Donald Trump wants churches to speak freely about politics without concern about losing their tax-free status. Will he apply this to all religious institutions, or only those he favors, like churches, but not mosques?
He is right that churches should have freedom of speech, but he is wrong that their freedom of speech should be subsidized by the taxpayers.
See “How Trump Would Corrupt the Pulpit”, Steven Waldman, New York Times, 2017-02-02.
Interestingly, he was speaking at an “unconstitutional” gathering: the National Prayer Breakfast. Isn’t this a religious test for public office? Doesn’t this kind of make those who don’t attend look irreligious?
See also http://magree.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-united-states-is-not-christian.html.
Showing posts with label Christian nation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian nation. Show all posts
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The United States is NOT a Christian Nation
...and it was not founded as such.
The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity. I’ll get back to this.
Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence. But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution. The closest to a religious statement in either is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite. He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty. Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time? People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story. Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.
The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.
It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President. And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers. It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court. John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”. Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.
And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”. And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.
These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites. “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Matthew 6:5.
What does a Christian practice?
For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.” And who was “thy neighbor”? The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.
A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country? One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities. But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.
Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?
U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista. Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista? And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains. But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government. Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.
The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak. Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S? Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?
“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse? See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies. Are nuclear weapons peacemakers? Oh, yes! The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!
We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks. How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians? Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years? Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.
Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws. There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead. So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?
My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf. It isn’t anybody else’s business. The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing. The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want. In return we should let others believe what they want.
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation
The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity. I’ll get back to this.
Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence. But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution. The closest to a religious statement in either is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite. He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty. Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time? People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story. Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.
The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.
It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President. And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers. It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court. John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”. Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.
And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”. And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.
These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites. “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Matthew 6:5.
What does a Christian practice?
For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.” And who was “thy neighbor”? The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.
A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country? One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities. But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.
Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?
U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista. Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista? And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains. But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government. Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.
The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak. Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S? Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?
“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse? See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies. Are nuclear weapons peacemakers? Oh, yes! The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!
We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks. How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians? Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years? Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.
Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws. There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead. So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?
My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf. It isn’t anybody else’s business. The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing. The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want. In return we should let others believe what they want.
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Muslims do speak out. Are you listening?
A few weeks ago a letter writer to the Reader stated that “ALL Muslims” must speak out. He stated this over and over again.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Sunday, January 06, 2013
If the United States were a Christian nation…
…it would follow the "second greatest commandment", "do unto others as you would have them do to you."
We do not want other countries invading us.
We do not want other countries assassinating our leaders.
We do not want other countries stationing troops in our country.
We do not want other countries dictating our choice of leaders.
We do not want other countries to have nuclear weapons.
We do not want other countries having bigger or more powerful militaries than we do.
And then there is, "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".
We can only be considered a peace-loving nation when the State Department has a bigger budget than the War Department.
We do not want other countries invading us.
We do not want other countries assassinating our leaders.
We do not want other countries stationing troops in our country.
We do not want other countries dictating our choice of leaders.
We do not want other countries to have nuclear weapons.
We do not want other countries having bigger or more powerful militaries than we do.
And then there is, "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".
We can only be considered a peace-loving nation when the State Department has a bigger budget than the War Department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)