Category Archives: religious news

Let’s not condemn them all

ku-klux-klan_3153153b

The image that jumps out at me from this picture might not be what you think it is.

It’s not the low-life cloaked in that robe. It is the burning crosses in the background.

What do the crosses symbolize? Well, I suppose you can say they represent Christianity’s holiest symbol, the crucifix on which Jesus Christ lost his earthly life.

Yet the Ku Klux Klansman pictured here no doubt proclaims he burned those crosses to stand up for “Christian values.” Isn’t that what those loons proclaim?

Well, as a practicing Christian, I do not consider them in any shape or form to represent my faith. They are outliers in the extreme.

So, too — in my view — are the terrorists who commit their horrible acts today in the name of Islam.

And yet …

There are individuals around the world — including Americans, some of whom are friends of mine — who continue to tar all Muslims with the same brush with which they are painting the monsters who commit hideous crimes against humanity.

This prejudice and bigotry goes far beyond declarations by state governors, such as Greg Abbott in Texas, that seek to ban refugees from Syria from entering their states. They are concerned over whether some so-called refugee is a closet terrorist seeking to deliver more misery.

The bigotry being displayed by many against all Muslims is no more acceptable than it would be to label all Christians as believing in the hatred that is spread by Klansmen.

Yes, the Islamic State carries the name “Islam” in its own label. It does not, however, represent the tenets of what remains one of the world’s great religions. It is a murderous cult that has perverted Islam’s teachings to suit the demented ends of a terrorist organization.

And that, I do believe, cuts straight to the view that’s been expressed by the nation’s two most recent presidents — Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama — that the war in which we are engaged is not a war against Islam.

It is a war against murderous perverts.

Muslims are Target No. 1

muslims

A little perspective might be in order as the world ponders how it should respond to the Islamic State’s most recent act of terror.

It is that the Islamic State has killed more Muslims than anyone else.

The Muslim death count far outnumbers those of Christians and Jews. Thus, it falls on Muslims to express their fear and hatred of the Islamic State … which is what we’re hearing in the wake of the Paris attacks.

It was barely a week before the Paris attacks that ISIL terrorists struck in Beirut, Lebanon; 43 people, mostly — if not entirely — Muslims, died in that carnage. Yet the world hardly took notice, at least compared to the way it has responded to the Paris massacre.

Muslims are condemning the attacks. Yet for reasons that no one can yet explain to my satisfaction, the media are giving those condemnations little attention. It’s being left, then, to many political observers — and that include those sitting way up yonder in the peanut gallery — to wonder aloud, “Why don’t Muslims speak out?”

Well, they are speaking out. They hate ISIL as much as, say, Christians and Jews do. And with good reason. ISIL is killing many more Muslims than any other religious group.

So, before some of us declare war on Islam and those who follow the Islamic faith, let’s lock arms with those who have the most to fear from the terror cabal … the Islamic State.

That would be the international Muslim community that wants to see the Islamic State eradicated as much as the rest of us.

 

Phony ‘war on Christmas’ about to re-commence

war on xmas

On Nov. 30, 2013, I posted a blog item about the bogus “war on Christmas” that the conservative media keep telling us is occurring.

I’ll share it again here:

Shoppers declare war

The right-wing media no doubt are going to remind us yet again that secular society has declared war on the spiritual significance of the Christmas season and that Christians shouldn’t fall for what secularists are trying to foist on us.

Starbucks is the latest bogeyman. I keep reading something about those simple red coffee cups where one can order their “venti” peppermint mochas with a double shot of espresso and extra whipped cream. No mention of Christmas on the cups. They’re just red. I guess some folks are upset by it.

I will continue to maintain until the moment I check out of this world that the real warriors in this phony war are those who do battle on the retail floor with others in search of the cherished toys for their children or grandchildren.

Who are the instigators of this ridiculousness? The retailers.

Blame them, will you?

 

Hey, didn’t JFK settle this religious thing already?

deadstate-Ben-Carson

I’ve always thought — or hoped, at least — that John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech in Houston settled the notion that a candidate’s religion should have no bearing on whether he could serve as president of the United States.

He told some Protestant clergy that the Vatican would not dictate to the Catholic candidate how he should govern, that he would swear to be faithful only to the U.S. Constitution.

Well, silly me. The issue is coming up again. The target this time is Dr. Ben Carson, the famed neurosurgeon whose faith is of the Seventh-day Adventist variety.

Donald Trump raised the issue the other day in typical tactless Trump fashion. Now comes a well-known lefty commentator, David Corn, editor of Mother Jones, to wonder aloud whether Carson’s faith would inform the way he would govern should he “take control of the government.”

This is a ridiculous debate.

First of all, presidents don’t control the government. We have this notion that power is spread among two other governmental branches — the courts and the Congress.

The Constitution says there should be “no religious test” for candidates seeking any public office. That includes the presidency.

Yes, Carson has brought up his own faith. He’s talked about how his faith would guide him. He hasn’t said he would toss the Constitution aside any more than then-Sen. Kennedy said he would more than five decades ago.

Corn is playing to voters’ fears when he says of Carson: “Now, he is running on the basis that he has faith. And I think it’s going to open, you know, a big can here. Because, you know, he does come from a church that believes in end times, prophesies, and he’s said he believes in the church’s teachings.”

A simple declarative question is in order: Dr. Carson, do you vow to uphold the law under the Constitution of the United States?

I believe he’s already pledged to do so.

 

Faith should be off limits on the campaign trail

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

I keep coming back to a simple phrase in the U.S. Constitution.

Article VI says there will be “no religious test” for anyone seeking public office.

Isn’t that clear? As in crystal clear?

Why, then, is Donald Trump injecting faith in the Republican Party’s presidential primary campaign by questioning whether one of his opponents, Ben Carson, worships outside the mainstream?

Trump proclaimed the other day he is a Presbyterian. “I’m Presbyterian. Boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.”

Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist.

How does this guy get away with saying these things about his political adversaries?

A candidate’s faith is supposed to be off the table. The Constitution — the document that politicians, Democrat and Republican and alike say they revere — lays it out there in stark terms. There must be “no religious test.”

Trump, though, flouts his professed respect for the Constitution while questioning whether another candidate’s faith is mainstream enough to suit the voters both men are courting as they fight for their party’s presidential nomination.

What’s more … the guy is getting away with it!

God help us …

 

Hate gives way to … tolerance

islam

An anti-Muslim rally planned for Saturday didn’t materialize in little ol’ Amarillo.

It was billed as a protest against Islam and was going to take place at an Islamic Center on South Soncy Road. What happened, though, was something quite remarkable.

It became a rally in support of those of varying religious faiths. Imagine that. The 100 or so demonstrators were arguing in favor of what the U.S. Constitution lays out there, which is that all faiths are to share honor equally in this country.

The anti-Muslim protest not only fizzled; it never got lit.

The Islamic center is the project of Dr. Ali Jaffar, a renowned physician in Amarillo, who built the center to honor his late mother.

I recall distinctly when it was going up some comments I heard from acquaintances of mine who — are you ready for this? — were certain that the center would become a “place where they could train terrorists.”

My response? Sure it is. They’re going to train the bad guys to do evil things in a place where everyone on Earth can see it.

Well, such nutty “thinking” — and I use the term loosely — was supposed to resurface again this weekend.

It didn’t. Instead it gave way to a more reasonable and rational world view.

Thank goodness.

 

Texas AG speaks to the faithful

faith

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been quiet lately … since his indictment in Collin County on charges of securities fraud.

The case hasn’t yet been settled. Paxton, though, spoke to a conservative political group, Texas Values, and asserted that Christians are being “marginalized” in public life.

I believe I’ll disagree with him on that.

Paxton calls for Christians to seek public office

I agree with the attorney general that people of faith should run. They should rely on their faith to inform their decisions. I cannot question either of those two notions that Paxton put forward.

Then again, I welcome people without faith to run as well. This country belongs to them as much as it belongs to believers.

Moreover, I have to draw the line on the idea that the so-called “marginalization” is anything new.

The U.S. Constitution has been quite clear on the role that faith should play in government. The founders knew what they were doing when they omitted the very word “religion” in the document. The only reference comes in Article VI, which declares that “no religious test” shall be applied to candidates running for public office.

Isn’t that crystal clear? It is to me.

Not to Paxton, apparently.

According to the Texas Tribune: “It’s important to understand opponents of religious liberty aren’t going away anytime soon,” said Paxton, a Republican, as he spoke to a crowd of about 100 people gathered at Pflugerville’s First Baptist Church. “We must refuse to be marginalized in the name of political correctness.”

Political correctness? What’s he talking about?

Religious liberty is a comprehensive term. It means different things to different people. To some, it means that we should be free to practice whatever faith we wish. To others, sadly, it means believing only in the faith they worship, as many Muslim-Americans have learned over the years when they encounter protests from non-Muslims.

And to even more Americans, the term “religious liberty” means being guaranteed the right to not worship any faith at all.

I do not believe what Paxton said in Pflugerville that there’s been an “ugly and frightening turn of events” that turns on people of faith who seek and hold public office.

If he’s referring to that Kentucky county clerk who refuses to grant marriage licenses to gay couples — and I suspect that’s Paxton’s point of reference — I’ll just remind him that she took an oath to serve all the residents of her county.

Even those who are gay.

 

Why the fuss over ‘God’ decal?

decal

“In God We Trust,” according to some folks, is a religious statement.

The way I interpret the phrase is that it has become almost a stock line, a virtual clichĂ©. It now adorns the police cruisers in at least two Texas Panhandle communities — in Childress and Hutchinson counties. The phrase has drawn criticism from anti-religious zealots.

My question is this: Can’t you find more worthy opponents to take on?

Dallas Morning News blogger Jim Mitchell has weighed in with his view that the phrase doesn’t belong on police cars.

In God We Trust can be found on our currency and on public building. Mitchell has no problem with that.

My only gripe about the phrase on police cars is that the cops could have chosen another phrase to place on its cars. How about “To Protect and Serve”?

But the phrase “In God We Trust” doesn’t, in my mind, say anything offensive. The term doesn’t suggest that cops are going to interrogate motorists they pull over about their religious faith, or ask them if they believe in God.

The phrase appears to be merely a statement that the relevant police agency trusts in God — which, incidentally, can be an ecumenical deity that takes in people of various faiths.

As for those with have no faith in God, well, the phrase means nothing to them. That’s fine, too.

But to protest it? Get a life … please.

Listen to the pope on climate change

climate-change

Pope Francis’s critics are fond of dismissing his concern about climate change because, they contend, he “is not a scientist.”

Well, actually, he does have some background in science.

But the point here really is the utter lack of self-awareness from politicians who deny climate change largely on the basis that those who have concern about lack a background in the science that researches such issues.

The deniers would do well to ask themselves: Is our denial of climate change on any stronger scientific footing than those with whom we disagree on this issue?

Pope has science background

The debate over climate change veers into these distractions from time to time. The pope comes to America and delivers a wide-ranging message that covers a lot of topics. Climate change is one of them.

Pope Francis is an intelligent man who, I reckon, has done his share of reading on the important issues of the day. His critics have done their reading as well; of that I have zero doubt.

Let us not dismiss someone’s view of a critical issue that could have worldwide repercussions simply because — in the words of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush — he’s just a “religious leader.”

Pope Francis called on Congress to be courageous and aggressive in working with the rest of the world on climate change. Yes, the cause of that change remains a source of intense debate: is it manmade or part of Earth’s cycle? The consensus, though, seems to be growing that humankind has played a large role in the gradual warming of the planet’s temperatures over many decades.

The Holy Father — a former chemist — is one of those who believes humans need to step up to clean up the mess we have made of the only planet we have.

 

Pope steps into U.S. political struggle

francis

Pope Francis got a lot of love from Americans during his whirlwind trip to the United States.

Much of it is deserved. I join many others in applauding the Holy Father’s humanity and humility.

Then he said something today that I find, well, not quite so praiseworthy. He said upon returning to the Vatican that U.S. elected officials have the right to object to performing their duties on matters of conscience.

At issue: gay marriage.

Your Holiness, I believe you are mistaken.

Francis gets it wrong

There, I said it. I hope I’m not struck down for criticizing the pope.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every judicial structure, because it is a right,” he told reporters while flying to Rome.

Fans and allies of embattled Rowan (Ky.) County Clerk Kim Davis are no doubt cheering the pontiff. She has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the basis of her religious faith, which she said opposes gay marriage.

The pope agrees with her, which is his right.

Back to his point about “conscientious objection.” Americans who get elected to public office take a secular oath, even though many of the oaths instruct them to say “so help me God.” Still, the standard oath doesn’t give officeholders the option to object to doing certain duties because their conscience won’t allow it.

It’s a secular oath that binds the officeholder to upholding the laws of the land.

The Supreme Court upheld a challenge to a law — in Kentucky — that banned gay marriage. A gay couple sued and the high court ruled earlier this year that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for gay couples who want to marry.

So, the county clerk must follow the law.

She is free to quit her public job. She also is free to campaign as a private citizen to make gay marriage illegal. Contrary to what the Holy Father believes, though, Davis or any other public official isn’t free to invoke his or her personal belief in the performance of their public duty — when it discriminates against Americans.

Surely His Holiness knows this.

Hey, I still love the guy.