Theology in the News

Restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose between mid-2006 and mid-2009 in 23 of the world’s 198 countries (12%), decreased in 12 countries (6%) and remained essentially unchanged in 163 countries (82%), according to a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Because several countries with increasing restrictions on religion are very populous, however, the increases affected a much larger share of people than of states. More than 2.2 billion people – nearly a third (32%) of the world’s total population of 6.9 billion – live in countries where either government restrictions on religion or social hostilities involving religion rose substantially over the three-year period studied. Only about 1% of the world’s population lives in countries where government restrictions or social hostilities declined.

Among the world’s 25 most populous countries – which account for about 75% of the world’s total population – restrictions on religion substantially increased in eight countries and did not substantially decrease in any. In China, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, the United Kingdom and Vietnam, the increases were due primarily to rising levels of social hostilities involving religion. In Egypt and France, the increases were mainly the result of government restrictions. The rest of the 25 most populous countries, including the United States, did not experience substantial changes in either social hostilities or government-imposed restrictions.

….continue

Share this:

Cross-post by Joseph W – Harry’s Place:

Anders Breivik was described by the chief of police in Oslo as someone with ‘Christian fundamentalist’ views, and since then, the label has stuck, and he has been widely described in the media as such.

However, Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism has to do with how you interpret your holy scripture and understand God.

Usually, it doesn’t mean “a really fervent Christian”, but it is a specific term to refer to a religious movement in the USA. But we can still see if Breivik matches up to the definition of a fundamentalist, as a fervent believer.

Breivik wrote this:

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.

So, nothing to do with theological beliefs or knowing God.

Being a Christian in a social sense is one thing – in the way that atheists can self-identify as “cultural Christians”. It is impossible for a cultural Christian to be a Christian fundamentalist.

There’s an obvious difference though, between Breivik’s concept of a cultural Christian, and most people’s. We are not talking about smells-and-bells church life, or singing Christmas carols. This guy thinks a “cultural Christian” is someone who fights the Muslims and the Marxists as a “Templar Knight”.

His Templar Knight ideology does not draw on any principles about belief in Christ, or any serious Christian theologian. He is not tapping into any stream of Christian thought, and is certainly a long way from Aquinas’ just war theory. His resolve is not to look into the theology or scriptures of Christianity, as a fundamentalist might.

Breivik seems to be the only person calling for a modern, “urban” Knights Templar, whose duty it is to kill Marxists and Muslims and die as a martyr. He justifies this by his own understanding of politics and society, but not by religious concepts. That is why we should caution against calling Breivik a “Christian fundamentalist”. It is inaccurate.

A Christian fundamentalist would not say this:

The cultural factors are more important than your personal relationship with God, Jesus or the holy spirit.

A fundamentalist would say the exact opposite.

These are hardly the words of a Christian fundamentalist either:

“I have reserved 2000 Euro from my operations budget which I intend to spend on a high quality model escort girl 1 week prior to execution of the mission. I will probably arrange that just before or after I attend my final martyrs mass in Frogner Church. It will contribute to ease my mind as I imagine I will get tense and very nervous. It is easier to face death if you know you are biologically, mentally and spiritually at ease.”

He also says this:

Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well. However, I have not yet felt the need to ask God for strength, yet… But I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill.

So the first time he would have prayed to God, would have been during his killing spree. I really think you would struggle to find a genuine Christian, who would pray for the first time when committing murder.

Does this “Christian fundamentalist” even believe in God?

He continues:

It is likely that I will pray to God for strength at one point during that operation, as I think most people in that situation would….If praying will act as an additional mental boost/soothing it is the pragmatical thing to do. I guess I will find out… If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past

So after all that, he is an agnostic. Nor does this seem to be a Christian wrestling with his doubts about God, or anything of the sort. I do not think that an agnostic of Breivik’s ilk can be aptly described as a Christian fundamentalist.

This is a point that even the leading new atheist thinker Sam Harris makes.

Breivik imagined that all Muslims should have to convert to Christianity by 2020, and change their name too. He said he was a Protestant, but he wanted the Protestant Church to merge with Rome. A Protestant fundamentalist would not say this!

