The Bordeaux Statement & the G8: The Voice of Ecumenical Strength - By Lindsay Ann Cox

Last June during the G8/G20 meetings, here in Toronto, everyone heard a ton about the preparations, the immense cost, the protestors, the reactions of the Toronto Police and, of course, a bit about what was actually discussed and decided upon (if anything). What people likely didn’t hear about this event was that just previous to it there was a pre-summit of the world’s religious leaders in Winnipeg at the Interfaith Leaders Summit. Held at the University of Winnipeg and hosted with the help of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Mennonite Church of Canada and the Salvation Army, this interfaith gathering insisted that the world’s leaders address the fact that, as of 2010, progress on achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were sadly lacking. Not only were (and are) the MDGs nowhere near completion, the G8 and G20 countries are severely behind even their own commitments. Winnipeg’s 2010 Interfaith Leaders Summit was necessary to insist that the progress of completing the MDGs must get back on track. The world’s religious leaders came together to speak with one, global voice about an issue the G8 and G20 countries needed to hear. (For more information on this event, please visit www.faithchallengeg8.com.)

This past May, just before the G8 Summit in Deauville, France, another religious summit happened in Bordeaux, France. Organized by His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel, representing the Ecumenical Patriarch at the European Union, Council of Churches of France and the Conference of European Churches, the Bordeaux Religious Leaders Summit was held May 23-24. During this time the participants engaged in a program of events, which encouraged them to dialogue contextually about the issues facing the G8/G20 world leaders in 2011. As in Winnipeg, the purpose of this focused engagement was to be able to present the G8 leaders in Deauville (and in November to the G20 leaders in Cannes) with a statement on an important issue religious people and their leaders felt should be immediately addressed in by geo-political heads of state. The result is the Bordeaux Statement, which is available on the website of the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC) in both English and French. A press release written by Religions for Peace is also available.

In discussing the development of the Bordeaux Statement, the interfaith engagement leading to its creation, and the need for the statement to be addressed by the G8 and G20 leaders, The Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton, the CCC’s General Secretary of the CCC and an International Co-President of Religions for Peace, insisted that, “Collaboration among stakeholders is growing, but more is needed. Religious leaders are urging the G8 and G20 countries to strengthen and expand partnerships to include other countries and groups, including religious communities. This expanded cooperation should supplement rather than undermine UN processes.” Indeed.

Though it took three paragraphs to get here, this is what I want to talk about: “expanded cooperation” in the context of the public sphere for the sake of human life and dignity therein. Religious leaders, like world leaders, now know that working for change necessitates expanded cooperation. Whether through ecumenical councils, religious and denominational bureaucracies, grassroots initiatives, social networking sites, global conferences or any other means of cooperation, change will come when we work together in an issues-based format. What I mean is this: each geo-political leader comes to the G8/G20 with the values of his or her own context (personal, cultural, national, professional, etc.), which is then used to engage other world leaders on significant subjects which cannot be solved domestically, e.g., war, peace, famine, climate change and environmental issues, the financial markets, etc. Similarly, each religious leader comes to the Religious Leaders Summit representing their context, but instead of a nationalistic priority, theirs is religious. Interfaith gatherings have often been understood as one extreme or another: watered-down, fuzzy-love endeavours whether little is done or decided upon OR unproductive, defensive encounters arranged to argue things which cannot be proven, i.e., the specificities of belief, divine attributes, etc. Neither of these options is useful in a global context where so much needs to be done and people need to come together to make a difference.

I have spent my adult life studying and working in ecumenical environments on grassroots, national and international levels in the area of communications. The product of this decade of experience has been to realize, along with so many of my ecumenical colleagues, that people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds can and will work together productively in order to address a specific issue. The motivation for each person to engage in the process is different, but that is exactly the unintended grace of this situation: people from diverse contexts and belief systems coming together to try and solve an issue they all feel strongly about and, during the process of cooperating with one another, they not only learn from one another’s differences but the treatment of the issue itself is encouraged and enhanced by these diverse contributions. It is this kind of thinking which has led to gatherings like Winnipeg’s Interfaith Leaders Summit, the Bordeaux Religious Leaders Summit and those which preceded and will follow them. This is the voice of ecumenical strength.

