Time to end invocations

If Pennsylvania residents or viewers across the nation watching the recent spectacle that unfolded in Harrisburg were unclear about where freshman Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, R-Clinton County, stands on Jesus — and by implication, where she stands on the First Amendment — the answer reverberated throughout the chamber more than a dozen times.

Apparently meant to serve as a kind of holy buffer and a not-so-subtle plea for forgiveness for what was to come later, Borowicz delivered a two-minute prayer that invoked the name of Jesus no less than 13 times and included a bevy of overtly Christian-based words and phrases one might hear at an old-time religion tent revival.

Near the end of the prayer, Borowicz went into full evangelical preacher mode, saying that “every tongue will confess, Jesus, that you are lord,” which drew an “Objection!” from someone in the room. House Speaker Mike Turzai, who looked uncomfortable and, as far as I can tell, barely closed his eyes the whole time, then tapped Borowicz on the shoulder to wrap it up, which she promptly did, no doubt realizing she had gotten carried away.

The big news of the day wasn’t supposed to be the invocation. In a nation where the separation of church and state is routinely blurred, prayers of this type wouldn’t have raised many eyebrows. But the prayer was particularly problematic because the state’s first female Muslim representative, Movita Johnson-Harrell, of Philadelphia, was set to be sworn in immediately after the opening.

It was an important milestone for more diversity in politics that was overshadowed, probably by design, by Borowicz’s overwrought and potentially illegal appeal to heaven — the Christian heaven, that is — that may have violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

This was a public meeting in a public building in a nation that has established religious freedom as one of its founding principles, not just freedom for some believers, but freedom for all believers and all nonbelievers.

While the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 ruled that open meetings can include sectarian invocations, meaning that they can invoke the specific god of the speaker, they must be reverential and “invite lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends” and cannot “denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion,” according to the court’s 5-4 decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Borowicz careened well over that line.

But beyond the prayer to Jesus, the constitutional issues it raises and the impertinence toward adherents of Islam and to her fellow representative in the House, Borowicz’s breathless support Israel, both as a political entity and a theological mecca that all three Abrahamic religions claim as their own, was both unnecessary and beside the point.

If the goal here was to be incendiary and incite strong negative emotions, the opening succeeded. If the goal was to bring people together in a respectful manner, as invocations should, it failed. I dare say Borowicz was mainly there to preach, honor her religion at the detriment of all others and offer a thinly veiled rebuke of Johnson-Harrell’s swearing-in, no doubt one of the many reasons she asked Jesus for forgiveness.

Notwithstanding the House’s recent flirtation with constitutional impropriety, the chamber has already been taken to court for its policy of only allowing believers to deliver the invocation before meetings. Last year, U.S. Middle District Judge Christopher Conner found that the chamber must give nontheists an opportunity to deliver the opening message. The judge also ruled that the House’s requirement that lawmakers stand during the prayer was unconstitutional.

In short, sectarian prayers are permissible in Pennsylvania, but lawmakers can’t be compelled to participate in them.

I have covered public meetings in which residents have petitioned city and county boards to allow representatives from secular organizations to deliver the invocation as a way to try to get the board to be more inclusive. Believers and nonbelievers alike have quibbled over the sticky issue for years. Trying to appease everyone doesn’t admit to any easy answers.

I realize it might be a radical idea, but the simple solution is to end invocations altogether, start meetings with a polite greeting and quickly move to the public’s business. Invocations, oftentimes abused more for grandstanding than to be reverential or to espouse “shared ideals and common ends” among diverse people, can produce the opposite effect for which they are intended.

People of all faiths, or no faith at all, have freedom to live as they see fit outside of open meetings. Using public forums to offend the religious sensibilities of others does a disservice to Christianity and to democracy.

[Cover image credit: “Prayer” by fbuk.]

