The Galileo "debacle" is quite a bit more nuanced than you and the usuals believe. "Original sin" is absolutely not "pretty much the whole basis for the Catholic religion," nor is the Church as literal on the topic of Adam and Eve as you seem to believe (the position is that there were two "first humans" with souls). Before you comment on others' "lack of knowledge" as to what the Catholic Church teaches, you should actually find out what it does teach. Then again, of course you make the typical mistake most atheists make when trying to argue against the existence of God by getting bogged down in trivial matters such as a 400+year technical dispute over Galileo's Inquisition, as if that bears any relation to fundamental questions of the Catholic faith, or other details with other faiths.

As for not being sure it's right about *anything* now, I'd love to see you apply such skepticism to, say, global warming. Nice new data dump on just how crooked these "climate scientists" are in manipulating data in order to continue their grant gravy trains.

David, I'm not particularly sure how to respond to your comment because 1) I'm not sure if you understood what my point was (that if you're going to be /Catholic/ you should have a strong sense of what the Catholic Church teaches, and hope your kids don't ask questions), 2) you are stating that I'm wrong but not saying how.

And note that I'm not in any way linking the Galileo debacle to the question of the existence of God, those two are completely unrelated. But the Catholic Church is much more than about "God", it has a compulsory creed and a very complex doctrine developed through the last two thousand years. And it has a 2,000 year old history, in which it's made many mistakes it has learned from. One of those - which really is best illustrated by the Galileo debacle - is that when they assert that doctrine trumps science, they can fall on their butts. So instead, the Church seems to have an unwritten policy of "waiting science out" and then modifying its doctrine to go along with the latest scientific developments. Thus the issue of Adam and Eve. The last time a Pope talked about it, he was pretty clear that Adam and Eve existed (granted, they did not need to have those names, but that the whole human race developed from one, original couple). But that was fifty years ago, and as science may conclusively show that's not the case, they're not saying more about the subject for now.

Perhaps your idea of a "strong" sense of what the Catholic Church teaches is not what that same Church emphasizes in its catechism, where, for example, you'll find nary a mention of Galileo (and really, not much for commentary on Adam&Eve either). As for questions kids ask, I'm not sure why you'd think that parents "hope" they don't ask them. Kids ask difficult questions all the time, Catholics are no different than the rest. In an ideal world, parents would know all the answers. Needless to say, we don't live in that world, and no one ever has.

Of course Catholicism is a "compulsory creed"--that's pretty much a religion of whatever denomination. As for correcting past errors, so what? So other denominations change their rules (various protestants ordaining women, Mormons and polygamy, Jews and varying degrees of orthodoxy).

Marga: It was never asked or stated as to the importance of teaching our kids religion. It was merely stated as a choice we decided to pursue for our kids. I like the idea of believing in something. The whole premise of the Catholic religion is believing in something you cannot see. What do you believe in? I believe there are good people out there but yet you rarely see that anymore. Should I give up and not believe in people? My girlfriend who is a nurse in the Oncology Unit at Children's Hospital just started going back to the church because she said after seeing what she see's everyday, she has to be able to believe there is a reason and there is a higher power that has a plan. If it were me, I would probably do the complete opposite. I would leave the church thinking there was nothing else out there because why would someone be so cruel as to put innocent children through this pain and suffereing? You see, I merely stated that I am thankful for what I have and if I can take one peaceful hour a week with my daughter's to meditate and say thank you, then that's what we believe in. I could do that in any church, synogogue, temple, etc. I just choose to go where I'm familiar. Our religion preaches forgiveness and I am the worst at forgiving! My kids can ask me anything and we will discuss it together and it's up to them to decide and if they choose religion, whatever it may be, I will always support and back them! I have nothing to fear!

David, nothing you've said differs from what I've said, so I'm not sure what your point is :-) I think you are looking at my words as criticisms, but I am not interested in criticizing the Church, as that requires an engagement with the Church I neither have nor want. My perspective is that of an observer, or at least that's what I hope.

