It makes you wonder

Kelly Clark wrote a passionate piece about teaching people of faith to doubt science. His story begins with a tale of religious persecution. Christian professors at Christian universities have been silenced or dismissed for casting doubt on young earth creationism. What is funny about that is many of these same universities and seminaries have been so vocal about religious liberty. Nothing supports religious liberty like harassing fellow Christians for telling the truth about biology and geology. That is truly remarkable.

And while most scientists and some theologians and philosophers teaching at Protestant Christian colleges know this, very few are willing to speak out. The message of the dismissals is clear -- speak out and get fired. When dissenting Christian voices are squelched or fired, faculty clam up. 

Christian colleges and seminaries desperately fear change. According to Peter Enns, "The theological tradition embraced at Westminster Theological Seminary, stemming from deliberations in England during the seventeenth century, is nevertheless perceived by its adherents to enjoy an unassailable permanence and in need of no serious adjustments, let alone critical reflection, despite many known advances in biblical studies or science since that time." 

How can Christian intellectuals be getting fired, just when Christians need leadership on this and other science-related matters? With such a paucity of intellectual assistance, Christians feel forced to choose between the science of human origins, on the one hand, and an antiquated theology of human origins on the other.

Liberty at the expense of others is privilege. Unfortunately, there is more than just glaring hypocrisy on display here.

Here is Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and culture war brawler:

I would suggest to you that in our effort to be most faithful to the scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the gospel an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and what it means and why it matters.

As the scientific evidence comes in conflict with the narrative pushed by some Christian leaders, it turns people away from faith. If they see faith leaders invested in teaching untrue things, then why should believe anything else they teach? A stumbling block is being created. So are you really working for Christ if you are demanding people of faith accept a narrative what they know to be false?

There is another bit of false witness to consider. The work of creation is ongoing. It did not start and stop a few thousand years ago. God did not snap fingers to create everything in one fell swoop and then retreat to the distant heavens to keep track of who is naughty and nice. That does not sound like the God I know and serve. The work of creation is not finished. I question the discernment of a religious leader that claims otherwise.

Nothing about creation is uncomplicated or static. God promises perfection will be worth the wait.

Congratulations, Hobby Lobby

A majority of U. S. Supreme Court Justices loved your masterful defense of Christian privilege for company owners like yourself. Good for you. You are every bit as good as churches and non-profits.

This is an enormous feather in your cap. Your personal faith was applauded in the highest court in the land. "Sincerely held" beliefs. From their mouth to God's ears.

You were already a legend among evangelical Christians. Your money is a very big deal. They call you and your family "Kingdom givers" and "a shining light in the Christian community." It is not pride, vanity, or arrogance when the accolades are deserved.

Even the secular Forbes Magazine called you "a Christian company in every sense."

Ignore the spoilsports that question your selling of junk made in China where religious persecution is real, abortions are encouraged by the government, and worker exploitation a deadly reality.

Products bearing "Made in China" labels are found all over the shelves at Hobby Lobby, evidence that some of its wares come from Chinese factories that have a reputation for labor rights violations and rock-bottom wages. Employees at these facilities often end up working grueling hours in prison-like conditions and never earn enough to escape poverty. 

"You cannot call your business 'Christian' when arguing before the Supreme Court, and then set aside Christian values when you're placing a bulk order for cheap wind chimes," wrote Christian author and columnist Jonathan Merritt in a recent article for The Week.

Haters gonna hate.

And gloaters gonna gloat. We all know where God stands on the political spectrum.

The desire to make money does not act as a waiver of constitutional or statutory rights, nor is it morally suspect, but it certainly is indispensable to a system of free enterprise that all too many on the Left view as the enemy of “social justice.” 

It may seem like hypocrisy to some that you still cover erectile dysfunction pills and penis pumps, but you are just pro-creation in not wanting to see medical interference with pregnancy unless there are fertility problems. Even if your actions increase unwanted pregnancies, there is no contradiction in opposing contraception and abortion. We all know it is a slippery slope, so to speak. Your belief that life begins at fertilization is "sincerely held" and must be obeyed, especially those women that work for you and might have been tempted to use an intrauterine device.

Never mind those complicated questions blurring the lines between individual and corporate rights. Christian ethicists like David Gushee seem to forget that a true Christian would never abuse their position of authority.

The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability. Therefore, Hobby Lobby is asking for special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.

I confess to not being able to see see how this high-profile, divisive case serves the cause of Christ. It must be a complete failure of imagination on my part.

Iraqi Christian diaspora

Christmas was marked with more bloodshed in Iraq. Christians were targeted in three powerful bomb blasts that killed 38 people and wounded 52 others. Many of the victims were leaving a church following services. The scene was simply horrific.

Ahmed Edan, a policeman on duty in the area of the attacks, said the sound of the first of the two explosions caused worshippers to leave the church.

"A car parked near the church exploded when the families were hugging each other goodbye before leaving. The blast was powerful," he said.

