Tibetan Buddhist Mandala

 

KAREN HUMPHRIES SALLICK (Tibetan Buddhist Practitioner): The mandala is a teaching and meditation tool so that we can focus on evoking in ourselves the Buddha nature that we Buddhists believe you have inside you.

A sand mandala is made typically from precious stones that have been hand-ground and then hand-dyed. The sand goes in a funnel. They’ll rub it and the sand will come out. That’s how they put these layers of sand down to create these beautiful, spiritual forms of art.

post01One can use the mandala as an aid to meditation helping you through the process of eliminating emotions that are unhelpful to you so that you can then uncover and evoke what’s in the center.

There are thousands of mandalas, and, in fact, even for one type of mandala there are several ways to do it, depending on how much time the monks have. You can take five days. You can take a month to build a mandala. Every aspect of the mandala has meaning.

The very center is the representation of Chenrezig, the Buddha of compassion. Tibetan Buddhists actually believe that His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of Chenrezig.

The next ring outside of the central figure of compassion are representations of four different Buddhas. The Buddha for eliminating hatred is represented by a thunderbolt. Then we have a jewel that represents the deity that can eliminate suffering. Then we have a wheel of knowledge or dharma, the deity that represents the elimination of ignorance. And then the last is a green sword that cuts through jealousy.

The next circle are lotus leaves. If you’ve ever seen a statue of a Buddha, they are often sitting on a lotus flower, so the family of Buddhas that are represented in the center are sitting in a ring of lotus.

Then outside of that is the vadra ring of protection from negative thoughts.

Finally, in the very outside ring — fire, and that fire is to burn through ignorance to enlightenment.

The dissolution is actually a very important part of the mandala process, because it really is showing the nature of impermanence. As Westerners, we get so attached to things. So here’s this beautiful mandala that these monks have worked five days on. And, with no emotion whatsoever, they reach their hand into the middle and just mess it up. And then they’ll sweep it up with brushes, and they’ll place it into a vase.

The mandala will be brought to the water. The deities in the mandala will then go into the water as a blessing, back to the Earth.

The Tibetans believe that anyone who watches the building and dissolution of a mandala actually accumulates merit and can begin to evoke that Buddha nature, being the most compassionate we can be.

A Moral Budget

 

BOB ABERNETHY, host and correspondent: We have a report today on the moral choices involved in the intense negotiations underway in Washington over what to do about the country’s $14.3 trillion debt. If the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2, in just one month, the Treasury Department says for the first time in American history the government will not have enough money to meet all its obligations. The Administration wants Congress to raise the debt ceiling so the government can borrow more to pay those bills. But many members of Congress say they want, first, a believable long-term plan to reduce the deficit. So far, there’s no agreement on such a plan, so the debt limit remains, and so does the countdown to default.

All over Washington, from Congress to the White House, among the K Street lobbies, at the think tanks, and at scores of conferences and panels, experts are trying to solve the problem. One experienced voice has been that of retired Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming. He was the co-chair of last year’s special presidential commission on the debt.

ALAN SIMPSON: If we don’t get a plan out of this by August 2, then hang on tight.

ABERNETHY: And “hang on tight” implies what?

post01-moralbudgetSIMPSON: Implies inflation. It implies the people who are going to loan us money want more interest for it. It will be a different lifestyle for Americans, and inflation will eat through the system, and the little guy will be the guys most hammered.

ALICE RIVLIN: If we don’t raise the debt limit, we would probably have a crash in the markets, and it would be very serious.

ABERNETHY: Brookings Institution economist Alice Rivlin headed the budget offices at both Congress and the White House.

RIVLIN: I think we are talking about a moral issue. We do not want to leave our children and our grandchildren with a worse economy and a much harder life than we are enjoying.

ABERNETHY: There’s no mystery about the cause of the debt problem. As the number of older Americans has gone up, so have the costs of the so-called entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. New medical technology drives up health care costs, and two wars have gone unpaid for. It’s estimated that the war in Afghanistan is costing nearly $120 billion dollars this year.

RIVLIN: To borrow without limit and without thinking how we are going to pay this back seems to me stupid and immoral.

