According to the survey, more people believe in heaven than hell. That’s perhaps not surprising. Most of us like the idea of heaven more than hell.

But the report also showed that people who believed in both were more satisfied with their jobs, strove for excellence and found meaning in their work. This is how the report framed this discovery:

“The majority of people who absolutely believe in Heaven and Hell are always or often motivated by their faith to pursue excellence, which certainly would please most organization owners. This relationship is strongest among those who absolutely believe in Hell.”

So, what does this say to you? Why would it be that a strong belief in heaven and hell are a motivating factor in people’s lives?

Fast forward a few months, and now word comes that the U.S. has used Drone missiles to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. The Washington Post described him as “a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda leaders wanted by the United States.”

Anwar al-Awlaki reportedly had influenced the major who attacked his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. And President Obama, in discussing the death, called him the
“leader of external operations for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.” The president also said of him, “In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans.”

But al-Awlaki was an American citizen. And some have responded that U.S. forces should not be used to kill another American. What’s more, he was not as big a figure as Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11 who became the symbol of terrorism in the 21st century.

There are several ways to get into this question, but I am going to pose it in a broad way:

Does the just war theory legitimize the slaying of Anwar al-Awlaki, a fellow American?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

What to make of this? Conservative Christian leaders were swift to condemn Robertson’s remarks. But as the New York Times reported, many doctors and patient advocates had a more complex response – some suggesting that he had broached an important subject, how spouses and other family members of dying patients can prevent their lives from being engulfed and start to move on.

How do we reconcile the practical and moral conflicts in Robertson’s advice? Is it ever right to divorce a spouse suffering from Alzheimer’s? What is the morally acceptable thing for people who develop new relationships while caring for a spouse in the last stages of Alzheimer’s?

Our Texas Faith panel weighs in with some provocative, and often surprising, answers on a very difficult issue.

But other faiths aren’t monotheistic. They allow for more than one god. As Texas Faith panelist Amy Martin wrote in an email:
“If you ask a Hindu if they are monotheistic, they will acknowledge the all-encompassing nature of the Brahma and say that all theisr gods and goddesses are simply aspects of that godhead. Even pagans say the same thing. The spiritual-not-religious, like Buddhists, posit an all-is-one divine energy, but do not define it as God.”

Over time, these concepts have shaped traditions, cultures and even nations. So, for this week I’d like to hear your answer to this question:

Do you think monotheism is a superior form of religious belief?
If so, why? If not, why not?

“WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;”

What is your view on this?

Should Texans or, for that matter, others afflicted by drought pray for rain?
If so, how would you pray? And what would you expect?
If not, why wouldn’t you pray for rain?

But here’s this week’s question, which is simple in its wording but not necessarily simple to answer:

Do followers of the three Abrahamic faiths really understand each other better since 9/11?

Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Keller’s point is that asking candidates about their faith should not be an exercise for bigotry, but people have a right, and a desire, to know what role a candidate’s faith would play in the White House. One of the questions he asks the candidates is this:

Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or a “Judeo-Christian nation?” and what does that mean in practice?Our Texas Faith panel weighs in.

He later was corrected about that point. The state’s science standards do not require a tandem approach.

But certainly there have been battles to teach the creation story in Texas schools, as well as elsewhere. And, naturally, there has been plenty of pushback against linking them, including from some religious leaders.

The back-and-forth could go on for a long time. Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says the evolution debate goes to the heart of Christianity. And Gallup reported back in 2005 that 40 percent of poll respondents thought competing views of the origins of humankind matter a great deal.

With that as the background, here is this week’s question:

How do you interpret the Genesis creation story?

Even if many Americans didn’t make that trek this summer, it is one that countless Americans have made over the years. In their tours, they were steeping themselves in the connection between religion and art.

But here’s this week’s question:

Where would you take a visitor today to see a modern connection between religion and art?

If you have an idea in mind, please explain why you would take a visitor there. If nothing jumps to mind, what do you think that says about the modern relationship between religion and art?

That question is the subject of a growing discussion given that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann both claim to be feminists. Except their feminism differs from the days of Gloria Steinem. Lisa Miller, a religion writer for Washington Post.com and On Faith, describes Bachmann’s feminism this way:

“Instead, a ‘feminist’ is a fiscally conservative, pro-life butt-kicker in public, a cooperative helpmate at home, and a Christian wife and mother, above all. Rep. Michele Bachmann is Exhibit A. With her relentless attacks on big government and a widely circulated 2006 video in which she credits her professional success to the submission of her will to Jesus and her husband, Bachmann represents ‘a new definition of feminism,’ says Stephen Bannon, director of ‘Fire From the Heartland,’ a 2010 movie about the female leaders of the tea party.”

And here is how Miller describes Palin:

“Last year, Sarah Palin connected herself with feminists in a speech — not the kind who loaf about ‘in the faculty lounge at some East Coast women’s college,’ as she put it, but a gun-toting, self-reliant, pro-life Christian woman who credits her gender as the source of her power.”

Miller believes that these new feminists derive their clout from motherhood. As she concludes:

“It’s their focus on motherhood, I think, that makes these new Christian feminists so appealing to millions — their unflinching insistence that their families come first, that even the most ambitious among them occasionally have spit-up on their blouses.”

So, is this the new feminism? If so, what do you make of it? If not, what does feminism mean to you?