"Bodies of women, girls and men were lying on the ground covered in blood. Others were screaming and crying while they were trying to save some of their wounded relatives."

My heart goes out to the Christians of Iraq. During the past decade, they have fled their homes, churches, and communities because of growing violence and persecution. It is a morality play worthy of Shakespeare.

After the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, his followers dispersed across the Mediterranean basin to spread the good news of God's abiding love for all. The gospel is thought to have spread eastward from Damascus into the plains of Nineveh through the tireless efforts of two of the original disciples - Thomas and Jude.

Ironically, we remember Thomas as the disciple that refused to believe Christ had risen from the dead until he saw and touched the wounds left by the nails. His doubt lead to the encounter recorded in John 20:24-27.

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

All we know of Jude comes from his short letter warning of Christians in name only that treated Eucharist feasts as excuses to eat, drink, and be merry. The brief epistle ends with powerful benediction (Jude 1:24-25).

24 Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

The seeds scattered by these and other disciples grew into a vibrant Christian community that has lived and worshipped together for nearly two thousand years. Never more than about 5% of the population, the strength of their faith allowed them to hold fast to their beliefs.

I stand in awe of Christians in places like Iraq where they are a tiny minority, outnumbered 20 to 1 and no doubt subjected to social pressures to conform to the beliefs and practices of the majority. Saints Thomas and Jude are surely pleased with the faith taken to heart by those that heard their message.

In America, it takes little courage to practice Christianity as it is the overwhelmingly dominant religious belief. We have our sectarian divisions within the body of Christ often leading to unseemly squabbles, but worship free of fear. Sometimes we even get so full of ourselves that we fail to respect people in our communities that have different religious beliefs or none at all. It has even become fashionable for some Christians to disingenuously claim persecution if they are not given dominion over all.

I sometimes if it is a blessing or a curse for Christianity to be the dominant religion. It is probably both. We can practice our faith with ease but it lends itself too easily to lukewarm and lazy practice. But I digress.

Ten years ago, our political leaders engaged in false witness against the people of Iraq. They accused Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction and colluding with terrorists to harm America. We now know those were nothing but lies. However, egged on by some prominent Christian leaders, our country bombed, invaded, and occupied Iraq. In the process we squandered nearly two trillion dollars and countless people in Iraq died from violence and the collapse of infrastructure.

Even when the lies, incompetence, corruption, torture, and random acts of extreme cruelty associated with this debacle were exposed, none of the Christian leaders that supported the war repented. In fact, some even mocked those that opposed the war.

One of the bitterest fruits of our arrogance and malice has been the persecution of Christians in Iraq after the war. The persecution has several root causes. One is that the chaos created by the war fostered sectarian violence. Thanks to our ugly mixture of faith and politics, many in Iraq became convinced that the war was part of a "crusade" against Islam. Adding further fuel to the fire, many American evangelical organizations rushed into Iraq after the war to proselytize. They did so over the objection of Iraqi Christians who had a 'live and let live' relationship with their Muslim neighbors.

When the fruit of "evangelism" is the persecution of a Christian community that traces its roots to two of the original twelve disciples of Christ, the tree seems suspect at best. Iraqi Christians with the means to emigrate have fled, finding new homes in Chaldean communities in Syria, Lebanon, and the west. The less fortunate languish in refugee camps. The exodus has decimated this once vibrant body of Christ. Poisonous fruit indeed.

The injustice of this inglorious mess troubling. The Christians of Iraq seem to have paid a terrible price for the hubris of Christians in America. Too many here championed violence instead of peace. They gulped down lies like beer at a college fraternity party. Puffed up in pride, they sold Christ like just another commodity. Their consciences seem bullet-proof against the suffering left in their wake. Reflection and repentance are nowhere in sight. All of these folks claim to have been led by the Holy Spirit, yet the fruits of their actions are anything but good. I find it all hard to fathom.

Lord, I pray for the victims of violence in Iraq, Christians and Muslims alike. Give your peace to all that mourn. Uproot the trees sewn in hatred. Wash away the tears. Heal the broken in body and spirit.

The toxic debate over contraception among American Christians

The debate over reproductive rights among American Christians is childish and embarrassing.

The whole religious liberty kerfuffle in America today has nothing to do with people having the right to worship as they choose. Instead, we have been treated to an intellectually dishonest debate over contraception. Catholics and some Evangelical Protestants claim that contraceptives should not be included in health insurance because some hormonal methods cause abortions. They have even coined a clever monicker for these hormonal treatments - "abortifacients."

Let me illustrate how the "debate" over religious liberty and conception takes place among Christians.

Fred Clark, a progressive Christian writer, noted the tendency among some Christian leaders to equate contraception with abortion. To illustrated the point, he used the lawsuit by a Christian publishing company claiming its religious liberty had been trampled by being forced to cover contraceptives it labelled "abortifacients." The debate was also politicized by several references to the "religious right."

Timothy Dalrymple,  a prominent evangelical Christian writer, punched back.

