The Christian and and the Poor

I have been greatly troubled over the past several months by much of the propaganda propagated by the religious right, epitomized by groups such as the Tea Party, as it relates to the Obama administration and its social agenda. Especially in the arena of health care reform, the hostility has permeated every facet of the debate. Words such as communist and socialism, Marxist, etc, have been hurled around venomously with little regard for truth or reality. 

This debate has really brought into focus the divide between what the scriptures teach and what many in our society assume is God's position. There is this very unfortunate assumption that God is somehow the author and architect of free enterprise and capitalism. After all, God only helps those who help themselves and if someone is not a part of the proper social or economic class, then it's obvious that they are deficient in some way. Why should we give up our hard earned money to fund food stamp programs or provide Medicaid for impoverished children? Why should we care about the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance and suffer without access to basic health care services? Let them get a job and work, this is the American way! Anyone who has gumption and who is willing to work can achieve success in our society, right?

Obviously, this is not true. Success is an American illusion for many people. Much of our political and economic structure really does help the rich get richer and keeps the poor in their place. It reminds me of a passage in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus 13:23,24:

The rich person speaks and all are silent; they extol to the clouds what he says. The poor person speaks and they say, "Who is this fellow?" And should he stumble, they even push him down. Riches are good if they are free from sin; poverty is evil only in the opinion of the ungodly." 

The work of spiritual recovery

The act of spiritual recovery can be a daunting challenge at times. Some time ago, I realized that my perceptions of God and religion had become nothing more than clinical exercises that left me feeling lost and spiritually destitute. It was not a pleasant admission to say the least. Personal introspection and honestly appraising one's catalog of ideas and the beliefs that direct your spiritual journey can be a most unpleasant task.

I would like to say that the solution to this problem is to simply return to the place where we last felt right. Of course, as with most spiritual problems, it is not always that easy. Our spiritual journey can not be measured in snapshots. The balance of experience, circumstances, education, acculturation, etc, all work together to make us who we are and who we are becoming. The narrative of our spiritual lives must stand as written, no matter how tempting it is to discard certain chapters and rewrite the story in a way that makes it more palatable to us in retrospect.

For Those Who are Pained by My Changes

For Those Who are Pained by My Changes

The above link is one that I found in an article entitled "Losing Your Religion? How to Talk to your Kids", written by Valerie Tarico in the Living section of the Huffington Post. Tarico is best known for her book, The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth and the founder of WisdomCommons.org. As the title of the article suggest, Tarico is addressing the issue of how to approach your children when your quest of faith has led you in an opposite direction than what they are used to seeing. This is no doubt a very serious issue and one that is oftentimes neglected at the demise of children's faith.

Children need to understand that faith is a journey and that in this journey things often change; we often change! This change does not negate the reality of the faith that we once held, it informs that faith and it is important that children understand this. There have been many cases where children wake up one day to find that things have changed drastically in the spirituality of their parents. Perhaps, this brings about a move from one church to another, or, even a change in the family's church attendance altogether. Where the family used to attend church on a regular basis, now the family only attends sporadically, if at all. This is not always a bad thing, it may just be a phase in a person's spiritual journey where relationship or solitude, etc, is more important at the time. However, children may see this and get confused and this confusion can breed disillusionment and an eventual migration away from all religious faith.

In the article, Tarico links to a piece she wrote and that is what is linked above and referenced in the title of this post. It goes beyond the need to speak to children about this and extends to family relationships and those persons in one's life that can be affected by change in a person's spiritual disposition. Tarico is writing for the benefit of loved one's who are worried about her change in faith and she is telling them what she sees as important about her change and what she wants them to know. Its a great piece and one that I wish I had stumbled upon a long time ago. She really does a great job of explaining the process she is going through; this process is indicative of what many of us, whose faith has been reshaped and redefined and who are constantly in a state of flux regarding matters of faith and spirituality, go through.

At the end of this post written to Tarico's loved ones, she says the following:

For a long time, I have known that the answers I had were not quite right. But I didn't really know how to explain this whole process or how to articulate a better set of answers, so mostly what I talked about was the flaws in the old way of thinking.

