-
Photos
-
Engage What we're doing
-
Subscribe
-
RSS Feed -
Community
- Anglicans of Second Life
- Bartholomew’s notes on religion
- BeliefNet
- Busted Halo
An online magazine for spiritual seekers in their 20s and 30s. - Christians and erectile dysfunction
- Columbia
- Don Lattin
- GodTube
- New spiritual movement in Second Life
- News21
- Technorati
- Tenth Life
Kenn Sutton’s page. - Today in God
- Top 30 religion blogs
- USC
- Wired’s Experiment
-
Learn What we're learning (forthcoming)
-
Links Tagged news21 on del.icio.us
- Mogulus Live Broadcast - Broadcast Live on Your Website - Free or Pro Version by kenharper
- Kenneth Cole by kenharper
- MediaShift . News21 Produces Investigative Reports, But Can Universities Think Different? | PBS by newhouseschool
- newhouseschool's Bookmarks on Delicious by newhouseschool
- Digital News Initiative UC Berkeley on Vimeo by kenharper
- Google Analytics for Flash: Welcome to the Engagement Era by kenharper
- Pipes: Rewire the web by kenharper
- Momenta Workshops | Photography and Multi-media Workshops Around the World by kenharper
- Flare | Data Visualization for the Web by kenharper
- Fifty People One Question by kenharper
-
Archives
- Log in
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from the News21 - GodSexFamily group pool. Make your own badge here.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Comments are now working. Sorry for the delay. Please leave your feedback! - J
July 20th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Can we say sheer genius that would not have been possible without the help of all the spiritual/religious leaders who contributed their time to share this valuable information. Thanks everyone, it’s wonderful to see it come alive!
July 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am
This is terrific. Entertaining while educational. Thank you for taking what could have been rendered as a dry print piece and making it so accessible.
JC
July 24th, 2007 at 8:56 am
A few questions:
–What about Hinduism, Sikhism, Wiccan?
–Why only Reform Judaism, and not the growing Orthodox Judaism?
–Shouldn’t it be more explicit that this compass is dogma and that many of the faithful are independent thinkers?
–What about the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam? What Islam are you drawing your conclusions from?
–Why include smaller Christian faiths and leave out major denominations like Pentecostal, mainline Protestanism, and Greek Orthodox?
–Why are the statements so sweeping? For example, under Judaism, you said that interfaith marriage is condemned. First, is this true? (http://clickonjudaism.org/pages/FAQ_intermarried.html). Secondly, condemned (with a fire symbol) is quite a Christian concept. Many of these religions don’t believe in burning in Hell for sins.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
John, thanks for your many excellent and thought-provoking comments.
The plan for the Moral Compass was to state the “official position” for nine major religions. We discussed and debated which nine those should be. We wanted Hinduism; wanted to include it very much, but it didn’t fit our parameters, that is, first, stating the official position, then indicating nuances to that position via the videos. I personally contacted several Hindu groups but they said that Hindus do not normally take positions, as a group, on these types of ethical decisions. One of the Hindu organizations I spoke to said that they are currently working with other Hindu groups to prepare those types of statements, but the “official position papers” wouldn’t be ready until well after our deadline. In short, we did what we could given these constraints.
As to Orthodox Judaism, yes, we would have liked to include it, along with so many others. But we felt that if we subdivided Judaism we’d have to subdivide all the religions, which went well beyond the parameters of the project…It’s like trying to write a short story when you have enough material for a novel…you have to stick to defined parameters or the whole thing gets out of hand.
In short, this is not a definitive work. We hope it offers a glimpse, and some understanding, but it cannot answer, (nor do we suggest that it answers) everything.
The statement you quoted from Judaism regarding Interfaith Marriage was taken from The Central Council of American Rabbis. Rabbi Jane Litman, for example, didn’t agree with that statement. Unfortunately, time and space prohibited us from including all video responses.
In our Muslim responses, we are referencing Sunni Islam. In our answer to the gay clergy question, our source references the difference between Shia and Sunni belief with regard to that issue.
As to the idea that the compass is dogma…I am the producer and director of the videos, and I had such a different experience of the people I interviewed. Yes, the words we wrote reflect an official position or “dogma” of a given religion, but if you view Amanda Phifer’s video about sexual intimacy, you’ll see that she’s an independent thinker. And if you listen to Pastor James McCray when he talks about Methodist Sexuality (both of these are in the general videos section), or if you listen to Rabbi Litman’s comments, you’ll see that these people are both independent and passionate thinkers.
Finally…as to our fiery “condemned” symbol. Your point is well taken. Of the religions on our wheel, only two of them: Buddhism and Unitarian Universalists, don’t reference “hell” or a place of eternal suffering (Methodists refer to it as ’separation from Jesus Christ’) in their literature or scriptures. If you review both the Buddhist and Unitarian Universalist positions on our moral compass, you’ll find we don’t use the word or symbol for “condemned” with either of them. That said, the flames are shorthand for a certain type of religious condemnation.