Fred Clark (“slacktivist”) and other hard-left progressives have accused evangelicals of lying about the abortifacient nature of some contraceptives. According to this view of things, evangelicals are really just dead-set on opposing anything associated with President Obama, so they have invented the excuse that some contraceptives are abortifacient (abortion-inducing) in order to give themselves a justification for joining Catholic efforts to overturn Obamacare or at least eliminate its contraceptive mandate. In fact, with his usual charity and subtlety (/sarcasm), Clark conflates opposing contraception in principle (which evangelicals generally do not) with opposing the use of specific contraceptives that can cause the destruction of a fertilized egg (which evangelicals generally do), and likewise conflates opposing contraception (do not) with opposing church-supported distribution of condoms to unmarried young people (often do).

Notice the rhetoric. Dalrymple paints those who support health insurance coverage for contraceptives as political extremists - "hard-left." He also claims that Clark called evangelicals liars for equating contraception with abortion. That is more polemics because Clark questioned the factual basis for the equation rather than calling it a lie.

Clark fired back, this time calling evangelicals a bunch of liars.

So, my dear evangelical brothers and sisters, can we please stop lying for Jesus by saying that emergency contraception is “an abortifacient”?

It will not be long before 'poopy-head', 'terrorist', and 'baby killer' are thrown around as epithets. Beyond the name-calling, the debate is counterproductive and ultimately harmful to the body of Christ. We serve Christ, not religious or political leaders. You would never know that by the hyperbolic discussion of contraception by Christians in America.

First of all, Clark is correct in stating that emergency contraceptives do not cause the body to abort a fertilized egg. People that call it an "abortifacient" are wrong. Here is a clear statement of the biological mechanism of action (emphasis added) from the medical literature.

A major barrier to the widespread acceptability and use of emergency contraception (EC) are concerns regarding the mechanisms of action of EC methods. Today, levonorgestrel (LNG) in a single dose of 1.5 mg taken within 120 h of an unprotected intercourse is the most widely used EC method worldwide. It has been demonstrated that LNG-EC acts through an effect on follicular development to delay or inhibit ovulation but has no effect once luteinizing hormone has started to increase. Thereafter, LNG-EC cannot prevent ovulation and it does not prevent fertilization or affect the human fallopian tube. LNG-EC has no effect on endometrial development or function. In an in vitro model, it was demonstrated that LNG did not interfere with blastocyst function or implantation.

In other words, emergency contraception messes with the hormones (particularly progesterone) to stop ovulation, but does not prevent fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg. It does not destroy a fertilized egg as some Christian leaders claim. The only thing that is aborted is their credibility.

The second problem is that the debate over contraception coverage by health insurance is not really about emergency contraceptives. The most widely used emergency contraceptive is available over the counter. The coverage requirement is for commonly used prescription contraceptives. It is not because the primary mechanism of action destroys a fertilized egg, but because there is some risk to prevent implantation.

“In summary, the primary contraceptive effect of all the non-barrier methods, including emergency use of contraceptive pills, is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. Additional contraceptive actions for all of these also may affect the process beyond fertilization but prior to pregnancy. For some methods these actions may be significant in contributing to their overall contraceptive efficacy.” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Equity Toolkit (Accessed 2012-02-26). From ACOG Statement on Contraceptive Methods (July, 1998).

Some Christians have become so rigid and arbitrary that any hormonal treatment that can potentially interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg is considered an "abortifacient." How touching that we are so very careful with the well-being of a fertilized egg, even before it is even capable of further development beyond a single cell.

The controversy boils down to whether you consider a fertilized egg a fetus. The medical community defines pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg. The reason is simple. A fertilized egg is not viable until it is implanted in the uterus and the cells begin to multiply and differentiate. Some Christians, particularly politically powerful Catholic and Evangelical leaders, want to call a woman pregnant when an egg is fertilized and treat the disruption of implantation as an abortion. That belief has a very interesting history.

The debate over contraception also undermines any meaningful discussion of abortion. Calling the use of medications that might interfere with implantation of fertilized egg murder and an assault on human dignity is a sham.

Additionally, both Evangelical Protestants and Catholics believe abortion is the extinguishment of a person created by God, a being at whose conception personhood begins. Thus, abortion is a profound assault on human dignity and a violation of the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

This is cynical politics and sloppy theology. The very next chapter of Exodus prohibits retribution for causing a miscarriage (Exodus 21:22-25).

“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise.

From an ethical standpoint, if I want to err on the side of caution out of reverence for life and avoid contraceptive methods that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, there is nothing that stops me. There is no requirement in our society to use contraception. I can act freely within the dictates of my conscience. The ethical high ground, however, collapses when I want to impose my value system on others. Some Christian leaders want all employers to have the right to deny coverage for family planning. It does not matter whether you work for a university, hospital, nonprofit, publisher, or any other business. It does not matter what your own personal beliefs about contraception happen to be.