His form of Christianity was only ever an identity marker, not a system of beliefs or a way to connect with God.

The other theory, if Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist, is that he could be linked to the Christian Identity movement. The thing about Christian Identity, is that they believe they are descended from the 10 tribes of Israel.

So if Breivik held to Christian Identity beliefs, you would expect him to say something about how the Nordic tribe are the lost house of Israel, something like that. Nothing appears in his thinking, though, about Christian Identity politics.

You could make the argument, I suppose, that Breivik is a Christian because he said so on his Facebook status. But he is not a Christian fundamentalist.

Share this:

Hospitalised patients who are able to talk about their religious and spiritual concerns are more satisfied with their care, but one-fifth are not given the chance to have these discussions, researchers in Chicago have found.

The authors of the new study, published online on 1 July in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, compiled information on the spiritual concerns of more than 3,000 patients hospitalized over a three-year period, and had the patients rate their sense of satisfaction with their overall hospital care.

The study found that 41 percent of patients had religious or spiritual concerns they wanted to talk about while in the hospital. These discussions took place among 32 percent of all patients.

The study also pointed out that the patients did not care who spoke with them about their religious concerns. What mattered most was just having the discussion. Most of the patients, 61 percent, spoke with a chaplain, 12 percent with a member of their own religious community, 8 percent with a doctor and 12 percent spoke with other people.

Half of the patients who wanted a discussion, however, did not get to have one (20 percent of patients, overall), the researchers pointed out. Meanwhile, one in four who said they did not want a conversation about spiritual issues had one anyway.

Regardless of whether they wanted the religious discussion or not, those that did reported being more satisfied with their overall level of care while in the hospital, the researchers noted.

The study’s authors concluded, ‘These data suggest that many more inpatients desire conversations about R/S than have them. Health care professionals might improve patients’ overall experience with being hospitalized and patient satisfaction by addressing this unmet patient need.’

Share this:

There’s a really cool interactive map of topography of faith in the US, broken down by States, that you may be interested in.

You can find it on the below link:

USAToday – Topography of Faith

Just roll your mouse over the map and the results appears on the right hand side.

Share this:

Veterans in Houston say the Department of Veterans Affairs is consistently censoring their prayers by banning them from saying the words “God” and “Jesus” during funeral services at Houston National Cemetery.

Three organizations — the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion and the National Memorial Ladies — allege that the cemetery’s director and other government officials have created “religious hostility” at the cemetery and are violating the First Amendment. According to court documents filed this week in federal court, the cemetery’s director, Arleen Ocasio, has banned saying “God” at funerals and requires prayers be submitted in advance for government approval, MyFoxHouston.com reports.

….continue

Hat-tip: David

Share this:

A poll released by Gallup yesterday confirmed what a deeply religious America continues to be. 92 percent of Americans still say “yes” when asked the basic question “Do you believe in God?” In 1947, this number was 94 percent. Considering the events over the past 60 years, this is a remarkably stable statistic to say the least.

Gallup notes that in particular, the belief in God is high across all subgroups of the population, but there are variances. Women are more likely to believe in god than men. Liberals are less likely to believe than conservatives. Young people are the least likely to believe. Those with a post-graduate education are less likely to believe than high school or college graduates. Finally, East Coast Americans are the least likely to believe in god, and Southerners are the most, with the West and the Midwest coming in equally in between.

….continue reading

Share this:

More than 18,000 people from 23 countries participated in the poll conducted by global research company, Ipsos Social Research Institute.

The poll also found that 51 per cent believe that there is an afterlife while 23 per cent believe they will just “cease to exist”. Around a quarter (26 per cent) say they do not know what will happen after death.

Bobby Duffy, managing director of Ipsos, told Reuters, “It may seem to many that we live in a secular world but this survey shows just how important spiritual life is to so many global citizens with half saying they believe in a spiritual being and the same proportion in an afterlife of some sort or other.

….continue reading

Share this:

Some revealing statistics on American attitudes from Barna:

Broadly defined, universalism is the belief that all human beings will be saved after death. On balance, Americans leaned toward exclusive rather than inclusive views. For example, 43% agreed and 54% disagreed with the statement, “It doesn’t matter what religious faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons.”