This really explains a process that I know I've been through and actions of mine that I sincerely regret. It is just so easy for us to think that since we are unhappy with or questioning what we believe then surely everyone must be feeling this way, or if they are not, they should be. The fact is, however, that some people never question their faith; they are happy and content in what they believe and it would not be healthy for them to have their faith challenged. I think what happens is that we become so invested in 'faith as a journey' and we want everyone to respect our navigational decisions in this journey, but we are not so free in giving others space to plot their own course in matters of faith.

We are all at different places in our spiritual quest and we should learn how to respect that my revelation may be a stumbling block to another. Paul, in the 14th chapter of Romans, speaks to this very issue when dealing with eating meat that was sacrificed to idols and respecting certain holy days. Paul acknowledges that our feelings of freedom and such are not shared by everyone around us. Damage can be unnecessarily done to another's faith if ideas and concepts are pushed upon them that they are not ready to receive. They may never receive it, and that should be okay with us. I can look back and see where I was totally irresponsible with my religious ideas and intentionally challenged others who should not have been challenged. I mean, my faith changes often; it is okay with me if I do not have all the answers and if I take a position that is totally opposite of one that I took in the past. That's me. But, others find security in the answers they have and when one of those answers are attacked or challenged, it becomes personal. I should understand this, especially since I have been there.

Whether it is our children or family members or friends, all should be given the respect to grow in their faith and understanding in a manner that is appropriate for each individually. Variety is a good thing; no one has to be just like me, or just like you. This is a great lesson to be reminded of and Tarico does a wonderful job of bringing our attention to this important reality.

Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion

Yale Daily News - Demystifying the psychology of religion

"What I'm interested in is the other story — what all religions have in common," he said. "These universals of religion come from aspects of peoples' brains that everybody shared and that emerged early in development."

From documenting our propensity to believe in teleological (purpose-based) explanations for natural phenomena to the widely held belief that humans possess a soul, a myriad of psychological studies — conducted both here at Yale and at peer universities — now suggest that our brains may be hard-wired to believe in religion.

"The universal themes of religion are not learned," Bloom said. "They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems."

There has long been a scholastic preoccupation with the demythologizing of religion. Modernity sought for a quantitative method, a measurable cause to the irreducible religious compulsion within man across all cultural, ethnic, geographical, and a host of other boundaries. One refreshing thing about Paul Bloom's approach to answer the why question is that he begins with the universal nature of religious phenomenon as a given rather than something needing to be proved. It is this fact that seems to propel Bloom's inquiry into a psychology of religion.

In this article there is an admission that religious impulses are a part of man's unique constitution; a primordial element to his being. The argument, however, emerges when we see these impulses as merely physical or biological in origin. That is, our minds evolved with these inclinations due to environmental stimulants that were consistent across the board. This is not the first time I have heard of the idea that man's propensity to believe in teleological answers is hardwired into our brains; a biological product developed as a result of our natural evolution in response to the world wherein we developed. While this certainly stands in line with an approach that denies anything greater than the observable world, at least as it relates to any ontological ideal, for those who hold belief in something outside the mundane, however, the argument is lacking.

Many of the answers proffered by Bloom, Kellerman, and others, do not negate belief in a divine. It really is a matter of perspective, as well as the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Did our brains develop with these capabilities and inclinations simply in response to a concrete world that man could not explain, or did these impulses develop to enable the creature to perceive and interact with that which lies outside the quotidian facets of our lives? It really depends upon which presupposition one begins with. If your inclined to believe in a creator/god etc, then you are more likely to begin with the idea that God came first and man was created and evolved with the characteristics necessary to perceive God and relate to him. The physical processes that can be measured and cataloged are simply the organs through this relationship is possible. It certainly does not negate the question of God in any way; that is, unless you want it too. Conversely, you can begin with the idea that God exist only within the intellect of man and this existence is nothing more than the mechanistic features of our brain's development. This is the divide that has long stood between those who believe and those who do not.

The psychology of religion is a very interesting field with so much potential for discovery--discovery and exploration into the wonder of our physical being. Perhaps we can better understand how we think and how our minds are developed to interact with an unseen world. While Bloom's work is fascinating, given its starting presupposition, it is of limited value to religious inquiry. However, there are others, most notably the father of the psychology of religion himself, William James. His book The Varities of Religious Experience is still a classic in this field and it is as relevant today as its was in the day the lectures were delivered.

What do you think? Make a comment and join me at disqus to continue this fascinating discussion!

Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page

Prayer doesn't belong in schools - NJVoices: Star-Ledger Editorial Page:

Prayer doesn't belong in schools

The above story highlights a controversy that has raged my entire life as well as my entire school career. Prayer in public schools was a topic that was frequently brought up in church when I was a child and it definitely was a much stronger political hot button than what it is today. Stories such as the one above serve to remind me that the controversy has not went way.

The idea that removing school sanctioned prayer from the public schools would ultimately lead to a godless secular society is a common argument whenever this topic arises. For much of my life, I accepted it as true. However, as I have become more aware of the religious pluralism in America, I have also had to rethink my position on this issue.

Let me make it clear that I think religious prayer is important irrespective of the venue in which it is practiced. Most religions have some form of prayer as a part of its practices. This prayer should not be inhibited or censored by the government or state in any way. Furthermore, one form or ritual of prayer should not be held in higher regard than another. Students across our nation should be free to practice whatever form of prayer they feel compelled to engage in, or be free from doing so should they not want to participate. If freedom is genuine, then it must extend to all person's the right to practice whatever religion they choose and be free to not engage in religious practices should they so choose.

Allot has changed in this country since I was a child. In my elementary school, I would venture to say that the majority of students came from Christian homes where prayer was a regular part of their lives. Today, however, in many places across our country, this can not be said. While the majority may still have Christian proclivities, there is a growing and significant minority within many of our communities where this simply is not the case. Children from Buddhist homes, Muslim or Hindu homes, and a myriad of other religious traditions are represented in almost every school system in our nation. Is it fair to subject these students to school sanctioned prayer that is Christian in nature and thereby exclude the prayer practices of others? How can school officials, teachers, ect, engage in such without adding a seal of approval and acceptance upon one form of prayer and by virtue of exclusion, denounce another? Would these same leaders be open to a Muslim prayer or a Buddhist meditation prior to a game or some school function? I highly doubt it.

The religious freedoms of this country mean nothing if they do not extend to and protect the least of all religions among us. As we become more and more of a religious melting pot, as the religious face of America reflects the variety in the religious practices of everyone as a whole, we must become more conscientious and careful in how we practice our freedoms so as not to inhibit or violate the rights of others. Additionally, respecting the rights of others should never be misinterpeted as compromise, at least, not in a negative sense. Cooperation builds community and being sensitive to the religious rights of everyone in a given community extends the value of relious practices rather than purely secularizing a community.

No doubt this discussion will rage on. What do you think? Do you see the regulation of prayer at public events and in public institutions a means of secularizing our society? How do we reconcile the fact that our Congress opens with prayer and yet our school days can not begin with it? What changes does our society need to make in order to show respect and give different religions their respective rights to practice as well as freedom from discrimination? Finally, is the charge of secularization a particulary bad one? Join me at Disqus to discuss these issues as well as others.

SOF with Krista Tippett: Interview with Janna Levy

American Public Media's, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippett, produced a show last week entitled Mathematics, Truth, and Purpose. In this show, Tippett interviewed Janna Levin, a theoretical physicist and assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College in New York City. In addition to her academic career, Levin is also a novelist. The interview concentrates on Levin's most recent book entitled: A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines. Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript that explains the subject of Levin's book:

Her 2006 novel, A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, explores great existential questions by probing the lives and ideas of two pivotal 20th-century mathematicians, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing. Turing is known as the father of modern computing, and his insights were made possible in part by Gödel's discoveries. In 1931, Gödel shook the worlds of mathematics, philosophy, and logic with his incompleteness theorems. He showed that some mathematical truths can never be proven or, as he says in Janna Levin's novel, that mathematics is perfect, but it is not complete.

To see some truths, you must stand outside and look in. This notion also held deeply unsettling human implications. It posited hard limits to what any of us can ever logically, definitively know. Janna Levin's novel imaginatively evokes the force of this idea in the classrooms and coffeehouses of Gödel and Turing's day, and in her own life as a 21st-century urban scientist. When we spoke in 2007, she told me she began her undergraduate studies with little active interest in science, convinced instead that philosophy was asking all the big questions.

If you missed this edition of SOF, then I highly recommend you go to their website and download either the podcast or the unedited version of the broadcast. It deals with unsettling but pertinent questions such as truth and the essence of free will. There are simply some things that lie outside of the observable region of empirical science. Levin's novel explores this idea, its implications, and how these questions were lived out in the lives and thinking of two great scientist whose lives are chronicled in the novel.

