JIMMY AKIN.ORG

March 26, 2008

NewsWeak - "Well, That About Wraps It Up For God"

(Tim Jones)

As always, the rumor of God's demise is a tad premature. The journalist (and I use the term only in the driest academic sense) of this piece is all a-twitter because an upcoming experiment might provide evidence of a particle that might lead to more experiments that might one day lead to a Great and Glorious Unified Theory that permanently consigns God to the dustbin of history, and she wants to be there with a dustpan.

Archimedes is once supposed to have said something like "Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I can move the world". Journalist Ana Elena Azpurua is all giddy over the mere rumor of a "lever long enough", but fails to consider the lack of any place to stand.

Her problem is this; How does she expect scientists to mathematically disprove the existence of God, when they can't prove the existence of mathematics? I'm puzzled how she hopes Science will go about proving that faith is unreasonable, when it can't begin to demonstrate even that reason is reasonable. All Ms. Azpurua's faith is in Scientism, her chosen religion, and she is on the verge of a religious ecstacy, overtaken by mysterious utterances that sound a great deal like gibberish;

"At some point will it be possible to find proof that God or the Ultimate Designer does not exist?" or, "What about possible contributions toward finding a final theory? Would that upset religious believers?"

I don't care how many theories and equations you stack on one another, explain "2+2=4". For that matter, explain why "2" is not just a private concept to which you have some inexplicable sentimental attachment. Face it, madame, the first and fundamental action of Reason is an unreflective leap of blind faith. Faith in our senses, first, and in our ability to rely on reasonable guesses after that. You (and your interview guest) are as thoroughly religious, in your fashion, as any cloistered nun.

Add to that the fact that we learn absolutely nothing of scientific interest from the interview, and you begin to understand how such science groupies as Ms. Azpurua are doing more to destroy real science than any tub-thumping fundamentalist preacher could ever hope to. She's too busy salivating (over the prospect of mankind handing God his pink slip) to actually ask any questions that have to do with, you know, science. It makes the article not only silly, but mind-numbingly dull.

Way to go, Newsweek.

(Visit Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)

Posted by Tim Jones in Other Religions, Science | Permalink | Comments (61)

December 12, 2007

A Christmas Gift from U.K. Religious Leaders

(Tim Jones)

Posted by Tim Jones in Current Affairs, Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (111)

December 06, 2007

Not Impressed

(Jimmy Akin)

Today Mitt Romney delivered a speech billed as his "JFK moment"--when he spoke to the American people about his religion in a way intended to clear barriers that could otherwise stand between him and the presidency.

HERE'S THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH.

I'd like to do a detailed response to his speech, but I don't have time at the moment, so allow me to make a few brief comments.

1) I'm not impressed with what Romney said, but before I go further, allow me to add that I'm not impressed with what John Kennedy did, either. Kennedy ran away from his religion in his speech to Protestant pastors in Houston, and while I understand the political expedience of what he did, I am fundamentally a person of faith and what I care about most is fidelity to one's beliefs and not the political expediency of the moment.

2) A lot of what Romney said--in fact the whole first part of the speech--was simply wrapping himself in the flag and picking up the tacit endorsement of the first George Bush.

3) At one point in the speech, Romney states:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines.  To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

Romney needs a lesson in constitutional law. This is flatly false.

Or let me rephrase: Romney either needs a lesson in constitutional law or he is deliberately misusing what the Constitution says in an effort to pull a fast one on voters. Your choice.

The prohibition on a religious test for office that the Constitution contains is a prohibition on a particular creed being a legal requirement for office. In other words, it prevents Congress from passing a law that says, "To hold this federal office, you are legally required to be an Episcopalian" or "you are legally required not be a Catholic."

It has absolutely nothing to do with what decisions voters choose to make based on a candidate's religion. To cite an extreme example for purposes of illustrating a principle, if I don't want a Satanist in office, I don't have to vote for one. And if I as a voter have questions about a candidate's religion, I am perfectly entitled--without violating the intent of the founders--to withhold my vote from a candidate until I have those questions answered to my satisfaction.

Suppose, for example, that a particular candidate for the presidency is a Quaker who takes his religion seriously. One of the distinctive doctrines of Quakerism--often times--is pacifism. I'm going to want to know whether this Quaker is one who feels that war under all circumstances is immoral and therefore he will never be willing to go to war to defend the nation's interests.

So--contra Romney--questions about a candidate's distinctive beliefs can be quite relevant to his fitness for office, and asking these questions does not enable the religious test proscribed in the Consitution.

4) In the speech, Romney appears to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he says that the authorities in his church will not influence his decisions as president. On the other hand, he stresses that the values he holds on the basis of his religion will.

This might be an intelligible position if he were an Evangelical Protestant, given what Evangelicalism claims about the nature of church leaders, but Mormonism holds that its highest leaders--its prophet and apostles--speak directly for God in a way that not even the pope is capable of doing. (The pope is held by Catholics to be capable of infallibly clarifying something that God has already revealed, but he is not held to serve as a channel of new divine revelation.)

Further, the Mormon prophet has a history of weighing in on social and political issues, such as whether polygamy should be allowed or disallowed and whether black people should have the same rights or not as white people, and the prophets have gone different ways at different times.

How can Romney intelligibly claim that values but not leaders will influence his decisions when the values flow from the leaders via new divine revelation?

And isn't it legitimate, since Romney says values from his Mormon faith will influence his decisions, to ask about the precise details of those values. If the Mormon church is softer on abortion than it should be (and it is), what does that say about Romney. Isn't it legitimate to ask follow-up questions of Romney about the extent to which he shares his church's position on abortion and what he would do on this question in office?

And this is just an example of a particular issue. There is also a larger issue that goes right to the heart of his Mormon faith:

5) To bend a phrase from Bill Clinton, "It's the Polytheism, Stupid."

Something conspicuously absent from almost all press reporting on the controversy over Romney's religion is the fact that Mormons are polytheists. That is, they believe in multiple gods. They also believe that men can become gods (and women can become goddesses).

This is a radically different vision of God and man than that taught by the Christian faith. It cuts out and replaces the central doctrine of Christianity--its understanding of God and man--and replaces it with an alien one. This means that Mormons are simply not Christians.

Yet they claim to be Christian.

And thus Mormonism is subversive of the Christian faith in a way that other polytheistic faiths, such as Hinduism or Shintoism, are not.

One of the things that is undoubtedly fueling Romney's campaign is a desire on the part of Mormons to have a Mormon president. That's understandable. It's a human desire for any group of people to see one of its own achieve the highest office in the land. It doesn't have anything to do with wanting to impose their religion on others, but it does have to do--among other things--with achieving a level of social prestige and acceptance as a group.

And this is not to be discounted. No doubt the social acceptance Catholics found in America in recent decades was in part due to the presidency of John F. Kennedy.

And now Mormons want their own Kennedy, and the social acceptance for their religion that will come along with that.

Which is precisely why Christians should be concerned with the idea of a Mormon president.

It would be one thing to elect a polytheist who makes no pretensions of being a Christian, but to elect a polytheist who claims to be a Christian--and, indeed, whose religion claims to be the true form of Christianity--would create enormous confusion about what Christianity is and what it teaches.

