Mr. Curry took off on a revisionist history trip in an effort to connect science and Christianity.  He wrote that Bible-based Christianity is responsible for modern science because many of the scientists during the Scientific Revolution (16^th century) were Christians. Credible historians do see a connection, but not the one that Mr Curry asserts. The connection is that the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Revolution, the discovery of the new world, the fall of Constantinople, and the rediscovery of Aristotle undermined the status quo. It was finally politically acceptable (no more inquisitions) to challenge established thought and a new age of scientific discovery began.

Stranger yet, he claimed that the scientific method was inspired by a Bible quote. This is curious on two counts. First, historians attribute the scientific method to al-Haytham, a first millenium Muslim Arab widely regarded as the first scientist. Second, this same method is the foundation for the theory of evolution and the reason why the vast majority of the scientific world rejects creationism.

I do agree with Mr. Curry that science is revealing many wonderful insights every day that strongly suggest God’s presence, but scientific discovery is something we all share as humans.  It is part of our wiring.  Though it may be the result of individual inspiration, it is generally not attribued to prayer or spiritual belief.  It dates back to the discovery of fire - well before the invention of writing.  As a result, it is shared by all cultures and religions.

Finally in an effort to establish his position that good science is based on a belief in God, Mr. Curry took a swipe at Buddhism saying that the reason there aren’t any well known Buddhist scientists is because Buddhism is an atheist religion.  This is just wrong on so many points that I don’t know where to start.  It may be better to just leave you with a quote from one of our greatest modern scientists,

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” Albert Einstien

Most might think that it is a choice between Senator Barak Obama and Senator John McCain.

Both are talented politicians who have dedicated their lives to public service. One is conservative. The other is liberal.

My sense, however, is that the choice is more profound than that.

I believe that this election will be between the sort of wedge politics perfected by Karl Rove (but practiced by everyone) and what I hope to be a new democracy.

It’s gets down to a simple question.

Whose fault is it?

If you feel that someone else is to blame for whatever condition you find yourself in, wedge politics is for you.

If you feel that the answers to our problems are not nearly so obvious or simple as some may suggest, then you may be ready for this new democracy.

Here’s how it will likely play out in the next five months.

The wedgies (a good name I think) are going to raise the classic issues of gay marriage and abortion. These will be accompanied by a healthy dose of racism (both African American, Latin, and Arab), terrorist fear mongering (Obama is a muslim), age discrimination (the youth can’t be trusted), and demagoguery (liberalism is unpatriotic).

Obama will have an opportunity to model the sort of behavior he is advocating by raising the level of the debate.

Instead of talking about gay marriage, he has an opportunity to begin a discussion about the concept of inalienable individual rights and equal treatment under the law. How far are we as a society willing to allow the government to dictate private behavior?

The same holds true for abortion. Where do we draw the line between a necessary medical procedure and an inappropriate expensive form of birth control?

Obama has already opened the door to a healthy discussion about race that we all have been trying to ignore for decades. Life is not universally good for everyone in this country. Discrimination (racial, gender, religious, and sexual orientation) and segregation are still alive and well. The only way that we get past it is to admit that it exists and that it is not acceptable regardless of race, color, ethnicity, sexual preference, or creed.

Similarly, demonizing our enemies is not patriotic. It is idiotic. According to Maslow, everyone is motivated by more or less the same things. The only reason you don’t understand why someone else is doing what they are doing is because you don’t fully appreciate their frame of reference. If you did, you likely would be doing the same thing (blowing yourself up).

If someone is willing to blow themselves up, what value do we get from threatening to kill them? Doesn’t it make way more sense to figure out why they are trying to blow themselves up and then spend our time and money altering the circumstances that lead them to that conclusion? In order to do that, we have to talk to them, in the same way that we have to talk to each other. We have to seek to understand before we demand to be understood.

This isn’t the naiveté of youth.

It also isn’t empty-headed liberalism.

This is in fact basic fundamental Christianity.

