate about diversity.  You are speaking truth to power and I thank you for all your good work and meaningful columns.
Your friend in peace,

VERN'S RESPONSE --
   Thanks for reading and for taking the trouble to write! Many of those reacting to the column worry me, so I appreciate a little balance!

LARRY McMEINS writes --
   You, sir, are and have been a naive idiot.  For years you have prattled on and on about how wonderful, beautiful and necessary is religious diversity.  You would have us believe that, basically, all religions share the same positive values, all share the same ethics and are pretty much interchangeable.  All the time you have been preaching this nonsense the extremist Muslims have, not only been murdering non-Muslims, but loudly bragging about it and telling us we are next on their list. In your article today, you breathlessly describe how Imam Ahmed El-Sherif preached at a Presbyterian Church about how Islam is the religion of peace.  If  you and those Presbyterians care to read the news, you will find that thousands and thousands of Muslims do not agree with that assessment.  You will also find out that millions and millions of Muslims refuse to speak out against Islamist violence.
   One clue about how naive you, and apparently  those Presbyterians, are is that you fail to  see how such preaching by a Muslim Imam could actually be of value and help "conquer fear."  Sadly, you are to overly anxious to want to see even a slight hint that maybe, just maybe, Islam  actually is peaceful.   In spite of all the violence committed in the name of Islam.  And what you fail to notice is that most non-Muslims have rarely, if ever, been made aware of Imams preaching peace towards non-Muslims in a Mosque.  When and if it can ever be verified that such behavior commonly happens, then I will be as impressed as you are and I will apologize.  In the meantime, you and your pacifist attitudes towards a violent religion, Islam, just makes you look like a naive lamb bleating about how good and honest your shepherd is as he leads you to slaughter.
   You know damn well it is so very, very easy for an Imam to preach tonon-Muslims  about how gentle and peaceful he and his religion is.  Surely you don't think any Imam would be dumb enough to preach at a Christian church and admit otherwise do you?  Why don't you ask him to preach that Presbyterian sermon at his Mosque and let you sit in on it.  I am betting you do not want to know the truth of what would happen if you tried to do that.  In fact I would be willing to bet money on  it.

VERN'S RESPONSE --
   Dear Larry -- Thank you for writing. I will do my best to respond.
  1. Your email contains errors of interpretation regarding what I write and what I wrote. First, no where did I say that the imam preached at the Presbyterian church. In fact I indicated that he "led a class" and I gave the name of the layman who arranged the class. You may want to reread the column.
  2. Second, my theme over many years has been diversity, not agreement, among religions.  I have in fact criticized the notion that all religions share some version of the Golden Rule. I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else.
   Some religions are like others in some respects, and differ markedly from others in other respects. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. Buddhism is non-theistic. True, Jews and Buddhists are alike in that they both eat, but they are different in their dietary practices. Please do not report me saying the opposite of what I in fact have said repeatedly.
   I emphasize differences rather than similarities. We are all alike, yes; but we are all different, too. Too often we fear differences instead of understanding and enjoying them, and we cheat ourselves by looking mainly for similarities. I don't want all of my food to taste like potatoes. I don't want to focus on how Kansas City and Paris and Calcutta are alike. I don't want to see just the similarities between Mozart and Steely Dan and Eminem. Why are you more likely to lend money to a friend than to a guy newly convicted of robbery if it is our human similarities that should override other considerations? If all people are basically alike and that’s what’s important, what difference does it make who you marry or choose as a business partner?
   Most of us understand religion so poorly that we apply our own categories to others' faiths when those categories miss the very essence of the other faiths. Religions don't just have different ways of doing the same things; we do different things, and aim for different things. I believe we can build stronger relationships by celebrating differences instead of submerging them or relying on our similarities.
   Nonetheless, I do think the religions can be grouped into three "families," and while the differences among them are important, at the most basic level, it is essential to see the differences among the three families. I believe our survival depends on this, as you'll see from this chart: http://www.cres.org/#chart
   I would appreciate it if you would not say that I think "all religions share the same positive values, all share the same ethics and are pretty much interchangeable." I do not think that. I repeat, I do not think that. I do not say that. I do not write that.
   If someone wishes to be taken seriously, one needs to hear what the other is actually saying.
   3. It is curious that you are eager for Muslims to condemn terrorism, but when I write about a Muslim condemning terrorism, you write an unpleasant note to me instead of congratulations. Please remember that there are extremists claiming to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. In fact, Muslims have repeatedly and overwhelmingly condemned violence. Among the dead on 9/11 were almost 400 Muslims. I  urge you to consider the vast number of legitimate and respected Muslim leaders, here and world wide, who condemn terrorism, compared with the irresponsible few who encourage such actions. I stood with the Interfaith Council the morning of 9/11, and before the press the Muslims (along with everyone else) emphatically condemned the attacks. But was that in the media? No, except  for one radio station.
    For world-wide condemnation, see http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php and  http://islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/373-whywedonthear and other sites. I know there are a comparatively few evil Muslim leaders out of the 1.5 billion Muslims who distort their faith for political ends. Religion can be, and has been, used for the most wicked of actions. So has politics. So have  ideologies. I suggest that discriminating between various persons and groups all claiming the same label, whatever that is, can be useful, and in fact may be necessary, if we are to deal with our problems. It is also important to recognize when we are misunderstood and why. I find that the after-effects of colonialism are important dynamics that need to be kept in mind as we seek to communicate with other peoples.
  4. Concerning Ahmed El-Sherif, a loyal American, who has been recognized many times and by many organizations for his contributions to the community and for his service: I have known him for many years. He is a man of deep and abiding integrity who supports folks of all faiths. For example, when Christian churches have been destroyed, he raised money to help rebuild them. He has worked internationally at risk of his own life as well as locally for peace. Currently he is working on a project with a Jewish friend to benefit suffering children in both Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Please read about him at http://www.cres.org/pubs/ahmed.htm .
   You challenge me to listen to him preach at a mosque. I have in fact heard him many times preach in a mosque and I am always inspired by his generosity and advocacy for peace. I have also heard other imams as well preach in mosques and invariably heard a message of peace and righteousness.
   If you would like, I'd be happy to arrange an opportunity for you to hear him preach.
   There are many excellent books on Islam. I especially like Karen Armstrong's ISLAM: A BRIEF HISTORY because it is short and has useful reference material in the back. John Espositio, a Catholic expert on Islam,  has written many books on the subject. Paul Findley's book, SILENT NO MORE presents a side the American public does not often hear. Even THE COMPLETE
IDIOT'S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM contains some useful insights.
  5a. You call me an idiot. I generally do not find insults to be helpful in the exchange of views. I do not know about your situation, of course, but sometimes those who call others names are often unconsciously insecure and try to bolster their own sense of self-worth and superiority by defaming others.
   I have traveled in South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as visiting Muslim sites in this country. Yes, I am saying I know both (rather, many) sides of Islam, which I've studied as part of my doctoral work and during my 40-year career in  the ministry. Some Kansas City Muslim families have been Americans for generations. They abhor violence. As founder of the KC Interfaith Council, I have many, many friends of other faiths as well. These friends have added to my studies and travel.
   In addition, contrary to your skepticism that I am acquainted with the news, I read a number of daily newspapers, obtain numerous media reports, and in other ways keep up on the often unpleasant news of our time.
  5b. I'm not sure this qualifies me as a "naive idiot." We may have different views, but that does not mean either of us is an idiot, and I hold off judging you, as I say, because I do not know your situation.
   When someone writes me and turns what I have written into the opposite, that I am defending what is condemned, I wonder if that person has had a terrible personal experience or has been afflicted by narrow propaganda or perhaps has a political agenda. Whatever the case, I am sorry.
   On the other hand, there are folks who lost relatives in 9/11 and other attacks by Muslims and those of other faiths as well, alas, still grieving, and, while cherishing the memories of those so violated by the viciousness of terrorism, seek to find ways to heal rather than deepen misunderstandings. The loss I experienced personally in 2001 will stay with me forever. The protection of our nation is necessary, and we lose our ability to protect ourselves unless we accurately assess the enemy, and that cannot be done  without making the kinds of distinctions you seem reluctant to make.
  6. In conclusion, I want you to know that I do not suppose I have changed your strong views. I did want to write you back so you will know that I considered them.  I do appreciate your reading my column and I do thank you for writing. I'd be interested to know if any of this has been helpful, or if it seems to you still that I am quite the naive idiot. With best wishes,

LARRY McMEINS continues --
   OK, Vern,  you have shown me the error of my thinking.  You responded to my angry email with a calm and friendly attitude.  You appear to live what you preach.  So I should not have used the word "idiot" to apply to you.  Please accept my sincere apology  (for whatever it is worth to you) and let me change the word to just "man."  A naive man.  And let me show you why I still call you "naive."
   On Dec. 7, 1941, America learned all it needed to know about the country of Japan.  In 1995 America learned all it needed to know about Timothy McVey.  On 9-11-01 America learned all it needs to know about radical Islam.  Not just because of the heinous, murderous actions of a band of extremist Muslim terrorists, but because of the celebration exhibited by hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world.  And, maybe even worse, by the inaction of millions of Muslims around the world. I.E. their deafening silence by not condemning the heinous attack on the world trade center.
   So, rather than me sending you a detailed, lengthy response to your friendly and kind email, I will just ask you one short, simple question, if you care to answer.  Do you consider millions of Muslims who either below to radical Islam, or at least support or don't oppose radical Islam, to be one of the very top possible causes of the future destruction of the non-Muslim  (mostly Western) world?
   If you do not, then you are indeed a naive man and you may, in your lifetime, witness the death of  many loved ones, and possible civilization in general, at the hands of extremist, hate-filled Muslims.  Muslims who believe in a primitive religion that treats them worse than slaves in that they are REQUIRED to go to their Mosque AT LEAST 5 times a day, remove their shoes  (I guess God despises shoes for some reason), put their face into some dirty prayer rug, their ass in the air  (or maybe in the face of the believer behind them) and pray to their creator.  A creator who apparently is not powerful enough to murder his own enemies but must instead rely on murderous, extremist Muslims.
   Do you agree with the above or not?  913-829-1959

VERN continued --
   Dear Larry-- Thank you for reconsidering part of your opinion about me. I appreciate your best efforts to have a civil and informative discussion.
   I abhor and condemn Muslim extremists. I also abhor and condemn Christian extremists (and those, in the context of their times, did such despicable things to those of their own faith and others and were considered then normative). I also abhor and condemn Jewish extremists, and Hindu extremists, etc, regardless against whom the violence is directed. Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu extremist, Rabin by a Jewish extremist, and Sadat by a Muslim extremist.
   However, Muslims were not silent after 9/11. There was a near unanimous condemnation. I heard it here in Kansas City and from around the world. May I inquire whether your followed the link I provided in item #3 above?
   Further, the problem is how to defeat Muslim extremists. That means learning about them and their recruiting methods and ideology. If they are Muslims, they are Muslims only in the sense that Christians who murder or exploit or swindle are Christians. I certainly agree that Muslim extremists are a danger to the world, and most Muslims agree (such as most Afghans abhor the Taliban).
   In order to understand the origins of Islamic extremists, which is a relatively recent phenomenon (historically Muslims have been far more generous and tolerant than Christians who have historically been far more violent), it is important to recognize historical facts. I don't mean simple facts like the first nation to recognize the Independence of the United States was a Muslim country. I mean we need to understand the complex political environment that resulted from colonialism. For example, perhaps the worst form of Islamic extremism is Wahhabism (1744), which we in effect supported because of our lust for oil. In recognizing (UK, 1927 etc) the nation of Saudi Arabia, the West empowered the worst (or at least one of the worst) expressions of Islam in history. While many Muslims admire the US, they also resent the West's support for oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Many Americans have short memories. For example, we gave WMD to Iraq (Saddam Hussein) in order to support his struggle with Iran (which had a revolution in 1979 because we had installed a dictator, the Shah, after our CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh. So normative Islam, which is basically a religion of peace and consensus, has in part become radicalized by certain Western actions which have given Islam an ugly political face and led in part to the threat both non-Muslims and other Muslims face, with myriad of different factions arising from different local circumstances and wretched leaders. And it is important to recognize that only about 20% of the world's Muslims are Arab. (Iran is Muslim Shi'a but not Arab). Iraq is Arab but mainly Shi'a, where most Arabs are Sunni.
   None of this is to defend violence. But to be effective in protecting ourselves, it is essential to know the enemy and how the enemy thinks.
   You might be interested in reading the report of the 9/11 Diversity Task Force, which I chaired, working with the FBI and other agencies. You can download the PDF version from http://www.cres.org/pubs/dtf/index.htm.
   You may continue to consider me naive, and these few comments may not prove otherwise. But I assure you, having traveled the world, studied Islam for years, chaired the commission I mentioned, I am probably more informed than the average citizen.
   As for your disregard of Islamic prayer practices, I would invite you to attend a Friday prayer service and you might discover how beautiful it is. As for your notion of "dirty" prayer rugs, you betray an ignorance that is astounding. Before a Muslim prays, he does ablutions, washing himself (including his nostrils) to present himself clean in body to be clean in spirit. As for the five-time prayer, St Paul commands Christians to "pray without ceasing." They are not required to go to the mosque five times a day, but to pray five times a day. Men are expected to go to the mosque once a week, for Friday noon-time prayer, as Christians are expected to go to church once a week on Sunday. I am not a Muslim, but I remove my shoes when I enter my own house. God told Moses "put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest  is  holy ground." (Ex 3:5.)
   I would like to think that we have disagreements, but that you do not think I am particularly naive.
   Do let me know if this is helpful, Obviously I have a heavy schedule, and I have taken some time to recognize some of your concerns but cannot address them fully. If you are sincere in learning about Islam, why not start with the books I have suggested and let me take you to Friday prayer some time soon. With best wishes,

LARRY McMEINS continued --
   Vern, Perhaps your method of studying the Muslims in fine detail will work in dealing with the radical Islamic threat.  In my case, if a person or group wants to harm me or mine when we are not personally responsible for any harm done to that person or group, then the murderous intent of that person or group is about all I need to know about them in order for me to form my opinion.  In addition, I believe that most Muslim men have been treating their women and children,  much like they treat their animals, for centuries.  I don't know of any scientific advance that has come out of the Muslim world for centuries.  I myself have not seen any Muslim individuals or groups publicly protest their extremist, murderous Muslim brothers. In general, I believe that Islam is a hateful, murderous, primitive and ignorant religion.  Perhaps future actions by the extremist Muslims will change your attitude to match mine.  Perhaps not. 
   While many (perhaps most) religions have had a violent history, the extremist Muslims are the only religious group that in modern time seems to want to destroy me, my family, my county and also destroy you Vern.
   Thank you for the conversation, I wish you well,  and I will let you have the last word.
   Larry McMeins, 913-829-1959 

VERN continued --
   I think you are correct that we can wrap up this conversation. I am concerned to protect our nation from terrorism and I know that demonizing an entire 1.5 billion people because of an evil fanatic element  plays intro the terrorists hands. I know that the US has never had a woman president but several Islamic nations have had women leaders. I know our debt to Islam is incredibly deep, from alfalfa to zero. I know that in America and in Kansas City Muslim researchers and physicians are saving lives (I know this personally). I know Muslims have been involved in various ways at the Royals, the Country Club Plaza, elected governmental units, and so forth. I cannot betray my many Muslim friends here and abroad working for peace.
   I distinguish "Muslim extremists" from the many Muslims who are decent, loving, productive, peace-loving people. You apparently have not availed yourself of the citations I offered of the many condemnations of terrorism and violence, such as http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
so I am left wondering if you simply are uninterested in evidence that might suggest that you revise your view that Muslims have not overwhelmingly condemned violence. If this is so, that evidence is useless in a discussion, then it is indeed appropriate that we end correspondence.
   Regretfully, But wishing you well, too,
. . . .

LARRY concluded --
   The next time I want to be rude and start an argument, I will try to find only people who deserve my attention and try and leave the good people alone. 

VERN concluded --
   You cared enough (perhaps about me) to attempt a conversation. I am grateful for that. I respect a person who tries to do one's duty as a citizen, to set forth a clearer understanding of the world, especially though the difficult medium of emails. Your your good intentions and faithfulness, I offer thanks. At prayer at church this morning I thought of our exchange twice, once in confessing my own faults and limitations  and again when we included the names of those killed this week as the world struggles to deal with the terrible problem of extremism.
   Please forgive my inadequacies and know I also tried to be faithful to you as a fellow-citizen sharing perspectives with one another.

RICHARD wrote --
    I recently received this “Explanation of Islam” from a conservative friend in Virginia.  Would you take a few minutes to view the video?  I am very interested in you reaction.  How much of this video is actually true?
   I am not that familiar with the philosophy or practice of Islam.  If the information provided by the video is true, this is disturbing.  If is untrue, it is equally disturbing as it’s being circulated throughout the country via the internet.
   Thanks for taking time to view and react to the attached video.
   Interesting information on Islam.
  Subject: Explanation of Islam
   http://chicksontheright.com/2010/07/21/a-study-of-islam/

VERN replied --
   I'm working under deadline right now and must be brief in response to the slick video, http://chicksontheright.com/2010/07/21/a-study-of-islam/
   1. The "difficult" passages in the Qur'an occur in a very specific historical context and clearly are not normative for most situations, any more that you attacking someone who is attacking your loved one in your own home demonstrates how you will normally behave in public. The Qur'an is largely poetry, meant to be chanted, and its allusions and language make many passages subject to various interpretations. The video ignores also that the Qur'an is supplemented by the Hadith, which is similar to the Torah being supplemented by the Talmud, both with conflicting interpretations. The idea that there is one view flowing from the Quran is demonstrably wrong, given the extraordinary cultural inflections and four basic legal schools just in Sunni Islam. Further, the history of Islam is far more peaceful and tolerant than that of Christianity.
   2. Historically there is much justification for seeing a desire for justice within Islam, and a rejection of the kind of despotic leaders that the Colonial West foisted on many Muslim countries, some of which the West virtually created to control. The relationship between various movements within Islam regarding politics range enormously, from those who have taught the Muslim must have no relationship with government at all to those who want to control government. Many American Muslims have stated publicly that the US Constitution is compatible with, and an expression of, Muslim political ideals. There is nothing unusual about believers in particular faiths going to their religious leaders for opinions. For example, Orthodox Jews seek judgments in Jewish law from rabbis. Catholics wishing to annul marriages go through religious courts. This video confounds Islam with certain cultural practices which we in the West have, ironically, strengthened (Saudi Arabia is a vivid example). However, there is much in Islamic law from which we can learn. For example, the recent financial collapse narrowly averted would never have happened if Islamic banking practices had been followed.
   3. Above I've already covered many of the misrepresentations under #3.
   You might be interested in reading the exchange I've had following publication of my
my column 828, http://www.cres.org/star/star2010.htm#828, with JIM HOEL, STEVEN LEWIS, and
LARRY McMEINS.
   You owe it to yourself to read at least Karen Armstrong's little book that I mention and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam.
   Thank you for writing. I am sorry I cannot respond more fully at this time. My own long-time study of Islam, travel, and many friendships with Muslim cause me to grieve deeply when I see things like this video, inspired it seems to be to create mistrust for political ends.
   Again, thanks for seeking another opinion about the video.


827. 100721 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
All faiths find value in worship

Long before the internet, cell phones and endless electronic to-do lists gave rise to our age of distraction, Roman Catholic priest Romano Guardini wrote that worship is play. 
   I think what he meant is that worship is a kind of “time out” from our everyday work pursuits. “The soul must learn to abandon, at least in prayer, the restlessness of purposeful activity,” he wrote.
   The ancient Greeks also prized play because it frees us from the everyday roles we adopt or are forced into so that we are better able to discover who we really are.
   “The liturgy has laid down the serious rules of the sacred game which the soul plays before God,” Guardini wrote. We become joyful “children” playing in the presence of a divine Parent.
   He asked what those who object to worship as play will think when, finding themselves in heaven, they have nothing to do but sing an “eternal song of praise.”
   On the other hand, the Reformation has generally approached worship less as sacrament and more as teaching. Worship has sometimes been stripped of ritual rules and devices like incense, vestments and the liturgical calendar in order to focus on instruction for practicing faith in the workaday world.
   Of these two tendencies many churches nowadays seek a balance within their traditions and today’s needs.
   Like the play/work polarity are two answers to the question, “Why worship?” 
   If worship is an activity we perform for God, then it makes sense to design worship with all the artistic and dramatic skills at our disposal, even to praise God with music and dance, as Psalm 150 commands.
   On the other hand, if worship is meant to benefit the worshipper more than God, then instruction is what counts. It can vary from a sermon, common in most Sunday services, to sitting in silence until the Inner Light within us commands us speak to our companions, the traditional Quaker mode.
   On five continents I’ve worshipped with not only with Christians and Jews, but also with Muslims at Friday prayer in the mosque, with Buddhists in zendo meditation, with American Indians in the sweat lodge, with misogi at a Shinto waterfall, with puja in a Hindu temple, with karah parshad at a Sikh gurdwara, with magick rites in a pagan circle and so forth.
   Parallels to the different approaches to worship in Christianity can be found as well in these other faiths.
   But what all have in common is found in the Old English word, weorthscippen, scooping out or ascribing worth. In this context, worship means considering what is of ultimate value. Even atheists have ways of doing this.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
   Implied but not explained is the connection between "play" and sacramentalism. One might consider the sacramental and the instructional approach to worship the "two hands" of the Christian devotional tradition. Instructional worship is often moral in focus.
  DIscussion of "transference" (in the psychoanalytic sense) arising from the role of priest or minister or other religious leader would be interesting.

