Freedom of Religion?

There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of worship implies the right to gather, pray and sing. In essence, it is the liberty to conduct religious activities within areas designated for such practices.

Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.

However, freedom of religion is quite different. The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out one’s faith - not just in private, but also in the public square - without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.

The First Amendment of our Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.

The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience - carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action. 

James Madison expressed this understanding in his original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” Hence, because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. 

In addition, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” 

Both the United States and the United Nations understand freedom of religion as the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” one’s religion or belief in both “in public or private,” without interference from the state. 

Despite this understanding, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs. The decision of the judge is part of a global ideological redefinition of religious rites. Some ideologues are now associating circumcision with mutilation or even child abuse.

For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). By prohibiting the rite of circumcision is to deprive Jewish and Muslim boys a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity. 

Opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. But that is not true in that fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates the restrictive religious beliefs of the parents of the child. 

This is much more than an intellectual discussion.
Attempts are already in place to restrict or outright violate religious liberty. Many are aware that the federal government has begun to gut the only federal conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care professionals.

In addition, through code enforcement and city planning, many cities are limiting the visibility of houses of worship. Property management firms are also limiting proselytizing in areas under their control. More and more, specific attempts are being made to restrict the freedom of religion as it relates to the public display of one’s faith.

Religious freedom is one of those unique rights that, to be fully enjoyed, other rights like association and speech must also be protected. Although critical, religious freedom provides more than religious liberties. Interestingly, whereas the freedom of religion guarantees the freedom of worship, it is not true to assume that the freedom of worship would guarantee the freedom of religion.

Fire-Chief Fired

On Tuesday, January 06, Atlanta’s Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran was fired after more than 34 years of distinguished service as a fireman. According to Atlanta Mayor, Kasim Reed, Cochran was fired because of sentiments he expressed in a book.

The Mayor told reporters Cochran was ousted because of poor judgment. The mayor accused the chief of not getting permission to write the book, a charge Cochran denies.

The Mayor also alleged Cochran distributed the book to members of the fire department. Cochran readily admits that he gave copies of the book to close associates within the department. It should be noted that the individual who initially complained about the book did not receive a copy from the fire chief.

Sources in Atlanta City Hall told a local television station that Cochran was going to be fired, not for writing the book, but because he did not go through proper channels to write it in the first place.

According to the Mayor, “Not one time during the course of preparing this book did the chief ever think it was appropriate to have a conversation with me.” However, the former fire chief told reporters he received permission from the city's Ethics Department to write the book and in fact he sent a copy to the Mayor's Office, giving it to the Mayor's assistant.

Mayor Reed, surrounded by members of his administration, including city officials, some who are part of the LGBT community, said he fired Cochran for bad judgment, not for writing the book which calls homosexuality a perversion. Interestingly, a city investigation determined the fire chief had not discriminated against LGBT employees by writing his book.

The book, Who Told You That You Were Naked (2013), was really written for Chief Cochran’s Sunday School class. Cochran is a deacon, a Sunday School teacher and Bible study leader at Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church. In the book, aimed at helping Christian men overcome past sins, Cochran expressed his belief that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.

Cochran used about half a page of his 160-page book to refer to homosexuality as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate” behavior. He shared a few copies of his book with firemen colleagues who shared his worldview. About three members of staff, who did not share his worldview, also received copies. One fireman, who was not given a copy of the book, was reading it and noticed Chief Cochran’s description of persons who chose the gay lifestyle.

The allegedly offensive lines were shared with some in city administration who were sympathetic to the gay lifestyle. Following this, Chief Cochran was suspended without pay for one month. He was also instructed to attend a course in sensitivity training. At the end of his no-pay suspension, he was fired.

Interestingly, the Mayor was praised for dismissing Chief Cochran by openly homosexual councilman Alex Wan. Wan said, “...when you’re a city employee, and your thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”

Wan’s view is the epitome of bigotry. And so is The New York Times, which said it doesn't matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That's not the point, they argued Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled, God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department – “It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians."

The editorial went on to say, "His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens."

Where in this situation did Chief Cochran even attempt “to foist his religious views on other employees”? What crime did Chief Cochran commit to even deserve a one-month-no-pay suspension? Why should this decorated firefighter be subjected to this array of bigotry and ‘religiophobic’ rhetoric?

In one interview, Chief Cochran said, “...the LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.”

