CRES Multifaith Resources - Community Resources for Exploring Spirituality - Center for Religious Experience and Study

OUR WORK	OUR_APPROACH	OUR_TEAM	RESOURCES	KC_STAR_COLUMN	HELP_&_CONTACT_PAGE

Link to 2011 Columns

SUNDRY COMMENTS
AND NOTES

Hearing God
Atheists at Interfaith Bkfst
Jacobs book
Stahl book
Vintage complaints
Gibson's Passion
Goldman book
Hate in all faiths
Qur'an
Sharia
Islamophobic emails
Government size
Douthat: Xnty Xmas 2010

HEARING GOD

Some folks conceive of God as a Supreme Being, external to us, to which they may pray. Others might think of God as their "Higher Power," resident within them rather than outside them. Actually, I think many folks (including some theologians like Cusa) in the Middle Ages had a better understanding of God than the Fundamentalists who have appeared in the last hundred years, largely adopting a "scientific" approach to truth (treating myths as literal truth). Throughout much of Western religious history, especially before the creed-centered Reformation and catechism-centered Counter-Reformation, God was mainly an awesome Mystery, such as Einstein wrote about in these words:

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men."

Nonetheless, I would find it difficult to say that God had spoken to me -- except in the sense that the wind in the trees, the waves on the ocean, the kind words from a friend, the majesty of the stars in the sky, the quiet but insistent voice of conscience speak to me of a mystery beyond joy and suffering that dwells deeply within me and that in those sacred moments I sense all around me, pervading the universe and all time.

I confess I am troubled by both Fundamentalist talk of God speaking to them and by New Agers writing books about Conversations with God. Seems a bit arrogant to me. But then I remember the provocative words of William Blake:

"The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert, that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.
Isaiah answer'd, I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover'd the infinite in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain confirm'd; that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote."

So all I know is that people, given ignorance and frailty and genius and insight use the word "God" in many ways, only a few of which do I fully understand.

========== Village Voice
Jan. 4 2010
By Roy Edroso

Atheists Celebrate First-Ever Invite to Mayor's Interfaith Breakfast

Ken Bronstein was excited to notify us of a great coup: six members of his organization, the New York City Atheists, attended Mayor Bloomberg's annual Interfaith Breakfast this weekend. It's believed to be the first time nonbelievers have been invited, as nonbelievers, to the event.

We asked Bronstein why atheists would even want to attend an Interfaith Breakfast, seeing as they don't, in point of fact, have faith.

"Oh, we have faith," Bronstein told us. "Just not in God."

A spokesman from the Mayor's office confirmed that the Mayor had invited the guests as members of NYC Atheists, and "in his remarks did certainly welcome those who, while not professing a particular faith, do love the city, recognizing the importance of working together for the common good of the people of New York City."

The Breakfast's more famous guests included Vada Vasquez, the teenager shot in the head last month and miraculously recovering from it.

Bronstein finds the invitation, like the mention President Obama made of nonbelievers in his Inaugural Address, a sign of a "dramatic shift" in attitudes toward unchurched Americans.

"When I first got involved with NYC Atheists five years ago," he said, "we had to put all our newsletters in envelopes, because most of our [regular-mail] subscribers didn't want people to know they were getting mail from us. I don't have to do that anymore."

We were disappointed to learn that the atheists sat quietly at the breakfast at the New York Public Library, and did not give invocations, as representatives of God-based faiths did. "Maybe next year," says Bronstein.

VERN'S COMMENTS
on reading
a prepublication
copy of
Religion and the Critical Mind:
A journey for seekers,
doubters and the curious
by Anton Jacobs

Jacobs begins by reminding us that prophets like Isaiah and Jesus criticized their own religious traditions, moves throughout Western history by sympathetically studying major critics of faith, including Voltaire, Marx, and Freud, brings us up to date with Postmodernism, and concludes with a stunning 12-point approach to religion that withstands every criticism leveled against it throughout the whole of history. A sacred gift! Wrapped in beautiful writing!

Religious leaders like Isaiah, Jesus, and Luther have lobbed fierce criticism at their own faith traditions, and secular thinkers like Voltaire, Marx, and Freud have attacked religion on many fronts. Jacob's beautifully written book appears as a fresh debate between the "new atheists" and religion's defenders rages. With both scholarship and humane vision, he clarifies the arguments by which faith may purify itself and the skeptics may find understanding. Whoever in this uncertain world reads this book will have a clearer path through what we cannot know to choose a life worth living.

VERN'S COMMENTS
on reading
a prepublication
copy of
A collection of
essays by
Sheldon Stahl

Sheldon Stahl was an economist, but his voice is that of the Hebrew prophets. Like them, he asks why the greedy pile up pelf while the needy suffer. He moves from the cost of a coat to the value of virtue, from the pecuniary to the priceless, from cash to character. With the precision of his prose, Stahl's numbers point us toward nobility. As the prophets of old explored the fields of justice in community and the world, so Stahl's essays, in our own time, expose the range between wealth and worth. A master of econometrics, he shows us the measure of humanity. Those of us who knew Sheldon will, in these pages, hear his voice again; those who encounter him for the first time will share in the blessing.

A thoughtful, entertaining book
Essays on economics, history and justice

By James Everett
Special to The Examiner
Posted Dec 16, 2010

Independence, MO — Last year during a particularly icy day, my friend and fellow UNA-USA Greater Kansas City board member stepped outside and slipped backward on a small patch of ice, which resulted in his death two days later.

It was a tragic shock to his family and friends, as well as to the hundreds who knew him as an extremely intelligent peace activist and a deeply socially sensitive person.

Sheldon was a professional economist who at one time in his illustrious career served as the vice president and senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He also served as the Vernon Haase professor of business and economics at Aurora University in Illinois, dean of the School of Management at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, and resident economist at Meara Welch Browne, Certified Public Accountants, where he wrote a monthly essay for their corporate newsletter.

It was from these essays that his wife, Louann, and others chose a representative selection that has just been published in a book, “Rethinking Economics: Reflections of an Uncommon Economist.”

While it might sound like an oxymoron to include the words “economist” and “stimulating” in the same sentence, that is exactly what this book is. My friend Rev. Vern Barnet, who is the “Faiths and Beliefs” columnist for The Kansas City Star, noted, “His voice is that of the Hebrew prophets…. Stahl’s essays, in our own time, expose the range between wealth and worth.”

This relatively small, 173-page book is divided into three sections: “Behind the Numbers: Connecting Economics and Humanity,” “Learning from History: Economic Analysis,” and “Tales of Values: Reflections on Meaning and Purpose.” Each of the 36 short essays is easy to read and, in addition to the value of their content, reveal that this is one economist who is able to present the so-called “dismal science” in ways that are both educational and entertaining.

In this “season of giving,” I highly recommend this book to my readers. It will provide you pleasure and will, as a gift to your friends, establish the fact that you have outstanding good taste in books of high intellectual quality.

James A. Everett lives in Independence. Reach him at jeverett3@mindspring.com

VINTAGE COMPLAINTS

THE PITCH
By Tony Ortega
June 10, 2004

This pious porterhouse always gets a spiritual kick out of the liberal weenies at The Kansas City Star. Whether it's pointy-headed Bill Tammeus in Saturday's Faith section or bleeding heart Vern Barnet in his Wednesday column, our paper of record desperately wants to give the impression that the world is a big, wonderful place where all people of faith hold hands and hum "Kumbaya."
. . . . In the Strip's experience, Bill and Vern are way off. Religious people actually hate each other's guts. Too many of them figure they have all the mysteries of the universe solved, and anyone who disagrees is going straight to hell. In the meantime, they figure that salvation is a matter of attracting as many tithe-making suckers into their big tent before the end times.

LETTERS June 24, 2004
I kind of understand Tony Ortega's take on Tammeus' pontifications and what appears to be a "not of this world" utopian view expressed by Vern Barnet. I would think, though, that given the alternatives, wouldn't he rather listen to someone who really does practice Christian teaching (or for that matter the peaceful teachings of any religion) rather than the ranting of a "my way or the highway" born-again?

Jim Skinner, Overland Park

COMMENTS Jul 1, 2004
While you may not appreciate the work of Vern Barnet, calling him a "bleeding heart" is such a personal attack, and it should be apologized for. I have met Mr. Barnet only once, about six years ago at a retreat, but the memory of his kindness and genial demeanor stays with me today. Had the Christian Church been filled with people like Vern, I would still be a Christian today.
Tony missed a wonderful opportunity to contrast a truly spiritual man against the worst Christianity can offer, a minister who attacks his own followers with insults and preconceived judgments. We are as God created us. Vern would have told you that.

Jeff Chapman, Kansas City

Mac Daddy: We know the Star’s new publisher will appreciate our advice.
By Tony Ortega
Dec 2, 2004

•Personal revelations: We can't tell you how exciting it is to learn about the swank lives of Star reporters such as Posnanski, who was forced to live at the posh Raphael Hotel while his new house was being built. (It gave him such a deep understanding of homelessness that he promised to throw all of his loose change in a coffee mug to donate to Project Warmth!) That's classic, heartwarming stuff! And Rhonda Chriss Lokeman really tugged our heartstrings when she decided to find out what it was like to shop at a Target store. But really, for personal exposés, we have to hand it to your religion columnist, Vern Barnet, who recently outed himself as an atheist. Does this mean he gets reassigned to the bridge column or something?

No column I have ever written received so many responses, about 600 evenly deivided, as when I wrote about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. My son was attacked as I way of getting at me by one Christian couple, the incident reported by the police as a hate crime. What I wrote still makes sense, and the following column by Frank Rich brings a perspective on that troubled actor that the intervening years can now provide. Please click on the link to see the many links in Rich's column as it appears in The Times. Amazing.
My original column appears below, and follow-up colmns can be found in the 2004 archive.

Vern Barnet

New York Times
July 16, 2010
The Good News About Mel Gibson
By FRANK RICH

FOR Fourth of July weekend fireworks, even Macy’s couldn’t top the spittle-spangled eruptions of Mel Gibson. The clandestine recordings of his serial audio assaults on his gal pal were instant Web and cable-TV sensations — at once a worthy rival to Hollywood’s official holiday releases and a compelling sequel to his fabled anti- Semitic rant of 2006. A true showman, Gibson offered vitriol for nearly all tastes, aiming his profane fusillade at women, blacks and Latinos alike. The invective was tied together by a domestic violence subplot worthy of “Lethal Weapon.” There was even a surprise comic coda, courtesy of Whoopi Goldberg, who, alone among Gibson’s showbiz peers, used her television platform on “The View” to defend her buddy’s good character.

The Gibson tapes — in plain English and not requiring the subtitles of some of the star’s recent spectacles — are a particularly American form of schadenfreude. There’s little we enjoy more than watching a pampered zillionaire icon (Gibson’s production company is actually named Icon) brought low. The story would end there — just another tidy morality tale in the profuse annals of Hollywood self-destruction from Fatty Arbuckle to Lindsay Lohan — were it not for Gibson’s unique back story.

Six years ago he was not merely an A-list movie star with a penchant for drinking and boorish behavior but also a powerful and canonized figure in the political and cultural pantheon of American conservatism. That he has reached rock bottom tells us nothing new about Gibson. He was the same talented, nasty, bigoted blowhard then that he is today. But his fall says a lot about the changes in our country over the past six years. We shouldn’t take those changes for granted. We should take stock — and celebrate. They are good news.

Does anyone remember 2004? It seems a civilization ago. That less-than-vintage year was in retrospect the nadir of the American war over “values.” The kickoff fracas was Janet Jackson’s breast-baring “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl, which prompted a new crackdown against televised “indecency” by the Federal Communications Commission. By December Fox News and its allies were fomenting hysteria about a supposed war on Christmas, with Newt Gingrich warning of a nefarious secular plot “to abolish the word Christmas” altogether and Jerry Falwell attacking Mayor Michael Bloomberg for using the euphemism “holiday tree” at the annual tree-lighting ceremony at Rockefeller Center. In between these discrete culture wars came a presidential election in which the Bush-Rove machine tried to whip up evangelical turnout by sowing panic over gay marriage.

It was into that tinderbox of America 2004 that Gibson tossed his self-financed and self-directed movie about the crucifixion, “The Passion of the Christ.” The epic was timed to detonate in the nation’s multiplexes on Ash Wednesday, after one of the longest and most divisive promotional campaigns in Hollywood history.

Gibson is in such disgrace today that it’s hard to fathom all the fuss he and his biblical epic engendered back then. The commotion began with the revelation that his father, Hutton, was a prominent and vociferous Holocaust denier and that both father and son were proselytizers for a splinter sect of Roman Catholicism that rejected the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, including the lifting of the “Christ-killers” libel from the Jews. Jewish leaders and writers understandably worried that “The Passion” might be as anti-Semitic as the Passion plays of old. Gibson’s response was to hold publicity screenings for the right-wing media and political establishment, including a select Washington soiree attended by notables like Peggy Noonan, Kate O’Beirne and Linda Chavez. (The only nominal Jew admitted was Matt Drudge.) The attendees then used their various pulpits to assure the world that the movie was divine — and certainly nothing that should trouble Jews. “I can report it is free of anti-Semitism,” vouchsafed Robert Novak after his “private viewing.”

Uninvited Jewish writers (like me) who kept raising questions about the unreleased film and its exclusionary rollout were vilified for crucifying poor Mel. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News asked a reporter from Variety “respectfully” if Gibson was being victimized because “the major media in Hollywood and a lot of the secular press is controlled by Jewish people.” Such was the ugly atmosphere of the time that these attempts at intimidation were remarkably successful. Many mainstream media organizations did puff pieces on the star or his film, lest they be labeled “anti-Christian” when an ascendant religious right was increasingly flexing its muscles in the corridors of power in Washington.

Both George and Laura Bush expressed eagerness to see “The Passion.” There were reports (spread by the film’s producer and never confirmed) that the very frail Pope John Paul II had given a thumbs-up after his own screening at the Vatican. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, which would publish several encomiums to “The Passion,” ran a sneak preview likening the film to “a documentary by Caravaggio.” Even The New Yorker ran a deferential profile of Gibson — in which the star said he wanted to kill me and my dog (though, alas, I had no dog) and have my “intestines on a stick.” Far more troubling was the article’s whitewashing of Gibson’s father’s record as a Holocaust denier. In the America of 2004, Mel Gibson, box office king and conservative culture hero, was invincible.

Once “The Passion” could be seen by ticket buyers — who would reward it with a $370 million domestic take (behind only “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man 2” that year) — the truth could no longer be spun by Gibson’s claque. The movie was nakedly anti-Semitic, to the extreme that the Temple priests were all hook-nosed Shylocks and Fagins with rotten teeth. It was also ludicrously violent — a homoerotic “exercise in lurid sadomasochism,” as Christopher Hitchens described it then, for audiences who “like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time.” Nonetheless, many of the same American pastors who routinely inveighed against show-business indecency granted special dispensation to their young congregants to attend this R-rated fleshfest.

It seems preposterous in retrospect that a film as bigoted and noxious as “The Passion” had so many reverent defenders in high places in 2004. Once Gibson, or at least the subconscious Gibson, baldly advertised his anti-Semitism with his obscene tirade during a 2006 D.U.I. incident in Malibu, his old defenders had no choice but to peel off. Today you never hear conservatives mention their embrace of “The Passion” back then — if they mention Gibson at all. (Fox News has barely covered the new tapes.) But it isn’t just Gibson who has been discredited. Even as he self-immolated, so did many of the moral paragons who had rallied around him as a culture-war martyr.

Take, for instance, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. During the “Passion” wars, he had tried to blackmail Gibson’s critics by publicly noting that Christians are “a major source of support for Israel” and that Jewish leaders would be “shortsighted” to “risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie.” That evangelical leader was Ted Haggard, the Colorado megachurch pastor since brought down by a male prostitute. Gibson’s only outspoken rabbinical defender in 2004, the far-right Daniel Lapin, would be sullied in the scandals surrounding the subsequently jailed Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. William Donohue of the Catholic League — who defended Gibson in 2004 by saying, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular” — has been reduced these days to the marginal role of attacking The Times for reporting on priestly child abuse.

The cultural wave that crested with “The Passion” was far bigger than Gibson. He was simply a symptom and beneficiary of a moment when the old religious right and its political and media shills were riding high. In 2010, the American ayatollahs’ ranks have been depleted by death (Falwell), retirement (James Dobson) and rent boys (too many to name). What remains of that old guard is stigmatized by its identification with poisonous crusades, from the potentially lethal antihomosexuality laws in Uganda to the rehabilitation campaign for the “born-again” serial killer David Berkowitz (“Son of Sam”) in America.

Conservative America’s new signature movement, the Tea Party, has its own extremes, but it shuns culture-war battles. It even remained mum when a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down the anti-same-sex marriage Defense of Marriage Act this month. As the conservative commentator Kyle Smith recently wrote in The New York Post, the “demise of Reagan-era groups like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority is just as important” as the rise of the Tea Party. “The morality armies have failed to inspire their children to join the crusade,” he concluded, and not unhappily. The right, too, is subject to generational turnover.

As utter coincidence would have it, the revelation of the latest Gibson tapes was followed last week by the news that a federal appeals court, in a 3-0 ruling, had thrown out the indecency rules imposed by the F.C.C. after Janet Jackson’s 2004 “wardrobe malfunction.” The death throes of Mel Gibson’s career feel less like another Hollywood scandal than the last gasps of an American era.

496. 040303 THE STAR'S HEADLINE:
Ghoulish 'Passion' secular, not sacred
(this version varies slightly from the published one)

In my opinion, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is not just a bad movie. It is evil. Those applauding it have a lot of explaining to do, far beyond its historical, biblical and linguistic treachery.
     First, concerns about anti-Semitism, about which I wrote last August, seem justified. The Gospel of John was written to make Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews in the Roman Empire and downplays Pilate's cruelty. The movie exaggerates this theme with gratuitous stereotyping of the Jews. While it is unlikely that the movie will rouse many Americans to blame living Jews for actions of Jewish leaders in Jesus' time, Europeans may be more vulnerable. Jews world-wide are right to be alert.
     Second, the overwhelming violence we see is Gibson’s, not the historic Christian interpretation. One wonders if he is explaining the torture, depravity and sadomasochist preoccupations of his other movies by commandeering a sacred subject. His fascination with brutality does not uplift me or commend the Gospel; it cheapens it with slick cinematic technique.
     But my greatest concern is that the movie seems to celebrate the crude penal or substitutionary theory of atonement. This coarse teaching says that God's justice demands satisfaction for the sin of Adam inherited by all humanity, and that only through the suffering of Christ can we be redeemed from God's wrath.
     Stated simply, Christ is punished horribly instead of you and me and newborn babies.
     If I am condemned to death for murdering my neighbor, will any judge accept my son’s willing offer to die in my stead? Civilized folk don’t punish the innocent.
     Why doesn’t God forgive humanity without this barbaric sacrifice? Would that not be a more convincing evidence of divine love than punishing His Son?
     In honoring a vengeful and unjust God, Gibson assaults the senses and dismisses more mature ideas of God. He has reduced the glorious mystery of salvation to the ghoulish payment of a debt.
     More thoughtful Christians have developed other understandings of Christ’s atoning power, and in a future column I will discuss them.
     The popularity of this irresponsible movie marks how dangerous the secular religious spectacle has become.

PUBLICITY BLURB written as a courtesy at the request of Paul Goldman about his 2009 book of poetry, Wild Joy: Ruminations, used also to promote his CD with music by Tom Jacobs, 2010:

Our mystic poet transforms a vulgar phrase into the key to spiritual transformation: "Shift happens," cosmic, historical, personal. He writes with the freshness of an adolescent's first love and with the maturity of wisdom in declaring that "the bringer of joy unbounded brings deep sorrow," as shifts happen, at once both familiar and miraculous. These "chanted words connect like a string of rosary beads," to "reveal a new human, Homo Luminous." The wild, holy energy within this book can burst forth only from a "man who has lost himself in love," such as Rumi and other seers, whose poetry this volume now joins.

Timothy B. Ray:
Hate not exclusive to one religion

Published: Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Even a brief examination of history will make it clear that evil intentions and actions are not unique to the followers of any one religion. In the Middle Ages, Christian knights invaded Jerusalem and murdered thousands of Arab men, women, and children of the faith of Islam, after killing hundreds of Jews on the way. These Christians were living out the assurance given by Pope Urban II, who declared "It is the will of God" that the Holy Land should be made free of unbelievers. An observer wrote that the level of blood flowing in the streets was up to the ankles of horses. There were three such Crusades before a Muslim political and military leader successfully regained control of the region. Were these knights followers of the master who welcomed the Romans and Samaritans that looked up to him after having been brought up in religious traditions that were different, in one way or another, from his own?

The Hebrew Bible (which we Christians call the Old Testament) provides terse and chilling accounts accounts of the slaughter of "every man, woman, and child" among the Canaanites and Amalakites, whose sin had been simply to reside in the land that the Jews believed that God had determined should belong to them. We have very harsh words for non-religious people who behave this way. Shouldn't people of faith do better?

During the rape and slaughter of many thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo by Christian Serbs during the 1990s, a woman imprisoned in one of the rape camps noticed the cross on the gold chain hanging around the neck of the Serbian soldier raping her. For some reason, it caught her attention.

In 2003, a handful of determined young Muslim men, mostly from our otherwise faithful ally, Saudi Arabia, attacked our cities in planes with full fuel tanks, killing nearly 3,000, most of whom were Americans but many others were foreign nationals employed by businesses from many other countries working in the international offices in the World Trade Center. The following year, our own nation, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, invaded and devastated the nation of Iraq, killing more civilians during the first two weeks of our attack than had died here as the result of the 9/11 attacks. The best estimate is that the total number of deaths caused by our war against Iraq reached 1 million. The President, most members of Congress, and most of our military personnel were Christians.

It is no good saying that, when people who call themselves Christians do evil, the truth is that they are not real Christians, so it doesn't count. The Muslims who kill thousands are also not real Muslims. The same test must be applied equally to everybody. Did I hear somebody say that the Koran calls for violence? How carefully have you read the Bible? Let us bear in mind that Muhammed, the founder of Islam, had the goal of uniting the Arabs in the worship of the God of Abraham," in place of the separate deities that the many Arab tribes had been worshiping. As his language was Arabic, his word for God was also Arabic, rather than Hebrew or English. As a result, Muslims say "Allah" rather than "God" or "Adonai." For sure, our English language did not even exist in the 600s, when Islam came into being, and thus no person of that era can be blamed for not calling God "God." Surely, their saying is wise that there are "a thousand names for God."

God is bigger than all of us and bigger than our understanding. We who love God have so much in common, in our various versions of the faith of Abraham, that we have no excuse to demonize one another. Enough of blood and tears.

Timothy B. Ray,
Gainesville

New York Times
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010, 9:00 PM
The Meaning of the Koran

By ROBERT WRIGHT
Robert Wright on culture, politics and world affairs.

Test your religious literacy:

Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God? a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran.

The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.

Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.

I highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.

But I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.

This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran — the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles.

As for people who are familiar with both sides of the Koran — people who know the whole story — well, there may not be many of them. It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people.

Thus, there are liberals who say that “jihad” refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say “jihad” refers to military struggle. That’s true, too. But few people get the whole picture, which, actually, can be summarized pretty concisely:

The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.

Why do people tend to hear only one side of the story? A common explanation is that the digital age makes it easy to wall yourself off from inconvenient data, to spend your time in ideological “cocoons,” to hang out at blogs where you are part of a choir that gets preached to.

Makes sense to me. But, however big a role the Internet plays, it’s just amplifying something human: a tendency to latch onto evidence consistent with your worldview and ignore or downplay contrary evidence.

This side of human nature is generally labeled a bad thing, and it’s true that it sponsors a lot of bigotry, strife and war. But it actually has its upside. It means that the regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.

After all, the adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it.

So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.

For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)

As for the New Testament, there’s that moment when Jesus calls a woman and her daughter “dogs” because they aren’t from Israel. In a way that’s the opposite of anti-Semitism — but not in a good way. And speaking of anti-Semitism, the New Testament, like the Koran, has some unflattering things to say about Jews.

Devoted Bible readers who aren’t hateful ignore or downplay all these passages rather than take them as guidance. They put to good use the tunnel vision that is part of human nature.

All the Abrahamic scriptures have all kinds of meanings — good and bad — and the question is which meanings will be activated and which will be inert. It all depends on what attitude believers bring to the text. So whenever we do things that influence the attitudes of believers, we shape the living meaning of their scriptures. In this sense, it’s actually within the power of non-Muslim Americans to help determine the meaning of the Koran. If we want its meaning to be as benign as possible, I recommend that we not talk about burning it. And if we want imams to fill mosques with messages of brotherly love, I recommend that we not tell them where they can and can’t build their mosques.

Of course, the street runs both ways. Muslims can influence the attitudes of Christians and Jews and hence the meanings of their texts. The less threatening that Muslims seem, the more welcoming Christians and Jews will be, and the more benign Christianity and Judaism will be. (A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening.)

You can even imagine a kind of virtuous circle: the less menacing each side seems, the less menacing the other side becomes — which in turn makes the first side less menacing still, and so on; the meaning of the Abrahamic scriptures would, in a real sense, get better and better and better.

Lately, it seems, things have been moving in the opposite direction; the circle has been getting vicious. And it’s in the nature of vicious circles that they’re hard to stop, much less reverse. On the other hand, if, through the concerted effort of people of good will, you do reverse a vicious circle, the very momentum that sustained it can build in the other direction — and at that point the force will be with you.

Postscript: The quotations of the Koran come from Sura 4:171 (where Jesus is called God’s word), and Sura 44:32 (where the “children of Israel” are lauded). I’ve used the Rodwell translation, but the only place the choice of translator matters is the part that says God presciently placed the children of Israel above all others. Other translations say “purposefully,” or “knowingly.” By the way, if you’re curious as to the reason for the Koran’s seeming ambivalence toward Christians and Jews:

By my reading, the Koran is to a large extent the record of Muhammad’s attempt to bring all the area’s Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists into his Abrahamic flock, and it reflects, in turns, both his bitter disappointment at failing to do so and the many theological and ritual overtures he had made along the way. (For a time Muslims celebrated Yom Kippur, and they initially prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.) That the suras aren’t ordered chronologically obscures this underlying logic.

A READER'S COMMENT
Start with the assumption that God is Love, that God is Merciful, and both the Bible and the Koran preach universal benevolence and mercy. Start with the assumption that God is Jealous, that God is chiefly concerned with unquestioning obedience, and both the Koran and the Bible become wellsprings of intolerance and oppression.

I will now prophesy: Readers with hatred and fear in their hearts will denounce this column as nonsense and wishful thinking. They will mock it and cite all sorts of examples of criminal behavior by 'Muslims' to prove their point. Readers with love and faith in their hearts will commend it, and see truth in it.

An old man sat by the gate of the city. When travelers arrived and asked what sort of people lived within the city, he asked them what sort of people lived in the city from which they came. Whatever they said, the old man would reply that they would find the people in this city much the same. He was never wrong.

ANOTHER READER WRITES
. . . Let us not forget how Donald Rumsfeld & his minions used blood-thirsty passages from it (Ezekiel was a favorite) to encourage George W. Bush to pursue the war in Iraq. My favorite horrible passage in the OT (& there may be better/worse ones) is from Ezekiel 39, when the Hebrew god encourages his minions into battle against the "heathens": "Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you." Oh, happy days!

ROBERT WRIGHT ON
"THE SWORD VERSE"

Right-wing Web sites devoted to showing the “truth about Islam” array searing verses that seem to show the Koran offering a nearly unlimited license to kill. (A few years after 9/11, a list of “the Koran’s 111 Jihad verses” was posted on the conservative Web site freerepublic.com.) But the closer you look at the context of these verses, the more limited the license seems.

The passage most often quoted is the fifth verse of the ninth sura, long known to Muslims as the “Sword verse.” It was cited by Osama bin Laden in a famous manifesto issued in 1996, and on first reading it does seem to say that bin Laden would be justified in hunting down any non-Muslim on the planet. The verse is often translated colloquially—particularly on these right-wing Web sites—as “kill the infidels wherever you find them.”

This common translation is wrong. The verse doesn’t actually mention “infidels” but rather refers to “those who join other gods with God”—which is to say, polytheists. So, bin Laden notwithstanding, the “Sword verse” isn’t the strongest imaginable basis for attacking Christians and Jews.

Still, even if the Sword verse wasn’t aimed at Christians and Jews, it is undeniably bloody: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush.” It seems that a polytheist’s only escape from this fate is to convert to Islam, “observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms.”

But the next verse, rarely quoted by either jihadists or right-wing Web sites, suggests that conversion isn’t actually necessary: “If any one of those who join gods with God ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum, that he may hear the Word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety.” After all, polytheists are “people devoid of knowledge.”

And the following verse suggests that whole tribes of polytheists can be spared if they’re not a military threat. If those “who add gods to God” made “a league [with the Muslims] at the sacred temple,” then “so long as they are true to you, be ye true to them; for God loveth those who fear Him.” For that matter, the verse immediately before the Sword verse also takes some of the edge off it, exempting from attack “those polytheists with whom ye are in league, and who shall have afterwards in no way failed you, nor aided anyone against you.”

In short, “kill the polytheists wherever you find them” doesn’t mean “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.” It means “kill the polytheists who aren’t on your side in this particular war.”

Presumably, particular wars were the typical context for the Koran’s martial verses—in which case Muhammad’s exhortations to kill infidels en masse were short-term motivational devices. Indeed, sometimes the violence is explicitly confined to the war’s duration: “When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters. And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till the war hath laid down its burdens.”

Of course, if you quote the first half of that verse and not the second half—as both jihadists and some western commentators might be tempted to do—this sounds like a death sentence for unbelievers everywhere and forever. The Koran contains a number of such eminently misquotable lines. Repeatedly Muhammad makes a declaration that, in unalloyed form, sounds purely belligerent—and then proceeds to provide the alloy. Thus: “And think not that the infidels shall escape Us! . . . Make ready then against them what force ye can, and strong squadrons whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy.” Then, about thirty words later: “And if they lean to peace, lean thou also to it; and put thy trust in God.”

If the Koran were a manual for all-out jihad, it would deem unbelief by itself sufficient cause for attack. It doesn’t. Here is a verse thought to be from the late Medinan period: “God doth not forbid you to deal with kindness and fairness toward those who have not made war upon you on account of your religion, or driven you forth from your homes: for God loveth those who act with fairness. Only doth God forbid you to make friends of those who, on account of your religion, have warred against you, and have driven you forth from your homes, and have aided those who drove you forth.”

Besides, even when enmity is in order, it needn’t be forever: “God will, perhaps, establish good will between yourselves and those of them whom ye take to be your enemies: God is Powerful: and God is Gracious.”

SHARIA
Vern Barnet

Sharia, literally "the path to the watering hole," is living with the refreshment of awareness of the divine. It can be compared with Western notions of Natural Law or, in the English tradition, common law.

The goal is to imitate the mercy, generosity, faithfullness, and justice Muslims find in the example of the Prophet Muhammad, the Sunnah, as revealed through the Qur'an and Ahadith and developed by scholars and jurists dealing with both similar and novel situations.Sharia has developed over time in many different ways in different countries and contexts.

Sharia varies widely today. Its recognition in England today can be compared to Jews in America who submit to the decisions of their rabbis in matters regarding worship, dietary and dress law, and family law, how the dead are burried -- none of which interferes with the application of American civil law. Islamophobes often point to the horrors of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia (a nation the US supports diplomatically and militarily and, through our oil purchases, financially) and Iran (a nation whose democratic government we overthrew leading to today's reactionary, opporessive ogovernment, but they seldom cite the use of Sharia in NATO allly Turkey or India (with a Muslim population greater than all the Arab world) or Indonesia (the nation with the largest Mulsim population). Sharia is the official legela system in only two countries, Saudia Arabia and Iran; one friend, the other foe, both have justified barbaric practices in the name of Sharia.

American Muslim leaders have often and correctly emphasized the consonance of democracy and the US Constitution with Islam, as opposed to the oppressive rule of kings and other leaders of Arab countries the US ironically has historically supported for geo-political reasons. American Muslms in US uniform are fighting for our freedoms along side Christians, Jews, and citizens of other faiths and no faiths. A key to American liberty has been the right of each religion to florish under the Constitution.

FROM THE TABLET

Sharia is not a concrete legal code; it is the idealized notion of God’s law. Because there is no way to approach what is ostensibly divine except through human agency, sharia as such does not exist except as interpreted by human beings over the long course of Islamic history. The word “sharia” necessarily means many things to many people. Even though Islam is very simple in its basics, including conversion—you are a Muslim if you testify there is no God but God and Muhummad is the messenger of God—the faith comes with a fabulously esoteric scholarly tradition.

The access that Muslims have to sharia is through jurisprudence, or fiqh al-sharia, the comprehension of sharia. In Muslim history there were at least six major Sunni schools of law, with only four remaining (Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i); in Shia Islam there are two major approaches, usuli, based on deriving principles, and akhbari, a scripturalist posture that believes all answers are already written down in the Quran and the sayings of the Shiite saints.

Of course, there is also difference of opinion as to the relevant texts. Except for the Quran, Sunnis and Shiites typically disagree about everything. As for the hadith, or sayings of the prophet, the Sunnis believe the relevant hadith are those of the prophet and his companions, the sahaba; for the Shia, the meaningful hadith are those of the prophet as well as the imams who followed him. To produce fiqh, the Shia also have aql, or intellect, whereas the Sunnis go by the principle of qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, and also ijma, or consensus.