READER COMMENT

Paul S. wrote:
   Your column today was so beautifully inclusive and profound. The last sentence was a humdinger!

Gene B. wrote:
   Thanks for the excellent and thoughtful piece on worship today!

trapblock wrote on 7/22/2010 --
   The common thread of these faiths is that they all contain elements of the Truth which resides in it's entirety in the Church that Christ founded.
   "That the end we ought to propose to ourselves is to become, in this life, the most perfect worshippers of God we can possibly be, as we hope to be through all eternity." - Brother Lawrence

Mama Fortuna (in California)  wrote:
   Just a quick note to let you know I enjoyed your article about worship being play, with loving adult-figures. Made sense.

COLUMN CITED
Sikh Post July 20


826. 100714 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Diversity strengthens faith

June 23 I wrote about the variety within Christianity as an example of the differences found within each of the great religions.
   The column later appeared in several other papers. Violet Bortz of Twin Falls, Idaho, writes that her church “stresses the importance of unity.” She worries about “so many different ideas” and wonders if I have a clue “as to what the solution is.”
   Perhaps diversity is not the problem. Maybe it is our fear of diversity that causes trouble. The solution may lie in celebrating differences as valuable perspectives on the human spiritual quest.
   While the story of the Christ is central to Christianity, various Christians understand the story differently. That’s why there are many denominations. Some Christians believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus; others understand the resurrection as an allegory of the church which has become the body of Christ.
   Christianity as a whole exhibits no unity of belief, of governance, of worship, of moral expectations, nor of practice. For example, some shop and go to movies on Sunday. Others refrain as a way of observing the Sabbath. For others the Sabbath is Saturday. 
   Why is this a problem? We come from different backgrounds and face different circumstances. We see the world differently.
   A one-size-fits-all faith does not respect our individual spiritual needs anymore than forcing folks with high cholesterol or lactose intolerance or a distaste for broccoli to follow the same diet.
   For the most part, we are able to accommodate each other. And when there is conflict, different beliefs are usually the excuse, not the cause, for vexation.
   In his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 12, St. Paul employs a metaphor of the parts of the body to the whole to discuss the importance of difference within unity. He writes:
   “If the whole body were a single organ, there would be no body at all. . . . The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you,’ nor the head to the feet, ‘I do not need you.’ Quite the contrary.’
   Perhaps Paul’s metaphor can be extended to Violet’s perplexity. Just as the hand encounters the world differently than the eye, so we as individuals explain our encounters with the sacred in different ways.
   It seems unreasonable that we should all agree on a single way to express the great mysteries of life. To do so, would be to make the hand the whole body, which would mean no body at all.
   The unity of humanity is found not in identical beliefs but rather in working together, hand and eye, offering our differences to one another with respect, compassion and thanksgiving.

READER COMMENT

DIANE wrote --
   .... as always you explain the value of differences so diplomatically and plainly. Thank you for continuing in your life's calling!

JACK wrote --
   your article yesterday was particularly excellent.  I get a real kick out of your writing.

GEORGE C wrote -- 
   RE:  Your July 14, 2010 KC Star column Diversity Strengthens Faith
   Your statement that "one-size-fits-all does not respect individual needs" is mixing apples and broccoli. I have enjoyed reading your weekly column for a decade or so in spite of the fact I do not agree with your basic premise. I am aware of your position in the community as a strong advocate for unity within the diverse religious community.  Nevertheless I am convinced diversity does not strengthen but dilutes Godly worship.  It is the duty of man to obey God and accept His commandments (Eccl 12:13).
   Jesus Christ promised to build a church (Mt 16:18), its foundation was the teachings of the apostles and Christ (Eph 2:18) and he gave his life for it (Eph 5:25).
   If you believe in God you also believe He has an adversary who would eagerly introduce confusion into Christ's plan.  One successful strategy would create bogus religions and teach that they are all acceptable.  If I were the enemy I can think of no better plan to guide prospects away from Christianity's doorway.  I would embrace confusion and encourage diversity so people would not be able to recognize the path to salvation! While the various churches may be equal legally they are not equal in God's eyes.
   As far as respecting other religions, I certainly do.  When the Native American performs his rain dance I do not scoff or ridicule.  I don't think he has an effect on the weather but I don't insult him.  Counterfeit Christians will and that brings dishonor on Christ and his church.  Diversity does not strengthen but dilutes Godly worship. 
   Finding a needle in a haystack is difficult enough but tossing in several counterfeit needles would certainly produce confusion and prevent easily identifying the original.  Likewise, creating several counterfeit churches would also confuse people. Today the IRS recognizes well over 2000 different "Christian" churches, each worshiping in its own way.  Based on numbers alone, there are at least 1999 churches that are not worshipping according to apostolic teaching. There are many that seem right but are not acceptable to God (Prov 14:12).
   The apostle Paul was distressed that some Christians were quick to accept change (Gal 1:6-8).   He warns them/us (2 Thess 2:2-4) to not be deceived by anyone claiming to be God. He warns of the time when some will not keep the doctrines of the apostles but will grasp false teachers who say what people want to hear (2 Tim 4:3-4).    Peter also warned of false teachers convincing their followers to believe lies, heresies and insidious ways.  We are warned to avoid these at the expense of serious penalty (2 Pet 2:1-6). 
   No Mr. Barnet, I don't think diversity strengthens faith.  It prevents many from finding the church that Jesus started.  We should accept the teachings of the apostles, not those who came along later.  Remember, Christ started his church in Jerusalem, not in Topeka, Wittenberg or Rome. 
   Respectfully, 

VERN replied --
   Thank you for your thoughtful communication.
   Diversity is a fact. Having taught Bible and church history  as well as world religions in seminary, I am familiar with the disputes from the beginnings in Jerusalem (see Acts and the letters attributed to Paul). So whether you like diversity or not, it is here and has been in every faith I know about since each faith's origin. We can fight it (labeling people heretics or burning them at the stake) or maybe we can learn something that will enrich our own faith by trying to understand why others feel, think and behave differently that we do.
   You do mistake  my  aim when you write, "I am aware of your position in the community as a strong advocate for unity within the diverse religious community."
I am not now and never have been in favor of "unity within the diverse religious community."
   I have always promoted respect for differences.
   My point is not to decide for you or anyone else who is right. I respect your opinion and I certainly do not want to put "apples and broccoli" in a blender and come up with mush or mix them in any way. I think the world is better with distinctions.
  What you consider a "bogus religion" someone else finds to be true. I am not trying to decide for you. I am not competent to decide for others. You may feel you are in that position to know the truth, but obviously, from the many forms of Christianity that exist even in the Kansas City area, most people will not agree with you. As you put it, you are 1 against 1999, using IRS figures. It simply is a fact that folks have different opinions about who is the true and who is the counterfeit Christian. And so many churches claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles, yet all claiming to do so, we have a proliferation of churches.
   I deeply cherish my own faith and am grateful for the stimulation and deepening that has happened over the years and continues to happen as I learn about others.
  As I wrote, "A one-size-fits-all faith does not respect our individual spiritual needs any more than forcing folks with high cholesterol or lactose intolerance or a distaste for broccoli to follow the same diet."
   I am glad you do not make fun of American Indians, though from your statement I am not at all sure you really understand what a rain dance is about.
   Thank you for writing. I doubt very much that I have changed your mind, but I have tried to be faithful to let you know I have considered your email and to confess frankly why I continue to value diversity.
   I would hope, however, that you and I agree that our over-secular society is in deep trouble and needs a revival of faith.
   My working position is that we have three great crises: in the environment, in personhood, and in society. I think the sense of the sacred found in Primal, Asian, and Monotheistic faiths can help us resolve these crises of secularism by pushing us to dig more deeply into our own  traditions, whatever they are, as we become acquainted with other faiths and the differences within them.
   Again, thanks for reading my column even though you disagree, and for taking the trouble to write me.
   Respectfully and with appreciation,

GEORGE C continued
   REF: "A recent column about diversity … drew some vehement responses."
   Dear Mr. Barnet, Imagine my surprise when I saw one of my remarks in the newspaper!  Then I noticed it wasn't in such a good light.  Bummer!  First, I had to look up "vehement" just to make sure.  According to my Webster's New World it means: 1) … violent, impetuous.  Hmmmm, that's not me.   2) Intense feeling, strong passion.  That's better but misleading to your readers. 
   Perhaps my disagreeing with you felt like an attack and I set off your "fight or flight" mechanism. Often the fight takes on some strange twists.  For example, as a former IRS employee I know they recognize well over 2000 groups claiming to be Christian.  I never said they have a list. 
   The IRS has no constitutional authority over any Church, and may not violate the First Amendment protection against government interference with a Church.
   The IRS does prohibit such organizations from "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" (26 USC 501-C-3).
   Section 508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that Churches are not required to apply for recognition of Section 501(c) (3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax deductible contributions.
   In essence, anyone can claim to be doing business as a church and until they violate US Code, the IRS remains "hands off."   So they "recognize" a whole raft/bunch/passel of churches.
   Forget the IRS and looking at the KC Yellow Pages we see there are quite a few churches around here.  As a former Bible teacher you should know that Christ started only one church.  Regardless of the total, today the number available is more than one. 
   You said, "As you put it, you are 1 against 1999, using IRS figures."  I did not advocate any particular church. But based on simple math and common senes, (X - 1) are in error. 
   In your previous email you corrected me where I said you were a strong advocate for "unity within the diverse religious community."  I stand (or, in this case, sit) corrected.  Yes, I agree, diversity is a fact.  I never meant to imply it was not.  My point was that God established a worship system and warned us to "keep the faith" and avoid false teachers.  The numerous churches today prove that mankind has created many false churches in competition with whichever church Jesus started.
   << So whether you like diversity or not, it is here and has been in every faith I know about since each faith's origin. We can fight it (labeling people heretics or burning them at the stake) or maybe we can learn something that will enrich our own faith by trying to understand why others feel, think and behave differently that we do.>>
   It wasn't my intention to fight diversity, just point out that in my opinion it is not something to admire or support as we were told to avoid false teachers.
   You mentioned "burn them at the stake" and it reminded me of how Paul and Barnabus reacted when they were persecuted by the Jews. They did not burn anyone at the stake.  They did not organize a pogrom or crusade. They left the city, shaking the dust off their feet.   That is what Christians do. 
   Not one Christian, from Christ himself on down, fought back or demanded the death of their adversaries. Christ taught to love your neighbor and/or enemy and turn the other cheek to diffuse the situation.  Yet armies have been formed to kill in the name of Christ and inquisitions were used to protect the established monolithic organization in control at that time.   I'm not fighting that, just pointing out that burning heretics is not something God, Jesus Christ or his apostles wanted. After all, if you kill someone they no longer have a chance to repent and accept His gospel.  Thus I conclude it is not God's policy to burn heretics.
   << I have always promoted respect for differences.>> 
   <<  I am glad you do not make fun of American Indians, though from your statement I am not at all sure you really understand what a rain dance is about. >> 
   Sorry if I did not make myself clear.  I respect people, I don't necessarily agree with their ideas.
   I think it is each individual's responsibility to work out his own salvation.  Accepting counterfeit churches indicates a cavalier attitude toward religion. 
   <<What you consider a "bogus religion" someone else finds to be true.>>
   "Find to be true?" I would question how much effort most people place in "finding" the truth!  People stand in line overnight for concert tickets or the latest issue of Harry Potter but won't spend ten minutes researching the church they are attending.  Its nearby, mom and pop went there, they have a nice youth program and/or the Pastor looks and sounds nice on TV.  Once they have made their selection few can change their minds (fight or flight again?).  They deeply cherish that faith and enjoy the social aspects of it. But is it the one God established?  Or are they victims of pious men wearing long robes who enjoy prestige?
   Mr. Barnet, I agree with you that our over-secular society is in deep trouble and needs a revival of faith. My solution would be to dig deeper into Scripture, learn the truth and follow it.  Too many man-made traditions have confused and complicated the truth.
   In closing, I enjoyed meeting you years ago at an evolution/creation debate. (Now THERE'S a debate!) I recognize your life's work is to explore spirituality within the diverse religious community.  I still disagree but I hope you value my position as I value yours.
  Respectfully, George Cook, Riverside, MO 816 746-3840 

VERN continued -- 
   Dear Mr Cook -- I was using "vehement" in the first sense:
"1. zealous; ardent; impassioned: a vehement defense; vehement enthusiasm.
2. characterized by rancor or anger; violent: vehement hostility.
3. strongly emotional; intense or passionate: vehement desire.
4. marked by great energy or exertion; strenuous: vehement clapping."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehement
   I apologize if this term was inappropriate. I interpreted your seven paragraphs and biblical citations as "loving the Lord ardently, zealously."
   To repeat myself: "It simply is a fact that folks have different opinions about who is the true and who is the counterfeit Christian. And so many churches claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles, yet all claiming to do so, we have a proliferation of churches."
   If I understand you, historically you are quite incorrect about the origins of Christianity. There was an amazing diversity of opinion within the first century alone. I cannot give you a history lesson in this email, but any reputable college or seminary text book on church history, or even the New Testament, will make this clear for you. For example,the letters written by Paul express very different ideas than the ones later credited to him, and most of them concern views of Christians with which he did not agree, even in churches he founded. And the twenty or so gospels that did not make it into the Bible by the fourth century but which have been preserved, also vary. And the church fathers were constantly arguing. That's why Constantine convened councils, to try to stop the arguing so he could get on with governing.
  The IRS official told laughed when I quoted you to him that the IRS "Today the IRS recognizes well over 2000 different 'Christian' churches, each worshiping in its own way." There is no count of Christian churches. I don't know how you would know how many the IRS recognizes unless there is some kind of count or tally or list. Perhaps God knows how many churches are tax-exempt, but apparently the IRS does not keep a count. While I have seen various numbers identifying Christian denominations, I had not seen a citation of "over 2000" before -- and it seemed like a figure out of the blue. If one were to count individual congregations, we are likely to exceed that number in Missouri alone, I would guess.
   Your argument that X-1 seems simplistic to me. Suppose church A has 90% of the truth, church B has 80%, church C has 30% and so forth. And suppose that the 100% church no longer exists. Then it is X-X. In fact, many churches are in substantial agreement about doctrine, and many about polity. The Roman Catholic Church is such an interesting example since it now recognizes the Orthodox communions, and of course the ecclesiastical situation is far more complex than I can go into here. And how to worship correctly? The Roman Church, like every church, has evolved in its worship practices, so I remain uncertain of how you can say that "God established a worship system" and implied we must keep it when no one worships the way the early churches did, or can.
   I am grateful to you for seeing my point about diversity, even if you continue to find diversity troublesome. I presume you have found what you consider to be the one true church and I congratulate you. Those who find a spiritual path that works for them are to be admired. My view is that with greater diversity, the chance for people finding a good fit is greater. And I don't know who has the authority to compel others as to which church is "counterfit," at least not in America.
   I am skeptical about your solution to our over-secularistic society: " to dig deeper into Scripture, learn the truth and follow it." The Scripture is exceedingly difficult, as a compilation of often contradictory ancient texts  produced in ways most people do not understand and do not have the background and will not take the time to study. Sola Scriptura does not work anymore for most people.
   So while I am grateful to you for acknowledgment of the fact that diversity exists, and that you can respect people without agreeing with their views, if I understand you, you feel there is one correct church. My problem is that many churches claim this single status.  Even those who claim to follow Scripture literally or claim to teach what the apostles taught have different interpretations of it.
   So my question for you is does one determine which church is true? And how does God handle all those who have not been given the gift of finding the true church?
   Awaiting your answer, With appreciation, And with gratitude for you remembering me from an evolution debate, Respectfully,

GEORGE C continued
   Mr. Barnet, Why do I suddenly feel like I'm up to my armpits in alligators? 
   I thought we had put the IRS behind us. As I explained in my last email, "I never said the IRS has a list." Apparently we (you, me and your IRS official) all agree that the IRS does recognize "well over" 2000 churches.  You said you have seen various numbers identifying Christian denominations.  I imagine it would be well over 2000!
  Your seizing that statement and making an issue of it is a red herring and overlooks my point - "one-size-fits-all does not respect individual needs" is still the crux of the matter. Our duty is not to find a church that agrees with us (For there is going to come a time when people won't listen to the truth but will go around looking for teachers who will tell them just what they want to hear.  2 Tim 4:3)   Our duty is to obey, not to fashion a church acceptable to our whims.  I am convinced diversity does not strengthen but dilutes Godly worship.  It is the duty of man to obey God and accept His commandments.
  <<So my question for you is (how) does one determine which church is true?>>
   As to your first question, I'll quote a learned scribe, "My point is not to decide for you or anyone else who is right." 
   Church doctrine and conduct can be found throughout the New Testament.  If a sincere individual were to ask me how one finds salvation I would readily go over the examples of Christian conversion in the Bible, starting with Acts 2.  However, in your case you are simply baiting me and would argue with any response I gave. So, to save us both time, I'll pass, thank you. 
   <<And how does God handle all those who have not been given the gift of finding the true church?>>
   As to the second question, I'll remind you of the 7th chapter of Matthew's Gospel. Verses 15-20 warn us of false prophets in sheep's clothing. They worked hard for Christ but he said he never knew them.
   Apparently Christ found diversity to be unacceptable and expelled those who followed a different gospel.  How does one find the correct gospel?  If, as you say, the Bible is a mish-mash of misinterpretations and contradictions perhaps God is incapable of informing people of what He wants. 
   If I'm not mistaken, your point was that diverse arguments affecting the early church proves wide-ranging opinions were normal. Yes, there were disagreements but it is my impression the arguments are in the Bible for our learning and, for the most part, had a resolution.  For example, in the matter of circumcision the former Jews argued to keep the old Law.  This was resolved in favor of the law of liberty, as Mosaic Law was no longer valid.
   If you support diversity you are saying it is acceptable to support anyone's version of doctrine.   To say, "My interpretation is just as good as yours" is to encourage confusion. On the other hand Paul teaches that it is important to obey the doctrine that was delivered and to avoid those that cause division. 
   Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
   Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
   How do his followers identify and avoid those that cause division? According to you all opinions are acceptable.
   With all due respect you appear cynical about the veracity of Scripture.  Having taught Bible and church history as well as world religions in seminary I'm sure you know the Bible claims to be the "God breathed."  Regardless of how it was passed down through the centuries if God is not capable of providing us with the information he wants He is not as powerful as we suppose and our faith is in vain. 
   Mr. Barnet, it is not my intention to continue a dialogue that has existed for over 2000 years. Many agree with your viewpoint, some do not. You tout diversity and encourage various faith traditions. I suggest there is a way to find unity within Scripture.  I expect we can agree to disagree.
   In the meantime I look forward to reading your weekly column well into the future and hope you find what you are looking for. Respectfully,

VERN continued -- 
   Dear Mr Cook, I must owe you an apology for not understanding you and not making myself clear. I'll try again.
   1. Regarding the "list," I should have avoided using the word. I simply do not know how you can count items without having a list. I remain perplexed by your guess of over 2000, and I, mistakenly, thought I was focusing on the larger issue, namely, that the IRS does not count or have any figure of how many churches there are. There are other sources for such speculation, but not the IRS.
   2. My intent in asking you for the church you identify as the true one was to congratulate you and let you know at least some of the things that I admire about that church. (I have studied many and have friends in many, and thought there was a very good chance I would be able to please you in this way.
   3. I did not mean to say the "Bible is a mishmash of interpretations."  Rather I meant to say there are many interpretations of the Bible. You are correct to site my  view that there are  many contradictions among the books of the Bible.
   4. I did not mean to say that wide-ranging expressions of Christianity in the early centuries were "normal," but I did mean to say they existed, that they were not resolved, that new ones kept arising, and were severe into the Fourth Century, and have continued ever since, with various degrees of note, such as 1054 when the Eastern and Western Churches anathematized each other, and in the 16th Century with the Reformation. Disputes obviously are numerous into our own time. There has never been an earthly single, unified Christian church embracing all who, either organizationally or theologically were in agreement. This history is paralleled in most other world religions.
   5. I have never said it makes no difference what you believe, and yet you understand me thus: " If you support diversity you are saying it is acceptable to support anyone's version of doctrine." I do not agree with your characterization of my position. This is like saying that it makes no difference what food you eat. If you are lactose intolerant or have a cholesterol problem or allergic to peanuts, it indeed makes a difference. I support diversity precisely because it does make a difference what you believe, just as I am glad there are many food options. It is important for people to find what works for them. And learning about various options can improve spiritual health, even if you learn that you wish to avoid a particular option, and if you find that an option you had not considered before may assist with whatever your ongoing practice might be. I give examples of this in essay #2 at http://www.cres.org/pubs/primers.htm. I humbly commend the other brief essays on that page as well.
   6. When requested, I provided a statement of my religious views to readers in 1998. I recently reread it and found it remains quite satisfying, though my spiritual life continues to deepen in ways beyond words. Worship and service are very important to me.
   7. Thank you for your courtesy in writing again, and for your interest in continuing to read my column. Correspondence such as yours may not produce agreement, but it may help me learn to express myself with greater accuracy and care. With best wishes,

LOIS G wrote--
   Yes St. Paul spoke of diversity, but there is no way he would have accepted the ones who do not accept the literal bodily resurrection of Jeses.  He wouldn't have written 1 Corinthians l5 if he accepted that.  In one translation he said "And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, ane you are still under condemnation for your sins".

