I have not updated this blog in 2 years. There’s been a reason for that. It goes beyond busyness or writer’s block. Apathy or frustration towards the political process is not the reason either. The reason is simple: abortion. I realized being a blogger who criticizes the Political Right and the Church’s current devotion to them but has nothing to say about abortion may be equivalent to a weather vane without an arrow: pointless. I have tried to write about abortion before, but found my views conflicting with one another. It’s not that I’ve had nothing to say. It’s just that I haven’t known what to say. But today, I’ve decided to power through it and get ‘er done.
I have many conversations with Christian friends who all agree: abortion is wrong. I can debate with most of these friends and they can agree with me on some problems with Republican policies. Yet, they are still loyal to the party for one reason: Abortion. They feel abortion is a moral wrong. They feel any vote cast for a pro choice candidate, is a vote cast to murder babies. They feel terminating a fetus for convenience sake is wrong. The fetus has no decision in the process. The mother and the father chose to engage in a certain behavior, so they should be responsible.. so goes the argument. For those reasons, they are loyal Republicans.
I don't feel they are necessarily wrong in how they feel... abortion is an awful thing. Abortion is taking a human life who has no opinion in the process. But I can see the other side...
My main argument against litmus test voting on the abortion issue is simple: If you are concerned about preserving human life, then the GOP is not your party.
Think about it... Which party is more likely to support capital punishment? Which party is less likely to support gun control? Which party fights against every environmental protection mandate? Which party is more likely to get us involved in a pointless war?
The Republicans also want to cut social safety nets to the bone. Food stamps. Medicaid. Welfare. Pell grants. You name it.. if it's a program designed as a "hand out" to those who are less fortunate, the GOP wants to cut it. Why is this relevant when it comes the abortion issue? Well, two reasons. First, the number one reason women cite when having abortion is money. They can't afford the baby. So, you can argue that pro-safety net policies (entitlement programs) actually reduce the number of abortions. The more you help women afford their babies, the less abortions will occur. The second reason is even more absurd... Consider this: If the GOP gets its way, abortions would cease, or at least be greatly reduced. That means as many as 30 million more babies born each year. However, Republicans don't seem to care about the child after it exits the womb. Their viewpoint may as well be: you better have that child, and when you do, you can either get a good job or live in a cardboard box. That doesn't seem to be a very pro-human life position.
I have more to say on the issue, but to sum up.. I believe that the GOP's current stance on abortion is less of a grave concern for the preservation human life than it is a calculated tactic to hold their evangelical Christian base
Friday, August 31, 2012
Monday, August 23, 2010
Why are Christians and Republicans Married?
In my view, Republicans have managed to do something both sinister and genius at the same time: convince Christian's that a vote for them is a vote against our nation's downward spiral away from God. They'll point to the School Prayer Decision, a decision in such-and–such a community to disallow the nativity scene or the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse. They'll say all this is evidence that the "secular progressives" (the current term for "liberal") are trying to take power and turn our Christian Nation away from God, and something must be done.
Listen to Glen Beck. Watch O'Rielly and his "Culture Wars". Listen to the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of Sarah Palin and Newt Gengrich. They have attacked the current Ground Zero Mosque issue like a pack of dolphins to a school of tuna, eager to show concerned Americans how "Christian" they are in an election year. (And in my opinion, they are ignoring the Constitution and common decency in the process.) They mercilessly attacked the President for fulfilling his oath and defending the Constitution.
Think about it. If you study Republican talking points as a whole, the message they are trying to sell is that government is both the cause of and solution to our nation's apparent wickedness.
The Republicans have one thing right. Wickedness (sin) in our nation is a problem. But the lie they are selling my fellow Christians is that they (Republicans) can change it. Obviously, Sin has been a problem since Eve ate the Apple. Yes, our nation is digressing on moral ground in a lot of areas (recreational sex, pornography, abortion etc.) but we are progressing in others (racism, civil rights).
