The 9/11 Attack Changed Most People's View Of Islam

The chart above is from the Pew Research Center. It shows that the view of islam as a violent religion increased after the 9/11 attacks -- especially among Republicans. That's sad, because islam is no more violent than christianity. The fundamentalists in both religions put their beliefs over the lives and safety of everyone, but most in both religions are peaceful people.

President Obama Schools Trump On "Magic" Words

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly said that one of the main reasons we aren't defeating ISIS is because President Obama won't use the phrase "radical islamic terrorists". It is a stupid idea to think there are some magic words that will defeat ISIS, but Trump crowds love the idea (proving they are not very bright).

President Obama addressed this stupidity on Tuesday afternoon. Here is the part of his speech on ISIS where he denounces Trump's insane idea:

For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.”  That’s the key, they tell us -- we can’t beat ISIL unless we call them “radical Islamists.”  What exactly would using this label accomplish?  What exactly would it change?  Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans?  Would it bring in more allies?  Is there a military strategy that is served by this?  The answer is none of the above.  Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.  This is a political distraction.  Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism.  As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.

There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as President where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label "radical Islam."  Not once has an advisor of mine said, man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.  Not once.  So if someone seriously thinks that we don’t know who we're fighting, if there's anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we've taken off the battlefield. 

If the implication is that those of us up here and the thousands of people around the country and around the world who are working to defeat ISIL aren't taking the fight seriously, that would come as a surprise to those who have spent these last seven and a half years dismantling al Qaeda in the FATA, for example -- including the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk and the Special Forces that I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria.  They know full well who the enemy is.  So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spend countless hours disrupting plots and protecting all Americans, including politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows.  They know who the nature of the enemy is.

So there’s no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.”  It’s a political talking point; it's not a strategy.  And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.  Groups like ISIL and al Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West.  They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.  They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people; that they speak for Islam.  That’s their propaganda.  That's how they recruit.  And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion -- then we’re doing the terrorists' work for them.

Now, up until this point, this argument about labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric.  And, sadly, we've all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.  And that kind of yapping has not prevented folks across government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people. 

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be.  We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us.  We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America.  We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence.  Where does this stop?  The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens. 

Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently?  Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance?  Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?  We’ve heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign.  Do Republican officials actually agree with this?  Because that's not the America we want.  It doesn't reflect our democratic ideals.  It won’t make us more safe; it will make us less safe -- fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this country and around the world feel like no matter what they do, they're going to be under suspicion and under attack.  It makes Muslim Americans feel like they're government is betraying them.  It betrays the very values America stands for. 

We've gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear -- and we came to regret it.  We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens.  And it has been a shameful part of our history. 

This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion.  We don't have religious tests here.  Our Founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights are clear about that.  And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect -- the pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties -- the very things that make this country great; the very things that make us exceptional.  And then the terrorists would have won.  And we cannot let that happen.  I will not let that happen.

Bigotry And Gun-Stupidity Are To Blame For Orlando Deaths

(This photo, from Univision Florida Central, was found at nbcnews.com.)

Fifty people are dead, and another 53 are wounded in Orlando, after a religious bigot attacked a LGBT night club with weapons he should not have had. It looks like he was an ISIS sympathizer, and Republicans are already trying to point fingers at the Middle East -- trying to escape the blame. And right-wing christians are doing the same. Both are wrong.

This was not a political act -- an act of terrorism aimed at the United States in general. It was an act of religious bigotry, aimed specifically at the LGBT community -- a community that has harmed no one, and just wants to enjoy the same rights that all other Americans have. And while this shooter was a muslim extremist, I think it could easily have been done by a christian extremist.

Both islam and christianity preach the same kind of bigoted hatred toward the LGBT community -- at least the right-wing extremists in both religions do.And those religious extremists of both religions think they are doing "god's will" when they kill other human beings.

But those religious bigots must share some of the blame for these kind of murders -- with the Republican Party. Sadly this party has made hatred for some Americans a part of their platform. They consider discrimination to not only be a religious act, but a political act that "patriots" engage in. They have even nominated a bigot to lead their party this year.

But religious and political bigotry are not completely to blame. Their is also the political stupidity and cowardice regarding guns from members of both political parties. About 80% to 90% of the American people want a requirement for a background check before any gun can be bought in this country, and a smaller (but still clear) majority would like to see a ban on the sale or possession of assault weapons. Both of those proposals should be law by now, but Congress (because they are scared of the NRA or have been bought by them) has refused to act on them.

