Religion offers social benefits and a way to advance in business insmall towns

Natchitoches, Louisiana is a town where belonging to a church is important for both social and business success[/caption]

While many Americans may not always attend church, the right answer for social and business success is to at least espouse a religion in most places in the United States.  In the South it can make a difference in whether or not an individual has a support system as well, as often the church is the very center of recreation and a place to meet those who can help ensure one has the right contacts to advance in business.

That center of social action, the church, takes precedence over almost any type of contact and interaction in small towns.  Whereas many of the people of Portland, Oregon profess no religious affiliation, in La Grande, Oregon, a small town in the Eastern part of the State, membership in the Mormon Church can help facilitate making friends and finding job opportunities.  In La Grande, many people are Mormon, with twice the percentage of membership at 21% of those who profess to be Christian compared with approximately 9% in the State.

Many people in La Grande, who are Mormon, are descendants of the early settlers to the area of Eastern Oregon.  For children growing up in the town, the church affiliation offers a social experience that often fuses many of the activities in other organizations.  Often the same child is a member of the local girl scouts as well as the Mormon Church, where the focus is on learning skills and values that add to the community experience.  The Mormon Church's precepts of hard work and the importance of the family fit well with the Western traditions of rugged independence.  That popular saying, recited by mothers and grandmothers about idle hands being part of the Devil's workshop reinforces the values of work as a way to stay out of mischief.

In Natchitoches, Louisiana the dominant church is Southern Baptist.  The African American community has a number of Baptist churches, and the white community does as well.  For the most part the races do not mix on Sunday, even as they are buried in separate graveyards.  The most famous cemetery, one of the oldest in the United States, has few African Americans who are, for the most part, formerly servants of some of the more prominent white families, many of whose descendants continue to live in the town.  The Mayor, Senator of the District and President of the University all are often members of the largest church in town, First Baptist Church, a place where social activity thrives and new residents almost always given a friendly greeting and a welcome to attend.

The uniqueness of small towns in the United States is the impact of religion on social behavior that is not the same as in the cities.  In the small communities a special church in a town has a unique status and often is recognized as the one to attend, or at least hold membership, because it can make a difference in having the right friends and business contacts.  In cities, however, it is not a particular church that is important but rather, at minimum, a declaration that one is Christian, with being Jewish a secondary choice in Eastern cities.

How one worships also offers insight into the education and status of an individual.  Although Americans consider themselves open to different religions, most people are cautious about admitting any belief other than Christian.  There are, however, crossover memberships in New Age organizations so that people embrace an eclectic belief system, while continuing to identify themselves with a particular denomination or religious group.  In the South, however, most people continue to advocate a more fundamental Christian belief without much of the enticement of other belief systems fused with it, as occurs in the towns of Oregon.  By a wide margin, according to the Pew Forum most people in the South are Evangelical Christians.

Men are more apt to express no religious affiliation and African Americans more likely to identify themselves as Christian.  Two-thirds of these African Americans consider themselves Baptists.  Hindus and Jews have the highest income levels.  The West has fewer people who express themselves as having a religious affiliation or who say they belong to a particular denomination.  The opinions and religious views differ by region, with Southerners more apt to be conservative, born-again Evangelicals, the Midwest more of a mix of both conservative and mainstream, and the West with more people who identify themselves with no particular group and more apt to have more liberal social attitudes and religious beliefs.  But in many of the groups in the West Coast, the absence of religion can have a certain status as well, especially among the younger age groups.

Despite the changing climate of faith in America, with the tendency to be eclectic about religion as the more dominant theme for most folks, the value of belonging to the right social group, which turns out to be the church in small towns, continues to be important if one wants to get ahead and meet the right people.  So if you are that new kid on the block in a small town like La Grande, Oregon or Natchitoches, Lousiana and you are opening a candy store on the corner where everyone might come, the best place to begin that marketing effort might be around the tea and coffee in the church courtyard, or snack in the Mormon social hall after Sunday services, if you want to be successful in a small town.

Religion and Hollywood don't mix with films like 'Noah'

Russel Crowe, actor plays Noah in film

Carol Forsloff---Faith groups have been critical about the film "Noah" and for good reason.  In many ways these religious films of Hollywood don't mix well with either the truth of faith or the values established by people who simply care about their planet and the people on it.  This latest Hollywood offering, "Noah,"despite its strong showing at the box office, is a film that both religious and non religious folks might question not just for its lack of accuracy but also its trite presentation and meandering script that in the end has little value except the visually dramatic action scenes.

"Noah" is a cross between the Transformers and "Water  World " in its disjointed theme and characters.  Like Water World, people are divided between the good and evil groups, with those condemned to wander the earth in the waters, since the earth was long since uninhabitable is a theme in both films.  In The Transformers films, big and powerful machines hold power over people.  In "Noah," they are represented by big and powerful wooden machines who, once they have fulfilled their purpose in helping Noah build the Ark, are swept up into the heavens to be with their Creator.

Jennifer Conelly, as Noah's wife, and Noah, played by Russel Crowe, maintain the same, earnest countenances as demonstrated by their characters in "A Beautiful Mind," only the mind of Noah is less beautiful than confused in the movie, at least in the script depiction of him.  Noah believes he and his family are the last people that God will allow following the flood and that after the waters recede only the animals will be left.  So he refuses to bring mates for his sons on board the Ark, and in fact allows Ham's beloved, whom he meets after fleeing his family for a time, to die as the evil ones try to climb aboard the Ark to keep from drowning when the floods come.  Those of faith, or without, would likely question why a man with such devout obedience to his Creator would see Him as a punishing, vengeful God and want to follow such a God in the first place.  It would seem incredible to the devout who believe God is love, that He would never forgive and therefore ask that innocent newborn babies be killed by one of his most devout servants, Noah, the grandfather of those children.