A friend of mine, also involved in ecumenical ministry, often reminds me that, “God created imperative diversity.” What she means is that the diversity apparent in creation itself shows us, as creatures, that God purposed diversity and our faithful ability to negotiate it. Expanded cooperation means people working together to transcend all dividing lines for the sake of the care of creation. Acknowledging our diverse, however broken, reality and seeking to make changes with others, for others, is – I think – the essence of religion in the public sphere. With that said, I encourage you to read the Bordeaux Statement and think about ways in which you can activate and appreciate your role in the ‘expanded cooperation’ of honouring and caring for creation. Let's work together for productive and positive change!

Beyond Unrefined Frustrations, by Simon Appolloni

Check out this graffiti . I spotted it not long ago on the side of a building flanking a seldom-used railroad track in Brampton while walking my dog. The quality is iffy – as I used my old cell phone – so I’ll repeat what it says:

Adore [with the o in the shape of a heart]

Religion is War.

Know God. No Peace.

No God. Know Peace.

The intent and message is clear: obviously someone is not keen on religion and sees its presence as a hindrance to achieving peace. But this is not what initially fascinated me – I mean, So what else is new?! Many are displeased with religion. What I found interesting is that someone – in Brampton no less – took the time and paint to create this, risking – admittedly the risk is low here – to make his/her point. Moreover, what is not evident by this photo is its size. If I were to stand in front of it, it would be a good foot taller.

I’m intrigued by its presence. On the one hand, I see youth (OK, a presumption, but a fair one I’d say) taking a political stance. The message is political and confrontational, two things we don’t see too often around this neck of the woods; such engagement excites me. On the other hand, the message makes broad assumptions and characterizes religion too superficially. Was it one person? Was it a daughter (I’m guessing female by the presence of a heart) of an immigrant Sikh? Christian? Hindu? Muslim? tired of following too rigid rules at home and using this as an avenue to get-back-at-parents? Or was it a disgruntled atheist trying to get the last word? The graffiti can’t be that old judging by the sheen of its paint (again not evident in this photo) as well as the lack of growth in front of it.

Ooooh, I so want to meet this person and buy her/him a coffee so that I can ask all sorts of questions. Maybe it’s a group? OK, coffee all around.

I’d ask them all what experiences led them to make such conclusions and make such a poignant statement about it. I’d want to know whether it was their experience with/of one particular religion or many religions that brought them to see things like this.

I’d also ask them if they have read David Loy’s “Religion of the Market,” a clever paper that suggests that as traditional religions wane in their authority in Western society, the Market system has replaced them as the most authoritative system to tell us who we are, why we are here, and how the world ‘ought to’ function. Its value system, also attractive, is consumerism. Its theology is economics, and its god, the Market!

I’d then want to know if they considered the $147 billion dollars spent in one year alone by the advertising industry in order to proselytize the religion’s mission as following under their understanding of ‘religion as war’? After all, in just the U.S., people will spend – and at Christmas time alone – half a trillion dollars and create five million tons of extra waste. Is this not a war on the poor, those who manufacture our goods in sweat shop conditions? And a war on the gullible, those millions in credit card debt purgatory? Not to mention a war on ecosystems, as there has never existed and never will exist a place ‘out there’ where we can safely dump our waste?

And then I’d ask them whether it was the God they were thinking of or the god of the Market who, according to the UN Development Report in 1996, arranged things so that the world’s 358 billionaires are wealthier than the combined annual income of countries with 45 percent of the world’s people, while a quarter million children die of malnutrition or infection every week, and while hundreds of millions more survive in limbo of hunger and deteriorating health?

Don’t get me wrong, I applaud these youth reaching out of their skins to deliberate and act upon issues bigger than the zits on their noses, and more passionate than the urges in their loins. But I also want them to engage in deeper and more reflective deliberations so that they can differentiate between sophisticated and simplistic statements. We need dialogue on such issues and I just hope that the societal avenues open to creating such dialogue remain amenable to fostering debate.

However, I’m not confident: our political institution does not seem up to it these days, and the economic system never was open to debate. The religious system seems more preoccupied with pronatalist and fundamental issues to discuss such things. Those of the religious realm who are open to debate find themselves, as Loy shows, increasingly less influential to take on the powerful Market religion. That leaves us with the educational system.

Can the education system from high schools to universities help youth to engage in deeper and more reflective deliberations? Or will youth simply turn to the vastness of the Internet or the convenience of railway corridors and graffiti to express unrefined frustrations?

• David R. Loy. “The Religion of the Market.” In Worldviews, Religion, and the Environment: A Global Anthology, edited by Richard C. Foltz. Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth, 2003. 66-75.

Link roundup: 5 June - 13 June

• Indian police break up a guru's fast.
• The Guardian publishes a philosophical critique of the new atheism.
• Do alcoholics need god? The fight over a 'higher power' splits AA groups in Toronto.
• The bible is one of the most routinely misquoted books in America.
• How do Satanists view death?
• Archaeologists discover a 300-year-old church in St. Augustine, Florida.
• How will religion affect the evangelical vote in the next election?
• A new book argues that General MacArthur sought to replace communism with religion in post-war Japan.
• A U.S. appeals court lifts the ban on Christian prayer at a Texas high school graduation.
• Thailand moves to ban tourists from getting Buddhist tattoos while on vacation in the country.
• The NY Times looks at the closing of Catholic schools in many large American cities.
• A Muslim weightlifter starts a new debate about proper clothing when practicing the sport.
• A new letter from 1919 shows Hitler's first stance on Jewish removal.
• A new study suggests that most Americans disagree with Church teachings on abortion and homosexuality.
• The Dalai Lama considers himself a Marxist.

Link roundup: 29 May - 31 May

• The Washington Post chronicles a Mormon church for singles.
• A new piece from Stanley Fish in the New York Times, which considers the two faces of Judaism in American public discourse.
• Thew New York Times also considers Oprah's theology of suffering.
• A Philadelphia Imam helps his congregants fight back against crime.
• An attempt by Veteran Affairs to stop a Christian prayer on Memorial Day has been blocked by the courts.
• Got some spare cash? Consider buying the Crystal Cathedral.
• The bible will become a Mark Burnett television series.
• A church in Ottawa is planning a gasoline giveaway.
• Malta, which is mostly Catholic, votes to allows divorce.
• How is finance like religion? 
• A surprising group shows up to counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church on Memorial Day.

'Eco'-Link roundup

Thanks to the marvelous work of Nicholas Dion, you’ve seen religion in the news, but have you seen religion AND ecology in the news?

Due to the industrious work of the Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University - which gathers emails sent out by UNEP, the United Nations Environment Program - news on religion and ecology is but a mere mouse click away (for an archival inventory of such articles visit FORE). Here are a few to whet your whistle:

• April 18, 2011 - "EPA Launches Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Initiative/EPA’s coordination with White House effort will support environmental education and healthier families." Visit Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

• April 13, 2011 - "Hindu Perspectives on the Environment: Interview with Pankaj Jain:" Paradise Parking Lot. Progressive Radio Network. To listen to this podcast, visit: Paradise Parking Lot
  

• April 9, 2011 - "Green Passover: Taking Responsibility for People and Planet," by Rabbi Edward C. Bernstein. The Huffington Post. For full story, visit: Judaism and the Environment
  

• April 2, 2011 - "Tibetan Glaciers Melting, Dalai Lama Claims." The Huffington Post: NEW DELHI -- The Dalai Lama said Saturday that India should be seriously concerned about the melting of glaciers in the Tibetan plateau as millions of Indians use water that comes from there. For full story, visit: Tibetan Glaciers Melting
  

• March 1, 2011 - "Movement to save the Yamuna gains momentum," by Brij Khandelwal, Indian News Post: A movement launched by the ascetics and Sri Krishna devotees of the Braj Mandal to save the Yamuna river from pollution is now gaining momentum. For full story, visit: Ascetics to save the Yamuna river from pollution
  

• February 20, 2011 - "Hindus back Catholic Bishops on Climate Change policy protecting world’s poor." Press Release, Merinews: Hindus have commended the Global Climate Change policy statement of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) which says, “Policies addressing global climate change should enhance rather than diminish the economic situation of people in poverty”. For full story, visit: Hindus back Catholic Bishops
  

Link roundup: 20 May - 27 May

• In case you haven't heard, the Rapture begins tonight. Get your playlists ready!
• If you have some spare time tomorrow evening, be sure to attend a Rapture party.
• Turns out the same pastor who has predicted this apocalypse has done so before... and been wrong.
• According to the US government and the CDC, the apocalypse is more likely to come in zombie form.
• In other news, Romans are disappointed with a new statue of Pope John Paul II.
• The head of the IMF's arrest this week is dashing the hopes of Jewish communities on both sides of the Atlantic.
• A former boxer now fights for reproductive rights in the Filipino congress.
• A Catholic church in Florida intends to pray for bin Laden on Sunday.
• Is Apple a religion?
• The Huffington Post has a piece about the wave of anti-Sharia sentiment sweeping US state legislatures.

