Faith

Via travisstanley.net, an op-ed piece by Raymond J. Lawrence, an episcopal priest, in the NY Times addresses the recent scientific study on the effectiveness of prayer:

RESPONSIBLE religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. ...if it could ever be persuasively demonstrated that such prayer "works," our religious institutions and meeting places would be degraded to a kind of commercial enterprise, like Burger King, where one expects to get what one pays for. Historically, religions have promoted many kinds of prayer. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving and repentance have been highly esteemed, while intercessions of the kind done in the Benson study - appeals to God to take some action - are of lesser importance. They represent a less-respected magical wing of religion. In fact, many theologians reject out of hand the notion that any person or group can effectively intercede with God in any respect. Paul Tillich and Karl Barth, the two major Christian theologians of the 20th century (and certainly no opponents of prayer) would have scoffed at the idea. The Lord's Prayer, the central prayer of Christendom, contains no plea for God to influence specific events in people's lives. The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits. But scientists should not leap to the assumption that the ruler of the universe can be mechanically requisitioned to intervene in people's suffering or health.

Other recent posts on this subject: Prayer did not help heart patients Ayn Rand Inst. on Prayer Studies So That's What Went Wrong

From an article in The Economist:

Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims that regular religious participation leads to better education, higher income and a lower chance of divorce. His results* (based on data covering non-Hispanic white Americans of several Christian denominations, other faiths and none) imply that doubling church attendance raises someone's income by almost 10%. So how might churchgoing make you richer? Mr Gruber offers several possibilities. One plausible idea is that going to church yields "social capital", a web of relationships that fosters trust. Economists think such ties can be valuable, because they make business dealings smoother and transactions cheaper. Churchgoing may simply be an efficient way of creating them. Another possibility is that a church's members enjoy mutual emotional and (maybe) financial insurance. That allows them to recover more quickly from setbacks, such as the loss of a job, than they would without the support of fellow parishioners. Or perhaps religion and wealth are linked through education. Mr Gruber's results suggest that higher church attendance leads to more years at school and less chance of dropping out of college. A vibrant church might also boost the number of religious schools, which in turn could raise academic achievement. Finally, religious faith itself might be the channel through which churchgoers become richer. Perhaps, Mr Gruber muses, the faithful may be "less stressed out" about life's daily travails and thus better equipped for success. This may make religion more appealing to some of those who turn up only once a year. But given that Jesus warned his followers against storing up treasures on earth, you might think that this wasn't the motivation for going to church that he had in mind.

From an AP article by Greg Bluestein in the Lexington Herald-Leader:

Can professional-style wrestling really be the next frontier for Christian outreach? Small bands of masked evangelists, clad in tights and armed with biblical names, argue it is -- and bring their message into the ring almost every week. The violence and intensity of wrestling, they say, can be the perfect way to attract the alternative, younger crowd. Wrestling for Jesus, based in nearby Beech Island, S.C., has a core of a dozen wrestlers who perform in community centers, churches, neighborhood festivals and anywhere else that books them. Started in 2003, the group travels to as many as 50 shows each year, most attracting no more than 100 curious fans. There are other such groups. Texas-based Christian Wrestling Federation boasts a board of eight preachers and a dozen entertainers who use each match as a "tool" to entertain a crowd while preaching. Ultimate Christian Wrestling, based in Athens, Ga., features a glitzy show backed by pounding music and special effects. Funded by a host of local sponsors, the group attracts as many as 500 a show and headlines big-name wrestlers such as Glacier, a former WCW star.

Starting a week from Sunday on A&E (April 16), the five-part reality series "God or the Girl?". From an article on ETonline.com:

STEVE HORVATH, DAN DeMATTE, JOE ADAIR and MIKE LECHNIAK are all at a turning point in their life. Do they enter the seminary and become a priest, or do they serve God through a happy marriage? As they try to reach this life-changing decision, they find themselves estranged from family and friends who have difficulty accepting their decision to choose a lifetime of servitude and celibacy. Can these young men resist the temptations of the flesh? Or will they answer the call to serve God? By the end of the series, all four will have made a decision.

It will probably be cheeseball...but maybe this will actually be interesting.

From an interesting opinion piece by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal and OpinionJournal.com. After referencing notorious cheaters, liars, and miscreants like Barry Bonds, Andrew Fastow, Jack Abramoff, James Frey, etc., Henninger writes:

Politics killed ethical formation. Entire presidential campaigns and Supreme Court nominations are fought now over someone's idea of morality. What's right and wrong has become as red and blue as our politics. But look a little closer. These religious wars are about one thing: sex. After the 2004 "moral values" presidential election, Pew Research surveyed public attitudes. But the only explicitly identified determinants of moral belief named in their questionnaires are abortion, gay marriage and gay rights (and belief in God). Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, ignited a 33-year war over sex, bowdlerized for political discourse as "privacy." Pew collapses all moral life in America down to abortion and gay rights because the political class believes those issues move votes. And the result is that anything else important, like what Messrs. Bonds [Barry baseball cheat]or Fastow [Andrew, Enron cheat] represent, is ignored. Our political culture's preoccupation with sexual boundaries has smothered the more important ability of religious or ethical formation to function in the U.S. Currently the most rigorous whole-person moral system resides among evangelical right--at least in terms of keeping one's earthly life in perspective. But because the religious right has "positions" on abortion and homosexuality, politics seeks to undermine its entire function in the life of the nation. Inner-city parents desperate to use vouchers to send their children to values-forming parochial schools can't, because the reigning political calculus holds this would somehow "advantage" an abortion-resistant Catholic Church. Meanwhile the only values taught now in public schools are diversity, tolerance and respect for the environment. I'll bet Andrew Fastow and Barry Bonds believe in all that to the bottom of their souls. Let's admit the bitter irony of the unending sex wars. They've obliterated the ability to talk rationally in public about anything that smacks of "religion." Too political. Thus a modest proposal: Maybe it's time for the sex obsessives on the left and right to take their fights over abortion and gay rights into a corner somewhere and give the rest of society space to restore some ethical rootedness in an endlessly variable world. Because letting the vacuum persist long enough on values useful to everyday life will breed too many little Bonds and little Fastows. And because the constant public magnification of these ethical breakdowns makes everyone feel like scuzz by association. It has a corrosive affect on the rest of us, on our sense of who we are.

Of course abortion, for example, isn't simply an issue of sex..