Tag Archives: Christianity

Keep It Personal, Please

Posted on by under Law and justice, Political commentary, religion

Perhaps there is no single place where the concept of separation between church and state is as important as in our public schools.  There was good reason for Thomas Jefferson to call for a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state, and today there are even more reasons.  And yet, in recent years, most especially since Donald Trump took office in 2017, that wall seems to be breaking down.

Today it was announced that …

“The Trump administration is moving to strengthen protections for students who want to pray or worship in public schools and proposing changes that would make it easier for religious groups that provide social services to access federal funds.”

Now, I can hear you saying, “Okay, so what’s the big deal … if a kid wants to pray while in school, who cares?”  But here’s the thing … any kid who wants to pray in school at any time of the day is already free to do so.  Nobody is going to punish the child who closes his eyes and says, “Lord, please help me pass this test”.  But … to allow a child to force the entire classroom to listen to his prayer is an infringement on the rights of the other children.

Prayer should be a personal thing, not a group activity … and especially when not all the group believe in the same things.  In today’s public schools, we have Muslim children, Catholic children, Jewish children, and atheist children.  But, it is the evangelical Christians who are driving the decisions to include prayer in school.  Can you imagine the evangelical parents of little Johnny who comes home one afternoon and starts talking about Allah, because little Mohammed said his prayers in school?  Oh yeah … mommy and daddy would be at the school board office bright and early the next morning, probably with their lawyer in tow.

But yet, Mohammed’s parents are supposed to accept him being subjected to Christian prayers.  There is a time and a place for everything.  If you follow a certain religion, you and your children have every right to pray, but do it at home or do it at church … school is the place we send our children to learn, not to pray.

I would remind those evangelicals who would like to see mandatory prayer in schools that they have a number of options, including sending their children to a parochial school if they feel so strongly about their child praying at school.  What they don’t have is the right to force every other child in the classroom to listen to their child’s prayers.  Public schools are open to children of any or no faith.  Children are in school a maximum of eight hours a day … surely it isn’t impossible for them to go that long without vocal prayer?

I would also remind them that this is NOT a Christian nation, but rather a constitutionally-mandated secular nation where people of all religions are welcome, as are people who eschew any religion.  Religion is a personal thing … keep it personal, please … remember that our schools are funded by tax dollars paid by people of all and no denominations. school-prayer

separation of church and state

Posted on by under Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Re-blogs, religion, Social commentary

Separation of church and state … a simple concept, right? The government will not support one religion over any other. And yet, as Larry tells us, down in Florida (and other places as well) they are attempting to do just that, by trying to pass legislation that would make the study of the Christian bible mandatory in schools. What about Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Hindus? This nation is only about 70% Christian, so … why should they dominate? Please take a few minutes to read Larry’s excellent post. Thank you, Larry, for permission to share your work!

lpb quest - the twilight dance

Living as a Democrat in rural, Republican Florida challenges one’s sense of inclusiveness and social propriety.  A recent controversy in local politics regarding funding our library’s request to make the New York Times available online to library cardholders is a case in point. My friend at BY HOOK OR BY BOOK has shared a great post regarding this issue.  It is indicative of a population which refuses to leave the 1950s.

On Florida’s horizon is a bill filed by a State Senator which would require courses be made available in our public schools at taxpayers’ expense providing studies of the Bible.  The following is the letter which I have submitted to our local newspaper.

State Senator Dennis Baxley, a Republican representing the Ocala region, has filed SB 746 to be considered during the 2020 legislative session. The bill would require courses providing studies of the Bible’s Old and New Testaments…

View original post 364 more words

Defining Freedom …

Posted on by under Global Issues, Political commentary, religion, Social commentary

Have you noticed that some words seem to have taken on a different meaning in the past few years than they once had?  Take, for example, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).  It sounds like a decent organization, right?  Let’s break it down a bit …

Alliance:  a union or association formed for mutual benefit

Defending:  protecting from harm or danger

Freedom:  the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

So, by those definitions, what we have here is a group of people protecting the rights of others to act, speak and think as they wish without being harmed.  What’s not to like, eh?

Well, let me tell you what’s not to like about this group.  The group is actually one of the largest anti-LGBT organizations in the nation.  Just WHOSE freedom are they defending?  They are not defending my freedom, nor yours, and for sure not any of my friends who are gay or trans!

