More Feminist Than the Feminist

It must be frustrating to liberals that strong conservative women like
Sarah Palin are entering the political arena because why else would they
write stuff like this? Liberals want to portray conservatives as sexists.
Since Sarah Palin is in no way sexist, how else can they label her a sexist?
Well call her traditional Christian beliefs sexist!

Premise: Sarah Palin is a self-proclaimed, far-right conservative,
Christian fundamentalist, which connotes a literal interpretation of
the Bible.

Problem: She cherry-picks to make her message more palatable
to the public and ducks the subservient role of women her church
believes in.

Too bad the media who interview Sarah Palin don't know their
Bibles and the fundamentalist theology Palin says she lives by. If
they did, Palin would have to answer the following questions based
on the fact that according to her own church's beliefs, she shouldn't
even be in politics.

First of all, Palin is not a Christian fundamentalist. I've never heard say
anything that would put her in the fundamentalist category. I have never
heard her say she takes the literal view of the Bible. It's kinda like when
the liberals labeled George W. Bush a Christian fundamentalist even
though he believes all faiths lead to heaven (not a traditional Christian
view), believes in evolution, and isn't a regular churchgoer. WHAT A
FUNDIE!!!

Mr. Schaeffer points to 1 Corinthians 11 as proof she's not being obedient
to "sexist" Biblical scriptures. Apparently he didn't read the whole chapter.
The chapter is about women covering their heads during prayer:

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying
disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is
shaved.

6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off;
but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
let her cover her head.

7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for
the man's sake.

10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head,
because of the angels.

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor
is man independent of woman.

12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his
birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God
with her head uncovered?

Does Schaeffer know of any American Christian woman that covers her head
while praying? No. Here's the thing: Christians are wise enough to take into
cultural and historical considerations when reading scriptures. Head covering
during Biblical times was the norm. It isn't now. Things change. Here's
something else he forget to mention: In the same chapter where it says men
should be the head of women it also says neither isn't "independent" of each
other. My understanding of that is that each depend on each other and need
each other. None is better than the other.

And to his scriptures about submissiveness there is this response I found:

The difficulty with understanding Paul’s command to wives to “be
subject” to their own husbands is that our grasp of the meaning of
the word “submit” is too narrow. Generally speaking, we think that
the word “submit” is synonymous with the word “obey.” We are
inclined to restrict submission to refer only to our response to those
who are in authority over us. Very often, this is the case—but not
always. Paul’s instruction in verse 21 is directed to every believer.
Christians, without exception, are to “be subject to one another,”
without any exceptions. Submission, then, must not only work
“upward” (in terms of authority), but also downward.

Submission doesn't mean not having a mind of your own and just being
obedient. Speaking of obedience....isn't funny how he is shocked to find
that Sarah Palin isn't obedient to her church. What a sexist!

Every weekend I go to church it is full of women. There is often times
more women at the service than men. Having traditional Christian values
doesn't mean you're a sexist. Having politically conservative values doesn't
mean you're a sexist either.

The Struggle

This past Sunday I visited Lakewood Church. Lakewood Church is a
megachurch led by best selling author Pastor Joel Osteen. Pastor
Osteen's messages are always encouraging. He talks a lot about having
faith and confidence. Something struck me while I was visiting; I came
away with the impression that Pastor Joel Osteen might struggle with
a lack of confidence himself and his sermons aren't just for his audience
but himself. For example, at the end of the service he started
crying and said something to the affect that he doesn't deserve all
this.

I also noticed that the few times flubbed during his sermon, he took
a while to recover. I didn't get the impression of a man that was fully
confident in his speaking abilities. I'm convinced God loves irony. How
ironic would it be if a man that constantly speaks of being a confident
child of God struggles with confidence? How ironic would it be if a
man who makes a good living speaking to large audiences isn't entirely
confident in his speaking abilities?

I don't know Joel Osteen (obviously) so everything I write is just the
impression I got. I, myself, struggle with insecurity and lack of
confidence so maybe I was seeing what I wanted to see. But if my
impression is right it is an incredible testimony to God's ability to use
even our perceived weaknesses.

