In an earlier post I discussed the two events which have triggered discussions on some women’s issues: our obsession with looks, and women who stay at home to raise their children and choose not to pursue a career. In that post I criticized liberals for being rather narrow-minded because they claim to want freedom for women, but only if women make the “right” choices consistent with liberal doctrine. If a woman chooses to stay at home, that’s not in keeping with liberal orthodoxy and that woman – such as Ann Romney – is criticized for “not working a day in her life.”
Liberals aren’t the only ones who want to keep women in their place, however you might define “place.” Some conservative/fundamentalist Christians have used certain biblical passages against women. Admittedly, some biblical passages can be interpreted in various ways. However, I believe interpretations that suppress women are in error. In studying the Bible, you have to look at passages in context. Biblical passages should be analyzed and understood in at least five ways:
First, the passage should be understood in its immediate context. What comes before and what comes after the passage gives the reader the immediate context and helps to interpret the passage more accurately. Taking a passage stand-alone without its context can result in an erroneous interpretation.
Second, the passage should be understood in overall biblical context, that is, what the rest of the Bible says on a subject. If the passage your are studying is the only place in the Bible that seems to say so-and-so, then you might question your understand of its meaning. If your understanding of the passage actually contradicts what is said elsewhere in the Bible, then your interpretation is wrong.
Third, for Christians the passages should be understood in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ, also employing church tradition (the traditional interpretation of a passage), reason, and experience.
Fourth, a biblical passage should be understood in the context of the culture, society, and religious practices of the day. That includes both Israelite/Jewish and Greco-Roman.
Fifth, a biblical passage can sometimes be better understood by looking at the original language and understanding the nuances of the words used. Since most people don’t know biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, we have to depend on commentaries or footnotes in study Bibles to help us with that.
Getting back to women’s issues, men have used various passages written by the Apostle Paul to suppress women. However, when these passages are analyzed using the five steps I described above, a different interpretation emerges (as I see it – of course some will disagree with me).
Monday, April 16, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Women’s Issues
Two things have happened recently that have to do with women. One is Ashley Judd’s criticism of society’s attitude towards women’s looks. The other was a comment made by a strategist for the Democratic Party and a pundit, Hillary Rosen. She made the statement that Mitt Romney’s wife “hasn’t worked a day in her life.” Let me start with the Rosen remark.
Being a Democrat, I presume Rosen is also a liberal. One thing about liberals, as I see it, is that they are all about free choice – as long as you make the “right” choice according to their way of thinking. If you don’t, you are vilified. Mrs. Romney obviously didn’t make the “right” choice, and thus “wasted” her life by raising her family and not pursuing a career, which apparently would lead to more fulfillment. When you understand where liberals are coming from, Rosen’s comment makes perfect sense.
Rosen made two mistakes. First, she criticized a candidate’s wife, which is not appropriate. Second, she let her liberal bias show in a very mean-spirited way. To her, what she said was consistent with liberal orthodoxy going back to the earlier days of the women’s liberation movement, when women were denounced for being stay-at-home moms. What she wasn’t expecting was the firestorm of criticism, even from her fellow liberals.
As far as I’m concerned, and some will disagree with me, the ideal is for women to stay home and raise the kids. Bringing up kids is never easy, and it seems these days the job is even more challenging. Of course my ideal isn’t always possible. With the cost of living so high, many women have to work outside the home. Some, of course, choose to pursue a career and raise a family, which is their choice and should be respected.
Regarding Ashley Judd’s complaint that people are obsessed with women’s appearance, I think she might have overreacted. As a celebrity, men and women are constantly in the spotlight. Since quite a few celebrities have plastic surgery, it is natural to ask the question if a person’s appearance changed.
However, her main point is valid: people are obsessed with looks, especially women’s looks. It isn’t just men she’s criticizing either, but women too. Unfortunately we as a society have made women into objects, and often beauty is valued more than character or other attributes. On the other hand, most people want to make the most of what they have, and so women get their hair done, put on at least some makeup, and dress well. Some work out or jog. Men also try to dress for success, keep their hair trimmed, shave in the morning, and may also work out or jog. So there’s nothing wrong with trying to look your best. I think the problem comes when looks become an obsession.
