Buddhism

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Topic that's back in the news: What do world religions teach on polygamy, pro and con?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Topic that's back in the news: What do world religions teach on polygamy, pro and con?

THE QUESTION:

What do world religions believe on polygamy, pro and con?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

With religion, age-old issues such as polygamy vs. monogamy never disappear, and a recent Jerusalem Post article discussed Jewish practices, which we’ll examine below.

First, some terminology: What’s called “polygamy” occurs in two ways. “Polyandry” means one woman with more than one husband, a rare form found among, for instance, some Buddhists in Tibet where the husbands are commonly brothers. The familiar form technically named “polygyny” is one man with more than one wife. “Bigamy” applies when civil law makes plural marriages a crime.

All of that needs to be distinguished from modern “polyamory,” namely multiple and consensual sexual ties with various gender configurations minus marriage (see this recent GetReligion podcast and post). These range from “free love” to “open” relationships to formalized temporary or permanent sexual groupings. Notably, this movement is now acceptable within one U.S. religion. Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness is officially recognized as a “related” organization of that denomination serving members who support and promote such a sexual identity.

Polygamy has been opposed by Christianity throughout history but exists without dispute in lands dominated by the world’s second-largest religion, Islam. Most other nations make it a criminal offense. The United Nations Human Rights Commission expresses moral abhorrence and urges abolition, arguing that legal polygamy violates “the dignity of women.”

Indigenous religion that involves polygamy continues in some sectors of Africa. South Africa allows it not only for the Muslim minority but for those who maintain their traditional cultures, for example former President Jacob Zuma of the Zulu people, who has four wives. Modern India forbids polygamy even though it was part of Hindu tradition, but similarly allows it for Muslims.

In U.S. history, hostility was such that in 1856 the major pronouncement by the first convention of the newborn Republican Party declared that Congress must “prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Can a high school coach pray at 50-Yard line? Five SCOTUS hearing takeaways

, , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Can a high school coach pray at 50-Yard line? Five SCOTUS hearing takeaways

The case of Joseph Kennedy, a Bremerton, Washington, high school football coach who wants to kneel and pray at the 50-yard line, made it to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

Arguments took nearly two hours, double the time scheduled. Here are five key takeaways:

1. The issue: “The case pits the rights of government workers to free speech and the free exercise of their faith against the Constitution’s prohibition of government endorsement of religion and Supreme Court precedents that forbid pressuring students to participate in religious activities,” the New York Times’ Adam Liptak explains.

2. The significance: It’s “one of its most significant cases on prayer in decades … in a clear test for how the court's new conservative majority may rule on prayer in public schools,” Newsweek’s Julia Duin reports.

Duin adds:

The case focused on whether a high school coach could openly pray after the end of a football game. Arguments included examples from elsewhere in the sports world, with mentions of former Denver Broncos football player Tim Tebow, known for kneeling on the field in prayer, and Egyptian soccer player Mohamed Salah, who kneels in a thanksgiving prayer to Allah after he scores a goal.

Read Plug-in’s past coverage of Tebow’s controversial prayers. Also, see this Duin post — “Coach Joe Kennedy goes to the Supreme Court and the media coverage gets a B+” — here at GetReligion.

3. The hypotheticals: “The U.S. Supreme Court justices spun more than a dozen hypothetical prayer scenarios during oral arguments,” Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman notes.

The Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko highlights some of those scenarios:

A coach who crosses himself before a game. A teacher who reads the Bible aloud before the bell rings. A coach who hosts an after-school Christian youth group in his home.

Supreme Court justices discussed all those hypothetical scenarios.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Novak Djokovic is both Orthodox and unorthodox: Why ignore faith when covering this story?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Novak Djokovic is both Orthodox and unorthodox: Why ignore faith when covering this story?

First things first. I am not a tennis fan. I don’t think I have seriously cared about the outcome of a tennis match since the late Arthur Ashe won Wimbledon in 1975.

Also, as a Baby Boomer at high risk (asthma), I have had both shots and the booster. I am currently in semi-lockdown. I wear a mask when shopping and in jammed public places. I’m one of those folks in the middle — pro-vaccine, but anti-government mandate. What about religious exemptions? As I have written here at GetReligion, that would be a complex U.S. Supreme Court case.

This brings me to the Novak Djokovic drama. I vaguely knew that he was one of the world’s top tennis players, but knew nothing about his unique — bizarre, even — beliefs about a host of medical issues.

Then I saw an image that hit home for me, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian believer. It showed Djokovic doing what Orthodox parents do — helping his young son light prayer candles and venerate icons.

