as far as malaysia is concerned, its local councils always act within limits empowered to them. you cannot for instance erect house of worships, temples, mosques, churches wherever you like man..
even renovation to be made on my own house in my own compound need local council's approval.
---
Let's see... Ian said, "The state should be neutral towards people's expressions of faith. An anti-religion state is just as despotic as a state church." I don't see any suggestion there that anyone should be able to build anything they want without a permit. I don't think Ian's a "very funny guy", Nam. I think maybe you are. -rc
Posted by
Ian, Selangor, Malaysia on January 14, 2009:
I agree with Nam that in a properly functioning society, people shouldn't be able to simply build a place of worship or anything else without a permit.
Ah, but there's the crux. A properly function society. Or do I have to remind you of what UMNO/BN did to the Catholic church in Shah Alam? After 20 years of struggle, they finally get a permit, sink a million Ringgit into the construction, and are suddenly told to stop and move!
Never mind all the other churches and temples that could not be built without bribing some civil servant or UMNO/BN politician. Why do you think most churches are in shop lots? Because most pastors refuse to resort to bribery, they could not get a permit to build their church, and they have stopped trying. So before the March 2008 election, most churches in Selangor were "illegal".
Thank God for the first time since the British left in 1957, we have a new state government now, so maybe now some churches and temples may be built legally without having to resort to bribery.
For the non-Malaysians who are not aware, the new PR government of Selangor is a coalition of PKR (People's Justice Party), DAP (Democratic Action Party) and PAS (Islamic fundamentalist Religious Party of One-Malaysia).
Proper permits from a racist or religiously discriminatory state is a standard way of legalizing religious and racial discrimination. They simply reject your application for a permit, and suddenly, you're illegal!
Even when a permit is not needed because it was built in native tribal lands, the racist and religiously discriminating state comes in and demolishes. Now the native tribal Christians are trying to fight them in the courts, but they control the courts, and the case keeps getting postponed and postponed, over a year now!
I totally agree with what Drew of North Carolina said. What is discrimination happens in USA to non-Christians pales in comparison to what happens to non-Muslims in Malaysia, and the discrimination we face in Malaysia pales in comparison to the outright murder that happens in Muslim Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, Hindu fundamentalist parts of India like Orissa, Buddhist Sri Lanka, etc.
But what Randy said is true also: evil committed by non-Christians does not justify Christians to commit evil either. The USA has a higher standard, and Christians should live up to that standard.
Posted by
Mike from Dallas on February 16, 2009:
As you said, not only freedom OF relgion, but also freedom FROM religion. I'm not an atheist, but to argue successfully, one must embrace the acceptance of their premise. (If you can't agree upon what to disagree, then how can you argue?)
I maintain that Atheism IS a religion. No, not a passive lack of belief in a Supreme Being, but a very real, active belief that there is no such thing. Yet, when I would defend the Atheists to the right to their religion, they would argue with me that they have no religion. In essence, denying themselves the very right that they're demanding.
Really, it is difficult to offer equal consideration to those who refuse it, suggesting perhaps that it's not equality of rights they seek, but the denial of equality to others.
Posted by
Wayne, Michigan. on April 30, 2009:
re: Mike from Dallas
Atheism is not a religion, "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." (wikipedia)
I am an atheist, a Humanist, a nonbeliever, I am one of natures many creations, and I accept earth as a natural world, I reject the unproved and primitive supernatural myths about gods, devils, angels, magic, life-after-death and the suspension of natural laws ("miracles") through wishful thinking ("prayer") which most religions include.
On a clear day you can see our Creator, you can feel its touch on your skin, and if you look around you can see its miracles at work, my Creator has the strength of the Stars, my Creator is the Creator of all things in our solar system, my Creator's name is Sol, my Creator is known as The Sun, it is not a conscious being, it is a very small part of the natural evolution of the Universe.