Founded in 1993, the group’s stated mission is …

“To advocate for religious freedom to uphold justice and preserve the right of people to freely live out their faith.”

Now can anybody explain how John Doe being gay infringes on the “right of people to freely live out their faith”?  There is no justification for this … none at all!!!

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) …

“Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society. ADF also works to develop “religious liberty” legislation and case law that will allow the denial of goods and services to LGBT people on the basis of religion.”

State-sanctioned sterilization?  Denial of goods and services?  Destroy society?  What planet do these people come from?  This is among the craziest things I have heard, short of what comes from the likes of Alex Jones or Sean Hannity!

What brought this group onto my radar today is that Amazon has removed them from its AmazonSmile program.  For those who are not familiar with the program, it gives a small percentage from the purchase price of eligible products to a customer’s chosen charity.  I signed on to it when the program first started, and chose St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.  It is a good program, and Amazon did the right thing, for it should not be sullied by allowing hate groups to solicit funds in this manner. As of February, Amazon had donated more than $80 billion to various charities.  ADF is not in any way a legitimate charity!

ADF, of course, is livid and threatening legal action.  But, as one person said, “Funny how the same people who think that they shouldn’t have to sell cakes to same sex couples seem to want to force a private business to give them money directly. Last I checked, Amazon will still sell stuff to ADF.”

ADF is the very type of organization that will gain more power under the executive order signed by Donald Trump on Thursday (more to come on that later).  But let me go on record here as saying that this is a hate group, pure and simple, that is attempting to take rights away from others, rather than to defend rights.  It would be far more appropriately named the Alliance Persecuting Others.  They have been involved in many legal battles against the anything they disagreed with, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

I end where I began … has the definition of the word ‘freedom’ changed that much in the past few years?  Kellyanne warned us some 15 months ago that there would be an ‘alternative’ vocabulary under Donald Trump.  It appears she was right. Members of any religious group have the right to their own beliefs, certainly.  If members of one group or another choose to believe that marriage is only legitimate if it involves two people of opposing genders, that is their right.  Nobody … not one single person or law … is forcing anybody to become gay!!!  But the line is drawn when those members of said religion impose their will on others.  Be religious, marry someone of the opposite gender, attend whatever church you wish … nobody cares!  But do not attempt to force your beliefs, your will, on others.  Defending ‘freedom’???  No, not by any definition. They are in the business of persecution and hate, plain and simple.  They are robbing others of their freedom.  They are, indeed, a hate group and there are more and more of them crossing my radar.  America:  The United States of Hate.

On Religious Freedom and Separation of Church and State

Posted on by under Political commentary, religion, Social commentary

I generally steer clear of the topic of religion.  However, today I read an article on WorldNetDaily (WND), a politically conservative news and opinion website and online news aggregator. No, it is not one of my regular sites, but the headline dropped onto my radar from another site and my curiosity was aroused:

Dobson: Trump would ‘unleash Christian activists to fight for beliefs’

dobsonIn the course of the article, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, recounted a June meeting in which he met with Trump and other Christian leaders at Trump Tower in New York City. While reading the article,  I found a number of points highly disturbing.

  • Dobson told Trump, “Our Supreme Court has struck down Bible reading in schools and even prohibited prayer to an unidentified God. Then, they banned the posting of the Ten Commandments on bulletin boards. From there, the limitation on religious liberties has become even more egregious.”
  • Trump responded by calling it an “outrage that Christians have been deprived of their rights to speak openly on behalf of the values and principles in which they believe.”
  • Dobson noted that Trump criticized the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 piece of tax code that bans political participation by churches, as well as other tax-exempt not-for-profit groups. Dobson said Trump’s promise to overturn the amendment “would have a great impact on Washington because it would unleash Christian activists to fight for their beliefs.”

Before I comment on the above, a quote from the U.S. Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America’s doctrine for church-state separation: 1no coercion in religious matters, 2no expectation to support a religion against one’s will, and 3religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion – financial or physical – must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

c-sOne of the things that disturbs me most is that it appears Mr. Dobson does not understand that ours is a secular government.  Public schools are government organizations, and as such, the reading of a Christian text, the Bible, or the reciting of Christian prayers must be prohibited, otherwise it forces children of other faiths to participate in a religion that is not their own.  Parents who want their children to read the Bible in school have other options, i.e. parochial schools or homeschooling.

