B U L L E T I N

PLEASE VISIT www.CenterforPluralism.com for all information - Please note that this site was Foundation for Pluralism before

-----------------------------

Showing posts with label Buddhist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buddhist. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

TEXAS FAITH: Is religious freedom under attack in America?



Indeed, every group feels that their religious liberty is under attack. Is there a time in history when a group did not feel threatened by co-religionists, other religions and the governments? Here is a short history and possible solutions.

This a weekly column at Dallas Morning News, here is Mike’s contribution on the topic.

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

Indeed, every group feels that their religious liberty is under attack. Is there a time in history when a group did not feel threatened by co-religionists, other religions and the governments? Here is a short history and possible solutions.

Jews have always been under attack. They felt at home in Spain, which was destroyed by butcher Ferdinand. Then, they felt at home in Germany, but the Holocaust tore them apart and their belief in humanity was shattered. Every day, they have to be on guard. Someone or another is making anti-Semitic comments.

Fred Phelps was in Dallas in July 2010 demonstrating hate against Jews. The anti-circumcision bills in San Francisco and Santa Monica in 2011 were irritants. Last month in Houston, the Jewish academy could not participate in a basketball game. It was set on Saturday, most Jews refrain from activity that day. Indeed, it is restricting their freedom to practice their religion by exclusion and being insensitive to their faith.

Hindus are an open game to evangelists. A few years ago, a Baptist convention made a declaration to harvest the "Poor Hindu souls". This year, Russians made a serious attempt to ban Bhagvad Gita, the Hindu Holy Book. In November 2011, a Kentucky state senator attacked Hinduism as an idolatrous belief. California textbooks portrayed Hinduism in negative light, so the battle is still on. There is a debate among Indians: Had Bobby Jindal of Hindu parents and Nikki Haley of Sikh parents practiced their faiths, and not converted to Christianity, would they have become governors?

Sikhs had to fight with Arizona to keep the name of a Sikh 9/11 victim on a memorial wall. Wicca had to fight for the headstone in Arlington Memorial Cemetery for those who died serving America. Of course, there are enough stories about Native Americans, atheists and others.

Muslim Americans strongly feel the noose tightening on their freedom. Most restrictions are coming out of sheer ignorance and a false understanding of what their faith is about, as they practice in America rather than Saudi Arabia or Iran. The senators and representatives who have initiated anti-Sharia bills can't even tell what they are opposing.

The irony is neither the organizations nor the Muslims are seeking Sharia to be a part of the American law. All they are asking is to have options to square personal matters between family members through a jury, mediation, court hearing or the Sharia guidelines. Indeed, it is no different than the option of Jews using Halaqa in their personal conflicts or going to a psychologist for counseling.

Most Christian denominations have been under attack by fellow Christians. Missionaries were unforgivably cruel to natives around the world, including America. Most of the groups that infringe on the freedom of others have also been a victim.

The Catholic diocese has rightly filed the law suit protesting the Government's intrusion in the practice of their faith that the employers provide workers free contraceptives. This is the right thing to do - to stand up for the freedom of religion. As a Muslim I have stood up for freedom of every religious group, in this case with the Catholic Church. Indeed, it was good to see evangelical leader Richard Land make the same pledge along with me on Sean Hannity Radio.

In summary, the issues are about whether a majority - or the government - can arrogantly push vulnerable ones into obeying.

We need to build an America where no one is apprehensive or afraid of the other. Each one of us needs to feel home, a home where everyone can drop his or her guards and lives freely.

It is our duty to safeguard the liberties endowed by our creator to practice our beliefs. It behooves for us to stand up for each other, why should anyone stand up for you, if you are not willing to do the same for them?

To see all the contributors, please visit Dallas Morning news at:http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/05/texas-faith-is-religious-freed.html
. . . . .

MikeGhouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blog www.TheGhousediary.com is updated daily.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Bottom line prayers (wishes)

Prayers and wishes could be synonyms, when I pray for you or wish for you, the essence is similar. However if we call it prayers, some of our humanist brothers and sisters may feel excluded as prayers are usually associated with asking God to shower his blessings. However, if we call it a wish, we may have more inclusiveness in it. For linguistic purposes, I will use the word prayer to mean both prayers and wishes.

Years ago when my son Jeffrey was about eleven and my daughter Jasmina was six, I took them to every place of worship from Baha’i to Zoroastrian and every one in between. Invariably they would ask, “Dad, what are they saying?’ As a parent, I learned to translate those wishes in the most simplistic language for them and not get flabergasted to the likes of the question, " how were we born?"

In every religious tradition the meaning remains nearly the same;

- Thanking the Causer
- Praising the Lord
- Singing in the glory of the creator
- God is Pure
- God is the Creator
- God is the Nourisher
- God is the Sustainer
- Supplications
- Forgiveness
- Confessions
- Seeking help
- Wishing well for others

No matter how you translate, you could not veer off from the messages above. Of course the humility is signified with bowing, kneeling or prostrating or simply closing the eyes, different acts but the same value to the performer.

My kids and I have been to just about every place of worship, however my son missed the Synagogue and both of them have missed out visiting the Native traditions, the Ismaili and Bohra places of worship. My daughter however has been a witness to the conversation on Atheism or Humanism on my Radio shows which he missed. The idea is for them to know about various traditions and be open to the beauty of each one of them and prepare them to look at other humans being with dignity. We have to consciously create a better world.

These are some of the places we have been to;

- Bahais (Ben Moghaddas’s home),
- Buddhist (Grand Prairie, Richardson),
- Christian (Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic and Mormon)
- Hindu (Main temple, Swami Narayan, Caribbean, Hare Krishna),
- Jain (Richardson)
- Jewish (Temple Shalom & Emanuel)
- Islam (Richardson, Carrollton, Irving, Allen (Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyya)
- Sikh (Garland)
- Zoroastrian (Home and other places)

A NEW BEGINNING IN RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE

Around 1994, my daughter and I were in the Dallas/ Fort Worth Hindu Temple. We were in the midst of the devotional songs in the sanctuary and as usual my little girl would get on her knees and look around as if no one is watching her and then whisper the standard question in my ears, to which I reel off.... God is the Nourisher, sustaine... sweeite they are saying to thank God for the life. OMG, I want those moments back in my life… how much I loved those tender moments!
She could not contain her excitement, right in the middle of the Bhajans, the six year old stands up with her eyes wide open, and in an excited voice blurts out, “Gee Dad, that’s cool, God can be worshipped in so many different ways!” Indeed that sentence has become a part of my teaching in Pluralism. Pluralism is simply respecting the otherness of other and appreciating the god given uniqueness of each one of the seven billion of us.

We can learn from children, they are pure, they see the beauty in diversity and cherish everywhich way one worships the divine.

I will leave you with this thought; as we would not give them rotten and stale food, why would we bias them towards fellow beings?

Here is something you can start, when you talk with your children inluding the grown up children, don’t upload them with hatred or ill-will towards any human or any religion. Can you do that?

The bottom line of your prayers and wishes is for the other person to be at peace and be happy.

My next essay will deal with our responsibility to raise Children with no malice. I will be happy to share and speak with your friends, place of worship, a family gathering or an office on how to co-exist in harmony by identifying real conflicts and not so real conflicts. We honor God by honoring every which way one acknowledges the causer of the universe.

