A Grain of Salt

Well, I’ll be darned.

People are arguing again.

It seems that CBS approved an ad from Focus on the Family, a Christian organization, that seems to portray an anti-abortion slant, featuring Tim Tebow and his mother. She talks about her decision to ignore a doctor’s advice and carry tim to term, despite health risks. I personally have not seen the ad yet, and I’m not entirely sure anyone has. But many groups have decided that they do not like the message one bit.

“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year — an event designed to bring Americans together,” Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center, said in a statement.

Well. Although I can’t find  a direct quote, I can remember that I heard one woman from a similar organization call the commercial a “message of hate.” She said that it was wrong for the group to only present it’s point of view as the correct one. Well, I have a problem with that.

Everything presents an opinion. Watch any commercial. Do you hear “Buy our product, but the others are just as good?” No. Anyone with any message comes an opinion. It is ridiculous to believe that any one message can be banned for not supporting it’s detractors. Some may take another route, however, and claim that CBS’ decision to not air ads from the Church of Christ and PETA show obvious favoritism. Short answer- they recently changed there practices regarding ads. Long answer- THEY RECENTLY CHANGED THERE PRACTICES REGARDING ADS. There. I said it. Now everyone, shut up and watch the Super Bowl.

Well, ain’t this cool news.

It seems that our friends in Britain have declared a fatwa against Islamic extremism. For those who don’t know, a fatwa is essentially an official statement by an Islamic ulema, a kind of religious legal expert, that someone or some practice violates the law of the Koran. This specific case is probably surprising to many people, especially those who view Islam as a religion of violence.

The document, written by Dr Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri, a former minister of Pakistan and friend of Benazir Bhutto, declares suicide bombings and terrorism as “totally un-Islamic”. It is one of the most detailed and comprehensive documents of its kind to be published in Britain.

The fatwa, which was released in Pakistan last month, uses texts from the Koran and other Islamic writings to argue that attacks against innocent citizens are “absolutely against the teachings of Islam and that Islam does not permit such acts on any excuse, reason or pretext”.

What many people (Including many Christians!) seem to forget is that Islam is, to most of it’s followers, a religion of peace. But that news is hard to bare with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Islamic extremists are seen as our one enemy. Truth be told, Islamic extremists are more than likely the most common, if not only enemy we face. But this fact has led to a horrible increase in anti-Muslim sentiments across the western world. What these leads to is- to put it bluntly, horrible cases of hypocracy.

Most Christians today seem to be getting uptight and generally paranoid about the government forces that they see as being “unfair”, “anti-religious”, or “prejudiced”. But how can we complain about our own treatment when we harbor such hatred against others? Have we forgotten the Golden Rule? Or maybe we just think it only applies when we are treated unfairly? Maybe what we need to remember is- fairness applies to everyone, and we are ORDERED to love everyone as we love ourselves. So instead of passing the blame for our misfortunes around, maybe when we begin treating others fairly we will get the blessings we want.

Last week, I did something I thought I would never do, but I guess I was speeding toward since I started this blog. I started at a USA Today article about a bishop (Nick Baines) that supposedly “slammed” Christmas carols in a recent book. Judging by the wording of the article, along with the title of the book (which was suspiciously missing it’s sub-title) Why Wish You a Merry Christmas, I assumed that he was another  one of the bunch of crazies that look to profit off Christmas by stirring up controversy, then fading into the background.

Boy, was I in for a surprise.

Almost immediately after the post, I got a message from the author, which you can read by scrolling down a little bit. I don’t feel like copy-pasting the whole thing again.

There, now that you’ve read it, you can understand why I was so embarrassed. With no other knowledge of the book than a news article, I attacked the author. Turns out, USA Today never contacted Nick– and left out what I consider to a very important piece of understanding the meaning of this book, the sub-title. What matters (and what doesn’t) in the festive season is actually a book that (after more research) I can say I recommend to any and everyone who can get their hands on it. And again, my apologies to Mr. Baines.

Startin’ here this week.

In recent years, some Americans have come to view science and religion as consistent antagonists, butting heads over everything from the origin of the cosmos to when human life begins (abortion) and when it ends (euthanasia).

This article was written by a columnist on the USA Today website. After a brief explanation of the views of “Conservative denominations,” he states the reason for bringing the topic up.

The issue surfaced again over the summer. When President Obama named Francis Collins, an outspoken evangelical as well as former director of the Human Genome Project, to head the National Institutes of Health, some scientists, secularists and at least one prominent atheist criticized the appointment. They were concerned that Collins’ faith might influence his decisions at the NIH. This despite the fact that Collins, author of The Language of God, supports both evolution and embryonic stem cell research

This really shows a lot about… well, everyone. First, the “scientists, secularists, and at least one prominent atheist.” They believe that the new appointee would be influenced negatively by his faith. Maybe they don’t entirely realize the point of this government- to represent the people. When the majority of the nation is against abortion, isn’t it logical to have a leader who reflects those views? And if President Obama felt it appropriate to appoint the man to the position in the first place, then shouldn’t we trust that the decisions made will be good ones that reflect common opinion? I realize that their exists a very simple argument against this one, so I’ll go ahead and address it. “Well when people you disagree with are appointed,” some of you may be thinking, “why do you always go up in protest against them?” Well, first of all, I prefer to wait and see a politicians decisions before I decide anything about them, while trying not to pin the blame on their moral character. And if I do decide to protest, it’s because I disagree with some of the decisions that they have made. Not for the reason of disagreeing with their belief system.