Being a Democrat, I presume Rosen is also a liberal. One thing about liberals, as I see it, is that they are all about free choice – as long as you make the “right” choice according to their way of thinking. If you don’t, you are vilified. Mrs. Romney obviously didn’t make the “right” choice, and thus “wasted” her life by raising her family and not pursuing a career, which apparently would lead to more fulfillment. When you understand where liberals are coming from, Rosen’s comment makes perfect sense.
Rosen made two mistakes. First, she criticized a candidate’s wife, which is not appropriate. Second, she let her liberal bias show in a very mean-spirited way. To her, what she said was consistent with liberal orthodoxy going back to the earlier days of the women’s liberation movement, when women were denounced for being stay-at-home moms. What she wasn’t expecting was the firestorm of criticism, even from her fellow liberals.
As far as I’m concerned, and some will disagree with me, the ideal is for women to stay home and raise the kids. Bringing up kids is never easy, and it seems these days the job is even more challenging. Of course my ideal isn’t always possible. With the cost of living so high, many women have to work outside the home. Some, of course, choose to pursue a career and raise a family, which is their choice and should be respected.
Regarding Ashley Judd’s complaint that people are obsessed with women’s appearance, I think she might have overreacted. As a celebrity, men and women are constantly in the spotlight. Since quite a few celebrities have plastic surgery, it is natural to ask the question if a person’s appearance changed.
However, her main point is valid: people are obsessed with looks, especially women’s looks. It isn’t just men she’s criticizing either, but women too. Unfortunately we as a society have made women into objects, and often beauty is valued more than character or other attributes. On the other hand, most people want to make the most of what they have, and so women get their hair done, put on at least some makeup, and dress well. Some work out or jog. Men also try to dress for success, keep their hair trimmed, shave in the morning, and may also work out or jog. So there’s nothing wrong with trying to look your best. I think the problem comes when looks become an obsession.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Recent Killing of an African-American in Florida
Recently a black teen-ager was shot and killed by a self-appointed neighborhood watch guard in Florida. From what I’ve seen in the media, this young man was just walking through a neighborhood, and not engaging in any “suspicious” behavior. As a matter of fact, he was talking on his mobile phone to his girlfriend. The shooter, Zimmerman, called 911 and was told not to approach the boy, but Zimmerman followed him and eventually shot him. Zimmerman claims he felt he was in danger and invoked his right to self defense under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
This unfortunate incident brings up a whole series of legal, ethical, and moral issues, including racial profiling. Let me express some thoughts on these matters.
Racial Profiling
If the young man hadn’t been black, I suspect he wouldn’t have been followed or shot. Zimmerman was engaging in racial profiling in targeting this young man, which is fairly easy for anybody to do.
Let’s say you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and you see several black men wearing hoodies walking down your street. Be honest, now. What’s the first thing that comes to mind? I think it would be the question, “What are they doing in this neighborhood?” That would be followed by the thought, “I’ll bet they are up to no good.”
Now let’s say you see several young black men wearing suits and carrying Bibles walking down your street. What would you think then? I suspect you’d say to yourself, “They must be Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ll pretend I’m not home.” You may want to avoid their proselytizing, but you wouldn’t suspect them of any potential wrongdoing. If they walked up to your front door, I doubt if you would call 911.
So profiling is a little more complex than we might think. It involves dress, behavior, and other factors, but shouldn’t be the basis for shooting someone.
When Self Defense Is Justified
So when is shooting in self-defense permissible? Obviously talking a life should be a last resort. Let me give an example of a case in which shooting a perpetrator is justified in my opinion.
A month or two ago, I saw on the news the story of a young mother who heard men outside her house. She was alone with her kids, and it was obvious these guys were trying to break in. She called 911, and then got her shotgun ready. Before the police got there, the men broke into her house. She confronted them with shotgun in hand, but they didn’t leave. So she opened fire, killing one or two of them as I recall.
Compare that to the case in Florida where the boy was outside, walking briskly through the neighborhood, and was minding his own business. To me, Zimmerman was not at all being threatened nor was there any clear and present danger like the young mother. I believe self defense is justified when somebody breaks into your house, tries to hijack your vehicle with you in it, or tries to mug you on the street, and they don’t flee when you threaten them with a weapon.
I believe the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms for at least three reasons:
(1) First, to be able to rise up in armed rebellion against an oppressive government, similar to the way the colonies did against England.
