Religion and Belief

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares149 Views

    Supreme Court to Hear Catholic Charity’s Bid for Tax Exemption

    by

    The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that the charity’s activities were insufficiently religious to qualify.The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Wisconsin was free to deny a tax exemption to a Catholic charity on the grounds that its activities were not primarily religious.The court has been notably receptive to arguments from religious groups, and the new case will give the justices another opportunity to explore the limits of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.The case concerns a Wisconsin law that exempts religious groups from state unemployment taxes so long as they are “operated primarily for religious purposes.”Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Superior, Wis., has said its mission is to provide “services to the poor and disadvantaged as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church.” State officials determined that the charity did not qualify for the exemption because it “provides essentially secular services and engages in activities that are not religious per se.”The Wisconsin Supreme Court said it accepted the charity’s contention that its services were “based on Gospel values and the principles of the Catholic social teachings.” But the court ruled that the group’s activities were “primarily charitable and secular” and did not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.”The court added that “both employment with the organizations and services offered by the organizations are open to all participants regardless of religion.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Tony Campolo, Preacher Who Challenged Religious Right, Dies at 89

      by

      A mesmerizing speaker, he urged his fellow evangelicals to turn away from politics in favor of the values of charity and love espoused by Jesus.The Rev. Tony Campolo, one of the most influential evangelical preachers of the past half century, who urged Christians to resist the strong political tug of the religious right and to affirm that their faith called them, first and foremost, to fight poverty and racism, died on Nov. 19 at his home in Bryn Mawr, Pa. He was 89.The cause was heart failure, his son, Bart, said.With a mesmerizing speaking style that combined humor, passion, worldliness and Scripture, Dr. Campolo in his prime addressed 500 or more audiences a year, at churches and conferences, often challenging the hegemony of the Christian right that aligned white evangelicals with the Republican Party.He was a founder of Red Letter Christians, a movement that urges evangelicals to turn away from politics in favor of the values of charity and love preached by Jesus, whose words are printed in red in some editions of the Bible.His lodestar was Chapter 25 in the book of Matthew, which warns that Christ will judge his followers by the compassion they showed to “the least of these” among humanity.“While you were sleeping last night,” Dr. Campolo would tell audiences, “30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition.”“Most of you don’t give a shit,” he added.“What’s worse,” he’d say, building on the shock value, “is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said ‘shit’ than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Theologian Who Changed His Mind About Gay Marriage

      by

      I’ve spent my life in politics, but faith has been most central to shaping who I am. My conversations with people of faith have been among the most enriching of my life. Richard Hays, an ordained minister who is an emeritus professor at Duke Divinity School, is one of the world’s leading New Testament theologians. In 1996 he wrote “The Moral Vision of the New Testament,” in which he argued that gay and lesbian sexual relationships distort God’s created order and that churches should not bless same-sex unions. In his new book, “The Widening of God’s Mercy,” written with his son Christopher Hays, Richard Hays says he was wrong. I spoke to Richard Hays about his journey and what changed his mind. This conversation, which has been lightly edited, is the first of what I hope will be a series exploring the world of faith.1. A Different Way of Looking at How God Sees Gay RelationshipsPeter Wehner: You now hold an affirming view, the belief that gay relationships are not sinful and that sexual orientation and gender identity are not justification for exclusion from church membership or leadership. You had a very different view in 1996 when you wrote “The Moral Vision of the New Testament.” What do you see now that you didn’t see in 1996, and what would Richard Hays circa 2024 say to his younger self?Richard Hays: What I see now has been over the last 10 to 15 years, the experience of having gay and lesbian students in my classes, when I was still teaching, who were very clearly committed to the church and to Christian faith and who were seeking conscientiously how best to serve going forward. That couldn’t help but make an impression on me.And the other thing closely related to that is that in my own experience in the church, I saw church members who were not theological students or anything like that but who were exercising roles of gracious and meaningful leadership.The other thing that I’ve seen is that in the conservative evangelical churches, there was a kind of smug hostility toward gay and lesbian people, and the attitudes that I was encountering there didn’t seem to me consonant with the New Testament’s portrayal of what people seeking to follow Jesus should be like. That they should be patient, kind, generous. And I didn’t see that.I saw ugly condescension in those churches where that was the strongly held view. And the most dismaying thing about that is that people who were manifesting those attitudes were appealing to my book as a justification, which I actually think means they didn’t read my book very carefully. Because back in 1996, at the time when gay marriage was illegal in the United States and forbidden in just about every church, with maybe one or two exceptions, I saw that chapter as, in part, making an appeal for people to be graciously accepting of gay folks.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Curious Case of a Temple Sweet: How Food Increasingly Divides India