God bless you.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer, optimist, educator and an activist of Pluralism, Justice, Islam, India, Peace and Civil Societies. He is a conflict mitigater and a goodwill nurturer offering pluralistic solutions on issues of the day and is a frequent guest on the media. Mike's work is reflected at three websites & twenty two Blogs listed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Friday, August 1, 2008

Ban on Atheists

http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/08/ban-on-atheists.html

Council ban on atheist websites

How insecure is the council? Are they afraid that by looking at Atheists sites, one would give up his or her faith? If so, let them.

If the council can produce a letter from God, signed by God himself (herself or itself) tellilng the council to ban the atheist, I would accept the letter. God will not do such a thing, neither God will sign a letter behind any one's back.

Every one of us is an atheist at one moments of the life or the other. Mother Teressa was the courageous one to admit. Belief in God also producues disbeleif, one has to figure out what works for him or her.

If these fascist believe that Atheism equates immorality, they are wrong. Morality is a product of the society, either stamped by God through the religious texts or simply the practice to survieve.

God has created every soul and we need to honor his space both spritual and physical. Being an Atheist is not a crime, as much as being a Chritian, Hindu, Muslim, Bahai, Buddhist, Jew, Wicca, Sikh, Shinot, Zoroastrian, Hope, Aztec, Toltec, Zulu is not a crime. Crime is when one murders the other, invades the space of other, robs the belongings of others and that must be punished by the civil understandings of the society.

As a Muslim, I protests this ruling. Every one has the exact same right for space in this cosmos.

Mike Ghouse


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7530519.stm

A city council has blocked its staff from looking at websites about atheism.
Lawyers at the National Secular Society said the move by Birmingham City Council was "discriminatory" and they would consider legal action.

The rules also ban sites that promote witchcraft, the paranormal, sexual deviancy and criminal activity.

The city council declined to comment on the possible legal action, but said the new system helped make it easier for managers to monitor staff web access.
'Very strong case'

The authority's Bluecoat WebFilter computer system allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".
Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief, which includes atheism.
National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson said the city council's rules also discriminated against people who practise witchcraft, which is also classed as a legitimate belief.
We feel very strongly that people who don't believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got

Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society

He said the society would initially contact the council and ask for the policy to be changed, and otherwise pursue legal action.

He said he believed he would have a "very strong case".
Mr Sanderson said: "It is discriminatory not only against atheists but they also are banning access to sites to do with witchcraft.

"Witchcraft these days is called Wicca, which is an actual legitimate and recognised religion.
"We feel very strongly that people who don't believe should not be denied the access that people who do believe have got."

He added that some opinion polls said that up to 25% of the UK population now considered themselves atheist.

A city council statement said the authority had a "long-standing internet usage policy for staff".
It added: "We are currently implementing new internet monitoring software to make the control of internet access easier to manage.

"The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons."

------------------------------
'Respect atheists', says cardinal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7390941.stm
The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem".

Believers may be partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a "fact in the world", he said in a lecture.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers.

But the leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales said that Britain must not become "a God-free zone".

The cardinal's lecture at Westminster Cathedral comes after a spate of public clashes over issues such as stem-cell research, gay adoption and faith schools.
Mystery of God

He expressed concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life, saying: "Our life together in Britain cannot be a God-free zone and we must not allow Britain to become a world devoid of religious faith and its powerful contribution to the common good."
Later, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme why he thought it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone.

He said saying that "supposedly faithless societies" ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin, ripe for "terror and oppression".
Proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

Last year, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor complained of a "new secularist intolerance of religion" and the state's "increasing acceptance" of anti-religious views.
To stem this tide, he said Christians must understand they have something in common with those who do not believe.

God is not a "fact in the world" as though God could be treated as "one thing among other things to be empirically investigated" and affirmed or denied on the "basis of observation", said Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor.

"If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative.

"I want to encourage people of faith to regard those without faith with deep esteem because the hidden God is active in their lives as well as in the lives of those who believe." There's absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, 'I believe it because I believe it'.

Richard Dawkins, scientist
'Imaginary friend'
But Richard Dawkins, scientist, staunch atheist and author of books including The God Delusion, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the cardinal's comments carried no weight.
Referring to God as an "imaginary friend", Mr Dawkins said: "When talking to a politician you would demand proof for what they say, but suddenly when talking to a clergyman you don't have to provide evidence.

"There's absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, 'I believe it because I believe it.'
"God either exists or he doesn't. It's a matter of the truth."

Speaking later on Radio 4, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor answered those criticisms. He said: "I think there are a number of people in this country who would like to marginalise religion.
"They would much prefer not to see religion as neutral, but to neutralise it.
"And there are unbelievers who construct their own God in order to demolish him."
Of claims that faith has no basis in reason, he replied: "To believe in God is not unreasonable."


Should religion and politics mix?

The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has called for abortion to become an issue in the general election.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor said Tory leader Michael Howard's call for a reduction in the legal time limit for abortions was "a step in the right direction".
And he urged voters to consider the right-to-life at the ballot box.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said there were no plans to change the law but "debate would continue". And he said abortion should be a matter of conscience, not party politics.
Do you agree with Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor? Could abortion issues change your vote? Should it be a matter of conscience or party politics?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.


The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
SUGGEST A DEBATE
This topic was suggested by Al, Coventry, UK
Should abortion be a political issue or a matter for the individual's conscience?



Send us your suggestions for Have Your Say debates
Absolutely not! If we allow religion to dictate how we live our lives we will be taking a step back into the Medieval ages! It should be up to the woman to decide, with a guiding hand from our government, and no input from any religious group!
Riordan Tomlinson, Lancashire, England
I'm not sure where Bob from Portsmouth gets the idea that the Catholic Church is a minority religion from. There are over 5 million Catholics in the country, with 1 million regularly attending church (which is the same number of Anglicans attending church). It is also worth noting that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious organisation in the world with over 1 billion members.
Jamie Reeves, Hounslow, UK
The decisions that affect the way our country runs should be based on cold hard facts not feelings or beliefs. This country needs a clear separation from the rule of law and the rule of god. Our politicians need to rule with their heads not with their hearts.
Michael Joslin, New Malden, UK
Religion and politics should never mix. Religion is a personal choice and should never be used in regards to decision making for the whole population.
Duncan Wilkins, Stevenage UK
Here we go, let's blame the big bad Roman Catholic Church for everything yet again

Sarah, Scotland
Here we go, let's blame the big bad Roman Catholic Church for everything yet again, as Britain is one big "godless" society. The simple point is, if a premature baby is born at 24 weeks and someone crept into the hospital and turned it's incubator off, that person would be tried for murder. But yet that same baby would still be allowed to be killed in the womb. That is the cold hard facts and that's what we are dealing with.
Sarah, Scotland
If the church decides to criticise and get involved in politic debate, then it must be prepared to get attacked back and this is something the hypocritical church will not be happy about.
Colin Grant, Manchester, UK
The problem isn't that he has a point of view but that his position in a religious body gives his opinion more weight than it ought to have. If my next door neighbour made the same remarks nobody would pay any notice at all. In a secular democracy does religion have the right to this much air time?
Chris G., Cambridge UK
God preserve us from a country where religious and moral issues dominate the political scene!
Rosemary Seton, London, UK
The Queen isn't allowed to vote in elections or to make her political views public. If she were to do so, it could unduly influence the outcome of elections. I think that religious "leaders", of all faiths, should abide by the same rules.
Rob, London, UK
Cardinal O'Connor has just as much a right to free speech as anyone

