Blog Against Theocracy

This Easter Sunday I'm planning to spend my time in prayer and meditation. And one of the things about which I think is that my Savior went to the cross because the religious leaders of his day worked with the government to send him there. If that's not a reason to oppose the government getting together with religion, I don't know how to explain it to those of the Christian faith. But I've also lived in areas where my faith is not the dominant religion. And that separation of church and state protected me and my worship. Then there's the plain and simple truth that if my religion needs the government for support it is not much of a religion. I have faith that God can work within or without the government. God just doesn't need the government to support religion if God is really God.

So for all those reasons I'm against making a government based on religion, even if the religion is my own.

Oh yes, other people blogging are here and here and a hat tip to Pam's House Blend for pointing this out

Ken Hutchinson in the state of Washington

Ken Hutchinson, a conservative pastor, is starting a bill to take away civil rights that is rights common to everyone but only taking away those rights if you're GLBT. I always thought supporting equal rights for all was what being Christian was about. But maybe the god Hutchinson worships isn't the same as the God I seek to obey.

Hate crimes don't impact religious freedom

The Exodus International web site has a ridiculous editorial about how hate crime laws will affect religious freedom. The problem with their logic is that hate crime laws go into effect after a crime is committed. Do they want religious freedom to beat someone up using a bat? I suspect not or, if they do, they won't admit it. Religious freedom and worship, freedom of speech, the ability to speak one's mind is not affected by hate crime laws. My freedoms and your freedoms are not affected.

There are problems with some, if not all, hate crime laws. Those problems have nothing to do with the right to worship free from state interference.

A nation of Christians

Dispatches from the Culture Wars steered me to this article from an evangelical that makes the same point that many on the left have made. That is that while this is a nation of Christians it is not and was not founded as a Christian nation. While I don't agree with all of it, there's certainly enough to be helpful and make me thing about those things with which I disagree.

Change of mind - you must be mad!

Pam's House Blend points to an article about Shalikashvili's change of mind on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the military. Elaine Donnelly says, according to the article that " it is "really sad" to see someone like the general being used by the homosexual propaganda machine as "the latest tool of a public relations campaign." And this is happening because, dear readers, Shalikashvili has had a stroke and is struggling with his health.

It can't be because he's continued to look at the evidence, no, no, no, it's his health.

Now health can be a reason for people going into dementia and changing statements and attitudes, but there's a simpler reason. They just have plain looked at the evidence. And that this article from Shalikashvili was published in the New York Times seems to me to indicate that at least a few people thought he was in his right mind and not bothered by the stroke or ill-health that Donelly suggests.

In my denomination it took about 100 years from the time we first had a woman ordained, until that ordination became approved. Women still struggle to find acceptance. But as with all ideas that promote equality the battle is being won. The same, with hopefully less of a time scale, is happening with gays and lesbians in the military and our society. I pray that the Elain Donelly's of this world will have more and more military figures to impugn with stories of ill health. Since there are other military forces that seem to find no problem with gay men and lesbians, I suspect she'll be put in the position of having to find more and more odd little reasons for a change of mind - that is odd, little reasons that have nothing to do with learning, examining the evidence and common sense.

The Koran and what it means

Well, the idiocy begins over swearing on the Koran - from the National Review

Jefferson's Koran [James S. Robbins]
The Bashaw of Tripoli’s justification for war on American trading ships in the Mediterranean two hundred years ago, according to Thomas Jefferson, was that “it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.” By all means let Keith Ellison swear in using Jefferson's Koran, maybe afterwards he can look up the passages that discuss smiting the infidels at the neck and make great slaughter among them. Probably underlined.

Why am I not surprised. This editorial seems to have no idea that the documents from Jefferson around this incident are about not being a Christian nation. In one translation (as the two languages have some differences) the Treaty of Tripoli says:

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

This puts a damper on the idea that Christianity as the only or primary religion of the USA was what is envisioned by our founding fathers.

Good enough

There's been some little brouhaha over Ellison taking his oath on the Koran. Well, he is still doing that. And it's going to be on Jefferson's Koran. That's the same Jefferson that has a residence in Goode's district and who's often known as one of the founding fathers of the U.S.A. I wonder how much more we will continue to hear.

