Religion

Despite the fact that I have spent more than ten years monitoring and analyzing the Religious Right, I have to admit that, quite often, I have no idea what will set them off or what compels their response to things.

Take, for instance, the fact that Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission decided it was important to go through President Obama's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast and try to refute it almost line by line in order to demonstrate that Christianity is the greatest religion of them all (Cass's commentary is in italics) :

[F]ar too often, we have seen faith wielded as a tool to divide us from one another - as an excuse for prejudice and intolerance. Wars have been waged. Innocents have been slaughtered. For centuries, entire religions have been persecuted, all in the name of perceived righteousness.

On its face, this paragraph is true, but what President Obama is inferring is that all religious conflict is wrong. But is that always the case? For example, was it wrong for Christians to defend other Christians from the attacks of Muslims in the Holy Land? The Muslims are “eternally offended” by the Crusades, but they attacked Europe relentlessly with no apology.

Obama said all the mayhem was done in a sense of “perceived righteousness.” That begs the question where we get our standards for righteousness? For the Christian we would be able to decide if a matter is just or unjust by biblical standards. A Muslim would not think it unrighteous to wage Jihad on non-Muslims based on the Koran, just the opposite, it is his duty to kill the infidels.

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same.

Obama is a skeptic and eschews any religious certainty, but this makes him irrational. He is a champion of religious doubt even as he asserts his superior religious vision of how things ought to be, borrowing what he wants from Christianity and disregarding the rest, thus making himself out to be god.

We read from different texts. We follow different edicts.

So how do we know which is true? Is the Bible, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon the Word of God? Besides the self-authenticating nature of the Bible, its truthfulness is revealed in its exalted spiritual ethics and its truth claims that correspond with reality. The Bible can be historically verified and contains hundreds of fulfilled predictive prophecies. There is no other “revelation” with the same marks of divine authorship.

We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we're going next - and some subscribe to no faith at all.

True, but the Bible does definitively answer all these questions.

But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

Apparently the Mohammad didn’t get the memo. Jihadists take the Koran seriously and it does tell Muslims to kill the infidels.

We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself." The Torah commands, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." In Islam, there is a hadith that reads "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."

The hadith is a holy book in Islam. So do you do as the hadith says or what it records Mohammad doing, i.e. killing people? Mohammad’s life is supposed to be the standard for Muslims. Does this text only refer to treating fellow Muslims brothers with love or does it require them to treat everyone with love? History proves that Muslims kill other Muslims more than any other religion.

And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

This is a nice attempt to make all religions sound like they are all saying the same thing, but in India Hindus oppress each other based on the caste system. Radical Hindus are killing Christians. Radical Muslims are killing Christians, Jews and Hindus where ever they can get away with it. Christians do not kill with the approval of their religion except in self-defense.

But you know what makes this even more biazrre? The fact that Cass went after President Obama's speech from 2009, rather than the remarks he delivered at the prayer breakfast earlier this week.

Apparently, Cass thought that now was a good time to provide an "analysis of [President Obama's] remarks from a biblical perspective" ... even though those remarks were made over a year ago.

Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition declares that President Obama is not a Christian and lists some of the reasons why:

The President covered up a white cross and a symbol for the name of Jesus at a Georgetown University speech.

President Obama did not publicly celebrate the National Day of Prayer at the White House yet celebrated Gay and Lesbian Pride Month as well as Islamic religious observations at the White House.

For the first time in 43 years, the Obama Administration banned a military flyover at a "God and Country Rally" in Nampa, Idaho.

On a White House Christmas tree, the President asked that no religious ornaments be sent it, yet they displayed an ornament with the image of the brutal dictator, Mao Zedong, a leader who oversaw the deaths of over 50,000,000 million of his own people.

The President issued strong support for a Senate Health Care Bill which included public monies to fund abortions.

In the midst of the worst economic downturn in decades, Team Obama spent $150, 000,000 on the Presidential Inauguration ignoring the needs of the poor and struggling across the country.

