So Who's Doing the Praying?

President  Obama still plans to declare 6 May as a "National Day of Prayer in spite of the the ruling of Federal District Court in Wisconsin that a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional (That ruling is being appealed).

So, whether or not the 1952 Congressionaly established National Day of Prayer is or is not Constitutional, how many Americans actually "pray?" And might this mean national days of prayer or national prayer breakfasts?

A recent report based on the Pew study, " U.S. Religious Landscape Survey," asked the question, "People practice their religion in different ways. Outside of attending religious services, do you pray several times a day, once a day, once a week, a few times a month, seldom, or never?"

Fifty-Eight percent of of all Americans say they pray at least once a day. What it really means to individuals "to pray" is not determined.

Women (66%) are more likely to pray than are men (49%).

There is a negative correlation between Income and Prayer: Those earning less than $30,000 a year are most likely to pray at least once a day (64%). As income increases, the percentage who pray decreases to a low of 48% for those earning $100,000 or more.

Categorized by religious identity, the percent who pray at least once a day ranges from 89% to a low of 22%.

About three-quarters or more of the following categories pray daily: Jehovah's Witnesses (89%), Mormons (82%), members of Historically Black Protestants (80%), Evangelical Protestants [mostly white] (78%), and Muslims (71%).

About forty to seventy percent of the following categories pray every day, including: Hindus (62%), Orthodox (E.g Greek, Russian) Christians (60%) [all  above the national average of 58%], Catholics (58%), and Mainline Protestants (53%).

Those least likely to pray at least once a day include:  Black Protestants (45%), Jews (26%) and Unaffiliated (22%).

This distribution is not very surprising. By and large all of the findings are pretty typical of sociological survey and polling data. Those who are aligned with conservative groups are the most likely to pray once a day or more often. Also, it is not a great surprise that the national average and the Catholic data are both 58% because Catholics are the single largest religious denomination in the U.S. at 23-26% of the entire U.S. population.

That twenty-two percent of the "Unaffiliated" pray is not surprising because a large percentage of them identify as "religious" but not Christian and even some Agnostics and Atheists pray.

It seems that U.S. citizens, by and large, will have no trouble with a "National Day of Prayer" or a "National Prayer Breakfast" along as appeal is made to a "generic God" or "Higher Power" rather than to  a specific deity, such as "Jesus," "Allah," "Shiva," etc.

What do think? Is this really a non-issue? Or are there "issues" and implications?  Leave a comment.

Religion and the Millennials: Abortion (Part II)

Abortion (Part II) and homosexuality (Part III) are the most contentious issues in the nation's "culture wars" at this time. Here we will take a look at the Millennials'  attitudes toward abortion as found in the Pew Study.


Not quite half of all American adults (47%) agree that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. By age Millennials (18-29), are the most accepting of abortion. No other age group comes closer to them than the 30-49 and 50-64 year old age groups and this is because the older age groups have moved closer to the Millennials.

Affiliated and Unaffiliated
It is no surprise that those unaffiliated with any religion would be more tolerant or accepting of abortion. In fact this is the case as 68% of the unaffiliated but only 42% of those affiliated with a religion are supportive of abortion in all or most cases.

Very interesting is the fact that religiously affiliated young people, 18-29, are more accepting (45%)of abortion than those over 30 (42%) although the difference is marginal. Even more interesting, however, is that the unaffiliated the young (18-29) are less accepting (67%)  of abortion than is its older age group (30+) at (69%). Again, the difference is marginal. If this is not merely a statistical fluke or a one-time event, it will be very interesting to see where the unaffiliated track.

Protestants and Catholics.
This section presents data only on white Protestants and Catholics.

White Mainline Protestants are the most accepting (55%) of legal abortion in all or most cases. And there is no meaningful difference between the young (55%) and older (56%) older Mainliners.

White Evangelical Protestants are by far the least accepting (23%) of legalized abortion in most or all cases. This finding is somewhat anomalous since many conservative denominations traditionally accept or at least tolerate abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

The data do not allow a younger-older comparison for White Evangelicals. It should be noted that other research indicates that the majority of young Evangelical adults oppose abortion but that there is a slight trend toward greater acceptance and, thus, the potential for a greater gap between generations.

Catholics' strict position on abortion holds that all abortion for any reason is always a "mortally sinful." True, The Catholic hierarchy has not emphasized its opposition to abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger of  death of the mother in order to cement relationships with other conservative groups to marshal forces to put forth a political coalition to get some anti-abortion/pro-life legislation passed. This does not mean that the Catholic Church has actually changed its moral position.