ABERNETHY: For Simpson, there is also the problem of selfishness.

SIMPSON: Well, don’t blame it all on Congress. Blame it on the American people who sent people to Washington to bring home the bacon. And the way you got re-elected was you just went and got it for them, and now the pig is dead. There is no more bacon to bring home.

post02-moralbudgetABERNETHY: Solving the debt problem is not only an economic and political challenge. The crisis raises basic philosophical and moral questions about the kind of government and society Americans want. Last April, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives passed a budget for next year proposed by the chair of its budget committee, Paul Ryan. He outlined his plan to the American Enterprise Institute.

PAUL RYAN: This budget begins by lowering taxes, with the top individual and corporate tax rate capped at 25 percent, so we can get real growth and economic competition in America.

ABERNETHY: And then…

RYAN: …it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over just the next 10 years. It is not just a budget, it is a cause…

ABERNETHY: …the conservative cause of reducing the size of government. Michael Gerson, a former White House speech writer, is a columnist for the Washington Post.

MICHAEL GERSON: I think it is fair to say that conservatives are not just interested in a balanced budget. They want a limited government which is, you know, a smaller government, a less expansive government. That’s really a conservative argument here, that too much government undermines the independence and responsibility of citizens.

ABERNETHY: The Ryan budget drew sharp criticism from many in the religious communities, among them former congressman and ambassador Tony Hall.

post03-moralbudgetTONY HALL: We need to get our fiscal house in order, but not on the backs of the poor and hungry. They didn’t get us into this current mess, and hurting them is not the way out of it.

ABERNETHY: Jim Wallis is the editor of Sojourners magazine.

JIM WALLIS: Those of us who are Christians are bound by Jesus’ command to protect the least of these the most, the most, so we ask what would Jesus cut?

ABERNETHY: The two chairmen of the Catholic bishops committees on domestic and international justice wrote Congress expressing their “serious concern.” So did 75 scholars, most of them at the Catholic University of America. Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the Catholic social justice lobby Network, says she and others oppose the House budget because it doesn’t seem to reflect Catholic social teaching.

SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: The essence of Catholic social teaching is that it is based on the dignity of the human person, that we all hold dignity because we are created by God, that together in society we hold shared responsibility for each other. Government’s role then becomes to ensure that the least are cared for. That’s why it’s so chilling to us to watch what’s going on in Congress about the budget. It’s the very safety net programs that the current budget fight is targeting, and to me this is wrong. It, quite frankly, is immoral.

ABERNETHY: Congressman Ryan, too, is Catholic. He agrees that the poor and sick should not be hurt, but he insists the way to avoid that is to keep taxes low so private investors can create new jobs.

post05-moralbudgetCAMPBELL: That’s just wrong. The wealthy have recovered to pre-recession levels. Are they investing in jobs? No.

ABERNETHY: And what about leaving massive debt to our children?

CAMPBELL: I think it’s not a good idea. But there is a simple fix. You can solve this issue in a very simple way. Raise revenue.

ABERNETHY: Not something easy to do. As the moral debate sharpened, Ryan wrote a letter to the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, insisting that his budget does indeed respect Catholic social teaching. The archbishop replied that he was happy to hear that. In the midst of the arguments, there was a brief diversion over the ideas of Ayn Rand, the late atheist writer and philosopher whose book, The Fountainhead, and a movie based on it, were popular in the 1950s. Rand preached a radical, small government, everyone-for-himself libertarianism which some congressmen, among them Paul Ryan, said they had admired. A liberal blogger tried to discredit them with a film contrasting Rand’s selfish individualism with the teachings of Jesus.

In spite of all the claims and charges, many observers do see middle ground.

SIMPSON: You can’t tax your way out of this baby, and you can’t cut spending as your way out of this baby. It has to be a blend.

post06-moralbudgetABERNETHY: But all the moral debate has not made compromise easy.

