Losing the Difference Between Discriminating and Discrimination.

How do you fight a bad idea? How can you combat what you believe is wrong thinking by a significant portion of your culture? Is it wrong to choose to base your actions on what you believe to be right?

These questions have become centrally important in recent days as the furor continues to pour forth from Indiana's passage of their Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The statute is modeled on the versions passed overwhelmingly by the Federal government and signed into law by Bill Clinton, yet detractors state the Indiana law is a license to discriminate against homosexual patrons. Such a leap hasn't ever happened in all the other states that have similar laws, but such trivialities seem to matter not to those who are outraged.

However, if the RFRA is a bad idea, then how do you fight against it? In previous years, we had a word we used for one who thoughtfully approached his choices. We would call someone who exhibited good judgment a discriminating man. When seeking to resist bad ideas, one can become a discriminating individual. You may choose to not patronize an establishment who holds the idea with which you disagree. Or perhaps as a business owner you may choose to no do business where it could imply that you support such an idea. Tim Cook seems to feel the Apple boycott of the state of Indiana is his right because he simply standing for "what is just and fair." He is being a discriminating man in his business choices.

Ideas versus People

But here's the thing in all this. There is a difference between discriminating against ideas and discriminating against people. Ideas have merit based on their claims and how they best represent the world. Sane people should always discriminate when weighing ideas. We need to know the facts and we need to see if the idea plays out the way it is said to play out. There may be ideas that are bad and there may be ideas that are evil.

But there is a real difference between being discriminating and being a discriminator. The charge of discrimination carries with it the concept that you are excluding a group for no good reason. It is an unwarranted bias that drives your selection. That's a big difference from being selective about ideas based on their merits. The difference between being discriminating and being a bigot are vast, but those differences are getting lost in the Indiana controversy.

Who's discriminating now?

As I laid out the attributes of being discriminating above, they could be equally applied to those who support the RFRA as well. What if legislation that undercuts religious freedom is the bad idea that needs to be fought against? What if the business owner isn't Tim Cook but a photographer or baker that simply doesn't want to be forced to participate in an event with which he doesn't agree? Where is the difference?

People should have the right to discriminate against ideas; otherwise there would be on recourse left to us whereby we can fight the bad ones. Don't mix that up with bigotry. The two are wholly different.

References

Image courtesy Frits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig and licensed via the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

Is There Such a Thing as Christian Terrorism?

The recent attacks on the French satirical periodical Charlie Hebdo resulted in a worldwide outpouring of support for the victims and condemnation of the terrorists. But the condemnation also came with a lot of confusion and rhetoric from both liberal and conservative factions. I don't believe it is right to paint all Muslims with the terrorist brush. As John A. Azumah explained in his recent piece, the Wahabbists follow a specific type of Islam, but they also shirk their own authority structures and seek to take matters into their own hands.1 Thus, the terrorists are both the natural outworking of Islamic beliefs and violators of its governing bodies.

While some on the right may have a penchant to see every Muslim as a terrorist, some on the left make two very different types of errors. The first is to see no connection between the terrorists and Islam at all. This is absurd to the point of ridicule. After Mohammad's conquering of Medina and Mecca, the Caliphite expansion across North Africa and into Spain, the Crusades, the Ottoman expansion, the attack on the Marine base in Lebanon, the attack on the USS Cole, 9/11, the London Subway bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and countless more attempts that have been thwarted, I think that any reasonable person can see a pattern developing. History shows that Islam was in fact spread by the sword, and it is easy to see how the children of the Hanbali tradition would see justification in continuing that tradition.

But it is the other mistake some have made that concerns me even more deeply. There are some on the left who would argue that it isn't Islam that's the problem, but it is any type of dedicated religious belief. These people charge that Christians who take their faith seriously are just as much a terrorist threat as radicalized Muslims.

One case in point is an article written by Jack Jenkins that appeared on the Think Progress site a month before the Charlie Hebdo attack. Entitled "The Other Kind Of Religious Extremism: The Christian Terrorist Movement No One Wants To Talk About," Jenkins tries to link individual attacks, such as the white supremacist Larry McQuilliams who shot up several buildings (but no people) in Austin, Texas with groups like Al Queaeda, Boko Harem, and ISIS.