It is a profound demonstration of love your neighbor as yourself.

It will be interesting to see what the nation chooses in November.

Recent news has raised a fundamental question regarding religion and the rights of parents.

The most recent case was a polygamist sect in Texas.  There were claims that girls below the legal age of consent were being forced to marry older men.  As the result of an anonymous phone call, now regarded as a hoax, the state of Texas protective services got a court order to take all of the kids except for newborn babies away from their parents.  That order was overturned by the Texas appeal courts because Texas protective services was unable to prove that the children were actually at risk.

There are also usually a couple of cases a year where parents choose to pray rather than involve a physician in the care of their children.  The state intervenes in an attempt to force a particular course of medical treatment when it appears the child’s life may be at risk.

In cases of child custody, the state usually has a significant bias, based on research, against removing a child from their mother’s care.  Generally that preference is overcome only when the state feels that the child may be at significant physical or emotional risk.  Just to put that in perspective, significant risk (as long as there is no obvious violence) has to be more than children whose parents are drug addicts or criminals.

As someone who believes in freedom of religion, the power of prayer, and cultural diversity; I’m really torn, because I’m also someone who believes that there is a role for government in modern society.  The temptations of personal gain are just too great for the private sector to handle in some cases.

In the case of monogamy, there is nothing explicit in the Bible prohibiting it.  Given the history of Abraham and others, however, I think that it is fairly obvious that if there were a problem with polygamy, it would have been spelled out pretty clearly in the same way as incest.  There are clearly other cultures in the world where polygamy is legal and appears to work fine for all involved.

Similarly, there are a lot of passages in both the old and new testament where prayer healed those whom the physicians had failed to heal.  There are also plenty of examples every day around the world of healing through prayer.

So in my mind, it comes down to culture and not religion.  We have a culture where monogamy is the only legal form of marriage in most places.  We also have culture where medical science is viewed as superior to prayer.

If you choose to be a polygamist, many people in our culture will assume that it is because (if you are a woman) you have been either brain-washed or coerced.  Similarly if you choose to rely on prayer to treat yourself and your family, you are assumed to be a delusional fanatic, or at least naïve and misguided.  So, in the interest of protecting children, we give the government fairly wide latitude to impose our cultural biases against both practices.

Imagine how the government would respond today if Jesus walked into a Ronald McDonald house and offered to heal all of the kids in there with terminal diseases.  What if He told them all to get out of their beds, pull out all of their tubes, get dressed, and call their parents for a ride home?  Just like Bethesda, some of the kids would believe Him and do as He asked and some wouldn’t.  As a result, some would be healed, and some would continue to depend on their physicians.  He, on the other hand, would likely get arrested and thrown in jail for reckless child endangerment.

So where do we draw the line between legitimate government involvement in the private lives of citizens and invasion of privacy/coercion to conform to the norms of the majority?

A Michigan evolutionary anthropologist has done some computer simulations examining the evolution of the concept of God.

I know that this may be troubling to some who have a hard time with the whole concept of evolution. 

I think that the premise and conclusion are both fascinating regardless of your view of evolution.  That’s because it suggests something special about us as a species.

There are two contending theories regarding the evolution of the concept of God.  One says that it is an artifact of a previous brain function that originally had a far more tangible use.  The other is that it is an adaptation.  In other words, the concept of God developed because those who believed in God benefited in some way compared to those who didn’t. 

The premise to prove that God is an adaptation is fairly simple.  There are things that you can prove and things that you can’t prove.  For primitive people, you can prove things like gravity by throwing a rock in the air.  Every time you throw it up, it comes back down.  This is verifiable information.  No similar proof exists for the existence of God.  So any claims about God are largely unverified.  

The question then is, what benefit would accrue to those who shared unverifiable information compared to those who only share verifiable information?

What the researcher found is that there was only one simulation which explains the current state of widespread belief in God.