While this shooting was especially tragic, it does not stand alone. We average more than one mass shooting (where four or more people are shot) every day in this country, and more than 30,000 people are killed with guns every year in the U.S. That is inexcusable, because it is something that could be prevented. No other civilized country has this problem.

Isn't it time that decent people stood up and demanded that bigotry (of all kinds, including religious bigotry) be quashed, and reasonable gun laws (that don't violate the Second Amendment) be passed?

-------------------------------------------------------------

In case some of you didn't believe that the same kind of murderous hate could be carried out by a white christian extremist, let me direct your attention to Santa Monica (California). Police officers in that city arrested a man who had three assault weapons and numerous ammunition magazines only hours after the Orlando shooting. The man, James Howell (pictured), admitted he was planning to attack the Gay Pride parade in West Hollywood.

Bigoted "hate" terrorists are not exclusively muslim. They come in all colors and all religions. Anytime a race, religion, or political party teaches hate, there will be extremists ready to murder innocent people in the name of that hate. Why is that so hard to understand?

Discrimination, even in the name of religion, breeds violence. It really is that simple.

Sad Commentary On America's View Of Terrorism

The chart above should bother all decent Americans. It is from a Rasmussen Poll done on December 2nd and 3rd of a random national sample of 1,000 voters. It seems that 61% of Americans don't believe the Colorado Springs attack on Planned Parenthood was a terrorist attack. They classify it as the action of a mentally ill person.

Now, I'll agree that anyone who attacks and kills innocent victims must have a screw loose, even if it was done for a political reason. But the definition of terrorism is attacking innocent people to defend a political (or religious) agenda -- and that's exactly what they Colorado Springs shooter did. He made that clear after he was captured -- that he was specifically attacked Planned Parenthood to stop them from selling "baby parts" (which was a lie being passed around by right-wing christians).

Are the American people so dense that they now accept the Republican propaganda that only muslims commit terrorist acts? Are they loathe to call him a terrorist because he's a christian (and they don't want to believe their own religion has extremists who commit terrorist acts)? Or are they afraid he might have been spurred to do his dirty work by right-wing politicians and media they like?

Whatever the reason, they are wrong. He was clearly a terrorist (even though white and christian) -- just like the muslim shooters in San Bernardino.

The Word Politicians/Media Won't Use For U.S. Terrorists

There is a lot of truth in the image to the left (from atlantablackstar.com). While our politicians and media are quick to use the term terrorist for a jihadist was murder, they have been loathe to do the same for a home-grown U.S. mass murderer.

It has gotten a little bit better lately. After the terrorist attack in Colorado Springs, at least they are now discussing whether it should be called a terrorist attack or not. It seems obvious to me that it is a terrorist attack, but I guess I should be thankful that the politicians and media are at least considering that now.

But there is one word those politicians and media simply will not use to describe domestic terrorists -- christian. They are quick to label jihadists as muslims when they commit a terrorist attack, but when christian extremists do the same thing, they are never called that. They are labeled as mentally-ill, as lone gunmen, and sometimes as terrorists -- but they are never called christian terrorists.

The reason is obvious. This is a majority christian country, and if the politicians labeled home-grown terrorists as christian, they are afraid they would lose votes -- and the media won't call them that because they are afraid of losing viewers/readers. They don't mind labeling jihadists as muslim (even though there are billions of muslims just as horrified by the jihadist actions as we are), but are loathe to label terrorists as christians (even though most home-grown terrorists are christian extremists).

Isn't this unfair. In fact, isn't it discrimination to tie a minority religion in this country to terrorism, but to avoid doing that for the majority religion? Of course it is, and it is cowardice. The politicians (of both parties) and the major media should all be ashamed of themselves for engaging in this shameless discrimination. As a nation of immigrants who values religious freedom, we should be better than that. How can the population live up to our ideals if the political leaders and media won't?

Religious Terror Strikes Paris

Unless you live in a cave somewhere, then you know about the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night. At least 129 people were killed and over 350 wounded -- and the French government expects the death toll to climb higher.

Some in this country are already doing what they normally do -- blaming muslims for the attacks. While it is true that these particular terrorists were most likely muslim extremists, we need to remember that it's not just muslims that do terrorism. All religions do it -- including christianity (remember Oklahoma City).