Breivik case: faith vs. political power

Andrew Sullivan, on his blog The Dish, ruminates about the distinction between Christianity and his self-coined word, “Christianism,” in order to defend Christianity from those who use faith for political purposes, as he claims about Anders Breivik:

The core message of  Christianism is, in stark contrast, the desperate need to control all the levers of political power to control or guide the lives of others. And so the notion that Breivik is a “Christian fundamentalist” seems unfair to those genuine Christian fundamentalists who seek no power over others (except proselytizing), but merely seek to live their own lives in accord with a literal belief in the words of the Bible.

… Both Islamism and Christianism, to my mind, do not spring from real religious faith; they spring from neurosis caused by lack of faith. They are the choices of those who are panicked by the complexity and choices of modernity into a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion in order to attack what they see as their cultural and social enemies. They are not about genuine faith; they are about the instrumentality of faith as a political bludgeon.

Of course, one can’t ignore the “real religious faith” of the 9/11 attackers, in that they believed they would be rewarded for their efforts in heaven (with a slew of virgins no less).

Continue reading

Terry Jones Koran-burning saga continues

Article first published as Terry Jones-Koran Saga Continues on Blogcritics.

***

Credit: Khalid Tanveer/Associated Press

Terry Jones has at least one sin for which he needs to be absolved.

According to a New York Times report today, one man is now dead following protests outside a NATO office in western Afghanistan over Jones’ “stunt,” as President Obama has called it, to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11 in his church’s own protest against Islam and, presumably, against the proposed mosque and community center near the Ground Zero site.

“A fringe Florida preacher may have suspended his Koran-burning, but word reached Afghanistan too late for 24-year-old Muhammed Daoud,” the report says.

And that death could have and indeed would have been avoided had Jones not gone on his hysterical, fire-branded campaign against Islam, and had the media simply ignored that which deserves no limelight. I and many other bloggers have given the story attention, but, at least in my case, I gave it attention only to condemn it and only after large media outfits had already begun courting the disastrous story.

But all this matters not for Daoud, of course, and I hope — but I highly doubt it will — prick like a stick on Jones’ conscience. Again, given what we know about this person, one willing to risk the security of his country and that of the men and women serving in Muslim-dominated countries — not to mention native Middle Easterners — to make his point, we can’t rightly pen a very positive account of the man’s ability to care for his fellow human beings.

Also late this week, in what appears to be a situation in which no one quite knows who said what, Jones is claiming that local imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, had made a deal with him to move the location of Park 51, the official name of the center. Thus, Jones would not hold the Koran burning. But Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man heading up the project, has on multiple occasions said the plan was moving forward. Here is Rauf’s column published recently in the New York Times and a statement made in an interview with ABC News’ Christiane Amanpour.

“Let’s say we moved under this current circumstance with this dialogue,” Rauf told Amanpour. “What will be the headline tomorrow in the Muslim world? ‘Islam under attack in America.’ That’s the theme of it. ‘Mosque forcibly removed by whatever.’ That will feed the radicals. So diffusing terrorism is a necessity for our national security.”

It will feed the radicals indeed. And as Rauf notes in his column, the mosque and community center will not be just for Muslims, and nowhere have I read that the center’s purpose was anything other than about bringing people of different faiths together and fostering an atmosphere of mutual existence. It is only the extremists like Jones and his counterparts in the Middle East who eschew such co-existence.

“Our name, Cordoba, was inspired by the city in Spain where Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in the Middle Ages,” Rauf said, later adding that the center would include separate places for prayer by which Muslims, Christians, Jews and others can approach their own respective deities.

Regarding Jones’ claim about the movement of the center’s location, Musri said Jones “stretched his words” in a news conference. My opinion: Musri may have conceded more than he was ready to concede in talks with Jones in order to avert the disaster that may have taken place had the book burning went as planned. I highly doubt that Musri overstepped his authority and said outright that the center’s location would be changed for sure. He may have simply implied something along those lines to appease Jones to curb the threat of protests or the loss of life. Or, Jones could be lying, or the truth could be somewhere in between.

Nevertheless the efforts are already too little too late for at least one person. Jones should return to the fire and brimstone pulpit from whence he came and get out of the public sphere, for outside his inflated world of angels and demons and eternal destinations — “one nice and one nasty experience,” as Christopher Hitchens puts it, — he’s a danger to civil society.