For anyone who holds to the historic Christian view of God and man, that alone is reason to feel very, very uncomfortable with the idea of electing a polytheist who claims to be Christian to our nation's highest office.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (284)

September 06, 2007

Remind Me Never To Fly Nepal Airlines

(Jimmy Akin)

HERE'S WHY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (63)

April 04, 2007

St. Rabban Gamaliel?

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

Firstly I've noticed that Jerry Usher hasn't been on Catholic Answers Live much lately.  I hope things are okay.

Oh, yeah. Everything's fine. Jerry was just helping local radio stations with their pledge drives. I was filling in as host some while he was gone. He's back now, though (until his next round of helping stations).

Anyway, I have recently read that some early Christian writers felt that on the basis of the narrative in Acts 5 in which the Rabban Gamaliel defended Peter and others before the Sanhendrin that Gamaliel was baptized and was to be considered a saint.

Needless to say as a Jew I find this rather disturbing.  Gamaliel is probably on of the more revered scholars of the Second Temple period (right up there with his grandfather Hillel) and is quoted at length in Talmud.

So my question is, what actually is the Church position on Gamaliel's alleged baptism and sainthood?

The Church doesn't have a position on either.

Being a saint, of course, means being in heaven (in this sense of the term), and the Church would certainly hope that Gamaliel's there (like it hopes for everyone), but Gamaliel is not a canonized saint. Neither is he included in the current edition of the Roman Martyrology, which--in addition to saints canonized by popes--also includes many individuals listed as saints due to popular acclaim in earlier ages of the Church.

As the reader may be aware, in the early centuries of the Church, individuals were designated saints by popular acclaim. That is, if enough people regarded them as saints, they came to be officially so-regarded. (Much like Mother Theresa would be if the Church didn't now have an official canonization process.) Eventually, bishops got in the act of regulating this popular devotion to individuals who had passed on, and in the fullness of time the pope got involved, as well. There was thus a migration upwards from popular acclaim to papal canonization as the criterion for recognition as someone who made it into heaven.

The thing about papal canonizations is that they are infallible, whereas merely episcopal acts or popular acclaim is not. The other thing about papal canonizations is that they are much slooooooower, and so since the popes took control of the process of designating saints, there have been a lot less of them. The vast majority of individuals listed in the Roman Martyrology (the Church's official book of saints and blesseds) got there by popular acclaim rather than papal canonization.

Now, the thing is, the reader is correct that there was in early (but not first century) times a devotion to Gamaliel as a saint. This was, no doubt, based on his tolerant attitude towards the early Christian movement, as recorded in the book of Acts, and so some in the post-apostolic age concluded that he must have been a secret Christian, like Nicodemus was, which would also mean that he was baptized and--since he was a figure mentioned in the New Testament and someone who was opposed to the persecution of the early Church--that led to the inference that he must also have made it to heaven, and he came to be regarded as a saint.

That's not enough, of course. The historical evidence is too thin to make such claims.

For a start, Gamaliel is not stated in the New Testament to be a disciple of Jesus (as Nicodemus was stated to be). He crops up twice (once when he counsels against persecuting the Church and once when he is mentioned as the teacher of St. Paul), and in neither case are we given to understand that he was a disciple of Christ--secret or otherwise. In the absence of other evidence, he should be taken as what the New Testament presents him as: a non-Christian Jewish individual who, though not a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, had a tolerant attitude toward Christians.

Now, it would be possible for someone to show up in the New Testament and not be mentioned as a Christian even though he became one (for example, after the writing of the book--Acts--that mentions him), and knowledge of that situation could have been passed down and then recorded in the writings of the post-apostolic age, but this is not at all likely in the case of Gamaliel.

The reason is that Gamaliel was a Jewish religious leader of note, and if he had become a Christian then it would be quite unlikely that he is handled the way he is in the Talmud. It would be much more probable that he would have been listed as someone who became a heretic.

Indeed, Gamaliel is recorded as having "a certain disciple" who is presented in the Talmud as scoffing at Gamaliel's teaching. This student student is often thought to be a veiled reference to St. Paul (though it may not be). If so, it would apply at least a later deagreement between the two doctrinally.

In any event, if Gamaliel had become a Christian, we'd know about it from Jewish sources.

This line of reasoning, however, was not appreciated in the early centuries, when the two communities weren't on the best of terms--and when the Internet hadn't been invented, making looking stuff up a problem--and so the Christians who came to regard Gamaliel as a saint may be seen as making a human--though flawed--inference about him.

The number of them was great enough that Gamaliel was listed as a saint for a time in the Roman Martyrology, and as recently as 1956 (SEE HERE FOR THE 1956 EDITION'S MENTION OF HIM), but he was subsequently de-listed, and the present edition of the Roman Martyrology does not mention him.

One of the reasons for that, no doubt, was a greater sensitivity to the kind of concern that the reader expresses, though that by itself wouldn't have been enough to get him de-listed. If there was solid evidence he became a Christian then the Church would have kept him as a saint, despite it being a potential sore spot interreligiously. The bottom line, though, is that the evidence does not point to Gamaliel having become a Christian, and that's the controlling factor.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (34)

January 26, 2007

¡Esto Es Atroz!

(Jimmy Akin)

¡Y MUY ESTUPIDO!

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (47)

May 01, 2006

Jewish Ceremonials Today

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

There were means provided by God in the Old Testament for forgiveness of sins, I believe. I imagine these were in-effect promissory notes, to be fulfilled when Christ retroactively ratified them. So do those same means -- I don't have the books right here to look them up, but I think I mean Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement -- still work? -- for Jews who don't realize they've been subsumed by the sacrament of Confession?

This is an interesting and somewhat tricky question, and Catholic theology does not have a definitive answer on it, but there are some parameters to the options that are open in answering it, and I can tell you what answer I personally am inclined toward.

So here goes. . . .

If you read the passages in the Old Testament that discuss the sacrifices that were offered (e.g., Leviticus 1-7) or the Jewish festal calendar (chiefly Leviticus 23) then it is quite clear that some kind of atonement/forgiveness is promised through the celebration of these rites. That's parameter #1: We have to say that people were somehow doing some kind of reconciliation with God through these things.

We can't just say that these were symbols of reconciliations that had already been effected. The text isn't written in a way that allows that. It's "IF you want to get reconciled with God THEN you do this ceremony," not "IF you've been reconciled with God THEN do this ceremony as a symbol."

Parameter #2 is given to us by the book of Hebrews:

It is impossible  that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins (10:4).

So despite the straight-forward IF/THEN algorithms of the sacrificial economy in the Old Testament, there has to be more to it.

Here's where things get messy.

It's initially tempting to think of matters in terms of a simple promisory note situation: The blood of bulls and goats don't intrinsically take away sins, but by virtue of their foreshadowing of Christ, they did--at least before the sacrifice of the Cross was made. The Old Testament ceremonies discharged our debt of sin on the model of a credit card (i.e., funds to be deposited in the future), while New Testament ceremonies discharge the same debt on the model of a debit card (i.e., funds already deposited).

