Quran Burning and a Sense of Proportion

September 10th, 2010

Just as I sat down to write about the Quran-burning controversy, the story changed. Then it changed again. Terry Jones, the pastor of this tiny church in Gainesville, Florida, first called off the Quran burning. This undoubtedly was a great disappointment to the media that hyped the non-story into a story. 

Jones says he did so because the imam who was pushing for the Ground Zero Mosque had agreed to move the mosque to a different location. Apparently, this was news to Iman Rauf, who almost immediately refuted the claim.

Then later, Jones said he was lied to about the mosque being moved, so his Quran burning is merely suspended, not officially called off. By the time you read this, the story may have taken another twist. Frankly, I’m having a hard time keeping up with it.

What have we got here? I don’t know Mr. Jones. Obviously, I won’t be the first person to denounce his original plan; neither am I alone in that denunciation. I seem to have joined a chorus that includes roughly the entire universe. The denunciation is richly deserved. Even though I don’t consider the Quran a valid holy book, if I am a true Christian, my goal is to love Muslims into searching for the real truth. How many Muslims will Mr. Jones convert with his approach?

Yes, it’s easy to condemn Jones. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture. It starts with the media making this into a major event, stoking the story and turning it into a drama of worldwide proportions. No, this is one off-base individual perhaps seeking publicity. Well, thanks to the insatiable desire for “news,” he succeeded.

Another aspect of this is the tarring of all Christians with the “Jones Brush.” The Muslim world, which rarely needs an excuse to be outraged anyway, now is up in arms [both symbolically and literally] against the “crusaders.” If Jones is indeed a genuine Christian, he has now done a great disservice to those he claims are his brothers and sisters.

A sense of proportion is required. Sensitivity is the word being bandied about with respect to the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. How about some balance?

And even though I disapprove of Quran burning, we need to compare that deed with others:

Those who claim to be the face of moderate Islam, such as Imam Rauf, need to start trumpeting more loudly their moderation. Yet, when Rauf appeared on CNN the other night, he did just the opposite. He said that the mosque must be at the Ground Zero site more than ever now because if it is moved after all the controversy, “anger will explode in the Muslim world.”

In other words, you’d better let us fulfill our plans for building the mosque or there will be even greater repercussions. It was a not-so-veiled threat: do what we want or else.

Meanwhile, buried in all this barrage of back-and-forth outrage is a story that appeared on CNN’s website [yes, I know I've referenced CNN twice in this posting---that's a record for me]. It seems that our own military in Afghanistan confiscated Bibles printed in the two most common Afghan languages and burned them. We are so culturally sensitive that we won’t even allow Bibles to exist in that country. You can read the whole story right here.

If this becomes widely known, I wonder what the response of the Christian community will be? Protests in the streets? Riots? Demands that infidels be killed? We all know that won’t be the response. True Christians persevere in showing love and forgiveness, and in offering the way, the truth, and the life.

Awakened from a Stupor?

September 9th, 2010

President Obama had a clear plan when he took office. It wasn’t difficult to decipher the plan, at least not for those who actually knew his previous record as the most “progressive” senator in Congress. Yet he was able to fool enough people enough of the time to get elected. That’s because most people didn’t realize the plan was the following:

Simple, right? Many were shocked by the radicalism and/or the redistribution. The path to reelection, though, has been cluttered with failure:

I’ve commented before that Obama seems to be living in a fantasy world. As the economy continues to plummet, he declares that we are going the right direction. Now he’s pushing for a new $50 billion stimulus [so-called]. It’s supposed to take care of the nation’s infrastructure [which is what the previous $862 billion was created to do]. He also promised this week that it would immediately lead to so many new jobs we would spring back into robust economic life. I seem to remember that same promise with the $862 billion. A spokesman for his administration had to admit the new money would be spread out over six years.

That calls for a new definition of “immediate.”

While accusing Republicans of having no new ideas and just reverting to the “failed policies of the past,” what is the president doing but reverting to his own failed policies?

That’s pretty bad aim.

With the November elections coming at him and fellow Democrats like a tidal wave that will sweep them away, Obama has decided to offer a few trinkets to small businesses. Yet whatever “tax breaks” he proposes are largely illusory, and most definitely temporary.