A Saudi Arabia native’s struggle

Both American believer and nonbeliever alike can be very thankful that we live in the land of the free.

I was heartened recently to read the story of a Saudi Arabia native who was attempting to maintain a position of disbelief in a nation in which said disbelief just may well get one killed. Here in the United States, we are lucky to be able to believe, or not, without the threat of any sort of consequences from the establishment. Unfortunately, many, or most, portions of the Middle East are still shrouded by dark intolerance. Thus, this particular Saudi bravely has stepped forward, at least in one forum, to announce his disbelief, although, in his native land, he’s forced, with his life at stake, to keep his lack of belief on the down-low. Here is part of his story:

Since I was kid I’ve been asking “inappropriate questions” about the all-mighty Allah. I was very curious about this invisible god who everyone fears, and the answer was always the same: “You shouldn’t ask these questions, you don’t question his judgment.. you just do as he says and you’ll be rewarded”. Fair enough, can I at least see him? BTW that wasn’t me asking these questions.. it was Satan trying to shake my believe and turn me to his side.. And I should never ask anyone else these questions (so I don’t embarrass my parents), I should just come to them and get the exact same answer every fucking time

For some reason I wasn’t convinced that god existed, but I’m only a child and my parents know better. If everyone believes in him then I’m sure they’re right and there’s something wrong with me, I kept telling myself that until I actually believed it

I was a very devout Muslim in my early teens.. Never dared to even look at a girl even though all my friends had girlfriends, hated infidels (but loved Newcastle United Tongue) and was brainwashed by my religion teacher to love and even look up to Osama bin-Laden! I was on my way to become a world-class terrorist until my father saved me.. Even though the geezer’s a very traditional guy he was quite open minded (for a Saudi). He studied abroad and still is in contact with some of his foreign friends, loathes bin-Laden and the religious police, he was the one pushing me to learn about the world and force-fed me books about, well.. everything, he insisted that I go to English schools in the summer so I can improve my language (money will wasted obviously)

He kept saying to me “Think for yourself, think for yourself, think for yourself.. Take the knowledge anywhere you can get it from, but never take opinions, form your own. You have a brain so use it.. and for god’s sake eat a damn orange! you’re so skinny you can pass from under the damn door!”. He was a master in pointing out my faults in the harshest way possible, but I still love that frightening bastard Big Grin

The utter oppression in those lands nearly have led this person to attempt suicide because of the intolerance to those who might dare shun the idea of Allah.

Thus, the writer has appealed to a forum for support, and here is his conclusion:

… I tried telling myself that it’s Satan messing with my head again, but the voice of reason kept getting stronger and stronger. The struggle was hard, and the fact that I will get KILLED if people knew didn’t help either

I got so depressed I lost 20 pounds in 3 months and became my old walking skeleton self again.. cut all my friends off because I was worried about what might happen if the (they) found out.

I went to the UK for a couple of months to study English and LIVE, and I have to say that those few months were the best times of my life. But unfortunately the good times had to stop and I came back to a place where I’ll be killed just for having a different opinion.

Depression hit me harder that time, and I started to loose weight again. Now after a year and half I realized something: I’m alone
at first it was because the fear for my life like I mentioned, after that and when I finally got over it I realized I forgot how to be around people! After all it’s not easy living between doors for half a year all by yourself

I have seriously considered suicide and tried to attempt it 3 times, but every time I do I hear a voice in my head telling me tomorrow will be better.. But no matter how I tried it all seems hopeless.

For former believers who have found enlightenment values far more satisfying than the alternative, the reaction of others to this news can, indeed, can seem oppressively hopeless and renders one susceptible to the thought that one isn’t really free to think for oneself within their social strata. And if one isn’t really free to think for oneself, then life itself can seem equally hopeless. Such is the power of religion to dull the mind and blunt individuality, but, of course, for the faithful, this life is quite like the preface to a book, isn’t it? I don’t know if this Saudi fellow ever will be able to get out of his native land of intolerance, but I advised him that, if he has the means, hop the nearest plane out of there.