VERN replied--
   My point: Would Paul have accepted Lutherans? Catholics? Orthodox? Copts? Methodists? Episcopalians? Baptists? etc? If your understanding, based on the scripture you cite is correct, then it would seem he would embrace them all. Diversity, not unity, in the Body of Christ.
   As for how one understands the Resurrection, including what Paul meant by body, well, that is obviously an issue debated within many Christian circles. One can certainly interpret the Church as the raising of Christ. This may not be your interpretation or mine, but it is a possible interpretation.
   Thanks for reading and for writing.

LOIS G wrote again--
   Why talk about fractured definitions when it was quite clear that all of these witnesses mentioned in this chapter did not see the church body but His own resurrected body with the nail marks? 

VERN replied again--
   Perhaps I am confused about the subject of our discussion. My point was that there is diversity within Christianity, as there is diversity within other faiths.
You seem to want to argue about whether the Resurrection was a literal bodily resurrection or not. I am really not interested in arguing with you about that. I am glad you have an opinion which is important to you. My point is that within Christianity you can find, concerning the Resurrection, those who interpret the Resurrection various ways. That is a fact. I am not arguing which point of view is correct. That is not my point. You may feel that Christians who interpret the Resurrection as the Church are wrong, and you may want to argue with them. But I am not interested in having that argument with you since that is not what I was writing about. I was writing about the fact of diversity, not which view is correct or how the Bible is to be interpreted.
   With best wishes for your own spiritual path, and gratitude for your reading and thinking about my column,

LOIS G wrote again--
    You listed several types of diversity within Christianity and referred to Paul's treatment of this.  What I was trying to say was that there is a limit to diversity.  There are requirements for a Christian to accept.  It was very evident to me in Chapter 15 that Paul is defining Christian belief which must always include the bodily resurrection or you are still lost in your sins, so what value is Christianity to you?  In other words I do not think he would accept this belief.  It is something other than Christianity.  Many don't want to accept what the Bible says, and make up their own theology. 

VERN replied again-- 
   I am not empowered to tell people what to believe, nor am I wise enough.
   It is a fact that people differ on the subject you mention. You may condemn them, but that does not change the fact that they have different views than yours. That is all that I am saying. People have different views of what the Bible is saying. What appears clear to one person one way appears clear to another person another way.
   To pick another example, here is a defense of slavery based on the Bible, from a forthcoming book I've been reviewing by Anton Jacobs. And remember what Abraham Lincoln said of the North and the South: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God." The fact is, people have disagreements.
   James Henry Hammond was a governor of South Carolina and a United States Senator prior to the Civil War. But what he’s most remembered for now in accounts of American history are his well-reasoned, cogent, clear defenses of slavery. And one of his most reasonable defenses of slavery, written in about 1858, defends it on biblical grounds.
   Hammond writes that “the first question we have to ask ourselves is whether [slavery] is contrary to the will of God as revealed to us in his Holy Scriptures—the only certain means given us to ascertain his will.” Hammond recites the seventeenth verse of the twentieth chapter in Exodus: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” This is the tenth commandment. And Hammond points out that the plain meaning is that you should not “disturb your neighbor in the enjoyment of his property,” and, furthermore, this sacred scripture recognizes manservants and maidservants as “consecrated property.”
   Then Hammond says it cannot be denied that the Hebrews were authorized by God to own slaves, and he refers to Leviticus, chapter 25. In that chapter the Hebrews are permitted to acquire slaves from the nations around them and from the aliens resident among them, and to keep those slaves as property that can be inherited by their children.
   Furthermore, Hammond continues, in biblical times, including the New Testament period, slavery even “in its most revolting form was everywhere visible,” and it is not spoken against in any way in the Bible, even to suggest it should be less cruel. Rather, slavery seems to be regarded “as an established . . . inevitable condition of human society,” and “they never hinted at such a thing as its termination on earth.” Why, even “St. Paul actually apprehended a runaway slave and sent him [back] to his master!” Hammond concludes his argument with these sentiments:
   It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that slavery is contrary to the will of God. It is equally absurd to say that American slavery differs in form or principle from that of the chosen people. We accept the Bible terms as the definition of our slavery, and its precepts as the guide of our conduct . . . . I think, then, I may safely conclude, and I firmly believe, that American slavery is not only not a sin, but especially commanded by God through Moses and approved by Christ through his Apostles. And here I might close its defense; for what God ordains and Christ sanctifies should surely command the respect and toleration of man. / Best wishes,

LOIS G wrote again--
   It is true that St. Paul chose not to take on the social system of the day although he counselled how to deal with it on a personal level which could be applied to many situations we have today.  That does not have anything to do with the occurance which changed the defeated apostles into the men who changed the world.  They would not have died for a saviour still in the grave.  I will bow to your difficulty in judging whether these people are Christians - only to say that they have settled for a very weak religion, one without power (perhaps because they can't accept miracles).  So we are back where we started.  Yes there is diversity, but there are also basic beliefs as plainly stated by St. Paul.  Thank you for your time and input.

VERN replied again--
   Thanks for your efforts at recognizing my position about diversity. I respect yours in finding one true path to the divine.

GABRIELMICHAEAL wrote on 7/14/2010 --
   The statement "Christianity, as a whole, exhibits no unity of belief, of governance, of worship, of moral expectations, nor of practice" is false.
   For 1500 years there was only one Christian Faith. The man credited as the first protestant or diversifier if you will (Martin Luther) said this: 
If Christ had not intrusted all power to one man the church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the holy spirit. This is what the heretics did. Christ therefore wills his power be exercised by one man, the Pope, to whom he has committed it. He has made this power so strong that he looses all the powers of Hell itself against it so it becomes clearer that this power is really from God and not from man. Whoever breaks away from this unity and order of power let them not boast for they know not what evil they do.

VERN replied --
   The disputes over the nature of the Trinity, arguments over which books were authoritative scripture, whether Christians were obliged to follow this or that demand of Jewish law, the Montanist controversy, the role of asceticism, the disputes about church governance, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Arianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and other arguments in the first few centuries are examples where Christianity lacked a unity of belief. And in the Dark Ages there were continuing varieties of opinion. There was the Flilioque controversy, the disputes arising from St Francis, differences between Bonaventure and Aquinas, etc. Any competent church history will discuss these and many other examples of differing opinions long before the Reformation.

MARK_ETAZ wrote on 7/14/2010 —
   I do agree that unity is of paramount importance in the church. However, we should not sacrifice truth for the sake of unity. The Christian church has asked for 2000 years, "What is a Christian". We would be wise to consider their ideas, debates, creeds, etc. There are certain essential doctrines that every Christian must believe. You say Christianity "exhibits no unity of belief, of governance, of worship, of moral expectations, nor of practice". That's a stretch! Don't ALL Christians use the Bible, look to Jesus, worship, and pray? To say there are NO commonalities is silly. You say, "A one-size-fits-all faith does not respect our individual spiritual needs". Oh the consumerist attitude. Religion is not like Wal-Mart, where you go and pick whatever you like. Christianity is about GOD not YOU. Your interpretation of 1 Cor. 12:12 is incorrect. Clearly Paul is not explaining "our encounters with the sacred". The previous verses (1 Cor. 12:1-11) are about spiritual gifts. There are many; however, Paul says the different gifts have one source, the Holy Spirit. So, the different parts of the body are the gifts and the one body is the Holy Spirit. Read the text, and use your brain. Don't put words into Paul's mouth. You mention that some "believe in the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus; others understand the resurrection as an allegory". How does that sit with Paul? He says in the same book, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" 

MARK_ETAZ  wrote on 7/14/2010 — 
   sorry, my previous post was cut short:  There are essential doctrines that one MUST believe or else you are not a Christian. The essential Christian doctrines are basically as follow: Jesus is God, Man is sinful, Sin separates us from God, God gave us the Bible, God is Father, Son, and Spirit, Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus is a physical person, Jesus will return, and God will judge the earth and make it perfect again. There are many other things that are non-essentials. Christians differ on the non-essentials and that is ok. As Augustine said, "in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity." He said it quite elegantly. Who would have thought, this issue was addressed 1600 years ago!

THEISTJD wrote on 7/14/2010 —
   Since Vern has previously stated that he is NOT a Christian, how is it that he presumes to be telling Christians what they believe or don't believe?
   Notice how he blatantly rips the quote from Paul out of context, so as to minimalize the role of Christ.
   Face it, a lot of local freethinkers think Vern is an atheist, and he seems to think this is a big secret.

TRAPBLOCK wrote on 7/15/2010 —
   And yet Mr. Barnet, in spite of all the heresies you mention that The Church has fought and and in some cases is still fighting... the same one universal Church Christ founded remains. It's almost like Jesus was telling the truth when he said "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
   What did Tertullian mean when he thundered that he was 'heir of the Apostles"? Like all the early church fathers, he saw himself as the inheritor and protector of a certain patrimony: a revelation from God regarding His singular work of redemption in Jesus Christ. 
   "Jesus Christ promised to preserve the Church from error. If His prediction and promises were false, then he would not be God, since God cannot lie. Christ said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' If therefore the Church falls into error, the gates of hell certainly would prevail against it." (My Catholic Faith, p. 144). 
  "Our Blessed Lord, in constituting St. Peter Prince of His Apostles, says to him: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Christ makes here a solemn prediction that no error shall ever invade His Church, and if she fell into error the gates of hell certainly prevailed against her." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 55).

GABRIELMICHAEAL wrote on 7/15/2010 —
   "Taking their cue from St. Paul, the early Christians saw the unity of the Church as an enduring sign of the unity of Christ's divine and human natures, and of the unity of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. The idea is central to the earliest documents, such as the Didache and St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians (look them up), but finds perhaps the most famous and moving patristic expression in St. Cyprian's tract 'On the Unity of the Church'." - Mike Aquilina.
   What you call 'diversity' the Church calls heresy. The Truth today is the same thing it was yesterday and the same thing it will be tomorrow. You may call it what you want but it doesn't change it.
   The history of the Church is the continual conflict between those inside and outside the Church seeking to rob her of the deposit of Truth built upon the apostles... and that's it.

VERN replied to the above postings--
   If I’m an atheist, I’m a strange one. I go to church each Sunday, recite the creeds, pray the Lord's Prayer, and take communion with the understanding that the wafer is the very body of Christ and the wine His very blood. My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to recognize, but I don't write about my faith particularly; I write about all faiths. 
   When I recently spoke to a group of atheists, the title of my address was “A God Atheists Can Believe In.” Surely most people involved in religious discussions recognize that much depends on the definition of terms. People have categorized me all sorts of ways, according to the limits of their own understandings. 
   As for the unity of the Church: disagreements are clear from within the Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul and others attributed to him. The winners of disputes called the losers heretics, but that does not mean they were not Christians. For example, while the Nicene Creed adopted the view of Athanasius, the contrary view of Arius dominated many regions of Christendom into the Seventh Century. The statement made by one writer that the Church was united until 1500 ignores the dramatic split between the Roman and the Eastern Orthodox Churches by mutual excommunication in 1215. And before that there were many splinter Christian churches. For example, the Coptic Church accepted neither the formulas of the Roman nor the Eastern churches from 451. Numerous examples could be given. Even within the Roman Church, a great variety of views have developed over the centuries and within different regions.
   An accurate view of the history of any faith lies in discerning the facts, not simply deciding which theological view is correct and calling those who agree the true Christians and deciding that those who do not agree are unworthy to call themselves Christians. We don’t get very far if we don’t listen for the reasons why people consider themselves to be genuine Christians, or whatever, even if we disagree with them. I think building understanding is more important than agreement.

TRAPBLOCK wrote on 7/16/2010 --
   In the words of the formal [I think the intended word is former -ed.] priest of the Church of England, Cardinal John Henry Newman, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant."
  Guided by the Holy Spirit, heretics like Arius (interpreting scripture contrary to Fathers who had gone before him), despite the fact that the majority of the people were swayed to his 'understanding' of the Gospel at the time, the Church in Truth prevailed... thanks be to God.
   As Jesus knew (and Martin Luther later preached) when he appointed St. Peter the head of His Church... "if Christ had not intrusted all power to one man the church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the holy spirit."
   "Faith comes by hearing," St. Paul said (Rom 10:17), and the early Christians heard the Word from the men they revered as their Fathers. And the Fathers, for their part, especially the Apostolic Fathers, saw themselves as chosen vessels of the Gosepl, having received it intact from the Apostles. St. Clement's words to the Corinthians ring with conviction: "The Apsotles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ... Christ therefore was send forth from God and the Apostles by Christ. Both of these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according the the will of God." 
   St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John - Jesus beloved disciple) wrote, "whoever interprets according to his own perverse inclinations is the first born of Satan.

VERN replied wrote on 7/16/2010 --
  Dear trapblock: Again, my point is not to say who is right but merely that there is a diversity of opinion as to what the truth is. 
   The quotations you kindly supply certainly illustrate folks vigorously engaged in setting forth their perceptions of the truth. The curious citation attributed to Luther is particularly interesting since Luther broke from the church and said the Pope “would do better to sell St. Peter’s and give the money to the poor folk who are being fleeced by the hawkers of indulgences.” And again, "His Holiness abuses Scriptures," with Luther arguing that the papacy was a merely human institution. I am not taking sides here but pointing out that the history of Christianity is filled with such differences of opinion. Reformation controversies about the Eucharist were sardonically summarized by Voltaire: "While those who were called Papists ate God but not bread, the Lutherans ate both bread and God. Soon after there came the Calvinists who ate bread and did not eat God.”
   I am not competent to settle such disputes but I am able to see the diversity of opinion throughout Christian history, from the Early Church to the present day. In fact, I think understanding why people see things differently is in itself valuable, even if we hold to our own views.

JONHARKER wrote on 7/17/2010 --
   Trapblock, again Vern Barnett is being disingenuous when he says tht his point is not to say "who is right but merely that there is a diversity of opinion as to what to truth is.".
   What Vern is saying is that he is a relativist, and implying that there IS NO truth.
   But even looking at his own statement, a mere diversity of opinion as to the truth does not mean that the truth is therefore itself relative.
   But his statement that he is "not competent to settle such disputes" does not inhibit him in is regular effort to weaken Christianity.
   He thinks he is being clever by hiding what he really thinks but the problem is that what he thinks in not the secret he thinks it is, as has been pointed out, and continuing to try to hide it reflects on his own motives, IMHO.

VERN responded --:
   Dear JonHarker, I respectfully suggest that this discussion will be more profitable by discussing the issues raised rather than by personal aspersions. But I am grateful to you for allowing me to clarify the intent of the column. I did not say or mean to imply that, as you put it, "there is NO truth." On the contrary, I am simply saying that folks have different ideas about what the truth is and we can often benefit from understanding those with whom we disagree.
   I have explained four reasons why I hesitate to set forth my own views in a previous column even while honoring the request for a statement of them in the follow-up column. You can find those columns at 
http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view.
   I seek to write about many views, many of which I personally disagree with, because I think it is beneficial for us to understand what fragile and fallible creatures we are as we stand before the Ultimate which is beyond any encapsulation./ With best wishes,

JONHARKER wrote on 7/18/2010 --
   There are no aspersions, Vern, just statements of fact. 
   As to your personal views, which you think are a secret, you state that you have clarfied them in a follow up column and give a link, but I see no such clarification there.
   Why don't you state clearly where we can find this statement of your views and quit playing games?

VERN responded --
   Dear JonHarker-- I just checked the link I provided and it is working. Be sure not to include a final period in the URL. The two columns appeared July 22 and July 29, 1998. If you have technical problems, you can ask a computer-savvy friend about how to access the site, or send me your email and I'll email the columns to you, or send me your address and I'll mail a "hard-copy" to you of the column as it appeared in The Star. Comments here are limited to 1500 characters, so that is why I present these alternatives to you.
   I do not try to hide my views. But the column is a place to present many views, not just my own. I do not try to convince folks than I am right (I am quite fallible). I am flattered that you express so much interest in my personal views. Most people are more interested in developing their own views, which is why I seek to write a column with many "Faiths and Beliefs" to stimulate spiritual growth.
   With best wishes,

THEISTJD wrote on 7/19/2010 --
   Vern, I don't think the statement was that your articles could not be found, I think it was that there was no clarification seen there. 
   For one thing, those articles are some 12 years old, and I know you have stated different things, both in print and to local groups, since then.
   So perhaps you could give a current clarification.

VERN responded --
  Dear TheistJD--  Although I have learned a great deal in the past 12 years, I would not have cited the two columns July 22 and July 29, 1998, if they did not continue to reflect my views today. The columns can be found at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view . 
   I would be interested in knowing why my views seen so important to others. You seem to have found your own spiritual path, and I never presume that my path works for anyone else, so I will have no need to defend my own beliefs since I do not urge them on others, and my experience is that spiritually mature people do not need to impose their views on others or tear others down. But thank you for the flattering attention. 
   With best wishes, Vern Barnet
   Dear TheistJD-- To the previous post, I should have added that I am not aware of writing or saying anything that contradicts the statement of views cited. My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to recognize. People have categorized me all sorts of ways, according to the limits of their own understandings. To a very young child in my first parish, as he was just becoming acquainted with the news, I was his “Prime Minister.” Older folks unacquainted with the subtleties and scriptures and histories of their own faiths, much less other faiths, may take words from one context and wrench them into another, or often not examine carefully the syntax of the expression. Surely when we discuss the Holy, the Infinite, it is appropriate to recognize how inadequate words can be.
   I don’t often write about my own faith particularly; I write about all faiths over the course of the series. So in presenting someone else's views, I may not be presenting my own. The name of my column is "Faiths and Beliefs" in the plural.
   Certainly I may make mistakes, and I am grateful for corrections.

JINHARKER wrote on 7/19/2010 --
   Vern your views are important to others for the same reason that the views of others are important to you.
   After all, you often are "presenting someone else's views".
  Why is that?

VERN responded --
   Dear JonHarker -- What a nice thing to say! Thank you! And I guess the assignment I have, to present others' views, answers your question of why I seek to present a variety of faith perspectives in the "Faiths and Beliefs" column series. Again, thank you.

JONHARKER wrote on 7/20/2010 --
   You are welcome, Vern. But your answer now puzzles me.
   You see presenting other views as an "assignment"? If so, that does not really sound like you are actually interested in those views, but have, as I suspect, some other agenda.
   And, seriously, you have repreatedly said that you are "flattered" by the "attention" and "thanked" me twice in one paragraph. That all seems a little arrogant, IMHO.
   I am simply trying to find out what you really believe, and you keep dancing around it. The ariticles that you say explain your views are vague and nebulous and seem deliberately written to avoid saying anything that could be taken as a defintie answer.
   Of course, you don't admit that there are definite answers, and have said that you views are often not the same "two days in a row".
   And yet I remember you talking about Russell's WIANAC book, a superifical book indeed, and how it impressed you so much.
   Look, Vern, we know you are not a Christian, and a lot of freethinkers that YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO have said you are an atheist, so why don't you just come out with it instead of blowing smoke?

