In a previous post I mentioned the first of three things that make me particularly uncomfortable about certain practices of Islam, some of which are based on misinterpretations of the Qur’an or not viewing the Qur’an in its entirety). As with any Scripture, you can’t analyze or draw conclusions regarding a passage in a vacuum – you have to look at it both in its immediate context, and in relation to the rest of the Scriptures.
Below are two additional aspects of Islamic practice that make me uncomfortable:
(2) Muslims tend to limit freedom. Conversion to any other religion is often punishable by death, for example. It is said, and I tend to believe it, is one of the reasons radical Muslims hate the West is that we allow many more personal freedoms. There are exceptions.
Turkey, on the other hand, is a secular state that firmly believes in the separation of Mosque and State, which is highly unusual in the Islamic world. While it is close to 100% Muslim, it is less oppressive and permits many more freedoms. I’ve been to Turkey and the people that I encountered there were very friendly, seemed to like westerners, and were free to practice (or not practice) their religion as they see fit. The women can dress any they want, and many wear a simple head scarf to hide most of their hair, and dress modestly. There is no religious police forcing them to do or not do anything, but such a situation is rare in a predominantly Muslim country.
Unfortunately Turkey is under pressure from radical Muslims to become more like other Muslim countries (i.e., repressive). Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
(3) Often Muslim women are mistreated and put in inferior positions in Islamic society. The Taliban treatment of women in Afghanistan is an extreme example. Women can’t drive a car in Saudi Arabia, and Sharia law is brutal when it comes to women’s rights (there aren’t any to speak of, from what I understand).
While I don’t consider myself an expert, I believe I have a pretty good understanding of Islam and its practices. I know the basis in the Qur’an for a lot of what they believe and how their culture is shaped. I now view Islam in a different light, and I call it as I see it. What I don’t like about any religion or the behavior of its followers (including my own – especially my own), I will openly and honestly criticize. It is not to condemn so much as to inform, and to maybe put things into proper perspective (which is one of the goals of the blog).
I encourage you, whatever your religion, to pray for peace among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and to practice the peaceful and “love thy neighbor” aspects of your religion. It is sad that the three faiths which have common roots are at odds with one another. God/Jehovah/Allah can’t be pleased.
All three faiths believe we are all accountable to God, and we will be judged. Think about that the next time you are tempted to discriminate or put down someone.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Prejudice against Islam? (Part I)
In some of my recent posts I have mentioned Islam. I have always viewed Islam as one of the three great Abrahamic and monotheistic faiths. However, until a few years ago I was ignorant of all but the very basics of Islam. While I knew it was different from Christianity in many ways, I respected Islam as a monotheistic faith not unlike my own in certain respects.
With the increase in Islamic terrorism and what has come to be called Islamic fascism, I have made it a point to gain more knowledge about that religion through books and articles. As a result, my views have changed somewhat. While I still have respect for those who follow their religion in a peaceful and tolerant way, I now see things that make me uncomfortable about some aspects of Islam. That doesn’t mean I hate Muslims or lump them all together with gross generalizations (as some do with Christians), but that I now view Islam in a different light than I once did.
The three things that make me particularly uncomfortable about certain practices (often based on misinterpretations of the Qur’an) of Islamic religion and culture (they really can’t be separated) are:
(1) Muslims tend to view the West and Christianity as their enemies. This jihad that terrorists are waging has its roots in that belief. Non-Muslims (dhimmis) are really infidels. This doesn’t mean all Muslims view us as enemies, but it does mean that such an attitude appears to be common in Islamic society. This “struggle” is often preached by radical clerics and others in positions of power, and resonates with many ordinary Muslims.
Note that I don’t condemn them for believing their religion is superior, because adherents of any religion, worldview or belief system (including atheists and secularists) believe their positions to be superior to any other. Otherwise, why would they follow it? However, when such an attitude becomes violent, oppressive, intolerant or otherwise aggressive, then we have a problem.
It is interesting to note that the Qur’an does teach respect for Jews and Christians, calling them “People of the Book”. However, there are other Qur’anic passages that condemn them, and these are the passages that drive the radicals. They ignore the rules of engagement commanded in the Qur’an, its peaceful passages, and the People of the Book verses, believing they will go to Paradise for killing infidels.
With the increase in Islamic terrorism and what has come to be called Islamic fascism, I have made it a point to gain more knowledge about that religion through books and articles. As a result, my views have changed somewhat. While I still have respect for those who follow their religion in a peaceful and tolerant way, I now see things that make me uncomfortable about some aspects of Islam. That doesn’t mean I hate Muslims or lump them all together with gross generalizations (as some do with Christians), but that I now view Islam in a different light than I once did.
The three things that make me particularly uncomfortable about certain practices (often based on misinterpretations of the Qur’an) of Islamic religion and culture (they really can’t be separated) are:
(1) Muslims tend to view the West and Christianity as their enemies. This jihad that terrorists are waging has its roots in that belief. Non-Muslims (dhimmis) are really infidels. This doesn’t mean all Muslims view us as enemies, but it does mean that such an attitude appears to be common in Islamic society. This “struggle” is often preached by radical clerics and others in positions of power, and resonates with many ordinary Muslims.
Note that I don’t condemn them for believing their religion is superior, because adherents of any religion, worldview or belief system (including atheists and secularists) believe their positions to be superior to any other. Otherwise, why would they follow it? However, when such an attitude becomes violent, oppressive, intolerant or otherwise aggressive, then we have a problem.
It is interesting to note that the Qur’an does teach respect for Jews and Christians, calling them “People of the Book”. However, there are other Qur’anic passages that condemn them, and these are the passages that drive the radicals. They ignore the rules of engagement commanded in the Qur’an, its peaceful passages, and the People of the Book verses, believing they will go to Paradise for killing infidels.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Politically Correct Religion
In my post about public schools I spoke about Islam being politically correct (PC), while Christianity and Judaism aren’t. I mention Judaism not being PC mainly because of the attitude towards Israel by the PC crowd.
For example, some “liberal” Christian denominations either have, or are planning to, divest themselves of any companies in their endowment portfolios that do business with Israel. Some liberal groups want you to boycott Israeli-made products. Why is this happening?
Two reasons I can think of:
(1) Anti-Semitism is still around, and it manifests itself in various ways, such as unwavering support for the Palestinians with minimal rights for Israel. This unconditional support for the Palestinians masquerades as fairness, but is really anti-Semitism by a different route.
That doesn’t mean the whole Palestinian issue shouldn’t be fairly resolved, because it should. But we also have to remember that from the Palestinian point of view, the only acceptable solution is the total annihilation or elimination of Israel. They want the Middle East Judenrein. That is unacceptable because Israel is a legitimate nation established by the UN and immediately recognized by the two superpowers of the time: the US and the USSR.
(2) For whatever reason, Islam is politically correct these days. I don’t know how something becomes PC – I’m not privy to that decision-making process. Since there is conflict between Israel (Jews) and the Palestinians (Muslims), guess who gets the support of the PC types?
Of course we get a PC spin to the news in the media as well. Sometimes subtle, but still there. For example, Palestinian terrorists are called “insurgents” or “militants” but not what they really are, terrorists. Those who blow up innocent civilians in Israel are called “suicide bombers” but not what they really are, mass murderers. Wailing Palestinian women are shown at length grieving over the loss of loved ones killed in an Israeli retaliation after it’s been viciously attacked. But there is little, if any, coverage of Israeli civilian deaths except when the carnage is so spectacular that the media has to give it more attention. Even then, the bloody scenes are shown for only a few seconds, and the narrative implies the Israelis were asking for it. The list goes on.
That’s not to say Israel is perfect, but it does have a right to exist and live in peace. The day after the state of Israel was formed on May 15, 1948, the surrounding Arab nations declared war on it and immediately invaded the newly-formed state, expecting a quick victory. Miraculously, the fledgling Israeli defense forces beat back the invaders. There has been a state of war, more or less, ever since. Until Jesus comes again in glory and resolves everything, we should all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Shalom and Salaam.