As for kids asking questions, you are right, they ask lots of hard questions. That's not usually a problem in itself. The problem is when they ask a question, we give them a definitive answer, and then they start proving as to the specifics of that answer and finding holes. Then again, maybe not all kids do this. Catholics can only hope ;-)

Stacy, based on what you said above it sounds to me that you neither understand, care to understand or believe in Catholic doctrine, but you go to the Catholic Church because it’s familiar. But you do more than just go to church, you have your kids attend catechism classes. And catechism is not just about believing in God and that people should be good to one another, but about accepting a specific religious doctrine, one that includes the proclamation of many human activities as sin: masturbation, non marital sex, use of contraception, divorce (or more specifically remarriage), and pretty much every strong emotion (anger, hatred, lust) and every lukewarm one (depression). And sins can only be cleansed through repentance and confession. The sinners, in particular those who don’t love God, will go to hell and suffer for all eternity; that likely includes quite a few of your children’s friends. Now, if you believed all of this - and the rest of Catholic doctrine - then it’d make sense that you’d want your kids to believe it as well, but it doesn’t sound like you do. (to be continued)

As for what I believe in, it’s a too complex to summarize in a comment and it actually changes as I learn more and new research comes out. This, for example, includes my evaluation/understanding of “goodness” in people. Clearly there are people who are more generous, more community minded and “nicer” than others. But research seems to suggest strong neurobiological and chemical reasons for this (e.g. higher oxytocin levels on the brain lead to more generosity). More disturbingly, the degree of nurturing a person receives as a baby and child has profound effects on their brain morphology/chemistry and thus in their adult feelings/emotions/values/behaviors. So if someone is not nice because they haven’t received enough nurturing as a child, can they be blamed? And given the fact that our brains are so much the product of our genetics and early environmental influences, to what degree do we have free will? Years ago, when I was in college, I was much more of a “genetic fundamentalist” - I thought the effects of genetics was much stronger than that of the environment, I no longer believe that; my beliefs evolve. And right now, with respect to human behavior, they are definitely not definite :-)

I don’t believe in God or anything supernatural, because I see little need to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, in particular when you don’t need to postulate it to explain anything.

Analisa, not one word that Billy says violates the terms of use of Patch. He did not attack any individual nor religious group. Now, it seems to me that what you are saying is that you consider any criticism of the Catholic Church to be an attack on the Church and therefore you won't allow it. But then be honest, say that you have a "only speak great of the Catholic Church" policy. Btw, Analisa, are you Catholic?

Wow, Analisa, I just read your bio. You are a devout Catholic! So you are, indeed, using your power in the Patch, meager as it may be, to try to protect /your/ Church. Do you realize what a conflict of interest that is? Do you understand how you lose all credibility as a journalist when you censor information and opinions just because they personally offend you? You are still very young, hopefully you'll take this as a learning opportunity, and apologize to Billy.

Marga, I did not delete Billy's comment due to what he said about the Catholic Church. It was because he singled out a specific person and group of people in his one remark.

And you continue to ignore every other religion that considers either being gay or engaging in homosexual acts to be sinful. You'd have a lot more credibility pointing out the so-called hypocrisy of the Catholic Church if you acknowledge that many strains of protestantism, Mormonism, orthodox/conservative Judaism, and Islam all either reject homosexuals completely or consider the acts to be sins. Otherwise you just appear to be anti-Catholic, or perhaps just hypocritical.

Lots of good literature out there on homomophobia and religion. I am not familiar with Marga's speculation. The one I most commonly read about and gravitate towards is the idea that underlying all homophobia, secular and nonsecular, is a deep and sometimes unconscious misogyny. Feminists theorists speculate that in patriarchal society, where attributes and behaviors are devalued if they are considered "female," males tend to repress "female" characteristics in themselves and fear it in other males. What females fear or devalue tends to have less impact because of their status in the group. College football or the Catholic Church, they are both slow to change, I suppose, because those in power fear change even more than they fear the ladies. :)

David, I don't ignore those religions at all. If you take a look at the review I wrote of Creekside Church, and other of my writings, I've taken them to task on the issue of gay intolerance. But religions differ among each other, not just in belief but in their context, and I don't think that lumping all religions together is a good way to understand what the politics of specific doctrines are.

You are definitely right that many, many religions consider homosexual acts to be sin. What's interesting about Catholicism, is that Catholicism considers /all/ non-reproductory sex to be a sin. It's just as sinful for two men to have anal sex as for a man and a woman to have it, and just as sinful as a woman having vaginal sex while using birth control. This is definitely not the view of other religions. And I find that very interesting because in a way it de-emphaisizes the sinfulness of homosexual sex. My especulation is that this may very well be because of how rampant gay sex is in Catholic institutions.

and on that note....

While it would be an exaggeration to claim that former Catholics are knocking our doors down, the Episcopal Church and its LGBT ministry, Oasis California, have brought many "recovering Catholics" to our church. Episcopalians have elected 2 LGBT bishops: Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Bishop Mary Glasspool of Los Angeles.

