Today's world has left little to imagine when it comes to the evil that man is capable of, but the outrage I felt when I heard that a 13 story mosque was to be built upon the soil that captured American blood, was incommensurable! The mosque will not only be built upon the soil where American lost their lives, but also the mark of the 10 year anniversary, September 11, 2011!
How can any Muslim, no matter their stripe, think that building a sacred shrine to Allah on top of an American symbol of tragedy, be tolerable, much less acceptable? Is this the point? Is building such a shrine dedicated to Islam's God in the very place that symbolized to their society horrendous idolatry; the American capitalistic system? I just wonder.
How is it that those calling for humane treatment and tolerance can make excuses for such abuse and insensitivity toward our losses? Imagine if you had lost a loved one in a towering inferno that day, and all because of love for God!
I heard the analogy of Germans building a shrine at the site of Auschwitz, or the Japanese at the sit of Pearl Harbor. Neither the Germans or the Japanese would have considered such an action.
Toleration cannot be the medicine for such intolerant attitudes, ideology, and action. Anyone that thinks that there can be negotiation with those that have such beliefs is deluded.
Whenever there is belief that one has a "higher understanding" or "higher call", etc. then, one is bent toward destroying or "converting" those who are "lesser". These will not stop their behavior because of reason. In fact, the very fact of persecution can be a sanction to their "election". Their understanding of life is built upon faith. This is why faith is so dangerous.
Showing posts with label intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intolerance. Show all posts
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sin, Sanctification, and Today's Sermon
Today's sermon was a continuation on temptation. The pastor emphasized how desires that are not "maintained" lead to sin. He went on to explain that it was only a complete surrender and trust not based on reason that would "help" in attaining sanctification. One must identify with Jesus.
Although he had said that he did not believe any of us are immune to the normal capacity to sin and that we all do, he also seemed to say that one's "entrustment" and "commitment" to God in modelling Jesus' life was "entire sanctification. (These were not his words, but my understanding of the implications of his sermon).
My question is if desire is not a sin, then when does it become a sin? when it impinges upon others? when it hinders other things that someone else thinks should be more important to you? when it limits other areas of your life through addiction? when it become the focus of one's life? what about goals, life purposes, and noble causes that one sees as the epitome of desire?
Buddhism teaches that if we can disengage ourselves from desire, then we can attain a "state of Nirvana". Should Christians then, disengage themselves from their desires to seek entire sanctification? I think not, as desire is not wrong, but channelling it into the right direction is important. This is why our free society is important to maintain.
I think that whenever one talks of "sin", there is an inevitable reaction in the religious of "appeasement to God", as "he is the one offended"....or a spiritual reaction of "moral superiority" because this particular "sin" is not my weakness. Religion intensifies an otherwise "decent" and civil discussion. Religion can be dangerous and often hinders open and free discussion for fear of treading on "forbidden territory".
I think that today's world of religious intolerance, dogmatism, and ideological "drivenness" is not an atmosphere open for civil discourse. Dogmatism hinders open-mindedness, because one's identity is so tied to one's understanding of "god" that any discussion is seen as a personal attack. This is an unhealthy identification, or a limited development, at least.
Traditions do breed security and identity, but can also breed prejuidice and discrimination, through a limited understanding of living and being in the world. One's "world" is "all there is" and should dominate everyone else's reality, as well.This is nothing short of self focused living in the name of "god" and it is repugnant to many who see differently.
Although he had said that he did not believe any of us are immune to the normal capacity to sin and that we all do, he also seemed to say that one's "entrustment" and "commitment" to God in modelling Jesus' life was "entire sanctification. (These were not his words, but my understanding of the implications of his sermon).
My question is if desire is not a sin, then when does it become a sin? when it impinges upon others? when it hinders other things that someone else thinks should be more important to you? when it limits other areas of your life through addiction? when it become the focus of one's life? what about goals, life purposes, and noble causes that one sees as the epitome of desire?
Buddhism teaches that if we can disengage ourselves from desire, then we can attain a "state of Nirvana". Should Christians then, disengage themselves from their desires to seek entire sanctification? I think not, as desire is not wrong, but channelling it into the right direction is important. This is why our free society is important to maintain.