For example, some “liberal” Christian denominations either have, or are planning to, divest themselves of any companies in their endowment portfolios that do business with Israel. Some liberal groups want you to boycott Israeli-made products. Why is this happening?
Two reasons I can think of:
(1) Anti-Semitism is still around, and it manifests itself in various ways, such as unwavering support for the Palestinians with minimal rights for Israel. This unconditional support for the Palestinians masquerades as fairness, but is really anti-Semitism by a different route.
That doesn’t mean the whole Palestinian issue shouldn’t be fairly resolved, because it should. But we also have to remember that from the Palestinian point of view, the only acceptable solution is the total annihilation or elimination of Israel. They want the Middle East Judenrein. That is unacceptable because Israel is a legitimate nation established by the UN and immediately recognized by the two superpowers of the time: the US and the USSR.
(2) For whatever reason, Islam is politically correct these days. I don’t know how something becomes PC – I’m not privy to that decision-making process. Since there is conflict between Israel (Jews) and the Palestinians (Muslims), guess who gets the support of the PC types?
Of course we get a PC spin to the news in the media as well. Sometimes subtle, but still there. For example, Palestinian terrorists are called “insurgents” or “militants” but not what they really are, terrorists. Those who blow up innocent civilians in Israel are called “suicide bombers” but not what they really are, mass murderers. Wailing Palestinian women are shown at length grieving over the loss of loved ones killed in an Israeli retaliation after it’s been viciously attacked. But there is little, if any, coverage of Israeli civilian deaths except when the carnage is so spectacular that the media has to give it more attention. Even then, the bloody scenes are shown for only a few seconds, and the narrative implies the Israelis were asking for it. The list goes on.
That’s not to say Israel is perfect, but it does have a right to exist and live in peace. The day after the state of Israel was formed on May 15, 1948, the surrounding Arab nations declared war on it and immediately invaded the newly-formed state, expecting a quick victory. Miraculously, the fledgling Israeli defense forces beat back the invaders. There has been a state of war, more or less, ever since. Until Jesus comes again in glory and resolves everything, we should all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Shalom and Salaam.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The One True Church – Part III
The Roman Catholic (RC) Church bases its claim of superiority over other Christian Churches on submission to the questionable authority of the Pope. The RC Church is also on shaky ground when it comes to many doctrines as well. There are a number of doctrines of the RC Church that are not based on the Bible, and some are even contrary to what the Bible says. The RC Church elevates “Tradition” above biblical authority, which Protestants find anathema. This allows the Pope to invent something (such as Purgatory), call it “Tradition” and then declare it doctrine, without the necessity of having anything clearly stated in the Bible to substantiate it. Often the Church will take a passage out of context to try to provide some sort of biblical legitimacy to an invented doctrine.
One of the great results of the Reformation was that Protestant Christianity emerged, purified of most of these kinds of unbiblical beliefs and practices. The result is, I believe, that the Reformation resulted in churches that had a “purer” and more biblical form of Christianity, unencumbered by the accumulation of questionable beliefs and practices that have taken place over two millennia. That’s not to say the Protestant churches are perfect, because they certainly aren’t. Today some of them have lost their way theologically. Some have embraced legalism, and some are doctrinally adrift. Some question the authority, historicity, and truth of the Bible, and most of them today are torn by conflicts between liberal and conservative factions. Nevertheless, traditional Reformation Protestantism is, in my opinion, much more scriptural and truer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than is Roman Catholicism (that’s why I’m no longer Roman Catholic) despite its claims about being more apostolic than the others.
As an example of how papal authority could be used to promote heresy, consider that the last Pope apparently considered declaring Mary to be “co-redemptrix” along with Jesus. This would have been truly heresy. Fortunately he refrained from doing so. Unfortunately some RCs do believe that Mary’s suffering at the Cross was a participation in the redemption of mankind. This diminishes the role of Jesus’ sacrificial and substitutional death, as do the doctrine of Purgatory and the practice of doing penance to atone for our sins.
While I disagree with much of what the RC Church teaches and practices, I still consider Catholics to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. I know that many Catholics, clergy and lay, feel the same about non-RC Christians. It would be nice if the Church hierarchy did the same. I also admire the RC Church’s unwavering biblical stand on the controversial issues of the day, for which they’ve taken a lot of heat from the liberals. While Protestant churches are torn apart by those who want to compromise biblical morality to appease various special interest groups, the RC Church holds firm and maintains discipline. Even if you disagree with its positions on these issues, you have to admire it for not compromising its principles when it comes to morality.
I could fill about 10 posts with RC doctrines and practices that Protestants consider false and unbiblical, and why. If you would like me to have a series of posts explaining the differences between RC and Protestant beliefs and practices, let me know. Send me an email to thepastortony@gmail.com or put in a comment for this post. I’ll do the series if there’s a demand for it.
One of the great results of the Reformation was that Protestant Christianity emerged, purified of most of these kinds of unbiblical beliefs and practices. The result is, I believe, that the Reformation resulted in churches that had a “purer” and more biblical form of Christianity, unencumbered by the accumulation of questionable beliefs and practices that have taken place over two millennia. That’s not to say the Protestant churches are perfect, because they certainly aren’t. Today some of them have lost their way theologically. Some have embraced legalism, and some are doctrinally adrift. Some question the authority, historicity, and truth of the Bible, and most of them today are torn by conflicts between liberal and conservative factions. Nevertheless, traditional Reformation Protestantism is, in my opinion, much more scriptural and truer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ than is Roman Catholicism (that’s why I’m no longer Roman Catholic) despite its claims about being more apostolic than the others.
As an example of how papal authority could be used to promote heresy, consider that the last Pope apparently considered declaring Mary to be “co-redemptrix” along with Jesus. This would have been truly heresy. Fortunately he refrained from doing so. Unfortunately some RCs do believe that Mary’s suffering at the Cross was a participation in the redemption of mankind. This diminishes the role of Jesus’ sacrificial and substitutional death, as do the doctrine of Purgatory and the practice of doing penance to atone for our sins.
While I disagree with much of what the RC Church teaches and practices, I still consider Catholics to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. I know that many Catholics, clergy and lay, feel the same about non-RC Christians. It would be nice if the Church hierarchy did the same. I also admire the RC Church’s unwavering biblical stand on the controversial issues of the day, for which they’ve taken a lot of heat from the liberals. While Protestant churches are torn apart by those who want to compromise biblical morality to appease various special interest groups, the RC Church holds firm and maintains discipline. Even if you disagree with its positions on these issues, you have to admire it for not compromising its principles when it comes to morality.
I could fill about 10 posts with RC doctrines and practices that Protestants consider false and unbiblical, and why. If you would like me to have a series of posts explaining the differences between RC and Protestant beliefs and practices, let me know. Send me an email to thepastortony@gmail.com or put in a comment for this post. I’ll do the series if there’s a demand for it.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The One True Church – Part II
See an earlier post for my discussion about the Roman Catholic (RC) Church’s position of it being the only true Christian church, with all others something less than fully Christian. This claim is based mostly on allegiance to the Pope. In that post I discussed one of the two recent events that I found highly offensive and insulting.
I might also point out that I’m not criticizing the RC Church’s belief that its ways of viewing Christianity and its practices are better than any other. Everybody believes their religion, belief system, worldview, and/or lifestyle is the best way – otherwise they would not follow it. What I’m criticizing is the RC’s arrogant attitude in that it claims to be the only “true” Christian Church, and all others are something inferior. That is elevating yourself by putting down others, something I find unchristian at best and hateful at worst. In fact the RC Church’s less than stellar history and its many doctrines that are contrary to Holy Scripture seriously throw into question its claims of superiority.
