Christians, separation of church and state is like your veggies- hard to swallow, but GOOD for you!

I noticed and collected a lot of memes with emotional posts on Facebook after the historic SCOTUS decision on gay marriage. The funny thing is, they are posted in proud defiance or opposition, when everyone already knows and agrees that the SCOTUS isn't the supreme being and it can't change God's laws.

 (Like screaming WATER IS WET!! And we're all waiting for the punchline, the point of difference, the reason for the outrage, while crickets chirp.)

That is PRECISELY the beauty of the separation of church and state. BOTH institutions are protected this way. When/ if we have a Christian president who rules strictly from the Bible and not for the general public well being and freedom, that is when Christianity is threatened MOST (unless we install him as supreme leader/dictator, ditch democracy and go totalitarian, only THEN can rule stay in the hands of Christians. ...well if Christians can muscle through coups, constant civil war and instability...) because with every election you could get a brand of Christianity you think is evil, or Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or Muslim and all the laws would change.

As long as we value separation of church and state, our right to worship- or not- the way we want is protected, no matter who the top guy is.

It is often said the church is not a democracy- so, if you want to live in a democracy, why do you want to have a Christian president making laws as though he were ruling the church, making church and state one? It might be convenient and simpler for you (if you are Christian) to live in a land ruled by the Bible and have all sins be legislated against, to jail liars and murderers alike, give the death penalty to gossips and homosexuals alike, but that land is not, and I hope will never be, the United States of America.

Loss of Religious Liberty? Or Something Else?

In my area, a lot of Democrats were unseated by Republicans in the recent elections. Among reasons cited for why conservatives were especially driven to vote was of course the health care law and various other things they see as Obama failures. One of the most unlikely, yet emotional, issues is the perceived threat to religious liberty.

There is a Houston, TX incident where the city demanded all sermons and communications of certain preachers. In a certain light, namely that of Fox News, this almost looks like news. The linked article uses terms like  bullying, intimidation, abuse of authority, making an example or and shaming pastors. If you dig a little deeper, however, you get a few other details and realize the city isn't actually limiting religious liberty. but enforcing a tax issue that prevents non profits receiving a tax exemption from endorsing candidates and campaigning. It's kind of an epidemic or trend to hint at the most godly choice already, but the active political organizing from the tax free pulpit is a violation of law.


And then of course there was the whole Hobby Lobby situation. People cheering on this company for deciding for people what is the right birth control option, deciding things in an area of the employee's life that is none of their business. Besides the fact that women use contraception for things other than pregnancy prevention, preventing implantation is far from abortion. The science just doesn't support many of these complaints against IUDs and the ruling opens the door for people to chuck out any government regulation if they can put forward an argument, it doesn't even have to be that compelling.


The Idaho ministers. Again, it sounds like - oh my, they are forcing Christians to marry same sex couples, just like the thought this gay rights activism would come to! But actually, the issue is the non-profit vs for-profit and equal rights vs. religious objection. The business in question is not a church or religious organization, but a for-profit business, a wedding chapel. I wonder if an exception of some sort like the Hobby Lobby loophole will be made for wedding chapels or will we see the end of the wedding chapel, leaving religious ceremonies to religious organizations who are tax exempt and free to marry people according to their particular religions stipulations.

The Elephant in the Room

An old months-old post.... I've since written something on values voting that essentially says the same thing.


I used this phrase before, but didn't realize it's double meaning until someone pointed it out. :) So, yes, pun intended (this time).

People who are members of the Lord's body the church of Christ) are going to know more about what I'm talking about, but many things will be relevant to all who think about religion.

It's election time again and Christians are talking (in and out of the church building) about abortion and gay marriage and being a Christian in and out of the voting booth. It doesn't help that we've just passed an amendment to the state constitution here to ban gay marriage, so there's even more... ideas being exchanged, shall we say. There is a long held belief that being a Christian in the voting booth means voting Republican, with the implication that voting Democrat is sinful or nearly so (or agreeing with one or several ideas associated with Democrats means you support abortion and homosexuality and hence think it is not sin). These specifics are never really stated, but hinted at with the vote your values language and "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth" types of things, hence the elephant in the room.

I personally think this logic goes farther than scripture.


Why only these two issues to determine our morals?

Why choose two sins to determine morality by law that most Christians don't struggle with as opposed to more common ones?

Why must we have these things banned in law to be acceptable to God? And why not the other sins- are we ranking them? Have these two, abortion and homosexuality, been politicized? (Think how politically viable banning alcohol and divorce (except in the case of infidelity) and remarriage (except in the case of death and infidelity- for the one party) would be...)

A president governs the country, why not choose him based on qualifications for the job rather than his stance on banning two sins in particular above all others? We aren't electing an elder to the state church, after all.

