Free Speech, an Absolute?

I just heard a different slant on why the pastor in Florida is going to burn the Koran on September 11th. He thinks this will underwrite his Constitutional right to "free speech".

The radio commentator also said that he was to do this to show his right in the face of decency, tolerance, sensitivity to religious plurality, etc. He uses the same argument that is being used to defend the Mosque being built in NYC.

Recently, there has been a urgent outcry against such an action due to the probable "costs" of American lives. The value of "making a statement" or "taking a stand on freedom of speech" is at odds to the possible reactions of radical Muslims.

While I may not agree that this action is politically sensitive, which value is more important? And more patriotic? Is it the value of individual life, or the value of individual liberty? Freedom of speech, or fear of retribution? Freedom of individual expression, or political correctness?  Some would believe that life is always of ultimate value, but then at what costs? Our military has been known to be upholding the value of liberty, as this is an ultimate American value.

 Political correctness, means that someone has decided what another should "stand for", and what their expression is allowed to express. This is what has hindered scientific understanding in the past. The Church was at odds to what scientists discovered. Should we continue to discriminate against "free thinkers"?

(post-script) I do believe there are boundaries to liberty, and these must be weighed by a wider context of values....

Literalizing Text, Tradition, and Science

For the past number of years, people have been analyzing Scripture as if "every dot and tittle" is true. The analysis assumes that the message is literally and universally true. The problem is that literalizing the life of Christ is absurd if one wants to have people that live in the "real world". The fundamentalists/evangelicals are pruod of this endeavor. But, no less proud are the literal scientific types.

These scientific types think that bringing about the "real Jesus" movement will bring in the Kingdom of God. These are the theologically and eschalogical literalists.

Others are more open to experiment upon actual "case studies" so they can further their speicific Christian disicpline to prove scientifically the "facts" of faith. And still others, are interested in building the church.

International business minds find they can "get a cut" out of the deal, as their are so many fundamentalists and evangelicals in the U.S. Play the game and get the benefit.

So many, the believers, un-believers and the ambitious are all "on board" to bring in the Kingdom of God.

But, what about those who have been so pre-ordained? How do they think and feel about such a method of crucifixion or "usefulness"? Is this loving? No, but it will train or teach or form the person into "God's image", the very image of Christ. The pietists and Kantians are enamored.

But, is this methoc kind and considerate? No, but the greater good will benefit and the "guinea pig" will learn to be "selfless". The educators and utiltarians are "lured".

And what about the poor, who are "useful" for political ends? Are they truely cared about by those that use them as a "means"?

You get the message. "Doing justly and loving mercy" is not about planning the Kingdom, or carrying out specific purposes of others. A man or woman of character cannot objectify another life in such a way, as the means de-means the very image of God. The means controls, manipulates, assumes, presumes, and thinks of an 'apology". And yet, these think they "do God's work" and "co-create with God". What they create is a monstrosity. It is evil itself, not "good".

This morning I was sent an e-mail from a friend about Shaine Clayborn, who wrote "Irresitible Revolution". This was the 'primer" of this "entry". Our university used it in thier "World Changers" course. My husband and I tried to use it to help these students understand that their lives could be used just as pursposefully, in a different way, than Shaine's "radicalism". That anything they choose to do can be useful in the world for God.

Shaine's premise is the love of God for the poor, which has become the politically and religiously correct view these days. His interest in the poor is because God is love. He has obviously experienced this love, to be able to know and share it. Fine. But, for those who do not have that "message" to impart, then what is the "Kingdom" for them?

Are others allowed to have different lives and not be "judged" as lacking commitment? Maybe this is a good "weeding out" as the radicals like to say, of those "chosen" and those "not chosen". That is fine, too. I just know I am not going to share what is not "reality" to me. And who should?

Christian and Islamic Radicalism

Radicalism is the decline of rational faith and the beginning of emotional reactive faith claims to exclusivity.

These claims cannot be reconciled or resolved by furthering radical's claims to absolute Truth.

Absolute truth claims in the Christian tradition is based on Scripture and/or Tradition. These believe that the Church or God's "Word" is God's revelation. And these think that others must be reached to further what they deem as absolute.

