He's Not Getting a Pat on the Back

Published January 14, 2006

IN THEORY

He's Not Getting a Pat on the Back

Q: Jewish leaders and critics of the religious right have criticized religious broadcaster Pat Robertson for his Jan. 5 remarks suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent stroke had something to do with God's ill-will for Sharon's deal with the Palestinians to pull out of Gaza. What do you think of such remarks, and as people of faith, has this been a topic of discussion within your congregations? If so, how do you deal with it?

A: This is what gives religion a bad name. Of course, in the context of the Middle East, Robertson is in line with all the other distorted views of the divine. But looking at it from the orthodox camp, he and his teachings have always been out of line with the essence of Christianity because of the hatred it spews. In the body of faith, he is neither "religious" nor "right."

The second part of the question is critical: What are we - the religious community - saying about this? It's easy to dismiss Robertson's message, but you can't dismiss the people who watch and support the propagation of his twisted message. A few weeks ago, it was his warning to Philadelphians because of the court verdict on Intelligent Design. Before that, it was a case against the gays whose lifestyle whipped-up hurricane Katrina. And the list goes on.

This weekend we celebrate the life and accomplishments of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. One of his most poignant messages comes in a letter sent from Birmingham jail in which he remembers clergy who have lost positions and favor because of their alliance with justice. At the same time, he sharply criticized the Christian church for its complacency and non-action in the face of injustice. This can serve as a message and challenge to all people of faith today.

At our church and youth center we are actively working toward exposing the types of myths that will have God favoring one person over another. We bear witness to the Good News that we are all children of God. The consequences of ignoring the hatred or remaining silent are devastating. In the words of Dr. King, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."

Fr. Vazken Movsesian

Armenian Church Youth Ministries

Television in the lion's den

Television in the lion's den

Q: The American Family Assn. is protesting a new NBC series, "The Book of Daniel," which portrays a family that includes a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a drug-dealing daughter, and an alcoholic mother as models of the Christian faith, led by a drug-addicted father -- also a priest -- who is trying to be good. NBC says the show highlights the story of people, such as the father character in the show, who, even with all of the sin around him, has an ongoing dialogue with Jesus. But the association says the show demeans the Christian faith. What do you think?

A: I'm writing this before the show premieres, so I don't want to remark on the content; but I have no problem making some general comments.

NBC, or any entertainment outlet, provides programming based on one consideration: money. To believe they have altruistic, evangelical or diabolical motives in their presentations is to miss the point. They are providing programming that has the largest appeal. And, like it or not, dysfunctional families are in. Add an element of religion for a world seeking spirituality, a couple of good actors and you've got the possibility of a hit show, good ratings and more dollars.

The American Family Assn. has every right to protest "The Book of Daniel." It's commendable that some organizations still value the right to protest. It would be nice if there was a degree of consistency in their actions, particularly in regard to the war and the death penalty, but such is the freedom granted them in America.

What we're missing as religious organizations and institutions is the view of society from the vantage point of the entertainment marketers. They are selling what people are buying. It would be a utopian dream to believe the entertainment industry has a conscience or even cares about the spiritual welfare of people, but that's not going to increase their stock value.

Immediately following the Resurrection of Jesus, we read in John 21, that the apostle Peter is consumed with the fate of another disciple. Jesus tells him to focus his attention to his own ministry: "If you love me, feed my sheep." This is the mission of the sacred institutions -- to tend and feed the spiritual needs of the people. Hollywood will continue to make dollars, but we have to believe that the value given to the consumer of our product is much greater.

FR. VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries

Cruel & Unusual Punishment?

Question for December 17, 2005

IN THEORY

Cruel & Unusual?

Q: Before he was executed this week, many argued that Stanley Tookie Williams had been rehabilitated. Others argued that his lack of contrition and the nature of his crimes justifiably doomed him to execution. Do you agree? Is the death penalty a morally acceptable form of punishment?