Should we be more concerned with enacting laws to ban sin or teaching individuals? I ask this because of Jesus' approach, not necessarily as an actual choice. He commanded the gospel to be taught, not Rome to be toppled and replaced by the church or a democracy that enacted laws that banned sin.


A problem I see is that sometimes we speak in terms of putting God first as a nation, but we will be judged individually. There is no national salvation.

Another problem comes from the best of intentions. We are to stand up for Christ and rightly divide the word and not compromise on truth because it comes from a perfect authority. It seems that sometimes this same uncompromising approach seeps into the political beliefs (which involve fallible men and definitely imperfect doctrine) as well- for example, voting Republican= godly; voting Democrat= sin.  I agree that there aren't many paths to heaven; there is one. I don't think we can say the same about politics. There are many different issues and each one you can approach in a godly or ungodly way. Christians are going to disagree on which issues are important for governing and how much government should be in which things.

I imagine there are a ton of smart people who will have an answer for every one of my points, but what I'm saying is let's make sure the line in the sand we draw is scriptural and not political. With all due respect to many good people, I think it goes beyond scripture to say one party is a Godly choice or that you are not putting God first if you choose this or that party or that you will go to hell if you vote for this or that candidate.

Values Voting (?)

Love that code word. Values. You know exactly what people are talking about- banning abortion and gay marriage. And I just heard the other day that Israel is a values issue. What?? Obsequiously supporting and defending with all we have this nation that brutally oppresses/dispossesses another population and calls births of the occupied people a threatening demographic time bomb is a value, something God wants you to do?? Right off a cliff. Crazy.

Anyway, I was doing some more thinking on politics and religion as I always do. I don't think God is for one party/candidate or the other or that a vote will send you to hell, but I always re-think it since this is not a majority opinion where I am- or maybe it is a minority opinion (spoken of in code, like- "be a Christian in and out of the voting booth," "values," etc)  and I believe it to be in opposition to the Bible so it just bothers me that much. But I could be wrong. So I continue my exhausting thought process...

Some frame this as candidate A wants to ban abortion and gay marriage, these are "Biblical issues," therefore candidate A voters are doing God's will; while candidate B wants to let people make their own decision (on these particular Biblical issues), so he is for sin and if you vote for him, you are "approving of such" (Rom 1:32) and deserving of death (spiritual). I think this is a stretch in many ways.  If voting, say, Democrat is a sin because of the assumption above, then why is it ok to spend money in places that sell alcohol or support candidates who have had divorces or candidates who place an entire book of false doctrine ahead of the Bible? Why not say greed and giving is a Biblical issue, so how can you vote Republican when they want to cut aid to the poor, make it easier for the wealthy to make more money, support Paul Ryan who idolizes Ayn Rand, the atheist who preaches selfishness? 

So now both parties are out. Must you embrace everything the party does/says/is? Does voting mean you approve of such or just that you think A or B is the best person for the job? There are more problems with the assumption, but I'll get the that later.

I wonder if there is a difference between those who favor banning sin by law who don't sin and those who don't necessarily support sin being made illegal, yet who also choose not to sin. Is one more righteous, as some would have us believe? Are those who don't necessarily want sin banned by law guilty of the sin even though they believe, do and teach God's will. Is living a faithful life, choosing not to sin, refusing to say God approves of said sins not enough?

Then we go back to Jesus. Is this what he stood for? Did he overthrow Rome and put a government in power that made sins illegal or encourage anyone to do that? Was not the purpose of the old law to bring us to Christ, rather than the opposite or to construct a new law that was like the old one minus the ritual and animal sacrifice? Is the goal to teach people or to keep them from sinning? I guess it is opinion whether you think having laws banning sin teaches or inflames, provokes and hardens hearts. I know I need to spend less time on politics and more on spiritual matters to be more Christ-like, but Christ didn't have a political test you had to pass. Politicizing certain Bible issues and not others is cherry picking, inconsistent, divisive, and hypocritical when political positions are used as a test of faith for someone else-- especially while your own candidate/party's Biblical issues are ignored.

Speaking of inconsistency, conservatives are usually for people choosing, not government. Why should government dictate abortion and gay marriage? Should government be IN religion and NOT in your money- taxes, etc? This seems a bit backwards to me. I'd rather have them in my money and not my religion if I had to choose. The conservative position on wanting the government to dictate on certain moral issues gets a little more absurd when we factor in the current Romney-Ryan ticket. You trust a Mormon, who baptizes the dead without consent (from family, last wishes, etc), whose religion didn't allow African Americans in for a long time, believes in the Book of Mormon rather than the Bible (the former contradicts the latter) to have MORE of a say in your religion or to be the one to get the country morally on track? And Paul Ryan with his Ayn Rand problem- he idolizes her and gives her books out as gifts to his staff. She is an atheist who promotes selfishness, along with the totally free market, no regulation economics. These are the people you want in charge of your values at the government level?

