On the face of it, still, Congress definitely should not be sticking its nose into the affairs of religious organizations. But in the case of high profile ministers that claim that they need a private jet to spread God’s word such as Kenneth Copeland while also retaining a tax exempt status is a bunch of BS.

Look, if you want to send money into some guy who uses it to promote his own billionaire lifestyle (Jesus lives in God’s mansion right?), then go ahead, but the fact that these organizations represented by such billionaires are tax exempt because they are supposed to represent a Jesus’s religious mission, then, is simply wrong.

If Copeland wants to be a motivational speaker, then pay taxes. By not being honest with his intentions–or at the least very misguided–Copeland and others like him deserve to be investigated.

Although, I’m glad to see Congress investigate, ultimately, besides some type of criminal charge, I’m sure it won’t change the fact that Copeland-like snake oil salesmen will continue to exist and exploit.

ps: For all those kids out there thinking about stealing car stereos, there’s a much better future in saying the word “God” over and over again with your hands outheld for dollar bills. It’s much more lucrative and as long as you’re not greedy you can live a good life. Probably better than rap and rock stars.

 Again, all in all though, I wonder if the survey would’ve turned out differently had people been given the definition of what atheist and agnostic meant. Would they still willfully answer incorrectly? I think Jacoby’s critique is true, but a bit to rigid and unforgiving.

“About seven in 10 of those surveyed said they believed that many religions can lead to eternal life and that there is more than one true interpretation of the teachings of their own religion.”

However, atheists who believe in God?:

“one fifth of those who said they were atheists also said they believe in God, and that one in 10 said they pray at least once a week.”

Maybe then they’re agnostics?

Perhaps, what this survey shows is not so much that people are open-minded about religion, rather it shows that they feel like they should care about religion but really don’t. Perhaps, this is simply part of that “social desirability bias” where people say that they go to church, but don’t. For example, in this and other studies roughly 40% of people said they attend church on a weekly basis while actual attendance reflects about 20% of Americans actually attend on Sundays.

The study also showed that many people do not adhere to all the official beliefs of their respective religions. This indeed reflects the reality in many studies on religion.

In my own experience, which is anecdotal, I feel that many of these people may appear so inconsistent, not only because they are open minded, but also because many people really don’t care that much about “knowing” about the religion or path of spirituality they practice. Oftentimes, religion is something claimed more than practiced or studied. I know for a fact this is not the case for everyone who is religious as I attend a religious school (Graduate Theological Union), however, I also know friends and family members who can be really adamant about their beliefs without really applying them in their daily practice of living.

 Then again, who am I to judge? I am an atheist who attends a theological school — although I am always reminding people of my particular interest in religiosity and meaning in American subcultures and that I’m not studying theology but social theory, blah, blah, blah.

 Perhaps, given more time and an in-depth interview, everyone would contribute the “real story” behind their apparent lack of adherence, open-mindedness, and worst of all contradictions (such as myself).

I’m not sure I would be one who would privilege a gay, lesbian, or transgendered relationships as I know some who are very deeply in love and others who have rocky relationships–but I do think that indeed if my mom’s stories of such love had any effect it is one that shows one can be both religious–even with evangelical Christian leanings–and respect a marriage as an official recognition of love between two people who choose to give love and living together a try–something at which heterosexual couples have failed very miserably at since the 1970s (as seen in escalating divorce rates). Every couple should have the opportunity. Today is a great day in California history.

Really, as an ex-Christian myself, I think it is a shame that some out there continue to use their religion as a stick to beat others over the head. If they actually read the Bible and acknowledged the primary message of the New Testament, it is one that preaches, love, forgiveness, and understanding (e.g., feed the poor, he without sin throw the first stone, etc.). I’m not against the power of religion to invigorate people to act politically, but using it to legislate marriage between a biological man and woman seems to be a huge waste of time–even if significant symbolically. There are so many other important moral duties to attend to such as helping those less fortunate (e.g., Habitat for Humanity).

All in all, I really don’t even see why the state should have a say in regard to defining marriage between a biological man and woman in a world where we know so many glbt couples live healthy, happy, and productive lives.