Then there is Trump’s response, which again gives the appearance that he believes the U.S. is a ‘Christian nation’, when in fact it is a secular nation that protects the freedom of religion to all.  Freedom of religion does not simply mean that one is free to be a Christian, but that one is free to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist.

Religion is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

  1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
  2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
  3. the belief in a god or in a group of gods: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Today, however, it seems to me that many, including Mr. Dobson and Trump, ascribe to the line from Henry Fielding’s novel “Tom Jones.” where he has one character say:

“By religion I mean Christianity, by Christianity I mean Protestantism, by Protestantism I mean the Church of England as established by law.”

I feel qualified to write on this topic because from my earliest days, I was ostracized on religious grounds.  I was born to a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, and our household semi-observed both religions.  Though we did not strictly keep kosher, we did not eat pork, nor did we eat meat on Fridays. I attended Catholic schools most of my childhood, where I was ridiculed and occasionally beaten for being a Jew, and attended Hebrew school on Saturdays, where I did not fit because of my Catholic heritage.  In later years, after I married a Protestant, I was told by members of his church that I could “be forgiven” for my religion, but that I must convert to their religion (I did not!).  The end result of all this is that as a mature adult, I claim no particular religion. However, I vociferously defend anybody’s right to freedom of religion so long as they do not attempt to force it upon others.  This is where I take umbrage at Dr. Dobson’s and Donald Trump’s ideas which seem to embrace Christianity to the exclusion of all others.

There is another major issue I have with Dr. Dobson, as well as all religious leaders who support and encourage their followers to support Donald Trump.  It seems to me that, as Christians, they are compromising their values.  How is Dr. Dobson not offended by Trump’s abuse of women, his many marital affairs and infidelities?  How is he not offended by Trump’s proven dishonesty in his dealings with employees and contractors?  How is he not offended by the racist and discriminatory remarks he has made against other races, cultures and religions?  How is he not offended by the violence Mr. Trump promotes?  I am puzzled as to how Dr. Dobson can even consider Mr. Trump for membership in the Christian religion, let alone as the leader of our nation.

It is not my intent to denigrate Christianity or any other religion, but simply to point out that this nation, from the very beginning, has been based on open exchange of ideas, on tolerance for all, not just a few.  Dr. Dobson’s article seems to defy one of the core principles on which our nation was founded.

Idiot of the Week: Rep. Pat Ownbey

Posted on by under Rants, Social commentary

Why is it that as soon as I finish writing about one big idiot, another one passes right before my very eyes?  Just when you think you have found the absolutely biggest, vilest, most disgusting creature, here comes one even worse!  I am thinking I should make this a regular feature of this blog … “Idiot of the Week”.  Meet today’s subject of the roast:  Oklahoma State Rep. Pat Ownbey.

ownbey

Idiot of the Week – Pat Ownbey

Last week, Mr. Ownbey copied to his Facebook page a letter written by one Paul R. Hollrah (another bloomin’ idiot).  The title of the letter was “Radical Islam – A Final Solution”.  Remember that Hitler’s “Final Solution” was the Holocaust?  Well, just wait until you see what Mr. Hollrah’s concept is.  Now, I named Mr. Ownbey as the biggest idiot here, though Mr. Hollrah actually wrote the letter and the ideas posed in said letter are the creations of Mr. Hollrah.  Hollrah, however, while also a huge idiot, is basically a nobody, while Ownbey, being a representative of the people of Oklahoma and, as a member of Congress, a representative of us all, has a significantly higher standard to live up to, thus he is the bigger idiot for supporting the ideas of the other madman!

Please feel free to follow the link above for the entire letter, as it is much too long for me to include in this post.  Meanwhile, let me summarize.  Hollrah claims that Islam is not, in fact, a religion and therefore not eligible for 1st Amendment protections in the U.S.  Their goal, he claims, is to overthrow western governments by force and violence.  He calls for all Muslims to be quarantined, prohibited “from residing anywhere within the civilized nations of the Earth.” He goes on to suggest that since President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron, and Chancellor Angela Merkel will not “do what is necessary to protect us,” the citizens of the western world must “take matters into our own hands.”

