We need candidates who are really religious
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | September 5, 2007 |
| Vol. 5, No. 12 |
The closer the United States gets to choosing a president, the more the event begins to look like a papal election: it's all about religion and little about what religion teaches.
The United States, we love to say -- and Europeans repeat in a kind of incredulous wonder -- is the most "religious" country in the world. Meaning, of course, the most church-going country in the world. Whether or not going to church correlates well with religious values is clearly a debatable subject. To wit, the corporal works of mercy -- as in, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit the imprisoned, visit the sick, and bury the dead. It is on these criteria in Matthew 25: 31-46, however, that Jesus rests his definition of salvation. No small thing for those who considers themselves "religious." No small thing, then, one would think, if a nation -- if a candidate for political office -- were really serious about being "religious."
Point: The corporal works of mercy would, it seems, be a very clear template, a constant standard in such a nation, for the evaluation of a party platform, a legislative program or a candidate's fitness for office by those who consider themselves Christian. You can picture the score card now: Candidate A proposes keeping two of the works of mercy; Candidate B, five of them. Forget the need to count votes. The winner is ...
In the nation in which, they tell us, the last two elections were decided by Catholic and Evangelical Christians, the need to define what we mean when we say we're looking for a candidate with "religious" values is not an idle exercise. Given all our commitment to bible-quoting candidates, how do we stack up as a religious people against the religious principles we're told are essential to Christianity? The answers may make us all think again about what religion really means where politics are concerned.
If "feeding the hungry" is a basic, we're slipping, no matter how much we congratulate ourselves on our virtue. According to Bread for the World, a faith-based movement seeking justice for the world's hungry, over 35 million people -- including 12.4 million children -- live in hunger in the United States. They skip meals regularly or, when they eat, eat too little. Some of them go without food, the report says, for entire days. But hungry children develop more chronic illnesses, suffer more from anxiety and depression, and have more behavior problems than children who eat regularly. Those children we put in our institutions, call them social problems, and hire more police to keep them in line rather than feed them well.
If "clothing the naked" -- sending people into the world with dignity and propriety -- is a work of mercy, we will need legislators who are committed to spending money on education. With the amount of money we have spent on the war in Iraq -- over $449 billion -- we could have provided 21 million four-year college scholarships to young people whose parents are already strained to the financial break-point. That means, of course, that we need legislators who indicate a willingness to spend money on the intellectual future of this country. Then maybe, in the future, we wouldn't have so many wars.
If "giving drink to the thirsty" is a work of mercy, we could be doing something on a national level to save the water supply in this country. We would need legislators intent on controlling the global warming that is turning the southwest into a dust bowl and threatening to swamp property on the coastlands of the United States. We could be putting money into saving the water we have before water is no longer free and the poor cannot afford that either.
If "housing the homeless' is a work of mercy, we could at least match our housing chest with our war chest to provide four million new public housing projects. The U.S. Conference of Mayors "Hunger and Homelessness Survey" of 23 major cities in 2006 reports that 59 percent of those cities report an increase in requests for emergency shelter for families in the past year alone. Almost 30 percent of those appeals went unmet for lack of resources, the report tells us, as we agonize over which political candidate is more religious than the other ones.
If "visiting the sick" is a work of mercy, we might want to ask legislators who are seeking to renew their long-running terms in office why it is that of the 45 million uninsured people, 21 million of them are full-time workers? Whatever happened to the notion that if we worked hard in this country, we could take care of ourselves?
If "visiting prisoners" is a work of mercy, then it is time to think again about how closely religious values parallel our institutional goals. According to Human Rights Watch, September, 2007, "Most inmates [in U.S. prisons] had scant opportunities for work, training, education, treatment or counseling because of taxpayer resistance to increasing spending on prison rehabilitation programs." Clearly, we are a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" society. We send them to prison, do almost nothing to prepare them to live a decent life outside of it, and then wonder why the recidivism rate is as high as it is.