As long as religion has existed, there have been extremists in those religions who commit atrocities (from human sacrifices to the Inquisition & crusades to bombings and shootings). It is just a continuing aspect of religion in general that atrocities will be committed by some followers -- and as long as religion exists, the violence will continue (whether you call it terrorism or not). Terrorism will not stop until religion ceases to exist.

We must also be careful to not blame all muslims (or all religious people). These attacks, like other religious violence, was committed by that religion's extremists. All religions have extremists (and always will), but the majority in every religion are not extremists -- and shouldn't be blamed for their religion's shortcomings (the production of extremists).

The talk now is about going after ISIS more ruthlessly. I have no desire to defend ISIS (or any other terrorists), but if anyone thinks defeating ISIS in the Middle East will eliminate terrorism, then they are just fooling themselves. Terrorists have never needed a country of their own to carry out their nefarious deeds -- and they won't need one in the future.

As long as religious extremists (of any religion) exist, terrorism will exist -- and the extremists will exist as long as religion exists.

Religion Doesn't Make Kids Nicer - It Makes Them Meaner

The prevailing opinion in this country (and many others) is that religion makes people better -- and that children raised in a religion will be nicer and more moral than children raised outside of any religion.

I have always thought this was just a comfortable lie that people want to believe, because it justifies their commitment to a religion (which was probably chosen for them by their parents, and geography). Now there is some proof of this.

The following article is from The Guardian. It tells us of the findings of a new study about children and religion. That study compared children raised in an organized religion with those raised outside of religion -- and the results may well startle many people.

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality. 

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.

“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”

Almost 1,200 children, aged between five and 12, in the US, Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and South Africa participated in the study. Almost 24% were Christian, 43% Muslim, and 27.6% non-religious. The numbers of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic and other children were too small to be statistically valid.

They were asked to choose stickers and then told there were not enough to go round for all children in their school, to see if they would share. They were also shown film of children pushing and bumping one another to gauge their responses.

The findings “robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households”. 

Older children, usually those with a longer exposure to religion, “exhibit[ed] the greatest negative relations”.

The study also found that “religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies”. Children from religious households “frequently appear to be more judgmental of others’ actions”, it said. 

Muslim children judged “interpersonal harm as more mean” than children from Christian families, with non-religious children the least judgmental. Muslim children demanded harsher punishment than those from Christian or non-religious homes.

At the same time, the report said that religious parents were more likely than others to consider their children to be “more empathetic and more sensitive to the plight of others”.

(NOTE -- the image above is from cultcritics.com.)

The Non-Religious Will Grow As Christianity Shrinks In U.S.

The folks at the Pew Research Center wrote a very good article projecting the religious changes that will happen all over the world between 2010 and 2015. They predicted that worldwide, christianity will stay at about the same percentage while islam will grow substantially. I think that is probably true. Where I disagree with them is their prediction that the percentage of the non-religious will shrink slightly. I don't think that will happen -- although in a lot of muslim and christian countries, the non-religious will probably have to keep their views hidden (or suffer some serious consequences).

But the part of the article I found most interesting is what is projected to happen in the United States. Pew says christianity will drop by 11.9 points (from 77.3% to 66.4%), while the non-religious will rise by 9,2 points (from 16.4% in 2010 to 25.6% in 2050), That means more than a quarter of the U.S. population will be non-religious. I think it may even grow more than that by 2050. Currently (in 2015), it is estimated that between 20% and 22% of the population in non-religious -- and we still have 35 years to go to get to 2050.

Also interesting is that by 2050 eight currently christian-majority countries will lose that christian majority -- and three of those countries will have the non-religious as the largest "religious" group in that country (see the chart below). These countries are France (which will have 44.1% non-religious), New Zealand (which will have 45.1% non-religious), and the Netherlands (which will have 49.1% non-religious).

President's Speech Was Factual (And Constitutional)

A few days ago, President Obama gave a speech at a Washington prayer breakfast. And right-wingers and evangelicals have been whining and howling ever since. They accuse him of praising islam while denigrating christianity. Of course, that charge is ridiculous.

What the president actually did was to say that all religions (including christianity) have been used to persecute people, and that is simply a fact. It is not a fact that the right wants to recognize, but it is a fact (and denying that is to rewrite history). He also supported the idea of separation of church and state, and showed that he truly understood what religious freedom means -- the right of every American to choose his/her own religion, or to choose no religion at all.