Okay, where to start?  First, the claim that Islam is not a religion.  Of course Islam is a religion!  It is nearly as old as Christianity and has nearly as many followers worldwide.  Let us look at the definition of religion: “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.  A particular system of faith and worship.  A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.”  Surely there are other, more in-depth definitions, but these pretty well sum up the scope of what religion is.  I do not see anything that would exclude Islam.  It is neither the responsibility nor the right of any individual to decide what qualifies as a religion.  Period.  Islam is followed by 1.6 billion people worldwide, some 23% of the world’s population.  And since it is a religion, it is covered by the 1st Amendment.  Period.

The goal of Islam has nothing to do with overthrowing any governments, western or otherwise.  Like Christianity, there will always be a handful of radicals.  Think Westboro Church.  Think Pat Robertson.  You do not judge the whole based on the actions of the few!!!  How many times … oh never mind.  I am neither Christian nor Muslim, however I know a bit about each of those religions, enough to know that both are based on peace, not hatred.  The hatred is solely the creation of people, of individuals who have, for whatever reason, chosen to interpret their religion to suit their own warped ends, usually a thirst for power.  I have good friends who are Muslim.  They are as peaceable as am I … probably more so.

Finally, the premise that the citizens of the world must take matters into their own hands …. Frankly, this sounds like a threat against national security and I believe this man needs to be on a terrorist watchlist, or at least on the radar of Homeland Security.

All that said, Congressman Ownbey, having posted Hollrah’s letter, apparently fully agrees with the content and premise of the letter, as he made no comments to the contrary.  This, my friends, is not the behaviour I expect from a representative in the federal government!  I am more frightened of both Mr. Ownbey and Mr. Hollrah than I am of any group of Muslims!  These two gentlemen are terrorists, make no mistake.  They promulgate fear, and that is what a terrorist does.  Mr. Ownbey is up for re-election in November, and I beg the good people of Oklahoma to please get this man out of government! 

Earlier today I read two posts by a young fellow-blogger speaking of his African heritage.  One thing he said that struck me then, and seems appropriate in this post at this juncture was “When you let yourself imagine that all these and more were done to millions of people over a long period of time by other humans, you begin to feel almost guilty to be human.”  When I read of people like the two men in this post, I feel guilty to be a member of the same race, the human race.

America is NOT the Land of Religious Freedom

Posted on by under religion, Social commentary

Growing up, I quite often heard that there are two things one should never discuss:  religion and politics.  Well, obviously I, like most others, have broken that taboo when it comes to politics!  However, I do try to stay far away from discussions about religion.  I view religion as a very personal issue and think it is generally best if everyone keeps their religious views to themselves.  There are only about three people in my life who even know my religious views, and that is how I intend to keep it.  However, today I feel compelled to tackle, respectfully, the subject of religion in the U.S.  I shall probably regret this, but ….

There are several things that set the U.S. apart from most other nations:

  • In the 18th century, after winning our independence from England, we led the fight for democracy around the globe and our Constitution was the first of its kind.
  • We are a nation of immigrants: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
  • The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion and press: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Certainly there are many more things that set us apart from other nations, some of which are achievements of which to be proud, others not so much, but they are not necessarily relevant to my topic today.

How do you define religious freedom?  I define it as the right of people of every religion to observe the rites and rituals of their faith, including secularists and those of no religion, without persecution or condemnation. That is just my definition, and I am pretty sure that everyone has a slightly different one, but it would seem that today, many define religious freedom as “the right of ‘Christians’ to dictate the laws and practices of all people in the nation.”  Believe it or not, this conflict is not new.  It goes back to the very first settlers in what would later become the U.S.

The very first people to come here seeking religious freedom were actually the French Huguenots, back in 1564.  Long story short, they were wiped out by the Spaniards (Catholics) because “they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these Provinces.” Both the Spaniards and the French were Christians, yet their encounter ended in a bloodbath of religious intolerance.