The Biblical accounts are taken in with so much liberty in the writing that they bear only an outline resemblance to the original story.  In fact at the end of the film, Noah reflects on new beginnings and speaks of the hope of that.   God's final message in the Bible story was that He would not create such a flood again, but allow man to make his own mistakes and bring about his own destruction.

In the "Noah" movie, good and evil are represented by Noah, prophet-seer, and Tubal-Cain, who bears the burden of his ancestor, Cain, who had been punished by God for killing his brother, Abel.  The concept of sin, as explained both in the Biblical account and the film, was initiated with the eating of the apple in paradise, but the true evil multiplied from the killing.  The result, in the film "Noah," is that two camps emerge in the world, the good people, who are Noah and his family, and the bad people, represented by Tubal-Cain and everyone else.  Noah has the distinction of being the only one God decides to save, as if evil was, and is, so extensive that all the good being removed from everyone and leaving only one man left whom God would find acceptable, seems unbelievable if it is to be seen as a just act of a loving God.  It would be, and often is, the kind of argument people use to refute religion in the first place, as something that represents more superstition than truth.

The action scenes in Noah are large and filled with color and intensity.  They mimic the Transformer films in majestic and mighty maneuvers by the evil-doers and the ugly, twisted, tree-like creatures in the "Noah" film.  Those seeking adventure will find it in a movie where that is the key ingredient, and the only one that offers real entertainment, as the values portrayed are disjointed and difficult to grasp in the combination of science fiction and faith represented in the film.

While some critics maintain the value of "Noah" lies in the questions it might offer, these are questions less implied by the script than in the mind of critics who seek to find some merit in the film, without panning it altogether.  Some say showing "Noah" as depicted in the Bible would simply have been boring, as there was not a great deal to the story, other than Noah's building of an Ark at the commandment of God and his being the one who offered safety to the animals so that there would continue to be life on earth.  On the other hand, the fact there are so many scientific and religious references to the great flood of the Bible, means the film could have met the Biblical account and the details that followed, including what happened to Noah when the floods had passed, and the issues surrounding his life and the generations forward.

Why is Noah relevant in history or religion?  The film does not give the viewer any yardstick by which to measure the man's greatness nor his contribution to man's ultimate salvation and survival.  Instead we see him as a man who misunderstands much of God's orders and who then falls into drunkenness when he disobeys those orders.  But nothing is done to build relevance to the character other than the determination the Ark be built and the end result of its completion and the saving of Noah, his family and the animals.  It is difficult to believe in Noah as a spiritual individual or hero, as his stubbornness and intractability, offer incredulity to all but the most hopeful critics.

The Daily Beast maintains the film is mythical for a reason, for the entertaining value of the movie.  But it has little value as entertainment if after watching the film, the audience goes out the door with puzzled looks, trying to make sense out of a film as opposed to enjoying it and/or finding it has relevance.  Instead it becomes like the piece of art in a museum where people exclaim "how wonderful" in front of abstract lines that meander over canvas when in any other context they would think the painting was done by a neighborhood third-grader learning to draw for the first time.

"Noah" may end up being the film of the year, but it is no match for the Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, other films about religious and spiritual figures that have stood the test of time.  And whereas Russel Crowe has the film presence and biceps of the famous Charleston Heston, the strength of Crowe's muscular good looks is not enough to save the film from being just another Hollywood effort to confuse and confound the viewing public.

One man's death changes the world

Franz Ferdinand

While there are those individuals and cultures who may not value a single life, in the course of history one person's contributions can make a real difference, just as the death of an individual man or woman can change the world.


The death of one person can bring about war, move  multitudes and change the course of history. The value of life, some say, must be measured in the course of events and the contributions that are made to those events that impact many other individuals. Some of those people whose death created a legacy of lasting memory were prophets, others were rulers of great nations. They have been young, old and from many nations also.

Nearly one hundred years ago Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire was killed with his wife in Sarajevo, Bosnia in June 1914. It is widely observed by history that this significant event initiated the outbreak of World War I. A Serbian nationalist, chafing with other citizens of the region against the domination of Austro-Hungarian empire, killed the Archduke, sparking a conflagration that swept through Europe, brought the Americans into a world conflict and killed millions.



Many people blamed the government of Serbia for the attack, looking to put down those struggling for independence with the incident of the killing of a prominent European leader. Russia supported Serbia, along with its allies Belgium, France, and Great Britain while Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany lined up with Austria-Hungary, and in the process World War I was initiated. While the Archduke had not yet gained the throne, the representation of the empire's power in the region brought the flame of independence to ignite, while the fires fanned throughout the European continent. The death of one man had changed the course of history.



When a zealot becomes a martyr, often the effect is to facilitate the gathering of many people, not just for an immediate event but to foster a belief that is made stronger by the death of a single individual. That is especially true if that individual makes the sacrifice of life for a cause. The sacrifice is the blood of the martyrs that can fuel rage, cement philosophies and make men fight each other to avenge that sacrifice or the beliefs that brought the martyr to die for a cause.