What do you call Christians that want to protect every fertilized human egg but barely lift a finger to stop the already born from dying of hunger, thirst, disease, war, or execution? Mental gymnastics over a fertilized egg require even more time, money, blood, sweat, tears, and political capital for the already born if one's concern is truly rooted in respect for life. If you want to protect every fertilized egg but cannot be bothered about the already born, you better hope the Lord has a well-developed sense of humor about hypocrisy.

And let's not forget that by opposing the most effective forms of contraception, you are deliberately increasing the chances a woman will have an unwanted pregnancy. There are few good outcomes with an unwanted pregnancy, but the advocates of prohibiting hormonal contraceptives do not care. The woman's choices at that point are extremely difficult. She can terminate the pregnancy, but wrestle with the emotional and moral issues for a lifetime. Or she can bear the emotional, physical, and financial costs of carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption. Lastly, she could become a parent despite not being prepared for the responsibility and perhaps lacking the resources to effectively raise the child.

The authoritarian streak in some Evangelical and Catholic leaders is on display in the fight over contraception. Perhaps if they cared less about their own power and more about the well-being of their flock, the debate would not be so unbecoming to the body of Christ. Do these people seriously think they bring glory to Christ by equating the use of hormonal contraceptives with abortion and murder?

Equal opportunity pulpits

There continues to be considerable resistance in some quarters to the ordination of women. The battle seems to particularly pitched in the Catholic Church where the Vatican has recently cracked down on any dissent in the ranks. For example, the American nuns participating in the Leadership Conference of Women Religious were harshly reprimanded and branded "radical feminists" for even hosting speakers that advocated the ordination of women. High profile priests have even been excommunicated for supporting leadership roles for women, including Roy Bourgeois of the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers. This zero-tolerance policy for dissent is strangely ironic for an organization that has huffed and puffed so mightily on the subject of religious freedom.

Perhaps the intolerance of any discussion on the ordination of women is not having the intended effect. The National Catholic Register just published an extraordinary editorial in support of ordination of our sisters in Christ. The opening salvo does not mince words.

The call to the priesthood is a gift from God. It is rooted in baptism and is called forth and affirmed by the community because it is authentic and evident in the person as a charism. Catholic women who have discerned a call to the priesthood and have had that call affirmed by the community should be ordained in the Roman Catholic church. Barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand.

The editorial then goes on to provide a detailed history of the Vatican's policy since 1976. At that time, the powers that be issued a statement that opened the door to possibility of ordaining women.

In April 1976 the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded unanimously: "It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate." In further deliberation, the commission voted 12-5 in favor of the view that Scripture alone does not exclude the ordination of women, and 12-5 in favor of the view that the church could ordain women to the priesthood without going against Christ's original intentions.

There was soon a move to slam the door shut, with the charge being led by Cardinal Ratzinger at the behest of Pope John Paul II. The Cardinal has continued the hardline approach after becoming Pope Benedict XVI. Opposition to the ordination of women became a key litmus test in determining fitness to move up the ranks from priest to bishop. As the case of Roy Bourgeois demonstrates, a priest now risks excommunication for daring to question official doctrine.

The Holy Spirit cannot be behind demands for obedience to church leaders and calls from the faithful for a change in policy. There is also something about the arrogance and oppressive actions by the powerful that seem far from Christ-like. Humble leadership is the mark of the Lord.

Blasphemy in the Russian Orthodox Church

You probably heard of that outrageous incident in Russia where a punk rock band violated the sanctity of the Russian Orthodox cathedral just outside the Kremlin walls. The band Pussy Riot went into the cathedral when it was open for prayer and played a song asking the Virgin Marry to rid them of Vladimir Putin.

The Church leadership was outraged, calling for "divine retribution" against the members of Pussy Riot. Their calls were answered as the band members were prosecuted as "hooligans" that committed a "hate crime" against the Church. Just writing those words is so ludicrous that it is almost amusing until you consider that the Russian court just sentenced the women of Pussy Riot to two years in a "prison colony" for playing their song in the cathedral.

Keep in mind that they did not damage anything in the cathedral; they just played a song that asks the blessed Virgin to "drive away Putin." And they mentioned that the Church's chief saint is the "head of the KGB." All in the aftermath of an election that many accused Putin of stealing. You can watch Pussy Riot's crime here.

Church leaders were very successful in generating outrage among parishioners. About 40,000 turned out for a day of prayer organized by Patriarch Kirill. He told every media outlet he could find that the Church is being persecuted by evil segments of Russian society.

"It's disgusting what they did. Our priests can talk about forgiveness, but I don't have to," said Lyudmila Tarasova, visiting Moscow from the city of Murmansk in the Arctic Circle.

"They should be sent out of Russia. They spat on us. They're not Russians, they're swine."

Something about this case just doesn't pass the smell test. We are supposed to believe that it is outrageous to invoke the name of a sacred figure in making a baldly political statement. That is interesting, particularly in light of the fact that Patriarch Kirill had called Putin "a miracle of God" just before the sensitive election. To recap: band invoking the Virgin Mary to criticize Putin is very bad but Patriarch Kirill invoking the name of God to praise Putin is very, very good.

