jump to navigation

What Most Have Forgotten March 13, 2010

Posted by Bill in Christianity, Church and State, Politics, Religion, Religious Right.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

The sight of gallows loaded with the bodies of men and women hanged and sometimes mutilated just for their beliefs. Men such as the Jesuit John Ogilvie who was sentenced to death by a Glasgow court and hanged and disemboweled on March 10, 1615.

The thousands of men and women deprived of their property due to being of the wrong religion with the definition of the wrong religion changing when the English rulers changed. First Protestant, then Catholic, then Protestant again.

The thousands of Lutheran men, women, and children who starved and froze to death when, on October 31, 1731, 20,000 of them were expelled from their homes in Salzburger, Austria by the Archbishop Leopold von Firmian. They were given only eight days to leave their homes.

The drowning of Protestants by the Irish Catholics in 1641. After holding them as prisoners and torturing them, the Catholics then forced them to the bridge over the River Bann, forced them to strip, and then drove them into the water at sword point. Those that survived the plunge were then shot.

Our Founders remembered this and more. It is why there is no mention of Christianity, no mention of God, no mention of Jesus in the Constitution. Our Founders set up a secular state so that freedom of conscience would be guarded for all men.

The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris on August 24, 1572 when thousands of Huguenots (Protestants) were butchered by Catholic mobs. This was just the worst of the many killings and riots that occurred during the 30 years of war between the French Protestants and Catholics that started in 1562.

The Huguenots disemboweling and burying alive priests. The killing of Catholic children. The torture of priests and Catholics during the same 30-year war.

John Rogers being burned alive at Smithfield England, the “first Protestant martyr” executed by England’s Catholic Queen Mary.

The smell of burning flesh as John Lambert was chained to a stake in 1537 at Smithfield, England and then burned. He had defended his conscience and faith after being summoned to an inquisition.

For not enshrining God and Christianity into its text the Constitution was heavily criticized. This omission of God and Christianity was denounced by the Reverend John M. Mason who declared it “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” He went on to warn “we will have every reason to tremble lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck.”

Others warned of the dangers of not putting God and Christianity into the Constitution because it would be an “invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us.” and that “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States.”

Our Founders knew that, with most of the states having religious tests for citizenship and holding office, that pushing a thoroughly secular Constitution would be difficult. Yet they did push.

George Washington, John Adam, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the others of our Founders considered the lack of religion in the Constitution important enough to weather the firestorm of criticism to get the Constitution ratified as it was – without God and without religion.

In fact, eventually all the states would follow the lead of the writers of the Constitution and erect their own wall of separation between church and state.

Anne Hutchison defending her beliefs and being banished by the Puritans from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637. The same Puritans who were persecuted in England and sailed to the New World carried the Old World’s intolerance of dissent with them. Anne Hutchison, her servants, and 5 of her children were killed by Indians in New York in 1643.

Roger Williams’ defense of the separation of church and state in the mid 17th century. He believed that the state should not be involved in religion at all. He believed that all men — the Muslims, Jews, infidels, and atheists – should have freedom of conscience and for the state to be involved in any way with religion would infringe on this right. His books were banned and burned in England. In America he was banished by the Puritans.

The persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1656 the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed laws against anyone bringing Quakers into the Colony or anyone harboring them. They would be fined 100 pounds and then either imprisoned or banished. Other fines included 54 pounds for possessing Quaker books or writings, 40 pounds for defending the teachings of Quakers, 44 pounds for a second offence of defending the teachings, followed by imprisonment until the offender could be shipped out. The laws also allowed corporal punishment ie., whippings, cutting off of ears, boring holes in tongues, and hanging. Mary Dyer, William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson were some among many who braved these punishments in order to speak their conscience. All three had been banished, endured flogging, and were eventually hanged.

Today we take the benefits of keeping church and state separate too much for granted. It has allowed us to avoid most of the religious violence that has embroiled much of the world despite our being the most religiously diverse nation on earth.

Even though we are home for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics we have avoided the strife that plagues India from the Hindus and Muslims, the wars that consume the Middle East between the Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and Christians, and the violence between the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

We take these so much for granted that many do not understand why the state cannot favor any religion; why the state shouldn’t fund or help religious groups and organizations.

In An Essay On Toleration Benjamin Franklin wrote, “If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.”

In his statement about why he refused to proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer Andrew Jackson in 1832 said, “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”

James Madison, the chief author of our Constitution, wrote in a letter objecting to the use of government land for churches in 1803, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, carried unanimously by the Senate reads, “As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) … it is declared.. that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”

In a letter John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

These and more statements from our founders, from George Washington to Thomas Paine, from Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson all attest to the fact that they set up a secular government in order to preserve the new country that they had created from being torn by religious wars. A country where all men, not just Christians, would be free to follow their conscience and express their beliefs.