As the Second World War was ending, Palestine was caught up in conflicts between Jews and Arabs. A man by the name of Avraham Stern was an angry man with a hatred for the Arabs. He gathered followers to fight the police in Palestine who were trying to intervene and prevent the Zionists from killing innocent Arabs. Stern was killed by Geoffrey Morton, Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Tel Aviv District, following an episode in which three senior policemen, two Jews and one Briton, were killed. Morton shot Stern, according to his claims, as Stern tried to climb out a window and escape, although many people have considered since that Morton manufactured the story and had actually killed Stern in cold blood. Stern was the martyr, appealing to the desperate refugee factions who had fled the Holocaust only to be faced with Arabs who did not want these strangers to take over their lands. He is said to be the hero of modern Israel's right-wing Likudnik mainstream, with two of his admirers who eventually became prime ministers. These were Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin. 



The Zionist movement had needed a hero, and Stern's legacy has been to continue to foster the notion of refugees continuing to settle in Arab lands, creating an ongoing tension in the region that consistently threatens to engulf the rest of the world. 







The death of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, brought the religion that had flourished to splinter into two main sects, the Shiah that believes that Muhammad wanted his nephew, Ali to secede him and Sunni, the sect of Islam that follows the line of succession beginning with the Prophet's uncle and through that lineage. These two sects are often literally at war with one another, and the consistent tension between the two has prevented the unification of the Muslim world in modern times, following the independence of the Middle Eastern countries.







There are others whose lives have made a difference, including Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, John F. Kennedy and a host of others, but often it is that individual who seems to have a minor role in the events of a time that instead becomes a major player upon death in a way that lasts for generations. As Stalin himself once said, “One man's death is a tragedy,” for it focuses on the intimacy all people have with one another, that can change the course of history.

Woman's equality does not extend to religion

Greek Orthodox priest

Throughout the world the mainstream religions have one thing in common. Women aren't in charge. Despite the conversations about equality, women lag behind not just in business but in the churches and temples too.


Visit a Baptist Church in the South on a Sunday morning, before the main event of the preacher's message, and the Sunday school classes are often divided. Men and women usually meet separately, as they do in some other denominations. They have their own classes and conversations. There may be a couples group, but habitually there are special classes for men and for women.


Baptists emphasize local church autonomy. The division of the Southern Baptist Convention maintains that local control offers individual members, as well as the clergy, a way to develop close relationships and the ability to develop functions that correspond with the community needs. The emphasis in the local church is on cooperation that the church maintains builds trust. Cooperation, however, means some adjustment, as the roles are somewhat different in the church as opposed to the community. While women direct and manage men in the workplace in increasing numbers, in church their roles remain as second in relationship to men.


Many Protestant churches, and the Catholic church, offer ministry only to men. In the Southern Baptist churches women do not serve as elders but as helpmates of their husbands who hold offices in the church. They do not offer the principal message on a Sunday nor do they teach the classes dominated by men. Their role in the church is defined by what they believe is the way Christ desires men and women to relate in religious life.


The scriptural foundation for how women are to behave and function in church comes largely from the words of Paul in the New Testament. SBC (Southern Baptist) Voices declares its policy as governed by the words in the Bible. In a discussion on the matter of women pastors, one of the main voices in the forum said this, “If you are going to have a woman pastor in your church, why would you even want to be Southern Baptist? We do not believe that is biblical. We think it is wrong.”

The Biblical passages used to determine woman's role in the church are 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 and 1 Timothy 2:11,12 do seem to teach that women are prohibited from teaching and preaching. The respective passages read as follows:

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

While the body of the Southern Baptist denomination utilizes these references to justify women being excluded from the role of pastor, a graduate student examined the issues and principles related to this, and after speaking with a Biblical expert, the following observation was made, as a way of clarifying the scripture. It may leave the question open for women, under some conditions, to occupy the role of leadership and potentially the role of pastor.


On a site called Gospel Answers the graduate student quotes  Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, a native of Greece and a Biblical scholar. He explains the quotes like this: “Under no circumstances does the injunction of Paul in 1 Cor. 14:34 indicate that women should not utter a word at any time during the church service. Furthermore, the word gunaikes should not be translated “women” in its generic sense, but as “wives.” It is wives who should submit to their husbands. The whole argument is not the subjection of women to men in general, but of wives to their own husbands in the family unit as ordained by God.



The issue of women becoming pastors is being reviewed regularly, as women increase their leadership outside the church. Moderate Baptist churches have sprung up, out of the body of the Baptist tree that continues to have many branches, that have stepped away from the admonition against women becoming pastors and what is considered to be an outdated and incorrect way of looking at women's church roles. Jimmy Carter said he had regretfully left the Southern Baptist church because it has “adopted policies that violate the basic premises of my Christian faith,” including a denomination statement that prohibits women from being pastors and tells wives to be submissive to their husbands.”


Across the religious divide of Protestantism, other denominations outside of the Baptists have embraced women as pastors. Some of the fundamentalist Christian groups like the Pentecostals have advanced women as pastors. Aimee Semple Mcpherson is a case in point. She was a famous preacher whose brand of speech and dramatic persuasion that departed from fire and brimstone rhetoric and instead used the embrace of love from the pulpit brought her to the forefront of her faith.  She was one of those women who preached to mixed audiences everywhere. The Episcopal Church has women priests. The Presbyterians promote women as ministers. Evangelical Quakers, not to be confused with the traditional groups, who have ministers, unlike the unprogrammed groups who don't, maintain both men and women as ministers. So there is some inclusion of women in the clergy in select religious communities.