I am not saying Christians shouldn't be concerned with society's moral downfall. I am saying your vote at the ballot box can do nothing about it. The only way for Christians to make a difference morally in our society is the same way we've always done it. First, see what "wickedness" is in your life and correct it. Then do what God is asking you to do by helping teach others to do the same in Christ Jesus. Of couse, that is a lot harder than attending a Tea Party rally and blaming the Democrats for our nation's moral downfall.
When it comes to your responsibility at the ballot box, of course you should vote based on your faith. I hope you don't think I am saying otherwise. Just think about what the parties stand for on all the issues instead of buying everything the Republicans are selling you, hook line and sinker.
Crime: Republicans want to lock criminals up and throw away the key. Democrats want to make a more concerted effort to rehabilitate criminals and bring them back into society. Christ is for forgiveness. Heck, Christ is Forgiveness.
Welfare: Republicans want to drastically cut welfare in efforts to get the recipients of such programs back to work. Democrats want to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable among us. Christ was for taking care of the poor. He told us taking care of the poor was like taking care of Him.
Abortion: Republicans want to make abortion illegal. Done. Problem solved. Democrats are actually making steps to reduce the number of abortions by trying to help troubled pregnant women with government services, so they might be able to afford to keep the child and teaching students about the importance of contraception.
Immigration: Some Republicans want to repeal the 14th amendment's clause that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen so that illegal immigrates can't come here and drop their "anchor babies" or worse, so terrorists can't come here and drop their "terror babies." Democrats think that is the stupidest thing they've ever heard. Christ said "Let the little children come to me…"
Global Warming/ Environment: Republicans won't even acknowledge Global Warming as a real concern. Most of the time, they are not in favor of making environmentally conscious decisions if it means cutting profits. Democrats think environmental issues such as Global Warming are a major concern and are aggressively trying to acknowledge and fix the problem. God commanded us to take care of the earth.
Health Care: Democrats are at least trying to fix our nation's health care system and are attempting to provide for those who cannot afford adequate coverage. Republicans refuse to admit there is a major problem and are using health care reform as a wedge issue instead of coming to the table with solutions. Christ healed all who asked.
Look, I am not suggesting Democrats are correct in all their views. I am not saying Republicans don't have any valid ideas. All of these issues require very complex solutions. In no way, do I adhere to any particular Party line. I am just suggesting that I don't believe Christ would want us to follow one party so blindly.
Just remember, Republicans do this for only one reason: We are stupid enough to fall for it.
Listen to Glen Beck. Watch O'Rielly and his "Culture Wars". Listen to the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of Sarah Palin and Newt Gengrich. They have attacked the current Ground Zero Mosque issue like a pack of dolphins to a school of tuna, eager to show concerned Americans how "Christian" they are in an election year. (And in my opinion, they are ignoring the Constitution and common decency in the process.) They mercilessly attacked the President for fulfilling his oath and defending the Constitution.
Think about it. If you study Republican talking points as a whole, the message they are trying to sell is that government is both the cause of and solution to our nation's apparent wickedness.
The Republicans have one thing right. Wickedness (sin) in our nation is a problem. But the lie they are selling my fellow Christians is that they (Republicans) can change it. Obviously, Sin has been a problem since Eve ate the Apple. Yes, our nation is digressing on moral ground in a lot of areas (recreational sex, pornography, abortion etc.) but we are progressing in others (racism, civil rights).
I am not saying Christians shouldn't be concerned with society's moral downfall. I am saying your vote at the ballot box can do nothing about it. The only way for Christians to make a difference morally in our society is the same way we've always done it. First, see what "wickedness" is in your life and correct it. Then do what God is asking you to do by helping teach others to do the same in Christ Jesus. Of couse, that is a lot harder than attending a Tea Party rally and blaming the Democrats for our nation's moral downfall.
When it comes to your responsibility at the ballot box, of course you should vote based on your faith. I hope you don't think I am saying otherwise. Just think about what the parties stand for on all the issues instead of buying everything the Republicans are selling you, hook line and sinker.