Less than half (45%) of Catholics accept legalizing abortion in all or most cases. They are only 10% less likely than Mainline Protestants at accept abortion and are almost twice as willing to accept legalization of abortion as Evangelicals (45% versus 23%). Of course, as mentioned above, the unaffiliated are much more accepting of abortion in most or all cases.

Young Catholics (18-29) are really no more accepting (45%) than older Catholics (44%) of abortion in all or more cases. Other research shows that a majority of Catholics are willing to support abortion in cases of danger to the life of the mother, incest and rape. With the recent enthrallment with Catholic Identity and a "reform of the reform" of Vatican II, a number of young Catholics are taking a more conservative position on many issues. See: "Young activists adding furl to anti-abortion side"

There is more to abortion than statistics.
Last year Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of  Olinda and Recife, Brazil  publicly announced an excommunication against the mother and doctors who performed an abortion, saying the abortion was "a crime in the eyes of the church."

The abortion was performed  on the woman's nine year old daughter who had been raped by her stepfather and who was pregnant with twins. The incident caused a national and international sensation.

Later last year, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of The Pontifical Academy for Life (appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008), wrote an article about the "Brazilian abortion excommunication" issue in which he did not condemn or argue against the excummnication itself. However, he claimed that the Church's credibility was harmed by a "hasty" excommunication.

Fisichella also said the girl,  "should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we are on her side." In other words the Archbishop was expressing the compassion of a pastor for a victim of horrible abuse. (Personally, I believe he should be praised and honored for his courageous stance).

Before and during the February 11-13, 2010 meeting of the Academy in Rome, there were internal political issues and dissension on the part of conservative members of the Academy. Some members of the Academy, unhappy over Fisichella's original article and a statement he made during the meeting, pressed that he be replaced as president. On February 16th five conservative members of the Academy (One priest and four laypersons) published a letter asking that Archbishop Fisichella be removed as president of the Academy. Although they were not permitted to reveal Academy business, they published the letter in Rome, and on Feb. 18th an American member sent an email copy to the Catholic News Service here in the U.S.

One of the five signatories, Msgr. Michel Schooyans, wrote an article shortly before the Academy's February' meeting. Quoting Fisichella's article, he called the Archbishop's statement, "bogus compassion."

At this moment my concern is less with the morality of abortion and more with the almost vicious attack on a leader who had the courage to call for personal, direct, pastoral compassion by a cleric. Much too often bishops and priests live in a world of "objective realities," the "letter of the law" and rules. What the People of God need and desire from the hierarchy is a compassionate, pastoral concern.

See: "Move to oust head of Pontifical Academy for Life"  and the five additional links at the end of that article.

UGANDA UPDATE # 3 Good news, sort of...

On 14 January The Guardian (London, UK) reported that Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni announced that the Anti-Homosexual Act of 2009, "had become a 'foreign policy' issue and needed further consultation before being voted on in parliament." The Guardian reported in the same article that, "James Nasba Buturo, minister of state for ethics and integrity, who is a strong supporter of the bill, said, before Museveni's speech that it was likely that the death penalty provisions would be dropped because of the international outcry." Who made the outcry?

The Gay community.
Gay, human rights organizations and Amnesty International immediately expressed strong opposition to passage of this bill which would restrict the rights and endanger the lives of the estimated 500,000 gays and lesbians in Uganda.

Western Governments.
The international outcry from governments was not immediate but it came. Many western industrialized nations criticized this legislation, including: Australia, Canada, the UK and France. The European Parliament and Sweden threatened to reduce economic aid if the law passes. Former President Clinton, Secretary of State Clinton and four U.S. congress persons have made individual public statements opposing the law. After a telephone call from Hillary Clinton, "...to express strong concerns about the proposed law, [Museveni, the President] said, 'It's a foreign policy issue, and we must handle it in a way that does not compromise our principles but also takes into account our foreign policy interests'."

Part of the reason that governments (and, as will be mentioned below, international religious leaders) were slower to act, is based on the complexity of the situation and international relations. Anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda were introduced by the British during the colonial period. Also, the general Ugandan (and African) culture is very conservative with regard to family and sexual mores. In more recent years, conservative Evangelical Christian missionaries have reinforced and expanded upon the traditional mores to intensify and provide a new rationale for anti-gay norms and laws, attitudes and values. Finally, the opposition of the West to anti-gay norms, laws and behavior is seen by many African governments as just a new version of colonialism: to shove down the throats of the people of Africa the "decadent" and "immoral" lifestyle of the West, including homosexuality. As a result, Western governments took stock to see if their "interference" would help the situation or merely increase the nationalist feelings in Uganda. It seems to me that the tide turned as gays and straight supporters mounted ever greater pressure on their governments and that Uganda "backed down" once Western nations threatened to withhold financial aid.