Catholics maintain women in secondary roles, as teachers, nuns, layworkers, but not as priests. They indeed have never, and by church doctrine cannot be, the Pope.



Islam, although the progressive groups offer arguments of the faith's promotion of women's equality, nevertheless reserve the leadership role of mullah or imam to men. Women, including the more educated ones, are usually in the background at religious and community functions. Leadership roles are reserved principally for men. Buddhism and Hinduism by practice also preclude women from managing religious groups, as does Judaism.

Across the range of history religions of various kinds, including the Greeks gods, held men as the principal leaders of the communities of faith.  Whether the leadership came from the Papacy of old or Thor of the dark world, men set the rules and gave the orders by which adherents were to conform.



Across the world, women may assert their equality in business, in social life, and in government. But in matters of faith they continue to be second to men and seldom attain the principal leadership positions in religious communities, even though in the secular world women's abilities are being lauded as worthy and equal to men.

I don't believe in voodoo, but I don't mess with those who do

Black magic used to make predictions (wikimedia commons)

Carol Forsloff--“I'm not much into the occult,” she said, as a group of people were discussing everything from tarot cards to a Malaysian Airlines missing plane's whereabouts as someone speculated it might have been taken by aliens. “Actually,” and she laughed as she said this, “I don't believe in voodoo, but I don't mess with those who do.”



Black magic, like other areas of the occult, remains a common practice in some cultures. But whereas most people don't practice this themselves, they are reluctant to tangle with someone who does. Beverly had said what her beliefs are with regard to occult practices, and a review of the literature and research, as well as surveys of opinions, has found most people are like Beverly. They may not be practitioners or believers in occult practices or the paranormal but remain curious at the same time, while considering the potential of the negative as harmful enough not to antagonize anyone who might be that so-called witch or someone with the proverbial evil eye. Beverly expressed it more succinctly, when she remarked, “Who needs pins being pushed, then feeling the hurt and not knowing where it's coming from. I would rather just steer away from anyone like that or say nothing at all."



Some might say Beverly has the right idea. After all, even in some of the more progressive societies, there remains those segments of the culture who continue to practice black magic. India is an example of this. The country is considered to have mostly progressive ideas, however black magic remains part of the culture of many people, with others tacitly believing in parts of the practice, although not necessarily all of the essential elements.



In India, as an example, in 2012 incidents of killings showed the practice of black magic continues in the country. In West Bengal the body of a local Ayurveda doctor was found near a temple with his head near a crematorium with flowers, blood and incense. Police declared this to be the result of local black magic. In another city to the South, police detained 14 members of a black magic cult who had been accused of cheating people. A year before, in a remote village in India, a childless couple was arrested for killing five young boys on the advice of a black magic practitioner who had told them that by killing the boys “it would help the woman conceive.”



One might think that the practice and involvement in black magic might just appeal to the poor and ill-educated, but among the recipients of black magic help are well-educated people as well as entertainers and people of great wealth. Many either participate or among those who “don't mess with those who do.”



People of the Solomon Islands are for the most part Christian. They retain, however, some practices that are borderline or outside mainstream Christian beliefs. Ancestors are considered to have special powers, as an example. They will use ancestors as mediators when they pray to God. Although modern medicine is used and respected, so are traditional healers, many of whom still practice black magic in order to help the sick or the dying. 



Island cultures, consisting of those people who have had relatively less exposure to the modern world, or exposure only within less than 200 years, often retain many traditional practices. Like religious people in mainstream churches may be eclectic in their beliefs and practices, this is particularly true of people who have been raised in island cultures. In Hawaii, the island state of the United States, most people are Christian or belong to one of the mainstream Asian religions such as Buddhism, belief in ancestors and animism retains a position alongside mainstream churches and temples. People consider stones, certain amulets, particular phrases, behaviors or positions to have certain powers. Even large environmental features are given respect for having the power to reward and punish. Pele, the volcano goddess of the Big Island, Hawaii, is of special significance to virtually everyone on the island, as well as those people who travel there from the other islands or outside Hawaii. Pele is said to live in the craters of the Big Island's volcano Kilauea. The goddess, according to legend, descended from the supreme beings of Earth Mother and Wakea, Sky Father. Local people admonish visitors not to antagonize Pele, which often means not taking that piece of lava rock home. Otherwise, people say, Pele will wreak vengeance on those who dare to take what belongs to her.



What happens to those unfortunate folks who carry something home with them, that local folks would say belongs to Pele, like that ordinary piece of sandstone or lava? The lava stones are said to be so filled with power that they can be dangerous. So there remains the current belief that taking them from the islands will bring misfortune on those visitors who test Pele's wrath by taking some of those rocks home as souvenirs. Hawaii retains some of that old black magic belief, despite its modernization; and not just those born in the islands will echo that belief. Many mainlanders who settle in Hawaii will also admonish visitors not to take home those objects that belong to the land—anywhere, for the ancestors may be angry if you do.



Within mainstream religions there are those who practice a form of black magic based on mainstream religious practices. One of the practices is the Black Mass, the purpose of which is to profane the sacraments. The candles are black, and the crucifix turned upside down. The ceremony itself parodies the sacraments and the mass. Alastair Crowley, who has written about occult practices including the Black Mass, tells the best known of these ceremonies is the “Mass of Saint Secaire.” It's purpose, Crowley tells us, is to “cause an enemy to wither away.”



Even in Islam there are black magic practices. Islamic exorcism provides for a way to rid a person from demons and the spirits of possession. Like Christian groups, there are Islamic ones that also practices in some ways various occult beliefs or will offer credence to some of them.