Will those who were fooled in 2008 be fooled again this time around? If they are, we will deserve the misery we will get. Yet I am more hopeful. Many have awakened from their stupor. The real question is whether there will be enough awakened voters to reverse course. This election is very crucial to the future of our country.

Alaska, Florida, and Forfeiting One’s Soul

September 8th, 2010

I’ve waited a while to comment on the Alaska Republican Senate primary. Virtually no one gave Joe Miller any chance of unseating incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski. Yet the inconceivable actually occurred. The race was close, and the win was razor thin, but a win it was for Miller, who is much more conservative than Murkowski and allied with the Tea Party.

Sarah Palin, from the outset, gave her support to Miller. The Murkowski family has owned Alaska politics for some time; Palin is the one who defeated Frank Murkowski, the incumbent governor, in an earlier primary a few years ago. Could it be that the dynasty is dead?

Sen. Murkowski has been fueling rumors that she’s not necessarily finished with this race. She is toying with two possible scenarios: one, as the candidate for the Libertarian Party; two, running as a write-in. Either possibility could spell defeat for Miller, if not victory for Murkowski. In other words, she is considering acting as the spoiler in the race.

For someone like me, who lives in Florida, this has a familiar ring: a Republican incumbent who assumed an easy victory turning to an independent bid for a seat. Is Murkowski trying to be the new Charlie Crist? Perhaps she should check on how that’s working for him. The latest poll shows Crist ten points behind Marco Rubio, the Republican whose popularity drove Crist from the Senate race to begin with.

For some people, letting go of political power is unthinkable. It’s as if they would have no real life without it. Actually, I feel sorry for that type of person. Life is more than politics, and if that is what gives you an identity, you are to be pitied.

I’m reminded of this poignant comment:

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will he give in exchange for his soul?

Life is found in Jesus Christ, not in any glories or positions of authority we achieve in this world.

Insulting American Citizens . . . and the Consequences

September 7th, 2010

The media is portraying voters as being in a foul mood. Well, there certainly is some anger out there. Many are upset over being led astray—they expected something different from what they were told was a different kind of candidate. It turns out Obama is no different than any other progressive ideologue. Democrats are worried as they contemplate the coming elections:

Perhaps it has escaped their notice that they’ve spent a lot of time accusing Americans of various crimes of the heart and mind:

After insulting the average American for the past 18 months, it’s no wonder perceptions have changed:

The real hurt will come in November.

Baneful Effects of NEA-Led Education

September 6th, 2010

Since it’s Labor Day, what better day to talk about one of the largest and most influential unions in the country—the National Education Association [NEA]. This also allows me to continue my intermittent history of American education.

The NEA was founded in Philadelphia in 1857. The ostensible rationale for its creation was to provide a voice for all teachers in the nation to promote the interests of the profession. A statement from that initial meeting said it hoped to one day see a federal department of education. Well, that certainly has come to pass.

The biggest problem with the NEA is that it quickly came under the control of the progressive education movement, with John Dewey as its head. Dewey became a regular speaker at NEA conventions. Willard Givens, who served as president of the NEA from 1935-1952, called himself a socialist [as was Dewey]. It was Givens who gave the impetus to the policy of requiring all members of state and local education associations to become members of the NEA. He also endorsed world government, hoping thereby to eliminate America’s national sovereignty.

Givens said the following about the nature of the education he promoted:

The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order.

The new order Givens sought was a socialist society.

The NEA began active political lobbying in 1961 and was instrumental in passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the first time the federal government got involved in education at those levels.

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to legislate on education, but that didn’t stop the NEA.

In 1981, a reporter for the communist Daily World, after attending the NEA’s annual convention, filed this report:

Nowhere in the basic documents of NEA, in their resolutions or new business items, are there any anti-Soviet or anti-socialist positions. … It [the NEA] will increasingly be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow trade unionists as the class struggle intensifies.

In other words, the NEA was totally in sync with the aims of the Soviet Union when it existed. What are some of those resolutions the reporter identified? The basic ones have remained unchanged for years.

First, it must be understood that the NEA seeks to be the sole voice for American education. It wants to dictate standards for every school, including all private schools and home schoolers. No one should be allowed to teach, declares the NEA, unless licensed by the state and using a state-approved curriculum. If that resolution ever becomes law, all private education will be destroyed.