A: By the time this article is printed, talk of Tookie will be at a minimum, if there is a murmur about him at all. The greatest tragedy associated with the death penalty is that it desensitizes us to death and therefore life. We begin to think that justice can be delivered as a commodity - an eye-for-an-eye - rather than a response which warrants sensitivity, especially for the victims!

Today a great injustice is happening in Darfur. Tens of thousands of people are being murdered just as they were being killed in Rwanda a decade ago. It's not that we don't care; it's just that we've become so immune to killings and violence that we understand life as numbers rather than flesh, blood and souls. And when the State executes someone, we receive a booster shot to our immune system. So four days later we've forgotten about Tookie, subsequently, we close our eyes to mass murder such as Genocide.

Stan Tookie Williams died. Four others died because he shot them. Hundreds of others have been and are being killed by gang violence. Over a 2000 of our troops have died in Iraq. And on the "other" side, 30,000 Iraqis have died since the start of the war. Add to that the 29,000 kids who die each day because of hunger and the statistics and numerical values of life and death become overwhelming to the point of desensitization. So when we hear that 1.5 million Armenian were murdered in the Genocide of 1915, we accept it as a statistic to history, rather than a call to action against injustice in the world.

It all begins when we tune-out the value of the life of one man, even if he be a criminal. John Donne described it so eloquently, "No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main... Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

The Death Penalty does not bring about justice. It only punishes us, those who remain to see another injustice.

FR. VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries

Taking the Christ out of Christmas

Published December 10, 2005 - Glendale News Press - Los Angeles Time

IN THEORY

Taking the Christ out of Christmas

Q: Commentator Bill O'Reilly is on a campaign to promote the use of the holiday greeting "Merry Christmas" in retail stores, reflecting a concern that outlets are replacing the greeting with non-denominational sayings such as "Happy Holidays." Do you think secular forces are wiping out such seasonal displays? Are you offended by the lack of the word "Christmas" in such displays and advertising?

A: Corporate America and the "secular forces" are doing a great job of removing Christ from Christmas, but it's not because of a reference to a generic holiday. Frankly, as a Christian I'm offended and even insulted by some of the signs that label their products with Christmas banners.

What makes a cruise a "Christmas cruise?" Do they have a plastic nativity tucked away in the corner of the dining hall? What makes the car dealer proclaim a "Christmas Sale"? Is it the big red bow over the car, or the Bible in the glove compartment? And what about the "Christmas Sale of Scotch Whiskey"? After the drunk driver kills innocent people are we to be comforted that he was returning from a Christmas party?

Christ was taken out of Christmas long ago. Whether advertisers use the word Christmas or holiday is really insignificant because what we've lost is not the word or even the person of Christ, but the message. The celebration of Christmas, with trees and ornaments, with gifts and giving, is all about a sacred relationship that we enjoy with God. The message of Christmas is all about giving to those who have absolutely no way of giving back to us -- the poor, the hungry, the starving and the sick. After all, the example was given to us on that first Christmas, when God gave to us, something so sacred, knowing that we had and have no way to return the gift, only by giving to others.

So Happy Holidays, Kwanza, Hanukkah, Winter Solstice and Merry Christmas.

Buy, spend and give. It's good for the economy and be comforted knowing that retailers rely on Christmas for their survival in much the same way we rely on God for ours.

FR. VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries

A Tangled Web of Morality

Published December 3, 2005

IN THEORY

A Tangled Web of Morality

Q: An orthodox Jewish community in Lakewood, N.J., has banned the Internet for families that have school-age children, citing concern over access to sexual images. Under the ban, students with home access to the Web face expulsion from the area's Jewish private schools. What do you think of this policy, and the Web's effect on morality?

A: The Web is a tool -- a means -- by which information is passed along. It is like asking, what is the effect of a hammer on a wall. It depends on the person using it, the place of impact, type of nail and so on. The Web is a means by which good and bad information comes to us.

The critical issue at hand is that the Web is vast, global and the "bad" is no longer a subjective issue. So its use by vulnerable children should be monitored. The community in New Jersey is exercising its voice on matters of morality.

They should be commended for doing so whether we agree or disagree with the policy. As orthodox Jews, this community is saying that their standard is different and does not have a place for the trash that pollutes the mind of so many.