Religious eclecticism is the new religion

Pope Francis I of the Catholic church

While each of the major religions claims to be the one growing the fastest in the world, what is distinct about faith in most places has to do with how people actually practice their religion. It turns out that religious eclecticism is the new religion that is likely growing the fastest.



While Pope Francis makes pronouncements about marriage between a man and a woman, and the Church frowns upon birth control, forbids abortion and divorce, what do most Catholics believe and practice? It turns out that most Catholic women practice birth control and use contraceptive methods that have been banned by the Catholic Church. Research in 2011 found that 98% of women do not follow the Church's dictates on family planning. The same is true of most Protestant women.



What about divorce? Divorce is frowned upon or forbidden by the tenets of most followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. How divorce occurs is somewhat different in all these religions; however, divorce and strong religious belief are compatible in the sense that the most faithful when it comes to general religious practices and church attendance still divorce. They also have extra-marital and premarital sex, despite church admonitions against these practices. It turns out that the rate of divorce is increasing among conservative Protestant groups, according to a recent study. “Generally, religion, religious belief and religious activities are thought to strengthen marriages,” said co-author Jennifer Glass, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “It appears that the cessation of education, early marriage and early parenthood, you’re set up for relationship conflict, financial stress and dissolution.”



Most people of faith make compromises with their religion. They sift through the beliefs, sorting one from another, following one and not another. The examples are numerous with relationships, particularly marriage. While faith groups teach the value of knowing someone well but not sexually, most people enter marriage having had sex not just once but several times. While religion emphasized particularly the virginity of women, the modern world sees women as sexually free as men and having the same rights and sexual needs. Furthermore people of faith who are single also live together without being married, a practice that is also growing just as the rate of divorce is ending marriages.



In addition to personal practices, there are specific beliefs or tenets that are part of each religion that people disregard when they are discussing their own particular take on almost anything. For example, mainstream Christianity does not believe in reincarnation. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for people of all faiths to talk about past lives, have their palms read, and talk about auras, mediums and gurus of all kinds. The religion of an individual may form the core of belief but out of that core are many deviations of practice and even manipulation of the tenets in order to accommodate practice.



Mixing tenets is a common practice, according to the Pew Forum. Many Americans, for example, blend Christianity with New Age beliefs. Furthermore it is not uncommon for people to belong to one denomination and attend the services of another. And a sizable number of Christians believe in ghosts or supernatural experiences. In addition it is common practice to have a religiously mixed marriage. In most of these marriages the partners attend various churches or groups as opposed to only one. 



More than 20% of Christians believe in reincarnation. Nearly three in ten people believe they have been in contact with someone who has died. These types of supernatural experiences are part of the eclecticism that is found among religions of all kinds across the world. While members of different faiths will profess the value of their beliefs, many people are willing to go along to get along when it comes to personal practice. Yet despite of these factors, religious hostilities are said to have reached a six-year high. This impacts nearly one-third of the world. It turns out that people are willing to make compromises for themselves but are less willing to understand and accept the beliefs of others.



Much of the eclecticism that occurs has its roots in antiquity. The ancient Greeks adopted eclecticism in philosophy and thought. The major religions each went through periods of borrowing from each other or modifying beliefs and thoughts in order to make accommodations. Islam also, with its many branches, indulges in eclecticism, with varying practices, borrowing from one another while at the same time maintaining one's own beliefs as the essential ones. And for many people essential is sometimes argued as being the only valid beliefs.



Is being eclectic a form of hypocrisy? Likely so, but does it work toward bringing people together in a harmonious and spiritual way that allows people to embrace and accept differences given the divergent tenets of the world's religions? The issue remains that by not admitting to ones' hypocrisy and holding to rigid ideals when dealing with others, while practicing far less than those ideals, does not allow the understanding and acceptance necessary for true religious tolerance. Eclecticism is growing in practice, but it has yet to yield the greater understanding for religious unity, which is paramount to peace.

Unholy alliance: Balancing religion and politics a continuing issue in governance

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona

Carol Forsloff---Throughout history religious leaders have also been secular leaders, however the consequence of this has been the reduction of personal freedoms in both religion and politics, as well as science. Yet despite the history of failed patterns where religion and politics are intimately related in the rule of countries, states, kingdoms and small community villages people persist in the alliance of two domains that reflect incompatibility on many levels, according to the experts.



In Christendom, the Pope was considered both the secular and religious leader, and initially when democracy began with the Magna Carta in 1215 the King had rights, yet those rights flowed from God's will, which was part of the Papacy's influence. The relationship between religion and politics remained a solid union, until that union was defied by the Reform movement that brought Protestant groups opposing the Papacy that redefined the concept of how the church and the government were to interface. The Church of England allowed the King to prevail over both the church and the state, with King Henry VIII setting the tone for generations to come, following his break from the Catholic Church and his marriage to Anne Boleyn. It was King Henry VIII's reign that set a precedent for the Western world in the separation of church and state.



In Islam religion and politics have also been united, although somewhat differently between the two main branches of Islam. Whereas the Shi'ite community presents the Imam as the central figure for government and faith practice, the Sunni community offers a temporal leader with the religious leaders who function in deference to the secular leaders. The contrast between Iran and Lebanon reflects some of this religious difference in the practice of governance, with Iran's religious leaders, who are Shi'ite having more power than those in Lebanon who are Sunni.



