• Recent Posts

  • Patriarchs, Prime Ministers, and Currency
  • After Eating and Praying and Loving
  • Dread and Hope
  • Newt Gingrich May Be Right … But His Reasons Are Bad Ones
  • Can We Recover a Healthy Debating Ethic?

• Recent Comments

  • clau 2002 on Patriarchs, Prime Ministers, and Currency
  • Babs M on Sexual Assault: Stop Blaming the Victims
  • katie pie on Pune Tragedy: A Prayer for the Dead and Wounded
  • Sara Harnetty on Sexual Assault: Stop Blaming the Victims
  • judy on Sexual Assault: Stop Blaming the Victims

Romania’s central bank on Thursday said it would not withdraw from circulation a coin featuring an image of a prime minister who stripped Jews of their citizenship before World War II, stressing it had not intended to send an anti-Semitic message. The coin depicts the late Patriarch Miron Cristea, who led the Romanian Orthodox Church from 1925 to 1939 and was prime minister from 1938 to 1939. A commission set up by the National Bank to reconsider it said it was minted only as one of five to commemorate Romania’s five patriarchs at the request of Romania’s influential Orthodox Church.

Is it surprising that the head of a church which taught virulent anti-Semitism for centuries was himself an anti-Semite who fundamentally opposed the notion that Jews were full and equal citizens? Yes, it’s disturbing, but is it really a big deal? It’s a coin! Why should everyone from the ADL to the United States Holocaust Museum and Memorial being getting involved in this? I’ll tell you why. In the ongoing search for post-Soviet national identity, Eastern and Central European nations are reaching back to religious and cultural traditions that were often hostile to Jews and followers of any religion other than the one claimed by the nation’s majority, dangerously xenophobic, highly undemocratic, and generally medieval. That’s scary.

While this coin, in and of itself is really not such a big deal, and the need for recovered national identities is quite real in those countries which saw such identities forcibly ripped away by wars and communist oppression, how that recovery process proceeds has real implications not only for Jews, but for all of Europe and for the rest of the world. Failing to attend to these issues could spawn an ongoing series of civil wars that will make what happened in the former Yugoslavia look like child’s play. Rather than simply complain and shame the Romanians about their decision to honor Miron Crista, I hope that people will engage them, support their search for renewed national identity, and help them to see that it will never be one of which they can be fully proud if it is based on the work of people who were motivated by hate. Not all Jew-hatred demands such a civilized response, to be sure, but in this case, something greater is at stake and there is a real opportunity to use a moment of hurt to help others heal.

“Go to yourself” (lekh lekha in Hebrew) is how Abraham’s journey, begins. That is the command which Abraham will spend the rest of his life trying to fulfill, as will all of us who are on a spiritual journey. Unlike the journey out of the Garden of Eden undertaken by Adam and Eve — a journey compelled by their landlord, the Lord — the successful spiritual journey is not a forced exit from anywhere.

The successful spiritual journey is a natural outgrowth of asking ourselves where we need to be, where we are most likely to fulfill whatever it is we understand to be our life’s purpose. It’s not so much about what we must drop as what we are willing to take on.

It can happen sitting at home, in the desserts of the Middle East, or on the road to Italy, India, and Indonesia, as it does in Eat,Pray,Love.

But the successful spiritual journey is not only about our inner lives, or even limited to ourselves, at least not if we are following in the footsteps of Abraham. Abraham is promised that his journey, if taken well, will bring him great things — he will be blessed. But that is not all. He is also told that if he journeys well, he will be a source of blessing to others.

Success on our spiritual journeys, where ever they may take us, is measured not only by the personal fulfillment which they bring us. The successful spiritual journey will bring goodness not only to us, but to those around us. In fact, one could argue that the best gauge of the success of our journeys is how they serve those who are NOT with us on the journey. That awareness of others is what separates a genuine spiritual journey from one more new age fantasy of personal fulfillment disconnected from anyone or anything else.

A great spiritual journey may be facilitated by a physical one, but physical travel is surely not a pre-requisite of spiritual growth. For that, one simply needs a mirror and a window. The mirror is for looking in every day and asking ourselves, “How am I doing?” The window is for looking out at those around us, those who may not be taking the journey with us, and asking them the same questions. When the response from all queried is generally positive, we are not only doing the spiritual journey, we are doing it well.

