Religion 12 - Celibacy

Once again, I find myself compelled to comment to this morning's media essay about celibacy in the church that seems controversial enough to suit the pages of this Blog.

Celibacy is, of course, an issue.  Whether it is the most important issue, or not, is irrelevant.  The Church should respond to the issues of the twenty-first century, and sexually-related issues are written about on the front page of all newspapers, both in terms of, for example, adult rape and paedophilia.  

What is religion?  Is the married Anglican priest that is only allowed to become a deacon in the Roman Catholic church any less religious than an unmarried priest?  Would it lead to married bishops, and … sacré bleu, women too?

Certainly, celibacy needs not to be mandatory. 

When asked, many people describe themselves as spiritual rather than religious, and I wonder if there may be a stigma by admitting to be religious, which begs the question, again, what is religion?  After all, isn't everyone religious (spiritual) in one form or another.  Being agnostic is acceptable, but no one has the intelligence to be an atheist. 

Could we ask, what is God?  Would the answer begin with, “She ….” (in Los Angeles) or “It ….” (in a science class)?

Is this too personal to reveal your soul (or qi)?

Politics 8 - Refugees

When one feels like discussing something interesting, it often becomes a debate. Then, we are told never to introduce those two dangerous subjects, Politics and Religion. But, try to discuss immigration and avoid an insulting argument, because immigration combines both politics and religion.

I wrote the following, as a comment, in a newspaper this morning.  Then, realized that I had a Blog, a worthy stage for my act.

Enter, stage right (or left).  No one political party in the world can design an equitable immigration policy, and those religions that preach 'Peace on Earth to all men', seem to forget those words when they leave the church or mosque.

Personally, I like to teach many people the difference between an 'immigrant' and a 'refugee'. In the 'ideal' world, immigrants should not cause major problems, but that assumes that immigration departments adhere to the regulations, i.e., no person (s) should be coming into a country without sufficient funds to support themselves for a defined period of time, or be sponsored by a business (or another individual) for a specific period of time, e.g., three years. After three years, they should qualify for resident or even citizen status.

But a refugee usually has no choice. They come, for various reasons, for fear of their lives. Once their case is proven, I am sure that most of us would be sympathetic to their situation. We may say, 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.' Nevertheless, I need to mention a rarely spoken, controversial point; If, and when, the fearful reason for their acceptance as refugees has passed, they must be encouraged to return to their safe country of origin ... and, from there, apply for immigration. A precedent exists, e.g., a tourist arrives in a country, loves it so much, decides to stay, but must return to their country of origin to apply at the embassy ... and prove educational skills, financial sufficiency, and criminal record, etc.

That is not discrimination.