Jenkins knows that McQuilliams was following the teachings of the white supremacist group the Phineas Priesthood. But for him, that's more evidence that some Christians can be dangerous. He writes, "McQuilliams' possible ties to the Phineas Priesthood may sound strange, but it's actually unsettlingly common. In fact, his association with the hateful religious group highlights a very real — but often under-reported — issue: terrorism enacted in the name of Christ." 2

Wait a minute. Did Jenkins really enact terrorism in the name of Christ? Did he scream out "Jesus be praised" during his attack? Not at all. According to the Austin Chronicle, who interviewed FBI special agent Chris Combs, "he had a rooted motive. 'He could not find employment,' Combs said. 'He was also upset that – in his eyes – many immigrants had more services afforded to them than he had afforded to him.'"3 Yet, Jenkins is pretty quick to rush his judgment simply because he had a book published by a white supremacist movement with the word "Christendom" in the title. Jenkins then shows his hand by widening his scope:

But there is a long history of terrorist attacks resembling McQuilliams' rampage across Austin — where violence is carried out in the name of Christianity — in the United States and abroad. In America, the Ku Klux Klan is well-known for over a century of gruesome crimes against African Americans, Catholics, Jews, and others — all while ascribing to what they say is a Christian theology.4

Is he kidding? "All while ascribing to what they say is Christian theology?" Jenkins uses the IRA of Northern Ireland as one example of "terrorism enacted in the name of Christ." That's ridiculous; the IRA was very much a political group, described as "a militant nationalist organization" by the Encyclopedia Britannica.5 There was no ascribing their actions as the proper outworking of Christian theology. Likewise, the Klu Klux Klan cannot claim any verse that tells them to burn crosses or hang people because of the color of their skin. In order to demonize Christianity, Jenkins simply tries to grab hold of anything that seeks to use the word "Christian" while violating both the core teachings of Christianity and the example set by its founder, Jesus Christ.

When looking at the foundation of Christianity, one sees that the followers of Jesus died for their faith, and even during those times of early persecution they didn't form an army against their persecutors. The inherent worth of all men including those with physical or mental defects comes from Christianity. The teachings of Jesus such as the Golden Rule, to go the extra mile, or to "turn the other cheek" are the best values for a civilized and gracious society. Jesus Himself did not conquer with an army, but gave himself as a sacrifice for others. If an individual's acts with intent to terrorize or kill, you no longer have Christianity. You have something else entirely.

In perpetrating intentional distortions such as these, Jenkins himself engages in a kind of journalistic terrorism, seeking to ghettoize the faithful followers of Jesus as some kind of threat. The public would be better served with the truth than misleading articles such as his.

References

1. Azumah, John A. "An Explanation of Islam's Relation to Terrorism and Violence." First Things. First Things, Jan. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/01/challenging-radical-islam.
2. Jenkins, Jack. "The Christian Terrorist Movement No One Wants To Talk About." ThinkProgress. ThinkProgress, 4 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/04/3599271/austin-shooter-christian-extremism/.
3. Hoffberger, Chase, and Michael King. "Shooter Had ‘Hate in His Heart'" The Austin Chronicle. The Austin Chronicle Corp., 5 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2014-12-05/shooter-had-hate-in-his-heart/.
4. Jenkins., Think Progress, 2014.
5 "Irish Republican Army (IRA) | Irish Military Organization." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2015. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/294148/Irish-Republican-Army-IRA.

What the 'Atheist Invocation' Really Demonstrates

Isn't it interesting that offense can be used as a weapon by atheists in so many different ways. The push by college campuses in banning Christian clubs is supposedly based on being non-discriminatory so as not to offend a non-Christian who may want to be president of said club. (Huh?) Atheists are offended as seeing crosses on city property so they threaten lawsuits to have them removed. Atheists see this danger of offense as so great that peoples' freedom of assembly, freedom of beliefs, and freedom to their livelihood are considered fair game. But what if it's the atheist who is doing the offending?