Did I hear an AMEN for that? Personally, I believe if Chief Cochran were gay and similarly expressed an opinion about persons who did not share his worldview, he would be still employed as Atlanta’s Fire Chief.

Happy New Year?

Honestly, we need happiness this year. The global picture is so gloomy. I foresee increasing conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, Russia, Europe and Asia. I want to be optimistic, but the global tension is too great to be ignored. 

On the domestic front I foresee increasing racial and political tribalism. Already we have battle lines drawn with changes in Congress. I foresee major conflicts between the Executive and Congress, both branches of government. The anti-police rhetoric in New York and other cities is not a healthy sign for a prosperous New Year.

However, amidst the gloom, we must make room for a Happy New Year. In 2015, we expect thousands of students to graduate from a wide variety of institutions. We expect thousands to own homes and thousands more to become legitimate American citizens. We expect thousands to make positive career changes. We also expect thousands to experience life changing spiritual conversions. In essence, 2015 will be a year of hope for many Americans. 

Let us build on this hope – it is much more than wishful thinking. Saya Hillman, a Martin Luther King scholarship recipient was correct when he said, “We could not survive if we could not dream, for it is our ability to dream that sustains us in the most wretched times.”

According to Hal Lindsay, “Man can live about forty days without food, about three days without water, about eight minutes without air...but only for one second without hope.” The New Year brings new hopes and aspirations. It is a declaration that the old has gone and the new has come.

For me, 2015 will provide new adventures to enjoy, new memories to create and new relationships to establish. I will not wait to see if these will come my way – I intend to pursue opportunities that are different, bringing freshness and renewal. 

A number of studies have found that this approach to life brings significant benefits, including improved physical health and better coping strategies. People who take time to reflect-on and celebrate their successes are generally more optimistic, take better care of themselves and tend to be less stressed. Celebrations increase people’s sense of well-being, regardless of socioeconomic factors, education, age or gender.

Like you, I have debt – far too much for my age. However, I would not allow my debt to hinder my need to celebrate. There are far more reasons to celebrate than to cry. In 2015 there will be birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, and a wide variety of achievements.  

For 2015 I intend to use every means possible to live as a victor and not as a victim. My wife and I will use our dining table to encourage, to embolden and to bring cheer to as many as possible. We have a plan to reach out to others who may find it difficult to come to us. We will continue to use the phone, electronic mail and every device possible to announce that 2015 must be lived as a happy New Year. 

This reflection on New Year reminds me of what Jesus said to some Pharisees who challenged Him: “And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins” (Luke 5:37-38).

When Jesus spoke, there was no such thing as a bottle, as we know it. Bottles were made of animal skins. When new, these skins had a certain amount of elasticity. As they grew old, they became hard and unyielding. 

The new wine to which Jesus referred, was still fermenting – it gave off gases. These gases caused pressure, and if the skin was new it would yield to the pressure. But if the skin was old and hard and dry, the wine will explode and everything would be lost. 

In essence, Jesus was pleading for a certain amount of elasticity in our thinking. He was giving to the Pharisees a newness that could not be contained in their old ways of thinking. By using the illustration of the bottle, Jesus was acknowledging that there was a period of usefulness. However, that mindset, although formerly useful, needed to change to accommodate a new way of thinking.

In 2015, Jesus would be saying to us, whereas earlier decades may have been great, 2015 requires a new way of thinking – do not be afraid of new adventures. The challenges will be diverse and will require more intentional efforts to be different.
Like religious scholar Huston Smith, Jesus would most likely say that in 2015, “the human spirit is being suffocated by a dominant materialistic worldview.” The feeling that faith is not necessary in a world of science is an ill-advised worldview for anyone anticipating a meaningful Happy New Year.

LAYAWAY ANGELS

Marilyn Garcia worked two jobs. She did not even have enough money to buy a Christmas tree. She agreed to buy at least the Hello Kitty car for her four-year-old granddaughter. She paid down on the car and placed it in a layaway plan at a Walmart store in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On the deadline date for the final payment, she called the store to request an extension.

Upon receiving her call, a Walmart employee told Marilyn that no extension was necessary – “you could pick up your granddaughter’s present – it was all paid for in full.” Marilyn is one of hundreds of customers on layaway plans whose balances were paid off by persons who chose to remain anonymous.   

According to a CNN report, an unknown male customer paid $50,000.00 to cover some 100 layaway accounts at that Walmart store. At another Walmart store in Lake City, Florida, an anonymous customer gave $59,000.00 to cover about 300 accounts. Still at another Walmart store in Chiefland, Florida a customer donated $51,000.00.