VERN responded --
Dear JonHarker--
1. I enthusiastically accept the "assignment" to which you refer.
2. I am sorry if I appear arrogant in thanking you. I was not conscious of arrogance. It felt sincere.
3. You find my statement of faith inadequate. That is exactly why I do not suggest it contains views that will work for others.
4. I agree with you about Russell. In the column I said, "Later I decided what he wrote was besides the point. His view of religion was too narrow. He said fear is the basis of religion, but I think religion arises from wonder."
5. If I am not a Christian, it is strange that I never miss mass on Sunday, accept communion as the very body and blood of Christ, and have spent years studying the scriptures. Yes, I have been called an atheist, but so were the early Christians because they did not worship the Roman gods, and modern theologians like Paul Tillich was called an atheist because for him God was not a Supreme Being but something much greater, namely the Ground of Being Itself. 
6. It is quite possible that your religious categories and mine are incommensurable. As the statement of faith indicates, I begin my own thinking with the experience of the Holy. My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to recognize. People have categorized me all sorts of ways, according to the limits of their own understandings.
If you really want to know what I believe, will you join me for worship this Sunday?
Best wishes, Vern Barnet

JONHARKER wrote on 7/20/2010 --
   Vern I, am quite suprised by your answer, and, I must confess, somewhat impressed.
   But what continues to puzzle me that this is nothing like what you said at the Midwest Skeptics meeting a couple of weeks ago.
   Also, you ask, "if I am not a Christian" then why do you go to mass, study the scriptures, etc. That's a good question. Do you think that doing those things make you a Christian?
   Frankly, it you really believe in Christ (and I suspect that you have some nuanced term there and don't accept the resurrection as a literal physical event, although of course I could be wrong) then you have an obligation to confess it when people ask. To do otherwise would be to deny him.
   As for joining you, I don't see why not depending on how far it is and so forth.

VERN responded --
Dear JonHarker--
   If you want to go to church with me, email me at vern@cres.org with your phone number for me to call you to make arrangements. I want to make clear I am not seeking to change your religious perspective at all but trying to respond as best I can to your insistent inquiries.
   As for your view of my obligations, I respectfully disagree. I am not obliged to tell people I don't know whether I wear boxers or briefs, how I voted in the last election, or details of my personal spiritual life. I do not have to accept your categories of thought for my own faith journey. A person whose thought is confined to a two-dimensional surface will always find the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees. But one contemplating the exterior surface of a three-dimensional sphere knows the sum is always more than 180 degrees. We both have rights to spiritual domains of the dimensions that fit us best. Yours may be different than mine.
   As for the talk I gave to the Skeptics group, you can find my notes at http://www.cres.org/pubs/God.htm . You will find indeed the very basis for what I have written to you, and anyone who understood my talk would not be surprised by what I wrote, and wrote previously in these postings to an earlier inquirer five days ago which apparently you did not read.
   Even though I have many other pressing obligations, I try to be faithful to respond to readers as appropriate. 
   With best wishes, Vern Barnet

JONHARKER wrote on 7/20/2010 --
   Vern, it is not my view of your obligations that is the issue. If you are a Christian, Jesus said that you are to confess it when asked. Whether you wear boxers, or how you voted is not the issue.
   But, reading back through your words, I do not see where you have actually said you are a Christian, but have just answered cryptically, in terms of "well, if I am not a Christian, then why do I go to mass, or study the bible, etc."
   As to the talk to the Skeptic group, I HEARD it and its not what you are saying here. 
   But I understand that you have to keep this front up, because for you to take a stand could offend some people, I guess. And who knows? Maybe that would hurt donations or whatever. This, of course, is just my opinion, to which, as you say, I am entitled.

VERN responded --
   To conclude, for my part, this series of exchanges:
   Let us cherish the right of each person to one’s own opinion and bless each in seeking a beautiful spiritual path.
   For me, being a person of faith is not in what one says but in how one attempts to live, in one's behavior; "by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:20.) 
   Perhaps the discussion of God at the Skeptics group, and the notes, may be incommensurable with the sensibilities of some. 
   I have earnestly sought to respond to questions raised in this arena. However, it seems I am incapable of saying what some might want me to say in the way they might want me to say it. I do not find all writers here qualified to instruct me as to my religious obligations. My faith may be more nuanced than some may be prepared to recognize. When one party accuses the other of "some other agenda," "being disingenuous," being a "relativist, and implying that there IS NO truth," said to be "hiding" reflecting on one's "motives," "playing games," "wishy washy talk," "simplistic" answers, that a person "won't engage you in discussion: he likes to be above it all and just sit back and act superior while others argue," and other statements which may not convince the party against whom these words are directed that openness to genuine dialogue is possible. 
   For my part a back-and-forth public discussion has reached an end,
   My email address appears at the end of every column where communication is not limited to 1500 characters.


825. 100707 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Our American Heritage

For me, the American heritage has always meant both the blessings and blemishes of religion. 
   The blessings include Christian spiritual ideals brought to these shores in Colonial times. The First Amendment transformed the setting of these blessings from sectarianism to pluralism and guaranteed religious liberty for all.
   Actually the blessings began earlier because the nation’s founders looked also to ancient sources for the new government, such as Athenian democracy.
   With mainly European immigration, all of Western history became a large part of the American identity.
   The blemishes also began early, among them the mistreatment of the First Nations on this continent. President Andrew Jackson encouraged treaty violations, Indian removal and violence to take previously recognized tribal property. The Trail of Tears is just one example of what might be called ethnic cleansing.
   Until recently, perhaps most of us have looked to Western spiritual sources, and more recently to Eastern traditions, to understand who we are religiously. Some Asian techniques like yoga and meditation may be more familiar than, say, the sweat lodge spirituality of those we have displaced from their very own soil. 
   Now, however, instead of seeing savages, we begin to appreciate the sophistication of the American Indian cultures. Some might find their sense of human relations to be superior to the Western tradition.
   But it is particularly the indigenous reverence for nature that draws us as we see our own present and potential environmental disasters. 
  Even with Boy Scout experiences using American Indian themes, the stories of ancient Israel and Greece have been easier for me to claim than, say, the sacred tales of the Kanza (Kaw).
   While many museums don’t relate American to American Indian art, the galleries at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art adjoin one another, repairing the split. 
   At last I can claim the exquisite Nebo stone ax from Jackson County, perhaps 4,000 years old, and a more recent Navajo concha belt, as much a part of my American heritage as Thomas Hart Benton or Caravaggio, now on this side of the Atlantic.
   Whether stone, hair, leather, metal, shell, paint, wood, fiber, paper, glass, bone or clay, American Indian art treats materials as sacred in themselves, assembled to reveal a holy purpose in everyday or special use.
   The “Sea Urchin Transformation” mask, for example, posits different spiritual identities within a single statement. Doesn’t my statement, “I’m an American,” embrace a similar soul of  transformation?

This column was cited in the ExaminerJuly 19.

READER COMMENT

TheistJD wrote on 7/12/2010 --
   Athenian "democracy" most certainly did not provide freedom for all, and certainly did not hold that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with Inalienable rights.
   Elitists who practiced infanticide (and of course abortion of the "defective" comes close to that) are hardly role models.
   I wonder if the day comes when parents start aborting babies with a "gay gene" if the Pro Choicers will start to see the light then?

Vern responded -- 
  Athenian democracy was indeed flawed. Slaves and women were not citizens. Still, some who shaped this nation found inspiration in the short-lived experiments in Athens as opposed to various other forms of government. Washington and Jefferson, for example, favored the Greek style of architecture for federal buildings from their admiration of classical antiquity. It is also worth noting that some American Indian tribes may have practiced a more genuine form of democracy, including women, and some have suggested that the US federal form of government was influenced by an interpretation of some Indian arrangements.


824. 100630 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Rich Political Dimensions

The Declaration of Independence says governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 
   This contrasts with the idea that governments are ordained by God. This second view may be supported by Biblical passages like Daniel 5:21: “the Most High God rules the kingdom of men, and sets over it whom He chooses.” And Romans 13:1 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” 
   § Christian theologians like Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Roger Williams have addressed this issue in very different ways. And other faiths have also considered how the state and religion should relate. 
   § During the last days of the Nixon presidency, I knew little about Hinduism. I assumed it was solely concerned with personal matters. I attended a theatrical version of the Ramayana, one of the two great Hindu epics. I was amazed by the parallels between its scathing criticism of corrupt government and the Watergate charges.
   § Confucianism is largely focused on social order. If the ruler will only bow to the South, where the gods reside, the population will imitate him and show respect to their superiors.
   § The Baha’i faith encourages peoples to assure equality between men and women and among races.
   § Some Nichiren forms of Buddhism have identified themselves with Japanese nationalism, as has State Shinto.
   § Many American Muslims find the U.S. Constitution to be a near-perfect expression of the political dimensions of their faith which opposes autocracy.
   The First Amendment both guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits government establishment of religion. Scholarly literature overwhelmingly credits this balance for the vigorous role religion plays in our country.
   My work has brought me in contact with elected officials and governmental staffs on local, state and national levels. Despite the scoundrels that appear in every profession, the overwhelming desire of most of those I’ve known is to serve the public as best they can.
   For example, earlier this year I was asked to give the invocation at an awards ceremony for the City of Kansas City employees’ Charity Campaign. I was astonished to learn that, with fewer workers than the previous year, a tight economy and reduced salary budgets, more money was contributed than before. 
   The generosity of those behind the desk and answering the phone deserves recognition as a manifestation of the silent civic faith that is the best of America.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
   The Charity Campaign: "Compassion in Action . . . Every 1 Matters"  was led by Mark VanLoh (Aviation Department) and Gary O'Bannon (Human Resource Department), with special thanks offered to Cindy Matlock, Kalia McKinley, Kathy Whalen, and Caryn Whitmore for their coordination of the campaign. The awards ceremony was held 2010 January 8.
   Thirteen departments received awads for making 100% of their goal; two departments for making 90% and three departments for making 70%.
   There are 325 fewer City employees than the previous year (4,395 employees in 2009; 4,720 employees in 2008); yet only 64 fewer employees gave to the campaign (decrease from 2,166 in 2008 to 2,107 in 2009).
   Hee are some examples of the charitable organizations designated by the contributors. Childrens' Mercy Hospital, Harvesters, United Way, Earth Share of Missouri and the following non-federation-affiliated organizations that serve a local need: Bishop Sullivan Center, City Union Mission, Habitat for Humanity, Kansas City Rescue Mission, Local 42 Community Assistance, Midwest Foster Care and Adoption Assn, United Negro College Fund-Kansas City, WEB DuBois Learning Center, Kansas City Employee Memorial Fund, Kansas City Fountain Operations
   Even though wages were frozen, 510 employees (24% of total givers) received lapel pins for pledging 3/4 of 1% or more of their annual salary; 297 of the 510 employees pledged 1% or more which was an increase of 28 employees over the previous year.

READER COMMENT

TheistJD wrote on 6/30/2010 --
   Unfortunately, Vern Barnett mispreresents the Declaration a little bit. Sure, it asserts that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, but it also leads with saying that people are endowed by their creator with INALIENABLE rights...which means those rights don't come from other people or the government but from the creator.
   Now, you can argue that this was a Deist concept of the Creator...although why would a Deist god endow anyone with rights?...but it is certainly not an expresson of atheism and derails the claim that rights come from the government or anyone else.
   Thats the part Vern leaves out...that the JUST powers of government, altough driving from the people...do not provide our rights in the first place.
   The Declaration is definitely not an atheistic document, althoug many local freethinkers believe that Vern is himself an atheist.

Vern's response on 6/30/2010 --
   TheistJD may be confusing the Constitution with the earlier Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is not an atheist document, nor a theist document. God is never mentioned, one way or other other. However, as the column points out, the First amendment guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits governmental establishment of religion.
   It would be interesting to hear readers comment on the Biblical quotations.

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 7/1/2010 --
   The Catholic (Universal) Church teaches... If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens." 
   The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed. 
   Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility."
   A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.
   Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."

TheistJD wrote on 7/2/2010 4:50:57 PM:
   Vern, we are talking about DECLARATION, which begins with the statement that we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.
   There is no confusion with the Constiution, I didn't even mention it.
   YOU are the one who is ignoring the plain statements of the Declaration, and pretending that there is some confusion.
   And why do you try to hide your own views; all the local freethinkers know where you are coming from; you are fooling anyone anymore.

Vern's response on 7/3/2010 --
Dear TheistJD--
   I do not wish to argue about the Declaration of Independence verses the Constitution. My point about the Constitution is that it is a "secular" document that governs our country. My point about the Declaration is not the source of human rights which you emphasize but rather the source of the legitimacy of government which was the point in the column. I think this is an important distinction which I commend to you.
   I have explained four reasons why I hesitate to set forth my own views on a previous column even while honoring the request for a statement of them in the follow-up column you can find those columns at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view. I am used to having my own opinions misrepresented. I have been called an atheist, a Hindu, a conservative Christian, a liberal Christian, a Buddhist, etc. My son was attacked on my behalf, I have received death threats. I try to live my life with integrity which may be nuanced in ways others do not understand.
   My email appears at the end of every column and I it would be best if you wish to continue the conversation to do so through that means.
   Best wishes,Vern

Clancy Rust wrote on 7/3/2010 --
   The context of Daniel 5: 21 is the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Persia after he had been disciplined by God. We as Christians fully understand that God can appoint whomsover he wills over any kingdom here on earth. That in no way means that God has appointed all rulers of alll governments here on earth. Satan has appointed many of them as he has authority here on earth as well as in the first and second heavens. God rules the third heaven. Satan even offered Christ all the kingdoms of this earth when Christ was being tempted 40 days in the desert (Matthew 4: 8-9 and Luke 4: 5-7). There is a difference between what God does and what God just allows.
   Regarding Romans 13: 1-2 Christians are to obey government but to a point. In Acts 4: 18-20 we see Peter and John fully DISOBEY the governmental, religious command "not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus". We are to do the same. There are many places in the world today where Christians are being murdered because they speak in the name of Jesus. Many governments forbid this. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE GOVERNMENTS ( i. e. North Korea, all Islamic states, China, India, Malaysia and more) have a person on their throne who has been placed there by God. God is His wisdom may have allowed the placement. The mission of every Christian is to spread the Gospel throughout the entire world.
   Unfortunately, many who call themselves Christians are not born again and do not comprehend the mission. Those all should read "Have you heard the Four Spiritual Laws" by the late Bill Bright and is available at Campus Crusade for Christ and "Steps To Peace With God" by Billy Graham and is available at Billy Graham.org.
   People must be told the honest fact there is no way to heaven except through Jesus Christ. Those who preach otherwise are misinformed and need to hear the truth not some religious statement otherwise. If they believe the silly, religious statement instead of Jesus Christ they will join those saying those statements in hell. . . . 

Vern's response on 7/3/2010 --
   Thank you for setting forth your own interpretation of the Biblical passages I asked about. I see you employ a method of interpretation that uses historical context, other Biblical passages, and your opinions about today's world in order to develop your view. Others do the same but come up with different interpretations. It is so interesting how many different interpretations there are of the Bible, and so many interpreters who claim each to be correct. . . .

JonHarker wrote on 7/5/2010 --
   Sorry to hear you were threatened, Mr. Barnett. You many be aware that believers were quite publically threatened on the Tammeus blog when told they would end up "in a ditch" like "Jimmy Hoffa". Bill shut down his comments section shortly after that, although the comments are archived (in the Jan., 2010 sec.)
   Of course, he shut it down finally after allowing believers to be called all manner of names for something like two years. Go figure.
   But JD is quite correct about the Declaration; in fact, without the Declaration there would have been no Constitution.
   But if people are so confused about your views, which, frankly, I doubt, then maybe the problem is with you just not plainly stating what you believe.
   Or don't believe.
   But are you perhaps concerned that your "faith" readership would drop off if you were more up front about what you believe?
   As for e mailing you? Thanks, but no, I prefer the discuss more open, since in fact you publish a column in the paper; I undertand, of course, that you would not want to see readership drop off.

Vern's response on 7/6/2010 
   Dear JonHarker, respectfully I reply:
   First, I did not write that the Constitution would not have been possible without the Declaration; I grant your point happily. The point of my column is not about the source of human rights but rather the source (the people, not God) of the legitimacy of government, and on this matter I remain convinced by the actual text of the Declaration which I earnestly commend.
   Second, the purpose of the column is not to advance my own view but to explore "Faiths and Beliefs" among the various spiritual traditions of the world from the beginning of time to the current day, within the understanding that sports, business, medicine and all aspects of culture may be part of the story.
   Third, for those interested in my own statement of faith, it can be found, as I mentioned in the 7/7/2010 post, at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view . I do not hide my faith, but, as I say, that is not the purpose of the column in which I have presented many views with which I personally disagree but about which it seems important to be informed. I seek to celebrate the many ways of approaching the ultimate mysteries of life, and I doubt that it is terribly useful for me to seek to advance my own specific formulation because other people have different background and experiences, and it is clear from the multiplicity of faiths that one size does not fit all.
  Are these three points helpful to you within the 1500 char max?
   With best wishes, Vern Barnet


823. 100623 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Within faiths, there is diversity
This column also appeared in the
IdahoStatesman June 30.
Belleville News Democrat (serving St Louis) July 3.
Tacoma News Tribute /AP Religion News June 30.
E[lkhart] Truth July 4.
Wichita Eagle July 3.
CentreDaily [State College, PA] July 1.
Deseret News [Salt Lake City] July 3.
Fresno Bee June 30.
Republic (Columbus, IN) June 30
Modesto Bee June 30
Sacramento Bee June 30
TriCity Herold (Washington State) June 30
Bradenton (FL) Herold June 30
The State (South Carolina) June 30
Raleigh-Durham NewsObserver
Fayetteville Observer July 11

You tell me you’re Christian. How much information have you really given me?
   Being Christian probably means that the story of Jesus is central to your life, but I don’t know how you worship, what you claim as your authority, how your church is organized, or even whether you belong to a church.
   You say these details are not important, but remember, Christians have killed other Christians because of these details. Such sorry histories and present realities persist in many faiths. Some of these details may be important to who you are today.
   § The three main expressions of Christianity are (Eastern) Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and various forms of Protestantism. Some classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism) as Protestant; others consider it a fourth form of Christianity.
   § Worship varies from beautiful, elaborate forms of liturgical worship and sacramental devotion to the moving spirituals and cadenced preaching of the black church, to the utter simplicity and spontaneity of the Quaker meeting where folks sit in silence until and unless someone is moved to speak, to some Appalachians who worship by handling serpents.
   § Is tradition or the Magisterium of your church your ultimate guide to how you live your life? Or is the Bible your final authority, and if so, whose interpretation? What roles do reason and cultural influences play in answering questions of faith? 
   § Is your church led by clergy governed by bishops in apostolic succession, or by members of the local congregation, or by a presbyterial, regional authority? Or does your church eschew ordained leadership altogether and teach that each person has the Inner Light? What positions may women and gay people occupy?
   I’ve not yet asked doctrinal questions such as whether you believe in a literal and eternal hell or whether all will ultimately be saved. I’ve not yet asked about religious issues that enter the political arena.
   These questions hardly begin to outline differences within Christianity. And other faiths may be even more varied. Buddhism, for example, ranges from the spare meditation of certain Zen schools to the phantasmagoric dances of some Tibetan sects. Even atheists differ considerably.
   Most faiths have enormous internal variations. There is no single Islam, Hinduism or Judaism.
   Problems within faiths, as among them, arise from those demanding unity, uniformity or control.
   Differences exist because people need different approaches to ultimate mysteries. Seeking universal agreement defies those mysteries. Distinction rather than conformity may be the better blessing.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
   An addition question about worship is whether it is an objective act offered to God or primarily a (subjective) benefit to the worshipper.
    It is likely we will need to clear away faulty generalizations if we want to know how a particular faith affects someone’s way of living.Religious wars are caused buy those who want unity, uniiformity, or control. Nowadays we can see that enjoying diversity, even within a faith, is safer, even blessed. Individual need.