But there's reason to think that this analysis isn't all there is to it, either, for Hebrews goes on to describe Jewish priests of the day offering sacrifices that don't take away sins:

Every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (10:11-12).

This makes it sound like the Jewish offerings never took away sins.

I could see someone saying, "Well, maybe the author of Hebrews is saying that in his day--AFTER the sacrifice of the Cross but BEFORE the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70--their sacrifices were ineffective, but prior to that, prior to the time Christ died on the Cross, they were effective," but this doesn't seem to fit with the flow of his argument. He seems to envision the Old Testament sacrifices as always inadequate in some sense, which is why Christ had to come and make his fully adequate sacrifice for us. That seems to be the major thrust of his argument.

So we've got one parameter telling us that there was some kind of reconciliation effected through the Old Testament sacrifices and we've got another parameter telling us that it wasn't the full, definitive reconciliation that was made through Christ.

The truth therefore is to be found within the space marked off by these two parameters, and here is where theological speculation and opinion comes in.

It seems to me that part of the answer is to be found in the fact that the concept of reconciliation with God is focused very differently in the Old Testament than in the New. One of the things I have a chance to explore in my book The Salvation Controversy

<hypnosis>BUY THE SALVATION CONTROVERSY, BUY THE SALVATION CONTROVERSY</hypnosis>

is that in the Old Testament atonement is much more this-worldly. People are wanting to get reconciled with God so that temporal disasters like sickness and poverty and war and physical death won't happen to them. In the book, I call this "temporal atonement."

It's in marked contrast to what the New Testament is focused on, which is getting right with God in this life so that you don't spend the next one in hell. In the book, I call that "eternal atonement."

It seems to me that part of the answer to the efficacy of the Old Testament ceremonies is that they were focused on making temporal atonement--on getting right with God so that we don't suffer temporal calamities--and they didn't really have in focus what happens to us in the next life.

At least early on.

By the later period of the Old Testament--as witnessed by Judah Macabee's sacrifice for those who had died--there was a desire becoming manifest to secure blessings in the next life through the use of the ceremonies. These blessings may not have been conceived of as eternal ones. Judah Macabee's sacrifice presumably dealt with the temporal effects of sin that linger into the next life (i.e., purgatory) rather than securing eternal salvation for the fallen warriors, but the desire to use the ceremonies to receive some kind of blessing in the next life was there.

This desire grew to the point that in the first century A.D.--when securing eternal salvation had become a pressing concern in the consciousness of the Jewish people--people were conceiving of the Temple ceremonies as securing eternal salvation.

And that's when Christ came and offered his sacrifice and the authors of the New Testament (chiefly Paul and the author of Hebrews) made a BIG point that the Temple sacrifices did not do what people were thinking of them as doing. That's why Christ had to come.

I'm thus inclined to say that the Old Testament ceremonies were focused on providing temporal atonement and that eternal atonement was something that was secondary.

But let's explore that secondary side for a minute.

Suppose that you're God and that your people have sinned and you've set up a sacrificial economy for them to get right with you when they've done so.

At the moment, the things that they're focused on are avoiding temporal calamities in their own, tiny little lives. As God, you have a clearer awareness than they do of the fact that they also have an eternal destiny, and they have some awareness of this, too. But what's really importent to them at the moment is that they don't get sick or invaded or have a famine. They're like kids--thinking more about today than tomorrow.

And so they bring bulls and goats into your Temple and offer them to you to say that they're sorry for their sins and please don't squash us, and so you don't squash them, because they really are sorry and want to make it up to you in the way that you deem appropriate.

So where does that leave their eternal destiny?

Are you, as God, going to say to them upon death, "I'm sorry, but all those sacrifices you made had nothing to do with your eternal salvation, so although I was merciful to you in life, I'm not going to be merciful to you in death, so to hell with you"?

I don't think so. That's not the vision of the God that we're given in the Bible.

It seems much more likely to me that you're going to say something like, "You know, those sacrifices that you did to get right with me so I wouldn't squash you were focused on temporal salvation, and they really didn't do anything toward your eternal salvation--for the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, at least in the eternal sense--but by offering those sacrifices and otherwise trying to follow my will, you were showing that you had a heart for me. You were turning your will away from your sins and toward me, and so you were reconciling yourselves with me inwardly and the sacrifices you offered were an outward sign of that inward desire for union with me. They weren't enough to bring about that union, but they showed that you were doing what you could. You were trying to do your part. Therefore, I've done my part, too, by making a sacrifice through my Son that is capable of taking care of the eternal effects of your sins, so well done my good and faithful servant. Come on into heaven. Your union with me is achieved."

So underneath the desire to get right with God in this life to avoid being squashed was a deeper desire for union with him in general, and that desire would apply to the next life as well as this.

And God would honor that.

So what would we say about Jewish ceremonials today?

It seems to me that we'd say the same thing: The ceremonials themselves cannot be said to provide an objective means of securing eternal salvation, just like the blood of bulls and goats in the Temple era didn't. But for a Jew who is performing them out of a desire to be reconciled with God, if he's doing what he thinks God wants him to do, then God will honor that inward desire for and will towards reconciliation.

The reconciliation will be provided exclusively through the sacrifice of his Son and not through the ceremonials that are being performed, but the will toward union with God is what God will honor.

So Yom Kippur and other ceremonials today don't objectively provide a means of eternal salvation for Jewish people--only Christ and the sacraments he has established do that--but the will toward God shown by Jews in pursuing these in good conscience is something that God will receive.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (4)

April 27, 2006

Jewish Gospel Dynamics

(Michelle Arnold)

Jewish rabbi and New Testament specialist Michael Cook offers an intriguing example of modern Jewish apologetics on the claims of Christianity:

"The New Testament has been the greatest single external determinant of Jewish history, and a deleterious one to say the least. It has caused Jews grievous problems and even innumerable deaths, not to mention generating antisemitism and anti-Jewish stereotyping. Today, it remains the cause of societal pressures during Christian holy day seasons and a source of confusion for Jews targeted by Christian missionaries and millennialists.

"Engaging the New Testament, therefore, can be both therapeutic and empowering for Jews. At the same time, a willingness by Jews to tackle Christian texts may help enlighten Christians about the role the New Testament has played in violating some of their own values. Jews who are able to articulate to Christians the Gospels' evolution from a Jewish perspective may be in a better position to curb the reckless abandon with which New Testament texts are often so cavalierly cited, bandied about and misconstrued in modern society."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Religion & Society for the link.)

I have posted this article not because I intend to interact with it on an apologetics level -- that exercise would require far more space than the blogging medium allows
-- but because I want to highlight a renaissance in modern Jewish apologetics, which I think can only be positive for Christian/Jewish interreligious dialogue. If such dialogue is to be more than self-affirming chitchat, then both partners in the discussion need to engage in apologetics, which is to say that they need to offer each other with mutual charity and respect the reasons for their hope (1 Pet. 3:15).

For another recent example of Jewish apologetics, see David Klinghoffer's Why the Jews Rejected Jesus.

GET THE BOOK.

GET THE REVIEW. (Scroll to the second review.)

Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (11)

April 06, 2006

JewishEncyclopedia.com

(Michelle Arnold)

Welcome news for anyone with an interest in Judaica! The Jewish Encyclopedia has gone online and is a free service:

"This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia. Since the original work was completed almost 100 years ago, it does not cover a significant portion of modern Jewish History (e.g., the creation of Israel, the Holocaust, etc.). However, it does contain an incredible amount of information that is remarkably relevant today."

SEE THE SITE.

(Nod to Modern Orthodox Woman for the link. MOW also notes that JE.com is soliciting help in updating the encyclopedia, an effort that could lead to "the beginning of a Jewish Wikipedia.)

By the way, for any who may be unaware of it, the original Catholic Encyclopedia is also online. Now we just have to get started on a Catholic Wikipedia....

Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack

March 23, 2006

A Mormon President?

(Jimmy Akin)

Feddie over at Southern Appeal has

AN INTERESTING POST ON WHETHER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY MIGHT BE THE GOP'S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2008.

The post concerns, among other things, the fact that Romney is a Mormon, and there is a question of whether the Republican party's base will support him enough for him to be the nominee--and, if not, how Mormon Republicans will react to that.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a member of any political party--nor do I want to be. But I do have some thoughts on this issue.

I don't know whether the Republican base is willing to support Romney enough to make him the '08 nominee (though I doubt it, for a variety of reasons, including the fact he's apparently a bit soft on life issues--which is common for Mormons). Nor do I know how Mormon Republicans might perceive this or what action they might take.

But I do know this: Mitt Romney is not going to be president.

Even if he's put up against a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton, he's not going to be president.

Why?

Because the nation is too narrowly divided at the moment. George Bush lost the popular vote in '00 because of the drunk driving issue that surfaced at the last minute and caused a percentage of Evangelical voters to get disillusioned with him and stay home on Election Day. He easily could have lost the popular vote (and the electoral vote) if his opponent in '04 hadn't been such a walking disaster of a candidate.

Things are just too tight right now for a Republican presidential candidate to be able to get into office if a significant chunk of the Evangelical or Catholic vote decides to just stay home.

Having a Mormon on the ticket is just the thing to cause that to happen.

Sure, many Evangelicals and Catholics will hold their nose and vote for a Mormon if the alternative is an abortion harpy like Hillary. Many would conclude that, as bad as having a polytheist with aspirations to godhood would be as Commander In Chief, it's something that must be endured for the sake of the babies who'll get killed through the extension of the abortion holocaust.

That's assuming Roe is still in place in '08, which it may not be. If it's not then Evangelicals and Catholics have even LESS incentive to vote for a Mormon.

But while many would vote for him, many would also stay home.

Think about it from the perspective of the stay-homers: "Despite claims to the contrary, Mormons are not just other Christians. They're not Christians at all. They are polytheists who themselves believe that they can become gods, running planets or universes with billions of people worshipping them for all eternity," the stay-homers would say. "Worse, they are polytheists with aspirations to godhood who ARE MASQUERADING AS CHRISTIANS, saying that true Christianity IS polytheism with the possibility of becoming the god of your own planet or universe."

"Can you imagine what it would do to validate Mormonism in the public eye if a Mormon were elected president?" the stay-homers would say. "It would cause VAST numbers of people--all over the world--would be duped into thinking that Mormons are Christians and that their religion is 'okay.' Many would even convert."

That's something that is so frightening a prospect that a significant number of Evangelicals and Catholics will conclude--no matter who the opposing nominee is--is simply unacceptable, even if it means delaying the end of the abortion holocaust.

I'm not saying that such folks would be right or wrong. I'm simply saying that they exist--and that they exist in significant enough numbers to cause the Republicans to lose the election.

Mormons may be electable as governors in states like Utah, where Mormons are a majority, or Massachusetts, where people don't take religion seriously. But you need more than Utah and Massachusetts to win the presidency as a Republican.

You also need Georgia and the Carolinas and Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and Kentucky and Oklahoma and all kinds of places like that where they take religion much more seriously and where Mormons are only a tiny percentage of the state population.

There's also the collateral loss of votes from the fact that a Mormon standardbearer would depress the base.

The Republican base depends heavily on Evangelicals and Catholics to give money, get out the vote, and talk up their candiates. If a significant chunk of the base is holding their noses about their nominee, that's going to have an effect. Even if hardcore partisans are willing to hold their noses and vote for a Mormon, they won't be excitedly and enthusiastically behind him. They won't be motivated to give money or put up yard signs or make phone calls or stuff envelopes, or what have you. The energized get-out-the-vote effort that won the election for Bush in '04 simply won't be there for a Mormon.

In his post, Feddie remarks that Mormons are important allies in the culture war. That's true. We need all the votes we can get to end abortion, and while the Mormon church is softer on abortion than it should be, Mormons are important allies in the fight to end abortion.

But there's a difference between having someone as an ally and having him as a leader. Coalitions need all kinds of people as allies who wouldn't be acceptable as leaders. That's the nature of things.

And there are many Evangelicals and Catholics who would find a polytheist who is open to the idea of his own eventual godhood to be unacceptable as a leader.

Enough to cost the Republicans the election.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (132) | TrackBack

March 09, 2006

Toil And Trouble...

(Michelle Arnold)

Someone page Martin Luther: Witches are returning to the forests of Germany.

"Witches have returned to the German forests, dancing naked in groups under the full moon and calling to their gods.

"The covens vary in size and in how seriously they take their calling, but the numbers are rising, particularly amongst the young.

"Their religious ideas are described as 'pagan' rather than Satanist, and many of the older practitioners have a history in the environmental movement, where they learnt a passionate love of nature.

"In some cases this has led on to a belief in the natural powers of the forests. The women are convinced they can work magic."

GET THE STORY.

For a good Catholic evaluation of modern witchcraft, see Sandra Miesel's article "The Witches Next Door."

GET THE ARTICLE.

The news piece on the return of witches to the forests of Germany notes a distinction between teens dabbling in witchcraft because of exposure to the rise of occult literature in the various forms of media and older witches with a background in secular feminism. My guess is that the two groups are attracted to power: The teens want power over their personal lives (the article notes that they want to conquer shyness and master their homework through potions and incantations) while the older women want WomynPower.

"All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others -- even if this were for the sake of restoring their health -- are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion" (CCC 2117).

Or, as Lord Acton put it: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 02, 2006

The Asian Pope

(Jimmy Akin)

Who's the #1 religious leader in the world?

The pope . . . of course.

Who's the #2?

Well, probably the dalai lama.

There a bit of assymetry, though. The pope is the figurehead of Christianity, which is the world's largest religion. The dalai lama is the most famous Buddhist leader,  but depending on what you count as a religion, Buddhism is only the fourth to the sixth largest religion (after Islam and Hinduism, for example).

But the other major religions don't have generally recognized figureheads, and so the dalai lama gets second billing alongside the pope, without comparable religious leaders in the picture.

The result is that the media treats the Dalai Lama as kind of "the Asian pope."

The assymetry goes a bit deeper than what I've indicated, though, since the position of the pope and the dalai lama are assymeterical within their respetive religions. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which the original Christian communion and by far the largest. The communion that the dalai lama heads, though, is neither the original nor the largest Buddhist communion. He is the most influential leader in the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, though even then he is not its head (that would be the ganden tripa).

