The rival Cartoon Network has had some interesting portrayals of religion in its Adult Swim shows this season. One episode of Metalocalypse  followed one of the characters as he explored different paths, including atheism and the Church of Satan. Each in turn was as boring to him as the last; even Satanism, which he expected to be “hardcore.” This Sunday’s Moral Orel, itself a parody of Davey and Goliath, also mocked the Church of Satan in a surprisingly accurate way.

This just goes to show how flimsy one of the arguments for Christian persecution in the media is. The aforementioned shows go to show that Christianity isn’t the exclusively the butt of jokes in mass media. Not that making fun of a religion is anywhere near the same thing as persecution, anyway. It should also be noted a fair amount of humor at Christians’ expense comes from Christians themselves. In my opinion, any religious tradition worth its salt should be able to laugh at itself. Just look at the rich heritage of Jewish and Unitarian Universalist self-deprecating humor.

More here.

A) Something I noticed this summer when I attended various Christian services is that they all seemed to have a heck of a lot less narration than UU services. I was reminded of it in a recent post by PeaceBang. So the question is, would dropping the narration in any way detract from UU services? I for one think our services would stand to benefit greatly in a number of ways by such reform. It seems the the service as a whole would feel less stilted and more coherent. And as PB noted: we already have printed orders of service.

B) I attended a panel discussion by rabbis from the three major Jewish movements (Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative) on women in Judaism. As anyone who is familiar with the differences between the three could imagine, it was quite a lively discussion! But one thing in particular stuck with me. The Orthodox rabbi spoke of how he loved his wife more than himself. When I was younger I always wanted to have just such a relationship, but as I’ve grown older I’ve thought of this as youthful naivete or a relic of an older generation. But here was a young man, probably no more than 15 years my senior, who was doing it. So is such love possible in this era, in this culture? I can see how it would be possible in a conservative subculture such as Orthodox Judaism, but is it possible for UUs?

So why am I hoping the Christian Coalition will make a resurgence among conservative Christians? The organization once helped set the Religious Right’s narrow focus of issues concerned with (what we on the Left consider to be) issues of restrictions. Namely abortion, homosexuality, private schools vs. public schools, increased presence of Evangelical Christianity in the public sphere, and so forth. But I believe the leadership of the Christian Coalition has finally realized just how narrow this focus is and the stagnation it to which it has led.

Something that may shock those on the Left is that the state chapters of the Coalition in Alabama, Georgia and Iowa have pulled away from the national organization, citing a supposed left-leaning trend in the national organization. Some basis for this argument is that the Coalition has teamed up with MoveOn.org on the issue of network neutrality. Here’s the kicker: on the first of the month Rev. Dr. Joel C. Hunter was appointed as the Coalition’s new chairman starting next year. I had not heard of Hunter before his interview on last week’s State of Belief, but he is known among Evangelicals as a vocal voice in the growing movement to stop global warming. Hunter sees the maintenance of the climate as a Biblical imperative. Hunter has also authored a book I am interested in reading entitled Right Wing, Wrong Bird on the topic of political involvement of conservative Christians. Just from listening to his interview on State of Belief and the brief podcasts on his website I can tell that Rev. Hunter is an intelligent, humble, compassionate and forward-thinking person.

I never thought I’d say that about a self-avowed member of the Religious Right. He might seem liberal to both conservatives and liberals, but it is quite important for everyone to remember that he is not. He is conservative. The Christian Coalition is a conservative organization. It is for exactly this reason that I am so excited about his appointment. The aforementioned characteristics I used to describe Rev. Hunter are characteristics that will be needed for those on the Left and the Right if we hope to get anywhere.

I think that Rev. Hunter will be open to dialogue with liberals. Too many leaders of the Religious Right have not sought dialogue. They are firebrands that just want to yell so only they get heard. But this is not how democracy works, and I’m sure Rev. Hunter and those like him realize this. Democracy is about nothing if not discussion. Though I suspect that many in the Religious Right don’t really care for democracy at all. Not only committed to democracy, Hunter makes a corollary to Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbour on The Leadership Blog, “[My goal is] to impact the world for Christ in a way that non-Christians are thankful.”

Another hope I have for the refocused Christian Coalition is that it will help conservative Christians to see beyond a black and white worldview. The Christian Coalition might be able to offer them a new vision of what can be achieved. I also hope that this will help those that are anti-Christian or anti-religion to also move beyond black and white views of Christianity/religion. Though we may disagree on issues of human sexuality and reproductive health and education, I am confident that we can make progress on the environment, poverty and other “compassion issues” as Rev. Hunter calls them. To use his own words, “Unless Christians can explain their values and their voting decisions in an intellectually credible way to those who disagree, we will not create understanding … or make headway on the issues most important to us.” So while I won’t be contributing money or volunteer hours to the Christian Coalition anytime soon, I will be glad to know that they will be actually acting in a way that is based on what Jesus taught.

