Post 144—Ignorance and Prejudice in the Citadel of Academia—Harvard

Harvard is considered to be the topnotch Ivy League university in the USA, if not the world. (I have to be careful here, for my two sons who graduated from Yale are bound to chastise me for this assertion, but I think I’m safe, for they probably don’t read this blog!)  It probably deserves that accolade, but that does not keep extreme ignorance and prejudice from its campus, not even from its professors.  This statement may surprise well you. Ignorant and prejudiced Harvard professors?  Come on; that can’t be.  Well, it can and is. 

Though Harvard started out as a Christian university, it has bought deeply and totally into the spirit of modernism and secularism, though some might argue that today modernism and secularism are being or already have been displaced by postmodernism.  That maybe so, but from the perspective of this article that does not make a lot of difference. Both create the same kind of situation I am about to describe for you. 

In fact, that secular or, if you prefer, postmodern spirit is so all-pervasive on the Harvard campus and is pushed down everyone’s throat so vigorously, that Christian students have felt the need to support each other while studying there to withstand the contempt with which they are regarded.  So, they established the Anselm House where they connect “Faith and Knowledge with All of Life”—their slogan; the same goal, by the way, of this blog. 

One of the members of Anselm House, a female student, wrote the following story:

Sometimes, I feel just the littlest bit defensive when I tell classmates and acquaintances at Harvard that I did my master’s degree at the University of Minnesota. Many of my fellow graduate students are coming from places like Columbia, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Dartmouth, and Oxford, and a Midwestern state university gets an occasional quizzical look. But I wouldn’t trade my two years at the University of Minnesota for two years anywhere else. There’s at least one area in which our very own UMN is at the cutting edge of higher education, providing resources and opportunities I could have gotten at very few other universities: its vibrant and active Christian study center.

Anselm House prepared me to face the rigors and challenges of study at Harvard with confidence in my Christian faith. When one of my English professors said casually, as an off-hand aside, “Of course a religious person can’t really be a professor,” I was ready to challenge his assertion that religious commitments limit freedom of inquiry in a way that secular presuppositions don’t—and I did so with arguments backed by my reading of Charles Taylor, James K. A. Smith, and Michael Polayni, because I’d read those works and discussed those questions at the study center.

As I studied the history of the Bible and its reception in different periods, I saw countless ways that my academic study of the Bible as a book and my personal experience of the Bible as the word of God could enrich one another, and I talked about my daily devotions in class—because as a MacLaurin Fellow I learned about scholars like Mark Noll and James Turner who are open about how their identity as Christians informs their research.

When, on the first day of one of my seminars, we went around the room and shared why each of us was in graduate school, I didn’t hesitate to say that I want to grow in the virtues I’ve been called to in the context of friendships based on shared pursuit of excellence—because at Anselm House I was surrounded by people for whom it was second nature to think of work in spiritual, moral, and relational terms.

It’s a slightly weird answer. It probably earned me a few more quizzical looks. But I don’t mind occasionally standing out as a Christian, because I know that there are countless brilliant and thoughtful people—in Minnesota and around the world—who share a vision of education that unites all things in Christ. I hope that during my time here at Harvard, I’ll get to tell many people that my studies are by the grace, and for the glory, of God.

   

I bolded this sentence in the story:  “Of course a religious person can’t really be a professor.”  Can you imagine a Harvard professor being so closed minded, so ignorant and so prejudiced as to make such a statement while surrounded by the most brilliant students in the nation?  And can you imagine that these alleged brilliant students simply soaked it in without challenging this nonsense?  It took this one single Christian female student to dare to challenge this ridiculous statement.

Well, that’s the power of faith for you. A closed faith filtered by the secular tunnel vision can stupefy even the most brilliant. There are thousands of Christian professors on all the faculties of all America’s universities. These professors do research and lecture, they write books, they engage in politics and everything else social, and this man has not run into even one of them who left his mark on one campus or another?  Simply incredible! I am dazed with incredulity!  How can such a prejudiced and ignorant professor be retained? 

Let me give you one single example from a document randomly lying on my desk today: Dr. Alvin Plantinga. Here is a brief bio:

Among many honors, Plantinga is the past president of the American Philosophical Association, Central Division, and the Society of Christian Philosophers, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. With a PhD in Philosophy from Yale University, Dr. Plantinga is widely known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics and Christian apologetics. He delivered the Gifford Lectures three times, and was a Guggenheim Fellow 1971-1972. In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh’s Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science awarded him the prestigious Rescher Prize.

Now, you tell me: This Christian "can't really be a professor?!"  Can this obscure little Harvard boy even stand in Plantinga's shadow? If you happen to be acquainted with Harvard faculty, know that this prof is a man in the English department. I would love to give you his name, but I don’t have it.

This is New Year’s Eve. I did not plan to write such a sharp post today. I wanted to write something about the passing of time or some such topic, but when I read the above story, I was so incensed I just had to pick up the sword and….  It’s probably a good thing I don’t know his name and that I am far removed from him. For that, I credit the grace of God. But for that, I’m not sure what I would have done!

Happy new year!  Enter it with your eyes and mind open and discard whatever secular tunnel vision may be blinding and limiting you. Check out Jesus, who described Himself as “the way, the truth and the life.”  I have not been able to find a more exciting and liberating perspective than that!

Post 143—Prince Charles on Religious Freedom

It’s for almost 55 years that I have felt some sort of affinity with Britain’s Prince Charles. My wife and I are about to celebrate our 55^th wedding anniversary.