Many of the resolutions have little to do with education per se. As you meander through them, you discover that the NEA also takes a stand in favor of homosexuality and abortion, and in opposition to the teaching of any religious doctrines. Also on the agenda are national healthcare, radical environmentalism, gun control, and unilateral disarmament.

Sound like a wonderful organization? Keep in mind it’s the leading voice for the education profession in America, and that it’s very difficult for public school teachers to remain independent of it. In some states, they are required to join; in others, they are pressured to become a member; if they refuse, they are ostracized.

And all the while, our education gets worse. It is a union; it is a lobbying organization; it cares little for actual educational improvement. Education is merely the medium through which its leaders seek to impose their agenda on the nation.

John 15:18-24

September 5th, 2010

Jesus at the Last Supper

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.

Imam Rauf and Religious Liberty

September 4th, 2010

As the Ground Zero Mosque controversy remains an emotional issue, new information has surfaced about the Imam who is the primary promoter of its presence close to the WTC site. All is not as advertised.

Feisal Abdul Rauf has been described as a Muslim moderate, yet he basically blames American foreign policy for 9/11 and refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization. If this is the face of moderate Islam, there is little hope for peaceful resolution of differences.

Good journalistic work [rare nowadays] has now uncovered even more about his dealings with people who depend on him and with his honesty.

First, it turns out Rauf is a slum landlord. Tenants in his apartments describe the living conditions as awful. They say he does nothing to correct the problems. He’s in it for the money, apparently, not to help others.

Second, as reported in the New York Post and highlighted at National Review, he’s willing to lie to get tax breaks:

The leader of the Ground Zero mosque got hugely valuable tax-exempt status for a Muslim organization he founded after claiming as many as 500 of its members prayed daily in a small, one-bedroom Upper West Side apartment also listed as his wife’s residence, The Post has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf sought “church status” — an official IRS term for a house of worship of any religion — for the American Sufi Muslim Association, or ASMA, in 1998. The feds granted the request.

“Church status” is more than just an exemption — it means never having to pay taxes, file returns or reveal the sources of a congregation’s money or how it’s spent, according to the Washington-based Investigative Project on Terrorism, which discovered the group’s startling claims on the IRS form it filed seeking the special status.

Unless you really believe that 500 people are praying daily in his one-bedroom apartment of 800 square feet, you have to conclude that he’s a world-class liar.

Now, I understand the point people make when they say we are a nation that honors religious liberty. Without that, we would be in bad shape indeed. But when someone like Imam Rauf wants to push his religious liberty, opening a mosque close to Ground Zero when the type of people he supports are responsible for the 9/11 act of war, it’s legitimate to question his motives, at the very least. And for many, the erection of that mosque has the appearance of a victory monument.

Does freedom of religion really mean we have to accept this Islamic center/mosque, particularly when he is free to build anywhere else he chooses? The governor of New York has offered to discuss an alternative site; Rauf refuses to consider it. Why?

Are you aware there is a church that was destroyed on 9/11, and it has never received permission from the city government to rebuild? Yet there is no such restriction on Rauf and his dream.

A little equity, please?

There are excellent reasons to deny permission to build this mosque on that site, but this might be the best one:

Words Without Meaning

September 3rd, 2010

President Obama has announced that the Iraq War has ended. I hope he’s right, but I can’t say I have much confidence in his ability to discern such things. He did call former president Bush before making his televised speech. That was nice. He even commented that though he disagreed with the former president on the war that Bush was a genuine American who cared for the country and the troops. At least he refrained this time from the blame game. I was concerned the speech might go something like this instead:

Even though he kept himself from blaming Bush publicly this time, he did still take credit for bringing the troops home, neglecting to mention that it was the Bush plan for removing the troops that he was following. He also neglected to mention something else:

Now it’s time to put all this behind us. We’re supposed to focus on other things now, not that really expensive war:

The numbers tell the true story. Was the war expensive? Absolutely. Is it to blame for our current economic mess? Absolutely not. Obama and the congressional Democrats have figured out how to dwarf war spending many times over. Wasting $862 billion in one year is a new record. And look what it has accomplished:

But we’re supposed to believe the economy is heading in the right direction:

Words have lost their real meaning.

