Lindsy Morton

This is Lindsy Morton, who is a Christian artist who came from my church back home. This is one of her most powerful songs, that she commonly sings at many of the churches she visits and performs/leads worship at.
It is written from the viewpoint of Mary, Jesus' mother, watching her son die at the cross.
This quality isn't the best, but it's a beautiful song.

Here I kneel, before my bleeding son, 
Here I kneel, the highly favoured one. 
And that's my child, the one you spit upon, That's my son.
The one I cuddled in my arms, that's my baby, dying on that cross,
And here I kneel, watching Jesus pay my cost

Compelling Pro-Choice Story

This article doesn't directly say anything about Christianity, but it is related through the controversy of abortion. Sometimes there are gray areas in the argument or exceptions to abortion, like when the pregnancy is a result of rape, or when the pregnancy is life-threatening the mother. This is an interesting situation, where a pregnant woman named Danielle Deaver was having a premature baby, twenty weeks into the pregnancy, and she was told that her baby was going to die no matter what steps were taken. She decided to "terminate the pregnancy, rather than waiting for their daughter to be born naturally and suffer." However, "Nebraska recently enacted a new, stricter law that prevents abortions after the 20th week of gestation except in very specific situations where the mother's life is immediately in danger. Deaver's situation was outside the law, and there was nothing doctors could do to help her." The baby was born at only 1 lb. 10 oz. and "was physically perfect, but born too early to survive, even with medical help." The parents held her for fifteen minutes and watched her die.

What would be more painful? To watch the baby die in your arms or to know that your are the one who killed your baby (through abortion)? What is the correct moral action?

In the article's conclusion it reads: "She [Deaver] believes that no family should have to go through what they went through. The new law is based on research that shows that babies past 20 weeks' gestation can feel pain because their nerves are developed enough. But Deaver thinks that it doesn't take into account unusual and heart-wrenching situations like her own."

If the baby can feel pain during the abortion, how would you know as a mother that you would be saving it from suffering? How would you know which pain, that of the abortion or that of the natural death, would be worse? If it is only to lessen the mother's own pain, does that make her selfish?
Her argument is that abortion is the answer to all of the pain in the story. Is supporting medical research and development for premature babies instead of supporting abortion a realistic alternative?

Link to Article:  Nebraska Couple Watches Their Baby Die Because of New Law

Why Are They Called Blue Laws?

Apparently there is one theory that the strict laws were originally written on blue paper, but that claim is beaten down by all of the sources. Instead, "A more probable derivation is based on an 18th-century usage of the word blue meaning 'rigidly moral” in a disparaging sense" (Britannica)  . . .  "(a 'bluenose' for example is one who advocates a rigorous moral code" (Snopes).
The laws were "strictest in Puritan, Bible-oriented communities" (Britannica) and the first recorded use of the term blue laws was by a reverend named Samuel Peters, in his book titled General History of Connecticut published in 1781, in which he lists "45 blue laws [. . . ] that were wholly or substantially true" (Britannica).

Blue Law Examples From Peters' Work:
-regular work on Sunday, plus any buying, selling, traveling, public entertainment, or sports is forbidden
-“The judges shall determine controversies without a jury”
-“married persons must live together or be imprisoned”
-“a wife shall be good evidence against her husband”
-“the selectmen, on finding children ignorant, may take them away from their parents and put them into better hands, at the expense of their parents.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/70275/blue-law
http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/bluelaws.asp

Catholic Governors Supporting Gays in 5 States

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/catholic-governors-and-ga_n_1294944.html?ref=christianity

Five different Catholic governors (Maryland, Maine, New York, Washington, New Hampshire) have signed legislation giving people the rights of gay marriage. The political issues seem to split the religion in many ways. The given example from this article is that: "In the recent contraception controversy it was revealed that 98% of Catholic women have used contraception at sometime in their lives, even as the Catholic Bishops maintain the position that contraception goes against Catholic teaching."
Whether your opinion is that this is progress or it is trouble, these signings are sure to be controversial within the Church, and the result is yet to be seen.

Non-Jews using a Jewish Wedding Contract

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/nonjewish-couples-embrace_n_1399984.html

In the wedding industry it's becoming trendy to sign a Jewish ketubah, (the traditional Jewish marriage contract) even for those who are not Jewish or Christian.. or religious at all. Many are even adapting to other customs: "More non-Jewish couples have embraced Jewish marriage rituals over the last decade. Some stomp a glass – or a lightbulb [sic] as a popular substitute. Others recite vows under a canopy, called a chuppah."
There is an increase demand for non-Jewish ketubahs because "a ketubah is more than just fancy calligraphy. It's often poster-size and ornate, suitable for framing later with artwork either as backdrop or accompaniment." People seem to like it mostly for aesthetic and sentimental reasons.