READER COMMENT

Violet Bortz of Twin Falls, Idaho writes on July 4. 
Vern, I read an article in our Times News paper in Twin Falls, Idaho.  It was about how people say they are "Christians" and believe in so many different way in their religion.  I was wondering if you had any idea as to what the solution is. 
   I am a member of the Church of Christ and the church stresses the importance of unity.  I don't understand how unity can be if there are so many different ideas about many different religions. Waiting for your reply.

Lee writes on July 3
   Amazing essay! Wow, I appreciate the deep insight of this author — very high quality, thoughtful writing — thanks Deseret News.
   From the article: “Problems within faiths, as among them, arise from those demanding unity, uniformity or control.”

pt baker writes
   a well-reasoned, well-crafted 13 paragraphs you surely did compose.  I find what you wrote helpful in illuminating the range of options, especially within so-called consonant groups.
   I am sending it to several folks: one who is just beginning to consider the spiritual contemplative  landscape, and to a few more who are annoyingly sure of the certitude of their beliefs and the folly of mine.
    I don't much like spiritual arrogance. It could mask  deep running doubts as well as anything might. The difference between belief and faith- that distinction is overlooked by folks so very sure of their opinions.
    You seem to be very easy to read and offer slants that can be opened and explored by open-minded thinkers.   thanks for this and other writings i have found useful.   --pt baker

David Thompson writes
   AMEN for today's column!  This summer's trips to Seoul, Boston and the northeast, and San Diego would have been boring in black and white canvas. Fortunately, the divine lives in a "Crayola plus" reality. I am blessed by the differences or nuances of belief! 

 Norman Roy writes
   Dear Vern...Your Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010 article WITHIN FAITHS, THERE IS DIVERSITY was excellent.   I am a member of the 4th expression of Christianity namely THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS...and although we have a reputation of being over zealous...I for one applaud your article that suggests there is something for everyone.  Our religious views like our political views often vary with each new individual with whom we come in contact.  I think the citizenry of the world must align themselves with what ever works best for them.  Joseph Smith, the founder and first president of our church stated, "Let the people worship whomever and however they wish."   So it is with all of us.   Perhaps if the world could align themselves with more tolerance and less critique...we would all fare better.   Thank you for writing your splendid article.   You said in a few paragraphs what so many of us believe but rarely have the opportunity to express.   Best Wishes.

Clancy Rust wrote
There are not three main expressions of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy) as you stated. These three represent only THEIR religion!  True Christianity and the only proper expression thereof comes only from being born again by confessing one's sin nature and sins and receiving Jesus Christ and His virgin birth, death and resurrection as the only possible atonement acceptable to God for one's inherited (from Adam) sin nature and sins. True Christianity is truth and never a religion. The three measures of meal to which you referred did indeed murder many born again believers during the Dark Ages. Jesus in Matthew 13: 33 (Holy Bible, King James Version) prophesied about the leaven which would control the these three measures.

Vern responded 
   I am confused by your statement below. You say "There are not three main expressions of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy) . . . "
   1. I did not say that the three main expressions of Christianity are "Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy" -- Rather I wrote that "The three main expressions of Christianity are (Eastern) Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and various forms of Protestantism. Some classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) as Protestant; others consider it a fourth form of Christianity." In my opinion it would be a mistake to omit the  "various forms of Protestantism" as you have done and instead list "Eastern Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodoxy" as two separate forms as you have done. The arrangement I have proposed conforms to every knowledgeable text on the subject I have ever seen (and I have taught in thee seminaries as well at the university at the undergraduate and graduate level, so I am acquainted with the subject).
   2. I did not distinguish between the various forms of Christianity and "true Christianity." Many forms of Christianity claim to be the true form. I am not qualified to decide for other people. I am glad that you have found a form of Christianity you consider to be true. In this column I am not particularly interested in asking who has the true form; I am more interested in showing the variety within Christianity.
   3. Please consider how most people use the word "religion" if you wish to communicate with others. The overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world certainly consider a Christianity a religion. This does not mean you must, but if you wish to be understood, knowing how most people use the word may be helpful. You may also find dozens of various definitions and descriptions of "religion" and "spirituality" at this website useful: http://www.cres.org/pubs/ReligionSpiritualityDescribed.htm.. . . .
   I value your email, even though I have explained why I am confused by it. I wish you well, and I appreciate your taking the trouble to write.

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 6/25/2010 --
   Martin Luther speaking on the papacy (1516)
   "If Christ had not intrusted all power to one man the church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the holy spirit. This is what the heretics did. Christ therefore wills his power be exercised by one man, the Pope, to whom he has committed it. He has made this power so strong that he looses all the powers of Hell itself against it so it becomes clearer that this power is really from God and not from man. Whoever breaks away from this unity and order of power let them not boast for they know not what evil they do."


822. 100616 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Our oil mess requires spiritual cleanup

We Americans are addicted to oil, people sometimes say. If so, would this be a spiritual issue?
   Last month Ted Turner, CNN founder, said, “I’m just wondering if God is telling us he doesn’t want us to drill offshore.”
   Despite controversies over this or that particular issue, our secular society seldom wrestles with what might enhance or degrade our nation’s spiritual condition, or even agree what a wholesome condition might be. We often focus on immediate personal and corporate economic benefits.
   For example, Congress enacted the popular National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, when a former head of General Motors, Charles Wilson, was Secretary of Defense. He was noted for saying that  “what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” Cars were favored over a more environmentally friendly expanded rail system.
   But in 2001, 250 Kansas Citians concluded the Gifts of Pluralism interfaith conference by declaring, in part, that “Nature is to be respected, not just controlled. Nature is a process that includes us, not a product external to us. . . . Our proper attitude toward nature is awe, not utility.” 
   This perspective differs from what Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, reports: “Americans have a lot of faith that over the long run technology will solve everything.”
   At least three local people of faith believe that a spiritual reorientation, rather than just technological solutions, is required.
   Chuck Gillam, a Christian, told me, “We have one earth, the gem of God’s creation. We are given this precious opportunity to enjoy life here. Not to care for the earth is beyond irresponsible. It is a grave sin.”
   Mary McCoy, a member of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, is agitated that some people are worried that the price of gas will go up because of the Gulf oil spill.
   “But what about the birds — and the entire environment? We are destroying a divine creation that does not belong to us. People would not dream throwing oil onto a church altar, but in effect that’s what we’re doing to the sacred earth,” she said.
   Jude LaClaire cited the Soka Gakkai Buddhist “Earth Charter” in explaining her concern that “what we do to the earth we do to ourselves. Like the American Indians, we (Buddhists) see the interdependence of all things. We want to awaken people to feel a profound reverence for all forms of life,” she said.
   Gulf residents are seeing both human and economic costs of environmental desecration. If we are addicted to ignoring nature’s claims on us, perhaps a cleaner spiritual outlook might wean us from oil, or we might at least be more careful with it.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
   “Come see where the industry that puts a drop of oil in your life every day was born” 151 years ago, so opens the website, drakewell.org, for the oil well less than an hour from where I used to live in western Pennsylvania. What changes Drake’s discovery hath wrought!
   Turner, referring a recent coal mine disaster, also said, “Maybe the Lord’s tired of having the tops knocked off (the mountains of West Virginia for) more coal.”
    At President Obama's May 27 press conference, he used the word sacred in saying, "The spill. And it’s not just me, by the way. When I woke this morning and I’m shaving and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says, “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” Because I think everybody understands that when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implications not just for this generation, but for future generations.
   "I grew up in Hawaii where the ocean is sacred. And when you see birds flying around with oil all over their feathers and turtles dying, that doesn’t just speak to the immediate economic consequences of this; this speaks to how are we caring for this incredible bounty that we have.
   "And so sometimes when I hear folks down in Louisiana expressing frustrations, I may not always think that they're comments are fair; on the other hand, I probably think to myself, these are folks who grew up fishing in these wetlands and seeing this as an integral part of who they are -- and to see that messed up in this fashion would be infuriating."
   The leading cause of death for people aged 1 to 34 years old in the US is traffic accidents." The car is evil, alas necessary in today's addicted culture, which sends oil money to those who would harm us, depletes our national independence, and kills upwards of 35,000 people each year (more than 10 times killed in the 9/11 attacks) and injures multiples more, 1,300 350,000 teenagers alone out of the 470,000, many with severe trauma).
   While public ire is focused against BP, Chevron (which merged with Texaco) is responsible for what is probably even a worst environmental disaster. Ecuador’s northern Amazon region where Texaco ran more than 300 wells for a quarter century. As The New York Times' Bob Herbert wrote June 4, "The lives and culture of the local inhabitants, who fished in the intricate waterways and cultivated the land as their ancestors had done for generations, have been upended in ways that have led to widespread misery.
   "Texaco came barreling into this delicate ancient landscape in the early 1960s with all the subtlety and grace of an invading army. And when it left in 1992, it left behind, according to the lawsuit, widespread toxic contamination that devastated the livelihoods and traditions of the local people, and took a severe toll on their physical well-being.
   "A brief filed by the plaintiffs said: “It deliberately dumped many billions of gallons of waste byproduct from oil drilling directly into the rivers and streams of the rainforest covering an area the size of Rhode Island. It gouged more than 900 unlined waste pits out of the jungle floor — pits which to this day leach toxic waste into soils and groundwater. It burned hundreds of millions of cubic feet of gas and waste oil into the atmosphere, poisoning the air and creating ‘black rain’ which inundated the area during tropical thunderstorms.”
  "The quest for oil is, by its nature, colossally destructive. And the giant oil companies, when left to their own devices, will treat even the most magnificent of nature’s wonders like a sewer."
   Please see the CRES summary analysis of the loss of the sense of the sacred in the environment which befouls our very being.

READER RESPONSES

JonHarker wrote on 6/18/2010 --
   Well, Vern, at least this time you can't blame a God you don't believe in for the disaster.
   Human greed caused this, plain and simple.

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 6/16/2010 --
   And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." Genesis 1:28


821. 100609 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Book shines a light on faith and diversity

I laughed when I read that a Kansas City colleague, Josef Walker, was quoted joking that interfaith workers are “running around with flashlights in the dark.” Walker’s words appear in Interactive Faith: The Essential Interreligious Community-Building Handbook edited by Bud Heckman.
   Because folks like Walker and Heckman are multiplying, there is not as much dark as when that phrase was uttered just three years ago. Walker, a layman, continues to shine light upon the diversity in our community. Heckman is a director at Religions for Peace at the United Nations Plaza in New York.
   Folks often feel in the dark about the many faiths around us. Heckman’s book is more a huge searchlight than a flashlight. His 2008 book answers questions such as: 
   § What is interfaith dialogue and why is it important now more than ever? How can understanding be pursued through conversation, the arts and by participating in others’ rituals and in interfaith events?
   § How can values shared by all faiths be put into action though service projects and advocacy? Part of the book was written by Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core and a member of President Obama’s Faith Advisory Council. A Muslim, he was last fall’s featured speaker at Congregation Beth Shalom synagogue for the Kansas City Festival of Faiths.
   § What are the basic facts one should know about other religions and what resources are available? The book contains excellent short descriptions of familiar faiths as well as less well-known traditions like Zoroastrianism and Jainism.
   Heckman notes Kansas City’s contributions. He was completing his 300-page book the summer of 2007 while in town for the nation’s first “Interfaith Academies” for religious professionals and students, housed by the St. Paul School of Theology in cooperation with Harvard University’s Pluralism Project.
   Among local efforts recognized in the book are the Interfaith Council’s “Interfaith Passport” program and the play, “The Hindu and the Cowboy and Other Kansas City Stories,” both cited as models for other cities.
   But what I like best about the book is the explicit challenge to Samuel Huntington’s dark view of religions in his “Clash of Civilizations,” a much-discussed paper in a 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs.
   The book’s response is that civilizations and religions do not clash. Rather those in every faith who seek to dominate or exclude others clash with those in every faith who welcome having their own identities mutually valued and enriched by other faiths, dispelling the darkness. 

READER RESPONSES

JonHarker wrote on 6/12/2010 --
   You guys are talking this too seriously. I don't think Vern believes much of anything; he gave a talk to the local atheist group that convinced me that he thinks all beliefs are just the equivalent of whatever make you feel good.
   He won't engage you in discussion: he like to be above it all and just sit back and act superior while others argue.

TheistJD wrote on 6/11/2010 --
  Strange that you mention that, Ben, as I recall that a while back Vern was all over Israel for exhibiting some kind of supposed supremicsm.

Ben_Yahood wrote on 6/9/2010 --
   There you go again, Vern, whitewashing the violent supremacism inherent in Islam (e.g., infidel, dhimmi, jihad) as in no other major world religion ... Sigh ...

TheistJDwrote on 6/9/2010 --
   Vern, why do you act like your own personal views are some kind of secret?
   Like you are superior, or "above it all". I know you say you do that to "facilitate discussion", but does it also faciliate financial donations?
   In other words, are you afraid that if your own views were known, donations might drop off?
   Its a fair question, as ot what the "facilitator" believes, because the "facilitator" might have biases that would affect his treatment of the parties. Just keeping his views "secret" does not mean he does not have biases...in fact, if he were open about his views, the chance of bias would be LESS.


820. 100602 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
God transcends mere science

The term “God of the gaps” appears on the very first page of Ian Barbour’s famous 1966 book, “Issues in Science and Religion.” The term denotes a conception of God who fills in where scientific explanations are incomplete. 
   Newton, for example, who could explain so much about planetary motions, could not account for the curious precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, so he thought this showed God’s involvement in the universe.
   But this gap in scientific knowledge was filled when Einstein’s Theory of Relativity resolved the anomaly and God was no longer needed for this purpose.
   Last month’s news gave us a chance to view the past and test the future of the God-of-the-gaps approach to faith.
   May 22, the remains of Copernicus were blessed as he was reburied in a cathedral nearly 500 years after he was condemned as a heretic. His theory that the earth moved around the sun was thought to mean that humanity no longer was the center of the universe. It pushed God aside.
   May 20, genomic scientist and entrepreneur J. Craig Venter announced that his team had created “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.” The God who created the world and everything in it may seem now unnecessary, not much more clever than a smart computer.
   Other advances have diminished the God of the gaps.
   In the 19th century, fossils and geologic studies raised questions about the age of the earth. Darwin showed how natural adaptation led to biological variation and challenged earlier ideas about God’s role in generating life.
   The discovery and control of germs by Lister and Pasteur removed disease from the work of devils, and Freud identified natural causes for mental illness, rather than demonic possession.
   Mendel’s work with hereditary found fruition in the 20th century with the decoding of DNA. 
   The chemical basis of brain functioning, social factors affecting personal behavior, evidence of global economic and environmental interdependence, and even enhanced weather prediction might seem to reduce the role for God to explain what happens. Did God send that rain in response to prayer or was it the merely the confluence of air masses?
   Is there anything left for God? 
   A God of the gaps does not seem adequate for the spiritual impulse within us. We don’t really need God to explain gaps in science. What our hearts desire is a God who works through all that we now know and all we will learn, as well as what we will never discover.
   Such a God does not hide in a gap. This God is everywhere when our eyes are open.

READER COMMENT amd Vern's replies in reverse order:

gregswartz wrote on 6/8/2010 --
   TheistJD, Over the years, I have heard lots of explanations for the existence of god. None have made any sense, so I really cannot tell you what might convince me that there is a god. That is why I am asking you!!!
   As for the mathematical order of the universe and its fine tuning, I do not see that those things are anything more than evidence that for the universe to exist, it probably does need to be mathematically ordered and fine tuned. But, how does that prove that there is a god? If the universe must be mathematically ordered and fine tuned, but it is not, then in all probability it would simply not exist.
   Neither does the rarity of beneficial mutations prove that there is a god. First of all, there are instances in which there are mutations that do happen rapidly. Are you saying that god only has time now and then to come here and handle some mutations? Knowing what we know of living cell structure, including DNA, it is not surprising that undirected cell mutations might occur rarely or, in some cases, often. The chemicals within cells operate in accordance with their chemical properties, so what does god have to do with it?
   There are numerous examples of evolutionary changes that make sense only if they are undirected. The human body, including the brain, could have been designed much better. The fact that it looks like it evolved undirected is some evidence that it, in fact, developed undirected.

TheistJD wrote on 6/8/2010 --
   Swartz, I have offered evidence, but you reject it; some of those include the mathematical order of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the rarity of "beneficial mutations", and the like.
   But there is NO evidence, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, that you would accept, because you believe that all existence can be explained by mindless undirected processes.
   But you can not demonstrate that existence, life, and mind are the result of mindless processes.
   Nevertheless, you hold that view.
   So I repeat my challenge, What evidence would you IN PRINCIPLE (this means theoretically, even if not practically) accept that God exists.
   Mathematical?
   Philosophical?
   Historical?
   A miracle?
   I repeat my claim...there is NOTHING you would accept.
   For you to keep asserting that "there is no evidence where there should be evidence" is the cop out. There is evidence, but your PRESUPPOSITIONS that mindless forces explain everything allows you to deny the evidence, even though you can not demonstrate that those mindless forces account for existence, life, and mind.

gregswartz wrote on 6/8/2010 --
   TheistJD your last post is yet another cop out!
   What difference does it make if I accept your evidence or not! What is your evidence for god????
  Without some evidence to discuss, we have this endless "Yes, there is! No, there isn't!" debate that is meaningless. You are the one averring the existence of a god. You must have some reason for believing that a god exists! What is it? I am only saying that without evidence for a god, especially considering that there is no evidence where there should be evidence, I must conclude that there is none!
   And, given the fact that you have offered no evidence, then I strongly suspect that you realize that your arguments are not sustainable!!!!

TheistJD wrote on 6/8/2010 --
   What evidence would you accept, "Greg" (speaking of pseudonyms we know how many names your side used at the Tammeus blog!)?
   The mathematical order of the universe? Fine tuning? The rarity of "beneficial" mutations? Etc.
   I submit that there is NO EVIDENCE, even in principle, that you would accept because your rejection of God stems from childhood, not from any reasoned analysis.
  As such, you hold to a belief that everything can untimately be explained to be the result of undirected/mindless processes.
   But you can't demonstrate this, either as to the origin of existence itself, or of life, or even of "reason".
   As such, your undemonstrable belief requires NO EVIDENCE and allows you to reject anything to the contrary.
   My challenge; GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT EVIDENCE YOU WOULD ACCEPT, AT LEAST IN PRINCICIPLE.
   My claim: YOU CAN NOT GIVE ANY SUCH EXAMPLE.

gregswartz wrote on 6/7/2010 --
   Well, as usual when debating with the various religious pseudonyms (and an occasional real name) that appear on these blogs, the discussion has devolved into nonsense. My original question, and the same question that I have been asking for 60 years, was for evidence of god! As usual, that question has gone unanswered and the discourse has devolved into peripheral, nonessential and generally unimportant issues. So where is the evidence for god??????? If there really is an omnipresent god, it ought to be real easy!!!!!

JonHarker wrote on 6/7/2010 --
   JD, ya got that right! Swartz joined in with his pals Iggy and Cole on the Tammeus blog on numerous occassions.
   Although I am not suprised that he would try to distance himself from their nonsense at this point. its become apparent to a number of us that their "meetups" are going nowhere.

TheistJD wrote on 6/7/2010 3:06:13 PM:
   Interesting "clarification", Greg, but I "lack belief in your claims".
   It is well known that you commented at the Tammus blog and participated in ridicule of believers...but I guess you called that "intellectual discussion."
   Anyone who wants verification can go to the archives of that blog and check your posts for some time back.
   Further, you maintain the Kansas City Freethought site, and you are frequently on the local atheist propaganda radio show, so indentifying you with the groups is QUITE CORRECT. 
   You protesteth too much!

gregswartz wrote on 6/7/2010 --
   If I get the time to respond to other issues in this thread before comments are cut off, I will, but I did want to clarify one important thing.
   I have been either an agnostic or atheist for at least 50 years and I can recall skeptical events in my life that go back 60 years. I first became aware that there was a Kansas City group of skeptics through a Kansas City Star article written by Vern Barnet back in 1997. I became more active in the early part of the last decade and was president of the Community of Reason long before "the self confessed 'Militant Atheist' Iggy" came on the scene.
   I am part of his group only to the extent that I know Iggy and go to some of the events he sponsors. I try to be supportive of all the free thought events in the Kansas City area, so to identify me with his groups only is incorrect. Furthermore, I try to promote free thought through education and intellectual discussion and probably have a little more boring approach to it than Iggy. I do not promote arguments based on such things at Pink Unicorns and Flying Speghetti Monsters, though that might appeal to some people.
   I do not hate religion and I do not hate god(s) or religionists. As for god(s), I cannot hate something that I believe does not extist. I do see religion causing so many of the problems that we have in the world today. Then, when I realize that these differences are based on human imagination rather than evidence, I do get expremely frustrated.