While the members of Pussy Riot can be accused of being less than ideally reverent in a house of worship (they used a vulgar word for fecal matter), Kirill was guilty of blasphemy. The name of God is sacred and any claim of blessing on Putin comes from Kirill, not God. Putin is an authoritarian leader that once headed the KGB and had the Church on his hit list. So the miracle must be that Putin now sings the praises of Church leaders. Hallelujah!!

Kirill has not only been criticized for his cozy relationship with Vlad Putin, but the man of God has been living lavishly on someone's dime.

He has been accused in the media of leading a lavish lifestyle, and the Church apologised in April for doctoring a photograph of him to remove what bloggers said was a luxury wristwatch.

He has also come under scrutiny over a dispute linked to a Moscow apartment he owns, although he denies any wrongdoing and dismisses talk of a lavish lifestyle.

"I wasn't as offended by those girls as much as I am by some of our Church officials, who drive around in fancy cars and drop $1,000 for dinner at a fancy restaurant next to Christ the Saviour," said Dmitry Zykov, 45, outside of the Kazan Cathedral.

It looks to me like the person mocking God was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He reeks of Mammon and serves Putin and the powerful with all his heart. And yet the women that called attention to his blasphemy, not to mention the less than miraculous nature of Putin's treatment of political opponents, are being sent to a gulag.

Patriarch Kirill is dividing the body of Christ along political lines. The believers in the Church are divided over whether Pussy Riot or Putin represents the true evil in Russia. It looks to me like Kirill is the punk responsible for blasphemy in the Church.

Isn't it ironic whenever there is an ethical issue swirling around some religious leader, a scapegoat is suddenly found to deflect attention away from the leadership? And isn't it fascinating how quickly religious leaders claim that religion and religious freedom are under attack. Religious liberty has become the new favorite buzzword among religious leaders these days. The best way to rally the faithful is to claim persecution by "secularists," "atheists," "homosexuals," and "Islamic extremists."

At least Christian leaders in America stick to public policy issues and avoid invoking the name of God in ways to favor a political party or leader. Otherwise, the body of Christ would be divided along political lines. In other words, God would be asked to serve Mammon in ways that weaken the body of Christ.

I never doubt the reality of evil. I am just surprised where I find it. Of course, Jesus warned us about false teachers and prophets. He wasn't kidding.

Instructions on the theology of greed

The Vatican took the wind out of liberation theology's sails with its doctrinal reprimand in 1984. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger argued that liberation theology was seeking a political solution to economic injustice, borrowing too heavily from Marxism.

Impatience and a desire for results has led certain Christians, despairing of every other method, to turn to what they call "marxist analysis."

Their reasoning is this: an intolerable and explosive situation requires 'effective action' which cannot be put off. Effective action presupposes a 'scientific analysis' of the structural causes of poverty. Marxism now provides us with the means to make such an analysis, they say. Then one simply has to apply the analysis to the third-world situation, especially in Latin America.

The "Instruction" argues that addressing the exploitation and economic injustices found in many developing Latin American countries was an appropriate target for the body of Christ, but liberation theology applied the wrong tools. Ratzinger made it clear that the "Instruction" was not to be taken as tacit approval for the ethically bankrupt dictatorships and multinational corporations responsible for the injustices.

This warning should in no way be interpreted as a disavowal of all those who want to respond generously and with an authentic evangelical spirit to the "preferential option for the poor." It should not at all serve as an excuse for those who maintain the attitude of neutrality and indifference in the face of the tragic and pressing problems of human misery and injustice. It is, on the contrary, dictated by the certitude that the serious ideological deviations which it points out tends inevitably to betray the cause of the poor. More than ever, it is important that numerous Christians, whose faith is clear and who are committed to live the Christian life in its fullness, become involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and human dignity because of their love for their disinherited, oppressed, and persecuted brothers and sisters. More than ever, the Church intends to condemn abuses, injustices, and attacks against freedom, wherever they occur and whoever commits them. She intends to struggle, by her own means, for the defense and advancement of the rights of mankind, especially of the poor.

Much has changed in the past three decades. Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. Communism has largely been discarded as an economic foundation. Capitalism is the only economic game in town. Liberation theology has been replaced by slavish free market worship. The economic injustices that spawned liberation theology have disappeared as we bask in a paradise where profit serves the common good and ethics are practiced with the skill of a monk in prayer. The Pope's encyclical warnings about the need for ethical capitalism have been taken to heart across the world.

"Profit is useful if it serves as a means toward an end. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty."

Here are a few highlights from the recent fortnight for economic freedom celebration.

In the United States, poverty levels have reached the highest levels in five decades.

The ranks of America's poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.

Europe is mired in an economic crisis of debt, unemployment, and austerity. The bottom is nowhere in sight.

The economic crisis spreading across the developed world has clear winners and losers. Corporations have been reporting record profits and hoarding wads of cash.

The poor and middle classes have shouldered by far the heaviest burdens of the global political obsession with austerity policies over the past three years. In the United States, budget cuts have forced states to reduce education, public transportation, affordable housing and other social services. In Europe, welfare cuts have driven some severely disabled individuals to fear for their lives.