Female poets speaking out in state compelling them to stand down

In a country that uses the Koran as its official constitution and is, for all intent and purposes, an Islamic state, a pair of Saudi Arabian female poets have recited controversial works on a game show called Poet of Millions, which is apparently the Saudi equivalent to American Idol with poetry as the lauded craft, rather than music.
The woman, named Hissa Hilal, in her poem critized Muslim clerics for “terrorizing people and preying on everyone seeking peace.” Here is an excerpt from her poem:

Credit: The New York Times

I have seen evil from the eyes of the subversive fatwas in a time when what is lawful is confused with what is not lawful;

When I unveil the truth, a monster appears from his hiding place; barbaric in thinking and action, angry and blind; wearing death as a dress and covering it with a belt [referring to suicide bombing];

He speaks from an official, powerful platform, terrorizing people and preying on everyone seeking peace; the voice of courage ran away and the truth is cornered and silent, when self-interest prevented one from speaking the truth.

Hilal said she was

inspired by what she called “subversive” fatwas, specifically one issued by Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al Barrak, a Saudi cleric, on his website last month.

Her recital on the Abu Dhabi TV show last week sparked controversy in Saudi Arabia, especially on internet forums. According to reports, many viewers praised her for her courage, but others attacked her for criticising clerics and reciting her poems in public. One website called for her death.

But Ms Hilal defied the threats, delivering a similar poem on Wednesday’s show – and she received the highest score of the round, 47 out of 50.

The judges praised Ms Hilal’s courage for expressing her opinion “honestly and powerfully”. By reaching the final, she is guaranteed a prize of at least Dh1 million (US$270,000).

Sheikh al Barrak’s fatwa had called for the execution of anyone who says mixing of sexes is allowed in Islam because “he is allowing what is not allowed, and therefore he is a kafir who left the religion and should be killed if he does not change his opinion”.

Another female, reported by The Lede, named Aydah al-Aarawi al-Jahani competed in the show

mounting pressure from family and tribe members, in Saudi Arabia, to resign from the competition due to the fact that she is female.

And she should be lauded for standing up to the theocratically-mandated sexism and anti-intellectualism she no doubt lives with every day of her life. Here is a video of al-Jahani competing:

I can’t help with the Arabic though.

Big whiff of theocracy

Iran, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is planning to charge five people in connection with recent protests against the government with, no joke, warring against God. Eight people were killed Dec. 27 on the day of ritual Shi’ite mourning in protests against the established leadership led by supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi. Make no mistake. Iran is a theocracy in which Khomeini regularly leads the country in prayer in talks with his populace, which are commonly dubbed, not speeches, but sermons.

Now, suppose this was the case in America. Many folks these days think the United States either is, or should be, a Christian nation. Indeed, Sam Harris wrote a book called, “Letter to a Christian Nation,” with this thought in mind. Of course, Harris knows that America isn’t literally a Christian nation because that would mean it’s a theocracy, but he was working from the assumption that most people in this country profess some form of Christianity. In fact, that number is at about 76 percent, as of 2008. Here’s some stats on the topic.

What would this mean for America to actually and literally be a “Christian nation?” We would first have to define what that would mean. Would we mean that the country was led by a majority of evangelical, biblical-literalist Christian lawmakers? Or that the president was an evangelical and only some of the legislature was evangelical? Or that the president and lawmakers were mixed in their respective religions, but the general populace consisted of a majority of evangelical Christians?

I do and always have taken this to mean that, like Iran, a complimentary example of a theocracy, that the president himself would have to be an evangelical, and that government bodies, from the U.S. Congress, down to state and local bodies, would conduct their business under the auspices of the dominant religion. So, literally, I take it to mean a state governed and regulated by a religion. A certain segment of our population seems to think our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Here is what James Dobson had to say in an April 15, 2009 interview with Sean Hannity on America as a Christian nation:

HANNITY: Dr. Dobson, the president said, as we all know, that America is not a Christian nation. Every other president had suggested we were. Our founders and framers suggested we were. What did you think when you heard that, and how would you answer him and tell him otherwise?