With the release of a declaration on homosexuality and the inherent dignity of gay men and lesbians, by more than 100 Orthodox rabbis, educators and mental health professionals in the United States and Israel, a segment of the Orthodox community is now in full agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. The statement, without using the exact phrasing of the Church, supports hating the sin while loving the sinner. I am filled with both dread and hope by this recent development.

The declaration fills me with hope because it publicly states what most of the signers have privately believed for some time. By collectively stepping into the light and staking a claim for what is experienced as a fairly radical approach by most people in the Orthodox community, the men and women who signed this “statement of principles on the place of homosexuals in the Orthodox community” have responded with tremendous courage.

They have also responded with incredible integrity. The statement is bounded by en entirely normative i.e. Orthodox understanding of homosexuality and the limitations imposed on any gay person who actually expresses their sexuality in any way.

While that will be entirely dissatisfying to many people, and leaves me with many questions about my own willingness to add my name to the list of signers, it demonstrates the capacity of people who see few alternatives to push themselves to respond with love to a situation they abhor. That is spiritual heroism.

So why the dread?

Because at the end of the day I remain deeply uncomfortable with the limitations of the statement, the limitations of my own current thinking about the issue and the fact that historically, the position of hating the sin but loving the sinner has worked out about as well as the principle of separate but equal.

The dread is a result of being altogether uncertain who the statement is really for. Will it genuinely benefit gay people in the Orthodox community, or will it just make a bunch of straight Orthodox Jews, including myself, feel better about our current understanding of Jewish law and its implications for thousands of other Jews? Not for one second do I believe that was the authors’ intent, but I fear that it may be the result.

I need to hear what gay Orthodox Jews think about this statement of principles. Does it represent a real step forward which is likely to improve their lives? Do they experience it as a positive evolutionary step toward a fuller acceptance? Could it be that this statement, like all expressions of covenantal love, need not be all that I/they would hope for in order to deserve support and even celebration?

When these issues are addressed, we will all know better if this is Orthodoxy catching up with Catholicism or something more – something of which we will not only be proud in the present, but also in the future.

Newt Gingrich has taken what might be termed an ‘interesting’ position with respect to the Islamic building which people are trying to build down the block from Ground Zero. I refer to it as an Islamic building because the ongoing fight about whether it is a mosque or a cultural center is irrelevant. Typically, if you are in favor of the building’s construction, you refer to it as the latter and if opposed to it, as the former.

Personally, I think that ultimately it’s a reasonable, if not wise project. Though I think the timing and the process stink. This should not be about the assertion of religious rights but about the building of consensus. While those who favor construction clearly have rights on their side, they seem to be completely tone deaf regarding the feelings of those who are opposed.

It’s simply not true that all who oppose this building hate Muslims, any more than it is true that all those who oppose Israeli policy are anti-Semites. Sadly, those who support the building seem to appreciate the second claim, but not the first. But this is not about my response to the proposed mosque/cultural center, it’s about Newt’s. And it’s about why he’s wrong – not entirely, but largely.

Gingrich’s response is 20% intelligent critique of the American Muslim community’s inability to engage in appropriate self-critique, and their failure to champion the cause of freedom of religious expression, not only in America but in the world and for all religions. To that, add 60% ridiculous/erroneous analyses of the facts related to this particular issue, and 20% rage and you get the Newt Gingrich approach to why the Mosque at Ground Zero ought not to be built. His position is actually proof that no matter how smart someone may be, and Newt Gingrich is very smart, it’s no guarantee that your stance on any given issue will be as smart as you.

Gingrich’s claim that there should be no mosque at Ground Zero “as long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia” is inane unless one assumes two things: A, that we should now use Saudi Arabia as our benchmark for what is appropriate as far as freedom of religious expression, and unless they are as good as we are, we need not be as good as we have traditionally been. And B, that this is a Saudi project lead by people who could change the Saudi position on religious freedom but have failed to do so.

The first assumption should embarrass anyone proud of America’s history of religious freedom being second to none and never contingent on the behavior of other nations. I am not looking for parity with Saudi Arabia, and can’t imagine why any American would settle for that. We should be proud that we are arguably the best nation in the world on religious freedom, not proud to be equal to, or slightly better than, some other nation doing a lousy job, as Gingrich’s approach would have us be.

His second assumption is simply unfounded. There is no question that the funding of this project should be more transparent than it is, but to suggest that it is a Saudi project or that its supporters could change Saudi policy and should be punished for not doing so, is simply absurd.