If "bury the dead" is work of mercy, then it is time to increase home health care facilities. According to the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, "one in five U.S. households are involved in home health care for an adult." Nevertheless, in August, Medicare announced proposed cuts of $7 billion dollars to local home health care agencies. Surely we need legislators who are intent on providing caregivers and families the support they need to care for their sick and earn a decent living themselves at the same time.
It's time, it seems, if we're Christian, to judge people the way Jesus told us to judge them: "By their fruits." But if that's the case, then the question is not: What do each of these candidates tell us about how religious they are? The question is: What do each of these candidates plan to do to make the corporal works of mercy a living sign of the Christian tradition in this so-called Christian culture?
In fact, how conscious are we of the silent erosion of each of these works of mercy in the society around us while we define "religion" as single-issue politics? After all, food and education and decent housing and support services are exactly the things that take the strain off families and make abortion unnecessary.
From where I stand, it may well be our own unawareness of the loss of these services that's making it so difficult for us to make a distinction between what is really "religious" about our candidates and what is only religion being used as another kind of slippery election strategy. God save us all from that kind of religion again.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Dear Joer and
Dear Joer and MollyJ:
Let’s not be naïve about efforts to convert the world to Islam.
Saudi Arabia, most notably among Muslim states, has Islamic Mission (Da‘wa) central to its foreign policy. Da’wa is a legitimate matter for the Saudi government and its interstate organizations because in Islam there’s no separation between religion and state. Da’wa is simply part and parcel of how the Saudis relate to the world. And Saudi Da’wa is very wide in its scope, including efforts to convert individuals as well as whole societies and to establish Islamic-ruled states or enclaves.
Saudi Da‘wa is supervised by its powerful Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Propagation and Guidance, which oversees the Muslim World League (MWL), the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). In its outreach to the world, the ministry funds Islamic conferences and seminars, publishes books and pamphlets propagating Islam, oversees the operation of Muslim missionaries (Da’ees), and operates the King Fahd Complex for Printing the Qur’an (Medina) for the distribution around the world of free copies of the Qur’an in Arabic and other languages.
All of which is to say Saudi Arabia’s definitely in the conversion business and holds that conversion is the business of every rightly-guided Muslim and Islamic state. Though one may convert to Islam for many reasons, Osama Bin Laden’s “convert or die� has an honorable place historically. No Mother Teresa that guy.
There’s a website you should consider consulting: Barnabas Fund (www.barnabasfund.org). It regularly reports on worldwide Christian-Muslim conflicts, particularly on persecution of Christians and Muslim-to-Christian converts. Its e-mail news bulletin of today is by Abul Taher under the headline “Christian converts risk Muslim attack�. The bishop in question is Michael Nazir-Ali, head of the Anglican Diocese of Rochester. He himself is the son of a Pakistani convert. The alarm he expresses is for Muslims who’ve converted to Christianity in the UK and are living in the UK.
“We have seen honour killings have happened and there is no reason why this kind of thing cannot happen.� Asked if somebody would be killed soon, he says: “I think it is entirely possible.� He blames Muslim leaders for not teaching their followers about the importance of freedom of religion in Britain: “It’s not for me to put words into their mouths [Muslim leaders], but I would look to them to uphold basic civil liberties, including the right for people to believe what they wish to believe and even to change their beliefs if they wish to do so.�
By the by, the Policy Exchange think-tank recently conducted a “poll of more than 1,000 British Muslims [and] found that 36 per cent of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death.�
A loving hug for your Muslim neighbor may not be enough, not even in the good old US of A. Tougher love may be necessary.
Ken
Howdy Ken, God Bless
Howdy Ken, God Bless You.
you wrote:
"Let’s not be naïve about efforts to convert the world to Islam."
I would think the fact that I pointed out that it (Islam) is the fastest growing religion in the world, would indicate in that aspect at least I'm not being nieve. Additionally as you point out the Islamic efforts at conversion and the radical tactics of Osama Bin Laden, honor killings and the attitude of some Muslims toward converts were summed up in the Christian Martyr statistic I gave that Dennis may check for me. I believe the Barnabus fund was actually mentioned in the source I remembered that statistic from.