And this is just religion and politics... maybe I'll post the problems with his foreign policy, immigration, health plan double talk, lies he's told about Obama's record, and the rest of why this Republican ticket is about as attractive and comical as McCain- Palin. Except McCain had a shred of integrity. Big difference actually.


And that's it for this edition of  "I'm probably going to wish I'd deleted this"  :)

Romney up in the polls? Really?

I can't believe the lack of questioning of Romney that's going on. There doesn't seem to be a lot of serious campaigning going on in general. It just seems like petty, not very well thought out attacks and no one's aiming to convince or dig deep. Maybe it's still early.

Aside from politics (but of course I won't avoid them...), there are some things that just don't sit right with me with Romney... and the politics in the church thing... again.

Here are my 2008 and 2010 posts about politics and the pulpit in which I've probably expanded on this a bit better than I have here:
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/07/politics-and-pulpit.html
http://www.notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-and-state.html

Romney and Trump- a question of integrity?

So it is said Romney was upstaged on his big day when he officially got the Republican nomination by appearing with Trump at a fundraiser that same day. (Why would you do that?)

It is true that Romney quietly affirmed that he believes Obama was born here, but he's willing to accept Trump's big bucks and let him spout his birther and whatever other crazy propaganda without doing a thing to publicly distance himself from this nonsense. Why, besides the money, can't he stand up for what's right- not just that, but known facts? What does this say about Romney who would rather accept the money than set the record straight and get elected on real issues. I guess in business, only the bottom line matters, not how far you bend the rules.

“You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” he told reporters. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”

Yikes.

Romney's staffers paid to heckle? Another question of integrity?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/axelrods-anti-romney-message-gets-drowned-out/?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20120531

There are always hecklers at the opposing side's event, but not usually the actual campaign staffers that the Romney campaign sent (or decided to do on their own?). At least McCain had the decency to respond to an anti-Obama heckler, calling them off (unfortunately he in so doing mistakenly insinuated that Arabs aren't good citizens...but I guess he did his best...). Romney's response to his paid staffers doing this was that Obama supporters heckle him and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What about taking the high road? Integrity? Not to mention his paid staffers did this, not just supporters who don't represent him. What do they teach in his church- to do unto others as they do unto you (rather than as you would have them do unto you)? Maybe someone should get the appropriate sermons and soundbytes...

The integrity issue is a recurring theme with Romney...as he showed the same bad judgment in rather enjoying support from particular people than standing up for what's right when crazy accusations are leveled: didn't deny the supporter who said Obama should be tried for treason and didn't say anything publicly about Limbaugh's rank porno/prostitute/slut comments about Sandra Fluke.

And then there are the Freudian slips or poor choices of words...or both that he has had to explain: etch-a-sketch, that he likes firing people, that's he' unemployed, $10, 000 bet with Perry over heatlhcare, he follows NASCAR in that he knows some owners, etc...

*** *** *** *** ***

On Facebook, I pondered, "Obama has had to answer for many things he isn't (minor, tangential issues that were overblown); when will Romney have to answer for what he is?"

I mean, if people were worried about how Islam (not relevant to Obama) was going to factor into Obama's policy, why aren't they concerned about The Book of Mormon (which is integral to Romney's beliefs) and how that will affect Romney's worldview/policy? Four years ago, I heard Christians say Romney and Mormons aren't smart enough to be President due to their beliefs. How has that changed I wonder? Can you really buy everything? Romney apparently can.

There has been much talk again already this election year about the abortion and gay marriage issues being THE issues that are the only Biblical considerations and the things that should decide the election. If you vote Democrat, you sin. Or more positively, vote your values, be a Christian in and out of the voting booth. The implications are the same. I have long had an issue with this traditional belief in the church. Are we electing a person to govern or be an elder in the church (or leader of the state church, as I have put it in a sarcastic moment). They are different jobs to fill, with different requirements and goals. And each issue to me (not just 2) involves moral choices. Whatever we do, we are faced with a question of right and wrong, doing it in a way that glorifies God or not. Not to mention whoever makes the case that because Romney is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, he is more godly or will rule in a more godly way despite the fact that he embraces an entire book of false doctrine is going to have a hard time proving that. (some scriptures for the false doctrine Matt 15:9, 1 Tim 4:16, and maybe Col 2:22 as well)

If people are going to use Romans 1:32 to say that Christians who vote Democrat are approving of homosexuality, why are Christians who are Republicans not approving of an entire book of false doctrine (Romney's Book of Mormon, other testament of Jesus Christ)? They often shrug off my point that these 2 issues don't factor into governing much except to appeal to the base and get votes, so saying that book won't factor into governing isn't going to hold water. If we're talking in principle for Democrats, let's do the same for Republicans.