But the austerity game also has winners. Cutting or eliminating government programs that benefit the less advantaged has long been an ideological goal of conservatives. Doing so also generates a tidy windfall for the corporate class, as government services are privatized and savings from austerity pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.

I am sure the irony of the unethical people responsible for the global recession also benefiting from austerity measures pursued in the wake of the crisis is lost on the less fortunate.

And then there are the ethically bankrupt rich that have stashed at least $21 trillion in tax shelters to avoid contributing to the common good while the poor, sick, disabled, and old suffer. While some quibble about the exact amounts, their only counter is patently stupid.

He also pointed out that if tax havens were stuffed with such sizeable amounts, "you would expect the havens to be more conspicuously wealthy than they are".

Money stashed in a private bank is not going to "trickle down" to the locals. The fact that Cayman Islanders are not driving Ferraris hardly disproves that trillions are socked away in secret accounts in private banks. I prefer my red herrings fried with a hearty helping of chips, thank you.

For all the talk of ethical capitalism, economic disparities have grown along with greed and fiscal shenanigans. It does raise the obvious question. When will Christians "become involved in the struggle for justice, freedom, and human dignity because of their love for their disinherited, oppressed, and persecuted brothers and sisters?" Or does the "preferential option for the poor" mean that their numbers will increase and they will suffer slow and terrible death? Perhaps widespread misery is one of the miracles required for the canonization of Ayn Rand.

One would hate to think that the doctrinal reprimand of liberation theology was nothing more than an attempt to short-circuit a popular movement for social justice grounded in the teachings of Christ. Then again, the slashing of the safety net for those in need by politicians invoking Catholic social teaching warranted only a mild rebuke while health insurance coverage of contraception had the bishops gnashing their teeth and taking to the street. Christ was not a fan of hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, He despised it.

Culture war propaganda

Did you hear the one about the preacher that was jailed for holding a bible study session in his home? To fully appreciate the story, let me set the scene for you. It is a peaceful Sunday morning. The birds are chirping. Kids are out playing. Suddenly. there is a screech of tires in the driveway and the slamming of car doors. An army of police in riot gear burst through the door, grab the bible from the preacher's hands, and roughly handcuff the bewildered man.

Fox News, the last bastion for truth, justice, and the American way, was quick to cover the story. This case shows how religion, especially Christianity, is under attack by a government overrun with secularists, atheists, and even an Islamist or two.

The controversy erupted in 2009 when nearly a dozen police officers raided the Salman’s home and a 2,000 square foot building in their backyard. The family had moved their Bible study into the building after the group outgrew their living room.

Pastor Michael Salman, brave and resolute in the face of persecution, tells supporters to keep the faith.

“We believe that people should not be prohibiting other people from having Bible studies in their homes,” Salman said outside the jail. “We believe what they are doing is wrong. It’s private property. It’s our home.”

Salman embraced some of his Bible study members before offering final remarks.

“At the very end, after all is said and done, God will ultimately have glory in this,” he said. “We do this for the glory of the Lord.”

Someone off camera could be heard remarking, “I love you, pastor.”

Religious liberty is the new buzzword. We have Catholic bishops holding prayer vigils and calling the president as bad as Hitler and Stalin. There are lawsuits galore over alleged violations of free speech and exercise of religion on public property. Mega-church pastors are demanding the right to endorse political candidates from the pulpit and preach hatred about a laundry list of enemies. Public schools are under fire for not allowing creationism to be taught in science classes and not teaching that America was created as a Christian nation. Any organization with a religious charter is demanding the right to ignore laws that violate their "conscience" and make money without paying any taxes.

Religious liberty is a narrative that has more to do with power and money than with religion. It is deeply cynical. What else can you call people who already have special privileges and want more? These are people who claim to be persecuted every time society does not bend and bow to their every whim.

Consider the case of the preacher in Arizona supposedly persecuted for holding bible study in his home. When he purchased the property, it was zoned for residential use only. Michael Salman petitioned for tax-exempt status for his home and property as a church. This petition was granted in 2008 and he has exercised this privilege of not paying property taxes ever since. He then built a 2000 square foot "game room" behind the residence, which did not conform to building codes for structures open to the public.

Here is the gist of the case from the Arizona Republic:

The city's conflict with Salman began even before he and his wife decided to build the game room onto their home, when concerns about the use of the property were beginning to emerge. Salman's addition was approved by the city with the caveat that the property not house a business or church, among other uses.

The reason: Specific zoning and safety requirements would otherwise apply. Such concerns include adequate parking, emergency exits, Fire Department access and other measures intended to protect the safety of large numbers of people who might congregate there.

When city officials discovered Salman was using the game room as a sanctuary, prosecutors initiated a civil action against the Harvest Community Church, resulting in a fine of about $180,000, Carreon-Ainsa said.