During the beginning of the Civil War, the National Reform Association was founded in order to correct the mistake that was tearing our nation apart. No, it was not slavery that was the mistake in the eyes of these clergymen but instead it was the lack of an acknowledgement of God and Jesus in our Constitution.

In 1863 an attempt was made to amend the Constitution’s preamble and there acknowledge not only God but also Jesus Christ as the source our government. A foreshadowing of one of our recent President’s use of Jesus as his political mentor.

The clergy involved in the National Reform Association devised a statement that would not offend any of the mainstream Protestant denominations (they were not worried of course about Jews, Quakers, or Catholics who, being religious minorities, were aghast at the idea). It proposed replacing “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” with “Recognizing almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government…” Shades of the Islamic constitution in Iraq.

The National Reform Association met with President Lincoln in February 1864 and presented him with their petition for a Christian government. His response was the observation that “…the work of amending the Constitution should never be done hastily.” and a promise to “take such action upon it as my responsibility to my Maker and our country demands.” He then took no action at all. Neither did Congress, instead tabling the resolution for years until it was forgotten.

Now these and other histories have been forgotten. We have taken for granted the benefits of a secular government. Now a new mythology is being created that our founders would be appalled by. The myth that the United States of America was created as a Christian Nation. We no longer remember why that road is such a dangerous one. We no longer seem to understand why a secular government is necessary for the continued freedom of belief and conscience that we now so blithely enjoy.

Even such seemingly laudable actions such as giving government money to religious charities creates problems and raises troubling questions.

When the government gives money, as in the faith based charity programs, it decides which religions get money and which do not. Is it really any surprise that during President Bush’s Presidency the vast majority of the money is given to evangelical organizations that supported him.  Is it any surprise that only they, out of all the organizations that our government supports with our money, are allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion with that money.

And how will you react when Moslems charities start receiving money? How about Scientology? Wiccan charities? Secular Humanist charities? Or would you rather that our government start picking and choosing what religions are “worthy” of receiving money and government approval and which are “unworthy?”

Despite all the talk about original intent we are moving away from what our founders intended.

Although some of our founders were traditional Christians, most were not. Many believed that religion encouraged morality in the common people and so followed religious practices. All, though, recognized the danger that comes from religion and government becoming entangled. All recognized the necessity for a secular government. All remembered the reasons why a strict separation between church and state is necessary. I think it is time that many of us read more thoroughly our own and European history and take a good look at the world around us.

I think it is time that we start remembering again.

The United States – A Secular Government, a Christian Culture March 13, 2010

Posted by Bill in Christianity, Church and State, Current Events, Politics, Religion, Religious Right, Schools.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

In Texas we have had our Texas School Board discussing what our social studies and history curriculum should be.  Given that this standard will stay for 10 years and that as one of the largest consumers of textbooks this decision could have a national impact. 

 Needless to say, since this is Texas, the religious conservatives have a nice majority on the Education Board.  Which means that this is not going the way that I think it should. 

 For example, there was a proposal to teach students about why our Founding Fathers considered the separation of church and state of such importance.  It was promptly shot down since the majority of the School Board considers the separation of church and state a myth and the United States a Christian nation founded to be so by our Founding Fathers.

 As evidence they point to several utterances of various Founding Fathers supporting the virtues of Christianity or their actions in supporting religion.  However there are three historical facts that to me shout out very loudly that these people are wrong:  our Founders meant for the United States government to be secular and not a Christian one. 

 The first of these facts is that nowhere in the Constitution, other than a dating convention, is there a mention of God.  There is no mention of Christianity or Jesus.  Nowhere.  This is especially telling since there was a motion to mention Christianity or at least God somewhere in the Constitution.  This motion was not acted upon.  Rather a strange thing to do if they had intended for the United States government to be a Christian one.  Especially considering the fact that every state constitution at that time did mention either God, Jesus, or Christianity. 

 The second fact is that the Constitution barely, and I mean barely, passed.  It was voted on by conventions in every state and in each and every state it was a political battle; one that was lost in some and won in others.  One of the criticisms of the Constitution brought up by many who were against it was that it did not include a mention of God or Christianity.  Yet despite the closeness of the vote and the importance they placed on enacting the Constitution none of the Founding Fathers tried to modify it to gain a few votes.

 The third fact is the Treaty of Tripoli.  This treaty was signed on Nov 4, 1796.  After having been read in its entirety on the Senate floor it was unanimously (23 or the 32 Senators were in attendance) ratified by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797.  The treaty was signed by President John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, on June 10, 1797. 