What follows in this post has nothing to do with whether readers think Djokovic is right or wrong, a liar or a Serbian hero, a lunatic or a misunderstood believer, of some kind of another. What I am doing here is asking a journalism question about mainstream coverage of this battle in the wider COVID-19 wars. I read the New York Times, of course, so that was where I immediately went for information.

The question: How could journalists try to tell the story of Djokovic and his opposition to COVID-19 vaccines without digging into his complex and, it seems to me, confusing set of Orthodox and unorthodox religious beliefs? Isn’t that a crucial and factual element of this story?

I am aware, of course, that anti-vaccine sentiment is present in some Orthodox circles — such as Serbia — but certainly not all (my own bishop has been very careful during the pandemic).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Talking to Jesus? This is big New York Times news when a Hollywood spiritualist is involved

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Talking to Jesus? This is big New York Times news when a Hollywood spiritualist is involved

Let’s see. If you were going to write a New York Times article in which someone claimed to be channeling the Buddha, would you, at some point, talk to Buddhists? Maybe even a scholar whose work is rooted in Buddhist thought?

What about Judaism? If someone was claiming to channel Moses, would you talk to a rabbi or two about that? Maybe a scholar who has studied Jewish mysticism?

How about Islam? How would a reporter approach the claims of someone who says she is channeling Mohammad? And what would Islamic believers think of this process?

With these questions in mind, let’s look at that chatty first-person piece that ran more than a month ago at the Times with this headline: “In Good Spirits — Carissa Schumacher channels the dead for her A-list celebrity clients. But most days, she’s in the forest.”

The headline omits the big reveal: Schumacher claims to channel the spirits of the dead, including her most famous connection — Jesus. This is tricky territory, as demonstrated in the wild correction at the end of this long feature:

Correction: Nov. 29, 2021

An earlier version of this article described incorrectly the biblical name Yeshua. The name refers to multiple people, including Joshua; it does not refer solely to Jesus Christ. The article also referred incorrectly to the Old Testament; while the name Yeshua appears in it, Jesus Christ does not.

Ready for the overture?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

About that RNS/AP series on women leaders: Aren't most religions 'male-led'?

, , , , , , ,
About that RNS/AP series on women leaders: Aren't most religions 'male-led'?

Unless your local media runs articles by the Associated Press or Religion News Service, you might not be aware of their current series on “women’s roles in male-led religions.”

Most religions are pretty patriarchal, aren’t they, unless you count numerous female deities as making Hinduism women-friendly. But wait — there was that whole thing about female temple prostitutes — so maybe even Hinduism favors the guys as well.

So let’s look some news about issues linked to this.

In 2018, the Lilly Endowment Inc. put together a $4.9 million grant to fund 13 new positions at The Associated Press, Religion News Service and The Conversation in an effort known as the Global Religion Journalism Initiative.

Since then, evidence of this collaboration have been sparse, so this new series that premiered last week is one of the first major efforts on that front.

First out of the blocks was a Dec. 8 piece in The Conversation by Deborah Whitehead of Religion News Service giving a summation of womens’ efforts –- over a broad swath of denominations and religions -- to either be ordained or attain more power in their congregations. The main holdouts, she said, were Orthodox Jews, Latter-day Saints, Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists.

I’m not sure why she didn’t mention Eastern Orthodox Christians, who likewise don’t ordain women but once had a tradition — in the distant past – of female deacons. See here for a debate among two Orthodox scholars about the matter.

The way Whitehead’s piece –- and indeed the entire series that I’ve seen to date — is that women’s ordination is the logical, progressive next step. The sub-headlines that describe the opposing point of view include “Opposition to change” and “Other forms of discrimination,” so it’s not hard to see where this series is headed. This is advocacy journalism, especially when it comes to changing the priesthood in ancient churches


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Emerging split inside old mainline: Is U.S. Christianity becoming two different religions?

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Emerging split inside old mainline: Is U.S. Christianity becoming two different religions?

THE QUESTION:

Is Christianity in the United States becoming two different religions?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

If the question above seems off the wall, at least look why it has arisen.

Two years ago, The Guy wrote that he was quite astonished by some survey research reported in "The Twentysomething Soul" (Oxford University Press) by Tim Clydesdale of the College of New Jersey and Kathleen Garces-Foley of Marymount University.

Young Americans age 30 and under, quizzed about religion, were asked how they think of God.

One option was "a personal being, involved in the lives of people today." It doesn't get any simpler or more basic than that, whether you're Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Other choices were some impersonal "cosmic life force," or a deistic creator who is "not involved in the world now," or that God does not exist.

