The Search for Christian Converts

by Nomad

Texas Lawmaker Decides Muslim Americans Must Now Swear Allegiance to United States

 by Nomad

One legislator's policy discriminating against Muslim Americans raises questions about what religious liberty actually means in Texas. 

A couple of days ago The Dallas Morning News reported about Texas state Representative Molly White and a new policy she adopted.  From now on, she decided, all Muslim visitors to her government offices will be required to renounce terrorism and to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States. If not, she has stated that she would not meet with them.

"We Don't Want You Here"

White's policy came in response to the seventh annual Texas Muslim Capitol Day in which some 200 Texas Muslims attended. They were  to speak with legislators about their goals for the session. 

The events were hosted by the Texas chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR). The meeting was supposed to be “an opportunity for community members to learn about the democratic political process and how to be an advocate for important issues.” 
Like any other lobbying organization,

Before the rally, Mustafaa Carroll, the executive director for the  CAIR,  explained to reporters the main problem was a lack of contact between Muslim Americans and the lawmakers  Carroll explained:

“The problem that even the lawmakers have—they don’t know Muslims. They’ve never been to a mosque, they’ve never talked to any Muslims more than likely and all they see is what they see on TV.

Instead the were greeted with an example of the democratic political process at its worst and in disarray. The Muslim Americans (which included dozens of middle and high school students) were met by roughly 30 self-identified Christian protesters. The protesters who heckled " shouting “we don’t want you here,” and holding signs that said “no Sharia.” They also held flags and signs like ”One God,” and “Remember 9/11.”

Criminalizing Charity: The Shame and Hypocrisy of a Christian Nation

by Nomad

Do city ordinances which forbid the feeding of the homeless violate the religious liberty of Christians? Why has there been so much more outcry about gay wedding cakes and yet barely a whisper when it comes to outlawing a core commandment of the Christian faith?

There's no denying that, from the time of the struggling Puritan settlers until this day, Judaic-Christian values have had a profound influence on American culture. Certainly more than any other religious teaching. This is true not merely in the so-called Bible Belt but in other regions and other aspects of American social life.

Of course, no fair minded person would say that America has no room for diversity of religious thought or that Christianity should be forced upon any citizen. Simply because a religion has an influence doesn't mean it has any more right to become the only faith or the national governmentally-endorsed religion. Yet, it is true that much of American morality has roots in this particular faith.

Despite what Justice Scalia has recently said, the government is constitutionally mandated to remain wholly neutral, neither supporting nor rejecting any religion. At the same time, according to past Supreme Court rulings, the government must also steer clear of interference with degrees of religious faith: from the devout to the unbeliever, all must be respected.

Even with the equally-strong belief in secularism (when it comes to religion and government), on a person level, the humanitarian principles found in Judaic-Christian teachings are generally considered the bedrock of American philosophy. 

Among those Christian unchallengables is the call to charity, a command to help those in need, to feed the hungry and to clothe the naked. This idea, of course, is not unique to Christianity but it is generally where Americans draw their inspiration for doing good works.  

After loving the Lord with the second uppermost command is that we "love our neighbors as we love ourselves." And the two points cannot be separate in the Christian theology as the Book of John observes:

If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion--how can God's love be in that person?

The Book of James one can find:

If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

In the Old Testament too one can find similar thoughts. Proverbs 14:31 for example:

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

And in the same book:

Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.

With regular outraged anguish about "religious liberty" the Far Right Christians seem strangely silence and disinterested when it comes to criminalizing one of Christianity's most noble articles of faith.

*   *   *

Only last month we featured a post about laws against feeding the homeless. Here's what it looked like in action when a 90-year-old man was arrested in Fort Lauderdale, Florida last weekend. 

The Dangerous Deceptions of Justice Antonin Scalia

by Nomad

As a Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been the most outspoken of all of the judges. His ultra-conservative views are one of the reasons what induced President Reagan to nominate him back in 1986. Increasingly, Scalia's public declarations have become more and more incautious and deceptive. Isn't it time for Scalia to step down?

About a week ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a speech at Colorado Christian University. The speech deserves, I think, a closer look because a few of the things that were said should be a cause for concern.

The speech offered clear indisputable proof of Scalia's misrepresentation of the law, the lack of respect for the high court's decision, and even the role of the court itself.
Scalia's public pronouncements have, in short, become a serious threat to the authority of the judicial branch.