I think that whenever one talks of "sin", there is an inevitable reaction in the religious of "appeasement to God", as "he is the one offended"....or a spiritual reaction of "moral superiority" because this particular "sin" is not my weakness. Religion intensifies an otherwise "decent" and civil discussion. Religion can be dangerous and often hinders open and free discussion for fear of treading on "forbidden territory".
I think that today's world of religious intolerance, dogmatism, and ideological "drivenness" is not an atmosphere open for civil discourse. Dogmatism hinders open-mindedness, because one's identity is so tied to one's understanding of "god" that any discussion is seen as a personal attack. This is an unhealthy identification, or a limited development, at least.
Traditions do breed security and identity, but can also breed prejuidice and discrimination, through a limited understanding of living and being in the world. One's "world" is "all there is" and should dominate everyone else's reality, as well.This is nothing short of self focused living in the name of "god" and it is repugnant to many who see differently.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Life or Liberty?
Happy July 4th!
Today is the celebration of our Independence! And the meaning of this day is significant to the world, as it is and was an "American experiment' in diversity of every kind. Governments are instituted by men to maintain order in society. Our order is one that is moral as it values all expressions of life, and guranteew equality under law, this is what liberty is about.
Conservative Christian's that have a fundamental bent believe in the 'pro-life" movement. Their ultimate value is life, as it is believed to be given by God. God's sovereignty is understood in these circles to mean whatever happens is "God's will", as their understanding and commitment to liberty is limited.
These Christians believe that choice is not to be valued as to one's life, because life is pre-destined or pre-determined by sovereign right of God within "providence" or sovereign rule of scripture. These Christians do not understand that our country's ultimate value is based on liberty, not life.
Is life of value without choice or liberty? I believe not for liberty means justice, as to conscience about the details of one's life. But, while I believe that civil liberties are important, so is upholding moral order, which is based on "law".
Law is what is legislated and agreed upon to maintain order and a civil society. Therefore, there are many lives that are of value that the conservative would dismiss "in the name of God". I believe that this dismissal itself is abhorrent, as we should be intolerant of the intolerant. So, while we may disagree with how one chooses to live their life and the values they uphold, we must in a free society allow them their "freedom of conscience".
Freedom of conscience affirms the religious just as much as it affirms the "infidel". Therefore, we must not dismiss the other without acknowledging that we undermine the very values that our Founder's had, diversity.
Does this mean that someone has to tolerate or live within a group identity that is not conducive toward their convictions? No. Our country is large enough to embrace all forms of understanding. We just cannot tolerate the intolerant, when it comes to the values of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"! I think he is right, because otherwise we live, yes,
but under tyranny!
Today is the celebration of our Independence! And the meaning of this day is significant to the world, as it is and was an "American experiment' in diversity of every kind. Governments are instituted by men to maintain order in society. Our order is one that is moral as it values all expressions of life, and guranteew equality under law, this is what liberty is about.
Conservative Christian's that have a fundamental bent believe in the 'pro-life" movement. Their ultimate value is life, as it is believed to be given by God. God's sovereignty is understood in these circles to mean whatever happens is "God's will", as their understanding and commitment to liberty is limited.
These Christians believe that choice is not to be valued as to one's life, because life is pre-destined or pre-determined by sovereign right of God within "providence" or sovereign rule of scripture. These Christians do not understand that our country's ultimate value is based on liberty, not life.
Is life of value without choice or liberty? I believe not for liberty means justice, as to conscience about the details of one's life. But, while I believe that civil liberties are important, so is upholding moral order, which is based on "law".
Law is what is legislated and agreed upon to maintain order and a civil society. Therefore, there are many lives that are of value that the conservative would dismiss "in the name of God". I believe that this dismissal itself is abhorrent, as we should be intolerant of the intolerant. So, while we may disagree with how one chooses to live their life and the values they uphold, we must in a free society allow them their "freedom of conscience".