 Of interest here is article 11, which states:

 “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

At a time when George Washington, Thomas Jeffereson,  James Madison, and many of the other founders were still alive this government document explicitely states that the “Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.   It passed without protest, without debate, and unanimously.  And was signed by another of our Founding Fathers, President John Adams. 

When you put these three facts together it is very hard to see how it could be claimed that we are founded as a Christian government.  Especially when you toss in a couple of other supporting facts:

–         There is no religious test for public office.  In fact it was explicitly prohibited.  And this at a time when the state constitutions often did require a religious test to hold public office.

–         The state governments over the years gradually dropped those religious requirements and also mention of God and Christianity; following the lead of the United States Constitution.

–         That there were several attempts to change the Constitution to include a mention of God or Christianity.  There was a large push during President Jackson’s Presidency as well as again after the Civil War.  All failed.  

 Then how can the quotes and actions those who oppose the seperation of church and state be reconciled with these facts.  There are several items to keep in mind here:

–         Not all of our Founding Fathers thought alike ( After all, one did present a motion to include God in our Constitution even though it was not acted upon).  In fact they often disagreed with each other with a ferocity that makes it even more amazing that they managed to find compromises that allowed them to create our Constitution. 

–         There is a difference between a nation’s culture and its government.  While it is undoubtedly true that our culture is Christian it is also undoubtedly true that our Founders set up a secular government as the best way to protect the religoius rights of all.

–         At the time of our Founding the states were not required to follow the Bill of Rights.  That was a limitation on the Federal government and not on the State governments.  What would be proper for a State official to do would not for a Federal one. 

o       This can be most clearly seen in regards to the abolition movement.  Many of the southern states outlawed any books or tracts promoting abolition and arrested those who spoke out against slavery.  Free Speech only applied at the Federal and not the state level. 

o       It was the passage of the 14th Amendment after the civil war which changed this and made the Bill of Rights apply to the State government as well as the Federal government. 

In summary then our Founding fathers did indeed set up a secular government amidst a Christian culture. 

The reason why? 

That is my next blog “What Most Have Forgotten”

ACLJ In Africa February 1, 2010

Posted by Bill in atheism, Christianity, Church and State, Current Events, Islam, Muslims, Politics, Religion, Religious Right.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Just found out that both Kenya and Zimbabwe are drafting new constitutions. From what I have read this is not necessarily a bad thing. However what concerns me is that the American Center For Law and Justice (ACLJ) is apparently going to help both countries out in drafting their new constitutions.

For those who may not know who the ACLJ is, they are a Christian right wing group that loves to take cases challenging the separation of church and state and also suits supporting challenges to evolution. They love all right wing causes from defending torture to stopping healthcare reform. They are exactly the wrong sort of group to provide information on how to write a constitution.

While much of their work may be good – for example their stand against making Sharia Courts a part of the Kenya Constitution – I am afraid that they will write in protections for Christian churches and in particular churches that follow most closely what they believe.   Or at the very least write in protections for views they support. 

At this stage this is more of a strong concern due to their track record on constitutional issues here in America and their strong ties to the Christian right wing. I have not been able to find any specifics on what their exact suggestions in regards to the Constitutions of both countries. I hope my concerns or misplaced but fear they are not.

What would be especially ironic in the case of Kenya would be if the ACLJ helped create a constitution that would allow fundamentalists churches and thoughts to have a greater say in the government. Can you imagine creationists in charge of the museums and science in one of the countries that has provided our clearest fossil evidence of hominid evolution?

I also am concerned about such things as reproductive rights (that includes birth control and is not just a code name for abortion people), gay rights, and religious rights.

As I said I do not have any information on exactly what they are suggesting for the Kenya and Zimbabwe constitutions. And to be honest, given the problems these countries have, the new constitution may still wind up better than what they have despite the ACLJ input.

I do know though that our Constitution was founded without help from Christian organizations or any religious organizations. I know that many of them were against our Constitution at the time of its ratification. And I know why the separation of church and state was instituted in our country.

Given the religious conflicts in Africa between Muslim and Christian that same sort of concern and sensitivity should be present in any attempt to create a new constitution. The ACLJ does not have that sensitivity.

Given the tremendous devastation that AIDS is wreaking in Africa government policies in regards to health and sex need to avoid being limited because of the beliefs of one religion.

The ACLJ does not have that expansive a view.

I only hope that my concerns are misplaced or that their role is limited and that other groups, more moderate, sensitive, and expansive, play a greater role.