But the fundamentalist right doesn't believe in true religious freedom. They want their own religious ideas to be supreme, even if they have to write that into law (which is unconstitutional). They were hoping to use the president's remarks to turn people against him, by making people believe he was anti-christian. But that charge is false, and a plurality of Americans (46%) know it. Unfortunately, their lies seem to have gotten through to 41% of Americans though.

Note the chart above, which is from a recent Rasmussen Poll -- done on February 6th and 7th of a random national sample of 800 likely voters (with a margin of error of 3.5 points).

I'll let you decide for yourselves about the president's speech. I present most of it below (minus some uncontroversial introductory remarks). President Obama said:

Now, over the last few months, we’ve seen a number of challenges -- certainly over the last six years.  But part of what I want to touch on today is the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. 

As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife.  We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. Brantly and his colleagues have done.  We see faith driving us to do right.

But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon.  From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.  We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism  -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. 

We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.

So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends? 

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.  Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation. 

So this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.  In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.  And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe. 

And, first, we should start with some basic humility.  I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth. 

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process.  And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty.  No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom -- freedom of religion -- the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility.  They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both. 

But part of humility is also recognizing in modern, complicated, diverse societies, the functioning of these rights, the concern for the protection of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment.  And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults -- (applause) -- and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are the targets of such attacks.  Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t question those who would insult others in the name of free speech.  Because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they, too, are full and equal members of our countries.

So humility I think is needed.  And the second thing we need is to uphold the distinction between our faith and our governments.  Between church and between state.  The United States is one of the most religious countries in the world -- far more religious than most Western developed countries.  And one of the reasons is that our founders wisely embraced the separation of church and state.  Our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a particular faith, or any faith at all.  And the result is a culture where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can freely and proudly worship, without fear, or coercion -- so that when you listen to Darrell talk about his faith journey you know it's real.  You know he’s not saying it because it helps him advance, or because somebody told him to.  It's from the heart.   

That’s not the case in theocracies that restrict people’s choice of faith.  It's not the case in authoritarian governments that elevate an individual leader or a political party above the people, or in some cases, above the concept of God Himself.  So the freedom of religion is a value we will continue to protect here at home and stand up for around the world, and is one that we guard vigilantly here in the United States.

Last year, we joined together to pray for the release of Christian missionary Kenneth Bae, held in North Korea for two years.  And today, we give thanks that Kenneth is finally back where he belongs -- home, with his family.  

Last year, we prayed together for Pastor Saeed Abedini, detained in Iran since 2012.  And I was recently in Boise, Idaho, and had the opportunity to meet with Pastor Abedini’s beautiful wife and wonderful children and to convey to them that our country has not forgotten brother Saeed and that we’re doing everything we can to bring him home.  (Applause.)  And then, I received an extraordinary letter from Pastor Abedini.  And in it, he describes his captivity, and expressed his gratitude for my visit with his family, and thanked us all for standing in solidarity with him during his captivity.

And Pastor Abedini wrote, “Nothing is more valuable to the Body of Christ than to see how the Lord is in control, and moves ahead of countries and leadership through united prayer.”  And he closed his letter by describing himself as “prisoner for Christ, who is proud to be part of this great nation of the United States of America that cares for religious freedom around the world.”  

We’re going to keep up this work -- for Pastor Abedini and all those around the world who are unjustly held or persecuted because of their faith.   And we’re grateful to our new Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Rabbi David Saperstein -- who has hit the ground running, and is heading to Iraq in a few days to help religious communities there address some of those challenges.  Where’s David?  I know he’s here somewhere.  Thank you, David, for the great work you’re doing.  

Humility; a suspicion of government getting between us and our faiths, or trying to dictate our faiths, or elevate one faith over another.  And, finally, let’s remember that if there is one law that we can all be most certain of that seems to bind people of all faiths, and people who are still finding their way towards faith but have a sense of ethics and morality in them -- that one law, that Golden Rule that we should treat one another as we wish to be treated.  The Torah says “Love thy neighbor as yourself.”  In Islam, there is a Hadith that states: "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”  The Holy Bible tells us to “put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.”  Put on love.

Whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be instruments of peace, and bringing light where there is darkness, and sowing love where there is hatred.  And this is the loving message of His Holiness, Pope Francis.  And like so many people around the world, I’ve been touched by his call to relieve suffering, and to show justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable; to walk with The Lord and ask “Who am I to judge?”  He challenges us to press on in what he calls our “march of living hope.”  And like millions of Americans, I am very much looking forward to welcoming Pope Francis to the United States later this year.  