In other words, Michael Salman lied about the intended use of the "game room" and ignored building requirements to protect public safety. He wanted the right to ignore laws he found inconvenient. He also ignored the rights of his neighbors to have a say in zoning variations in their neighborhood. In effect, he failed even the most narrow definition of loving your neighbor as yourself.

Fox News and other culture war propaganda outlets neglected one other little detail. Why did the police arrive in large numbers and wearing protective gear to serve a civil warrant? Pastor Salman has a history of violence.

Salman was sentenced to six years in prison in 1993 for shooting into an occupied home in Phoenix a year earlier. The victim told the judge that she felt one of the bullets from Salman's gun go through her hair and barely miss her head, according to court documents.

A witness in that case told prosecutors that Salman had used a gun to threaten a man in a Paradise Valley mall one month before he was indicted in the shooting, that Salman had participated in other drive-by shootings and that he carried a gun in a concealed holster.

It does make you wonder how someone with so little regard for others can possibly teach others to be humble, merciful, compassionate, forgiving, and loving in the broadest sense of the word. Perhaps he has changed. After all, the Apostle Paul was a genocidal maniac before his conversion on the road to Damascus.

But all is fair in political love and culture war. Just ask Tony Perkins.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council said the attack against Salman should serve as a wake-up call to Christians across the nation.

“Any time religious freedom or the freedom of speech is infringed upon, Americans should be concerned,” Perkins told Fox News Radio. “We are seeing jurisdictions using zoning ordinances to crack down the exercise of religious freedom.”

Tony Perkins and other culture warriors are truly magnificent cynics. They never miss an opportunity to spin events to shape public opinion regardless of the facts. Facts be damned. Lies are just a necessary evil towards a glorious end.

Michael Salman was not "attacked." He either lied to obtain a building permit or violated the terms of that permit. He broke the law. He got caught. Turning him into a victim and folk hero is profoundly cynical. It is not surprising that people are losing confidence in organized religion and younger generations are turning away from faith.

There is another word beyond cynical to describe culture war gambits. Blasphemy. Using the name of God to gain power, privilege, or money shows no reverence for the sacred. It is pathetic witness instead of prophetic witness. One would do well to remember what Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day for doing (Luke 11: 39-43).

Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you — be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.

In other words, they paid lip service to God while serving themselves.

What is Christ-like about selling politics from the pulpit?

Reuters has a story about """"pastors"""" preaching politics from the pulpit. It is part of yet another false and cynical campaign about freedom of religion.

(Reuters) - Pastor Jim Garlow will stand before congregants at his 2,000-seat Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California, on Sunday, October 7, just weeks before the U.S. presidential and congressional elections, and urge his flock to vote for or against particular candidates.

He knows such pulpit pleading could endanger his church's tax-exempt status by violating IRS rules for a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. A charity can take a position on policy issues but cannot act "on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." To cross that line puts the $7 million mega-church's tax break at risk.

Garlow and other pastors celebrate "Freedom Sunday" each year by endorsing politicians and telling their congregation how they are to vote on election days. And just for good measure, these glorious men and women of gOd even videotape their stump speeches and send them to the IRS, hoping to provoke a fight over a violation of tax-exempt status. Not only do they want to be tax-exempt, they want to be law-exempt. This idea that laws do not apply to me because I am religious is becoming something of a fad. Perhaps, even an epidemic.

The IRS has been slow to react the provocations by Garlow and others. The tax collectors are hated and reviled just as much in America today as they were two thousand years ago in Galilee and Judea. Of course, Jesus hung out with the tax collectors (Mark 2:16), paid his taxes (Matthew 17:24-27), and advocating others do the same (Mark 12:13-17). He even chose a tax collector to be one of His disciples (Matthew 9:9). How odd that Garlow and his mob have excused themselves from paying taxes and want to pick a fight with a secular organization over the few rules that apply to that privilege. Fascinating.

Two things are clear about these little games. The beneficiaries of using the name of God to sell politicians are easy to spot.

The result of agency inaction, according to tax experts and former IRS staffers, will be a lot more electioneering by leaders of the faithful, in local races as well as national, and to the benefit of Democrats as well as Republicans.

It is the body of Christ that pays the price for praising Mammon in the name of Christ. I doubt the Lord will find all this nonsense amusing.

Of course, there is a great deal of Mammon at stake. The potential for income generation is enormous. You can create tax-free enterprise zones labeled as churches and sell all sorts of products and politicians. The trouble is that reduces churches to just another barker in the carnival marketplace.

If we truly love Christ, then we have to push back against the misuse of His name. The gifts of His presence, teachings, death, and resurrection are being cheapened by people like Garlow.

Religious liberty versus reproductive freedom

The U.S. Constitution specifies religious freedom in devilishly simple terms in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

While it is clear that the founders wanted to the avoid persecution of religious minorities that plagued Europe, the ambiguity of what constitutes "the free exercise" of religion continues to spark controversy. The tension between different views of religious freedom are evident in reproductive rights for women.

No woman in this country is required to terminate a pregnancy or use contraception. If abortion or contraception goes against your religious beliefs, no one interferes with your ability to follow your conscience. There are no boundary conditions or constraints for your religious and reproductive rights.