Are Muslims Violent Liars? November 12, 2009

Posted by Bill in atheism, Christianity, Church and State, Islam, Muslims, Politics, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

With the recent shootings of 13 people by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan  there has been a lot of blog activity against Muslims.  Most of them along the lines that Islam is an inherently violent religion and that Muslims are commanded by the Qur’an to lie to unbelievers

Warning, this is an exceeding long blog.  I make no apologies for this for even at its current length it still does not begin to do justice to the question of is Islam inherently dishonest with unbelievers and violent.  I hope that this just makes some of those who think they already know the answer based on readings from certain websites question their certainty and delve deeper into the question using many different resources. 

Lets start by looking at a representative site that promotes this view.  

From   http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Statement-on-Muslims.htm

 “Yes, there are Muslims who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but it doesn’t change what Islam is.  Don’t confuse the ideology with the individual.  Don’t draw conclusions about Islam based on the Muslims that you know, be they terrorists or humanitarians.  Islam must be understood on the basis of what it is, as presented objectively in the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad).”

And

 “Even if there is no such thing as moderate Islam, it does not mean that there are no moderate Muslims.”

 Thank goodness this site is not as radical as many.  In fact it is a rather moderate example of its type.

“The Muslims that you know are not terrorists.  More than likely, their interests in life are similar to yours and they have the same ambitions for their children.  They should neither be shunned, mistreated, nor disrespected merely because of their religion.  Their property should not be abused, and neither should copies of their sacred book be vandalized.

Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person.  Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds. 

Don’t judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don’t judge the Muslims that you know by Islam.”

However although it is more moderate it still makes the same assumptions about Muslims that the more radical sites do, that is:

 1)      The Qur’an not only allows lying to unbelievers but encourages it in furtherance of Islam.

 2)      Islam is inherently violent.  Muslims that say it is not either do not know their religion or are not very religious.

 3)      Muslims who disagree with either or both of the above two points are either not good Muslims or are ignorant about their religion. 

 I disagree with all three statements.  And with good reason because none are true.  In the following I will deal with all three.

 Lets deal with the lying claim first.  These sites quote sections from the Qur’an as evidence that their statements are true.  However how accurate a representation are their quotes? 

 This is from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

 The Qur’an:

Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.” 

Qur’an (9:3)“…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

Qur’an (2:225)“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

Qur’an (66:2)“Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

Qur’an (3:54)“And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit.  If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

 Lets now take at  these verses one by one.  My source for both the Qur’an and commentary is

 http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm

 Qur’an 16:106 – Whoso disbelieves in Allah after his belief – not he who is compelled  while his heart is content with the faith, but he who opens his breast for disbelief – on them is the wrath of Allah, and for them is a grievous chastisement. 

 Note that TheReligionOfPeace reference has it wrong.  The reference says this verse details circumstances which “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.  However this verse says a Muslim may tell a lie if under compulsion.  Here is the commentary of this verse.

 Commentary – “Only very rare circumstances are met with early in the history of Islam in which the converts even under compulsion ever recanted.  For instance, Yasir and Sumayyah, husband and wife, suffered death at the hands of the disbelievers because they would not recant, the latter being put to death most cruelly, her legs being tied to two camels which were made to run in opposite directions.  Their son Ammar, however, was not so resolute.  The cruelest persecutions were inflicted on those slaves who had become converts to Islam.  Muir says: “These were seized and imprisoned, or they were exposed upon the scorching gravel of the valley to the intense glare of the midday sun.  The torment was enhanced by intolerable thirst, until the wretched sufferers scarcely knew what they said.”  Yet even under these trying circumstances, which would have maddened even the most resolute man, there were those among these slave-converts who were as firm as a mountain; as in the case of Bilal, of whom it is recorded that “in the depth of his anguish the persecutors could force out of him but one expression, Ahad! Ahad! (One, One God) (Muir)

 So this verse, far from detailing when a Muslim is compelled to lie, instead allows him to lie if under extreme duress. 

 Qur’an 3:28 – Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers.  And whoever does this has no connection with Allah – except that you guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully.  And Allah cautions you against his retribution.  And to Allah is the eventual coming. 

 Commentary – The Muslims, being in a state of war with the disbelievers, were forbidden to look to their enemies to guard their interests or for help of any kind.  The clear statement made in 60: 8, 9 settles the point beyond all doubt.  “Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly… Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for your religion and drive you forth from your homes, and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them. 

 In short Muslims can and have been friends with unbelievers.  It is not against the Qur’an.  Now the radical Muslims interpret the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as a holy war of Christianity against Islam and will therefore interpret this verse rather broadly.  However most Muslims do not.

 I will make one more point here.  Just as the Bible has to be looked at holistically to get a proper understanding of what each verse means so too does the Qur’an.  If you treat the Bible the same as this site is doing with the Qur’an then Christianity can be used to justify many atrocities.  It has in the past been used so.