This is where the religious community (not government) should be.

And ultimately it is the followers of that religion that will decide whether to belong. Hence, it is up to parents (again, not government) to accept or reject those guidelines as it pertains to their children.

For me, the opportunities afforded by the Internet are tremendous in terms of evangelization and communication.

Every rose has thorns but with proper pruning and care, you can preserve and present the beauty of the flower without damaging its integrity. As with all of life, the challenge for us is to use and not abuse the wonders that are around us.

FATHER VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries

Taxing time for political sermons

Published November 19, 2005

IN THEORY

Taxing time for political sermons

Q: The IRS has reportedly warned a high-profile church in Pasadena that it could lose its tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon from a guest speaker. What are your thoughts on this? Are you concerned about the line between religion and politics in your own sermons, and how crossing that line could single out a church or a temple?

A: There's something wrong here and it is bigger than the Internal Revenue Service threatening a church with a change in tax status. A few months ago when Pat Robertson openly called for the assassination of democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez Frías, was there a similar investigation of his religious credentials?

Or was he donning the hat of a politician and therefore protected by another set of rules?

And what about the mosques, synagogues and churches where hatred toward others is preached, advocated or even tolerated? Why are these institutions granted refuge under tax-exempt laws?

In the case of All Saints Episcopal Church, they are being singled out, and it is obvious. The truth is, I can't imagine a church being a church, without it championing peace and justice. I can't even imagine a clergyman, whether priest, minister, rabbi or imam, who can dare to stand in the sight of God and not preach peace and work for a world without war. I can't imagine this because I can't imagine Jesus standing for anything that would denigrate the sanctity of life.

Since our country was founded, issues of freedom, justice, peace and humanitarian duty have all been debated in the pulpits, in the pews and the forums established by the religious community. Run the course of history to the present and you will see the same for every time we have been confronted with challenges that touch the core of our liberty as a nation. Imagine where Civil Rights would be had it not been for Martin Luther King who leaned on his faith to build a movement for equality.

Today, the Church must continue with the same zeal and enthusiasm to be an advocate for the poor and the oppressed, to lead the way to justice and peace. If the government is set on stifling the Church's voice, it must have the courage to continue even at the cost of losing its nonprofit privileges. We hope that it will not come to this and so, we all need to accept the All Saints battle as our own. All Saints, their ministry and congregation are in our prayers.

FR. VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries

When drugs and religion collide

Published November 5, 2005 - Glendale News Press - Los Angeles Time

IN THEORY

When drugs and religion collide

Q: The Supreme Court this week heard arguments in a case that brings up the question of whether the nation's drug laws should ever trump religious freedom. In Gonzales vs. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, the court could reportedly grapple with what happens when a religious ceremony requires consumption of a drug outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act.

The case involves a New Mexico religious sect of 130 members that uses a tea made of hallucinogenic substances banned in the U.S. But this sacramental tea has been likened to the wine at a Roman Catholic Mass or unleavened bread at a Passover Seder. What do you think? Do the nation's drug laws supersede religion in this context?

A: From as early as the 19th century, the courts have distinguished between religious beliefs and religious practices or actions. While beliefs are granted the full protection of the constitution, not so with actions, as is evidenced in the current issue regarding the use of "sacramental drugs."

During the Prohibition era, sacramental users of wine were exempt from the general prohibition laws and the element, which was transformed through religious practices into the blood of Christ, was secured through governmental resources. I imagine the same type of procedures can be adopted for the procurement of hallucinogens today.

This case is going to be a good test for our system. Sure it will answer questions about the extent of law and religious freedom, but it will answer even greater issues of tolerance and relativism. And the outcome may catch a lot of people off guard.

While many believe that heightening awareness of God via chemicals is sacrilege, we can only see ourselves on the other side of the looking glass, and the bizarre world of religion, that justifies many profane behaviors in the name of the divine. It gives us another opportunity to consider Marx's assessment that religion is the opium of the people.

FATHER VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

Youth Ministries