Crime: Republicans want to lock criminals up and throw away the key. Democrats want to make a more concerted effort to rehabilitate criminals and bring them back into society. Christ is for forgiveness. Heck, Christ is Forgiveness.
Welfare: Republicans want to drastically cut welfare in efforts to get the recipients of such programs back to work. Democrats want to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable among us. Christ was for taking care of the poor. He told us taking care of the poor was like taking care of Him.
Abortion: Republicans want to make abortion illegal. Done. Problem solved. Democrats are actually making steps to reduce the number of abortions by trying to help troubled pregnant women with government services, so they might be able to afford to keep the child and teaching students about the importance of contraception.
Immigration: Some Republicans want to repeal the 14th amendment's clause that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen so that illegal immigrates can't come here and drop their "anchor babies" or worse, so terrorists can't come here and drop their "terror babies." Democrats think that is the stupidest thing they've ever heard. Christ said "Let the little children come to me…"
Global Warming/ Environment: Republicans won't even acknowledge Global Warming as a real concern. Most of the time, they are not in favor of making environmentally conscious decisions if it means cutting profits. Democrats think environmental issues such as Global Warming are a major concern and are aggressively trying to acknowledge and fix the problem. God commanded us to take care of the earth.
Health Care: Democrats are at least trying to fix our nation's health care system and are attempting to provide for those who cannot afford adequate coverage. Republicans refuse to admit there is a major problem and are using health care reform as a wedge issue instead of coming to the table with solutions. Christ healed all who asked.
Look, I am not suggesting Democrats are correct in all their views. I am not saying Republicans don't have any valid ideas. All of these issues require very complex solutions. In no way, do I adhere to any particular Party line. I am just suggesting that I don't believe Christ would want us to follow one party so blindly.
Just remember, Republicans do this for only one reason: We are stupid enough to fall for it.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
School Prayer
The topic of prayer in public schools is not currently discussed by the media and politicians as much as other issues relevant to religion and government. However I have an opinion on it and I figure it is a good of an issue as any to blog on, so here ya go:
A lot of Christians are quick to tell you decisions such as Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled school-sponsored prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause, are some of the moments where our nation began a downward spiral away from God; a spiral we are still suffering from today.
I disagree. If you think about it, prayer was not taken out of our schools. Mandatory prayer was. As far as I know, students are still allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment right and pray at school. They are also free to have religious after-school activities. They just can't disrupt class without getting in trouble. It's not as if, when the courts decided that prayer couldn’t be a part of official school programming, we all of a sudden weren't allowed to pray at our schools. We just simply stopped. That's on us, not the government. Besides, I think the Jesus was pretty clear about mandatory, ritualistic prayers that don't come from the heart in Matthew 6:5-13. And, let's face it, that is all we lost in those decisions.
A lot of Christians are quick to tell you decisions such as Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled school-sponsored prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause, are some of the moments where our nation began a downward spiral away from God; a spiral we are still suffering from today.
I disagree. If you think about it, prayer was not taken out of our schools. Mandatory prayer was. As far as I know, students are still allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment right and pray at school. They are also free to have religious after-school activities. They just can't disrupt class without getting in trouble. It's not as if, when the courts decided that prayer couldn’t be a part of official school programming, we all of a sudden weren't allowed to pray at our schools. We just simply stopped. That's on us, not the government. Besides, I think the Jesus was pretty clear about mandatory, ritualistic prayers that don't come from the heart in Matthew 6:5-13. And, let's face it, that is all we lost in those decisions.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
More Thoughts On The Mosque Issue
The Ground Zero mosque controversy has gotten much more heated in the weeks since I made the original post. I also sent the same blog into my county's local paper as a letter to the editor and it was printed yesterday. I think it's important for me to weigh in on this issue again because I feel we, as a country, are making a huge mistake in our reaction to this.
Let me say a few thoughts I have had since the post.
