May is a high risk month to have a baby in Michigan and Uganda.  Why?

Ramadan.

Some parts of Michigan and parts of Uganda have a large Muslim population that fasts during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which runs from about August to September (It is based on a lunar calendar).  Muslim women who fast during that period put their fetuses at risk during the critical first trimester.

From “Superfreakonomics” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

The great Jewish Philosopher Maimonides lived in Spain, Morocco and Egypt between 1135 and 1205. One of his most popular teachings is the eight levels of charity.

The lowest is one who gives unwillingly. Above that is one who gives inadequately but gladly. A better level is one who gives to the poor only after being asked.

The fifth level gives directly to the hands of the poor, but before being asked. The fourth level is when the giver does not know the recipient, but the recipient knows who the benefactor is. The third level is when the giver knows the recipient but the recipient does NOT know who the benefactor us.

The highest level of direct charity is when neither the recipient nor the giver knows each other. This good deed is devoid of recognition and pride and is thus deemed to be solely for the sake of heaven.

The highest level is to support one with a gift or a loan, or entering into a partnership with him or finding employment for him in order to strengthen him so he is not dependent on anyone. One senses that the Jews see a substantial moral emperative in business.

Because of this hierarchy of charity that I learned in Sunday school years ago, I have been weary of those who publicize their charitable giving. There is a case to be made that such publicity encourages others to also be charitable, but I have a greater admiration for the many generous people who stay quiet about it.

I am bold enough to recommend one level of charity below the lowest; to give in such a way to promote one’s own power while making the recipient dependent on you for life.

That could be worse than no charity at all.

Reverend Robert Sirico, a Catholic Priest, is the founder of the Lord Acton Institute; an organization dedicated to teaching free market principles to clergy. The clergy he had encountered most of his life were largely socialist and ignorant of capitalism.

I had the good fortune to meet Reverend Sirico years ago at a YPO (Young President’s Organization) meeting in San Diego, sat with him and Walter Williams at a scotch tasting. It was a memorable evening, at least for me. He did a great impression of Charles Rangel.

Reverend Sirico has opposed government funding of faith based organizations under Bush and remains consistent in his opposition responding to Obama’s faith based proposal with this article in the National Review.

an excerpt:

Note the implied assumption that if government is not funding something, it is not being done — that if politicians and bureaucrats are not involved, all hands are not on deck. Contrary to what both Bush and Obama seem to believe, it is possible to have hands on deck using primarily private money. Just because taxpayers aren’t paying the bill doesn’t mean it is not happening and it is not making a difference. Why do politicians turn to religious charities in the first place? Because they know we have a secret in caring for the poor — our faith. And only dilution and compromise comes to the faith when it gets entangled with politics.

More blame, then, goes to the Republicans who should have known better — which is precisely what I have said to this administration from its inception. They tend to have more economic understanding and a broader knowledge of the dangers associated with making institutions dependent on government financing. Had Bush not worked so hard for this program, it wouldn’t already be established in a way that permits any future Democrat administration to take it over and use it for its own purposes.Surely there is a lesson here both for charities and politics. Charities need to stay away from politics if they want to maintain their institutional integrity and do their job in a way that is consistent with their ideals. The long-term interests of a charitable institution are best served by an independent and private source of financial support, even if it takes longer to develop than one that comes from the taxpayers.

I think that the faith based initiative is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when Bush proposed it and it is no better when Obama proposes it. Is it just a giant suck up to the Christain Right? Does he think it will work?

The problem with the faith based initiative is the loose ACLU type definition of what qualifies. Will a terrorist inspiring Jihadi Muslim Priest qualify? Will Louis Farakhan? Would you like Reverend Wright to get your tax dollars to spend on social programs of his choosing?

The effectiveness of many faith based organizations is precisely because they are free of government control and can thus spend as they see fit. Those who want government money may have a hard time getting private donations; there may be a reason for that.

HKO

I just got back from Cincinnati where I went to the Creationist Museum. (Actually it is in Hebron, KY.) I was expecting some hole in the wall attempt to promote the dismissal of evolution. This is a very substantial museum with a full staff, a big parking lot, and it was well attended. I would estimate the construction cost to easily be $5 million.

You can see a display of the ark under construction and see movies about the dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark. No I am not kidding. If the earth is only 6,000 years old and man was created in the first week, then dinosaurs must have been around at the time of Adam and Eve, which is also on display.