Somehow, over the past ten years of my life, I’ve become addicted to going to church. The Sunday before last was the first Sunday in a very long time that I hadn’t gone to church at all. Even during the Summer recess during which my church did not have services, I attended various other groups on Sunday. This summer my Christian Friend and I went to Catholic Mass, a Quaker meeting, services at a church that belongs to both the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church and a Unity service. For as far back as I can remember now, I’ve gone to a church service at least three out of four Sundays a month. I’ve even managed to catch some Friday night services at local synagogues.

I’ve become a keen observer of every detail of a service. The manner in which the ministers speak, and act, the topics and literary style of their sermons, the mood of the music and the instruments used to play them, the order of service and attention payed by the congregants to each have all proven to be very interesting things for me to observe. But they’re not just interesting. Interesting isn’t enough to get up up and out of the door on a weekend morning.

Something about services even made me a bit disappointed to have missed church last Sunday. What was it? What is it about going to church that draws me in? Certainly the group aspect of it is part of it. The emerging experiential aspect of my spirituality also forces me to admit that the sheer experience of something new every Sunday is also part of it. There is also the certainty that each time I’m bound to take something away from it, whether intellectual or emotional, or both.

To be brief this is only part of why I go. There is a great part of it I can’t really put into words. Suffice it to say, what happens is religion. Religion happens.

Pelikan asserts that when one removes a creed, it must necessarily be eventually replaced by another creed. He quoted Emerson’s Divinity School Address, in which he said to the Unitarian seminarians, “So let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those which are sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or veil. … Yourself, a newborn bard of the Holy Spirit — cast behind you all conformity, and acquaint people at first hand with Deity.” This is a precursor to the UU principle of the free and responsible search, which now guides all UU congregations. His response to Emerson was that “The only alternative to tradition is bad tradition.”

According to Pelikan once one raises children and must teach them, all (s)he has to teach them is what (s)he believes, which over time becomes, itself an institutionalized creed. I disagree. Even before any of us had ever heard of Unitarian Universalism, my Zen Buddhist father and lapsed Catholic mother did not raise me in their faith traditions (or lack thereof). That is not to say that they did not share with me their insights or those of teachers that inspired them. They raised me how any UU parent would raise their child; not to believe something just because they do, but to think and experience for myself. This is what makes our tradition so different from others and difficult for others to grasp.

I would not go so far as to say we must refuse the models which others offer us, as Emerson says. I personally like to collect models, and examine them at my leisure. One may be able to purchase pieces of art, but can never buy the actual art itself. So it is with our theological models. The models which have been fashioned by other hands, but the only one I can truely own is the one I have made myself.

Unsurprsingly, I’m not the first UU to respond to this show. Several other UUs had some insightful responses to Pelikan’s assertions. It’s too bad that Pelikan has passed away. A conversation between him and a modern Unitarian Universalist would certainly have been a sight to see.

Elseblog there has been thoughtful discussion of class tension within UUism and how they are demonstrated at Water Communion, but on my mind during the service were the theological rifts. During our talk, the minister noted that part of the reason he was called to our congregation was because of his mystical leanings, and that our congregation has more of a humanist bent to it. I think that was a good idea on the part of the Search Committee. I remember hearing now, I don’t recall if it was our minister that said it, but for whatever reason someone recounted one Sunday about a UU minister that was asked his/her personal theology. (S)He said something to the effect of, ‘If you’re mostly Christian, then I’m a humanist. If you’re mostly humanist, then I’m Pagan.’ OK, I think I greatly reinterpreted whatever the original statement was, but I believe that’s true to the spirit of the statement.

I haven’t yet read the Commission on Appraisal’s Engaging our Theological Diversity but at the outset it seems to me like we are too reserved in general about our individual beliefs. One might think that if people were more vocal about their beliefs that it might cause an even greater rift within UUism, but I don’t think it would, if we go about it the right way. I think that in our culture we have been conditioned to be wary of those whose worldviews differ significantly from our own. Many UUs, perhaps most, have grown up with people shoving their beliefs down their throat. We are all aware how unhelpful, and even destructive this is. So it is out of genuine compassion that we keep our religiousity hidden, even in at church. The problem is that this isn’t really a genuine approach either.

Right now I think that the best approach is two-fold: We must give others the benefit of the doubt, and assume that their expression of their religiousity (or lack thereof) is not intended as a challenege to ours. We must also be upfront about who we are and what we believe and do not believe, but to do so in a way which is not intended to be threatening to challenge others. This is not to say that we should not have our assumptions challenged at all. On the contrary, I think that is one of the most important things about liberal religion. But there are those that are not comfortable with this, and church is the last place one should have to feel defensive. Whatever one’s theological position, church should be a place were we can lower our defenses and rejoice.

Ann Coulter explains it all in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, which hits the shelves today (In case you've been in a cave with no calendar, today's date is 06/06/06). It's a good thing she wrote this, because I was under the impression that we liberals are quite religiously diverse. Evidently, "Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious.’" OK, now I'm confused, because I know plently of liberals that claim to be religious. It must have all been a rouse to trick People Of Faith into voting for them. Those dastardly liberals!