DOBSON: Well, Sean, it would — I would really like to hear the question asked and answered in a different way. Whether or not we’re a Christian nation is not the issue. The issue is did we have Christian roots and has that influenced, the Judeo-Christian value system, influenced our law, our constitution, and our way of life. And it has, and he implied that there was a kind of theological equivalence between Christianity and all the other religions of the world on that issue, and that’s not true. The United States has been from the beginning greatly influenced and primarily influenced by the Judeo-Christian system of values. And that is still accurate.

Of course, folks always have to add the “Judeo” part because to say simply “Christian beliefs” would be wrong in every degree, and they know it. Adding the Judeo part makes it more general and, in part, accurate, but not much more. The evangelical brand of Christianity that we see today, in part, began with the moral majority camp, which got its start in the late 1970s. The Founders, and I can probably say this until I’m blue in the  face, were not evangelicals at all, but most of them were deists, which meant they did not believe in a personal god. They believed in a god who set the world in motion and did not interfere in human affairs. This would rule out both Jesus and Yahweh, both of which intervened in human affairs.

Sure, many Christians lived here early in our history and immigrated to escape the Church of England and other tough circumstances, but our documents are, at their core, secular. Obama, in the above reference, was speaking of the current population of America, which consists of Christians, Muslims, Jews, non-believers and many others. Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli said that the U.S. “is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The following was enacted under one of them, and one of my favorites, President John Adams:

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “in no sense founded on the Christian religion.” … This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims– they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

Thus, to think that this is a Christian nation, in the most literal sense, is false. To believe that this should be a Christian nation subjugates every person, believing or not, in this country and creates a timorous and dictatorial atmosphere, the extreme of which we can observe in Iran on a daily basis, where “warring against God” is not merely a moral indictment, but a legal one.

And that would be a dangerous leap to make.

Signs of the Muslim behind the Fort Hood shootings

I thought this was an interesting and detailed look at the personal life of Nidal Hasan in the days leading up to the Fort Hood shooting, in which 12 were killed and 31 injured. He was most likely emotionally distressed, troubled about the death of his mother, lonely in his personal life and isolated because of his Islamist views. According to the article, he was sometimes haggled after 9/11 for his religious views. While in the Army, his car was vandalized twice, and he described himself as “an outcast.”

In fact, while reading this story, I was partially struck by how similar this fellow’s social life was to my own. Of course, I don’t have the double hindrance of religion, but in social circles, he likely felt, to put it no other way, awkward.

One day in 2006, as Hasan edged toward his late 30s, he attended a matchmaking event at the Islamic Society of the Washington Area. The annual gathering is a last-chance staple for hundreds of Muslims, some of whom travel from as far as India or Hawaii, to mingle over a breakfast buffet. But attending such an event was an uncharacteristic step for Hasan, who steadfastly avoided group parties with co-workers and who, his aunt Noel Hasan said, “did not make many friends easily and did not make friends fast.”

Under the personality and character section of a questionnaire, he described himself as, “Quiet, reserved until more familiar with person. Funny, caring, and personable.”

Of course, to say all that is to say that I somewhat identified with him socially. We must have been of a similar mode, at least in that one, and only, regard.

And then there’s religion.

The day of the shooting, among other sundry activities, he left his Apartment 9 room and visited a devout Christian neighbor, who was apparently puzzled

when he handed her a copy of the Koran and recommended passages for her to read.

Then Hasan delivered this chilling, but not altogether shocking statement, coming from a fanatical Muslim:

“In my religion,” Hasan told her, “we’ll do anything to be closer to God.”

Anything, indeed.

