Their God

[RiverNotch]

Their God

Their God allows outrageous things
to poke and prod their hopeful hearts,
and thrash at their too delicate wings. I like "too". It's one of those rhythmic touches I find endearing. Here's a stab: if I went with Mark's reading, which I really like, then maybe wings as in "they rise above others in the eyes of God", delicate as in "through thousands of years, they've existed as a distinct entity, even as they've thoroughly assimilated into their locales", and too as in "as they are esteemed, so they are tried; as they are distinct, so they are persecuted".

Their God allows they name their sins
mistake, and lets them on their way The sense I find in this grammatical error is that "Their God allows they name their sins / 'mistakes'", like Base.
with their anecdotes in their coffee tins. Tripped. Better: "with anecdotes in coffee tins".
This is where Mark's interpretation  starts to loosen its grip on me. Christianity, if this is Christianity, is just so divided that there's rarely one-size-fits-all. Going by personal experience, many Evangelicals emphasize the total depravity of the unsaved, but when one is "saved" there's the impression of an almost blasé treatment of sin on a personal basis -- confession, for many of its sects, isn't a sacrament -- while, on a sociopolitical basis, total depravity rears its hypocritical head to condemn the Catholics, the gays, the abortionists, etc; and then there are the Catholics, of whom I speak generally, since it's a common-enough joke to associate Catholics with guilt.  

Their God allows our terrorist
imaginations to exist
like we're newborns stupidly making a fist. Maybe "as if we're newborns making fists"?.
And this, I think, is where I'm finally free. "Our" indicates universality, which if this were a condemnation of extremist Muslims could merely indicate that this is the part of their religion that appeals the most to its (potential) followers. But equating extremist Islam with terrorism feels way too obvious, compared to the subtler criticisms of the earlier stanzas, and there's at least a natural progression from the skewed -- misplaced optimism -- to the problematic -- denial of humanity's sinful nature -- to the outright wrong, that the original interpretation feels unnecessary. But I wouldn't advise against keeping that interpretation viable. It keeps things spicy. 

Their God allows outrageous things.

Interesting. Likely, there's more to write about here, more to address -- arguments about God and religion and whatnot -- but I'd rather not go beyond the scope of interpreting the poem. And, one far more important interpretation, which circles back to Mark, this time to his first impression: I kinda agree that the poem is kinda smug, and considering how interesting it is, I feel like you can tone it down. The speaker could be as smug as I am, sure, but that would be far better as an impression that develops while one reads the piece. And, really, the piece itself is short enough that it can be read in an instant, which is why the problem, I feel, is not so much in the body as in the head, or rather the title. What each stanza opens with, Their God, is pungent enough: pick another title.