      by

      A Hindu politician has accused his Christian predecessor of allowing a temple’s sanctity to be violated with an animal product.It was a sensational charge in a country where food is yet another marker of political, religious and caste divides.For centuries, the Tirupati temple in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has given laddu, a ball-shaped sweet, to devotees. The temple is the richest Hindu holy site in the world, with revenues each year of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is spending about a million dollars a month just on ghee to fry the laddu in, according to M.K. Jagadish, an official at a state-owned dairy.Last month, the state’s newly elected chief minister, a Hindu named N. Chandrababu Naidu, accused his Christian predecessor of allowing the temple’s laddu to be made in ghee, a clarified butter, that was adulterated with other animal fats. A majority of the temple’s devotees are vegetarian; Mr. Naidu’s allegation called into question the sanctity of the temple itself.The case of the temple sweet shows how India’s food cultures have become increasingly politicized. In a nation where cows are viewed as sacred by most Hindus, many states have banned the slaughter of cows and made the transportation of beef a punishable offense. In some, even the cooking of eggs has drawn official condemnation. Restaurants are closely monitored for any mixing of vegetarian and nonvegetarian food. Some states have ordered the owners of food stalls to display their names clearly so consumers are aware of their religious and caste identity.Cultural sensitivities surrounding food are not new in India. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 against the British was ignited by allegations that rifle cartridges, which had to be manually loaded by biting off the end, were greased in beef tallow and pig fat, antagonizing both Hindu and Muslim soldiers in the British Army.But the politicization of food has become more pervasive with the rise of Hindu nationalism under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Vegetarianism and cow protection are now a staple of the political discourse. Mere accusations of eating or transporting beef — mostly against Muslims — can result in lynchings by cow-protection vigilantes and right-wing organizations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Can ‘The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives’ Change a Conservative Religious Culture?

      by

      In the seventh episode of the new reality show “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” a character makes this observation of a fellow married mom struggling with a controlling husband: “It’s kind of a theme with our church, though, and kind of what the problem is. Everyone is getting married before their brains even develop.”The show, which is on Hulu, follows eight influencers in Utah who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is being marketed as a docudrama with a religious gloss; a caption for the trailer on TikTok promises “Secrets, scandals and viral handles.” This group of conventionally attractive mostly 20-somethings was cast because, as part of a loose network of friends who call themselves “#momtok,” they already had millions of social media followers. Following their rise to fame over the past few years, they made headlines for a cascade of salacious and embarrassing public moments.“Mormon Wives” is being sold as regular reality TV dreck — I say this with love. I love garbage. So I was surprised to find that beneath the usual petty squabbles and plastic surgery recovery scenes, there is a much deeper theme of religious conflict.These women are engaged in an ongoing discussion about, among other subjects, the social conservatism of Mormonism — where chastity is a virtue, homosexuality is a sin and the father is the “is the presiding authority in his family” — and whether they can change the culture of the church and also the broader world, including their own families.(A similar conversation has also been happening on “The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City,” but it tended to be overshadowed by the criminal behavior of one of the cast members, which played out over multiple seasons. I told you, I love garbage).The “Mormon Wives” very public grappling with rigid gender roles and working outside the home is also part of a larger trend I wrote about earlier this year — while every demographic group is moving away from organized religion in the United States, young women are leaving “in unprecedented numbers.” They are pushing back against their churches and disaffiliating in part because they feel like second-class citizens in their houses of worship.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why MAGA Nation Embraces Donald Trump

      by

      More from our inbox:Exit Menendez?Joe, Keep Your DignitySpirituality in America Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Deep Source of Trump’s Appeal,” by David Brooks (column, July 12):I’ve always believed that the mass of Donald Trump supporters were fundamentally just working-class Americans who, as the country’s wealth increasingly skewed to the 1 percent ever since President Ronald Reagan, found themselves running faster and faster to stay in the same place, and finally (and justifiably) started to fume about it.While Mr. Brooks doesn’t flat out say it, I take away from his article that, rather than viewing their plight as old-fashioned liberals used to — as plain and simple economic class exploitation — the white working class has been conned by demagogues like Mr. Trump into seeing it as existential, zero-sum identity politics.If Mr. Brooks’s suggestion is that religious leaders guide Americans back to some form of enlightened democratic civility, they’re going to have to drop a bit more wealth redistribution into their message to the congregation.Steven DoloffNew YorkTo the Editor:Having been dismissed as “deplorables,” sniffed at as people who “cling to guns or religion,” and generally considered less worthy, it was only a matter of time before the voters who have become MAGA nation would decide to stand up for themselves and say, We matter, too, and as much as you do.For all his many shortcomings, Donald Trump does have a keen eye for a marketing opportunity, and he was happy to swoop in and exploit the concerns of this group.Democrats may prefer to fault President Biden’s frailty, but they have no one but themselves to blame or the burgeoning strength of the adversary they face.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Are We in the Middle of a Spiritual Awakening?

      by

      When I asked readers who identified as spiritual but not religious to reach out to me, I was astounded by how much variety there was in the faith experiences of individuals in this group. Some said they found spirituality both in the beauty of the physical world and in communing with other people.“I found the 12-step program to be sort of a spirituality that worked for me,” a woman named Maggie who lives in the Northeast told me. (I’m not using her last name because one of the tenets of her 12-step program is anonymity.) “It’s about making a connection with a higher power. It’s about trying to improve that connection with prayer and meditation,” she said.Maggie lost her taste for organized religion, she said, after being disappointed by the way her church handled a situation in which a minister had an affair with an employee. She finds the 12-step program to be free of that kind of hypocrisy and appreciates the “bone-scraping honesty” of her fellow group members. People talk about “what’s really going on in their lives,” she said. “It’s refreshing and often relatable, and it feeds me.”As I read and listened to the wide range of spiritual stories that readers shared with me over the past few weeks, I thought about the way that nones — the catchall term that describes atheists, agnostics and nothing-in-particulars — can imply blankness and almost a kind of nihilism.But as I learn more about the idea and the history of being spiritual but not religious, and the growth of this self-definition over the past few decades, alongside the documented move away from traditional church attendance, I wondered if I hadn’t given enough weight to new expressions of faith. Rather than seeing this moment as reflecting the slow demise of organized religion in America, one that leaves some people bereft of community and meaning, it’s worth asking if we’re in the middle of the birth of a messy new era of spirituality.First, I want to be honest that I’m not going to be able to give a definitive answer through the data here. The polling around questions of spirituality is pretty noisy, because the terms “spiritual” and “religious” are “so amorphous and they overlap so greatly,” said Robert Fuller, a professor of religious studies at Bradley University and the author of “Spiritual but Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America,” when we spoke last week.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Alito and Roberts, Secretly Recorded at Gala, Share Markedly Different Worldviews

      by

      The two justices were surreptitiously recorded at a Supreme Court gala last week by a woman posing as a Catholic conservative.Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a woman posing as a Catholic conservative last week that compromise in America between the left and right might be impossible and then agreed with the view that the nation should return to a place of godliness.“One side or the other is going to win,” Justice Alito told the woman, Lauren Windsor, at an exclusive gala at the Supreme Court. “There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”Ms. Windsor pressed Justice Alito further. “I think that the solution really is like winning the moral argument,” she told him, according to the edited recordings of Justice Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which were posted and distributed widely on social media on Monday. “Like, people in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that, to return our country to a place of godliness.”“I agree with you, I agree with you,” he responded.The justice’s comments appeared to be in marked contrast to those of Chief Justice Roberts, who was also secretly recorded at the same event but who pushed back against Ms. Windsor’s assertion that the court had an obligation to lead the country on a more “moral path.”“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” the chief justice said. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”Ms. Windsor pressed the chief justice about religion, saying, “I believe that the founders were godly, like were Christians, and I think that we live in a Christian nation and that our Supreme Court should be guiding us in that path.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Jürgen Moltmann, Who Reconciled Religion With Suffering, Dies at 98

      by

      Considered one of the leading Christian theologians of the 20th century, he insisted that any established set of beliefs had to confront the implications of Auschwitz.Jürgen Moltmann, who drew on his searing experiences as a German soldier during World War II to construct transformative ideas about God, Jesus and salvation in a fallen world, making him one of the leading Protestant theologians of the 20th century, died on Monday at his home in Tübingen, in southwest Germany. He was 98.His daughter Anne-Ruth Moltmann-Willisch confirmed the death.Dr. Moltmann, who spent most of his career as a professor at the University of Tübingen, played a central role in Christianity’s struggle to come to grips with the Nazi era, insisting that any established set of beliefs had to confront the theological implications of Auschwitz.As a teenage conscript in the German Army, he barely escaped death during an Allied bombing raid on Hamburg in 1943. The horrors of the war led him to chart a path between those who insisted that faith was now meaningless and those who wanted a return to the doctrines of the past as if the Nazi era had never occurred.Though his work ranged widely, including ecological and feminist theology, he specialized in the branch of theology known as eschatology, which is concerned with the disposition of the soul after death and the end of the world, when Christians believe that Christ will return to earth.Dr. Moltmann outlined his eschatology, and established his reputation, with a trilogy of books, beginning with “The Theology of Hope” in 1964.“Theology of Hope” (1964), the first book in a trilogy, established Dr. Moltmann’s reputation.Fortress PressDr. Moltmann’s next work, “The Crucified God” (1972), tackled the question: Does God suffer, or, as the all-powerful being, is he incapable of experiencing pain and sorrow?Fortress PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More