 Qur’an 9:3  – And an announcement from Allah and his Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is his Messenger.  So if you repent, it will be better for you:  and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah.  And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelief.

 It seems the TheReligionofPeace reference did not bother to read the very next verse, shown below.

 Qur’an 9: 4 –  Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term.  Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty. 

 In other words if they break their word to you then you are not obliged to honor your word to them.  If they keep true to their word then you have to keep true to yours.  How is that different than what we do?  Did we keep to any treaties we made with Japan in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor during WW 2?

 Qur’an 40:28 – And a believing man of Pharaoh’s people, who hid his faith, said:  Will you slay a man because he says, My Lord is Allah, and indeed he has brought you clear arguments from your Lord?  And if he be a liar, on him will be his lie, and if he be truthful, there will befall you some of that which he threatens you with.  Surely Allah guides not one who is prodigal, a liar. 

 This is an instruction for the believer to hide his faith from the non-believers?  Especially with the admonition about Allah not backing a liar.  The Qur’an is telling a story not giving instructions here. 

 Should TheReligionOfPeace site take the time to read the surrounding context they would find that this story is the story of Moses.  This verse relates a conversation that a believer had with the Pharaoh about Moses.  He is arguing with the Pharaoh for Moses. 

 Qur’an 2:225 – Allah will not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but he will call you to account for what your hearts have earned.  And Allah is forgiving, forbearing.

 Commentary – By vain oaths are meant unintentional or thoughtless oaths in ordinary conversation, and by what the hearts have earned is meant an oath intentionally taken. 

 In other words if a Muslim swears an oath then he is held accountable for it by Allah. 

 Qur’an 66:2  – So when they have reached their prescribed time, retain them with kindness or dismiss them with kindness, and call to witness two just one from among you, and give upright testimony for Allah.  With that is admonished he who believes in Allah and the latter day.  And whoever keeps his duty to Allah, he ordains a way out for him. 

 This time it seems instead of not reading the next verse TheReligionOfPeace site did not read the verse ahead of it. 

 Qur’an 66:1 – O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed period, and calculate the period; and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord.  Turn them not out of their houses – nor should they themselves go forth –  unless they commit an open indecency.  And these are the limits of Allah.  And whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, he indeed wrongs his own soul.  Thou knowest not that Allah may after that bring about an event. 

 Read in context – something this site is very much not interested in doing – this is talking about marriage and divorce.  I do not fully understand the Qur’an ideas about marriage but apparently there are limits on when divorce is allowed and it is this to which 66:2 is referring to.  From quickly looking at it there are times when you are allowed to divorce and other times you are not allowed to divorce.  Here is the commentary on 66:1 to help give a little more information about marriage.

 Commentary – The prescribed time is ordinarily, according to 2:228, three courses.  But in the case of woman with child, and in certain other cases, the prescribed time is laid down in v. 4 of this chapter.  It should be noted how every direction in connection with the subject of divorce is followed by the injunction “keep your duty to Allah”, throughout this chapter.  The utmost carefulness must be exercised in the matter of divorce.  Divorce is allowed but the right must be used sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. 

 Qur’an 3:54 – And (the Jews) planned and Allah (also) planned.  And Allah is the best of planners. 

 It  think it might be interesting to go on to the next verse so that you can see what this verse is talking about. 

 Qur’an 3:55 – When Allah said:  Oh Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve and make those who follow thee above those who disbelieve to the day of the Resurrection.  Then to Me is your return, so I shall  decide between you concerning that wherein you differ. 

 Commentary – Makr  is explained by R as the turning of another with ingenuity  or skill from that which he aims at, and he considers makr as two sorts, a good one and an evil one.  Therefore the best interpretation of makara (including both sorts) is that adopted by T, viz. he exercised craft, cunning, art or skill in the management or ordering of affairs with excellent consideration or deliberation, and ability to manage according to his own free will (LL)……Allah is here called Khair al-makirin or the Best of Planners, the qualifying word khair being inapplicable to an evil object.   

 Nothing here about deceit.  Instead, as in the Bible, this is stating that God took the evil idea of killing Jesus and turned it into something good and great instead.  

 Taken collectively this shows that you’re TheReligionOfPeace site is quote mining – lifting bits and pieces out of context and using them to paint a false picture. 

 I was going to quote the Qur’an on honesty but this is getting too long and there are some more things I wish to say.  So instead of quoting I will just state that there are many, many verses on the importance of honesty.  I would suggest you spend some time looking them up if interested.   I will however just quote this from Saheeh Al-Bukhari, a hadith of the Sunni Muslims, as representative of those verse.  This hadith is considered one of the six canonical hadiths of the Sunni’s.