We all struggle with something. However, that catch is learning how
to turn our struggle to something meaningful. Don't let your perceived
weaknesses hinder you from doing God's work.

Lesson Not Learned

I agree with Time's assessment of this decade. It was a decade from hell.
What makes it even worst though is that I don't think we (the American
people) learned the lessons of the mistakes made this past decade. I also
don't think we grew during these tumultuous times.

We were at war with terrorism (and still are) but we acted like it was
peace time. Let me explain. After 9/11 there was an immediate sense
of wanting to go back "normalcy." Go back to doing what you did before.
But things weren't the same, things changed. We are now back to
treating terrorists like mere criminals by closing Gitmo and giving
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a criminal trial. Lesson not learned. We
spent money like we were in peace time. Some even buying houses
they couldn't afford.

We didn't stay focused on the important things. This decade was not
lacking for important current events. However, the tabloidazation of
news continued. The deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and Michael Jackson
garnered way too much coverage by our mainstream news outlets.
And I now know way more about Tiger Wood's personal life than I
need or desired to know. Like I said lesson not learned. Before 9/11
most Americans didn't even know who Osama bin Laden was or that
the terrorist organization al-Qaeda existed. Did we not learn the
lesson that tabloid news makes us less informed and we need to keep
focused on important things like the people who want to kill us?

Culturally, we aren't faring any better either. I think Jonah Goldberg
explained it beautifully when he writes how reality shows are
emblematic of a cultural decline:

Long before the rise of reality shows, ecumenical niceness created a
moral vacuum. Out-of-wedlock birth was once a great shame; now
it's something of a happy lifestyle choice. The cavalier use of profanity
was once crude; now it's increasingly conversational. Self-discipline
was once a virtue; now self-expression is king.

Reality-show culture has thrived in that moral vacuum, accelerating
the decay and helping to create a society in which celebrity is the new
nobility. One senses that Richard Heene thought -- maybe still thinks
-- that the way to make his kids proud of him was to land a reality
show. Paris Hilton, famous for being famous thanks in part to a
"reality" sex tape released days before her 2003 reality show
"The Simple Life," is now a cultural icon of no redeeming value
whatsoever.

The type of behavior that is celebrated on "reality" television used to be
shunned. It is no longer the case. During difficult times one could assume
there would be a clinging to certain moral standards.

Another lesson not learned: God matters. After 9/11 there was a spike
in church attendance but it went back to normal shortly. Atheism is on
the rise in the U.S. If war and economic woes doesn't bring us to evaluate
what is important in life (God) what will? If anything this decade has
taught me that evil most certainly exists. Evil is Osama bin Laden. Pure
evil was in the 19 hijackers on 9/11. We saw evil in Saddam Hussein. We
see evil in the Taliban. We see evil in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We see
evil in Kim Jong-il. And the list can go on. We can't fight evil with moral
relativism. Yet, moral relativism rules the day.

When I reflect on this past decade I can only think of the missed
opportunities for growth. So to sum up the past ten years I can't
help but say, "Lesson not learned."

Guitar Praise!

This looks like it totally rocks just like my church! However, I must
admit I don't recognize most of the songs. The songs must not be played
on K-LOVE, that's the only Christian radio station I listen to. Via The God
Blog.

Question: Is this Christianity trying to influence culture or culture influencing
Christianity? I've had this debate several times so I'll let commenters discuss
it.

Church of Beethoven

This weekend NPR covered an interesting story of an unusual Sunday "church."
Details from the story page:

Albuquerque, N.M., is no different from any other American city, in
terms of its religious life; you've got churches, synagogues, a couple
of Unitarian congregations and a mosque. But an abandoned gas
station along old Route 66 is the unlikely home for another kind of
Sunday-morning service, and it's one that you won't find anywhere
else. It's called the Church of Beethoven.

Felix Wurman isn't a rabbi, priest or preacher. He plays the cello. He
didn't feel at home in church, because he's not religious. But he says
he also felt that there was something missing in formal concert halls
where he performs.

"One of the things you do as a professional classical musician is play
'church jobs,' " Wurman says, "and I always felt that this is so wonderful,
all this music, the collection of people, this beautiful room. But there
was something lacking."

