Religion

Editor's Note: Numerous instances of plagiarism have been discovered in Dan Kimber's “Education Matters” column, which ran in the News- Press from September 2003 to September 2011. In those columns where plagiarism has been found, a For the Record specifying the details will be appended to the piece. I have received a rash of anti-Muslim e-mails lately. Some are from people I know and some are from organizations that somehow have me on their mailing list. The most recent included pictures of a young boy having his arm mangled as a punishment for stealing.

o7An appeals court recently ruled on a case involving a prison inmate attempting to hold a study group on atheism and humanism. The court ruled that the Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin violated James Kaufman's 1st Amendment rights when it refused to allow the group to meet. In the opinion, a judge cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition of atheism as being equivalent to a "religion," even though the dictionary defines it as "disbelief or denial in the existence of God or gods."

How do you reconcile death from terrorism -- terrorism in the name of religion -- with religion? That is, how can we believe in a religion, when so many have died in the name of it? Religion celebrates life. It does not destroy it. Religion fills the emptiness in life as the soul looks for companionship with something higher than itself. To believe that religion advocates the destruction of life contradicts the very definition of religion and ultimately humanity.

Marshall Allen GLENDALE -- Religion and spirituality have long been neglected areas of the study of human psychology. But the tradition is rapidly changing. "The dichotomy between faith and science was greater before, but people have become more disenchanted with science," said the Rev. Siang-Yang Tan, senior pastor of First Evangelical Church in Glendale and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary's School of Psychology. "Faith isn't against science, but goes beyond science."

On a recent Faith page you asked local religious leaders to name the greatest threat to humanity ("What is humanity's greatest threat?" In Theory, Feb. 25). Most said hunger. None named the real threat: religion. Why is religion the enemy of humanity? Because with religion it is not possible to be moral. Consider the childishness of popular notions regarding morality. It is repeatedly asserted, with no public challenge, that religion can ground morality. The truth is that religion cannot ground morality.

I'd like to first say to Barbara Vickroy ("Immigration policy, religion don't overlap," Dec. 1 News-Press) that polls don't define a religion. Even if 99% of people voted for Proposition 187, they still won't qualify as real Christians. They might qualify as Republican Christians for whom raising taxes to help the poor is the same thing as teaching evolution to their children, but they won't qualify as real Christians. The reason they won't qualify as real Christians is because Christianity has two very simple themes that are repeated in the New Testament: compassion and love.

The Los Angeles Times ran a story Feb. 19 about an estranged Chicago couple and their fight with each other over which faith to raise their 3-year-old daughter in (the father is Catholic; the mother is Jewish). The mother recently filed a restraining order against the father after he baptized the girl Catholic, against a pledge he had taken to raise her Jewish. A judge then barred him from exposing the girl to any faith other then Judaism ? he defied the order after taking his daughter to Mass.

I enjoy this paper’s Saturday religion page because it engages a diversity of thought, regardless of one’s affiliation. As a teacher, I have for many years traversed the middle ground between recognition and denial of religion as a valid topic in a public high school classroom. One thing that I do know is that the subject always invites strong opinions. Ending the confusion and conflict about religion and public schools would be good for public education and for our nation.

A directive came from a central office entitled, "Holiday reminders." The heading to the memo read, "When a school does choose to acknowledge the December holidays, it is essential that the school must never appear to endorse religion over non-religion or one particular religious faith over another." Our district, like so many others, is at pains to avoid any impropriety or any suggestion that instruction is tainted by religious proselytizing. I believe that virtually all of the teachers in Glendale Unified will agree that endorsing a religion is not part of their December teaching agendas.

Having read your editorial of Sept. 14, I thank you for bringing this matter to the public's attention. Your suggestion, "Let's leave religion out of public governance," provides us with an opportunity to examine the role of government and religion. According to the United States Constitution: Amendment 1 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Writing about my summer vacation or the random thoughts on being human that cross my mind each week doesn't always generate a lot of feedback. But open a debate on religion and politics and the flood gates open. Last week I posed a sensitive question: With many conservative evangelical Christians having historically labeled the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult, how can they support a presidential candidate who is Mormon? Many devout Christians guided, above all else, by their faith find themselves having to decide whether voting for a Mormon legitimizes an institution they have long vilified and with which their doctrine is fundamentally at odds.

Editor's Note: Numerous instances of plagiarism have been discovered in Dan Kimber's “Education Matters” column, which ran in the News- Press from September 2003 to September 2011. In those columns where plagiarism has been found, a For the Record specifying the details will be appended to the piece. I have received a rash of anti-Muslim e-mails lately. Some are from people I know and some are from organizations that somehow have me on their mailing list. The most recent included pictures of a young boy having his arm mangled as a punishment for stealing.

Elena Kagan's successful confirmation to the Supreme Court "would result in six Roman Catholic and three Jewish justices. Many argue that because Protestantism remains America's largest religious affiliation, the top court should have at least one Protestant justice," according to a piece written by Corey J. Hodges, pastor of New Pilgrim Baptist Church, for the Salt Lake Tribune. What do you think? Is it really necessary for the court to have a Protestant judge simply because it is considered America's largest religious affiliation?

T his past week I was thrilled to see the reaction that my May 13 column on the battered atheist sign on the Glendale (2) Freeway garnered on our paper's website. It "grew legs," as a former professor of mine told me over the phone on Friday. Most of the responses I received from around the nation — and Canada — were via e-mail. They ranged from attacks on my writing ability to answers to the question I had posed: "What is it about atheists that people just don't like?"

Last week I visited Jet Propulsion Laboratory during its annual open house. I was told by JPL media relations that about 30,000 to 40,000 visitors attended the event. I was in high school the last time I attended a JPL open house, attending as part of an ROTC field trip. From what I remember, that visit proved to be most enlightening, as we got to check out the lab?s largest clean room, the Deep Space Network facility, and saw a Mars rover in action. Walking around the JPL campus got me thinking: What does the church have to say about all this science that?

Christian organizations in the United Kingdom are pushing for candidates to become more open about their religious beliefs, the BBC reported this week. With an election coming up May 6, would it be worthwhile for candidates to open up about their beliefs ?if it means a few more votes?? the article asks. While religion plays a big role in the funding and organization of politics in the U.S., the article says, in the U.K. it is less influential; as such, some believe that having candidates talk about their religious beliefs publicly would turn around British politics ?