Blairson wrote on 6/5/2010 --
   Trapblock, Greg is part of a local group of atheists organized by the self confessed "Militant Atheist" Iggy at KCFreethinkers.
   The are not just mad, they hate religion. You may recall that Iggy trashed the Tammeus blog with offensive comments for months last year and early this year; he loved to call Christians "delusional" and his sidekick Cole Morgan loved to call them "Psychotic". He also loved to tell Christians to "shut up", "keep their beliefs to themselves" and "crawl under a rock".
   That crowd is a real piece of work. They even had Vern speak at one of their meetings a couple of months ago and it is pretty clear what he really thinks. A friend of mine has met with all of them and says that they have never said anything to him that didn't include insults.
   They don't really want discussion, as at least Vern does, but they do really want you to SHUT UP. LOL! I ain't gonna, and I enjoy sparring with them.
   By the way, anyone who wants verification of this can go to the Tammeus blog and review the archived comments by these guys.

vbarnet wrote on 6/5/2010 --
   Blairson-- I agree with you that scientific gaps are not closing, and that such a statement is more a philosophical statement about science than science itself. Further, every discovery seems to raise more questions, as you suggest.
   What Venter said was that his team had created “the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer.” I am glad to clarify what I wrote because he did not say he "created" life, which is why I quoted his exact words. Again, you are correct in saying that his work requires intelligent input -- in this case, he cited the computer. And I would add the intelligence of his team. Drawing theological conclusions about whether the world is the result of intelligent design seems a separate issue worth discussion.

Blairson wrote on 6/5/2010 --
   Vern, the idea that the gaps are "closing" is a comfortable one for atheists such as yourself, but is not a scientific view per se.
   In fact, the more we learn, the more we realize that we don't know and that there is to know...from "other universes" which we can't even in principle investigate to the elusive "theory of everything".
   By the way, Venter did not "create" life and the best he has shown is that the origin of life requires intelligent input...it certainly did not take place by a mindless uncontrolled process.

vbarnet wrote on 6/5/2010 --
   I love these thoughtful, direct, and polite discussions. I also notice that JonHarker wrote on 5/8/2010 that "Vern, a lot of Freethinkes think you should just come out and admit you are an atheist" while gregswartz wrote on 6/4/2010 that "Vern Barnet thinks (God) is everywhere . . . ." 
   What is important to me is not presenting my own view but encouraging such discussions.

trapblock wrote on 6/4/2010 --
   Greg you must be angry at someone if you don't believe in God, read the Faith section of the Star and post antagonistic comments after stories.
   And I'm fairly certain that most of what you know is based on things you've read or heard about hopefully from credible sources... you can't expect anyone to believe that the only things you believe are things you've empirically tested yourself.
   There is plenty of evidence of Jesus and his disciples... for one there's a church that's been in existance for over 2000 years... that's a pretty good one.
   People don't die for a belief if they know it's a lie. I choose to believe the disciples of Jesus that died proclaiming his resurrection... they gained nothing in this life by doing so... to me that gives them credibility. 
   The Hindus believe that God is everywhere... I do not. I can see His handywork everywhere though. He is the prime mover there can be no other. What's impossible for me to believe is that our lives are just random chance... statistically that is virtually impossible (talk about evidence). 
   As for the question 'where is God'... I guess I will have to quote the Red Hot Chili Peppers, "If you have to ask... you'll never know".
   Rest assured though... someday we will both die and I suppose we will have an answer then.

gregswartz wrote on 6/4/2010 --
   Trapblock, you state that the Bible contains "divine logic not human logic" yet you presume to know what the Bible says. I am always amazed at those who claim that we cannot know the mind of god, but then proceed to tell me what they think god did, wants, expects. etc.
   As far as Peter Kreeft is concerned, perhaps a source citation might be helpful as I am not aware of the allegation!
   As for the Bible as an historical document, it fails miserably. There is no evidence for much of what is in the Bible outside of the Bible, and the stories of the deaths of "Jesus' friends" are far from based upon good evidence. Besides, people do die for their beliefs, even if they are based up on "myth or a lie".
   Rest assured that I am not angry at god. One cannot be angry at something that does not exist. We are back to the unanswered (and skirted) question of "Where is god?" Vern Barnet thinks he is everywhere, but I have read his writings and heard him speak. He has no logical answer and neither do you!

trapblock wrote on 6/4/2010 --
   I actually heard Peter Kreeft (philosopher) quoting a study that a large majority of neurologists believe in God BECAUSE of what they know.
   The Bible contains divine logic not human logic... it's supposed to make you question. If not then God would be just a tyrant and we would be a bunch of robots. He gave us free will and we are free to reject Him or stay angry at Him because we don't completely understand Him.
   Might I suggest that if the Bible and Jesus are just a bunch of "myths, philosophies and period fears and never really happened", how would you account for the fact that eleven of Jesus' friends all went to their death for proclaiming they saw Jesus after he was put to death? No one dies for a myth or a lie. These guys certainly didn't do it for money or power for they had neither. They weren't particularly bright either. 
   Bartholomew was skinned alive. Do you think if he was lying or had a shred of doubt he might have recanted after the first skin peel? 
   The early church was persecuted by the greatest power on Earth, followers punished by death and yet the church grew and flourished. The only thing mystical here is why did they keep going?
   Perhaps actual history is a good place for you to begin your pursuit of Truth...

gregswartz wrote on 6/4/2010 --
   Trapblock, the Christian story is really weird. According to the Bible, god wanted a blood sacrifice, so he sent his only begotten son and he was crucified. Then because we did, we have to suffer. Strange logic! I think we should have moved beyond this unscientific logic and discarded it long ago. Actually, I sincerely believe that the whole Jesus story is a conflation of a bunch of myths, philosophies and period fears and never really happened the way the Bible portrays it. For one thing, I find no evidence for the divine and in order to believe in a divine Jesus, you have to believe in the divine.
   As far as searching, I used to pray in church 50 years ago. At some point I came to realize that there was nothing on the other side of the the (nonexistent) dialogue. I think I was humble enough back then, but there was no god to answer. I still keep asking religionists for proof of god, but still get no satisfactory answer - either falacious logic or mystical feelings easily understood if we understand how the brain works. See my first post here!

trapblock wrote on 6/4/2010 --
   When we killed His Son we kinda gave up the right to complain about suffering in this world. I guess though if you don't believe in Heaven this world is all you have.
   Greg, don't give up the search for Truth... He can save you but you have to be humble enough to ask.

gregswartz wrote on 6/3/2010 --
   Prayer is a waste of time! But, but go ahead and pray, but rather than pray for me, I would prefer that you pray for all the starving children in the world, the millions caught up in war and all those more in need than I. Obviously, no one is praying for them or god really does not care, because all of these unfortunate persons have been with us for all recorded history. Where is this "kind and just" god when the unfortunate need them? One should not have to fear one who loves them!!!! God is a delusion!!!!

Revextremely wrote on 6/3/2010 --
   gregswartz, I will pray to "the God Who is, Who was, and Who is to come..." will reveal Himself to you. You cannot find Him, but He can find you. He loves you and all of mankind and gave Himself as a sacrifice to save you from eternal torment. He is kind and just. He is loving and to be feared because of greatness.

gregswartz wrote on 6/3/2010 --
   There is a major problem with Vern Barnet's article and the previous comment. Both seem quite confident that there is a god out there. But where is this god? I have never seen her, it or him. Reality is that god lives in the imagination of the brain - mainly in the paleomammalian brain. Using the newer and more advanced portion of the brain - the neomammalian brain - we can analyze whether the paleomammalian brain is giving us accurate information. Using the neomammalian brain we see that god is just a delusion!

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 6/2/2010 --
   The sciences emerged and flourished preciesly in the context of the great Christian universities of the West. 
   Copernicus was a Priest... 
   Mendel was a Monk... The Big Bang Theory came from a priest.
   All Truth comes from God... there can be no conflict.

Michael Lemons wrote:
   As any particle physicist might tell you, every answer creates new questions.  Not to be simplistic, but an ever growing mass of answers reveals more and more space for questions, and if God really is in the Gaps, those gaps grow in complexity and prevalence in the minds of those who consider the new questions. 
   Science.. the pursuit of answers.. has long been vilified by bodies of faith who feared to lose power and influence if the tenants of faith were questioned, or worse, proven outright wrong.  Yet faith survives the onslaught of science... not only survives, but many forms of faith flourish in the continued revelation of the nature and function of the universe around us.  The insurmountable chasm between science and faith now seems narrower, less impossible than the dark and frightening recesses of human history, and some day, some distant day, maybe next week, the same breed of primate that used to kill each other over science versus faith, will pursue faith in the vehicle of science.
   Maybe that goal, to realize that leap to purposeful investigative faith, is why we are here. 
---
   It's always a pleasure to read what you have to say, but I especially enjoyed reading something touching so close to my personal view on God and Faith.  For a very long time now I have always thought of faith as something we use to fill the holes in knowledge.. I just never really dipped into the ever expanding scale of possibilities as we explore and illuminate the facts previously vieled in faith..  Kinda gives me hope for the future..
    It kind of reminds me about an article I recently read about Einstien's brain, how one man pretty much stole the brain of the father of modern physics after the autopsy in the name of determining what in Einstien's brain made him such a genius.  In short, it wasn't the cells the research expected that made him brilliant, it was cells previously thought to be simply "brain glue" holding the structure together and filling gaps.  After finding more of this kind of brain structure in Einstien's brain, further investigation showed that these cells were transmitting chemical signals all over the brain as a person thinks and learns, engaging areas not normally associated with the process being performed.  It was like finding a whole "another brain" within the structure we once thought totally un-involved in brain function.  I'm sure I'm grossly undersimplifying, you can catch the article here..
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1873569/
einstein_helps_scientific_discovery_after_his_death/index.html?source=r_science
   So I guess the devil may be in the details, but between the details is where we find faith. , , ,


819. 100526 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Memorials should respect all

I wandered around Union Cemetery one sunny afternoon last week. While almost everywhere among the 55,000 graves I found interest and inspiration, it was almost half an hour before I came upon a cross.
   I was a little surprised since religious symbols like the cross have occasioned passionate legal contests in our time. Just last month the U.S. Supreme Court decided Salazar v. Buono, a complicated case arising from a single Latin cross dominating the Mojave National Preserve.
   The prominent cross there was originally intended to honor veterans who died in World War I, but was opposed by those who said that it made the federal government appear to favor one faith over others.
   Union Cemetery offers a better message. It was created in 1857 in a pact between what were then the separate towns of Westport and Kansas City, uniting the two to provide a place for their dead, some reburied from separate gravesites filled from the cholera epidemic of 1849.
   Today its 27 acres a few blocks south of Crown Center contain markers for citizens great and small, and for soldiers from the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War. No single symbol stands for everyone.
   The graveyard accord between Westport and Kansas City brought together both Union and Confederate soldiers from the Civil War, waged, as Lincoln observed, with both sides invoking God’s aid against the other. Here they lie in peace.
   Alas, God is still being invoked in legal battles elsewhere.
   The strife arises on public land when only one symbol is selected above all others as an emblem for everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
   Some argue that the cross is a simply a secular image of death. But don’t many Christians claim the cross as a sign not only of death but also as a promise of resurrection in Christ? I just don’t know any Jews or Sikhs who’ve specified a cross for their tombstones.
   The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs offers dozens of religious symbols for individual headstones, including the Buddhist wheel, the Hindu om, the Muslim crescent and star, and several versions of the Christian cross.
   Memorial Day should be a time when we honor those of all faiths who have given their lives for our liberties, especially the freedom to practice whatever faith is meaningful to each of us, or none. Scholars often cite America as the most religious nation of the industrialized West, by far, precisely because we welcome every spiritual tradition.
   As those of diverse faiths mingle in graveyards, let us embrace one another in life. And may our patriots rest in peace.


818. 100519 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Everything is connected to God

Cantor Paul Silbersher, now 80, has thought a lot about interfaith relations during the course of his long career.
   “I’ve not been comfortable just patting someone on the back as an act of tolerance. Instead, when one moves beyond tolerating to respect the things sacred to others, their organizing principles, their stories, then the conversation can commence,” says Silbersher, the spiritual leader of Congregation Kol Ami, a Reform synagogue in Prairie Village.
   Silbersher also says that Judaism has “benefited from an interplay with other faiths.”
   Next week his congregation will host a prominent 38-year-old Jewish scholar and activist, Jay Michaelson, whose prolific writings illustrate how one can understand one’s own tradition more deeply by respecting and learning about others.
   His latest book is “Everything is God: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism.” 
   Michaelson has founded a software company, taught law, played in a rock band and spent five months on a silent Buddhist retreat, mostly in Nepal.
   His writing on the subject of sexuality and religion has been featured on NPR, in the New York Times, Duke Law Review and other media. He says, “Religion is not about belief but (about) love, and the obligations which spring from it.”
   Some forms of Christianity have understood carnal and spiritual love as two separate things. So I asked Michaelson about a “non-dual” approach to sexuality.
  “The Jewish tradition has always, always, sanctified sexuality . . . within certain boundaries,” he said. It is “a way to serve God.”
   He cited Jewish mystical texts that “speak of the ‘holy unification’ between masculine and feminine here on earth which, by the way, need not (only) be between male and female, as reflecting and embodying unifications within God. . . .
   “The gift of my Buddhist practice is that it enables mindfulness in all moments, including sexually intimate ones. Here, the two (religious) paths converge. By being more present in sexual intimacy, I find I’m able to be more aware of the holiness of the moment and of the person I’m with,” he said.
    Kabbalah is a Jewish tradition that teaches everything is God or, as Michaelson puts it, “One,” while Buddhism says everything is “Zero.” His practice in both traditions deepens respect for different mathematical metaphors for the same sacred insight.
   Silbersher says he is “eagerly awaiting” Michaelson’s visit here May 26 when he gives a free lecture at 7 pm. On May 27 he offers a meditation workshop at 7; the charge is $20. For information, visit kolamikc.com or call 913-642-9000.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES
   The Star version is slightly shorter than the text above. 
   Click here for the link to Michaelson's website.
   The text of the email interview with Michaelson:
   1. How does one accept the teaching that everything is God -- including oneself -- without falling into narcissism?
   Narcissism is the polar opposite of nondual spirituality.  As I understand it, narcissism is about aggrandizing the self.  But if everything is God, there is no separate self. Whatever your story is, however you feel, whatever prizes you win or love you do or don't have -- all of these are beautiful, or terrible, or both, but most importantly none of these are you or yours.  Each of us is like a wave on the ocean: the size and shape is nice, but really, at our essence, we're water.
   Also -- if everything is God, then, sure, I'm God, but so are you and everyone else.  That kind of levels things out, don't you think?
   2. If religion is about love, what duties arise from it?
   Following in the footsteps of many philosophers, I think love is the root of why we conceive duties and obligations.  Yes, reason points the way; it tells me that stealing from you would cause you suffering, and hurt society, and so on.  But love convinces me that that matters.  Love, itself, doesn't dictate the contours of duty; it may well be more "loving" to let someone fail than to spoil them with success, and certainly, many people have used "love" as the justification for all sorts of horrible behavior.  But it does dictate the imperative to care in the first place.
   Another way of putting it is that the ethical side of religion is love explicated in human relations; if we truly love one another, how should we behave?  The ritual side of religion is love explicated in the realm of the spirit; how can we feel more love for all that is, and widen our perpectives beyond I, me, and mine?
  3. Still influential 1600 years later, St Augustine devalued pleasurable sexuality because the orgasm is not under rational control but rather a bodily function. What do Jewish (and/or Asian) traditions teach about understanding sexual energy as a spiritual path?
   The Jewish tradition has always, always, sanctified sexuality. In traditional Judaism, this takes place within certain boundaries: marriage (usually, but not always), respect for the other person, and so on.  But there has never been a sense in the mainstream Jewish tradition that sexuality is evil, or a necessary evil, or anything other than a way to serve God. How we translate those norms today is an open question, of course, and I am more liberal than many on that question, but the basic norm is clear.
   The Jewish tradition does not have a "kama sutra" or other way to enhance sexual pleasure as a spiritual practice.  Many texts of the Kabbalah speak of the "holy unification" between masculine and feminine here on Earth (which, by the way, need not be between male and female) as reflecting and embodying unifications within God.  Even today, many Hasidic men consider sex with their wives to be sex with the feminine aspect of God.The emphasis in the Jewish side is on intention, not technique.
   The form of Buddhism I practice (in addition to Judaism) is not as affirming regarding sexual energy, but, as understood in the West, its primary teaching is to avoid sexual misconduct, however that is defined.  I define it as anything which causes harm or degrades the individuals involved.  But the gift of my Buddhist practice is that it enables mindfulness in all moments, including sexually intimate ones.  Here, the two paths converge.  By being more present in sexual intimacy, I find I'm able to be more aware of the holiness of the moment and of the person I'm with.  And for sure, I appreciate being able to shut off the mind now and then!


817. 100512 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
The legacy of Marc Wilson at the Nelson

To complete their “standard model” of what makes up the universe, scientists are searching for a sub-atomic particle that gives mass to others, the Higgs boson, popularized as “the God particle.” If it exists, and if Marc Wilson had pursued his youthful interest in physics, I reckon he would have found it.
   Instead, perhaps more importantly, he has renewed and enlarged the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art and given us free access to the deepest expressions of the human spirit — and a lot of fun. 
   Take the “Shuttlecocks.” I like the idea that we see a freeze-frame of invisible gods or giants playing badminton over the 1933 building, even as mortals play frisbee in real time on the south lawn within the sculpture garden.
   Inside the museum, you’ll find gods and heroes from, say, the ancient Egyptian, Osiris, to the American, Martin Luther King Jr, portrayed in ways that model how various cultures have understood what our lives depend on. 
   The small gilt bronze “Seated Manjusri Budhisattva” (2000.23 in “The Glory of the Law” gallery), which Wilson acquired along with 15,000 other works during his 39-year tenure, requires no knowledge of Buddhism to find its grace both intimate and cosmic.
  Even art with no apparent religious content may move us with an answer to the spiritual question, “What does it mean to be human?”
   Whenever I bring out-of-town guests to the museum, they are astonished by both the encyclopedic scope of our permanent collections and their eminence.
   I’ve been visiting the museum for 35 years and I still have this same reaction, now intensified with the newly installed European, American, American Indian and Egyptian galleries — not to mention the wonders of, and in, the Bloch Building.
   I cherish the 1980 “Eight Dynasties of Chinese Painting” exhibition catalog because I got both Wilson and his predecessor, Laurence Sickman, who began our world-famous Chinese collection, to autograph my copy.
   When my organization, CRES, asked Wilson to accept an award in 2005 “for advancing a treasury of art through which the world’s great religions may be explored,” he asked that Sickman also be honored, posthumously. Wilson was feted earlier this month at the museum, and he named Sickman and others as part of the museum story. 
   Still, as he retires as director June 1, it is hard not to think chiefly of Wilson as one of those gods or giants over the museum.
   Friday at 7:30 p.m., Wilson speaks on “To Believe or Not to Believe: My Struggle with the Truth of Fortune Cookies.” Call 816.751.1278 for free tickets.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES:
   In 2008 the Nelson acquired Simon Norfolk's 2007 chromogenic print, "Large Hadron Collider No 6, CERN Labs, Switzerland," where physicists will search for the Higgs boson in the 17-mile circular tunnel. The photograph reminds me of Tibetan mandalas, American Indian medicine wheels, and cathedral rose windows. 
   When I was negotiating with Religious for Peace-USA, working in concert with Harvard University's Pluralism Project, to bring the nation's first "Interfaith Academies" for students and religious professionals to Kansas City in 2007, one of my selling points was the Museum. For the Academies' fortnight, WIlson personally arranged three tours for the American and foreign participants.
   My first indirect experience with Wilson was (in the pre-digital age) when I was serving as pastor of an Overland Park church and I wanted to borrow slides of certain works from the permanent to illustrate a sermon. At that time the Museum had a strict policy against lending out materials. I appealed and WIlson reversed the policy. In 2007, the Festival of Faiths asked me to prepare a "virtual tour" of the Museum for its November observances, and the Museum provided considerable assistance. So when the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council wanted to interview me for a video to be shown at its annual "Table of Faiths" luncheon, what better site for the filming than the south lawn of the Museum Wilson had reshaped through his managerial, development (fundraising), staff-building, and visionary leadership?
   WIlson also promoted an understanding that art is free -- literally, by ending fees for seeing the permanent collection; free in the sense that one can come and go through the many doors of the buildings without impediment to see the art inside and out; free in the sense that no interpretation of any work of art is required but one's own response is respected; free in the sense that one does not have to dress up to enjoy the Museum; free to see one work and leave -- or spend the entire day.
   Here is how Wilson begins the Foreword to the 1988 volume, The Collections of The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art: “Man has always invested meaning in symbols and images . . . to define his relationship with the cosmos. . . . It is not surprising, therefore, that religions generally have spawned much of mankind’s artistic production.” 
   Readers can find numerous celebrations of Wilson's tenure in The Star and other publications.