I will admit, building the mosque at its present location is huge public relations blunder for its supporters. That is to say, if their goal is to foster peace and understanding of Islam, they are doing a very poor job. Be that as it may, that's a political issue on their end, not a legal one.
If proof comes out that the backers of the mosque have ties to radicalism I will do a 180 on my position. Public safety trumps 1st amendment.
I have heard the Imam has said he wants Sharia law to be recognized in America. That will never happen. How do I know? Because of the Establishment Clause. Any pundit who makes that argument is just trying to scare the public. Puls, after doing a simple wikipedia search, I learned that there are very different interpretations of Sharia law within Islam. That means any Muslim that says something affrming Sharia is not necessarily talking about the brutal treatment of women.
What bothers me the most about this issue is how willing the American public is to paint mainstream Islam and radical Islam with the same brush. I don't think we realize how dangerous this is. The best way we can make a dent in curving the interest in radical Islam across the world is to let mainstream Islam help. Every time we speak out against the mosque, we are comparing the Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center to the Muslims who want to build the mosque.
Imagine if Eric Rudolph, a Christian terrorist whose goal was to overthrow the government because of the abortion issue, had killed 200 instead of 2 people at the Olympic Park bombing of '96. If a Baptist church wanted to build 2 blocks away, nobody would care. Why? Because we understand the difference between radical Christianity and mainstream Christianity. We know Christianity didn't attack us; a radical nutjob claiming to be a Christian did.
Complaining that we aren't allowed to build churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries is a ridiculous argument. They don't allow churches because they don't have freedom of religion. We do.
I wish we would care more about the 1st Amendment than we do about our feelings and emotions.
Let me say a few thoughts I have had since the post.
I will admit, building the mosque at its present location is huge public relations blunder for its supporters. That is to say, if their goal is to foster peace and understanding of Islam, they are doing a very poor job. Be that as it may, that's a political issue on their end, not a legal one.
If proof comes out that the backers of the mosque have ties to radicalism I will do a 180 on my position. Public safety trumps 1st amendment.
I have heard the Imam has said he wants Sharia law to be recognized in America. That will never happen. How do I know? Because of the Establishment Clause. Any pundit who makes that argument is just trying to scare the public. Puls, after doing a simple wikipedia search, I learned that there are very different interpretations of Sharia law within Islam. That means any Muslim that says something affrming Sharia is not necessarily talking about the brutal treatment of women.
What bothers me the most about this issue is how willing the American public is to paint mainstream Islam and radical Islam with the same brush. I don't think we realize how dangerous this is. The best way we can make a dent in curving the interest in radical Islam across the world is to let mainstream Islam help. Every time we speak out against the mosque, we are comparing the Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center to the Muslims who want to build the mosque.
Imagine if Eric Rudolph, a Christian terrorist whose goal was to overthrow the government because of the abortion issue, had killed 200 instead of 2 people at the Olympic Park bombing of '96. If a Baptist church wanted to build 2 blocks away, nobody would care. Why? Because we understand the difference between radical Christianity and mainstream Christianity. We know Christianity didn't attack us; a radical nutjob claiming to be a Christian did.
Complaining that we aren't allowed to build churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries is a ridiculous argument. They don't allow churches because they don't have freedom of religion. We do.
I wish we would care more about the 1st Amendment than we do about our feelings and emotions.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Meeting with Mike Rogers
Friday, during a meet-the-common-folk swing through Randolph County, my congressmen, Republican Mike Rogers, sat down with my father and me over a basket of fried catfish at Lakeside Market and Grill. (On a side note, Lakeside Market and Grill does not serve hush puppies with their fried catfish. I might cover this blatant violation of Southern catfish etiquette in a later post.) I thought I would blog on our conversation.
I must confess I did not have the foresight to bring a tape recorder to this meeting. Nor did I identify myself as a political blogger. Therefore I will be paraphrasing the congressmen's comments as best I can from memory. I will email a copy of this post to his office and if he feels he was misrepresented in any way, I will be sure to make corrections and post a retraction if necessary.
