Today in the News: Part 3

[Roberta]

Re: "On the Question of Martyrdom", this week's In Theory questions. My response is below, you can go to the full column from:

www.glendalenewspress.com/opinion/religion/

It was an ah-ha moment for me recently when I heard my rather traditional and I assumed conservative new sister-in-law referring to the numerous C.O.s (conscientious objectors) in her family. She is a Mennonite, so her father, uncles, brothers and late first husband had all refused to bear arms in World War II, Korea or Vietnam, and instead worked for pennies in alternative service, for which they received no veterans benefits.

Many quietly make sacrifices for what they believe and we are unaware.

To me and maybe also to Pope Francis, deaths by ignorance, malfeasance or lax regulations (that would include all of our gun deaths) are just as tragic as those caused by religious persecution. He demonstrated his support for the search for justice by the survivors of the more than 300 mostly high school students killed in the avoidable sinking of the Korean ferry Sewol.

It gets us nowhere to create a sainthood of martyrdom, whether religious or secular.

Pope Francis pointed out that Korean Christianity came not from foreign missionaries but from Koreans seeking the “universal equality in divine eyes” they saw western religion as offering. To me “let the dead bury the dead” tells us not to use martyr worship to justify yet more deaths.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

[Sharon W]

Very wise answer Roberta - as usual.

[Brian]

You're one helluva writer, Roberta, and we appreciate you posting your In Theory submissions on the Montrose Peace Vigil message board too.  It's not just more convenient for us -- I think your morsels are the best fodder for the hungry bots that come here from search engines around the world, like Google.

Below is the link to the finest piece I've read so far about how the peace movement can respond to the coming debate over a Congressional authorization for war in Iraq and Syria.  It's short, and Tom Hayden wrote it, of course: 

www.laprogressive.com/obama-middle-east-choices/

[Roberta]

Here's this week's "In Theory" question and my response. You can get to everyone's answers from www.glendalenewspress.com/opinion/religion/


Houses of worship have been used as polling places across America since the earliest days of our nation. One Florida church, Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church, however, after this month will no longer open its doors to voters on election days after protesters objected to specific stances it has taken on run-ups to past elections, including political views on signage and a pro-life memorial for the unborn situated adjacent to the entrance to the polling place.

Q: What do you think of any worship center being used as a polling place? Are protesters blowing things out of proportion, or do you believe their concerns are valid?



During a stint as a clerk at our local polling place, another worker and I talked about the jewelry choices we both had made while getting dressed that Election Day. My co-worker agonized about her little cross necklace which she wore every day. I told her that I had considered but rejected wearing my peace symbol earrings, but brought them along in case I changed my mind.

On the ballot that election was Prop 8, the anti-marriage equality measure which some churches supported, and back then (November 2008) more people seemed to be paying attention to our wars.

The upshot of our exchange was that I kept my earrings off and she put her necklace in her pocket.

I do not think that we were blowing things out of proportion to take seriously our duty to be unbiased.

I have no problem with voting in churches, including in a sanctuary. Politics is a religion for me. I also believe that concerns for laws and regulations on political expression near polling places are extremely important.

The alacrity with which the Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church gave up that civic activity is noteworthy. Apparently they did not think their signs and memorial could withstand a legal challenge.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

[Roberta]

I -- we -- have been answering this question for years. A lot of my insights and no doubt some of my exact words come directly from the corner. I hope I do you all justice!

www.glendalenewspress.com/opinion/religion/

[Roberta]

This week's In Theory topic and my response below:

Retired Israeli President Shimon Peres during a meeting with Pope Francis this month proposed a new global peace initiative: A “United Nations of Religions,” the Washington Post and other news sources reported.

“People who shoot the most these days nearly always say they are doing it in God’s name,” Peres told the Italian Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana before meeting with the pope. “What is needed is an unquestionable moral authority that says in a strong voice ‘No, God does not want this and does not permit it.’”
-------------

I say Amen to churches opposing war. Sure, there probably have been atheist terrorists — I’m betting the Weathermen were — and no doubt more to come in the future, but Peres is on the mark that it is fervent believers now slaughtering each other and anyone else in the way.