"These victories underscore a continued Episcopal commitment to accepting same-sex relationships despite enormous pressure from other Anglicans to change their stand." -USA Today

Marga, that's not unique to the Catholic Church either.
It's "easier" for the typically simplistic atheist to find a target in the Church because of the single catechism, hierarchy and Pope; there's a single target. However, if you bothered, you'd find that varying degrees of Islam among other religions have quite a few rules regarding non-reproductive sexual acts. It's just hard for you to get your criticism to "stick" on other religions because your target can always say he's not a part of XYZ sect or denomination.

David, I'm curious to know what other major religions see non-reproductive sex as "sinful". Islam is a large religion without one central orthodoxy and opinion, so of course you'll find some Muslims who oppose anything you care to name, but contraception has historically been seen as acceptable in Islam, as has been abortion.

In any case, you again make the mistake in believing that I'm /criticizing/ Catholicism. I'm not. I'm merely offering my hypothesis as to why the Catholic Church as a whole has taken a strong position against homosexual marriage, but a much softer one against homosexual sex. Perhaps you should question yourself why you take anything I say about the Church as a criticism. So much hypersensitivity on the issue suggests to me that you may be having doubts about your faith.

The Shakers Ann Lee had revelations which said you aren't allowed to have sex, period.

No procreation.

I guess they will never be a major religion, but they make popular furniture.

Marga, look it up, you'll find various imams forbidding much of what the Catholic Church forbids.

I really don't care about your criticisms except to point out that they're junior-grade arguments I heard when I was 12. Heck, we studied those same criticisms of the church in Catholic school; your comments here and elsewhere are neither new nor sophisticated criticisms. Just saying you could step up your game if you cared, but clearly you don't since you long ago made your decision. No big deal. I could do likewise, but after going to catholic school for 12 years, I still haven't heard any new criticism or commentary that would change my mind either.

David, what exactly do you think I'm trying to make you change your mind about? And what exactly am I saying about the Church that you are taking as a criticism?

David, I'm not Catholic and I'm not even Christian, I don't get to "criticize" the Catholic Church about its religious doctrines. While I do get to criticize the Church as a civic actor - as much as I get to criticize any person or entity as such -, I'm not doing so within this conversation. What I'm doing is offering my views of what the Catholic opposition to homosexual marriage may be based on. You can find my views junior high schoolish, but if you want to make an actual argument that they indeed are so, you need to make the argument not just name call (which is very junior high schoolish).

Billy, would you mind if I copied your original message to my personal blog (http://marga.voxpublica.org/) so I could link to it from comments here and people could see what you actually wrote and what Analisa considers to be an "attack"?

What a wonderful attitude, Billy. Given that Analisa knows you, it seems strange that she would react so quickly to delete your comment rather than give you the benefit of the doubt, re-read it and realize you weren't attacking anyone. She's had this opportunity now, however, and she still hasn't done what's right and re-instated your comment.

Though I understand that you want to let this go, I find censorship deplorable, in particular in cases where there is not even a hint of improper conduct. So I will post your comment to my blog. Anyone interested will be able to find it in a few minutes at: http://marga.voxpublica.org/

Nicely played, Marga! Though I could quibble with you about the differences between the terms "moderate" and "censor,"posting Billy's comment on your own blogis a great idea and workable compromise. Kudos!

Just for fun, a Colbert take on the Catholic Church this week:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/403247/november-29-2011/yahweh-or-no-way---altered-catholic-mass--papal-seat-belt---offensive-vodka-ad

Here's a spotlight on a common practice at St. Paul's school (from www.spes.org)
Every Friday morning from 8:40 to 9:15 a.m., Chapel is a time for the entire student body to be together. As students enter the Chapel, which is located next door to the Lower School, the Faculty band performs on drum, guitar, flute, oboe, and piano. Kindergarten students are delighted to sit up front with their eighth grade buddies.

Under the direction of classroom teachers, performing arts and music specialists, and the chaplain, students create a presentation on a theme tied to our social vision of kindness, empathy, and inclusion. (Previous themes have included Earth Day, International Women's Day, the Hindu Diwali Festival of Lights, Rosh Hashana, Hanukkah, and Buddhism. Each year, the second grade class performs the Christmas story with a pageant held at an evening Pageant and Holiday Celebration.)

Make Some Noise
Students may perform skits, read texts, and use multimedia in their presentations. Always, they sing!

