Monday, March 31, 2014

Noah: The Movie and The Bible


Noah is saving mankind again in a new movie that combines science fiction with the barely recognizable biblical account.  Naturally, the end result is that religious conservatives are outraged, while anyone else who goes to such movies shows up for the adventure.

The debate is nothing new.  After all, this is hardly the first time someone movie has focused on Noah and the flood that supposedly washed away most of mankind.  It’s just the most radical view, branching away from the basic story to include a vengeful king, “Watchers” who have been punished by God, and a deceitful Ham, Noah’s youngest son.

In the Biblical account, Noah is chosen by God to build an Ark, to collect representatives of all animals and to wait out a flood which destroys all other humans.  It’s not a lengthy story, running five chapters in Genesis from the last sentence of Chapter 5 to the end of Chapter 10.  Previous movies have attempted to follow that basic outline: evil mankind that God wants to destroy, righteous Noah, Ark, the flood and then a rainbow heralding the continuation of life.  . 
Simba

In this movie, however, Tubal-Cain is a terrible king who serves as Noah’s antagonist, like the devious Scar in the Lion King to the heroic Simba.  Tubal-Cain does appear in the Bible, but only as a brief mention in Genesis 4:22: “Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.”   She, too, shows up in the movie, but not as Tubal-Cain’s sister.  Her name resembles Nala, Simba's eventually wife.

In the Bible, Ham is condemned to serve his brothers because he saw his father naked, a story that once served as a pretext to endorse slavery.  Ham was the supposed father of Africans.   However, in the Bible, unlike the movie, he was not manipulated by the evil Tubal-Cain to turn against Noah.

Of course, there are no Watchers in the Bible, no miracles of rain animating instant flowers, and entire forests popping up as the movie depicts.  The Holy Book contains miracles, of course, but not the kind in the movie, which has a better selection of technological tools to draw on than any biblical writer ever imagined.

Traditional Noah
Does it really matter how much the Bible and the movie differ?

Lost in the debate – and loftier ticket sales, which is all the producers want – is the question of the historical nature of Noah. 

To religious conservatives, Noah is real.  The flood happened.  That’s why this movie has created so much animosity.  It’s as though the producers have messed with God’s word.   

Unfortunately, they are wrong.  Noah never lived.  A flood of this magnitude would have left evidence.  There is none.  Scientists have found fossilized shellfish and other marine creatures near the tops of mountains, but not universally as would have happened if the flood had covered the Earth.  The artifacts weren’t planted by God, but arrived through a natural process called uplifting.  That created all the mountain ranges in the world.

Albright
Nor has evidence of a flood found on a lower level, although once the devout thought so.  Decades ago, research led by biblical historian William Albright located thick clay beneath the land once called Mesopotamia.  That was proclaimed as evidence of a flood.  Unfortunately, artifacts above and below the clay are the same.  The people supposedly killed by the flood came back.

Then, there’s the basic problem of where the water went.  If it evaporated, it would simply return to Earth as rain.  The Bible solves that by placing rain above the firmament, some kind of covering above and below the Earth.  However, as space exploration demonstrated, there’s no water hiding about the clouds and no firmament either.  There’s also no wood on Mt. Ararat, the Ark’s supposed resting spot.

Other theories for the flood have been proposed, including the Black Sea bursting through a natural barrier and more.  None of these creative ideas match the biblical account, which requires flood waters to cover the Earth.  To claim, as has been done, that the flood inundated what Noah considered Earth ignores that other part of the story – that the disaster destroyed mankind.  If it’s a limited flood, people living elsewhere survived. 

Gilgamesh
Actually, DNA testing shows that we are products of a mixture of genes, some of which were passed along from extinct humanoids, none of whom were drowned.  Representatives of all animals couldn’t have fit on the Ark either. 

In short, it’s all fiction. There’s no debate about that. Some of the biblical account was generated to support theology.  Some comes from an ancient Babylonian mythological saga called the Gilgamesh. 