Catholics must confront scandal, not ignore it

In a recent Opinion post on USA Today's site, several contributors issued their opinion on Rod Dreher's OpEd piece entitled, How much is too much? where Dreher essentially admitted that his faith was so challenged by the entire ordeal that he left the Catholic church and has now become a member of the Eastern Orthodox church. This does not surprise me in the that there has been an exodus from the Catholic church in America due to these revelations of sexual abuse and scandal since 2001 when these revelations broke onto the public scene. What is surprising, however, is that Dreher has made a conscious decision not to report on any scandalous material in the EOC, something that I am sure cuts across the grain of his journalistic spirit.

These issues will no doubt be with us for a long time to come, and so they should. Church corruption, whether it be in Rome, Alexander, Springfield, or any number of small town churches throughout America and the world, will always be with us. Jesus, a devout Jew saw corruption in his day and confronted it vehemently. There was no stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away mentality. Jesus knew that faith was practiced by people and as such, it was subject to all the weaknesses and corruptions that humans are subject too.

One might rightly ask the question, if corruption exist in the upper echelons of power within these faiths, does it negate the entire faith as a fraud? Jesus was a Jew and I seem recall him confronting those making merchandise of worshipers right within the Temple complex, driving them out with a whip and the proclamation that his father's house should be a house of prayer, not merchandise. It was the High Priest and chief religious rulers that offered him up to Pilate, yet Jesus never renounced his Jewishness or the religion of his birth. Jesus is and will forever be known as a Jew. Even the apocryphal portrait of his return has him sitting down upon the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem; you can not get more Jewish than that!

This should tell us something about religion and the nature of those who adhere to them. We are not always the best examples or qualified to represent our faith to a world who desperately needs to believe in something. But, we can also take solace in the fact that sincerity outweighs imperfection every time. The Divine sees our hearts and there are example after example of where Jesus embraced those who were not doing things according to the book, so to speak, but whose hearts were contrite and pliable.

Yes, we must confront scandal where we find it. We can not turn a deaf ear to those who have been mistreated and despised by the very people they looked too for love and comfort. At the same time, however, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water. As Bonhoeffer said, there is a God shaped void in the soul of every man and our religious faith's-- with all their diversity and variety--serve to satisfy this irreducible need of mankind. Corruption is but a mere distraction from the real issues of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (this certainly is not making light of those recipients of abuse by any means).

Religion and Environmental Responsibility -Part 1

The following is an excerpt from the New York Times bestselling novel, The Shack (Jesus is speaking to the main character, Mackenzie Phillips about the way humans have mistreated the earth.):

"Our earth is like a child who has grown up without parents, having no one to guide and direct her." As Jesus spoke his voice intensified in subdued anguish. "Some have attempted to help her but most have simply tried to use her. Humans, who have been given the task to lovingly steer the world, instead plunder her with no consideration, other than their immediate needs. And they give little thought for their own children who will inherit their lack of love. So they use her and abuse her with little consideration and then when she shudders or blows her breath, they are offended and raise their fist at God." (144)

This is just one of the huge inventory of Christian theological issues addressed in the book. While many theological positions are developed (facilitated by a fictional meeting and multiple conversations between Mackenzie and God), many of which are no doubt problematic to some, the subject of creation care is dealt with in a profound way. Jesus speaks to Mackenzie of the lack of concern and the selfish manner in which man has taken care of that which is entrusted to him.

Last night, I was listening to a broadcast on our local NPR station called Charlotte Speaks. It was a broadcast of a panel discussion about engine emissions and what people could do on the individual level to help decrease this huge level of gases that are toxic to our atmosphere. Some suggestions were given but one of the panelist made a very sobering and true statement: "people will only genuinely respond to an economic incentive. That is, if it's valuable to me, presently and tangibly, then I will do something about it; otherwise, I may nod in assent of the problem but will likely refuse to participate in the solution.

One encouraging thing that we saw during the past election was the emergence of a centrist evangelical constituency that made environmental issues a priority. This has greatly helped to bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives and hopefully will help both groups to pool their resources together in an effort to truly make a difference on this front.