Ridicule in the Guise of Prayer

According to the Sun-Sentinel, atheist Preston Smith petitioned to give the opening invocation at the Lake Worth City Commission Meeting in Florida. You may ask yourself how in the world can an atheist offer an invocation when they don't have anyone to pray to? The idea of petitioning a higher authority is absurd on atheist, which makes the request contradictory on its face. Yet, Smith felt that he had something to say and the City Commission obliged him and provided him with the time to open the proceedings.

You can watch Smith's speech here, however, a transcript of it appears below:

Our collective atheism — which is to say, loving empathy, scientific evidence, and critical thinking — leads us to believe that we can create a better, more equal community without religious divisions.

May we pray together.

Mother Earth, we gather today in your redeeming and glorious presence, to invoke your eternal guidance in the universe, the original Creator of all things.

May the efforts of this council blend the righteousness of Allah with the all-knowing wisdom of Satan. May Zeus, the great God of justice, grant us strength tonight. Jesus might forgive our shortcomings while Buddha enlightens us through His divine affection. We praise you, Krishna, for the sanguine sacrifice that freed us all. After all, if Almighty Thor is with us, who can ever be against us?

And finally, for the bounty of logic, reason, and science, we simply thank the atheists, agnostics, Humanists, who now account for 1 in 5 Americans, and [are] growing rapidly. In closing, let us, above all, love one another, not to obtain mythical rewards for ourselves now, hereafter, or based on superstitious threats of eternal damnation, but rather, embrace secular-based principles of morality — and do good for goodness' sake.

And so we pray.

So what?

Not an Invocation

Some people were upset that several commissioners and the mayor walked out of the room before Smith delivered his diatribe. But what I'm not hearing is the fact that what Smith delivered was in no way an invocation; it was a mean-spirited attack. In the recent decision by the Supreme Court that invocations are constitutional, Justice Kennedy wrote, "Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not "exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." Clearly, Smith's mess of a speech violated Kennedy's caution that access to invocations should not be used as disparagement. Smith didn't want to offer a prayer, he wanted to mock and offend as many people who believe in prayer as possible and he chose this as his soapbox from which to try.

Atheist Hemant Mehta (who bills himself as "the Friendly Atheist") said "To be sure, Smith's invocation is not the one I would've given, but that's not the point. The point is that if the commissioners aren't happy with this, there's a simple solution: Do away with invocations altogether. Stop wasting time with prayer and get down to business. Otherwise, they should expect more of these in the future." No, that isn't the point. Atheists don't get to claim offense at having to sit through prayers and then say offense is OK because they wielded it. But it does show that this movement of removing crosses, seeking to ban prayers, and even barring school children from trying to help the poor is not at the fringes of the atheists' value system.

In commenting on the unbelievers of his day, Charles Simmons put it best:

Ridicule - a fool's first and last argument.

The ridiculous is what fools remember longest. Deists in general attack Christianity by ridicule. This is their most powerful, and perhaps their most successful, weapon. All persons can laugh but all cannot reason. This mode of attacking Christianity answers purposes which can be effected no other way; for ridicule is unanswerable. Who can refute a sneer? It is independent of proof, reason, or argument; and as well be used against facts as against falsehood.

Ridicule is no argument but rather a proof of the want of it and the weakness of a cause.2

Smith's mockery and contempt for the privilege of solemnizing a civic meeting should be derided. If you don't believe in prayer then please don't petition to pray before a town meeting. To do what Smith did is offensive to the values of the Constitution and even other atheists should rebuke him for it.

References

1.Mayo, Michael. "Mayo: Lake Worth Commissioners Walk out on Atheist Invocation." Sun-Sentinel.com. Tribune Interactive, Inc, 09 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2014. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/michael-mayo-blog/sfl-mayo-lake-worth-atheist-walkout-20141209-story.htm
2.Simmons, Charles. A Laconic Manual and Brief Remarker Containing over a Thousand Subjects, Alphabetically and Systematically Arranged. Toronto: R. Dick, 1853. Print. 463.