It is doubtful that Islam’s scholastic legal apparatus is what the former House speaker was referring to when he said that sharia “is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.” Among other things, he is referring to the notoriously vicious corporal punishments associated with so-called Islamic law as exercised in many Muslim-majority countries. Known as the huddud, these punishments, like stoning and lashing for adulterers, beheading for murderers, and so on, are most famously meted out by Islamist outfits like the Taliban in Afghanistan and also by the terror-propagating Pashtun militia’s two senior state-sponsors, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. There is little doubt that both these countries have had a hand in terrorism, including spectacular operations directed against the United States, like the Sept. 11 attacks. But unless Washington intends to make war on them, rather than putting Islamabad on the dole and selling Riyadh 84 advanced F-15s, as it is planning to do, it is counterproductive to associate sharia with our enemy.

[Newt] Gingrich is also referring to how Muslims tend to perceive of non-Muslims and the fact that Muslim societies have historically treated non-Muslims as second-class citizens, with the status of protected peoples, or dhimmis. While this principle obviously runs against the grain of American culture, it is hard to see how it possibly threatens non-Muslim U.S. citizens, or even American Muslims of the Shiite sect who, since they are considered heretics by the Sunnis, have usually suffered worse fates than Christians and Jews in Sunni-majority lands. When Gingrich argues that “radical Islamists want to impose Sharia on all of us,” I can’t imagine how he sees that happening, short of the largest land invasion in human history of foreign Muslim soldiers, administrators, and religious scholars with the connivance of millions of Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and pagan American collaborators. And look out, Mitt Romney and the Mormons!

The stealth scenario is slightly less preposterous—jihadis insinuating their way through our legal and political systems to slowly Islamize a credulous U.S. public degree by degree—but many times more repugnant. It is necessarily premised on the idea of a United States that has lost all faith and confidence in its own values and an intellectual and political elite too stupid to tell the difference between our founding principles and Islamic obscurantism. In this scenario, the same nation that came out of its Civil War a more perfect union is now just a few headscarves and beards away from becoming a Taliban backwater.

If to Gingrich sharia stands for everything wrong with Islam, Muslims associate it with all that is best about Islam—justice, accountability, the rule of law, and even democracy. That is to say, it’s a highly idealized version of reality that has little basis in fact. For most Muslims (moderate and non-moderate alike), sharia is a catchall phrase for legal principles that have rarely, if ever, existed in actual Muslim societies, where the law of the land is not God’s but the ruler’s. It is not abstract notions of “sharia” but the actual application of the ahkam al-sultaniyya, or laws of the ruler, that have shaped the reality of most Muslim societies over the last millennium.

The notion that something called “sharia” was widely imposed throughout the lands of Islam is an Orientalist fantasy. If Gingrich’s Orientalism—sharia represents an all-encompassing totalitarian force—is of the negative variety, positive Orientalism asserts that Muslim societies were just and well-administered until Napoleon’s 1798 invasion of Egypt and the colonial legacy that ensued. The driving force behind this positive Orientalism is none other than the Islamist movement. For instance, the Islamists reasoned that the Arabs lost the 1967 war with Israel because they no longer practiced the true religion. Islam had taken a wrong turn somewhere, and Muslim societies needed to return to the essentials of the faith as practiced by the prophet of Islam and the righteous forebears, al-salaf. Those who adopted such ahistorical beliefs are known as salafists, whose ranks include a broad spectrum of Islamists including the Muslim Brotherhood. In the hands of the Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna, sharia was another wedge used to divide Muslim populations from the ruling regimes. In time, the regimes adapted so that today the Egyptian constitution names sharia as its principle source of legislation, and the new Iraqi constitution cites it as a fundamental source; but this is essentially window-dressing to placate pious Muslims and ward off the Islamists.

The Islamists are hardly more specific about what sharia means. When Banna spoke of sharia to the Egyptian masses, he meant something similar to the empty Western left-wing mantra of “social justice.” In any case, the Islamist definition of sharia is something very different from the thousand-year-old enterprise that had devoted its scholarly energies to discerning how to understand and implement, if possible, God’s revealed word. Aside from notable exceptions like Youssef al-Qaradawi, almost none of the notables even vaguely affiliated with the Islamist movement are scholars. What they know about sharia is only slightly more than what Newt Gingrich thinks he knows about it.

It is surpassingly strange that a concept revived by Islamists as a political tool may now be serving a similar purpose in the United States, where sharia is no more likely to affect the American way of life than the burial rituals of the ancient Egyptians are likely to influence our funerary rites. When the organizer behind the lower Manhattan Islamic center, Imam Feisal Rauf, says that the U.S. legal system is “sharia-compliant,” he is not preparing the way for a regime of lashings and beheadings; he is engaging in a species of inter-Muslim apologetics—which are also pro-American, even if in a roundabout way.

There is no comparing the Islamic sharia and the U.S. Constitution. The idealized notion of God’s law as derived from the Quran and hadith does not guarantee freedom of religious belief, or freedom of expression, including blasphemy, as the United States does in practice. The same is true for concepts like freedom of association and political rights, including the right to form political parties. Americans have long enjoyed freedoms that many Muslims, including the Islamists, say they have aspired to for more than a thousand years. To claim that Muslim societies—in their idealized form—also promote the freedoms that Americans really enjoy is not a threat to the U.S. Constitution but a relatively shame-free way of engaging a subject that is embarrassing to a society extremely sensitive to shame. [BUT SEE VERN'S CITATIONS ABOVE.]

But what’s more embarrassing is that the political leaders of a free country imagine that our freedoms are threatened, not by real men with real weapons who are supported by states that claim to be our allies, but by a scare word whose real-world applications are obscure to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

With thanks to
Bill Tammeus,
an excerpt from C.T.R. Hewer's
Understanding Islam:
An Introduction

"The word shari'a literally means a road or highway, a well-beaten path that leads to a definite place. . . .In technical religious terms, it is a clearly defined way of following the guidance of God that was left as a pattern for. . .living by each of the Messengers. Moses left a shari'a for the Jews based on the guidance of God in the Torah and the tradition that he established. Although in essense the guidance is always the same, the precise details of that guidance and therefore of the shari'a that was based on it may vary. . .

"Shari'a is never arbitrary law made up by the Prophet or by a vote among the people. It is a divinely ordained way that the Prophet implemented and human beings are to follow in obedience to the will of God. It will make for a happy, just, upright, fulfilled life on earth and has as its ultimate destination the gateway to heaven in the life after death."

And from Seyyed Hossein Nasr's
The Heart of Islam:

"To speak of the Shari'ah as being simply the laws of the seventh century fixed in time and not relevant today would be like telling Christians that the injunctions of Christ to love one's neighbor and not commit adultery were simply laws of the Palestine of two thousand years ago and not relevant today, or telling Jews not to keep Sabbath because that is simply an outmoded practice of three thousand years ago."

"Sharia Threat"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajahat-ali/
understanding-sharia-law-_b_844624.html

In the past year, a group of conservative pundits and analysts have identified sharia, or Islamic religious law, as a growing threat to the United States. These pundits and analysts argue that the steady adoption of sharia's tenets is a strategy extremists are using to transform the United States into an Islamic state.

A number of state and national politicians have adopted this interpretation and 13 states are now considering the adoption of legislation forbidding sharia. A bill in the Tennessee State Senate, for example, would make adherence to sharia punishable by 15 years in jail. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has called for "a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States."

The fullest articulation of this "sharia threat" argument, though, is in the September 2010 report, "Sharia: The Threat to America," published by the conservative Center for Security Policy. The authors claim that their report is "concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as 'Shariah.'" The report, according to its authors, is "designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate 'second opinion' on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government."

The report, and the broader argument, is plagued by a significant contradiction. In the CSP report's introduction, the authors admit that Islamic moderates contest more conservative interpretations of sharia:

Sharia is the crucial fault line of Islam's internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates ... whose members embrace the Enlightenment's veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, Sharia is a reference point for a Muslim's personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.
The authors later assert, however, that there is "ultimately but one shariah. It is totalitarian in character, incompatible with our Constitution and a threat to freedom here and around the world."

The initial concession that Muslims interpret sharia in different ways is accurate and of course contradicts the later assertion that sharia is totalitarian in nature.

But by defining sharia itself as the problem, and then asserting the authenticity of only the most extreme interpretations of sharia, the authors are effectively arguing that the internecine struggle within Islam should be ceded to extremists. They also cast suspicion upon all observant Muslims.

It's important to understand that adopting such a flawed analysis would direct limited resources away from actual threats to the United States and bolster an anti-Muslim narrative that Islamist extremist groups find useful in recruiting.

It would also target and potentially alienate our best allies in the effort against radicalization: our fellow Americans who are Muslim. According to the "sharia threat" argument, all Muslims who practice any aspect of their faith are inherently suspect since sharia is primarily concerned with correct religious practice.

This brief will explain what sharia really is and demonstrate how a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of sharia -- put forth in the CSP report and taken up by others -- will both harm America's national security interests and threaten our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

What is Sharia?

The CSP report defines sharia as a "legal-political-military doctrine." But a Muslim would not recognize this definition -- let alone a scholar of Islam and Muslim tradition. Muslim communities continue to internally debate how to practice Islam in the modern world even as they look to its general precepts as a guide to correct living and religious practice.

Most academics studying Islam and Muslim societies give a broad definition of sharia. This reflects Muslim scholars struggling for centuries over how best to understand and practice their faith.

But these specialists do agree on the following:

Sharia is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time. There is no one thing called sharia. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands sharia in its own way. No official document, such as the Ten Commandments, encapsulates sharia. It is the ideal law of God as interpreted by Muslim scholars over centuries aimed toward justice, fairness and mercy. Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws. Any observant Muslim would consider him or herself a sharia adherent. It is impossible to find a Muslim who practices any ritual and does not believe himself or herself to be complying with sharia. Defining sharia as a threat, therefore, is the same thing as saying that all observant Muslims are a threat.

The CSP report authors -- none of whom has any credentials in the study of Islam -- concede this point in several places. In the introduction they say, "Shariah is a reference point for a Muslim's personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society." Yet the rest of the report contradicts this point.

The authors, in attempting to show that sharia is a threat, construct a static, ahistorical and unscholarly interpretation of sharia that is divorced from traditional understandings and commentaries of the source texts.

The "sharia threat" argument is based on an extreme type of scripturalism where one pulls out verses from a sacred text and argues that believers will behave according to that text. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time.

The equivalent would be saying that Jews stone disobedient sons to death (Deut. 21:18- 21) or that Christians slay all non-Christians (Luke 19:27). In a more secular context it is similar to arguing that the use of printed money in America is unconstitutional -- ignoring the interpretative process of the Supreme Court.

In reality, sharia is personal religious law and moral guidance for the vast majority of Muslims. Muslim scholars historically agree on certain core values of sharia, which are theological and ethical and not political. Moreover, these core values are in harmony with the core values at the heart of America.

Muslims consider an interpretation of sharia to be valid so long as it protects and advocates for life, property, family, faith and intellect. Muslim tradition overwhelmingly accepts differences of opinion outside these core values, which is why sharia has survived for centuries as an ongoing series of conversations. Sharia has served Muslims who have lived in every society and in every corner of the planet, including many Americans who have lived in our country from before our independence down to the present day.

Recent statements from Muslim religious authorities, such as the 2004 Amman Message, show the dynamic, interpretive tradition of Islam in practice. In fact, the Amman Message is a sharia-based condemnation of violence. So if CSP wants Muslims to reject sharia they are effectively arguing Muslims should reject nonviolence.

The fact that the Amman Message is a sharia-based document shows the problem with the "sharia threat" argument: By criminalizing sharia they also criminalize the sharia-based message of nonviolence in the Amman document.

It is surprising that a group claiming to be invested in American national security would suggest that we make nonviolent engagement criminal.

Suspicion Based on Religious Misinterpretation

The CSP report's contradictions can only be resolved through unconstitutional means. And the authors propose doing so with no sense of irony.

They argue that believing Muslims should have their free speech and freedom of religion rights restricted: "In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from holding positions of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the United States to those who espouse or support Shariah."

The authors have already conceded that even mainstream Muslims espouse sharia. So by the report's own analysis, CSP are recommending that even mainstream American Muslims, who follow sharia in their personal lives, be prohibited from serving in the government or the armed forces.

The authors cite Quran verses that "are interpreted under Sharia to mean that anyone who does not accept Islam is unacceptable in the eyes of Allah and that he will send them to Hell," concluding, "When it is said that Sharia is a supremacist program, this is one of the bases for it."

It is no secret that many Christians interpret their own faith to mean that non-Christians are destined for Hell. Is this too a form of supremacism?

Many advocates of the "sharia threat" also refer to taqiyya, an Arabic word that means concealing one's faith out of fear of death, to mean religiously justified lying. Not all Muslims subscribe to the theological concept of taqiyya, however. In fact, it is a minority opinion.

The charge of "taqqiya" is often deployed by "sharia threat" advocates when confronted with evidence that refutes their thesis. Under this methodology one cannot trust any practicing Muslim. Even if a Muslim preaches and practices nonviolence the CSP authors would say that person is either not a true Muslim or is practicing taqiyya.

They have, in fact, used this tactic against Muslim-American leaders who advocate strong civic engagement. Responding to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's assertion that the proposed Park 51 Islamic Center in New York would be a venue for interfaith dialogue, CSP's Frank Gaffney wrote in The Washington Times: "To be sure, Imam Rauf is a skilled practitioner of the Sharia tradition of taqqiya, deception for the faith."

While providing a mechanism for critics to ignore any disconfirming evidence, adopting such an interpretation of taqiyya would almost certainly result in every observant Muslim being branded a liar.

The authors of the CSP report are clearly aware of this, and they try to temper their conclusions: "This is not an argument for trusting or mistrusting someone in any particular instance," they write. "It is, though, an argument for professionals to be aware of these facts, to realize that they are dealing with an enemy whose doctrine allows -- and at times even requires -- them not to disclose fully all that they know and deliberately to misstate that which they know to be the truth."

In other words, all Muslims are suspect simply by virtue of being Muslims.

Biased Premises Lead to Bad Policy

The CSP report's premise is that sharia is the problem and that observance of sharia results in extremism. The authors do not acknowledge that sharia is something the extremists are attempting to claim.

This purposeful misconstruction of the security issues America faces ignores multiple data points and turns all Muslims into traitors. According to a report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, 85 percent of all terrorist victims are Muslims. The Muslim community, therefore, has good reason to ally with American interests to defeat extremists. Those who assert the most extreme definition of sharia agree with the extremists' definitions of Islam and help create an environment of alienation and distrust -- which serves extremist interests, not American interests.

Adopting the CSP's analysis -- and the hysteria over the "sharia threat" that it is clearly intended to provoke -- will prevent us from working with our natural allies and weaken our ability to protect ourselves. The war against extremism cannot be labeled as a war against Islam. Taking such a civilizational, apocalyptic view could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further, we actually allow extremists to operate more freely without a clear identification of the threat and a consistent and constitutionally defensible system for recognizing and tracking extremists.

It is important to recognize that Muslims are in an ongoing conversation to define what their faith will look like. They have engaged in that conversation for centuries. But the challenge of faith and modernity is not unique to Muslims, and we cannot single them out for their beliefs.

Finally, it's important to note that even if the most extreme interpretation of sharia were the correct one, there is no evidence that the U.S. legal system is in any danger of adopting tenets of sharia.

To put this in perspective, the extreme Christian right in America has been trying for decades to inscribe its view of America as a "Christian nation" into our laws. They have repeatedly failed in a country in which more than three-quarters of people identify as Christians.

It's extremely unlikely that an extreme faction of American Muslims, a faith community that constitutes approximately 1 percent of the U.S. population, would have more success. We need to both respect constitutional freedoms and understand that the Constitution and our courts guarantee a separation between church and state.

The "sharia threat" argument is so irresponsible as to almost demand a comic response, were it not for the disastrous consequences of adopting it. It's important that its claims be interrogated rigorously, in order to understand that they should not be taken seriously.

This article was co-written by Matthew Duss, National Security Editor at American Progress. It was first published at the Center for American Progress.

Matthew Duss is the National Security Editor at American Progress and Wajahat Ali is a Researcher for ThinkProgress.

Additional contributions from Hussein Rashid, associate editor, Religion Dispatches, and Haroon Moghul, executive director, The Maydan Institute.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/26/
sharia_the_real_story
What sharia law actually means
The right wants to ban it in America, but do they even know what it is?
BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT

Jeff Malet/maletphoto.com
Last week in Tennessee, a Republican legislator introduced a bill that would make following sharia -- Islamic law -- a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. How such a law would be enforced is not clear; furthermore, it's probably unconstitutional.

It is clear, though, that an anti-sharia movement is growing in the United States. Last year Oklahoma voters approved a measure that bars courts from considering sharia. Similar measures have now been introduced or passed in at least 13 other states. Indeed, anti-Muslim political operatives have been warning of "creeping sharia" and "Islamist lawfare" for years, though the anti-sharia efforts have gained new prominence in recent months.

But even basic facts about sharia -- what is it? how is it used in American courts? -- are hard to come by. So I decided to talk to Abed Awad, a New Jersey-based attorney and an expert on sharia who regularly handles cases that involve Islamic law. He is also a member of the adjunct faculties at Rutgers Law School and Pace Law School. He recently answered my questions via e-mail.

Can you define sharia -- is it a specific body of laws?

Sharia is more than simply "law" in the prescriptive sense. It is also a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts to ascertain divine will. As a jurist-made law, the outcome of this process of ascertaining divine will is called fiqh (positive law), which is the moral and legal anchor of a Muslim's total existence. Sharia governs every aspect of an observant Muslim's life. The sharia juristic inquiry begins with the Quran and the Sunna. The Quran is the Muslim Holy Scripture -- like the New Testament for Christians or the Old Testament for the Jews. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.

After the two primary sources of Islamic law, the Quran and the Sunna, the two main secondary sources of Islamic law are: (1) ijma (consensus of the scholars and jurists, and sometimes the entire community), and (2) qiyas (reasoning by analogy to one of the higher sources). Other secondary sources of Islamic law are juristic preference, public interest and custom. Sharia is extremely flexible and subject to various interpretations. In the 19th century, Western colonialism decimated the sharia legal system, replacing it with Western codes. This caused a serious decline in the community of jurists. In addition, there is today a debate that revolves around the failure of the modern jurists -- not the system of sharia -- to develop the sharia to adapt with the current circumstances of modernity.

How often does sharia come up in U.S. courts? Has there been an uptick recently??

It comes up often because the American-Muslim community is growing. With an estimated 8 million Americans who adhere to Islam, it is only natural to see a rapid increase of Muslim litigants before American courts where sharia may be an issue -- especially in family matters. ?

Can you give a couple examples of when sharia has come up in cases that you've handled???

In the past 12 years as an attorney, I have handled many cases with an Islamic law component. U.S. courts are required to regularly interpret and apply foreign law -- including Islamic law -- to everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, probating an Islamic will and the damages element in a commercial dispute. Sharia is relevant in a U.S. court either as a foreign law or as a source of information to understand the expectations of the parties in a dispute.

Suppose a New York resident wife files for divorce in New York; her husband files for annulment in Egypt claiming the parties were never validly married. A New York judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of New York requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law.

Another common use of sharia in American courts is in the enforcement of Muslim marriage contracts. Like the majority of Americans, Muslims opt for a religious marriage ceremony. In every Muslim marriage, the parties enter into a Muslim marriage contract. The contract includes a provision called mahr, which is a lump sum payment from the groom to the bride that, unless otherwise agreed, would be due at the time of the husband's death or the dissolution of the marriage. An American court would require expert testimony to understand what a mahr is, what a Muslim marriage contract is, and to better understand the expectations of the parties at the time of the contract. All of this would be necessary for the court to determine whether the contract is valid under state law.

Is sharia used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? ?

No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

A lot of critics of sharia have cited a case in New Jersey in which a husband cited sharia to argue that he did not rape his wife. What happened in that case? ?

The case is S.D. v. M.J.R. It's not about sharia as much as it is about a state court judge who failed to follow New Jersey law. In this case, the plaintiff-wife sought a restraining order against her husband, alleging that his nonconsensual action constituted physical abuse. She testified that her husband told her repeatedly that, according to his religion, she was obligated to submit to his sexual requests.

The trial judge refused to issue the restraining order, finding that the defendant was operating under a religious belief that he was entitled to have marital relations with his wife whenever he wanted. Thus, he did not form the criminal intent to commit domestic violence. But, of course, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision, holding that the defendant's nonconsensual sexual intercourse with his wife was "unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did." The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. A minority of Muslims mistakenly believe that a husband can discipline his wife with physical force in the interest of saving the marriage and avoiding divorce.

What about stoning, which critics also claim is part of sharia?

The Quran does not provide for the stoning of adulterers. The punishment prescribed in the Quran is lashing. However, there is a prophetic tradition that adopted the Jewish custom of stoning adulterers. Many people describe the American legal system as having a Judeo-Christian heritage. Does that mean that we will stone adulterers as required in the Bible? No.

As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures.

What do you make of these state-level efforts to ban consideration of sharia in American courts?

Other than the fact that such bans are unconstitutional -- a federal court recently held that a ban would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment -- they are a monumental waste of time. Our judges are equipped with the constitutional framework to refuse to recognize a foreign law. In the end, our Constitution is the law of the land.

The only explanation is that they appear to be driven by an agenda infused with hate, ignorance and Islamophobia intent on dehumanizing an entire religious community. That a dozen states are actively moving to adopt anti-sharia laws demonstrates that this is part of a pattern. This is not haphazard. Someone -- a group of people -- is trying to turn this into a national issue. I believe this will become an election issue. Are you with the sharia or with the U.S. Constitution? It is absurd.

Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter --jelliott@salon.com

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC1103-4605
How did the US
Founding Fathers
view Islam?
4/6/2011 - Interfaith Education - Article Ref: IC1103-4605
By: James H. Hutson
Library of Congress Papers Show Tolerance and acceptance for Muslim Faith

With more than 55 million items, the Library's Manuscript Division contains the papers of 23 presidents, from George Washington to Calvin Coolidge. In this article, Manuscript Division Chief James Hutson draws upon the papers of Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other primary documents to discuss the relationship of Islam to the new nation.

MANY MUSLIMS feel unwelcome in the United States in the aftermath of September 11, according to newspaper reports. Anecdotal evidence suggests that substantial numbers of Americans view their Muslim neighbors as an alien presence outside the limits of American life and history. While other minorities-African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans-were living within the boundaries of the present United States from the earliest days of the nation, Muslims are perceived to have had no part in the American experience.

Readers may be surprised to learn that there may have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Muslims in the United States in 1776-imported as slaves from areas of Africa where Islam flourished. Although there is no evidence that the Founders were aware of the religious convictions of their bondsmen, it is clear that the Founding Fathers thought about the relationship of Islam to the new nation and were prepared to make a place for it in the republic.

In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience É to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

Toward Islam itself the Founding generation held differing views. An evangelical Baptist spokesman denounced "Mahomet" as a "hateful" figure who, unlike the meek and gentle Jesus, spread his religion at the point of a sword. A Presbyterian preacher in rural South Carolina dusted off Grotius' 17th century reproach that the "religion of Mahomet originated in arms, breathes nothing but arms, is propagated by arms." Other, more influential observers had a different view of Muslims. In 1783, the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, cited a study showing that "Mohammadan" morals were "far superior to the Christian." Another New Englander believed that the "moral principles that were inculcated by their teachers had a happy tendency to render them good members of society." The reference here, as other commentators made clear, was to Islam's belief, which it shared with Christianity, in a "future state of rewards and punishments," a system of celestial carrots and sticks which the Founding generation considered necessary to guarantee good social conduct.

"A Mahometan," wrote a Boston newspaper columnist, "is excited to the practice of good morals in hopes that after the resurrection he shall enjoy the beautiful girls of paradise to all eternity; he is afraid to commit murder, adultery and theft, lest he should be cast into hell, where he must drink scalding water and the scum of the damned." Benjamin Rush, the Pennsylvania signer of the Declaration of Independence and friend of Adams and Jefferson, applauded this feature of Islam, asserting that he had "rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles."

That ordinary citizens shared these positive views is demonstrated by a petition of a group of citizens of Chesterfield County, Va., to the state assembly, Nov. 14, 1785: "Let Jews, Mehometans and Christians of every denomination enjoy religious libertyÉthrust them not out now by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state. It is mens labour in our Manufactories, their services by sea and land that aggrandize our Country and not their creeds. Chain your citizens to the state by their Interest. Let Jews, Mehometans, and Christians of every denomination find their advantage in living under your laws."

The Founders of this nation explicitly included Islam in their vision of the future of the republic. Freedom of religion, as they conceived it, encompassed it. Adherents of the faith were, with some exceptions, regarded as men and women who would make law-abiding, productive citizens. Far from fearing Islam, the Founders would have incorporated it into the fabric of American life.

James H. Hutson is chief of the Manuscript Division and the author of many books, including "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," 1998 The Library of Congress - Information Bulletin - May 2002

Details
[Arabic font omitted]
Tadar Jihad Wazir
As-Salaam-u ikum!

Since this topic is the "hot news" for this time and it has been hit around like a ping pong ball I've come up with a snap shot of excerpts of what it is, and its utility.

For the states and clergy (?) who want to pass "Anti-Shariah" Laws are they acting in the mind-set of Christ and the Declaration of Independence with its Constitution for the U. S. A.?

Feel free to use this info for the betterment of humanity.

I seek refuge with Allah from the evil insinuations of The Rejected, Accursed Shaitan. With Allah’s name The Merciful Benefactor, The Merciful Redeemer, As-Salaam-u alaikum! (The Peace that comes from The G-d of The Peace that goes beyond all understanding be upon, to, and with you!)

The word shariy-‘ah comes from the Arabic letters “sheen-ra-‘ain; sha-ra-‘ah”.

According to “VOCABULARY OF THE HOLY QURAN, Second Print, p. 303, by Dr. Abdullah Abbas Nadwi” shariy-‘ah is an “active participle” meaning “law (divine).” “Note: ? is not only a ‘law or ordinance’ but also a religion, or a way of belief and practice in respect of religion.” “<law (divine) (n.)” ?? litt. Custom, way.”

This is the form used in Surah (Chapter) Al Ma’idah (The Table spread) 5:48 “And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.” (48) M. Pickthal Emphasis mine, Tadar Jihad Wazir

The following excerpts from “LANE’S LEXICON” pertain to religion, and are variants of the word sha-ra-‘ah. “and in like manner, an affair, or a case; and religion.” The following 3 on p. #1534 show how it’s used. “God made apparent, manifest, or plain, to us, such a thing.” “Such a one made apparent, manifest, or plain, the truth, or right.” “He instituted, established, or prescribed, for them, or to them, a religious ordinance, a law,”

Page 1535 “then applied as a name for A manifest, a plain, or an open, track, or road, or way:--and then, metaphorically, to The divine way of religion; so says Er-Raghib”

Of, or relating to, the religion or law. –And Accordant to the religion or law; legal, or legitimate.”

“…And hence, … , … as also , … and , …signifies likewise … ; because it is a way to the means of eternal life; …or because of its manifestness; …The religious law of God…consisting of such ordinances as those of fasting and prayer and pilgrimage …and the giving of the poor-rate …and marriage, …and other acts …of piety, or of obedience to God, or of duty to Him and to men” “Signifies also [A law, an ordinance, or a statute: and] a religion, or way of belief and practice in respect of religion: …and a way of belief or conduct that is manifest …and right …in religion; and so” ?

Page 1536 “?also means The learned man who practices what he knows and instructs others: And hence it is applied to designate the Prophet: as meaning The legislator: or the announcer of the law:] or because he made manifest and plain the religion, or religious law of God.”

Read: Al Baqarah 2:122-124-127-129-132; An-Nisa’ 4:58/59; Al Furqan 25:63-74-76; Fussilat 41:33-34/35-36; Ash-Shuraa 42:36-37/38-43; and “Letter from Prophet Muhammad to all hristians”.

In the Holy Book (the Bible in Arabic) the only True G-d calls Himself Allah as do all of the key biblical people. The Bible and its practitioners were in Arabia a very long time before the advent of Prophet Muhammad. A Christian monk was the first person to recognize Muhammad as the Prophet of prophecy in their scriptures. Variants of the word shari’ah are found in the following excerpted passages of revealed scripture, please read the cited passages in the context that they are given to get Allah’s definitive uses of His shariyah? Genesis 26:5 ? Exodus 12:49 ; 13:9 ; and 18:16 ?? ; Numbers 5:30 ; Deuteronomy 1:5 ; 17:11 ??; and 33:2 (Here note these passages: Deut. 32:1-17/18 [??, G-d]-39/40-44; Ezra 7:10-26 ; Isaiah 43:3-10-12 [?? ?, I am G-d]-15; Mark 13:19 [?, G-d]); 1 Kings 2:3 ; 1 Chronicles 22:12 ; Matthew 5:17 /18 ; 7:12 ; 11:13 ; and 22:36 , and 40 ; and Romans 6:14 ? /15 ?.

From the above examples of the divinely prescribed/inspired uses of Allah’s Manifesto called Shariah one can see that its’ goal is to establish intellectual, ethical, moral, civil people/societies under His Authority according to their capacity to so be. And they are obligated to be in accord with His Word, Will, and Way.

The Shari’ah is manifested through three (3) prioritized phases: (1) The Shari’ah: Originates with “the only true G-d” (John 17:3, KJV): Deuteronomy 8:1-3-6; Matthew 4:1-4; Luke 4:1-4; and Al ‘Alaq or Iqra’ 96:1-5. (2) Codification of The Shari’ah: Guided by Allah Special Messengers teach their book/ live the practical application(s) of its’ shari’ah: The Torah (Moses, Exodus-Deuteronomy), The New Testament (Jesus, Matthew-John), and The Qur’an (Muhammad, especially Al Ahqaf 46:1-9-10 [9 Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration: I am but a Warner open and clear." A. Y. Ali]). (3) Interpreting and applying the meaning(s) of the principles of The Shari’ah: This is to be done by learned, spiritual, holy people of the various books down through the ages. Ezra 7: 10-26 ; Matthew 22:34-40 ; Al An’am 6:70-90, 90 “to those whom God has guided. Follow, then, their guidance, {and} say: ‘No reward do I ask of you for this {truth}: behold, it is but an admonition unto all mankind!’” Muhammad Asad; and Al Hujraat 49:10-13 “…Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” A. Y. Ali Emphasis mine, Tadar Jihad Wazir. Formerly, in the USA to get admitted to a school of higher education one had to have a strong desire to “know G-d”.

This is the philosophy of Arkansas AM&N College, a.k.a. UA at Pine Bluff: “The end of education is to know God and the laws and principles of His Universe, and to reconcile one’s life with these laws.” That is shari’ah.

The founding fathers of The United States of America understood this very well as they perused their Bibles and some Qur’ans in establishing the wording of The Declaration of Independence for this country that was being founded to establish “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. That is shari’ah stated concisely.

Those eight words in the Preamble to America’s Declaration of Independence were the truths that they, and all right minded, Creator fearing people, held and hold to be “self evident”.

This is the Preamble for the Constitution of 1875 for the State of Missouri “We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the state.” That is shari’ah.

The Preambles of each of the fifty (50) states of the United States of America acknowledges Allah’s Authority over people and our activities. Their statements are shari’ah, also.

According to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, a country established to establish “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” That is shari’ah.

Under Common Law and “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s G-d” Ecclesiastical Law can be enforced in a house of worship except for imprisoning one, executing one, etc. That is shari’ah.

In America a religious group can establish themselves geo-politically and establish their own religious oriented town, with its’ own set of laws, law enforcers, etc. that are subordinate to the laws of the land. That is shari’ah.

For religious law violations one can be tried in an Ecclesiastical Court. And or have the charges filed with a state court to be tried by Ecclesiastical Law in the state court. This is done with qualified members of the faith group serving as lawyers, judges, special masters, etc. Or the charges are to be tried by the state court. That is shari’ah.

The first written authoritative constitution of a state, issued by its’ sovereign, was between Prophet Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Yathrib (a.k.a. Medina/ Madinah). See “The First Written Constitution in the World”, by M. Hamidullah or R. Doi

BILL TAMMEUS
on responding to
Islamophobic emails
from his 2010 Sep 11-12 blog

A few days ago, a friend who is a pastor sent me a note pleading for help in how to respond to an e-mail he had received in which Islam was simply cluster-bombed with one fear-mongering lie after another.

Here's what I told him -- and, in turn, what I now tell you to do when you hear or read anti-Islamism (and if that term reminds you of antisemitism and its horrors, good):

Please remove me from your list. I have no need to receive hate mail, which is exactly what this is. You may feel free to discuss Islam with me when you have:

1. Read everything at this Web link (from the Religion Newswriters Association) and thought about it in depth.

2. Read and thought about these books:

* Understanding Islam: An Introduction, by C.T. R. Hewer
* The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity, by Seyyed Hossein Nasr
* American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion, by Paul M. Barrett
* Opening the Qur'an: Introducing Islam's Holy Book, by Walter H. Wagner

3. Become active with the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council and have worked toward creating religious understanding among people of different faiths.

Until then, I expect to hear no more about this from you.

The Kansas City Interfaith Situation Affected by the NY "Mosque" and Qur'an Burning Controversies

Both Muslims and non-Muslims have voiced deep concerns to me. One non-Muslim was alarmed by the planned burning of a Qur'an elsewhere because he feared it might unleash against Muslims an American version of "Kristallnacht," the 1938 Nazi pogrom against the Jews. Some Muslims told me they were afraid. Other Muslims did not think it could affect us in Kansas City because of strong interfaith relationships. One Muslim said that this Ramadan was "painful" but also blessed because of local interfaith response. One group which has sought to work in Kansas City, the Antidefamation League, has probably suffered considerable loss of credibility because of the stance of its national body against the location of the inaccurately labeled "Ground Zero Mosque."

The Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council issued an important statement reminding us that Muslims are contributing to all aspects of community life here and have repeatedly condemned those who profaned their faith by terrorist acts. The Kansas City statement has been used around the country in Georgia, Massachusetts and New York.

The Raytown Community Inter-Faith Alliance also issued a statement condemning words and acts that "caricature both Islam and Christianity."

The Kansas City Disciples Peace Fellowship held a special interfaith observance on Sept. 11.

Second Presbyterian Church hosted a discussion with Ed Chasteen (founder of Hatebusters), Imam Yahya H. Furqan, Bassam Helwani (founder of Culturally Speaking), and Imam Taalib-ud-Din al-Ansare, (a clinical pastoral educator and chaplain supervisor at Research Medical Center).

Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral featured Muslim leader Mahnaz Shabbir at its Christian Formation class.

My own organization, CRES, has collected nearly 100 information and opinion articles about the controversies and linked them on our website, www.cres.org, along with my own analysis.

Members of the Muslim community have gone out of their way this year to invite non-Muslims to their homes for iftar (dinner after sunset during the month of Ramadan) because the most powerful way of responding to lies about Islam is not argument but getting acquainted with our Muslim neighbors.

Groups doing interfaith have multiplied in the last dozen years, but they are often uncoordinated. Despite the work of the Interfaith Council, there is no organizational connection among the congregations of the metro area, or even interfaith groups. With limited resources, It is amazing what Kansas City spirit and good will has achieved in building community comity. But many of us miss the leadership we once had with Rabbi Michael Zedek and Father Thom Savage, S.J.

The community is not served when religious leaders of certain faiths offer programs affecting another faith without that faith being represented. Not only does the absence of faiths being discussed create the impression that they have no worthy presence in Kansas City, it models and creates antagonism, perverting the very meaning of interfaith mutuality. At least one educational institution of higher learning has presented programs about Islam that are, in my opinion, academically veiled prejudice. The annual "Prayers for the Peace of Jerusalam" have been led by Christian and Jewish folks, excluding Muslims. Despite repeated urgings a local school involved with a wonderful international exhibit of interfaith leadership focused on Christian and Jewish themes, deliberately excluding Islam. A public conversation planned to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian issue is led by a Jewish and Christian leader, no Palestinian (either Christian or Muslim) involved.

I worry that some doing interfaith work are too ready to ignore the problems that persist in our community, both institutional and personal. This is a danger because folks attracted to interfaith work become a good-will echo chamber. The recent events have awakened us that, while we can celebrate what has been accomplished, there is always the danger that the bridges of understanding that have been build here can be blown up by bigots.

On Aug. 9, on her program, local talk-show host Darla Jaye said, “I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists seem to be Muslim. That issue I think is a slap in the face to the three thousand people who died in that building and all of the families who have suffered countless horrors since then.” And the Christian minister's response was, "On this you and I are in agreement.” Later he distinguished between the “tiny fragment” of terrorist Muslims from others, but never challenged Darla’s statement that all terrorists seem to be Muslim.
They ignored Christian Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City, the hooded Christians reciting the Bible and burning crosses and killing thousands of black bothers and sisters, the Christian raids on Indian lands, and so forth, even in our own nation.

A local mayor in an email to his constituents, raised the fear that "Sharia Law" is threatening us. His email displays ignorance of Islam.

Comments a small number of readers of news reports and columns relating to Islam posted on The Star web site are profoundly disturbing and worrisome. A regular writer for The Star spouts hatred and ignorance (see the Glen Enloe column below).

More days than not, I receive emails hateful about Islam from local residents, many of them suggesting I know nothing about Islam, while it is clear they are responding to others either out of ignorance or a political agenda or both. Emails circulated nationally have a disturbing effect locally. Perhaps once a week, on average, someone writes me genuinely asking for help in understanding Islam. Some weeks recently, I've probably spent at least 20 hours responding. Many responses to those writing about my Star column are available on my website.

Kansas City has achieved the critical mass of interfaith cooperation and understanding so folks of all faiths realize that we must celebrate each others' faiths if we are to be true to our own. It is increasingly clear both locally and internationally that the struggle is not between competing faith traditions but between those within every faith who want to build bridges and those within every faith who see other faiths through the lens of conflict and war. Those I know doing interfaith work are redoubling their efforts so that the fabric of our community is not ripped by prejudice.

The contemporary intellectual origins of the conflict-war approach are often thought to be Samuel P. Huntington's 1993 book, "Clash of Civilizations," and furthered by Bernard Lewis in 1990 with his article, "The Roots of Muslim Rage." The problem within the Abrahamic faiths is deepened by the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\

EXAMPLE OF LOCAL ISLAMOPHOBIA AND IGNORANCE

COMMENTARY
The Kanas City Star, Sept 11, 2010
Proposed Manhattan mosque should be a national shame

By GLEN ENLOE
Midwest Voices

There once was a time in America that if we were attacked we would pick ourselves up, roll up our sleeves, rebuild and defeat our enemies. Now we whimper, point fingers, play politics and weakly wag our tongues.
   Only in America would the absurdity of allowing a 13-story community center containing a Muslim mosque to be constructed near ground zero even be considered. Again, America’s inherent goodness is taken advantage of as we are kicked in the groin. Stunningly, we will apparently allow this reminder of those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to be constructed. The irony and insensitivity is staggering.
   The proposal — which some view as a “victory” mosque, and reportedly costing more than $100 million — was originally named after Cordoba, a Spanish city conquered by Muslims in the 8th century.
   “Cordoba House” (now Park 51) was conceived by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Institute. Cordoba’s director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has said little about the mosque’s funding. In the past he suggested that America shares blame for 9/11 and that we should “understand” the terrorists’ point of view.
   To allow this spit-in-the-face mosque near where almost 3,000 people died is laughable to extremist Muslims, embarrassing to many moderate Muslims and shameful for many Americans. It is akin to dancing on the graves of the dead. Also, since that dark time nine years ago, it has increasingly become a national disgrace that we repress film footage from 9/11. CBS has even refused to air a TV commercial with 9/11 images that opposes the mosque project.
   Governments cannot and should not distort history. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, did happen and won’t go away however much some try to obscure, rewrite or deny it.
   We need to see those pictures again and again no matter how disturbing, horrific or politically awkward. To try to erase them from our national memory is criminal and insidious.
   While America is a country built on religious freedom, liberals seem only concerned with Muslim religious freedoms, not Christian freedoms.
   The Islamization of America is like a slow cancer. Liberals leave us ripe for Sharia Law as once again, our freedoms work in their favor. The tattered cards of religious and racial intolerance are played against us by those who want their way but not the American way.
   Our country is further disheartened by an administration that gives the appearance of favoring Muslims over Christians. They deny this, but our eyes, ears and hearts tell us differently.
   The people of New York deserve better. Building a mosque in the shadow of our worst terrorist attack would be symbolic of America’s moral defeat and lack of resolve.
   Erecting this salt-in-the-wound edifice dishonors those who died there, their relatives and all of America. Our state-suing government should do the right thing for once. We need to investigate the mosque’s funding, not the funding of those who oppose the mosque.
   Yes, what amounts to a victory mosque near where the Twin Towers once so proudly stood would be the final indignity, the ultimate outrage. We need to make stands on principle, not bows in appeasement.
   In truth, the only thing that should have been built at ground zero would have been another bigger and better World Trade Center. That would have sent a message to the world.
   We once built the tallest skyscraper on earth. Now, we settle for lesser memorials that are still unfinished after nearly a decade. Sadly, the once mighty America not only shrugs, but weeps.

Glen Enloe is a former advertising writer, graphic artist and direct mail appeal writer. He is the author of two books of free verse and four books of cowboy poetry. He lives in Independence. To reach him, send e-mail to oped@kcstar.com or write to Midwest Voices, c/o Editorial Page, The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108.

For Vern's complete statement, click here.

Local Muslims find support after recent controversies
THE KANSAS CITY STAR,
HELEN T. GRAY
Sat, Sep 18, 2010

Sept. 18--Mustafa Hussein of the Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City didn't know what to expect.

The proposed Islamic center and mosque in New York City blocks from ground zero has drawn harsh anti-Muslim reaction.

A Florida pastor threatened to burn copies of the Qur'an.

E-mails and calls started coming into the local center. To Hussein's delight, they were supportive. Many people called to apologize for the behavior of those railing against Islam.

Requests poured in for Muslims to speak at various houses of worship from people wanting to learn about Islam and its holy book, the Qur'an.

"I have seen that every time someone wants to do harm, a lot of good comes out of it," Hussein said.

What may have been intended for one purpose has had the opposite effect, say some area leaders with an interest in interfaith relations.

Since 9/11, Muslims have become more involved in community outreach programs and have opened their centers to visitors of all faiths.

Getting to know Muslims eases people's fears, Hussein said.

"They see that Muslims are people of peace, seeking the same things as everybody else. We just have a different religion," he said.

The Rev. Adam Hamilton of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in Leawood said he has heard from his congregation concern for Muslims and disappointment that Christians would advocate the burning of the Qur'an and trashing people of another faith.

"Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors," he said. "I think this has had the opposite impact from what the Florida pastor intended.

"Most Christians reacted with revulsion. In the end, it caused Christians to say, 'This is not who we are.' "

The Rev. Robert Hill of Community Christian Church in Kansas City agrees.

"I think this will make me and all my colleagues in interfaith relations speak up and speak out when we hear something of a bigoted nature from someone who claims Christianity," he said.

The incidents "will quicken our resolve locally to be forthright about what makes better relations," Hill said.

The Rev. Michael Stephens of Southwood United Church of Christ in Raytown went to talk personally with Hussein and the principal of a local Islamic school.

"Many more of us are intentionally reaching out to our Muslim neighbors to offer support and seek deeper understanding," he said.

Religious understanding and mutual respect are needed now more than ever, and the place to start is in one's neighborhood, said Shannon Clark, executive director of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council.

"Members of the Muslim community have gone out of their way this year to invite non-Muslims to their homes for iftar (dinner after sunset during the month of Ramadan) because the most powerful way of responding to lies about Islam is not argument, but getting acquainted with our Muslim neighbors," said Vern Barnet, a longtime leader in Kansas City interfaith work.

Abbot Gregory Polan of Conception Abbey said many Catholic churches have been offering prayers of intercession to find a peaceful resolution to the New York Islamic center situation.

"All of this has just encouraged me to broaden our scope of dialogue so we can understand one another better and break down the walls of fear that separate us and seem to create actions of violence and disrespect," said Polan, who is the interfaith officer for the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

Mahnaz Shabbir, a local Muslim who has been active in interfaith work, said she has heard from people offering support for her family and other Muslims. Among them were a Christian minister and a Hindu.

Several area faith groups have issued statements of support for Muslims. These include the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council, the Community of Christ and the Raytown Community Inter-Faith Alliance.

But not all is positive, Barnet said.

Kansas City has a long history of interfaith efforts, and interfaith activities have multiplied in the last dozen years, Barnet said, even though they are often uncoordinated. Barnet writes a weekly faith column for The Star.

"The recent events have awakened us that, while we can celebrate what has been accomplished, there is always the danger that the bridges of understanding that have been built here can be blown up by bigots."

Negative rhetoric on local radio talk shows and local website comments "have unfortunately proven that the Kansas City community is not immune to religious prejudices," Clark said. "These examples have confirmed the importance and need for interfaith dialogue and education in our community."

The recent controversies involving the New York center, she said, "will help make people realize how important learning about the many faith traditions and cultures that make up the beautiful mosaic of our country."

To reach Helen Gray, call 816-234-4446 or send e-mail to hgray@kcstar.com.

To a correspondent complaining about the size of government and welfare payments:

We have different perspectives, don't we! I think the far greater problem is the Military- Industrial-Educational complex Eisenhower warned us against and the extraordinary concentration of wealth. The immoral Bank of America paid Ken Lewis $100,000,000 for one year's "work" recently while ordinary, hard-working folk suffer through the incompetent foreclosure proceedings. Wall Street execs who produce no social goods with their gambling siphon off money from the rest of the economy. We need bigger, stronger government to counter these forces, but -- for example -- the defense industry has jobs in almost all of the 435 Congressional districts which means that voting is influenced by industry lobbyists, not to mention big pharma, the NRA, AIPAC, foreign interests, and other groups that are sending our country to hell.
Just today (Oct 28) we learn that Halliburton knew the cement to seal the BP well was faulty long before 11 men were killed in the Deep Horizon disaster. And Glaxo is paying most of a billion dollars for its fraud. But so much is unchecked by lax and underpowered regulation. Th FCC is settling for a record $25 million settlement with Verizon Wireless for wrongly charging subscribers "mystery" Internet fees over the past several years.
No, I think the welfare problem is a skillful smokescreen Big Money uses to turn people away from facing the problems they cause by making ordinary people feel superior to the downtrodden. But more and more of us are being thrown into the river.

Vern Barnet Award

Vern Barnet, whom many of you know from the column “Sacred Paths” that he has written for Camp and his weekly column, “Faith and Beliefs,” in The Kansas City Star was honored Nov. 21 at the 26th annual Thanksgiving Sunday ritual dinner with the first Vern Barnet Interfaith Service Award.

We could not agree more with this very fitting award in honor of Vern Barnet. To read his acceptance remarks, visit www.cres.org.

In their press release, the group states, “This new award was named in honor of the decisive impact of Rev. Barnet’s work in creating an expanded and unique climate of interfaith cooperation in Greater Kansas City. For the 26th year, the Greater Kansas City community will gather to celebrate an American tradition with interfaith unity. Created and sponsored by CRES from 1984 through 2009, the tradition is now continued by the Heartland Chapter of the Alliance of Divine Love and partners as a community-wide interfaith event cosponsored this year with the Johnson County Community College Office of International Education and Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

CampBiz - December 2010
December 2, 2010
by John Long

New York Times
December 19, 2010
A Tough Season for Believers
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Christmas is hard for everyone. But it’s particularly hard for people who actually believe in it.
In a sense, of course, there’s no better time to be a Christian than the first 25 days of December. But this is also the season when American Christians can feel most embattled. Their piety is overshadowed by materialist ticky-tack. Their great feast is compromised by Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism. And the once-a-year churchgoers crowding the pews beside them are a reminder of how many Americans regard religion as just another form of midwinter entertainment, wedged in between “The Nutcracker” and “Miracle on 34th Street.”
These anxieties can be overdrawn, and they’re frequently turned to cynical purposes. (Think of the annual “war on Christmas” drumbeat, or last week’s complaints from Republican senators about the supposed “sacrilege” of keeping Congress in session through the holiday.) But they also reflect the peculiar and complicated status of Christian faith in American life. Depending on the angle you take, Christianity is either dominant or under siege, ubiquitous or marginal, the strongest religion in the country or a waning and increasingly archaic faith.
Happily, for those who need a last-minute gift for the anxious Christian in their life, the year just past featured two thick, impressive books that wrestle with exactly these complexities.
The first is “American Grace,” co-written by Harvard’s Robert Putnam (of “Bowling Alone” fame) and Notre Dame’s David Campbell, which examines the role that religion plays in binding up the nation’s social fabric. Over all, they argue, our society reaps enormous benefits from religious engagement, while suffering from few of the potential downsides. Widespread churchgoing seems to make Americans more altruistic and more engaged with their communities, more likely to volunteer and more inclined to give to secular and religious charities. Yet at the same time, thanks to Americans’ ever-increasing tolerance, we’ve been spared the kind of sectarian conflict that often accompanies religious zeal.
But for Christians, this sunny story has a dark side. Religious faith looks more socially beneficial to America than ever, but the institutional Christianity that’s historically generated most of those benefits seems to be gradually losing its appeal.
In the last 50 years, the Christian churches have undergone what “American Grace” describes as a shock and two aftershocks. The initial earthquake was the cultural revolution of the 1960s, which undercut religious authority as it did all authority, while dealing a particular blow to Christian sexual ethics. The first aftershock was the rise of religious conservatism, and particularly evangelical faith, as a backlash against the cultural revolution’s excesses. But now we’re living through the second aftershock, a backlash to that backlash — a revolt against the association between Christian faith and conservative politics, Putnam and Campbell argue, in which millions of Americans (younger Americans, especially) may be abandoning organized Christianity altogether.
Their argument is complemented by the University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter’s “To Change the World,” an often withering account of recent Christian attempts to influence American politics and society. Having popularized the term “culture war” two decades ago, Hunter now argues that the “war” footing has led American Christians into a cul-de-sac. It has encouraged both conservative and liberal believers to frame their mission primarily in terms of conflict, and to express themselves almost exclusively in the “language of loss, disappointment, anger, antipathy, resentment and desire for conquest.”
Thanks in part to this bunker mentality, American Christianity has become what Hunter calls a “weak culture” — one that mobilizes but doesn’t convert, alienates rather than seduces, and looks backward toward a lost past instead of forward to a vibrant future. In spite of their numerical strength and reserves of social capital, he argues, the Christian churches are mainly influential only in the “peripheral areas” of our common life. In the commanding heights of culture, Christianity punches way below its weight.
Putnam and Campbell are quantitative, liberal, and upbeat; Hunter is qualitative, conservative and conflicted. But both books come around to a similar argument: this month’s ubiquitous carols and crèches notwithstanding, believing Christians are no longer what they once were — an overwhelming majority in a self-consciously Christian nation. The question is whether they can become a creative and attractive minority in a different sort of culture, where they’re competing not only with rival faiths but with a host of pseudo-Christian spiritualities, and where the idea of a single religious truth seems increasingly passé.
Or to put it another way, Christians need to find a way to thrive in a society that looks less and less like any sort of Christendom — and more and more like the diverse and complicated Roman Empire where their religion had its beginning, 2,000 years ago this week.

August 23, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Shannon Clark, Executive Director
Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council
www.kcinterfaith.org, 913-548-2973
THE GREATER KANSAS CITY INTERFAITH COUNCIL WORKS TO ENSURE THAT ALL FAITHS ARE WELCOME TO BUILD AND GROW THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP IN THE GREATER KANSAS CITY COMMUNITY.
KANSAS CITY, MO – The Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council's (GKCIC) vision is to build "the most welcoming community for all people.” One specific goal of the GKCIC is to "work with educational, spiritual, and religious leaders and the media in promoting accurate and fair portrayal of the faiths within our community."
Our community is threatened when any faith is misrepresented. The hysteria involved in the controversy over a new Islamic community center, which includes a mosque, in a commercial zone near Ground Zero in New York City requires us to reaffirm the American tradition of religious liberty.
As our Muslim neighbors celebrate the holy month of Ramadan, we recall with appreciation their daily contributions to medicine, business, education, public service, and other dimensions of our community life. They need to know that we claim them as fellow Americans and cherish their part in the religious liberty that makes our community and our nation strong.
The terrorists did not commit a religious act on 9/11; it was murder. Overwhelmingly Muslims locally and worldwide immediately spoke out against the defilement of their faith on that day.
Our citizens still feel the pain of 9/11. Even as we grieve with the victims' families, we continue to support the principles of freedom and religious liberty upon which our nation is built. The GKCIC honors and embraces our community's religious differences and strives to ensure that all faiths are welcome to build and grow their places of worship.
The GKCIC, founded in 1989, brings together fifteen vital faith communities of the Kansas City area. The council meets on a monthly basis to work toward its mission of growing a sustainable pervasive culture of knowledge, respect, appreciation, and trust amongst all people. Membersof the following faith groups serve on the council: American Indian, Baha’i Faith, Buddhism, Christian Orthodox, Christian Protestant, Christian Roman Catholic, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Sikhism, Sufism, Unitarian Universalism, Vedanta, and Zoroastrianism. The members of the GKCIC believe that by raising awareness of our differences and similarities, by building relationships, and through education, the community can learn to respect and value its neighbors of many faiths. The GKCIC offers education about the fifteen faith groups through the GKCIC “Speakers Bureau.” Please contact the GKCIC at www.kcinterfaith.org or 913-548-2973 for information on how to arrange for a speaker at your place of work, your school, or your place of worship and to learn about our other interfaith programs.

Column number. YrMoDa

850. 101229 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
A new year for interfaith growth

Will next year reshape and enhance Kansas City’s interfaith efforts? Here’s what I’ll be looking for:
   *** How will we mark the tenth anniversaries of 9/11 and of the Gifts of Pluralism interfaith conference?
    For the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks, virtually every faith and dozens of congregations and civic groups cooperated in an observance of “Remembrance and Renewal.”
    It began before dawn at Ilus Davis Park between City Hall and the Charles Evans Whittaker U.S. Courthouse with a water ceremony, continued with police escort to Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral for day-long prayer and concluded that evening with Jewish and Muslim children singing together songs of peace.
   CBS-TV included portions of morning and evening rituals in a half-hour special broadcast.
    The two-day Gifts of Pluralism conference concluded with a unanimous declaration to the secular world outlining the wisdom of the world’s faiths, now well-represented among us, to resolve our environmental, personal and social problems.
    Will such imaginative and healing energies again be manifest in 2011?
    *** Will people of all faiths take fuller advantage of the extraordinary arts venues here to deepen their own spiritual lives? Will we break down the artificial barrier of what is religion and what is art?
   The Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts will open in September. The Bloch wing of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art opened in 2007. The Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art at Johnson County Community College also opened that year, adding to the numerous organizations of highest standards that make Kansas City an exceptional arts town.
    Yet there is little palpable connection between interfaith exploration and the astonishing artistic resources easily accessible here. Theater, painting, dance, opera, jazz, chamber and symphony music and other arts are just as essential for knowing the sacred realm of the human heart as a theological discourse.
    Will arts organizations and interfaith groups pay more attention to each other?
    *** Will Kansas City build on its past reputation as one of America’s leading cities doing interfaith work?
    If we’d include an interfaith chapel at Kansas City International Airport, as many other cities do, that would be a good sign.
    If we created a high school or high school curriculum for students of all faiths, we’d be building the future.
    If we implemented the 1996 Mayor’s Task Force on Race Relations recommendation to develop a metro-wide Council of Congregations, we’d be surely blessed.
    The year opens with possibilities ready to be seized.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

JonHarker
   How will we mark the 10th annivesayr of 9/11?
   The real question is, how will Muslilm Terrorists mark it?
   And will all Muslim groups in Kansas City come out and WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS WHATSOEVER denounce terrorism in ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES?
   And Constitutionly speaking, I am going to help opposed any government funding for "interfaith" chapels of high school "interfaith" curriculums.
   You can pay for it, Vern, but not with my money.

VERN REPLIED
JonHarker -- Please write me, vern@cres.org, and I will send you links documenting local, national, and world-wide condemnations of terrorism by Muslims. Please remember those injured and killed by continuing terrorism are very often Muslims. The problem is with extremists in all faiths and ideologies. It was a Jewish assassin who killed Rabin, a Muslim fanatic who murdered Sadat, a Hindu extremist who killed Gandhi, and in our own country, a Christian who killed so many in Oklahoma City. The United States works closely, militarily and diplomatically, with many Muslim nations fighting terrorism. I recently had dinner with Pakistani officers who are guests at Ft Leavenworth and their desire to defeat terrorism is as strong as ours.

JonHarker
   McVeigh was not a Christian, Vern, and clearly stated in a Time Interview that you know about that "science is my God.".
   But what I asked was, will Muslim groups in Kansas City come out and WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS WHATSOEVER denounce terrorism in ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES?
   If you have links to such statements, publish them HERE.
   Thanks in advance.

VERN REPLIED
   The quotation cited from Time (which I did not know about) is misleading, and the explanation can be found in places such as "An Accurate Look at Timothy McVeigh's Beliefs" by Bruce Prescott in EthicsDaily dot com, January 26, 2010. Timothy McVeigh, confirmed Catholic, was later influenced by the Christian Identity movement. The problem is not with what a person claims to be, whether atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whatever. The problem is terrorism. When terrorists use their faith label to justify their terrorism, their claims should receive no respect, whether they say their God is science or Allah or Krishna. I do not respect the Israeli identity of Yigal Amir, for example.
   I repeat: If you email me directly, vern@cres.org, I will respond with links to statements by Muslims condemning terrorism, or you can find them on the home page of my web site. Since my experience is that direct links are removed from comments here, the URL for my web site is "cres" dot "org."
   In exchange, you may please email me with statements from local and world-wide Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc., who (your capitalized words) "WITHOUT ANY RESERVATIONS WHATSOEVER denounce terrorism in ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES." Thank you. Without such documentation, I would respectfully conclude that our exchange had run its course.

849. 101222 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
The true beauty of incarnation

My atheist friend and I were having a wonderful conversation. I don’t remember what fool thing I said when he asked me in a rhetorical tone, “You do believe in incarnation, don’t you?”
   Invoking what sounded like the Christian doctrine that God became human in Jesus, the question from him knocked me off balance.
   He was using a familiar term to argue that we can know about values and virtues only as they appear “in the flesh.” To put it another way, he was arguing that the spirit can be known only when it appears in manifest form.
   “Kansas City Spirit,” for example, is nothing unless it is expressed in rolling up our sleeves and solving problems like the high murder rate, in advancing the city in ways such as building the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts or even in a Chiefs tailgate party.
   The word “incarnation” derives from the Latin, carnis, flesh. Related words include carnivore, carnage, carnal and carnival, originally a festival just before the Lenten abstention from meat.
   Christians are not the only ones with the idea of the divine taking human form. Hindus, for example, tell of the god Vishnu, among others, descending onto earth repeatedly. These appearances are called avatars. Vishnu’s incarnations include Rama and Krishna, and some Hindus consider Jesus such an avatar.
   The idea that God becomes human is deeply troubling to most Jews and Muslims because divine perfection cannot be reconciled with the limitations of human personality. However, Jesus is often mentioned in the Qur’an, and Muslims consider him a great prophet.
   The ancient Romans told many stories of gods taking human or even animal form for sport without losing their divine powers, so they thought only crazy people would say that God incarnate in Jesus accepted the suffering that comes with being human.
   While some Christians observed the Feast of the Incarnation nine months ago, Christmas is the festival marking the birth into this world of God in the human form of Jesus.
   My atheist friend used the term incarnation to point to what he called the “miracle of awareness” arising from mere flesh, through processes like oxygen being captured by blood and sent throughout the body in respiration, and the metabolic marvel of microbes digesting our food.
   My atheist friend used the term incarnation to point to what he called the “miracle of awareness.” He emphasized that without the support of fleshy functions like breathing and the digestion of food,* we would be unable to think or sing or dance. Without incarnation, taking bodily form, we could not love.
   But perhaps an even greater miracle occurs when human selfishness is transmuted into service to others, when one’s own suffering is embraced as the fee for saving others, when Christmas is not just a story from long ago but rather when surpassing love becomes incarnate in the work of our own hands.

*Processes like oxygen being captured by blood and sent throughout the body in respiration, and the metabolic marvel of microbes transforming our food into our flesh and energy.

READER COMMENT

P B wrote
I was doing a memorial service today for one of our residents and the theme that kept coming back from those who appreciated his rides, loved his home grown tomatoes and giving a cold glass of ice tea at the right moment, was being the neighbor that we all need, embodied in this person. And since it's this time of year, I asked the folks, how does the Word become flesh? As people left, one person asked me if I had read your article today because it sounded a lot like the great message you had for us today. I had read it and I guess you had gotten inside my head without me knowing it and made this memorial so much better than it could have been. So if your ears were ringing, that's why. Thanks for the help.

J W wrote
What is your atheist friends believe about the beginning of the universe???

VERN REPLIED
   Do you mean how the universe started?
   I guess many atheists would say science tells us all we can know about the natural processes.
I would add that religious stories help us understand the possible meanings of those processes and the results.
   If you imply that Someone must have created the universe, they would likely reply that this is a logically defective position. For example, if you say "Everything has a cause," then the question follows, "What caused God?" If you say "God is the First Cause," then one can just as well say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the First Cause" or "The universe caused itself" or "The universe always was, alternating between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch repeatedly" or lots of other speculation. Or some atheists might agree with non-theistic religions such as Taoism and Buddhism which have no Creator God at all.
   I hope I've understood your question correctly and offered a reasonable representation of the positions of many atheists. Thank you for reading my column and for writing.

J W responded
If atheists do not believe in a creator, than it seems logical to believe that all matter, and energy in the entire universe has all come from nothing. What are the other options??? Thank you for your help.

VERN RESPONDED
The option that matter/energy is created out of nothing is, apparently, one of the ways of looking at the issue from current scientific experiments in quantum mechanics.
The other option, favored by Buddhists, is that the universe always was and is in constant change. One formulation, interesting from a psychological perspective, is kasanika-vada [kshanikavada], the teaching that the universe disappears and reappears in every split-second. This explains everything without having to invent a Creator god. They speak not of a Beginning but the very No-Beginning.

J W responded
I am asking specifically about atheist and what they believe about the beginning of the universe. Does quantum mechanics suggest that anything comes from nothing?? I have never heard that. The belief that the universe always was, kind of bypasses and glosses over the creation/nothing question. Lazy inconvenient thinking??? Thank you for bearing with me.

VERN RESPONDED
   You might read THE WHOLE SHEBANG by Timothy Ferris as an introduction to cosmological science. The book has 40 pages of excellent notes after the main text. There are others that discuss such questions, but this is as good a start as any, I think.
   I don't see any way of proving whether one view is more reasonable than another concerning whether the universe has always existed in some form or whether matter is constantly being created out of nothing. I can't see any objection on logical grounds to preferring the idea that the universe was created vs the universe has always existed. In either case, our thinking reaches a point where we give a name (such as God or universe) for what seems to be the outer reaches of our ability to think.
   Let me know what you think of the book!

J W responded
Thank you, I'll check out the book.

D T wrote
I was intrigued by your column today on Incarnation. I'm curious about your perspective regarding the comparison/contrast between the Christian and Hindu versions. It would seem you believe they are comparable-either both myth or both historical. Is that your view? It seems a bit strange and irrational considering the corresponding historical evidence. I'm wondering if I misinterpreted your point.

VERN replied
   The big difference between Christian and Hindu understandings of Incarnation is that for Christians God was incarnated only once; for Hindus, the gods have no limit to the number of times they can incarnate. Both normative Christians and many Hindus claim the historical nature of incarnation -- thus the fighting between Muslims and fundamentalist Hindus over a site the Hindus think was the birth place of Krishna, an affliction of historicity I think they picked up from the West. Normative Hinduism, if there be such a thing, is trans-historical.
   Interestingly some of the mythic elements in the stories of Krishna and Jesus are the same--the slaughter of innocents, for example.
   Your view of historical evidence, and its importance, and mine probably differs considerably.

D T responded
I appreciate your response to my question. It is clear we view history from a different lens.
Here's a follow-up question: Consider a particular religious perspective which reveres, worships, etc. a figure who is clearly mythical-Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, etc. Let's say the follower lives a wonderfully fulfilled, meaningful, joyful life and attributes these positive characteristics to their faith. They are firmly convinced that their faith not only holds benefits for time but also for eternity.
You are obviously an expert in religion. Would you use your respectable position to affirm them in their faith or caution them against placing their faith in object unworthy of trust?

VERN responded
The crucial word in your question is "mythical." Think toward my perspective this way without expecting to understand it since your perspective seems to be shaped largely by [Enlightenment] scientific and historical paradigms which I reject as sufficient for understanding matters of faith:
My wife and I always told our son that in our house we played Santa, ie, Santa was a real role to be played. In the case of Santa, many could play that role well. We never deceived but we also respected the mythic power of Santa in our culture when interpreted for good.

D T responded
Perhaps a better choice of word than "mythical" would have been false, not-real, fictional, etc. I absolutely agree that matters of faith cannot be understood fully with only the scientific and historical perspectives. Faith according to Hebrews 1 specifically refers to things "not seen." In addition, Jesus calls us to have faith as a child. They know very little of "evidence" or "proof" and yet they trust fully.
On the other hand, would you acknowledge that an individual's faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed?

VERN responded
   A "myth," as the term is properly used in religious studies, is not a falsehood but on the contrary, paradigmatic Truth, a story that opens us to sacred reality, a pattern by which we can live our lives. Please read M Eliade or J Campbell, for example, or take a basic course in religious phenomenology.
   No, I don't "acknowledge that an individual's faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed." I don't think faith can be placed in any "object."
   We've been around this barn several times already over the years. On a two-dimensional surface, the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. But I'm on a sphere's surface, where they always add up to more than 180 degrees. You will probably again accuse me of arrogance, but we are simply not on the same page. It is like you talk football and I talk sonata.
   If you are sincere in wanting to understand my perspective, you have to get out of Enlightenment categories, and your follow-up questions seem to show you don't know how to do that. But I wonder if your real aim isn't to lure me into your set of answers. But we ask different questions and so our answers are incommensurable.
   If your faith is working for you, then Hallelujah. You don't need anything further from me.