The factor was that those who didn’t believe were somehow attracted to those that did.  So those who did believe were benefited by getting more support from the community that those that didn’t.  This made it easier for believers to survive in greater numbers than non-believers. 

In other words, we may be hardwired at a very basic level to respect and admire the beliefs of others, even if we don’t share those beliefs.  

The researchers didn’t go into the concept of free will, but this seems a plausible and natural explanation for it.  All of us discover God in our own way based on our experience and our traditions.  God loved us so much that He gave us the ability to choose or reject Him.  But He also gave us a very simple appreciation for those who have already chosen so that this idea would have the opportunity spread and grow - one believer to another. 

We’re currently in a period of fanaticism and fundamentalism.  If the research is accurate, this period will pass.  Our normal and natural state is to cherish all believers.

I heard an interesting program on NPR’s Talk of the Nation last week. The guest was Don Tapscott. He is the author of a Wikinomics and thinks about how the web can change government.

What set off this train of thought, however, is his discussion about the value of blogging as an exercise in intellectual exploration and how the current political climate doesn’t tolerate it.

First a bit a background.

It is a physiological fact that there are two kinds of people in the world. In one case, brains have a very short path from conception to vocalization. Their speech mirrors their thought process. In the other case, thoughts go through a risk assessment before they hit the vocalization part of the brain. The speech of this group is much more cautious and mirrors conclusions rather than concepts because they have already done their evaluation before they talk. There isn’t anything inherently better about one mode versus another because, if you believe in evolution, there is clearly need in society for both voices. We may be approaching a time in politics, however, where “Talk to Think” politicians are going to be in favor.

Here’s the basic premise. Blogging is the modern equivalent of the town square. Those who are interested can seek out conversations that they find interesting and engage in discussions where hopefully both sides are learning. That can only occur if both sides allow for thoughtful exploration of the subject matter. In other words, in order to have progress, we have to allow each other the opportunity to modify our positions as we learn more about the subject. We have to be able to take the risk of being wrong in order to explore areas that aren’t well known. We have to be able to grow and have our positions reflect that growth.

That can’t happen in the current “Think to Talk” political climate.

Instead we have the example of Senator Obama musing about the motivations of the working poor, and then having that “bitter” comment become the rallying cry for Senator Clinton’s last push to become the Democratic nominee.

In a similar vein, Senator McCain was musing about how long troops might be on the ground in Iraq. Using our experiences in Germany, Japan, and Korea, he speculated that there could be troops in Iraq for a long time. That became a rallying cry for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama who used that comment to suggest that Senator McCain supported another 100 years of combat in Iraq.

Senator Clinton had one of these moments last week when she suggested that there was wisdom in her continued campaign because previous nominations took dramatic turns before the convention. She used the example of the Bobby Kennedy assassination in 1968 to illustrate her point and almost immediately realized that larger implications of that comment.

Don Tapscott feels that this problem will, to some degree, fix itself. He feels that those who participate in social networks and support blogs not only understand, but are hungry for participatory government. They want to be engaged. They want to have input. They want a public transparent decision-making process where you can track progress toward a compromise. Senator Obama’s appeal to the young voter is based as much on this as it is his strong opposition to the war in Iraq. When he talks about change, this is what the younger voter hears. In their minds he “gets it”, and they are responding in numbers that we haven’t seen since the last peace movement.

The real question is whether he will be able engage enough older voters who are still stuck in “perfect President” paradigm to get elected.

One of the more interesting aspects of the lecture was the Dali Lama’s suggestion that Tibetan Buddhism was not for everyone. He said that our beliefs are the product of our traditions. So, in his opinion, if you aren’t Tibetan it’s going to be difficult to completely understand everything about Tibetan Buddhism. Most non-Tibetans simply don’t have the cultural context.

In the same vein, he went on to say that he doesn’t mean to imply that Tibetans or Tibetan Buddhism is beyond the grasp of non-Tibetans. He suggested that it would likely be just as difficult for most Tibetans to understand and fully grasp everything about western Christianity.