Wurman is a member of the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra. Before
that, he studied with the legendary British cellist Jacqueline du Pre,
toured with Andrew Lloyd Webber and performed with Chicago's
Lyric Opera Orchestra.

This is the most intriguing quote from the story:

Really, the idea is to find spirituality through culture,
through the cultural gifts that so many people have
suffered for and created over so many generations,"
Wurman says. "There's so much information there that's useful."

How can one find spirituality through culture? Music is music. We shouldn't put
culture up in this pedestal. Music does not feed and sustain our souls. Poems do
not feed and sustain our souls. God does.

Also, the man says he's not religious but why does he feel the need to imitate a
religious practice - the church service. It reminds of the atheist churches I've
been hearing about. If one is rejecting traditional religion or all religions then why
the need to copy religious norms?

What's Missing?

Sometimes bias presents itself from what's missing in a news article.
Read this article and tell me if there is a small bit of information missing?
An excerpt:

The national proclamation issued this year asked God's
blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe
the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is named in the suit because he is
one of 50 governors who issued proclamations calling for the
prayer day. The foundation is based in Madison.

Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer
Task Force, and White House press secretary Dana Perino
also are named.

The foundation has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years,
including one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year
that attacked President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The question I had immediately after reading this article was: Since when
has this National Day of Prayer been around? The article didn't state
this information so I went to the National Day of Prayer official Web site
and behold I found the answer:

It was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States
Congress, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman

I'm curious why they would leave out that information since it provides
historical context. For a moment I thought President Bush signed into law this
legislation and that's why they were suing him. They took the time to mention
the foundation is based in Madison, why not mention that it's been around for
more than 50 years? I did a word count and the article is a measly 224 words,
I doubt it was length the problem.

Arrogance

Comic Bill Maher doesn't do much self-reflection does? Quote:

"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions
is not arrogant certitude, but doubt," Maher says in the film's closing
five-minute monologue, which shifts the tone to dead serious.

"The plain fact is, religion must die for man to live," he says.

For being anti-religious, he sure is preachy.

So he hates certitude in religious people but he is certain that religion needs to
die. Interesting. He makes this comment after complaining how "rigid" the New
Atheist are:

The so-called New Atheists -- bestselling authors who appeal to science,
logic and intellectual elitism -- typically preach only to the choir.

"I don't like the term atheist because, to me, that is as rigid as religion is,"
Maher said. "I preach the doctrine of 'I don't know.' I don't know and I don't
think it should matter. I don't think people should be so obsessed.
Give yourself a break. You don't have to worship something, you
don't have to worship something that is really just in your head,
that you made up."

Did you get the nuance there. First he is saying he's not an atheist, he's more of
an agnostic, which is not the first time he has said he's an agnostic. Then he goes
on to say that, "you don't have to worship something that is really in your head,
that you made up." So he's basically saying the idea of a deity is something that is
made up in people's head. I'm assuming he is saying that belief in God is fiction,
which is what atheists believe. So what is it: Does he not know if God exists or is
he certain that the concept of a deity is all made up in people's head? He can't have
it both ways. Maher is saying I think God is fiction and is made up solely in people's
head, however, I'm not sure. I'm starting to get the feeling that while Maher spends
his time mocking religious people's beliefs he has no clue what he himself believes.
He's lost in confusion. Or perhaps he doesn't know the difference between a agnosticism
and atheism. Maher might not like religious folks' "certitude" but his inconsistency
and murkiness is downright unappealing.

What's Love Gotta Do With It?

The Dems just don't get it, do they:

Later Tuesday evening, at a fundraiser across town, Biden
continued to focus on religion, accusing Republican nominee
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., of hating, but embracing, the
religious right.

"The only place John has changed is with regard to the
religious right, which he hates but he's embraced," Biden said
to supporters at a Democratic Victory Fund event hosted by
the American Association of Justice. "That's the only change
with John. The only change."

The political and religious right doesn't support Republican candidates because
they feel embraced or loved by them. It's because they share the same stances
on issues. It's a matter of shared values not emotion. The religious right would
rather support an unbeliever who's pro-life and for traditional marriage than a
fervent believer who is pro-choice. They make a mistake thinking that evangelicals
solely liked George Bush because he referred to himself as a "born again" Christian
or Ronald Reagan because he often used religious language in his speeches. It is
obviously more than that.