During the 1600s, Pilgrims and Puritans came to our shores seeking relief from religious persecution.  The story we are so fond of telling and hearing is that our nation thus became a welcoming melting pot where everyone was free to practice his or her faith, but the reality is that within the Massachusetts Bay Colony, religious or political dissent was absolutely not tolerated and punishable by anything from banishment from the colony up to and including hanging. Ultimately it led to one people’s quest for freedom resulting in the conquest and enslavement of another. (Philbrick, Mayflower, 2006)

Throughout the history of the nation there have been examples of blatant religious intolerance too numerous for this short article, but if you are interested, the Smithsonian has an excellent article you may want to read: America’s True History of Religious Tolerance. Which brings us to the 21st century.  I find it interesting that the very same people who strenuously object to any gun regulation, decrying that their 2nd Amendment rights are being violated, see no problem with denying 1st Amendment rights to fully one-third of the population.

We have, as defined by the Constitution itself, a secular government.  There is good reason for this, yet many would claim that ours is a ‘Christian nation’, whatever that means.  Our government does not require that a person be of any specific faith, nor of any faith at all, in order to run for any elected office.  Article VI of the Constitution states, in part, that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Our laws are not intended to favour any one religion over another, nor to exclude or condemn those who choose no religion.

Just as there has always been religious intolerance and just as there have been acts of violence committed in the name of one religion or another in the past, we are seeing what seems a resurgence of religious intolerance in recent years. I am not sure if there is actually less tolerance between religions today, or if people are just speaking louder and being noticed more than in the past. I do know that this is the first time I recall lawmakers forgetting their responsibility to not favor any one religion over others and threatening to pass laws against a specific religion.  If those who would do so are successful in passing laws to ban people of the Muslim faith from our nation, then all semblance of religious freedom goes out the window and the Constitution, the foundation of our government, is null and void.

Beliefs and religion should not define the person.  Actions should define the person.  We must not judge people because they are Christians or Muslims or Jews, but judge them by their actions.  I am far more concerned with whether a person is honest, kind, fair, and empathetic than whether he is Christian, Muslim, or atheist. In fact, I prefer not to even know or discuss a person’s religious beliefs, as it is not my business, nor are my beliefs his business.

A recent study by PEW Research Center ranks countries by religious freedom, with an eye to both government policies and what private religious groups and organizations do in the public sphere. The U.S. ranks only 9th, saying “The United States has a 3.0 ranking on the scale, even though the country’s constitution calls for the freedom to practice religion. The country has seen some litigation over religious freedom issues in recent years.”  Interestingly, we are out-ranked by Brazil (#1), South Africa, Philippines, Japan, D.R. Congo, U.K., Italy, and South Korea.

We cannot continue to say we are a nation of religious freedom if that freedom applies only to any one group, or if it excludes even a single group.  I do not think there is a single “right” ideology that supersedes all others. While we have never truly been a shining example of religious freedom, I think it is time we adopt an attitude of “live and let live” in this nation before we become a nation of religious persecution.

 

 

 

Women Should Not Be Allowed To Vote??? Says WHO???

Posted on by under Rants, Social commentary

Something was brought to my attention today and at first glance I blew it off with a “yeah, right, as if anybody is that stupid in the 21st century in the U.S..  But it apparently took up residence somewhere in the back of my mind, and I finally decided to “give it a google”.  WHOA!  Apparently there are a few people that stupid in this, the 21st century!

One such person is a so-called “pastor”, Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, who believes that “women should be banned from voting and confined to their home”.  Mad yet?  Just wait.  I am woman … hear me ROAR … ! Anderson (I refuse to dignify him by referring to him as “pastor” Anderson) follows with this:

“You know what they mean [by women’s rights]? The right to divorce your husband is what they mean. You know what they mean? The right to rebel and disobey your husband, the right to divorce him, the right to go out and get a job and make your own money, the right to tell him what to do, the right to go vote for our leaders as if women should have any say in how our country is run when the Bible says that ‘I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence’?”

He once went on a rant about how women shouldn’t be allowed to read, talk, or leave the house without permission from a man. He has even demanded that women keep their mouths shut in church.  (Filosofa says:  Hello … knock, knock, knock … anybody home in there?  Welcome to the 21st century and you have just royally pissed me off, so watch your step, BUCKO!!!)