Why I found this interesting is because right outside the Crisler Arena, there were about 100 Chinese quietly protesting the Dali Lama’s speech. They felt that he is responsible for the political unrest in Tibet. I found out later that at least some of the protesters, including one of their spokespeople, are naturalized US citizens. So the passion they felt for this particular subject was, as far as I could tell, genuine and not the result of overt coercion.

Given the Dali Lama’s insight, I started to think more deeply about what might move these Chinese to take the position that they did.

On the surface, there are just a lot of contradictions.

Here they are in a fairly free and open society where they are able to demonstrate and express their opinion. They are using that freedom to protest the fact that Tibetans are trying to do the same thing in an area of the world controlled by the Chinese.

They are supporting a government that prevents open access to the internet and press, but they are protesting what they see as a media bias against the Chinese government.

The Chinese government has spent decades attempting to discredit the Dali Lama as an untrustworthy political troublemaker and these protestors are supporting that line. The Dali Lama, as far as anyone in the west can tell, is doing his best to follow the teachings of Buddha and harm no living thing.

It has to come down to what the Dali Lama said. We simply don’t understand the nationalism that motivates the Chinese people these days. Their cultural context is beyond the grasp of most of us, and so we struggle when we see such bias and pride. The Olympics are a big deal for them and any attempt to move the spotlight away from what they see as their coming out party, is viewed as a overt attempt to discredit their nation AND them. They aren’t ready to look at themselves honestly because they have been changing so quickly and want credit for where they are going rather than where they current are.

If you put this in the context of history, I’m sure that Europeans have had the same reaction to Americans for at least the last 100 years.

Keep that in mind the next time a politician suggests that the rest of world really wants to be like us. Just as we don’t really understand them, it is very difficult for them to really understand us. Yet, we wage wars, overthrow sovereign governments, and pick sides in conflicts based on our view of the world. Just like the Dali Lama, we must seek understanding first before we can make statements like, “They hate our freedom”. If we really seek to love our neighbor as ourselves, isn’t that the least we can do?

Those of us who are Christians have the Bible as a sufficient guide to our salvation, but even here there are many paths. Jesus, the most perfect man to ever walk the earth, encountered devout people in his own town that he couldn’t heal of their bigotry and hardheartedness.

There are those in our community today who seem to have succumbed to the same temptation to turn Jesus message of love, humility, and tolerance into narrow-minded self-righteousness. The paper that sponsors this blog published a letter from one on April 26^th.

The author, Mr. Abraham, felt that Reverend Timothy McDonald, founder of the First Iconium Baptist Church in east Atlanta, was in error when he claimed that Jesus was crucified for political reasons. Mr. Abraham went on to quote scripture extensively to prove his point that Jesus death had a much more profound spiritual purpose. On that point, it is likely that he and Rev McDonald would agree. But in Rev. McDonald’s defense, those who killed Jesus did so because they viewed him as a political threat, not a spiritual one. In fact, it took Jesus resurrection and the Holy Spirit to open his own disciples eyes to him as more than a political Messiah.

This minor theological spat, however, was just the thin veneer that Mr. Abraham chose to dress up an ugly screed directed at African Americans, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witness, and any minister in Monroe who disagreed with him.

The author appears to have forgotten the example of another Abraham who became the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.” Gen 13:8

Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection was for all mankind through all time. It was for African Americans, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christians, Mr. Abraham and me. We are all brothers.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt 5:21-24

“But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.  Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.  Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.  My brethren, these things ought not so to be.  Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” James 3: 8-11

Paul had a lot to say to the early church.  He was helping them understand what it meant to be a good Christian.  These early church members came from entirely different traditions.  The Jews held the Samaritans and Gentiles in very low esteem and generally didn’t associate with them  The Greeks felt the Jews were country bumpkins.  The Romans looked down on everyone.  Yet here was this new teaching that asked everyone to give up their bias and love everyone else as a child of God.

We are still struggling with this concept 2000 years later.