Similar splits in public opinion emerged for the statements, “All people will experience the same outcome after death, regardless of their religious beliefs” (40% agreed, 55% disagreed) and the sentiment, “All people are eventually saved or accepted by God, no matter what they do, because he loves all people he has created” (40% versus 50%).

However, even as millions of Americans believe God saves everyone, most still place strong responsibility on human effort and choice regarding their ultimate destiny. Nearly seven out of 10 adults agreed with the idea “in life you either side with God or you side with the devil; there is no in-between position” (69% versus 27%). And about half of adults concurred that “if a person is generally good or does enough good things for others, they will earn a place in heaven” (48% agreed, while 44% disagreed).

….continue reading

Share this:

The following article is an excellent summary of the current archeological battle raging between Islamic organisations and Jewish.

I have touched on some of this previoulsy here.

The Islamic Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) was founded in 1979 by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). It has three basic goals. The first is to spread a Saudi version of Koranic education throughout the Islamic world. The second is to publicize Islam to the non-Islamic world, both positively by touting Islamic civilization and its accomplishments—this it dubs “Dialogue among Civilizations”—and negatively, by protesting what it calls the “anti-Islamic campaign.”

The third goal is to oppose the “Judaization of Al-Quds”—i.e., Jerusalem. To that end, a recent ISESCO meeting in Amman has bitterly attacked archeological projects in the Holy City conducted by “the Israeli occupation authorities . . . in full breach of the relevant international laws and conventions.” Citing supposedly “objective and well-documented information on the alteration of the Sacred City’s character and obliteration of its Arab and Islamic identity,” ISESCO vigorously denounced all such “attempts to Judaize Al-Quds Al-Sharif.”

Of course, Muslim claims that Jews are threatening Jerusalem have a long pedigree. So, in particular, do attacks on Israeli archeological practice there. In 1974, UNESCO—the international organization that ISESCO nominally apes—was forced by the Arab states to vote sanctions against Israeli digs in Jerusalem and to deny Israel membership in the organization’s European regional group. Although Israel was readmitted in 1977, UNESCO’s bias continued to be so blatant that in 1984 the U.S., UK, and others temporarily left the organization.  Such a principled act is difficult to imagine today, even after UNESCO has declared Rachel’s Tomb to be a mosque and has condemned Israel for putting West Bank archeological sites on its list of National Heritage sites.

Is it necessary to point out that, in this area as in others, the true situation is the exact opposite of the one being portrayed? Israeli archeologists and the Israel Antiquities Authority have studied and preserved Islamic sites throughout the country. In the meantime, Islamic authorities and activists have exercised to the utmost their ability to deny and, if possible, obliterate evidence of any pre-modern Jewish connection to, in particular, the city of Jerusalem.

Islamic authorities have, for example, converted interior spaces of the Temple Mount into mosques and have removed immense amount of debris that happen to contain remains of earlier periods of Jewish occupation. Muslim “graves” have appeared overnight on disputed plots of land around Jerusalem. Efforts have been made to have Canadian authorities seize Dead Sea Scrolls being exhibited in Israel on the grounds that they are Palestinian cultural property illegally obtained. And, in a move as illogical as it is brazen, Palestinian intellectuals have attempted to manufacture a claim to Jerusalem that predates that of Jews by arguing descent from “Jebusites”—the city’s pre-Davidic residents whose presence is attested only in the Bible itself.

….continue reading

Share this:

This is absolutely super news folks.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – comprising 57 Islamic nations – have been trying for years to introduce a ‘Defemation of Religion” UN resolution. They have now dropped this pursuit.

This would have only favoured Islam and ushered in a dangerous global blasphemy law.

I think we’ve all seen how blasphemy laws are used in Islamic nations to terrify, subjugate, and in some cases, murder religious minority groups.

Previous posts on this can be found here and here.

Islamic countries set aside their 12-year campaign to have religions protected from “defamation”, allowing the U.N. Human Rights Council to approve a plan to promote religious tolerance on Thursday.

….continue reading

Share this: