Category Archives: religious news

DeLay’s the latest GOPer to skewer Trump

untitled

I am no fan of former U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay . . . but you knew that already.

However, the fiery Texan has written an essay that conservatives such as himself should take to heart.

Take a look.

DeLay questions the Republican presidential campaign frontrunner’s commitment to Christian principles. He said the next president ought to be a conservative who bases his political beliefs on Scripture.

DeLay also takes a shot at what he calls Trump’s “clumsy” pandering to evangelicals at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., when he cited “Two Corinthians,” apparently not knowing that the common reference to that New Testament book is “Second Corinthians.”

He then wonders aloud just how a President Trump — my fingers still tremble when I write those two words — would make sure that retail outlets instruct their staffers to wish customers “Merry Christmas” during the holiday season. How would he do that? DeLay wondered. “By executive order?”

DeLay is just the latest political conservative to reveal what many of us on the other side of the fence have believed for a very long time, which is that Trump is a phony.

In this crazy, goofy and bizarre political environment, though, Trump’s brand of phoniness is more appealing to his true believers than the so-called phony rhetoric coming from “establishment politicians.”

 

 

We’re all sinners . . . and need forgiveness

donald

Donald Trump’s stumbling over the name of a New Testament book Monday seems to punctuate something many of us believed already.

The candidate’s bald-face pandering to a certain Republican Party voting bloc is unseemly on its face.

Trump stood before a “record crowd” at Liberty University and proclaimed the virtues of “Two Corinthians.”

OK, I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know the name of the book that contains the Apostle Paul’s “second letter” to the people of Corinth. Moreover, I’ve read “Second Corinthians” many times over the years.

Trump, though, has said something else that reveals the pandering element of his pitch to Christian voters. It is that he’s never sought forgiveness because “I don’t need it.”

Trump  didn’t say it overtly, but statements such as that suggest he believes he is without sin. Now, the Bible I’ve read my entire life tells me that we’re all sinners. Every single human being who’s ever been born needs forgiveness for his or her sins.

I don’t intend to pick apart every single thing Trump said at Liberty University, nor do I intend to question Trump’s personal faith journey. Maybe it’s the real thing. Then again . . . well, I just don’t know.

I do recognize pandering when I see and hear it.

Look, I know that politicians pander. It’s part of their DNA. They have to pander to persuade voters that they — the politician — understands them.

Some politicians do it better than others. Trump has said all along he’s not a “career politician.” His performance at Liberty University certainly proves the point — and not necessarily in a way that should make the candidate proud.

Check this out.

 

Critiquing final SOTU for this POTUS

694940094001_4701170660001_8b918e30-055c-4dfa-81e5-d7baf77451dc

This won’t be a thorough point-by-point critique of President Obama’s final State of the Union speech, but I want to offer a few observations of what I believe to be the high points . . . and a particular low point of his speech.

Generally, I believe he hit the right tone and sent the correct message on a number of points.

Such as:

Our political system needs an overhaul. The president sought to quell the “toxic” atmosphere that lingers over Capitol Hill and along the presidential campaign trail. He acknowledges that a State of the Union during a presidential election year is going to run headlong into partisan divisions. But it need not result in turning adversaries into enemies, he said.

This toxicity isn’t new. It’s shown itself at times during the entire existence of the Republic. Its victims have been politicians of both political parties — and more than that if you want to count the Whigs, which morphed into today’s Republican Party.

But just because we’ve had this kind of loathing of individuals with whom we differ for as long as any of us can remember doesn’t negate the need to change it.

The anger has spread to those who worship certain religious faiths and who are victimized solely because of their beliefs. Such hatred must cease. It is, as the president said, “not who we are.”

Obama is right, however, to lay the bulk of the responsibility for that change on us out here in Voter Land. The politicians do our bidding. If we demand a change, then they’ll have to heed us.

Correct?

The economy has turned around. He hit on something most of us knew he would say. The nation’s economic standing is far better now than it was when Barack H. Obama took office.

We’ve cut joblessness in half; reduced the annual budget deficit by 75 percent; our auto industry is setting records; our banks and other financial institutions are healthy again.

Does the president deserve all the credit? No. It did happen on his watch.

We remain the world’s indispensable nation. The presidential candidates have been making hay on the stump about the United States’ lack of “greatness.” They contend we are weak, that we cower in the face of danger.

The president said, though, that the world “doesn’t turn to Moscow or Beijing” when times get dicey. “It turns to us.”

Why is that so, if we’re such a basket case?

We’re continuing to fight the war on terror aggressively. The president told us of how more than 10,000 air strikes have killed Islamic State leaders and fighters, disrupted command and control operations, obliterated ISIL’s oil supplies — and is doing so with the help of 60 nations allied behind our effort to destroy these terror networks.

Yet his foes keep saying we should “do more.” One of them, U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, said the president isn’t doing enough. What, then, does Chairman Thornberry propose? Oh, yeah. Let’s put “boots on the ground,” which is a cleaned-up way to say, “Let’s put even more young American lives in jeopardy.”

No one should be naïve to think this concentrated air campaign against ISIL, al-Qaeda or al-Shabaab is going to go smoothly all the time. Wars never do.

As for the nature of this war . . .

It is a world war, Mr. President. Obama sought to downgrade this conflict into something less than a global conflict. He is mistaken.

It is true that we aren’t engaged on battlefields around the world the way we were from 1941 until 1945. This war, though, is different in every conceivable way. We aren’t fighting nation-states. We are fighting ideologies, whose practitioners live among us and who prey on innocent victims, so-called “soft targets.”

I believe it is a world war, but not in the historical sense of the term.

* **

Barack Obama didn’t likely change many minds last night. His approval ratings might tick up just a bit, but then they’ll settle back down to where they have stood for years. His foes will be sure to keep beating the drums of pessimism and gloom.

Me? I’m as concerned as the next guy about the future. Then again, I’ve lived long enough and seen enough political turmoil — and warfare — to understand that we are truly are an exceptional nation.

Well done, Mr. President.

Not just ‘un-Republican,’ but un-American

hamid

A woman stood up to protest some comments from Donald J. Trump during a campaign rally for the Republican presidential candidate.

She was booed. Why? Was she being hateful? Did she try to shout down the candidate? Did she present a threat to anyone?

No. She was booed because was wearing a hijab, the traditional scarf that Muslim women wear to shield their hair in accordance with Islamic tenets.

The woman was escorted out of the rally. Kicked out. She left the venue to a chorus of catcalls.

It was a disgraceful display of intolerance.

What did the candidate do to tamp it down? Nothing.

Fellow GOP presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich of Ohio called the event “un-Republican.” Yes. It’s also un-Democratic and, I shall add, un-American.

Rose Hamid is a flight attendant who came to the rally to hear for herself some of the things she’d read about Trump, who launched into a tirade about Syrian refugees being terrorists.

Hamid said later that the characterization was improper and demonstrated the kind of intolerance and hatred we’ve been hearing toward people who practice the Islamic faith. It’s aimed at actual Muslims, not the perverted cultists who have twisted the religion into something unrecognizable to practicing Muslims . . . such as Rose Hamid.

Yet they are the individuals — the terrorists masquerading as Muslims — who draw the fire from political candidates, who use such rhetoric to inflame their supporters against others whose only transgression is to express their faith and to wear garments that give their religious identity away.

Kasich is right to condemn Trump, not just for allowing the ejection of the protestor, but for failing to calm down the haters scattered in his crowd of supporters.

 

God wouldn’t allow guns in church

Pistol on Open Bible

Is there a more inappropriate place on Earth than a worship sanctuary for someone to carry a gun?

Now that Texas has a law that allows licensed Texans to carry firearms out in the open, the issue has arisen among church leaders about whether to allow guns inside their houses of worship.

My sincere hope is that churches will not go there, that senior pastors, priests, rabbis or imams will draw the line. Keep your guns in your motor vehicles outside.

A lawyer representing Catholic Diocese in Amarillo predicted that the bishop won’t allow guns into church sanctuaries. Fred Griffin said that guns run totally counter to the teachings of the church, that sanctuaries need to be free of these weapons of violence.

Gosh. Do you think?

I’m keeping my mind wide open on open carry. I’ve expressed some misgivings about the law enabling those who have concealed carry licenses to pack heat in the open.

