As "This Week in God" settles in on Saturday mornings, the God Machine has plenty to offer again this week.
First up is a church-state case out of San Diego, where a 29-foot-high cross sits on a 14-foot pedestal on public land. The property was owned by the city, but Congress bought the space and declared it a war memorial a few years ago. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the display violates the separation of church and state, but this week, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.
The federal government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case on the future of the Mount Soledad cross in La Jolla.
In a petition filed Monday with the high court, Justice Department lawyers said that a decision last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the landmark was unconstitutional because it signified government support of a religion on public land, has to be reviewed.
The government argued the appeals court decision improperly nullified an official act of Congress and conflicts with recent Supreme Court decisions on the display of religious symbols on public property.
What strikes me as interesting about this is the larger political context: it's the Obama administration siding in support of religious activism, at a time when Republicans argue the Obama administration is waging a "war" on faith. Indeed, Steve Chapman recently explained that, GOP rhetoric notwithstanding, religious people "found Barack Obama and his Justice Department to be staunch allies."
As Chapman put it, "The president's detractors may continue to portray him as a secular fanatic with, as Rick Santorum claims, an 'overt hostility to faith in America.' Before they do, though, they might want to remember the Ten Commandments -- especially the one about bearing false witness."
Also from the God Machine this week:
* A Pennsylvania atheist group is under fire for racially-charged billboards in Harrisburg.
* The Catholic Church in Sacramento cut off funding for a homeless-services agency because its new director's supports Planned Parenthood and gay marriage. The agency, Francis House, is now relying on private donations, which have been generous in the wake of the church's decision (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* In the week's most cringe-worthy religion story, radical TV preacher Pat Robertson shared his thoughts on whether oral sex within marriage is a sin. If you watch the clip, prepare to be uncomfortable.
Leave a Comment:
What kind of people are the Catholic Church leaders to punish the homeless for a shelter director illustrating moral courage in his freedom of speech? I hope the Sacramento Catholic Church does some faith searching of their own. I was taught we are judged by our acts.
The question asked of Pat Robertson andd Kristi Watts is, of course, a good one - and an honest one.
Since the Bible doesn't address that issue specifically - other than the broad command that sexual relations outside of marriage is sin, I'm glad that the both of them addressed it. Many married couples are very comfortable with oral sex; I'm sure many are not. Essentially, Pat said 'to each his own' on that subject.
It's sad - but expected - that this blog will routinely make fun or be 'snarky' about Christians on television giving solid answers to honest questions.
Rachel Maddow recently was asked her thoughts on a television talk-show recently about global warming.
Her response - and I quote: "I think global warming probably means extreme weather of all kinds."
(Sheesh!)
I don't think those who live in glass houses should be throwing stones....
1."Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing..." (Sheesh!^2) - just want to point out that remarks against Pat Robertson are not automatically remarks against all Christians - even all Evangelicals - they are remarks against Pat Robertson. Non-believers read these posts - they are watching to see how Christians respond to criticism.
2. Actually Rachel gave a pretty good answer for Global Warming.
The problem stems from calling it "Global Warming" when it should probably be called " Global Climate Imbalance" or something similar. Take a relatively stable system and increase or decrease the level of energy by some means. At some point - something - will happen. If you believe in General Systems Theory then you would expect the system, after being forced out of balance, to move toward equilibrium. In the process of finding a new equilibrium you would expect extreme cycles that would eventually get smaller. There is a parallel to this in Statistical Quality Control - when changes are made in a manufacturing process without actually understanding the process - large variations above and below normal can occur and cycle back and forth - Google Quality Control and "Tampering". You might be more familiar with the aeroelastic fluttering of the Tacoma Bridge - not quite the same thing but an example of increasing variation in a system. Keep in mind that there are a couple of billion Chinese and Indians who can hardly wait to purchase a new SUV and start pumping yet more energy into the system. Will this increase "Global Warming" or increase climate system variation - don't know - should make an interesting experiment.
For some reason "Global Warming" has become political - I just don't get it - can it seriously be a "bad thing" to be a good steward of the ten "minas" we have been given.
For one opinion Google
Deep Freezes: Will future warming paradoxically cause more extreme cold events? and CLIMAS
So you may disagree with Rachel, but her answer is not "silly" - she has simply sided with one group of scientists while others side with another. We won't know for a few hundred years.
Actually its not that hard. Global warming is right, though it may cause abnormal cooling in local areas.
To wit...global warming, in addition to melting ice caps, also increases humidity. Global cooling dries out the planet. More water in the atmosphere supercharges weather events. More moisture in the atmosphere comes down hard as rain and as frozen precipitation. Snowmageddon, yeah?
It is possible that the jet stream itself may fail, whereupon northern latitutdes will cease to moderate their temperatures leading to unseasonable cooling. All still part of Global Warming.
Brrr, chilling addon, Don. Melting glaciers adding fresh water to the oceans, additional fresh water floating atop with submersion of the denser salient water, slowing the great ocean conveyor belt of the cooler deep and warmer surface currents, interrupting circulation of jet streams as main contributor to local weather systems.
Would you prefer mini-ice age or somewhere warmer and drier? Neither sounds pleasant over an extended period of time.
Scary monsters friend.
http://youtu.be/B2emBxDOY7g