Sen. Obama has actively seeked the evangelical vote this year. He will probably
do well among young evangelicals but I doubt he will make any big inroads. The
problem isn't that Democrats haven't reached out to religious people enough,
as some seem to think. The problem is that Democrats are wrong on the issues
they most care about. Sen. Biden may very well be right that John McCain hates
the religious right. However, when it comes to the social issues the religious right
has found an ally in John McCain. Sometimes when you need to get things done
you partner up with people who don't like you very much. It's nothing personal.

Maybe Envangelicals Voters Will End Up Being More....

like this guy- Independents. He's the editor of Relevant Magazine. I know
there has been a lot of news articles about evangelicals voting Democrat this
year because of their disenchantment with the Republican Party but the media
is making a big assumption when they conclude these voters will automatically
jump to the Democratic Party, especially when they have the most pro-choice
candidate ever. I think there are probably a lot of evangelicals like Cameron
Strang who will change their affiliation to "Independent" and are probably
conflicted which way to go. Here's an except of Mr. Strang's blog post:

A few weeks ago, I was asked if I’d be interested in possibly praying at
the Democratic National Convention. Taken aback, but intrigued at the
opportunity, I accepted. What better way to continue positive dialogue,
show support for an emphasis on faith issues and pray in a forum where
faith isn’t typically thought to be emphasized? To quote someone close
to me—and meaning no disrespect whatsoever to Christian Democrats—
it was a chance to be “light in the darkness.” And hey, Jesus told us to
pray, right?

They made clear they weren’t asking me to publicly endorse Sen.
Obama. They also didn’t care that I was a pro-life Republican. I saw
my participation as a tangible way to show that this generation of
values voters doesn’t necessarily need to draw political battle lines
the way previous generations have, and that we can work through
areas of disagreement toward common goals—fighting systemic
poverty; defending innocent lives lost to pre-emptive war, sex trafficking,
torture, genocide, slavery and preventable disease; protecting the
environment; and proactively working to reduce the number of
abortions each year (not only through legislation, prevention and
education, but by financial support for pregnant women and
overhauling the adoption system—things are messed up when an
abortion is $500 and an adoption is $25,000).

Then I found out the invocation was to be on the main stage, opening
night of the DNC. Part of the national broadcast. Most people would
jump at such an exposure opportunity, but it gave me serious pause.

Through RELEVANT I reach a demographic that has strong faith,
morals and passion, but disagreements politically. It wouldn’t be
wise for me to be seen as picking a political side, when I’ve consistently
said both sides are right in some areas and wrong in some areas.
(And truth be told, I haven’t yet made up my mind about who I’m
going to vote for this November. There are a lot of specifics I’d like
to hear the candidates talk about before my decision will be made.)

So there you go. It's funny how religious folks tend to be labeled as people who
think purely in terms of "good and evil" or "right and wrong," ironically, might
just be the most conflicted voting group out there.

Are You Ready for Another News Piece About Young Voters?

OMG! They like so care about the election.

Faith Forum

I watched the Faith Forum tonight and I got major headache after viewing so
that's why I'm posting this late. (No, my headache wasn't due to listening two
politicians, I don't know what brought it on but I took some Tylenol). I liked the
fact that they asked both John McCain and Barack Obama the exact same
questions but in separate interviews. Sen. McCain clearly seemed more comfortable
in this interview format and that may be due to the fact they were in front of an
evangelical crowd, which tends to be more friendly with the GOP on issues like
abortion. However, I noticed they gave Obama a standing ovation so it wasn't a
hostile crowd by any means.

The question where I can see the most drastic difference between the two
candidates was on the question of evil. CNN hasn't put up the transcripts
yet so I'm going to paraphrase the responses. Pastor Rick Warren asked if evil
should be negotiated, contained, or defeated. Obama's reply was something to
the affect of facing evil with humility. McCain just straight out and said his usual
line of "following Osama to the gates of hell." Obama thinks in nuances, McCain
much of straight shooter with moral clarity. I think there is something to be said
for both ways of thinking. The presidency isn't an easy job and some tough
decisions are often made. It's good to have someone in the Oval Office that
thoroughly weighs the moral decisions he has to make and considers all the
possible repercussions. However, there is also something to be said about
someone with moral clarity. The ability to unequivocally call out evil for it is a
good quality in a leader. I think ultimately that is the fundamental difference
between the two candidates.