The conversation started with Dad reminding Rep. Rogers of the working relationship of Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Democrat Tip O'Neal, and asking why the two parties of today were polarized and seemingly so unwilling to work together. Dad, a former nuclear submariner in the Navy, cited nuclear power as a possible similarity the two parties now share. (Nuclear power is an issue Republicans have been championing for years and President Obama has said he is in favor of more nuclear power plants.) Congressman Rogers agreed that Republicans would be glad to help the president in passing legislation to build more nuclear power plants, but said the Democratic leadership recently attached pro-nuclear power legislation to a bill about cap-and-trade, an issue Republicans are strongly opposed to. As a result, Republicans were forced to either vote for nuclear power and cap-and-trade or vote against both. Rogers said most Republicans voted against the bill. The congressman alluded to an issue that I have thought needed to be addressed since I started following politics closely: the ability to attach any language to any piece of legislation. I asked Mr. Rogers why this rule couldn't be changed suggesting the system would work better if each piece of new legislation was required to have a mission statement and no language could be attached to that legislation that was not related to that mission statement. He said he, and many of his colleagues on both sides of the isle, would love for the rules to be amended in such a way. However, he said the House Rules Committee has to sign off on all rule changes and members of the committee were assigned by the party leadership, in particular, the Speaker of the House. He said passing a rule that takes power away from the powerful is very hard, because the powerful have to agree to such a rule change, thus relinquishing some of their power. He also complained that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was attached to an important defense spending bill and Republicans were forced to vote against the bill for that reason. I quipped that Republicans do the same thing when they are in power. He was quick to agree, saying that was how the Bush tax cuts were passed. I asked why they didn't go to the media and in an effort to expose the members of congress that benefit from the status-quo and unethically use the system for their own political gain. He said that the media thinks House rule changes are not sexy enough and therefore are would be uninterested in covering such a story.
Then Dad then brought the conversation to the fact that the FCC has Randolph and Cleburne county in the Atlanta media market despite the fact that most residents of both counties would rather be in the Birmingham market in order to better follow Alabama weather and politics. Rogers agreed that this was a major problem in his district, and said that he and some of his colleagues that represent similar districts across the country have tried every way they could think of to "skin that cat" for a long time. He regretted not having solved the issue, citing bureaucracy at the FCC as the reason. Dad offered a solution and Rogers said he would have his legislative director contact him so Dad could help him put his solution in legislative language.
I must say, I was impressed with Congressman Rogers' candor. He seemed like a nice man genuinely trying to serve the interests of his district. I deliberately didn't bring up any issues that I knew we probably disagreed on, not wanting to engage in a pointless debate.
However, I believe the rule change I alluded to, and the congressman agreed with, would do more to improve our government's effectiveness than almost any other piece of legislation. If passed, politicians would no longer be forced to vote on three different issues with one vote. Politicians on both sides of the isle always seem to campaign on cutting wasteful spending. Think of how much wasteful spending would get cut! That is how wasteful pork programs make it through the system to begin with: by getting attached to more popular pieces of legislation. The amount of language in the recent health care bill that has nothing to do with health care would surprise you. I must say, I disagree with the congressman's assessment of the issue not being sexy enough for the media. I bet if the congressman and his bi-partisan collegues called out the selfish party leadership by name, especially members of their own party, saying they are obviously more concerned with keeping or re-gaining their power than making popular changes that would make congress and the government work better, it would get the media's attention. The framers of the Constitution obviously didn't foresee this problem because, in their day, they were forced to be in the same room when drafting and amending legislation. The media loves to call out crooked politicians that are out of touch of the needs of the voters. I bet the congressman could get the media's attention if he wanted to. I know if I were in congress, I would make this my number one issue. I wouldn't shut up about it. Because I know this ridiculous example of ignoring common sense is the base that the entire house of cards of ineffective governing and partisan bickering rests on.