What about the international religious community? They too had the same concern as governments about whether their speaking out would help or hinder passage of the bill. For the churches, the decision was doubly difficult: they had only moral suasion and no money to withhold and for two important religious communities, namely the Roman Catholic Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, there were internal issues that had to be considered.

The Anglican Communion.
Uganda is an anglophone nation and the Anglican church there is quite significant. Many, if not most, of the Anglican bishops (E.g. Ugandan bishop Joseph Arbura of the Karamoja Diocese) in Africa hold very conservative positions regarding sex, especially regarding gay marriage, gays and women as priests and, especially active gays as bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury was caught between this group and, for example, the practice of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., most of which accepts and supports gays and a minority of parishes that wish to join African Anglican dioceses or the Roman Catholic Church. After much private communication, On December 12th the Archbishop Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in an interview with the Telegraph (a London newspaper) [See sixth paragraph in the interview]:

Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can't see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible - it seeks to turn pastors into informers.

Finally, the Archbishop of York (UK), John Sentamu, himself a Ugandan spoke out publicly on December 24th, saying, "I'm opposed to the death sentence. I'm also not happy when you describe people in that kind of language you find in this private member's bill, which seems not only victimizing but also a diminishment of the individuals concerned."

The Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has its own difficulties with homosexuality but is unalterably opposed to capital punishment and the harassment or oppression of innocent individuals. Although the Church speaks of homosexuality as "objectively disordered" (whatever that really means), it clearly accepts that gay orientation is a "given"  for gays. This means that some people are simply born with a homosexual orientation, period. On the other hand the Catholic Church teaches that the only legitimate sex is between a married male and female. (There are a number of Catholic moral theologians, and a majority of  Catholics in the U.S. who do not not accept this position).

The Vatican felt it had to condemn capital punishment and the harsh punishments in the law and affirm its teaching that gays should be treated with respect and compassion as are any other citizens. The Vatican, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, realized the danger to priests, counselors, social workers, etc. if they were required to report homosexuals to the authorities and, themselves, face prison. As often happens with the Vatican, its position was made indirectly but officially. In a statement to the UN Panel on Anti-Gay Violence, on December 10th, the Rev. Philip J. Bene, the Vatican's Legal attache said,

Thank you for convening this panel.... My comments are more in the form of a statement rather than aquestion.

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.

As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State...

Finally, after the Anti-Homosexual bill was tabled in the parliament, the Catholic bishops of Uganda made a public statement. Admittedly, it was not as clear, direct and forthright as some hoped for. Dr. Cyrian Kizto Lwanga, Archbishop of Kampala, began the statement with, "We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government's effort to protect the traditional families and its values." [After following this debate and the language used, I wonder if this opening statement is not a code for, "We affirm the idea of keeping the fact of being homosexual illegal]. He continues,

The recent tabled Anti-Homosexuality Bill does not pass a test of Christian caring approach to this issue. The targeting of the sinner, not the sin, is the core flaw of the proposed Bill. The introduction of the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts targets people rather than seeking to counsel and to reach out in compassion to those who need conversion, repentance, support and hope...

Furthermore, the Proposal to prosecute those who fail to disclose information regarding homosexual acts puts at risk the breach of confidentiality and professional ethics of persons such as Parents, Priests, Counselors, Teachers... at a time when they offer support and advise [sic] for rehabilitation of homosexuals. The Proposed Bill does not contain clauses encouraging homosexuals to be rehabilitated.... [All bold print in the original].

This is a rejection of the bill, at least a rejection  of the death and harsh punishment of homosexuals as well as protection for parents, priests and others who have knowledge about homosexuals. However, the statement clearly proffers an explanation of  homosexuality as something learned or chosen and therefore in need of "rehabilitation." I wonder what kind of support and advice the bishops have in mind: to learn to be "chaste." One can hope it doesn't hearken to "restorative therapy" as recommended to the Ugandan Government by three invited conservative Evangelical preachers. In any event, the Ugandan Bishops' statement seems at the very best to be lukewarm.

