Religious freedom and the upcoming election

[Ranger12 46]

As a conservative Christian myself, I thought the writer of this article made some good points.

Link

Dangerous signs for religious freedom in 2008

By Charles C. Haynes

Let’s start the New Year with good news: With all of our challenges and flaws, the United States begins 2008 as the world’s boldest and most successful experiment in religious freedom. Where else do citizens of every faith or no faith enjoy as much liberty to practice religion (or not) without government interference?

Of course, a cynic might say we don’t have much competition. In a world plagued by religious wars, state persecution of religion, and sectarian strife, religious freedom remains the most-desired but least-protected human right for millions of people throughout the world.

Our relative good fortune, however, shouldn’t lull us into thinking it can’t happen here. Complacency is the great enemy of freedom, especially in a nation of exploding religious diversity and bitter culture wars.

Of the many signs of danger to religious freedom in America, here are my nominees for two of the most disturbing trends in 2007 to worry about in 2008.

First, the unhealthy mixture of God and politics in the presidential campaign:

So religion-saturated is this election cycle that Beliefnet.com created a “God-o-meter” to track the shameless, mostly fatuous, invocation of religion by candidates seeking to appear holier-than-thou.

2007 was the year Democrats got religion — and now they’re competing mightily for the Almighty vote. The God-o-meter reports that Bill Richardson got so carried away in front of an Iowa crowd last week that he told them the state needed to preserve its first-caucus status “for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord.”

Meanwhile, some Republicans appear to be running for Christian-in-chief. Mike Huckabee advertises himself as a “Christian leader,” Mitt Romney scrambles to prove he’s a true Christian and John McCain tells a reporter he thinks the Constitution establishes a “Christian nation.”

Enough already. The U.S. Constitution establishes a secular republic, mandates “no religious test” for public office and guarantees full religious liberty for every citizen.

Politicians, like all Americans, are free to talk about their faith. But when they use religious language to signal preference for one group over others — or to suggest that one group should somehow be privileged by government — they violate the spirit of the First Amendment and undermine religious freedom.

Personally, I think Roger Williams got it right in the 17th century: A truly Christian nation cannot be a Christian nation in any official or legal sense of the term. As Williams read the Gospel, God requires that liberty of conscience be protected for all people. That means no government entanglement with any religion in a society where everyone has the right to choose freely in matters of faith.

Second, the rise of Islamophobia (an irrational fear or condemnation of all Muslims or Islam): 2007 began on a hopeful note with the swearing in of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim American to serve in the U.S. Congress. But the year ended badly when John Deady, co-chair of the New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, told a British newspaper last week that Muslims should be chased “back to their caves.” When asked if he meant all Muslims, he replied: “I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They’re all Muslims.”

Because such sentiments are (for now, at least) politically unacceptable, Deady had to resign from Giuliani’s campaign. But sadly his views about Muslims are shared by a growing number of Americans — including some leading Christian pastors who want to recast the “war on terrorism” as a “war on Islam.”

Not only are these people wrong about Islam, they are propagating views that are dangerous for American Muslims — and for our national security. We need to work with Muslims who oppose terrorism across the globe, not demonize their faith. And we need to fight anti-Muslim bias at home, not encourage attacks on our fellow citizens.

We can do better in 2008, but only if enough Americans take seriously their civic duty to defend religious freedom, not just for themselves but for people of all faiths and none.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20001.

Web: firstamendmentcenter.org.

E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

[otterinbham 0]

Good article. Now I'm waiting on the reactionary crowd to weigh in.

[Ranger12 46]

A candidates religious beliefs are very important to me, so I do pay attention to that. However, as this writer pointed out, it seems some candidates are just playing the game when it comes to this. That is why whenever you are thinking about a certain candidate, you need to research what he said and stood for before he started running for President. It does not have to be about religion, but about whatever principles you use to judge the candidates, whether it be liberal or conservative.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's my viewpoint on things. The more somebody talks about their religious beliefs, the more I distrust them. For example, whenever the air conditioner repairman or the electrician hands you the estimate and says, "Now, I'm a Christian..." then you know to bend over, because you're about to get it.