Why Separating the Sacred and the Secular is a Bad Thing

The Secular Coalition of America (SCA) is asking people to knit a brick "to help rebuild the wall of separation between church and state."1 In a recent press release, the organization derided the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision and is hoping to visually protest it by creating a knitted wall. This is not a surprise as the release also identifies their purpose "to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all."2

Is it the best guarantee of freedom for all, though? The SCA seems to maintain that government should remain wholly secular and uninfluenced by those who are motivated by their faith commitments to rebel against laws which they deem in violation of their religiously-informed moral choices. Certainly the Hobby Lobby family's argument was such.

But does a position of purely secular governance conflict with "the best guarantee of freedom for all?" For example, a Christian bishop had been petitioning the President of the United States to change his policy on a certain matter because it violated his Christian principles. He explained the motive for his demands were rooted in God:

It is not a pleasant task to make an appeal, where excited public feeling may arouse unkind suspicions and unjust accusations. Few men love more than myself the approval of their fellow citizens, and none desire more the affection of those among whom they labor. I dare not be silent; I fear less the reproaches of the people than the anger of GOD.3

While such a statement would surely inflame the folks of the SCA, this man's religiously motivated quest was actually successful. The man in question was Bishop Henry B. Whipple and the policy he sought to change was the treatment of the Dakota and Sioux Native Americans by the federal government.  According to a Los Angeles Times article by Gustav Niebuhr, Whipple had petitioned President James Buchanan but never received a response. After Lincoln was elected president, he continued his letter writing campaign which eventually resulted in a meeting with the president. Whipple single-handedly saved the lives of 265 Dakotas who were sentenced to death.4 This happened because one man's religion motivated him to push his beliefs into the political arena.

Of course, Christians spurred by their faith to change political policy for the better is nothing new. William Wilberforce fought for over two decades in the British Parliament to end the slave trade.5 Elizabeth Fry sought reforms for prison conditions and the welfare of inmates, even using Bible studies to reform those thought incorrigible.6 So it goes throughout history. Even during the days of Rome, it was one Christian monk named Telemachus who stood up to the popular practice of the Gladiatorial games and gave his life so others' would be spared.

Each one of the people above took an unpopular position and advocated against government standards of their day. They did so simply because governmental policy violated their religiously-based morality. If the SCA's concept of strict separation were in place at any of those times, people would not be better off. The Dakotas, the slaves, the prisoners, and the gladiators would not be more free, but less free.

The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that the federal government will neither establish any official religion, but it also guarantees that the free exercise thereof by the citizens of this country shall not be prohibited. The first clause is to make sure religion doesn't come under government control. The second is to make sure that citizens' religions have the ability to inform their understanding and their worldview. These are prescriptions against government, not against people who own businesses, people who petition the government, nor even policy decisions brought before the government. The SCA would silence people such as Bishop Whipple simply because his message comes from a Christian point of view. I can think of at least 265 reasons why that's wrong.

References

1. "Knit a Brick." Secular Coalition for America. Web. https://secular.org/content/knitabrick-sponsors. Accessed 18-07-2014.

2. "Secular Coalition Condemns SCOTUS Decision to Strike Down Contraceptive Coverage Requirement." Secular Coalition for America. Web. https://secular.org/news/secular-coalition-condemns-scotus-decision-strike-down-contraceptive-coverage-requirement  30-06-2014.  Accessed 19-07-2014.       

3. Whipple, Henry B. "Plea for the Red Man." Project Canterbury. Web. Reprinted from the "Missionary Paper," No. 24, Epiphany, 1868. http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/whipple/plea1868.html

4. Niebuhr, Gustav. "How a bishop moved Lincoln, and saved 265 Dakota Indians." The Los Angeles Times. 17-07-2014. Web. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-niebuhr-abraham-lincoln-religion-indians-20140718-story.html

5. "William Wilberforce." ChristianHistory.net. 08-08-2008. Web. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/wilberforce.html

6. "Elizabeth Fry." ChristianHistory.net. 08-08-2008. Web. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/fry.html

Image © Copyright John Vetterli and licensed for reuse under thisCreative Commons Licence

The Supreme Court, Christian Prayer, and Town Meetings

The Supreme Court decision in the Town of Greece v. Galloway case is a step in the right direction for religious freedom. The case centered around Greece, a Rochester, NY suburb, inviting local pastors to open their town meeting in prayer. The town did not preview the prayers nor did they limit the invitation to any religious affiliation; they simply opened the opportunity up to local clergy. It so happened that the clergy who asked to be included were all Christians and they (understandably) prayed Christian prayers.