816. 100505 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
The religious right origins

Today’s religions may be rooted in a venerable past, but they often appear quite different from their beginnings.
   For example, Tibetan Buddhism today is rich with art, ritual and theology, quite unlike the Buddha’s simple and spare practice.
   But let’s focus on American Christianity. A humble Jewish teacher, Jesus, told the rich man to give all he had to the poor and proclaimed the advent of the kingdom of God. 
   Two thousand years later, hundreds of denominations elaborate his name. Christians are sometimes sharply divided by politics, and a “Religious Right” has emerged. How did this happen? 
   Here’s a skimpy answer. 
   In the first century, Christianity entered Hellenistic culture, with Greek ideas about Jesus replacing Hebrew ways of thinking. The word “Christ” itself is Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek. 
   In the fourth century, Christianity became the religion of the expiring Roman Empire. Fierce creedal disputes moved toward resolution.
   By the fifth century, various texts had been assembled into what became the modern Bible.
   In the Middle Ages, many different theological perspectives flourished.
   In 1517, doctrine became the tool by which practice was critiqued. Luther’s theology of grace undercut the selling of indulgences. Arguing what ancient texts meant had political effects and multiplied denominations.
   In the 1600s, science began to approach truth as empirically testable. But not until about a hundred years ago was scientific precision systematically claimed for the Bible in a movement called Fundamentalism, largely abandoning a traditional approach to the Greek creeds as mysteries. The Bible was not only inspired but also inerrant.
   At first Fundamentalism was intensely personal, with little worldly or political entanglement. But later, theologians such as Francis A. Schaeffer (1912–1984) saw a political agenda in their faith. 
   Schaeffer influenced Charles Colson (Watergate), Tim LaHaye (“Left Behind”), Randall Terry (Operation Rescue) and Jerry Falwell (Moral Majority). Falwell worked to get people saved, baptized and registered to vote.
   While the Religious Right first sought to protect racial discrimination at Bob Jones University, Schaeffer’s spotlight on abortion galvanized the movement.
   His son, Frank Schaeffer, has written a book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.
   This history will be updated when he speaks Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at Unity Temple on the Plaza, 707 W. 47th St.

CRES WEB SITE NOTES:
   Here is the Wikipedia entry for Francis Schaeffer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer.
   Here is the Wikipedia entry for Frank Schaeffer:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Schaeffer.
   Here is the Frank Schaeffer wbsite: http://www.frankschaeffer.com. It contains text and video.

   Pursuing our own spiritual paths,  we often forget how the paths we claim both began from, and now differ from, the founders or first exponents we honor.
   Additional examples: The horse sacrifice of the Vedas is eschewed by modern Hindus. Jews do not follow the ancient command to stone a rebellious son to death (Deut 21:18). An economy based on the profit motive is justified by culture often characterized as Christian as if the collective ownership of the early Christians (Acts 2:44, 4:32) never happened.

SELECTED READER COMMENTand VERN'S RESPONSE

1. . . . You said a lot in a few words.The main question I had was whether it is sufficient to say "science began to approach truth as empirically testable."  Science certainly began to approach factual truth as empirically testable, and there was an effort to gain factual information about as much as possible.  But I don't know how much that was claimed as truth.  And the statement "all truth can be empirically testable" cannot be empirically tested; thus, on the basis of the premise that truth can be empirically testable, that statement is not true. Keep up the good work!

It is an interesting question you raise, whether the "Enlightenment Project" assumed that, with continuing refinements, all truth would be decided by empirical means. Even math was often regarded not as a branch of logic (as Russell and Whitehead and others in the 19th Century had thought) but as derived from, or inseparable from, physical reality We know better now, and so did Wm Blake, but I don't think folks were as clear about that when the scientific revolution began. I'm not enough of a cultural historian to be able to answer your question, but I do recognize it as an important one. Thanks for raising it!

2. Fantastic. That was a bell ringer of accurate, concise history of the religious right this morning. You did us all a great service. Your former fundamentalist friend who used to read Schaeffer as a youth . . . .

3. JonHarker wrote on 5/8/2010 6:00:25 AM:
   Vern, a lot of Freethinkes think you should just come out and admit you are an atheist. 
All this wishy washy talk is fooling most of us anymore.
   I enjoyed your talk at the Skeptics meeting a while back, but it is clear to me that you have been an atheist since you read Russell's anti Christian book; which is odd because that particular essay was superficial and so loaded with bias as to not even be worth being counted as "philosophy".
   So, I figure you have other reasons, so why not just come out with it. (By the way, your "skimpy" answer about the development of Christianity was not just "skimpy", it was so simplistic as to be misleading and you know it.)
   Or at least I hope you know it, or you are even less informed than I thought.

4. GabrielMichaeal wrote on 5/7/2010 11:55:21 AM:
"Those who believe that religion and politics aren't connected don't understand either." - Mahatma Gandhi


815. 100428 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Celebrate belonging to this earth

Although I’m trained in theology, increasingly I see people’s experience with religion in psychological and social terms. And history and geography also play roles so obvious we usually ignore them.
   If you were born in India, you’d probably be Hindu or perhaps Muslim. You’d more likely be a Christian than a Buddhist, with practically no chance of being Jewish.
   If you lived near Kaw Point (where the Kansas River flows into the Missouri, in the West Bottoms), say, before 1804 when Lewis and Clark camped there, your songs would more likely be Siouan chants than Christian hymns in English.
   However proud and even certain we may be of our faiths, recalling the chance particulars of our births should arouse some modesty along with our pride.
   Although Islam has generally protected religious minorities, in Christendom, even through the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, it was pretty much cuius regio, eius religio, “whose realm, his religion.” The ruler decided whether you’d be Catholic or Protestant. 
   While some American colonies required church membership to vote (you also had to be white and male), today the government cannot dictate religion. Still, you are more likely to be Catholic in Baltimore and Mormon in Salt Lake City than the reverse. You are more likely to be Jewish in New York City and Buddhist in Honolulu than the reverse.
   A few years ago I had a student research why folks belonged to his church. Answers included family tradition, affection for the stained-glass windows, a good Sunday school, the preacher’s sermons, neighborhood location and other factors. But not one person chose the church because of creed. 
   What this means to me is that religion is more about belonging than belief.
   Yet for many people nowadays religion — they prefer the term “spirituality” instead — is utterly individual, the opposite of anything organized or institutional. 
   So the need to belong is fulfilled by groups and shared activities, from the religion of baseball to the curious and paradoxical phenomenon of getting a tattoo, a symbol of one’s individual spirit, while joining the confederacy of others who also have tattoos.
   Belonging to a group separates you from those not in the group.
   None of this is rocket science, but the view of earth from space suggests to me that our most urgent sense of belonging reaches beyond political party and specific faith and even favorite sports team, to celebrate belonging to the human race, to the planet itself and to a spiritual adventure, the boundaries of which we cannot see.


814. 100421 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
‘Don Giovanni’ teaches lessons in life

How many women has Charlie Harper bedded on TV’s “Two and a Half Men”? Compare his count with Mozart’s Don Giovanni’s. The rake’s servant’s meticulous country-by-country catalog famously details 1003 in Spain alone.
   Don Giovanni is more ethically disturbing than any episode of the TV comedy show. Peter Sellars' dark production of the opera appeared on PBS in 1991. He said that no work before its 1787 premiere opened with music more violent. The overture’s D minor and A major chords with timpani are shattering. The eerily iterated rising and falling notes suggest supernatural powers at work.
   And yet, within two minutes, we hear sunshine music, almost jauntily triumphant. 
   The story begins with what appears to be a rape and a murder.
   The story ends with Don Giovanni, refusing multiple opportunities to repent, pulled before our eyes into hell-fire by a statue of the murdered father of one of the Don’s marks.
   Did the presumably monogamous Mozart and his scandalous librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte conceive of their work as a comic opera with a serious ending or as tragic theater with interjected fun? Your answer may depend on the production you see.
   Unlike the collaborators’ earlier masterpiece, The Marriage of Figaro, where I grow fond of every character including the nasty Count, in Don Giovanni the characters are, one by one, morally disgusting. 
   Yet the Don knows exactly what he wants. Some opera lovers, like Soren Kierkegaard, often called the first Existentialist, argue he is liberated, even noble, because he knows himself. On the other hand, Giovanni can be seen as pathetic, fearing that erotic commitment would lead to boredom rather than fulfillment.
   The other characters are compromised by self-deception and delusion. 
   Kierkegaard’s 2-volume work Either/Or, published in 1843, seems obsessed with the opera. He says “the Commendatore’s earnestness, Elvira’s wrath, Anna’s hate, Ottavio’s pomposity, Zerlina’s anxiety, Mazetto’s indignation” all emanate from Giovanni. 
   The thrill of seeing these many perspectives, sometimes simultaneously, comes in the magic of Mozart’s music.
   Compared with Mozart’s opera, “Two and a Half Men” is just for laughs. Stephen Sondheim’s demonic comedy Sweeney Todd is mere scribble and screech. 
   Mozart transforms the agonies of desire and personal frailties into a cosmic and compassionate humor that makes the human condition sublime.
   The Lyric Opera of Kansas City presents Don Giovanni April 24, 28, 30 and May 2.

CRES WEB SITE NOTES:
   See a 2004 column about the opera at  star2004.htm#503
   The Kierkegaard quotation is found on page 119 of Part I (volume 1 of the Hong English translation (Princeton University Press, 1987). This quotation is part of the writing of "A," a character created by Kierkegaard, as a counterpoint to "B," whose writing appears in Part II of Either/Or.
   Kierkegaard was a Christian.

READER COMMENTS:
   Your column in today's K.C. Star is the most remarkable assemblage of 350 words about anything ever to appear in any publication, anywhere. —Mike Greene 
   Congratulations on a very well-written, intuitive piece in Wednesday's Star. I personally am gving the performance pretalks for the upcoming "Don Giovanni" Lyric Opera run. As I read yuor piece I thought, "Good Lord, he's givin my . . . speech!" I may quote you a couple of times and will give full creadit! Great job!! Keep up the good writing! —Dr Eugene Butler


813. 100414 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Sikhs invite all to their celebration

You’re smart — you know that the two largest faiths on the planet are Christianity and Islam.
   And you, you’re very smart because you know that Hinduism and Buddhism are the third and fourth largest faiths. You may have even seen the recent PBS program, “Buddha,” which repeats on KCPT-2 Apr. 26 at 7 p.m.
   But are you well enough informed to know that the fifth largest religion in the world is the Sikh faith, in the U.S. for over a hundred years and now well-represented in the Heartland?
   Sikhism arose some 500 years ago in the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent as Hinduism and Islam encountered each other. The first guru, Nanak (1469-1539), proclaimed that God transcends human religions. This led to Sikhs rejecting creed, caste and gender discrimination.
   Several Sikh families came to the Kansas City area in the 1960s. By 1989 the Midwest Sikh Association completed a regional gurdwara (Sikh place of worship) in Shawnee at 6834 Pflumm Rd.
   In Kansas City’s Hyde Park area, the Sat Tirath Ashram had its beginnings in 1973 with American-born followers of Yogi Bhajan, who formed the 3HO (Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization). Bhajan was a master of kundalini yoga, and the ashram continues to offers training in that practice. 
   Both the Kansas City and the Shawnee groups have been noted by Harvard University’s Pluralism Project.
   The capacious Shawnee gurdwara has a large room containing the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture, under a canopy. For me, this recalls the succession of ten human gurus, or teachers, which was replaced by the sacred text from which the teachings and the songs of praise continue. While most of the materials in the scripture are Sikh, it also contains Hindu and Muslim writings.
   An important feature of the gurdwara is the langar, the kitchen and dining area. To offer hospitality to all faiths, only vegetarian fare is prepared. And it is delicious!
   This Sunday concludes the 311th festival of Vaisakhi, an annual celebration of commitment to the faith. Charanjit Hundal and other members of the gurdwara have extended an invitation to “other faith communities to come and enjoy this occasion with us.” The gathering begins at 10 a.m., with prayers at 11 a.m. and langar at noon.
   If you accept the invitation, your hair should be covered (the gurdwara provides scarves) and you’ll want to remove your shoes on entering the building.
   You may not understand the prayer language, but you’ll be blessed by the experience and the friends you will make. And did I say the food was great?


812. 100407 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Know your Bible, know yourself

Even after 40 years in the ministry, I’m still surprised that so many folks claiming allegiance to a particular holy book don’t know what’s in it. This, alas, is true of many Christians.
   So I was intrigued when I learned that Southwood United Church of Christ’s sign by Raytown Road reads, “The Living God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.”
   The pastor, Michael Stephens, wrote about the sign in his church newsletter. Stephens says that the Bible was written thousands of years ago by men (he emphasizes the gender) who could not possibly have known about many of today’s concerns such as “stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, democracy, the origins of the universe, handguns, Facebook” and such.
   He also says that through the Spirit of the Living God we now understand that practices accepted in the Bible such as polygamy and slavery are evil, and that practices condemned, such as homosexual relationships and women speaking in church, can actually be Spirit-led. He says that the Word of God is not the Bible but the Living Christ. 
   With pride he quotes one of the church’s teenagers, Greg Sheets, who said, “I believe that the Word of the God that is still speaking cannot be found in a book written long ago. Instead, it can be found in the hearts and souls of us all.”
   I asked for a contrasting view from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The dean of the college there, Thorvald B. Madsen, responded:
   “This pastor’s comments suggest that God, even with the resources of omnipotence, didn’t manage to get an inerrant Bible out of his apostles and prophets. The latter made mistakes, and God couldn’t do anything about it. Jesus, on the other hand, remains the ‘Living Christ,’ in this pastor’s view, just as he has been for orthodox Christians down through the ages. 
   “But one can’t really have it both ways, allowing for an Incarnate Word while denying the inerrant, Inscripturated Word. The power which makes the one possible also allows for the other. So the pastor has adopted an implausible view, just on its face.
   “The same Bible which tells us about Spirit-leading also forbids homosexuality, expressly and unambiguously. . . . Therefore, one cannot pick and choose, embracing what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit while rejecting its consistent prohibition of sexual intercourse outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage,” Madsen said. 
   Your approach to faith and knowing what’s actually in the Bible may affect how you view many questions with which our society struggles today.
   To read the complete comments by Stephens and Madsen, visit cres.org/bible.

NOTES AND COMMENTS
from Pastor Michael Stephen's newsletter:

   “The Living God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.” You have probably seen or heard that this is the message on our church sign out by Raytown Road right now. If you’ve heard me speak much, you probably realize that this is a core belief in my Chris-tian faith. This short article does not provide enough space to explain this from all an-gles, but let’s explore this phrase.
     One e-mail I received about the sign from someone who does not attend Southwood suggests these words are “blasphemous to the Lord” and “attacking Him” and more like “something that Satan would say.” Apparently, based on e-mails and phone calls, our sign is attracting attention and striking a chord/nerve. Interestingly, I find it more blas-phemous to the Living God to claim his message can be perfectly contained in the words and views of men (yes, just men) who wrote from their perspective and experi-ence 2000 plus years ago.
     We believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ or God’s anointed. This means people experience him as being filled with the Spirit of God in a unique way. Jesus’ biggest op-ponents were people who could not believe that the Spirit would lead him do things that went against scriptural law. In fact, they claimed that Satan must be behind Jesus’ work, so I don’t feel like I’m in such bad company.
     My interest in the life and ministry of Jesus is not simply about a spirit-filled man who lived during first century Israel. What makes Christianity significant is that Jesus offered that same Spirit to fill and lead us. Jesus did not write a book or endorse a book. While many mistakenly point to the Bible as God’s Word, the Gospel of John proclaims that only Jesus is the true Word of God.
     Those of us who seek to be filled with and led by the Spirit of the Living God are much like the earliest Christians. Peter told the early church to include Gentiles, not be-cause he read it in scripture, but because he was led by the Spirit. Trust me - that was not a popular decision with Jews or Christians. Today, we proclaim that slavery is wrong despite what the Bible implies because of the movement of the Spirit. Today, we listen to women preach and teach despite biblical precedent because SheWhoIs speaks thru them. Today, we encourage committed monogamous relationships despite the Bible’s acceptance of polygamy because we see the Spirit best expressed and magnified through the loving relationship of two persons. And today, Southwood stands proudly with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, not because of biblical endorsement, but because the Spirit of God resides in them despite society’s injustices and it would be a sin to turn our back on God’s Spirit.
     Biblical scholars would caution our use of the phrase “the Bible says” and remind us that the Bible is actually a compilation of many voices spanning many different centuries and cultures. Those voices experienced the Living God and expressed that experience as best as they could in words and stories. And, like us, sometimes those voices don’t even agree with each other. But that’s the beauty of the faith journey!
     One lady called to insist that we can’t just pick and choose what scriptures to be-lieve. My response was that we do so as we are led by the Spirit and that her church probably doesn’t follow all of the rules in the Bible either. I could make a long list of bib-lical ideas and laws from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament that we no longer follow. The Spirit of the Living God clearly no longer endorses such things for today that would be illegal, immoral, unjust or plain silly.
     We struggle with issues today that the people of the Bible could never have antici-pated: stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, democracy, the origins of the universe, handguns, Facebook… but where the Bible is silent, the U.C.C. believes that “God is still speaking.” The answers to questions that life throws at us cannot be found solely in ancient scriptures but in dialogue and study within the spirit-filled community. By living, working and worshipping together, we hold one another accountable to the Spirit that binds us and calls us into the future.
     So does God endorse some of what the Bible says? Of course! If it were not for the Bible I’m not sure if I would have developed a passion for justice, a concern for the poor, a critique of wealth and power, an offering that exceeds 10%, an affirmation that everyone is created in the image of God, a hope for God’s unfolding dream, a commit-ment to life in the church and so much more! Jesus believed that all religious rules need to support two primary commandments: Love of God and Love of Neighbor. That is an eternal truth that still guides our lives today.
     “The Living God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.” I believe this with all my heart - I preach it with passion, teach it with humility and live it with the Spirit as my guide in the midst of the community of faith. Such a ministry can be infectious - Greg Sheets, one of our teenage confirmands writes: “I believe that the word of the God that is still speaking cannot be found in a book written long ago. Instead, it can be found in the hearts and souls of us all.” Amen!

The Rev Michael L Stephens, pastor,Southwood United Church of Christ 
7904 Raytown Rd, Raytown, MO  64138, www.southwooducc.org

Vern's inquiry:
     I write the Wednesday "Faiths and Beliefs" column in The Kansas City Star. I'm working on a column about a local pastor who has installed a sign outside his church which reads, “The Living God does not endorse ALL the Bible says.” 
     His point is that the Bible was written by men (he emphasizes the gender) thousands of years ago who could not possibly have known about many of today's concerns, such as "stem cell research, weapons of mass destruction, democracy, the origins of the universe, handguns, Facebook" and such. 
     He also says that we now understand through the Living Christ that practices accepted in the Bible such as polygamy  and slavery are evil, and that practices condemned by the Bible such as homosexual relationships and women speaking in church can actually be Spirit-led. He says that the Word of God is not the Bible but the Living Christ.
     . . . .
     Would you be willing to comment in a paragraph or two or three about the authority of Scripture and how it should be interpreted and applied . . . ?
     Perhaps there might be one point of agreement between you and the pastor (and I would certainly agree): In is regrettable that so many folks who claim the Bible is important to them actually know so little of what it says.