• Well... the Rapture didn't happen.
• The Pope speaks to and blesses astronauts at the ISS.
• A Saudi woman is campaigning for the right to drive.
• Leonard Nimoy speaks about his Jewish roots.
• The Pope has closed a monastery after unusual practices are discovered.
• Is atheism a religion?
• A psychologist argues that religion is not delusional.
• Oprah owes her success to god.

Truth is the easy part- what kind of reconciliation?

Dale Turner’s recent post on FEDCAN blog, “Aboriginal Relations in Canada: The Importance of Political Reconciliation” asks the question: What is the meaning of reconciliation? Turner suggests that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is about both the healing of estranged relationships as well as “an expression of Indigenous nationhood” and as such, it is political.

Why does Turner think this? According to Turner, section 35 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which reads: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed”) affirms individual rights, but only within Crown sovereignty. Meaning, Aboriginal laws, customs, and practices have to be “articulated in the language of the common law, as opposed to Aboriginal peoples looking to their spiritual practices and philosophical systems of though as logical sources of their rights” (Turner 2011). For Turner then, the concern for the TRC lies not in whether or not is a good idea to have the TRC, but the kind of reconciliation happening- one that seems to ignore the political dimension of this form of reconciliation. If reconciliation includes self-government, then the TRC needs to address constitutional and political problems for actually reaching this type of reconciliation. While Turner doesn’t want the TRC to turn into a reassessment of s. 35 (1), he does suggest that the Commissioners need to pay more attention to what Aboriginal people are saying about the past, and see that the vision for healing is an expression of Indigenous nationhood, and therefore political.

Turner is making an excellent point here- what *is* the model for the TRC? The TRC website seems to suggest there are many communities events in which survivors (direct experience or children of survivors) are able to tell their stories and discuss their experiences in residential schools. These statements are meant to provide an outlet for First Nations to express their experiences, but they are also taken in order to create a historical record or the residential school system. The TRC will also create a report including recommendations to the Government of Canada in regards to residential school history, purpose, operation, effect and consequences (intergenerational included) and the impact of the ongoing legacy of the schools.

While the TRC website seems to suggest that involvement with First Nations is paramount in the TRCs mandate, I understand what Turner is suggesting and it’s a valid point- isn’t all of this reconciliation sort of dancing around a much larger issue- land claims and treaty rights? Turner defines for us using the Oxford English Dictionary- 1. The action of restoring estrange people or parties to friendship; the result of this; the fact of being reconciled. 2. The action or an act of bringing a thing or things to agreement, concord, or harmony; the fact of being made consistent or compatible. I can understand that the TRC wasn’t created to directly deal with these sorts of issues, the mandate seems to put the first possible definition of “reconciliation” into action- reconciling estranged parties. But *how*? This seems to be the more pressing question. While I can’t argue against the inherent value of the telling of stories and the airing of grievances I can’t help but wonder about the actual practical outcomes of the TRC. Treaties and land claims are certainly the elephant in the room when it comes to First Nations rights and treatment. It will be very interesting to see what the government plans on doing after the TRC finishes. I suspect some of the “what happens next” may well be based upon the recommendations of the commission itself. Of course this kind of situation only reminds of the previous attempt at suggestions for improvement for First Nations. In 1996 the Royal Commission released a report that provided a detailed summary of the history of treatment of First Nations in Canada, as well as suggestions to renew relations between the government and First Nations. So, not to be too cynical here, but it seems to me the TRC report might end up in a similar situation- dying a few months after birth. Of course, I try to remain optimistic, and I suppose the answer to this will not be answered for some time, but I appreciate Turner’s reminder than no matter what the venue, politics is at play.

