Category Archives: religious news

education news, religious news, Sports news, State news

Baylor announces much-needed reforms

BayloruniversityCampus_jpg_800x1000_q100

It would seem logical to presume that an institution with Baylor University’s stellar reputation would be among the last places on Earth where one could expect to witness an unfolding sex scandal.

It’s a faith-based university known for its high moral standards. Isn’t that right?

It’s also known as a place where they play some pretty good college football.

So, some football players get entangled in a sexual assault case and the university allegedly turns its back on the complaints filed by students against the athletes.

The uproar has been ferocious. With absolutely justifiable reason.

Baylor now has announced plans to implement recommendations from a panel formed to fix what’s wrong at the school.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/10/baylor-announces-sexual-assault-task-force/

The Pepper Hamilton commission has found a “fundamental failure” at Baylor to uphold federal Title IX provisions that are supposed to protect students from abuses such as what occurred at the school.

One player has been convicted of sexual assault, but the stuff hit the fan after it was revealed that university administrators tried to hide the complaints against athletes.

Head football coach Art Briles was fired. University president Ken Starr was kicked out of his office and he quit his ceremonial job as chancellor; he remains on the faculty as a law professor.  Athletic director Ian McCaw resigned.

All three of those individuals had to go.

Now it’s up to Baylor to pick up the pieces of its shattered reputation.

The Texas Tribune reports: “Let me assure you all that we are deeply sorry for the harm done to students in our care,” interim president David Garland wrote in a letter posted online. “Even during the course of Pepper Hamilton’s investigation, we began adopting improvements to our processes, and now we are pursuing the other improvements remaining in the recommendations.”

Pressure is mounting for the school to release the contents of the Pepper Hamilton report.

That seems like a good start to clearing the air and shining the light of accountability on what has occurred at the school.

I’m sure that somewhere in that report is a stern warning that Baylor needs to heed to the letter in the future: Do not, under any circumstances, even think of covering up a report of sexual assault.

national news, political news, religious news

Yes, pray for the president

perdue

David Perdue is a U.S. senator from Georgia.

I don’t know much about him, other than he’s a Republican and — perhaps because he’s a Southern Republican — he’s probably quite conservative and devout in his faith.

He spoke today to the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in which he was talking about how we should pray for those in leadership. He mentioned the president, Barack Obama.

“We should pray for the president,” Sen. Perdue said.

Then he mentioned an Old Testament passage to illustrate his point.

“May his days be few,” Perdue said in quoting Psalms 109:8, drawing some cheers and applause from the GOP-friendly audience. It’s a nice passage and, taken by itself, has a light-hearted political twinge to it, which is one of the more fascinating elements of the Bible; one can put many passages into whatever secular context you want.

But wait! This particular Psalm says much more. Here’s what verses 9 through 12 tell us:

“May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

“May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!

“May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil.

“Let there be none to extend kindness to him, nor any to pity his fatherless children.”

Hmmm. It kind of loses its light-heartedness. Yes?

religious news, State news

Anti-Islam sentiment: nothing new

Anti-Islamic-Sentiment

Muhammad Ali’s death this past week brings to mind something that I hadn’t considered until, oh, just a few minutes ago.

The legendary fighter’s religious conversion became the subject of considerable discussion — and scorn — when he made that conversion … in 1964!

Which brings to mind this thought: The anti-Muslim sentiment we’re seeing in the present day is nothing new in this country. It’s been there for decades, maybe centuries.

Cassius Clay won the heavyweight boxing championship by scoring a technical knockout over Sonny Liston. Clay then announced he was becoming a Muslim and would change his name; he became Cassius X and later Muhammad Ali.

Sure, over time Ali’s stature would rise to heights not seen in professional athletes. He became a revered figure not so much because he changed his religious affiliation, but because of the courage he displayed in the face of the hatred that was slung at him.

The mid to late 1960s brought a level of turmoil that we hadn’t seen since, perhaps, the Civil War.