Other religions have also combined temporal and religious functions, to a greater or lesser degree, in both large and small groups. Nevertheless, no matter the size of the alliance the effect on the individual remains the same: more control over one's personal life in all matters. A “sin” against the faith becomes punishable by the government. A sin against the government is upheld by the Church. One only has to look at the long history of torture and death that have occurred with the sanction of both Church and State, when one entity merges with the other and no check is placed on power that becomes absolute in practice.



With a history that continues to raise the question about power and where it is properly placed, comes the ambiguity that arises in the modern world, when the law must consider the balance of religion and government in making the laws that govern the people. In Arizona the legislature passed a bill allowing businesses to refuse to serve individuals or perform certain tasks for individuals or groups on the basis of religious grounds. Gay rights groups claim the bill is specifically to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Those who hope the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, will sign the bill so it becomes law believe the rights of religion must be protected by the government and thus the protection of one's individual rights. But what if the dominant religion of Arizona forbade gay unions of any kind and the fraternization with a lesbian or gay man? The media reports that the whole matter of gay rights in relationship to religious freedom is at issue, with Brewer's decision paramount to the fate of Arizona.



There are also those instances where government so dominates religion, that the freedom of the latter is diminished, as occurred during the Stalin-Lenin-to modern times Russia. Churches were reduced to little more than a functional oddity for the few, with virtually no support from the government that encouraged practice of any kind. It was a hands off policy on the one hand, with a fist in the front to make sure the Church did not deviate from the dominant government themes.



In the modern world there remains the tendency for either the religious groups or the government to complain about power or the lack of it. People protest when government overcomes religious freedom. Conversely there is protest when religion dominates government, and people are limited in their beliefs or not allowed to practice a religion at all. Faith groups, and their followers, protest they need the ultimate in religious freedom, but often that freedom is oriented toward a specific set of beliefs as opposed to the beliefs of a wider community that encompasses all religions. The controversy over how much freedom and for whom is also part of the confusion in the interface of religion and politics. It is common to see individuals asking for the right to practice a set of beliefs that may conflict with the practice of others. When this occurs where the government is weak, there are religious wars.



Joseph Stalin's rule revealed how government dominates religion to the extent it is not only in disfavor but the practice of faith must literally go underground to survive. Stalin encouraged the persecution of Christians when atheism, or the practice of no religion, was considered the state religion. In spite of Stalin's insistence on people having no religion, many people maintained their faith regardless of the government edicts, yet it was a practice that had to be done in secret for fear of torture or even death.



The laws of every country vacillate according to the period of history and the type of government that occurs. The theme, however, of every government is how to strike the balance between religion and government. It is a theme that continues to plague individuals as well; whether it's a bill in Arizona or who shall rule the country as a whole, there is the hope that freedom will prevail. The disagreements come from the decision, however, of who will sacrifice a piece of that freedom so the whole of the group can function fairly. And it is these disagreements that remain a part of the politics of not just one country, but the entire world throughout its history that continues in modern times.

What dreams may come: Do dreams have special meaning?

Dreaming

While many people shrug off their dreams claiming they don't remember them, there are many individuals and groups who not only believe in the value of dreams but believe they are of particular significance and often help foretell the future.

Some scholars maintain that the original field of dream study was religion.  The earliest texts on dreams revealed that people thought they were of great spiritual significance.

The Talmud has elaborate discussions about dreams, and some of the early Christian scholars spoke of the value of dreams.  Some scientists maintain that dreams are part of superstitious belief, but that, some say, comes from the same notion that religion itself is superstition.  Yet scholars also wonder why dream study fascinates so many people.

It has also been observed by some researchers that small-scale societies base much of their religious beliefs on what they learn in dreams.  Belief in spirit beings comes from the dream world and was very much a part of Native American culture.

Deceased ancestors were often part of one's dreams in some of the cultures where religious beliefs encompassed what is learned from dreams.  Life after death is said to be understood and become a belief in most cultures and religions because of the nature of dreams and the fact that people reported getting messages from loved ones who had died and appeared in dreams, often offering a special message.

Christians offer a perspective on dreams that recognizes that dreams are part of Bible traditions but are careful nonetheless to explain that the study of dreams can be taken too far and that often what one believes is a vision from God may simply be a wish that is visualized and made real only in a dream.  Caution is stressed when studying dreams, and worshipers are advised to be cautious about putting too much stress on the nature of dreams.

Yet many in the Western world believe dreams have real value.  Dr. Andrew Weil, for example, believes dreaming is vital to emotional wellness.  They allow the mind to process emotions and ideas.  In addition dreaming is part of deep sleep, an important aspect of good health.

Dreams are part of man's history and a vital part of being healthy, and when they happen, many people may not remember anything but the broad outlines of some of them, whereas for others they become the mechanism for understanding the nature of life and death and from that understanding the meaning of one's very existence becomes part of the reason why people are fascinated with dreams.

Confess. It might be good for you

                                                  Lourdes sign for confession

Carol Forsloff---Most people do bad things, but it's often difficult to admit mistakes that are intentional or not.  Experts tell us, however, to confess errors, bad judgments and even intentional acts, as that confession has its benefits.

Admitting mistakes is an ethical issue that has a number of steps that can help an individual be able to move on from the situation or event where the mistake might have occurred.  It can also help establish good communication so that people who have been hurt might end up forgiving the error, even the intentional ones.