Deep breaths now … 1 … 2 … 3 …

In 2009, Anderson gave a sermon titled “Why I hate Barack Obama”, in which he said he “had been praying for the death of the president.”  Not surprisingly, he was contacted by the Secret Service.  In an interview with CBS News he said he would like Obama to die of natural causes, as he does not “want him to be a martyr” and “we don’t need another holiday.” (presumably in reference to Martin Luther King Day)   In an interview with another reporter, he said he “would not judge or condemn” anyone who killed the president.

His message of hate is not confined to women and President Obama.  This may surprise you, but he also hates gay people.  According to USA Today (12/04/2014), Anderson declares that no “queers” or “homos” are allowed in the church, and never will be as long as he’s pastor. He goes on to say killing gays is the way to an AIDS-free world by Christmas.  In one sermon, he stated: “All homos are pedophiles. There, I said it, they’re all pedophiles.”  His message is that killing gays is a divinely sanctioned way to rid the world of AIDS. “Because if you executed the homos, like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant,” Anderson said.

Coexist

And the kicker … Steven Anderson brands all the still-living Holocaust survivors as “paid liars” who are simply lying when they talk about their experiences in Hitler’s death camps. He claims to “know” that Hitler’s Holocaust didn’t really happen, and that the current residents of Israel are not really Jews but a “Satanic counterfeit” placed there by the Rothschild’s family of Europe.  (Where in the heck did this guy lose his marbles, or … what rock did he slither out from under???)

Many adjectives come to mind regarding this man.  In the interest of professionalism, I will use none of them.  I do not claim to be of the Christian faith, nor to understand it in full, but many of my friends are Christians and I have been given to believe that they are a peace-loving people, people who believe in love, not hate … tolerance, not persecution.  I have written before about the Westboro group, and the evil that they perpetuate, but this Anderson character is the very definition of evil, even worse than the Westboro clan.  What is truly frightening is not that one man (idiot?) believes this rhetoric, but that he has followers!  If you look him up on Google, you will find 17.5 million hits!  I do not know how many gullible souls have succumbed to his rhetoric and are a part of his cult, as that data is not readily available. I have left messages on the church’s website asking for membership data, but have received no reply as yet.  On the website, you will find that his hate-mongering sermons have been translated into 115 languages.  He claims that, while he holds no college degree, he has memorized over 140 bible chapters “word for word”.  Apparently none of those chapters were the ones that talk about peace, love and tolerance.

A New York Times article from May, 2015 claims that “seventy-one percent of American adults were Christian in 2014, the lowest estimate from any sizable survey to date, and a decline of 5 million adults and 8 percentage points since a similar Pew survey in 2007.”  With churches like Faithful Word and Westboro, is it really any wonder?  Think about it.

Can Religion Really be the Criteria for Humanitarian Aid?

Posted on by under Social commentary

I recently saw a posting on a social media site that asked us to “… stop all American aid to countries that persecute Christians.” While this may sound like a good idea, at least to Christians, or even a “no-brainer” to some, let us think about this for a minute. I have two problems with this statement:

1. What about other religions? Are we saying that we should continue to send aid to countries that persecute, say … Muslims? Jews? Hindis? Are those groups of people less valuable or more expendable than Christians? And how can the government of a secular nation justify denying aid based on a single religion?

2. I am generally in favor of denying military aid to any country wherein the government is guilty of human rights violations of any sort, but humanitarian aid is something else altogether. Since the above statement pleads to deny “all American aid”, one must assume that those in support of this movement would deny both military and humanitarian aid to any country where there is persecution of Christian individuals. When we deny humanitarian aid, we are responsible for people, innocent people who have never persecuted anyone, going without food, clean water, medical care, clothing and shelter. Is this what we, as Americans, believe is the right thing to do?

Certainly, each church, as a non-governmental organization, has a right to decide how and where to spend its money, and what causes to support, but I believe the creator of this post was concerned with the issue of government funds derived from our tax dollars. Our government has imposed sanctions against a number of countries and these sanctions have often included the cessation of humanitarian aid. I believe this sends the wrong message to the world about the values of the U.S. government and its citizens. Granted, we cannot save every starving child, provide medical care to every person in need, but we certainly can do better than to choose to deprive innocent citizens of the world based on the actions of their government against a specific religion.