Not surprisingly, the evangelical Protestants were virtually unanimous in embracing the first definition. But remarkably, only half of those in the predominantly white, theologically pluralistic "mainline" Protestant church bodies made that choice, while 40 percent favored the vague "life force." Young adult Catholics fell in between the two Protestant groups. (In this random sample, 30 percent were evangelicals, 18 percent Catholic, 14 percent "mainline" Protestant, and 29 percent with no religious affiliation.)

The Guy therefore posed the question whether Protestants' long-running two-party rivalry "could be evolving toward a future with two starkly different belief systems."

Now a more radical version of that scenario is explored at book length in "One Faith No Longer" (New York University Press) by Baylor University sociologist George Yancey and Ashlee Quosigk, a visiting scholar of religion at the University of Georgia. More info here.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Looking for signs of life? Study the birth rates among religious faiths in America

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Looking for signs of life? Study the birth rates among religious faiths in America

A team of economists from Wellesley College and the University of Maryland recently published a working paper that focused on a peculiar puzzle facing the United States: declining birth rates.

More particularly, the team of researchers was trying to understand why birth rates continued to fall even after the economy was recovering from the Great Recession of 2007. Those economists concluded that one of the biggest factors was shifting priorities among younger Americans — away from raising children and toward career and travel aspirations.

But fertility is obviously incredibly multifaceted. The decision to become a parent is often one that is made with a number of factors in mind. Young adults have to consider their educational plans, the amount of income they would have available to pay for a child and how to handle childcare responsibilities once they become parents.

One factor that can have a tremendous impact on this decision is religion.

Every major religious tradition on Earth encourages reproduction, and thus there can be a theological nudge for people to have children. But a local religious community can also make the decision easier for potential parents by offering up a safety net that can provide financial support or easy access to caregivers for babies and children in the congregation.

Clearly, it’s in the best interest of religious groups to encourage their young families to have children if they want to ensure the long-term viability of their traditions. It’s no secret that families with children are the easiest pathway to ensure that a church, mosque or synagogue will be able to sustain itself for decades to come. But which traditions are doing a good job of having children, and which ones aren’t? And what does that tell us about the future of American religion?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Adventures in religion-beat life: What's the difference between a 'pool pit' and a pulpit?

, , , , , ,
Adventures in religion-beat life: What's the difference between a 'pool pit' and a pulpit?

I read the preacher’s words once — and then again — and tried to make sense of them.

In a Florida TV station’s report on a church promoting the COVID-19 vaccines, minister Charlie McClendon was quoted as saying, “Each week I emphasize it from the pool pit just before I preach.”

The pool pit?

I’ve covered religion for two-plus decades, but I hadn’t come across that term. Strange.

Later, my eyes popped wide open in the middle of the night.

Suddenly, it hit me.

“Pulpit.”

I burst into laughter, much to the chagrin of my sleeping wife.

After I posted on Twitter about the mistake, reporter Gretchen Kernbach offered a gracious mea culpa and corrected the wording.

Even before her tweet, I made clear — amid humorous responses and more serious calls for better religious literacy in journalism — that I wasn’t casting stones. In 30 years of news reporting, I’ve made plenty of doozy mistakes myself.

I just thought this particular one was funny. If you don’t believe me, feel free to ask my wife.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Step back from digital news blitz with deeply layered religion pieces about China and India

, , , , , , , , , ,
Step back from digital news blitz with deeply layered religion pieces about China and India

The web has seduced us — and by us I mean me — into a life of 24-7 journalistic overload. For me, that can mean running out of bandwidth before getting to a story that actually deserves close attention. My limited brain can digest only so much before it shorts out.

Even a strung-out news junkie such as myself needs to log off every so often. Self-styled media literacy is as addictive as blissful ignorance.

Religion coverage has suffered greatly in this new journalistic reality. We’re provided an abundance of attention-grabbing stories about clergy hypocrisy, largely involving sexual, material or political excess. We get too few stories that connect the data points of everyday religious complexity that allows us to understand issues more deeply.

Here are two recent stories that struck me as worthy of the attention that’s too often withheld. One involves China, the other India. The only connection between them is that they both reveal deep truths about the religious reality of the societies they report on.

Let’s start with China, the more straightforward of the two stories.

It comes from Foreign Policy and ran under the intriguing, but incomplete, headline: “The Chinese Communist Party Is Scared of Christianity.”

Why incomplete? Because as the writer notes, it’s not just Christianity that scares China’s totalitarians rulers. It’s all unauthorized official thinking, religious or otherwise.

Did the headline mention Christianity alone because editors figured that would play best with their mostly western readership? Is this another example of algorithmic journalism?


Please respect our Commenting Policy