Layaway customers at Toys ‘R’ Us stores also benefitted from the Christmas generosity. Last year, some 600 customers benefitted. So far this year, at their store in Bellingham, Massachusetts, an anonymous woman paid $20,000.00 for every layaway item. She reportedly told the store manager on her way out of the store, “If you have it, give it...” Her contribution was able to clear 275 layaway accounts.
Recently I learned that there is even a non-profit organization that is devoted to helping people in need to buy their holiday gifts. Pay Away the Layaway was created in 2011 to assist families that may be unable to afford to complete payment on their layaway plans - donors are referred to as “layaway angels”.

Lee Karchawer, a 30-year old marketing professional from New York City, began soliciting donations through the website he founded, payawaythelayaway.org. The average donation he gets is $25. The first year he raised $2,000 from 75 people. Last year he raised $5,000 from 135, and this year he hopes to receive $8,000.

For Dave Wilson, 65, who went from living on a poor farm in Iowa to owning 17 car dealerships in Orange County, Calif., it's a way to give back. Every December, he gives his wife Holly, a Kmart receipt for her birthday. On it are listed hundreds of transactions, all the layaway account balances he's paid off at his local store. In 2011, it was 260 accounts to the tune of nearly $16,000. In 2012, it was more than 320 accounts at $18,000. This year’s figures are still to be calculated.  

Wal-Mart said it has tracked more than 1,000 instances so far this season of strangers paying down others' layaway accounts. Kmart said strangers have paid more than $1.5 million in other's layaway contracts over the years. 

One of the interesting features in all of the cases with layaway angels is that the donors have chosen to remain anonymous. They get no promotional mileage, nor tax benefits from their generosity. Other than helping someone who may need help, these donors know nothing more about the recipients. 

This practice of giving purely for altruistic purposes benefits more than the recipients. Among other things, the practice fosters altruism in the wider society. The increasing cases of layaway angels this Christmas would seem to confirm this view.

In what Christians refer to as The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said to those listening, “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:3-4).

In essence, our giving must never be the grim and self-righteous outcome of a sense of duty, still less must it be done to enhance our own glory and prestige among men – it must be the instinctive outflow of a loving heart. We must give to others just as Jesus gave Himself to us. 

Earlier in the Matthew passage, Jesus taught that when one gives, it should not be done as when hypocrites give – they give to be seen and to be acknowledged. Interestingly, the English word hypocrite comes from a Greek word which means actor – one who is playing a part.

One of the things Jesus is also saying about giving in secret, is that what is secret to us, is not a secret to God, who knows all things. “This God,” Jesus contends, “will reward appropriately.”

The joy Walmart customers displayed when their bills were paid, pales, when compared with the joy authentic layaway angels will display after the God who knows all secrets, rewards them openly.

CHRISTMAS ROOTS!

The television mini-series ROOTS, which first aired in January 1977, was the most-watched TV show in US history. More than 36 million households or 51.1% watched it, giving it a Nielsen share of 71%. The movie was the dramatization of Alex Haley’s novel, Roots: The Saga of an American Family.

The release of the novel, combined with its hugely popular television adaptation, led to a cultural sensation in the United States. Because of Alex Haley’s work, an amazing interest in ancestral studies developed. Numerous books and movies received an overwhelming response from global enthusiasts, eager to learn of their ancestry or genealogy.   

The interest in genealogy did not begin with Alex Haley. That interest has been within human societies for thousands of years. Whereas for many of us in the West, ancestral studies is a fad, the same cannot be said of persons in the Middle East.

In the Middle East, one’s rank in the community was often determined by one’s ancestral history. That became obvious when Jesus was challenged by some from His community. They had just heard Jesus contend that He was the fulfillment of an Isaiah 61 prophecy. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. In other words, does his ancestral rank give him this authority (Luke 4:20-22)?

Both Matthew and Luke were very much aware of this cultural requirement of anyone claiming to speak with authority. Therefore, in seeking to establish that Jesus of Nazareth was truly the promised Messiah, it was necessary to trace the ancestral roots of Jesus. Both Gospel writers chose to establish the ancestral roots of Jesus very early in their presentations. Although there are noticeable differences in their approach, they were both fully aware of the significance of establishing credible ancestry.