Same thing with politicians. I sit on the vestry of my church. I go to church twice a week and bible study once a week. I devote time to study. At the same time, I don't bring it up in my everyday business in conversation unless the subject comes up. Not because I'm ignoring the Great Commission, but because I think there's a way to more effectively spread my belief than bending the ear of anybody within earshot.

So whenever a politician decides to use his faith to gain leverage with voters, I am very apprehensive.

[AU Mom 0]

I am fairly conservative, both economically and socially. However, I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with the in-your-face religious declarations.

I know that I take some moral issues in consideration, however, we have lost something if that is all we take in to consideration. See Jimmy Carter exhibit #1. Guiliani is not high on my list but neither is Huckabee. I think a lot of Lieberman and miss Sam Nunn. Perhaps if two candidates were equal that might be the deciding factor but there is not much worse than someone "righteously" making decrees for how someone else should live.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Another muslim apologist trying to come across as the voice of reason.

Second, the rise of Islamophobia (an irrational fear or condemnation of all Muslims or Islam): 2007 began on a hopeful note with the swearing in of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim American to serve in the U.S. Congress. But the year ended badly when John Deady, co-chair of the New Hampshire Veterans for Rudy, told a British newspaper last week that Muslims should be chased “back to their caves.” When asked if he meant all Muslims, he replied: “I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They’re all Muslims.”

For all you fools who believe that islam wants to coexist WITH you, your children will end up fighting that war.

For the most part, I think that folks tend to trust what they consider true christian values more than any other. It has been proven that christians believe in the freedom of choice in this country. So as the candidates campaign, folks like to think that they can trust a man who believes in principles that respect their fellow man. Doesn't mean we have to agree with our fellow man, just that we give them a chance. And we are giving islam a chance. And at every turn, islam proves it does not want to coexist with ANY other religion.

OH yeah. Electing a muslim shows that we are truly moving taward an enlightened society? PULLEASE.

[oldman 23]

Before I got a saved I had been working for the same company for 10 years and there was a lot of "good " people and a lot more not so good people working there. Once I got saved some of the "good" people and some of the not so good people then let me know that they went to church. None of these people except for one had ever invited me to church.What am I saying? If you are really one of the "good" ones people must know why you are that "way". In my study of the bible I believe if we don't let tell people Of Christ's influence in our lives that shows we are ashamed of Him and we are not one of His.

[Ranger12 46]

I think the point of this article is not about how much somebody should talk about their religion. I believe if you are devout about your religion, you should want to talk about it. Others have the choice to ignore you or not. I don't believe I should never talk about my Christianity just because I think I may offend or annoy somebody. I am sorry, but I will never be apologetic about talking about my Savior.

The point if this article is how the candidates try to play to those beliefs such as mine and others. They think I am naive enough that if I just hear them say they are a Christian, I am going to vote for them. Unfortunately, too many voters are like that. I judge a candidate on what he had said, stood for, and done before he started running for President. Anything they say to me while they are running for President goes pretty much in one ear and out the other. As the saying goes..."talk is cheap".

CCTAU, the one part I did disagree about with this article was what the writer said about Islam, but most of the other stuff I though was pretty good. Islam has historically shown that it tries to further its faith through violence. Granted those are extremists of that religion, just like Christianity has had its share of extremists that have given Christianity a black eye at times. Yet, there seems to be a larger majority of violent extremists in Islam then there ever has been in Christianity and most other religions. Most religions, including Islam, are peaceful religions, but Islam is a tough lesson that other religions need to learn from...if you let selfish and power hungry extremists become the leaders of your religion (see the Nazi Party/Aryan Nation, Taliban and Al-Qeada), then you can bet on death and destruction to follow.

[Aubie16 1]

Others have the choice to ignore you or not. I don't believe I should never talk about my Christianity just because I think I may offend or annoy somebody. I am sorry, but I will never be apologetic about talking about my Savior.

As long as you don't mind me telling you that you'd be just as well off believing in the flying spaghetti monsters we'll be just fine.