Freedom of conscience affirms the religious just as much as it affirms the "infidel". Therefore, we must not dismiss the other without acknowledging that we undermine the very values that our Founder's had, diversity.
Does this mean that someone has to tolerate or live within a group identity that is not conducive toward their convictions? No. Our country is large enough to embrace all forms of understanding. We just cannot tolerate the intolerant, when it comes to the values of life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death"! I think he is right, because otherwise we live, yes,
but under tyranny!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Intolerance for Intolerance
It was just reported on Fox news that a Muslim woman was be-headed for filing for divorce! The man is being charged with 2nd degree murdery. Hurrah for our govenment's "sense" of sensibility when it comes to religious conviction! We cannot tolerante religious intolerance, of any kind!
This is one freedom we are not going to tolerate, even in the name of religious freedom! We are a nation that believes that behavior is defined by law, and belief is personal and private. Therefore, we will not allow "morality" in the name of religion, to subvert ethical behavior toward those who differ!
This is one freedom we are not going to tolerate, even in the name of religious freedom! We are a nation that believes that behavior is defined by law, and belief is personal and private. Therefore, we will not allow "morality" in the name of religion, to subvert ethical behavior toward those who differ!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
BANNED!
My husband just came in from work and told me that Gert Wilders was invited to show his piece about Islam, in England, but was not allowed into the country. What? A free Western nation bans someone's free speech? Were they afraid of retaliation from extremists? Did they think that his criticism of a religion was inapropriate? Is tolerance to a religion, even if extreme, more important than freedom?
My husband said Wilders piece was only informing from the Koran, and showing how the Taliban implements their discipline. It takes great courage to inform such an intolerant tradition. There is no openness to another's opinions, at least, in the end. Their vision is total control and domination under God's rule.
Hirshi Aryan Ali warned that the tolerance and religious freedom of the West would allow free reign to political infilteration and finally an enslavement to a narrow view of religious tradition under Shairia Law. This is greatly disturbing to the future of our individual rights, human and otherwise.
My husband said Wilders piece was only informing from the Koran, and showing how the Taliban implements their discipline. It takes great courage to inform such an intolerant tradition. There is no openness to another's opinions, at least, in the end. Their vision is total control and domination under God's rule.
Hirshi Aryan Ali warned that the tolerance and religious freedom of the West would allow free reign to political infilteration and finally an enslavement to a narrow view of religious tradition under Shairia Law. This is greatly disturbing to the future of our individual rights, human and otherwise.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Identity, and 'Tolerance
People all have identities that are defined by nation, faith, cultural behaviors, family, tribe, job, etc. But, when our identities so tightly bind our 'necks" that we cannot engage another, then we cease to be tolerant. Intolerance happens all the time, in families, between nations, between cultures, between political ideologies, etc.
Tolerance is an ability to hear another and their values, desires, and goals. Part of conflict resolution, diplomatic efforts and strategic planning, is engaging the different. Those who are outside the community of dialogue cannot be an enthusiastic "team member". Of course, terrorists cannot be engaged, because they cease to be open to dialogue.
Terrorists are those who feel their "goal" is a goal that cannot be compromised because it is God's will and God's will must be done and others be damned. This is intolerance of the tyrannical kind. History, as well as present day dictators, illustrate this mentality. A mentality of intolerance is a mentality of "right". And the "right" is based on misguided principles of what is ultimately best.
It was good to see that recently Condaleesa Rice engaged Kadafi.
Tolerance is an ability to hear another and their values, desires, and goals. Part of conflict resolution, diplomatic efforts and strategic planning, is engaging the different. Those who are outside the community of dialogue cannot be an enthusiastic "team member". Of course, terrorists cannot be engaged, because they cease to be open to dialogue.
Terrorists are those who feel their "goal" is a goal that cannot be compromised because it is God's will and God's will must be done and others be damned. This is intolerance of the tyrannical kind. History, as well as present day dictators, illustrate this mentality. A mentality of intolerance is a mentality of "right". And the "right" is based on misguided principles of what is ultimately best.
It was good to see that recently Condaleesa Rice engaged Kadafi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