These genealogies of Jesus serve as a grounding force in the narrative that roots the text into an historical context. Interestingly, one of the main differences between the mythological stories of the Greeks and Romans over against the Bible is that the Greek myths include fantastical creatures such as Centaurs, Cyclops, sphinxes, and the like.  

Biblical stories do not include any of these fictional characters, but rather seek to tell what actually happened. Genealogies establish human links and are rooted in reality. When you read through and grapple with the names and lineages of the genealogies of the Jewish people and of Jesus, you come away with the sensation that you are reading through a family tree, and you are struck with the fact that these were real people.

Genealogies in the Bible indicate to the reader that family identity and lineage is of utmost importance within the cultural milieu of Scripture. In providing the genealogy of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke were careful to provide credibility to their stories – credibility that was rooted in history and lineage. Those are the contexts in which they tell the story of the birth of Jesus.

Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. 

In his opening verses, Luke established that he complied with rules of historical analysis. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refered to the sources that were at his disposal and declared that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable. 

Furthermore, the birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other claim of virgin birth, no claim preceded the birth of the child. Claims were often made by supporters, after the birth and in an attempt to exalt the child born. 

Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23). He reinforced this conviction by providing a genealogy that placed Jesus in an ancestral setting, consistent with community requirements and the expectations of the prophets. 

It is the birth of that Jesus, I am celebrating this Christmas – not some mythological figure. Rather, one of whom Matthew said, “Mary will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). That Savior is the reason for the season of Christmas.

Is Christmas Christian?

Jesus never celebrated Christmas – neither did any of His disciples. Actually, for more than 300 years after the birth of Jesus, no one celebrated Christmas. The few birthday ceremonies we have recorded in the Bible were celebrated in non-Jewish communities. 

Celebrating birthdays was never a Jewish practice. Because of the influence of Judaism on early Christianity, that non-interest became evident. The church even announced that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ’s birthday “as though He were a King Pharaoh.”
The idea of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 was first suggested sometime in the year 300. Other dates like January 6, March 25 and May 20 were suggested. May 20 became a favored date since Luke stated in his report – the shepherds who received the announcement of Christ’s birth “were watching their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). It is believed that shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring.

The early church fathers debated their options and chose December 25 because this date may have had a connection with the pagan celebration of the Dies Solis Invicti (Day of the Invincible Sun). Some believe that the choice of December 25 provided Christians with an alternative festival in place of the one held in honor of the sun-god, who was often identified with Mithras. So, it was not until December 25, 337 AD/CE, Christians officially celebrated the first Christmas. 

Some historians contend that in the early 300’s, the cult of Mithraism was a serious threat to Christianity. For a period of time Mithraism was even proclaimed to be the official state religion by Emperor Aurelian (274). It was not until the reign of Emperor Constantine, Christianity began to receive favor from the state.

In 337, Constantine gave December 25 his blessing to observe the birth of Jesus. With time the observance of Christmas eclipsed the pagan festival of honoring the birthday of Mithras. 

Initially, the celebration of Christ’s birth was a sacred event. In Christ’s honor, there was Christ’s mass – from which we get the term Christmas - the suffix mas evolves from the Old English word maesse meaning festival, feast day or mass.

By the year AD 360 the church was intentionally celebrating the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. By AD 386, Chrysostom, the great church leader, emphasized, “...without the birth of Christ there is no Baptism, no Passion, no Resurrection, no Ascension and no Pouring out of the Holy Spirit ...’ ” 

As the centuries unfolded, the tradition grew to include Epiphany, January 6, when the visit of the Wise men is celebrated – this celebration preceded the celebration of Christmas as we know it. It is on this day that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas.

At this point in its evolving history, Christmas has adopted many traditions, many of these traditions from non-Christian sources. One tradition that has captured the season is the role of Santa Claus. The term is from the Dutch name 'Sinterklaas' – Saint Nicholas in English. 

Saint Nicholas was born on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey sometime about 270 CE. He was the son of wealthy Christian parents who died when he was young - he was raised by an uncle, also called Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop of ancient Lycia.  

Saint Nicholas eventually became a priest during a dangerous time of persecution for Christians - he later became the Bishop of Myra. He was famous for his generous gifts to the poor and was also associated with kindness towards children. The images of Saint Nicholas usually show an old man with long, grey hair and a beard. In Roman Catholic tradition, the Feast Day of Saint Nicholas is December 6th – the day of his death. 

In the 16th Century in Europe, the stories and traditions about St. Nicholas had become very unpopular. But someone had to deliver gifts to children at Christmas, so in the United Kingdom, he became 'Father Christmas', a character from old children's stories. In France, he was then known as 'Père Nöel'; in Germany, the 'Christ Kind'. 