I originally heard Hernandez’s commentary on NPR. Although, race and ethnicity can be an interesting dimension in research, we shouldn’t take it to be an absolute defining component of those individuals who fall into that category. Ultimately, in his commentary, Hernandez does fall into another defining category: age. But nonetheless his critique is important as we move forward and should compel us to seek mulitiple factors that may be outside of any one category of definition when discussing a “group.”

In other words, we all belong to more than one “group” and, of course, there’s always that “individuality” thing, too. Although, “individuality” is more useful ideologically than it is when attempting to understand the key determinative factors behind an individual’s point of view.

 <<click here>>

Following a well-oiled victory - if only a popular one - handed to Hillary in Nevada (she got the votes, he got the delegates), the Clintons revved up the attack leading to South Carolina. That victory seemed to embolden the tag-team assault on every aspect of Obama’s record and character. A reminder of what a Clinton presidency is like.

But, it seems, they over-stepped themselves with the ugly display of race-baiting. And while the media wouldn’t officially admonish them, the South Carolina voters certainly did. Well done.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign responds to the rebuke by voters. Will she change tactics, or ramp up the attack, which has been a long-standing trademark of the Clinton strategy.

It’s also nice to get a little reminder that a little subtlety goes a long way.

* playing on the iPod: Leonard Cohen’s “Tonight Will Be Fine”

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any Democratic candidates beyond Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. Weren’t there upwards of nine at one time? And looking over the Republican field, who is there after Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain?

There isn’t a one among the entire lot that’s offered any true conviction or an innovative idea. Sorry Hillary, but no one cared for your universal healthcare idea when you were first lady. And while the sentiment is understandable, distancing yourselves from Bush isn’t a position. We’re a country at war, with a slumping economy, and a dire housing market. We, as a country, need someone who isn’t afraid to make grown-up decisions - which, more often than not, tend to be unpopular decisions.

Is there a Democrat who’ll stand up to MoveOn.org (and the loud, non-voting contingent of activists)? Are any of the Republicans up to the task of working with a Democrat controlled Congress. And just as a side-note, it’s time for that Democrat controlled Congress, with it’s 22% approval rating, to get its act together or they’ll be ushered out soon too.

Here’s a thought for all these primaries that have been moving up the dates to increase their state’s relevance: how about we add “none of the above” to the ballot, so the slate can be wiped clean before it’s too late to make changes to the field of hopefuls?

Besides Bollinger’s introduction/tirade against Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad speaking to American students really allowed him to expose something about himself and policies in Iran that people should find extremely disconcerting.

His remarks about there being no homosexuality in Iran – even though there are laws in place to punish homosexulity, even by death – were met with both laughter and boos. Because this is the most televised part of the speech, we can see this as emblematic of what type of regime, mentality, we’re dealing with in Iran. There he stood with a straight face denying something so real within society. [text of Ahmadinejad’s speech]

Ashram Parsi an Iranian gay activist who started the Iranian Queer Organization has dedicated his life to calling attention to the mistreatment of gays in Iran.

 Even in an article on Fox.com that interviewed some families against Ahmadinejad’s visit had some interesting results. Patrica Roberts whose son Jamaal R. Addison died in Iraq was quoted in the beginning of the article: “There is no consideration for people who have sacrificed so much,” and she went on to say that she was shocked that a terrorist would be invited to speak at a university in the U.S.  

Yet, by the end of the article she shifts a bit:

And, while Roberts was passionately opposed to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia, she said she feels she understands why Columbia would extend the invitation, and why college students would want to hear him speak. 

“We can’t be sure that what our country is telling us is correct,” she said. “They are our enemy because we’ve been told that they’re our enemy. Maybe they were thinking that he will tell us things that are being hidden from us,” she said. “I’m sure a lot of discussion went into it.”

Roberts’ fury is directed not at the university but at the government. She said mismanagement of the war and foreign policy created distrust among young people that would spur them to seek out what she called “balance, to hear the other side.”

I think Roberts’ point of view discloses why it’s not a “bad” thing to let some of our enemies in the world talk at uncensored events. It provides an opportunity for us to get a raw sense of what we’re dealing with … without it being mediated by our gov’t or the news media.

Honestly, I think Ahmadinejad is much more frightening in the raw than he appears in the media. This is important.