At its core, there may have been someone named Noah who escaped a minor flood with his family and a few animals on a makeshift raft.

If someone wants to make a movie about a real Noah, that would be a good place to start.


Long-time religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious history.  He also speaks at various religious organizations throughout Florida.  You can reach him at www.williamplazarus.net.  He is the author of the famed Unauthorized Biography of Nostradamus; The Last Testament of Simon Peter; The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information; Noel: The Lore and Tradition of Christmas Carols; and Dummies Guide to Comparative Religion.  His books are available on Amazon.com, Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.  He can also be followed on Twitter.

You can enroll in his on-line class, Comparative Religion for Dummies, at http://www.udemy.com/comparative-religion-for-dummies/?promote=1



Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Faith-Based Florida Amendment Boosts Discrimination



The religious right continues to attack on all fronts, doing everything possible to undermine social justice and equality with their religious howitzers. The latest efforts come in the form of a constitutional amendment in Florida and a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The founders of our country tried to build a roadblock to such attempts in the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That seems pretty clear to those of us who want religion kept as far away from the minds and wallets of citizens, it’s apparently not obvious enough to the determined religious fringe.  As has been noted in many contexts, people who develop fool-proof plans often fail to recognize the ingenuity of fools.

Take the Religious Freedom Act, Amendment 8 on Florida’s November ballot.  Supposedly, it will “protect social services offered by faith-based groups.”  Not, not really.  What it will do is eliminate a long-standing rule prohibiting the state from using tax dollars to support faith-based organizations.

What’s wrong with that?  After all, many faith-based groups started hospitals and do excellent charity work – The Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity come to mind.

Blaine
However, there’s a reason some 30 states have had that rule in their constitutions for more than 100 years.  The brouhaha started in the 1870s, when President Ulysses S. Grant called for a constitutional amendment to be sure public money was not diverted to private Catholic schools.  While the amendment failed, a proposal by James G. Blaine, a Maine senator and failed presidential candidate, did get accepted by most of the states.  It bans the use of public funds to support “sectarian institutions.”

That prohibition has been used ever since to be sure religion-based institutions don’t get their avaricious fingers on tax dollars.

Former President George W. Bush tried to counter it by getting faith-based organizations funded in prisons.  A few years ago, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tried an end run by pushing state-funded vouchers so anyone could afford to attend religious schools.  That failed.  The new proposal will pick up the gauntlet.

Nothing in the proposed amendment will prevent private schools from getting public funding, a reality that rightly offends lots of people.

Rabbi Shapiro
“No one should be forced to pay for religious education that they don’t believe in,” explained Rabbi Merrill Shapiro, a board of trustee member with the secular-rights group Americans United. “Ultimately, Muslims will be paying for Catholic education. Catholics will be paying for Hindu education. Hindus will be paying to educate Buddhists. Buddhists will be paying to educate Presbyterians. Presbyterians will be paying to educate Jews.”
Sheedy

Naturally, amendment backers disagreed.  Michael Sheedy, associate director for health with the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, “This is about more than vouchers. To say that this opens the doors to full-scale vouchers is wrong.”

His logic is specious: “The amendment doesn’t favor any religious group over another and doesn’t favor religious groups over those that are secular.  What it does is remove required discrimination against an organization simply because it’s religious.”

All that means is that Jews, Muslims and other religions can apply for the same funding.
Wonderful.  Let’s line them up, muzzles to the public trough, and give all the religious groups their share.  That won’t happen, of course.  After all, who distributes the money?  Just the conservative Republicans, all Christian, who dominate the state legislature. 

The state is sure to plead poverty when non-Christian groups apply.

Vouchers, however, aren’t even the biggest concern.  Not by a long shot.  Instead, passage of the law will mean that public money would go to organizations that already practice discrimination.  Some refuse to serve gay people; others refuse to follow laws on abortions or other requirements that violate their religious views.

As we all know, the list of religious restrictions is really long. 