Christy, St Louis, USA
Cardinal O'Connor has just as much a right to free speech as anyone. The repeated attempts of secularists to take those rights away from people of faith amounts to religious persecution. The civil rights movement in the US was lead by clergymen. What if they had been silenced by the "politics and religion shouldn't mix" dogma?
Christy, St Louis, USA
Abortion should always be a matter for the individual. The facility should be there but it is up to the woman to decide whether to take it or not. I am old enough to remember the back street abortionists and the damage they caused. That is where we would return to should the Catholic church have it's way.
John, France
It is right to bring it into the debate. It is also right not to make it a party political issue and leave it as a free vote.
J Caruana, Chatham, Kent
This is not a political matter, yes it could sway votes. This subject should be left to the individual who have to live with the decision, and the doctors who carry out the procedures!
Catherine Edwards, Alloa, Scotland
Abortion policy is one of the main issues which will affect my vote. Politics is about the governance of daily life. If we, as a society, don't protect each other from the moment of conception, who will be left to vote!
Clare Ward, London
I reserve the right to ignore any laws that pass that are based on a religion that is not my own

Andy, Stafford, UK
As a member of our great free and democratic society, I reserve the right to ignore any laws that pass that are based on a religion that is not my own. I will not have the beliefs of others forced upon me by the state!
Andy, Stafford, UK
If the Catholic Church rethought its ban on birth control, perhaps fewer women would be in the position of contemplating an abortion. Remember also that the Catholic Church condemns the use of condoms in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, thus condemning thousands do die, while maintaining the stance that it is Pro-Life!
HD, London, UK
Interestingly such debate was not had when the Church entered the political arena against euthanasia. Because the unborn child is unseen, does not diminish its right to life. The Church does not judge or condemn, but it must express its moral conviction on such topics (as did all other religious groups, with the notable exclusion of the CoE), without their teachings where would society be? I am pleased the Cardinal spoke up, keep up the great work.
Paul O'Callaghan, London, UK
The Cardinal is allowed his own opinion based on his faith but that should not be pushed onto other people who have a different faith or idea. It should be a down to the personal opinion of the mother (and father) involved rather than a political party. The only way abortion would change my vote is if a party wanted to ban abortion altogether and therefore remove a persons choice.
Emma M, Lichfield, Staffordshire
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the debate itself, I do find it quite interesting that the vast majority of comments appear to come from the male population, none of whom will ever be put in the position of having to contemplate an abortion!
Jill Wood, Midlothian, Scotland
Religion and politics mix in many developing nations in the world to the detriment of the people who have to live under their oppressive regimes. Just taking that one element of the issue I don't think the two should mix.
Gavin, London
There are so many things to consider when making your choice who to vote for and this would just complicate things even further

Ruth Walters, Essex
I feel this should not be a matter for party politics! There are so many things to consider when making your choice who to vote for and this would just complicate things even further. I am sure someone told me once that only at around 24 weeks gestation can you pick up certain mal formations or syndromes in the foetus/baby.
This should be a matter for the doctors and parents to decide. I am a mother of two and take this matter very seriously indeed. I value the life of the unborn dearly but to bring a dreadfully handicapped child into this world is too cruel. Life is difficult enough! Religion has a lot to answer for. Why create more misery?
Ruth Walters, Romford, Essex
Can't these religious people keep their opinions to themselves. We see often enough the result that their beliefs have in Catholic Ireland with young girls having to come to this great free country of ours to have abortions. So what does this head of which is a minority religion in this country expect, all that would happen is back street abortion with the obvious medical problems or girls taking a trip to the continent.
Before he starts spouting his opinions in the future perhaps he should look at the size of the churches congregations to gauge the public opinion of these outdated religious beliefs. Who elected him anyway?
Bob Bebbington, Portsmouth, England
I think abortion should be a political agenda. I support the Cardinal of Westminster.
Danelia Cardona, Chichester, UK
In an overwhelmingly secular country, religion has absolutely no place in politics. These people don't know better than the rest of us, they are not elected by the population and should stick to preaching to their own and not the rest of us.
Liz, Cambridgeshire
The only way to break the link between religion and politics is to stop religious people voting: either by stopping them from being religious or taking away their franchise. Stalin tried this: the result was not the atheist paradise some people here seem to think would result from separating religion from politics.
Simon Richardson, London, UK
Religion is a political matter. I believe as strongly in my morals, brought on by my socialist outlook, as any Christian believes in their morals. If the mass populace chooses to make abortion an issue then it should be, but frankly, I don't think enough people care enough about changing abortion laws in this country.
Jack, Milton, UK
We need to tread very carefully, understanding that the Catholic Church has a repressive viewpoint that can be seen as un-democratic. Abortion is a very emotive subject matter and needs to be treated with great care. Right-to-life is one side, right-to-choice is the other and these viewpoints will not be bridged.
The Church needs to respect this and not make the question of abortion an election issue, or to try to influence due process by telling the faithful how to vote. That sort of influence is not democratic and is a step backwards to the old ways of social hierarchy.
George Hinton, Twickenham, Middlesex
If politics and religion mix the problems arise of what religions and what issues. Catholics may want a ban on abortions. The Islamic community may want headscarves worn by all women in public. The Church of England may decide it wants to stop Sunday trading. A religious person might be happy to have their religious issues as part of the state law, but would they really be willing to accept the issues of other religions? Draw the line and stop the mix - it will only make a mess.
Ajana Zabel, Singapore, ex-UK
Cormac Murphy O'Connor's statements were irresponsible and overreach his remit as Archbishop of Westminster

Matt, UK
Religion is by its very nature dogmatic and not given to compromise, the very stuff of politics. To encourage religious perspectives to enter into mainstream politics is to threaten to undo fifty years of progress in the tolerance we now enjoy. Additionally, religiously motivated voting undermines democracy by handing more power to the leaders of voting-blocks under their control.
Cormac Murphy O'Connor's statements were irresponsible and overreach his remit as Archbishop of Westminster. Church and state should be rigidly separated or we risk falling into the same trap as the US, leading to derision and policies that disregard anyone who is not a member of whichever particular faith holds most sway.
Matt, UK
I agree totally with the Cardinal. Abortion and right-to-life issues do change my vote and have done in the past. This is literally the most important issue of life and death the country faces. I would vote for (or against) a party depending on its policy on this, and would like to have the opportunity to do so.
Brin Dunsire, High Wycombe, England
Howard is trying to gain the backing of the Catholic Church in order to recruit new voters. He would rather jeopardise the physical and mental wellbeing of many thousands of women in the UK than risk losing another general election. It's a disgusting, cynical ploy that will ensure that for the first time ever, I do not vote Conservative.
Linda K, UK
I am a Catholic but I really can not agree with Cormac Murphy O'Connor. I feel that abortion, hard though it is, is unfortunately an imperfect solution to an imperfect world. You can not ignore key issues that often lead to an abortion and compassion should be shown at all stages. It is indeed a question for conscience and this move by some people to control everything in society is short sided and flawed.
Stefanie, Amiens
I count myself very lucky to have never been in the position where I have had to make a personal decision regarding an abortion and if I ever am I'm not sure what decision I would make. However, the main point is that it is a personal decision and that I would be able to make a choice. I am an adult and would make an informed decision. I could never support any political party that would take that choice away from me.
Emma, Warrington, UK
If we want to limit abortions in Britain, wouldn't proper sex education be a better answer than legislation?
Nigel Baldwin, Portsmouth UK
The right to life itself is surely the most important issue of all. Politicians who deny that the electorate should have a say over the issue of abortion are being extremely arrogant. Surely all voters have a right, and indeed a duty, to inquire how election candidates will vote on the issue. That's democracy - the British people have never had the chance to have a proper say on the issue.
Tom Rogers, Lincoln
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't agree with a religious leader using that platform to make political points. While the moral structure of our society may have its roots in Christianity, the fact is we have a secular political and democratic process.
I totally disagree with religious leaders interfering in this way, assuming that they speak for others. Surely one of the main causes of the problems in the Middle East is the inability to separate religion from politics. Do we want to live in a Westernised version of Iran?
Mark Malik, Teesside, UK
Religion and law have always been inextricably linked: are not most laws based on the Ten Commandments?