D T responded
   Wow! Your response reminds me of a cornered animal who lashes out when trapped. Please be assured, I'm not trying to trap you. Your bitterness, anger and the insults that result are not hurtful to me, but are to you. They've reminded me of the following scriptures I'd encourage you to check out: I Peter 3:15, Proverbs 15:1, Colossians 4:6, Ephesians 4:31-32.
   Vern, much of what you propose is right on and I really appreciate. But some of your content is so bizarre-not like sonata to my football, or spherical dimensions to my triangle, but rather blatantly contradictory.
   You said, "If your faith is working for you, then Hallelujah." It would seem you'd support two people with mutually exclusive claims if the claims were working for each of them. In other words if I believe in God and the athiest does not-to both of us you'd give a hearty "Hallelujah" while conveniently ignoring the fact that one of us is right, while the other is wrong. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your perspective.
   Another bizarre claim was: "I don't think faith can be placed in any 'object.'" Perhaps, I'll never understand your higher level thinking, but this seems like total nonsense. By "object", I mean anything we place our faith in-person, place, thing, idea, etc. We place our faith on objects every day-our car, bike, chair, body, friends, God, Barack Obama, boss, employee, etc. If the object of our faith is not trustworthy, we should not place our faith there. All the faith in the world in a lake frozen over with a very thin layer of ice doesn't overcome the fact that if you walk on it you'll fall through. Of course when it comes to eternity the stakes of placing our faith on an unworthy object is infinitely more tragic. I'm assuming this statement by you was an accident, but if not, please illuminate.
   I do appreciate the following encouragement: "Hope you're enjoying being a father." Vern, every day is a constant challenge, and I'm constantly seeking advice-from you included. How many kids did you say you had? My wife and I have two children-Ethan is 3 and Isabella is 1. I'm convinced that God blesses us with children to humble us and keep us on our knees in prayer. That's certainly been the outcome for us.
   Thanks Vern and Happy New Year!

VERN responded
   There is no bitterness -- just perplexity that you want to continue a fruitless dialogue. I do not feel like a cornered animal. On the contrary, I have invited you to an area of faith which seems to me infinite. If you chose not to enter, that is your affair; you know for yourself better than I.
   To try another metaphor, I am quite content knowing that there is no unit common to both the side and the diagonal of a square; they are incommensurable, as our perspectives. Look, I taught logic at the university level; I am not sure I need much additional instruction. Your right/wrong dichotomy world is not the world in which I live. That is yet another way of our communication is futile unless, maybe, you study the paths I have suggested, about which you seem uninterested, perhaps because you have the truth already.
   About faith -- I thought our subject was the ultimate realm of religion, not transportation or politics. God for me is not an object.
   Indeed I wish you well as a person and wish all the best for you and your family.
   Since you have my best wishes, what more can you reasonably want from me? Is it that at some level you are uncertain of your own faith and need to convince me in order to convince yourself? I say, Hallelujah for your faith! Let it be sufficient. You don't need me.

I M wrote
   Your recent column about Incarnation mirrors some ideas I have been chewing on for a while. Once again I am certain my musings are far from original and unique, but if we all just ran around quoting those before us, what would happen to human growth?
   To quote your column, "To put it another way, he was arguing that the spirit can be known only when it appears in manifest form." Perhaps our next generation of enlightenment will pursue the idea that we need not look for the divine to manifest in human incarnation, we need to find incarnation outside organic life.
   The premise is that to become aware, the spiritual must become incarnate, otherwise there is no mechanism with which to feel, understand, or interact.
   To remove the restraint of the biological presupposition to this idea, let us depart from the notion that "Life" is exclusively organic and the notion that human life is solely capable of manifesting spiritually.
   I propose that any matrix capable of coherent interaction with itself or similar matrix types is capable of sustaining conscious life. Proceeding on this notion, we must then consider that events and processes we as humans perceive as part of our environment may in fact be valid life forms operating on a scale that makes the "life" unrecognizable to us. For example, our sun, a massive fusion reaction to us, may in fact be a living being capable of interaction with it's planets and, looking outward, with the stars and bodies outside our solar system. Distances we measure in light years become significantly compressed in scale when compared to the life span of a star. The light, radiation, particles, and other variations in behavior of our star may in fact be casual interaction with the stars around us. To us, even the light emitted from our star takes significant time on our scale to reach another star across interstellar space, but when scaled with the life rhythm of a star, these time segments become mere fractions of a second in "star time". In order for a living star to perceive human life, it would be like us using the CERN Large Hadron Collider to observe sub atomic particles and energies lasting only millionths of a second to us. This then means that it is entirely probable that events that we humans view as instantaneous energetic releases in our scale are living beings that view us as part of the semi-static environment on their scale.
   Has anyone produced a graphic animation of what the sun would be like if it's multi billion year life span were run fast forward to a human life span?? My guess is that it would resemble a pulsating undulating living creature swimming in concert with millions of other creatures in a massive school of what could be sentient, self-aware life.
   If this idea is the case, then the argument for multi-theism would become a much more valid proposal for expressing our observation of the spiritual in our mortal ability.

VERN REPLIED
I like your out-of-the-box/out-of-the-solar-system thinking! If you come across a graphic such as you ask about, please let me know.
I'm also intrigued by the notion that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, an epiphenomenon, just as the meaning of these words emerges from the letters of the alphabet. This is a topic in my all-time favorite book, Godel, Escher, Bach (1980), and one especially important in the discussions of computer/artificial intelligence. You are probably familiar with the arguments around the Turing test --
http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/test.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

JonHarker
   Your atheist friend can have no values or virtues, or belief in a transcendent spirit, because as an atheist all he can have are his own thoughts, which are simply the biochemical reactions in his own organiic brain, subject to the pulls of the environment through the laws of chemistry and physics.
   The rest of what you are tallking about is simply a biochemical illusion if you are an atheist.
   The values of the biochemicall rumblings of one atheist brain versus another atheist brain, say between Lenin or Richard Dawkins, are thus of no more consequence than arguing which is better...Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi.

trapblock
The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words 'true' or 'false'. C.S. Lewis

bmcatee
   Another way to explain how the divine is revealed to us is the explanation given by Baha'u'llah (founder of the Baha'i Faith and revealer of a wealth of holy writings.). He explained that the Creator (God/Allah/the Divine) endows each of us with spiritual capacity to know and love him/her. From time to time in the Divine Plan, a certain individual is chosen (before his conception/birth) to be endowed with extraordinary capacity to manifest the power and word of the Divine. These individuals have been called Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah.
   He also explains that no people have been left without Divine guidance, so there were many such individuals of whom we currently have no record. They have been responsible for the spiritual training of mankind, for the advancement of civilization, and the advancement of arts and sciences. The spiritual power they release into the world lasts for hundreds of years beyond their physical existence. They continue to guide us from the spiritual realm, through all the worlds of God. And they continue to intercede in this world.
   So, while Baha'is--like Jews and Muslims--do not accept the concept of literal incarnation, we believe in Divine Manifestation. (As light emanates from the sun, it is manifest on the earth. Our souls, like mirrors, reflect Divine light emanating from the Creator. The chosen Manifestation of God reflects the light perfectly and with lasting intensity.)

848. 101215 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
A new view of religious objects

Christmas today is filled with pagan traces. The Romans celebrated the birth of a sun god on Dec. 25, the solstice in the old calendar. When Christians took over, they gave new meaning to the festival, though it is unlikely Jesus was born in the winter.
   The Christmas tree, mistletoe and other symbols also originate in pre-Christian traditions.
   So when you take your out-of-town holiday guests to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art for the exhibit, “Through African Eyes,” as they view the religious objects in the show, remind them that cultures frequently adapt materials from alien faiths.
   And we often can see ourselves and our own traditions better if we look through others’ eyes.
   If you are Christian, for example, how can you not love the carved door with the first of the Three Wise Men offering Mary and Jesus the gift of a chicken? What better way in Yoruba culture to translate the meaning of the Christmas story in Matthew?
   An unmistakable image of Christ with a crown of thorns may have been used more by traditional African cults than by Christians. The story of Christ’s death and resurrection could be interpreted as part of Luba initiation rituals in which a boy suffers symbolic death through circumcision, to be reborn as an adult male.
   Spiritualized images of ancestors in the show made me wonder how the diverse cultures of Africa compare with our regard for our dead kindred and heroes of history and myth. One of my favorites is the portrayal of Albert Schweitzer, who gave up promising careers as an organist, theologian or physician in Europe to practice medicine in what is now Gabon.
   While the carving may gently poke fun at his European ways, it is painted white, the color for spiritual power, inspiring awe. To me, it artistically expresses his theme of “reverence for life.” I’d like to claim him as one of my ancestors, too.
   The most disturbing, even demonic, object for me is “Bantu Education.” It is important to contemplate, but be prepared.
   Of the show’s 95 works covering 500 years, I least expected Elvis Presley, with his long, wide sideburns and a Chewa ancestral rainbow symbol on his forehead.
   Initially Africans viewed whites favorably, almost reverentially. Then came trade, settlement and exploration, followed by colonial domination.
   In the post-colonial period, American pop figures like Elvis were incorporated into traditional dances and used to initiate the young into tribal cosmology, thus assigning a Western figure of awe and primal energy into the religious life of Africa.
   The show continues through Jan. 9.
   Shh! I think I hear Elvis singing, “Blue Christmas.”

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

JonHarker
It always gives me a laugh when the local atheists get all twisted in a know over Christman being on December 25th, and bashing the bible, etc. when in fact the New Testament NO WHERE CLAIMS December 25th as the birthday.
This was in deliberated opposition to the Pagan custom of making certain days sacred. The fact that later groups fell in with the Pagan customs is no reflection on the New Testament.

847. 101208 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Moore a champion for tolerance

This column honors a retiring congressman, but it is not about politics. It is about a person in government who has helped make Kansas City a national model for interfaith relationships and activity.
   I was still living in Pennsylvania in 1975 when I first heard about Dennis Moore as I considered an invitation to serve a Kansas congregation later that year.
   So, in getting acquainted with my new community, I attended his 1976 swearing in as Johnson County District Attorney, a post he held for 12 years.
   He had previously served in the Army and as a Kansas Assistant Attorney General. Before he went to Congress in 1998, he was twice elected to the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees.
   On Sept. 13, 2001, two days after the terrorist attacks, his office called the Interfaith Council about arranging a metro-wide public reaffirmation of the community’s commitment to religious comity.
   So on Sunday afternoon, Sept 16, an observance of “Remembering and Renewing” began with the Pledge of Allegiance and faiths from A to Z, American Indian to Zoroastrian, one by one, joined in a candle-lighting ceremony as the audience repeated, “We renew our community by seeing one another.”
   The Council asked several religious leaders and Moore to speak. His remarks conveyed the enormity of the terrorist horror and the commitment we have to one another to pull together.
   Six weeks later, as the area’s first “Gifts of Pluralism” interfaith conference began, Moore was one of several asked to present greetings early in the morning. He noted how important it is for us as Americans to learn about each others’ faiths, especially in the context of the tragedy and confusion of 9/11.
   But unlike some other dignitaries who greeted the crowd, Moore stayed late, as long as he could, as a conference participant.
   When Harvard University’s Pluralism Project and others came here for the nation’s first “Interfaith Academies,” he wrote the international and American clergy and students in the program that “We have learned in our local efforts that celebrating religious diversity can deepen each person’s own faith.”
   In these 35 years I’ve heard Moore speak many times — but never more movingly than when he talked about our First Amendment heritage being passed on to his grandchildren as he accepted an award for his initiatives and dedication to religious freedom.
   Whatever you may think about Moore’s politics, you may want other elected officials to cherish religious liberty as dearly as has Moore, and to work as diligently in the community for religious concord.

READER COMMENT

L H WROTE
Thank you for your thoughtful, poignant article about Dennis Moore in this morning’s paper. I couldn’t agree more – politics aside he is a man of pragmatism, conviction, dignity and compassion. He represented his district well and championed causes that have finally risen out of the muck. On the many occasions that I heard him speak, he never “railed” against the other side or made derogatory comments about opponents or colleagues. Your article gave me insight into a side of Congressman Moore that I did not experience and am grateful to now know that piece of his history.

VERN REPLIED
Thank you for reading my column and taking the trouble to write to let me know it was meaningful to you. There are so many other stories I could tell about Dennis and his compassion and humanity. In whatever role he served, the wider community has benefited. I am glad you specifically wrote that in speaking of others, his voice was moderate and never "railed" against others. We need such presences in our political system now desperately, and I am grateful to you for pointing out this magnificent quality he practiced.

K S WROTE
Another clipable column! I, too, am a person who admires Rep. Moore. If only all of the Congress members were like him, just think about what a country we would have! He almost always comes to our MLK Day celebration, and I hope he will be there this year. As a school Board member, I attended his "listening" sessions and found them very supportive and interesting.. He helped everyone he could including me.

P P WROTE
Nice tribute to Dennis Moore this week. He is a special person and a rare politician.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

KCAtheist
   Dr. Barnett, when are you going to learn that all this intefaith nonsense is irrational and just fuels the fire? All these groups can't be right, and you know it.
   The atheists who have the guts to come out and say this is delusional and that religion needs to be eliminated are the one saying what they all think.
   We have separation in this country, and your spiel has no say in public issues.

VERN REPLIED
Dear KCAtheist-- You complain that "all these groups can't be right." Why not? When they say, "Let us work for peace," are they all wrong? Just because a Buddhist does not affirm the existence of a Creator God and a Muslim does, does that mean they are both wrong in seeking to find words for that which is beyond language? It would be like saying both Rembrant and Rauschenberg can't be right, or you have to say Shakespeare is right and Shostakovich is wrong. As for your concern that "intefaith[sic] nonsense is irrational," may I please remind you that the square root of 2, pi, and e are also irrational, but they are real and extraordinarily valuable. I have been a card-carrying member of the ACLU for fifty years and have always cherished the right of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state, and defended the integrity of atheists and other Freethinkers in many forums and publications, including this column. Religion can be understood as asking questions such as "Is life worth living?" and "What is so important that I would give my life for it, and what can I do to honor and share it?" The different faiths and Freethinkers approach such questions differently, and I think when we exchange insights, we all benefit.
Now I've done my best to respond briefly to you and my schedule is heavy and may not be able to write again, so you may have the last word.

trapblock
The new atheists by rejecting the idea of God are still shaped and controlled by that very same idea... ironic isn't it?
In the words of Peter Kreeft, "everybody partly knows God... even the atheist knows God, that's why he's worried."

KANSAS CITY STAR LETTER TO THE EDITOR PRINTED 2010 Dec 15

   In the Dec. 8 "Faiths and Beliefs" column, Vern Barnet wrote an article full of vague platitudes about Rep. Dennis Moore as a champion of tolerance.
   I have to be up front and tell you: Dennis Moore has never been one of my favorite people. I think he is as phony as a secen dollar bill.
   Moore went a long way proving that to me when he announced he was retiring from Congress to spend more time with his family (remember the "12 years in Congress deal"), and then his wife runs for his vacated office.
   In my 33 years in the Air Force, I learned that one "aw shucks" wipes away a thousand "attaboys." Despite all the congressman's actions, I have always given him a degree of slack.
   But when he voted not to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel, he committed the buggest "aw shucks" of his career and wiped out all, if any, "attaboys" he ever received.
   I understand we must all e tolerant of others -- but there has to be a limit to what we will and what we will not tolerate. HAROLD C. WILLIAMS, Leavenworth

846. 101201 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Dances of joy, words of love

Every December Kansas City Sufis celebrate the 13th Century mystic who is among the best-selling poets in America today.
   Jelaluddin Rumi was a highly respected scholar in Konya in modern Turkey when he suddenly met Shams of Tabriz. Their scandalously intense friendship ended four years later when Shams was apparently murdered.
   Rumi’s grief was transformed into an ecstasy of divine compassion and love for everyone. Rumi wrote, “I used to be respectable and chaste and stable, but who can stand in this strong wind and remember those things?”
   Kevin Wehner discovered Sufism here through the Rumi Festival. He thought he’d be hearing a lecture when he showed up. “Instead, they invited me to dance to Rumi’s poems. I was hooked. I found my spiritual home. Now, several years later, I’m representing Sufism on the Interfaith Council.”
   Rumi’s “whirling dervish” dancing can be called a “turning meditation.” Festival organizer Amy Rice says that paradoxically “sometimes it feels like one is perfectly still, complete and detached, and the world in spinning by.”
   For a quarter of a century Rahimah Sweeney has been celebrating the festival here. “It reminds me of the thin veil between marking time and the Eternal. Since it takes place during the short days, the light that it brings forth is uplifting for my soul,” she says.
   Susan Schabilion started coming to the Kansas City festival when she joined a “caravan from Columbia” where she lives. One of her favorite Rumi poems fits her experience: “Come, come, whoever you are,/ Wanderer, idolater, worshiper of fire,/ Come even though you have broken your vows a thousand times,/ Come, and come yet again./ Ours is not a caravan of despair.”
   She says Rumi’s loss opens her to learning that pain in life can teach wisdom, “that the universal longing that anyone who has been cut off from a loved one can relate to,” including our relationship to God.
   As a scholar, Rumi knew about many religions. As a lover, he said that God does not hear the phraseology of the various faiths; it’s the sincerity, the “burning,” that God wants. Mudita Sabato especially likes such themes from Rumi. God must be experienced beyond sectarian name or form.
   The Rumi Festival begins Dec. 9 at 7:30 pm with Dances of Universal Peace. The next evening includes poetry readings. Dec. 11 features both an afternoon class on the “meditative turn” and an evening of chanting, dancing and poetry. The festival concludes Dec. 12 with a worship “Service of Universal Peace.” For details, visit shiningheartcommunity.org/rumifest.htm.

845. 101124 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
The power of gratitude

The world is broken. How can we give thanks for that?
   With floods and droughts, disease and death, wars and occupations, political disfigurement and corruption, crime and exploitation, recession and retrenchment, ill-begotten wealth and starvation of the worthy — how can we give thanks?
   One way -- if we are lucky enough to have jobs, enjoy our health, have loved ones near and be American citizens -- is to ignore the world’s troubles and our neighbor’s distress.
   But isn’t that cheating? Is it honest to focus on ourselves when, as Paul writes, the whole creation groans?
   There is no religion that does not account for the disappointments and disasters of life.
   *** For Christians, God himself suffers and is crucified. His resurrection is celebrated in the Eucharist, a word from the Greek which means thanksgiving. By accepting the gift of the sacred sacrifice, Christians become one with the offering and are renewed in the service of divine love.
   *** The Hebrew phrase “tikkun olam” means repairing the world. The Jewish tradition is rigorously honest about how fractured the world is and our obligation to do what we can to redeem it.
   *** Often misrepresented in the media and countless internet postings, Islam’s conception of Sharia arises from the image of the desert danger of thirst when one finds a path to the life-giving water hole.
   *** The first of the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths is that life is out of kilter, but in relinquishing attachment to ourselves we discover an indescribable bliss.
   *** Hinduism’s term “maya” means illusion, that we live in a trance of trouble, not knowing our true nature. Modern Hindus like Gandhi have emphasized the yoga of work to free oneself and others from deception. The scripture of no faith surpasses the Bhagavad Gita in teaching to “perform every action sacramentally.” Gandhi’s contemporary, Rabindranath Tagore, nurtured the insight that in such action, our duties become joy.
   True thanksgiving is not an act of denying our pain or the agonies of others. It is an affirmation arising not so much from our blessings but from our participation in making things better.
Thanksgiving Day is an opportunity for us to rehearse, to exercise, to practice gratitude, if not to feel it. Sometimes acting as if we are grateful can help us develop genuinely felt gratitude.
   As the arts show, beauty may be born from suffering. And service for others, no matter how desperate we ourselves may be, can lead us to the life-giving water hole refreshing our souls. Then we see that the world is both glorious and fallible. Giving thanks blesses it with holiness.

READER COMMENT

B P WROTE
Very good!

M F WROTE
I Am filled with the power of gratitude and Thanksgiving . . and for being inspired by your writing. Today's article, a new grace for the table.

J D WROTE
   Vern, I am a poet, a member of the Kansas City Writers Group, and a friend of many people who know you including Polly Swafford, Priscilla Wilson, and and Deborah Shouse. I have been dissatisfied with so many Thanksgiving articles and messages that your brilliant piece in the Star today brought tears to my eyes. I heartily dislike the "happy happy" media messages this time of year that leave me cold because of their shallowness and sham. Yours is honest, acknowledges the brokeness in our world but leaves us with hope, reasons to be grateful.
Holidays can be hard for those of us who have lost most of our families through death (six of mine in seven years), but my husband (a retired Episcopal priest) and I have a wonderful marriage, a gift many never experience.
    I will send a copy of your article to my son Michael in Iowa who has undergone surgery and chemo this year for colon cancer. He has grown so much as a man and has been working on a gratitude project for two years. He has written people, many celebrities such as Bishop Tutu, asking them what they are grateful for in their lives. The responses have been terrific. I think he's on to a good book idea that would speak to so many.
    Thank you again for your thoughtful writing and insights.
    Happy Thanksgiving!

VERN REPLIED
Thank you for your thoughtfulness in writing me. I appreciate knowing that the column had some merit. It is very difficult to write about Thanksgiving when so many people are hurting, and, with your own losses, as you know, finding a healthy, honest perspective on the holiday is not easy. Your sending it on o your son means a lot, especially as you have told me of his own very worthy project. I look forward to meeting you!

maudley3@aol.com wrote:
http://ezinearticles.com/?God-is-Not-in-Charge&id=3092897
   Vern, Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved one.
   Your article "The Power of Gratitude was interesting."
   A few questions?
   Do you really believe the world is broken?
   Have you been all around the world? I haven't.
   Who are the "We" you keep referreing too?
   Hope you like the attached article.
   If the world is broken like you say that protects your job, regardless, it's the whole truth or not doesn't it?
   Are you a real fearmonger or do your beleive the poison your trying to sell?
   I'm not buying Vern, but I don't speak for the whole world like you do.
MIke

VERN REPLIED
   Dear Mike, I read the http://ezinearticles.com/?God-is-Not-in-Charge&id=3092897 article and wonder if you think I would disagree with it, and if so, how.
   By the world being "broken" I don't mean literally by earthquakes. I gave examples in the column.
   Yes, I have been all around the world several times when I was younger.
   The "we" refers to the vast majority of my readers and myself. Obviously a few readers will not include themselves in the "we" because they will not "buy" the content. Folks have free will about how they regard my column -- I think that fits with the ezinearticle you linked.
   I'm not sure what you mean about if the world is broken that protects my job. I wonder if you are coming from a financial angle. I haven't earned any money for myself in years. I've completely exhausted my pension and live under the poverty line happily because I believe in trying to bridge understanding among folks of all faiths. I've had some limited success, as you might gather from the link at the end of this email. I am unable to discern the meaning of your expression, " it's the whole truth or not doesn't it?"
   Your question, "Are you a real fearmonger or do your beleive the poison your trying to sell?" seems like a personal attack, and I see no way of responding to it; but I do try to respond to questions for information.
   Best wishes for a blessed Thanksgiving.

844. 101117 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Religion meets the electoral process

I witnessed a sacred election. I’m not talking about Nov. 2.
   But what I saw makes me wonder if our lives as citizens would be improved if our politics were informed by the spirit evident Nov. 6 when the Episcopal Diocese of West Missouri elected its new bishop.
   Ah, dear reader, you object. “You may be talking about an ecclesiastical election,” you say, “but churches are full of politics, and it’s a stretch to use the word ‘sacred.’”
   I reply: it felt sacred.
   Several candidates had been selected by a search committee. Their biographies and written aspirations were public. The election itself was part of a worship service, with procession, scripture readings, creedal recitation, communion, hymns and sermon.
   After three ballots the election requirement of majorities of both clergy and laity was met.
   In between the balloting, while the votes were being tabulated, the people sang hymns. Following acceptance by the bishop-elect, the four-hour service concluded with prayer and dismissal.
   I cherish the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. I don’t want to turn our secular elections into a church affair.
   But the ideal of service to others, exemplified by the bishop candidates and delegates, is worth imitating by our political contestants, some of whom seemed more interested in winning power for their ideological factions than in serving all people.
   Civil religion, a term developed and then abandoned by Robert Bellah, is troublesome because it has been associated with sectarian and partisan positions.
   But the question civil religion asks is as old as the nation: What do these circumstances and events mean in the sacred scheme of things?
   Abraham Lincoln suggested that the horrible price of the Civil War was due because the nation had tolerated the evil of slavery. It denied the sacred worth of every person.
   The term “sacred” points to what our lives depend upon. In our selfishness, we forget that our lives depend upon one another, that our votes affect not just ourselves. Do we place justice for all above our own separate economic self-interest? What if, instead of corrupting cauldrons of cash, we offered our contenders a profusion of prayers?
   What if, paralleling the hymns of the episcopal election as the votes were being counted, instead of the media focus on exit polls, TV offered refresher lessons in civics?
   A transparent process with sacred awareness leads to the happy result that the person elected is trusted and embraced by everyone.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

KansasCityFreethinker
   Vern, there have been many countries where Christians were the majority that have been democracies.
   Strangely, there has NEVER been a country where atheists were in charge that has not been a Totalitarian state.
   Why do you think that is?

KansasCityFreethinker
By the way, SECULAR does not equal Atheist. Two different things.

Vern replied
KansasCityFreethinker asks why I think there has never been a country where atheists were in charge that has not been a totalitarian state. I suppose the reason might have something to do with the fact that they were overthrowing Christian totalitarian states (Russia might be an example) or other oppressive regimes identified with religious traditions (the 1911 Chinese revolution led by Christian Sun Yat-Sen led to a totalitarian nationalism under Chiang Kai-shek; later Mao persecuted and killed religious figures [and intellectuals] that he associated with oppressive social structure). A qualified historian would no doubt provide a better answer. I think both religious figures and atheists can be totalitarian, and religion is certainly no guarantor of human rights.
On the second comment, I don't think I equated secularism with atheism, and I'm not aware that most people confuse them. We have a secular government but not an atheistic (nor religiously established) government.

KansasCityFreethinker
   Vern, you have not answered the question as to why there has not been a country where atheists were, or are, in charge that has not been a totalitarian state.
   You claim it has to do with the fact that they were overthrowing Christian totalitarian states...and your contempt for Chrstianity comes out loud and clear in your claims...but you have not cited any facts, just made fallacious historical claims.
   Russian was a Monarchy, and had been for hundreds of years, and as such is not classified by historians as a dictatorship. Besides, what good is overthowing one totalitarian state for another? Apparently, the Militant Atheism of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and their many henchmen offerred nothing...in fact, their crimes exceeded anything that had gone before.
   As for China, Sun Yat Sen may have been a Christian, but Christians were a small minority and he was by no means a Lenin or a Stalin...although Mao was, and his crimes exceeded ever Stalin's. And he killed millions who were not religious, so you can't blame Christianity there, either. (And making a comparison betwen Chiang and Mao is simply ludicrous.)
   As for other countries controlled by atheists, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania and others in Eastern Europe, they were taken over by Officially Atheistic states...no improvement there, either. So, you don't have your EXCUSE that they were overthrowing "Christian" totalitarian states. Not to mention Korea, Vietnam, and Laos.
And you of course ignore the fact that Democray developed and flourished in contries where ostensible Christians were at least the largest group.
   By the way, I am puzzled by your claim that people don't equate Secular with Atheistic, which of course is a false comparison, since you have been to meetings of local atheist groups where exactly that position is attempted to be passed off as a fact.

Vern replied
Dear KansasCityFreethinker -- I am very sorry my attempt at an explanation does not satisfy you. Even historians argue about historical causes, so I guess we are in good company. I am not anti-Christian. I am opposed to Christian dictatorship, to atheist dictatorship, to Jewish dictatorship, to Muslim dictatorship, etc. The history of the West does seem to provide some evidence that when a state is controlled by Christian ideology it is oppressive, and you have made a good case that when a state is controlled by atheist ideology it is also oppressive. Perhaps the problem is not Christianity or atheism but the control of government by an ideology.

JonHarker
   Hold on their Vern! KC asked why there had never been a country controlled by atheists that was not totaliatarian, not why some countries are totalitarian.
   Sure, some Christians have used politics for their own ends, but there have been many democracies where Christians were in the majority.
   And saying that ATHEISTS established totalitarian governments to overthrow Christian totalitarian governments does not even make sense,

Vern replied
   JonHarker, KansasCityFreethinker actually wrote, "Vern, there have been many countries where Christians were the majority that have been democracies. Strangely, there has NEVER been a country where atheists were in charge that has not been a Totalitarian state. Why do you think that is?"
   I did my best to answer the question briefly. The gist was that atheists, like theists, can be totalitarian ideologues. As I understand history, there have been far more religious ideologues than atheist ideologues. Not much to sample from.
   Sometimes it is not possible to answer a question in exactly the terms in which it is asked. "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a clear example. I did my best to respond. I am sorry I have disappointed.

JonHarker
   So why has there never been a country controlled by atheists that has not been a totalitarian state? The fact that there are ideologues, whatever that is, on both sides does not explain it because there have been Christan states that had democracy,
   And while there may have been fewer atheists, they managed to kill more people, through oppressive measures, not just war, than in all the wars in human history. Something like 100 Million in the past century alone.
   And come on Vern, your disingenouous repeating that "I'm sorry" is not hiding the fact that you are dancing around the question. That is your style, I understand, but its getting old.
   Have some guts and come out and make a stand, man!

Vern replied
Since the question about atheism and totalitarian states has been asked repeatedly and my answer has been unsatisfactory, it might be helpful for those who repeat it, time after time, article after article, to provide their own answers.
Sometimes a question may be asked not for information but to imply a point of view. Rhetorical or taunting questions seldom lead to genuine conversation in which alternative contexts can be explored without demeaning those whose viewpoints differ. In such cases, it may be time to end the correspondence, especially when the question is extrinsic to the subject of the column itself.

KansasCityFreethinker
   I tried to discuss it with you, Vern, but you would not give a straight answer. That, and you are obviously uniformed, because this has everything to do with you subject of SACRED ELECTIONS.
   I'll be blunt.
   Atheists in charge of government MEANS DICTATORSHIP because the atheist leadership sees nothing higher than itself. There are no SACRED ELECTIONS under those systems.

843. 101110 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
We can learn from critics

I don’t care if you are an atheist or a Christian fundamentalist, if you are interested in how religion in the West has been criticized, you must read a new book by one of Kansas City’s own.
   The book is “Religion and the Critical Mind” by Anton K. Jacobs. He teaches at the Kansas City Art Institute and Park University. He earned his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Notre Dame.
   If you are writing a book about those who have criticized religion, where would you start?
   Jacobs begins with a brilliant surprise—but it is obvious when you think about it. He starts with the Hebrew prophets who frequently criticized the religious establishment of their times. Why do you think ritual is what God wants, they often asked, when you are exploiting God’s people to build up your own wealth?
   Jesus, too, spoke against a religious culture that forgot about society’s weakest members.
   Jacobs sympathetically summarizes subsequent critics, both believers and non-believers, including Epicurus, Lucretius, Erasmus, Luther, Voltaire, Marx, Nietzsche, Durkheim, Freud, Bertrand Russell and even Postmodernists. The critics say religion is a neurotic illusion, an instrument of social oppression and so forth.
   After Jacobs considers and accepts many of the criticisms he’s faithfully presented, what’s left?
   His answer appears in the final chapter in which he offers a case for open and self-critical faith. Purified by the critics, such a faith can be described by ten features, including a recognition that the holy is ultimately incomprehensible, that human community is essential and that faith cannot be static.
   This chapter is the best response I’ve seen to the so-called “New Atheists,” some of whom Jacobs names early in the book.
   Jacobs told me, “I’m hoping people will find the book a comprehensive overview of the Western history of the criticism of religion. That’s the concern of the educator in me,” he said.
   “In me also is a clergyman and friend of religion who hopes the book will free people to see religion more clearly and less defensively.
   “We must not ignore all that is wrong with religion as it’s practiced. But religion at its best is an expression of something fundamental for us humans — the sense of the transcendent, the holy, a sacredness about life that goes beyond words, about something that enables us and compels us to affirm life and community in spite of our anxiety, pain, and tragedy,” he said.
   The book is easy to understand; Jacobs knows how to tell a story; but scholarly citations are included.
   I often brag about the quality of religious resources available to us here. Jacobs’ book is another reason for home-town pride.

INTERVIEW WITH DR JACOBS

Some years back, I resigned a pastorate and instead of taking another church or teaching job, I gave myself––more accurately, my wife and I gave me a year off, a self-gifted sabbatical. I started reading a lot of the things I had not had a chance to read, particularly classics, but then thought I'd like to write a book about something I'd been thinking about over the years. My very first publication was a sermon in a now defunct journal called Pulpit Digest. It was a sermon in which I talked about some of the 19th-century critics of religion--Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche. I don't remember whether I covered Freud or not. Over the years, as a pastor but also as a college instructor, I had had many conversations with people about religion, some fully happy with their religious participation, some not so happy, and some entirely turned off by religion. I, too, had had my difficulties with religion, and I had been fascinated with the great critics of religion, thinking that they often had some very important insights that we religious folk needed to hear. From time to time, I'd deal with these criticisms in sermons, trying to convey the message that we shouldn't become defensive or simply dismiss the critics of religion. Insofar as they had important things to say, we needed to hear them. So I set about fashioning the book. It took just about a year to complete a full draft. I've tinkered with it some, and I think it could still use more tinkering, but now that it's published, it is what it is.

I’m hoping people will find the book a comprehensive overview of the Western history of the criticism of religion. That’s the concern of the educator in me. In me also is a clergyman and friend of religion who hopes the book will free people to see religion more clearly and less defensively. We must not ignore all that is wrong with religion as it’s practiced. But religion at its best is an expression of something fundamental for us humans — the sense of the transcendent, the holy, a sacredness about life that goes beyond words, about something that enables us and compels us to affirm life and community in spite of our anxiety, pain, and tragedy. I guess, in a sense, it's the gift of grace, and in many faith traditions it's viewed as a gift from God. We could view it as a gift from Life itself (spelled with a capital L).