Early in American history, the German image of ‘Christ Kind’ became known as 'Kris Kringle'. Later, Dutch settlers in America took the old stories of St. Nicholas with them and Kris Kringle became 'Sinterklaas' or as we now say 'Santa Claus'!

In the mix of traditions, it is easy to lose sight of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus Christ. In response, some Christians withdraw from the season. Others become so absorbed with the traditional trimmings, they lose sight of the main story. 

For me, I reread the biblical story of Christ’s birth and use the season as an opportunity to recall the uniqueness of His birth, and not merely the traditions that surround the birth.

Ouija for Christmas?

According to Google, sales of Ouija boards are up 300%. At this rate, Google, the internet sales giant contends that sales are threatening to become a Christmas “must buy”. Ouija boards interests have spiked since the new horror film, Ouija. The film tells the story of kids looking for something scary during the Halloween season.
Ticket sales would seem to suggest that kids loved the movie. Ouija benefited from audiences looking to get into the Halloween spirit by topping charts with $20 million from 2,858 locations. The film cost less than $5 million to produce, allowing Universal Pictures to realize enviable profit margins.

Actually, the Ouija board is just a piece of compressed wood, sold at virtually all toy stores and occult supply and book stores. Ouija is a combination of two words: "oui" and "ja" which mean "yes" in French and German respectively. The board itself is not dangerous but the form of communication that you are attempting often is. 

To some, the Ouija board represents a harmless form of enjoyment, “a pretend-scary rite of passage” for teenagers in search of thrills on a stormy night. The board has been used by thousands for spirit
communication and is very similar to automatic writing - an alleged psychic ability allowing a person to produce written words without consciously writing. The words are claimed to arise from a subconscious, spiritual or supernatural source.

Playing with the Ouija board is often linked with playing séances – attempts to communicate with spirits. As a safety precaution, some researchers advise that the board be used in the presence of a psychic, medium or clairvoyant.

Like me, by now you might be asking, if this game is so harmless, why is it desirable to have psychics present when the game is being played? Or, what is so funny about contacting ghosts and spirits? Some scholars believe the Ouija must be avoided in that it is a trigger for psychological harm.

Dr. Carl Wickland, an American psychiatrist, wrote his classic work on mental illness, Thirty Years Among the Dead in 1924, within which he warns:

The serious problem of alienation and mental derangement attending ignorant psychic experiments was first brought to my attention by cases of several persons whose seemingly harmless activities with automatic writing and the Ouija board resulted in such wild insanity that commitment to asylums was necessitated. Many other disastrous results which followed the use of the supposedly innocent Ouija board came to my notice, and my observations led me into research in psychic phenomena for a possible explanation of these strange occurrences”.

On balance, the use of the Ouija board should be strongly discouraged. Due to the nature of the way this instrument functions it is much more likely to attract malevolent low-level spirits entities than well-meaning or even helpful inner-level beings. Those who do attract lower level beings ultimately stand a very high chance indeed of suffering possession and/or serious mental illness, both of which would be nearly impossible to overcome by modern medical means. 

In his book, One Ultimate Reality, Adrian Cooper makes the point that “the only solution to such a serious situation involving inter-dimensional forces would be an exorcism carried out by a highly experienced practitioner. The most sensible solution therefore is to resist any such temptations completely, leaving the Ouija board and similar instruments such as a tumbler with playing cards and automatic writing very well alone for your own safety and for the safety of those around you.”

By now it is very obvious that the Ouija board is not the kind of game I would want to give to any of my grandchildren – or to anyone as a matter of fact. Why would I want to expose anyone to the occult? This is no “pretend scary rite of passage”. This is witchcraft – Webster's dictionary defines witchcraft as the act or instance of employing sorcery, especially with malevolent intent - a magical rite or technique. 

Both the Old and New Testaments strongly condemn witchcraft and all forms of communication with unknown spirits. The instructions were clear to the Jews as they were preparing for the Promised Land: “Let no one be found among you who...engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritists or who consults the dead” (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).

Among Paul’s list of “the sinful nature” is “idolatry and witchcraft”. He concludes his list with a stern warning – “...that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21).

The use of Ouija boards is psychologically and spiritually harmful. It is not a game – rather, it is a subtle introduction to the occult – and that is not harmless, funny or merely scary.