Lenny P, Guildford
Religion and law have always been inextricably linked: are not most laws based on the Ten Commandments? Add to that the right of the Cardinal to voice his opinion on the matter, personal or dogmatic. However, in pushing the subject to be an election matter he has gone too far in meddling in politics. Separation of state and church is a must in the modern, multicultural and secular UK.
Lenny P, Guildford
Whether people like it or not, religion and politics do mix. People's religious convictions are going to influence their political views and they shouldn't be expected to sweep their views under the carpet. It's our democratic right to voice our opinions, whether those convictions are based on religious and political views or not.
Trebor
I was shocked to learn that there are women who use abortion as an alternative to contraception. But obviously, if the mother's life is at risk abortion would be justifiable. But all I hear these days is a 'woman's right to choose'. Yet none of them mention the child's right to live. Let's hear a little more of women's responsibilities! Yes. I fully support Cardinal Cormac's comments. Politics and religion go hand in hand.
Roger, Britain
Let America be a warning! The evangelical Christians are in charge, and the whole country is sharply divided over the issue, despite the constitutional split between Church and State. Do we want religionists running the country?
Mark J, London/ US expat
Should religion and politics mix? Of course they should! Everyone, even the atheist, has a religious point of view. To ban anyone with a religious point of view from political debate would be to ban everyone!
Andrew, Herts
Abortion should be a choice for those responsible

Lee, Hastings
The matter of abortion would never come into who I would vote for. Abortion should be a choice for those responsible. Politics and religion should not keep you imprisoned in making certain choices. I find it hard to take that abortion can be considered murder as I do not remember, nor have I ever met anyone who does, my time in mum's womb.
Lee, Hastings
The abortion question is not only a political question, but primarily an ethical one. Why wouldn't a religious person be allowed to contribute to the abortion debate? Because it is a social issue? To formulate the question in that form ("should religion and politics mix?") every time a religious person (cleric or lay) gives his opinion on a social issue is an attempt to isolate religion out of the spheres of society.
John, France
To say religion and politics shouldn't mix is silly. There are many issues that are important to voters in an area - perhaps due to their religion. Our whole calendar and year nomenclature is based on religion for goodness sake!
Martin, Glasgow
The various churches have been trying to present fairy tales and superstition as truth for centuries, in order to perpetuate their influence. Religion now is of only minority interest in this country. It should play no part in the political process.
Geoff, Bournemouth.
It is a somewhat selfish view that no-one can have abortions due to the views of one section of society

Steve, Loughborough, UK
Now that it seems religion is becoming untouchable and not up for criticism for it views the Church is taking advantage of this and trying to mould laws that just mirror their views and not those of the public in general. Just because abortions are available does not mean that Catholics have to have abortions. It is a somewhat selfish view that no-one can have abortions due to the views of one section of society.
Also, what is not mentioned regarding babies being able to live outside the womb earlier and earlier: this does not broach the act that very premature babies are prone to mental health problems and physical problems as their bodies have not fully developed and never will. Just because we can save these premature babies does not automatically mean we should.
Steve, Loughborough, UK
The Cardinal has made it plain that a reduction in the legal time limit is just the beginning. He will not be satisfied until abortion is abolished. It is important that all free-thinking men and women fight to stop the church taking away a woman's right to choose.
Roger Hart, Deal, UK
Without meaning to make a sweeping statement and give no credit to the younger generation, the fact is, we don't seem to vote. Hopefully, the public raising of issues such as abortion should engage the younger generation and actually prevent them from switching off at the sound of taxes, environment, asylum etc. Even though religion and politics shouldn't mix, they do and sometimes start heated debates. Maybe the discussion of topics which directly effect the younger generation or someone around them could be the push needed to vote.
Fay, Manchester
Secularists are hypocritical when they say the Church should not impose its values on society. That is exactly what they are doing when they say that. The issue is not about forcing anyone to have a certain faith or anything like that. The issue is about 6 million precious and perfect lives that have been destroyed in the UK since abortion became law in 1967. Therefore, I think it is a valid political issue. It amazes me how the same people who are strongly opposed to the death penalty for a convicted murderer are often the same people who are up for killing innocent babies.
Mike, London
The Cardinal's position - "a step in the right direction" - is nonsensical. If you oppose abortion as being a form of homicide, whether for religious or other reasons, then time limits are irrelevant. They are equally irrelevant if you accept abortion is a matter of choice. Only if you try - as does the current law - to pretend that it is some kind of medical self-defence - do time limits come into it. Personally I favour choice in what is a private medical matter.
Adam Gilinsky, Scotland
Abortion is about the destruction of human life before birth. It is equally reprehensible to destroy a life before birth as after birth. This should be an issue, in fact the main issue at the next election.
John Scotson, Altrincham, England
Yet again the media is kicking up a fuss about nothing. So far as I can see the Cardinal was not recommending that anyone vote Tory, he was simply raising this as one of a number of issues that Catholics may wish to consider when deciding who to vote for.
Marie, Cardiff
Of course religious views should be considered when deciding which party or candidate to support

Marie, York, UK
Of course religious views should be considered when deciding which party or candidate to support. MPs are our representatives in parliament and I for one would rather that my MP was moral and capable of changing his views on opinions if presented with new information, rather than a self-serving, ambitious, sycophant. I find voters who only vote along party lines rather lazy and narrow-minded. I think it is commendable that the Cardinal is encouraging his parishioners to get out and be more pro-active.
Marie, York, UK
Religion and politics should not mix at all. Religion is a personal choice, and while it may help someone decide on an issue, religion should not be used to justify it. What many people fail to realise is that secularism allows everyone their own opinion, whereas religious laws and politics exclude people. As for abortion, I am firmly pro-choice. If religious people want to be against it then that is their choice, but they should not restrict the freedom of other people to choose.
Matt Wood, Bristol, UK
It's interesting to read people say religion is irrelevant and abortion is up to the woman to decide. Why then don't we go all the way and allow abortion right up until birth? Or take it further - allow unwanted children to die from deliberate neglect if they aren't old enough to feed or care for themselves? Hang on, why not just allow anyone who annoys you or inconveniences you to be killed off while we're at it? How about the old, the sick, the mentally ill... Anyone see where this trend is going! I think it was a train of thought some bloke in Germany followed during the 1940s....
Chris Ransom, Colchester, UK
See here, all the criticism is being heaped on the Catholic religion, when in fact, the state attempts to control and regulate the church as well. Who is head of the Church of England? The State, in the form of the Monarch is. Until this changes, any criticism of a church for interfering in politics is hypocritical.
Gareth, Sheffield, UK
Whether you like it or not religion and politics have always gone hand in hand, if you believe in a certain religion and a certain political party holds views that oppose your religious beliefs then you are not going to vote for that party.
Stephen, Sheffield UK
I most certainly do not agree with Cardinal O'Connor or Michael Howard. In fact I wonder what makes either of them think that his opinion matters in the slightest to a woman in the predicament of having an unplanned pregnancy. The gospel is all very well but it cannot pay for a new pram, baby clothes or baby food, nor can it provide a father to the child if the woman is on her own. The majority of politicians and religious leaders are male, therefore have no business telling modern women what they should or should not do in relation to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. The current abortion law is fine as it is.
Kat, Scotland
Kat from Scotland spouts the usual rubbish about clergy not being able to tell women what to do. Abortion is all about the child's right to live not the woman's right to choose. Also, Kat, the Gospel certainly does mean that we help poor mothers to buy prams and all the other items she and the new baby need. The current law is a disgrace.
Fr David Swyer, Albourne, UK
The Roman Catholic Church is doing what it used to do so much. Mixing politics and religion.
Dane Marshall, St. Paul MN /USA
The Cardinal is right to encourage people to engage intelligently with issues before voting