Recent examples of Gay marriage and homosexuality in "Catholic" Latin America:
We Do: Mexico City Blazes Trail with Legalisation of Same-Sex Marriage. (22 Dec 2009)
Vatiacn: Gay: deserve respect, compassion.
Argentina men become first same-sex married couple. (29 Dec 2009) (Pic, without DSL may load slowly)

Other Religious influences.
On December 7th, sixty-six U.S Christian Leaders issued a public statement opposing the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009 in Uganda. It says in part:

Our Christian faith recognizes violence, harassment and unjust treatment of any human being as a betrayal of Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves. As followers of the teachings of Christ, we must express profound dismay at a bill currently before the Parliament in Uganda.

....Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children worthy of respect and love.

The first signers of the statement were Thomas P. Melady, Former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda and the Vatican; Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action; and Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners.

This statement is welcome, as are those by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Catholic bishops of Uganda, for clearly opposing the severe penalties against homosexual persons and those who know and/ or support homosexual persons.

However none of these statements speak to or supports decriminalization of homosexuality or homosexual behavior. This is a challenge that most Christians have not yet faced; nor have they seriously been able to dialogue about other fundamental issues related to the very nature and morality of homosexual behavior.


Evangelicals.
Conservative Evangelical Protestants in the United States and in Uganda, itself, have spoken out in favor of the bill or have remained silent about it. However some, like Rick Warren have spoken out against the excessive punishments in the bill. Still Warren and many other Evagelicals maintain strong opposition to homosexuality. At best, they espouse the idea of  "love the sinner, hate the sin." Like the Ugandan Catholic bishops?

Four Evangelical clergymen are now trying to distance themselves from the three-day conference they presented in Uganda to thousands of police, national politicians, teachers and others in March, 2009, one month before MP David Bahati first introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The following list of articles discuss this issue further, some including hateful and vicious comments made about homosexuals:
Americans' Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push (NYT 4 Jan 2010)
Hate Begets Hate NYT editorial 5 Jan 2010
R.W. Johnson: The Battle Over Homophobia in Africa  (National Post, Canada. 12 Jan 2010

My Reflections.


1. It appears that the death penalty, and possibly the requirement to report homosexuals, with be removed from the proposed legislation; that is a battle won but not the war. Uganda will still have a host of harsh anti-homosexual laws as do many other African nations, some of which have the death penalty.

2.The leading nations of the "West" (since the fall of the Soviet system and the move toward market-based economics in China, more suitably called the "The North") and two (Anglican and Catholic) of the three (Pentecostals) most important Christian communions in Uganda, spoke in opposition to the harsh penalties in the law. This may have been politically prudent to help lessen an outcry from Africa that this move was merely a new form of colonialism and to assuage the ire of their own more conservative hierarchs and members. In my opinion, none of the groups placed their responses in the larger context of society. 

3. Here the immediate issue related to this extremely inhuman proposal  is, and let us put it plainly, to kill homosexual people. But an underlying issue is how the countries of the South and North will relate on a whole host of issues, only some of which are related to sex (E.g. the AIDS epidemic, the use of condoms, the nature of marriage and the family).

In the area of what Catholics call "social justice" issues there is great potential for disagreement and conflict between North and South. In Uganda more than a few leaders railed against the North for interfering with their culture (the homosexuality issue) and said the North ought to be more concerned with "justice issues" such as economic development, the plight of the poor, and the environment. However, many in Africa, and Latin America even more so, are negative on globalization, the capitalist system, and modern forms of democracy, and especially the supremacy of the United States and its spreading of a degrading materialistic and highly individualistic culture.

4. Somehow real homosexual people seem to have been left out of the equation. Reading all the material I have on this issue, other than a few mentions of "compassion" for "them," no one's head or heart seemed to take into account that homosexuals are people just like every one else. Gays are born, live and die just like everyone else, Homosexual persons have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else, Many engage in selfless, altruistic behavior and some do not-- but not any more or less than heterosexuals! Most of all, LGBT individuals have the same goal in life as straights: to be happy and, in the end, to have lived a life well lived. Gays want to love and be loved just like others do; gays are not sex-crazed, selfish people who seek only their own pleasure. Unless one has shared an intimate connection to a homosexual person, it is often difficult to get beyond stereotypes and homophobia. I am sad that the the kind of values, attitudes and behavior that arise out of real intimacy with gays (certainly not always, and perhaps, almost never physical) is not more common. I'm sad too that the public statements by government and religious bodies did not show at least some appreciation for LGBT people as people. Finally, I look forward to, and will continue to work for the day when a distinction between gay and straight will enter conversation no more frequently than whether one is left or right handed. That will be the day when any two people who love each other can express that love and, perhaps, marry each other; that will be the day when no one will be oppressed by harsh and negative laws that say gays are "different."