One of the key elements in the current Democratic race is the question of how Senator Obama is going to react when attacked by the Republican party if he wins the Democratic nomination.  In an effort to demonstrate that she is better prepared to defend herself, Senator Clinton appears to be taking it on herself to demonstrate that Senator Obama isn’t up to the challenge.

What seems to be lost in all of this is the larger question.  Why do we, as those whom these candidates are seeking to serve, tolerate this sort of behavior?

Do we really want to continue this sort of scorched-earth power politics where victory is a function of counting coup?

In my opinion, this policy has failed the people for the past sixteen years. 

The only group it IS working for is the politicians.  That’s because it allows them to raise money and deal with the simple issues of good and evil rather than the complicated issues of doing the business of the people.  Politicians have been able to choose a side, dig in, and fire away.  We cheer on the sidelines after every volley because it is good entertainment.  We fail to recognize that they are spending our money entertaining us rather than providing good government. 

In the last eight years the gap between the rich and the poor has increased dramatically.  It is now the widest that it has been since the depression.  Those those who were already rich and had an opportunity to influence the process, are getting richer.  Everyone else is getting poorer.  Us poor folk haven’t complained because we were told that the cause of our condition was deterioration of social values (abortion, gay marriage, legislating judiciary, and past liberal sins), and not unethical government.  We were told that if we only returned to some idealized vision of the past, we would all have a shot at the same brass ring that the rich had managed to grasp.  Unfortunately enough of us believed it that we kept voting for these folks.  Well it isn’t true.  It’s not happening.  Worse, it’s not going to happen.

Things need to change.

We need to elect representatives who are going to tell us the truth including the fact that they are human, frail, and imperfect. 

The truth is that all of those high paying manufacturing jobs are gone and are not coming back.  The truth is that future employment is going to be a function of skills and education.  As a result, if we want our people working in good jobs, we have to offer them meaningful training and education.  The truth is that rather than investing in our education and training, we have been raping the treasury to invade other countries and give financial advantage to those who already have the means at the expense of those who need it most.

If the poor and working poor aren’t bitter, they should be.  They are being taken advantage of by those who should know better and don’t need the money. 

As a country we are also being taken advantage of by the suggestion that politics should be a blood sport and those willing to conduct it on that level should be the ones that we elect.    

We don’t need a gladiator or a cowboy idealog. 

That wasn’t how Jesus or Paul described being a Christian, why should we endorse any other behavior today? 

In my opinion, Paul wrote a pretty good description of the sort of leader we need.  Think about this as you consider who to vote for.

“Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.  But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”  James 3: 14-18

Human nature hasn’t changed much in 2000 years.  In the time of Jesus, those in political power maintained their position through strict interpretation of the old testament rules on what it meant to be a good jew including what people could and couldn’t eat.  Jesus cut right to the core of the issue and reminded all who would listen that honesty, integrity, and brotherly love are far more important than keeping kosher.

One of my favorite Internet sites tracking those qualities in our presidential contendors is the Truth-o-Meter at Politifact.com.

You don’t have to spend much time at this site before you realize that all of the political candidates are having difficulty with the truth.  When you dig into it deeper, however, the nature of their deceptions speaks volumes for the type of leader they may turn out to be.

Let’s look at a couple just for fun.

Senator Obama said that the Kennedy’s contributed money to a program that airlifted his Kenyan father to the United States to go to school.  Turns out that the Kennedy’s did contribute to this program, but the contribution was made a year after Obama’s father was flown here. 

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have made a big deal out of Senator McCain’s statement that troops could be in Iraq for 100 years.  What Senator McCain was aluding to in his comment is a force similar to what we have in Germany, Japan, and South Korea and not a front line force in a shooting war. 

Senator Clinton has been promoting her experience in foreign affairs at the expense of the truth.  These include her description of coming under fire in Boznia with her daughter, negotiating open boarders for Kosovo refugees, and going places that were “too small, too poor, or too dangerous” for the President.  She has also distorted Senator Obama’s record regarding votes for “tax subsidies and giveaways” for oil companies when in fact the bill encourages the development of alternative energy sources (as Obama has said). 