His Holiness expresses that basic law:  Treat thy neighbor as yourself.  The Dalai Lama -- anybody who’s had an opportunity to be with him senses that same spirit.  Kent Brantly expresses that same spirit.  Kent was with Samaritan’s Purse, treating Ebola patients in Liberia, when he contracted the virus himself. And with world-class medical care and a deep reliance on faith -- with God’s help, Kent survived.  

And then by donating his plasma, he helped others survive as well.  And he continues to advocate for a global response in West Africa, reminding us that “our efforts needs to be on loving the people there.”  And I could not have been prouder to welcome Kent and his wonderful wife Amber to the Oval Office.  We are blessed to have him here today -- because he reminds us of what it means to really “love thy neighbor as thyself.”  Not just words, but deeds. 

Each of us has a role in fulfilling our common, greater purpose -- not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depths so that we may find the strength to love more fully.  And this is perhaps our greatest challenge -- to see our own reflection in each other; to be our brother’s keepers and sister’s keepers, and to keep faith with one another.  As children of God, let’s make that our work, together.

As children of God, let’s work to end injustice -- injustice of poverty and hunger.  No one should ever suffer from such want amidst such plenty.  As children of God, let’s work to eliminate the scourge of homelessness, because, as Sister Mary says, “None of us are home until all of us are home.”  None of us are home until all of us are home.

As children of God, let’s stand up for the dignity and value of every woman, and man, and child, because we are all equal in His eyes, and work to send the scourge and the sin of modern-day slavery and human trafficking, and “set the oppressed free.”  

If we are properly humble, if we drop to our knees on occasion, we will acknowledge that we never fully know God’s purpose.  We can never fully fathom His amazing grace.  “We see through a glass, darkly” -- grappling with the expanse of His awesome love.  But even with our limits, we can heed that which is required:  To do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with our God.

I pray that we will.  And as we journey together on this “march of living hope,” I pray that, in His name, we will run and not be weary, and walk and not be faint, and we’ll heed those words and “put on love.” 

May the Lord bless you and keep you, and may He bless this precious country that we love. 

Thank you all very much. 

A Plurality Of Americans Ready To Condemn Islam

This chart was made from a recent Rasmussen Poll -- done on January 11th and 12th of a random national sample of 800 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

The survey paint a rather sad and disturbing picture of too many Americans. It shows that a plurality (39%) of Americans believe that MOST muslims worldwide view the United States as an enemy. Frankly, I am shocked that so many Americans can believe such a ridiculous thing. All evidence indicates that most muslims do not view this country as an enemy. Most believe just the opposite.

I am sure this misguided view comes from a rather bigoted view of terrorist activities. There are a tiny percentage of muslim extremists that dislike the United States (and other Western countries) and commit violent and atrocious acts. But, guess what. There are also a tiny percentage of christians that commit violent and atrocious acts.

When Americans view the violence by christian extremists, they are quick to label them as "lone wolves" who are not representative of the christian religion. But when muslim extremists commit violence they have a different view. They are quick to label these extremists as representative of all muslims. This is not only stupid, it is bigotry.

Grow up America. Nearly all religions have an extremist element, and those extremists don't truly represent those religions.

Public Thinks Media Should Be Able To Satirize Religion

It's been kind of disappointing since the murder of the Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoonists. One poll shows that 75% of the American public thinks muslim religious leaders don't do enough to emphasize peace, 52% believe islam encourages violence more than other religions, and 64% think there is a global conflict between Western Civilization and islam.

I don't think any of those things are true, and they just represent the bigotry a lot of Americans have toward muslims. It is true that there are some violent muslim extremists, but there are also violent christian extremists (and I'm sure that is true also of other religions). Some people just take their religion too seriously, and are far too willing to try to force their religion on others.

But there is a new poll that gives me a little bit of hope for this country. It is the YouGov Poll -- done between January 7th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults (with a margin of error of about 4 points. The results are represented in the chart above.

It seems that most Americans do value their democracy, because they think free speech is more important than requiring the media to be respectful of religion. They support the right of the media to make fun of religion through satire -- and this is true of both sexes, all age groups, all races, and all political persuasions.

As a lover of free speech, I like that. I just hope Americans were also thinking of their own religion (and not just muslims) when they answered this question.