Student presentations are followed by a brief Chapel Talk by Chaplain Carol Luther. Next, students with recent or upcoming birthdays are called to the front and serenaded with "Happy Birthday" in Spanish and English. When the song pauses to allow the insertion of the students' names, the shouting reaches high decibel levels.
(continued)

Here's a short video of one of our chapels at St. Paul's

5th Grade Chapel "What We Love"
https://www.spes.org/podium/default.aspx?t=52562&a=192865&rc=1

More videos at http://www.spes.org/Chapel

Highly recommended reading, for further reflection on the world's religions and their relationship to one another:

'God Is Not One' by Stephen Prothero
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/entertainment/la-et-book9-20100609

On humility and religion
"Humility is the quality of being modest, and respectful. Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue in many religious and philosophical traditions, being connected with notions of transcendent unity with the universe or the divine, and of egolessness."

On humility and leadership

"Recent research suggests that humility is a quality of certain types of leaders. For example, Jim Collins and his colleagues found that a certain type of leader, whom they term “level 5”, possesses humility and fierce resolve. Humility is being studied as a trait that can enhance leadership effectiveness. The research suggests that humility is multi-dimensional and includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking."

for more on this article see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility

Say it plain!

I want to add to Desmond Tutu's call all the leaders in college and pro sports. Strive to understand and rectify the systemic breakdown in morals and ethics which allowed those crimes against children to occur for so many years.

Never again what happened at Penn State.

Nancy, I'd actually say that faith is believing in something even when all evidence suggests that you are wrong. We all believe in something we can't see - I believe in atoms, black holes and secret underground prisons in Eritrea, but I could very easily stop believing in that if evidence came out saying they didn't exist.

Marga has more faith in her own brain than the average bear. She claims she is "objective" i.e. neutral and balanced, in virtually that she surveys. I will have to take her word on that for now, for I surely don't see it in her myself. It has been recently alluded (by Marga) that her own children will never see any "holes" in the answers she gives to their challenging questions, either.

God, I wish I knew how it felt to be Marga.

You're welcome!

Here's a little pitch for thinking outside the "rationalist" box, at least from time to time:

In contemporary philosophy "irrationalism" is, inspired by Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, emerging into a new growing school of thought in which the importance of our intuitive capability is stressed. One such young philosopher, Robin Vermoesen, states in his Dutch written book Rationaliteit is vals (translated: "Rationality is false") that every conscious is at the same time an individual being and total reality, thus as a consequence our rationalistic capabilities aren't enough if we truly want to understand reality in its truest form. For us to truly know reality we need to become it, we need to become our Self. He further states that there are four "knowledge relationships", (in growing order of intimacy: knowing, sensing, realizing and being) a being can experience, and all true knowledge of the Self, thus reality, must eventually grow into the most intimate of the four: being. Since rationalistic knowledge can bring us only knowing, it is, although a necessary tool, not enough to uncover reality. It needs to be balanced by other capabilities and framed in a patchwork that gives positive meaning to personal commitment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational

Leah, your mind and I are wired completely differently. That's why I don't think discussions between us are fruitful, if I think that 2 + 2 = 4 and you think that it equals a flower (or viceversa), we are really never going to be able to understand each other, much less convince one another.

And that, I think, extends to even understanding what each one of us is writing. I have to say that I often have no clue what you mean, which is why I don't read most of your comments - and clearly the same happens to you with me.

My point is this:

If one is really interested in finding out /the truth/, then they need to be able to see their own limits.

Know Thyself.

Someone who repeatedly goes around telling (or commenting online) to others that they are wrong, irrational, inferior, irrelevant, etc., probably has a very underdeveloped sense of their own limitations. That usually spells d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r. That's been my experience in life, anyway.

Did I say I was innocent? I am not, which, by the way, probably explains my undying fascination with the philosophy inspired by these Eastern religions. ;-)

Perhaps you should spend more time exploring your own religion. I'd start with Matthew 7 :-)

Thanks for the tip, teacher and learned yogi master. :-)

Carry on.

Leah, just a reminder that you were going to work on those tendencies towards passive aggression :-)

Thanks for the tip once again, yogi master and learned teacher.

Hard to find the balance on a virtually unmoderated online forum. One becomes "passive aggressive" (whatever that means, precisely) almost by default.