However, the overt Christian terminology used in the prayers bothered at least two town residents (identified by USA Today as an atheist and a Jew) who filed suit and petitioned the court not to ban the practice of opening the meeting with prayer, but "to limit the town to 'inclusive and ecumenical' prayers that referred only to a 'generic God.'"1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the lawsuit, but the majority of the Court disagreed and overturned the verdict on a 5-4 decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy made some lucid points about the problems with the suit. I'd like to look at some key points. (All emphasis in the quotes below is mine.)

The Historical Precedent for Prayer

First, Kennedy pointed to both the historical and legal precedent for allowing government meetings to be opened in prayer. Citing both a 1983 decision (Marsh) on the government funding of chaplains and a 1989 case of groups displaying specifically religious holiday displays on public lands, Kennedy writes:

There is historical precedent for the practice of opening local legislative meetings with prayer as well. Marsh teaches that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted "by reference to historical practices and understandings." … Respondents' insistence on nonsectarian prayer is not consistent with this tradition. The prayers in Marsh were consistent with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic theism but because the Nation's history and tradition have shown that prayer in this limited context could "coexis[t] with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom."

Kennedy further notes that the First Congress, just after crafting the First Amendment, voted to appoint chaplains and they opened their meetings in prayer, thus demonstrating that their intent was not to quell these activities.

The Problem of Governmental Censoring of Prayer

Kennedy then notes that if the law were to require governmental agencies to preview and approve or disallow specific prayers based on their use of sectarian language, it would create a much bigger problem. It would, in effect turn a bureaucrat or the court itself into the faith police. This would open up a can of worms. Government, the courts, or even the majority view judging which prayers should be banned and which are permissible becomes subjective and makes government more involved in religion than the current practice does.  He writes:

To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures sponsoring prayers and the courts deciding these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, thus involving government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town's current practice of neither editing nor approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact. Respondents' contrary arguments are unpersuasive. It is doubtful that consensus could be reached as to what qualifies as a generic or nonsectarian prayer. It would also be unwise to conclude that only those religious words acceptable to the majority are permissible, for the First Amendment is not a majority rule and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech.

Understand that the Government isn't the Final Word

Another salient point Kennedy makes is that respectful, ceremonial prayer before a government assembly, no matter which creed administers it, serves a function for all. By appealing to God and asking a blessing on the proceedings, the invocation essentially declares that governments and those that run them are never the last word. People are fallible. Political organizations are fallible. We must recognize that while our representatives seek to make the right decisions and serve the will of the people as best they can, their decisions are not themselves foolproof.

The tradition reflected in Marsh permits chaplains to ask their own God for blessings of peace, justice, and freedom that find appreciation among people of all faiths. That a prayer is given in the name of Jesus, Allah, or Jehovah, or that it makes passing reference to religious doctrines, does not remove it from that tradition. These religious themes provide particular means to universal ends. Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not "exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

Even those who disagree as to religious doctrine may find common ground in the desire to show respect for the divine in all aspects of their lives and being. Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith.

The Difference Between Offense and Coercion

The last key phrase I'd like to point out is one that I would hope extend well beyond this particular decision. Our culture today is sick. People have assumed that the pursuit of happiness somehow means that they should never feel any discomfort or disagreement while participating in a public function. Kennedy succinctly dismisses this claim:

In their declarations in the trial court, respondents stated that the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected. Offense, however, does not equate to coercion.

To that I say "Amen."

References

1. Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway et al. 572 U.S. ___. Supreme Court of the United States.
2014. www.SupremeCourt.gov. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.