All of this assymetry encourages one to recognize the uniqueness of the pope as a religious leader, though that isn't my point in writing.

I simply thought folks might be interested to read an interview (linked below) with the Dalai Lama and to know a little more about him since he makes such frequent appearances in the media.

The title "dalai lama" means something like "the ocean teacher" with the term "ocean" referring to the expansiveness of his teaching. The title is regarded as belonging to the successive reincarnations of a particular individual. The first dalai lama (though the title was not used in his day) was called Gedun Drub, who lived in the 1400s. The present dalai lama (Tenzin Gyatso) is the fourteenth dalai lama. (Dalai lamas have much longer reigns than popes since the office is a life-long one.)

When a dalai lama dies a search is conducted for his reincarnation, and this usually takes a few years. To help find the reincarnation, various children are shown personal belongings of the previous dalai lama, and if one of the children shows familiarity with these belongings, it is a sign that he may be the reincarnation.

To avoid disputes, the reincarnation of the dalai lama is officially recognized by another lama--known as the panchen lama. (Reciprocally, when the panchen lama dies, the dalai lama recognizes his reincarnation. The dalai lama also appoints the ganden tripa, which is a non-reincarnating office.)

At the moment there is a looming problem with the succession arrangements for the next dalai lama and that problem can be summed up in one word: China.

China took over Tibet when the current dalai lama was a teenager, and he has lived in exile in India for decades. It is probably this fact that accounts for much of the dalai lama's recognition in the media. If China had never seized control of Tibet, he would just be the local major religious leader of Tibet, but the state of his country has projected him onto the world stage in a much more substantial way.

Now here's the problem: The communist government of China has reserved to itself the approval of high-level reincarnations in Tibet (citing previous involvement by a Chinese emperor in the selection of the panchen lama).
After the takeover of Tibet, China put the previous panchen lama under house arrest for years and may have murdered him after he gave a speech critical of the communist government. His death led to a split in that the Chinese government now recognizes a different panchen lama than the dalai lama does.

Rather than be reincarnated in Chinese controlled territory, the dalai lama has also announced that he will be reborn in a free country, outside of Chinese control. He's also suggested that he may not reincarnate at all.

This means that the stage is set for the coming of a false dalai lama--an Asian anti-pope, if you will. In the interview linked below, the present dalai lama states frankly:

As I’ve said earlier, whether this institution [of the dalai lama] will continue depends on the people. Under the best of circumstances, I think that the institution should continue. First, the maintenance of the institution is important. Then, there is the personal history. Both options should be kept open. If the Tibetan people want another reincarnation, then logically while we’re outside, the successor should be someone who can carry out this task, which has not yet been accomplished by the previous Dalai Lama. That means that he must come in a free country. But the Chinese government will also appoint a Dalai Lama. So there’ll be two Dalai Lamas. One Dalai Lama—the Chinese official Dalai Lama—the Tibetan people will have no faith in. Even the ordinary Chinese will have no faith in him. He’ll be a false Dalai Lama.

Another dimension of the problem is that the dalai lama is the head of the Tibetan government in exile, and China is deathly afraid that he or his successors could lead Tibet to attempt to separate from Chinese rule. In response the dalai lama has said that he is willing to renounce (including for his future incarnations) any political role in Tibet if it can have autonomy and freedom.

He is not shooting for independence, though. (That would send the Chinese government into orbit.) Instead, he is looking for something much more modest:

Meaningful autonomy. Autonomy is provided for in the Chinese constitution for minorities and special rights are guaranteed for Tibet. In communist states, sometimes the constitutions they write are not sincerely practiced. It’s a special sort of case with Tibet. It becomes possible to have one country, two systems. Why not? Let’s consider Tibet historically: Different language, different culture, different geographical location. So in order to get maximum satisfaction for the Tibetan people, I think a higher degree of autonomy should be given. Then Tibetan loyalty to the people of China will naturally come. Tibetans will enjoy true autonomy. That is the guarantee for preservation of our identity, our culture, our spirituality, our environment.

In Quebec in Canada, some politicians wanted independence, but when the people were asked, they saw that their greater interest, their greater benefit, was by staying within Canada. It’s similar with Scotland, also. Their high degree of autonomy within Great Britain gives them satisfaction. So giving a higher degree of autonomy brings no danger of separation.

It's interesting reading the interview it the dalai lama, because on certain issues he seems to have a realistic understanding of the situation (e.g., the coming succession problem, the fact that some kind of autonomy but not full independence is all that can be hoped for at the moment). But on other issues he sounds completely unrealistic. (His suggestion that the U.S. should have had a non-violent response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example, was from outer space.)

One item that was of particular interest in the interview was an equivalent to the woment's ordination issue. While women can theoretically attain the highest forms of ordination in the dalai lama's sect, they have not yet achieved such ordinations in comparable numbers, and this is a source of discomfort.

In any event,

GET THE INTERVIEW.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack

December 13, 2005

FOUND! The Sipapuni!

(Jimmy Akin)

I've found the Sipapuni!

"What's the Sipapuni?" you ask.

Well--that's it! Right there! In the middle of the picture. The reddish round thing on the edge of the river. Has a little black dot in the center of it.

"Okay, but can I have a more informative answer?" you ask.

Sure. The Sipapuni is a natural formation on the Little Colorado River, about four miles upstream from where it intersects with the Colorado River. It's in the Grand Canyon, though it's just outside Grand Canyon National Park.

The Sipapuni is a travertine dome, which means that it's a dome made of calcium carbonate (think: limestone)--usually layered--and formed from spring water, particularly the water of a hot spring. That black dot in the center of the Sipapuni is the spring, and the reason it's a different color than the surrounding land is because of minerals in the spring water that leave orange and yellow deposits.

"Okay, but why is the Sipapuni important and why does it have a name--whereas so many travertine domes don't?"

Because the Sipapuni is an enormously important location in the folklore of several American Indian tribes, particularly the Hopi and the Zuni.

According to both of these tribes, the Sipapuni is the location from which man emerged into this world. In other words, it's their equivalent of the Garden of Eden.

According to both tribes (though the details vary), the beings that eventually emerged into the world went through a series of other worlds before climbing up out of the Sipapuni into ours.

In Hopi folklore, this is the fourth world. Things weren't going so good in the third world, and so they found a way to climb up into a new, largely uninhabited world and became the human race.

In Zuni folklore, humans passed through a series of four caves before emerging through the Sipapuni, making this the fifth world.

Other tribes also believe that humans emerged from a site in the Grand Canyon but do not identify it with the Sipapuni, claiming that the site has been lost.

The idea that a body of people have an identifiable Eden that you can go see with your own eyes (though they don't want you to do that since the site is considered sacred) is something I find fascinating.

If the early part of the book of Genesis were to be taken literally, you could get a rough fix on Eden's location, but not with this kind of precision--and you certainly can't find it today with Google's satellite imagery.

HERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE SIPAPUNI WITH LATITUDE & LONGITUDE MEASUREMENTS.

HERE'S THE INTERSECTION OF THE COLORADO AND LITTLE COLORADO IF YOU WANT TO NAVIGATE EAST (RIGHT) TO THE SIPAPUNI FOR YOURSELF.

