The New York Times writes about science and faith in a profile of the new National Institutes of Health head Francis Collins, author of The Language of God: 'A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Collins resigned in August from from the BioLogos Foundation, the foundation he started as a way to reconcile faith and science. At the time, he noted concerns people had about his outspoken faith. Here's The Times' take:

First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.

And the Wall Street Journal strikes back:

It seems unlikely that scientists think religious commitment is literally a symptom of dementia. What the Times is really saying is that "many scientists"--how many is not specified--are prejudiced against religious people. It's one of the few prejudices the Times would discuss so glibly.

This is the second time that The New York Times' Gardiner Harris has outlined concerns about Collins's faith. In July, The Times published an op-ed from Sam Harris criticizing Collins's appointment.

Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?

Collins's appointment received both praise and criticism from conservative Christian groups after his appointment.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 6, 2009 | Comments (13)

Analysts and leading evangelicals are reacting pretty strongly to specific concerns about President Obama's "speech to the Muslim world" in Cairo on Thursday, including his definition of democracy, persecution by Muslims, support of Israel, and use of religion to support his goals.

National Review Online asked religious freedom activist Nina Shea, "Is there an 'Arab world' approach to religious freedom?"

She responded:

None of the Arab countries is ranked as "free" in the Center for Religious Freedom survey, though the degree of repression varies. Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are the worst, while Jordan, Morocco, Lebanon, and Oman are relatively better. All restrict minorities in varying degrees, and virtually all officially sponsor anti-Semitism. And all are intolerant of and punish apostates, heretics, blasphemers, and those who "insult" Islam. This has resulted in repressing converts from and critics of Islam as well as writers, scholars, artists, journalists, democracy activists, reformers, women's rights proponents, and others who exercise the right to free speech. This has contributed to the political, intellectual, and economic stagnation of this part of the world, as observed in the U.N.'s Arab Development Report.

Freedom House issued a statement applauding Obama's commitment to democracy. However, American Values President Gary Bauer, writing for Human Events, thought that Obama's stance for universal values was too broad:

Somewhere lost in all of the hype over Obama's outreach to the world is a sense that he stands most proudly as the American President. It's time for the president's soaring rhetoric to be applied in support of this great nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage.

Bauer also criticized Obama for neglecting to mention persecution by Muslims. Prior to the speech, Bauer had hoped that Obama would address the persecution of Christians in many Muslim countries. Bauer noted Obama singled out Saudi Arabia as a good example of "interfaith dialogue" even though last March the State Department placed the country on its list of severe violators of religious freedom. Bauer was disappointed that Obama worked harder to "ingratiate himself to Muslim leaders" than to criticize their faults:

[T]he president could have said so much more. The suppression of basic human rights is a fact of life throughout much of the Islamic world, and Muslim nations make up a large percentage of the State Department's list of the world's most severe violators of religious freedom. That list includes Saudi Arabia, and its dictator, King Abdullah, whose "counsel" Obama sought earlier this week in a trip to Riyadh.

Some in mainline Protestant circles found much to like in the Obama speech.

Reverand Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), specifically praised Obama's use of the phrase "interfaith dialogue." The ECLA press release noted "the president's acknowledgment of the difficulty Palestinians - including Palestinian Christians - face because of the Israeli occupation. He said Obama challenged those who deny the Holocaust and called for Hamas to recognize Israel."

At Israel's Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz analyzed Obama's speech, and the applause he garnered, as a hopeful sign for Obama's goal for "a new beginning," but was less encouraged by Obama's repetition of his goal for peace through a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

Watching from here, his even-handed attribution of blame for the failure of peace efforts to date was jarring indeed. "For more than 60 years," the president declared, the Palestinian people "have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead."

To which most Israelis, having now witnessed even Ehud Olmert's ultra-generous two-state terms being derisively brushed aside by Mahmoud Abbas, would retort: "And whose fault is that?"

Horovitz also expressed concern regarding the president's "strikingly brief" discussion of Iran. In the speech, Obama repeated the stance he indicated on Tuesday to The Washington Post that Iran has "legitimate" use for nuclear power, so long as it's meant for energy not weapons. The issue is of particular concern for Israelis - who consider Iran's quest for nuclear power an heightened threat to their survival - and Gary Bauer has frequently raised the alarm in the conservative community regarding both Iran's and North Korea's intentions, saying that "it will take more than eloquent words to compel America's enemies to behave." The Christian Science Monitor has questioned whether Obama's hands-off stance toward North Korea's nuclear ambition could embolden Iran.