The Vietnam War was going badly. Ali became a spokesman against that war. That he became a Muslim — let alone a member of the Nation of Islam — and changed his name to that foreign-sounding moniker only inflamed many people’s passions against him.

Was there religious and racial bigotry coming to the fore then?

I believe there was.

Which brings us to what many Americans are feeling today about people who worship Islam.

Yes, it’s different now. Terrorists have perverted a great religion and committed unspeakable acts in that religion’s name. A leading presidential candidate — Donald J. Trump — has declared his desire to impose a moratorium on all Muslims entering this country; how in the world he would enact such a thing is beyond me.

As Ali’s death has revealed, though, the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is far from anything that was ginned up by those 9/11 attacks and by the Islamic State’s hideous actions.

The bigotry and intolerance has been wrong for a long time.

environmental news, national news, religious news

Why not debate climate change in public schools?

books

As a believer in the view that human beings are contributing to Earth’s changing climate, it causes me some pain to say the following.

I believe the Portland Public Schools system has made a mistake in banning texts that question the causes of climate change.

Oregon’s largest public school district has issued a directive that bans texts that cast doubt on what many scientists have said: that human activity has created a global warming crisis that threatens the planet’s ecosystem.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-20/portland-public-schools-ban-educational-materials-denying-climate-change?src=usn_fb

I grew up in suburban Portland, Ore., so this decision strikes me close to my heart. I attended Portland schools until the seventh grade; my parents moved us to the ‘burbs in East Multnomah County in 1962.

I have long feared that human activity — deforestation and the emission of carbon gases into the atmosphere — have contributed to the changing climate. Did you see the latest report that said April was the 12th consecutive month of record temperatures worldwide?

That doesn’t mean, though, that we cannot allow our students access to those who doubt the results of such activity.

This isn’t even close to the same thing as teaching the biblical version of Earth’s creation alongside Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. One theory is based on a faith-based belief; the other is based on science. Teach the scientific theory in public schools and teach other in church.

Climate change and its causes, though, seems to be fair game for an open discussion in our public schools.

The Portland school system has slammed the door on those who have raised legitimate concerns about the notion that Earth’s climate is changing and that humans are the primary cause of that change.

Do I accept those concerns? No. That doesn’t mean they’re coming from crackpots.

The students would do well to be exposed to competing ideas on this important global issue.

 

International news, national news, political news, religious news

Mayor to Trump: Thanks, but no thanks

Sadiq Khan

Sadiq Khan made history by becoming the first Muslim ever elected mayor of London.

He’s a distinguished man who apparently doesn’t like other politicians patronizing him.

So, when presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Donald J. Trump offered to grant the mayor-elect an “exception” to a proposed ban on Muslims visiting the United States, Khan offered a terse “no thanks.”

This is precisely the kind of reaction Trump should have gotten in response to his ridiculous — and patently unconstitutional — proposal to ban people from entering the United States on the basis of their religious belief.

Trump issued the call in the wake of the Paris terror attacks. He said he would, if elected president, work to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. Why? He said the threat of Islamic terrorism coming to this country is too great.

Trump does not grasp the idiocy of this proclamation.

Mayor-elect Khan has rejected Trump’s offer to exempt him from the ban. He wonders about how other Muslims would react if they want to come to the United States “on holiday.” What if they want to go to Disneyland, Khan asked, but they can’t because “President Trump” says they aren’t welcome here?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows absolute freedom to worship as one believes. It has been interpreted during the past two-plus centuries to mean that no one should be discriminated against because of their religious faith.

Trump has proposed something that utterly flouts one of the basic tenets on which this country was founded.

Sadiq Khan — the duly elected mayor of one of the world’s truly great cities — saw through it immediately.

He understands what it means to be an American more than the individual who is poised to be nominated to run for the presidency of the United States.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Once again: Constitution is a secular document

delay_constution_140220a-2-800x430

Tom DeLay knows his audience and he speaks their language.