My definition of an atheist is that we are not aliens put here by an alien "God" that holds warrant to a religion. I am an Earthling, born on this earth, of this earth, from seeds of Stardust.
Posted by
Ian, Selangor, Malaysia on April 30, 2009:
Hi, Wayne. It depends on your definition, I suppose.
I used to be an atheist before my conversion to Christianity (I guess like CS Lewis you might consider me a "lapsed atheist" :-) so I can see from both points of view.
But the point of this thread was that we should not be unjustly penalizing people for their sincerely-held beliefs. Atheism fits in that category of "sincerely-held beliefs".
I am opposed to state coercion of atheists to believe in some religion, e.g. Indonesia under Soeharto, where everyone had to profess one of the sanctioned religions -- Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism and Protestantism. (In case you are wondering, this was a reaction against Communism.)
I am also opposed to the opposite, as per in the old Communist countries, or even milder forms like France and Turkey prohibiting fundamentalist Muslim women from wearing a head covering.
Posted by
Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on June 14, 2009:
I was raised Christian, in Texas; unusually enough, I was raised Episcoplian, a compromise between my parents, my Father being a Catholic (though not a life-long one) and my Mother being a Methodist. As a young man, I seriously explored going into the priesthood, though eventually I decided against doing so, mostly because of shortcomings I saw in myself to fulfill that role successfully.
As the decades rolled on by, I not only fell away from the church [Episcopal, I mean], but from organized religion pretty much at all.
It deeply troubles me that some Americans enforce Christianity on others, given the fundamental purpose of Europeans deciding to come to an undeveloped, dangerous place was to escape not only religious persecution but to gain the right to believe as they wished and to practice that faith accordingly.
The motto "In God We Trust" on our currency is especially troublesome. About three years ago a close, and dear, relative and I got into a [friendly] debate about it. I referred her to the U.S. Treasury website you cite, and no more was said. I -- foolishly -- thought she had seen her argument that it has always been part of our currency (and the Pledge of Allegiance) is, simply, historically incorrect. After all, my Mom is educated, to MA level, a retired teacher, reasonably well traveled, etc.
But then I had occasion to visit in person, and boy oh boy, did she ever blow my ears back. She offered two counter-arguments: either whoever at the Treasury wrote the piece was a liar (not to mention anti-Christian) or, ig ther piece is correct, then the motto OUGHT to have been part and parcel of public life, including on our currency, right from the start -- including Continental script.
Needless to say, I dropped it when she demanded I *prove* the article to be correct. I pointed out it wouldn't matter how many historians I cited, she wouldn't accept it, given the, um, firmness of her position. And there the issue remains.
In our society, a fundamental part of the bedrock that doesn't often surface in this context is this: "MY rights end at the tip of my nose -- just as YOUR rights end at the tip of yours."
I have always stood up for the right of any American to believe, or not believe, as he or she sees fit -- so long as that person doesn't to seek that belief/lack thereof on the next person (including non-Americans).
A minor point aside: belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism are arguably not religions at all, or at least weren't originally. Buddha, for instance, specifically said (so it's claimed anyway) not to make statues of him then or later, yet they abound in some places (such as Thailand). I suppose one can argue, with considerable reason, that such belief systems have *evolved* into religions, whatever the original intent of their founder(s).
In closing, I don't mean to offend anyone. But the state has no role in religion in the U.S., without regard to what occurs in other countries.
Posted by
Donald - Cambridge, MA on August 24, 2009:
Well said. I am 61 years old, and I remember when - during what I now know was the McCarthy era - we were told we had to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, which we were required to say to start each school day. [By the way, it's always struck me as peculiar that we pledge allegiance to the "flag of the United States of America" rather than to the country itself - another piece of misguided jingoism dating from the late 19th century.]
But Mekhong Kurt's experience, I'm afraid, is all too typical, both in religion and politics. People who believe in mythology, whether ancient or contemporary, have already demonstrated that as far as they are concerned, the truth is irrelevant.
It was interesting to read, during the presidential campaign, the comment that "an atheist could never be elected president" [of the US]. It speaks volumes of the dissonance between beliefs and reality to note that an atheist already was, and he is widely considered to have been not only the best president in history, but the architect of the country as we know it. I speak of Thomas Jefferson.
It is one of the many ironies of our current situation that the Republicans - spiritual descendants of the Federalists, who believed in government by the rich - should have managed to acquire the support of the religious right. I guess if you're willing to believe twelve impossible things before breakfast, you're fertile ground for unscrupulous con men (as many evangelists have demonstrated over the years), many of whom ply their trade in the Republican political apparatus.
Posted by
Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on September 2, 2009:
Returning to this thread after about 2-1/2 months was instructive in that it reminded me of the issue again, important to me as I read so much daily (and often comment on what I read) that I had more or less forgotten what I wrote here back in June until I received an e-mail notification of recent additional comments.
I have one close friend here who is Muslim, at least nominally so, a lovely young lady in her early 30's who's the daughter of one of my best friends. If you didn't *know* she's Muslim, you damned sure never would guess it -- she drinks and smokes, for example.
Contrary to what way too many of us in the West who aren't ourselves Muslim, a great mass of followers of that faith aren't bloodthirtsy devils seeking to slaughter anyone who disagrees with them. Yes, there are extremist states, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
And such have touched my life; a very dear friend and his two roommates, one of whom I knew fairly well, the other whom I had met a time or two, were all taken hostage in Iraq several years ago and ultimately beheaded. Ditto another guy in Saudi Arabia before that whom I had met. Even the slaughter of Daniel Pearl indirectly touched on my life, as he was the protege of one of my Mother's dearest friends. (Neither Mom nor I ever met Daniel, however, I should add.)
So, sometimes it's a struggle to keep in mind that my own dealings adherents of The Prophet, limited though they've admittedly been, have been positive.
On a larger canvas, it amazes me that the three great monotheistic religions, intimately entwined with each other, can be so antagonistic. After all, Christianity arose from Judiasm, in large measure, just as Islam arose on Judaic and Christian roots.
Think about it: fundamentally, all three faiths worship the same God, though there are vast chasms in beliefs regarding how we're supposed to serve Him. (Or Her or It or whatever.) Yes, that leaves Christians odd man out when it comes to any discussion of Jesus -- but at lest some Muslims acknowledge him as a great prophet, if not the Son of God. (They also acknowledge and admire a number of Old Testament figures.)
I wonder how many people even know that the Muslims had their own "Holy Crusades" about a millenium ago. During those crusades, Islamic troops were under standing orders, on pain of death for disobediance, to give any Christian or Jew an opportunity to renounce his faith and accept Islam. Of course, if the Christian or Jew *didn't* do so, well, it was death for him. But adherents of not one single OTHER faith was even accorded the "opportunity." (Some "opportunity" when you're on your back in the sand, with a guy holding a sword or spear to your throat!)
I guess none of this should surprise us; just look at the serious fractures *within* each of the great monotheistic faiths. In the rural village very near which I grew up in Texas, not only did the various Protestant churches there -- at one point, there were an astonishing 17 -- in a town of about 500 people! -- genuinely believe that Catholics aren't Christians (never mind Jews and Muslims, much less anyone else), but they had serious doubts even about each other, for pete's sake. I'll make up names here to spare the guilty, but it was so bad at one point that members of one church of a certain denomination -- let's call it The First Church of Christ (with apologies to members of the CoC) genuinely felt that members of the congregation at the SECOND Church of Christ likely weren't Christians. At all. And that those Satan-infested demons well deserved to burn in fiery Hell forevermore.
Pretty sad, huh?
The almost complete lack of critical analysis (and the lack of any ability to conduct any critical analysis in any case) is both astonishing and depressing; one needn't be an intellectual giant to follow the plot. On the most fundamental level, isn't the Buddhist idea that one can eventually lose himself back into the Universe (a gross oversimplification, but it'll do for now) basically the same as the belief Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam share that if we're good kids we get to go to "Heaven" and be one with God again? Further, except for nutcase extremists (and they can be found in all religions, and among the ranks of the atheists), most people of any or no faith want the same basic things. In the case of Christianity, the Ten Commandments go some distance towards covering the grounds; most other religions have comparable teachings -- including Islam. Recall the various imams and scholars who've bravely spoken up against the Osama's of the world, saying, "Hey, Dude, don't you be up and hijacking MY religion!" My Muslim friend here sometimes reminds me of something she told me long ago: some of the happiest days of her life, especially since 9/11 (her Dad's American raised-Christian-fallen-by-the-wayside, her Mom's a Thai Muslim) are those when she reads in the news that another Islamic terrorist has been caught or killed, happiest in part because she feels much like those objecting Islamic imams and scholars.
Back to Randy's story. IF we're going to have "In God We Trust" etc. anywhere on or in a state-financed and -supported building, piece of currency, etc., then we ought to inscribe those items and places with excerpts from every single religion, at least those represented in the U.S.
I remember when the first ashram opened up in the county seat of the county in which I grew up, back in the hippy days. Folks went nuts. They could put up with Catholics (just as the Catholics could put up with them), but these foreign notions were beyond the pale. Until the adherents of the ashram opened up a GREAT restaurant, started doing volunteer work, etc. In reasonably short order, they became valued members of the community, even if most folks were still a bit puzzled by it all. And no, the ashram folks weren't all from India; in fact, only a tiny percentage were -- most were locals, mostly university students.
Will Mom ever come around? Probably not, though, oddly, she accepted my heathen (ex-)wife I married in Beijing. Even despite the fact my wife had been a member of the Young Pioneers (as everyone in her school had to be), a communist organization. Heck, even my Dad accepted her -- despite the fact that several of his closest friends were killed in combat with *Chinese* troops during the Korean War.
If my parents could accept the abberation my wife represented in their lives, I don't see why we can't accept flexibility ourselves. Including not cramming "In God We Trust" etc. down others' throats.
As for the argument that Christians are treated far worse elsewhere than non-Christians are in America, an earlier commentator here has already dealt with that: for you to do wrong doesn't give me license to do likewise. Another commentator argues that "freedom OF religion" doesn't mean "freedom FROM religion." I teach English -- and writing -- at university level, and I'm a writer. That argument doesn't wash, especially in light of the fact there is absolutely NOTHING in any formal founding document of our Republic imposing a duty to practice *some* religion. "Freedom of religion" inherently includes the right to decline any religion. Just as it includes a person's right to go out and worship some certain tree, if he or she likes.
Sigh...
Posted by
Mekhong Kurt/Bangkok, Thailand on November 7, 2009:
For perfectly selfish reasons, I wish others would post on this thread -- one of the single most thoughtful threads I've ever encountered. Thanks to the rest of you who have commented; you've given considerable food for thought, as did Randy's original article. And I share Randy's anger and passion about this.
Posted by
Jorn, DE on January 10, 2010:
Marty, North Carolina said: "maybe we forgot Whom helped this country get started in the first place."
He means the French, right? For, of course, we are all aware of the great debt of honor owed to General Lafayette and his countrymen, without Whom we wouldn't be here to discuss whether everyone deserves the rights we enjoy so much. (Yes, they do). Thank The Allfather they were, because I enjoy being an American. E Pluribus Unum: From Many, One nation, under Odin, with Liberty and Justice for All.
Religious Freedom in the USA - Comments
Posted by Nam Malaysia on January 13, 2009:
ian is a very funny guy.
as far as malaysia is concerned, its local councils always act within limits empowered to them. you cannot for instance erect house of worships, temples, mosques, churches wherever you like man..
even renovation to be made on my own house in my own compound need local council's approval.
---
Let's see... Ian said, "The state should be neutral towards people's expressions of faith. An anti-religion state is just as despotic as a state church." I don't see any suggestion there that anyone should be able to build anything they want without a permit. I don't think Ian's a "very funny guy", Nam. I think maybe you are. -rc
Posted by Ian, Selangor, Malaysia on January 14, 2009:
I agree with Nam that in a properly functioning society, people shouldn't be able to simply build a place of worship or anything else without a permit.
Ah, but there's the crux. A properly function society. Or do I have to remind you of what UMNO/BN did to the Catholic church in Shah Alam? After 20 years of struggle, they finally get a permit, sink a million Ringgit into the construction, and are suddenly told to stop and move!
Never mind all the other churches and temples that could not be built without bribing some civil servant or UMNO/BN politician. Why do you think most churches are in shop lots? Because most pastors refuse to resort to bribery, they could not get a permit to build their church, and they have stopped trying. So before the March 2008 election, most churches in Selangor were "illegal".
Thank God for the first time since the British left in 1957, we have a new state government now, so maybe now some churches and temples may be built legally without having to resort to bribery.
For the non-Malaysians who are not aware, the new PR government of Selangor is a coalition of PKR (People's Justice Party), DAP (Democratic Action Party) and PAS (Islamic fundamentalist Religious Party of One-Malaysia).
After the election, the newly-elected state representative from the Islamic fundamentalist PAS did something which no so-called "moderate Muslim" UMNO politician dares to do -- he spoke at that Catholic church that was finally built in another location due to UMNO's religious bigotry: http://anilnetto.com/christianity/pas-mp-receives-standing-ovation-in-shah-alam-catholic-church/
Proper permits from a racist or religiously discriminatory state is a standard way of legalizing religious and racial discrimination. They simply reject your application for a permit, and suddenly, you're illegal!
Even when a permit is not needed because it was built in native tribal lands, the racist and religiously discriminating state comes in and demolishes. Now the native tribal Christians are trying to fight them in the courts, but they control the courts, and the case keeps getting postponed and postponed, over a year now!
This same UMNO government is forbidding Malay-speaking Christians from calling God "Allah" as they have called Him since before there was a Malaysia! Again, here it is the Islamic fundamentalist PAS that is "surprisingly" defending the rights of the Christians.
I totally agree with what Drew of North Carolina said. What is discrimination happens in USA to non-Christians pales in comparison to what happens to non-Muslims in Malaysia, and the discrimination we face in Malaysia pales in comparison to the outright murder that happens in Muslim Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, Hindu fundamentalist parts of India like Orissa, Buddhist Sri Lanka, etc.
But what Randy said is true also: evil committed by non-Christians does not justify Christians to commit evil either. The USA has a higher standard, and Christians should live up to that standard.
Posted by Mike from Dallas on February 16, 2009:
As you said, not only freedom OF relgion, but also freedom FROM religion. I'm not an atheist, but to argue successfully, one must embrace the acceptance of their premise. (If you can't agree upon what to disagree, then how can you argue?)
I maintain that Atheism IS a religion. No, not a passive lack of belief in a Supreme Being, but a very real, active belief that there is no such thing. Yet, when I would defend the Atheists to the right to their religion, they would argue with me that they have no religion. In essence, denying themselves the very right that they're demanding.
Really, it is difficult to offer equal consideration to those who refuse it, suggesting perhaps that it's not equality of rights they seek, but the denial of equality to others.
Posted by Wayne, Michigan. on April 30, 2009:
re: Mike from Dallas
Atheism is not a religion, "A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth." (wikipedia)
I am an atheist, a Humanist, a nonbeliever, I am one of natures many creations, and I accept earth as a natural world, I reject the unproved and primitive supernatural myths about gods, devils, angels, magic, life-after-death and the suspension of natural laws ("miracles") through wishful thinking ("prayer") which most religions include.