Dean Thorvald B. Madsen, PhD, responds to Vern's inquiry:
   This pastor’s comments suggest that God, even with the resources of omnipotence, didn’t manage to get an inerrant Bible out of his apostles and prophets.  The latter made mistakes, and God couldn’t do anything about it.  Jesus, on the other hand, remains the “Living Christ,” in this pastor’s view, just as he has been for orthodox Christians down through the ages.  But one can’t really have it both ways, allowing for an Incarnate Word while denying the inerrant, Inscripturated Word.  The power which makes the one possible also allows for the other.  So the pastor has adopted an implausible view, just on its face.
   The pastor also claims that since the biblical writers lived thousands of years ago, no modern person can trust what they say about ethics.  But this argument confuses moral principles with passing circumstances to which they apply, whether back then or now.  Take the case of stem cell research.  Obviously the biblical writers could not have entertained this question raised by modern technology.  However, they gave us moral principles that always apply, even to a case like this one, because they are logically necessary and, therefore, both timeless and unchanging.  Should we conceive human beings for experimental purposes?  May we use deadly force for self-protection?  What boundaries should we respect in dealing with others, however we happen to meet them?  We have only one way to answer these questions, if we are not relativists: we appeal to the fundamental principles of morality as articulated in Scripture and known to us (at least partly) by moral intuition.
   The question of whether practices like homosexuality can be “Spirit-led” will depend on whether they are morally wrong, at the end of the day; and the evidence here is conclusive.  The same Bible which tells us about Spirit-leading also forbids homosexuality, expressly and unambiguously.  The same conclusion follows from our basic, moral intuitions about homosexuality.  Everyone knows, deep down, what the biblical writers have been telling us about this behavior all along: it is psychosexually abnormal and morally wrong.  Therefore, one cannot pick and choose, embracing what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit while rejecting its consistent prohibition of sexual intercourse outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage.  As for the origin of the universe, our theoretical choices here are simple.  Either the universe came from God or it sprang into being without cause.  There is no third alternative.

Thorvald B. Madsen, PhD, Dean of the College
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
5001 N. Oak Trafficway, Kansas City, MO 64118

READER RESPONSE

READER: 
   Dear Vern, Some of us do read the bible and are quite capable of discerning heresy and teaching that is to the contrary of what it says. You are probably a homosexual because you are forever coming up with excuses for this vile,repugnant sin. You might want read your bible once in awhile and see what it says. It was wrong a thousand years ago and will always be. Please continue with your dirty, filthy lifestyle but stop trying to justify it to people who know the truth. -- Robert Rauch

VERN:
   Dear Rob-- I do not respond to name-calling as I believe it is unChristian. But I will respond to your other points.
   I think today's column presented two sides. In fact, folks do have various opinions about the issues identified in the column -- slavery, women speaking in church, homosexuality -- and other issues which some folks do not find addressed in the Bible, such as stem-cell research, WMD, etc, as identified by Pastor Stephens.
   You might be interested in knowing that I have quite a few shelves of Bibles including in the original languages, studied with some of the great Bible teachers of our time when I was completing my doctoral degree at one of the finest divinity schools in the country, and have myself taught in Baptist and Methodist seminaries as well as several universities. I have taught Old Testament and New Testament, among various subjects for which I was responsible.
   You state that I am forever coming up with excuses . . . but nowhere do I offer my own opinion except that I think folks should know what is in the Bible.
   It is curious that you would suggest that I should read the Bible when that is exactly the point I was making, both in the first paragraph and near the last:
   "Even after 40 years in the ministry, I’m still surprised that so many folks claiming allegiance to a particular holy book don’t know what’s in it. This, alas, is true of many Christians. . . . .
   "Your approach to faith and knowing what’s actually in the Bible may affect how you view many questions with which our society struggles today."
   While I am not at all  sure you understood this, that I am urging folks to see for themselves what is in the Bible, I am glad you read the column and took the trouble to write me. . . . 

READER: 
   Jesus didn't come to leave us a book. He came to save us from Original Sin and the effects of it. He left a church to protect the Deposit of Faith. The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. A book or rather a library of books called the Bible grew out of that.
   Once Martin Luther 'protest'ed against this Apostolic Church he opend the door for the thousands upon thousands of Bible believing Churches that teach different 'truths'. A move he later regretted.
   The Bible must be read through the eyes of Apostolic Tradition (or Sacred Oral Tradition) to be seen in its fullness or intended state (if you will). --trapblock

READER: 
    I have on my shelf over 20 different Bibles - which one would Dr. Madsen say is the "real" one? Inerrancy is nowhere claimed in the Bible - that, like infallibility, is a human judgment, not a Divine commandment. Jesus himself released mankind from some of the Torah commandments, otherwise all Christians who eat shellfish or pork would be condemned.
   Either the Bible is to be taken literally or humans will interpret it for themselves. How many different Christian denominations are there, all passionate about their own interpretations? The Bible is a history of mankind's gradual understanding of God, from primitive tribal beliefs to the incredible understanding of humanity's relationship with God revealed by the Carpenter of Nazareth.
   People of Dr. Madsen's persuasion are welcome to accept the Bible as inerrant. But if God created mankind in His likeness and image, She gave us free will and reason for a purpose. To not use those talents would be to waste what we were given.
   Some of us were made natural skeptics; for us, any dogma must also past the test of reason. That is not to say we have no faith; rather that our faith must be grounded in rationality, not superstition. 
   C.S. Lewis says that humans have an innate God-given morality. Toleration of others' sexual preferences, like racial tolerance, is more a test of our ability to love our fellow human rather than grounds to condemn them. --neer668


811. 100331 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
Religious myths powerful

The most important Biblical story for the Jews is now being commemorated by them. It is Pesach — Passover, and it recalls the preparation and exodus of the Hebrew people out of Egyptian slavery.
   The story has been important for Christians as well. For example, in Memphis, just before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr spoke to a black population like those enslaved in ancient times, marching to freedom. He was a Moses figure, for like Moses, as King foretold, he did not get to the promised land, but he asserted that “we as a people will get to the promised land.”
   The most important Christian story is Easter, this Sunday. This holy day celebrates the Resurrection of Jesus, victorious over sin and death.
   In the technical language of religious scholars, these stories and the central stories of every faith are called “myths” — but “myth” does not mean “falsehood.” On the contrary, it means a truth much larger and more powerful than mere literal fact.
   A myth is a story in which we somehow participate. It may be, as for the Jews, in the ritual of the seder meal which reaffirms relationships with God and one other as a community. For Christians, it may be the Eucharistic Meal or Communion, in which one spiritually unites with or contemplates the risen Christ.
   For all faiths, myths are paradigms or prototypes of how one should live one’s life. It is impossible to exhaust their meanings, but here are examples. For Jews, Passover may be a rededication to work for freedom and justice. For Christians, Easter may renew resolve to live with the kind of concern Jesus had for the sick and the poor, or with the faith that new life may arise from darkest tragedy. 
    Myths are true in the sense of being genuine; that is, they tell us what is “sacred” — that on which our lives depend, the ultimate source of meaning for us, stripped from spurious distractions. Through narration, a myth symbolizes and directs us toward the sacred, what really counts.
   Knowing myths about the Navajo's Spider Woman, Krishna, Buddha and others beyond our own sacred story blesses us with the world-wide testimony of human encounter with the sacred.
   Many secular stories — Cinderella, Superman, Hamlet — also resonate with our hopes and fears. Some psychologists say that individuals have life scripts, stories like myths in that they provide patterns for our lives. 
   Such patterns will be explored tomorrow at 7 p.m. at the Tivoli Theater when Open Circle Spiritual Cinema Series presents “Mythic Journeys,” followed by a discussion with Kansas City mythologist James Mayfield Smith and others.

CRES WEB SITE NOTE:
  Smith will be accompanied by Cynthia Jones, founder of Diana’s Grove Mystery School and Greg Reike, former president of the Kansas City Friends of Jung. 
   King was assasinated on April 4, 1968. Easter was April 14.


Perhaps an alternative headline might have been "Anyone may ask these questions."
810. 100324 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
We all seek same answers

Which of these questions, sometimes put to me, do you ask? I won’t give answers, but I will have a comment after you read through them.
   Personal. Is my life fulfilling and useful? Do I really know myself? Where is my greatest love? How do I fit into the larger scheme of things?
   How do I find peace of mind? How should I deal with disappointment and betrayal? What do I do with feelings like guilt and shame, devastation or elation?
   On whom or what do I ultimately depend? What does it mean when I’m overcome with a sense of beauty or transcendence beyond the ordinary?
   How can I be less judgmental — or when should I be more judgmental?
   Social. How do I deal with people claiming to have answers they want me to accept but that I don’t understand or that don’t work for me?
   How should I evaluate political issues from a cosmic perspective? 
   What is the right amount of wealth I myself should enjoy and how much should I give to benefit others?
   How can I believe in a universal moral order when wicked people prosper and good people suffer unjustly?
   Environmental. Do earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters* arise from forces beyond nature? And does the beautiful day I wanted just happen or am I being rewarded?
   How can I be responsible for protecting the environment for future generations when I live in a culture mostly consuming instead of renewing the environment?
   Comment. All of these questions can point us toward ultimate spiritual values. 
   And all of these questions can be asked by both those who believe in God and those who do not.
   A 2008 study found that 15% of Americans identified with no religion or were atheist or agnostic. This group, sometimes called “Freethinkers,” is larger than any religion currently represented in local interfaith groups except Christianity.
   Former Star columnist Bill Tammeus, a distinguished Christian layman and “Faith Matters” blogger, spoke last month to a group of Freethinkers. Citing a noted Christian theologian, Tammeus encouraged “discussion with people of faiths different from ours and with people of no faith at all.”
   When I founded the Kansas City Interfaith Council in 1989, I could find no Freethinker bold enough to accept such an invitation. In the decades since, with increased Freethinker visibility, the situation is changing.
   To enlarge and refine our own answers to questions such as those I’ve listed, we need to explore how everyone, believer and non-believer, wrestles with them.

CRES WEBSITE NOTES
*famine, pestilence (epidemics, pandemics), tsunamis, volcanos, draught. . . . 
   When Eboo Patel, Muslim founder of the Interfaith Youth Core spoke here last November, he emphatically answered Yes to a question from the audience about whether atheists should be included in interfaith activities.
   Other questions: What is transient and what is permanent? What is most meaningful to me? Should I enjoy the gift of life or focus on serving others? Where does my duty lie? Why accidents, random violence, death?
   The study of religion can give insights, if not answers, to these questions, and disciplines, if not decisions, for how one lives one's life. 
   For a Mayor's Prayer Breakfast including atheists, see also Note 810n.
   For a readers' responses and my comments, see Comment 810c.

READER COMMENT

READER:
   . . . You did well in posing the questions that many are asking; however I felt your conclusion, and evidently the conclusion of Bill Tammeus--that exploring "how everyone, believer and non-believer, wrestles with them" is the source for "refining and enlarging" our own answers--directs people to more confusion rather than certainty. 
   Perhaps another question is, "what is the purpose of my exploration?" Do I wish to look at the wide array of beliefs and non-beliefs as a phenomenon outside myself? Or am I looking for a source of certainty and certitude for myself? If the purpose is the latter, trying to choose between what we hear from others, will often lead to disappoitment and dismay.
   The fact that so many of us have these questions today seems to me to indicate that the human spirit is aware, perhaps on a subconscious level, that we are living in a new situation in which the "faith of our fathers" does not always suffice. Perhaps we're also subconsciously aware that we have our own powers of reason and can discern "truth" when we find it; that is, the certainty that our mind seeks and the certitude that will satisfy our souls, will be the result of the exercise of our own powers of discernment.
   One of the reasons that we are questioning, it seems to me, is the possibility that religions of the past, based on the Word of God and sent to us through His love for us, were not intended to be closed systems which then decayed (according to the second law of thermo-dynamics which says that a closed system without outside intervention will result in chaos); but the immaturity of man turned the Word into dogmatisms. Our questioning today is a dissatisfaction with these dogmatisms, not with the essence of the Word of God itself. 
   Where will we find the renewal of the efficacy of that spirit-satsifying Word of God's love for us and our love for Him? That is the essential search that is in the hearts of Free-Thinkers and many others. (By the way, I deplore the seeming necessity in today's world to put everyone in one category or another. Can't we just be individuals, having our individual experiences?) How about looking at history itself. Every 1000 to 1500 years God has sent a Spokesman to the world, and that lapse of time has occurred since the time of Muhammad. Why not look into the claims of The Bab and Baha'u'llah? Could they be the new Voices that answer the questions for today?
   I know you have heard this response before. I hope you will regard this as an invitation to add another dimension to the searching that seems to be increasing in intensity throughout the community of mankind here in Kansas City and elsewhere. . . .

VERN:
   . . . For myself, I prefer confusion over certainty, which, as I study the history of religions (and politics, etc) too often leads to terrible outcomes. For myself, a measure of confidence is healthier than certainty. I guess I just have discovered too many irreconcilable insights in too many places to find any one set of answers to encompass all the others. I do agree with you that closed systems are dangerous. Alas! there is not a single religion I have encountered that is not misused this way, not a single one, from the beginning of time to the very present. Those who suggest their religion is the one that escapes this persistent problem are unfailingly beautiful in spirit, but perhaps unaware of the dynamic we deplore in their own tradition. . . .

add oldfather

JonHarker wrote on 3/27/2010 --
   Vern, are you an atheist? And, given your Moral Relativism, is there anything you will take a stand for?


809. 100317 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Offering a prayer for understanding

Among the area’s yearly prayer breakfasts, none I know compares to the one sponsored by the Raytown Community Inter-Faith Alliance. Most prayer breakfasts are designed around a speech by a high-profile figure, with a nice meal and a perfunctory prayer. But the Alliance event’s focus is actually prayer.
   Before the featured speaker, people form teams at their tables to write local, national and global prayer requests on index cards of three different colors. During the speaker’s remarks, a committee collects, studies and arranges the cards. Then three people, one for each set of cards, lead the assembly in prayer.
   I like this because the whole group gets to hear what everyone is praying for. 
   But the speaker is also important. And this year for the first time a Muslim will address the group.
   Adam Smith, the Alliance president and an attorney, became acquainted with Hussain Haideri, a nephrologist, through Smith’s wife, a nurse practitioner in Haideri’s office, and invited him to speak at the breakfast.
   The Rev. Harold Johnson, a long-time member of the Alliance, said the group tries to help the community to become better acquainted with its diversity. He noted that the Alliance’s speaker at its Thanksgiving program last year was Jewish.
   Haideri has been president of the Crescent Peace Society, a local Muslim group organized in 1996 by Shaheen and Iftekhar Ahmed to “enhance the understanding . . . as to who we (Muslims) are and what we stand for,” according to the organization’s web site, crescentpeace.org.
   Haideri says that there are many misconceptions about Islam. Its belief in democracy is not well understood because some nations claiming Islam “ignore the just form of governance Islam advocates to hold onto power,” he said.
   “As a religion, Islam also fosters respect for the rights of the people, and the welfare of all sections of the population, irrespective of religious and political affiliations. It requires justice for all, a code of conduct for governmental leaders and accountability for even those holding the highest office,” he said.
   Often I get hateful emails spewing falsehoods about this, that or another faith. So at the breakfast, I’ll be praying for greater understanding of Islam and all faiths, locally, nationally, and throughout the world. My prayer will include giving thanks for groups like the Alliance and the Crescent Peace Society that multiply the power of personal relationships, like the Adams-Haideri acquaintance, into community-wide strength.
   For information about the Mar. 25 breakfast, contact the Rev. Michael Stephens, southwoodpastor@yahoo.com or 816-353-9090.
   READER COMMENT on Star website: Ben_Yahood wrote on 3/19/2010 8:25:01 AM:
There Vern goes again, whitewashing Islam. It "fosters respect for the rights of the people, and the welfare of all sections of the population, irrespective of religious and political affiliations”??!!! That hardly squares with the doctrines of infidel, dhimmi and jizya, and, is, in fact, a whitewash of Islamic supremacy.
   [The writer has also objected to previous columns, such as, in part:]The ambassador -- and Vern -- may wish to downplay it, but the Islamic concepts of Dar al Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar al Harb (the Land of War) are very much at work today . . . . 


808. 100310 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
A model of our urban core

Before we discuss the modern city, here’s some background.
   David conquered Jerusalem about 3000 years ago to make it the capital of Israel. The kingdom split about 80 years later; and after another 200 years, the Assyrians crushed the northern kingdom. The southern kingdom survived for another 125 years until the Babylonians subdued it and exiled much of the population. 
   After perhaps two generations of captivity, Jews were encouraged to return home. Prophets offered insights into the rebuilding of the nation, and particularly Jerusalem, its urban center.
   You know our local history, including [emancipation, in-migration,] redlining, blockbusting, white flight and urban sprawl.
   In some ways the challenges of today’s inner city parallels the bleak biblical situation, according to Wallace S. Hartsfield II lecturing [February 9] at the Gem Theater just before he was installed as professor of Hebrew Bible at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also pastor of Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church, where he succeeded his father [in 2008]. 
   Populated by those who had never left and those who were returning from captivity, distressed Jerusalem is like today’s inner city, ruined and exposed. What is the remedy for a “density” inadequate to bolster the people’s hopes?
   Hartsfield identified four responses from post-Exilic prophets, focusing on the role of religious institutions.
   Haggai agitated against discouragement and complacency. While resources to address the city’s plight were few, he said building and serving the temple, the executive source of divine order, would produce prosperity.
   Zachariah’s mystical vision required a moral transformation with God guarding and dwelling in the midst of a diverse people, with the city guided by civic and religious leaders.
   Malachi criticized the priesthood for its failures and warned that if God’s presence departs, the city falls. The temple should mediate divine order for the city.
   Trito-Isaiah, whose writings scholars find in Isaiah 56-66, said that the temple should be open to foreigners and its sacrifice replaced with liberating service to the poor and broken-hearted. 
   What is the role of today’s religious leadership — confrontation, transformation, meditation or liberation? Hartsfield said that no single model applies to current urban problems, but each may fit a different situation. 
   However, in sum, reconciliation is the heart of restoration, he said, and faith communities must participate in the rebuilding of the wounded city. 
   To create true community, those who have not talked together must find common ground. Righteousness, Hartsfield said, must be our ultimate concern.

This column has been quoted and cited numerous times, including
   World News
   CCO  (Communities Creating Opportunity)
   Central Baptist Theological Seminary


807. 100303 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE: 
‘People’ only in a legal sense

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .”
   Like this historic document, many faiths proclaim that each person issues from the divine.
   But the U.S. Supreme Court, split 5-4, may have inadvertently implied a new theology in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” deciding Jan. 21 that corporations are persons under the Constitution’s First Amendment free-speech clause.
   Lloyd Blankfein said last year that he was “doing God’s work” as head of Goldman Sachs investment bank. Still, in what sense is even a very good corporation really a person with inherent, rather than calculable, worth?
   Nancy Howell, professor of theology at the Saint Paul School of Theology, says, “In Christianity, I am persuaded that the prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels in the New Testament insist on relationships, but not of the rich and privileged with each other.
   “Instead, Christian roots point us toward setting aside privilege in order to identify with the disadvantaged — in Bible language, the poor, the widows and the orphans.
   “If only the Supreme Court had ruled that the poor and disenfranchised persons could have relatively unlimited access to political influence, what a difference that might make! As it is, the status quo which benefits the privileged is reinforced.”
   Thomas Noble, professor of theology at the Nazarene Theological Seminary, distinguishes personhood from individuality, which can imply separateness.
   “The Christian idea of personhood derives from one God in the three ‘persons’ who are in relationship with each other. Thus what it means to be human is to be in relationship,” he said.
   But Noble questions “whether a top-down business corporation can routinely deal with the ethical questions involved with ordinary personal relationships where the focus is on mutuality rather than profit,” rewarding the shareholder rather than pursuing the wider good of the community.
   Barb McAtee, Baha’i Faith member of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, notes that while her faith encourages trade, commerce and useful economic activity, the sacred Baha’i writings suggest that corporations are the “legal constructs of a secular society” and do not “possess any sort of mystical oneness” as do persons created in “the image of God.”
   In a Jewish tradition, it is said that a choir of invisible angels cry ahead of any person walking down the street, “Make way! Make way for the image of God.”
   Do corporations, created by governments, receive such angelic attention?

NOTE
This month’s annual interfaith program offered by the local chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women was on the theme, “May the God in me recognize the God in you,” a way of translating the Hindu greeting, “Namaste.” It is difficult to imagine such a greeting from one corporation to another. 
   The Supreme Court, by inadvertently venturing into the theology of personhood, a danger it avoided in Roe v. Wade by focusing on practical rule, illustrates the peril in departing from common law and common sense understandings of personhood.
   The court’s decision has been summarized as invalidating “a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting ‘electioneering communications’ in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates.”
   The decision was criticized by President Barack Obama in his January 27 State of the Union address. A poll two weeks after the decision by ABC-Washington Post showed opposition from 80% of those surveyed. The complete text of the decision and accompanying opinions can be found on the Court’s website, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
   Much of the comment since the decision has focused on its effects, anticipated by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent, “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the di