GERSON: I think moral motivations in politics are very important. But when you claim that your own views somehow have a divine sanction, you’ve cut off all political argument. This should be an argument about outcomes, what is really best for the justice and decency of a society. I think a limited government is important to that, and I think a government that provides some of the most basic needs for the most vulnerable people in society is important to that as well. That’s where a lot of Americans are.

ABERNETHY: Alan Simpson thinks his former colleagues will head off a national crisis and that their constituents will accept the need for sacrifice.

SIMPSON: I think there are a lot more heroes in Congress than we recognize.

ABERNETHY: Gerson and Rivlin say they, too, are at least somewhat optimistic.

GERSON: You are going to have to have Republican and Democratic leaders come together around this. They’re very dug in, but there is no other choice.

RIVLIN: There will be a lot of posturing and a lot of difficulty, but we will raise the debt ceiling, and over the next several years we will bring our debt under control.

post07-moralbudgetABERNETHY: Alice Rivlin was the director of the budget offices at both Congress and the White House. She served on two budget commissions. She says last year there were unofficial focus groups in 26 cities that were asked to work on the debt problem. When they heard the facts, Rivlin says, each of them was able to work out a plan. Not all of them came up with the same solution, but no one failed to reach agreement on something. It seems to be quite different for Congress and the White House, raising the question whether the federal government can compromise and act on an issue as difficult as this one, with so much moral passion and partisan ideology.

More on this with our managing editor Kim Lawton. Kim?

KIM LAWTON: Bob, the religious community continues to be very involved in this debate, bringing some of that moral passion, and they are lobbying on both sides or all sides of this issue. This week we had 24 religious and charitable organizations writing a letter to the Administration and congressional leaders saying in all of your debt ceiling discussions don’t forgot about the poor, the vulnerable, the least of these, what they called them. And on the other side you had religious conservatives lobbying Congress, saying don’t accept any debt ceiling solution that doesn’t include dramatic spending cuts, and they also used moral language, saying it’s wrong to leave debt to our children, using a biblical passage to support that. So, again, energy on all sides on this moral question.

ABERNETHY: That’s right, and morally and ideologically it spills over into the whole idea of a smaller government, which of course is what the conservatives want very much.

post08-moralbudgetLAWTON: And that’s a big issue on the campaign trail, too, which is really heightening all of the political rhetoric on Capitol Hill out on the campaign trail. So many of the GOP candidates are out there really appealing to the conservative base, talking about these issues. Michele Bachmann, the new GOP candidate, who is an evangelical Christian, very much reaching out to her base saying I’m not going to support, I’m not going to vote for any debt ceiling measure that doesn’t include dramatic spending [cuts]. And of course, you know, religious conservatives are so important for the GOP during this period because about forty percent of Republican primary voters are self-identified evangelicals, so everybody’s sort of reaching out to them, seeing it as a big stepping stone.

ABERNETHY: Do they have any favorites so far?

LAWTON: They seem to be pretty divided still. Michele Bachmann polled very well in Iowa this week, which surprised a lot of people. She’s very popular among those very conservative religious groups. But there are disagreements among evangelicals. Some take a more moderate point of view. Evangelical leaders in a recent poll liked Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota governor, but he’s not as well known nationally, so there still seems to be a lot of room for jockeying among evangelicals.

ABERNETHY: Meanwhile, there’s the whole issue of fourteen million people who can’t find jobs.

LAWTON: And that’s the big issue that’s really dominating everything, and people are jockeying for a solution, and no one seems to have a good solution. So, indeed, that’s really been overshadowing so many of the other issues that you often hear about early in a campaign, and that’s what you see the candidates talking about, and obviously that’s what you see members of Congress wrestling over with the Administration as well.

ABERNETHY: Kim Lawton, many thanks.

The Soul of Klezmer

Watch our audio slide show featuring the Grammy-winning Klezmatics in concert with special guest Joshua Nelson, the prince of kosher gospel music, at the annual Washington Jewish Music Festival at Washington DC’s Jewish Community Center. Listen to our interview with Nelson and with Klezmatics band members Frank London (trumpet and keyboards) and Lorin Sklamberg (lead vocals, accordion, guitar, and piano). And revisit our 2001 story on klezmer music. Photographs by Sam Pinczuk. Edited by Fred Yi.