David Woolley, London
Whether secular, humanist, Muslim or Christian we all have a worldview which shapes every judgement we make, including who to vote for. The Cardinal is right to encourage people to engage intelligently with issues before voting so that a vote for any political party is given out of conviction and with justification.
David Woolley, London
To make abortion some kind of political football is, quite simply wrong. My view is, and always has been, it is the right of the woman to decide and not some moral do-gooder bleating from his pulpit nor some third-rate politician hoping to snare a view votes.
Shaun Crowther, Barnoldswick, UK
Oh dear! Here we go again following the US once again. This time it's rise of the Christian Right. The so called "authority" of the Church no longer exists and Cardinal O'Connor should just keep out of modern people's lives. Long live the secular state!
Duncan, London, UK
The legal limit for abortion was set at 24 weeks because at the time babies born at 24 weeks always died - they were incapable of independent life. Medical technology has advanced to the point where babies born at 24 weeks are now viable. In effect we're aborting babies that can live outside the womb. Michael Howard's proposals are fairly sensible: 5 months is plenty of time to arrange an abortion if you wish one and at the same time it recognises that medical technology has changed.
P, Nottingham
I believe that the Cardinal's comments (and would believe the same of anybody who made those comments) on moving the legal time limit for abortions from 24-20 weeks is entirely reasonable in the face of new scientific evidence as to the development of the foetus in the womb. If a woman is pregnant, she will know far sooner than twenty weeks, which is four and a half months pregnant! However I disagree with the use of abortion as an election tool. It is something entirely personal; it does not belong in politics.
Anon, London
Christianity teaches tolerance of other's ideas and beliefs. Something, some here, appear to lack. The Cardinal wasn't saying "Vote Tory", he was simply stating that his personal view, and that of Michael Howard, were not totally at odds in this instance.
Glen, Welling, UK
If Catholic women chose not to have an abortion it is their choice, as should be for all of us who aren't religious. It is getting very tiring all these arguments that keep appearing in the news where any religious group tries to complain and impose their views on the rest of the population. Personal responsibility for one's actions should be a matter for every individual regardless of creed.
Ana, London, UK
I can't speak for religions other than Christianity. Politics do not belong in Christianity and vice versa. Or has Cardinal O'Connor never read Matthew 22:21 or Mark 12:17 or Luke 20:25. Or maybe he just hasn't the understanding. If the church wants to politicize its views they must do so without referring to their views as being Christian. Their views and the teachings of Jesus are not synonymous.
Daniel Kennedy, Cumbernauld Scotland
I think the Catholic Church has caused enough pain and misery in this world and until it modernises and accepts that birth control in most of its forms is acceptable then it has no right to comment on the abortion issue. Young women who have unwanted pregnancies are often the most vulnerable in society. I for one do not want a return to the world of Vera Drake - abortion must and will remain a legal right in the UK.
Martin, Cardiff
The only person who should decide about abortion is the woman involved

Neil Rogall, UK
The only person who should decide about abortion is the woman involved - she is the one faced with carrying an unwanted pregnancy; it is her right to choose not politicians or celibate clergy. We do not want to go back to the days of illegal backstreet abortions where thousands of women died. Every child should be a wanted child and every mother, a willing mother
Neil Rogall, UK
If Mr Blair wishes to ignore abortion when other political parties are making an effort to address it then he does so at his peril. I for one will be taking it very much into account on deciding where to cast my vote. It isn't an issue that concerns simply Roman Catholics. I find it very difficult to vote for a party which takes no account of the moral views of such a large portion of the population on such a vitally important issue.
Laura, Durham
What upsets and angers me when the debate on abortion yet again rears itself is the so called 'religious leaders' and 'pro-lifers' have more than likely never found themselves in the position where abortion is the only answer and wish they would realise the decision to abort is one of the most difficult decisions a woman faces and unless they have experienced it for themselves they should learn to keep quiet and not force their beliefs on others. (And before you ask, yes I have been in this position where I made the correct decision for myself and chose to have an abortion).
J, UK
I would say life is already an election issue, but life includes wars, the NHS, car accidents and other things. If the Cardinal is saying that abortion should decide my vote he will find I vote against the party he recommends.
John, Fleet, UK
The outdated and out of touch church should simply mind its own business. It is up to the woman concerned whether she wishes for an abortion - it is her body after all. Wasn't it the Pope who said that women raped in Bosnia shouldn't be allowed the morning after pill or an abortion? Enough said.
Claire, Essex
Religion is a philosophy mixed with superstitions. The philosophy can't help but effect your choice of political parties but it's the superstition that should be kept apart.
Chris, Liverpool
Religion is totally irrelevant in a modern and increasingly secular world. It causes more problems than it solves.
Richard Bagnall, Cambridge, UK


--------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7156783.stm

'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Dr Morgan said fundamentalism left 'no room for debate'
The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has described a rise in "fundamentalism" as one of the great problems facing the world.
He focused on what he described as "atheistic fundamentalism".
He said it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "Winterval", schools refusing to put on nativity plays and crosses removed from chapels.
The National Secular Society has said Christians in the UK have "nothing to complain about".
In his Christmas message, the archbishop said: "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous."
The archbishop said "atheistic fundamentalism" was a new phenomenon.
He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as "superstitious nonsense".
God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety

Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan
As well as leading to Christmas being called "Winterval," the archbishop said "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on Christianity led to hospitals removing all Christian symbols from their chapels, and schools refusing to allow children to send Christmas cards with a Christian message.
He also said it led to things like "airlines refusing staff the freedom to wear a cross round their necks" - a reference to the row in which British Airways (BA) suspended an employee who insisted on wearing a cross necklace.
Dr Morgan said: "All of this is what I would call the new "fundamentalism" of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion.

Only one in five schools perform a traditional nativity, say bishops
"It leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."
He said the nativity story in St Luke's Gospel, in contrast, had a "message of joy and good news for everyone".
He said: "God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety."
Dr Morgan said it was "perfectly natural" to have a "coherent and rational debate about the tenets of Christianity".
But he said "virulent, almost irrational" attacks on it were "dangerous" because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion.
This month community cohesion minister Parmjit Dhanda said the UK should "celebrate" the role of Christianity in the country's heritage and culture.
His comments came after Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin, called a Westminster debate on "Christianophobia", saying attempts to move Christian traditions to the "margins" of British life had "gone far enough".

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Inclusive-Exclusive Factor

http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/07/inclusive-exclusive-factor.html

I am pleased to respond to an article posted on the web in response to the article published on this site, http://www.wisdomofreligion.org/ of Foundation for Pluralism.

At this moment, let me address a few statements

"Jesus is making a very exclusive statement at this point. He is saying that if they love him and follow his example, they will have life. If they refuse him,.."

and this statement, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Most people receive the essence of their religion in their heart; which translates Jesus's primary message.