My only regret, now that the book is published, is that it doesn't reflect enough of our Eastern faith traditions. Since I wrote the book, I've become much more deeply involved in the study of the traditionally Asian faiths--Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on. While I had studied those traditions, I didn't have the range and depth of understanding I do now. And when I look through the book, I see places where an even more universally comprehensive treatment would have incorporated more of the Eastern material. Also, there should be a good footnote about the Eastern tradition of religious criticism. It's still true that "critique" and "criticism," as reviewed in my book, is largely Western, but there have been some minor voices in the East offering important criticisms that an erudite book should mention.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

PhillyChief in reply to KansasCityFreethinker
Yes, but religion and faith are not requirements for holding wonder at the world or affirming life and community. You're implying that they are. I would argue that they are often at odds with it, or at best a superfluous distraction or obstacle. Why isn't the wonder of life enough in and of itself? Why must we either add something like a creator or worse, fail to appreciate things without adding a creator or some similar faith? It's like dining at the most prestigious restaurant and wanting to drown everything in ketchup. It's as ridiculous as so-called "self-critical faith". Faith held up to critical scrutiny evaporates or secures itself by ignoring the criticism, which is what faith is afterall, right? It's belief not just lacking evidence, but a belief held in spite of contrary evidence, so self-critical faith is an oxymoron, or a game to see how much you can take as a believer, like seeing how long you can hold your hand above a flame telling yourself it's not hot. YouMadeMeSayIt.com

KansasCityFreethinker
   Religion and faith are most certainly requirements for holding wonder at the world and affirming life and commiunity.
   If you hold to the atheistic view, your thoughts are just biochemical reactions in a brain made of meat...and brain that supposedly developed by mindless processess. This means that your thoughts are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics, no more than that: in such a case your thoughts are certainly not "FREE".
   The existence of God is a precondition of True Freethought.
   Faith is not believing in spite of the evidence, but trust in the evidence...which includes the recognition that our thoughts are just not biochemical products and that the universe has a mathematical comprehensibilty that is totally independent of human minds but apprehensible by those minds.
   The Officially Atheistic Governments of the past century, and our own time, inevitably end up treating man as a machine.
   That is why the "New Atheism" is just a warmed over LEFTOVER of the old.

PhillyChief   in reply to KansasCityFreethinker
   The so-called Christian nation of the US performed quite admirably at treating humans as machines, depending upon their race, as have numerous other officially Christian nations and nations founded upon other religions so spare me the moral superiority. We've seen time and time again that any nation guided by a religious faith is not immune from behaving immorally, just as individuals aren't immune.
   How my mind came to be has no bearing upon what I do with it, KCF. To suggest otherwise is as unwarranted as asserting belief in a god is a precondition for free thought. We each, religious and non-religious, are capable of thought and judging right and wrong and before someone asserts the issue of subjective morals, religion is not immune from that, either. 2000+ sects of Christianity and the diversity of opinion and interpretation of scripture within each church alone testify to that fact. We each form judgements, informed by our minds and our experiences. No god, nor belief in a god is a prerequisite for that.
   I will agree with you that there's nothing new to the new atheism because there doesn't need to be.

KansasCityFreethinker   in reply to PhillyChief
   What do you mean "Christian nation of the US"? Atheists are always telling us this is NOT a Chrsitian nation. You can't have it both ways, saying it is when it does things you don't like, and it isn't when you don't want it to be.
   And of course HOW your mind came to be is independent of what you do with it, I never claimed otherwise. But the fact that you ARE able to do things with it indicates that it is operating on more than just the laws of chemistry and physics.
   And I agree that the religious and the non religious, or theists and anti theists, are capable of thought but it is a fact that the materialism of the anti theists does not explain "Free" thought but in fact argues against it.
   As to judging right from wrong, if we accept your anti theism there is nothing to judge...what is this "right and "wrong" stuff? There is just human action. Sure, you form judgments, but so do I and on a materialistic basis you are doing no more than arguing which is better, Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi?
   As to the "New Atheism"...whenever atheist obtained political power they failed and self destructed, and the will again.

PhillyChief
   Just ignored the "so-called" part I see. You kind of needed that to make sense of my comment.
   The fact that I can do things with my mind indicates that my brain works, and that's it. You have to do more to argue dualism than merely assert things based on a lack of understanding of neuroscience or basic biology.
   As for atheist nations, that's an old apologetic canard as well. That's all you're doing, repeating old and tired assertions. When you can form an intelligent argument, let me know.

KansasCityFreethinker in reply to PhillyChief
   No, Philly, I was pointing out that your comment did not make sense in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
   "the fact that I can do things with my mind indicates that my brains works, and that's it".
   No, that's not it. You have to do more than merely assert things based on assumptions about neuroscience. What is this "mind" you are talking about? You have merely assserted its operations, but all you have shown is that you are a bag of chemicals that are having a reaction, per the assumed laws of chemistry and physics, to a particular set of stimuli that does not hit them just right at this particular times.
   You certainly have not shown that your thoughts are "Free", All you are doing is repeating the old tired materialistic assumptions of leftover atheism, repackaged under the "new atheist" canard.
   Whenyou can form an intelligent argument that even comes close to demonstrating that the biochemcial reactions in your brain made of meat are "free", let me know.

TeenaVolle
Chief, There are 300,000+ denominations of Xianity last I read and heard.

PhillyChief in reply to TeenaVolle
According to Christianity Today from 2005, there are 38,000 denominations. Perhaps more now, but maybe not 262,000 more. ;)

KansasCityFreethinker in reply to PhillyChief
Yep, I also thought Teena was lying.

JonHarker
No there aren't, "Teena".
You read and heard wrong.

TeenaVolle
   Chief wrote>>>>>>According to Christianity Today from 2005, there are 38,000 denominations. Perhaps more now, but maybe not 262,000 more. ;)
   Chief, Thanks for catching it, a slip of keyboard 30,000+ vs 300,000+. 30,000+ is an astounding number of variations, nonetheless.
   Love your site - the pics of hell are amusing.

PhillyChief in reply to TeenaVolle
Not hell, just frank, fiery talk.... and bbq. ;)

GabrielMichaeal
You know guys the Catholic Church has been here since Jesus formed it 2010 years ago. In the Bible he appointed his flawed friend Peter as its head.

TeenaVolle
   Gabriel Michael wrote>>>>>You know guys the Catholic Church has been here since Jesus formed it 2010 years ago. In the Bible he appointed his flawed friend Peter as its head.
   Gabriel, Jesus was a baby 2010 years ago :o) - if he ever existed. Consider that the "alleged birth year" ranges from 4-10 years give or take, one can only wonder what else the Gospels of NT got wrong.
   Chief & Gabriel, maybe you can help me out dicipher this...
   I am trying to find out anything that Jesus says in NT that invalidates OT besides some vague reference to any food that goes into you is not unclean (i.e. clean) - was it a parable or invalidation? But then the next sentence a parable of "unclean" coming out of your heart Mark 7-14:23. All the mention of "fulfillment" and "not being bound by OT" is "divinely inspired" (whatever it means) by Paul, yet Jesus says "not a single letter of the old law is to be changed".
   Sounds like cognitive dissonance of sorts for Paul and today's Xians.

PhillyChief   in reply to TeenaVolle
   Christians commonly assert that all those ridiculous laws of the OT don't apply to them for one of two reasons, they were either meant for just the Jews, or that Jesus' sacrifice (which wasn't actually a sacrifice, but that's another issue) frees them of having to follow them. The first is just silly, and the second is incorrect because not only does it say in Matthew that the old laws are in effect, his sacrifice was merely to release everyone from having to make sacrifices to Yahweh (he's apparently very fond of burning flesh, so he must LOVE bbq).
   Also, if they don't apply, then why do Christians repeatedly quote it for condemning the things they don't like? Laws preventing you from wearing polyester and enjoying a shrimp cocktail? Oh, those don't apply. Laws against gays? Oh, those definitely apply. Uh, cherry pick much? LOL!

TeenaVolle
   Chief, It is better to start a new post instead of replying to the one you want to - this way you don't have to scroll down the screen and get lost easily.
   K, when it comes to "fullfillment" - all I see is this - Jesus fulfilled the Law, ending its requirements (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). - ALL SAID BY PAUL - never Jesus.
   And some convoluted - Christians are not bound by the Old Testament Law, but rather are to be subject to the Law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-39; Galatians 6:2). Matthew doesn't invladiate OT - no matter how you read it. and of course - (Acts 10:15) - same reference to "all that god made is not unclean".

GabrielMichaeal
TV you got me on the date thing... im sorry it wasn't a jedi mind trick. Your knowledge of the bible is impressive.
As a Catholic I understand that the bible came from the church not the church from the bible. Of course the bible is the infallable word of God but we read the bible in the context of history in the light of sacred tradition in accordance with the teaching of the magisterium (the guardians of the sacred deposit of faith).
their instruction under promised protection of the holy spirit is our guidepost for understanding.
As st. John wrote at the end of his gospel these are only some of the things Jesus did...there are not enough books in theworld to contain all he did and taught.
Pax Vobis

TeenaVolle
   GM, I don't claim to know the Bible perfectly, what I have is a logical and sound approach to matching ideas and concepts of the Bible. Anyone who has critical thinking and rational approach to all things normal :o) would be able to see ths - another questions will be - are they going to be able to push it to the lgical conclusion?
   Jeddi, Huh? :) Sounds like Jesus to me :o) I don't get the logic of yours - Bible is the "infallible" word of god. Yet, it's a product of the church and individuals who wrote, translated, patched it togetherj - INDIVIDUALS.
   To claim the "product" is the infallible word of god makes no sense - in logical realm as well as theological. It cannot be the "infallible" anything - unless you come up wiht "convolution" of MISTAKES, ERRORS, MISTRANSLATIONS, SUBSTIUTIONS, ILLOGISMS, REACHING (by Paul) is somehow "divine" and is "part of the plan" and is infallible. This is not how it works in real world.

GabrielMichaeal
   OK you got me. All I can say is I used to think as you think. I asked God for help, I asked him for understanding and I concented to do his will if he would help me know his. Slowly he he showed me a little and it made me hungrier for more. Now I see my life as it was as a carefully orchastrated plan by him to bring me to now. I see his word and his will as perfectly orchistraed as well.
   If you thought you'd found the cure for cancer you would want to share it wouldn't you?
   How do you explain this so called book full of contradictions and unbelievablilty being the bedrock of a organization that has lasted thousnads of years? A church that throughout time has grown stronger amidst severe and violent persecution that thousands maybe millions of people have gladly given their lives for? Madness? I tell you its love... it is divine logic and the worldly will never understand it until they proverbially (and truly) fall on their faces in awe! To quote Indiana Jones 'only the penetent man shall pass'. I say only the penetant man can begin to glimpse Him.
   Sorry about the spelling...

TeenaVolle
   GM, I don't spell check myself :o)
   You asked god for help? Telepathically?
   God showed you the way? By what means? In what language? In which tone of voice? Male or female voice? At what time of the day?

KansasCityFreethinker
   Teena is apparently confusing QUOTE MINING with a "logical and sound approach to matching ideas and concepts of the Bible".
   Historical setting? What's that?
   Who was talking to who? Who cares?
   Cosmology, the Big Bang, Abiogenesis? Don't know, it just happened. "Chance did it".

KansasCityFreethinker
   Philly tells us that "The mind is a function of the brain".
   Not according to his hero, Sam Harris. "The idea that brains PRODUCE (his emphasis) consciousness is little more than an ARTICLE OF FAITH (my emphasis) among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it." (Sam Harris, TEOF, page 208 pb.)
   So, Philly, you can assert whatever you want, but you still have not shown that your "thoughts" are anything other than a biochemical reaction to certain stimuli that did not hit your brain made of meat in an appropriate manner, according to your subjective experience.
On your own materialistic assumptions, your thoughts are not free.

TeenaVolle
   Chief, Talking to god through hairdryer, huh? Never thought about Holy Spirit like this.
   Martin Luther claimed that the hairdryer/church must be eliminated between man and god. Organized religion became the hair dyer later and is dominant today between the god and the person's faith.
   I say we need another Marthin Luther in the church. It appears that the number of "spiritual Xians/deists" is increasing with every decade by 10-15%, so in a few decades the 54% of Xians who think that Jesus is not the only way will be more like 90+% with the most radical fundies falling in the ditches of faith and being stoned by raitonality.

KansasCityFreethinker
Hairdryers? Martin Luther?
Teena also seems to have a penchant for FALSE ANALOGIES in addition to QUOTE MINING!

TeenaVolle
Chief, Cracker? This is too much... I was thinking one day to go to a Catholic or Episcopalean church and grab some of them crackers and run out of the sermon with it in a "Borat" like way.
I can just see this getting on 10 p.m. news - "Cracker-jacking at local church!"

KansasCityFreethinker
Teena, check the local ordinances before you do that! Wouldn't want to see you charged with a misdemeanor.

PhillyChief
   "I say we need another Marthin Luther in the church."
   Luther was a serious anti-semite, calling for the burning of Jews and their synagogues.
   KCF: If you actually read the work you're quoting from, you'd know he was talking about the difficulty in defining consciousness. It's an indisputable fact that affecting the brain affects what we call our minds or consciousness. Watch any football and you'll see that via the issue of concussions. What's completely unwarranted is to suggest some other thing is actually responsible, especially when you can barely define and certainly can't demonstrate the existence of that other thing.
   Btw, we atheists aren't all on the same team, and hero worship is generally frowned upon, so although I've enjoyed a good bit of what Sam has said and written, I don't blindly agree with it all.
   Teena: You don't have to steal a cracker. They give them away for free, but only one per customer.

TeenaVolle
   Chief, I never meat to steal a wafer, once it's given to you it's yours to do whatever you want with it. What I've seen recently at Catholic churches is that they don't put it in your mouth but in your hand, so it's quite easy to just have it handed to you and walk away.
   I recall Canadian Prime Minister (Protestant) accepting a communion wafer on camera and not eating it right away. There was a Catholic higher ups uproar about it and not clear if he ever ate it or pocketed it. The official story was he ate it later.
   I wonder why he was not charged with kidnapping of Jesus?

TeenaVolle
Chief, I meant "genltler, meeker Luther" - kind of like "genler, meeker Jesus" vs. the bully god of the OT.

KansasCityFreethinker
   Its hilarious to read atheists talking about anti semites.
   Richard Dawkins makes anti Jewish remarks in his book.
   Sam Harris Harris makes anti Jewish remarks in his book.
   Hitchens makes anti Jewish remarks in his book.
   A local atheist Kansas City Atheist group had postings about Jesus being a Jewish Zombie.
   A real batch of bigots.

KansasCityFreethinker
   Philly, you are obviously not as familiar with Sam Harris as you think...he is not just talking about DEFINING consciousness, he is talking about ACCOUNTING for it.
   And on your materialistic assumptions, you can't.
   He goes on to say, "The problem, however, is that nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar, interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case." (Sam Harris, TEOF, page 208 pb.)
   Your brain is a glob of meat that has bio chemical reactions to stimuli. You may feel you are having "free"thoughts, but that is an illusion.
   You have shown nothing different.

TeenaVolle
Chief, Last year a friend of mine and I went to a Lutheran Bible Study. The folks there had NO IDEA THAT MARTIN LUTHER TALKED ABOUT BURNING SYNANOGUES and that wisdom/knowledge are whores.
   For them it was all taken out of context. No amount of showing them quotes in context worked. It is like they are in a parallel universe.
   Local KC atheists plan to have a meetup at a local church one day - we need to find a topic that would be of interest and maybe have 10-20 of us show up there.
   Are you in KC? If so, check out Midwest Skeptics Meetup in Lenexa at Perkins. We meet every Saturday 7 p.m. This saturday's topic is "Cognition" - an MD will talk about it.
   Also, there is another meetup Provocateurs that is led by a Xian friend of mine - tomoroorw Fri 7 p.m. is Lazy Reader's Night.

TeenaVolle
Gabriel, If you are still out there, I'd love to get together with you over coffee or lunch some time and chat about your faith. Let me know.

PhillyChief
   Again I have to repeat that we atheists aren't part of a team, so the successes or failures of one atheist has no reflection upon any other atheist. We're not all of one mind. With that said, I do have to point out that the men you mentioned, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have not called for harm to be done to Jews. They have at times been critical of jews, especially their religion. So have I, and arguably anyone who doesn't subscribe to Judaism is as well since to not accept their religion is, essentially, being critical of it and potentially of those who do subscribe to it.
   Sam Harris WAS talking about the problem of defining consciousness. He speaks of our perceptions of it and then the difficulties most, like you, have in accepting that it is merely a byproduct of the brain. What his earlier comment was addressing was how at this time science cannot prove that to a satisfactory level to overcome that incredulity yet he is quick to point out that in lieu of that, one does not have the license to put forth nor accept any half-baked idea, especially because it feels good. It is indisputable that affecting the brain affects what we perceive as another's consciousness, but he argues that consciousness is ultimately only truly perceived by oneself. We can only perceive what we think is consciousness, but really we only perceive one's actions. Is a sleep walker conscious? What about AI? The problem is one of definition, and as long as people define it as this nebulous thing, then science could never say peep one way or another about it.
   The problem is one of labeling, though. We label brain functions as this thing called consciousness, but does consciousness actually exist? Is it a thing or a collection of brain functions. Evidence suggest the latter, despite the former feeling correct, but feeling isn't evidence. Hell, it feels like the world is flat and the sun moves across the sky, but that doesn't make it true.
Btw, exactly how is calling Jesus a Jewish zombie anti-Semitic?

PhillyChief
Teena: I'm based in Philadelphia, but I lived in KC as a child and remain loyal to my Chiefs, thus my name. ;)
Most Christians know very little about their religion. A recent Pew study showed that. I believe the rankings for the most knowledgable about religion went atheists, Jews and then Mormons (I may have the order wrong, but those were the top 3).

GabrielMichaeal
   TV I'm sorry I got busy at the end of the day - I would say I catch glimpses of God out of the corner of my minds eye or in the echoes in my mind of things I've heard or read... like Bumblebee in the Transformer movies (you know how he speaks by changing radio stations and using words from the songs?) I'm trying to explain something unexplainable really.
   I don't know if people hear God's voice like another human voice (I don't). God spoke once and for all to all of us and the word He spoke is Jesus. That's it and that's everything he needed to say. Everything was created through him so really he is everywhere. He's right here right now with me and you. If we know Jesus, just like any friend that you love, you want to be around him, you want to know what he likes, you want him to be happy.
   I was sitting at Mass tonight and I heard the Gospel proclaimed in it's natural habitat (the liturgy) and I heard God telling me about me and you corresponding tonight. TV the kingdom of God is right here and now between me and you talking about him. Whether you know it or not He loves you like a son and wants to be in relationship with you... all you do is turn to him and he runs to be with us like the father of the prodigal son. John Paul said: "In Jesus, God wanted to take on human features. It is through his bodily reality that we are led into contact with the mystery of his divinity."
   In a way you know I think a militant atheist is closer to God than a lukewarm christian... so you may have that going for you.
   I will have to think about lunch... lately I don't have time for lunch with my blood brother... no offense as you are my bother too.

KansasCityFreethinker
   Philly says of atheiss, "We're not all of one mind."
   Actually, Philly, you have not shown that you can account for what you are calling "mind" at all. On your own premises, you are ALL simply organic brains made of meat that have biochemical reactions...in this case your meat brain is having a reaction to certain stimuli that are not happening to hit is in a way that it finds suitable.
   And if you would bother to actually read the page that I referred to in the Sam Harris book, you would see that he actually IS talking about ACCOUNTING for, not just DEFINING, consciousness. He has even completed his Ph.D. in Neuroscience and he still can't do it.
   His materialistic assummptions not only can not account for "free" thought, they actually argue against it.
   And that is what you DO have in common with all the other atheists; you, Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens and all the others have the same materialistic presuppositions that you continue to assert but can not demonstrate that they account for the oriigin of the universe, life, or even the "mind" you keep talking about. And is not just an argument from "gaps", because your materialistic assumptions actually argue against what you are asserting.
   So in fact their failures ARE a reflection on other atheists who have the same materialistic assumptions and premises.
   Their failues are your failures; just as they blame all Christians and Jews for the actions of some.

PhillyChief
   You have yet to define what you mean by "free" thought. Until you do, your continued use of the term is meaningless.
   At the heart of the problem Sam is discussing is how to define consciousness. Most of the struggles to identify it, like dealing with you, stem from a lack of concrete definitions. That's usually the problem with arguments about ghosts or gods as well, the lack of clearly defining something in an attempt to avoid being called out on specifics. What is consciousness? That's a difficult question, but if we can agree at least on it consisting of thought, then we can clearly show that the brain is connected to that. If we make changes to the brain, a person's ability to think changes; furthermore, we have no examples of thought occurring without the presence of a functioning brain. In light of this, it's unwarranted to suggest thought is due to something other than the brain or that it can exist independent of a brain.
   Need I remind you that you asserted something about thinking or consciousness being beyond the laws of physics or chemistry at the beginning of this discussion? Such an assertion, aside from being absurd, is obviously false since it can be demonstrated that the ability to think is tied to brains. All your hemming and hawing so far hasn't come close to supporting your wild assertion, nor have you even bothered to defend any of your other wild assertions. In lieu of that, you've been attempting, poorly, to try and discount my positions, ones I've argued by presenting evidence to support them. At the end of the day, even if you were successful in discrediting my position you still would be left having to defend your own position, and that is clearly untenable. Perhaps that's why you're not bothering to try, and figure you can salvage what you can from this by attempting to discount my positions. I find that both sad and desperate.
   Now judging by your comments concerning the origins of the universe or life, maybe you think that if such things can't be fully accounted for by the scientific method, then that gives you license to assert the fantastical such as a god or some other element loosely defined as the supernatural. I assure you that's not the case. In fact, since you claim to have read and understand Sam Harris then you should be familiar with this passage…
   "In the absence of evidence or a testable hypothesis regarding anything that is unknown, logic requires that we presume nothing. The absence of information about, or evidence of, life after death is insufficient reason to claim that life after death is possible, any more than the absence of information about giant purple gorillas living in underground cities on the far side of the moon means we should consider the possibility they are actually there, munching on giant bananas! Negative proofs are not required to refute fantastic claims in the absence of evidence of same."

KansasCityFreethinker
   Philly, you have not even defined, or come close to demonstrating, what this "mind" you keep talking about is.
   So I agree that a discussion of "freethought", given your premises, is meaningless!
   And I have given specific quotes from Harris, and given references to specific pages in his book, where he makes clear that this is NOT just talking about "defining" consciousness but ACCOUNTING for it. You have not come close to doing that.
   Now, the ability to think may be tied to brains, but your assertion that the biochemical reactions in the glob of meat you are calling the brain provide the full explantion for thought are undemonstrated, and self refuting. If you insist that those reactions account for "thinking", then you have just admitted that your thoughts consist of nothing more than that and that you are just reacting...subject to your assumptions about the laws of chemistry and physics...to certain stimuli that do not hit your meat brain just right, as you see it, at this particular moment.
   And as to the origin of universe, life, and mind itself I am NOT just arguing that your materialistic assumptions can account for them...although they can't and you know it. I am FURTHER arguing that you assumptions actually argue against the development of any independent mind capbable of thinking.
   Stomachs digest, Livers secrete, Brains think.
   So, given your materialistic assumptions, shared with the New Atheists, that's all ya got. And I agree, its meaningless. More than that, its presumes a lot. (And you do give a guote saying that in the absence of evidence you should presume nothing about something that is unknown...which is itself ludicrous because just because you don't have, for example, evidence regarding an unknown situation it does not mean you should presume NOTHING. Perhaps, to be on the safe side, you should presume danger.)
   As to your Ad Hominems, they are dismissed.

TeenaVolle
   Gabriel, Pray and you'll have enough time? :o) After all you cannot argue with Jesus - he unequivocally says "anything" will be given to you if you ask in the name of his father. You can even move mountains :) - getting some extra time should you be a problem.
   In fact, let's make it an experiment - why don't you sincerely pray to god to give you 1 extra hour - as in "add 1 hour to the day?" and make it 25 hours? This should be trivial for her.
   Your faith is sincere, and nothing will be impossible to you.

PhillyChief
   I really can't explain it any simpler, KCF. The issue at the heart of Harris' point is the problem of defining consciousness. He explicitly describes both how it would be fallacious to define it simply in terms of observing one's reactions and the subsequent problem of AI. Is a machine conscious if it appears to behave so? How can we be sure? He doubts whether science can define it, and perhaps that's true; however science is in the process of explaining specific parts of what most loosely call consciousness or the mind. A good read for you might be Linden's The Accidental Mind.
   "…your assertion that the biochemical reactions in the glob of meat you are calling the brain provide the full explantion for thought are undemonstrated, and self refuting."
First, that wasn't my assertion and second, you have to explain how it would be self refuting. What I'm saying is there's no reason to believe that consciousness, the mind, thinking, whatever you want to call it owes its existence to or is in any way controlled by anything other than the brain. To suggest otherwise would require evidence of this other thing, as I said awhile back, which clearly you're unwilling to do. I don't blame you, since that would be, to put it mildly, problematic.
   You'll have to explain why thinking can't be a seemingly endless number of physical and chemical reactions of and within the brain, especially when altering the brain physically or chemically has been and can be demonstrated to affect one's thinking.
   Where your beliefs lie are in the murky nebula where all such beliefs lie, in ignorance. Ignorance of how something such as thinking can occur prompts you to fill the void of knowledge with a belief in a soul, a god, or what have you (feel free to actually present your belief and subsequent supporting evidence at any time now). Ignorance is no excuse for asserting the fantastical and unwarranted. Neither is incredulity. Your personal incredulity that thinking is not "merely" a multitude of physical and chemical reactions is not an argument for rejecting that it is. That's both fallacious as well as contrary to the evidence at hand, but then I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you failed to understand Harris' quote. In the absence of evidence, you are not warranted to believe anything.
   So please, try, if you can, to provide evidence that the existence of thought "indicates that it is operating on more than just the laws of chemistry and physics" or anything you've asserted so far. I know you won't, because you can't. That's not your failing, that's the failing of the beliefs you hold to. Holding to them is a failing, as is flailing at me because you can't defend your own beliefs, and pointing that out is not an ad hominem, btw. It is what it is, sad and pathetic.
   YouMadeMeSayIt.com

GabrielMichaeal
This generation looks for a sign but none will be given it except the sign of Johah.
Again TV, God speaks to you and I directly inthe gospel from todays Mass... its a miracle or another coincidence...

JonHarker
   PhillyChief, I am not as up on this as you guys are, but it looks like KCF has pointed out where Harris is discussing the problems of Accounting for consciousness, and not just the problems of Definging it.
   As he pointed out, "The problem, however, is that nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar, interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case." Sam Harris statment on page 208, para. 3
   That is a problem indeed, and you just keep claiming that your materialism explains all this.
   You say, "I really can't explain it any simpler", but, heck, you haven't explained it at all.

JonHarker
Gabriel, I see that Teena invited you to meet for lunch, but I think you should know that "Teena" is a man, not a woman. (chuckle)

PhillyChief
   Jon: The initial problem for accounting for consciousness is defining it. You can't account for that which isn't clearly defined. Sam discussed some of the problems such as dealing with AI, but the real problem is what is meant by the word. Sam doesn't clearly define it either, thus the problem, and my point. The quote KCF initially used attests to that because what Sam appears to be referring to is an introspective process and in that sense, yes, science will probably never explain that. Think of it this way - science can explain the color red and how it affects us, but it can't explain why you may or may not favor it.
   To put it another way, science is beginning to explain how you can think, but not why you may think what you think. Will it ever? Probably not because we form ideas and decisions based on too many disparate things from past experiences to our fatigue level, plus we're both perpetually changing physically as well as perpetually adding experiences to our memories. Sure, we may be predisposed to think or act a certain way due to our experiences or some physical characteristic, but that's not a guarantee that we will go that direction.
   So does that serve as a more through explanation for you Jon, or not?
   KCF seems to find fault in the idea that with our "meat brains" we're capable of thought, and would prefer to believe that we think due to some unknown reason that's "beyond the laws of physics and chemistry", but I don't see why. In my initial comment here in response to the original article I said that religious belief often is an obstacle for appreciating the world because a believer can't simply appreciate something as it is, but must inject something else, like smothering a fine meal in ketchup. To me, I find it quite amazing what can come from mere "meat brains", and find no reason to invent something else to add to that in order to be amazed and to appreciate that fact.

GabrielMichaeal
Thanks Jon... I remember that from a previous post of yours. Either way its cool im a family man. I am starting to doubt his sincerity though...

TeenaVolle
Gabriel, In what context was this uttered? - was it related to "that" generation "then" or "now" or "in general".

TeenaVolle
Gabriel, Sincerity? - you are conflating respect for your beliefs with respect for you as a person. The super hero Jesus did not respect many beliefs, I'll leave you to decide if a fictional character can respect you as a person.

TeenaVolle
   Gabriel, I don't have time right now to pull all the apologetics qutoes bout power of prayer that contradict each other. First of the week I may ave more time.
   Perhaps, you can come at 7 p.m. t Lenexa Perkins today, Saturday for a topic of "Cognitive Traps?" - an MD will be talking about common sense
   I will bring my bible there, so you and I can settle your cognitive dissonance.

JonHarker
   PhillyChief, I am afraid you have not given an adequate explanation.
   On the one hand, you admit that "science will probably never explain that.", which is what Sam Harris says, but you continue to argue that your materialistic assumptions contain the full answer.
   What you have done is argue in a circle.
   Either that, or you have just made a Statement of Faith. (chuckle)

JonHarker
Gabriel, you are quite right about their sincerity. Out group leader challenged them to a debate but they wouldn't do it.
And if you meet with them, just remember that Teena is using his laptop to record and photograph you, so don't be suprised if you end up getting quoted on YouTube! chuckle, chuckle.

PhillyChief
   Jon: No, I've argued that a materialistic view is far from merely an assumption as the material is clearly necessary for thought. In lieu of full understanding of thought, it's reasonable to think that it is solely material for two reasons:
   1) The material is necessary for thought.
   2) As of today, all we know exists is the material
   To think that it is or relies on something else, you must first explain and demonstrate the existence of this something else. I'm amused by those who feel because science can't explain something, then it's ok to assume fantastic things such as souls, life energy, or what have you. Attempting to discount me or materialism doesn't get you any closer to making the fantastical plausible (I am assuming you share a fantastical belief, so correct me if I'm wrong).

trapblock
   THank you for the offer. I think I will have to pass on Perkins. I don't believe there is a degree in the world that can confer common sense in/on someone. Though I'm sure it would be a stimulating debate I get the feeling you'd rather insult me rather than debate with me. You seem to have no problem insulting my best friend who even if you don't believe Him you know I do.
   You could settle a lot of CD for me if you tell me which translation your Bible is... you know they are not all the same and I'd be happy to steer you in the right direction.
   Dominus Vobiscum

trapblock
Sorry this is GM - I'm using someone elses computer and the Disqus program (although I entered my name and password) didn't show it on my last post.

JonHarker
   Sorry, PhillyChief, but it looks like you are repeating yourself.
   You just keep claiming that materialistic explanations can account for everything, even though you simultaneiously admit that we don't have a full understanding of these phenomena and, as Harris shows, may NEVER have.
     Its not just that the material does not provide a full explantion, but that a simply materialistic explanation argues against the idea of freethought in the first place. (And by freethought I mean thought that is independent of just stimuli from, and reaction to, the enrironment per the control of some preexisting laws.) And as for the origin of the universe and life, you don't have full explanations there, either.
   Just saying "That's it" as you did previously is not "science" but an expression of your presuppositions. The fact that the laws of chemistry and physics and the mathematical order of the universe do not explain themselves of a level of existence beyond the material.

JonHarker
Trayblock, you have probably figures out by now that "Teena" is our old friend at the Tammeus blog. It a riot to see him call himself "Teena".
This is just like the good old days! chuckle

JonHarker
By the way, Trapblock, you are quite right about him just wanting to insult you. He did the same thing to our uncle...the deal is to get you in front of a group and have a laugh riot, at your expense. It didn't work, because he gave it right back at em and because he turned the tables on them and recorded them just like they did him. I still get a kick out that recording.

PhillyChief
   Sorry Jon, I can't figure out how to explain the same idea each time differently in a way that you'll either understand or accept. One more time then. Materialism explains how we can think, and even how to affect how we think, but to explain why we think what we think , to me, would be too difficult due to the tremendous amount of changing variables for each individual.
   The second important thing isn't merely my opinion, but dictated by logic, and that's in lieu of knowledge, you can't fabricate knowledge. If you're going to assert something fantastical such as a soul if life energy, you don't have license to do that simply because there might not be a suitable answer yet. Those ideas must be held to the same scrutiny as you aim at anything else, like materialism. Failing to do so is intellectually dishonest.
   Now perhaps you could explain what KCF wouldn't, and that's how freethought can't be possible if materialism is true. I find your ideas of both a materialistic mind and of freethought to be grossly oversimplified and what you're implying of freethought doesn't make sense for no thought is completely free. That would mean that you'd form thoughts completely free of any past knowledge or experience. Every thought is a reaction to stimuli, which are comprised of not just the immediate but of our past experiences, knowledge, and even our language. This is what I was referring to earlier when I, and Sam, said that it seems unlikely that science could account for why we think what we think, because the number of stimuli to account for would be too great.
   YoumAdeMeSayIt.com

JonHarker
   I'm sorry too, PhillyChief, but I have to say that you are still just repeating yourself.
   The reason why you can't explain your position is because Materialism does NOT explain how we can think, although it does show that material explanations affect our thinking. Harris clearly explains that there the examination of the brain as a physical system does not provide an explanation of consciousness.
   And its not just a case of arguing that we just don't have any answer yet; the reason freethought is not possible in a materialistic sense is because that means your thoughts are just a biochemical reaction to stimuli, and that they must follow pre existing conditions. Call it a prior censorship if you will. LOL!
   Now, seriously, I would like to cotinue to discuss but you are going to have to withdraw and quit using the ad hominems and accusations of intellectual dishonesty because I don't see things your way...that, of course, is your choice.

