Muslim seminary in India issues edict opposing terrorism

More common sense comments from moderate Muslims. Not that the right wing would have you know such a thing exists.

Senior clerics from the 150-year-old Muslim seminary Darul Uloom Deoband, which is said to have inspired the Taliban, have issued an edict saying they wished to wipe out terrorism.

The Indpendent reports: “The Deoband institute was established in the aftermath of the 1857 uprising against British rule, an uprising that was brutally suppressed by the imperial forces. Highly influential, it controls thousands of smaller seminaries and madrassas around the world, from Britain to Afghanistan.

“Of Britain’s 1,400 mosques, about 600 are run by Deobandi-affiliated clerics. Seventeen of the UK’s 26 Islamic seminaries follow Deobandi teachings, which produce about 80 per cent of all domestically trained Muslim clerics.

“Analysts say the move to speak out against terrorism would be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of India’s 140 million Muslim population, many of whom believe the image of their religion has been tarnished by the actions of a small number of people.”

Hat tip:  TMV

Ouch!

Bill Mahar on the Pope’s visit.

Leasing God for mammon

Great piece at Positive Liberty:

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The political sermons of the American Founding collected by Ellis Sandoz are fascinating and enlightening to read, and many of them contain great ideas. They support the notion of political liberty. I likewise support political liberty. Yet, let’s not get too caught up in nostalgia. They also reveal that pastors back then have done exactly what the religious right AND religious left do today: whore the Christian religion for political purposes.

In memoriam

A nicely done You Tube memorial to Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who passed away yesterday at the age of 97.

I had the chance to shake his hand on  a couple of occasions.  The world is poorer without him in it.

Salem in Nigeria

A very sad piece on the state of Christianity in Nigeria in The Guardian.  It seems children are being tortured and even killed as “witches”:

Almost everyone goes to church here. Driving through the town of Esit Eket, the rust-streaked signs, tarpaulins hung between trees and posters on boulders, advertise a church for every third or fourth house along the road. Such names as New Testament Assembly, Church of God Mission, Mount Zion Gospel, Glory of God, Brotherhood of the Cross, Redeemed, Apostalistic. Behind the smartly painted doors pastors make a living by ‘deliverances’ - exorcisms - for people beset by witchcraft, something seen to cause anything from divorce, disease, accidents or job losses. With so many churches it’s a competitive market, but by local standards a lucrative one.

But an exploitative situation has now grown into something much more sinister as preachers are turning their attentions to children - naming them as witches. In a maddened state of terror, parents and whole villages turn on the child. They are burnt, poisoned, slashed, chained to trees, buried alive or simply beaten and chased off into the bush.

John Aravosis at Americablog so succinctly observes:

These are the same wonderful people who are trying to lecture churches in developed countries about how we should (mis)treat gay people. Yes, let’s aspire to be as good of Christians as these fine folks.

German government seeks to ban Scientology

Curious.

Germany’s interior minister called the Church of Scientology “an unconstitutional organization” and said the nation’s domestic intelligence agency would move to ban the group, a report said Sunday.

Federal Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble’s remarks followed a unanimous decision Friday by interior ministers from Germany’s 16 states to seek a ban on Scientology, accused of threatening “the peaceful democratic order” of the country.

Are there no larger problems in Germany today that might occupy their attention?

Turning to God

Great post by Elrod at The Moderate Voice:

I am constantly struck by how people in the midst of crisis turn to God - and in contradictory ways. I drove through Tennessee last March and a tornado destroyed a megachurch on the side of I-65 in Gallatin. A week later a sign emerged declaring God’s greatness. Surely it was a sign of God’s power, as it were. But greatness? Some Tennesseans believed God was punishing them for some sort grand transgression - too many gay people, rejection of the poor, too much war, too little prayer - whatever fits one’s pre-existing politics.

And so I wonder, what does it mean when Iraqis who suffer daily unspeakable outrages, reaffirm God’s greatness? Is that a sign of their true “submission” to God? Is it a sign of delusion? Is it just an anthropological gesture through which Iraqis “make sense” of the chaos?

Uncommon sense

The British seem to be growing a set.  Can Europe be far behind?

Phil Woolas, the communities minister, whose brief includes race relations, told a Sunday newspaper that Aishah Azmi, 23, had “put herself in a position where she cannot do her job”. He added that should the head teacher at the school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire choose to sack Ms Azmi then “so be it”.

He was backed by a Muslim MP who said that it would be a setback for common sense in education if his constituent were to win her employment tribunal claim for religious discrimination. Ms Azmi was suspended from her job teaching children English because she refused to remove the veil.

Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: “The basic thrust of what Phil says is just common sense. If you are not able to fulfil your job requirements then obviously it will be difficult for you to continue in that particular role.”

Hat tip: Sullivan

Kuo on the infestation of religion with politics

Oh, this is good.  Read it in full.

The debate continues

The Douthat/Linker debate continues at TNR. Ross’ comments today include the following:

The American experiment has succeeded for so long precisely because it doesn’t force its citizens channel their “theological passions and certainties … out of public life and into the private sphere.” It forces them to play by a certain set of political rules, yes, which prevent those passions and certainties from creating a religious tyranny. But it doesn’t make the mistake of telling people that their deepest beliefs should be irrelevant to how they vote, or what causes they support. The kind of secularism that you’re promoting–and that Neuhaus and the rest of the “theocons” were originally reacting against–is an attempt to change those rules and impose greater restrictions on religious Americans than have heretofore existed.”

Interesting view, but it doesn’t really seem to mesh with the facts on the ground. I make a definite distinction between conservatives of faith and “religious Americans”.  God is not owned by any one political philosophy and it is presumptuous to act as if such were true.