The trouble comes when abortion or contraception do not violate your personal beliefs and you want to do something that religious authorities oppose. That is when you can clearly see how disingenuous the discussion of religious liberty has become in our society. To hell with free will.

Religious conservatives have come out of the woodwork in recent years to push legislation that limits the ability of a woman to have an abortion, affordable access to hormonal contraceptives, and even accurate information about contraception. And they have been remarkably successful in imposing their beliefs on the freedom of sexually active women to make choices about if and when they get pregnant.

Another popular gambit is to have health care professionals refuse to prescribe contraceptives or fill prescriptions based on their religious beliefs. In other words, their beliefs trump the rights of women who do not share their beliefs.

Here is recent example. A physician in Oklahoma refused to provide emergency contraception to a female rape victim.

“I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my beliefs,” the doctor allegedly told the rape victim and her mother, Rhonda. “She knew my daughter had just been raped. Her attitude was so judgmental and I felt that she was just judging my daughter,” Rhonda told the news station.

When someone can impose their religious beliefs on your behavioral choices, then religious liberty becomes a farce. Under those circumstances, it is more accurate to talk about religious privilege and control rather than liberty. So-called "conscience" clauses have become a very effective method for taking away a woman's right to make choices for herself.

And here is the devilishly ironic twist in this controversy. Since men cannot get pregnant, their personal rights and beliefs are never at risk beyond the impact on their sexual partners. Funny how that works. Men can even get medication to increase sexual performance to counteract the effects of age and disease without raising a peep from the morality police. Yet women have to fight upstream to gain access to the most effective forms of contraception.

Catholic bishops in America are also playing the religious liberty card as they seek to impose their values on access to contraception. They have joined with other religious conservatives in attempting to prevent insurance coverage of hormonal forms of contraception.

 As noted by constitutional law professor Douglas Laycock, the Catholic bishops are not content with having an exemption for the contraceptive coverage requirement by health insurance companies. They want nothing less than repeal of the law covering everyone, whether working for a Catholic institution or not.

Many of these same bishops were personally responsible for playing a shell game with pedophile priests for decades and decades. Let's also not forget that Archbishop Dolan, current leader of the US Catholic bishops, lied about making payments to pedophile priests when interviewed in 2006. Yet now these men are supposed to be taken seriously as moral authorities? What was it Jesus said about those without sin casting the first stone?

Survey after survey has found that the vast majority of Catholic women use contraception in defiance of Church leaders. In fact, a 2011 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that 98% of Catholic women of child bearing age had used contraceptives. Interestingly, the only major difference among religious groups in contraceptive use was that Evangelical women were far more likely to opt for sterilization after having children. There is an enormous divide between pulpit and pew on contraception. Most women do not believe that sex has to have a procreative potential in order for it to be morally acceptable.

The likely consequence of trying to pass off religious privilege and control over society as religious liberty is backlash.

The bishops claim liberty for themselves, and for the large institutions they control, while also fighting to restrict the liberty of others with respect to abortion, emergency contraception, and same-sex relationships. Persistent opposition to the liberty of others makes enemies; many Americans on the other side of these issues now view the bishops as a powerful force for evil. Why should anyone who disagrees with the bishops on sexual morality respect their broad claim to religious liberty? That is the challenge that defenders of religious liberty must answer.

One form that backlash will take will be growing opposition to any federal or state funding for Catholic institutions. Since Catholic charities, education institutions, and hospitals rely heavily on pubic funding, it will be a very tempting target for opponents of the Church. A few examples of those calls to end all public financing of Catholic organizations can be found here, here, here, and here. Those calls are certain to grow in number and volume.

The bishops are playing a cynical game. They have already petitioned and lost court fights against state mandates for contraception coverage in New York and California. The precedent for those cases was one set by none other than Justice Scalia. The snake is going to have to swallow its tail.

Both the New York Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court relied on a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." In that decision, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia quoted Justice Felix Frankfurter's eloquent exposition of the boundary between free exercise of religion and government regulation: "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Even more dishonest than religious organizations taking public funds while demanding exceptions from public policy, religious groups have been at the forefront of attacking secular organizations like Planned Parenthood. Whatever arguments can be made about the rights of religious organizations being forced to provide contraception, they do not extend to secular organizations. The attacks on Planned Parenthood indicate how extreme some groups have become in imposing their beliefs on the entire society. It only serves to demonstrate how this fight is more about the exercise of religious privilege and control rather anything remotely resembling freedom of religion.

As a person of faith, I cannot help but wonder in sad amazement over the truly convoluted talk of religious freedom, especially as it applies to reproductive freedom. It is impossible to take seriously people that oppose terminating unwanted pregnancies on one hand and work hard to limit access to contraception on the other hand. It is hypocrisy writ large. A big fat scarlet H.

As a man, I hope and pray that women take a larger leadership role in our political system and in religious organizations. It is the only hope for democracy and religion in our society.