Americans Have A Double Standard About Religion

After the latest violent attack (in Paris) perpetrated by an extremist segment of the muslim religion, many muslims (including many imams) have registered their horror over what was done -- and have tried to make it clear that violence is not representative of islam. Do Americans accept that?

A Public Religion Research Institute study says probably not -- because Americans have a very troubling double standard when it comes to religion. Most are very willing to separate violent christian extremists (and there have been many) from the christian religion -- saying these extremists do not represent christianity. But they are not as forgiving when it comes to islam.

Only 13% of Americans believe christian extremists represent christianity, while a much larger 44% say muslim extremists represent islam. That percentage goes down to 10% among Republicans, and up slightly to 17% among Democrats.

And the same huge gap exists among those saying those extremists do NOT represent their religion -- with 83% saying extremists do not represent christianity (86% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats). But only 48% are willing to say extremists do not represent islam (40% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats).

I would have expected those kind of numbers from Republicans (since their base includes a large number of evangelicals), but it is very disappointing to see about 40% of Democrats believing the extremists represent more than a billion muslims throughout the world (because Democrats are usually more liberal and oppose bigotry).

I'm very disappointed in Americans. Either extremists (of any religion) represent that religion or they do not. I'm an atheist, but I don't believe extremists (especially violent extremists) represent the whole of any religious (or political) group. Lumping everyone in a group with the extremists is just a backdoor form of bigotry.

Only A Small Percentage In The U.S. Are Anti-Muslim Bigots

Anyone who has paid any attention to any kind of media in the last few years (especially the internet), will have undoubtably run into a lot of bigotry regarding muslims. These bigots would have you believe that all muslims agree with the mindless fundamentalism of the Taliban (ISIS, al-Queda, etc.), and that islam is a dangerous religion that promotes violence.

Of course, that is a ridiculous idea. I have known many muslims in my life, and I found them no different than any other people (christians, atheists, buddhists, hindus, etc.). They were decent people just trying to provide for their families and live responsible lives. And on this holiday, I thought it was appropriate to bring you the results of this recent Rasmussen Poll (conducted on December 17th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points).

It shows that, while the bigoted muslim haters in this country are loud, they are only a tiny minority of the population -- about 16% (while 69% don't think those fundamentalist muslims like the Taliban truly represent the faith of islam). That 16% is too large a percentage, but they don't represent the views of most Americans anymore than the Taliban represents the views of most muslims.

It's nice to know that.

Violent Religion

(Image found on the blog of Yellowdog Granny.)

Three major religions sprang from the descendants of Abraham -- judaism, christianity, and islam. And even though they all claim to believe in a loving god, they are the bloodiest religions in the modern world. They all have a history of condoning violence, especially against the other Abrahamic religions, and that violent hatred persists today. Frankly, I don't understand it. How does a loving god spawn such violent religions? Do the adherents of these religions really think hatred and violence spring from love?

Fundamentalism

Ms. Nasreen is absolutely right. Just eliminating the fundamentalists will accomplish nothing. Because soon, that religion will just produce another crop of fundamentalists -- perhaps even more virulent and violent than the last. That is just the nature of religion. And that is true of all religions, not just islam. Christianity, Judaism, and other religions all produce their own variety of fundamentalists -- the true believers who demand that everyone else must follow their own vision of their particular religion.

If others refuse to comply, the fundamentalists take that as a personal knock on them and their religion. For them, religious freedom means only that they should be free to force their religion on others (even if those others want no part of it). Tolerance and true freedom are foreign concepts, which they don't understand at all. I'd like to think there's a cure to prevent fundamentalism from springing from religion, but I don't think there is. It's just the nature of the beast.

The Fight Against Autocracy And Theocracy

Since the modern idea of democracy was born a few thousand years ago in Greece, there has been a struggle to keep it alive in a world that seems to love autocracy and theocracy. There are those who might be offended at my equating theocracy with autocracy, but the fact is that religion has been both a reason for establishing an autocracy and a tool for an autocracy to remain in power. Democracy simply cannot exist in any nation that decrees one religion is true and all others are false, because a democracy is more than rule by the majority. A true democracy demands respect for the rights of the minority.