Islam is no less committed to absolute claims to faith. These believers, just as radical Chrsitian believers, are willing to die for their faith. It was reported that (Hassan's talk on the Koranic worldview affirmed death more than Americans value life.) Both leave behind this world for "that world", believing that this world is somehow less than "that world".

My husband recieved an e-mail from the Netherlands that suggested that the curse of the Christian Church was a lack of commitment and a lack of conviction. This would be true to radical idealists, who do not temper their understanding to be inclusive of difference. Everyone must "dot their "i"s and cross their "t"s" in the same way. There seems to be little or no understanding of man's limitation in understanding that world since that world is understood to be revealed and they "have recieved the revelation". How the revelation comes and what it depends on is what is debated.

Some Christians such as fundmentalists believe that Jesus, as God's revelation is an absolute. And that Scripture is God's testimoney to His Son. And His Son is the only entrance into heaven, as one must be 'born again". The text is considered closed by these believers because God has revealed everything that was needed in " His Son".

Fundamentalistic Islamic believers believe that Allah is the One and Only True God and that his messenger was Muhammed. Those who do not adhere or convert to Islam are infidels. And infidels are not considered equal to Muslim believers. The Koran is understood to be the text of their faith.

Both these traditions base thier claims on absolutistic understandings of God, as revealed in a text, visions, and eye-witness accounts. Both "win" when they are willing to "die for the cause of Christ or Allah".

The Essenes were the Jewish sect that believed in a sectarian view of life. But, i am not sure whether they understood themselves in exclusivistic ways.

In today's climate of violatility, we do not need radical faith, that cannot be verified. Dialogue is not possible with these that believe that they have THE handle on Truth. The Transcendental in this view, is to be loved over the Material.

I am afraid for our future in this world, if radical claims of faith continue to be perpetuated, at the costs of many lives, and without recourse for the value of diversity.

I am not sure of how radicalism can be tempered, as the radical always thinks that when other do not believe as he does, that it just proves the validity of his faith and his "specialness" in 'knowing the Truth". Persecution is a validation, instead of a correction. These are not open to input. But, they definatley think others should be open, or else these radicals will do the persecuting.

Happy 9-11? The Challenge of Liberty and Justice.

Of course 9-11 was not "happy". And because we do not want to experience such a "happy" occassion again, we cannot forget what is symbolized.

9-11 symbolized such a radical faith that men and women are willing to die for it. This faith is a faith that is based not on reason, but revelation. It is not just a transcentdental view of life, but also, a political one. Islam is a politicized faith. And such a politicized faith as an absolutist, exclusivistic, and intolerant one, is dangerous indeed. It does not allow women and children basic human rights nor is it open to change. Those who impose laws that support such a faith are intolerant and authoritarian.

Our Founders found a nation based on freedoms. Freedoms from human authorities and based on the "rule of law". Men and women were willing to die for such liberties. Such radical commitment to the values that underwrote our Constitution are what gain human liberty and underwrite human rights movement. America's laws protect individual liberties and are not intolerant, unchanging and authoritarian.

Our nation is known for it opportunites and its innovation. We are a nation that absorbs all cultures and does not discriminate based upon personal convictions. Freedom of thought and speech guaruntees that the public's interest will be won at the ballot box. Our views have been so conditioned by such an environment, that it is hard for us to imagine such an oppressive religious regime. Our Founders protected our society from religious wars by the Establishment Clause.

Now, on the twilight of a decade of struggling against a religious view, our nation finds itself in a type of 'religious war' over legislation and how we should treat those who do not respect the 'rule of law'. This is a dangerous time in our country's history, but not because of "God's impending judgment" upon an ungodly nation, but because of the undermining of our country's valuing of liberty and law. We are unlike any other nation, because we are a government "for the people and by the people". Let us count our blessing todays and not forget the costs of liberty and furthering justice.

Aren't you glad that you live in America?