Fallacy about Secularism

In Colorado, Justice Scalia told his Christian audience:

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.

In fact, this is not the secularist position at all. It is not about government favoring religion over non-religion. Secularists may be just as religious as anybody else. Many of them, if not most, are just as religious as the average "Bible-thumper."
So to say this is a debate between the devout and the heathens, believers against non-believers is both insulting and wrong.  

The secularist position is that religion is a personal matter. It belongs in churches or private institutions, but not in the halls of Congress or tax-payer funded schools and other public buildings.

It is simply not possible to represent all religions without making one take priority over any other. Some are even contradictory or otherwise in opposition to others, even within the same religion. There is no state religion and therefore, neutrality between religions is mandated by the Constitution. The government cannot impose any particular religious belief or practice upon its citizens.

Except at a personal level, say the secularists, religion and governance must be distinct from each other. Despite Scalia's remarks, it was never about non-religion.

Justice Scalia is, of course, well aware of these facts but is purposefully misleading the audience. He understands that there are radical religious groups who seek to remove the long-standing separation of Church and State and he is offering them his ideological support.

Discrimination, Religious Liberty and Satan Worshippers in Oklahoma

by Nomad

When a Satan-worshipping Church wanted to hold a Black Mass in the Oklahoma City Civic Center, a few Christian religious groups began having second thoughts about everybody's right to religious liberty.

According to an article in the Oklahoma Gazette, unlimited religious freedom has some Christian leaders in the Sooner state holding their noses.

The controversy began when Oklahoma City Civic Center decided to rent its smallest meeting space to a group of Satanists to perform a Black Mass in September. That decision had some people, including the Catholic Archbishop Paul Coakley, steaming. They urged the city, which manages the Civic Center, to turn away the devil-worshippers. 

According to the article:

“We’re astonished and grieved that the Civic Center would promote as entertainment and sell tickets for an event that is very transparently a blasphemous mockery of the Mass,” Coakley said in a statement this week.

This would be the fourth such event staged by the Church of the IV Majesties. In 2010, its "public satanic exorcism" causes a similar outcry from local religious leaders. The Satanic Church is, it might surprise you to learn, a  legally recognized religion, based in San Francisco. According to its website, 

There are now Agents of the Church of Satan in most major North American and European cities and there are countless numbers of people throughout the world who practice our teachings without formally affiliating with the fountainhead of contemporary Satanism.

(Whether that includes the Church of IV Majesties is not clear.)

In fact, the hoopla was all a bit of a tempest in a teapot. A staggering forty-five people attended the 2010 service, 8 the following year and a total of nobody the next year. So far, the Black Mass- despite the unintentional advertising by the Catholic Church- has sold only five tickets.
Five. 

Civic Center general manager Jim Brown explained to reporters that, despite the loud objections,  the Civic Center had a legal obligation to welcome any group, no matter its religious stance.

“We don’t get involved in programing,” Brown said. “Because we are a city-run facility, our legal department has said they are protected by the First Amendment.” 

That's a very wise decision by the legal eagles. 

Between Fundamentalism and Tyranny

by Nomad

Liberty, Marriage Equality and Your Silent Sanction

by Nomad

When it comes to politics, your silence means your approval. 

I saw this intelligently-written article about equality and the values that hold this nation together. I thought it was worth sharing. 

While Ayn Rand is probably not a person I would normally quote, in this context, her words are spot-on. The idea that "Silence means sanction" can also be applied on a larger scale. By not voting in elections, liberals and moderates are giving a stamp of approval for every thing wrong with Congress. Whether they know it or not, they send the message that mixing religion and government is okay, that healthcare is only for those who can afford it, that pushing the country back to the time before the Civil Rights Act is fine and the treating women as second-class citizens is a great idea. 

Marriage Equality, the Ex-Marine and Ayn Rand (via Pride & Equality Post)

Ex-marine Roger Huffstetler discovered two friends were gay. One was a bunkmate from Afghanistan; the other a childhood friend. He started to wonder what kind of friend he was and went to them. Both assured him he had never said or done anything that…

---

Call It Irony: Mormon Leaders Oppose Re-Defining The Concept of Marriage

by Nomad

The official opposition of the Mormon Church to same-sex marriage reveals an amusing paradox, unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
Given its history with polygamy, what authority does the Mormon Church have to dictate what is and what is not a traditional marriage?