As to the history of Cordoba, Mr. Gingrich is partially correct. Life under medieval Muslim rulers was no picnic for Jews and Christians, and would certainly not pass any test of American constitutionality – not even close. But it’s also true that life under Medieval Islam was far better for Jews and Christians than life had been for Jews and Muslims living under Christian rule. So if Gingrich wants to remind us of the past sins of one religious community, he ought to remind us of them all. Failing that, his selective reading of history does sound suspicious, even to those of us who are tired of all questions about Islam being met with the cry of “Islamophobe.”

Newt Gingrich may be right that building any Islamic structure that close to Ground Zero is bad idea, at least for now. But his arguments for that position are at least as bad as the worst ones which favor its construction. We need to think this one out together, not compare the best of whatever tradition we hold dear to the worst of whichever one we oppose.

Actor Jon Voight attacked President Obama in an open letter published in the Washington Times. He tells the President that he “will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when (he) said that (he) would defend Israel.” The letter continues by asserting that Mr. Obama is “play(ing) a very dangerous game so (he) can look like a true martyr.”

Were this letter not making the rounds among so many different Jewish circles, I might not have paid much attention. But when I get dozens of forwards and multiple phone calls about one letter, it pays to pay attention. And in this case, while I recognize the sincerity of Mr. Voight’s concerns, the way in which he frames them typifies much that is wrong with contemporary debate, especially about Israel.

Without challenging his claims that President Obama is both putting Israel “in harm’s way” and promoting anti-Semitism throughout the world, both of which are things about which reasonable people can disagree, why must Voight resort to the Joe Wilson School of public debate? Why must it be that those with whom we disagree are necessarily lying? Can’t they simply be wrong?

Of course, it is more viscerally satisfying to call the President a liar, but what evidence do either Mr. Voight, or any of those who are circulating his letter, adduce to prove that claim? Answer, none. Ultimately, this open letter substitutes personal invective for reasoned argument. Sadly, that is increasingly typical of all public debate in this country, especially about issues of real concern, and nobody is well served by it. Those who agree with Voight may get a quick hit of moral superiority and righteous indignation off of his letter, but will anyone not already in agreement with them be convinced? Of course not! So what’s the point? Clearly, it’s not to make things better. And if it’s not to make things better, even as understood by Voight, he should put down his pen until he figures out a real answer to the question of what would.

It’s also of concern any time people confuse actions with motives, as does Mr. Voight. How does he know that the President does what he does in order to “look like a martyr”? Perhaps Mr. Obama has taken the positions he has because he thinks they are best for America and possibly, though this will be especially hard for Voight to understand, also for Israel. Of course, the President may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean he is insincere or conniving. It just means he is wrong. Perhaps, especially as Mr. Voight is fond of celebrating Jewish wisdom, he might recall the rabbinic prescription to assume the best about those with whom we deal. Nowhere do the sages of the Talmud teach that presuming the best about each other should silence or even limit debate. In fact, a rabbi without a good debate is barely a rabbi!

It’s precisely because we need real and vigorous debate about important issues, including Israel — debate with fierce proponents from both the left and right — that we need an ethic of fierce debate. Without that ethic, debates become shout fests, popular involvement becomes mob-ocracy, and we all ultimately lose, regardless of which party happens to hold sway at any given moment.

This is the other mosque story developing in New York City. And while it is unfolding not a mere few hundred feet from the site where the World Trade Center was attacked, but in a quiet neighborhood of NYC’s quietest borough, the rage provoked is no less real or disturbing.

The struggle is between members of the Muslim American Society, a group seeking to build a mosque on the grounds of a former Staten Island convent, and members of the local community, some of whom have described this as “the community’s D-Day” and an important part of “the war against Islam.” To be sure, neither side is behaving well, if by behaving well one means actually trying to find a solution that works for as many people as possible.

Instead, as is so often the case, each side is simply operating out of their worst fears and tendencies. In the case of the local Muslim community, that means two things. First, they seem to have an allergy to direct answers to direct questions. Whether that is simply cultural, or indicative of something more nefarious, does not matter. Until direct questions from the larger community, however stupid they may be, get direct answers, suspicion and fear are created.

Second, as with many minorities struggling to attain the full civil rights to which they are entitled, the people representing the local Muslim community, at a recent town hall meeting which exploded into an ugly shout fest, kept talking about what they had the right to do and failed to address what was wise to do. Too often, having the right to do something and the eagerness to assert that right blinds us to the more important questions about what is wise and productive to do.