Ah, bud, but this is nothing new indeed. Sure the Piligrims came to America because they were being persecuted in England, but why were they being persecuted? Well, exactly because of what you are talking about: because they wanted to impose their version of Christianity on the rest of England. The Presbyterians, in particular, wanted to make church attendance mandatory. Within Puritan colonies, no dissent or diviation from the established was alowed. So the Puritans wanted freedom of religion for themselves, not anyone else.

Come to think of it, just like the Christian right now.

Yes, thinking is good. So I heard from another Patch contributor and it sounds pretty good to me.

Marga, you and others have been seeing this creeping theocracy in America for generations, yet it never quite seems to happen where we're forced to go to church or whatever strikes fear in your heart any given day.
Religious Americans who actually have some knowledge of history and the rest of the world should be thankful that we don't have a state religion; we have seen how states with established religions have low levels of religious belief. So, Marga, maybe you should support the establishment of a theocracy to eliminate religion. I prefer religious freedom :).

Yes, and as many religions do not believe in God, some atheisms only make sense in the context of those that do.
"Some distinguish between strong atheists (who actively deny God) and weak atheists (who simply do not affirm God), but the distinction between angry and friendly atheism is more useful. New Atheists exemplify the angry type. Their atheism is aggressive and evangelistic - on the attack and courting converts. Even the titles of their books (The God Delusion, The End of Faith) and chapters ("Jesus at Hiroshima," "Down with Foreskins!") are provocations. These militants see the contest between religion and reason as a zero-sum game, but their favorite metaphors come from war rather than sports, and their rhetoric takes no prisoners. According to Dawkins, "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." According to Harris, theology is "ignorance with wings." According to Hitchens, organized religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." ...The New Atheists came to see themselves as pugilists for reason, logic and common sense. As increasing numbers of atheists became convinced that religion was a real and present danger, more and more of them came to believe that putting the wrecking ball to it was a personal duty and a public good." -Stephen Prothero (God is Not One)

A Colbert interview of Stephen Prothero :)
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/379250/march-29-2011/stephen-s-next-religion---stephen-prothero

Actually, David, I agree with you. I've often wondered why Americans are so proud of the first amendment, and yet so keen to push Christianity into the public sphere and so intolerant of non-Christians. And, like you, I've concluded that this is partly based on the nonestablishment clause and the lack of a state religion (or more specifically, a state church).

As Latin American countries became independent, for example, they had to deal straight on with the role of the Catholic Church in the political, economical and public sphere. The battles between the Church and secularizers played out differently in different countries, but mostly they were settled by the early 20th century. I'd say that right now there is more religious freedom in most Latin American countries than there is in the United States.

As you may know, a few years ago I battled the school district over the fact that they had my daughter learn and sign the song "Silent Night" at a school event. This outraged me because I see no place for religion in schools. But it also surprised me because growing up in an official Catholic country, under a uber-Catholic military dictatorship, I was never exposed to religion in school. We had no Christmas songs (secular or no), no Easter celebrations, no references to God or Christ. The one religious event the school engaged in was an annual mass (to be continued)

for the anniversary of the founding of the school. All Catholic students attended it - while those of us who were not Catholic (or whose parents didn't want them to attend) were excused and stayed in school. I still believe that holding a mass was wrong, but at least there was no compulsion for anyone to attend.

Marga, come on. More religious freedom in Latin America than here. Whatever. Less religiosity doesn't = more religious freedom, it's just fewer religious people.

"Outrage"
"Battle"
"Intolerant of non-Christians"
Talk about making straw. Angry atheism certainly takes no prisoners and seems to see boogie men everywhere, if this is any indication. My own daughter has seen the birth of Jesus skit about umpteen times and I am bearing witness right now to say she is a spirited religious debater and intellectual in her own right.

It isn't as though learning "silent night" or performing in the Christmas story pageant will turn your child into a Christian, no more than attending the Diwali festival of Lights will turn you into a Hindu.

The attitude and irrational fear of angry atheism reminds me at times a little bit of one of the symptoms of homophobia.

Those that rant the loudest may be repressing their own belief system, and thats why they hate it so much in others.

Yes, David, I'd say that right now there is more religious freedom in the more developed Latin American countries than there in the US. You can see it, for example, in the fact that several Latin American countries have legalized homosexual marriage and civil unions (which, in the Latin American context, mean exactly the same) despite strong and loud opposition from the Catholic Church.

That's a common assumption. An alternative one is that, as we have seen over the past several centuries with Orthodox priests (who do marry and have children) is that in those countries, the priests' children (some of whom also often became priests) divided ever-smaller plots of land that left the priests' families in poverty (since they never made much money).