842. 101103 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
KC's faith story plays out on stage

So you want to know about your neighbors’ faiths — but you don’t want to go door-to-door yourself and boldly ask them?
   Here’s what you do: You go to the Plaza Library’s Truman Forum Sunday at 2 p.m. or Monday at 7 p.m. and watch a free performance of “The Hindu and the Cowboy and Other Kansas City Stories.”
   The hour-long one-act play, developed following the excitement of the 2001 “Gifts of Pluralism” interfaith conference here, is based on life stories of folks in our own community. No lecture or sheaf of statistics can better reveal the surprising texture of faith and skepticism among us.
   This year’s performances are dedicated to the memory of Holocaust survivor Bronia Rowslawowski who died July 14.
   In the play she is “Naysa” who tells how she, as a teen-ager, escaped certain death in a Nazi camp, came here, opened M & M Bakery and gave food to children who could — and could not — pay for it.
   Playwright Donna Woodard Ziegenhorn told me she’s had misty-eyed folks tell her after the play, “I stood in the line for children with no money.”
   We see*** a Buddhist monk who escaped from Tibet come here, a Leawood Muslim studying at Columbia University in New York threatened after 9/11, a young Catholic wondering why God is male and stories based on interviews with area residents of pagan, American Indian, Sikh, Protestant and other traditions. The Hindu and the cowboy in Shawnee frame the play.
   I asked Ziegenhorn why she thought demand for the play continues year after year.
   “It’s got to be the power of the stories themselves,” she said. “They aren’t about what people believe in terms of theology or doctrine but what people have lived, the kind of visceral moments where someone’s life turns on a pin.
   “The stories . . . confront questions we all grapple with. What is my identity? How far will I go to stand my ground? Where do I draw the line?
   “The dramatic form allows the audience to enter someone else’s reality and move around in it at a safe distance. The characters can ask questions and reveal honest emotion that we might not be comfortable with one-on-one,” she said.
   The play is part of the current Festival of Faiths. Remaining activities include a Nov. 10 conversation about Bruce Feiler’s book, “Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths,” the Nov. 11 “Table of Faiths” luncheon, the Nov. 14 Harmony Interfaith Concert and the Nov. 21 Thanksgiving Sunday Interfaith Dinner. These activities stretch from Independence to Overland Park. Visit festivaloffaithskc.org or call 913-671-2320 for details.
   Our town is religiously unique and potent. The Festival proves it.

***UPDATE: The version of the play that will be presented at the Plaza Library this year omits the Buddhist monk story and instead tells of a second generation Vietnamese teenager whose parents were among the first "boat people." Some 80 area people of all faiths were interviewed about their life experiences. From transcripts of the interviews, the material for the play was developed. With so many stories, performances can be arranged for different lengths and adapted for various audiences. Because the play is now taken out of town, its title is shortened to simply "The Hindu and the Cowboy."

ABRIDGED INTERVIEW WITH PLAYWRIGHT
DONNA WOODARD ZIEGENHORN

Q. Why has "Hindu" become an enduring interfaith program? Did you expect it to be repeated for so many years?
   It’s got to be the power of the stories themselves that connect people at a deep human level. They aren’t about what people believe in terms of theology or doctrine but what people have lived. The kind of visceral moments where someone’s life turns on a pin. The stories – that come from so many faith traditions -- confront questions we all grapple with. What is my identity? How far will I go to stand my ground? Where do I draw the line?
   The dramatic form allows the audience to enter someone else’s reality and move around in it at a safe distance. The characters can ask questions and reveal honest emotion that we might not be comfortable with one-on-one.
   There’s also the practical aspect of the play continuing. We are fortunate to have
Karen Paisley, artistic director of Metropolitan Ensemble Theatre (MET), produce the show. She and the cast she assembles maintain a high performance standard and provide a reliable ‘delivery system’ for the play.
   We’re also lucky that the Festival of Faiths provides an occasion for performances.
This year the Festival is glad to partner with the Kansas City Public Library.
   No, I did not expect [it] to live so long. It’s a delightful surprise every time.

Q. What has the play meant to you in understanding your own faith and in understanding the faiths of our KC neighbors?
It has caused me to reflect more on my faith tradition, Christianity, to observe both
commonalities and differences with other faiths. I feel like I understand several
faiths better, including my own.

Q. How old must a person/child be to attend and benefit from the Nov 7 and 8 performances?
Middle school and up.

Q. Can you cite one or two or three reactions from particular folks (don't need their names) that have been particularly meaningful to you?
A high school student who said it was the best play he’s seen. Because youth engagement in interfaith matters is essential given global urgencies.
More than once people have approached me after a performance, some with misted eyes, saying “I stood in the line for children with no money.” (From the story about Naysa’s bakery. Nasya being the character’s name, not the real life name which is Bronia Rowslawowski – to whom these two performances are dedicated.) This response affirms to me how powerful it is to see our OWN stories held up. Sometimes it’s like the experience gives the person’s life back to them in a new way.

Q. What is the new play you're working on?
It’s also drawn from collected interviews, these mostly from the urban core. Many came from the Troost district. The play expands into other areas, including racial and socio-economic differences. It includes more faith stories, too.

Q. What else would you like to appear in my column about Hindu?
I see this as theater of, by, and for the community. So many people – including you, the KC Interfaith Council, people who have contributed their stories, fans of the show, volunteers, sponsors, MET, we’ve all worked together.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

JonHarker on Nov 3
What if I find out my neighbors are Muslims and they think Hamas is a great organization?
And even better are the Militant Atheists. Wow!

TeenaVolle on Nov 3
Vern, As an atheist, I am glad that more banine/new age religions are being profiled more and more and are creating a mesh mash of fused monotheism, deism and spirituality in this country and chipping away at "this country was created as a Judeo Xian nation" nonsense. According to one pastor's sermon in Olathe I saw a few weeks ago - 52% of American Protestants state that Jesus is not the only way to god - who would have thought?
Check out this piece - What's really hurting Christianity in America - there are 3 pages to the piece.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/541529-what-s-really-hurting-christianity-in-america

GabrielMichaeal on Nov 4
As a Catholic Christian the spiritual malaise and rapid decline of western civilazation makes me realize how right Jesus is.

JonHarker on Nov 5
   TeenaVolle is the organizer of some local atheist groups (and why he chose a woman's name like "Teena" is odd) who makes comments on their discussion board...which anyone can read...about "cutting the religious balls off people" and other vile idiocy.
   I am glad that he speaks out regularly for atheism, and quotes people like the anti Jewish Militant Dawkins (who cries about the NOTORIOUS JEWISH LOBBY in his Delusional Book and spews other bigoted nonsense about Christians and Jews)
   Don't just take my word for it, if you read what they are promoting in the local Militant Atheist groups you will see that it is a good thing that they are outing themselves.
   I want to know who they are and when they are around: that way we can oppose any of them getting poltical power over the rest of us.
   And "Teena" (chuckle) needs to understand that however THIS COUNTRY was founded, it is NOT an Officially Atheistic one like the country he LEFT...THAT country was almost DESTROYED by over 70 years of rule by Miliant Atheists.
   There are many people here who will NEVER submit to rule by those people, any more than they would submit to rule by Muslims.

JonHarker on Nov 5
Good point, Gabriel. But if you think its bad now, just imagine what it would be like if the Miltant Atheists were able to establish an Officially Atheistic Government.
Christians would be going to the Gulags, just like they have in every Officially Atheistic State.

JonHarker on Nov 7
   Teena, who is the organizer of some local atheist groups, and who regularly makes vile posts about "cutting the religious balls off people" on their Meetup site is an admitted Militant Atheist.
   What is amazing to me is that even though he left a country that was almost destroyed by 70 years of Officially Atheistic Government he seems to think that nonsense can work in this country.
   Frankly, if nothing else, thats just not very smart.

TeenaVolle on Nov 7
   Vern, I am glad that all these alternative faiths are profiled in this play and out there to as many people as possible so the dogma of Christianity and other monotheistic religions are watered down to the "spiritualistic" and "deistic" something that is totally banine and no more different than what sports team you are cheering for. Theism as it is practiced in America today is a shame, in my opinion, and is a cover to "be holier than though" and is an interesting amalgamation of religion and military industrial complex and politics as practiced by the Republican party and their sidekick Tea Party.
   Glad Christianity is morphing and dying out as a religion - I have no problem with "banine faith" - moderate Xianity that is Barney like "I love you, you love me, we are happy family!" - here is a piece on this in LA times.
   What's really hurting Christianity in America
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/opinion/la-oew-paul-religion-secularism-2010102
   A pastor of a church in Olathe I went to listen to a few weeks ago stated that 54% of American Christians think that Jesus is not the only way - I say "Amen" to that as an atheist

JonHarker on Nov 7
   Teena, if your Militant Atheism is so great, why did you pick up and leave your homeland?
   Is it because it had been almost ruined by 70 years of Officially Atheistic Rule?
   Or did you just want to try and bring that nonsense here?
   Frankly, that is Delusional thinking.

JonHarker on Nov 7
   Teena is being irrational if he thinks Christianity is going to be eliminated.
   Militant Atheists in the country he left had over 70 years to try to destroy it, and all the power of the Officially Atheistic Government...including imprisonment, torture, and death, and unlimited control of the media for Propaganda...and yet they failed utterly.
   And even self destructed in the process.
   He is like a dog howling at the moon.

TeenaVolle on Nov 7
Another source (now by the Evangelical Xian Ken Ham) - Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it http://www.amazon.com/Already-Gone-your-kids-church
A sobering reality check by a leading Christian Evangelical on how reality, education and critical thinking of kids in church is destroying Xianity. Remarkably, kids who attend Sunday school are more likely to drop out of Xianity when then leave the family.

JonHarker on Nov 8
   Teena, the Militant Anti Theist, was raised under an educational system in Russia that told him to hate all religion.
   He thinks that type of thing will work here, even though it almost destroyed the country he left.
   That is the DELUSIONAL thinking that he is alway accusing others of.

TeenaVolle on Nov 8
   Vern, I am glad that all these alternative faiths are profiled in this play and out there to as many people as possible so the dogma of Christianity and other monotheistic religions are watered down to the "spiritualistic" and "deistic" something that is totally banine and no more different than what sports team you are cheering for. Theism as it is practiced in America today is a shame, in my opinion, and is a cover to "be holier than though" and is an interesting amalgamation of religion and military industrial complex and politics as practiced by the Republican party and their sidekick Tea Party.
Glad Christianity is morphing and dying out as a religion - I have no problem with "banine faith" - moderate Xianity that is Barney like "I love you, you love me, we are happy family!"
   There was a great piece in LA Times - What's really hurting Christianity in America - google it.
   A pastor of a church in Olathe I went to listen to a few weeks ago stated that 54% of American Christians think that Jesus is not the only way - I say "Amen" to that as an atheist.

TeenaVolle on Nov 8
Vern, Another source (now by the Evangelical Xian Ken Ham) - Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it
A sobering reality check by a leading Christian Evangelical on how reality, education and critical thinking of kids in church is destroying Xianity. Remarkably, kids who attend Sunday school are more likely to drop out of Xianity when then leave the family.

JonHarker on Nov 8
   More baseless claims from "Teena" without a lick of proof.
   No citations, nothing.
   Your Militant Anti Theism is going to FAIL here Teena, just like it did in your homeland.

KansasCityFreethinker on Nov 9
Vern, if the government was run by atheists, do you think all this interfaith work would be tolerated?

KansasCityFreethinker on Nov 9
Vern, when are you going to come out in support of the atheists? Don't you think they could run the government better than believers?

VERN REPLIED --
Dear KansasCityFreethinker: In response to your two questions -- In my experience, I find competent and compassionate believers and competent and compassionate non-believers. In government, I look for competence and compassion, not belief-status. As I wrote in the column on Oct 20, "most atheists have as much to offer [genuine interfaith discourse] as most believers," and I often defend all those of good fruit regardless of their beliefs and urge folks to learn from each other.

KansasCityFreethinker wrote
   Vern, I apprectiate you answering.
   This is a subject I have been studying. Can you give me an example or two of an atheist who had a postion of national leadership who was competent and compassionate?
   Several Presidents have been called atheists as well as patriots such as Thomas Paine. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was not a church member and his understanding of God seems markedly different from most folks of his time -- and ours. I don't wish to argue these claims about such high-profile leaders. My statement does not make such claims. My statement indicates my priority for competence and compassion over religious affiliation. Alas, being a declared atheist has been and remains a political disability, and thus we are deprived of those who might be excellent examples of the kind you wish me to name. I wrote about government; but in other arenas, atheists have certainly made enormous contributions to our nation's well-being.

Vern replied
Several Presidents have been called atheists as well as patriots such as Thomas Paine. Abraham Lincoln, for example, was not a church member and his understanding of God seems markedly different from most folks of his time -- and ours. I don't wish to argue these claims about such high-profile leaders. My statement does not make such claims. My statement indicates my priority for competence and compassion over religious affiliation. Alas, being a declared atheist has been and remains a political disability, and thus we are deprived of those who might be excellent examples of the kind you wish me to name. I wrote about government; but in other arenas, atheists have certainly made enormous contributions to our nation's well-being.

TeenaVolle wrote
   Vern wrote>>>>>. "most atheists have as much to offer [genuine interfaith discourse] as most believers," and I often defend all those of good fruit regardless of their beliefs and urge folks to learn from each other.
   Vern, In my experience at least here in KC area - the overwhelming majority of atheists don't really care about "interfaith discourse" and just shrug it off when interacting with Christians. Most of them have been Xians before, so to them all the Christian arguments are well known, well rehearsed, irrational and banine.
   Unless religious folks accept "keep your faith to yourself, out of government, schools, education, medical decisions" (i.e. become more deistic, spiritualist, liberal Xians - take your pick of a term), I don't see too much discourse happening on a personal level, rather than looking at the religious as if they were a hurd of cows with this kind of curiousity.
   The few Xians who come to KC freethinking meetups are virtually indistinguishable from the atheists they hang around with when it comes to science, politics, education, foreign policies, etc. This country needs more Christians like this.
   Where is Jesus when you need him?

Vern replied
Alas, TeenaVolle, not only are too few atheists interested in interfaith exchange but too few Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc also are insufficiently involved. Still, in Kansas City, we have achieved a critical mass that continues to expand. Yesterday the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council Table of Faiths luncheon attracted some 500 people of good will and effort, including atheists present.

841. 101027 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Famous but not informed

Truly wonderful people are involved with interfaith work in Kansas City, but sometimes folks are hesitant to be critical. Honest exchange is thereby lost. I’ll try to avoid platitudes here.
   Writer Bruce Feiler is famous. He appears on PBS and in The New York Times. In Kansas City last week, he coyly let his audience know he was invited to the White House to meet President George W. Bush.
   His announced topic here was “Can We Talk? Religion and Civil Dialogue in America,” but instead he puffed up his new book about how the story of Moses “shaped” America, and he seemed to talk more about himself than Moses.
   His recounted how, in a Hollywood storeroom, he was allowed to put on the very garment Charlton Heston wore playing Moses in “The Ten Commandments.” It fit him perfectly. He emphasized that it would not fit Tom Cruise.
   None of this revealed any understanding of civil discourse or how to promote interfaith understanding. He failed to show how Moses was a useful figure for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others who faiths are now part of the American religious landscape.
   After his speech, he took questions. Someone asked for guidance in responding to Islamophobia.
   He said that only since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 have we been able to include Muslims in our faith conversations.
   Really?
   While Islamophobia goes back before the Crusades in the Middle Ages, it finds its current support in Bernard Lewis’s 1990 essay, “The Roots of Muslim Rage” and Samuel Huntington’s 1993 article, “The Clash of Civilizations.” Both have had enormous influence on policy makers and provided a rationale for a political agenda which influences folks who have never heard of these writings.
   Islam has been part of Kansas City conversations for years.
   In 1986, 15 years before 9/11, the International Relations Council convened a conference, “Islam and the Modern World.” The next year, our Christian Jewish Muslim Dialogue Group was organized, and in 1989, the Interfaith Council was formed including a Muslim member. In 1990, the Kansas City Press Club included stories about Islam in its study.
   The incorrect presumption immediately following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that a Muslim was responsible for that terrorist attack shows that prejudice against Islam was widespread before 9/11. In response, to provide accurate information about Islam and to build interfaith friendships, in 1996 local Muslims formed the Crescent Peace Society.
   Their early action is a better answer to Islamophobia than what Feiler’s poorly informed words offered.

READER RESPONSE

D L WRITES --
Touche--and bravo!
The mailbag will be full next week--and interfaith dialog may prosper the better for not applauding the mediocre and the untrue!!

M G WRITES --
Thanks for this terrific column on Feiler's "All about Me and Moses" talk. Though his talk was entirely off the point of interfaith dialogue, he definitely provided us a terrific demonstration of stage presence and, I thought, quite effectively diverted attention from the announced topic. I liked his hand and arm work especially. But connecting Moses with the Christian tradition of the U.S. caused me to recall that none of those people in the Old Testament were Christians. I suspect there really is a "Christian" tradition along with a Jewish tradition and a Calvinist, and a Muslim and a you-name-it tradition in the U.S. along with a rich, kiving tradition of showmanship. Anyway, it's always good to get out of the house. I look forward to reading the feedback from this column. - Mike Greene

D N COMMENTS --
Very fair report.

P N writes --
Your column is my favorite thing about the Kansas City Star. I truly look forward to it every week. You write in such an engaging manner and so lucidly about the most profound and complex topics. You should be syndicated!

R D wrote on 10/29/2010 --
Thank you for your accurate review of Bruce Feiler's presentation at Village Presbyterian. I was so disappointed with the content and his avoidance of answering Bill Tammeus questions. It was a missed opportunity. A faithful reader of your column.

VERN REPLIED --
Thank you very much for writing. You reassure me that I did the right thing by encouraging speakers to speak on the subjects they have promised to address and to be informed about the issues involved. I really appreciate your taking the time to write me. And thanks for reading my column each week!

C S wrote on 10/29/2010:
I was relieved to read your article "Famous but not Informed" in the K.C. Star. I had left Bruce Feiler's speech wondering what it had to do with interfaith relations. I found some of his "facts" interesting, but could not find a connection.

VERN REPLIED --
While one of my readers called my column a "hatchet job," most seem to agree with you. Thank you very much for writing. You reassure me that I did the right thing by encouraging speakers to speak on the subjects they have promised to address and to be informed about the issues involved. I try to be positive but when a great opportunity with a large audience is lost, some sort of protest is important if interfaith efforts are to be credible. I think Feiler should donate back his fee. I really appreciate your taking the time to write me.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

JonHarker on Oct 27 --
   Very misleading hatchett job, Vern. Bruce was very up front about himself, unlike you who likes to dodge and weave about your own beliefs. Of course, what is laughable is that I have come to realize that you really think you are fooling people about your own attitudes toward Christianity.
   You just can't stand it when a Man is Up Front about what he thinks, can you?
   As to Muslims, if there was not such massive support for organizations like Hamas that STILL call for the Destruction of Israel in their Charter, perhaps people would be less sensitive.

840. 101020 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
What sort of God do you believe in?

One atheist pronounced my column two weeks ago “good,” but the overwhelming reaction from non-believers ranged from “rather unsettling” to “toxic shock.”
   The column noted that a recent study found that non-believers know more basic facts about religion than believers, but I questioned whether the so-called “New Atheists” really understand religion itself.
   My question was not pointed to all non-believers but to a few, specifically writers like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
   They may be able to visit a metaphorical forest of faith and identify this tree and that tree accurately, but are they able to understand the forest and what it does for the world? Even if believers cannot name all the trees, do believers understand the forest better since they live in it?
      Most non-believers I know also live in the forest but understand it differently and use different terms for it. Like believers, they cherish the forest’s fruits of beauty, compassion and service..
   To argue whether God exists is futile. While many people find evidence for God, there is no proof. Every proof that has ever been proposed is problematic. If there were proof one way or other, we’d all agree, just as we all agree that fire can burn trees and even a forest.
   What is more interesting and productive is sharing in a personal way what we see as evidence for God’s existence, and evidence against it. Such conversations expand our short perspectives of the forest as we embrace each other as finite human beings and share doubts and certainties to help us answer questions science cannot resolve.
   Here’s such a question: “Is life worth living, and if so, at what price?” For example, Martin Luther King Jr. seemed to answer that his life was not worth living except in service to a larger cause.
   Another useful question is “What kind of God do you worship or deny?” The new book, “America’s Four Gods” by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, identifies four different conceptions of God (benevolent, authoritative, distant, critical).
   My experience with folks of various faiths suggests there are many more than four conceptions of God, including identifying God with a cosmic evolutionary process of which we are all a part, with the inner voice of conscience, with the laws of nature or, as many mystics speak of God, with reality itself.
   What sort of God do you believe in or deny? Don’t pretend to give me logical arguments. I want to know what your life in the forest tells you.
   With such personal disclosures most atheists have as much to offer as most believers—maybe more—to flourish in the forest.

READER RESPONSE

R L WROTE --
I really liked the comparisons in your column this morning. I can really see all those people standing in a circle, each group around a different tree, all facing inward seeing only their own tree. Some without a tree just wandering around through the forest, denying the need for trees at all but still within the forest that is God. Boy! Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...Thanks for the imagery,

VERN REPLIED --
Thanks very much for letting me know the metaphor worked for you!

M M WROTE--
   Great question for this time of year. I think transitional seasons like autumn and spring have always caused man to be confronted with the question.. "Who's doing all this??"
   My God began in several pieces.
   One part was a building where we learned and repeated hymns, rituals, and studied a defining text from which enlightenment was supposed to flow.
   Another part came from education, learning the hard cold facts that govern the chaos around us every day.. I found God's graffiti in almost every page of the encyclopedias my parents got me one year for my birthday.
   Other parts came from literature, science fiction, fantasy, mythology, poetry. All these possibilities bit into the life stream of cold hard facts in the world and drew living force from lifeless academia. Now, through the infinitely possible eye of fiction I could see how sacred ideas scratched existence from a cruel and inexplicable world. We NEED something to explain the unexplainable, our physical brains simply demand it, but we are too simple to understand what we are seeing.
   One I realized that looking one way through the compound lens of fact and fiction explained one aspect of divinity, my natural next step was to flip the lens.. take the fiction, and examine the world of possible fictions through the filter of facts. If GOD is something greater than us.. then an exponential ratio of complexity in ability to observe must be to blame for our inability to see anything greater than human thought as fact, only belief. We can examine the infinitely less complex world around us, and we continue to shatter the depths of particle physics every day, dissecting the physical into finer and finer bits and seeing what they taste like. We can peer into the microscope and see order, but the macroscope only shows us complexity beyond our scale, and we fail to grasp at it, like a fly endlessly banging against a clear window pane.
   That is where God lives, in the macroscopic universe beyond our ability to resolve an image of something more complex than our own mind. So, as humans have done for eons before me, I turn to what I do know, and fictionalize what I do not.
   God is us. Whether God is aware of us and uses us as a resource much as we use anti-biotics and yeast, or whether God simply sees us as a natural process in it's world, we are the part of the building blocks of the universe of God. We can see many effects in our world that could be attributed to proof of something greater than us acting with purpose on our universe. Synchronicity, a simple set of coincidences, or residual effect of a greater process?? Ask any computer programmer about logarithms and algorithms, and you will quickly see that synchronous coincidence happens when dissimilar inputs are run through a program with predictable outputs. Synchronicity may well be the shadow of God metaphorically surfing the internet, or refining aluminum from bauxite in God's universe. So how do I make this idea of my God into something my squishy electrochemical biological brain can hang on to?? I CHOOSE the fictional idea of the Green Man.. The ultimate face of beyond, looking inward at us through the veil of our natural laws.
   Around my neck is a small copper medallion, it has been there for over a decade. One side is a green man, barely discernible from the vines and leaves until you really look. The other side is a turtle.. one very constant expression in our world of self-sufficiency and reliance. Everything within a turtles shell is the world of the turtle, everything without is the interaction with the green man.
   And just like that.. I know the face of my God.. I just wonder if God knows me..
   Thank you for an engaging trip into my own journey so far.. have a lovely autumn season.

E M WROTE on 10/25/2010 --
   While God is multi-faceted, the major reason that I serve God is because of personal relationship. Despite worldwide disaster and difficult circumstances personally encountered, God is present with humankind. When unexpected crisis take place in our world, God sees and is move by humankind to compassion.
   People often ask why God allowed a particular tragedy to happen. In my opinion God created and set the world in motion as a self sufficient entity. Events happen and humankind is expected to make choices and react to the results, altering the course of the world forever, thus leading to other events and circumstances.
   Many times the world feels chaotic because our personal control is so limited. However, within the chaos we can find peace if we but trust God who is present with us, through the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

VERN REPLIED --
Thank you for sending me some thoughts in response to my column last Wednesday!
Personal relationships are often the arena of the sacred, as you suggest. My rough and ready chart of the sacred in world religions appears at
http://www.cres.org/#chart
I appreciate your taking the trouble to write, and I am keeping your note for possible future use.

Oneness Eternal true.believer75@hotmail.com WROTE on 10/25/2010
   Interesting !:
   I was conceived according to the laws of nature. I wasn't transplanted, nor created by a divine plan or power to: save the the world, kill other beings, or even think (that is interlectually) !
   Through skills that I developed I learned the survial for the fittness in a natural environment.
   Medical science has been able to keep beings living longer ; although the quality of life suffers as they age. It does promote a profitable business for the health care industry.
   Being realistic : we are born to die. Even those who call themselves divine die. There are many, many beings who are afraid to die, do not want to die but do die ! Is there a god that will change all of this ? I haven't experienced any revelation in my lifetime , except the same old trials and tribulation that has existed since ?
   Do YOU write and preach as a being concerned with helping other beings believe in themselves first before anything else ? Or are you and others who do what you doing enjoy the profits that comes from the poor beings with no purpose in life except to live and die and can be taken advantaged of ?
I wonder !
P.S. Pope Leo X in the 16th Century stated " it has served us well this myth of christ." ARe you part of this scam ???

VERN REPLIED --
   Thanks for reading my weekly column this past Wednesday 10-20-10, and for your comments.
   I would hope that the fruits of the "forest," of which I named three in the column (beauty, compassion and service) would respond to your question whether I write "as a being concerned with helping other beings believe in themselves first before anything else." I have been a full-time volunteer doing interfaith work for many years and live "low to the ground," while also supporting my special needs son. I assure you there is no financial "profit" in what I do.
   Your question, whether I am part of a scam, is a good one as people ought always to examine themselves and their lives so that they are as free of hypocrisy and exploitation as possible. I hope the column this week, and always, respects the particular experiences of each person. I don't believe I've ever suggested that anyone needs to see things my way. I do think it is helpful for most readers to be reminded of options, which the column we are discussing certainly lays out.
   Although I am indeed concerned for others, I also recognize I am a finite human being and can help but just a few.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 6:20:14 AM:
   I love this type of article. Atheists can hear the lyrics, but can't seem to hear the melody. The only problem is that the melody seems to be different for each and every person and reflects their own musical abilities rather than some divinely inspired ditty. How can anyone make a claim to divine understanding when each person has a different version of the "truth"?
   What is a "cosmic evolutionary process"? Evolution is the process by which through adaptive mutation, living organisms are better able to complete for resources - what does the term "cosmic" have to do with it? Evolution does not apply outside of the limits of biology.
   "Don’t pretend to give me logical arguments" - either an argument is logical or it isn't - there is no pretending. I deny all forms of God that involve the supernatural or claims that are unsupported by the evidence.

gregswartz wrote on 10/20/2010 10:01:34 AM:
   Vern, you are just as delusional as the religious! What is with all this talk about metaphorical forests and trees? Whether god exists is a simply a question of evidence. Where is the evidence that there is a god? You admit that "every proof that has ever been proposed is problematic." All of your types of gods are what people would like for god to be, but that is no evidence for god.
   I have studied the history of god somewhat and it is quite clear that the concept of god has changed as human culture has changed. That is, god is clearly a human construct. God does not exist in reality, only in the fertile imagination of humans.
   Your problem is that you would like for there to be a god, or at least, you like religious ritual - the music, the pageantry, the social contact, etc. We need to figure out how to preserve what is good about religion while abandoning the false notion that there is a god. For me, the best answer to religion is atheistic humanism. It may not be a perfect fit, but try it, you might like it!

JonHarker wrote on 10/20/2010 11:02:45 AM:
   "To argue whether God exists is futile". Of course, if Vern really believed that, he would not be bothering with all this, and if atheists really believed that they would not still be arguing against the existence of God as they do here.
   Vern tells us that every proof that has ever been proposed is problematic.
   So what?
   The "BIG BANG" that atheists rely on to explain the orign of the universe is problematic since the laws of Physics (whatever they are...Stephen Hawking has given up on a Theory of Everything) break down at the point of the Big Bang. So no scientist can tell you what it even was.
   The Spontaneous Generation of Life from Non Life that atheists rely on to explain the origin of life is problematic and has never been observed in nature and has never been reproduced experimentally.
   It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist, and requires ignoring the evidence that is staring them in the face...the mathematical order of a supposedly mindless universe, the information contenct of the cell which is greated than a set of Encyclopedias, and the ability of the supposedly mindlessly evolved human mind to comprehend it at all

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 12:48:01 PM:
   As a quick reply to JonHarker
   If people argued for the existence of leprechauns and in some instances insisted that we learn about the ways of leprechauns in science and that they should guide the public policy debate in our nation, would it prove that we *really* believed in small men?
   All of science has "problems" - things that cannot currently explain. Current explanations are based upon the best available evidence and in some instances may have little certainly (how the life began) to a great deal of certainty (evolution). The real issue is that scientists will readily admit to not knowing the answer, instead of the "god did it".
   Because something is complex god did it? So a the processes that are currently at work over the billions of years the earth has been around are not sufficient to create the world we see around us today? Pretty much every single biologist would disagree with you (and as a geologist I do too).

JonHarker wrote on 10/20/2010 12:57:21 PM:
   Dkeane is merely stating his/her faith that science will provide the answers.
   Eventually.
   Great is thy faith that a supposedly mindlessly evolved human mind will be capable of apprehending to utlimate Theory of Everything.
   But arguing that God exists, even if equate with the expression "God did it" is certainly as rational an approach as arguing that "we don't know the anwers" but "chance did it".
   Further, believing in God did not keep the great scientists of the past from studying the creation...indeed, it INSPIRED their studies as they saw it as a chance to "think God thoughts after him".
   You can keep claiming that you "don't know" while you simutaneously claim that "chance did it", you have yet to demonstrate that the existence of the universe, life, and mind itself are the result of those mindless processess you express YOUR FAITH in.

gregswartz wrote on 10/20/2010 1:43:11 PM:
   Science is not based on faith, though religionists would like to drag science into their morass. A vast number of us have confidence in science, because, just as science continually tests hypotheses to reach theories about how the universe works, science itself is subject to the same tests. Were the scientific method be found to produce inaccurate results, then it would be abandoned or altered to reach accurate results. Science works because it is constantly being tested as are its hypotheses and theories. The truth is that science has never found god. When we find the solution to a mystery, it is always in the natural world, we never find god.
   At the recent Michael Shermer/William Dembski [debate] in Topeka, Shermer challenged him to show exactly where the intelligent designer interceded in the process of evolution. Dembski admitted that he did not know!!!!
   Faith is a failed basis for determining the truth!

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 1:44:36 PM:
   You are misrepresenting my position
   Science is the best tool we have for understanding the natural world - I did not state that it will uncover every unknown or the theory of everything. There may come a time in which it is impossible to make any further progress on a particular question - at which point we would need to come to terms with "we may never know". Again, the default position is not "god did it"
   It is not equal to argue god did it versus chance. There is strong evidence that chance did it. Today you can look at drug resistant bacteria, the evolution of viruses out of southeast Asia, vaccine development to actually view evolution at work. On top of that there is recent genetic work that shows some of the most recent evolutionary changes occurred in humans just 10,000 years ago (the ability of people in the Himalayas to live at altitude with no negative effects).
   Who cares if Newton was inspired by what he thought was god? Because he invented calculus means he has more insight into this subject? They did not apply scientific method to the question of god.
   Faith Definition: "not resting on logical proof or material evidence" which is the exact opposite of scientific inquiry.
   Your concern about "mindless processes" indicates the need for a security blanket. Mindless processes effect our everyday, the earth rotating around the sun, the movement of the continents...the cool thing is that they work entirely on their own, no skydaddy required.

gregswartz wrote on 10/20/2010 1:46:04 PM:
In my last post the second paragraph should begin "At the recent Michael Shermer/William Dembski debate in Topeka..."

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 10/20/2010 2:06:14 PM:
There is in world history no teaching more radically humanistic than the claim that God became a human being in order that human beings might participate in the life of God, now and forever. - Fr. Richard Neuhaus

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 2:50:06 PM:
   Gabr - great quote, there is no teaching more radically illogical than the following:
   I'm going to create Man and Woman with original sin. Then I'm going to impregnate a woman with myself so that I can be born. Once alive, I will kill myself as a sacrifice to myself to save you all from the sin that I originally condemned you to.
   feel the love...

JonHarker wrote on 10/20/2010 5:01:01 PM:
   DKeane, you are misrepresenting GM's postion.
   And no one said "I will kill myself", although he WAS murdered.
   And no one was condemed to anything...humankind is offered free will, which your faith that humankind is the product of mindless forces can not account for.