Issues of transparency and the distinction between rights asserted and wise action remain genuine challenges for the Muslim groups trying to establish mosques, both in Staten Island and at the site near Ground Zero. But none of that excuses, or even explains, the kind of rage that these attempts have stirred.

D-Day? Is that really how locals want to frame the issue of their objection to the building of a mosque in Staten Island? Do they really experience this struggle with other New Yorkers trying to build houses of worship as the 21st century equivalent of the Allied war against the Nazis?

Leaving aside the pathetic irony that in choosing this metaphor, those supposedly defending the shores of our nation and its culture would be the Germans, must they invoke the language of war to raise awareness? And if they must, then how different are they from the Jihadists they oppose? In each case, a group waves a banner of holy war against some group whose existence they claim threatens their own.

There is an old adage in combat that teaches that the longer one engages an enemy, the more alike the two sides become. While it may not always be true, it seems to be the case here. And frankly, for most of us, the prospect of being caught in the crossfire between these two groups is not so good.

I would love to see a series of town hall meetings across the country (the issue is stirring anger and defensiveness all over the nation) in the months ahead — meetings in which the tapes of the public conversations that have already transpired around the building of these two New York City Mosques were shown to audiences who were asked not to respond to the question of whether they should be built, but instead to the following questions:

1. With which side do you most identity in this conflict and how could representatives of that side have behaved better in the conversations which you are watching?

2. What is the real fear that animates the side with which you disagree, and what could you do, without giving up your position, to address that fear?

3. If the mosque to which you object could be built elsewhere, would you support it? How come?

4. What is it that the “other side” most doesn’t get about the side with which you identify? And are you willing to learn as much about them and their concerns as you want them to learn about you and yours?

Whether this process will ensure the result that either side wants is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that when different religious, ethnic or even political communities operate with these questions as their guiding principles, we are all safer and better off.

The news reports and alerts from various advocacy organizations on both sides of the Gaza blockade conflict all mainly share spin over substance, and politics over mourning.

YouTube is already getting crowded with competing videos that capture different moments during the boarding of the six-ship flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Some of them show passengers being assaulted by naval commandos and others show people who call themselves peace activists stabbing those commandos.

All of it happened and almost nobody who will read these words is in a position to assess what “really” happened, certainly not before an in-depth investigation of the events. In effect, today’s events — events in which as many as 20 human beings have been killed and at least as many injured, including both protesters and military personnel — have immediately become one more reason to intensify the conflict, not to pursue the peace that both sides claim they want.

Although the names of the dead have not yet been released, I can find almost no reports of attempts even to secure that information. Although there are families on both sides of this event that will bury their family members or visit them in the hospital, these facts, too, barely find a place in the coverage, unless it is to depict the brutality of the “other” side.

I am not without my own political biases, and they include sympathy for the suffering of Gazans whose lives are impacted by the blockade, and sympathy for the citizens of Israel who have endured more than 10,000 attacks by air, land, and sea since Israel left Gaza. I do not understand why Israel does not allow unlimited humanitarian aide into Gaza, nor do I understand how the world assumes that any nation should allow such aid to flow into another nation at war with it, as Hamas says it is with Israel. But none of that should matter today.

What matters today, at least in any conversation that claims to be driven by spiritual or religious sensibilities, as this one does, is the sadness at the loss of life and continued suffering on both sides of this conflict. This is not about moral equivalencies, which I do not believe exist here, or about who fired first. This is about those of us who are lucky enough to live out of harm’s way, not politicizing events when we should be mourning — and if not mourning, then at least doing more, or better, than using human suffering to promote a particular political agenda.

For starters, when are so-called peace activists going to admit that while peace is desirable, it is not their primary goal? If it were, then those same activists would also position people among the civilian communities on the Israeli side of the border with Gaza. They would sit in cafés, schools, and otherwise peaceful homes as they lived, or died, through Hamas rocket attacks and bombings. They would remind Gaza, as they have Israel, that not only is the whole world watching, but that the violence they do harms citizens of many nations.

Similarly, if running this blockade were really all about alleviating human suffering, then the sponsors of the flotilla would have worked with Israel and Egypt to bring in the aid by land after a requested inspection of the goods. And they would not have declared victory in advance, regardless of whether any suffering was alleviated, as Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh did earlier this week, claiming that it did not matter if the aid reached Gaza or if it was intercepted. 