Goode again not so good

Rep. Virgil Goode had an editorial in today's (Jan. 2, 2007) USA Today where he defended his letter about the Rep.-elect Ellison being sworn in on the Koran. Again he doesn't get it. Religious freedom is about letting people make their own choice as to religion and swearing on the holy book that represents their faith. For all his seeming punditry of mentioning 'we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion' he doesn't get that Christianist and Islamist extremists are the problem, not the religion. It is religious extremism in the name of Christ that bombed a federal building in Oklahoma. It is religious extremism in the name of Christ that has bombed health clinics where abortions may be performed. It is religious extremism and not the religion that's the problem. And Goode just doesn't get it.

When a prayer is not a prayer

I've often prayed in my workplace and, even when I wasn't working as a pastor, no one had a problem. But then I never quite went to the extent of inviting a couple of other people to pray with me, then anointed a co-workers space, and prayed over my co-workers space about evil dogs leaving the workspace. And yet someone who did that and was, IMO, quite properly fired has filed a lawsuit "alleging that they were wrongfully fired last spring based on their religion, age and gender."

I think the word for this is chutzpah. It's like throwing oneself on the mercy of the court because one is an orphan - though one murdered their parents. Certainly one can say a quick prayer over one's meal, or when a fellow worker is causing problems, or for many other things. But when one goes to the extent of anointing a fellow workers area - that is damaging the employers property - and calling a co-worker 'demonically posseses' - that is harassment. It's not the same thing as being fired for one's religion, gender or age - which is what the lawsuit claims.

This is not being a martyr for one's faith. This is holding up Christianity for ridicule because of pure and simple idiocy. This is not spreading the faith or healing the sick, it is making a mockery of another human being and the faith one claims to profess.

And to appeal a firing is chutzpah. And I can't think of a word to indicate the lawyers who took on this case - ambulance chaser doesn't quite do it.

Tolerance and Intolerance

I've been discussing with some people the happening during the Vietnam war where some returning soldiers were greeted with disrespect. But then some articles today reminded me that the same thing happens today.

The first was a letter from Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)suggesting that theelection of a Muslim was a bad thing - we should keep watch on the bordersor more of this will happen

The second was an attack on two men because they were holding hands. Thewere attacked as they came out of a restaurant.

For me these are both symptoms of the same thing - a lack of tolerance for those who are different. And certainly there are some gays and muslims who are very intolerant - I just didn't see stories about them this morning. And the question for me is what are we called to do. I see in scriptures a man who welcomed sinners, ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, who preached about religious leaders and rich people of the day putting burdens on the backs of the poor. And I wonder who can call themselves Christian and attack people for holding hands or write that another faith than their own is a threat to a nation in which both are citizens.

Where is the call to avoid the denunciations that lead to these acts?

Where are the calls to treat each other respectfully and civilly?

What I see too often are leaking blivots who say 'but we never meant that to happen from our words. yes we called them this and that but we never meant for that to happen, no we never meant our words to be taken that far' And this is not a new thing - read a little history and we'll see more than one instance where demagogues wanted to take it too far and further for theirown power - yet it should trouble us whenever and wherever it happens.

I wish I had a permanent solution, but I suspect as long as people are people we will have those cries of hatred and fear and those who aredifferent will be persecuted.

Sigh.

With whom I disagree

WorldNetDaily consistently decries how religion is excluded from schools. But by religion they mean their version. One school was forced to allow mention of Christian activities. A few years later another group wanted their festivities celebrated and their flyer was included. And guess who is up in arms about pagan religious views being imposed on their children. What is that old saying about sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. Evidently that doesn't apply - religious freedoms are only for groups with which the Worldnetdaily

see also Dispatches from the Culture Wars for a great article.

Dobson busted

Recently Dobson has cited more than one study to prove his points about gays, marriage and his beliefs about family. Unfortunately both Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett - two of the researchers he mentioned - have complained that he misused and mistated the results of their research. See it at

I apologize, somewhere in the writing of this I lost the links. I'll try to post them later.

Invocation or Intimidation

At 365gay.com there's an article about a pastor who used an invocation for an elected body of officials to make a political statement. A part of me thinks that he is right in standing up for his beliefs - even as I think he's got what God wants backward - and yet what he did bothers me.

What I say to people I meet at the motel where I work, that is for funerals and other occasions of grief, is something like "I'll pray for you and if you don't believe in prayer please accept my best thoughts for you in this time of grief." I don't deny my faith, but I try not to bludgeon people with it.