JonHarker wrote on 10/20/2010 5:12:36 PM:
   Greg Swartz has simply renamed his FAITH "confidence" so as to pretend that he does not have faith. (And I would tend more to that definition of Faith than the Straw Men definitions given in this thread.)
   And yet, for his view of the scientific method to work, he has to assume the uniformity of nature and the role of cause and effect, and the ability of the human mind...which itself is claimed to be the product of mindless forces...to apprehend the workings of the material universe.
   The truth is that your position on atheism is NON FALSIFIABLE, given your presuppostions, and hence is itself NOT SCIENTIFIC...Falsifiability being a component of the scientific method.
   Given your claim that existence, life, and mind itself can be explained by unidected processess...which has not been demonstrated...there is NO PROOF that you would accept as to the existence of God.
   Not even in Principle.
   If your postion on atheism is RATIONAL and can be counted as SCIENTIFIC, then you should be able to give me an example of something, at least IN PRINCIPLE or Theoretically, that you would accept as proof.
   Go ahead.
   Give me an example.
   And I will then show, given your Presupposition that undirected forces can account for all you have claimed...but which you can not demonstrate...that your example FAILS.

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 8:23:39 PM:
   First Para: The definition of faith is from Wikipedia - admittedly not the best source - but it will certainly do for this discussion.
   Second Para - I agree 100% (you like the term "mindless forces" - I'm not sure it is having the effect you think it is).
   I do not need to falsify my position - you make a claim that there is a god - you need to provide the evidence. you say there are trolls - my response will be the same - prove it. The fact that trolls exist is not the default position.
   How do you know there is no proof that would allow me to accept God? The very concept of science is that accepted theories are allowed to changed via the discovery of evidence. Show me that Hindu prayers for the healing of the sick work compared to an adequate control group. But I'm sure you agree that couldn't happen - that Hindu religion is just silly, unlike the christians 1+1+1 = 1
   I do not misrepresent anything - according to your dogma your "god" makes all the rules and our imperfection is a direct result of its original creation (an imperfect creation from a perfect god?). So any "surprise" on the part of a god that we do not conform to some arbitrary set of rules is ridiculous.

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 8:50:46 PM:
From iron chariots:
Burden of proof is the position, in argumentation theory, that the individual making a claim that something is true is required to support the claim with evidence or sound argument sufficient to warrant acceptance of the claim by the other party. If the claimant cannot provide sufficient evidence, the other party is allowed to disregard the claim without having to disprove it.

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 10/20/2010 10:05:40 PM:
"If you have to ask, you'll never know." - The Red Hot Chili Peppers

DKeane wrote on 10/20/2010 11:03:15 PM:
???
"She Loves You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" - The Beatles

JonHarker wrote on 10/21/2010 7:10:28 AM:
   DKeane/Iggy...
   First Paragraph...I agree, Wikipedia is not best source and thus will NOT do for the discussion.
   Second Paragraph...I appreciate your admission that you are operating on assumptions.
   As to falsifying your postion, you need to be able to do that to maintain that your position is "scientific"...Falsifiability is an element of the Scientific Method.
   I know that you can not provide an example of something that could, at least in PRINCIPLE, falsify your postion because you will not do so. Given the ASSUMPTIONS that you admit you operate under, there is NO proof for the existence of God that you will accept, because you operate on your own undemonstrated atheistic assumptions that undirected forces can account for all existence.
   You then say, "I do not misrepresent anything". You just did...you misrepresented GM's statement.
   As to the buden of proof...atheists like Greg Swartz continue to claim that undirected forces can account for existence itself, life, and supposedly objective reason...but they have not demonstrated this. They then like to say "we don't know" and yet they claim that "someday" science will resolve these issues.
   And, as Greg Swartz claims, he has "confidence" that this is so.
   His confidence is his Faith.
   I don't have enough Faith to be an atheist.

DKeane wrote on 10/21/2010 10:39:19 AM:
The last time I will say this - god is not the default position. Irregardless if "undirected forces" has not be "proven" by the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence. Science has a basis for its interpretation - you have none.

JonHarker wrote on 10/21/2010 11:44:50 AM:
   I agree, God is not a default position. Irregardles, your claim that undirectd forces account for our present existence has not been demonstrated
   "Chance did it" is not a default position; your "basis for interpretation" are simply the ASSUMPTIONS you have already admitted to having.
   Great is thy faith.
   Oh, and that is NOT the last time I will say that!

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 10/21/2010 2:20:53 PM:
In fact, as Nietzsche saw, in his own inimitably ironic way, these atheist frat boys are really attacking science. This is because for Nietzsche—who was perhaps the only truly honest atheist in the history of philosophy—science was ultimately a moral, not an epistemological problem, a point he drove home with special force in 'The Gay Science'... - Peter Kreeft
In other words, atheist “scientists” are eating away at the very foundation that makes science possible in the first place.

gregswartz wrote on 10/21/2010 4:06:37 PM:
I do not have enough faith to be a religionist - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever!

DKeane wrote on 10/21/2010 6:17:58 PM:
Yes the base assumption that the laws of nature apply everywhere are spurious. I suggest you test out the theory of gravity and see if it applies at different altitudes. I have provided current examples of the evolutionary process and that it is supported by the all of the current scientific literature. If you know something that everyone else does not, I suggest you go into research, you could make a lot of money.

JonHarker wrote on 10/22/2010 10:17:41 AM:
   To claim that the laws of nature are the same everywhere assumes that you know what the laws of nature are in the first place. But you don't, not even close. For example, as currently formulated, the Principles of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have contradictory aspects which were supposedly supposed to be resolved by the "Theory Of Everything" which has been promised for decades.
   Unfortunately, the Stephen Hawking has given up on the Theory of Everything.
   I suggest you come up with it and win a Nobel Prize.
   In the meantime you can't keep saying "you don't know", but if you don't know, you can't say "chance did it".

JonHarker wrote on 10/22/2010 10:19:15 AM:
   GregSwartz has faith that "chance did it".
   And thats why his atheism is unscientific...i.e., it is not falsifiable.
   All he has to say is "chance did it".
   Never mind that he can't demonstrate it.

JonHarker wrote on 10/22/2010 10:22:12 AM:
DK, you have provided no examples of "evolutionary process" that explain the origin of life, not have you provided a reference to any scientific literature that explains the origin of life.
All you are doing is operating under assumptions, that "chance did it".

TeenaVolle wrote on 10/23/2010 11:44:06 AM:
   I cannot believe that of all the people Vern doesn't get it that Satan is the only true god and he has clouded the minds of people way way back and continues today. The all the holy books are just that - he's the trickster, tricking everyone who is gullible.
   Only atheists and agnostics will go to heaven. The pre-Genesis book about that was suppressed by the Jews. It has been revealed to me.
   What a surprise it will be for Jews, Xians and Muslims to find themselves separated from the only true god and end up in Hades? Better get some coins put on your eyes when you are laid to rest or cremated.
   Sigh.........

JonHarker wrote on 10/24/2010 2:16:37 PM:
For those who even care anymore, TeenaVolle is the organizer of some local atheist groups. He has various sidekicks, and they specialize in trolling religious blogs...Bill Tammeus had to shut down commments it got so bad...and post messages on their blogs about "Target Practice" and "cutting the religious balls off of people".
   Their group was recently challenged to a serious debate and they responded by shutting down their discussion board on that site and basically running away.
   I suspect Vern gets a kick out of playing "good cop bad cop" with them.
   I get a kick out of their irrational messages, like the incoherent one above.
   And, like the New Atheists, they are here BLAMING THE JEWS for a CONSPIRACY!
   Priceless!

rampage wrote on 10/25/2010 3:48:07 AM:
After being a Christian for 60 years, I no longer believe. It seems a lot of people who claim to be Christian are nothing but hypocrites. Many Christians sit in their mega churches on Sunday with hate and animosity towards their fellow man. Either because they are poor, homeless ,people of color, a different sexual orientation, different political affiliation or heaven forbid, of a different religion. Christian seem to despise the poor especially. Christian don't practice what they preach. Jesus, please spare us from you followers!

JonHarker wrote on 10/25/2010 12:42:00 PM:
   "rampage", you make alot of charges there, but apparently simply dismiss the many Christians who fight against all the things you decry.
   And so now you are an atheist? You think the atheist groups in Kansas City are helping their fellow man?
   You know what the lastest group activity of the most vocal local group was?
   TARGET PRACTICE on some rich atheists land.
   I couldn't go. I was helping with a blood drive.

gregswartz wrote on 10/25/2010 1:20:51 PM:
   On 10/24/2010 at 2:16 p.m. JonHarker wrote: "Their group was recently challenged to a serious debate and they responded by shutting down their discussion board on that site and basically running away."
   If you cannot arrange a debate with anyone else, I would be happy to debate the existence of god or perhaps some other topics. I would need a little prep time as I have never debated anyone on these subjects. I have talked and discussed extensively about the existence of god and other related matters, but have never debated, so I probably would need a little time to make sure I have all topics covered. It would need to be in a venue in which both sides of the debate were treated equally, including equal access to good seats by freethinkers and equal ability for friends of both sides to ask questions, etc.
   I am easily reached via email at greg@kcfreethought.org .

JonHarker wrote on 10/25/2010 5:28:12 PM:
   What are you talking about, Greg? You are a member of the very group who ran away.
   Further, we have asked you to give an example of something that could, at least in Principle, falsify your atheism. You have ignored us because, of course, you can not give such an example because you hold to the undemonstrated assumption that undirected processes can account for our present existence.
   And given that assumption, your position is unfalsifiable and therefore does not fall within the domain of science.
   You have nothing to debate; you simply assert that "chance did it".
   Now, if you or some of your sidekicks were to try and give an example of something that could falsify your position...at which time we will show you that your example will fail, given your assumptions...then we would have something to debate.
   So how about it?
   Give us an example of something that could, at least IN PRINCIPLE, falsify your position; then at least we could argue whether atheism even falls into the domain of scientific considertion.

gregswartz wrote on 10/26/2010 10:49:35 AM:
   JonHarker, who is running away from a debate? Not me!
   You seem to be requiring me to agree with your position before you will debate. You also misrepresent my position while running for cover! I am not going to believe in a god until someone can prove that a god exists. I have studied all of the reasons for believing in a god and have found fallacies in all of them. My position is that you cannot prove that there is a god. It is up to you to prove that a god exists.
   BTW, I have no leadership position in the group you are alleging that "ran away" and I see no relevancy in the issue. I am offering to debate the existence of god - who cares what group I might be in. I have from time to time challenged persons on various blogs to "show me god" - i.e., prove the existence of god - no one has proven to me that god exists. I am willing to share with you and others in a public debate why I find all evidence for god to be false!

TeenaVolle wrote on 10/26/2010 2:59:25 PM:
   Vern,
   How about "new atheists" who used to be religious themselves - do they understand religion? How about a few ex ministers here in KC area who regularly come to meetups of local freethinkers and have a fascinating story? Tonight, Tuesday 7 p.m. at Perkins in Lenexa we'll be talking about active ministers who are atheist and how they are able to function and experience "deepety" so to speak :o)
   Just saying...
   At some point in the future insanity of organized religion will stop and will be viewed as nothing but somewhat excentric. A couple of weeks ago I alongside with a few atheists when to a church and the pastor's sermon mentioned 52 or was it 54% of American Protestants thinking that Jesus was not the only way - remarkably the sermon was a 3 part series "Is Jesus the only way?"

TeenaVolle wrote on 10/26/2010 3:14:12 PM:
   (Continued)
   Vern, It is unavoidable that religion will be losing to individual diluted"faith", "hybrids" of faiths and "atheistic philosophical faiths" so to speak - e.g. Buddhism and Raelism or new agey cult like Scientology. It's been in the works, it will happen as level of educaiton and income goes up around the world.
   The new prosperity study that just came out puts 3 least religoius European countries on top of prosperity/happiness index. US is #10. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/26/prosperity.index/ - remarkably 3 top nations have the highest taxation and concequently highest levels of social services and lowest religiousity in the world to boot. On top of that the lowest poverty and highest level of education and the lowest number of crimes and STDs. Oh, yes, they also have high highschool and college education level and YES, EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY THERE :o) - only in the minds of the crazies.
   The delinquent parent Yahweh/Jesus is long gone and the European nations are reaping the rewards. Where is the delinquent and child support dodging god when you need him? Do you really need him? God Bless America to be # 9 instead of #10 in a few years :o)

vbarnet wrote on 10/26/2010 9:37:43 PM --
I complain not about new atheists -- I applaud them and all who give attention to religious questions such as "“Is life worth living, and if so, at what price?” -- but "the New Atheists," and I named several, are writers who in my opinion seem so invested in identifying certain "trees" with the "forest" that they do not adequately appreciate the universal experiences of awe, gratitude and service which form the basis of faiths, past and present. As for the European question, I quote Eliade: "The History of Religions is not merely an historical discipline, as for example, are archeology and numismatics. It is equally a total hermeneutics being called to decipher and explicate every kind of encounter with the sacred, from prehistory to our own day."

TeenaVolle wrote on 10/29/2010 9:46:14 AM
Vern, I got your first point about "new atheist" spokesmen/the four horsemen so to speak (Harris, Dennet, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.) It needs to be said as in any movement there has to be a charismatic leader someone who'll be on the bleeding edge and formulate atheism as "rationalism" and this is where I think they are succeeding. It's a balance between humanism, secularism, science, rationality, history, philosophy, etc. An average "Joe Blow atheist" would not have time or desire to research all of this. It needs to be packaged in a digestable format. Which they provide. Actually, they are being noticed quite well by religious figures and often commented on as "intellectual elites" in a derogatory form (Mohler, Turek, Craig, DeSouza, etc.). Moderates names escape me now but there are some.

839. 101013 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
PBS series on faith opens discussion

Religion oppresses. Religion liberates.
   You might agree with both statements if you’ve been watching the 6-hour PBS series, “God in America.” The final two hours are scheduled for tonight on KCPT at 8 p.m.
   Monday, viewers saw the Puritans’ rigorous social constrains broken and the individual freed to hear God speaking within.
   The second hour portrayed Thomas Jefferson working with Baptists to develop the Constitutional protection of religious freedom, which would have shocked the Puritans. The program also showed how revivalists inspired social reforms and the challenge Catholics made to the Protestant domination of public schools.
Tuesday, the third episode focused on the greatest trial of the Union, the Civil War, with competing Christian views over slavery.
   The fourth program showed the development of a new American Judaism, the advance of Biblical scholarship and the contest between fundamentalists and freethinkers over evolution in the Scopes trial.
   Tonight, episode five deals with Billy Graham, “Godless Communism,” the Supreme Court’s decision about religion in public schools and Martin Luther King Jr. calling upon the nation to honor its promise to all of God’s children.
   The final hour, “Of God and Caesar,” brings us into the present, with religious issues in the public arena like abortion and gay marriage. We see how immigrants from Asia and elsewhere have made America the most religiously diverse nation on the planet.
   The PBS series repeats on KCPT-2 later this month and next. The series clears up many misconceptions about the 400-year American experiment with faith.
   Despite occasional backsliding, we Americans seem to move toward demanding the government leave religious matters to the individual, even as our politics are fueled by competing religious passions.
   This series may generate a new discourse about “American Civil Religion,” the non-sectarian interpretation of national life in categories of faith, as Abraham Lincoln struggled to understand how God could permit Christian to slaughter Christian in the Civil War.
   Now issues like terrorism, wealth disparities and the environment beg for the religious conscience to be heard in public discourse.
   This timely PBS series prepares us for this year’s local Festival of Faiths keynoter, author Bruce Feiler, whose Oct. 19 topic at 7 p.m. at Village Presbyterian Church is “Can We Talk? Religion and Civil Dialogue in America.” Visit festivaloffaithskc.org/ or phone 913-671-2320 for information.

NOTE:
   Here are the rebroadcast dates. The two episode chunks will be airing a week apart on channel 19.2, starting in late October.
   Episode 1 & 2: A New Adam/A New Eden - 10/21/2010 7:00 pm
   Episode 3 & 4: A Nation Reborn/A New Light - 10/28/2010 7:00 pm
   Episode 5 & 6: Soul of a Nation/Of God and Caesar – 11/4/2010 7:00pm

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

JonHarker wrote on 10/17/2010 --
   Although you put "godless communism" in quotes, it was no joke. It was godless, and it did NOT keep its hands off religion. No officially atheistic government has kept its hands off of believers. Officially atheistic governments killed 100 MILLION people in the last century alone. They are STILL killing people.
   But you know this Vern, and Solzhenitsyn spelled it out in The Gulag Archelago some thirty years ago. Apologists for atheism have no excuse.
   But despite this, the New Atheists are running full full speed ahead. Who knows...atheists may get control in this country.
   What do you think, Reverend? Would that bother you?

vbarnet wrote on 10/17/2010 --
To those any who might inquire of me about our future as a nation, I happily repeat my suggestion to hear Bruce Feiler discuss religion and civil dialogue. Personal presumptions and attacks seldom seem useful in advancing genuine understanding, but civil conversation with mature listening skills is often beneficial.

JonHarker wrote on 10/19/2010 --
   "Civil discussion" and "mature" listening can only benefit if the Facts are not ignored. And the Fact is that EVERY Officially Atheistic Government has been a Murderous Totalitarian Dictorship.
   This is not a coincidence.
   The Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn proved beyond any reasonable doubt in his three volume series The Gulag Archipelago what I have set out here, and the Fact is that those Officially Atheistic Governments killed 100 Million people in the last century alone, more than in all the wars in human history, and that they imprisoned and tortured millions more.
   When leaders believe that THEY are the highest authority, and that there are no higher standards than what they have the ability to impose, oppression follows.
   The MATURE listener can face this.

vbarnet wrote on 10/19/2010 --
The PBS show was about the United States, not atheistic governments. The US Constitution both prohibits governmental establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion. The program was not about atheism but about "God in America." A few minutes of the six hours documented how the phrase "godless communism" was used by Christians as a domestic political device. I hope this clarifies the discussion for any who were unable to see it.

838. 101006 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
ATHEISTS' UNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION FALLS SHORT

Atheists and agnostics have greater command of religious information than evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, Catholics and other groups, according to a study released last month. To me, this is a strong argument for welcoming non-believers into interfaith activities. They know the facts.
   But the survey’s 32 questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions did not include a question, probably impossible to score, about the nature of religion itself.
   Many atheists seem to have religious instincts like compassion and a highly developed sense of awe, but they call these instincts simply human, not religious.
   I don’t mind that the so-called “New Atheists” select among religious facts those that support their views. Even believers do that.
   But do Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and other “New Atheists” really understand the religious enterprise itself?
   This is one of the questions I put to Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist and professor at the University of Delaware. He will speak Monday at 7:30 pm at Rockhurst University on “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith,” the title of his 2003 book. Here is what he told me:
   “Many atheists seem to fundamentally misconstrue what Christianity is all about. (I speak only of Christianity, because that is my faith.)
   “They think of it either as an attempt to explain through primitive myth what science explains rationally (as, for example, Greek mythology explains lightening as the weapons of Zeus), or as a matter of manipulating deities through ritual and prayer (or, as they see it, magic and incantations) to obtain earthly benefits, such as success, health, or long life — heaven being just the ultimate in long life.
   “But Christianity has never been much concerned with explaining natural phenomena. It is concerned with deeper questions, such as why there is a world at all, and what the meaning and proper goal of life is. It is primarily about love and gratitude to the One who gave being to this universe, and about forgiveness and the reconciliation of people with each other and with God.
   “Many atheists also do not understand what faith is. Science itself is based on faith that the phenomena it studies will ultimately turn out to make sense — even if it might take an Einstein to find or to grasp that sense.
   “The Jew or Christian takes that further and trusts that all of reality makes sense, even if that sense can be fully grasped only by that infinite mind and infinite Wisdom we call God,” Barr said.
   His responses to other questions appear at www.cres.org/barr. [and below]

Q. Your book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith was written before he so-called "New Atheists" (Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) became widely known. To what extent do you think they understand the nature of faith or religion?
A. Many atheists seem to fundamentally misconstrue what Christianity is all about. (I speak only of Christianity, because that is my faith.) They think of it either as an attempt to explain through primitive myth what science explains rationally (as, for example, Greek mythology explains lightening as the weapons of Zeus), or as a matter of manipulating deities through ritual and prayer (or, as they see it, magic and incantations) to obtain earthly benefits, such as success, health, or long life --- heaven being just the ultimate in long life. But Christianity has never been much concerned with explaining natural phenomena. It is concerned with deeper questions, such as why there is a world at all, and what the meaning and proper goal of life is. It is primarily about love and gratitude to the One who gave being to this universe, and about forgiveness and the reconciliation of people with each other and with God. Many atheists also do not understand what faith is. Science itself is based on faith that the phenomena it studies will ultimately turn out to make sense --- even if it might take an Einstein to find or to grasp that sense. The Jew or Christian takes that further and trusts that all of reality makes sense, even if that sense can be fully grasped only by that infinite mind and infinite Wisdom we call God.

Q. What constitutes an explanation for physical (and chemical, biological, etc) phenomena and is the criterion or criteria for an explanation different for faith; if so, why?
A. The ultimate criteria are the same, but the questions asked are different. To explain is to “make sense” of things, by showing how those things are related and fit together in some coherent way. The natural sciences do this for the world of matter by showing how the physical world forms an internally coherent system based on certain fundamental, mathematical regularities that we call the laws of physics. But why is there a physical world at all? Why does it have such beautiful and impressive laws? What is thought and mind? What is free will? What are beauty and goodness? There are many deep questions that go beyond the regularities of matter that natural science studies. Can we “make sense” of all those realities? If so, it is certainly not by showing that they can be derived by solving certain equations.

Q. Are relatively new scholarly fields such as information science, chaos theory, and brain research more likely to lead us toward or away from faith?
A. Chaos theory, despite the hype, really has few if any philosophical implications. Brain research and information science may lead some people to conclude (indeed already has) that the human mind is nothing more than a sophisticated biological computer. In my judgment, however, nothing we could learn from these fields could justify such a conclusion. No matter how well one understands what the material constituents of a brain are doing, it cannot be deduced either mathematically or logically from such facts that the brain has consciousness or subjective experiences. There remains something missing from any purely physical description. There is a widespread myth that the great discoveries in science have tended to make religion less credible. The main point of my book is that a whole series of fundamental discoveries of the twentieth century, from the Big Bang to quantum mechanics, have had just the opposite effect. The more we learn, the more astonishingly beautiful, sophisticated, and subtle the physical world is found to be in its deepest structure. That strengthens the case for believing in God.

Q. Does "the scientific enterprise" offer any instruction or insights to interfaith conversations?
A. Not that I can see.

Q. What do you wish that I had asked, and if I had, how would you have responded?
A. There are many other interesting questions that could be asked. Some of them I will answer in my talk. Others will doubtless be asked me in the Q&A session at the end of my talk at Rockhurst University.

BIO SKETCH
Long version: Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical particle physicist. He received his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1978 and went on to do postdoctoral work at the University of Pennsylvania. After holding research faculty positions at the University of Washington and Brookhaven National Laboratory he joined the faculty of the University of Delaware in 1987, where he is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and a member of its Bartol Research Institute. His physics research centers mainly on “grand unified theories” and the cosmology of the early universe. He has written 140 research papers, as well as the article on Grand Unification for the Encyclopedia of Physics. He writes and lectures extensively on the relation of science and religion. Many of his articles and reviews have appeared in First Things, on whose editorial advisory board he serves. He has also written for The Public Interest, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Commonweal, Modern Age, Academic Questions, and other national publications. He is the author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2003) and A Student’s Guide to Natural Science (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006). He has served on the board of The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. He and his wife Kathleen have five children and live in Newark, Delaware.

READER RESPONSE

ON 10/6/2010 W A WROTE:
     We don't "select among religious facts". We rely on evidence and rationale thought, rather than simply accepting stories that were written down by a number of different individuals over a couple of hundred years (beginning 2000 YEARS AGO) and then further modified and selected by other humans centuries later (tossing out those that did not fit as well with their perception of christianity at the time). I suggest you read "godless" by Dan Barker, an evangelical preacher for many years, for whom rationale thought finally overcame religious dogma.
     During my childhood, I regularly attended baptist churches. My grandfather was a preacher and Greek new testament scholar who, during his life, served as president of Southern Baptist Seminary and later as President of Central Baptist Seminary. I explored other religions as well, singing in a choir at a catholic church, checking out Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Judaism, the Bahai faith, and taking a comparative religion class at the University of Kansas. The more one knows about religion, and the more that one thinks for oneself, the easier it is to come to a reasoned conclusion about religion. So much conflict, so much pain and suffering, so much subjugation of individuals and the rights of those individuals (women, minorities, slaves [read the bible!}, same-sex couples, those who do not share the majority religious belief, etc.), throughout history and very much even today, is due to religion and the absolute certitude of those who believe as they do. The world would be a much better place if everyone just had compassion for their fellow humans and all of life without letting "beliefs" get in the way.
     PS: I happened to see your piece in the Kansas City Star this morning because on Sunday I learned that my mother was in the hospital in a rapidly deteriorating condition. She died on Monday evening. She was also a lifelong atheist, but this information was never shared with me until I came to the realization that I was an atheist. Both of my parents did not want me to be overly influenced, so that I could find my own way to the truth. My father was a believer, until his father (the Greek new testament scholar, who had throughout his life lived a very christian life) died a slow and agonizing death due to a skin condition that became progressively worse over weeks.

VERN'S RESPONSE:
     Please accept my condolences on the death of your mother. I am sorry our society often makes atheists hesitant to contribute to religious dialogue. I have worked for many years to uplift the opinion many people have of atheists. I have often been called an atheist myself. But then the great theologian Paul Tillich was also called an atheist, and indeed he said that believing in God as a Supreme Being was itself ill-informed.
     The answer Dr Barr gave to my question does not necessarily represent my own opinion. My column presents a variety of views. I have many books on atheism by atheists and have many atheist friends and have spoken to atheist groups at their request. I do not write the headlines for my columns.
     Your criticism of religion is well-taken. However, religion has also done good. Perhaps the hospital in which your mother was founded by a religious group, as many have been. Many great universities were similarly founded by religious groups.
     My reading of the "new atheists," which I think are much less interesting than the "old atheists" who understood religion better, is that they do select "facts." That is the problem as I see it, because many ways of looking at religion are not concerned with facts, nor can a mythic approach be subjected to mere factual analysis. Perhaps the following column which appeared several weeks ago, will point you to another direction which you may wish to consider.
833. 100901 Stories help tell the real truth for us
     Fundamentalist slavish literalism is a relatively new religious phenomenon, ironically developed as a late reaction to the rise of science. It is a curse from which many religions now suffer. I join you in rejecting such trash. But just because there is wickedness in the world, I will not fail to look for good. The ugliness about us need not keep me from appreciating the beautiful. Acknowledging and even condemning the narrow-mindedness of oppressive religious patterns which you rightly cite in your email to me need not deprive me from the sense of the sacred that I share with many religionists as well as with many atheist friends.
     Thank you for taking the trouble to write. I would be grateful to know if you feel I have responded to your inquiry, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. I think this kind of exchange can be mutually clarifying.
     Again, condolences on the death of your mother.

ON 2010/10/8 M H WROTE:
     I hope to attend your symposium today at Rockhurst, because I am interested in your speaker’s notion that atheists do not put the correct construction on the nature of religious faith. I would like to assure him that as an atheist myself, I have no objection to whatever way he--or anyone else--construes his faith. But I would like to point out to him that religious “faith” is not a voluntary act. Each of us has his own mental processes and an individual concept of the universe, forced upon him by his unique experiences As a result, no one can actually make himself believe in a faith which his own deliberations do not validate. One may SAY he believes, but saying does not make it happen. No one of us can escape from the workings of his own mind, however much he might wish to do so--as Mother Teresa discovered, to her sorrow.
     Because faith cannot be voluntarily conjured up, no one can promise, as an act of will, to “believe” in the faith of another. Such a decision is always subject to a mental estimate of the perceived risk . Now, risk tolerance is an emotion, like love. It can be neither commanded nor denied, but will come or vanish as one’s mind dictates. All of us would like to believe the roseate promises central to many religions, but if one considers their doubtful provenance, belief is unlikely to occur. We don’t like risk.. No one is to blame for that. Emotion is an untamable bird, as Carmen sings in the first act of that opera.
     Most people are, I think, willing to let each person seek his own personal level of faith or degree of doubt. The collision between believer and nonbeliever usually comes, however, when one person seeks to coerce another to accept a faith not his own. And acceptance often takes the form of a concrete action BASED on that belief: deciding to reproduce or not, accepting “ ensoulment“: at a certain level of fetal development, deciding on divorce and remarriage, , and most important, passing laws which require one person to live by or support a faith to which he does not subscribe. That is tyranny.
     Much blood has been shed in attempts to settle such disputes, so it was a uniquely successful decision when the founding fathers decreed that each of us had the right to his own personal religious faith--along with the civic obligation NOT to force any other person to live by or support that faith .This wall of separation has served us well for over 200 years. It has been challenged, reinterpreted, and dented from time to time, but the general intent survives. I believe it is the sole reason we have never had the religious strife which has plagued so manespecially in the absence of anything resembling evidence or proof.

VERN'S RESPONSE:
Apologies for my tardy reply.
     I am sorry, despite giving the day of the guest's appearance as "Monday at 7:30," the column somehow must have given the impression that the talk would have been the day you wrote. Also I need to correct the impression that it is my symposium. It is Rockhurst's, and unfortunately my schedule will not permit me to be present.
     I don't know how he would respond to your point that faith is not voluntary. I certainly have no disagreement with you. Many Christians would agree with you and say it is a "grace."
     I applaud your warning about coercion and tyranny!
     However, I think you are too generous in assessing the history of this nation. Religious strife has been part of local and national arenas since colonial times and continues into the present with issues like stem cell research, gay marriage, and the so-called "Ground Zero mosque." If you can, please watch the 6-part PBS series, "God in America," which begins at 8 Monday on KCPT. It was Thomas Jefferson who wisely spoke of the "wall" separating church and state, and who sagely noted, "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
      Although I cherish and participate in discussions about faith because I have found I often gain understanding, I cringe when folks equate religion with belief, which is why I complain sometimes about the so-called "New Atheists" who seem to have little appreciation for the complexity of religion. I tried writing a little about that in a recent column, below. Science simply cannot answer religious questions like "Is life is worth living?" in a way that will produce a single answer for all people in all circumstances.
     Thank you for reading my column and for taking the trouble to write.
833. 100901 Stories help tell the real truth for us

ON 20101010 M O WROTE AND VERN RESPONDED:
   I don't know where to start with you and Mr. Barr. A couple of points.
1) Why are "compassion and a highly developed sense of awe" characteristics of religion and not "simply human" instincts? I think we both know lots of people who identify themselves as devout followers of some religion whose lives reflect precious little of either compassion or awe; and we both know lots of humanist/atheist/agnostic/nonbelievers with a great deal of both.
   Where did I say that "compassion and a highly developed sense of awe" are solely religious instincts?
   Did I not recognize that atheists "call these instincts simply human, not religious"?
   Did I say atheists are wrong to consider them "simply human, not religious"?
   I don't think I did. I think my report is accurate.
   Do I have to settle the difference of opinion about whether compassion is religious or simply human?
Is it possible to settle that question without exploring what religion is, and what it means to be simply human?
   What is your complaint here?
2) Barr tells us that Christianity is "concerned with. . .the meaning and proper goal of life." Leaving aside the fact that Christianity is, if anything, less monolithic than the cult of nonbelievers, who thinks that atheists don't care about trying to figure out the best way to live their lives? (Well, actually, lots of people do, but they're wrong, and you know it.)
   Who said that atheists don't care about trying to figure out the best way to live their lives? I don't see where Barr said that. I didn't, either. Where are you getting this stuff?
    3) It's true (staying with Barr) that atheists are not interested in the reconciliation of people with God, but I doubt that we're any less committed to reconciliation of people with each other. In fact, lots of practitioners of the world's major religions believe in reconcilation at the end of a sword, or at least by conversion to their "true" faith; the atheists I know prefer to use logic and the Golden Rule to pursue reconciliation
   You seem to be reading into Barr things I don't find in what he said. Where did he even imply that atheists are "less committed to reconciliation of people with each other"?
4) Finally (because it's getting late) I think most atheists have a pretty clear understanding of religion -- we just don't buy into the proposition that there is a god (or three of more of them) whose tastes and preferences can ever be known. So, even if such a creature might exist, trying to align one's "sense of reality" with His/Her/Its/Their "infinite mind and infinite wisdom" is a colossal waste of time.
   Surely you know there are non-theistic religions.
   Barr began his answer to my question, "SOME atheists . . . "
5) I thought I was done with Barr: Atheists DO understand and live with faith. It is the faith that our species will figure the right thing to do and do it, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
   I know some atheists who are not as optimistic about the future as you. And some who would reject your use (and mine) of the very word "faith."
Hope the program at Rockhurst Monday goes well.
P.S. I looked at Barr's brief resume. Just how committed do you think the folks (who publish his stuff) at Commnweal, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute are to the ideals that motivate your very admirable work in advancing interfaith understanding? Maybe I misjudge them?
   Barr admits he knows little about world religions. Still, I think for many people his distinction between science and religion as having separate spheres ("non-overlapping magisteria," I think, was the term that Carl Sagan used) is helpful. Science cannot tell me whether my life is worth living.
   I was disappointed in Barr's answer to my third question (on the CRES website). Because of the PBS "God in America" series, I am unable to be at the lecture and will not be able to put your questions to him at that time. Should you wish to contact him, you can do so independently of me.
   Please don't expect to agree with everything that appears in my column. I try to present a variety of views. Sometimes I don't agree with myself two days in a row.
   Best wishes for your own explorations,

ON 2010/10/13 K M WROTE --
   I suspect you have never been an atheist. I trust by now other atheists have already corrected the inaccuracies in your article and that you have published a correction in the Star. I do not subscribe to the Star but by chance happened to pick up the 10-6-10 edition but did not have a chance to reply before now to your article due to flying out of state and not having access to a computer.
   I’ll summarize my comments below, but would amplify on them if no other atheists have replied previously.
   1. Regarding the article title: “Atheists’ Understanding of Religion Falls Short”: In my adult life, I have been both a Christian and an Atheist. I understand both; I do not believe my understanding of religion falls short. Nor do I find, my having spoken with many atheists who have never been Christians, that their understanding of religion falls short. Actually, there is a Committee for the Scientific Evaluation of Religion (CSER) with the objective of coming to a better understanding of religion as a natural phenomenon.
   2. “Christianity has never been much concerned with explaining natural phenomenon . . .” This is false – see Copernicus, Galileo, evolution/creationism, stem cells, etc.
   3. “Science itself is based on faith . . . “   Yes and No. Atheists have “faith” in evolution and other natural occurrences, which are scientific facts or theories (not hypotheses), based on considerable factual evidence gleaned in the past and having gone through the scientific methodological processes. This is different from belief in things that have not gone through that scientific process, like the existence of god/gods, heaven, hell, angels, devils, etc. Further, if additional scientific evidence disproves a previously held fact or theory, [e.g., Newtonian Mechanics discarded in favor of Einsteinian Relativity and Quantum Mechanics] then atheists are willing to change their beliefs. Indeed, atheists are open to believing in a god/gods if sufficient evidence should ever be found.
   4. “Christians . . . trust that all reality makes sense, even if . . . only grasped by God.” Atheists trust that all reality makes sense, even if it is not understood by science YET. No need for any god to be involved.
There is some danger in having someone else who is not atheist (or really any other term like feminist, humanist, etc.) try to define what one is. I am supposing, Vern, that you have never been an Atheist; am I correct? Unfortunately, readers of your 10-6-10 column will have been left with untruths about and false impressions of Atheists and their beliefs and attributes.
   Again, I am willing to expand on Atheism and being an Atheist if you have not already been updated by other Atheists in the week since your article first appeared. If you did write a correction to your 10-6-10 article, please email it to me, or tell me in what issue of the Star it was featured. Thank you most kindly.