So when I voice a preference for the Mother Teresa Tactic rather than the Osama Bin Laden tactic, it's because I believe it is in line with God's laws and because it's of God I believe in the long run it will overcome all the forces and efforts you mention that are misguided efforts at promoting spiritual growth.
You write: "Tougher love may be necessary."
My concern is the things you mention seem to fan the flames of inflammatory images that color ALL Muslims as fanatics. Furthermore your content seems nakedly lacking in the offering of even ONE possible solution.
I think the solution rather than taking a tough Love approach, might take a Mother Teresarian approach. IT Deals with the ills that Muslims face as Jesus taught. Attend to their needs and perhaps they could maintain a more moderate attitude towards us. Surely you must have met GOOD Muslims in your time there. Some that wouldn't kill you just because you were a Christian. I think it's obvious as the nose on my face that there are Muslims who would love to kill a Christian. And as long as Christian Soldiers and pilots of the USA are killing their mothers, sisters, children and elders as collateral damage of the WAR, that number of wannabe Christian killers will rise.
There are so many things WRONG with the way we intervene that causes SO MUCH of that radical Islamic backlash that you portray to be representative of all Muslims. I believe everything you say. But what were the conditions and actions that precipitated such a reaction?
We say we go to Iraq to free the people, But everybody knows we're there to lay claim to and guard the Oil for our use. Who ever controls the resources of the world controls the economics.
Jesus was not against intervention into a conflict for human rights. But in His interventions those He was protecting were not being killed as collateral damage by His intervention. And He wouldn’t based His humanitarian intervention on the value of a nature resource that He would also be controlling by that intervention. What about Rwanda? What about Darfur? We stay out of those Humanitarian disasters because there's no natural Resources in it for US. (The US Corporations.)
So anyway Ken. Your right about what you say. But there's more to the story, including what would be a proper Spirit-led God abiding Solution
May God Bless us and the Muslims and Guide us to live together and advance spiritually to our Embrace with GOD. Amen :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Ken, Islam is the fastest
Ken,
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. And more Christians are martyred "each year", about 200,000 in Islamic Counties than were martyred in all of the Roman Prosecution. Even though they only make up about 3% of the populations in that country. Now Bush has killed over half a million Islamics since the war in the middle east we started. And they are considered by Islamics to be martyrs.
But how are Islamics going killed and/or convert 2 billion Christians like you and I?
The Christians who are killed in those countries are often evangelists trying to convert Muslims to Christianity so they can be SAVED. Bush is trying to convert them to democracy so they can be SAVED.
Maybe the biggest problem we have with Muslims is that we are trying to convert them? So maybe they feel obliged historically in order to preserve themselves and their faith to convert US.
Mother Teresa was ONE CHRISTIAN who helped thousands upon thousands of Muslims. She walked the streets with them, She tolerated them spitting in her face after she saved their lives, She listen to many of their threats of death against her.
And Yet, she lived in the middle of a hostile Islamic atmosphere for a major part of her life, doing Jesus' and God's work with them.
And she was NEVER KILLED. How did that happen Ken?
Is it possible that antagonism towards the Muslims is the wrong course? Can we follow the course that Jesus laid out for us and perhaps achieve better results? What did Mother Teresa do?
Recently Mother Teresa fell under much criticism for some personal private things that she wrote that she never wanted public.
An evangelist or Protestant reporter had written some non-flattering words about her some time back that came to the surface recently. I found an angel, a saint in his report. I found a woman who loved God more than life itself. I found a woman who dedicated her life to Christ's work and doing so following HIS TRUE TEACHINGS and suffered much for her choices. Perhaps this person can teach us something about how to respond to the issues you raise Ken. Perhaps we can learn from a SAINT.
Mother Teresa did an enormous amount of Good while under constant pressure of her critics, Church as well as internal pressure of self doubt.
You may notice from these excerpts on Mother Teresa, that she was at odds with many Christian doctrines and crystallized dogmas.
