Category: Worldview

Apologies, Muslims, Reagan & Communists

I don’t know if you read Nicholas Kristoff’s op-ed piece in the NY Times Saturday, Message To Muslims: I’m Sorry.

Mr. Kristoff is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer, known for bringing to light human rights abuses in Asia and Africa and has been referred to by Jeffrey Toobin as “the moral conscience of our generation of journalists.”

In the piece, Mr. Kristoff correctly states many Muslims are compassionate, peaceful, and altruistic. He expresses regret for Americans equating Muslims with terrorists, suggests Americans should not malign Islam because of the acts of Islamic terrorists, and apologizes to Muslims for those who have done so.

Mr. Kristoff is undoubtedly correct that there are many Muslims who are compassionate, peaceful, and altruistic and that they should be treated like human beings, not terrorist monsters. I’ll go further: Christians should love not only peaceful Muslims but Muslim terrorists.

But Mr. Kristoff is undoubtedly wrong in suggesting–as it seems he does–that the relative goodness of the Muslims he identifies as compassionate, peaceful, and altruistic should exempt Islam from public scrutiny.

First, Mr. Kristoff’s premise is fuzzy. Does he mean by “equating Muslims with terrorists” that he believes Americans are accusing all Muslims of being terrorists? I’ve not heard anyone suggest that. I have heard people say Islam is not a “religion of peace” and question the earnestness of Muslims who say it is. There is nothing persecutory or bigoted about that. It’s a fair question.

Second, Americans believe the public square is the marketplace of ideas. Islam is an idea, just as Christianity is. Ideas can be true, false, good or bad. But the American experiment is rooted in the supposition that discussion is the means by which we arrive at the proper conclusion about any idea. Mr. Kristoff seems to suggest Islam should be exempt from that discussion. (By the way, in a typical Islamic state there is no such discussion).

There should be no surprise that Islam’s stock is currently down in America. It could have something to do with Muslims flying planes into buildings, threatening, in the name of Allah, to kill cartoonists and would-be book burners. Even if that is the impetus for the discussion, it doesn’t delegitimize the argument.

I get the impression Mr. Kristoff wants to make sure people are treated fairly and humanely and that he believes by exempting Islam from the public discussion it is more likely we will all get along. He seems like a good and thoughtful man, and his intent should be lauded. We need men and women like Mr. Kristoff who can talk people off the ledge of bigotry and xenophobia. But at some point Truth matters, and refusing to talk about the underlying idea at issue doesn’t bring resolution or peace; it just postpones them.

I remember the media raging at Ronald Reagan  for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” I’m sure there were Soviet communist party members who were compassionate, peaceful, and altruistic people at the time, and there were plenty of journalists–probably some who worked for the New York Times–who suggested the answer to the Cold War standoff was to seek a better understanding of the Soviet people and their needs and fears.

Instead Reagan thrust the question into the public square.Does the tens of millions murdered by Stalin, the tens of million imprisoned for their political or religious beliefs, or the hundreds of millions robbed of their freedom by the Soviet empire qualify it for the label, “evil”? It was a legitimate question, and we are all the better for having asked it. GS

Lessons From Threatened Book Burning

2010 (c)iStockphoto/wildcat78

Pastor Terry Jones’s 15 minutes of fame has stretched into a reality tv mini-series. If you haven’t heard the latest, Pastor Jones met with an imam who, Jones insists, promised him the planned Islamic center near ground zero would relocate if Jones would call off the book burning. Jones says he agreed and announced he was canceling, but not long after the meeting, the imam claimed he had made no such promise. Jones responded by saying the imam had lied and that the book burning was no longer cancelled but suspended.

I blogged on Jones’s inflammatory intentions recently and suggested he may have had more in common with Islamic terrorists than he realized. I also blogged on the proposed Islamic center near ground zero, contending the most popular arguments against are missing the point. But I think there is something more significant here than either individual incident.

In response to his plan to burn a Quran, Jones claims he and his people have received over 100 death threats, and there is concern around the world of bloody repercussions by Muslims against Christians, and even the American military. So serious were these threats, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called Jones and encouraged him to call off the book burning. And all of because Jones threatened to burn a book.

But I don’t recall hearing of death threats against Muslims in response to plans to build an Islamic center near ground zero. Many Christians disagreed for sure, but they tried to reason and persuade. They didn’t threaten to kill people.

Or look at the response of the Christian community to Jones. Christians from every conceivable denomination called on Jones not to go ahead with the book burning, and they did so publicly. They went on the record to make it clear what Jones proposed to do was not representative of Christianity or its Founder.

But in response to plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero, Muslim leaders have been silent. I didn’t hear them calling on their fellow Muslims to build at a different place or suggesting love or respect for the feelings of others is required of them by their Islamic beliefs. If they have spoken publicly its been to claim victim status or first amendment rights.

Obviously, there are exceptions on both sides, but my point is there has been a substantive difference between the response of Christendom and Muslims which reveals more about both than the underlying controversies that spawned them.

What do you think? Do you see moral equivalency here or a difference in the responses? GS

Work Is Great, Beer Is Good And People Are Crazy

(c)iStockphotos.com/exl01

“I have offended God and mankind because my work did not reach the quality it should have.”  These are purportedly Leonardo DaVinci’s last words.  Five hundred years of art critics would disagree with DaVinci’s assessment of his work, but that is not the point here.

What is intriguing is DaVinci, perhaps the greatest painter who ever lived, had such a high standard of excellence, he believed what he produced was offensive to God.  It would be easy to write-off DaVinci’s statement as false humility, but I think there is more here.

DaVinci would not have thought his effort offensive to God unless he believed God saw work as something sacred that demanded excellence.  On this point he was right.  The first two chapters of Genesis record God working (“…and by the seventh day God completed His work…”) and then commenting on the quality of His work (“…God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good.”).  (Gen. 2:2).

When religious leaders criticized Jesus for working on the Sabbath Jesus said, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” (John 5:17).  That must mean God was working from the time of creation until the time of Jesus, and I suspect He has continued to work since then. If God has been working continuously there must be something right about it.

And then there are numerous admonitions in the Bible about hard work and excellence like, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Eccl. 9:10), “Whatever you do, do your work with all your heart, as for the Lord and not for men…” (Col. 3:23) and “Do you see a man skilled in his work, he will stand before kings” (Prov. 22:29). Even after the kingdom of God has transformed the earth, people will be working, building houses and planting vineyards. (Isaiah 65:21). God has a very high view of labor.

It’s man who has denigrated and despised labor.  We live for the weekends and look forward to the holidays.  We can’t wait until five o’clock so we can leave the office.  We work and save and work and save so we can retire as soon as possible.  We act as if work is a necessary evil and that the higher calling is rest and relaxation.  We have it backwards.  In this respect we are the ones who are crazy. Rest is essential and holidays like Labor Day are nice, i.e. “beer is good.” Even God rested after He had worked. (Gen. 2:2).  But rest is not the highest calling.

So, have a great Labor Day–if I haven’t ruined it for you–but look forward to getting back to work on Tuesday where you can please God with your hard work and excellence. GS

A Different Approach To The Issue Of Abortion

 

With health care at the forefront of the public debate, the issue of abortion is back in the news again.  I realize this is a very controversial and emotional issue, and my intent is not to polarize people further. I even debated whether to publish this post, but I decided to do so because I believe there is a rational path toward resolution on this issue.

The problem with the issue of abortion is both sides start from opposing presuppositions.  Pro-lifers presuppose a fetus is a human life.  Abortion-advocates presuppose a fetus is not a human life, or that it is not until it becomes viable, or they are agnostic and believe a woman’s choice trumps all.  Because both sides start from opposing presuppositions they will never reach the same conclusion.  Any resolution is dependent on one or both sides starting from a different place.

I propose both start from a more humble and honest place: the place of uncertainty.  The great jurist, Learned Hand said, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not sure it is right.”  That is a great place to start.

I think there is great evidence, both scientific and Biblical, that a fetus is a human life, but I am willing to set that aside and state that I might be wrong.  If you are on the other side of the issue you will surely admit you cannot know for certain that a fetus is not a life.  It may be. It may not be.  You may have an opinion, but you cannot honestly say you know for certain.  Now that we are at the same place–the place of uncertainty–we have something to talk about.

Suppose we were out hunting and you saw something moving in the thicket in the distance you thought was a deer, but you were not sure.  It might be a deer, but it might also be a man. You are uncertain.  Would you pull the trigger?  Would anyone? Would you take the chance of killing a human being? Of course not.  The issue of abortion is no different.  If you cannot be certain a fetus is not a human life you cannot advocate abortion; and the truth is you cannot be certain.

What happens is people allow expediency or the mother’s preferences and desires to trump their uncertainty.  But this is not rational, nor in the face of uncertainty can it be ethical.  It’s just expedient.  It’s no different than slave owners deciding African-Americans were not fully human because slave owners didn’t want to give up their cotton and tobacco profits.  I’ve never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy and while I can guess, I cannot say I fully understand what a mother of an unwanted pregnancy feels in the moment of decision.  But I don’t need to know because we are trying to arrive a rational, ethical decision, not an emotional one.

Anyway, that’s how I see it, but I may be wrong.  GS

 

What Shapes Your Worldview

I’m a trial lawyer, and I once had a jury trial where one of the defendants was, as we say in the legal field, pro se, which is latin for “He aint got no attorney.” Halfway through the trial he’d fired his lawyer and insisted on representing himself. He then started acting like a lawyer, or so he thought.

I think he had watched a lot of television because when he asked the witness a question and I objected, he asked the judge “for a little latitude.” He was shocked when the judge said “No.” I think he was shocked because on television the judge always says, “Ok, but very little” or “Ok, but you’re on a short leash, counselor” or some other witty response. But the judge always gives a little latitude. It makes for good television.

Now this may surprise you, but no real trial attorney asks for “latitude”; nor does a real trial attorney try to make a point by asking a question he knows is objectionable and quickly chirping “withdrawn” before the judge can rule against him. If an attorney did that he would be laughed out of court because real trial lawyers know all that stuff is just television. It’s not reality.

More than we realize, television shapes our worldview. When television bombards you with shows portraying sex before marriage, outside of marriage and on first dates as normal behavior, it cannot help but make you think you are weird if you act differently. What you are seeing, however, is not reality, but a writer’s fiction.

Jesus said, “Take care what you listen to.” (Mark 4:24). How closely you listen to Truth will determine how effectively you incorporate it into your life, and how critically you “listen” to the television will determine how it affects the way you view the world. So, listen critically or don’t listen at all. GS