A few days ago Neil L. Andersen , a well-respected leader of the  Church of the Latter Day Saints,  had an announcement to make on the official position of the Mormon Church on same-sex marriage.  The opinions of Andersen, as a member of of the Quorum of the Twelve, carry a lot of weight. He declared:

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not. He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."

One can scrutinize the position and point out its flaws, such as the fact that, while the Church gives its stamp of approval on all traditional marriage, it doesn't dare claim that every marriage is an ideal setting for children. So why does it do so in this case?

Apart from some manufactured evidence from special interests, there is no actual proof that same-sex marriage is any better or any worse for child rearing and nurturing. At least that's what qualified doctors tell us:

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

Nevertheless, Andersen knows because .. well, he just knows because God told him so. Yet, Church leaders have been wrong in the past. And they have had to suddenly reverse their formerly rock-solid positions on marriage in the past.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's Warning to The Turkish People

by Nomad

The Surprising Truth about Thomas Jefferson- The Anti-Christian Founding Father

by Nomad

Thomas Jefferson was one of the most interesting men that this nation has produced and yet, today, his lives and ideas are nearly forgotten. He was above all, a product of the Enlightened Age, and didn't have much patience with religion and especially the Christian one.

Bitter Infidel or Enlightened Intellectual?

Published in 1885, the old book, Notes on Thomas Jefferson, Citizen of Maryland, offers the historical researcher some impressive shocks, particularly when it comes to the subject of Jefferson’s religious beliefs. 
The approach of the book comes from an unusual angle. The book, written in support of Christian values, takes a dim view of the third president’s attitude.

Why is that important? The author’s evidence is not attempting to defend Jefferson but to indict him. Yet the information in the book reveals an unexpected side to Jefferson.. 

The book begins: 

For obvious reasons, whatever pertains to Thomas Jefferson possesses an interest for all Americans. 

As the principal author of the “Declaration of Independence,” the first secretary of state, the second vice president, and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson has every right to the title of “Founding Father.”
Given the state of politics today, this founding father’s opinions might seem even more radical and controversial than they did in his own time. For good reason, historians have tended to gloss over this aspect of American history.

How Gay Couples Are Destroying The Institution of Marriage

Evangelical Religion’s War on Common Sense

by Nomad

Hostility and Antipathy

During their failed runs for the Republican nomination in this year’s presidential election, GOP candidates such as Gingrich and Santorum, made the shocking claim that Obama was waging a war on religion. That sort of nonsense might play well to the average Fox News watchers who seem to be fully prepared to swallow any anti-Obama rhetoric, no matter how preposterous.

Naturally this meme was picked up by conservative religious leaders, eager to make a name for their crusade against the evils of secularism and the horrors of the separation of Church and State.

As Mother Jones reports:

Gary Marx, the executive director of Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, sent out a fundraising letter this month urging people to sign a petition fighting Obama's "war on religion," writing: "The Obama Administration's actions are evidence of a pattern of hostility towards religious institutions and an antipathy to uphold and protect the nation's most fundamental founding principles."

Despite showing precious little in the way of evidence of Obama's hostility, apart from not taking orders from the Church, people like Marx are allowed to promote this claim without anybody challenging them. 

Facts You Should Know: Between Religion and Fear

(courtesy of http://cdn.front.moveon.org )

Feel free to tweet this far and wide.

The Powerful Speech that Made Santorum Throw Up and Lose Michigan and Arizona

Faith in Politics Exposed: Controversial but Necessary Questions for the Presidential Candidates

by Nomad

Here's an excerpt from an NPR article, entitled "Has Obama Waged War on Religion?"

Newt Gingrich warns the U.S. is becoming a secular country, which would be a "nightmare." Rick Santorum says there's a clash between "man's laws and God's laws."

Religious conservatives see an escalating war with the Obama White House. One Catholic bishop called it "the most secularist administration in history." Another bishop says it is an "a-theocracy." Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' new Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, believes the First Amendment is clear: The government cannot make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith.

Whether Newt Gingrich knows it or not, America is NOT becoming a secular state. It is a secular state and has been since its inception. It is in very real danger of becoming a theocratic state and that, many people would say, is the potential “nightmare.”

You Cannot Deny Women..

https://twitter.com/#!/ANomadicView/status/172104667277438980