The first step is like everything else an individual wants to omit from his/her behavior, and that's to admit the mistake, the harm that may have occurred and what was done to create the error.  Second, take steps to examine what the issues were and where the mistake was made.  Notify all those people who might be hurt by the mistake, and don't expect forgiveness, but be thorough and open with an explanation.  Then take steps to prevent the mistake from happening again.

We have often heard that we can learn from our mistakes.  There are articles that detail how that learning can take place, but like the steps involved in the ethical issues of admission, what we learn from mistakes is contingent upon admitting our role in creating them, before we can move forward and not repeat the same mistake.

Religious folks tell us confession is good for the soul and mental health experts maintain it is also good for the mind and the body.  A Catholic priest reiterates the value of confession as the time when an individual can admit mistakes and thereby develop self-knowledge.  The conscience is purified, and the soul is strengthened, is the advice.

Scientists have examined the practices of Native Americans and found their confession ceremonies were thought to have both mind and body benefits.  The Native Americans believed confession was a way to purify the mind and body and to do so publicly aided in  purification.  Modern research also supports the healing power of opening up to others about mistakes and bad deeds.

Saying you're wrong and saying you're sorry are the ethics many people teach their children.  It turns out it's good advice not just for children but the rest of us as well.

Overcome the reign of opinions with thought, humility, true learning

Edifice of learning

Yvalain Debodinance---With the advent of the Internet and social networks anyone can speak and publish everything that comes into his or her head. It is safe. It is behind the screen well protected. Most of the time all this is friendly: we exchange jokes, pictures, pretty little thoughts of wisdom or things that astonish us.  Yet there is the opposite side of this mass communication privilege, and it is this and some ethical considerations that should also be addressed.

The ability to communicate on a global scale can also reveal how the reign of hatred spreads, the more murky thoughts, uncontrolled anger and the most obnoxious ideas that are offered an unexpected promotion. It’s like that. The system is open to all without control. It is up to everyone to do the sorting of ideas and refrain from contributing to the dissemination of racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-democratic speeches that take advantage of this freedom to poison our society.  In some societies this type of speech is considered a crime and the perpetrators punished.    In France the offense of incitement to racial hatred is punishable to law.

This democratization of speaking is undeniable progress. Thus new counter forces can emerge within society, because the press no longer plays the role that had once honored democratization  since large companies or rich men have purchased much of the media and dominated it.



That said, let’s exercise our critical sense: everything is not the same level. If we do not perceive the differences we participate in the confusion that has gripped the minds of the Western world, at work since the loss of old landmarks and bankruptcy of all current political thoughts.


In this system of communication open to everybody, we have the right to share what inspires us: our joys, our happiness, our sorrows, our astonishments or our anger. Virtual friends will join us and share their own feelings. All that is very friendly and contributes to the social fabric that everyone needs to feel alive. We are in the field of conviviality. It is the same spring as an informal discussion with someone we meet on a sidewalk. We exchange small talk, nothing important in the end, but we feel good.


The same channel disseminates ideas and opinions.  Most of us no longer see the difference between an idea and an opinion. Everyone has an opinion. That does not make it true, of course. But everyone feels entitled to express an opinion on all subjects, even those on which he or she has no knowledge. The concept of idea refers to something else: reflection and knowledge or at least looking for certain knowledge.  Opinion is easy, fast and painless while an idea or requires effort and preliminary work, such as verification by various methods.  Some researchers question what they do as well, and their mission is to uncover facts.  There should be a proper balance, and too often research can also be abused with too much opinion and too few facts.  We need a variety of methods to elicit the truth of anything.


 “The Road Less Traveled” by M. Scott Peck offers insight into this discussion of ideas and opinions and how they are shared.   The author said he had attended a lecture. He came out of it very exhausted because he had made ​​efforts to listen and try to understand what the speaker had expressed. And he was furious to hear people around him, who had listened to the lecture distractedly, give a final and totally superficial opinion.   The lesson from this becomes nobody is obliged to to use the necessary efforts to understand a particular subject, but at least he or she should not comment or judge peremptorily.


There is a tendency, in the current confusion of how ideas are expressed, to put everything on the same level: the view, the opinion without root (if it is not in a pure feel at a given moment) and thinking to which was devoted an important work. It is heartbreaking to see an idea, patiently developed and carelessly swept by a superficial reflection, due to the fact that the system, which allows us all to speak, puts an equal sign between the two.
Our time promotes the idea that everything should be easy.  Products are defined as easy to open, procedures said to be simple and complicated works popularized to make them accessible to all.  Yet we can appreciate things that allow us to reach for knowledge.  An example is the software used to make music that is said to be intuitive and easy to use.  Yet music is an area that also requires reflection, which is not so easy.



Reflection opens our mind to the world and aims to liberate us. Yet God knows how much effort to reflect is denigrated in our time. Contemporary philosophers are ridiculed. We no longer admire knowledge as we did once. Teaching does not attract vocations anymore. Researchers are poorly paid and subjected to the dictates of profitability. Political figures are among our favorite targets in these times, but we hasten to elect one who holds the most simplistic and demagogic speech. At the same time reality shows promote the idea that anyone can say anything: when it’s on television it becomes a kind of truth and we see children repeat in the schoolyard the good words heard in these emissions. Televangelists use easy emotions and religious slogans which are emptied of all content through being repeated endlessly.


In any group, if one tries to talk about something thought-provoking and instantly he or she will get objections, sarcasm, a joke that will cut any desire to continue on this ground. Those who persist with the facts or new ideas find they will be attacked on the theme: “who do you think you are?”