I’m currently reading “Islamic Imperialism” by Efraim Karsh, which recounts the rise and fall, and the apparent and attempted new rise of the caliphate in the modern world, of the Islamic empire that swept through the Middle East and parts of Europe beginning in the 7th century. Unlike the variants of Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism, the general message of Islam has been largely uniform down through the ages since the Koran was first cobbled together and borrowed from texts of the aforementioned religions (To attempt to claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, as President Barack Obama and others have done, is just playing nice and skirting what the religion’s texts actually say). Take these statement to which Karsh brings to light one right after another in his introduction:

  • “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god by Allah.’ – Muhammad’s farewell address, March 632
  • “I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah.” – Saladin, January 1189
  • “We will export our revolution throughout the world … until the calls ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ are echoed all over the world.” – Ayatollah Khomeini, 1979
  • “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is not god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.” – Osama bin Laden, November 2001

I encourage folks to read the article about Hasan because it really is troubling that he left so many signs about his oncoming and present extremism, according to the above linked article and apparently no one had the foresight to see the signs and confront him about them. In the midst of his increasing devotion to Islam in college,

he gave the culminating presentation of his medical residency to 25 colleagues and supervisors. He was allowed to talk about any subject, and Hasan stood at the front of the room and gave a 50-slide introduction to Islam.

Slide 11: “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.”

Slide 12: “(4.93) And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell.”

Slide 49: “God expects full loyalty.”

Slide 50: “Department of Defense should allow Muslim Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”

Why 9/11 suspects should not receive the death penalty

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier this month that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four helpers would be brought before a civilain court yards away from the original World Trade Center site in which they allegedly leveled.

According to a New York Times article,

Holder insisted both the court system and the untainted evidence against the five men are strong enough to deliver a guilty verdict and the penalty he expects to seek: a death sentence for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people who were killed when four hijacked jetliners slammed into the towers, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania.

But why a death penalty? Why not hard labor for decades? Why not a life of imprisonment? How can one single life make up for 3,000 dead in New York?

It can’t, and the sentence Holder is seeking is far from ample.

Regardless, we are set to give Mohammed and his cohorts the death penalty, which is exactly what they want: martydom. According to the article:

Held at Guantanamo since September 2006, Mohammed said in military proceedings there that he wanted to plead guilty and be executed to achieve what he views as martyrdom. In a letter from him released by the war crimes court, he referred to the attacks as a ”noble victory” and urged U.S. authorities to ”pass your sentence on me and give me no respite.”

He urged officials to hand down the sentence. So, essentially, in the death penalty, we are possibly going to give this delusional person exactly what he has wished for: to be joined in martydom with a buffet of virgins and glory and whatever else?

Here’s what Mohammed and others deserve, if they are found guilty: they should be kept alive as long as possible and used for public works projects as long as they are capable.

Unbeknownst to them, there is no paradise for them to go to, but at the least, we can keep them from the hope of it. As long as we adopt a policy to “kill these folks,” we are catering to their exact, exact desires. We are doing them a favor. Why would we, as a country, just outright kill a prisoner who wants nothing more than to be called a martyr?

If they want to die to meet up with their brethren and supposed virgins, so be it. Let them live as long as possible, working until their deathbeds for the public good, and when their day finally comes, they will have put in years in public service improving roads and infrastructure, or whatever, for future generations. And when their number finally comes, they can go clamber toward their mythical virgins and their paradise and their god. Immediate death for the 9/11 terrorist suspects is egregiously miscalculated and does a disservice to the thousands killed on that day, directly caters to the accused and actually does them a favor.

Somewhere, amid these proceedings, a mullah, and the five suspects, are, no doubt, smiling in agreement with the intentions on how to handle the suspected terrorists.

The idealism of religious pluralism

In its most recent edition, U.S. News & World Report offered a feature on some of the most prominent leaders who are working to change the world for the positive. The magazine dubbed its series of biographies, “Americas Best Leaders 2009.”

One of the predominant leaders that struck me was the article about Eboo Patel, founder and director of Interfaith Youth Core and a member of the Obama administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Patel, 33 years old and a Rhodes scholar, is working to make “interfaith cooperation a social norm” in only one generation. According to the U.S. News article, as a Muslim who grew up in Chicago, a white classmate once told him during a student council race that, “Nobody would vote for people like you.”