Jesus taught the simplest truth to follow – Love thy neighbor, when you love the people; you are free from tension, anxiety and malice. Imagine if most of us can do it, the world would be a better place to live. And when Jesus said, turn the other cheek – it simply meant, that when you are angry, don’t aggravate it by slapping back, mitigate the conflicts and bring a resolution. It is a very powerful message of peace and non-violence.

This is what Jesus wanted us to believe and practice, that would make him happy. When we become that person, certainly, those who receive his message, will be showered with God's grace, it is through him that state of mind is achieved and to him that gratitude must be expressed.

The essence of his teaching was to take the ordinary human to become a good human, who is in balance by following the principles, focus was on creating a just society and not the society who brand themselves with words.

Just as Jesus wanted us to be good beings, other spiritual leaders have given the very same message and all are valid to the followers of those leaders.

The ultimate focus of the religion is on creating a just society. It comes with a strong belief in the creator and following the guidance provided.

God in Qur'aan asks the believers to submit to his will, as the Torah says “be holy, for I am holy”, you can feel the same vibration when Lord Krishna asks one to surrender to him, and of course, Jesus reiterates the same message "to follow him."

When you are like God, everything is yours, and you belong to every one, distinctions are faded; and that creates a just society, a society with least conflicts and that is what heaven is all about.

All of us, be it Baha'i, Christian, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Sikh, Wicca, Zoroastrian and all the native traditions teach the same message and all of them will be in that heaven, when they follow the message they have received. All of us need to follow the REFRESH button to rethink Religion, a beautiful gift to the believer.

Referred articles:
1. http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/06/americans-tolerant-of-religions.html
2. http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-owns-god.html

Mike Ghouse
www.Foundationforpluralism.com

Back to the Basics Part Six: "The Inclusive-Exclusive Factor"
http://thevinefcumc.blogspot.com/2008/07/sermon-7132008-back-to-basics-part-six.html

“Is Jesus the only means of salvation: The Inclusive-Exclusive Factor?”

John 14:5-7, Acts 4:12, 1 Timothy 2:3-6 Romans 2:12-15

The Foundation for Pluralism posted an article on the web that stated:

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life concluded that 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching.In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.[i]

This raises questions not just for Christians, but for all religious. But for us as Christians, the question is: Is Jesus the only means of salvation. If the answer is yes, then what happens to all of those people who have never heard about Jesus?



Pluralism


The first answer that is often given to this question is that: all religion, including atheism are equal paths to finding the ultimate truth. This view is called pluralism. Let me spell out the argument for you.

1.We cannot know everything there is to know about God.
2. All religious expressions of God are human attempts to understand God.
Because we cannot know everything about God, we cannot say one religious expression is more valid than any other.
3. Therefore, all religions are equally valid paths to God.

John Hick, who is a philosopher who has really defended this position, begins his argument for pluralism by arguing that the reason these four points make sense is because neither Christianity, nor any of the world religions are any more moral than any other group. Often we even find that Christians can act less moral than non-Christians.

I find that oftentimes Christians are just as immoral as those who are non Christians. The other day I was shopping for groceries and I got to the check out line just in time to witness the lady in front of me chew some poor kid out for making a mistake. When I got to the parking lot, for some reason I was so convinced that she was a Christian, I looked for a fish sign on her car. Thankfully I did not see one. Imagine, if I would assume that someone who just chewed out a kid was a Christian, think about what non-Christians assume about Christians.



Exclusivism


On the flip side, Christians have claimed that the Bible uniquely reveals the means of salvation and that Jesus I exclusively the means by which a person is saved. The argument is as follows

1. Salvation is given uniquely through Jesus Christ. Therefore salvation is “exclusive” to those outside of a relationship with Jesus.
2. God’s gift of salvation is given through special revelation, i.e. the Bible
3. Therefore those who do not confess a belief in Jesus in this life will not have salvation.

This view espouses that God sent Jesus exclusively into the world to bring salvation and that salvation is 100% dependent upon both hearing and accepting the message about Jesus. One of the positive aspects of this belief is that is takes seriously the claims of the Bible about Jesus and confirms our Christian faith.

To review in broad terms, pluralism says that God’s offer of salvation in inclusive to every person, no matter their faith and background. Exlcusivism teaches that salvation is exclusively given through Jesus.


The Bible and Salvation


It is important to note that in the 1st century, Rome was in control of most of the known world. Rome has a pretty relaxed religious policy with one exception. They would accept and tolerate people’s religion as long as people acknowledge that the Emperor was sent by God and worshipped. The 1st century was very pluralist by all appearances. As a matter of fact, the Romans called Christians atheist because they did not acknowledge all of the gods. The writers of the Bible were not narrow minded knowing of only one faith, they were well aware of many gods and religious belief.

As we begin our search in the New Testament, the best place to begin is by reading the most notably controversial text. John 14:5-7 says,

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

To understand this passage, it is important, as always, to understand its context. Jesus has just predicted his death when Peter asks Jesus where he is going. Jesus then tells them that where he is going, they cannot come. Peter, being persistent as normal then wants to know why he can’t go. Jesus then tells Peter that he cannot come because he is unwilling to lay down his life, but Jesus will be laying down his life. Then Jesus tells them to trust him, that what he is doing is a good thing and he will prepare a place for them and then he will come back and take them to be with him. Then Jesus tells them that they know the way to the place he is going. Thomas then speaks and tells Jesus that they actually do not know they way. Jesus then tells them that he is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is essentially telling them that the way can be seen through his own life. If they want to love God, they need to love him. In loving him, they love God.

Jesus is making a very exclusive statement at this point. He is saying that if they love him and follow his example, they will have life. If they refuse him, they refuse life. In John’s gospel, Jesus and the Father are seen as one and the same. If you love one, you love the other, if you reject one, you reject the other.

In the book of Acts, Peter confirms this thought. In his third sermon in the book of Acts he says, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.” This sermon is preached after Peter and John have healed a lame man and then preached a sermon and converted a bunch of people. They are questioned by the Jewish authorities and they defend their actions and say this lame man was healed because of Jesus, who they crucified and God raised from the dead. He then says that there is no other name that is given for salvation.

In the midst of religious pluralism on the one hand and among the Jews who believed exclusively in monotheism, Peter announces that Jesus is the only name that brings salvation.
Paul though adds a twist. In 1 Timothy 2, he tells Timothy to be in prayer for the rulers of the world because, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Paul continues by explaining the truth, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.”

Paul affirms the truth laid down by both John and Peter that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ, but takes it one step further. He adds that God desires that everyone come to this knowledge. He does not say only those who hear the gospel and repent, he does not say the frozen chosen; he says point blank that it is God’s desire that every person know the truth about Jesus. You could say that God wants all people to find salvation.
I want to share one more passage from Paul, this time from Romans 2. In this passage, Paul has first talked about how Gentiles have exchange the truth about God for a lie and worshiped the creature rather than the creator. He then tells the Jews not to look down on the Gentiles because they have had the advantage of the law given to them and they are equally sinful. He then says,

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

This is a difficult passage, but let try to explain what I think Paul is driving at. God has always been working for the salvation of humanity and is trying to reach people anyway he can. For the Jew he gave them the law in physical form, for the gentile he gave them nature to reveal himself to them. Paul then goes on and says now God has given every person Jesus as means to reveal himself. Paul is saying that God will do whatever it takes to bring salvation to the world

Inclusive-Exclusive Factor

I believe the Bible teaches what I would call the Inclusive-Exclusive factor.
1. The Bible teaches, God desires the salvation of everyone. Therefore God is “inclusive”
2. Salvation is given uniquely through Jesus Christ. Therefore salvation is “exclusive” to those outside of a relationship with Jesus.
3. Therefore, God will use any means possible to bring people into a relationship with Jesus Christ, including other religions.