One Ketubah creator says, "I always felt it was something that everybody could have . . . I didn't see why it should just be for Jews. It can be the thing that reflects the spirit of the day, more than those 50,000 photographs you took at your wedding. It's just a nice energy."
The article concludes that many Jewish traditions are becoming mainstream without their religious associations, and this is one example proving the claim.

Queer Christ ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kittredge-cherry/queer-christ-arises-to-li_b_1374286.html

We have looked at different depictions of God and Jesus...
Now some people of the LGBT group have made their own image of Jesus, claiming their own right to religion and freedom of speech.
The idea behind these pictures is explained as this: "Whenever anyone commits violence against another, Christ is crucified -- including when LGBT people are attacked or killed for loving someone of the same sex. The crucifixion remains the most common queer Christian theme. Many LGBT people can relate to the hurt and humiliation that Jesus experienced on the cross. Traditional iconography such as the Passion and the Stations of the Cross has been adapted to address queer suffering."
The article writer says these ideas are revelations in the church.

The Use of the Same Scripture to Stop Abortions AND Support Gays

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/psalm-139-two-causes-two-meanings_n_1386492.html

Apparently Psalm 139:13-14 which reads: "For it was you who formed my inward parts. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made" is used to argue both pro-life stances and gay rights stances. Pro-life, to not abort the fearfully and wonderfully made babies, and pro-gay since the children are, "born this way." This split is caused by different purposes of each group of activists, and the different interpretations of the Bible come into play here as well. Those who use this to support gay rights are not including all the other biblical scriptures which denounce same-sex relations as a sin and even an abomination. Psalms is largely a collection of prayers and praises, not the instruction that God lays out in other books, so it's fallacy to omit the other scriptures. However, like we read from the Mennonite writer in the beginning of the semester, some think that the Bible does not discuss loving types of same-sex relationships and therefore it is unclear on the whether that would be sinful or permitted in the eyes of God. If people think of the Bible this way (which I think is a more uncommon view), than the pro-gay uses of this scripture do make sense. Agreement with either side here depends on one's personal interpretations, beliefs, and purposes.

The Pope's View on U.S. Politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120309/eu-vatican-gay-marriage/

Pope Benedict XVI grows concerned about the seemingly disappearing ideal of chastity when he sees the "'powerful' gay marriage lobby" in America. He is encouraging bishops to continue fighting against same-sex marriage and the birth control legislation despite how "counter-cultural" it seems in this day and age. In addition to being awakened to the idea of chastity, Benedict sees a need for instruction "in core church teachings on human sexuality" to help with the problem of couples too frequently living together outside of/before marriage, and others. In speaking of gay marriage Benedict states, "Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage."

Unfair, Incomplete Exemptions of the Birth Control Legislation (i.e. The Amish)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sister-mary-ann-walsh/amish-ok-catholics-no_b_1334773.html

The issue of the birth control administration has been discussed on our blogs before, but this article has an interesting angle: the Amish are exempt from such legalization, yet the Catholics are not. Another group that is exempt are members of Medi-Share, a program of Christian Care Ministry. How is the reconcilable with the first amendment of the constitution, the right to one's beliefs?

Sister Mary Ann Walsh writes, "The Amish do not believe in insurance, and the government understands. Christian Care Ministry believes people should form a religious community and pay medical bills for one another, and the government says OK. Yet when the Catholic Church opposes being forced to pay for services that violate its beliefs, the Administration says 'tough.'"

The "Problem" With Christian Sororities/Fraternities

Here's something that hits close to home! (At least for me). I just joined CU Boulder's Christian sorority, alpha delta chi (adx).  And for the chapter at San Diego State University, it has just recenetly been decided that the sorority will no longer be affiliated with the school on the grounds that it is exclusive/discriminatory because it only lets Christians in: the members and officers to accept a statement of faith, which, among other things, requires that members have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The Christian sorority and fraternity at Hastings College became unaffiliated too, last year, and this trend could have an effect on other adx chapters. However, if it does eventually affect our school, the Christian fraternity will not see any affect since all fraternities here are not affiliated with CU already.
The adx chapter tried to get this case reviewed by the Supreme Court, but were denied. The problem for adx chapters is how one-way this decision is: since "the student vegetarian club can exclude those who advocate for meat eating and animal hunting, but Christian groups cannot exclude those advocating atheism or Buddhism, etc" (see link below).

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/religious-freedom/supreme-court-should-announce-monday-whether-it-will-hear-san-diego-state-case/

Burning of the Quran: Should We Have Apolgized?

We were talking about this issue in class today so I thought I'd post this relevant youtube video. It is a response to Obama's apology after the Qurans were burned; While many see this as an injustice and social wrong, Kira Davis criticizes Obama's apology because of the wrongs happening between America and Afghanistan and the wrongs done to the nation's own people by those in power. I haven't researched all of the claims she makes and verify them, but many of them are things we all know or have heard. She brings up a lot of current events that have religious associations and she faces a lot of reality by not only criticizes their political leaders and actions, but also our own, in a very intriguing/provocative way.