But she was consistent with Christ's teaching and God's teachings as received through many many faiths. Many of things people mentioned that she did that were wrong are in areas where she didn't break with crystallized dogma and I'm sure she prayed and agonized over each decision. [I'll put my comments in brackets and initial them-jr]
Quote:
- Other notable quotes from "Mother" Teresa (12/4/89, Time magazine, pp. 11,13): (All emphases added):
(a) "The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved -- they are Jesus in disguise. ... [through the] poor people I have an opportunity to be 24 hours a day with Jesus." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her pantheistic religious philosophy: "Every AIDS victim is Jesus in a pitiful disguise; Jesus is in everyone.. ... [AIDS sufferers are] children of God [who] have been created for greater things" (1/13/86, Time).]
(b) "You must make them feel loved and wanted. They are Jesus for me."
(c) "I love all religions. ... If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her false gospel that 'there are many ways to God': "All is God -- Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God."]
- In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations, and Prayers, "Mother" Teresa says on pp. 81-82:
"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men -- simply better -- we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life -- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."
...
- It should be clear that "Mother" Teresa was anything but an Evangelical Christian. She was a self-sacrificing woman who followed a false religion. ...
- No one would deny that "Mother" Teresa did a marvelous piece of wonderful humanitarian work among the poor and neglected of the world, but what gospel did she preach to them? She definitely did not lead them to the one, true, eternal salvation through the finished sacrifice of Calvary. "Mother" Teresa provided the classic example of compassionate and charitable deeds divorced from truth. [Now whose truth is this writer talking about? Certain not her truth!]She said that her purpose was to bring her patients closer to the "God" in whom they already believe; so that a Hindu becomes a better Hindu, a Buddhist a better Buddhist, etc.1 (Vatican II says those of all religions are somehow saved through the Church.) She told how to witness for Jesus: In an interview with a nun who worked with "Mother" Teresa , dying Hindus were instructed to pray to their own Hindu gods!2 (reported in Christian News):
"These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity? She replied candidly, 'We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.'"
She was instructing these staunch Hindus to pray sincerely to their own Hindu idols and she felt that if they did this, God would certainly not judge them! [She is right! She is being led by the Spirit of God! Not the crystalized dogma of the organized religions on humankind- jr] No matter how plausible from man's earthly vantage point, when good works are conducted by unregenerate religious people, what is promoted is a cursed false gospel, encouraging the lost heathen to have hope in their false gods, even as they lay upon their death beds. In God's eyes, therefore, the entire endeavor was a cursed one, and no Christian should have supported, assisted, or praised a work cursed by God! [Now doesn't that remind you of some that unforgiving fundementalist crystalized so called Christian crap that you've heard so much on this site and in your lives? She was fighting against all that xxx! -jr]
- Since "Mother" Teresa has been labeled by many "Christian" leaders as the greatest modern day example of Christianity, a look at her theology and beliefs is especially appropriate. Mother Teresa -- A Simple Path contains inside cover notes declaring it "a unique spiritual guide." Thus, from it we can learn of her beliefs. A paragraph in the Foreword sets the foundation for its reading. (Source: A Review of A Simple Path, by L. Barnes):
"The Christian way has always been to love God and ones neighbor as oneself. Yet Mother Teresa has, perhaps with the influence of the East, distilled six steps to creating peace in ourselves and others that can be taken by anyone -- even someone of no religious beliefs or of a religious background other than Christian -- with no insult to beliefs or practices. This is why, when reading Mother Teresa's words and those of her community, we may, if we choose, replace the references to Jesus with references to other godheads or symbols of divinity" (p. xxviii).
Her six steps to creating peace are: silence, prayer, faith, love, service, and peace. [sounds like a good idea to me. Forget all the ritualistic crap and get down to doing God's work- jr] For those who don't know if they believe much in anything, "Mother" Teresa suggested they try small acts of love toward others. She strongly believed in prayer for everyone. She found no problem praying with Hindus, Muslims and other faiths. [Excellent! As it should be- jr]Three pages of sample prayers are prefaced with, "You could replace 'Jesus' by 'God' if you are not a Christian" (p. 35). [Very smart and God like- jr]
In 184 pages, there was nothing stating that salvation was through Jesus alone. [Finally somebody who get it!- jr] She wrote, "I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic" (p. 31). [Perfect! She speaks the truth- jr] There is no attempt to let others know that Jesus is the only way. There is no hint that "Mother" Teresa or her "sisters" believed the narrow way Jesus preached (cf. Matt. 7:13-14). [Thank God!- jr]
Scriptures were limited to three quotes from Jesus on the subject of serving, with no book, chapter, or verse references. Since this was a book on "Mother" Teresa's faith, no Scripture until page 55 is quite a statement in itself. Rather than Scripture, there was page after page of humanitarian testimonies. The value of God's Word was not evident. [It is evident in the way she "lived" her faith- jr] ...