VERN'S RESPONSE:
It is a pleasure to receive, and to respond, to your thoughtful note.
   1. I do not, nor does any, newspaper writer, compose the headline. You interpreted the headline to mean ALL Atheists . . . The headline should be interpreted SOME Atheists. I am currently working on a follow-up column which I hope will clarify this.
   2. I did not make the statement you disagree with. My column presents a variety of views, some of which I disagree with myself. And sometimes I don't agree with myself two weeks in a row. I think your point about Copernicus (one would also add Kepler and even Newton in his secret ways) is worth arguing, and I don't think the answer is nearly as clear as either you or Dr Barr make it.
   3. In my experience, both atheists and believers in fact do change their opinions and judgments about relevant matters. But we would need to be clearer about the meaning of "faith" if we were to get into the substance of your statement. Again, you are responding to what Dr Barr stated.
   4. As for the point about everything making sense, I personally disagree with Dr Barr in that I am a religious person but I do not believe we can make sense of the universe. Yes, we can discover laws, but even if I can do the math, how can I make "sense" out of quantum mechanics? How can I understand the universe if Godel shows me I can never get outside of the system of the universe in which I am embedded? Nonetheless, I take Dr Barr to mean that Christians (and other faiths) see a purpose in the universe, and I do not, and I think most atheists that I know also do not see a purpose to the universe -- it is accidental.
   I will just comment that I did my doctoral work at the University of Chicago and was privileged to study with -- and live next door to -- Mircea Eliade. I mention this because I agree with him on the key point that religious studies must integrate all appropriate scholarship but the history of religions is itself a discipline with its own method and cannot be reduced to, say, psychology plus sociology plus biology etc.
   I think you underestimate my understanding of atheism and my faithful (pardon the expression) advocacy of atheists as part of interfaith conversation. I am about to hit a deadline, so I cannot provide you with more than two citations:
http://www.cres.org/star/star2010.htm#805 My column on Bertrand Russell. Please read the reader comment and my responses both under and above the column.
http://www.cres.org/pubs/Freethinkers.htm My argument with a professor at a Catholic university about atheist participation in religious conversations.
   I would be grateful to know if you think I have been responsive to your concerns. I am certainly grateful to you for writing and giving me a chance to clarify. And please look for my column for Oct 20.

On 10/27/2010 12:11 PM, K M WROTE --
   I prefer to live in the forest of reason, not faith. It's much better; the most happy, peaceful, social-justice oriented societies are Denmark and Sweden. See "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman for how these societies are much better than faith societies, like ours here in the US.
   Many trees in faith forest are religious, some not. The least noxious faith trees do not proselytize, like Judaism and Buddhism. Prosl'zing. faiths try to impose their dogmatic beliefs on others and are bad. Secular trees in the faith forest include astrology, voodoo, communism and fascism. Note that a branch finally fell off the com'm tree; it was called Lysenkoism. These secular ideologies are dogmatic and noxious, too.
   Personally, I'd just as soon not deal with faith trees of any type, but in the US Christianity is forced on us by believers. Tom Jefferson said those who believe in no god or 20 gods neither "pick my pocket nor break my bones." But that is if they do not try to ally themselves with Gov't and force themselves on you.
Christianity in the US today tries to "pick my pocket, control my sex and reproductive organs, and indoctrinate my kids/grandkids in public shchools." Chr'ns do so by forcing me to pay my tax dollars to support their faith-based services, outlaw some sex practices between consenting adults, disallow contraceptives and abortions, and instruct kids in public schools about the Bible, God, angels, deveils, heaven, hell, grace, etc. I do not want these for me or my kids. Thus, while I want nothing to do with Chr'ty, I am forced to deal with it/them if I want to retain my freedom.
Also, this force is applied by the Catholic Church. In 2002 or '03 it sent a document out instructing all Catholic politicians and public officials worldwide that they had to support the Church's positions, even if they personally did not support them. Note that there are 6 [7?] of the 9 Supreme Court Justices who are Catholic, plus many Cath politicians in the US and worldwide. I quit the Cath Church because I did not believe in God or all their other stuff and did not agree with many of its policies. Now, that Church is trying to impose its views and positions on me still! Aaarrrgh!
I apologize in advance for the sketchy note to you but my computer has been balky of late and has not allowed me to revise drafts of my correspondence.
   Vern, I think you are being a pollyanna about religious faiths. There are many ways they are not "beautiful, compassionate, and service-oriented. They can be noxious if you disagree with them as I do. I sure wish you and other more moderate Chr'ns would rein in the noxious Chr'ns and reassert the separation of Church and State in America.

VERN'S RESPONSE:
   I'm not sure what you have written that you expect me to disagree with. I quote Jefferson frequently. I have been a member of the ACLU for 50 years. I oppose proselytizing -- I try to help people understand each other's experiences and find respectful ways to live together. I admire Denmark (which has a cross on its flag and supports a state Lutheran church as part of its constitution with 80% membership) and Sweden (similarly, a cross on its flag, a state church, high church membership despite widespread atheism); one can be a Christian atheist.
   I does seem as if you are not well acquainted with the many Christians who question articles of belief as strongly or more so as you do, and who are appalled by the things you ascribe to many Christians.
   I agree with you on the cultural imposition of Christianity -- and my friends of non-Christian faiths experience this as well. I do differ in your sanguine opinion of some forms of Judaism as it appears in this country (not to mention the evils of Israeli occupation and oppression); Torah Judaism seems to be disappearing and replaced by the wickedness of AIPAC and the lobby and lies which got us into the Iraq War. I have many good Jewish friends, but it is important not to be, as you accuse me, of being naive.
   I've been working with many faith groups for decades. The stories I could tell! I have rebuked Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc as well as praised them, as I thought appropriate. If you think I am all Kumbaya --"pollyanna," you don't have a clue. The Catholic bishop here is not a friend of mine -- you should see the letter he wrote me arising from my advocacy of stem cell research.
   I'm doing the best I can do heal the noxious effects of some religious approaches. Sometimes that means applauding other, healthy, religious approaches as well as compassionate and thoughtful atheists. I don't think Hitchens seems like one (even though I quoted him when I objected to the Mel Gibson movie, "The Passion of the Christ" so strongly that my son had his face bloodied by Christians who couldn't find me.
   Does this response help?

ON 2010/10/14 V M WROTE --
   Responding to your recent article entitled "Atheists' Understanding of Religion Falls Short." The claim you assert is a generalization, and not logical. It's like saying the trees in the forest have a better view of the forest than an observer who has been in, out, and around the forest, studying it from from different perspectives. Many atheists and agnostics have studied religion from the inside, and reached an understanding of how they experience and think about religion and faith. I'm one of these.
     Faith is one of those words like love which can become meaningless, dangerous and exploitive, or descriptive of unselfish acts, one human to another. Sometimes when Christians use the word faith, they appear to be taking a superior attitude that says they have a controlling mechanism which acts to deny reason and exploration of new data as having merit. Faith is certainly a subject to be discussed and examined at great length and breadth. The quote by Stephen Barr about God being an infinite mind and having infinite wisdom brings up in my mind the questions of why humans persist in a course of defining the mysterious existence of all life as attributable to a known entity with attributes of wisdom and foresight. It certainly leads me to thoughts of how people believe in predestination, a personal God who is judging and shaping them. Which leads to hundreds of sets and denominations, all vying to establish the "true" character of their God.
      Surely Joseph Campbell studied religions and faith as much if not more than any man could in his lifetime, and came up with conclusions about why humans establish religions and gods. His book Myths to Live By has many interesting theories about why societies need a religion or mythology to function. For me, Christianity, like most of the major religions, seems to use the word faith to prescribe purity and conformity in their particular definitions of God. As an atheist who has been a participant in the Christian religion and an agnostic, I no longer use the word God, nor do I assume when someone else does, that I have any idea what they mean.

VERN'S RESPONSE:
Because writers do not have the opportunity to place their articles on this page or that, and adjust them to other articles and the advertisements on the page, and know how much room is available for a headline, they do not write their own headlines. The headline in this case did not say "All Atheists' Understanding of Religion Falls Short." In the context of what I wrote, it meant "Some Atheists' Understanding of Religion Falls Short." I was specific in naming Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins in my question.
   Even such a headline might better represent the view of the physics professor I quoted in most of the column. I often include material with which I disagree. It would be presumptuous for me to think I have the only truth, and besides, sometimes I don't agree with myself two days in a row.
   Barr seems to think the universe has purpose. I do not. But I think I do share your sense of the "mysterious existence of all life" and even what is inanimate.
   Many religionists as well as atheists and other freethinkers have studied in/out/above/below/etc various faiths. My 40-year career of travel, teaching world religions, writing, leading congregations, and doing civic including founding the Interfaith Council, with awards from Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other groups. My doctoral work at the University of Chicago included study with Mircea Eliade, the general editor of the 15-volume encyclopedia of religion and generally regarded at the time as the world's greatest authority on history of religions. In addition, I studied with Joseph Campbell on several occasions after his retirement, including an intensive week with him in Santa Barbara. I have a shelf full of his books (including Myths to Live By) which I cherish. You may disagree with me, but please do not think I am completely uninformed. My bio appears here.
   Your question "why humans persist in a course of defining the mysterious existence of all life as attributable to a known entity with attributes of wisdom and foresight" could be addressed by Joseph Campbell, were he available to us, by discussing saguna and nirguna Brahman in Hinduism, god with attributes and god without attributes. Parallel issues occur in many faiths, including the Christianity of the mystics. Some people seem comfortable with abstract notions, others find idols or icons more helpful as ways of approaching the "mysterious existence of all life" and I am not smart enough to tell people what avenue they should choose.
   Yes, many religious groups compete from a sense of superiority, there are also man groups that do not involve such a sense. I guess one of the things that gripes me about some of the "New Atheists" is their sense of superiority.
I also agree with you about the many meanings of the term "faith," but comments about that will have to wait another time.
   Your closing comment makes me hope you will like at least the last part of the column which I've submitted to appear Oct 20.
   On my website you will find dozens of definitions of "religion," a discussion about "spirituality" and an overview of the world's religions and many other items which might interest you.
   I appreciate your writing and giving me a chance to clarify some issues. Do let me know if this response has been helpfull. I am proud to have an intelligent person like you as a reader!

ON 2010/10/21 V M WROTE --
Your response was very helpful. I will at some point explore your website for what sounds like an interesting place to learn more. I have not read your column often, but there was another time a few years ago when I emailed you about something you said in your column. You put me on to the Joseph Campbell Round Table just starting in Kansas City. I joined in those meetings. Due to attrition the group dwindled until there were a handful of like-minded people - in the sense of what they wanted and how they were able to negotiate a coherent group - who have continued to meet. This is now a mainstay in my life. We offer each other a way to discuss how myths may inform our current life situations. No leader and no other agendas. It's a treasure. So thank you for being instrumental in getting me involved where my passion lies.
By the information you gave me about yourself and your teaching and being a student of Joseph Campbell, I know that I'm not in your league as formal training and multi-faceted experiences and readings of other religions (than Christianity). So I will probably be looking at your article of the 20th. Thanks again for very thorough and informative and candid response. I felt heard and respected

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

goldandmudd wrote on 10/7/2010 --
"Many atheists seem to have religious instincts like compassion and a highly developed sense of awe."
Wow, I had no idea that compassion and respect for the numinous were exclusively religious instincts. What a terrifically baseless and arrogant assertion.

vbarnet wrote on 10/7/2010 --
I don't believe the column asserts that compassion and a sense of awe are exclusively "religious."

TeenaVolle wrote on 10/8/2010 --
Vern, Maybe then you should have rephrased it in a more "neutral" and "rational" way? - "Atheists seem to have no difference in human emotions like compassion and a highly developed sense of awe apart from religious people."

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 10/8/2010 --
Christianity isn't as much a religion as it is a relationship.
I can know alot about Vern and still not know him. The same can be said about Jesus Christ. You can memorize every word in the Bible and never know Him... the eternal word incarnate.

JonHarker wrote on 10/9/2010 --
     Vern, TennaVolle is the organizer of a local athiest group, who himself received an education in the Officially Atheistis Soviet Union. (I have an inside source.) Some members of that group say YOU are an atheist.
     Why don't you answer that for us? (And don't give us double talk about "all of are atheists about some belief".) Give us a straight answer. Do you believe the Christian God exists?
     You may think that being coy about this helps your credibility, but in actuality up front honesty would do much more for it.

JonHarker wrote on 10/9/2010 --
     The take on "primitive myth" is also amusing, since our own Twenty First Century myths include the "Big Bang" and the Spontaneous Generaton of Life from Non Life.
     No scientist really knows what the "Big Bang" was, or can demonstrate the generation of life from inanimate matter.
     And no athesit in the local groups can explain the Physics or Biochemistry of either, but still believers in them.
     Irrationality claiming to be Rational. Gotta love it! LOL!

vbarnet wrote on 10/9/2010 --
A commenter repeatedly asks me, "Do you believe the Christian God exists?" I'm afraid the question may arise from a lack of knowledge about the variety of conceptions of God in Christianity -- and other faiths. The recent book, "America's Four Gods" by Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, identifies four different conceptions of God (Benevolent, Authoritative, Distant, Critical). My experience with many folks suggests there are actually many more conceptions of God, including identifying God with a cosmic evolutionary process of which we are all a part, with the inner voice of conscience, with the laws of nature, or simply with reality itself, as a mystic might. Some of these views may be held by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and those of other faiths who employ the stories of their faiths as ways of pointing to ways of living life with a profound awareness of however they conceive of God -- or may be held by atheist or non-theist folks, such as many Buddhists. Religion is more a practice than a set of scientifically-testable propositions. How do you test the proposition, "Life is worth living," in a way that will produce a single answer for all people in all circumstances?

JonHarker wrote on 10/9/2010 --
     Vern, I knew you would not give a straight answer, but instead dodge and weave.
     And I know you think that is clever, and preserves your credibility, but in fact it has the opposite affect on a lot of people.
     Anyway, I know what you believe, I am just waiting for the day when you have the guts to admit it.

vbarnet wrote on 10/9/2010 --
     How does one explain calculus to a preschooler who is just beginning to count? Can a deaf person experience a fugue in the same way that one of sound hearing and musical sense does? Can someone who knows only English appreciate the subtleties of Sanskrit?
     Some may think I have the capacity to say what I believe irrespective of audience, context, language, circumstance, and constant personal reevaluation. All I can do at best is point the way I approach the Infinite. I do not ask others to follow.
     Some may mistake signs and directions for "dodge and weave," and insist that religion is captured by belief rather than experiences of awe and wonder, encounters with the sacred, in turn responded to with gratitude, and matured in service, expressed in an amazing variety of languages, traditions, communities, creeds, stories, symbols, acts of compassion and love.
     I admit I cannot explain calculus to a child, much less my faith. If others think they can put into words the nature of my faith, unconditioned by their own backgrounds and experiences and arising instead from mine, I would be grateful for such a gift. Let those who say, "I know what your believe" declare it.

GabrielMichaeal wrote on 10/9/2010 --
Vern, God has an answer to your question. He said everything He needed to say to us in one word as an answer to every question... That word is Jesus.
I don't mean the hippy, milquetoast Jesus that some have boiled Him down to... I mean the God-Man who came to bring a sword. The Jesus I'm speaking of is the one who changes everything once you've met Him. If your religion is a practice then maybe you've haven't really met Him yet...

vbarnet wrote on 10/9/2010 --
PRACTICE. The word "practicing" in religious discourse is often used im contrast with "nominal." For example, a person may call oneself "Christian" but be Christian in name only -- nominally. A practicing Christian is someone who may read the Bible faithfully, attend church regularly, pray without ceasing, experience a daily "walk with Jesus," perform deeds of understanding and charity, and give another evidence that one's faith is more than just words -- faith put into practice, not just theory. I hope this explanation is useful to any in this discussion who have questioned how I used the term.

Dan7777 wrote on 10/10/2010 --
Vern, given your own explanations of the terms in question, do you consider your self a Practicing Christian or a Nominal Christian?
And I find it odd that you say you can't explain your faith, but talk incessantly about other peoples faiths.

vbarnet wrote on 10/11/2010 --
   Thanks, Dan7777. Since I do interfaith work, I do not want my own identity to influence others. And a faith label can be misleading; for example, many meanings attach to the term "Christian." So I prefer not to advertise my own path but to encourage others to explore their own deeply. But I can say I practice my faith, though certainly with many failings.
   However, I described my spiritual viewpoint in brief in two columns, 1998 July 22 and 29, archived at http://www.cres.org/team/vern.htm#view. I would like to be able to convey something of my faith in almost any religious language or context -- Christian, Hindu, etc. In the columns I cite, I try secular language.
   As previous posts indicate, this particular discussion arose not from a question of my faith but about belief in God. Most scholars agree that belief is only one dimension of religion, and it is also useful to recall this: Related to the Latin word libido, desire, and the German liebe, beloved, the term “belief” in English originally meant trust, commitment, engagement, what you love and prize. It did not mean assent to abstract theological formulations.
   One further thought: Mystics -- Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc -- constantly testify to the inadequacy of language to express the experience at the core of their faith. That is why practice and the fruits of practice are so important. Does a person's faith help one to grow in love and service?

837. 100929 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Extremists meet in 'Holy Wars'

I won’t say how the movie ends, but I’ll tell you this: after a slow, methodical build, there’s a surprise lesson worth discussing, and a cause for hope where we may feel there would be none.
   Even telling you this much about the 82-minute documentary, “Holy Wars,” is unlikely to spoil your trying to figure out the two persons on the screen, one a crusading Christian, the other a Western extremist Muslim convert, both expecting an apocalypse with the triumph of their faith.
   At first unknown to each other, the filmmaker, Stephen Marshall, brings the two young men, both flawed with unreasoning religious passion, together for a conversation with a result that twisted my brain.
   The film, set in Pakistan, Lebanon, the UK and heartland America, will be shown Friday at 8:10 p.m. at the Glenwood Arts Theatre as part of the Kansas International Film Festival. It has been nominated for an award.
   The controversies around the so-called Ground Zero mosque and the proposed burning of the Qur’an give an urgency to the film that folks interested in religious volatility and interfaith efforts will find gripping.
   I asked Marshall about his four years filming fanatics Christian Aaron Taylor and Muslim Khalid Kelly. His full response appears at cres.org/marshall.[Also directly below.]
   Here’s the gist:
   He said Christian fundamentalists believe those “who do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (such as Muslims) are doomed to Hell” and are “tools of the devil.
   “In this context, it’s perfectly justifiable to burn Qur’ans and to oppose mosques, not just near Ground Zero, but anywhere in ‘Christian’ land.”
   Marshall learned that “unless a person comes into the dialogue with a shard of doubt, the talks will most likely fail.” One will see “no value in his meeting (the other) except the opportunity to pummel” the other.
   The documentary demonstrates the possibility for transformation when people who are absolutely certain of their views actually encounter others — face to face — who are just as sure of their opposing views.
   Marshall thinks it is essential for believers “to seriously undertake the hard work of questioning the validity and functionality of (scriptural) passages which negate the humanity and spiritual value of the other side.”
   Marshall will be at the screening, and I’ve been asked to lead an audience discussion afterwards with him. One of the questions I’ll have is whether the film’s ending might have been different if folks in Kansas City skilled in interfaith dialogue had been involved with the documentary’s antagonists.
   The film’s website is holywars.tv and the festival’s website is kansasfilm.com.

BARNET'S QUESTIONS AND FILMMAKER STEPHEN MARSHALL'S REPLIES
   Barnet conducted the interview by email, and Marshall put Barnet's questions and his answers in the Sept. 21 Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/stephen-marshall-sean-hannity. Marshall first recounts his appearance on the Sean Hannity show and then says:
   But then this week I was given a couple of questions by the Reverend Vern Barnet to answer for his weekly column in The Kansas City Star. "Holy Wars" is showing down there on October 1, and he wanted some context in light of the Ground Zero mosque and Quran-burning controversies. It offered me a chance to rethink some of the ideas I originally wanted to bring to Hannity, and I thought this would be a good platform to present them.
1. What is there about your film that will help folks put controversies like the ones over the so-called Ground Zero mosque and the church's plan to burn the Quran Sept. 11 (a plan condemned by General Petraeus) in some sort of perspective, especially for Christians and Muslims?
   Happy you asked this question. It was actually the initial (stated) reason I was invited to appear on Hannity during our week-long screening in New York. I think the most important thing to understand is that on a purely theological level, it is a tenet of Christianity that those people who do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are doomed to Hell. This is not a light sentence. And while a great majority of Christians would probably say it's a metaphorical statement, those fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the word of God literally believe Muslims are doomed. And thus, less than -- tools of the devil, even. And we cannot forget that at one point, America was a "good," fundamentalist nation. And these ideas, which are typically identified as triumphalist (my way or the highway), still govern much of the ideological framework of the national identity.
   In this context, it's perfectly justifiable to burn Qurans and to oppose mosques. Not just at/near Ground Zero, but anywhere in "Christian" land. And that extends to bombing civilians in Muslim countries. It's an either/or situation. It's dualism. And it's precisely the kind of world paradigm we entered after the 9/11 attacks when the president of the United States declared, you are either with us or against us.
   This is the worldview I experienced when I first met the characters whom I followed in Holy Wars. This is the paradigm of fundamentalism, and it is something that will remain with us as long as Christians (and Muslims) refuse to seriously undertake the hard work of questioning the validity and functionality of passages that negate the humanity and spiritual value of the other side.
   Now, of course, there is a widespread feeling of anger and pain in secular Americans around the issue of the Ground Zero mosque. But this is also a result of a poorly formed understanding of Islam. And even of 9/11. These emotions are those of a society still traumatized by the catastrophic experience of the attacks. They cannot separate Islam from the attackers. They cannot deal with nuance. Worse, they cannot see the damage it will do to their constitutional legacy. Nothing else matters but the opposition of the mosque. And in this sense, they have become fundamentalists themselves. They are victims. But they are now victimizing others. And it has a bit of the flavor of the pre-Nazi society in Germany.
   In Holy Wars, Aaron Taylor (a Christian missionary) is able to look this fundamentalism in the eye (in this case, the eye of his opponent, Khalid Kelly, an Irish convert to radical Islam) and then do the thing that most humans have great difficulty doing: he objectively questions his own extremism. He removes himself from the cockpit of his ego, and he challenges himself. I wish more people would have the kind of humbling experience that Aaron had and find the courage to transform themselves. It's really the only way that people authentically change.
   2. Without spoiling the ending, can you say what you learned about the opportunities and dangers of interfaith dialogue? Promises and disappointments? Methods and individual personalities involved?
   Well, I think it needs to be said that given what I discussed above, interfaith dialogue is going to be crucial going forward. We live in a paradigm of scarcity. There is less arable land, less clean water, less oil. Increasingly less of everything. And humans are being driven back into very tribal identities, led primarily by nationalism, but closely followed by religion -- especially in the case of Islam, which makes religion primary over nationalism. With three billion-plus people identified as either Muslim or Christian -- that's half the planet -- there needs to be a modern understanding, a kind of treaty, between the two. And this isn't for the moderates of both sides; it's for the extremists. Because if just three percent of both sides regard themselves as holy warriors, willing to die for their faith, that's 90 million people. That's a huge problem.
   So we need leaders of both religions to make some very clear demarcations between the old books and our modern world -- at the very least. At the most, we need a new governing framework for the two religions and their relationships both to each other and the world.
   As for my experience, one of the major challenges to this dialogue is that if you get two highly confident, masterfully articulate theologians in a room together, the chances are neither will budge. Neither will learn from the other. Neither will come away with new understanding. That's the problem with interfaith dialogue. It so often turns into interfaith monologue. But that doesn't mean we should not push for it. We may have to include a third party, someone trusted by both, who understands each side implicitly, but who also has the skill and moxie to force concessions when one side is making ill-formed or irrational points. But this is a digression.
   What I learned from my experience in Holy Wars was that unless a person comes into the dialogue with a shard of doubt, the talks will most likely fail. This was demonstrated in Khalid, who (till this day) sees no value in his meeting with Aaron except the opportunity to pummel a Christian. I'm always amazed when people tell me they thought Khalid was going to be the one who would change. It actually gives me hope. They must have seen something I missed. But the result was still the same. And that was a disappointment. It's never a positive experience to see someone move closer to extremism and self-destruction. Except when their anger and fundamentalism provides a cathartic experience for the other person. And that, of course, was the beautiful irony of Khalid's presence in the film. Without him, Aaron could not have changed.
   And that is the essence of holism, the antithesis of dualism. And here we've come full circle. I pray that our world can find a path to this state of being.

836. 100922 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Busy month for KC's faiths

School’s in session. Pop quiz! How many Kansas City faiths can you identify from these descriptions of September holidays? Don’t worry about spellings; they vary. Answers and scores appear below.
   1. This festival ends a lunar month of fasting. One point each for the faith, the month, and the festival’s name.
   2. This faith’s first scripture passage was revealed in 610 during this month in the faith’s lunar calendar. One point each for the faith, the observance’s name and the scripture.
   3. September includes all or part of four of this faith’s important observances. The dates on the secular calendar vary each year because this faith uses a solar-lunar calendar. One point for the faith and one for each observance you can name. An extra point for knowing which day is considered a New Year’s Day.
   4. This faith celebrates the installation of its scriptures in a famous temple on the water in 1604. One point each for the faith, the city and the name of the text.
   5. This faith has 19 months in each year, with September including all or parts of Asma, Izzat and Mashi’yyat.
   6. The original two main sects of this faith are Shvetambara (ascetics who wear white clothing) and Digambara (“sky-clad”). This month both have observances emphasizing introspection, penance and forgiveness. Name the faith.
   7. Name the faith and two gods with birthdays this month. One god incarnates Vishnu and is often portrayed playing a flute. The other, a god of success, has an elephant’s head and is honored often at the beginning of theatrical performances.
   8. This 2,500-year old tradition has been reshaped by many cultures into numerous sects. One division honors the “triple gem” this month. One point for the religion and one point for each of the “gems.”
   ANSWERS:
   1. Islam, Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr.
   2. Islam, Laylat al-Qadr (Night of Power), the Qur’an.
   3. Judaism. Rosh Hashanah (New Year’s Day), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), Sukkot (Festival of Booths), Simhat Torah (Rejoicing in Torah, the law, the scriptures).
4. Sikhism. The Adi Granth (first edition of the faith’s scriptures) was installed in the Golden Temple in Amritsar in the Punjab. (The holiday is First Parkash.)
   5. Baha’i.
   6. Jainism.
   7. Hinduism, Krishna, Ganesh.
   8. Buddhism. The gems are the Buddha, the Dharma (teaching) and the Sangha (monastic community).
   SCORES: 24 possible points. Above 14 points: excellent. Below 9: You need to get to know your neighbors.

READER COMMENT

E.M. WRITES
I was wondering why, when you speak to interfaith work, that you don’t include all the major faiths. It seems that, by excluding, for example, Catholicism, you have established Christianity as the normative faith, and Islam, Jainism, Krishna, Buddhism and many others as the other faiths.
What made me think of this was your quiz, published in The Kansas City Star on Wednesday, September 22. I didn’t see any reference to Christian holidays, such as The feast of The Nativity of Mary on September 8, or the feast of The Exaltation of the Holy Cross on September 14.

VERN'S REPLY
I appreciate your writing with such a good question!
   I think the last time I did a quiz was near Valentine's Day, and I certainly included Christianity in that column!
   There simply is no Christian holy day in September than compares in importance within the Christian faith (either liturgical or non-liturgical churches) to, say, Yom Kippur in Judaism or Id al-Fitr in Islam. If Ascension or Pentecost or Easter or Christmas had occurred in September, I assure you I would have included them.
   One of my sources is the "MULTIFAITH CALENDAR" published by the Multifaith Action Society, multifaithaction.org. The calendar includes Christian holidays in January, February, March, April, May, August, October. November, and December, but not in September. Perhaps it would have been interesting to mention that in the column. At any rate, the feasts of The Nativity of Mary and of the feast of The Exaltation of the Holy Cross do not appear on the Calendar and other source materials, just as there are Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu observances that do not appear on the calendar, which omits relatively lesser observances.
   This year, 2010, is unusual in the number of holidays that fall in September. Often the Jewish holidays will spill over into October, and the Muslim holidays rotate throughout the year as they are based on a strictly lunar calendar.
   Most of my readers are, in fact, Christian, but I certainly did not mean to imply that Christianity was normative, though most readers are often looking for information about other faiths rather than their own. Still, many of my columns do deal with Christian themes, and it is not unusual in some cases to distinguish among Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox traditions.
   I do hope you had fun taking the quiz!
   Thank you for giving me a chance to respond to your question, and I do not want to give the appearance of making any one religion normative, even if I implicitly recognize that more folks in America consider themselves Christian than members of any other tradition. And congratulations on being knowledgeable about the Catholic tradition!

835. 100915 THE STAR’S PRINT HEADLINE:
Can we have unity without uniformity?

What’s the difference between religious unity and uniformity?
   Author, blogger and former Star faith columnist Bill Tammeus and yours truly struggle with this question in the following exchange:
   Barnet: Bill, I tout diversity among and within faith traditions, and you preach the beauty of unity.
   But I admit I was shaken by the unseemly exchanges a few years ago when you tried to moderate a discussion on the meaning of Communion, the Eucharist. I wished for a more unified spirit of love from some of those claiming to be Christian.
   Tammeus: Before we lock ourselves into rigid positions, let me say I appeal for unity within my faith, Christianity, though not uniformity. The difference: Unity allows for many expressions of the faith based on agreement on foundational theology, while uniformity calls for rigidity, a one-size-fits-all way of being a follower of Jesus.
   Yet I ask people of all faiths to be open to learning about — and respecting — other faiths without giving up their own. And if you can figure out how to get people of all faiths to treat others civilly, let me know how.
   Barnet: I like your distinction between unity and uniformity. Sometimes folks may be bludgeoned into uniformity while unity seems to come though grace.
   For Christians, the Trinity may be a model: three distinct persons (diversity) in one God (unity).
   The taste of the holy, beyond human language and agenda, may humble prideful and rigid disputants otherwise sure of their positions.
   Have you found prayer to remind folks of such awe in your own work with folks of various backgrounds?
   Tammeus: To speak of the Trinity is to risk saying something foolish, given how little we can say about God at all without seeming to be foolish. And yet I find the internal loving community of the Trinity to be, as you say, a model of diversity within unity. But let’s not push that image too far.
   Prayer can, indeed, remind people of the holy and, thus, blunt the sharpness with which they may disagree with others about theology. But increasingly I find that people who think they understand something perfectly and exhaustively are unwilling to entertain the possibility that they may be wrong about anything. So our task turns out to be to pray for (and with) people who are a pain in the neck. (And such people exist at both ends of the theological and political spectrums.)
   Barnet: I guess if I love diversity within unity, I’ll just have to love even those who want uniformity!
   Tammeus: Bingo.
   The conversation continues online at tinyurl.com/393hpg5 and at cres.org/bingo.

KANSAS CITY STAR WEBSITE COMMENTS

1994 #001-018	1995 #019-070	1996 #071-122	1997 #123-175	1998 #176-227	1999 #228-279
2000 #280-330	2001 #331-382	2002 #383-434	2003 #435-487	2004 #488-539	2005 #540-591
2006 #592-642	2007 #643-694	2008 #695-746	2009 #747-798	2010 #799-850	Previous critics