(2) For self defense when your life is in danger.
(3) For hunting animals for food.
Should Zimmerman Be Arrested?
I believe he should have been arrested because he went well beyond the limitations of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. I’m glad the local police chief resigned, because his reluctance to arrest Zimmerman and let the judicial system do its thing just fanned the fires of anger, especially in the black community. It is the Grand Jury’s job to determine if this case should be prosecuted, not the police chief’s.
This incident (and a number of others) also points out that we still have a long way to go with respect to racial relations, and I’m talking about both sides. As Bill Cosby has repeatedly pointed out, the African-American community has to take responsibility for cleaning up its act. The white community has to stop stereotyping and practicing other forms of bias.
This unfortunate incident brings up a whole series of legal, ethical, and moral issues, including racial profiling. Let me express some thoughts on these matters.
Racial Profiling
If the young man hadn’t been black, I suspect he wouldn’t have been followed or shot. Zimmerman was engaging in racial profiling in targeting this young man, which is fairly easy for anybody to do.
Let’s say you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and you see several black men wearing hoodies walking down your street. Be honest, now. What’s the first thing that comes to mind? I think it would be the question, “What are they doing in this neighborhood?” That would be followed by the thought, “I’ll bet they are up to no good.”
Now let’s say you see several young black men wearing suits and carrying Bibles walking down your street. What would you think then? I suspect you’d say to yourself, “They must be Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ll pretend I’m not home.” You may want to avoid their proselytizing, but you wouldn’t suspect them of any potential wrongdoing. If they walked up to your front door, I doubt if you would call 911.
So profiling is a little more complex than we might think. It involves dress, behavior, and other factors, but shouldn’t be the basis for shooting someone.
When Self Defense Is Justified
So when is shooting in self-defense permissible? Obviously talking a life should be a last resort. Let me give an example of a case in which shooting a perpetrator is justified in my opinion.
A month or two ago, I saw on the news the story of a young mother who heard men outside her house. She was alone with her kids, and it was obvious these guys were trying to break in. She called 911, and then got her shotgun ready. Before the police got there, the men broke into her house. She confronted them with shotgun in hand, but they didn’t leave. So she opened fire, killing one or two of them as I recall.
Compare that to the case in Florida where the boy was outside, walking briskly through the neighborhood, and was minding his own business. To me, Zimmerman was not at all being threatened nor was there any clear and present danger like the young mother. I believe self defense is justified when somebody breaks into your house, tries to hijack your vehicle with you in it, or tries to mug you on the street, and they don’t flee when you threaten them with a weapon.
I believe the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms for at least three reasons:
(1) First, to be able to rise up in armed rebellion against an oppressive government, similar to the way the colonies did against England.
(2) For self defense when your life is in danger.
(3) For hunting animals for food.
Should Zimmerman Be Arrested?
I believe he should have been arrested because he went well beyond the limitations of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. I’m glad the local police chief resigned, because his reluctance to arrest Zimmerman and let the judicial system do its thing just fanned the fires of anger, especially in the black community. It is the Grand Jury’s job to determine if this case should be prosecuted, not the police chief’s.
This incident (and a number of others) also points out that we still have a long way to go with respect to racial relations, and I’m talking about both sides. As Bill Cosby has repeatedly pointed out, the African-American community has to take responsibility for cleaning up its act. The white community has to stop stereotyping and practicing other forms of bias.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Faith vs. Religion
You may wonder what I mean by “Faith vs. Religion” in the title of this post. Aren’t they the same thing, sort of? Not necessarily. A religion is usually made up of a set of institutionalized religious practices and observances, rules of conduct and entrenched traditions. In a religion, some kind of faith is involved, but often that faith is placed on the effectiveness of religious practices, rules, observances, and traditions in appeasing or finding favor with a deity.
Christianity is a religion, of course, but more importantly it is a relationship with God based on our faith in a Savior. Because we have a Savior, we believe we don’t have to earn our way into God’s favor by scrupulously following religious observances, keeping traditions, and doing other works. We believe God reconciled us to himself through Jesus, and our response is to love God, keep his commandments, love our neighbor, do good works, and serve and worship God. Any worship or religious practices Christians do should be the result of that love, not to gain favor with God.