Obama on Lessons of Faith

There's an interesting article about Obama's spiritual journey in the Washington
Post today. Pertinent quote:

"The challenges we face today -- war and poverty, joblessness
and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools -- are
not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan," he
said. "They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference
and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so
the values we believe in -- empathy and justice and responsibility
to ourselves and our neighbors -- these cannot only be expressed
in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and
in our laws."

I agree with him that many of the things he lists are moral problems. However, it's
when he says "these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues,
but in our policies and in our laws," I have to disagree with. What laws should we
create that will create more jobs? A government can't force people to work. Also,
we live in a capitalistic society where the free market creates jobs not government.
What laws or policies can we enact eliminate or lessen poverty? Poverty has always
existed. I think we should leave it to non-profit organizations like churches to create
food and clothing pantries and other programs to help the needy. I don't know what
the government can do to help the poor short of forcibly taking away money from
some people to give to the needy.

I also find it ironic that he mentions war on the list of challenges we face but it
doesn't include tyranny and oppression. Sen. Obama seems to find no limit to what
the American government can do domestically but when it comes to deposing a
tyrannical leader like Saddam Hussein, that is something we shouldn't have done.
Here's what Sen. Obama said in his 2002 speech against the war in Iraq:

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his
own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection
teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the
United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles,
that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert
with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of
all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Here We Go Again

Are you ready for another article about evangelicals voting for
Sen. Obama? This time it's from The New York Times. I guess
they're hoping if they repeat it enough times the majority of
evangelicals will change their minds.

'Jesus for president'

CNN manages to find a young modern day hippie Christian to interview
to demonstrate that not all evangelicals are Republicans. They sure picked
a winner:

The dreadlocked Christian activist from Philadelphia and his team
parked a black school bus around the back. The hand-painted gold
letters on the side read "Jesus for President."

The bus runs on vegetable oil and, yes, it's a political statement.

"It'll be a long time before we fight a war over used veggie oil,"
says Claiborne with a sly smile.

Hmm. I wonder what Jesus has to say about believing lies?

Later on in the article:

But polls have shown that evangelicals as a whole, following national
trends, are disaffected with Republican leadership and increasingly up
for grabs.

Funny how they never mention a single poll. I found a poll that said the opposite.
Perhaps, they think if they say enough times it will be true.

Claiborne has some more radical views:

Back on stage Claiborne takes the crowd through a multimedia
presentation.

"With the respectability and the power of the church comes the
temptation to prostitute our identity for every political agenda."

Controversially, he quotes Harry S. Truman and Adolph Hitler,
saying each used Christianity to support their ideologies.

Ok, I've heard two different arguments (for and against) Hitler being a religious zealot.
So I just won't go there. However, I've never heard anyone claim Harry S. Truman was
some sort of religious nut. I found this radio address from Truman. It seems like tame
stuff to me. What is this guy talking about?

The next sentence in the article:

The speech is fiery at times, pensive at others. It emphasizes caring for the
poor and the downtrodden.

Yes, Jesus did talk about the poor and downtrodden. However, He never said anything
about government talking away half of someone's paycheck to give it to someone else.
He might want to read Matthew 22:21. Also, the Bible talks about being a cheerful giver.

Clairborne then goes on to compare America to the Roman Empire:

He talks about war and the environment. He also talks about how Jesus
stood up to the Roman Empire, a message he believes is relevant to the
United States now.

"For many of us, Caesar has colonized our imagination, our landscape and
our ideology," he says while a picture of Mount Rushmore flashes behind
him. On the screen "Vandalism" pops up in black letters.

I don't think this guy is an Obama supporter. He sounds more in the Dennis Kucinich
realm. If there's anything I've learned in this election is that conservatives aren't the
only ones enveloping religion and politics together.