We made an effort to make our process transparent and continue to do so. The dialogue you’ve initiated here contributes to that. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues; thanks for your comments. Please leave any links you think might better illustrate the subtleties of religious practice and belief. We count on you to enrich the discussion.
-Erin FitzGerald
July 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Erin,
Many thanks for your responses. Your answers certainly enlighten a project that obviously had a lot of time and effort put into it. It was mainly clarifications I was searching, and you’ve certainly helped clarify. What the “Moral Compass” does, and why I think it is a great tool, is that it starts a dialogue. Not only in this comment field, but with the several users I’ve shown it to. I think comments for this project are a great format for some questions that may go unanswered. And hopefully adherents to these faiths will speak up and comment on whether they agree or not with their religion’s stance. Keep up the good work.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I think the wheel is a great concept and a refreshing idea. However, I feel that Eastern religions were given very cursory and somewhat tokenizing treatment while Western religions were explored more richly. In addition to the glaring omission of Hinduism (though I sympathize with the challenge you describe in response to John’s comment), Buddhism is inaccurately painted with a broad brush that is weighted heavily toward Westernized Buddhism (which accounts for a small percent of all Buddhists) and ignores differences between different sects. Not to mention, the citations are rather flimsy for a journalism site (about.com is hardly an authority on Buddhism). And if there was a concern about subdividing religions, why did you subdivide Christianity 4 ways (or 6 ways if you include Mormonism and Unitarianism). Christianity and Christian influenced religons take up 6 out of 9 wheel segments! Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, and Methodist traditions have more in common than various sects of Buddhism, and yet you did subdivide those religions. If it is logistically too difficult to be inclusive due to lack of information or firm positions, you should not try. It would have been more prefessional and less tokenizing for you to simply frame it as a Moral Compass of Western religions or Christianity-influenced religions.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
This is an interesting and informative web site. However, as an Episcopal Priest, I think it is important to point out that the response as to homosexual relationships are blessed by the entire Episcopal Church, thereby making it an official position is incorrect. At the most it should be listed as “varied” or “discerning,” since the item you refer to as indicating official blessing was merely a resolution indicating that some Episcopalians are exploring this as a legitimate position and we are not sufficiently of one mind to condemn them. That is hardly a unified and official position, and I would hazard a guess that while the majority of the Episcopal Church voted not to reject such practices at General convention, a majority of Bishops have not approved such rites, nor would they encourage priests in their dioceses to use them. A little more clarity about our confusion would be appreciated :-p
July 31st, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Ditto for several other answers… perhaps you need an Episcopalian “fuzzy” label. Most dioceses would require that homosexuals be celibate in order to be ordained, there are several dioceses of the Episcopal Church that will not ordain women. I understand why some statements must be sweeping when you will find individuals in any faith group that disagree with official teaching, but when official teaching is clearly unclear and/or conflicted while in the process of change you should probably have a way to indicate that for honesty’s sake.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 am
*** What’s the (Western) God got to do with it? ***
The only gods worth a damn operate “beyond good and evil” (to use Nietzsche’s sparkling phrase). That is, moral categories *do not* apply to them.
The Powers act as they will. Their actions are subject to no constraint. The gods of Job and Oedipus for example must be acknowledged and worshiped whatever they do.
Morality *does not* grow out of religions with such divine Immoralists. The truth of a wide separation of morality from religion receives a masterful summary by the eminent classicist, E. R. Dodds:
“I need hardly say [sic!] that religion and morals were not initially interdependent, in Greece or elsewhere; they had their separate roots. I suppose that broadly speaking, religion grows out of man’s relationship to his total environment, morals out of his relation to his fellow men.” [The greeks and the irrational. UCal. 1951. 31]
Ironically a good Father god arises from hatred. From the all-too-human psychologically protective act of projection. Just as the ‘other’ is evil and guilt incarnate, the “god with us” is spotless and acts for our good. Here originates the holy one of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, brothers all.
Each defined by negating the Other, the sons of Darkness who dwell outside the Light. Each a metaphysical and ethical dualism. Each a morally rigoristic religion of wish fulfillment, self-deception and resentment. Secularism corrupts. Tolerance capitulates to evil. Only the pure ones prevail.
Sophocles, Euripides and the author of Job among the Ancients and Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud among the Moderns understood that existence cares not one iota for humanity’s well-being or being comforted.
The foundation of our legal well-being and right action is the Constitution — in which the word ‘God’ does not appear. “We the people” give rights and duties to each other, that is, to ourselves as the sovereign body.
Additionally, Amendment 1 protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.
What’s God got to do with ethics and law? Nothing. To claim otherwise is to be at once intellectually dishonest and morally blind. George W. Bush’s tyranny begins here.
eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
This is superb! Great job.