The second event that offended me springs from this RC claim of superiority described in my earlier post. About a month ago, I read in the Poughkeepsie Journal that the Bishop of Baltimore punished a priest for a number of transgressions, one of which was conducting a funeral service jointly with (horrors!) a Protestant clergyperson. I presume the Bishop considered this joint service to be syncretism. If so, that is an insult and highly offensive to those of us who put our allegiance to Jesus Christ above any early powers or principalities. To consider a joint funeral with another Christian to be syncretism is beyond ridiculous.
These two items I cited in these two posts appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal a month or more ago. I was infuriated when I read them, but agonized for weeks over whether I should write anything about them in this blog. I finally decided that a blog is used for personal opinions, so I decided to write these last two posts. Please note I am not criticizing individual Roman Catholics, but the Pope’s recent statement and the Church’s official positions on these matters.
Now that I’m on a roll, a future post will deal with how I believe the RC Church has promulgated doctrines that are not biblical, which I alluded to above. I will be writing that post to point out that there are serious flaws within the RC Church when it comes to doctrine, so it is especially foolish for the Church hierarchy to claim superiority over other Christian Churches.
I might also point out that I’m not criticizing the RC Church’s belief that its ways of viewing Christianity and its practices are better than any other. Everybody believes their religion, belief system, worldview, and/or lifestyle is the best way – otherwise they would not follow it. What I’m criticizing is the RC’s arrogant attitude in that it claims to be the only “true” Christian Church, and all others are something inferior. That is elevating yourself by putting down others, something I find unchristian at best and hateful at worst. In fact the RC Church’s less than stellar history and its many doctrines that are contrary to Holy Scripture seriously throw into question its claims of superiority.
The second event that offended me springs from this RC claim of superiority described in my earlier post. About a month ago, I read in the Poughkeepsie Journal that the Bishop of Baltimore punished a priest for a number of transgressions, one of which was conducting a funeral service jointly with (horrors!) a Protestant clergyperson. I presume the Bishop considered this joint service to be syncretism. If so, that is an insult and highly offensive to those of us who put our allegiance to Jesus Christ above any early powers or principalities. To consider a joint funeral with another Christian to be syncretism is beyond ridiculous.
These two items I cited in these two posts appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal a month or more ago. I was infuriated when I read them, but agonized for weeks over whether I should write anything about them in this blog. I finally decided that a blog is used for personal opinions, so I decided to write these last two posts. Please note I am not criticizing individual Roman Catholics, but the Pope’s recent statement and the Church’s official positions on these matters.
Now that I’m on a roll, a future post will deal with how I believe the RC Church has promulgated doctrines that are not biblical, which I alluded to above. I will be writing that post to point out that there are serious flaws within the RC Church when it comes to doctrine, so it is especially foolish for the Church hierarchy to claim superiority over other Christian Churches.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The One True Church – Part I
I hope my blog is meaningful to most people most of the time, regardless of religion, church affiliation, or denomination. Some of the things I talk about transcend any particular denomination or religion. Most religions and denominations share many of the same values and principles, even if they significantly differ theologically. Because I am a Christian pastor, this blog is generally focused on Christian viewpoints. More specifically, I am a Protestant pastor, so I am usually coming from a Reformation point of view.
Certainly it is not my intent to offend anybody (except for the perpetually offended, who are “offended” by just about anything that isn’t perfectly politically correct). In giving my opinion, some people might take offense, but I think it is important to call it as I see it. When appropriate, I’ll criticize fundamentalists, evangelicals, liberals, Catholics, Protestants, Christians, Jews, Muslims, secularists, political correctness and prejudice.
In this particular blog, I am probably going to offend some Roman Catholics because I am going to criticize the Pope and the Catholic Church’s position when it comes to other Christian churches. Therefore, if you think this will bother you too much, stop reading now.