And when are supporters of Israel going to admit that suffering is suffering, and that no matter how much people may hate you, you/we cannot intensify their suffering while claiming to seriously pursue peace? We cannot have it both ways.

Can anyone really believe that what happened this morning actually serves the interests of the citizens or the state of Israel? No matter how purposefully provocative the flotilla was, can anyone really think that violently boarding these boats was going to be anything other than a fiasco?

Perhaps the time has come to admit that we are in a diplomatic/military cul-de-sac. If whatever one’s enemy does brings them victory — whether it succeeds or fails — perhaps the time has come to re-think the positions being defended.

Today should be a day for better questions, and yet all we get is more of the same tired answers. That, more than any of the day’s events, is the really disheartening news. Of course, there is always tomorrow.

Many believe that illegal immigrants are flouting U.S. laws; others argue that America is morally obligated to help illegal immigrants. What are our religious obligations to welcome the stranger? Are we our brother’s keeper?

The Hebrew Bible mentions obligations to so-called strangers on numerous occasions. The message is pretty much always the same and perhaps best summed up by the words of Leviticus 19:33-34, When a stranger dwells among you in your land, do not taunt him. The stranger who dwells with you shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt–I am the Lord, your God.

But who that stranger is that deserves such equality and even love is not necessarily a parallel to the millions of people who cross our borders illegally every year. Or perhaps it is. The stranger of the Hebrew Bible is better understood as a resident alien, a non-citizen who agrees to abide by the laws of the community into which he or she has come. To that extent then, many if not most, illegal aliens in this country, would not qualify. On the other hand, there is no mention in the Bible of barriers to entry into the Israelite nation, so perhaps they do.

What seems clear from scripture (that itself a complex claim) is that loose borders or barriers to entry are only reasonable if accompanied by quite strict rules about participation once having arrived in the new community. That means that neither side in the current debate really understands what the Hebrew Bible intended.

Conservatives, generally obsessed with the “inappropriateness of rewarding illegal immigrants with any of the benefits of American life”, miss the fact that how someone came to join the Israelites had no bearing on their status within the community once they arrived. There really was a sense of community as sanctuary – precisely what those taking a hard line on immigration oppose.

Liberals, however, are just as wrong when insisting that biblical hospitality knows no bounds and asks no questions – that it was an unqualified right with no attached obligations. In fact, like all ancient sanctuaries, there were many rules to be followed and norms to be upheld. In other words, entry was open to all, and once in they were treated as equals, but demands were made and failing to meet those demands was grounds for exclusion from the community.

While other biblical texts and traditions could be introduced into the debate on immigration, based on those verses bearing directly on the issue, the path forward is actually pretty clear: how one got here is largely irrelevant, though the obligations that must be assumed in order to stay are significant.

Biblical “immigration policy” was not about maintaining the purity of the community or fear of withholding the benefits of membership, but it was quite clear about the obligations that needed to be met to enjoy the privileges (not rights) of such membership. It would be quite a step forward to see people actually look to that model for guidance instead of simply thumping their Bibles to prove that which they already believe anyway.

I have now been questioned by three conservative talk show hosts (including Lars Larson) about Elena Kagan’s sexuality and why it ought to be an issue in assessing the significance of her possible ascent to the Supreme Court. My answer to this bizarre fascination is a simple one: it’s totally irrelevant and it’s conservatives who should know that best. In fact, conservative legal thinking is undermined every time the issue is raised.

It’s the legal conservatives and so-called strict constructionists who argue most aggressively for the notion that the constitution says what is says, and that the law is a matter of application much more than interpretation. If that is the case, then Elena Kagan’s sexuality should make not one whit of difference, unless of course the concern is that gay people are inherently less honest, or that were Ms. Kagan to be gay, she would tilt in favor of what is often called the “gay agenda” which conservatives tend to oppose. And therein lays the rub for conservatives.

Raising questions about Kagan’s sexuality can only be driven by one of two things: hatred and/or fear of gay people simply because they are gay, or maintaining a totally inconsistent position about the ways in which jurists’ life experience shapes their legal thinking. Since nobody with whom I have spoken has admitted to the first possibility, I assume that it’s the second.