A Radical's Call to Faith

Radicals, of all kinds, understand themselves as "special emmisaries" of one sort or another. They believe that they have "special revelation" that supercedes all other kinds of knowledge. These people are not rational, as they believe that faith is the "lone" and "sole" reason for life itself. They believe that they "know God" in some mystical experiential way or in some "specially revealed text". These people are malinformed and are not open to any "different" information. Their "world" is already determined by their "world", so any "evidence" that contradicts their "understanding" is dismissed. Their very identity is tied up into their "world". These have no "self", as "self" has not developed beyond the dependent stage of a child.

This is Not saying that people of faith are all "wackos" or not mature people. No, the ones I am identifying are those that have an unhealthy need to understand their "world" as "absolute" and imposing upon others. People of faith can be reasonable and rational, while understanding that how they understand their "world" is a "fill in the gap" way of formulating things that are beyond our ability to really "know". It is mystery.

These radicals are filled with fear of everything from what they think, and read, to what they wear. These are superstitous people. They fear imposing and imminent danger if they do not "cross" their t's and dot their i's. They live in a very narrow and dark place, where ghosts and goblins exist and might any moment take their life.

I find that radicals are determined to "prove" their loyalty by sacrifice and service of many kinds. They believe that this proves something to God, others and themselves. They fear that they might not have faith, so they become obsessive and defensive about their faith. Challenging such people only leads them to personally attack their "assailant", or plan for 'revenge".

These radicals not only seek to "prove" faith but they are also competitive. They long for the accolades of honor for their faithful service and will kill themselves in carrying out heroic attempts at attaining "top dog" status. They truly believe Hebrews, when it says to run the race, as if only one will win. They want to win at all costs.

Although I have reservations, if not outright abhorrence, in some regards to these radicals, at least they are willing to be consistent to their commitments, and ideals. For this, they can be applauded. I just don't think that being so OCD is healthy.

The Documentary "Obsession"

This evening my son, his fiance', my husband and I watched a documentary that my sister in law had sent us about Islam. It was filled with testimonies from actual ex-terrorists, and Muslims, themselves.

In the film, there was a dire warning of radical Islam, while supporting moderate Muslims. The similarities drawn between radical Muslims, and Nazi Germany, was eerie. The similarities were not just thier commitment to takeover the West, but also down to the details of its symbolism.

Edmund Burke said that all that needed to happen to allow evil to prevail is for good men to not act. I am afraid that our "political correctness" caused us to be inactive toward this radicalism. And it has furthered the agenda of evil dreams to transform the West into a terrotory for Allah.

Perhaps, because the roots of Islam, Judiasm and Christianity lie in the same history, the West has acquiesed to a tolerant attitude at large toward Islam. A radical tolerance is a "welcome mat" for domination, as this is the very "hope" of these radicals, taking the world for Islam! Is the West too naive, or been so far removed from religious ideology that we sleep, while the "devil" is at the door, waiting to come in?

In one segment, an ex-Nazi youth was interviewed about his submission to Hitler's ideological "mantra" of superiority. The British Prime minister at that time had signed a "peace agreement" with Hitler that he waved before the new media as a "sign" of "goodwill" and forthcoming peaceful world. Ideologies do not bow to compromise, as their absolute understanding of reality is not to be denied. It is sad to say that many have painted the West as the culprit of this evil, by demonizing the West as imperialistic, while the Islamic media use terrorizing and violent propaganda to demonize the West. The stark reality is that the West is "apologetic" toward any attempt at defending its right to exist and "be different". And we are seeing the underming of our laws in the West, because of our tolerance and deference to an ideological "evil".

It is very clear to me that what is called conservative Christian faith and discipleship is very similar to radical Islam. The similarities run from the "vision" of world domination to "martyrdom for the faith" as being considered "sold out to "God" (Allah)...This type of faith is not rational and cannot be appealed to based on reason. These "faithful" have left reason behind, as faith alone matters.

I fear for our country, and the West, its ideals of freedom, which Islam hates. Uniformity and unity is the mantra of the radical. I fear for the ideals of life, as "death" to self, either literally or figuratively is the "ideal" of commitment and discipleship in radical faith traiditons.

Hopefully, we have enough leadership in Washington to help shore up our defense against such radical ideologies, cultures, and faith commitments.