Read Turner’s article here: http://blog.fedcan.ca/2011/05/03/aboriginal-relations-in-canada-the-importance-of-political-reconciliation/#more-1483

Link roundup: 10 May - 19 May

• Quebec is becoming a leading producer of green (as in ecologically sound) communion wine.
• Want to be a rock star? Go to Christian rock camp.
• A California college offers a major in secularism.
• A Jewish newspaper apologises for removing Hilary Clinton from a photograph.
• Mitt Romney must be serious about his presidential big - he's now courting religious conservatives.
• One of the Sudanese 'lost boys' is heading back home after having completed seminary in the US.
• A progressive Christian group rejects a gay rights ad that uses the church setting.
• In case you missed the news, the world will end on 21 May.
• Is Vladimir Putin the new Paul?
• Al Jazeera looks at how the government of Bahrain has persecuted its Shi'a minority.
• According to a new book, half of the New Testament is forged.
• A new cross-cultural study in evolutionary biology suggests that religion is part of human nature.
• A piece looks at the portrayal of Norse mythology in the new movie 'Thor'.
• A new bill in the US proposes that the State department make international freedom of religion rights a priority.
• A group of Turkish creationists are touring France to denounce Darwin.
• In a new interview published Monday, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking calls the notion of an afterlife 'a fairy-tale for those afraid of the dark'. 
• A proposed ban on circumcision in San Francisco will be voted on by city council in November.

The Federal Election, Godtalk and One’s Conscience - By Lindsay Ann Cox

Introduction: Talking About All the Wrong Things

One of the things I love about this blog and about my area of scholarship in general is that we not only engage but revel in discussing and debating ‘all the wrong things.’ As a child growing up in a rather traditional English family not only was I meant to ‘restrict my comments to the weather or keep quiet’ when feeling dodgy, but also to ‘never speak about politics or religion in polite company.’ It is safe to say that, as a grown adult, if I have something negative to express I could care less about the subject of meteorology and my personality near forbids me to keep important issues of conveyance to myself. Furthermore, I have devoted my life to the interaction of religion and politics (in that order) and I, like others who contribute to and read this blog, am enthralled by the study and progression of such important matters as ‘religion in the public sphere.’ And so it is with this small preface that I am using my opportunity to blog to say something about the upcoming federal election. So here we go…

Scare Tactics as Undemocratic

As you might guess from the above subtitle, I am repulsed by any effort to scare people into voting for them. Every time I see that advert by the Conservatives with the woman sitting on her couch, bill in hand and coffee and calculator nearby, with the ominous voice-over insisting upon a Con-vote (pun intended) by talking to me like an idiot who cannot sort her own monthly bills, I have to change the channel or walk away. I am so enraged with scare tactics because they are an insult to my, and our, intelligence. Indeed, to believe such ridiculousness I must have had my eyes and ears closed for a good long time and refused to inform myself of the larger issues at play in this election. Am I – are we – so feeble and ignorant that we need to be threatened with fear mongering?

In the current issue of Now Magazine (April 28–May 4, 2011), there is an article entitled, “Harper’s Insult to our Body Politic,” by George Elliot Clarke. In this article, in the very first line, Mr. Clarke, himself, brings his own kind of Godtalk into our current political situation by stating that, “[i]n politics, sometimes nothing succeeds like deceit. Thus, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is again warning Canadians that if voters don’t give him a majority government on May 2, they can expect an undemocratic conclusion to his administration. That is, an unholy trinity of ‘socialists and separatists’ will oust him from office” (16). An unholy trinity of all that is non-Con? To Mr. Harper I respond: you’ve lead our country into the shit, been held in contempt of parliament, spent millions of our tax dollars on ad campaigns for programs that are over and lied to us time and again. And yet we should ignore all of this and vote strategically out of fear of a - here comes the word - coalition? Oh dear! God forbid people vote according to their conscience and not submit to the politics of fear?!

The Supposed Imperative of Strategic Voting

I wish that the politics of fear being levied against Canadians was solely a Con-M.O., but alas most of the other parties are ‘gettin’ down and dirty’ with the rest of them. What’s more, however, is that those positioned on the left side of this election are now going on about strategic voting in similar tones of fear. In the same issue of Now, Michael Hollett, in his article “Yes We Can – Take Back Canada,” betrays any sense of supposed journalistic objectivity when he writes that now is the “time for timid strategic vote peddlers and progressives to get behind the one party of renewal and vision – the NDP. This election, the wasted votes are for the Liberals and the Greens” (17). Mr. Hollett even goes so far as to insist that in order to beat out the Conservatives, all left-leaning voters need to get behind “the only truly progressive party, the New Democrats” (17). Really?! Is that kind of hyperbole useful in such a context: ‘only and truly’? Just because the media refuses to cover and include the Green Party does that mean its progressive platform and the party itself has ceased to exist?

