An outing to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception

We had absolutely gorgeous weather here today, so my beloved wife and I decided to take a trip up to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on the campus of Catholic University and reputedly the largest Catholic Church in North America. The church is a Byzantine-Romanesque hybrid style with many side chapels on both the upper and crypt level. It’s hard to get good pictures of the interior, and seemed a bit irreverent to boot, but here are a few shots:

Here’s a nice set of shots from flickr.

Tofu-licious!

We made this Mark Bittman recipe for Mexican Chocolate Tofu Pudding tonight and it was really good. I was surprised how creamy it was. We added a bit of cayenne pepper for some kick.

Debating Celtic Christianity

There’s a lively conversation going on downblog on the “Use and abuse of Celtic Christianity” post from a few weeks back. Welcome to any new readers! I don’t have much to contribute to the discussion at this point, but I’m happy to see it keep going.

Priorities

I like this, from Brandon:

Here and there over the past few years I’ve seen a great many Christians who are of the opinion that argument with the so-called New Atheists should be a major priority among Christians, and I recently saw another instance of this. They don’t generally ask my advice, but whenever people do, I always suggest that this is exactly the wrong way to go. The fact of the matter is, however important they may seem to themselves, and however visible they may be, they are of extraordinarily minute importance in the vast concerns of the Church. Our relations with Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists are all vastly more important, and our relations with our fellow Christians more important still. And of all the foes we fight in our fight against the World, the darkness of the Zeitgeist, the New Atheists are puppy dogs; it is foolish to spend our time focusing so much on the little pups that we ignore the wolves. And of all the problems we face, we ourselves are more of a problem for us than they are; particularly the absurd ease with which we all are distracted from what is truly important by the fact of who happens to have made it to the bestseller list recently, or by some other utterly frivolous thing. And what is truly important, of course, is clear: Love God and neighbor, and when we somehow fail to do so, set out again and again until with God’s grace we succeed. Everything else is hobby.

When’s the last time you saw a serious Christian engagement with Sikhism?

Dear Pandora

When I’m listening to your (otherwise great) Traditional Country station, I really don’t need to hear Joaquin Phoenix singing Johnny Cash tunes from the Walk the Line soundtrack. Just sayin’.

Judicial watch

No insightful legal analyis from these quarters (I know enough lawyers to know how out of my depth I’d be), but, boy howdy, the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the SCOTUS sure is bringing out the best in the conservative movement and the GOP, isn’t it?

Torture, truth, and the war

Jonathan Schell connects the dots and makes some observations about the use of torture as a characteristic of declining powers.

Friday metal – Tori-fied/Slaytanic edition

Here’s Tori Amos’(!) nearly unrecognizable version of Slayer’s “Raining Blood”:

Here’s the immortal original:

Obama, Niebuhr, and progressive realism

A good essay by theologian-historian Gary Dorrien at “The Immanent Frame”:

today Niebuhr is back in public discussion because he symbolizes, notably to Barack Obama, the possibility of a progressive realism that defends America’s interests more prudently and advances the cause of social justice. Niebuhr, like Obama, blends liberal internationalist and realist motifs, contending that multilateral cooperation is compatible with the power-seeking clash of nations. The case for a strong international community has a realistic basis, that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs and risks of not working together. All parties are better off when the most powerful nations agree not to do everything that is in their power and nations work together to create new forms of collective security.

Dorrien emphasizes that Niebuhr’s views changed over the course of his life:

The early Niebuhr played up the irrelevance of Jesus’ love of perfectionism to politics, stressing that Jesus never talked about the realistic limits or consequences of social ethical choices. The later Niebuhr realized that the love ethic kept him and many others in the struggle, whether or not they succeeded. That was its political relevance. Justice could not be defined abstractly; it was a relational term that depended on the motive force of love. The meaning of justice could be determined only in the interaction of love and situation, through the mediation of Niebuhr’s three principles of justice—freedom, equality, and order.

He also makes the important point that “realism” unleavened by moral idealism quickly becomes corrupt. Too often Niebuhr’s thought has been understood as divorcing the two.

Religious liberty and SSM

Not sure I agree with all the conclusions, but this article from The Christian Century provides a lucid overview of potential conflicts between religious liberty and same-sex marriage, and how a reasonable balance might be struck. I do agree that treating people with religious objections to SSM as bigots pure and simple misses the mark; even though I think they’re wrong, many of these folks are moved by sincerely held religious beliefs, not animus against gay and lesbian people. The analogies to racial discrimination have some force, but I think they break down at this point, at least in many cases. Plus, there’s a limit to how much a free society can expect to extirpate attitudes the majority (if that) considers to be wrong.

On the other hand, I do worry about enshrining into law a protected zone for discrimination. Assuming, perhaps optimistically, that attitudes toward gay and lesbian people continue to shift as radically in the coming years as they have been, do we really want embedded in law the right to discriminate against gay couples, even under carefully circumscribed circumstances? I guess it all comes down to the particulars. I’d be interested in hearing what actual GLBT folks think about these kinds of religious liberty provisions–after all, it’s easier for me say they’re OK since they’re not going to directly affect my marriage.