I am upset by two recent events within the Roman Catholic (RC) Church. The first one is the Pope’s public reassertion that the RC Church is the only “true” Christian church. According to the Pope’s statement, the Eastern Orthodox churches are close, but no cigar. The Protestant churches are merely pretenders. While I know this is official RC doctrine going back to the Council of Trent, I find it offensive and unnecessary that the Pope had to publicly reassert this claim. What’s his point? What’s he afraid of? That he has to “protect” the Church from contamination from those terrible Protestants?
The RC Church’s claim is based almost solely on allegiance to the Pope. Those churches that don’t accept the Pope’s authority aren’t “true” Christian churches (and therefore not truly “apostolic”) according to the RC definition. When you think about it, such a position is ludicrous, not to mention arrogant and unbiblical. The measure of any person’s or any church’s “true” Christian status should not be judged according to allegiance to any earthly power, only to God alone. Faith in Jesus Christ and belief in the fundamentals of the Christian faith should be the criteria, not allegiance to the Pope. Moreover, only God can truly judge one’s heart (Matthew 7:1).
If you look back in church history, the Bishop of Rome assumed for himself more and more authority, proclaiming himself first among equals among the various bishops of the early church. Notwithstanding the RC Church’s misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus never envisioned a pope-like supreme ruler of Christianity. Given the sordid history of the papacy, we can see why Jesus never made any man head of his Church, only Jesus himself. Therefore, the RC Church’s claim of superiority over all other Christian churches is fallacious, and an insult to those hundreds of millions of devout Christians who do not proclaim allegiance to the Pope.
More on this in a future blog, where I will discuss the second recent event that I find highly offensive.
Certainly it is not my intent to offend anybody (except for the perpetually offended, who are “offended” by just about anything that isn’t perfectly politically correct). In giving my opinion, some people might take offense, but I think it is important to call it as I see it. When appropriate, I’ll criticize fundamentalists, evangelicals, liberals, Catholics, Protestants, Christians, Jews, Muslims, secularists, political correctness and prejudice.
In this particular blog, I am probably going to offend some Roman Catholics because I am going to criticize the Pope and the Catholic Church’s position when it comes to other Christian churches. Therefore, if you think this will bother you too much, stop reading now.
I am upset by two recent events within the Roman Catholic (RC) Church. The first one is the Pope’s public reassertion that the RC Church is the only “true” Christian church. According to the Pope’s statement, the Eastern Orthodox churches are close, but no cigar. The Protestant churches are merely pretenders. While I know this is official RC doctrine going back to the Council of Trent, I find it offensive and unnecessary that the Pope had to publicly reassert this claim. What’s his point? What’s he afraid of? That he has to “protect” the Church from contamination from those terrible Protestants?
The RC Church’s claim is based almost solely on allegiance to the Pope. Those churches that don’t accept the Pope’s authority aren’t “true” Christian churches (and therefore not truly “apostolic”) according to the RC definition. When you think about it, such a position is ludicrous, not to mention arrogant and unbiblical. The measure of any person’s or any church’s “true” Christian status should not be judged according to allegiance to any earthly power, only to God alone. Faith in Jesus Christ and belief in the fundamentals of the Christian faith should be the criteria, not allegiance to the Pope. Moreover, only God can truly judge one’s heart (Matthew 7:1).
If you look back in church history, the Bishop of Rome assumed for himself more and more authority, proclaiming himself first among equals among the various bishops of the early church. Notwithstanding the RC Church’s misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus never envisioned a pope-like supreme ruler of Christianity. Given the sordid history of the papacy, we can see why Jesus never made any man head of his Church, only Jesus himself. Therefore, the RC Church’s claim of superiority over all other Christian churches is fallacious, and an insult to those hundreds of millions of devout Christians who do not proclaim allegiance to the Pope.
More on this in a future blog, where I will discuss the second recent event that I find highly offensive.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Government Support of a Religion?