 “Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise.  In addition, a man keeps on telling the truth until he becomes a truthful person.  Falsehood leads to wickedness and evil-doing, and wickedness leads to the (Hell) Fire, and a man may keep on telling lies till he is written before God, as a liar”. (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)

 The insidious thing about the claim that the Qur’an promotes lying to the unbelievers is that those sites such as TheReligionOfPeace then blow off anything the more moderate Muslims say in response to terrorism and acts of violence.  When the many moderates in the United States and in the world state that they they abhor what Major Hasan did at Fort Hood and wholeheartedly condemn it these sites then question their sincerity.  Further they then start lashing at out Muslims for not condemning the violence.  Talk about moderate Muslims having the deck stacked against them. 

 Now on to the violence claim.  What I would like to do first is show how Christianity, in the past, has been a violent religion.  And further how verses taken from the Bible can lend support for the claim that Christianity is a violent religion.  

 Now this will sound as if I am trying to paint Christianity as an inherently violent religion.  I am not.  Instead I am trying to show how Christianity, as is Islam today, can be portrayed as such with the use of history and verses from the Bible. 

 Deuteronomy 17:12 (New International Version)

12 The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Leviticus 20:27 (New International Version)

27 ” ‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’ ”

Deuteronomy 13:6-17 (New International Version)

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. 12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

Matthew 5:17 (New International Version)

17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Hebrews 10:28-29 (New International Version)

28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Mark 7:9-10 (New International Version)

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[b] and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’[c]

Luke 19:26-27 (New International Version)

26″He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

Matthew 27:25 (New International Version)

            25All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”

These are some of the verses that can be used to paint Christianity a violent religion.  This is even leaving out the whole book of Joshua, the stoning of rebellious children, and witchcraft.  Now lets look at some of Christian history in regards to violent conversions and enforcement of orthodoxy. 

1) Pogroms against Jews.  From the 11th up to the 15th century there were numerous pogroms against the Jews.  If they did not convert they were burned or otherwise killed. 

 During  just one series of pogroms from 1348 to 1351 over 60 major and 150 minor Jewish communities were wiped out.  A favorite method was to build a house and force all the Jews in the community to enter it and then burn it down. 

I will also mention that a yellow marker on clothing to identify Jews was not a Hitler invention.  From the 13th century until the 18th century Jews were required to wear a yellow badge on their outer clothing. 

 This does not include the more recent pogroms against Jews in Tsarist Russia from the 17th to the 20th centuries. 

 The Biblical justification for this, from  http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html

 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.” And all the people answered and said, “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24–25)

 Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. Of the proposed interpretations for Matthew 27:25, the anti-Jewish interpretation is the oldest and most frequently cited in the history of the Church. This view says the Jewish people are permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of God for their murder of Jesus Christ. As such, the cry of “His blood be upon us” means that the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem admitted full guilt for killing the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby invoked God’s curse upon themselves and their descendants until the end of time. This interpretation first surfaced in the writings of the early church fathers in the second century AD. It became universally accepted by the Middle Ages.

2.)    The suppression of Heresies:  During its first 300 years Christians were not in charge of the government.  Pagan Rome was.  Consequently the worse that they could do with heretics – the “false teachers” warned about in the Bible was to expel them from their midst and attach labels to them such as “fools”, “wild dogs”, and “Servants of Satan”.   That changed though as Christians took over the government.

 The first person to be executed for heresy was Priscillian of Avila in 385, 60 years after the First Council of Nicaea.  I will say that this was at the orders of Emperor Magnus Maximus and over the objections of some Bishops.  However Bishops objections did not last. 

 St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was the first major proponent of persecution for heresy.  At first he was for peaceful methods of persuasion but by 400 he began to endorse coercion.  He used Matthew 13:24–30 and Luke 14:21–23 as Biblical justification.  Later Protestants would use the same Biblical verses to justify their persecutions. 

 Everyone has heard of the Spanish Inquisitions, but that was actually only one of many.  Linked to the beginnings of the Medieval Inquisition  was the Albigensian Crusade of 1220 to 1229 which was a military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to stamp out the Cathar Heresy in Languedoc.

 Reportedly the last person to be burned for heresy by the Catholic church was Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600. 

 3)  Do I really need to mention the wars between Catholics and Protestants?   The executions of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics?   Ireland?

 4)  The killing of witches.  Biblical justifications used were Exodus 22:17 and  Deut. 18:10-12,

 5)  The persecution and executions of Baptists, Quakers and other minority groups in the 17th and 18th centuries.  This occurred both in Europe and America.  This persecution is one of the reasons why the Pilgrims left Europe for America.  And then they started the same with other religious groups once they had established themselves here. 