If, however, people are concerned about Kagan on the grounds of her sexuality and the undue influence it will exert on her decision-making, they should also admit that women are right to suspect men of being able to protect their rights, atheists correct in assuming that believers are more likely to oppress non-believers, etc. Were that the case, then the only corrective would be a court which reflects the big tent of American life, including a firm commitment to a court which always had a roughly equal number of women and men, a gay court-member, at least one self-professed atheist, and so on.

That is precisely the kind of identity-based court to which conservatives, and many others, rightly object. So instead of churning up stories about Ms. Kagan’s personal life and her ethical obligation to be totally transparent about it, those most concerned with it should do just the opposite. If the law should be about the law, and the court is not there to reflect the larger demographic makeup of the nation, then we should never hear another word about Ms. Kagan’s sexual orientation, or that of any other person aspiring to the bench.

While I don’t like to thump the Bible, it’s hard not be reminded of Leviticus 24:22 - You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike. Without making any claims about the relative merits of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice, it would be helpful if the debate about it could honor this ancient principle. And if one doesn’t care for the Bible, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander would be just as good. Either way, those squawking about Kagan’s sexuality should settle down in the name of avoiding hypocrisy, if nothing else.

Prayer is good. But perhaps I should qualify that observation by admitting that I am not taking a position on to whom prayer should be offered, or even if it is important that it be offered to some external being at all. I am not touching the issue of in whose name such prayers should be offered when they are shared in public at events like the National Day of Prayer, even though I truly don’t care. In fact, I have already written about why public prayer in Jesus’ name is no big deal.

But to be human is to have aspirations, to feel gratitude and to feel the need to praise the source of that which we have achieved and attained. And aspirations, gratitude and praise are the building blocks of prayer – certainly in Jewish tradition, and in pretty much every other tradition of which I know. So, prayer is good.

A National Day of Prayer is also good. No, I do not worry about issues of constitutionality and neither has any president since the day was established in 1952. Nor do I worry about secular humanists, atheists or agnostics who object to the day. In fact, I encourage all people, including them, to cultivate a prayer practice which accords with their beliefs and disbeliefs. And I know how much I have learned about prayer from those who are willing to give up on God while maintaining a practice which acknowledges aspiration, gratitude and praise i.e. prayer.

President Obama’s words in closing his National Day of Prayer proclamation provide an enlightening and instructive example of the kind of genuinely open and inclusive approach to prayer which I support.

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.

So what bothers me? That our National Day of Prayer is too much a project of too homogenous a group of people who pray. From the Web site of the coordinators to the official book which commemorates the day, to the national chairmanship of Franklin Graham, a day which should be led in common is instead led by a narrowly defined group of Christians.

To their credit, they are the ones who have taken the lead in championing the value of prayer. They are the ones who have unambiguously supported prayer as a public good deserving of national recognition. But they are also the ones whose celebratory book trumpets only the contributions of evangelical Christians. They are the ones who declare:

“When unbelievers pray for repentance of sin and ask for God’s forgiveness, prayer is the spiritual dynamite that obliterates the darkness and despair of a sin-soaked soul. May we ask His forgiveness, turn our backs on tolerance of sin, and bow in submission to God and seek His redemption for our people, so that future generations will know His blessed Hand has not been removed. May God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, be once again exalted in our halls of government, in our sanctuaries of worship and in human hearts that need His healing touch. Join me in prayer for America on May 6 for the National Day of Prayer.”

Those are the words of National Day of Prayer Chairman Graham, and while they may be appropriate for church, they are hurtful and totally inappropriate for the day. Why? Not because they are Christian words. What else should a Christian pray? And not because they are offered in Jesus’ name. How else could Graham pray with integrity?

They are hurtful and inappropriate because those words ask that all those who do not share Graham’s faith, get fixed — that our “sin-soaked souls” be “obliterated”. While people are free to believe what they want, and offer any prayer they feel, nobody has the right to publically denigrate other peoples’ religious beliefs, especially with violent language.

As much as those who oppose the National Day of Prayer need to settle down and consider how to open their hearts at least to those who pray, if not to prayer itself, the leadership of the National Day of Prayer need to open their hearts to the dignity of different faiths and those with no faith at all. If they cannot, then the day should be re-named the National Day of Religious Triumphalism, a day about which all people should be concerned.

• Archives

  • August 2010 (3)
  • July 2010 (2)
  • June 2010 (2)
  • May 2010 (3)
  • April 2010 (11)

• Subscribe by Email

  
  

  Completely spam free, opt out any time.