Mahoney goes on the accuse Obama of intentionally misleading America into believing that he was a Christian when he obviously is not, as proven by the fact that the Obama's don't go to church enough: 

"It is important to note that it was President Obama who made his regular church attendance and the importance of a local church community a major part of his campaign. He stated in the national press that he, 'regularly attends church while on the campaign trail.'

"The issue is not whether a President has to attend church on a regular basis to be an effective President. They do not. The issue is one of integrity and honesty. To portray yourself as person of deep Christian faith and very involved in the life of the local church during the campaign and then abandon that position after you are elected reduces faith to a commodity and religion to a political tool.

"Finally, the White House has said they have not found a church home for President Obama and his family in Washington, D.C. because they do not want to be a disruptive factor for the local church. This is a completely disingenuous and misleading argument. The overwhelming majority of churches in the Washington would love to have the President and his family attend their church and would welcome them with open arms.

"Simply stated; Mr. President if your Christian faith and involvement with a local church means as much to you as you say it does please find a vibrant local community for you and your family to worship Christ."

Writing in The Weekly Standard, Gary Bauer complains that the lack of a "backlash" against Muslims in America is leading to more terrorist attacks:

It has been more than a month since U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly murdered 14 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood military base in Texas. And while we were led to believe that the rampage by Hasan, who is Muslim, would provoke a strong and violent reaction against Arab and Muslim Americans, a backlash has been conspicuous only by its absence.

In fact, in the immediate aftermath of each of the dozen attacks by Muslim Americans since 9-11, the conversation has been dominated by predictions of inevitable violence toward Muslims by bigoted Americans unable to control their rage. And each time a backlash has been virtually nonexistent. Our journalistic and political elites have become terrorism's unwitting domestic enablers, perceiving religion-based violence where there is none, while ignoring it where it is widespread and intensifying.

...

A Rasmussen poll immediately after the Fort Hood massacre found that a majority of Americans were at least somewhat concerned that the shooting would prompt a backlash against Muslims in the military. They needn't have been concerned. Since 9-11, every Muslim terrorist attack on American soil has been followed not by a violent backlash, but by outreach and conciliation toward Muslim Americans. And then by more attacks--by radical Islamists. Instead of fretting about a nonexistent backlash against Muslims, perhaps we should be examining more closely what is happening on radical Islamic websites and in some U.S. prisons, mosques, and Islamic schools that is causing increasing numbers of young American Muslims to embrace jihad against their neighbors.

Apparently, Bauer thinks that America needs a backlash against Muslims if we want to stop terrorism, since the lack of any such backlash is what is leading to more attacks.

I recall reading an Ann Coulter column several years ago which she dedicated to praising David Limbaugh's then-new book, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity." Among the stories of "persecution" that Limbaugh highlighted, and which Coulter also highlighted in her column, was the story of Raymond Raines:

In a public school in St. Louis, a teacher spotted the suspect, fourth-grader Raymond Raines, bowing his head in prayer before lunch. The teacher stormed to Raymond's table, ordered him to stop immediately and sent him to the principal's office. The principal informed the young malefactor that praying was not allowed in school. When Raymond was again caught praying before meals on three separate occasions, he was segregated from other students, ridiculed in front of his classmates, and finally sentenced to a week's detention.

In turns out that back in 1994, Newt Gingrich and various Religious Right leaders had made Raymond's sorry tale the centerpiece of their campaign of Christian victimization, despite the fact that it was entirely untrue:

"These are not isolated examples," said Gary Bauer, a former Ronald Reagan Administration adviser who heads the Family Research Council. The American Civil Liberties Union "has convinced educators that they cannot allow any religious expression at school," he said.

These complaints of hostility toward religion have circulated widely in conservative and Christian evangelical groups in recent years. Now they are fueling a drive among some activists to draft a broad amendment to the Constitution that would go beyond voluntary school prayer.

...