On a clear day you can see our Creator, you can feel its touch on your skin, and if you look around you can see its miracles at work, my Creator has the strength of the Stars, my Creator is the Creator of all things in our solar system, my Creator's name is Sol, my Creator is known as The Sun, it is not a conscious being, it is a very small part of the natural evolution of the Universe.
My definition of an atheist is that we are not aliens put here by an alien "God" that holds warrant to a religion. I am an Earthling, born on this earth, of this earth, from seeds of Stardust.
Posted by Ian, Selangor, Malaysia on April 30, 2009:
Hi, Wayne. It depends on your definition, I suppose.
I used to be an atheist before my conversion to Christianity (I guess like CS Lewis you might consider me a "lapsed atheist" :-) so I can see from both points of view.
But the point of this thread was that we should not be unjustly penalizing people for their sincerely-held beliefs. Atheism fits in that category of "sincerely-held beliefs".
I am opposed to state coercion of atheists to believe in some religion, e.g. Indonesia under Soeharto, where everyone had to profess one of the sanctioned religions -- Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism and Protestantism. (In case you are wondering, this was a reaction against Communism.)
I am also opposed to the opposite, as per in the old Communist countries, or even milder forms like France and Turkey prohibiting fundamentalist Muslim women from wearing a head covering.
Posted by Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on June 14, 2009:
I was raised Christian, in Texas; unusually enough, I was raised Episcoplian, a compromise between my parents, my Father being a Catholic (though not a life-long one) and my Mother being a Methodist. As a young man, I seriously explored going into the priesthood, though eventually I decided against doing so, mostly because of shortcomings I saw in myself to fulfill that role successfully.
As the decades rolled on by, I not only fell away from the church [Episcopal, I mean], but from organized religion pretty much at all.
It deeply troubles me that some Americans enforce Christianity on others, given the fundamental purpose of Europeans deciding to come to an undeveloped, dangerous place was to escape not only religious persecution but to gain the right to believe as they wished and to practice that faith accordingly.
The motto "In God We Trust" on our currency is especially troublesome. About three years ago a close, and dear, relative and I got into a [friendly] debate about it. I referred her to the U.S. Treasury website you cite, and no more was said. I -- foolishly -- thought she had seen her argument that it has always been part of our currency (and the Pledge of Allegiance) is, simply, historically incorrect. After all, my Mom is educated, to MA level, a retired teacher, reasonably well traveled, etc.
But then I had occasion to visit in person, and boy oh boy, did she ever blow my ears back. She offered two counter-arguments: either whoever at the Treasury wrote the piece was a liar (not to mention anti-Christian) or, ig ther piece is correct, then the motto OUGHT to have been part and parcel of public life, including on our currency, right from the start -- including Continental script.
Needless to say, I dropped it when she demanded I *prove* the article to be correct. I pointed out it wouldn't matter how many historians I cited, she wouldn't accept it, given the, um, firmness of her position. And there the issue remains.
In our society, a fundamental part of the bedrock that doesn't often surface in this context is this: "MY rights end at the tip of my nose -- just as YOUR rights end at the tip of yours."
I have always stood up for the right of any American to believe, or not believe, as he or she sees fit -- so long as that person doesn't to seek that belief/lack thereof on the next person (including non-Americans).
A minor point aside: belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism are arguably not religions at all, or at least weren't originally. Buddha, for instance, specifically said (so it's claimed anyway) not to make statues of him then or later, yet they abound in some places (such as Thailand). I suppose one can argue, with considerable reason, that such belief systems have *evolved* into religions, whatever the original intent of their founder(s).
In closing, I don't mean to offend anyone. But the state has no role in religion in the U.S., without regard to what occurs in other countries.
Posted by Donald - Cambridge, MA on August 24, 2009:
Well said. I am 61 years old, and I remember when - during what I now know was the McCarthy era - we were told we had to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, which we were required to say to start each school day. [By the way, it's always struck me as peculiar that we pledge allegiance to the "flag of the United States of America" rather than to the country itself - another piece of misguided jingoism dating from the late 19th century.]