We live in a time of thought bankruptcy. The lowering of reflection and the glorification of opinion are a tangible sign. The phenomenon is global.  We find politically left regimes that adopt an ultra-liberal economic model defined by the right-wing economists group at the University of Chicago and then we understand that these governments have lost any desire to develop alternatives.


Scott Peck also said: “If we are unable to think for ourselves, we are easy targets of domination and manipulation. To keep us in a state of dependency, we are taught that it is not worth thinking too.”


What is striking today, and the social networks clearly show it, it is how many people have abandoned the idea of thinking independently. Worse, they believe to be original when they are repeating platitudes that are nothing other than Zeitgeist. They confuse emotion and truth. An emotion is deeply felt within oneself. A source of emotion can be full of conscious or unconscious causes. False information, judgment errors, false perception and indoctrination can generate emotions. As strong as it is this emotion expresses nothing other than what it is. Emotions are contagious, they aggregate the crowds. But they do not become truth either.


Therefore let’s cease to arouse emotions to see what truth will come out!   For that is what occurs from many of the opinion polls, random surfing for news items without checking facts or finding verification,  or listening to or watching newscasts that exacerbate emotions, as these are often just wonderful ways to manipulate people.
There is in our modern world a certain glory that comes from indulging in one’s emotions - because nobody can doubt that emotion that grips our guts,  as it can be displayed as a self-affirmation with no doubt. Thus we hate the one who makes the effort to not let his own affects go and we accuse him or her to feel nothing. Yes, the current bankruptcy of thought reveals itself in all circumstances.


Many of the opinions deposited on social networks are the expression of these little emotions, quickly shared and quickly forgotten, without consistency or root. And it is obviously deliberate. It has become the new standard as arguments frighten or are belittled by all.


There are those of us, however, personally committed to the intellectual effort.   Those with that commitment feel very strongly the need to be freed from all that is compelling, whether coming from outside or from inside oneself.  Those with that commitment listen to their guts but also don't just use this spontaneously to express ideas if they would not interest others.  We can be wary of preconceptions, Zeitgeist, false truths expressed by TV every day.  We can be wary of all indoctrination - and even more so those who want to manipulate others who have the capacity to feel emotions strongly and sincerely.
We can be open ourselves and allow ourselves to question beliefs and everything we may have thought was certain, if new ideas are advanced that allow us the information that might change what we had previously thought.  It may appear to be a path less secure than others, but it is more liberating.  One can look forward to one's own path while getting rid of rigidity.



Scott Peck told us: “Those who are well aware of their depression, their doubts, their moments of confusion and despair, may be much healthier than those who are generally sure for themselves, sufficient and satisfied. In truth, the denial of suffering is a better indicator of disease than its acceptance.”


Perhaps we must really suffer in order to seek the causes of that suffering and relief from it, and maybe there is some truth in that.  For some people perhaps a superficial way of thinking, that indicates a certain laziness of people, are not unhappy even when their minds are not open to new ideas and therefore appear to have minds that are empty.



On the other hand each one of us has the capacity of a depth of mind and heart even if life circumstances can pull us out,  even if we seem to have lost contact with our deep truth (not to be confused with emotions of course).   In that case, nothing is definitive in the human being ans the potential for man's development in many ways is potentially endless. But he or she must at least know that it is possible to start the internal dynamics release from the rigidity of thought and the impact of emotions from all that occurs around us.  We can then be attuned and be part of a revival of consciousness, even on social networks. In being like this we can silent the defeatist voices that demobilize us so that we become like them.



Given the freedom of communication the Internet provides,  let’s do the sorting, discern the messages that are passing: emotions transformed into words, inconsequential chatter or at contrary ideas which we are free to join or not, but ideas that have depth, which reveal some work, some search for knowledge. And then: yes, let’s go, let’s enrich with intellectual work done by others and let’s bring also our stone to the knowledge edification. Let’s be ambitious. Let’s not just live and feel. Let’s have the ambition to try to understand what is happening within us and around us. It’s not enough to state that we have chains: let’s break them. Let’s have the ambition to share anything other than vacuum or some provisional. Let’s create spiritual wealth. Let’s bring light.


And then, we should have the humility to “know that we don’t know” which is the preamble to the desire to learn. Let’s be patient because learning takes time. And, as long as we don’t master a subject, let’s learn to be silent because it is better to say nothing than to say anything: “All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’” (Mat 5-37)

Mormon Church faces legal issues over accusation of having fraudulentdoctrines

Mormon Church in Salt Lake City

Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah[/caption]

A British court is taking up the case of a man who has filed suit against the Mormon Church, declaring it to have fraudulent doctrines.  The head of the Mormon Church, Thomas S. Monson is being asked to appear in court offer testimony about the allegation.

And Monson, who is considered to be God's Prophet on earth, says he will not appear in spite of any court summons.

The case is being highlighted by a Religion Blog who lists the Mormons as a cult and a deviation against the principle doctrines of Christianity.

The Mormon Church, however, has a site called MormonThink that discusses the attitudes about its doctrines and posts some of these, saying in defense of them, "Let the reader decide."

But what do legal experts say about this in England?  Most of them, according to the Washingt0n Post, believe it is unlikely that Monson will be extradited to face court and surprised that a summons was even issued over the claims of a former Mormon, who regrets having become a Mormon and embracing its teachings.

And if the man prevails in his lawsuit against the Mormons, how would that set a precedent for other disaffected former church members of any group outside mainstream religious groups to also be called cults and find themselves being sued in court?