I’m not going to say categorically that it’s a bad idea.

However, I cannot fathom the concept of someone walking into a church sanctuary to worship his or her God while packing a weapon in a holster. I can think of few circumstances that present a greater incongruity.

Perhaps some preachers have no problem with the idea of guns in a sanctuary. I hope, though, that they consult with their congregations before deciding to allow firearms into their house of worship.

 

 

Yes, Mr. Justice, ‘religious neutrality’ is in the Constitution

No-religious-test-of-office-320x1241

I am about to do something that gives me the heebie-jeebies. I am going to challenge a premise by one of the nine people who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of high school students this weekend in New Orleans that the U.S. Constitution does not compel “religious neutrality.”

Well, Mr. Justice, I believe it does.

Scalia, a deeply religious Roman Catholic, told the students that the Constitution prohibits government from adhering to a specific religion, but it does not compel government to ban references to religion in general.

He said it’s all right for government officials to invoke God in public.

Sure it is. Presidents of both parties have been ending public speeches for as long as I can remember — and that goes back a ways — with the words ” . . .  and may God bless the United States of America.”

But I have been reading the Constitution since I was old enough to read anything and I can find precisely two uses of the word “religion” or “religious” in that document. It’s in Article VI, where it says there shall be “no religious test” required of any individual seeking any public office at any level in the United States of America; and it’s also in the very First Amendment, where it says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

The rest of it is secular by design.

I agree with Justice Scalia that “God has been good to us” as a nation. But he seems to be getting a bit ahead of himself when he implies that “religious neutrality” seems intended to deprive Americans the right — or the desire — to worship as they see fit.

The individuals who founded this nation knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Constitution. They meant for it to be free of religious dogma. Yes, some have taken that intent too far by suggesting that we should remove “In God We Trust” from courtroom walls or from our currency.

However, I happen to quite comfortable with “religious neutrality” as it relates to our government.

I’m still free to go to church and pray to God. I will do so again today.

 

Christmas spirit found in Nativity Scene

baby

Of course a Nativity Scene at this time of year is going to fill one with the spirit of this holy season.

But consider what some staffers at the Children’s Home right here in Amarillo discovered. Someone phoned the Children’s Home office and told the office staff to go outside and look under the “baby Jesus” laying in the scene on the home grounds.

So … they did. The staff discovered a $50,000 check given by someone who wants to remain anonymous.

Is there a better example to be found to take note of this holiday?

My wife and I have spent some time with the children who live at the home. As Darrin Murphy, who runs the Children’s Home, told Fox News’s Gretchen Carlson, the children “come from tough backgrounds.” Brother, do they ever.

We have heard stories from the kids themselves about unspeakable brutalization at home. I won’t go into detail here, but suffice to say that many of these children endure hardships we wouldn’t wish on any human being.

Whoever the donor is recognizes the terrible circumstances these children have endured, Murphy said to Carlson.

This, indeed, very much is the season of giving. Someone out there has taken the giving spirit to heart … and it must be an immense heart at that.

The Children’s Home has just been brightened by a donor moved to help children who’ve lived through untold hardship.

All I’m left to say simply is: Wow!

 

Partisan preacher quits his party

(RNS1-MAY02) Evangelist Franklin Graham preaches during a recent crusade in Mobile, Ala. See RNS-GRAHAM-QANDA, transmitted May 2, 2006. Religion News Service photo by John David Mercer/The Press-Register in Mobile, Ala.

The Rev. Franklin Graham has given up on the Republican Party.

He quit, citing Congress’s refusal to stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood. So, Graham — son of the legendary preacher the Rev. Billy Graham — has had enough of the GOP.

I thought immediately of a bumper sticker I once saw on a car here in Amarillo. I am paraphrasing, but it said, “God is bigger than a bumper sticker.”

Indeed …

Graham isn’t the first high-profile preacher to become involved in partisan politics. Another Republican, Mike Huckabee, is a former Baptist preacher seeking the Republican presidential nomination; Democrats Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom are ordained Christian clergymen, also have run for the highest office in the land.

Still, I find it intriguing to hear that Franklin Graham is quitting the Republican Party because of an intensely emotional issue. That would be abortion.