Senator McCain’s straight talk has been having a tough time with the facts too.  He claimed that Senator Obama “has no experience or background at all in national security affairs”, and that Obama “suggested bombing Pakistan”.  Both are false.  He also has claimed that it’s “common knowledge” that al-Qaida is receiving training from Iran.  For someone who claims to be the most experienced foreign policy candidate, this is a big gaff.  The Iranians are Shiite and al-Qaida are Sunni.  As we’ve seen in Iraq, they don’t get along and certainly wouldn’t support each other regardless of any political goals that they might share.  Yet even after being corrected on the campaign trail, he brought it up again in his questions to General Petraeus.

So what are we to gain from this ongoing exercise?

Here’s what this says to me. 

First, if you assume that any of these candidates misspoke, you are mistaken.  Everything they say is vetted and scripted by their consultants and staff.  When they are distorting the record of another, telling a story that never happened, or claiming a relationship that never existed, you can bet that this position was the result of a careful political calculation.

So, second, what does that say about us?

It says we are doing a very poor job of holding our elected representatives accountable for telling the truth.  We all seem to have developed a truth bias.  When our candidate tells a lie, we rationalize it.  When their candidate tells a lie, we condemn it and question why anyone would support them.  When we hear something that we like, we are more likely to accept it as the truth even after others may question it.  We we hear something that questions one of our views, we discount it rather than re-evaluate our position.

I guess what it says about us is that we’re human, lazy, and vain.  Just as it is hard work to be a Christian, it is also hard work to be a productive member of a democracy.  What it says about those seeking our votes is that they all to one degree or another attempt to take advantage of these weaknesses, and as a result are all themselves flawed.

So, finally, how do you choose?

My recommendation is to look for leaders who at the end of the day are seeking to rise above their own flaws by challenging themselves and us to become more than we currently are, just as Jesus did.

A quick summary of the most recent conflict is that the British pulled out of Basra in December turning the area over to local militia. The current fight was predicted by many (including me). It is between Shiite groups for control of a very valuable distribution point for Iraqi goods (read oil). Many of those Shiite groups make up the current government coalition.

The Iraqi government has made an effort, with the help of American and British air power, to bring order back to the area, but so far the militia are winning.

This again begs the question of American presence in the area. The troop surge and associated “incentives” (guns and money) encouraged rival groups to focus their efforts on al Qaeda in Iraq rather than each other. It also worked to the degree that major political figures like Moktada al-Sadr were willing to stand down in return for making some money. The hope was that during this short period of political calm, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, could begin dividing up enough of the political pie in Iraq so that folks like al-Sadr would decide that there was more money to be made by being in the government rather than out of it.

Well that didn’t happen. In fact al-Sadr pulled his group out of the government and the most recent violence started with a call by al-Sadr for a general strike to demonstrate to the rest of the country that he is someone with political power. The government responded by sending in troops and the rest will shortly be history.

Here’s what the history will look like, “British pull-out from Basra delayed after rise in rocket attacks” and “U.S. forces drawn deeper into faceoff with militias”. Faced with a challenge, the Iraqi government has asked both the British and Americans for more troops. As long as we respond, we prop up a government that has not been able to demonstrate that it has the ability to keep peace even between it’s own elements.

President Bush has said that he sees this as a defining moment for the al-Maliki government. Yup just like the Tet offensive was the defining moment for the government of South Viet Nam.

This is not a struggle that is going to be won militarily, yet our government continues to define this conflict in those terms.

The solution in this area is going to be a political one where all sides determine that there is more to be gained by compromise than by bloodshed. Unfortunately, the deep seated differences between rival factions may require conflict before compromise can be won. As long as we are there, we perpetuate the status quo and inhibit the progress that has to come if there is ever going to be a government that doesn’t require US force in order to govern.