Killing in your god’s name would seem so ridiculous as to give anyone pause, but apparently today’s terrorists lack any sense of the absurd.

I trust though that Peres doesn’t think religion opposing war is new. Interfaith Communities United for Justice & Peace (www.icujp.org) is just one local example of lay and clergy asserting their moral authority to urge churches to “stop blessing war and violence.”

Peres claims that the U.N. “has had its day,” while simultaneously proposing to recreate it with religious bodies instead of nations. His jaundiced view of the U.N. perhaps stems from votes condemning Israel’s territorial and human rights violations and he may hope that a religious U.N. would go easier on Israel.

Every church-goer I know would be firmly behind a worldwide religious antiwar effort, in whatever form it would take, as would I. Let’s hope this is a sincere proposal and that he has the will to carry it forward, especially to the rest of the Abrahamic-faith Middle East.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

[Roberta]

I'm sure everybody is seeing the wonderful photo of Pearl and Norm in today's LA Times. If I knew how to transmit it here I certainly would. The NY Times has this uplifting info, check it out:

weareheremovement.com/

[Roberta]

A link to today's letters on Hagel's latest nuclear weapons "fix," mine is copied below.

www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-1118-tuesday-nuclear-weapons-20141118-story.html

To the editor: In the same news cycle as this latest revelation of scandalously poor management by our military of our nuclear arsenal, The Times also reported the following: "Growing caseloads put children's rights at risk" and "State pension funds are running dry," both on Nov. 14.

Soon after those articles were published, Hagel announced a plan to beef up spending by billions to secure these weapons that anyone with any sense knows must never be used. Says Hagel, "No other capability we have is more important."

I think protecting children from neglect and abuse and ensuring that no workers, public or private, are poverty-stricken in retirement are at least as important. I demand an announcement of well-funded plans to address these threats to our security.

Roberta Medford, Montrose

[Sharon W]

Your letter to the editor in today's GNP is great too! www.glendalenewspress.com/opinion/tn-gnp-letter-voters-already-limit-political-terms-20141118,0,3094949.story

[Roberta]

Sometimes I can't be the reasonable atheist. Here's my response to "Do you have any concerns about leaders from other non-Christian religious organizations holding services in the Washington National Cathedral?" The rest are at: www.burbankleader.com/opinion/tn-blr-me-in-theory-should-the-washington-national-cathedral-be-open-to-different-faiths-20141125,0,5086685.story

----------------------

Ordinarily "National" and "Cathedral" juxtaposed would concern me, however I have been to this magnificent edifice and know that it is not a U.S. government building.

More important is that again this week grisly events have overtaken our question, with five Jewish worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue killed by terrorists, making 11 Israelis killed by Palestinians and four Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces this month.

I include these numbers not because there is any justifying this tit-for-tat, but to remind us of the unrelenting carnage.

In his sermon at the Cathedral Muslim scholar Ebrahim Rasool declared "it is not a time for platitudes," then issued one of his own: Believers must be a "middle ground" to counter the "mischief" that is threatening the world.

Until every religious person on earth gets off the middle ground, stands up and says to an ISIS beheader, "You are not a Muslim" and to an Israeli soldier killing Palestinian children, "You are not a Jew," the carnage will continue.

The protester at the service who shouted out that "America was founded on Christian principles," which it certainly was not, is part of the problem too, as is Rev. Franklin Graham declaring that the National Cathedral should be used to worship only the "One true God of the Bible."

It is beyond offensive to me that the Middle East's self-inflicted suffering, in which we are stupidly entangled, is perpetrated in service of stories that, though they include real historic figures such as Jesus and Mohamed, are at heart fantasies whose central figure is an imaginary being.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose