Seeing Through. . . .

A very nice pastor told me long ago, "The trouble with you is that you don't see, you see through." He did not mean it as a compliment. Yet later, he asked me to edit the manuscript of a book he was writing, so "seeing through" must not have meant a lack of trust.

I've thought a lot about that statement over the years, and have come to the conclusion that he was right. I only take things at face value when I don't want to be bothered thinking about them. When I am actively engaged in evaluating a thought or an idea or what someone is saying to me, I am a natural-born skeptic. Like my fabulous second husband whose first response to any request was reluctance or an outright "no" as a way of buying time to think about the request, my first response to ideas and opinions is generally, "Oh yeah? Really? Sure about that? Tell me more." while hopefully keeping a neutral look on my face so as not to stifle the other person's idea-sharing. Really, I learn a lot that way.

So here we have Obama and McCain facing off in their first debate. Polls supposedly show that McCain supporters didn't see through the defiant stance of this old man utterly terrified of his much younger opponent. He couldn't even look at him, to say nothing of his inability to make eye contact. McCain rambled on and on dropping names and touting his long experience in the senate, supposedly as a maverick working both sides of the aisle, while seemingly not daring to give up the microphone to allow his opponent to speak because his opponent might show that he is the more intelligent of the two. (Do these guys really sit on opposite sides of the aisle? Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other? Or is this a metaphor. If true, that is not the best plan. Mix them up. Let them make small talk together on a daily basis, ((if they show up daily that is)). Maybe our legislative system would be less adversarial.)

But, you know what? The airwaves and the tv waves and the blog waves are filled with people's voices who see through what happened during that debate. Americans for the most part have gained lots of practice in seeing through the silliness of the advertising with which we are bombarded, the over-the-top violence in car-chase movies, the sex-is-everywhere tabloid junk. Unless we are so sheltered in an insular community of think-alikes that we haven't been allowed to develop healthy skepticism, we are not fooled by this spectacle of Republican desperation. (Disclaimer: 1) I was once a Republican, 2) I once had high respect for John McCain, and 3) I'm the same age as McCain. Oops, that's supposed to be a secret.)

"Seeing through" is an outstanding trait to cultivate. Only when you can see through the superficiality of any given argument or stance or worldview, can you begin the search for what might be a better answer, a better truth, a better path to follow.

"Oh, a rhinoceros! Well, of all things! "

Shana Tova

Catholic holy days begin with a vigil or anticipatory mass the night before. We derived this custom from standard Jewish practice. Some Christians act like they've forgotten, but our faith began as a sect of Judaism.

Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, begins at sundown Monday. The Tashlich prayer is traditional for the beginning of the holiday. It is based on this reading:

Who is a God like thee, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of His inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever because He delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion upon is, he will tread our iniquities underfoot. Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt show faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn to our fathers from the days of old. --Micah 7:18-20 (Revised Standard Version)

Oorah is an organization devoted to passing down traditional customs in the Jewish community. A couple of weeks ago their newsletter included this lesson, with a picture of servicemen celebrating a Mesopotamian Tashlich in Iraq. It reminds all of us how worldwide and universal is the love of God, as symbolized by religious customs.

*On the first day of Rosh Hashana after the afternoon service, the practice is to walk to a river to say the Tashlich prayer. This is derived from from Micah (7:18-20). If Tashlich is not recited on Rosh Hashana it can be recited on any day until Yom Kippur (this year, October 8th-9th).

*Tashlich is translated as to "cast off". We shake out the fringes of our garments which alludes to the casting forth of our sins.

* During the Tashlich prayer we contemplate G-d's omnipotence and mercy and we are stirred to feelings of repentance (teshuva). We admit our faults, cast away the burden of the past year's mistakes and express our desire change, which is the main theme of Rosh Hashana. Tashlich also affirms our desire to improve our relationship with G-d and humanity.

* It is preferable to say Tashlich by a body of water that has fish in it such as a river. If there is no river in the vicinity one may go to any natural body of water such as a spring, well, lake, or pond. If there is no body of water nearby, one may say Tashlich by any collection of water.

* Fish in the water symbolize G-d's constant supervision over the Jewish people, since fish don't have eyelids, they never close their eyes. Fish remind us of the vulnerability to get caught in a net, as we are caught in the net of judgment. This is meant to stir us to change; Fish are known to have many offspring and represent our desire to be fruitful and multiply. Also the evil eye does not affect fish who are usually hidden by the water and we hope it will not affect us as well.

* Water is the symbol of life, Torah and continuity. Jewish mysticism teaches that water corresponds to the attribute of Kindness. On Rosh Hashana, we ask G-d to treat us with kindness in the upcoming year.

* Kings of Israel were anointed by the riverside, so on Rosh Hashana, the day that we affirm G-d as King of the Universe we do so by the water as well.

* Tradition teaches us that Satan tried to dissuade Abraham from going to Mount Moriah to sacrifice Isaac. He created a river to block Abraham's way but Abraham just kept walking. Abraham could not be deterred from his mission to serve G-d. This took place on Rosh Hashana. When we say Tashlich, we remember father Abraham's intense dedication and we try to emulate that dedication by observing G-d's law and committing to good works (mitzvos) with the same intensity.

* The standard Tashlich prayer is:

Who is like You, G-d, who removes iniquity and overlooks transgression of the remainder of His inheritance. He doesn't remain angry forever because He desires kindness. He will return and He will be merciful to us, and He will conquer our iniquities, and He will cast them into the depths of the seas. Give truth to Jacob, kindness to Abraham like that you swore to our ancestors from long ago.

From the straits I called upon G-d, G-d answered me with expansiveness. G-d is with me, I will not be afraid, what can man do to me? G-d is with me to help me, and I will see my foes annihilated. It is better to take refuge in G-d than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in G-d, than to rely on nobles.

"Are voters idiots? Yes or No! Idiots? Yes or No!"

Call it a style or a tactic. It's childish and rude.

I guess the first debate between Barack Obama and John McCain was a tie. People who were for McCain to start with thought he came out ahead; people who were for Obama to start with thought he had the edge.

I've always liked John McCain, even when I've disagreed with him politically. I like his informal, shoot-from-the-hip speaking style, and I sympathize with his tendency to be crabby and unpredictable. So even though I'm not planning to vote for him, I was disappointed by McCain's behavior during the debate last night. He used an arguing tactic that was not only unpersuasive but that I found personally annoying.

Sure, I disagree with the Republican position on a bunch of issues, but McCain's been working pretty hard at not sounding like a Republican. Were he running against a more doctrinaire Democrat than Obama, I might even be tempted to vote for him, at least I thought so up until yesterday. Not today. McCain has finally mastered the style of discourse that was perfected in the realm of right-wing radio, and it drove me crazy.

I realized that this what had bothered me most when I read this in Dana Milbank's "Washington Sketches" column from the Washington Post:

It was 75 minutes into the 90-minute debate before any real blood was drawn, when Obama was defending his willingness to meet with foes. "So let me get this right," McCain snapped. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."

Laughter came from the audience. Obama struggled to respond but McCain kept cutting him off.

"And Senator Obama is parsing words," he said.

"I am not parsing words," Obama insisted.

"He's parsing words, my friends."

Milbank makes the exchange sound more balanced than it was. McCain was just plain determined that Obama not be allowed to talk. He was rude, and to me he sounded desperate. This was McCain's tone throughout the debate. I almost expected him to shout "Senator Obama, do you hate America? Yes or No? Yes or No? Hate America? Yes or No?"

I'm close to a couple of people who argue this way. They seem to think that if you talk louder than the other person and prevent them from responding by continuously interrupting, then that means you've made your point. That's not only incorrect, it is obnoxious. The thing is, it seems to appeal to a lot of people, especially conservative and Republican-leaning commentators.

This is a slightly different issue than the myth of civility, the idea that it is never okay to raise your voice or to disagree vehemently. If you disagree about something that matters, you ought to say so, in whatever tone of voice you feel is necessary. Just don't be fooled that you've won any arguments if the other person's voice was soft enough for you to talk over.

It is easy to prove that you are a loud, narrow-minded bully. But winning an argument? That takes patience, it takes listening to the other point of view and taking the time to refute the other person's points.

Angry people

Oops. In my naivete', I actually thought that sending various point-of-view emails to friends and acquaintances might be helpful in broadening their worldviews, as I, myself, generally read articles, emails, and lots of other things that don't necessarily agree with my own thoughts. Was I wrong! I should have known better, especially since I've been doing a lot of reading lately about why people believe the way they do.

Only the people who strongly agree with any given email (Spam actually. Let's call a spade a spade!) respond positively. The others get downright MAD. In my own case, the emails that I receive that I personally dislike the most are the sticky-sweet-bless-your-day-and-smile messages. They come from friends whom I like and respect, so I can predict what the content is from the subject line and from who the sender is. I simply delete them and don't even open them up, but I've never yelled at them in all CAPS to stop sending them.

Okay. I guess you realize what just happened to me, and I'm stinging a bit from it. The question for me is: Should I continue in my efforts to broaden the thinking of my family, friends and acquaintances, or just give it up? Some of these are about politics and some are about God and religion, and some are about the state of the world today, environment etc. I honestly don't do this because I think I know more. I really do it to get a conversation going so that I can get a feel for what other people think, especially the people I know. Some of the email conversations have been incredible, and I've learned a lot. Yet maybe the whole thing is too provocative and I should just stop altogether.

I need some advice. Please respond.

You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God's righteousness.

Judgment Day on Wall Street?

The High Holidays of the Jewish calendar are almost upon us. Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur -- a day of sweetness and a day of atonement -- are the culmination of a month-long process of coming back to God.

On the Aish haTorah Jewish Learning website, Rabbi Benjamin Blech asks "Is Wall Street sending us a Rosh Hashana message?" He writes:

[image from aish.com]

"...today many of last year's billionaires have to sadly confront the fact that they are now only millionaires -- and the rest of us have to deal with the reality of rapidly sinking retirement funds, plunging real estate values and panicking margin calls.

Strangely enough we have very conflicting views about God's role in all of this. The Austrian playwright Arthur Schnitzler pointedly observed, 'We know of some very religious people who came to doubt God when a great misfortune befell them, even when they themselves were to blame for it; but we have never yet seen anyone who lost his faith because an undeserved fortune fell to his lot.' We attribute success to our own efforts. We call catastrophes acts of God. When we 'make it,' we thank ourselves. When we lose it, we blame an unjust Heavenly Ruler.....

...It is only our name, the good deeds we performed for others, and the influence we may have had upon them, that outlive us and offer us a share of immortality.

Strange then, isn't it, that we spend most of our lives chasing after money, spending far less of our time than we should with our families, and spending so little of our efforts to accomplish those things by which will be remembered.

Maybe, after all, making a fortune isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Maybe we can even identify with the profound words of Emile Gauvreay: 'I was part of that strange race of people aptly described as spending their lives doing things they detest to make money they don't want to buy things they don't need to impress people they dislike.'"

Is it significant that the financial crisis comes so close to the traditional time of new beginnings? There are worse lessons we can take from the last few years of untrammeled greed.

The term "Doomsday" comes from the Anglo-Saxon word for judgment. Not necessarily condemnation, just a day in court. Through the years we have yielded, semantically at least, to our suspicion that God's judgment is going to go against us. As long as we are still alive and our society continues its endless transition, we can still change that verdict.

Guest voice: Eric Castillo on Blurry Politics

Friday, September 19, 2008

This article caught my attention on Relevant Magazine's politics page:


Right, Left or Center by Ron Sanders


Please feel free to read the whole article. It's this particular line and the way it's addressed that was particularly thoughtful:


"As people of faith, political life is simpler when we are one-issue voters. The more problems that concern us, the blurrier our choices become."


I appreciate the way the author addresses both the evangelical right and left (yes, there is a left) and thoughtfully offers his approach to politics.

And in regards to the quote: I think we are better informed and more thoughtful voters when the choices are "blurrier." I think it's great when I can engage people with different opinions and argue over the smallest details about a particular issue. And it's great when open minds can be changed - mine or theirs or (hopefully) both.

I hope you find the time to read the entire article and maybe even leave your own opinion here. I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for reading.

-- Eric Castillo

[I'd love to get a discussion going here at Nuanced Faith on this subject. In the meantime, go to Eric's blog and let him know you're listening. --Dorothy]

I'm more interested in who God loves...

A friend sent me an Anne Lamott column about Sarah Palin. It contained the following:

[I] called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, 'Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?'

And he said, 'Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian.'

I've always found Anne Lamott's writing a bit too self-absorbed for my taste, but this really seemed over the top. Is it just me, or does that phrasing sound at least as smug as the people she's trying to criticize? In any case, I find hatred as repellent on the left as it is on the right.

The column concludes with some useful suggestions for maintaining sanity in a world that seems increasingly dominated by the trivial and the mendacious. But here's the problem: If I weren't the kind of person who can derive entertainment from reading a list of names in the phone book, I would never have gotten to the useful suggestions. The rest of the column is smug nonsense. And it makes a difference.

Very few arguments are won by saying "People like you are just too stupid to make the right decision," and I'm more than a little creeped out by a line of belief that assumes God hates those that make us angry. Humility is the key. It's the only way we can communicate.

Writing a Book I Believe In

I've lost track of how many years that I've been working on this book; it's been tough on a lot of levels, but I keep plugging away because I know that this is a story that must be told.

A number of years ago I was at a wedding reception dinner for a Cambodian friend, and was sitting next to my friend Chhalith whom I helped sponsor as a refugee to the United States in 1982. "You ought to tell your story," I said casually.

"Yes, maybe I should," he answered.

Almost a year later, he called me and asked if I would help him. I agreed, not having the slightest idea of what I was getting into. I bought one of these little voice recorders, and we began meeting weekly for about six hours while he poured out his experiences as a teenager living under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, 1975 - 1979, plus one year in the Khao-I-Dang refugee camp in Thailand. During the rest of the week, before he came back again, I played back the recordings and slowly transferred the words to on paper just as he told them to me.

I read a lot. I must have read every book on the history of Cambodia and on this war where in its zeal to win in Vietnam the United States secretly dropped bombs on over half of this neutral country! I did research at the library, on the Internet, bought every book I could find, traveled to Cambodia, and what I found was that Chhalith's story fits perfectly into the events of that time, but because he was from Battambang Province, few if any personal accounts are told that match his.

Chhalith was twelve years old when he and his family were evacuated from Battambang City. He was just old enough to be assigned to the Khmer Rouge's infamous work groups that traveled from place to place constructing bridges, buildings, and dikes. He spent almost a third of the next four years in the jungle, learning jungle skills to stay alive while breaking up rocks, cutting and stripping bamboo, gathering resin, and helping to build the nine-mile long Kamping Puoy dam in the jungle at the foot of several mountains. As the Khmer Rouge began to come undone, the massive killing became worse and starvation was rampant. Those that could not find food in the jungle and in the forest died of starvation if they weren't murdered by the soldiers first.

It's a gruesome tale, told dispassionately by a man recalling the years of his childhood. Chhalith has the mind of an engineer: observant, technically intelligent, and a talent for recalling details. What is missing is the emotion that he had to suppress so that he could survive.

He wants to tell the story so that his sons will know what he went through. I want to tell the story because I believe that this is one more piece of evidence against the existence of war. I fervently believe that human beings must address the lust for power and the greed that seems to rise up like a snake's head ready to strike its prey. The deceit that accompanies this phenomenon is inherent in the process.

There are other stories that I want to write, my own stories, but I know I must finish this one first. It's been hard, and it's taking a long time, but I believe in it and I believe in my reasons for writing it.

You will hear of war and rumors of war. . . .

Should this chart worry progressives?

The following is from a group called Ellison Research. I found it through the Christianity Today website.

Actual attendance of religious worship services, by political background…

Frequency of Attendance	Conservative	Moderate	Liberal	Republican	independent	Democrat
More than four times a month	16%	9%	6%	15%	7%	9%
Four times a month	28	20	15	27	15	23
2 – 3 times a month	14	16	13	15	14	16
Once a month	4	4	7	3	6	5
Occasionally, not no regular basis	8	10	9	8	10	9
Holidays only	9	12	10	9	11	12
Never	21	29	40	23	37	26

*Numbers may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Fighting Poverty with Faith

I received this press release through the Union for Reform Judaism. The actual website is maintained by Catholic Charities.

WHAT WILL THE CANDIDATES DO IN THEIR FIRST 100 DAYS TO ADDRESS POVERTY AND OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA?

Background: From September 10-16, 2008 people of faith across the country will be mobilizing their communities to ask their local, state and national candidates what they will do to address the pressing issues of poverty and opportunity in America in their first 100 days in office.

In communities across the country, people of faith will be calling and writing the candidates, holding forums to discuss these issues with civic and political leadership, engaging in interfaith community service to aid those in need in their communities, and otherwise highlighting the need for increased leadership on these issues.

Our message: Poverty in American is a moral and urgent problem. As we look across our country today, we see a nation where millions of people lack the basic necessities of life and where the futures of far too many young people are clouded by economic and social policies that have failed to promote a shared prosperity.

Our common scriptures present a vision of shared responsibility that commands that we leave the corners of our field for the poor and the stranger and mandates, “There Shall Be No Needy Among You” (Deuteronomy 15:4). Our common faith values call on us to respond.

Our task: Everyday faith organizations serve individuals in need within our communities. But our efforts to sustain our brothers and sisters living in poverty must be complemented with a serious plan from our political leaders to reduce the number of needy. By speaking out collectively during this week, we can spark a national conversation, and create a mandate for the officials elected this year to aggressively pursue a poverty-reduction agenda.

By acting during this time, you can be a part of a national interfaith movement to build the political and public will to address poverty in America.

For more information visit: www.fightingpovertywithfaith.com. You can find resources on how to participate and locate events near you!

● Alliance to End Hunger ● Association of Jewish Family and Children’s Agencies ● Bread for the World ● Catholic Charities USA ● Evangelical Lutheran Church in America ● Interfaith Youth Core ● Islamic Relief ● Islamic Society of North America ● The Jewish Council for Public Affairs ● Jewish Reconstructionist Federation ● The National Council of Jewish Women ● MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger ● National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd ● National Council of Churches ● NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby ● Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office ● The Righteous Indignation Project ● Sojourners ● Union for Reform Judaism ● United Jewish Communities ● Women of Reform Judaism

The Black-and-Whiters, and I'm Not Talking About Race

In a letter to the editor (Economist, September 6th, 2008) Maddy Fry of Oxford writes: "Liberals within the Anglican tradition are often castigated for promoting an exegesis that is open, tolerant and inclusive. Other denominations such as Baptists and Pentecostals, particularly in parts of America, interpret the Bible in other ways, casting aside the comands of 'Love thy neighbour' and 'Do not judge' in favour of verses that supposedly condone the use of guns, the execution of felons, the bombing of abortion clinics and the erosion of women's rights."

Well said, Maddy! And the United States seems to be growing more of these folks who can only think in simplistic black and white, this or that, terms. I ran into a bunch of them a few years ago at the Vernon County Fair in Viroqua, Wisconsin where they had a booth in a tent otherwise filled with agriculturally-themed exhibits. I believe they called themselves "Living Waters" and had a large rack of small comic-book-type publications. "Take what you want," the man said. "They're free." So I took one of each and ended up with a shoebox-full of religious literature put out by Chick publications in California. Back at the motel, I read them all, in shock at the explicit hate message in these cute little comic books. They hate Catholics. They hate Muslims, They hate Jews. They hate homosexuals. They hate anyone who isn't exactly like themselves! Anyone who is a target of their hatred is portrayed as ugly. Anyone whom they deem innocent, is drawn with large liquid appealing eyes something like Puss-in-Boots in Shrek II when he is trying to get something out of someone. I saved all these little nasties and have them still today, tucked away in a box labeled "Right-wing Hate Literature."

The following year my granddaughter and I encountered this booth again at the fair, but this time, some sweet young things dressed in plain long dresses greeted us and invited us to take their literature. I politely pointed out to them what this stuff really was. "But Jesus said. . . ," they protested. OMG! I lost it!!! By the time I was done letting them know that Jesus preached compassion, justice, and mercy not hate, I was surrounded by a group of Living Waters young people, male and female, and my granddaughter was tugging at my sleeve to get us outta there. I walked away looking them all straight in the eye, hoping that one or more of them might have heard the message of a love that does not include hate your neighbor.

Who are these people? How could they have lost their ability to reason? Why aren't they listening to their intuition that tells them to be careful, don't believe everything you're told, think for yourself, look outside the in-group to test the so-called truths that you are given? Who and what has captured them and is holding them hostage?

The studies being done by Andrew Newberg and Mark Waldman on beliefs, memory, emotion, and spirituality go a long way toward opening up our understanding of this phenomenon of rigid beliefs. In Why We Believe What We Believe, Newberg, a physician-radiologist/psychiatrist who teaches religion at the University of Pennsylvania and is the Director of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind uses all the tools at his disposal to approach the study of belief systems including MRIs of meditating Catholic nuns, Buddhist monks, people speaking in tongues, and even atheists contemplating their view of reality. The findings are astonishing. Please read it. We need to know this!

Maddy, in her letter to the editor, goes on to say that any interpretation of the scriptures must conform to the principle of compassion. I would like to add that any interpretation of any religious literature, whether Christian or otherwise, would be wise to include compassion as the window through which we read it. If compassion toward our fellow humans and other living creatures is not present, then the message can be viewed as suspect.

The measure you give will be the measure you get back.

Who's Plucky Now?

Leah Hochbaum Rosner, in her excellent article "A New Take on an Old Story," (World Jewish Digest, September 2008) opens with this statement: "Even those with only a passing knowledge of the Torah are well aware of the pluckiness displayed by Judaism's patriarchs -- Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his only son to a God he barely knew, Moses majestically parting the Red Sea as he led the children of Israel from Egypt, Jacob convincing his warmonger twin brother Esau to choose lentil soup over his birthright."

Plucky? Plucky? Sacrificing your son is PLUCKY???

I don't know if Rosner used that word deliberately to grab my attention so that I'd read her article, but if that was her intention, she succeeded. It stopped me in my tracks, actually, as thoughts came of parents pluckily sending their sons and daughters to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and die. For what? For God?

I thought about the presidential candidate who calls himself a maverick because he pluckily survived with honor five years in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam and now won't let anybody forget it and move on to examining his more current plucky deeds.

It occurred to me that the young soldier who threw himself over a grenade to save his comrades was also quite plucky.

I think I'm making myself sick. . . . or reverting to the sarcasm and cynicism of an earlier age. A moment please, while I recover from the word "plucky" and gather myself together to say what I really want to say.

Rosner's article is really about a new book called The Torah, A Women's Commentary, a tome of almost 1,400 pages written by a team of more than a hundred academics and poets over fourteen years whose goal, as stated by Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, editor, is "to bring the women of the Torah out from the shadows into the limelight, from their silences into speech, from the margins to which they have often been relegated to the center of the page."

The courageous and foresightful women who worked on this version of the Torah understand that women see things from a different perspective than do men, and without their input, no story can ever approach wholeness.

This book is for everyone, they say, not just for Jewish women. I, for one as a Christian woman, would like to study it too. I'd like to read it also from the standpoint of how the New Testament might be written to include the input of women. I'd like to see how, perhaps, even the Koran might look if women would have had a hand in writing it. Maybe, just maybe, thanks to the many women who worked on this commentary, women are coming out of the shadows to show that equality among genders is not a fantasy but a distinct possibility.

So thanks Ms. Rosner for using the word "plucky." Nothing like shaking up the potential reader to get some attention!

--I'm all shook up--

Tell the Truth

This third-hand quote is from The Tablet, a Catholic publication out of Britain, dated September 6. I picked it up elsewhere.

The Vatican's foreign minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, gave a speech on 29 August at an annual conference sponsored by the conservative ecclesial movement Communion and Liberation...

...Archbishop Mamberti's remarks on Christianophobia were widely covered in the mainstream press, but they deflected attention from his broader and more critical reflections on the issue of religious freedom per se and the Holy See's attempts to promote it in the international forum.

... The Vatican diplomat said there was a widespread and erroneous notion of religious freedom in the West that was at odds with truth and the correct understanding of liberty. He said one error, especially at the UN, was to view religious freedom "exclusively in relation to other rights and almost as if it were an obstacle to, rather than a guarantee of, the exercise of " those other rights." Archbishop Mamberti also warned that religious freedom could "not be incorporated" into the notion of tolerance. "If every conviction were just as good as another, then we would even end up being tolerant of aberrations," he said, clearly implying that not all religions are equal. He said the "right to religious freedom" presupposed the "duty to seek the truth about God". The implication was that only those religions that "fully respond to the thirst for truth that is in every person", and not those that have been reduced to "simple agencies of social solidarity", merited the right to religious freedom. He argued that interfaith dialogue that sought to end religions' "truth claims" was pointless and could never unite people.

How about it, folks? Does your faith community provide you with truth, social solidarity, or both? Do you trust a Vatican bureaucrat to judge? Finally, is religious tolerance really incompatible with truth?