Dobson on Obama: "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Sen. Obama has clearly attempted to go after the evangelical vote. Well,
abortion is an issue many of them care about. Cue in James Dobson:

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's
argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates
over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms
but in arguments accessible to all people.

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern
by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a
fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political
arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of
tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless
everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Many Religions Can Lead to Eternal Life

I don't know what to make of this:

Americans of every religious stripe are considerably more
tolerant of the beliefs of others than most of us might have
assumed, according to a new poll released Monday. The Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000
American, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the
statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more
remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were
willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to
salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the
words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the
Father except through me."

I've talked about how intellectually dishonest this type of thinking is. All the
major religions have very different views on how to get Heaven. How can they
all be right?

It has become politically incorrect to say that other religions are wrong. However,
if one claims that all religions are right then aren't they in essence saying their
own Christian faith is wrong because other religions are quick to claim that Christ
is not the way to Heaven. Again, where's the consistency in logic?

Western Christians have this weird hang up with saying their faith is Christ is the
only way to Heaven. It is viewed as intolerant and arrogant. Should we consider
Muslims that live around the world "intolerant" because they proclaim their faith
is the only one that can lead to Heaven? No, that's what they believe. I would just
have to respectfully disagree. Should people of the Jewish faith be considered
"intolerant" because they tell Christians "No, Jesus is not the Messiah."? Of course
not! Why should they?

I believe that being a follower and believer in Jesus Christ is the Way to Heaven.
My certitude may make some uneasy. However, I'm not going to apologize or feel
guilty about it. I refuse to feel like some closed-minded, intolerant person because
I choose to stay true to the core tenet of my faith.

Religulous

I see Maher is still on his crusade to make fun at religious people:



I have to admit the trailer is somewhat mild for Maher. I mean he didn't call
the Pope a Nazi. That's progress, right?

I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm sure there will be the traditional name calling
by Maher. I mean one can't possibly think it would be possible for him to make a
movie without portraying Christians as a bunch of crazy, sexist, homophobic,
oppressive, prudish, warmongering, ignorant, delusional dupes.

Wow, You Mean Evangelicals Aren't a Monolithic Group?

Is it just me or does the author of this Washington Post article seem a little too
surprised that there are some smart Evangelicals out there?:

BOSTON -- For decades, Boston University sociologist Peter Berger
says, American intellectuals have looked down on evangelicals.

Educated people have the notion that evangelicals are "barefoot
people of Tobacco Road who, I don't know, sleep with their sisters
or something," Berger says.

It's time that attitude changed, he says.

I'm shocked! I can't control my confusion! My mind has just been absolutely
blown away by this piece of information provided by the Washington Post. I'm
going to have cross out "Evangelicals are a bunch of incestuous idiots," off my
list of stereotypes.

Americans Most Bible-literate

This makes my heart happy:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Americans are among the world's most
'Bible-literate' people and Spaniards, French and Italians are among
the most ignorant about what the "good book" says, according to a
new study released on Monday.

A poll carried out in nine countries -- the United States, Britain,
Germany, France, the Netherlands, Russia, Italy, Spain and Poland --
also showed Americans were most willing to donate money to spread
the message of the Bible.

The poll for the Catholic Biblical Federation interviewed Christians
and non-Christians ahead of a synod of Roman Catholic Bishops on
the Bible due to be held at the Vatican in October.

Most respondents in the poll, which was presented at the Vatican,
were Christian. Except for in the United States, Britain and Russia,
most of the Christians respondents were Catholic.

Oprah: The Theologian

Interested video:



I myself have discussed the issues I have with Oprah. I think her philosophy
is a very dangerous one.

Oprah seems to have some real problems with organized religion. I'll just make
a few points to why organized religion is not bad (perhaps, this is a topic I'll get
deeper into in a later date). I would say the most important reason is accountability.
In Oprah's world, you make up your beliefs and are not to be accountable to anyone.
As a Christian, my beliefs are to be accountable to what the Bible says and I also
have a church home for the same purposes. So I'm not making up things as I go
along. I also think there is a community in organized religion. To me it seems very
hard to build a community when you have personalized your own faith. However,
from the video I must admit it looks like Oprah is trying to make a secular and a
politically correct theology into a global community.