How does treating gays as equal citizens restrict conservatives of faith?  How does maintaning confidentialy in doctor/patient relationships restrict conservatives of faith?  How does expecting parents to be responsible and use the remote control and off switch restrict conservatives of faith?  How does demanding rigorous academic standards and the teaching of real science restrict conservatives of faith? 

It seems the issue is less about restrictions and more about the unwillingness to be exposed to differing viewpoints and independent analysis.

Losing patience

The New York Times has a good article that discusses Europe’s changing attitudes toward Islam and its (in)compatibility with western values.  It can be read HERE.

And good commentary on the article, by an intelligent, well read, well spoken European can be found HERE.

Dymanics of polygamy

At UNCoRRELATED, Mick has a good piece about the dynamics of polygamy.  I recommend it since Warren Jeff’s arrest is in the news.

Star Trek Lives

Mick has a great post up on the new Star Trek.  Nothing new if you’ve been following things, but a great piece.

1960 Redux

Mitt Romney continues to gain traction as a presidential candidate 1in some quarters as people (justifiably) find something less than satisfaction with the options to be had at the top of the GOP barrel. 

But there remain concerns about his electability and the Mormon factor – will the nation elect a Mormon, or even take one seriously as a candidate in the long run?  How is it that 46 years post JFK, we still face questions of “Can a (insert denomination of choice) govern a diverse nation?

Sometimes we get reminders of why these questions won’t go away.  I recently saw a copy of a letter supposedly sent to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by a corporate executive and former Vegas-area Stake President (a lay minister with supervisory responsibility over several congregations within a defined area).  I’ve omitted the names and don’t see immediate red flags that it’s bogus, but the point here is the mindset it represents.  I have spoken with many people who feel just the same.  It reads:

Dear Senator Reid:

You no longer seem to be able to place me when I see you, but you used to know me by name.   I have supported and voted for you every time you have run for Senate.  I understand politics a bit, and know one must get elected before they can do any good, and sometimes one must follow the path that leads one into office to some degree.  I get that.

Still, I take umbrage to your recent position on the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.  You chose a stance I normally agree with; not to tinker with the Constitution often or lightly.  This time however, the First Presidency asked us to get involved and support this particular initiative.

I saw you on Meet the Press several years ago, just after the Priesthood Bulletin was issued by the First Presidency, re-stating what is contained in the Proclamation on the Family, that God has defined Marriage as between a Man and a Woman, and who are we to attempt to redefine it.  If indeed, you believe as you say you do, that our Prophet speaks for God, evidently God is offended by what is being advanced today by the gay agenda, attempting to re-define marriage.  Tim Russert read the statement…..then asked for your response.  You said, “I don’t believe that”.

In your letter to the Bishops of Nevada, you indicate that the First Presidency has never suggested to you how to vote.  I submit, in this case, they did, by asking members all over the country, and in Nevada, to call and write and urge you, and other members of Congress to vote for the amendment.  You failed the test, in my opinion, and you failed Nevada.  Nevada passed the similar amendment – clearly your constituency supported the amendment.  The Democratic Party did not.  You chose your party’s agenda over Nevadans, over your Prophets wishes, and defied God in the process.

Let’s call it what it is, Senator.  You have sold out for power and position.  Whining about how offended you are that your “Brethren” are not supportive of you anymore is not becoming of a leader of such high position.  Justifying your weak stance in direct opposition to your Church’s position is lame.  You fear your party more than God. 

I don’t condemn you, Senator.  But having sold out your Church, your State and possibly your soul for political power – I will have a hard time supporting you or voting for you in the future, should you attempt to hold on to your seat.   Your soul is vacant, and you have lost your moral compass.  There is no right way to do a wrong thing, yet I know you believe the truth.  It is such a shame you couldn’t be counted on to stand for right when you were needed.

He doesn’t condemn the good senator, but says his soul is vacant, he’s lost his moral compass, and can’t be counted on to stand for what is right.  Thank heavens he didn’t CONDEMN him.

As an LDS Democrat, Reid is accustomed to criticism and doesn’t let it affect his better judgment (surveys suggest upwards of 70% of American Mormons vote Republican, many leaning so far right their noses get rug burn).  But it’s fair to question the extent to which being subject to this type of spiritual abuse pressures one’s response to political and social questions in directions more toward expectations rather than what is sound policy for the nation as a whole.

And at least Reid’s only being told, “You’re a jackass and I won’t vote for you again.”  It could be worse. 

The Catholics have made the news suggesting that politicians who don’t vote “right” on abortion issues should be denied communion, and even as far as suggesting excommunication over “wrong” votes on stem cell research. 

If you’re a person of faith, a believer, can these type of threats not influence your decisions?  Do we understand why this is sometimes of concern to those who don’t share our faith? 

As it should be

Nice to see clear thinking from a fellow Christian.  Phillip Yancey at Christianity Today observes:

Hearing firsthand about Islamic culture increased my understanding, but it also made me nervous about my own society. The very things we resist in Islam, some Christians find tempting. We, too, seek political power and a legal code that reflects revealed morality. We, too, share a concern about raising our children in a climate of moral decadence. We, too, tend to see others (including Muslims) as a stereotyped community, rather than as individuals. Will we turn toward our own version of the harsh fundamentalism sweeping Islam today? 

Andrew Sullivan adds:

I fear that, to some extent, the transition has already occurred in America. The article, however, is in the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. And, to my mind, it’s a very hopeful indicator of where the debate about faith and power is headed. There are many more evangelical Christians queasy about their leadership’s capitulation to power and control than you’d believe from the press or the GOP leadership. They are beginning to fight back to reclaim their faith from those who want to use it to gain power.