In this case, the former U.S. House majority leader was speaking a couple of years ago on a religious program hosted by John Hagee Ministries.

If only, though, he would speak accurately about the very founding of this great republic.

Host Matt Hagee asked DeLay where he thought the nation had gone wrong. DeLay’s response was, shall we say, more than little off the mark.

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/02/tom-delay-people-keep-forgetting-that-god-wrote-the-constitution/#.VTt_WhZmKvw.facebook

“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government,” DeLay explained. “When we stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”

Well …

Where do we begin?

We’ve had a “secular government” since its very founding. The Constitution — as I’ve noted in this blog before — contains precisely two religious references. That would be in Article VI, which declares that there should be “no religious test” for anyone seeking election to public office; and in the First Amendment, where the founders declared there would be “no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

That’s it, folks.

The founders knew precisely what they were doing when they omitted any other religious references in the Constitution. They intended for the government to be free of religious pressure or coercion.

I happen to be totally OK with that.

DeLay, though, sought to parse the Constitution differently when he told the Hagee Ministries audience about how God “wrote the Constitution.”

This gets to the debate that continues to this day. Indeed, it’s been going on virtually since the United States of America emerged from its revolution.

The Rawstory item showed up on my Facebook feed today I suppose as a reminder that this national debate likely never will go away.

Can’t we just accept the notion that the founders built a government framework that would be free of religion, but which allowed each of us to worship as we see fit?

That happens to be — in my humble view — one of the true-blue beauties of a secular government.

political news, religious news

Hey, the day of prayer hasn’t been canceled after all!

prayer-pic-11

Did you notice that we’re having a National Day of Prayer today?

What in the world … ?

Haven’t the right-wing scoundrels and Internet trolls out there been saying something about President Obama “canceling” this annual event? Haven’t they accused the president of being a barely closeted heathen who hates people of faith?

Well, the National Day of Prayer is continuing this year as it has all along.

The president has been just as diligent and faithful in his acknowledgment of this day as all his predecessors have been.

Obama’s immediate predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, spoke just as clearly as and articulately as the current president about this special day, which was enacted in 1952, during the final full year of President Harry Truman’s term.

Those of us who believe in God’s power and draw strength from it welcome this day. Moreover, those of us who share that belief understand that God takes many forms in the hearts of those who believe in the Almighty.

In this current climate, though, the National Day of Prayer takes on a special significance.

Many of us today fear those who worship God in ways with which we are not familiar. A major-party presidential candidate awaiting his party’s nomination has given voice to those fears by declaring his intention to ban people of a certain faith from entering the United States.

Let’s pray, therefore, for those who share that fear. Let us also pray for those leaders who articulate it aloud.

They need our prayers today. And always.

As for those who keep yammering about the cancelation of the National Day of Prayer … just be quiet, bow your heads — and pray.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Reason prevails in Tennessee statehouse

Old fashionet American Constitution with USA Flag.

Tennessee’s Republican governor, Bill Haslam, has put his veto pen to good use.

He vetoed a bill that would have made the Bible the “state book” of Tennessee. Frankly, such a law looks like something that might one day find its way to the desk of the Texas governor.

His reasoning is interesting, to say the least. Haslam said giving the Bible such a designation “trivializes” the holy book.

I applaud the governor for making a reasonable decision.

“If we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we shouldn’t be recognizing it only as a book of historical and economic significance,” Haslam said.

Indeed.

Here’s another thought: Giving the Bible such a designation quite possibly would violate the U.S. Constitution First Amendment prohibition against government establishing a state religion.

The Bible is a sacred text. It belongs in the homes of families whose faith relies on the Bible’s teachings. It belongs in churches where clergy preach its holy word.

It does not belong as a government-designated “official book.”

Don’t those fine public servants who serve in the Tennessee legislature understand the oath they took, the one that says they would support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

The Constitution they swore to uphold is a secular document. It prohibits governments at all levels from enacting the kind of law that came out of the legislature in Nashville.