 

French Secularism

 

DEBORAH POTTER, correspondent: One iconic image of the Paris that tourists come to see is Notre Dame Cathedral, a centuries-old symbol of Roman Catholicism in France. But inside this Catholic church in Paris, the sparse congregation reflects a wider truth: Christianity is on the wane across Western Europe, and nowhere is its decline more visible than in France.

REV. MICHEL BRIERE: The eldest daughter of the Church, that’s what we were called. Today, saying you believe in a religion takes a real identification of faith. Today, the number has really diminished.

POTTER: Twenty years ago, about 80 percent of French people described themselves as Catholic. Today, it’s just over half and less than 5 percent—most of them older—regularly go to Mass. Father Briere blames a growing culture of consumerism and a Catholic hierarchy that he says has been too rigid, failing to draw young people into the Church. That’s true across Europe, but France is a special case, a country where religion is widely seen as a source of trouble. If France had an official religion it would be laicite or secularism, a principle that’s enshrined in this country’s constitution and reflects its history of religious wars between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the French Revolution, that basically booted the Catholic Church from power.

That history lives on in French movies and classrooms, where students are taught in gory detail about a 16th-century massacre, when thousands of Protestants [Huguenots] were slaughtered by the Catholic forces of the King. And that history still lies on public display in Paris. These are the bones of Catholic priests killed and mutilated by a revolutionary mob in 1792—small wonder that the French concept of separation of church and state is strikingly different from that in the US, says Jocelyne Cesari, a French political scientist and research fellow at Harvard.

post01-frenchsecularismPROFESSOR JOCELYNE CESARI (Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University): There is this idea that the state has a responsibility in France to control and regulate religion that otherwise can lead to civil war.

POTTER: That control extends to the churches themselves, including Notre Dame, which all became state property 100 years ago, along with existing synagogues. Another example: in France, for a marriage to be legal it has to take place at a city hall. Church weddings are ceremonial but not official, and the wall between church and state doesn’t end there.

CESARI: In the French case it means also restraining or limiting as much as possible the public manifestation or expression of religious groups. In other words, in France it’s better if you act civilly with no religious affiliation. It’s seen as more legitimate, while in America it’s quite the opposite.

POTTER: But the idea that religion should be kept private has collided with the reality that France has changed. Islam is now the country’s second biggest religion. France has the largest Muslim population in Europe—almost five million, twice as many as in the United States, according to recent estimates. Many are the French-born children and grandchildren of Muslim immigrants from former colonies like Algeria, who moved to France after independence in the 1960s.

M’HAMMED HENICHE (Union of Muslim Associations): Those who practice today are not the same as those who practiced before. They were people who came from their homelands, immigrants, so they tried to be as quiet as possible. Today, these are French people who never set foot in the Middle East or Africa. They were born here, grew up here, and they are practicing Muslims and they are reclaiming their religion. They see themselves as French and Muslim. Why would they hide their religion?

post03-frenchsecularismPOTTER: They may not want to hide it, but in some cases they’re being forced to. Over the past decade, the French government has clamped down on the display of religious symbols. Since 2004, students have not been allowed to wear headscarves, large crosses, or skullcaps in public schools. The result: new Muslim schools like this one, where every girl in this 11th-grade class wears a headscarf. “We come because we can wear it,” one of them says.

This year the government went further, banning the niqab or full-face veil not just in schools but in all public places. The law affects a tiny minority of Muslims—only a few hundred women wear it in France—but those who do were outraged.

WOMAN: When I hear France—liberty, equality, fraternity—it’s a big lie. I feel like I’m in a dictatorship.

VERONIQUE RIEFFEL (Islamic Cultures institute): The ban is a very bad thing because, you know, every Muslim, even men and even women who don’t wear the niqab, feel concerned, you know, feel rejected by this ban.

POTTER: But the vast majority in France approved of the ban—80 percent, according to public opinion polls.