The Apostle Paul, addressed faith vs. works-based religion in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. NIV
In that important passage Paul explains that we don’t earn the right to be in relationship with God through any works we do, so we can’t boast about it. It is given to us only by God’s grace (unmerited favor) when we place our trust in Jesus, whom we believe is the way, the truth and the life.
Sadly, there are Christian leaders who add rules, regulations and “necessary” observances to God’s Word, laying burdens on believers. When pastors or churches do that, they are changing Christianity from a faith-based relationship with God (sola fide) to a works-based religion. Christians should think about whether our traditions and religious observances have more importance to us than our relationship with God.
So I believe true Christian religion must uphold God’s truth and not man’s ideas of what is necessary for salvation. True Christian religion is about trusting God, and being in relationship with him. Religious practices have their place, and worship is especially important. But for Christians, the motivation behind any religious practices or good works must be to honor God, and not on any self-sufficiency we think we have.
I believe God is more interested in us living out our faith than what our religious practices are. We read in Proverbs 21:3: To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. Hosea 6:6 says something similar: For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The Bible teaches that God loves all of us, but we must respond to God’s love by placing our faith in him, and then living out our faith. Most importantly, we must be in relationship with God, and that love bond is our motivation to worship and be obedient to God’s call to serve. As we continue through Lent, we Christians should ask the Lord to increase our faith, reveal where we need to change, and what God would have us to do for his Kingdom.
Christianity is a religion, of course, but more importantly it is a relationship with God based on our faith in a Savior. Because we have a Savior, we believe we don’t have to earn our way into God’s favor by scrupulously following religious observances, keeping traditions, and doing other works. We believe God reconciled us to himself through Jesus, and our response is to love God, keep his commandments, love our neighbor, do good works, and serve and worship God. Any worship or religious practices Christians do should be the result of that love, not to gain favor with God.
The Apostle Paul, addressed faith vs. works-based religion in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. NIV
In that important passage Paul explains that we don’t earn the right to be in relationship with God through any works we do, so we can’t boast about it. It is given to us only by God’s grace (unmerited favor) when we place our trust in Jesus, whom we believe is the way, the truth and the life.
Sadly, there are Christian leaders who add rules, regulations and “necessary” observances to God’s Word, laying burdens on believers. When pastors or churches do that, they are changing Christianity from a faith-based relationship with God (sola fide) to a works-based religion. Christians should think about whether our traditions and religious observances have more importance to us than our relationship with God.
So I believe true Christian religion must uphold God’s truth and not man’s ideas of what is necessary for salvation. True Christian religion is about trusting God, and being in relationship with him. Religious practices have their place, and worship is especially important. But for Christians, the motivation behind any religious practices or good works must be to honor God, and not on any self-sufficiency we think we have.
I believe God is more interested in us living out our faith than what our religious practices are. We read in Proverbs 21:3: To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. Hosea 6:6 says something similar: For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The Bible teaches that God loves all of us, but we must respond to God’s love by placing our faith in him, and then living out our faith. Most importantly, we must be in relationship with God, and that love bond is our motivation to worship and be obedient to God’s call to serve. As we continue through Lent, we Christians should ask the Lord to increase our faith, reveal where we need to change, and what God would have us to do for his Kingdom.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
PC or JC?
Can you be PC and still follow JC? In other words, can you be politically correct and still be a follower of Christ? I think it is difficult, because in my opinion political correctness is pretty much anti-Christian and anti-faith.
PC seems to target any expressions of Christian faith. Seeing a cross, crèche, or some other religious symbol “offends” some people and PC demands that the offensive items be removed from public display. PC preaches diversity and inclusiveness, but only as the PC mavens define them. Diversity and inclusiveness work only for those groups which are politically correct, and everybody else is excluded.
To give you an example of the PC double-standard, let’s take a look at the recent flap over Rush Limbaugh’s recent on-air rant. What he said was rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. Although he was exercising his constitutional right of free speech, he could have made his point in a more dignified manner. The media and various PC types criticized him for days on the cable news networks.
Yet Bill Maher says sexist things against women, and says all kinds of other offensive things, but you rarely hear a peep out of the media. Why? Maher is a liberal, and much of his offensive talk is against Christians and people of faith. Because he is a liberal and targets Christians, he is ipso facto politically correct and gets a free pass.