It’s an issue now in front of the Supreme Court, which just heard arguments “on whether business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.”

Several cases were combined for the Supreme Court hearing.  According to published reports, one came from an arts-and-crafts retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores, both of which are owned and operated by a family of evangelical Christians. The other case was brought by a Mennonite family that owns a Pennsylvania company.

Verilli
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who heads the team opposing the elimination of the rules, is well aware of what a negative decision could mean.   “A victory for the companies could lead to a series of similar challenges to other federal requirements, potentially including objections to minimum-wage laws, Social Security taxes and anti-discrimination laws.”  Verilli also wrote that, for example, “a company could object to providing health coverage that includes vaccinations.”

In fact, such a ruling would open the door to every business finding a religious objection to any form of benefits and to refuse service to a customer who might violate the supposed religious sensibilities of the owners.

Where have we seen that kind of discrimination before?  Under slavery, an institution backed by the religious conservatives in this country. 

If these attempts fail, there will be others.  Religious factions are determined to impose their will on the rest of us, relying on of devilish deceit nicely disguised by the patina of faith.


Long-time religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious history.  He also speaks at various religious organizations throughout Florida.  You can reach him at www.williamplazarus.net.  He is the author of the famed Unauthorized Biography of Nostradamus; The Last Testament of Simon Peter; The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information; Noel: The Lore and Tradition of Christmas Carols; and Dummies Guide to Comparative Religion.  His books are available on Amazon.com, Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.  He can also be followed on Twitter.

You can enroll in his on-line class, Comparative Religion for Dummies, at http://www.udemy.com/comparative-religion-for-dummies/?promote=1











That apparently was not clear enough in either Florida




TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida voters will be asked this November to consider a religious-freedom amendment that seeks to protect faith-based social services while also tackling anti-religious bias. Launched on April 4, the Amendment 8 is one of two ballot initiatives being actively supported by the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Amendment 8 is intended to do three things: It would preserve partnerships between government and social-service organizations; it would ensure continued delivery of social services by faith-based organizations; and it would eliminate discrimination against churches and religious institutions that provide social services.
“The citizens of Florida have an opportunity to correct an historic injustice,” said Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami, president of the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. “If voters approve the Religious Freedom Act, our Florida Constitution will be more aligned with the U.S. Constitution and, at the same time, will allow religious entities to continue to participate in public programs.”
What the amendment essentially seeks to do is replace and repeal the anti-religious Blaine Amendment language currently in the Florida Constitution. Approximately 30 states currently have Blaine Amendment language in their constitutions.
In 1875, Rep. James Blaine, influenced by the anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic “Know Nothing” movement, sought to amend the U.S. Constitution to effectively shut down Catholic schools, which were being built in great numbers as an alternative to “Protestant” public schools. While Blaine failed, he did succeed in having approximately 30 states incorporate his language into their state constitutions. The result: banning the use of public funds to support “sectarian institutions.”
That language states that “no revenue of the state… shall be taken directly or indirectly in aid of any … sectarian institution.”
“Interpreted literally, this no-aid clause shuts out any of a long list of potential partnerships between Florida government and faith-based providers,” said Juan Zapata, former state representative and one of the amendment’s original authors. “The list is long and diverse: food pantries for low-income families; housing assistance programs; foster-care agencies; substance-abuse treatment and recovery programs; prenatal and pregnancy-care centers; prison ministries, as well as religiously affiliated universities and hospitals. You might know them by names like … The Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Metropolitan Ministries, Abe Brown Ministries, to name just a few.”
“Religious institutions have a long history of participation in state programs that serve the public,” wrote Archbishop Wenski in a Sun-Sentinel editorial. “That participation is in jeopardy, as appellate courts have cited Article 1, Section 3 in recent decisions.”
Michael Sheedy, associate director for health with the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that faith-based food banks, homeless shelters, halfway houses, Catholic hospitals and The Salvation Army could be at risk.
“Secular humanists could challenge any kind of faith-based organization,” said Sheedy.

Broader Than Vouchers                                                  
Opponents of the measure and several news outlets have described the amendment as a battle over school vouchers.
 “No one should be forced to pay for religious education that they don’t believe in,” Rabbi Merrill Shapiro, a board of trustee member with the secular-rights group Americans United, told Fox News. “Ultimately, Muslims will be paying for Catholic education. Catholics will be paying for Hindu education. Hindus will be paying to educate Buddhists. Buddhists will be paying to educate Presbyterians. Presbyterians will be paying to educate Jews.”
Supporters, however, disagree.
“This is about more than vouchers,” said Sheedy. “To say that this opens the doors to full-scale vouchers is wrong.”
“The amendment doesn’t favor any religious group over another and doesn’t favor religious groups over those that are secular,” added Sheedy. “What it does is remove required discrimination against an organization simply because it’s religious.”
“The Florida Supreme Court did not use the Blaine Amendment to strike down vouchers,” explained Sheedy. “It relied on Article IX, Section 1, the Florida Constitution’s ‘Uniformity Clause,’ which requires the state to provide a ‘uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high-quality system of free public schools.’ This would not be changed in any way by Amendment 8.”
“It is ironic to note that it was religious communities and churches that were responsible for the creation of hospitals … and for much of the development of the health-care system in this country,” said Zapata. “Yet, today, the Florida Constitution would tell them it doesn’t want their help because people of faith would deliver it.”
Amendment 8 is one of two ballot initiatives the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops is supporting. The other, Amendment 6, strengthens parental rights by allowing future legislation to require parental consent for children seeking an abortion, prohibits the use of public funds for abortions or health-care coverage that would include abortion, and aligns Florida’s state law with existing federal law regarding limits on the use of public funding for abortions or health-care coverage that would include abortions.
“At the core of Amendment 8 are the basic building blocks of our society: liberty and fairness. Florida law currently excludes religious organizations from receiving state funds, even when those funds are used for the benefit of all people,” said Bishop Frank Dewane of the Diocese of Venice. “To deny state funds to an organization specifically because of its religious affiliation ignores the tremendous good faith-based organizations do, and it violates religious freedom. The passage of Amendment 8 would help religious institutions like the Catholic Church continue to do what they do very well, which is to serve the community and improve the common good.”
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday considers whether business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

In one of the biggest cases of the year, the nine justices will hear an extended 90-minute oral argument, with the extra 30 minutes the court added to the usual hour-long session hinting at the complexity of the legal issues involved.

The case pits religious rights against reproductive rights, with a heavy dose of politics added to the mix. A capacity crowd will fill the marble courtroom, with many demonstrators expected outside.

Even the main lawyers in the case, for the Obama administration and Paul Clement for the religious employers, are familiar names. They argued against each other the last time the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, was before the justices in 2012.

In that case, the justices upheld by a 5-4 vote the constitutionality of Obamacare's core feature that requires people to get health insurance.

The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.

The case also touches on questions of corporate rights four years after the court, in a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, endorsed broad free-speech rights for companies in the campaign finance context.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

The so-called "contraception mandate" of the healthcare law requires employers to provide in their health insurance policies preventive services for women that include access to contraception and sterilization.

The court will hear two consolidated challenges brought by closely held companies and their owners.


FREEDOM OF RELIGION

The justices will weigh whether the challengers have a claim under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ensures the free exercise of religion.

The case, which has no bearing on the broader fate of the healthcare law, will determine whether some companies will be exempted from the contraception coverage requirement. Religious institutions already are exempted from the regulation.

In court papers, some Republican members of Congress have supported the companies, while Democrats have backed the Obama administration.

The administration's lawyer, Verrilli, said in court papers that a victory for the companies could lead to a series of similar challenges to other federal requirements, potentially including objections to minimum-wage laws, Social Security taxes and anti-discrimination laws. He noted, for example, that a company could object to providing health coverage that includes vaccinations.