WOMAN: Look, I think secularism is indispensable. It’s a protection so everyone has peace, believers and non-believers, and so all these religious, fanatic excesses are regrettable, appalling. I’m very much a feminist. I hate the idea of the veil.

post02-frenchsecularismPOTTER: Despite the new laws, a very public display of religion takes place every Friday in this Paris neighborhood. Two streets are closed to traffic so thousands of Muslim men can pray outside a mosque that’s much too small to hold them all, largely because of property costs. France has just 2,000 prayer rooms and a few dozen full-sized mosques. While the community solicits donations to build new ones, the local government allows this public exercise of religion, to the annoyance of some non-Muslims. There are other chinks in the wall of secularism. Religious schools can receive state funding. Most national holidays come from the Catholic Church calendar, and once a year Catholics from all over flood the streets of Paris as they leave on a three-day, 75-mile pilgrimage to the Cathedral of Chartres.

OLIVIER BOBINEAU (Paris Institute of Political Studies): But people don’t like it. They don’t like it, even Catholics. The pilgrimage to Chartres? Those are fundamentalists , traditionalists. Our culture erases religion. We’re here but we don’t show ourselves.

POTTER: Olivier Bobineau teaches the sociology of religion and lives it himself. He’s a Catholic who wears a small cross on a chain that he keeps hidden most of the time. But one night, at a meeting with high government officials…

(speaking to Bobineau): … so you leaned forward, you could see it, and somebody said..

post04-frenchsecularismBOBINEAU: Be careful.

POTTER: … put that away.

BOBINEAU: Yeah. Today it’s unimaginable to go against the state, against the public space, and to show a cross, a skullcap, a veil. It’s impossible. It’s wanting to destroy the state. That’s what the French feel. The majority of French people do not think it’s possible to be French and Muslim. Most French people think you can’t be a citizen and believe in God. We are the most atheist people in the world. Why? Because when you are a believer, in France people think you have lost your freedom, your reason, okay?

POTTER: The French also remember the violence that broke out across the country a few years ago. For two weeks, young Muslims angry about unemployment and discrimination took to the streets and burned thousands of cars, and that anger has not entirely subsided.

HENICHE: We are a little anxious. I have to tell the truth. We are anxious. You sense it among the faithful because the faithful are returning to the mosque. Maybe that’s a positive thing. It’s pushing Muslims to return to the mosque. They sense a threat, that the days ahead won’t be better days for us.

POTTER: The tension comes down to a fundamental disconnect, with French Catholics seeing Islam through their own secular prism.

post05-frenchsecularismCESARI: What they are expecting from Muslims is this kind of very loose connection with no particular affiliation to Islamic organization, with no particular desire to dress differently or to eat differently, but okay, you can be buried as a Muslim or you can marry in your—you can have a religious ceremony in your mosque. This would be okay.

POTTER: Underlying the debate over Muslim dress is the question of security after 9/11.

BOBINEAU: People say that’s what religion is. It’s violence. Look at the news, the Twin Towers, bin Laden. The news reinforces the illusion that this is a war of civilizations.

HENICHE: We think we have work to do to convince the French people, to show them that Muslims are patriots, and the proof and history is with us.

POTTER: The Great Mosque of Paris is one piece of that history, built by the French government in the 1920s to honor Muslim soldiers who fought and died in World War I. At this cemetery outside Paris, the only all-Islamic burial ground in France, each grave represents a Muslim family’s decision to call France home. The new generation sees itself as both Muslim and French, no matter how uncomfortable that makes their secular countrymen.

For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, I’m Deborah Potter in Paris.

Christian Theme Parks

 

LUCKY SEVERSON, correspondent: This is the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. It’s a big place with lots of exhibits depicting the creation of the earth in six days, just as it occurred in the Book of Genesis. Ken Ham, a former high school science teacher from Australia, is the CEO of the Christian ministry that created the museum.

KEN HAM: I’d say the Creation Museum, what’s happened here is way above our expectations. It exceeded all of our visions and dreams.

SEVERSON: He says some of the 1.3 million visitors who’ve come here in the last four years are simply curious, but a majority, like Danella and Donna from Indianapolis, are believers.

