philosoraptor42

Ok, you spend ages without anything interesting to say about religion and then two points comes up at once.

First one seems uncontroversial, (from my side of the fence at least)
:
God rejoices at abortion:
I found the text for Rachel's Tears online and was sickened to discover that the rite for abortion is couched wholly in terms of sin and transgression. The Episcopal Church, by resolution, has long held that women have the freedom to choose an abortion. It is not considered a sin. That this new rite begins with the words, "I seek God's forgiveness..." and includes "God rejoices that you have come seeking God's merciful forgiveness..." is contrary to the resolution. Women should be able to mourn the loss of an aborted fetus without having to confess anything. God, unlike what the liturgy states, also rejoices that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option - birth, adoption or abortion - for themselves and their families. No woman makes this decision lightly or frivolously. But each needs the non-judgmental and non-coercive support of her faith community to make the best decision for her circumstances.

The wording of this liturgy focuses solely on guilt and sin instead of the grief and healing that may accompany a very difficult but appropriate decision to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone is paying attention at the General Convention, this rite should not be approved.

This statement was made by Rev. Nina Churchman.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The Anglican Church does not condemn abortion as part of its doctrine. As such, a woman should not be expected to admit guilt if they have one. If an abortion is sometimes the right decision, why shouldn't God rejoice in it?

Slightly more awkward is the claim that everyone should refer to God as 'Allah' in order to encourage greater harmony:
A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as "Allah" is not sitting well with the Catholic community.

Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called.

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem," Muskens told Dutch television.

"I'm sure his intentions are good but his theology needs a little fine-tuning," said Father Jonathan Morris, a Roman Catholic priest based in Rome. Morris, a news analyst for FOX News Channel, also called the idea impractical.

"Words and names mean things," Morris said. "Referring to God as Allah means something."

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group, backs the idea as a way to help interfaith understanding.

"It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God," Hooper told FOXNews.com. "I don't think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God's moral principles. I think that's true for all faiths."

The positive elements are:

The term Allah causes far too much panic when it is just the arabic word for God. Wider usage would discourage the ridiculous phobia.

The concept of idolatory is common to the Abrahamic faiths and if people are so stuck on words they are inevitably putting irrelevant details in the way of what truly matters.

The negative elements:

It isn't going to catch on and news stories like this just fuel the old "ZOMG the Muslims are taking over" mentality.

Muslims don't need other religious believers to use their word for God. They need mutual respect. As nice as the sentiment is, I'm not sure it would do the trick even if it was adopted...

(So, do I cross-post this to