For years the ACLU and other similar anti-Christian organizations have spent millions of dollars trying to eliminate God and religion from our society, with varying degrees of success. They fought against any kind of accommodation for Christians in particular, claiming that anything any governmental agency did that might be an accommodation of Christians was an unconstitutional establishment or endorsement of a particular religion. See my earlier posts for an explanation of how the courts have grossly misinterpreted the First Amendment since 1947.
Now we have two interesting situations regarding Islam. One is the establishment of a public school in New York City that is dedicated to teaching Arabic language and culture. Since the dominant religion in the Arab world is Islam, isn’t the City of New York favoring a particular religion? When Bible studies can’t meet in public schools after school, when Christians can’t pray in public schools, when Christmas is obliterated from public schools, when children who write essays on their faith are penalized, now NYC is setting up a school that would appear to promote Islam? I say “promote Islam” because you can’t separate Islam from Arab culture – they are totally intertwined and inseparable. I guess NYC takes separation of “Church” and State literally, and does not consider the Mosque in that category. What NYC doesn’t realize is that the word “Church” isn’t in the constitution, only the word “religion”.
Along the same lines, some public school (I can’t remember where) is either planning to, or already has, installed Islamic foot washing basins to provide Muslim students with the proper way to ritually wash before prayer. This seems like a nice idea, but again, Christians have been prohibited from any kind of religious activity in public schools, including after school (these prohibitions have been challenged and subsequently reversed by courts as an unconstitutional interference with the practice of religion).
Providing such Islamic religious facilities, no matter how innocuous, is like a public school giving rosaries to Catholic students and then giving them time off to say the rosary during school hours. That would never happen! So why is Islam being accommodated by a governmental agency and all other religions are not?
What we are seeing is a double-standard. Accommodating Christians in any way is endorsing religion, but doing the same things for Muslims isn’t. Why is Islam so politically correct and Christianity (and Judaism) aren’t? I don’t understand this mentality. I’m not arguing that Muslims shouldn’t be accommodated in some ways, but then there has to be a reversal of all the discrimination that takes place against Christians. Otherwise all religions aren’t being treated the same, which is then a de facto establishment of a religion.
Please pray for this nation, which is going down so many wrong paths that I fear for its future. Watch for a future post about anti-Semitism.
Now we have two interesting situations regarding Islam. One is the establishment of a public school in New York City that is dedicated to teaching Arabic language and culture. Since the dominant religion in the Arab world is Islam, isn’t the City of New York favoring a particular religion? When Bible studies can’t meet in public schools after school, when Christians can’t pray in public schools, when Christmas is obliterated from public schools, when children who write essays on their faith are penalized, now NYC is setting up a school that would appear to promote Islam? I say “promote Islam” because you can’t separate Islam from Arab culture – they are totally intertwined and inseparable. I guess NYC takes separation of “Church” and State literally, and does not consider the Mosque in that category. What NYC doesn’t realize is that the word “Church” isn’t in the constitution, only the word “religion”.
Along the same lines, some public school (I can’t remember where) is either planning to, or already has, installed Islamic foot washing basins to provide Muslim students with the proper way to ritually wash before prayer. This seems like a nice idea, but again, Christians have been prohibited from any kind of religious activity in public schools, including after school (these prohibitions have been challenged and subsequently reversed by courts as an unconstitutional interference with the practice of religion).
Providing such Islamic religious facilities, no matter how innocuous, is like a public school giving rosaries to Catholic students and then giving them time off to say the rosary during school hours. That would never happen! So why is Islam being accommodated by a governmental agency and all other religions are not?
What we are seeing is a double-standard. Accommodating Christians in any way is endorsing religion, but doing the same things for Muslims isn’t. Why is Islam so politically correct and Christianity (and Judaism) aren’t? I don’t understand this mentality. I’m not arguing that Muslims shouldn’t be accommodated in some ways, but then there has to be a reversal of all the discrimination that takes place against Christians. Otherwise all religions aren’t being treated the same, which is then a de facto establishment of a religion.
Please pray for this nation, which is going down so many wrong paths that I fear for its future. Watch for a future post about anti-Semitism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