Ms. Alice Klein, who has been a Now fav of mine for awhile, starts her article, “Don’t Waste NDP Surge Opportunity,” seemingly well, writing that the “strategic vote, from the point of view of defeating the Conservatives, does not favour the NDP, the Liberals or the Bloc or Greens. It varies on a riding-by-riding basis… [and so, i]n most cases, choosing the candidate you like best is perfect” (24). Finally, someone who thinks I might be able to inform myself and choose the person whom I feel represents my position best! Alas, no, for she continues on to say that, “[i]f you are an NDPer or Green swap your vote at pairvote.ca and keep the Cons at bay by voting for Liberal” (24). Ms. Klein even continues on by accusing those who do not relent and vote strategically of wearing “ideological blinders” that need to be removed so we can “embrace cooperation to create the Canada we communally envision” (24). So, now, if I don’t vote strategically for the Liberals I am uncooperative in a communal vision of Canada?!

Some of you reading this might be trying to guess the party for which I will be voting on Monday or perhaps it is already clear. I don’t know. I can tell you that I don’t like the queues on election day and so I voted over a week ago with a special ballot and so I write this knowing my contribution to our democracy. But the point of my little article is not to outline my affiliation, justify it and try and convince you to vote the same. Nor is my purpose to plug Now Magazine; I cite it only because it is a free source of news and political opinion and something I know lots of younger (and older) voters read on a weekly basis. My goal in writing this diatribe of sorts is to encourage people to vote as their conscience sees fit. I write to urge people to inform themselves and make decisions on what they believe is best not only for themselves but for our country, society and culture as a whole. I impel you to engage our democracy authentically.

Conclusion: The Translation Endeavour in the Public Sphere

In my spare time I volunteer as a pastoral care worker / assistant chaplain at a long-term care facility for elderly people in downtown Toronto. In my visits last week, some of the residents were inclined to discuss the upcoming federal election and, as you can likely imagine, some were more able to grasp the issues than others. One man, whose ability to communicate is severely limited at this point in his long life, could not contribute much to our conversation except to ask me one important question: “what would the world be if we didn’t follow our conscience?” In his soft, old and wise eyes was an understanding well beyond my years, but his question stayed with me all day and all week and it inspired me write this blog.

When we talk about ‘religion in the public sphere’ it is so very important to understand that for each faith to which a person may confess (including atheism and agnosticism), there is an opportunity to translate those faith claims into the public sphere. This process of translating religious beliefs and language thereof into the more generally accessible language of democracy and human rights is our right as citizens of a free and multicultural society, like Canada. Our democracy craves the honest engagement of citizens who follow their consciences in all their diversity; this is our Canadian mosaic.

So, on Monday May 2, please do what some people around the world are crying out for: uphold your democratic right and VOTE! But, please, ignore the fear mongers and strategists and vote according to your conscience!

* To read the articles I cited in this blog, please check out the issue of Now Magazine currently available or read it online at http://www.nowtoronto.com/.

Link roundup: 26 April - 7 May

• Scientists scan the brains of Buddhist monks.
• CNN looks at the international reaction to the French ban on Muslim headdress.
• New atheist billboards battle over judgement day.
• The Washington Post has a series of articles that use the upcoming royal wedding to reflect on the place of religion in secular society.
• Atheists seek chaplain roles in the US military.
• Religious freedom is officially out in Egypt.
• Religious groups fight over the possibility of budget cuts in the US. 
• John Paul II is beatified.
• The Washington Post asks why Americans hate atheists.
• The Peruvian prime minister calls the death of bin Laden a miracle from John Paul II. 
• A century-old church in Nova Scotia is being converted into a winery.
• A Boston University undergrad and student of Stephen Prothero's makes no apologies for celebrating bin Laden's death. This piece is presumably a response to Prothero's editorial condemning such celebrations.
• In related news, a majority of Americans polled agree than bin Laden is in hell.
• Stephen Prothero turns to the power of the image in religions to wade into the debate surrounding pictures of bin Laden's death. 
• A new study suggests that 1 in 5 scientists who identify as atheists also identify as 'spiritual'.