MUSEUM VISITOR: The Bible is the Bible, you know. God created the earth and all of it in 6 days. Can’t argue with God.

post08-creationparkSEVERSON: It’s a place where homo sapiens and dinosaurs live together in harmony, where Adam and Eve explore the Garden of Eden, and Noah builds an ark loaded with creatures small and large, even dinosaurs. Ken Ham now has plans to build his own ark, a really big one, much longer than a football field, all part of a huge theme park called the Ark Encounter. He says his ark will have the same dimensions as the one described in the Book of Genesis.

HAM (speaking on radio): Genesis, could it be a metaphor?

SEVERSON: Ham delivers his views about the ark and creation in 90-second radio spots that air, he says, on over 600 radio stations nationwide. He says his views are gaining traction, although they are not yet widely accepted in the religious community. But it’s not Ham’s version of the creation that troubles Reverend Joseph Phelps, pastor of the Highland Baptist Church in Louisville. It’s the tax break that has been approved for the ark park.

REV. JOSEPH PHELPS: I honor anyone who has a different understanding of creation than I or my church might have. That’s not the problem at all. It’s when, as in the case of the theme park, when they want to ask for public monies in order to fund putting out their particular point of view. That’s where we have a problem.

HAM: It’s not really a tax break, it’s a tourism incentive, and what it is, it’s actually a rebate on the sales tax generated at the particular facility.

post04-creationparkSEVERSON: What it is is a tax rebate that would allow the ark park to recoup more than $37 million in sales taxes. Under Kentucky’s Tourism Act, any company that promotes tourism is entitled to a rebate. The Creation Museum is considered a nonprofit ministry, but the ark park is intended to return a profit to its private investors. Pastor Phelps and other religious leaders argue that the tax break would violate the separation of church and state.

JOSEPH PHELPS: Well, first of all, I think it’s unconstitutional. I think to put out a particular religious point of view, such as that theme park, or if it was an evolution theme park, either one of those points of view, if they’re coming from a religious vantage point, cannot be merged with government funding, government support.

HAM: Don’t we have freedom of religion in this country? Don’t we have freedom of speech? So if you were a Christian, and you happened to be running a business that happens to have a Christian theme but you are a for-profit business, why is that different to a secular business that’s running something that just doesn’t happen to have a Christian theme?

SEVERSON: The conundrum here is that Kentucky desperately needs jobs.

HAM: The Ark Encounter is going to employ almost a thousand people, and the impact on the number of jobs associated with that is going to be in the thousands, and our particular research has shown it will be many thousands, and it will bring millions and millions of dollars into the community. In fact, the research that we did shows that the economic impact of the Ark Encounter project over 10 years will be something like $4 billion.

post05-creationparkSEVERSON: Kentucky’s Democratic governor supports the tax incentives. He says he wasn’t elected to debate religion, he was elected to create jobs, especially in hard-hit communities like Williamstown near where the ark park will be located and where a majority of the unemployed have been out of jobs for over two years.

WADE GUTMAN: The city and the county both are in desperate need like every place in the country for revenue, and this will generate a tremendous amount of revenue.

SEVERSON: Wade Gutman is the head of the Industrial Development Office and the Chamber of Commerce for Grant County. He says he has slept with a smile on his face ever since he heard the theme park was going to be in his backyard.

GUTMAN: I would have a definitely different feeling if it was nonprofit. But since it is for-profit, and it will create so many jobs and boost our economy almost immediately once construction starts, I couldn’t find anything to be against it about.

DAN PHELPS: In the original story, Noah basically built the ark on his own shekel. He didn’t have any government funding or anything like that involved.

SEVERSON: Dan Phelps is president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society. He joins other academics who say the theme park sends the wrong message about Kentucky.

post09-creationparkDAN PHELPS: They’re doing it on the aegis of saying that this will bring a lot of jobs to the state, and it might bring a large number of low-paying jobs to the state, but it’s definitely hurt the image of Kentucky. Jay Leno has already joked about Kentucky and the ark on his monologue on at least two different occasions.

SEVERSON: But Phelps’s biggest concern isn’t Kentucky’s image. It’s the message the theme park will send to the state’s high school and college students.

