Editorial: National Day of Prayer
Franklin Graham had been invited to lead a prayer at the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer this month but he has been summarily uninvited because he spoke ill of Islam, specifically the manner in which they commit murder and suicide to gain the favor of their god and because of the way they subjugate women.
Despite our foundation as one of freedom of religion these freedoms were NEVER absolute. At one time those of the Mormon faith were permitted multiple wives. There are sects of the church that still practice this older tradition but the main church modified its doctrine to blend into American society more than a century ago. Why, because of pressure applied to it to conform to state laws against polygamy.
The Mormon Church also had doctrine that identified black persons as lesser individuals and ineligible to enter the priesthood. In 1969 black athletes on the track team at University of Texas – El Paso and football players at the University of Wyoming protested the inferior treatment extended by BYU to the black male. Continuing pressure by the NCAA resulted in a reversal of church policy toward the black man. Conveniently there appeared a revelation to the LDS Church that allowed them to modify their doctrine in 1978, only 32 years ago.
I point to these two examples to identify that absolute freedom of religion would have permitted the LDS Church to continue its discriminatory policies toward women and minorities but public pressure as applied by American citizens and state law moved the doctrine of the church and the church ultimately conformed to society. Why should it be any different for Islamic teachings that are counter to the culture of America?
I regard it as a mistake for the Pentagon to have withdrawn its invitation to Reverend Graham. He is a Christian minister. He proclaimed an unwillingness to accept that a God could require one to kill himself in order to enter the kingdom of heaven and by his words he applied pressure to the leaders of that faith to conform to modernity, to treat women as equals and to recognize that a loving God would not require one to kill himself and non-believers in order to enter his kingdom. He emphasized his Christian heritage by proclaiming that salvation can only come through acceptance of Jesus Christ, his savior. He expressed his natural Christian belief in a loving and forgiving God and he proselytized his belief in God to those of other faiths. Christians regard this as their obligation, to lead others toward Christianity. There is no insistence that people follow. He was merely extending a hand of offering. If Muslims are offended by references to Jesus Christ and criticism of Islamic policy then my thoughts are that many Mormons were probably offended when they had to sacrifice wives and modify their doctrine toward minorities, but they did. They conformed.
For some reason those who proclaim they were deeply offended by the comments of Reverend Graham do so under the logic that freedom of religion is absolute, that all persons, Jews, Christians, Hindu, Muslim, etc. must be free to practice their religion and so they are. Franklin Graham was not denying anyone this right by his comments. There was also nothing inappropriate in his statements regarding Islam and Christianity. He was merely applying pressure to those of the Muslim faith to move them into the 21st Century. Maybe they will come, maybe they will not but they certainly will not modify their belief if their current practice of Islam is never challenged.
Categories: Religion
Tags: Religion Franklin Graham National Day of Prayer
I appreciated the article on religion. However, the only deterrent for me to accepting the platform of the Tea Party is that I don't really think religion and politics should be held together. I am born and raised Christian and I do totally agree with the comments that Islam should conform to our constitution if they want to be accepted in the United States, our country our rules. However, the constitution does say their should be separation of Church and State and here in South Carolina the Tea Party is known as the Christian Conservatives. Also, if the Tea is grassroots why was Rep. Haley funded by big out of state money, and proclaiming for election reasons to be Christian (which should not matter). I am in total agreement with the rest. Is that a big part of the platform?
Reply to this
Linda,
To the contrary, the Constitution does not say there should be a Separation of Church and State and there was never any intent by our forefathers to draw a line between them. What they specifically opposed was that any man or woman should be forced to worship in a particular state established religion. Therefore the 1st Amendment reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The 1st Amendment has been twisted around and is widely believed as you stated that there was intended to be a separation. Thomas Jefferson in a letter, long after the Constitution was adopted described a separation but he had little or nothing to do with the original draft and unless he was a delegate to the Constutional Convention or to the Virginia legislature, he had nothing to do with the ratification. Please note that by attempting to outlaw a day of prayer, by attempting to prevent nativity scenes on government property and by forbidding prayer in school or prior to school activities government is actually violating the Constitution. Authorities are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Also, please note, there is no one "Tea Party." This is essentially a widely used phrase that describes a number of people today, including myself, who is intent on restoring liberty in this country that has been systematically eroded by a Congress, by a President and by a Court to call what is reasonable, unreasonable; what is right, wrong; and what is Constitutional, unconstitutional. If you aren't already a member I'd encourage you and anyone else to join a Tea Party. There is no need to conform to all ideas in any platform because there is no one platform for the Tea Party. The platform ideas and presentations in this blog are merely my ideas and the ideas of a few friends and they are intended to inspire thought and debate, not conformity to a rigid set of ideas or ideals. As an American you are entitled to decide for yourself what is right for you and if you agree with all but one item in any platform you have identified a set of ideals that seem pretty consistent with your own political philosophy.
Reply to this
certainly, the constitution may not explicitly state that there must be total separation of church and state.. However, just as Linda wrote, those in politics should not bring their religion into the politics of running a country. We need to focus on issues of taxation, costs, entitlements, etc... corruption.. not what religious (Christian or otherwise) beliefs anyone may or may not have. As soon as you bring "god" or religion into any political arena, you create exclusion, and you lose credence with those who have reached a logical conclusion that there are no such gods. This does not make these people evil or immoral or uneducated. it just makes them not believe in the "gods" you believe in. the Tea party should specifically keep religion out of the movement to foster greater support. For those who "believe" keep doing so if you must, but do not exclude those who don't by using such language as having national days of prayer, etc. let people pray on their own time in their own way and of their own choosing to do so or not.
Religion does not create liberty - it creates a dedication to a thought or belief or "god" that may or may not be true, and up till now for which we have zero proof of, and much proof to the contrary. we need logical thinkers runnign our government, not NECESSARILY religious ones, but if they are religious and keep their religious oppressions to themselves, then they can run the country too. the Tea party needs to swear off anyone who professes that they desire any connection between the church and state. Keep your church in your church and in YOUR home, but out of OUR government.
Reply to this
I wonder whether you would be equally willing to keep your religion, atheism, to yourself?
Reply to this
If you keep your obvious dislike for atheists to yourself, maybe we'll think about it. He just reiterated the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment, that's all.
Reply to this
Amber,
Why would you think that I dislike atheists? I could care less if you, John or anyone else is an atheist. Worship or don't worship as you please. Accept or deny God as you please. Just don't try to deny others that same right. John would interpret the Constitution as providing him the right to be free from religion. It doesn't work that way. Those who are religious have rights too, not just John.
Reply to this