 Should more modern examples be needed – abortion clinic bombers, those protesting at soldiers funerals, those that promote the killing of witches and gays

 Here is a link to an article about Christians in Africa who mutilate and kill their own children because they believe they are witches and “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

 Now I know that most modern Christians would denounce all of the above as not Christian.  However it was at one time.  And many still believe it even today. 

 A religion is what its followers make of it.

 Now there are many followers of Islam who interpret the Qur’an in a violent manner.  However this is not the only way to interpret it and there are many groups and sects that do not.  These more moderate Muslim voices state that what is needed is a holistic understanding of the Qur’an and the times and circumstances it was written in. 

 The circumstances at the time Mohammed was writing the Qur’an were dire.  He and the other Muslims of the time were being persecuted, killed, driven from their homes.  Because of this a great deal of the focus of the Qur’an was on self defense.  It is this that has been hijacked by the radical Muslims to justify their terrorist tactics and this that those on such sites that I have quoted from use to justify their claim that Islam is inherently violent. 

 From  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

 “Islamic scholars interviewed by the TV news show National Geographic Today agreed that terrorists such as Usama bin Laden and his supporters are fanatics using Islam to further their own worldly causes.

“In order for them to generate support beyond their small group, they have to latch onto universal symbols, and this is where Islam becomes a target of convenience for them,” says Nyang

People combine pieces of verse from the Koran and use it to justify their actions, says Khouj. “But to understand the full meaning of the verse,” he says, “you have to read the one before it, the one after it, maybe five to six verses to get the full picture.”

The “full picture” of Islam and the Koran, say Khouj and Nyang, is captured by Chapter 5, Verse 32: “[I]f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”

For most Muslims, the callous and indiscriminate taking of human life violates Allah’s wishes. It defies the Koran’s central message and undermines the peace that Islam promises to deliver to all people.

“Human life in Islam is extremely sacred,” says Khouj. “We’re not talking about just Muslim [life], but human life in general.”

 Which brings us now to the third issue – that of the claims that Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an in the same manner as the radical Muslims are not good Muslims.  That they are either weak in faith or unknowledgeable about their faith  

Does this mean that those Christians today who do not believe as those who burned the witches and Jews are not good Christians?  Does this mean that they do not understand their beliefs or are weak in faith? 

No.

Again, religion is what its people make of it.  There have been more peaceful strains in Islam all throughout its history.  And even now the more radical, violent version is not the majority view.

At this point I would like to point out that Christianity did not really begin to give up its violent ways until the start of the Enlightenment with its emphasis on reason and more skeptical approach to religion; and its finest accomplishment – the creation of a secular state with the United States. 

While this is somewhat over-simplistic, it has a very large kernel of truth in it too.  And that is what I believe Islam needs now, its version of an enlightenment.  I believe it has the foundations of one. 

I am puzzled by those who claim that Islam only has one interpretation.  There are at least three main sects – Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi – and many smaller ones.  Even within the main sects there are many different thoughts about what the Qur’an means and how it should be applied to the world.  These different thoughts run the gamut from very conservative to very liberal.  To claim that only one is the definitive one is to claim far too much. 

There is no central authority in Islam.  With no central authority there can be no uniformity of belief and doctrine (rather like Protestant Christianity).  Indeed should you look at their Qur’an’s and the other central writings and compare those of the Sunni, Shi’a, Sufi, and Ahmadiyya you will find differences in meaning and emphasis. 

 In many ways this reminds me of some of the creation/evolution disputes (something I am very involved in). 

 There are creationists who say that no Christian can believe in evolution and that any who do are not Christian.  They are false Christians.  And then there are atheists who also say that evolution and science disproves Christianity.  And they both reinforce their opponents point of view.  They both ignore and do not deal with the fact that there is a way to be both Christian and support evolution and that millions of people and thousands of scientists do so. 

So too with the claim by both radical Islam and many conservative voices when they each state there is only one version of Islam that is true and that all others are false.  They feed each others prejudices and biases and fuel each others hatred and fears.  And they both ignore the fact that they are wrong, there are other options.  And those that follow them are good, faithful, and knowledgeable Muslims. 

To continue to view Islam as inherently and inescapably violent and a religion of liars leaves only one option – and that is a religious war.   Which is what the radical Muslims have said all along that we are engaged in – with some support form conservative Christian comments and sites like the one listed here.   

 I do not believe that this is the true case.  I know that other varieties of Islam are real and not a deception.  I know that Islam is not inherently violent and does not promote lying.  I have provided the start of such evidence that it is here.  However it is only a start. 

 I would recommend to all that they should spend some time and effort seeking out the all the sides of Islam- both in its practice and in its theology, and from both primary as well as secondary sources. 