He was met with similar levels of discremination as he grew up along the way. The article recounts that Patel still lives with the “shame” of not standing up for a Jewish friend when a group of kids wrote anti-Semitic “slurs” on a desk in one class.

Today, Patel fights for religious pluralism, or the ideal that people of vastly different faiths can come to live peacefully with one another in mutual understanding. As the U.S. News article puts it, Patel concluded that

the only way to overcome destructive religious fanaticism is to create communities where human connection transcends differences of race, religion, and culture.

Pluralism might be noble thing in any other area of society. But on the topic of religion, particularly with regard to the main three, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, pluralism is almost a dirty word and the idea of it butts up against everything scriptures teach. I’ve even heard sermons in which preachers attempt to address the idea of religious pluralism, and it never drew glowing reviews.

Why?

Because, though I can really only speak from the perspective of Christianity, religious pluralism is antithetical to arguments from Scripture. The doctrine is clear from reading the New Testament (“No one comes to the Father except through me”): only one pathway exists to righteousness and forgiveness and everlasting life, and that is through Christ (He is the gate, the shepherd, the lighthouse, the light, the vine, choose your analogy). It is the Christian’s mission, superceding any other missionary type work she may do in America or in other countries (feeding people, building churches, etc) to try to win folks over to Christ. Feeding people, rescuing people from poverty, building new homes, all of these are secondary to that spiritual goal. As a side note and not surprisingly, when you listen to presentations about mission trips to other countries, you hear a lot about how needy people were helped overseas or in New Orleans or elsewhere (and God certainly gets all the glory for how the people were helped, yet isn’t held accountable for whatever circumstance put them in that foul place!), but little about any folks who were actually led to Christ. I’ve heard stories from, maybe, one or two people, about how someone (notice the singularity) was led to Christ, but if these missionary efforts were really God-breathed, shouldn’t we expect, from such a mighty god, throngs of people falling at Christ’s feet from simply hearing the word? Please remember, this is taking into account the dozens and dozens of post-missions presentations that I’ve sat through. Some included one, at most, two, conversion stories. Many contained none. But no, church members find themselves scratching and clawing for something positive to say about so-and-so who went to Asia or Africa to the mission field. In fact, we often hear more about the sacrifices missionaries themselves have made than about all the new Christians they led through the forgiveness prayer. Yes, I have often thought about all this while, still a believer, and sitting and listening to some aforesaid referenced presentation.

But back on point. Islam, similarly, doesn’t afford any privilege or salvation for those who do not believe its tenants. Similarly, neither does Judaism. Yet, Patel’s

early experiences with racism, religious prejudice, and rejection caused (him) to question why religious causes such violence around the world. (and he questioned:) Why do some champion religious pluralism while others become suicide bombers?

That’s easy, and it shouldn’t take a Rhodes scholar to figure either one out. I’ve actually already answered both. Religion causes such violence around the world because it presents civilizations, all civilizations that have ever existed, with an endgame, and individuals minds come to believe with such fervor in those endgames that no other option or opinion is ever acceptable. The more radical, those willing to risk their lives, will kill because of what they believe, even though they have not a shred of proof. The more moderates rightly think any killing is abhorrent and view themselves as quite loving and caring people, but they will still view individuals who do not or cannot believe as lost. What an absolutely crushing word to describe any human being. Lost. I’m reminded of these words, and I’ll conclude with Thomas Wolfe’s intro from “Look Homeward, Angel”, one of my favorite novels:

… a stone, a leaf, an unfound door; of a stone, a leaf, a door. And of all the forgotten faces.

Naked and alone we came into exile. In her dark womb we did not know our mother’s face; from the prison of her flesh have we come into the unspeakable and incommunicable prison of this earth.

Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father’s heart? Which of us has not remained forever prison-pent? Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone?

O waste of loss, in the hot mazes, lost, among bright stars on this most weary unbright cinder, lost! Remembering speechlessly we seek the great forgotten language, the lost lane-end into heaven, a stone, a leaf, an unfound door. Where? When?

O lost, and by the wind grieved, ghost, come back again.