Can you be PC and still follow JC? I think not, although sadly many mainline Protestant clergy are try to do just that. In my denomination, we have people at our annual conference who monitor all speakers and count the number of times they use the masculine pronoun when referring to God. In seminary you get points taken off your papers if you use the masculine pronoun. That’s how ridiculous it’s gotten.
It’s interesting to note that these same PC mainline churches area losing members. I wonder why? I suspect it’s because they are conforming to the world, and being politically correct is more important to them than being biblically correct. They waste time on silly PC things rather than doing what churches are supposed to do: make disciples.
Political correctness has such a grip on the media, academia, government, and even some churches that I don’t know how we are going to get free of the “thought police.” We need to pray for our country, that true free speech, freedom of religious expression, and freedom of opinion will once again be allowed.
PC seems to target any expressions of Christian faith. Seeing a cross, crèche, or some other religious symbol “offends” some people and PC demands that the offensive items be removed from public display. PC preaches diversity and inclusiveness, but only as the PC mavens define them. Diversity and inclusiveness work only for those groups which are politically correct, and everybody else is excluded.
To give you an example of the PC double-standard, let’s take a look at the recent flap over Rush Limbaugh’s recent on-air rant. What he said was rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. Although he was exercising his constitutional right of free speech, he could have made his point in a more dignified manner. The media and various PC types criticized him for days on the cable news networks.
Yet Bill Maher says sexist things against women, and says all kinds of other offensive things, but you rarely hear a peep out of the media. Why? Maher is a liberal, and much of his offensive talk is against Christians and people of faith. Because he is a liberal and targets Christians, he is ipso facto politically correct and gets a free pass.
Can you be PC and still follow JC? I think not, although sadly many mainline Protestant clergy are try to do just that. In my denomination, we have people at our annual conference who monitor all speakers and count the number of times they use the masculine pronoun when referring to God. In seminary you get points taken off your papers if you use the masculine pronoun. That’s how ridiculous it’s gotten.
It’s interesting to note that these same PC mainline churches area losing members. I wonder why? I suspect it’s because they are conforming to the world, and being politically correct is more important to them than being biblically correct. They waste time on silly PC things rather than doing what churches are supposed to do: make disciples.
Political correctness has such a grip on the media, academia, government, and even some churches that I don’t know how we are going to get free of the “thought police.” We need to pray for our country, that true free speech, freedom of religious expression, and freedom of opinion will once again be allowed.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Sense of Entitlement European Sytle
Europe has gotten itself into quite a jam. The “womb to tomb” nanny state policies of most of the European countries have resulted in a financial crisis in several countries. The socialistic mentality that the government has to provide all kinds of services has bankrupted Greece and other countries because the cost of these services has exceeded tax revenues. Rather than cut back on these services, those countries have borrowed to make up the difference. Now they have such a huge debt it is nearly impossible to pay it down.
Despite the financial crisis, citizens of these countries still have a sense of entitlement and are rioting because some of these services will have to be curtailed. How do these people think these services will be paid for? Drachmas from heaven? I doubt if they want to see their already high taxes go even higher.
The United States is also in deep financial trouble, with an enormous national debt, unfavorable balance of trade, an ailing economy, and a crisis of leadership. Similar to the Europeans, we have a government that is living beyond its means. Special interest groups and many individuals have a sense of entitlement, and so continue to feed at the government trough.
What’s the humane but practical solution? Returning to what made this country great in the first place: government that wasn’t intrusive, reasonable taxes that aren’t a disincentive to succeed, a solid work ethic, and nearly unlimited opportunity to excel. How do we do this?
First of all, government at all levels should do only what either nobody else can do or do what it does best, and eliminate everything else. Government shouldn’t try to be all things to all people, but should be responsible for national defense, police and fire protection, education, infrastructure maintenance, regulation and control, food inspection, environmental protection, provide a safety net for the disabled, poor, and those temporarily unemployed. Earmarks should be eliminated and the president should have line-item veto.
Second, redeploy some of the savings from smaller government to programs of national importance: energy policy, rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, including the electrical grid, building up a defense against cyber attacks.
Third, simplify government, reduce paperwork, make starting a new business easier, get government out of some aspects of life where it makes minimal if any positive impact, simplify the tax code (but no flat tax, no VAT).