Romneycare

Republicans make a big deal about Obama and socialism and "Obamacare," but why isn't anyone talking about the similarities between Romney's Massachusetts healthcare bill and Obamacare? If they are ok with Romneycare, why not Obamacare? Is it only the federal vs. state thing that people have their panties in a bunch over? If so, why not talk about that instead of clinging to the socialism nonsense?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Republican Christians often cite 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat- as their opposition to socialism and hence "Obamcare" and Obama.  I do think they work in socialist countries, so I don't know that that would even apply if we did "turn socialist," which is an irrational, manufactured fear and NOT going to happen anyway. It would be convenient to have direct scriptural proof (which may be why the socialism thing is so popular despite being 100% false), but this just doesn't fit, I'm afraid.

Foreign Policy

He's apparently got a lot of Bush people on tap and given his lack of prowess on the issues, you're going to be electing these characters, too. Beware. Or better, yet, don't do it. Been there. Done that. We are still recovering from it.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

McCain's campaign's assessment of Romney in 2008 was: “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”

I wonder if his foreign affairs resume has thickened any since 2008? His choice of advisers is troubling and lack of knowledge is worrisome (because he will rely to heavily on said advisers). Better hope there are no foreign policy issues to contend with (or that some won't be invented) in a Romney Presidency...

Powell is worried about Romney's war cabinet and having been in the middle of one of the biggest deceptions or blunders with the Iraq invasion, I trust his judgment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/us-usa-campaign-powell-idUSBRE84M16220120523

Everyone says this whole thing is going to be about the economy, though. That could be a real mistake, people. 


The foreign policy stuff on the false, mostly false and pants on fire sections is pretty scary:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
And in the previous article he says Russia's our biggest threat.


What should we be comparing current times with anyway? Pre-crash bubbles and the false sense of financial security or the 2008 crash Obama inherited? There are so many ways to spin the economic issues- what are we comparing, temporary fixes and immediate results vs long term reform, etc. 


That's scary that people would ditch the foreign policy issue so quickly after Iraq. I still remember how absolutely dumbfounded I was that A) we were actually attacking and B) no one was asking questions (in the post 9/11 atmosphere of revenge in place of justice, dissent is unpatriotic).


Romney's touting his business success and experience as governor as proof he's the best choice. The Obama campaign made a good point that Romney's experience in maximizing profit isn't necessarily going to translate to expertise in running the country. And then there are the fairly reckless promises Romney's already made...


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/romneys-shaky-job-claims/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker

If I'm President, You'll Have a Job After College
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/mitt-romney-jobs_n_1167525.html

Romney promises 6% unemployment,  shockingly in line with the current economic forecast after stating anything over 4% was not worth celebrating (not a promise, but certainly a line, hastily redrawn, much like an etch-a-sketch)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/romney-promises-to-bring-unemployment-down-to-6/

It seems there was also a promise of an insane number of jobs Romney would create as president that was blown apart the next day by commentators and compared with Presidents in good times and bad, but I can't find it. Maybe I'm thinking about the unemployment at thing 4% thing...

Reading Lolita in Tehran

So I'm reading Reading Lolita in Tehran. It reminds me of separation of church and state rants I've done on the blog in some ways.

I had these thoughts while reading the first part of the book. She goes into some description of Iran and compares it with her life abroad. The recent republican debates, Eid stamp hysteria emails, sharia law hysteria, Muslim hearings in Congress, etc have also been in the background of my thoughts on church and state and extremes lately.

Voting according to religion is good, but legislating it is often not- be careful what you wish for- we may end up living up in a Christian version of Iran. Imagine if baptism was the law or baptized individuals received rights others didn't get. The state loses and religion loses. We need to vote our conscience; that is our right and duty. When we start to impose our (or certain) religious rules on others, it becomes a problem. Not only have we taken away their right to work things out for themselves, but it may very well backfire on us. We start with the good intention of shielding children and ourselves from immorality and then the balance of power shifts and suddenly others are telling us how to practice our religion and what's moral and who we can and cannot hire as a preacher (for example).

There is a bit of discussion on the veil in Iran in the book. Before the revolution when you could wear colors and read fiction and laugh in public, the veil was a symbol of a choice. When it became law, the power of the symbol was lost, though the intent of the law was no doubt a moral one. The veil changed from being a personal, religious symbol to one of oppression in a lot of ways.

Sorry- just getting a lot of hits on my Muslim stamp post and listening to the republican candidates and debate highlights (sharia law in the US?!) ...