Issues [paraphrased] with Afghanistan:
- I'm sorry that you have harbored terrorists, and we can't just "quickly level the bad guys there and get out"
- I'm sorry that you have "no problem whatsoever with sewing a twelve-year-old girl's vagina shut so she can't sin" and that you persecute homosexuals
- I'm sorry that you "imprison and even execute" those who leave the Islamic faith
- I'm sorry that the detainees use your sacred text to send covert, coded messages back in faith and that we have to destroy them just to keep our personnel safe.
etc, etc, etc. Watch it, it's super interesting.

Twitter Faves

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/joyce-meyer-ministries-joel-osteen-ministries-most-retweeted-brands-twitter_n_1326725.html

This article just shows that "Joyce Meyers Ministries" and "Joel Osteen Ministries," are on the list of twitter users with the highest numbers of retweets per day. It is interesting just to see how popular Christianity is, with the list being 1. Meyers 2. ESPN and 3. Osteen ...
This illustrates and justifies that statistic which states that the majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian."

I guess America loves God as much as we love our sports!

Anberlin

I hope no one has done Anberlin yet:
This song is called "*Fin":




Some Lyrics:
Feels like you're miles from here,
in other towns with lesser names.
Where the unholy ghost doesn't tell
Mary or William exactly what they want to hear.
You remember the house on Ridge Road
told you and the Devil to both just leave me alone.
If this is salvation, I can show you the trembling.
You'll just have to trust me. I'm scared.

I am the patron saint of lost causes.
Aren't we all to you just near lost causes?
Aren't we all to you just lost A lot of their music is not classified as "Christian" but many of their songs have Christian references or underlying themes.

Mormons

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/12/are_mormons_christians.html
http://www.seafox.com/mormons.html
http://mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/morchristjesus.html

These articles intend to answer the question, "Are Mormons Christians?" They basically assert that most Mormons feel that they belong to the Christian sect of religions, even though they think that Christianity is off in its doctrines surrounding the trinity and the biblical canon. However, some people (mainly Christians) believe that the Mormon doctrines and practices founded on such doctrines are so different that they can not be labelled a "Christian" religion. They have a different view on Jesus and God. For example, according to these articles, they believe in Jesus as a son of God and as someone who existed, who was a divine human and who atoned for all sins. But their view of Jesus is that he was simply a son of God, not part of God (like the trinity says). They feel they should be called Christian because they believe in Jesus as a martyr and (the only) redeemer, while Christians feel otherwise because their view on Jesus (and many other aspects of religion) are greatly different views from their own.

Biblical Authority

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-blasts-christian-colleges-for-compromised-stances-on-creationism-bibles-authority-50100/

In this brief article, Ken Ham (founder of the creation museum) discusses what he sees to be the problem with biblical interpretations which aren't strictly literal. The America's Research Group polled Christian colleges with questions focused mainly on either the Genesis creation story alone or the entire Bible to understand what was ideas were being taught by Christian professors and what college students believed to be true about the bible. Ken Ham fears that creationism is losing its hold against theories like evolution largely because of these non-literal takes of the Bible; one of his concerns is that if people only appreciate the Bible without acknowledging its complete authority, this will cause manipulation of the text on important issues like homosexuality and abortion.


These are some of the most interesting data results mentioned in the article:

-"52 percent of incoming freshman who identify themselves as born-again Christians upon entering a secular public university will leave four years later either no longer identifying with that title or having not attended church in over a year."

-"According to data gathered last year [2010] by the America's Research Group, only 17.3 percent of Christian institutions surveyed define "authority of the Bible" to mean "you believe everything it says." Other institutions said the Bible is "foundational" (30 percent); "a book of guidelines" (22 percent) or "inspired by God" (21.2 percent)."

-"While nearly all respondents expressed their belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures (98.1 percent), less than three quarters of respondents (74 percent) affirmed their belief in the inerrancy, or total accuracy, of the Bible. Nearly 19 percent of respondents rejected the belief that the Scriptures are infallible or incapable of failing."

"Why I Love Religion, And Love Jesus"

This video was made as a video response to the "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" video (that was posted for this class by Burke). While that video represents a protestant viewpoint, this one expresses a Roman Catholic stance. I am not posting this to defend or argue, but I think it's interesting for the sake of the class to see these two videos together as an exploration of one of the main differences in two major Christian sects: the role and importance of the church, or specifically it's authority. When I was talking to a Catholic priest about some of the differences between the two branches of Christianity, this topic was exactly where he started the discussion. It is a fundamental part of how they practice. However, I don't think the first video, "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus," was originally intended to be a stab at Catholicism, even though Catholic traditions do involve more duties and expectation and is a stricter religious system than Protestant practices. Instead it is supposed to be against "false religion" and those who use religion to make oneself prideful and self-righteousness, which is clear if you read the creator's description on youtube. Nevertheless, comparing these two videos provides valuable insight into each belief system, especially when you take note of how each person backs up their claims with scripture.