With these actions hopefully we as a nation can become debt-free, energy independent, and more business-friendly, and begin to eliminate the sense of entitlement that so many people have. Who knows? Maybe we’ll be able to bring some manufacturing back into the U.S. from overseas.
Despite the financial crisis, citizens of these countries still have a sense of entitlement and are rioting because some of these services will have to be curtailed. How do these people think these services will be paid for? Drachmas from heaven? I doubt if they want to see their already high taxes go even higher.
The United States is also in deep financial trouble, with an enormous national debt, unfavorable balance of trade, an ailing economy, and a crisis of leadership. Similar to the Europeans, we have a government that is living beyond its means. Special interest groups and many individuals have a sense of entitlement, and so continue to feed at the government trough.
What’s the humane but practical solution? Returning to what made this country great in the first place: government that wasn’t intrusive, reasonable taxes that aren’t a disincentive to succeed, a solid work ethic, and nearly unlimited opportunity to excel. How do we do this?
First of all, government at all levels should do only what either nobody else can do or do what it does best, and eliminate everything else. Government shouldn’t try to be all things to all people, but should be responsible for national defense, police and fire protection, education, infrastructure maintenance, regulation and control, food inspection, environmental protection, provide a safety net for the disabled, poor, and those temporarily unemployed. Earmarks should be eliminated and the president should have line-item veto.
Second, redeploy some of the savings from smaller government to programs of national importance: energy policy, rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure, including the electrical grid, building up a defense against cyber attacks.
Third, simplify government, reduce paperwork, make starting a new business easier, get government out of some aspects of life where it makes minimal if any positive impact, simplify the tax code (but no flat tax, no VAT).
With these actions hopefully we as a nation can become debt-free, energy independent, and more business-friendly, and begin to eliminate the sense of entitlement that so many people have. Who knows? Maybe we’ll be able to bring some manufacturing back into the U.S. from overseas.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Congratulations to the Cardinal
Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, has been in the local NY news quite a bit. He was recently elevated to the rank of Cardinal, putting him in the elite leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. The main thing the Cardinals do is elect the next pope from their ranks when the current one dies.
Dolan is a refreshing change from Cardinal Egan in terms of personality. Egan seemed somewhat dour and aloof, plus he wasn’t liked by some in the Archdiocese. He had to make some tough and unpopular decisions regarding closing schools and churches, which didn’t endear him to some.
You can’t help but like Dolan. He is genuinely pleasant, is available to the media, and just seems like a really nice guy. Even if he has to make more tough decisions, I think people will be more forgiving because of his personality. As head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and their spokesman, he is getting a lot of national publicity, especially regarding his criticism of the Obama plan to require Catholic organizations to pay for and provide contraception for employees. He is articulate and presents his position well.
I’d love to see him elected pope some day. After all, the U.S. probably has more Catholics than any other country, and most of our Catholics are active. Italy, France, and other European countries may claim to be Catholic, but most of the people are not practicing. Their churches are essentially museums, with worship attendance very low. Much of Europe is now post-Christian, so calling these countries Catholic is a stretch (except for Poland, which takes its religion seriously). Dolan seems to be on the fast track, so who knows?
Dolan is a refreshing change from Cardinal Egan in terms of personality. Egan seemed somewhat dour and aloof, plus he wasn’t liked by some in the Archdiocese. He had to make some tough and unpopular decisions regarding closing schools and churches, which didn’t endear him to some.
You can’t help but like Dolan. He is genuinely pleasant, is available to the media, and just seems like a really nice guy. Even if he has to make more tough decisions, I think people will be more forgiving because of his personality. As head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and their spokesman, he is getting a lot of national publicity, especially regarding his criticism of the Obama plan to require Catholic organizations to pay for and provide contraception for employees. He is articulate and presents his position well.
I’d love to see him elected pope some day. After all, the U.S. probably has more Catholics than any other country, and most of our Catholics are active. Italy, France, and other European countries may claim to be Catholic, but most of the people are not practicing. Their churches are essentially museums, with worship attendance very low. Much of Europe is now post-Christian, so calling these countries Catholic is a stretch (except for Poland, which takes its religion seriously). Dolan seems to be on the fast track, so who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