And another thing occurred to me- about page 209. A thought about the Bush administration. Not to make a direct comparison between Bush and Iran or anything. (Seriously!) She spoke of a mood of resignation and tiredness with all of the bombings and interruptions of life (Iran-Iraq war) when they were forced to hear military marches, news of a "victory", or mourn a "martyr." And then she talks about the complete opposite attitudes of people in the street with anti-war sentiments and the government droning on- "the regime's ideal continued the play itself out undeterred." This sentence reminded me so much of the voices (many experts and former US officials) of doubt about Iraq's possession of WMD, yellowcake and Africa, link to 9/11, etc and the Bush administration's smug superiority when Bush, Cheney or the others would continue to repeat things (Bush doctrine, mushroom cloud, hit them there rather than here, Iraq has WMD, Iraq is linked to 9/11) with the same smug certainty when they were first only suspected as false (by liberals generally-and me, though I hadn't decided what I was at that point but plenty of people told me what I was...) as when they were increasingly known to all as false and maybe lies. I'm not calling Bush a dictator or anything, but there was that same distance so vast it was unbelievable and almost funny (tragic) between the public and the government in both cases. That sentence really struck me as extraordinarily applicable- especially Cheney's certainty and the way he quoted something picked up by the Times, leaked by the administration itself. Bush was always concerned about his legacy and history;  he can rest assured that he'll go down in it all right. Legendary.

Oddly enough , a recent event ties in somewhat. It's not the government, but still odd:

Did a Marriot Vacation Club survey and was asked a series of questions about vacations. Also included was a question about believing in 7 day creation and prayer in schools (?). We aren't members, but took a deal that offered a low rate in return to listening to the presentation and offer to do this timeshare thing, etc. I have no problem with discussing these things, but what is the motivation, here? It's none of their business. I am immediately suspicious and have less of a desire to join, not that it was high to begin with! This kind of gets at what I was saying- what if questions like these become routine for everything- businesses you want to enter and buy from, school admission, traffic stops.

Islam in the church...and consumerism, too, I guess

Islam is sometimes mentioned in worship and Bible classes. I'm probably going to seem overly critical, but I'm just trying to sort out what's right- how should I react, what does the Bible say, should I go along with the majority? It's more of an inward criticism or conflict. Or maybe I am hypersensitive on this or maybe it's just one of those things that for me provokes thought endlessly given the political atmosphere and times. There was a lighthearted joke- not a big deal- but it made me think about the way we talk about other religions, etc. It also made me think of some less lighthearted things about Islam I've heard from people I would otherwise consider strong in the faith, as this situation always does.

I also found the strong agreement when radical Islam and suicide bombing was mentioned interesting. That made me think about buzzwords and hot topics that are often mentioned when politics and religion cross over now and then. When certain things are mentioned like abortion, gay marriage, the way culture is going down the tubes because a certain party in in the White House, and I think we can add radical Islam to the list (which is weird since it has very little to do with Islam and nothing to do with Christians), it can really animate and light a fire under a congregation. I use the conservative example here, because this is what situation I am in, but it is the same for the other side as well, I'm sure- same reaction to different buzzwords.

I mean why look at Islam so closely? Aside from the political focus, because I guess that's the real reason. Why poke fun at their beliefs- or things we think are beliefs but are really myths? I see it done with denominations occasionally, but we normally catch ourselves and say we shouldn't be doing that. Not so with Islam. It can be sort of a of a free for all. Maybe it's because when we're poking fun at denominations, we get uncomfortable when we think of a good friend who is involved with one of these groups; whereas many of us don't have this handy check and balance for Islam (I'm just guessing here).

Instead of the jokes, though, I wonder why we don't approach Islam (not just personally, but teach it), or more specifically, radical Islam (since I think this is the focus of the concern), a little more like Paul or Stephen. They both just kept on preaching the truth (wisely- in their case they had the Spirit to lead them to various cities- in our case, we have the Bible that tells us not to provoke, to be be kind, live as we are called) and Stephen even pleaded for their souls as they stoned him to death. I don't recall them spreading rumors about or laughing at their detractors as part of their teaching. They were in more immediate danger than we are from "radical Islam" and yet they were far more sensible about the whole thing (I guess that makes sense, now, doesn't it?). I don't think that they weren't afraid- not at all- but they certainly handled it well and we can and should learn volumes from that. They may have made certain arrangements in their meetings for safety, but I can't really see the superior attitude in the New Testament that I hear sometimes today.

They seemed to have a good understanding of this verse we seem to often forget:

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And also:

Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

I have been seeing this focus on Islam in/by the church since the Iraq invasion or since 9/11/2001. There have been lessons, even lectureships, and of course many a post on a message board (breeding ground for sensational email forwards). Why? Maybe this is becoming one of those issues like abortion and gay marriage for which you must preach zero tolerance and draconian measures in order to be a true Republican and in some cases a true Christian? Is it a reflection of the Republican Party's obsession (see post on Muslim Hearings)?

I wonder why we have to be so concerned? It's not really such a safety issue. Yes, there are those who don't like our policies and want to kill for that. True. But nothing like Rome and Christianity back in the day- not by any means.