"These school incidents are fueling the fire," said Jay Sekulow, counsel for Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice.

Three weeks ago, Gingrich, in a television appearance, cited the St. Louis case as evidence that "it's illegal to pray," even privately, in schools today.

...

The St. Louis case concerned 10-year-old Raymond Raines who, his mother said, was given detention because he sought to pray over his lunch. When lawyers for the Rutherford Institute heard about the case, they filed a lawsuit against the principal and issued a press release denouncing the school system.

"I know it sounds bizarre, but we have substantial evidence to believe it happened," said Timothy Belz, the St. Louis lawyer working with the Rutherford Institute.

On NBC-TV's "Meet the Press," Gingrich described the situation as "a real case about a real child. Should it be possible for the government to punish you if you say grace over your lunch? That's what we used to think of Russian behavior when they were the Soviet Union."

But school officials said the incident never happened. Rather, they said, Raymond was disciplined for fighting in the cafeteria.

"I can tell you he was not reprimanded for praying," said Kenneth Brostron, the school's lawyer. "Do you think it makes sense that the teachers would look around the cafeteria and target the one student who was praying quietly at his seat?"

Why am I bringing this up?  Well, because I have started seeing this story popping up on right-wing websites:

An 8-year-old boy has been suspended from school and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation after he drew a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross, his father claims.

A teacher at Lowell Maxham Elementary School in Taunton, Mass., allegedly said the second-grade student created a violent drawing, the Taunton Daily Gazette reported.

The boy's picture portrayed a crucified Jesus with Xs over his eyes to indicate that he had died on the cross.

The child's father, outraged at the school's action, asked to remain anonymous to protect his son. He said his boy drew the picture after returning from a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat.

He said when the teacher asked students to draw something that reminded them of Christmas on Dec. 2, the boy recalled his trip and created a portrait of Christ on the cross.

"As far as I'm concerned, they're violating his religion," he told the newspaper.

Of course, the full story gives an entirely different perspective:

City officials sharply disputed yesterday widely distributed reports that a local elementary school suspended a second-grader and required the boy to undergo a psychological evaluation for drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross.

The story, initially reported by the local newspaper, raised questions of religious bias days before Christmas and was broadcast by local television stations and other news media. Making the story more compelling, the boy’s father held court for much of the day at his girlfriend’s apartment, granting interviews to reporters from Providence to Boston, demanding that the school district compensate him for his family’s pain and suffering.

“It hurts me that they did this to my kid,’’ Chester Johnson, the boy’s father, said in an interview with the Globe. “They can’t mess with our religion. They owe us a small lump sum for this.’’

But school officials say that the account in yesterday’s Taunton Daily Gazette was rife with errors and that the father’s description of what happened is untrue.

“The report is totally inaccurate,’’ Julie Hackett, superintendent of the Taunton public schools, said in an interview in her office yesterday. “The inaccuracies in the original media story have resulted in a great deal of criticism and scrutiny of the system that is unwarranted.’’

Hackett said the student, age 9, was never suspended and that neither he nor other students at the Maxham Elementary School were asked by the teacher to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas or any religious holiday, as the Gazette and other media reported and the father suggested, although his story changed as he explained it.

She said it was unclear whether the boy, who put his name above a stick figure portrait of Christ on the cross, had drawn the picture in school, which his teacher discovered Dec. 2.

“Religion had nothing to do with this at all, 100 percent nothing to do with it,’’ Hackett said, adding that Taunton is known as “The Christmas City.’’

She said the drawing was seen as a potential cry for help when the student identified himself, rather than Jesus, on the cross, which prompted the teacher to alert the school’s principal and staff psychologist. As a result, the boy underwent a psychological evaluation.

The right-wing myth regarding Raymond Raines was debunked back in 1994, but it was still being repeated by people like Coulter and Limbaugh nearly a decade later, and I suspect that we'll be hearing this story about a young student who suspended from school for drawing a picture of Jesus at Christmas for years to come.