HERE'S A HOPI CREATION ACCOUNT FEATURING THE SIPAPUNI.

Having discussed where Hopi and Zuni Eden is, sometime soon I'll have to tell you about where Zuni Heaven is.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

December 08, 2005

Ask Not For Whom The Alarm Sounds

(Jimmy Akin)

No human group has a monopoly on sophistry. The tendency to rationalize what we want to do but know is wrong is universal among humans.

It's no suprise, then, to find

THIS STORY FROM ISRAEL.

According to it, a new law will go into effect next year that will hook timers up to people's respirators. The timers will be equipped with (though the paper doesn't call it that) a dead-man switch.

No really!

Periodically an alarm will sound, and if you DON'T override the alarm then it will turn off the respirator and the patient will be euthanatized. (That's why it's a dead-man switch. You've got to keep interacting with it or the device changes it's behavior. Normally dead-man switches are used for fail-safe purposes, but in this case it's being used for a fail-deadly purpose, making the name "dead-man" bitterly appropriate.)

The reason for this rigamarole is to circumvent the "Thou shalt not kill" (or "Thou shalt not murder") requirement. Certain strands of Jewish religious law forbid taking the life of a patient, and so a system has been devised to allow a machine to do the killing instead of a person.

It's a way of having your euthanasia and eating it, too.

It's also pure and simple rationalization.

It doesn't eliminate the immorality of the homicide, it just changes the mode by which the homiciders do their work. Instead of them directly flipping a switch to kill the patient, they first install an egg timer on his life and then they refuse to re-set the egg timer. That doesn't get around the problem.

Sure, the person who installs the egg timer can say, "Hey, I'm not killing him. I'm just setting up this egg timer." And then the person who refuses to re-set it can say, "Hey, I'm not killing him. I'm just not re-setting that egg timer."

But the situation is the same as if the first person wheeled the patient into an air-tight room and said, "Hey, I'm not killing him; he's got some air in here for a while" and the second saying, "Hey, I'm not causing him to suffocate; I'm just not opening the door to let in more air."

Or, if you prefer a little more science-fiction in your example, it's like one person setting up a GIANT KILLDROID in the patient's room and another person refusing to keep hitting the DO NOT KILL switch on the KILLDROID.

I'm sorry, but these folks' actions would STILL amount to homicide.

Nevertheless, I could see this kind of rationalization being used in the U.S. someday. Israel just got there first.

I do want to briefly treat something else the article mentions, though, that is more specifically Jewish: It mentions Sabbath timers. These are the same kind of timer (i.e., they activate if you don't hit the dead-man switch), only they are used to do things like turn lights in a house ON during the Sabbath (rather than turning respirators OFF) since in some circles it is considered breaking the Sabbath to turn the lights on.

That's TOTALLY DIFFERENT morally, and I want to point that out.

Now, I don't agree with the severe interpretation of God's law that would constitute flipping on a light switch as work and thus a violation of the Sabbath. Neither do I mind that there is someone at the power station who has to work on the Sabbath. Even the priests work on the Sabbath, and guys at the power plant is one of those functions that needs doing (whether you have a droid turning on your lights or not). It's like if your sheep falls in a pit on the sabbath, it's okay to get him out. (NOTE: Sheep do this ALL the time. They're REALLY dumb and helpless.)

But there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between having a droid turn on you lights on the Sabbath and having a droid kill your patient.

The point of Sabbath legislation (however it is interpreted) is not to keep you from having light but to keep you from working so that you can rest. Doing the labor to set up a lightswitch droid on Thursday does not cause you to do work on the Sabbath. You get to rest when you're s'pposed to and you work when you're s'pposed to. You're just doing a little extra work to make your rest more enjoyable.

But the point of anti-killing legislation IS to keep people from being killed, and so setting up a killdroid on your patient's respirator DOES violate the purpose for which the legislation is given.

There's thus a big difference between morally between using a killdroid and using a lightswitch droid--and not just in the gravity of the actions they perform (killing someone being a lot worse than turning on lights) but in the morality of SETTING THEM UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I didn't want the mention of Sabbath timers to confuse this as a uniquely Jewish issue. Medical killdroids are just wrong no matter who is using them as part of a "La, la, la, la; I'm not killing you; la, la, la, la" gambit.

NOTE: For simplicity's sake I have not broached the question of how the Jewish Sabbath relates to Sunday and what Christians are allowed to do on Sunday. Neither have I broached the question of whether the person on the respirator is required to be on the respirator in the first place. I'm assuming that the use of the respirator IS morally required in a particular case for getting at the morality of using a killdroid to shut it off. In other cases its use may not be morally required, in which case no killdroid would be needed to shut it off morally. That's a separate debate that I didn't want to have here.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack

October 04, 2005

Um. . . . That's Not Hatred

(Jimmy Akin)

CHT to the reader who alerted me to the following story.

It seems that the Washington Nationals have suspended a volunteer chaplain for nodding his head in response to the wrong question.

The question was put to him by player Ryan Church, who was asking advice about his former girlfriend, who happens to be Jewish.

According to Church, he's what happened:

"I said, like, Jewish people, they don't believe in Jesus. Does that mean they're doomed? [Volunteer chaplain] Jon [Moeller] nodded, like, that's what it meant. My ex-girlfriend! I was like, man, if they only knew. Other religions don't know any better. It's up to us to spread the word" [SOURCE].

Following this, the Washington Post got ahold of the story and published a front-page piece on it, following which Moeller was suspended as chaplain and Church issued an apology in which he distanced himself from "call[ing] into question the religious beliefs of others"--something that he apparently had just done!

The suspension and apology followed complaints from Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, and Orthodox rabbi in Washington. According to the WaPo story linked above, Rabbi Herzfeld stated that "the locker room of the Nationals is being used to preach hatred."

Elsewhere he is quoted as saying: "The Nationals did a good job about bringing hate into the locker room."

This might surprise some, but in principle I don't have a problem with the Nationals suspending Chaplain Moeller. If they're a private organization, they can have whatever kind of chaplain they want, including none at all. They also have the right to tell whatever chaplains they may have that "There are certain subjects we don't want you to go into when you're here; if you feel that you can minister to the players under these conditions, fine; otherwise, you'll need to conduct your ministry elsewhere."

If the Nationals has such a policy and Chaplain Moeller was in violation of it then it is fair to suspend him. If they don't have such a policy but are choosing to implement one now then Chaplain Moeller should have the policy explained to him and then he should be allowed to decide whether or not he feels he can minister under those conditions.

I do take exception to the remarks attributed to Rabbi Herzfeld, however. It is not "hatred" to propose a particular set of criteria for salvation and then conclude that those who do not meet those criteria are not saved. That's a theological opinion, and it may be right or wrong, but it isn't itself hatred.

Hatred might motivate it. A person might be drawn to a particular set of criteria because he hates a group and wishes to exclude them from salvation. But the mere fact that an individual concludes that some people aren't saved is not itself evidence of hatred.

I don't know how much experience Rabbi Herzfeld may have in talking with conservative Protestants, but there are a great many of them who are in no way motivated by hatred for the Jewish people, yet who believe that all Jewish people will be lost unless they accept Jesus as the Messiah.