Finally, Obama's use of quotes from the Quran, along with his frequent references over the past week - and in the speech itself - to his personal experience with the Muslim faith, has also attracted attention. From the CatholicPRWire, columnist Chris Benguhe observed that compared to the way Obama "unequivocally supported Islam and the Muslim faith" in his speech in Cairo, his support of Christianity at Notre Dame last month was less apparent. Benguhe appreciated that the president acknowledged the importance of religious freedom, and added:

But now I wish our president would show the same respect and consideration for the religious convictions and sensitivities of us Christians here at home in his own country, and I really wish he would acknowledge how important Christianity is to this nation.

Posted by Tim Morgan at June 5, 2009 | Comments (10)

Late last night, I was reading the news wires when the news of President Obama's comments on The Tonight Show about bowling and Special Olympics caught my eye.

It's too bad that the president's bowling game isn't better than he claimed, but it's amazingly inappropriate for him to compare himself to Special Olympics bowling. Actually, Special Olympians are pretty good bowlers.

I know that for a fact.

My son, Mathias Dudley Morgan, soon to turn 11, will start his annual SO bowling program any day now. Mathias is a person with Down Syndrome. He bowls, swims laps, runs, ice stakes, square dances, plays softball, basketball, shoots pool. He has never met a ball he didn't like. Ask his teachers and therapy team at Bower Elementary School in Warrenville, Illinois. Ask his two sisters, or his mom.

Mathias and the WDSRA Wildcats (his basketball team) recently completed their season -- it was their best ever. Mathias scored his first points in competition three of the four last games of the season. (Photo: Mathias, far left, and team-mate receive their tournament medals from Coach Bob.)

This morning, Tim Shriver, head of the national Special Olympics program, spoke on Good Morning America and said that President Obama personally had called him from Air Force One to apologize for what the president had said.

Shriver was very good about accepting this apology, but did note the emotional pain that the president had caused. (Which is true.) Then, Shriver took it to a new level. He said the president had provided Americans with "a teachable moment."

But my big question is this:

What do we Americans and American Christians need to learn from (not about) people with disabilities?

This question has haunted me in one form or another since the moment of Mathias' birth, when I held my newborn son for the first time in labor and delivery, and I clearly heard the voice of an angel telling me, "Your son has Down Syndrome." (That was unforgettable!)

Here are four things I have learned from nearly 11 years of teachable moments:

1. A person with a disability should be given the same dignity, respect, and opportunities as everyone else.

2. Exclusion is harmful, inclusion is always welcome, but inviting persons with a disability to be truly integrated into your life is a game-changing experience and a mysterious blessing beyond measure. (And a lot of hard work, too)

3. When we risk allowing the person with a disability to teach us, it makes our shared humanity more visible and helps us see our own limitations in a new light.

4. God, our Father, has deep purpose in allowing people with disability to live among us.

See you at the bowling alley, President Obama.

Posted by Tim Morgan at March 20, 2009 | Comments (5)

First we had "What would Jesus drive?" Then we had "How would Jesus vote?" Now, apparently, we have "What would Jesus spend?" The answer, according to a conservative anti-stimulus video ad making the rounds, might be, "Not as much as Barack Obama."

The 60-second spot, funded by the American Issues Project, states:

"Suppose you spent $1 million every single day starting from the day Jesus was born - and kept spending through today. A million dollars a day for more than 2,000 years. You would still have spent less money than Congress just did."

Posted by Stan Guthrie at February 20, 2009 | Comments (8)

Hillary Clinton will accept the secretary of state position and give up her senate seat, the New York Times reports.

Obama and Clinton agree on broader foreign policy, but they disagreed sharply during the campaign over how to deal with Iran and Pakistan. However, friends told the Times that she was disenchanted with the Senate, where she remaines low in the ranks of seniority.

Peter Baker writes that the transition team heavily vetted Bill Clinton:

The decision followed days of intense vetting and negotiations intended to clear any potential obstacles to her taking the job due to her husband’s global business and philanthropic activities. Lawyers for Mr. Obama and former President Bill Clinton combed through his finances and drew up a set of guidelines for his future activities intended to avoid any appearances of conflict of interest should she take the job.

People close to the vetting said Mr. Clinton turned over the names of 208,000 donors to his foundation and library and agreed to all of the conditions requested by Mr. Obama’s transition team, including restrictions on his future paid speeches and role at his international foundation.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at November 21, 2008 | Comments (0)