And, yes, the Bible is a sacred text. Let’s not cheapen it by making a state’s “official book.” The Bible is a much more profound document than that.

 

medical news, national news, political news, religious news

Abortion tempest erupts

 

Chalkboard - Abortion

Donald J. Trump finds himself in the middle of a tempest over arguably the most contentious political issue ever.

Again!

The Republican Party presidential primary frontrunner said Wednesday — in response to some aggressive questioning by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews — that a woman should face “some punishment” were she to obtain an illegal abortion.

Yep. He said that. A woman should be punished.

Then the firestorm erupted. What in the world is he talking about?

Republican candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich were quick to condemn Trump’s statement. Then came the fury from Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Within a couple of hours, Trump issued a statement that said the doctor should face the sanction, not the woman whose pregnancy was ended.

I won’t bother you with a dissertation on my own views of abortion, as you perhaps already know I remain pro-choice on the issue.

What is bothersome about Trump’s answer and then his recanting of his initial response is the non-preparedness the candidate keeps exhibiting when pressed for answers on these critical issues.

Abortion matters deeply to many millions of Americans. It seems, to me at least, that few of us have mild feelings about the issue. We’re either fervently pro-choice or pro-life. Trump’s view on the issue has evolved over time. He is seen on videotape telling an interviewer about a decade ago that he is “strongly pro-choice.” Then he told Matthews this week that he is “pro-life.”

I’d be curious to know what changed Trump’s view on this issue. How did he go from one firm position to another? Perhaps the only other major-party politician I can recall pulling such a dramatic switcheroo would be George H.W. Bush, who abandoned his pro-choice views immediately upon accepting Ronald Reagan’s invitation to join him on the GOP presidential ticket in 1980.

Donald Trump initial answer to the question of whether a woman should face punishment reveals what Sen. Cruz identified correctly as Trump’s utter lack of preparation to discuss these issues when confronted with them.

Somehow, though, I cannot escape the feeling that Trump will find a way to deny he ever said what millions of Americans already heard him say.

Most disturbing of all will be that many Americans will believe him.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Ga. governor vetoes anti-LGBT law … yes!

religious-exemptions-georgia

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has done the right thing by vetoing House Bill 757, which sought to give faith-based business owners the option of denying jobs and services to gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals.

Those who supported the bill said it protects religious liberty. Those who oppose it said it discriminates needlessly against Americans who shouldn’t be denied their rights as citizens.

There had been reports of pressure being applied by HB 757 foes who said the bill could result in the loss of business and jobs in Georgia.

I’m glad the anti-bill folks won this argument.

Gov. Deal, a Republican, denied he was reacting to pressure from either or both sides of the divide. According to CNN: His decision, he said, was “about the character of our state and the character of our people. Georgia is a welcoming state. It is full of loving, kind and generous people. … I intend to do my part to keep it that way. For that reason I will veto House Bill 757.”

I accept that rationale for doing the right thing by the residents of his state who comprise the whole range of humanity — and all sexual orientations.

One of the more fascinating responses to this doing-business-with-gay-people came not long ago from Ohio Gov. John Kasich, one of three men running for the Republican presidential nomination.

During a debate with the other candidates, the question came to Kasich about legislation allowing business owners to deny serving gay individuals or gay couples. Kasich’s response was about as compassionate as it gets.

He said he believes in “traditional marriage,” but said that those who are in business of serving the public need to understand the differences among all people. Some of those differences involve sexual orientation.

He said that if he were put in that position as a business owner, he would serve a gay individual or a gay couple and then would “pray for them” — privately, seeking his own counsel with God.

I hope that’s part of the complexities of the issue that has driven Gov. Deal to veto this bill approved by his state’s legislature.

Let’s not seek to interpret what is in one man’s heart and soul.

Whatever the reasons, Deal knows what they are. His veto speaks volumes all by itself.