Perhaps, though, he ought to know that the Hyde Amendment — named after the late Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde — prohibits the federal government from dedicating public money for abortion and that Planned Parenthood’s mission goes far beyond providing abortion referrals for women seeking to terminate their pregnancy.

And, yes, God truly is far bigger than a bumper sticker.

Or a political party.

More guns to ‘end those Muslims’ … yeah, that’s it

falwell

Jerry Falwell Jr. sounds a good bit like the late Jerry Falwell Sr.

The elder Falwell founded Liberty University, a leading Christian-based institution of higher learning. His son now runs it.

Falwell Sr. once produced a video that alleged Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in the murder of their close friend Vincent Foster. You remember “The Clinton Chronicles.”

Falwell Jr. now says, and this takes my breath away, that more students on the Liberty U. campus in Lynchburg, Va., should be carrying firearms so they could “end those Muslims before they walked in.”

All … right.

Did he really mean that? Does he really mean that “more good people” should be carrying weapons to kill Muslims?

Jerry Jr. says he didn’t mean that. He says he was referring to radical Islamic terrorists. OK, but he didn’t say that. According to the Washington Post: “I just wanted to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course,” he said. “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.”

By “they,” does he mean Muslims, or just those who commit acts of terror?

It’s not entirely clear to me.

Falwell’s language defies understanding.

I get that he’s angry and frightened over what has just occurred in San Bernardino. But I have trouble grasping that a leader of a prominent Christian university would actually use such inflammatory language to whip up a crowd in the manner that he reportedly did in his speech at Liberty U.

Virginia’s governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, said this in a statement: “My administration is committed to making Virginia an open and welcoming Commonwealth, while also ensuring the safety of all of our citizens. Mr. Falwell’s rash and repugnant comments detract from both of those crucial goals. Those of us in leadership positions, whether in government or education, must take care to remember the tremendous harm that can result from reckless words.”

Yes, I know that Falwell’s message will resonate with many other Americans.

Such a message, however, simply saddens me at a time when millions of Americans are filled with overwhelming sadness over our nation’s latest mass-shooting tragedy.

Evolution, creationism? Why not both?

Problems-with-the-Creationism-vs-Science-Debate

Polls occasionally drive me a bit crazy.

Take the one discussed in a Slate.com article that says young Americans favor Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution over the belief that God created the world in six calendar days.

May we hit the pause button for a moment?

I am a Christian. I’ve read the Bible many times in my life. I know what the Bible says about how the world came to be.

I also believe that the world was populated by dinosaurs and other creatures for zillions of years before human beings made themselves known.

Thus, I believe that the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Is it possible that God created the world and allowed it to evolve into what it has become? I believe that is precisely what occurred.

The Slate article was written by Rachel E. Gross, who it is clear to me believes exclusively in Darwin’s theory. She writes: “Now, at long last, there seems to be hope: National polls show that creationism is beginning to falter, and Americans are finally starting to move in favor of evolution. After decades of legal battles, resistance to science education, and a deeply rooted cultural divide, evolution may be poised to win out once and for all.”

She adds: “The people responsible for this shift are the young. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, 73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009, the first year in which the question was asked. The number who believed in purely secular evolution (that is, not directed by any divine power) jumped from 40 percent to a majority of 51 percent. In other words, if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God.”

Read the whole story here

I get the divide over how to teach science in classrooms. Fundamentalists want to teach creationism as it is written in the Bible. They also want to present evolution as just as much of a theory as creationism. This issue has been kicked around at the highest level of public education governance in many states, none more so arguably than in Texas, where we elect State Board of Education members who run for the office as politicians.

Creationism, though, is a religious doctrine. Evolution is a secular one. That doesn’t mean — to my way of thinking — that one of them is invalid.

What it means to me is that the biblical version of creation was written as a metaphor. “Days” can’t be measured in 24-hour increments; for that matter, it might be possible that every element of time takes on meanings that we cannot comprehend.

Does any of this discount the role that God played in creating our world? Not in the least.

As for whether we should teach creationism in our public schools alongside evolution, well, I do not believe that’s appropriate.

Creationism should be taught in places of worship, which I also believe also is part of God’s plan.