But Mekhong Kurt's experience, I'm afraid, is all too typical, both in religion and politics. People who believe in mythology, whether ancient or contemporary, have already demonstrated that as far as they are concerned, the truth is irrelevant.
It was interesting to read, during the presidential campaign, the comment that "an atheist could never be elected president" [of the US]. It speaks volumes of the dissonance between beliefs and reality to note that an atheist already was, and he is widely considered to have been not only the best president in history, but the architect of the country as we know it. I speak of Thomas Jefferson.
It is one of the many ironies of our current situation that the Republicans - spiritual descendants of the Federalists, who believed in government by the rich - should have managed to acquire the support of the religious right. I guess if you're willing to believe twelve impossible things before breakfast, you're fertile ground for unscrupulous con men (as many evangelists have demonstrated over the years), many of whom ply their trade in the Republican political apparatus.
Posted by Mekhong Kurt, Bangkok, Thailand on September 2, 2009:
Returning to this thread after about 2-1/2 months was instructive in that it reminded me of the issue again, important to me as I read so much daily (and often comment on what I read) that I had more or less forgotten what I wrote here back in June until I received an e-mail notification of recent additional comments.
I have one close friend here who is Muslim, at least nominally so, a lovely young lady in her early 30's who's the daughter of one of my best friends. If you didn't *know* she's Muslim, you damned sure never would guess it -- she drinks and smokes, for example.
Contrary to what way too many of us in the West who aren't ourselves Muslim, a great mass of followers of that faith aren't bloodthirtsy devils seeking to slaughter anyone who disagrees with them. Yes, there are extremist states, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
And such have touched my life; a very dear friend and his two roommates, one of whom I knew fairly well, the other whom I had met a time or two, were all taken hostage in Iraq several years ago and ultimately beheaded. Ditto another guy in Saudi Arabia before that whom I had met. Even the slaughter of Daniel Pearl indirectly touched on my life, as he was the protege of one of my Mother's dearest friends. (Neither Mom nor I ever met Daniel, however, I should add.)
So, sometimes it's a struggle to keep in mind that my own dealings adherents of The Prophet, limited though they've admittedly been, have been positive.
On a larger canvas, it amazes me that the three great monotheistic religions, intimately entwined with each other, can be so antagonistic. After all, Christianity arose from Judiasm, in large measure, just as Islam arose on Judaic and Christian roots.
Think about it: fundamentally, all three faiths worship the same God, though there are vast chasms in beliefs regarding how we're supposed to serve Him. (Or Her or It or whatever.) Yes, that leaves Christians odd man out when it comes to any discussion of Jesus -- but at lest some Muslims acknowledge him as a great prophet, if not the Son of God. (They also acknowledge and admire a number of Old Testament figures.)
I wonder how many people even know that the Muslims had their own "Holy Crusades" about a millenium ago. During those crusades, Islamic troops were under standing orders, on pain of death for disobediance, to give any Christian or Jew an opportunity to renounce his faith and accept Islam. Of course, if the Christian or Jew *didn't* do so, well, it was death for him. But adherents of not one single OTHER faith was even accorded the "opportunity." (Some "opportunity" when you're on your back in the sand, with a guy holding a sword or spear to your throat!)
I guess none of this should surprise us; just look at the serious fractures *within* each of the great monotheistic faiths. In the rural village very near which I grew up in Texas, not only did the various Protestant churches there -- at one point, there were an astonishing 17 -- in a town of about 500 people! -- genuinely believe that Catholics aren't Christians (never mind Jews and Muslims, much less anyone else), but they had serious doubts even about each other, for pete's sake. I'll make up names here to spare the guilty, but it was so bad at one point that members of one church of a certain denomination -- let's call it The First Church of Christ (with apologies to members of the CoC) genuinely felt that members of the congregation at the SECOND Church of Christ likely weren't Christians. At all. And that those Satan-infested demons well deserved to burn in fiery Hell forevermore.