The vast majority of them are not motivated by hatred in coming to this conclusion. They come to it because they sincerely believe in the necessity of Christian faith for salvation, and they happen to believe in a this necessity in an un-nuanced way that leads them to conclude that all who lack explicit Christian faith are unsaved.

That's a theological opinion--one that I and my Church regard as inadequate--but it's not an expression of hatred.

In fact, as evidenced by the somewhat inarticulate Mr. Church, it's often serves as the occasion for showing love. Though human sinfulness can get in the way even here, it is in principle an act of love to share with someone what they need to be saved. It's a spiritual work of mercy, and the belief that all non-Christians are doomed is often the occasion among conservative Protestants for renewed calls to reach out to them and share with them what they will need to be saved, for they are recognized as people who God loves and who he wants to save and who Jesus also died for. Conservative Proestants are regularly taught that people of other faiths are no better or worse than they themselves are and that all stand in need of God's mercy.

I say all this as one who many conservative Protestants would not count as a Christian.

Many would regard me as automatically doomed because I am a Catholic. There is often even more antipathy toward Catholicism than toward Judaism in their circles because Catholics are believed to represent a false Christianity. By striking "closer to home" as it were, Catholicism is perceived as a much greater theological threat than Judaism.

But those conservative Protestants who believe that I am doomed because I am a Catholic don't hate me.

They may disagree with and even loathe the faith to which I subscribe, but I'm not going to go around accusing them of "hate" just because they think I don't qualify for salvation as they understand its terms.

There are far too many false accusations of hatred and "hate speech," and they have contributed to the development of a culture of victimization that threatens the fabric of American society.

Fundamentally, it is a disservice to the truth and to society to go around proclaiming "Hate! Hate!" where there is no hate.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

DUTCH TAX SHELTER: Witchcraft 101

(Michelle Arnold)

The Netherlands, the country that has legalized everything from prostitution (WARNING: Evil file format! [.pdf]) to euthanasia, is now giving tax breaks to student witches:

"Dutch tax authorities have allowed a woman to deduct the 2,210 euros it cost her to take a one-year course in witchcraft, an inland revenue official said Wednesday.

"The 39-year actress and artist learned how to use crystal balls and prepare herbs, and also spells and other witchcraft skills at the course held in the country's northwest.

"'The woman used the training in order to start ... giving workshops, so she used it to extend her professional knowledge,' the tax official told Reuters.

"Margarita Roland, who gave the course and whose Web site (http://www.heksehoeve.nl/) [Editor's note: The site is in Dutch and its URL was published by the source article. --MA] shows her with a broomstick and pointed hat, said she teaches apprentices all they need to know to become a witch, using magic as a force for good.

"'A witch is a wise woman or man who knows about the magic of life in general and the magic of the earth in particular," said Roland, known as the 'witch of Appelscha' after her home town."

GET THE STORY.

Does anyone have any idea how the Netherlands became the center of kookiness in Europe?

Posted by Michelle Arnold in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

February 15, 2005

Articles On New Age & Wicca

(Jimmy Akin)

A reader writes:

If you have time to respond to this, that would be great. I am looking for some internet articles dealing with apologetics against New Age and Wiccans. Any links you could provide would be helpful. Keep up the great work at CA and with your blog.

Your wish is my command:

• ONE
• TWO
• THREE
• FOUR
• FIVE
• SIX
• SEVEN
• EIGHT
• NINE
• TEN

That enough to get you started?

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 09, 2004

Bad News For Fundamentalist Mormons

(Jimmy Akin)

Here's an interesting story about what looks to be an impending crackdown on a polygamous Mormon offshoot that straddles the Arizona-Utah border.

I'm not happy about the editorial's use of the word "cult"--a term I generally don't favor because it's basically a term of disparagement that you can apply to anyone you don't like. In this case the article seems to consider a "cult" to be any religious group that displays "disregard for civil rights" (which could easily be applied to Catholics and Christians in general if homosexual marriage is regarded as something that is or should be a civil right).

Nevertheless, I'm heartened to see that it looks like a long-delayed legal crackdown on the group may be in motion.

The editorial also contains interesting insights into the psychological effects of polygamy, including the fact that young men tend to get driven away, as they would provide competition for the older men who want to take multiple wives. That's something you'd expect: Since humans have an approximately fifty-fifty gender ratio, for some men to take multiple wives, other men must be denied them. The men most likely to be able to take multiple wives will be those with more power and money, who by nature will tend to be older. Eliminating the competition is one of the best ways to ensure that they get what they want.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 17, 2004

K = Kashrut

(Jimmy Akin)

You know that K you sometimes see on food products? You may be aware that it is a sign that the food is kosher. But the K doesn't stand for kosher, it stands for kashrut, the laws governing what is and is not kosher.

Most of us probably have a pretty good understanding of certain aspects of the laws of kashrut--that certain kinds of meat (notably pork) are not kosher, that milk and meat produts cannot be served together, that kosher meat must come from animals killed in a particular way, that more than one set of dishes is used, etc.

Those who have read the Bible all the way through have read the Old Testament treatment of what is and is not kosher, but the modern laws of kashrut have been elaborated and applied in new ways compared to the OT laws they are based on. E.g., the rule against serving milk and meat products together is an elaboration of the OT law against boiling a young goat in its mother's milk (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). To make sure nobody does that, milk and meat can't be served together, which is why you can't get a cheeseburger at McDonalds in Jerusalem (it also poses problems for pizza and having cheese and meatballs with pasta).

(FYI, if you ever go to Israel, don't bother eating the westernized food they try to serve tourists. It's lousy--particularly that stuff they serve in "self-service restaurants" . . . {Cough!} cafeterias. Eat the native food instead.)

Most of us probably have never read a detailed overview of the laws of kashrut, but Wikipedia has an excellent article on them that's worth checking out.

Here is another good article from a Jewish source.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 27, 2004

Bad Moon Rising

(Jimmy Akin)

Okay. This is one of those bizarrely weird stories that sends conspiracy theorists into orbit. The fact is: Last March 23rd, Sun Myung Moon has had himself crowned "King of Peace" at the Dirksen Senate Office Bulding in Washington, declaring himself to be "savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" and asserting: "I am God's ambassador, sent to earth with his full authority. I am sent to accomplish His command to save the world's six billion people, restoring them to Heaven with the original goodness in which they were created."

Where the conspiracy part comes in is that multiple congressmen were in attendance at the event. One (Rep. Danny Davis [D-Ill]) was even the chap who plunked down the crown on Moon's head. This could be taken as evidence that Moon's "Unification Church" has numerous covert followers among the nation's lawmakers.

That's probably not the case. Moon's money has bought him disturbing access to the nation's lawmakers, but they probably aren't crypto-Moonies. In fact, as repoted in The Hill, multiple lawmakers who were at the event deny that they knew Moon was going to be there or that the bizarre crowning was going to take place (Rep. Davis, who performed the crowning, would be an exception). Other lawmakers claimed by the Moonies to have been there deny that they were in attendance. The event has the earmarks of a Moon-staged event that was sprung on a bunch of surprised and alarmed congressmen.