During the celebrated "Arab Spring", one of the countries that successfully threw off the yoke of autocratic rule was Egypt. With the election of a new president by the people and an attempt to write a new constitution, it was hoped that democracy stood a chance of coming to that country in a real form. Those hopes have now been dimmed -- for a couple of reasons. First, because the constitution being written now is almost sure to be the vehicle for installation of a theocracy (which is nothing more than a religious autocracy). And second, because the elected president, a member of the same majority group writing the constitution, has given himself enormous new powers in a new decree -- powers that mean nothing he does can be overturned by the courts or any other organization.

President Morsy claims he is assuming these new autocratic powers to protect the "revolution" that happened in Egypt, and that nation is still on the road to democracy. Frankly that is now hard to believe. All autocrats have claimed that they are just protecting their nation and have assumed dictatorial powers for the good of the people. Even such brutal dictators as Stalin and Hitler made these claims. And it is also true that once the have assumed autocratic powers, dictators rarely give up those powers. And even if Morsy does finally bend to the will of the people and follow the dictates of a new constitution, if that constitution is simply an extension of the islamic religion (which it almost surely will be) can it really be called democratic?

Frankly, it now looks like the desire for a true democracy is Egypt has been thwarted. It has been subverted by the desire of a religious group to impose their will on all the country's citizens, and one man's desire to be the instrument of installing the new theocracy. Maybe this is the way it had to turn out. A real democracy cannot exist in a theocratic state, and until most Egyptians understand that there will not be a democracy in that country.

I know there will be many in this country, especially right-wingers, who will be saying "I told you so". But many of them don't really have the right to point a finger at Egypt, because they are trying to do the same thing in this country. The only difference is that they wish to replace our democracy with a christian theocracy instead of an islamic theocracy -- and personally, I don't see that as any better.

No theocracy, regardless of what religion it is established on, can also be a democracy (because it denies the rights of those who follow a different religion, or no religion at all). Fundamentalists will disagree, but a true democracy can only exist in a secular state that guarantees the fundamental right of religious freedom (which includes the right to be free from religion). And the funny thing is that all theocrats will agree with this when it is not their own religion that is dominant, but quickly disagree when their own religion is dominant.

We all need to understand that democracy is not the right to impose your religious views on your fellow citizens. A democracy requires that all religious views be respected and protected, and that none be elevated above all the others. Our forefathers understood this, and gave us an enduring secular constitution. And because they understood there would always be theocrats trying to destroy our democracy, they gave us the First Amendment guaranteeing religious freedom. We would be exceedingly foolish to replace that constitution with a Bible (or any other religious book).

The Ugly Face Of Religious Hate

Unless you live in a cave somewhere and are cut off from the rest of the civilized world, then you have probably heard about the young lady in the picture above. She is 14 year-old Malala Yousufzai, who was shot in the head by the Taliban because she defied their ban on education for females. Fortunately, it looks like they failed in their attempt to murder her, and she has been sent to Great Britain to get the best medical care available.

The murderous hate of the Taliban seems to be backfiring on them. Instead of advancing their beliefs, this crime seems to be galvanizing opposition to them -- all over the world, and even in the areas where their support has been strong like Pakistan. I would like to think that they have done nothing but sow the seeds of their own destruction.

There are some in this country that would like to paint all of the muslim religion with this horrible crime. That is simply ridiculous. This was a crime from a small group of fundamentalist extremists, and is not indicative of the religion as a whole. Most muslims across the globe abhor this kind of crime, and have no problem with women getting an education and trying to better themselves.

And before christians get too caught up in blaming muslims for wanting to hurt children, they might want to examine a few fundamentalist extremists in their own religion. Take for instance Charlie Fuqua, a Republican christian candidate for the Arkansas state legislature. He would like to institute the death penalty for children who disobey their parents, and even quotes the Bible to back up his argument.

Is this really any different from what the Taliban did in Pakistan? Isn't the murder of children wrong no matter who does it (or even whether it is done "biblically" as Fuqua wants)? And isn't it just as wrong to direct that hate toward other groups -- like adult women, gays/lesbians, people of other (or no) religion, or people with a different skin color or ethnic background?

Even though I am an atheist, I don't for a minute believe that most christians or muslims accept this kind of religious thinking. But there is an extremist fringe in both religions that see nothing wrong with trying to force their religious views on others, even if they have to kill children (and other innocent people) to do that. And regardless of which religion it springs from, this kind of religious bigotry and hatred is ugly, stupid, criminal, and totally unacceptable in any society.

Isn't it time for decent people of all religions (and no religion) to make that perfectly clear to the religious bigots and haters?

Representative ?