[Ranger12 46]

Others have the choice to ignore you or not. I don't believe I should never talk about my Christianity just because I think I may offend or annoy somebody. I am sorry, but I will never be apologetic about talking about my Savior.

As long as you don't mind me telling you that you'd be just as well off believing in the flying spaghetti monsters we'll be just fine.

Well, it does not make me mad if that is why you are asking. I actually just kind of chuckled at your response actually. It does not offend me either. Why should it if I am secure in my faith? Too many are condemning of others when they do not follow their beliefs, which is where many fail their own faith. My wife had a friend, when we were dating, that was a Christian that tried to share her faith with my wife, but she did it in a very condemning and unloving way, thus my wife became more skeptical and less receptive. It came down to me having to educate that "friend" of my wife about the Bible she was beholding too, but apparently not reading close enough.

If you worship flying spaghetti monsters, well I can't force you to convert to Christianity. How could anybody be a true convert to any religion if they were forced or manipulated to do it? I can only do what I think my Lord has commanded and that is to share His love, but He doesn't want anybody to be forced to follow him either. That is why He gave us free will. It is true though that many go about things the wrong way and share in a way that makes people close their minds instead of opening them.

Going back to the article though, if a candidate said he worshiped flying spaghetti monsters, or nothing at all by the hint I get from you, does that mean you are going to vote for that candidate just because he said that? Or will you research the candidate and see if his actions and statements before his candidacy support that he is what he says he is? Even if he proves to be true, do you vote for him just because of his religious beliefs or lack thereof?

[otterinbham 0]

Before I got a saved I had been working for the same company for 10 years and there was a lot of "good " people and a lot more not so good people working there. Once I got saved some of the "good" people and some of the not so good people then let me know that they went to church. None of these people except for one had ever invited me to church.What am I saying? If you are really one of the "good" ones people must know why you are that "way". In my study of the bible I believe if we don't let tell people Of Christ's influence in our lives that shows we are ashamed of Him and we are not one of His.

And there is a time and place for everything, even in spreading the Word. After all, Christ cautioned his disciples about when and where to speak. What's more, during the Sermon on the Mount, the ethical core of the faith, Christ explicitly forbids public prayer, stating flatly that it's the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the streets and synogogues so that others can see them. There's obvious wisdom in Christ's position, because a man who chooses who cynically brandishes his faith to gain political advantage does Christianity a grave disservice. After all, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, and others of that ilk have turned far more away from the embrace of Christ than they have converted.

So basically what you're saying is that a candidate, any candidate mentions Jesus at the podium and you will follow him like a sheep. Heck, by that definition you could make the argument that Jimmy Carter is arguably the best Christian ever to hold higher office. I don't see anybody lining up to vote him back into office, however.

[GalensGhost 0]

It came down to me having to educate that "friend" of my wife about the Bible she was beholding too, but apparently not reading close enough.

This is a major problem. By what right do you "educate" anyone on the Bible? By whose authority? Are you to say that your interpretation is the only valid, acceptable meaning? What makes you think you know any more about the Bible than the possum I ran over on Highway 43 tonight?

This kind of attitude -- "I had to educate her because she wasn't reading close enough" -- is one of the things that drives people away from organized religion.

[Aubie16 1]

Others have the choice to ignore you or not. I don't believe I should never talk about my Christianity just because I think I may offend or annoy somebody. I am sorry, but I will never be apologetic about talking about my Savior.

As long as you don't mind me telling you that you'd be just as well off believing in the flying spaghetti monsters we'll be just fine.

Well, it does not make me mad if that is why you are asking. I actually just kind of chuckled at your response actually. It does not offend me either. Why should it if I am secure in my faith? Too many are condemning of others when they do not follow their beliefs, which is where many fail their own faith. My wife had a friend, when we were dating, that was a Christian that tried to share her faith with my wife, but she did it in a very condemning and unloving way, thus my wife became more skeptical and less receptive. It came down to me having to educate that "friend" of my wife about the Bible she was beholding too, but apparently not reading close enough.