I am not always sure how God will offer the unique opportunity for salvation to ever person through Jesus, but I am convinced he will. I believe Jesus is God and I believe salvation comes through Jesus, but I also believe God will go to whatever he has to in order to offer salvation to every person. I believe God can use other religions to lead someone to Jesus, but God does not have to. That is God’s decision, not mine.

The amazing thing about the belief we hold about Jesus is that we truly believe Jesus is the salvation of the world and we believe that God wants every person to find Jesus. We believe every person really matters to God. This theology is so great, the problem is that often times we act as if we want to share the good news of Jesus with the least amount of people. If we really believe that Jesus brings salvation. I mean if we really believe it, we will do what the disciples did at the end of Acts 5. “They never stopped teaching and proclaiming the name of Jesus.”

When I was in Orlando some time ago I was getting a ride back to my hotel room late at night to a guy who had grown up Catholic and had been to a Christian school all his life. He was very intelligent. He knew theology and Church history very well, but he told me he had become an agnostic. I asked him why he had concluded this and he shared with me how much he had been hurt by the church. He was gay and his family and their church had basically put him out. He shared with him about how he missed having God in his life but that he really could not be a Christian anymore. It was obvious that he was hurting and broken, as most of us have experienced.

In our conversation I asked him if he liked Jesus and he said, Yes, I think Jesus one of the most profound people I have ever read.” I agreed with him, of coarse! Then I challenged him with the challenge I want to give you. I told him to go back and fall in love with Jesus so that Jesus could set him free. Follow the truth of Jesus’ life show you the way.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Celebrating Volunteerism

Celebrating the spirit of Volunteerism

Sunday, June 29, 2008
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Dedicated to Najma Ghouse

The world is a better place today because of the spirit of volunteerism in each one of us. Every one is endowed with the gift of helping others and a majority of us apply that gift and receive boundless joy that comes with serving others.

My father used to say “You did not walk out of your mother’s womb by yourselves, nor can you bury yourselves, from the first breath of life to the last one and every moment in between, you are dependent on others and others on you. Making that dependency easy, un-remunerative and comforting is the beautiful way to live”.

Picking things up for some one who cannot, listening to a grieving friend, taking time to help a stranger and simply doing good to others makes our heart smile, and we can do this every day. Every thing we are enjoying today is due to the spirit of volunteerism in others. When we receive a benefit, we have to give back as well to keep a balanced and a happier life. It is as simple as that.

Come and celebrate the spirit of volunteerism in you. We are pleased to dedicate this evening to one such person; Najma Ghouse.

Program outline:
Sunday, June 29, 2008 – 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM**

- Meet and Greet
- Gratitude
- The spirit of volunteerism
- Multi-faith prayers
- Refreshments

** . If you send the email to: Confirmattendance@Gmail.com after next Tuesday, it will automatically give you the place information. More about Najma at http://www.mikeghouse.net/


Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net
www.FoundationforPluralism.com
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com

Sunday, March 16, 2008

The Atheist delusion

Mike Ghouse: The article follows my note.
.
Humans have always wondered about God, its existence and its appearance. We go through the phase of being a disbeliever, particularly when we cannot understand the injustices to us and to the world around us. Many of us have had the delusions about God as presented one time or the other.
.
The Atheist reject the notion of God as presented to them by the organized religion, which is based on having faith, whereas they look for a physical evidence.
.
It took me a long time to develop my own understanding of it, he or she. When I got closer to understing the concept of Justice and balance built-in by the causer's automated system, I felt like screaming Eureka. I found God!
.
The cause and source of all life, whatever form that cause may have been and is, can be called the creator, God or any identfier like - Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Jesus, Guru, Buddha, Mahavir or Ahura Mazda. The Jewish understanding of God may be the first anchor for atheist to catch on understanding G-d. Give me the time, I am researching on just what I have said above to give more clarity.
.
####
.
The atheist delusion
The Guardian.

'Opposition to religion occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally,' wrote Martin Amis recently. Over the past few years, leading writers and thinkers have published bestselling tracts against God. John Gray on why the 'secular fundamentalists' have got it all wrong.

An atmosphere of moral panic surrounds religion. Viewed not so long ago as a relic of superstition whose role in society was steadily declining, it is now demonised as the cause of many of the world's worst evils. As a result, there has been a sudden explosion in the literature of proselytising atheism. A few years ago, it was difficult to persuade commercial publishers even to think of bringing out books on religion. Today, tracts against religion can be enormous money-spinners, with Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great selling in the hundreds of thousands. For the first time in generations, scientists and philosophers, high-profile novelists and journalists are debating whether religion has a future. The intellectual traffic is not all one-way. There have been counterblasts for believers, such as The Dawkins Delusion? by the British theologian Alister McGrath and The Secular Age by the Canadian Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor. On the whole, however, the anti-God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why.

The abrupt shift in the perception of religion is only partly explained by terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers saw themselves as martyrs in a religious tradition, and western opinion has accepted their self-image. And there are some who view the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a danger comparable with the worst that were faced by liberal societies in the 20th century.
For Dawkins and Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Martin Amis, Michel Onfray, Philip Pullman and others, religion in general is a poison that has fuelled violence and oppression throughout history, right up to the present day. The urgency with which they produce their anti-religious polemics suggests that a change has occurred as significant as the rise of terrorism: the tide of secularisation has turned. These writers come from a generation schooled to think of religion as a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, which is bound to dwindle away as knowledge continues to increase. In the 19th century, when the scientific and industrial revolutions were changing society very quickly, this may not have been an unreasonable assumption. Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life, but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on evidence.

It is true that religion has declined sharply in a number of countries (Ireland is a recent example) and has not shaped everyday life for most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when De Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity. The secular era was in any case partly illusory. The mass political movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that these movements have collapsed. The current hostility to religion is a reaction against this turnabout. Secularisation is in retreat, and the result is the appearance of an evangelical type of atheism not seen since Victorian times.

As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it rejects. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights - a subtly allusive, multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass - is a good example. Pullman's parable concerns far more than the dangers of authoritarianism. The issues it raises are essentially religious, and it is deeply indebted to the faith it attacks. Pullman has stated that his atheism was formed in the Anglican tradition, and there are many echoes of Milton and Blake in his work. His largest debt to this tradition is the notion of free will. The central thread of the story is the assertion of free will against faith. The young heroine Lyra Belacqua sets out to thwart the Magisterium - Pullman's metaphor for Christianity - because it aims to deprive humans of their ability to choose their own course in life, which she believes would destroy what is most human in them. But the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a derivative of Christianity.

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.

A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.

The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was popularised in the late 19th century in JG Frazer's survey of the myths of primitive peoples, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. For Frazer, religion and magical thinking were closely linked. Rooted in fear and ignorance, they were vestiges of human infancy that would disappear with the advance of knowledge. Dennett's atheism is not much more than a revamped version of Frazer's positivism. The positivists believed that with the development of transport and communication - in their day, canals and the telegraph - irrational thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past. Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge Foundation (edge.org) under the title "The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion", he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us, mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a virtual al-Qaida on the web.

The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny. Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.

Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside its proper sphere. Along with Dennett, who also holds to a version of the theory, Dawkins maintains that religious ideas survive because they would be able to survive in any "meme pool", or else because they are part of a "memeplex" that includes similar memes, such as the idea that, if you die as a martyr, you will enjoy 72 virgins. Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged Darwinian metaphors.

Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the risk of it being used in this way is greater.

Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. "What matters," he declares in The God Delusion, "is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does." This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarised Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian antisemitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler's world-view was that of many semi-literate people in interwar Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible.

Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.

AC Grayling provides an example of the persistence of religious categories in secular thinking in his Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West. As the title indicates, Grayling's book is a type of sermon. Its aim is to reaffirm what he calls "a Whig view of the history of the modern west", the core of which is that "the west displays progress". The Whigs were pious Christians, who believed divine providence arranged history to culminate in English institutions, and Grayling too believes history is "moving in the right direction". No doubt there have been setbacks - he mentions nazism and communism in passing, devoting a few sentences to them. But these disasters were peripheral. They do not reflect on the central tradition of the modern west, which has always been devoted to liberty, and which - Grayling asserts - is inherently antagonistic to religion. "The history of liberty," he writes, "is another chapter - and perhaps the most important of all - in the great quarrel between religion and secularism." The possibility that radical versions of secular thinking may have contributed to the development of nazism and communism is not mentioned. More even than the 18th-century Whigs, who were shaken by French Terror, Grayling has no doubt as to the direction of history.

But the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.

The problem with the secular narrative is not that it assumes progress is inevitable (in many versions, it does not). It is the belief that the sort of advance that has been achieved in science can be reproduced in ethics and politics. In fact, while scientific knowledge increases cumulatively, nothing of the kind happens in society. Slavery was abolished in much of the world during the 19th century, but it returned on a vast scale in nazism and communism, and still exists today. Torture was prohibited in international conventions after the second world war, only to be adopted as an instrument of policy by the world's pre-eminent liberal regime at the beginning of the 21st century. Wealth has increased, but it has been repeatedly destroyed in wars and revolutions. People live longer and kill one another in larger numbers. Knowledge grows, but human beings remain much the same.

Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it. This is what Nietzsche did when he developed his critique of Christianity in the late 19th century, but almost none of today's secular missionaries have followed his example. One need not be a great fan of Nietzsche to wonder why this is so. The reason, no doubt, is that he did not assume any connection between atheism and liberal values - on the contrary, he viewed liberal values as an offspring of Christianity and condemned them partly for that reason. In contrast, evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.

Among contemporary anti-religious polemicists, only the French writer Michel Onfray has taken Nietzsche as his point of departure. In some ways, Onfray's In Defence of Atheism is superior to anything English-speaking writers have published on the subject. Refreshingly, Onfray recognises that evangelical atheism is an unwitting imitation of traditional religion: "Many militants of the secular cause look astonishingly like clergy. Worse: like caricatures of clergy." More clearly than his Anglo-Saxon counterparts, Onfray understands the formative influence of religion on secular thinking. Yet he seems not to notice that the liberal values he takes for granted were partly shaped by Christianity and Judaism. The key liberal theorists of toleration are John Locke, who defended religious freedom in explicitly Christian terms, and Benedict Spinoza, a Jewish rationalist who was also a mystic. Yet Onfray has nothing but contempt for the traditions from which these thinkers emerged - particularly Jewish monotheism: "We do not possess an official certificate of birth for worship of one God," he writes. "But the family line is clear: the Jews invented it to endure the coherence, cohesion and existence of their small, threatened people." Here Onfray passes over an important distinction. It may be true that Jews first developed monotheism, but Judaism has never been a missionary faith. In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam.

In today's anxiety about religion, it has been forgotten that most of the faith-based violence of the past century was secular in nature. To some extent, this is also true of the current wave of terrorism. Islamism is a patchwork of movements, not all violently jihadist and some strongly opposed to al-Qaida, most of them partly fundamentalist and aiming to recover the lost purity of Islamic traditions, while at the same time taking some of their guiding ideas from radical secular ideology. There is a deal of fashionable talk of Islamo-fascism, and Islamist parties have some features in common with interwar fascist movements, including antisemitism. But Islamists owe as much, if not more, to the far left, and it would be more accurate to describe many of them as Islamo-Leninists. Islamist techniques of terror also have a pedigree in secular revolutionary movements. The executions of hostages in Iraq are copied in exact theatrical detail from European "revolutionary tribunals" in the 1970s, such as that staged by the Red Brigades when they murdered the former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro in 1978.

The influence of secular revolutionary movements on terrorism extends well beyond Islamists. In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens notes that, long before Hizbullah and al-Qaida, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka pioneered what he rightly calls "the disgusting tactic of suicide murder". He omits to mention that the Tigers are Marxist-Leninists who, while recruiting mainly from the island's Hindu population, reject religion in all its varieties. Tiger suicide bombers do not go to certain death in the belief that they will be rewarded in any postmortem paradise. Nor did the suicide bombers who drove American and French forces out of Lebanon in the 80s, most of whom belonged to organisations of the left such as the Lebanese communist party. These secular terrorists believed they were expediting a historical process from which will come a world better than any that has ever existed. It is a view of things more remote from human realities, and more reliably lethal in its consequences, than most religious myths.

It is not necessary to believe in any narrative of progress to think liberal societies are worth resolutely defending. No one can doubt that they are superior to the tyranny imposed by the Taliban on Afghanistan, for example. The issue is one of proportion. Ridden with conflicts and lacking the industrial base of communism and nazism, Islamism is nowhere near a danger of the magnitude of those that were faced down in the 20th century. A greater menace is posed by North Korea, which far surpasses any Islamist regime in its record of repression and clearly does possess some kind of nuclear capability. Evangelical atheists rarely mention it. Hitchens is an exception, but when he describes his visit to the country, it is only to conclude that the regime embodies "a debased yet refined form of Confucianism and ancestor worship". As in Russia and China, the noble humanist philosophy of Marxist-Leninism is innocent of any responsibility.

Writing of the Trotskyite-Luxemburgist sect to which he once belonged, Hitchens confesses sadly: "There are days when I miss my old convictions as if they were an amputated limb." He need not worry. His record on Iraq shows he has not lost the will to believe. The effect of the American-led invasion has been to deliver most of the country outside the Kurdish zone into the hands of an Islamist elective theocracy, in which women, gays and religious minorities are more oppressed than at any time in Iraq's history. The idea that Iraq could become a secular democracy - which Hitchens ardently promoted - was possible only as an act of faith.

In The Second Plane, Martin Amis writes: "Opposition to religion already occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally." Amis is sure religion is a bad thing, and that it has no future in the west. In the author of Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million - a forensic examination of self-delusion in the pro-Soviet western intelligentsia - such confidence is surprising. The intellectuals whose folly Amis dissects turned to communism in some sense as a surrogate for religion, and ended up making excuses for Stalin. Are there really no comparable follies today? Some neocons - such as Tony Blair, who will soon be teaching religion and politics at Yale - combine their belligerent progressivism with religious belief, though of a kind Augustine and Pascal might find hard to recognise. Most are secular utopians, who justify pre-emptive war and excuse torture as leading to a radiant future in which democracy will be adopted universally. Even on the high ground of the west, messianic politics has not lost its dangerous appeal.

Religion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex, a self-defeating enterprise. In the 20th century, when it commanded powerful states and mass movements, it helped engender totalitarianism. Today, the result is a climate of hysteria. Not everything in religion is precious or deserving of reverence. There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

· John Gray's Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia will be out in paperback in April (Penguin)