There's a lot of truth in the image above. Too many christians are quick to distance themselves from the nuttiest people claiming to be members of their religion. They claim those people are not representative of the religion, but are misusing it for their own sad purposes. But those same christians are just as quick to claim that the nuttiest zealots that call themselves muslims are indeed representative of that entire religion. Isn't that more than a bit hypocritical? Can you not extend the same courtesy to other religions that you claim for your own?

The False Fear Issue - Terrorism

The Republicans have been using the boogeyman of islamic terrorism to scare Americans into voting for them for years now. We now know, and Tom Ridge (former Secretary of Homeland Security) has admitted, that the Bush administration falsely raised the terrorism alert to help their re-election effort. And today's Republicans still want you to believe that islamic terrorists (like those pictured above) pose a real and significant risk to most American citizens.

They are lying. The truth is that an American stands a much better chance of dying from nearly any other reason, rather than a terrorist attack. Here are some of the odds of you (or any other American) dying from a terrorist attack:

– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack.
– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack.
— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane.
— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack.
–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack.
— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack.
– You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack.
–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack.
–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack.
–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.
–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack.
– You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack.

Add to this the chance of being attacked by islamic terrorists are much, much lower than being attacked by home-grown white right-wing terrorists. The government knows this, but right-wing Republicans have prevented then from making it widely known. They don't want voters to know that their own supporters (at least the more extreme ones) pose a greater danger to the lives of Americans than islamic terrorists pose. Here is a bit of truth from Steve Coll at The New Yorker:

In partnership with a team of researchers at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Policy, some of my colleagues at the New America Foundation collated and analyzed three hundred and two cases of domestic terrorism during the decade after the September 11th attacks. The numbers do not correspond with the public’s fear or understanding.

The entire decade-long domestic death toll from terrorism (that is, where a political or ideological motive was apparent) was thirty. By comparison, the rate of annual deaths from mass shootings by non-ideological deranged killers—such as the gunman who attacked moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado, last month—runs more than thirty times higher (on average, about a hundred deaths each year). In all, there are about fifteen thousand murders in America each year.

Of the three hundred domestic-terrorism cases studied, about a quarter arose from anti-government extremists, white supremacists, or terrorists animated by bias against another religion. And all of the most frightening cases—involving chemical, biological, and radiological materials—arose from right-wing extremists or anarchists. None arose from Islamist militancy.

I'm not trying to say that terrorism, even islamic terrorism, poses no danger at all -- only that the danger is so small as to be insignificant. Don't let the Republicans inflate this issue and fill you with an unwarranted fear, just to get you to vote for them. This election should be about the economy and jobs, and the Republican's still cling to their "trickle-down" theory -- which has been shown to be an abysmal failure. That's why they want to scare you. It's all they have.

Ignoring The Real Danger To Satisfy Bigotry

This nation has had two major terrorist attacks in recent years (and a bevy of smaller attacks). The major attacks are the Oklahoma City bombing on 4-19-1995 and the attack on New York City on 9-11-2001. Both of these were terrible tragedies, and it is understandable the House Committee on Homeland Security would want to investigate terrorism in this country. What is not understandable is how the committee investigation is being conducted.

The committee, chaired by Rep. Peter King (R-New York), is not investigating all of the terroristic threats to the United States. It is, thanks to the myopia of chairman King, only investigating the muslim community. Why is this happening? Well, here is what Rep. King recently said in a Fox News interview:

. . .the fact is even though Muslims are 1 percent of the population, almost 90 percent of the terrorist crimes are carried out by the Muslim community.

King is either the most misinformed member of Congress, or the most outrageous and bigoted liar in that institution. Not only was the Oklahoma City bombing not done by a muslim (but by a right-wing christian nut), but a quick perusal of the chart above shows that most of the terrorism in this country since 1995 was done by right-wing groups -- not muslims.

In fact, 56% of those terroristic acts have been done by right-wing terrorists, and another 30% were done by ecoterrorists. Only about 12% were done by muslims (and the remaining 2% were by anarchists). By concentrating on muslims, Rep. King has his committee ignoring 88% of the terroristic threat to this country.

I find it difficult to believe that a congressman, especially one chairing the Committee of Homeland Security, could be this misinformed. I'm sure the FBI would be more than happy to provide him with the truth (and probably have done so). That leaves only bigotry as the reason for the committee's faulty investigation.

Rep. Peter King has the stench of religious bigotry all over him.