Our earth is one of the greatest treasures that we as humans posses. As caretakers, we are called to take our custodial role seriously and refuse to do things that continue to harm and destroy the beauty and potential invested in this great planet. God, the sacred, whatever your inclined to call him/her, is counting on us to be good stewards of that which is entrusted to us. We need to look for ways to be practically engaged in the work of creation care. We can all recycle, choose to walk when possible instead of driving, purchase goods and such that are environmentally safe, turning our vehicles off when waiting for our turn in the pick-up line at our kid's school. We can volunteer in groups to help pick up trash along an interstate or around sidewalks in town. Individual participation is key to the success of this endeavor. We can no longer sit idly by while our world is being destroyed; a world that our posterity will live in many years after we are gone.

This world is our home and we can not assume that God is going to do something in the near enough future to help us avoid disaster. Within the greater framework of Christian teachings, the incumbency of faithful stewardship of the gifts bestowed upon us is quite clear. In the Jewish creation narrative, man was given power over the animals and set in the garden as its caretaker. This caretaker image is indicative of the biblical teaching about man's relationship to the world he lives in.

All of the enduring faiths of the world convey this responsibility upon man. In my next post we will take a look at what these religions say about man's ecological guardianship.

Christianity from different perspectives (part 3)

Dr. Gary Ferngren and Dr. Marcus Borg (retired), both faculty of Oregon State University, debate issues of Christianity from dramatically different viewpoints. This is a three part series. Here is part 3:




For more debates regarding issues of faith and religion, see the Oregon State University Socratic Club.

Christianity from different perspectives (part 2)

Dr. Gary Ferngren and Dr. Marcus Borg (retired), both faculty of Oregon State University, debate issues of Christianity from dramatically different viewpoints. This is a three part series. Here is part 2:





For more debates regarding issues of faith and religion, see the Oregon State University Socratic Club.

Christianity from different perspectives (part 1)

Dr. Gary Ferngren and Dr. Marcus Borg (retired), both faculty of Oregon State University, debate issues of Christianity from dramatically different viewpoints. This is a three part series. Here is part 1:




For more debates regarding issues of faith and religion, see the Oregon State University Socratic Club.

Buddhism for the Non-Buddhist Layman

Download Free Ebooks � Buddhism for the Non-Buddhist Layman

In keeping with the spirit of this blog, I just come across this free ebook that purports to explain Buddhism to the non-Buddhist in language that is easily understood. Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to read this so I can not substantiate its claims; but, I do have it on my agenda to do in the near future and will either append my opinion to this post or I will add another post about the subject. If any of you get the chance to read this, please update us in the comment section with your ideas about it. If your a Buddhist and either agree with or find fault with the manual, I would appreciate you writing an objective critique and we will post it here as a blog post under your name.

For the record, we are looking for authors of various religious persuasions that can speak definitively on their faith. To reiterate, the purpose of this site is to take an eclectic approach to faith in an effort to improve interfaith relations as well as invoke interfaith dialog. (While this is a blogging community, the potential for discussion is greatly enhanced by our comment feature via Disqus. If you do not already have a Disqus account we encourage you to open one now. It is free and will help take our ability to discuss topics introduced here to the next level.) Faith, regardless of our varying religious persuasions, is the one thing we have in common. All of us who hold some form of religious belief have some structure to it, regardless of whether its rigorous or casual. If interested in participating in this group effort, please check out this page for more information. We really do want and need your help!

Can people of different faiths coexist together intimately?

For many Christians there are two scriptures that serve to regulate relationships for them:

• Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

• 2Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
  

Regardless of whether or not the interpretation of these passages is correct or not, they are used as is to discourage the development of relationships with people who do not agree with or adhere to their particular religious perspective. It is considered to be unequally yoked to be friends or romantic partners with a non-Christian, regardless of whether or not that person is an adherent of another faith or not. This is an exclusive mentality that tends to invalidate any faith besides its own; to become relationally engaged with people unlike themselves is to break a fundamental rule.

Now, it would be a violation of the spirit of this blog to make light of this practice and the ideals behind it. There are many good conservative evangelical Christians that take this to heart and feel that it is a non-negotiable rule. And, in many ways, there are good reasons for it. All of us have heard the statement that there are two things you simply can not talk about in public or even family gatherings: politics and religion. How many uncomfortable settings have we endured and relationships strained because of conflict in these areas. Thus, it would appear that this prohibition, this need to agree so to speak, is warranted.