 

 

 

Instead of Bible Lessons Let’s Teach Civics October 4, 2009

Posted by Dindy in atheism, Church and State, Current Events, Religion, Schools, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

From Fort Oglethorpe, GA, we hear that the Catoosa County Schools have finally heard about the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United states, which prevents the government from establishing a religion. Yes, the Warriors of Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School took the field on Friday night without any Bible verses written on the cheerleaders banners.

Players at the 900-student school began running through the biblical banners shortly after 9-11, however the district finally banned the banners after being advised by the school board’s attorney that the signs violated federal law.

“It seems like the majority of people in our community want this and they don’t have a problem with it, so I think they should be allowed to have the signs,” said eighteen-year-old Cassandra Cooksey, a recent graduate of the school.

As usual when I read statements like this, I wonder what kids are being taught in their Civics classes. Are they learning about how our Constitution was carefully crafted to protect the rights of the minority? Are they learning the difference between a mobocracy and a republic? Are they learning about the Bill of Rights and what each of those amendments mean?

Okay, for Cassandra and all of those others who do not see what is wrong with football players running through banners with Bible verses before a football game, would it be okay if a Moslem student wanted to put a verse from the Koran on one of those banners? Would it be okay if a Buddhist wanted to put a quote from Confucious or if a Hindu wanted to include a quote from one of the sacred Vedas?

What if there was a Jewish football player who didn’t WANT to run through a banner with a quote from the New Testament on it? Would the students be okay with that or would they make fun of him for being different? Would they be angry with him for not going along with their display of spirituality?

Maybe instead of Bible verses the kids should run through banners containing quotes from our Founding Fathers, or, better yet, banners on which the amendments to the Constitution are printed. Maybe then the kids would actually learn something about the foundations of our government, since they evidently didn’t learn about them in school.

When you Open the Door, You Must Let Them In September 17, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Church and State, Religion, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

The Speaker of the House of the Pennsylvania Legislator, Keith McCall, has set up a controversy by denying Rev. Gerry Stoltzfoos, of the Freedom Valley Worship Center in Gettysburg, the right to say, “In Jesus name, Amen” at the end of his opening prayer.

I’m going to break with many Church State Separation advocates by stating here that if you invite someone to give a prayer, then it is bad form to regulate the subject of that prayer. If you invite a Christian to give a prayer, OF COURSE s/he is going to give a Christian prayer.

What I question is the practice of inviting people to give any type of prayer at the opening of a legislative session. Simply to do so is a violation of the separation of church and state. Sure, they can thrown their little bones to the “alternative” religions by inviting a Wiccan Priestess or a Medicine Man or some such, but in so doing, the practice of offering a prayer at the beginning of the meeting is shown to be little more than a hollow show of piety.

If members of the legislature are so concerned that their deity of choice guide their actions during the meeting, then let them bow their head or do whatever action required by their religion to bring the guidance of their deity upon their own actions. Bringing someone in to offer an invocation for the actions of the body as a whole is meaningless and ensures that no one is completely happy with whatever type of prayer is offered.

What Are We Teaching Kids Anyway? September 13, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Church and State, Religion, Schools.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In Texas, a proposal being reviewed by the State Board of Education would drop the mention of Christmas from the 6th Grade Social Studies curriculum, replacing it with information about Diwali, a Hindu religious festival. Not surprisingly, conservative Christians are up in arms and revisiting their Continuous “War on Christmas” battle cry.

Actually, to be precise, the standards being considered are a requirement that sixth graders be able to explain the significance of religious holidays such as Yom Kippur, Diwali, Ramadan and Easter. Christmas is not included in that list although it is included in the CURRENT standards and Diwali is not.

Personally, I’d include them both, however, it’s possible that the committee recommending the changes thinks that sixth graders are probably already very familiar with the significance of Christmas and don’t need the school to spell it out for them. Let’s face it, it is not possible to live in the United States and NOT be aware of the religious significance of Christmas. It’s kind of like expecting the schools to teach kids in Texas about the importance of football– oh, wait a minute, schools in Texas– Arlington, Texas– are already expected to teach students about the importance of football. That’s why the district is busing 500 fifth graders to the new Cowboys Stadium in September.

No! No! No! It’s not to teach them the importance of football! It’s so they can hear the former president, George Dubya Bush, explain the importance of a volunteer initiative that will happen during the 2011 SuperBowl.

Volunteering is important, and no one should have a problem with their kids hearing about it. After all, it’s an important value, kind of like staying in school and studying hard- but wait! This is the same school district that completely boycotted Obama’s speech to school children about staying in school and studying hard because it took 18 minutes of class time away from IMPORTANT things, presumably like teaching the significance of Christmas!