If you start with the premise that the bible is the word of God and must be taken literally then you end up bending every other discipline to fit that assumption or risk losing your faith.

Faith and science are like math and history; they can coexist without substantiating each other. Science explains the way things work and faith describes who we should be.

The United States has more people who accept creationism that any other industrialized country. Some find this of concern. I guess this is OK as long as there are enough free thinkers to keep scientific progress in play.

I think the museum is available for Bar and Bat Mitzvah receptions, but there are none booked yet.

Tips to David Cassesa for taking me.

Pastor John Hagee was slammed for his comment that God let the Holocaust happen as a means of returning the Jews to Israel. He certainly did not create a new theological concept that God works in mysterious ways, and his purpose is not always obvious. Did not God destroy Sodom and Gamora?

Now I personally have a problem with the concept of God’s will being used to describe such horrors, because it removes man’s repsonsibility both for making it happen and for failing to stop it. The Holocaust was not a plan of God; it was a failure of man.

I heard John Hagee at the AIPAC meeting last year and I have no doubt he is a friend of the Jews and of Israel, though I certainly differ sharply from his theological readings of history’s tragedies.

However, how is Sharon Stone’s claim that the Chinese earthquake was “karma” for their actions in Tibet any different from Hagee’s claim that the Holocaust was a form of God’s will?

We all want a deity to vanquish our enemies and endow us with prosperity. It is a shallow theology that removes justice and righteousness from our own actions.

Be Happy: The American Refusal to Deal with Suffering
by Jude Acosta
in (yet again) American Thinker.

This would make a great sermon in any American church or synagogue. It addresses one of my great reservations about the shallowness of many American theologies.

A few short excerpts:

Where did we ever get the idea that we could petition God for happiness as if we were putting quarters into a candy-dispenser, that if you pray “just so” or tithe “just so” that God will reward you with a new job and a corner office? To my ears this sounds like a Christianity that has been co-opted by corporate interests or, worse, by Hollywood.

We know that suffering is real. We know that the world is filled with it. But we don’t want to deal with it. So we turn it into melodrama and fantasy. We objectify it, minimize it, and depersonalize it. I have seen the same person watch horror show after horror show, play violent video games, but refuse to help care for an elderly relative with incontinence because it was “gross.”

3,000 years ago a group of people came up with the idea of not working for an entire day every week. This day was reserved as the Sabbath, a day of spiritual reflection.

This was a radical idea at the time when people had to work seven days a week just to keep from starving. In fact this idea was so radical that the rest of the westen world has been trying to wipe out the perpetrators of this insanity ever since.

I contend that this idea was a pivotal point in Western Civilization. This day of rest, spiritual leisure if you will, allowed man to think; to ponder his existence. I t also led to a reflection that came up with better ideas on how to produce and improve our existence. This led to an exponential progress that led to the miracles that are now taken for granted.

Other than Cathy Truett at Chik Filet I think this is lost on most of us.

When Martin Luther first challenged the Catholic supremacy in 1517, he was warm to the Jews, rationalizing that the Catholic Church was unreasonable to expect them to convert if they treated them so inhumanely. Surely they would convert to a newer friendlier church.

When they did not, he became vicious in his anti- Semitism, calling on his church members to burn the synagogues and destroy the non believers. His ferocity lasted through the centuries and was modeled by Hitler and his henchmen. Martin Luther’s hateful tirades were used as defense by Nazi War criminals at Nuremburg.

The centuries of Jew hating has seen similar cases of friendly nations and movements turning murderously hostile.

This memory leaves Jews suspicious of the motives of Christian Zionists and evangelicals who claim to love the Jews. Are the Jews just actors in a play they did not choose or audition for?

It is difficult to accept that the ‘dispensational’ theology of the evangelicals has replaced the ‘replacement’ theology that culminated in the holocaust. Jews are reluctant to accept the love and support of the evangelicals, and not fear it is a trick to gain their conversion, possibly with political pressure.

While there is little evidence to support a nefarious intent, the suspicion is understandable. Yet the new ‘dispensational’ theology allows for respect of the Jews without converting them. This strongly pro Zionist view is based on a moral commitment based on theological beliefs.

Christian Zionists were responsible for the early settlements in Israel, The Balfour Doctrine, and commitments from Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman; at times they were more committed to the new Jewish state than many Jews.

The evangelical support for Israel should be welcomed and respected. If the Jews do not seem appreciative, be patient; we are not used to having many friends in the world.

referenced from David Brog’s “Standing with Israel”