I must confess I did not have the foresight to bring a tape recorder to this meeting. Nor did I identify myself as a political blogger. Therefore I will be paraphrasing the congressmen's comments as best I can from memory. I will email a copy of this post to his office and if he feels he was misrepresented in any way, I will be sure to make corrections and post a retraction if necessary.
The conversation started with Dad reminding Rep. Rogers of the working relationship of Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Democrat Tip O'Neal, and asking why the two parties of today were polarized and seemingly so unwilling to work together. Dad, a former nuclear submariner in the Navy, cited nuclear power as a possible similarity the two parties now share. (Nuclear power is an issue Republicans have been championing for years and President Obama has said he is in favor of more nuclear power plants.) Congressman Rogers agreed that Republicans would be glad to help the president in passing legislation to build more nuclear power plants, but said the Democratic leadership recently attached pro-nuclear power legislation to a bill about cap-and-trade, an issue Republicans are strongly opposed to. As a result, Republicans were forced to either vote for nuclear power and cap-and-trade or vote against both. Rogers said most Republicans voted against the bill. The congressman alluded to an issue that I have thought needed to be addressed since I started following politics closely: the ability to attach any language to any piece of legislation. I asked Mr. Rogers why this rule couldn't be changed suggesting the system would work better if each piece of new legislation was required to have a mission statement and no language could be attached to that legislation that was not related to that mission statement. He said he, and many of his colleagues on both sides of the isle, would love for the rules to be amended in such a way. However, he said the House Rules Committee has to sign off on all rule changes and members of the committee were assigned by the party leadership, in particular, the Speaker of the House. He said passing a rule that takes power away from the powerful is very hard, because the powerful have to agree to such a rule change, thus relinquishing some of their power. He also complained that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was attached to an important defense spending bill and Republicans were forced to vote against the bill for that reason. I quipped that Republicans do the same thing when they are in power. He was quick to agree, saying that was how the Bush tax cuts were passed. I asked why they didn't go to the media and in an effort to expose the members of congress that benefit from the status-quo and unethically use the system for their own political gain. He said that the media thinks House rule changes are not sexy enough and therefore are would be uninterested in covering such a story.
Then Dad then brought the conversation to the fact that the FCC has Randolph and Cleburne county in the Atlanta media market despite the fact that most residents of both counties would rather be in the Birmingham market in order to better follow Alabama weather and politics. Rogers agreed that this was a major problem in his district, and said that he and some of his colleagues that represent similar districts across the country have tried every way they could think of to "skin that cat" for a long time. He regretted not having solved the issue, citing bureaucracy at the FCC as the reason. Dad offered a solution and Rogers said he would have his legislative director contact him so Dad could help him put his solution in legislative language.
I must say, I was impressed with Congressman Rogers' candor. He seemed like a nice man genuinely trying to serve the interests of his district. I deliberately didn't bring up any issues that I knew we probably disagreed on, not wanting to engage in a pointless debate.
However, I believe the rule change I alluded to, and the congressman agreed with, would do more to improve our government's effectiveness than almost any other piece of legislation. If passed, politicians would no longer be forced to vote on three different issues with one vote. Politicians on both sides of the isle always seem to campaign on cutting wasteful spending. Think of how much wasteful spending would get cut! That is how wasteful pork programs make it through the system to begin with: by getting attached to more popular pieces of legislation. The amount of language in the recent health care bill that has nothing to do with health care would surprise you. I must say, I disagree with the congressman's assessment of the issue not being sexy enough for the media. I bet if the congressman and his bi-partisan collegues called out the selfish party leadership by name, especially members of their own party, saying they are obviously more concerned with keeping or re-gaining their power than making popular changes that would make congress and the government work better, it would get the media's attention. The framers of the Constitution obviously didn't foresee this problem because, in their day, they were forced to be in the same room when drafting and amending legislation. The media loves to call out crooked politicians that are out of touch of the needs of the voters. I bet the congressman could get the media's attention if he wanted to. I know if I were in congress, I would make this my number one issue. I wouldn't shut up about it. Because I know this ridiculous example of ignoring common sense is the base that the entire house of cards of ineffective governing and partisan bickering rests on.