To be honest, I've felt this way for much of my life, no matter what religious persuasion I was operating from at the time. I have been an evangelical Christian, a Wiccan/pagan, an agnostic, etc, and today I am a left leaning liberal progressive Christian (now there is a label for you!). Throughout each season in my life, I naturally gravitated toward those people with whom I had the most in common. This is just human nature.

My question, however, is does it always have to be this way? Notwithstanding the scriptures mentioned above as well as the natural inclinations of our human nature, is there not something of value to gain from developing relationships with those who are vastly different from ourselves? Obviously these are rhetorical questions, but is my faith so secure and complete so as not to be affected by intimate relationships with people of different faiths? I would hope so.

If the ideals of religious pluralism and tolerance are to prevail in our day, we are going to have to be willing to live and let live. This means that we must acknowledge that each person is on their own spiritual journey; a work in progress, an evolution if you will. Regardless of of how their faith measures up to ours, their spiritual journey is equally as valid as our own. This is not a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of freedom to follow the dictates of one's own heart. Each of us are free to develop our own ideas of of the divine and to formulate beliefs and opinions about how life is to be lived and how God is to be understood. It only becomes detrimental when we try to impose these ideas and understandings of God as the only legitimate way.

Tolerance is the key and we must learn to practice it in every sphere of our lives; in our families, marriages, and places of employment, etc. How rich our lives would be if we could share our faith with others and learn from them as well? The chasm between groups is man made and it can be bridged or removed altogether with some concerted effort. I happen to know this from personal experience.

This subject is more than abstract to me because my wife and I are very different in our religious beliefs. As I've stated before, I am more liberal than her in just about every area. Contrarily, she is more of an evangelical Christian and more conservative than I am. I would like to say that it has not been problematic but the fact is, it has. And, I would like to say that because I am the liberal one and inclined to represent myself as being more open minded, that she has had the greatest difficulty adjusting to our situation. But, unfortunately, I am not sure that is true. Ideological differences between people who are intimate can be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

One of the first things I had to do in coming to grips with our differences was to give her permission to not be like me. That may sound haughty; I mean, as if she needed my permission for anything. But, on my side, I had to give her the same latitude that I wanted myself. Shakespeare's famous quote in Hamlet is most applicable here: ”This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” Just as I must have the freedom to live out my spiritual and religious convictions, so should she be given the same freedom to be true to her self.

Because of our love and commitment to one another, we have made allot of progress in this area of tolerance and giving the other the space to be who and what they are. Fact is, her faith and convictions have positively affected me in too many ways to share here. I am thankful for how she sees God and she has helped me to be more sober and circumspect in how I relate my current beliefs with those I held in the past. To use a common cliché', its so easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thankfully, I am learning that I don't always have to relinquish every thing in my effort to embrace new and fresh ideas.

Lastly, I am not sure that there is an appropriate way to end this article, so I am not going to try. What I hope is that we can continue this discussion in our comment section. This should be an ongoing conversation among people of faith. Some questions for discussion: can two people get married and stay married with opposing belief systems? How can we introduce issues of faith in our relationships in a way that is non-threatening and productive? How do we reconcile our right to formulate beliefs and opinions about how life is to be lived and how God is to be understood with the civility of respecting other people's right to do the same thing? With a Mosque on one end of a street and a Synagogue on the other, how do we coexist together, pooling our resources to make positive changes for the community at large? These are all pertinent issues facing our world today.

Meet me in the comment section to continue this discussion.

Religious Pluralism: Seeing Religions Again with Marcus Borg

Best-selling author Marcus Borg, Professor in Religion and Culture, uses an interdisciplinary approach to examine the role and importance of religions and religious pluralism in contemporary life in this presentation at UCSD.

Just Say No to "Religious Tolerance"?

Setting a Higher Bar "Religious tolerance" may sound warm and fuzzy, but that doesn't cut it for Gustav Niebuhr. Mere "tolerance" of other faiths feels begrudging, he says, and we can do better. The good news is, people do--every day. Niebuhr tells us the stories you won't find in police reports or press releases, stories of ordinary people searching for common ground.




If the above player does not work for you, you can access the program here.

To go to the Interfaith Radio site where you can find more similar podcasts, click here.