The Restoring Honor Rally: A Reflection

September 2nd, 2010

I wasn’t able to attend the Restoring Honor Rally in D.C. last Saturday, but I know a couple of people who did. They were deeply impressed by what they experienced. The crowd easily exceeded expectations, with estimates running as low as 300,000 [how's that for a "low"?] up to more than 500,000. The central stage was the Lincoln Memorial.

In this picture, you get only some idea of the size of the crowd. A bird’s-eye view provides a better perspective:

That’s the Lincoln Memorial in the distance. Up close is the WWII Memorial. The crowd filled the entire space between the two, and even went further back than this picture shows, all the way to the Washington Monument.

Impressive, to say the least.

What inspired people to make this journey? Well, there certainly were some attractions. For one, Sarah Palin was a key speaker, and undoubtedly a drawing card for many. She, and all the other speakers, set aside partisan politics for the day and spoke instead about honoring those who have served in the military, remembering another speech at this spot in 1963—”I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King—and calling for a return to faith in God.

Of course, the main organizer for this rally, Glenn Beck, was on hand as well. His stated goal was to bring together people of all faiths for a common purpose, what he and others termed a spiritual revival.

This is where it gets controversial. Before going any further, let me say that I am in complete agreement that a spiritual revival is essential to bring this country back from the brink of an untold disaster. I understand Beck’s desire and support him in that quest. The real question is whether there can be a genuine spiritual renewal if Jesus Christ is not central to it.

I have watched Beck’s television program on a consistent basis. I applaud most of what I see. He has provided a valuable service in exposing the roots of progressivism, in upholding the authority of the Constitution and the rule of law, and in telling people that faith in God is the most significant factor for any restoration of the Founding principles. Building a coalition of groups who have that same vision is a good thing. Therefore, I do support the intent of the rally and I know that it was a force for good in the country.

The key, though, is whether this movement, as it goes forward, is going to be a Christian-based endeavor. Beck is a Mormon. I have some knowledge of Mormon theology, and it is decidedly not Christian. I know it is politically incorrect to say such a thing. I can never now run for office. That’s okay—I never planned to do so. The Mormon concept of the nature of God and Jesus is not compatible with orthodox Christianity. The theology of salvation for Mormons is not the same as the Christian explanation.

Now, as I’ve listened to Beck, I’ve wondered just how much he really understands Mormonism because his words, at least as he explains his view of salvation, sound as orthodox as any Christian’s. I can safely let God be the judge of his heart. However, a clear line does need to be drawn between what is definitively, uniquely Christian and that which is not.

In the political world, as I’ve noted, coalitions need to be formed. I can unite with Mormons, Jews, and anyone else who wants to see the same political result as I do. But a government is not the church. Salvation will never emanate from any government. The message of individual salvation remains in the Christian faith, which proclaims that Jesus is the only way, truth, and life.

I’ve read some critiques of the rally that have been rather censorious of it due to its mixed leadership—the attempt to meld all religious beliefs into one. I understand that. However, we should keep in mind that the movement, such as it is, does promote basic Biblical attitudes and principles, even if some in the movement are not personally Christian. Anything that nudges us closer to the truth is welcome.

When I teach about the American Founding, I make it clear that not everyone was a Christian at that time, yet nearly everyone operated on a consensus that was formed from the Biblical worldview. We could be seeing that same development today.

I think it is highly likely that the majority of those who attended the Restoring Honor Rally did so as proponents of the Biblical worldview. If the rank and file is made up of that type, there is hope for our future. We certainly could do worse than return to the status of the Founding, where even those who were not Christians still understood the world through the Christian prism.

Therefore, I urge my Christian brethren not to be too critical at this point. Let’s see where this leads. God works through His people, but He also works through those who don’t always realize He is doing so.

Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

September 1st, 2010

Yesterday, my posting on Big Government appeared—a commentary on the Seventeenth Amendment, which changed how senators are chosen. The repercussions of this change are many, yet most people are unaware of them. Roe v. Wade, for instance, may have come about partially because of this amendment. If you are interested, go to

http://biggovernment.com/asnyder/2010/08/31/restoring-federalism-repeal-the-seventeenth-amendment/#more-161853