The story didn't gain prominence until recently, through videos of the event that appeared on the Web (they have since been taken down). You can read a transcript of one of the videos here. Now that it's come to the press's attention, the embarrassed lawmakers who were involved are distancing them from Moon and his "King of Peace" claims faster than the speed of light.

While conspiracy theorists might see the event in overly sinister (rather than simply silly) terms, the fact that the event took place at all is disturbing and reveals the extent to which Moon has been able to spread his influence through Washington. He'll never become president or king or anything else of the United States, but that hasn't stopped him from gaining undue influence through his money. Hopefully this event will serve to marginalize him and diminish the influence he has bought.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 19, 2004

2004 World Religious Freedom Report Card Out

(Jimmy Akin)

The U.S. Commission on International religious Freedom has issued its annual report on the state of religion in the world.

This year's report focuses paritcularly on ensuring religious freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, and notes that there has been more success in promoting it in the former than in the latter (which is not surprising since Iraq has been home to substantial Christian and Jewish minorities for centuries, whereas Afghanistan was the recent home of the Taliban).

The problem areas of the world continue to be--as one would expect--the Muslim and Atheist (i.e., Communistic) regions. In regard to the former, the report notes:

Freedom of religion or belief as an individual, as opposed to a group, right is not well protected in the Middle East or among countries where Islam is the religion of the state. Many constitutions of these states protect religious belief only, rather than both belief and practice, as required by international norms. Moreover, rights are usually expressed in general terms rather than in the form of explicit guarantees of rights for each person. Nevertheless, there are exceptions: Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Malaysia—states where Islam is the state religion—have constitutional guarantees that compare favorably with international standards, as do several other predominately Muslim countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Mali, and Senegal.

I'm not sure by what criteria some of these statements are judged. I happen to know that in Malaysia, for example, though you can't be executed for converting to Christianity from Islam, you can be imprisoned. I wouldn't call that "compar[ing] favorably with international standards."

There's still a lot of work that need to be done to allow the gospel to spread freely in these lands.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 12, 2004

Baptism & The Salvation Army

(Jimmy Akin)

The reason I bring up the Salvation Army is that I got the following e-mail from a correspondent:

I was wondering what the form and matter is for Baptism by a Salvationist [i.e., a member of the Salvation Army]. I am working with a young man in prison who wants to learn more about the faith, with the possibility of coming into full communion. He was baptised in his mother's faith, i.e. Salvationist. Is this a valid baptism? He recieved instructions and claims to have made his first communion (but not Confirmation) in another state prison location (within a different diocese). Before I proceed, I need to know where he stands. He is single and has never been married, so, other than the baptism in question, and pehaps his recieving communion, he has no obvious impediments.

I replied:

I'm afraid that there is a difficulty in answering your question because the Salvation Army does not normally practice the sacraments. See the following links:

http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/en/Library/factSheets/Sacraments.htm
http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/en/Library/factSheets/FAQ-23-Baptism+and+membership.htm

There have been inconsistencies in this area, and sometimes Salvationists have received baptism in another church, but the Salvation Army does not encourage its members to be baptized. As a result of the irregular way in which baptism--when they occur among Salvationsists--are performed, there is no guarantee that any particular form (or matter) was used.

There would seem to be two solutions to the situation of the gentleman you describe: (1) investigate to find out the particulars of how *he* was baptized (e.g., did he do it in a Salvationist church or another church and what was the form and matter in his case). *Probably* he was baptized validly. However, because of the doubt in this area I would probably recommend a conditional baptism for him, just to be sure.

I wish the Salvationist gentleman the best of luck and hope that he soon comes into the Church, but I point this out here because it further underscores the problem with the Salvation Army's lack of focus on gospel teaching. Even those who do not recognize baptism as means of salvation recognize that it is a scripturally-mandated response to the gospel (e.g., in Acts 2:38), and to simply discontinue its practice is fundamentally inconsistent with the Christian faith.

In fact, the result is that Salvationists who follow the practice of their group in this matter are not Christians because they are not baptized. They are kind of deutero-followers of the Messiah, like the disciples of Apollos that Paul found in Ephesis (Acts 19:1-7, cf. 18:18-28), but they are not Christians because they lack the sacrament that makes one a Christian.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Yes, Virginia, There Can Be Too Much Emphasis On Social Teaching

(Jimmy Akin)

Quick! If someone comes up to you and says "Salvation Army," what's the first think you think of?

Guys on the street corner ringing bells and taking donations at Christmas time, right? Maybe big red trucks coming to cart away furniture and give it to the needy?

That's the problem.

These things are not what the Salvation Army is about--or at least they shouldn't be. You see, the Salvation Army is more than a charity.

It's a church.

But it's a church that has ruined its witness to Christ by over-emphasis on social teaching. It has allowed itself to become thought of in the public mind as a charity rather than a church, and that's contrary to what it is to be a church.

People must undertand what we stand for as Christians. When they think of us, they must think of us as followers of Christ first and foremost, not as people who organize charitable events. (Heck, when I was a boy I thought the "Salvation" in their name referred to salvaging furniture that would otherwise be thrown away!)

It's true that Jesus and his apostles were concerned for the material wellbeing of others and worked to improve it, but this was always subordinate to their concern for people's spiritual wellbeing, and people knew it. The gospel is about how to get eternal life, not how to keep warm and well fed. While helping someone with the latter is important, it pales in comparison to helping them understand the former.

The Salvation Army has made a fatal mistake by becoming a charity in the mind of the public, which would be a betrayal of what it would be doing if it wants to be a church.

The case of the Salvation Army is a valuable object lesson for those in other churches--including the Catholic Church--to show what can go wrong when a group puts more emphasis on social teaching than on gospel teaching.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 01, 2004

AP: Ultraorthodox Jews Worry Tiny Crustraneans Make Water Non-Kosher

(Jimmy Akin)

I sympathize with the scrupulous impulse of some NYC Jews (who appear to be ultraorthodox rather than orthodox), who worry that the copepods in local tap water render the water non-kosher unless the little critters are filtered out (copepods being crustaceans and crustaceans being non-kosher).

Still, I'm glad that the question wouldn't arise in Catholicism--not just because our food laws don't work that way but also because in Catholic legal hermeneutics the law is to be observed in modo humano (i.e., "in a human manner"). If you have to examine your food with a microscope or high-power magnifying glass or other piece of technology to determine what something in your food is then we have been taken out of the realm of observing the law in a human manner and so we don't need to worry about it.

It's also probably good that the question doesn't arise in Catholicism because if it did then people would accuse us of creating the law in order to economically advantage the makers of water purifiers--just as they accuse meatless Fridays of having been created by the pope to benefit Italian fishermen.

On the other hand, given the unflattering Jewish stereotypes floating around, NYC's Jewish community may be subject to similar accusations.

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

AP: Canada's Anglicans Pick Liberal Leader

(Jimmy Akin)

I'm not quite sure on what grounds this count as "news."

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Religions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 31, 2004

Scientologists Settle Wrongful Death Lawsuit

(Jimmy Akin)

Lisa McPherson (left) died while in the care of officials of the Church of Scient