I am certain that some will make the argument that there are people starving in this country and we should use our tax dollars to help our own citizens first. My answer to this is twofold: a) our government, since the administration of FDR and his New Deal, has provided aid programs to assist with food, shelter, clothing and medical care for all citizens below a certain economic level; and b) any U.S. citizen who is struggling to put food on the table or pay the rent is still a thousand times better off than the poor in any underdeveloped nation.

It is my hope and belief that cooler heads prevail in the decision-making process about who we help and where we send aid. We are all citizens of a global community and have a vested interest in helping every citizen of that larger community, without bias toward religion, race, or cultural heritage. Let us put aside our differences and focus on our likenesses. Let us be the example for the rest of the world.

No Place for Bigotry in Summer Camp!

Posted on by under Social commentary

A few weeks ago, a newsletter happened to cross my desk. It was one of many unsolicited pieces of mail that I normally send straight to “File 13”, but for some reason I glanced at this one and within minutes my blood was at a full, raging boil. A bit of background … this newsletter is published by a summer camp for under-privileged children in the Appalachian Mountains. The camp provides opportunities to kids that they would not otherwise have, and for this I applaud the churches that support this camp. I am not sure, since I have no affiliation with any of the churches nor with the camp, why I periodically receive their newsletter, other than that several years ago a friend asked me for a small donation for this camp and I happily complied. Ever since, I have received a newsletter once or twice a year, perhaps in hopes that I will be moved to donate to their cause again. Not gonna happen ….

Over half of this most recent edition is a letter by the director of the camp. The letter is long, tedious and repetitious, so I will not include the entire text. The gist of it is that the camp has, in the past, received government assistance in the form of a “USDA Summer Feeding Program”, which provides “assistance with food costs”. A government representative informed the camp director that the camp would no longer be eligible for this assistance because of his unwillingness to hire homosexuals. He was told that in order to continue receiving money, he must agree to be willing to hire homosexuals. This director was “shocked” and “heartbroken” to think this could happen. He told the USDA rep that this was “… a Christian camp” and furthermore that “… such hiring practices would not make common sense even if [they] were a secular camp.” So, tell me, Mr. Director, do you honestly believe that your blatantly homophobic ideas trump the Law of the Land, as administered by the Federal Government and upheld by the Supreme Court? He goes on to ask why non-governmental agencies such as his camp should be forced to comply with the law. Seriously? He goes on for another page and a half to rant about government mandates and public education, tossing in a few biblical quotes along the way. My points are as follows:

• This camp, if listed as a religious organization, should not have been receiving government assistance to begin with, under the principle  of separation of church and state;

• He seemed to have no problem accepting monies that were provided by tax money, some percentage of which was paid by the very people he believes too “sinful” to hire.

This reminds me of the concept, abolished more than fifty years ago, of “go to the back of the bus, but pay your full fare first”. The wheels of justice sometimes turn very slowly, but once mandated, it is expected that citizens and organizations in the nation will comply. There are some instances whereby people may make choices based on their religious beliefs, such as homeschooling a child for religious reasons, but this is NOT one of those situations. My concern is not as much the fact that this individual thinks as he does, since we are all entitled to think, feel and believe as we wish, however we are NOT free to act on those thoughts, feelings and beliefs if those actions would bring or cause harm to others. My concern, however, is that this individual is in a position to have significant influence over many, mainly young people who are still formulating and developing the ideas that will stay with them a lifetime and influence the adults they have yet to become. Frankly, I would have no problem with my child going to a camp with staff who were gay, but I would not even consider sending my child to a camp run by a narrow-minded, bigoted, inflexible homophobe such as this director. His attitude has nothing to do with God and everything to do with “man’s inhumanity to man”. Segregation and discrimination are wrong, not just morally reprehensible, but illegal in the United States. My own thoughts are that I would like to see this director relieved of his position, but I’m sure that, considering the venue, that will not happen.

I am blessed every day by my family and friends, some of whom are Christian, some Jews, and some are Muslim. I have friends who are African-American, Asian, Middle Eastern and Caucasian. I have friends who are heterosexual and homosexual. I do not have friends who are bigots or racists or homophobes. Part of the lyrics of one of my favorite songs, Ebony and Ivory by Stevie Wonder/Paul McCartney, “… people are the same wherever you go; there is good and bad in everyone …” says it all.