I do understand that we are to do this:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

On the other hand, there are other issues (I believe) that we should be thinking more closely about than Islam or the smaller minority of radicals. Consumerism. Why do we "need" so much stuff? I'm talking about myself as much as anyone. Having been to the 3rd world, made that vow to do with less, violated said vow so quickly and easily upon return, I  reflect on it some. I think we could do with a lot less, but then in a world of excess, you'd look like you were unnecessarily depriving yourself or worse, your kids. It seems much more in style to decry Islam, abortion, or gay marriage than declaring a war on stuff. I don't think it's a sin to want that Kindle or iPad or splurge on shoes, but at some point you do cross that line. Where is the line? And I think a lot of times that line is closer than we are assuming and saying it is. We are quick to say rich people can and do enter heaven when the verses about the rich young ruler or the camel and the eye of the needle come up. Maybe for good reason. Though it might be hard, it is possible. The problem with it is that I don't hear as much in these types of discussions is how little can we do with? What can I do without? I have too much. I'm talking about myself, here, too, no question. I wonder if we should talk more about giving and buying and having less than clarifying various parables that say it's hard to get to heaven if you're rich?

Wow. This kind of ended up in a different place than I expected. And so ends another post I was going to delete, but will go ahead and post. If I deleted as many posts as I wanted to, I'd only have a handful up here! :)

Religious Intolerance

The Park 51, or more famously, 'Ground Zero Mosque' has brought to light American Christian- Muslim relations. I really thought things should be better, not worse than just after 9/11. Obama's election brought the first hints, but recent events really sealed it.


Religious Intolerance in the US
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us/transcript

Today's show (Sept 16, 2010), is supposed to have religious leaders talking about Islam in America. I want to check that out as well.

Some interesting points were made about what people said and believed about Catholicism around the time of JFK's election.

From Norman Vincent Peale about Kennedy:

"Faced with the election of a Catholic, our culture is at stake."

"It is inconceivable that a Roman Catholic president would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies with respect to foreign interest, and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America."

People say the same about Muslims today, but in less polite language and in more sweeping and dramatic tones. The end of free speech is pretty dramatic, though. I'll give him that.

Also on the Diane Rehm Show they talked about Catholics being prevented from holding office. I have read elsewhere about colonial times and various denominations would discriminate against the other in this way. On the show, they talked about in Nebraska in the '20s they shut down Lutheran schools because they read the Bible in German and apparently in Philidelphia there was a fight about which part of the Bible you read.

***

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/26/colleague_of_nyc_taxi_driver_stabbed

When I initially heard about this, I was horrified that it was 9/11 or Park 51 backlash. Then I thought, this sounds a bit like post traumatic stress. It did say he was embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, but he was a film student, not a soldier. Not that he can't get PTSD. Some details don't really fit with PTSD as far as I know.

He's got to "bring Abdallah through the checkpoint." That sounds like PTSD. "Consider this a checkpoint" sounds like he knows what he's doing, though, not like he thinks he's in Afghanistan. And afterwards, he claimed he was trying to rob the taxi driver, so that doesn't sound like PTSD. I'm no expert, though. I'm definitely not saying he shouldn't have to pay for seriously wounding the taxi driver either way. He definitely should serve time and get help if needed. I just half wonder if there isn't a PTSD issue or if you could tell if he was faking it.

***

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pastor-terry-jones-calls-off-koran-burning-ground-zero-mosque/story?id=11594495

Guy wants to burn Qurans. Guy links it to the Park 51 mosque. Is this terrorism? Hate speech? Is it yelling fire in a crowded theater? Protected speech? Is it right or wise or obligatory for a Christian to do?

This verse was mentioned in support of burning Qurans:

"Act 19:18-20 Many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed."

My answer:

I don't think this is an example that we should burn every writing that is against God. That's going beyond what is written. An equivalent situation in my mind was if we had a mission in this country or another and converted a whole slew of Muslims to Christianity and they decided they would bring their Qurans, which represents something they once believe true but they now know is false, and burn them. That would have significance to them and perhaps signal to others that they have made a change. Maybe it would give them confidence. Who knows. My point is that the "pastor" in our current situation is in a very different position than the Acts 19 situation. He's burning something he never believed in to make some political point or provoke others or make money for his Dove Institution.

While burning books is certainly legal, I'm not a fan of that type of protest (burning books and flags) for myself. I personally know I could say more on a sign (I have). I seriously doubt his intentions. I don't think it helps the cause of Christ unless former Muslims do this without prompting as something they feel they need/want to do. All this aside from what Obama and Patraeus have said about the potential to harm troops. People have urged the press to censor itself about all types of news in order to not harm the troops or don't criticize the war or Bush or whoever because it will embolden terrorists. Why can't the "pastor" do this as well?

I mentioned reaching out to Muslims and teaching them, but the "pastor" also needs the truth. That's through what lens I want to look at things. Politics and human behavior are endlessly interesting, but we need to be about the business of teaching.

---
Another one I posted elsewhere:

The Quran burning stunt was pretty much either political or due to his problem with Muslims/Arabs.

Scheduling it for 9/11 says he thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political.