Friday, August 13, 2010
More FOX nonsesnse
Last night during the O'Rielly Factor, they showed Harry Reid saying (paraphrasing) "I don't know how anybody of Hispanic decent would vote republican." Then, in the same opening, they showed an ad by GOP Senatorial candidate Ben Quayle where he says "Barack Obama is the worst President ever." Reid was called incendiary, out of touch, and insensitive whereas Quayle was bold. The same segment! You gotta love FOX.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why all the opposition building new Mosques?
It really bothers me when I see my fellow Christians being so opposed to building new mosques in the United States. The controversy doesn't just apply to the proposed Ground Zero mosque; some of the same people are opposed to a new mosque being built in Tennessee. Local pastors are speaking out against it. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I want more mosques to be built, I am an evangelical Christian… I don't like it when any religion but mine scores converts. But you better believe I am going to defend the 1st amendment rights of Muslims. Religious freedom is for every religion. Not just Christianity.
I suppose the controversy stems from an irrational fear of Islam. Understand this: we are NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Comparing the terrorists we are fighting to mainstream Islam is exactly like comparing the KKK to mainstream Christianity. Think about it: the KKK claims to do what they do in defense of white Christians. They believe they are soldiers of God. But if someone judged you based on the hate and violence they have perpetrated you would probably be very offended. Another example is Eric Rudolph. In his mind, he was acting as a Christian doing God's will. What if someone called you a hate monger and sited Rudolph being a member of your faith as an example? I bet you would say, "He just says he's a Christian, he's not a real Christian. He has it all wrong." And, you would be right. But, that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel when you compare their faith and how they worship to the terrorists of 911. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world. 99% of them don't hate us and don't consider us the infidel.
You might say, "I don't mind building new mosques, just not so close to Ground Zero. That's rubbing salt in the wound." That's one way of looking at it. I say it would be an extraordinary testament to America's tolerance and willingness to accept mainstream Muslims as a part of our community.
I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you care about your freedom of worship, you have to care about the freedom of worship for those who you disagree with. Imagine if a misguided member of your church blows up an abortion clinic. Then imagine members of the public wanting to shut your church down as a result. Imagine them accusing your pastor of being a terroist. Then imagine the government wanting to freeze your church's missionary spending. Now you can perhaps understand what it's like to be a Muslim living in America. And THAT'S why defending the freedom of worship, wherever it is attacked, is so important to me. Because, one day, my freedom might come under attack too.
I suppose the controversy stems from an irrational fear of Islam. Understand this: we are NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Comparing the terrorists we are fighting to mainstream Islam is exactly like comparing the KKK to mainstream Christianity. Think about it: the KKK claims to do what they do in defense of white Christians. They believe they are soldiers of God. But if someone judged you based on the hate and violence they have perpetrated you would probably be very offended. Another example is Eric Rudolph. In his mind, he was acting as a Christian doing God's will. What if someone called you a hate monger and sited Rudolph being a member of your faith as an example? I bet you would say, "He just says he's a Christian, he's not a real Christian. He has it all wrong." And, you would be right. But, that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel when you compare their faith and how they worship to the terrorists of 911. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world. 99% of them don't hate us and don't consider us the infidel.
You might say, "I don't mind building new mosques, just not so close to Ground Zero. That's rubbing salt in the wound." That's one way of looking at it. I say it would be an extraordinary testament to America's tolerance and willingness to accept mainstream Muslims as a part of our community.
I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you care about your freedom of worship, you have to care about the freedom of worship for those who you disagree with. Imagine if a misguided member of your church blows up an abortion clinic. Then imagine members of the public wanting to shut your church down as a result. Imagine them accusing your pastor of being a terroist. Then imagine the government wanting to freeze your church's missionary spending. Now you can perhaps understand what it's like to be a Muslim living in America. And THAT'S why defending the freedom of worship, wherever it is attacked, is so important to me. Because, one day, my freedom might come under attack too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)