- The following is from an interview with a Catholic nun, "Sister" Ann, who worked in Kathman-du, Nepal, with "Mother" Teresa's organization Missionaries of Charity. The interview was conducted 11/23/84 at the Pashupati Temple:
Q: Do you believe if they die believing in Shiva or in Ram [Hindu gods] they will go to heaven?
A: Yes, that is their faith. My own faith will lead me to God, ... So if they have believed in their god very strongly, if they have faith, surely they will be saved.
Q: Today it does not seem that the Catholic Church is trying to convert anymore. I know that John Paul II is saying now that those of other religions are saved. You do not believe they are lost anyway, right?
A: No, they are not lost. They are saved according to their faith, you know. If they believe whatever they believe, that is their salvation.
Obviously, then, "Mother" Teresa was both a pantheist and a Universalist -- Universalists maintain that Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and other non-Christians can get to heaven without saving faith in Christ; they are those who believe that all who sincerely follow their own religions or beliefs will be saved. "Mother" Teresa told Muslims and Jews that they worship the same God that Christians worship. "Mother" Teresa even called atheistic communists children of God!
[Notice this is a writer applying all these labels to her. She just did God's work as she understood it, and lived a "Spirit-led life" following God's living laws and giving them just due more than the Churche's questionable crystallized laws do.- jr]
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Joer: **more Christians are
Joer:
**more Christians are martyred "each year", about 200,000 in Islamic Counties than were martyred in all of the Roman Prosecution.
I would like to see your source on this.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management
Dennis you
Dennis you wrote:
"Joer:
**more Christians are martyred "each year", about 200,000 in Islamic Counties than were martyred in all of the Roman Prosecution.
I would like to see your source on this.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management"
It was in this book.
Jesus Freaks: DC Talk and The Voice of the Martyrs - Stories of Those Who Stood for Jesus, the Ultimate Jesus Freaks
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Freaks-Martyrs-Stories-Ultimate/dp/1577780728/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8205571-6728047?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190096867&sr=1-1
It wasn't exactly 200,000 at that time aronud 1999. It was around 196,000 That year but the rate was rising and is probably over 200,000 now, according to that book if I remember correctly.
Thanks for asking Dennis, and God Bless. :-) joer
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
More on Mercy. Updating C.S.
More on Mercy.
Updating C.S. Lewis’s classic of 1942, David Virtue (virtueonline.org) gives us uncle Screwtape, a highly placed assistant to “Our Father Below,� resuming his correspondence with nephew Wormwood, still a devil apprentice but now detailed to work with The Episcopal Church of the USA. Hell’s high command considers TEC clergy and lay leadership particularly fertile ground for recruitment.
Here’s a bit of advice from the experienced demon to the novice in Virtue’s update of "The Screwtape Letters":
“For hell’s sake, keep talking up good works. Those [U.N.] Millennium Development Goals are, if you’ll pardon the lapse of good taste, heaven sent. Keep their presiding bishop Mrs. [Katherine] Schori floating around the world talking about how we can save the whole world if we invoke them long enough and loud enough. Keep her away from talking about souls that need saving (yetch), an after life of heaven ... of being with HIM if they repent of their sins. For Satan’s sake, keep her from discussing anything supernatural, of focusing on eternity, of eternal life through the cross ... keep it this worldly....�
Interesting, in this regard, is the way Osama Bin Laden nourishes spiritual hunger in the souls of Muslims:
“It is your duty to join the caravan (of martyrs) until the sufficiency is complete, and the march to aid the High and Omnipotent continues.�
There’s nothing here of wastewater clean-up, used-clothes collection, and home-bathing assistance.