If you worship flying spaghetti monsters, well I can't force you to convert to Christianity. How could anybody be a true convert to any religion if they were forced or manipulated to do it? I can only do what I think my Lord has commanded and that is to share His love, but He doesn't want anybody to be forced to follow him either. That is why He gave us free will. It is true though that many go about things the wrong way and share in a way that makes people close their minds instead of opening them.

Going back to the article though, if a candidate said he worshiped flying spaghetti monsters, or nothing at all by the hint I get from you, does that mean you are going to vote for that candidate just because he said that? Or will you research the candidate and see if his actions and statements before his candidacy support that he is what he says he is? Even if he proves to be true, do you vote for him just because of his religious beliefs or lack thereof?

No, of course I won't vote on a candidate purely based on their beliefs. It is probably the last thing I look at. It is a non-issue to me.

I was just making sure you felt that, since you don't hesitate to talk about your religion, that you don't get offended when other people tell you that its a waste of time, or talk to you about theirs.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I think the point of this article is not about how much somebody should talk about their religion. I believe if you are devout about your religion, you should want to talk about it. Others have the choice to ignore you or not. I don't believe I should never talk about my Christianity just because I think I may offend or annoy somebody. I am sorry, but I will never be apologetic about talking about my Savior.

The point if this article is how the candidates try to play to those beliefs such as mine and others. They think I am naive enough that if I just hear them say they are a Christian, I am going to vote for them. Unfortunately, too many voters are like that. I judge a candidate on what he had said, stood for, and done before he started running for President. Anything they say to me while they are running for President goes pretty much in one ear and out the other. As the saying goes..."talk is cheap".

CCTAU, the one part I did disagree about with this article was what the writer said about Islam, but most of the other stuff I though was pretty good. Islam has historically shown that it tries to further its faith through violence. Granted those are extremists of that religion, just like Christianity has had its share of extremists that have given Christianity a black eye at times. Yet, there seems to be a larger majority of violent extremists in Islam then there ever has been in Christianity and most other religions. Most religions, including Islam, are peaceful religions, but Islam is a tough lesson that other religions need to learn from...if you let selfish and power hungry extremists become the leaders of your religion (see the Nazi Party/Aryan Nation, Taliban and Al-Qeada), then you can bet on death and destruction to follow.

That's why I used Christianity in the context of how it relates to this country only. History has shown that unbridled Christianity can not be good either. But if you compare modern Christianity (in US years) against modern islam, you see that islam continues with its violence while Christianity attempts to understand the individual's choice. Therefore from a Christian standpoint, I try to see the good in islam. But I never give up on the idea that we may have to fight in order to survive. Islamaphobia ( as the author points out) is not without warrant. I do not see non-muslim churches preaching that if you are not with us, you must comply or die.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

It came down to me having to educate that "friend" of my wife about the Bible she was beholding too, but apparently not reading close enough.

This is a major problem. By what right do you "educate" anyone on the Bible? By whose authority? Are you to say that your interpretation is the only valid, acceptable meaning? What makes you think you know any more about the Bible than the possum I ran over on Highway 43 tonight?

This kind of attitude -- "I had to educate her because she wasn't reading close enough" -- is one of the things that drives people away from organized religion.

Some things just aren't that hard to interpret. We're not talking about trying to explain the prophecies of Revelation when you see someone "sharing" Christ in an arrogant and condescending manner. It's not going out on a limb to show them the contrast between how Christ himself approached people or how Peter writes that we should talk about our faith to others "with gentleness and respect."

You don't stand idly by and just watch someone misrepresent Christ without offering some loving guidance or correction when needed, assuming you have a relationship with that person where you can talk frankly with them.

[otterinbham 0]

It came down to me having to educate that "friend" of my wife about the Bible she was beholding too, but apparently not reading close enough.

This is a major problem. By what right do you "educate" anyone on the Bible? By whose authority? Are you to say that your interpretation is the only valid, acceptable meaning? What makes you think you know any more about the Bible than the possum I ran over on Highway 43 tonight?

This kind of attitude -- "I had to educate her because she wasn't reading close enough" -- is one of the things that drives people away from organized religion.