I certainly believe in letting my elected representatives, along with everyone else, know where I stand and where I believe God is calling me to stand on issues. But when invited to pray I try to fit the gathering. In church I'll pray using language from my religious tradition. In public arenas I'll use language that may be more open. In giving an invocation I'll ask for God's presence to guide and that the [insert appropriate term] be led to make good decisions. If I fell that I'm called to make a specific pronouncement I'll discuss with whoever asks me whether they feel they can invite me when such is going to happen.

I'm certainly willing to offend other people, but not when it will serve no purpose. Being too offensive is a destructive to the Word as being too inoffensive. It seems to me that in the case I cited earlier the offensiveness was for show rather than purpose. It made the pastor feel like he'd spoken against the powers of the world, but really didn't change anyone's mind. It made the pastor's congregation feel like they had a pastor who spoke out against evil while the pastor risked little or nothing.

In the end, this pastor's invocation seems to me to be more about serving self than about serving God - even though God is all that is mentioned. I think that what bothers me most is that we are called to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves and this prayer seemed to me to be as vicious as serpents and as stupid as doves. But it may be the sense I have that the pastor is like the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not like the tax collector - that sinner praying over in the corner. And who goes away justified?

Religious Warfare

Daily Kos has this article about a game espousing religious warfare. No, it's not muslim. It's from some who claim to be Christian. Something further than the prince of peace is hard to imagine. But there it is. I get upset everytime I hear of it.

Military officials and religion

I thought the rules were clear. Government isn't supposed to support any religion over another. Yet there's a case where military officers - who are supposed to or so I believed - stay out of politics until after their terms of service parading around in a video supporting one particular religious point of view and with no mention that they speak for themselves and not the military.

No more female genital mutilation

It is certainly not a tenet of Islam and only practiced in a few areas where Islam is the predominant religion, but outlawing the practice is long overdue. Congratulations are due for the scholars who finally took the step to label female genital mutilation as what it is. And it is just plain wrong.

Faith and politics

My faith is an important part of my life. I think that it is one of the reasons I actually got through depression. But really is an e-mail about losing a political race to a Hindu the right place to say “Pay attention...this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself...at some moment in time, yet??? ...” According to the God I worship – whom in the second person I call Jesus – it is not about calling people names or some such when you lose a political race and that’s not the time to blame them for not being Christian. Frankly if I weren’t already a Christian I’d be leaving any possibility of becoming one far behind after such a message.

American civilization

The American Family Association doesn't seem to understand about the idea that government isn't supposed to establish or support a particular religion. They are up in arms about a senator who is taking the oath on the holy book of his religion. It is... the Koran. And the culture of the U.S.A. is now threatened.
A quote -

"He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to
the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."

Somehow I feel more threatened by the AFA and feel that they are hostile to Islam and the Koran after reading this. I also wonder what burdens they're going to impose on my religious practice.

gratuitous insults

My faith is an important part of my life. I think that it is one of the reasons I actually got through depression. But really is an e-mail about losing a political race to a Hindu the right place to say “Pay attention...this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself...at some moment in time, yet??? ...” According to the God I worship – whom in the second person I call Jesus – it is not about calling people names or some such when you lose a political race and that’s not the time to blame them for not being Christian. Frankly if I weren’t already a Christian I’d be leaving any possibility of becoming one far behind after such a message.

P.S. Look at Andrew Sullivan for another thought about this sort of Christianist response.

Christianist views

Seems that there's a problem with the election of a Muslim to congress. He's not using the Bible to take his oath of office. He - wait for it - is using the Koran. The God I worship is more interested in whether we keep our oaths than in what holy book (or lack thereof) we use in making that oath. It seems to me that there are a couple of scripture passages on that (I've included one at the end of this note). The Jesus I read about has a real problem with the religious leaders imposing their beliefs on others and making a burden out of what should be a joy. If we want freedom to worship as we please we must give it to others. If we want people to respect our oaths on our scripture we should respect their oaths on their holy books. It is a misreading of scripture and a misunderstanding of Christianity to think otherwise.

Thanks to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for getting me to this article.

Matthew 23:13-24

[13] "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock
people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when
others are going in, you stop them. [15] Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make
the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

[16] "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the sanctuary
is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by
the oath.' [17] You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary
that has made the gold sacred? [18] And you say, 'Whoever swears by the altar is
bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound
by the oath.' [19] How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the
altar that makes the gift sacred? [20] So whoever swears by the altar, swears by
it and by everything on it; [21] and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by
it and by the one who dwells in it; [22] and whoever swears by heaven, swears by
the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

[23] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe
mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:
justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without
neglecting the others. [24] You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow
a camel!