Ken
Ken,I just have trouble
Ken,I just have trouble appreciating the differences between Bin Laden's radical Islam and radical Christians, both who seem to do a lot of "My way or the Highway" talk.
While I cannot say that Islam's tenets touch me like some of the reading I have done in Buddhism, there is ancient wisdom in all of the traditions. What is needed is a discussion of the common ground no divisive talk about who should be seated first at the banquet table.
Dear MollyJ: For some 13
Dear MollyJ:
For some 13 years I worked in the Islamic World (3 different countries) and, while I can report many nice things about the locals I met, there are three hardnosed things I heard from even the nicest of them:
• Islam is the perfect religion;
• Islam is, more than a religion, a way of life;
• Islam will conquer Europe and America and the world.
So, if I’d say to them, “We worship the same God,â€? they’d say, “You have wrong ideas about Godâ€â€the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God, for example.â€? If I’d say, “But we both strive to live holy lives,â€? they’d say, “Then you should follow God’s law and not laws made by man that let people behave in ways God does not likeâ€â€look at the things going on in San Francisco and Las Vegas.â€? And if I’d say, “We can live together in peace and harmony,â€? they’d say, “Yes, when you and your religions are rightly guided by Islam.â€?
Every year from 2004 on the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury has, with much fanfare, hosted a “Christian-Muslim Building Bridges Seminarâ€? in various cities. I’ve consulted the published lists of invited scholars and can pretty safely say no heavyweight from within the Arab Worldâ€â€not any recognized Islamic authority from an Arab Islamic university, not any member of the "ulema" (= religious leadership) of any Arab countryâ€â€has ever attended. Only westernized Arab Muslims at European and American institutions will discuss common ground with Christians. The problem is they do not, like the absent heavyweights, speak for or represent the Arab Islamic heartland.
Anyway, the seminars are good spin for Canterbury. And for the past couple of years Canterbury has been hard-pressed for any good spin.
So, your view is that “needed is a discussion of the common ground.� And agreeing with you is Terry Waite, former Beirut hostage, who just last week urged face-to-face discussion with Al-Qaeda. “My own experience shows that you can talk to those whose positions seem impossible,� he says.
But if Al-Qaeda bigwigs won’t show up, just as the heavyweight Muslims Canterbury would love to dialog with won’t, who’s to talk to? And if only lesser lights show up, what’s to talk about?
Come to think of it, there’s always wastewater-cleanup, used-clothes collection, and home-bathing assistance....
Ken
I agree with you that
I agree with you that despite building bridges between some Muslims and some Christians, there will always be some members of these and other groups who cannot be persuaded and who believe that everything can be perfect and will be perfect when everything has been changed to whatever vision they hold. Helping people who need help and not hurting people are the right things to do because of what we believe, not because it is guaranteed to get everyone to agree with us and not them.
Ah, yes, always the "spin"
Ah, yes, always the "spin" of others. Something about that plank in one's own eye maybe relevant to consider?
"But if Al-Qaeda bigwigs
"But if Al-Qaeda bigwigs won’t show up, just as the heavyweight Muslims Canterbury would love to dialog with won’t, who’s to talk to? And if only lesser lights show up, what’s to talk about?"
Prejudicial thinking is almost always refuted at the most elemental thinking--at the neighborhood level.
Whoever I don't think I have anything in common with--muslims, blacks, radical evangelicals, men, right wing Catholics--I owe it to myself and to them to enter into discussion and dialogue with them. It is the hardest thing, no doubt. But you _never_ resolve anything by only dialogueing with the people you already agree with. I think I read that in one of Jimmy Carter's books.
And I think if you read Karen Armstrong, Jimmy Carter and look at the efforts of Muslim Imam's to be active in local pastoral councils, I think you will see exactly that---exactly people who are trying to create connections with Christian's, Muslims, all people's, all faiths.