Next is the way the Christian community as a whole is viewed. These people obviously see us as all holding the same opinions- the outcry wasn’t against him, it was against the way they felt he would respond. So these scientists may think that all evangelical Christians hold the same opinion. Sure there are several beliefs that all Christians should share, but some are simply a matter of belief. I think that Christians should embrace and share the differences that we have, explore them, and then maybe come to a reasonable conclusion. That may be too much to ask. But maybe if we can get the world to see us differently, these kind of disgraces wouldn’t happen.

More on the rest of the article next week.

I guess this isn't King James...

Ha ha. Wow.

For all of you who may have happened to miss the link… well, I’ll just copy the entire article.

CANTON, North Carolina (AP) — A North Carolina pastor says his church plans to burn Bibles and books by Christian authors on Halloween to light a fire under true believers.

Pastor Marc Grizzard told Asheville TV station WLOS that the King James version of the Bible is the only one his small western North Carolina church follows. He says all other versions, such as the Living Bible, are “satanic” and “perversions” of God’s word.

I just… wow. Again, I have two main points about this article. The first of which is, well, get over it. The King James version, while poetic, striking, and powerful is NOT THE ONLY VERSION OF THE BIBLE. You read that right. I do love me some King James, to be true, but when people claim it is the only REAL version that can be trusted, it gets to me. Sure, several other translations may leave out verses, making King James one of the most accurate. But to a new Christian, accuracy may take a back seat to readability. To anyone new to the faith, I recommend a read-through of John, in a version like NIV. But for later study, I cannot recommend King James highly enough. It’s accuracy is unparalleled. Now, this person has taken this thought process to it’s logical extreme- the versions that don’t match up with this one are from the devil… Offending anyone who reads them and deeply confusing new believers who rely on their language.

Secondly, this is exactly the sort of action that portrays Christianity as a fragmented religion. I can see nothing wrong with the books of Billy Graham, (though Rick Warren… meh.) and think he is one of the centuries’ greatest evangelists. If you’re going to do something like this, try something a little less…drastic. Perhaps a seminar on why you believe these things are wrong, a sermon, or maybe even your own book. But actions like this serve no purpose other than to rile people up and draw attention to yourself. So THINK BEFORE YOU ACT. The appearance of our religion is failing, and we need to set the public right about the world’s true religion of love.

A small side note- appearance isn’t everything. More on that later.

The answer to God?

While exploring last week’s topic, I came across this little gem. In the article, it explains the recent trend of  de-baptism, where the water of baptism is symoblically blown off with a hairdryer labeled “Reason”. Afterward, the newly de-baptized enjoy an “anti-sacrament” of peanut butter and crackers. The group said-

“We made fun of Islam, we made fun of Hinduism, we made fun of Christianity with intent to be blasphemous on purpose to make a point” about a proposed anti-blasphemy initiative at the United Nations, Scott said. “It’s not done with malice or intent to offend. But anytime you criticize religion or poke fun at what atheists would call the sillier parts of religion, you’re going to offend somebody. There’s just no way around that.”

First, personal freedom is a pillar of the American ideal. I believe that this person had every right to say what he said. I also believe that I have the right to disagree with him. This statement is entirely innapropriate. If the only way you can get your point across is to be “blasphemous”, then maybe you should rethink your standing. Secondly, and bigger…

The actions described in this article are a great way to demean the power of God. Just by performing this action they (if they care) are saying that God is not as powerful as… a hairdryer. They are saying that they can remove themselves from the will of God with a quick burst of air. Once you have accepted Christ, (I believe) you cannot leave him. Like a father and son, you can never stop being his child, though your relationship may change. Also, with the hairdryer marked reason, what are the really saying?

That reason is the enemy of God.

No.

We CANNOT let this become a commonly thought ideal- if it does… well, we’re done.

We have to act against this, letting people know that God is not anti intelligence, anti science, or anti anyone. Show love, show intelligence, show passion, and show restraint in all these, and spread the word of the love of Christ.

Nones- American’s who profess no religious affiliation- now make up 15 percent of the population. Given their rapid growth, their numbers might soon surpass the nation’s largest denominations. but get this: Twenty-four percent [of Nones] say they believe in ‘a higher power but no personal God,’ the belief that used to be called Deism. they don’t believe in Scripture, or cotton to organized religion. But in the privacy of their home, they think that the distant, aloof God occasionally checks in to listen to their prayers.                             – Beliefnet founder Steve Waldman, quoted in  the Wall Street Journal

This is… shocking. According to USA today, the Nones now take up more of the population than Catholics and Baptists. ‘Baptist’ is very broad, however, and encompasses several different denominations.

It seems the people of the United States have decided to join the movements against Christianity. Why would they choose to believe in an impersonal, uncaring god, when they have the choice of a loving God, who cares for them and wants the best for them? It doesn’t seem to me to be too large of a step from ‘a higher power’ to God. The good news is that people who do believe in a ‘higher power’ will (most likely) more easily turned to Christ than one who does not believe in any sort of God. But the main point seems to me to be this blurb near the bottom of the USA Today piece.

The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or “born again,” was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.

This is very interesting to me- not the content, but it’s placement. It takes digging to find this. In addition, the title of the articles is “Nones now 15% of population.” Simply reading that, along with the opening paints a very different picture of the religious affiliations of our country today. When you read into it though, you see a new portrait- one of a constant group of faithful Christians who call themselves just that, while the different denominations have slowly decreased. I find it interesting that this facet was placed farther down the page- almost as if showing the steady faithfulness of the church would somehow discredit the rest of the article or it’s message. Of course, I could be mistaken. Maybe it was placed their purely arbitrarily. Who knows.