Yes. ...and as I briefly noted above, feminist theorist would also have us consider the patriarchal power structure of the Catholic church and many other sects. To this day women are not allowed to be priests and the nuns get beaten back every now and then when they get too "uppity."

"Uppity nuns and Anglican scorn for women priests"
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/uppity-nuns-and-anglican-scorn-women-priests

Up

Catholic nuns, keep in mind, aren't allowed to have sex or marry either. Funny how that gets lost in the discussion, huh?

One of the benefits of conversing with the regulars is that an online relationship of sorts, that has been going on for quite some time, can be drawn upon. I know that when I sound strident, which I often do, it is mostly because the honeymoon is over and the pitfalls of getting along over the long term have begun. Rewarding, nontheless. Sometimes we all need space from each other as well.

New people are always, always, welcome. However, engaging in an unmoderated forum is not for the feint of heart and one had better cultivate a very thick skin pretty quickly.

and a song dedication...

Into the Fire (lyrics, an excerpt)

The sky was falling and streaked with blood
I heard you calling me then you disappeared into the dust
Up the stairs, into the fire
Up the stairs, into the fire
I need your kiss, but love and duty called you someplace higher
Somewhere up the stairs into the fire

May your strength give us strength
May your faith give us faith
May your hope give us hope
May your love give us love

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bruce+springsteen/into+the+fire_20025188.html

I found an interesting article about this album and thoughts by Springsteen on his own Catholic background:

Not all the songs are about Sept. 11, 2001, but especially poignant are lyrics that recall the sky on that morning, as in the song “Empty Sky” and the title song, “The Rising.” In the latter, the narrator sees the image of “Mary in the garden/ In the garden of a thousand sighs/ There’s holy pictures of our children, dancin’ in a sky filled with light.” A “dream of life” comes to the narrator as he contemplates the sky:
(continued)

Sky of blackness and sorrow
(a dream of life)
Sky of love, sky of tears
(a dream of life)
Sky of glory and sadness
(a dream of life)
Sky of mercy, sky of fear
(a dream of life)
Sky of memory and shadow
(a dream of life)
Your burnin’ wind
fills my arms tonight
Sky of longing and emptiness
(a dream of life)
Sky of fullness, sky of
blessed life
The refrain, “Come on up for the rising,” suggests, as does much else in the song, new life and resurrection. When asked in a recent interview by Ted Koppel of “Nightline” if it was the resurrection he had in mind, Springsteen responded, “Yeah, well, I’m a good.... Well, I was a good Catholic boy when I was little, so those images for me are always very close, and they explain a lot about life.” He then elaborated: “What I was trying to describe, one of the most powerful images of the 11th, that I’d read in the paper, some of the people coming down were talking about the emergency workers who were ascending. And you know, that was just an image I felt left with, after that particular day. The idea of those guys going up the stairs, up the stairs, ascending, ascending. I mean you could be ascending a smoky staircase, you could be in the afterlife, moving on.”
(continued)

He sings of an emergency worker in the song “Into the Fire,” with the recurring line “love and duty called you someplace higher, somewhere up the stairs....” It is one song that turns prayerful and evokes images of a litany of the saints as he sings about the ones who have gone “someplace higher.”

“My City of Ruins” contains recurring images of new life and resurrection, with the oft-repeated refrain, “Come on, rise up....” With what sounds like a gospel choir supporting him in the background, Springsteen ends the song in the mode of a prayer:

With these hands,
With these hands, With these hands,
With these hands, I pray Lord
With these hands, With these hands,
I pray for the strength, Lord
With these hands, With these hands,
I pray for the faith, Lord
With these hands, With these hands,
I pray for your love, Lord.

for entire article http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2772

"None of the songs on “The Rising” naïvely celebrates America’s virtues. One, which highlights the deep and tragic divisions in the world today, “Worlds Apart,” includes vocals by the Pakistani singers Asif Ali Khan and Group. Images of tenderness that two lovers experience, who at the same time “stand worlds apart,” shift to the larger world stage and a plea that those of us who are living might be able to make some connection with one another, so that the painful memories around loss of life do not serve to increase hatred and violence. In his words, “May the living let us in, before the dead tear us apart.” Rather than let the blood that has been shed in the past do this, he holds out hope for reconciliation: “We’ll let blood build a bridge/ over mountains draped in stars/ I’ll meet you on the ridge/ between these worlds apart.” - America: The National Catholic Weekly