Much easier to hate those radical, faceless "ragheads" but there is no win in there. We have to put faces on the people we disagree with and then we can create small solutions that by the grace of God (by whatever name) wil grow into larger solutions.
Mitt Romney was voted the
Mitt Romney was voted the most religious among the major presidential candidates by a large margin. Could it be because he tithes, and donates a significat portion of his income to charitable causes? Could it be because he tries to not be cynical, and use personal attacks?
"After all, food and
"After all, food and education and decent housing and support services are exactly the things that take the strain off families and make abortion unnecessary."
Are you seriously suggesting that abortion is ever necessary; or, that it is necessary now in the US? Under what circumstances is abortion preferrable to adoption? What about an unwanted pregnancy is necessary? What is it about someone else's irresponsibility that somehow makes the rest of us responsible?
Ed Reid
Perhaps the issue here is
Perhaps the issue here is not the food, education, or decent housing. No matter who it is, a person should have these things, as well as medical attention, just because they are available. The idea is that we are all one and do not benefit at the expense of another except in the very short term.
The issue is with the word "unnecessary". Maybe a better word would "undesirable".
¶ And the water was spent
¶ And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
Gen 21:16 And she went, and sat her down over against [him] a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against [him], and lift up her voice, and wept.
Maybe you have to be in Hagar's position to understand.
If you are unwilling to even
If you are unwilling to even consider your responsibilities as a citizen and (I assume) a Christian to provide both public and private support for women with children in their bellies, you actually are a part of the problem of abortion. You seem to be assuming a stance in comformity with the negative consequences of the rise of capitalism, individualism, and the Protestant Reformation and Protestant Work Ethic. Perhaps some time studying papal encyclicals would be a good choice for your growth and development as a both a citizen and a Christian.
Ken, I don't really pay much
Ken, I don't really pay much attention to what Osama says. I much rather pay attention to what Jesus and God teaches us. I get my security from GOD.
I don't need my country to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women, children and elderly as collateral damage in my name. NOT IN MY NAME. And not in God's name should they be killed. Period.
Romans 8:31-39
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us?32 He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things?
33 Who shall accuse against the elect of God? God is he that justifieth:
34 Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus that died: yea that is risen also again, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress? Or famine? Or nakedness? Or danger? Or persecution? Or the sword?
36 (As it is written: For thy sake, we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.)
37 But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us.
38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Of Jesus and God it has been said:
His courage was magnificent, but he was never foolhardy. His watchword was,
"Fear not."
His bravery was lofty and his courage often heroic. But his courage was linked with discretion and controlled by reason. It was courage born of faith, not the recklessness of blind presumption. He was truly brave but never audacious.
"To whom, then, will you liken God who sits upon the circle of the earth? Lift up your eyes and behold who has created all these worlds, who brings forth their host by number and calls them all by their names. He does all these things by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power, not one fails. He gives power to the weak, and to those who are weary he increases strength. Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and I will help you; yes, I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness,
for I am the Lord your God. And I will hold your right hand, saying to you, fear not, for I will help you.
"If the faith of the Most High has entered your heart,
then shall you abide free from fear throughout all the days of your life.
Fret not yourself because of the prosperity of the ungodly; fear not those who plot evil; let the soul turn away from sin and put your whole trust in the God of salvation. The weary soul of the wandering mortal finds eternal rest in the arms of the Most High; the wise man hungers for the divine embrace; the earth child longs for the security of the arms of the Universal Father."
run and not be weary; they shall walk and not be faint. The Lord shall give you rest from your fear. Says the Lord: `Fear not, for I am with you. Be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you; I will help you; yes, I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness.'
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
But the giving, while the
But the giving, while the largest in amount, is actually decreasing relative to income in this nation, which is one of the issues related to voluntary, rather than mandatory, supports for people in trouble. If there is not public support, then the private support returns to the personal feeling-good for the giver, which is pretty whimsical stuff for the receiver. Just to be fair to the issue.
Joan Chittisters article on
Joan Chittisters article on "We need candidates..." who
are truly religious is right on. Get it reprinted in the N.Y. Times and other media, if possible.