DAN PHELPS: Almost every year here in Kentucky we have attempts to get laws enacted into the state legislature that would promote creationism, and right now outside of the larger cities a lot of students aren’t learning very much about evolution. The textbooks soft-peddle it. The teachers tend to avoid the subject basically for fear of offending people, and the Creation Museum and the ark park can only make this worse in Kentucky.

HAM: So in other words they only want their particular view presented. They want their view of millions of years and evolution and there’s no God presented. They really don’t want someone like us having the freedom to present this particular position.

SEVERSON: Ham has not minced words in his views of mainline churches that don’t espouse a literal translation of the creation.

post01-creationparkHAM: Yes, I would say that churches aren’t doing their job if they’re not teaching the Book of Genesis as it is meant to be taken, because many churches, unfortunately, have taken man’s ideas of millions of years of evolution and then they reinterpret the Book of Genesis., and what we would say is, while we wouldn’t question their Christian testimony in regard to their salvation, we would say that they are really undermining the authority of God’s word.

JOSEPH PHELPS: I don’t preach against creationism, but I would say that the majority of our church would support an evolutionary understanding of how God created this world.

SEVERSON: And they would support your position against giving them this tax break?

PHELPS: Yes, this church is a strong supporter of the separation of church and state.

SEVERSON: According to some interpretations of the Book of Genesis, it took Noah about a hundred years to build the ark. The Ark Encounter is scheduled to launch in three years.

For Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, I’m Lucky Severson in Petersburg, Kentucky.

News Roundup

 

BOB ABERNETHY, host: The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops gathered in Seattle this week for their annual spring meeting. A key part of the agenda was reviewing sex abuse prevention policies they adopted in 2002. The bishops passed minor revisions but said overall the guidelines have “served the church well.” Still, there are lingering questions about compliance and accountability.

Joining me now is Kim Lawton, managing editor of this program. Kim, are the bishops really following those 2002 guidelines?

KIM LAWTON, managing editor: Well, they say the majority of bishops are following the guidelines, but there are a couple who are not, and that has lead to some pretty high-profile scandals—one in Philadelphia, another one most recently that, last couple weeks in Missouri, where the local bishop had to apologize for a priest that was arrested on child pornography charges.

ABERNETHY: And whether a bishop has to follow those 2002 guidelines is up to the bishop. There’s no way that the other bishops can make him do that, right?

post01-newsroundupLAWTON: Well, they are nonbinding, and the bishops say that they don’t have the authority to discipline or impose penalties, that only the pope can discipline a bishop. So therefore they say this has to be part of the “fraternal correction,” and it is sort of voluntary.

ABERNETHY: The Southern Baptists, Southern Baptist Convention, also gathered this week in Phoenix and took steps to make their denomination more diverse, more ethnic diversity. It elected an African American from New Orleans as a first vice-president, on track to become perhaps the president of the Southern Baptist Convention in a year.

LAWTON: Perhaps.

ABERNETHY: Perhaps. So there’s something going on there.

LAWTON: Well, they are trying to reach out, I think. There has been some apologies for racism in the past. But they are trying to reach out as well. There was some concern that they have been declining in baptisms and even a slight decline in membership. They’re still the largest Protestant denomination, of course.

ABERNETHY: Sixteen million, is it?

LAWTON: Sixteen million.

ABERNETHY: I was thinking about this Libya thing and the Congress putting pressure on the president. There’s a relationship, isn’t there, to a religious tradition?

LAWTON: Well, the political debate is whether or not the president has the authority to authorize and continue the military effort in Libya without congressional authorization, and the just war tradition also says that in order for military action to be just it has to have the sanction of the proper authorities, and so there is that moral connection that the political debate is also sort of tied to, and there’s been another debate in the religious community I’ve been watching as well. I’m seeing increasing numbers of religious conservatives raising concerns about the Libya action. Many of them had been supportive in other military efforts, but on this one raising concerns on moral issues, economic moral issues, raising questions about whether or not it’s moral to spend that much money—over $700 million dollars—on this effort.

ABERNETHY: Kim, many thanks.