If it was false teaching he was worried about, he'd be burning the Book of Mormon, writings of John Calvin, other false Christian books and teachings. He'd be burning porn, books and movies that glorify breaking the law and homosexuality including mafia flicks, vampire stuff and such. There is a lot to burn if that were his purpose, but he chose the Quran to single out. Hmmm. I mean, most Christians know and speak it loudly that the Quran is false teaching. Seems like if you want to make a real statement instead of just make Muslims afraid and mad, you'd burn something that Christians accept, but that can cause our ruin. Lottery tickets. Money. iphones. Whatever. A popular one has been books that contain cuss words or sex scenes that kids are required to read in school. Make your congregation wear plain clothes or uniforms to make a point about materialism. There is a ton you could do if you wanted without provoking people and "making a point" that people already know well.

On Friday or Saturday it was said said he called it off and it was linked to Park 51 changing it's location.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/pastor-terry-jones-quran-burning

I don't know whether this was an afterthought for Mr. Jones or if this was the original purpose; I found out about it late in the controversy. And we're back. The Great Mosque Debate. He thinks all Muslims are terrorists. It's political. It's not just about calling attention to false teaching. Burning is an act that could go terribly wrong. It seems less in line with the Christian teachings of preaching the gospel to all the world and living peaceably with all men as much as depends on us.

---
Living with Muslims would be refreshing, especially in America. Why can we not appreciate that? They share our value of modesty. More so. They don't drink. There are more Christians who do. Homosexuality and premarital sex would be looked down upon as in the days our parents and grandparents remember fondly. They fast for a whole month and Christians are supposed to fast. The fast helps them think about the less fortunate and they are supposed to give to the poor as well during this time. This is familiar Christian territory as well. Their culture and religion values hospitality highly and they practice it often and enthusiastically. This is something Christians, and Americans for sure, can be lacking. Instead of our hospitality, we're known for being loud mouthed and culturally tone deaf. Christians and Muslims share close to the same belief in women being equal before God yet having different roles than men in worship. Culture in America has largely gotten rid of the value placed on men taking care of women and cherishing them, but this is alive and well in the Arab world.

I'm just saying that they have more in common with us than we Christians are willing to admit. People who have less in common, some denominations, pro- choice people, people into "sexual freedom", people who get drunk every weekend, people caught up in various sins in our community we make peace with (they're Americans, we have to work with them, hate the sin not the sinner, etc) and live with and may even be friends with- we don't go around burning things and provoking them and making fun of them or demanding that it is incumbent on them to make it clear that they mean us no harm and won't indoctrinate our kids, and if they don't it's ok for us to assume this and other horrible things about them.

Christians tend to be pretty hostile to Muslims and that bothers me. I'm not saying we should bend Biblical doctrine or convert to Islam. Absolutely not. But the hostility I just don't understand. Especially if you haven't asked them what they believe and what their opinions on things are. And even then why not disagree and leave it at that like you would your coworker who is of a different Christian denomination or different political party with whom you completely disagree?

Christian/Western Perceptions of Islam- No Change

I recently revisited a Christian website. Not a random one, one that has good scriptural stuff in general. I'm not going to name it; I don't want to bash it or anything. I just think we should think about this. The Media section is just out of control. It is supposed to be a place to discuss Christian topics and perspectives on things in the media, I think. Often, what gets posted is simply a link that portrays our government or someone of another faith mistreating Christians or denying them rights. Not always, but frequently, the target is Islam and Muslims.

When you post a link about honor killing or a Muslim cutting off a Christian's hand, etc with no explanation, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Are you alerting Christians to a danger you think is real and imminent? Are you trying to make Christians feel better by putting down others? Are you trying to inspire Christians to overcome adversity- real or perceived? I just can't see what is trying to be accomplished by these ostensibly well-meaning individuals. Why people insist on "proving" the majority of Muslims are violent or that those truly following Islam are the terrorists or that Islam is not a religion of peace or Allah is different than God- instead of comparing and contrasting Islam with the Bible is beyond me.

Right off the bat before looking at the link and such in a detailed way, I always think about Matthew 10:28:

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

So, someone hates us or wants to kill Christians? What of it? Should we not just live as we are called- not antagonistic, but not silent, either?

Then there are the facts. Those pesky facts. Some people have little use for them, but I want to know what's going on.

We see a very small percentage of Muslims committing terrorist acts in the news and in movies. This is where most of us form our opinions of Muslims and it is not representative of the majority of Muslims out there. I know many will take issue with that statement, but then that is essentially the reason for the post. :)

Some may call me a Muslim 'apologist' and wonder why I care about Muslims rather than the Christians being tortured for their faith around the world by authoritarian regimes. The answer is simple. We have no wrong idea about these Christians, as we do with Muslims. We know it's going on. It's wrong. It should stop, yes, but Christians understand the greater battle is the heart, the spiritual, so if they are faithful, the battle is won regardless of whether they are free to practice or in prison for it. The Christian perception of Muslims may not matter to some, but I find the subject generally approached in a mainly unChristian manner. It bothers me. It's inconsistent and wrong and puts up walls where there need not be, which should matter if you want as many people to go to heaven as possible. That's my thinking, anyway.