Some things just aren't that hard to interpret. We're not talking about trying to explain the prophecies of Revelation when you see someone "sharing" Christ in an arrogant and condescending manner. It's not going out on a limb to show them the contrast between how Christ himself approached people or how Peter writes that we should talk about our faith to others "with gentleness and respect."

You don't stand idly by and just watch someone misrepresent Christ without offering some loving guidance or correction when needed, assuming you have a relationship with that person where you can talk frankly with them.

True, and a good point. At the same time, it's very, very easy to slip over the line into arrogance, something that Paul cautions about in his writings. Case in point? An employee of one of my clients seems to walk through life with a sense of absolutism, as if he and he alone could interpret Scripture. He continuously brings up scripture and faith in business meetings (Where it has absolutely no place). He asks questions about my church life, shakes his head at my answers, and says, "Well, I guess that works for you." The last time he said that, I wanted to eschew all Christian ideals and break my laptop over his pointy little head.

And don't get me started on 16-, 20-, or 24-year olds wanting to witness to me. Tell you what: After you've been married for 20 years, raised children, buried parents, enjoyed success and suffered reverses in your career, witnessed both selfishness and nobility from unexpected persons in your life, comforted the dying, guided the afflicted and grieving, and seen a great deal of both the joys and tragedies of life, then you can tell me all about your faith. But don't tell me how to sail a boat when you've barely left the dock yourself.

The truth is, outside of the basic, ethical premises laid out in Scripture, there are large areas that can be subject to conscientious disagreement, and it's really not somebody else's business to sit in judgment on how I worship. Heck, I don't agree with the Baptists, the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, or the Jehova's Witnesses, but I don't walk out into the community presuming to be any more enlightened than they.

[GalensGhost 0]

It came down to me having to educate that "friend" of my wife about the Bible she was beholding too, but apparently not reading close enough.

This is a major problem. By what right do you "educate" anyone on the Bible? By whose authority? Are you to say that your interpretation is the only valid, acceptable meaning? What makes you think you know any more about the Bible than the possum I ran over on Highway 43 tonight?

This kind of attitude -- "I had to educate her because she wasn't reading close enough" -- is one of the things that drives people away from organized religion.

Some things just aren't that hard to interpret. We're not talking about trying to explain the prophecies of Revelation when you see someone "sharing" Christ in an arrogant and condescending manner. It's not going out on a limb to show them the contrast between how Christ himself approached people or how Peter writes that we should talk about our faith to others "with gentleness and respect."

You don't stand idly by and just watch someone misrepresent Christ without offering some loving guidance or correction when needed, assuming you have a relationship with that person where you can talk frankly with them.

True, and a good point. At the same time, it's very, very easy to slip over the line into arrogance, something that Paul cautions about in his writings. Case in point? An employee of one of my clients seems to walk through life with a sense of absolutism, as if he and he alone could interpret Scripture. He continuously brings up scripture and faith in business meetings (Where it has absolutely no place). He asks questions about my church life, shakes his head at my answers, and says, "Well, I guess that works for you." The last time he said that, I wanted to eschew all Christian ideals and break my laptop over his pointy little head.

And don't get me started on 16-, 20-, or 24-year olds wanting to witness to me. Tell you what: After you've been married for 20 years, raised children, buried parents, enjoyed success and suffered reverses in your career, witnessed both selfishness and nobility from unexpected persons in your life, comforted the dying, guided the afflicted and grieving, and seen a great deal of both the joys and tragedies of life, then you can tell me all about your faith. But don't tell me how to sail a boat when you've barely left the dock yourself.

The truth is, outside of the basic, ethical premises laid out in Scripture, there are large areas that can be subject to conscientious disagreement, and it's really not somebody else's business to sit in judgment on how I worship. Heck, I don't agree with the Baptists, the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, or the Jehova's Witnesses, but I don't walk out into the community presuming to be any more enlightened than they.

Excellent reasoning.

I don't know Ranger and I'm not addressing this specifically to him, but every time I've heard someone try to "educate somebody because they're not reading close enough" what they're actually doing is injecting their own personal interpretation as the "right" way and dismissing the approach or beliefs of another. In most cases the one doing the "educating" needed a couple of good lessons him/herself IMO.