"A reading of RFRA that would produce this regime of virtually automatic exemptions from critical employee-protection legislation cannot be correct," Verrilli wrote.

The government is backed by women's rights groups, who say contraceptives should be made as widely available as possible for public health reasons. [ID: nL2N0M724C]

The challengers and their supporters, including a wide-range of religious groups, counter that the case is really about whether the government can trample on fervently held religious beliefs.

"No one should be forced to give up their constitutionally protected civil rights just to go into business," said Kyle Duncan, a lawyer for Hobby Lobby.

The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-354, 13-356. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Grant McCool)

Monday, March 24, 2014

Florida Trying to Control Textbooks


Hays at work

It’s easy to say that Republican Florida State Sen. Alan Hays is at it again.  After all, he’s the fellow who tried to get a law passed that would prevent city buses from stopping to load and unload passengers on busy streets after he was inconvenienced while driving home.

The Orlando Sentinel called that effort “petty” and “disgusting.”

Wonder what the paper thinks of his latest attempt to control people’s lives?  He wants to give local school boards the right to select textbooks.

Naturally, his Republican colleagues are enthused.  “This legislation eliminates any suggestion of federal intrusion and affirms local control of a local responsibility,” said Republican Senate President Don Gaetz.

It also guarantees that some students will get an education and some won’t.  It ensures that religious groups will fight to eliminate subjects like evolution don’t get near the minds of impressionable youth.  It continues Florida’s dismal efforts to limit educational opportunities.

According to an independent study of Florida spending on education, the Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times found that “one way is to compare how much money a state provides for education per pupil, and by that measure Florida ranked 48th, according to the Census.”

There’s no point asking what Hays thinks.  A similar newspaper investigation into four statements Hays made regarding different topics found that he mostly lied twice and was completely lying a third time.  He said:

1) Proof of citizenship isn’t necessary before you register to vote in Florida. (mostly false)

2) Your tax dollars are not being used to sue you, the people. (false)

3) The Florida Legislature has not file a lawsuit to fight (redistricting) Amendments 5 and 6 (mostly false)

4) He didn’t lie when he said that he was not spending money to fight the amendments.

A 25 percent batting average hardly equates to confidence in anything the part-time dentist says.

Hays is also the same legislator who has twice co-sponsored a bill that “bans courts or other legal authorities from using religious or foreign law as a part of a legal decision or contract relating to family law. Florida law would supersede foreign law regarding divorce, alimony, the division of marital assets, child support and child custody.”

Besides being unnecessary – judges follow state and national law – the bill has managed to do something thought impossible: unite Moslems and Jews. 
Bedier

Ahmed Bedier, president of the United Voices for America, said, "We may disagree what is happening in the Middle East, but we agree on this bill — that it discriminates and targets our communities."

Not to Hays, but he has already set a low bar for veracity.

He’s the same person who pushed a bill to allow the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to sell $50 million of land set aside for conservation, a move that sparked a huge outcry from environmental groups and residents with homes near some of the designated parcels.

The ultimate failure here belongs to the voters, who continually elect Hays and other politicians with private agendas who then attempt to impose them on the public.  As long as voters give such people the power and platform to operate, the longer all of us will have to endure their misguided efforts.

Maybe someone should write a textbook on how to tell the difference.

Long-time religious historian Bill Lazarus regularly writes about religion and religious history.  He also speaks at various religious organizations throughout Florida.  You can reach him at www.williamplazarus.net.  He is the author of the famed Unauthorized Biography of Nostradamus; The Last Testament of Simon Peter; The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information; Noel: The Lore and Tradition of Christmas Carols; and Dummies Guide to Comparative Religion.  His books are available on Amazon.com, Kindle, bookstores and via various publishers.  He can also be followed on Twitter.

You can enroll in his on-line class, Comparative Religion for Dummies, at http://www.udemy.com/comparative-religion-for-dummies/?promote=1