Pretty sad, huh?
The almost complete lack of critical analysis (and the lack of any ability to conduct any critical analysis in any case) is both astonishing and depressing; one needn't be an intellectual giant to follow the plot. On the most fundamental level, isn't the Buddhist idea that one can eventually lose himself back into the Universe (a gross oversimplification, but it'll do for now) basically the same as the belief Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam share that if we're good kids we get to go to "Heaven" and be one with God again? Further, except for nutcase extremists (and they can be found in all religions, and among the ranks of the atheists), most people of any or no faith want the same basic things. In the case of Christianity, the Ten Commandments go some distance towards covering the grounds; most other religions have comparable teachings -- including Islam. Recall the various imams and scholars who've bravely spoken up against the Osama's of the world, saying, "Hey, Dude, don't you be up and hijacking MY religion!" My Muslim friend here sometimes reminds me of something she told me long ago: some of the happiest days of her life, especially since 9/11 (her Dad's American raised-Christian-fallen-by-the-wayside, her Mom's a Thai Muslim) are those when she reads in the news that another Islamic terrorist has been caught or killed, happiest in part because she feels much like those objecting Islamic imams and scholars.
Back to Randy's story. IF we're going to have "In God We Trust" etc. anywhere on or in a state-financed and -supported building, piece of currency, etc., then we ought to inscribe those items and places with excerpts from every single religion, at least those represented in the U.S.
I remember when the first ashram opened up in the county seat of the county in which I grew up, back in the hippy days. Folks went nuts. They could put up with Catholics (just as the Catholics could put up with them), but these foreign notions were beyond the pale. Until the adherents of the ashram opened up a GREAT restaurant, started doing volunteer work, etc. In reasonably short order, they became valued members of the community, even if most folks were still a bit puzzled by it all. And no, the ashram folks weren't all from India; in fact, only a tiny percentage were -- most were locals, mostly university students.
Will Mom ever come around? Probably not, though, oddly, she accepted my heathen (ex-)wife I married in Beijing. Even despite the fact my wife had been a member of the Young Pioneers (as everyone in her school had to be), a communist organization. Heck, even my Dad accepted her -- despite the fact that several of his closest friends were killed in combat with *Chinese* troops during the Korean War.
If my parents could accept the abberation my wife represented in their lives, I don't see why we can't accept flexibility ourselves. Including not cramming "In God We Trust" etc. down others' throats.
As for the argument that Christians are treated far worse elsewhere than non-Christians are in America, an earlier commentator here has already dealt with that: for you to do wrong doesn't give me license to do likewise. Another commentator argues that "freedom OF religion" doesn't mean "freedom FROM religion." I teach English -- and writing -- at university level, and I'm a writer. That argument doesn't wash, especially in light of the fact there is absolutely NOTHING in any formal founding document of our Republic imposing a duty to practice *some* religion. "Freedom of religion" inherently includes the right to decline any religion. Just as it includes a person's right to go out and worship some certain tree, if he or she likes.
Sigh...
Posted by Mekhong Kurt/Bangkok, Thailand on November 7, 2009:
For perfectly selfish reasons, I wish others would post on this thread -- one of the single most thoughtful threads I've ever encountered. Thanks to the rest of you who have commented; you've given considerable food for thought, as did Randy's original article. And I share Randy's anger and passion about this.
Posted by Jorn, DE on January 10, 2010:
Marty, North Carolina said: "maybe we forgot Whom helped this country get started in the first place."
He means the French, right? For, of course, we are all aware of the great debt of honor owed to General Lafayette and his countrymen, without Whom we wouldn't be here to discuss whether everyone deserves the rights we enjoy so much. (Yes, they do). Thank The Allfather they were, because I enjoy being an American. E Pluribus Unum: From Many, One nation, under Odin, with Liberty and Justice for All.
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.