Another note- In reading some of these links written by Muslims, they do have some misconceptions about Christianity, at least Christianity as I know and practice it. Granted, they may be getting their info from Calvinists or Catholics neither of whose doctrines I subscribe to, but I still think it is important for us to change the prevailing attitude, ask questions or at least refrain from the sweeping negative generalizations about them regardless of what's said of us.

Now on to the links. This turned out to be more than I thought it was going to be...


***
Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Images of Islam, by Paul Findley is a good book. The title is pretty self-explanatory...
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/october01/0110106.html

Edward Said wrote Covering Islam. I think I have it, but I either haven't read it or can't remember it. That's why I've been making a few notes when I've read something in the past months. The book I remember reading by him was packed with excellent facts and research, but was a little hard to get through despite my interest.

http://www.amazon.com/Covering-Islam-Media-Experts-Determine/dp/0679758909

***********************************************
Here is a PBS piece looking at some myths we cling to about Islam:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/types/index.html

***********************************************

The general public and many academics have several preconceived notions about Islamic Law. One such notion is that Islamic judges are bound by ancient and outdated rules of fixed punishments for all crimes. This paper explores that idea and looks at other myths in an attempt to present Islamic Law from a non-biased view of Shar'iah Law.

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

***********************************************
Here are a few things often attributed to or blamed on Islam that are actually due to other influences:

Honor killing:

However, many in the West also misunderstand and conveniently condemn honor killing as a practice of Islam. The mistake with this condemnation is that Islam does not permit or condone honor killing. However, it is precisely this misunderstanding and ignorance that allows many in the West to participate in a climate of hate, mistrust and even the idea of war against all of Islam.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/intentchopra/2010/02/a-practical-approach-to-talkin.html

Guardianship:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabria-jawhar/saudi-tribal-customs-not_b_269867.html

***********************************************
How did the stereotypes come to be?


This site talks about Arabs in the media, but is pretty extensive, so it goes into Islam as well.
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/Arabs.html

***********************************************
Also a good site about how (which ways) Islam did or didn't influence Arab societies and how that it perceived in the West.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/media.htm

***********************************************

Bird in his book, Crossing Mandelbaum Gate, talks about the political vacuum in Egypt being filled by militants. He also talks about Saudi Arabia and how that society was influenced by Wahabiism. He explains how the US supported the royals and dictators to keep oil revenue (democratic systems would probably nationalize the oil which would be bad for us) as opposed to supporting those who desired some form of democracy. These royals and dictators allied with hard line religious leaders in order to keep control and avoid democracies that would send them packing, with US blessings in many cases.

I read book recently, I believe it was Bird's (not sure, though), that explained Sharia'a law better than any other American. Generally, it is associated with dictatorial regimes slicing off heads and hands of dissidents. In reality, it is quite a bit different. He explains how a man killed another man in a car accident. They guy would have probably gone to jail in our society and both parties would live with guilt, anger and loss. Under Sharia'a law, however, an agreement was made that since the guy killed was supporting his parents and I think a sibling, that the offender was required to provide for this family. In our society, it would be acceptable to hate the guy who killed that son. There, the family of the guy who was killed, for their part, considered him in as a son.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/26/bird.arab.modernity/index.html

***********************************************

Some think Islam is the problem and view states in predominantly Muslim areas as failed states. Mostly, though, they are pointing to leaders that claim to be following Islam, but aren't applying it properly or the people or rulers are calling tribal traditions Islamic.

The air is thick with theories which claim that Islam has been paralyzed by a deadening obscurantism since the twelfth century, and this paralysis will only end when Muslims decide to replace Islam with secular humanism. It is time these theories were deconstructed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid3.html

***********************************************

Here's a site talking about democracy being an Islamic value.

So, all else equal, Muslims today ought to endorse the form of government that is most effective in helping them promote these values. ...

Several considerations suggest that democracy—and especially a constitutional democracy that protects basic individual rights—is that form.

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/abou.html

***********************************************
Here's a site talking about feminism and Islam. It is rather interesting that many Muslim women's values actually line up with Christian women's, despite our efforts to villify them for their lack of freedom.

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/feminism.html

Jehan Sedat had a good discussion of feminism and Islam in her book, My Hope For Peace.

On a funny and almost unrelated note, I read Jehan Sadat's book, which of course held Anwar Sadat up as the best Arab leader in history, right before reading Kai Bird's Mandelbaum Gate. Apparently, Bird is a big Nasser fan. That was interesting.

Back to Islamic feminism...two NPR pieces, probably inspired by France's move to try and ban the veil:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126309699

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-13/banning-veil