Oh, wait, now I remember. Ann Coulter is full of it. And full of herself, too, if one is to judge books by their covers. Of Coulter's five novels (because they're certainly not non-fiction), four of them have her picture right there on the front. But I shouldn't argue ad homenim; that's be stooping to her level.

I don't even know why I'm surprised. Conservativism has been trying for years to claim religion as it's own, so conflating liberalism with atheism shouldn't shock me. Unfortunately Coulter's false them-versus-us dichotomy is sure to appeal to conservatives. They can't understand and accept diversity among people in general, why expect them to recognize the vast religious and non-religious diversity among liberals?

All the more reason for us to fight the good fight, I suppose. I, as a religious liberal, intend to keep raising hell (so to speak) until our existance is recognized. Even conservatives can't ignore the truth when it's looking them in the eyes. They do try so hard to ignore it, though, don't they?

I did not follow Fausto's suggestion to attend a high church service yesterday. I just didn't feel comfortable with it. Maybe another year. I did, however, attend the service at the UU church. I decided to because I am quite fond of my church's interim minister's style, and because she's an interim minister this was my only chance to witness her treatment of Easter. Happily the service did not disappoint. 

I have come to realize while listening to this and other great ministers, that writing a sermon is an art. Those skilled in the craft can pull various elements such as symbols, anecdotes, myths, historical and current events and weave them together to create a coherent piece.

This minister did just that. She spent several minutes talking about symbols that have been linked to the Easter narrative in the past as well as other symbols and myths concerning birth, death and rebirth. She also told of some humorous family traditions on Easter. She did not spend an extraordinary amount of time on any one subject, yet the keen observer would be able to note the numerous connections between them.

Another element of worship at this church that is cause for me to rejoice is every Sunday, and this Sunday expecially, is the quality of the music program. I've been to other congregations that had a small or nonexistent choir, and the contrast is stark.

All things considered it was a wonderful service. So, aside from the music, what made this service so different from other UU Easter services I've attended in the past? After considering it for a moment I came to the conclusion that the difference is that this one was stimulating to the mind and spirit.

In the previous entry I did not mean to imply that our Easter services should completely drop the discourse of "Wow, Things Are Growing Again," only that it had become so often reiterated as to lose its power of inspiration. Fausto described it better: "we UUs seem to have a particular gift for taking spiritual insights of timelessness and power and regurgitating them in ways that can be astonishingly ephemeral and glib."

But I now think even my initial claim was an over-reaction. Tradition and cycles are important and Easter (and Passover!) exemplifies this. The rebirth myth is inherently powerful, whether the subject is Tammuz, Adonis, Baldur, Mithras, Jesus or Mother Earth. UU's are of above average intelligence, so it is imperative that our ministers appeal to the intellect, but I fear that many do this at the expense of the spirit.

It is futile to talk about rebirth if you don't feel "born again," (if you'll excuse my appropriation of the term).

It's ironic, really, that the language of rebirth keeps getting reused to the point where Easter-time serivces are in dire need of reinvigoration.

Why do James Dobson, Franklin Graham, Al Moehler [sic], Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell warrant seemingly endless coverage when ministries of the United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, among others, rarely receive a single mention?

But it's not just talk shows. The sensationalist nature of the mainstream media means that extremists always get more than their share of news coverage. Take Fred Phelps, for example, whose theology and politics are even more extreme than the rest of the Religious Right. His Westboro Baptist Church has less than 200 members; all the less reason to pay him any heed.

During and after Hurricane Katrina it was not hard to find someone blaming the natural disaster on homosexuals, abortion clinics or even *gasp* gambling. In the subsequent months when religion was mentioned in conjunction with the aftermath, it was how religious organizations were asking for compensation for their charity. Meanwhile, a host of clergy felt uncomfortable that the government offered religious institutions money. The only news show I'm aware of that included this perspective was only PBS' Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly. Once again, public television proves superior to its commercial counterpart.

Street Prophets' Pastordan summed it up well:

That's a real filter, and it doesn't just hurt faithful progressives. It hurts our churches, temples and mosques as well, by buying into the spin that conservative activists – who can give great soundbite on politics – represent the true face of faith in America. For that matter, it hurts all denominations, who are usually more interested in doing good than playing political footsie with the Republican party.

I hope that this campaign is effective. The only way it can be effective is if the UCC is ecumenical about it. I hope the UCC can keep this campaign seperate from it's recent ad campaign and that other religious groups can join in, Christian and non-Christian. 

The Religious Right's insistence on discriminating against LGBT individuals is contrary to my religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers set up a separation of religion and politics in this country because they knew that an alliance of one religious group with the political establishment would infringe on the rights of other religious groups. Assume for a moment the opposite of the current situation was taking place; that I was forcing my religious views on others, specifically forcing churches that were against same-sex marriages to perform them anyway. Such a situation would also be detrimental to religious liberty. The issue of marriage equality does have religious implications, but religion should not be used as the justification for legal action. The equality for LGBT individuals to marry should be recognized only because it is unconstitutional not to, and religious people should be able to decide among themselves whether to preform and recognize same-sex marriages within their own religious group, because it would be unconstitutional to force them either way.