Now in most cases, the above two sentences might be found in different chapters of a book or in different articles. What could they possibly have to do with each other and be found in successive sentences like here?  Perhaps a bit far sought, but it so happens that my late father-in-law’s name was Charles Prins. It was not his birth name; that was a classic Frisian name “Tjalling,” but its closest English equivalent was considered “Charles.”  So, that’s the name he adopted upon immigration to the USA in 1948. I’m not sure anyone at the time thought about the similarity to that of the Prince. Perhaps it’s a mere sentimentality, but since I always was fond of my father-in-law, that somehow transferred to the Prince as well. 

So, I was very happy that my sentimental hero—“sentimental” referring to me, not the Prince!—gave such an interesting

speech on the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” programme. Part of it was politically correct to liberal ears, and part to conservative ears. Now, we don’t usually hear political incorrectness from the mouth of princes, but this time it was couched in a nearly politically correct framework. Leave it to British royalty to manage such a contradiction!                                      

The politically correct for the liberals was the need to protect and give freedom to all religions, but then religion as defined by them, not by the religions themselves, particularly the scope of religions. The Prince defended his position by referring to a speech by the queen back in 2012, in which she stated that the Church of England has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths. Charles himself at one time described his responsibility as “defender of faith” rather than “defender of the faith,” something that shocked traditionalists, who “were furious,” according to the writer of the article, Tim Stanley. To them this was totally politically incorrect, but it should be remembered that “a key part of British identity is religious freedom,” which is often the stated reason for Muslims to come to Britain.

I am an orthodox Christian of the type often described as “Reformational.” (If you want to know more about that, I encourage you to check out my website <  www.SocialTheology.com  >)  As a Reformational, I totally agree with a government that is neutral when it comes to religions; neutral, not secular, which is a different thing altogether. I am talking about a government that treats all religions equally, which is what Prince Charles is talking about. Correct as far as liberals are concerned; incorrect as far as most conservatives are concerned. 

But then he turns around and begins to explicate about religious persecution by Muslims of Christians and other religions, including even fellow Muslims. Now he’s politically correct for the conservatives, who are offended that such persecution gets so little public attention, but incorrect for the liberals, many of whom do not care about this or refuse to make it a special issue, as in the case of the Canadian Government.

Alas, British royals don’t seem to have much clout in the political sphere. If you keep up with British developments, you should be aware of the strong anti-Christian bias in the country’s political sector, a situation that hardly reflects the ideals of the Prince. One would almost get the impression that he is a “mere” member of the public whose only power is his voice, on BBC in his case.

The article in which I find this info is written by Tim Stanley, a fine article but one in which it is not clear where the Prince’s speech ends and Stanley’s report begins. Stanley describes his message as “grim.”  “Tolerance is evaporating; the wars of religion are back.”  “For millions ‘religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.’ As well as oppression of Christianity in Iraq, he referred to attacks on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and other minority faiths in the Middle East, and the persecution in other countries that aims to wipe out religious diversity.”

Stanley adds a few more interesting comments that I am not sure whether they are his or the Prince’s. “It is religious literacy, not secularism, that will bring an increasingly diverse nation together.”  I would say there’s more than just something to be said for that!  The other, “How wonderful, what a testament to Christian civilization, that faithful Muslims now seek refuge in Britain.”  Indeed, so it is, but one seldom hears this declared as a Christian virtue. Liberals consider this as their achievement. Allegedly, they have overcome the intolerance of Christians and thus created an open door for Muslims to enter. Personally, I wager that liberalism would not even exist if it were not for the Christian soil in which it sprouted.

I encourage you to read Stanley’s article at: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=grim%2C+yes%2C+but+Charles+got+it+right.  (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 26, 2016, p. NP5)

Post 142--War on Christmas

Douglas Todd is one of my favourite Vancouver Sun columnists. You may have noticed that I quote him quite often in this blog. Well, he did it again with an interesting article on Christmas, this time about the “war on Christmas.”  

Though most of us think of opposition to Christmas, especially its public expressions, with the help of an Oxford don, Todd tells us about a war that’s been going on for centuries. It is inevitable, he writes, that there should be war of some kind against such a large global celebration with its public expressions. It is not the specialty of today’s secularists or atheists. 

To avoid copyright problems, I present you with Todd’s by means of its URL:

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-yes-virginia-there-has-always-been-a-war-on-christmas

This being “Boxing Day” in Canada or “Tweede Kerstdag” or “Second Christmas Day” in my country of birth, this will be my last post dealing with Christmas issues for this season.  However, the effect of Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, will continue to permeate these posts. From beginning to whenever these posts are concluded, the reality of Christ will underlie every single one of future posts, though He will not be mentioned by name in most.

In distinction from secularists and liberals who want to reduce the scope of religion to the private and personal, I define religion “wholistically.”  Religion, in terms of faith and commitment, colours all I do. That, by the way, is true of everyone, including those secularists and liberals; they are just so ignorant about religion that they do not realize this about themselves and, very funny actually, deny this about themselves. Can you imagine someone being so blind to his own self?!

Well, be that as it may—and it is!—enjoy the Todd article and be enlightened about “war on Christmas.”

Post 141—Miscellaneous Reflections at Christmas 2016

I’m about to treat you more of Jim Denison’s Christmas writings. He has his finger on popular current events and sees their relationship to meditating about and celebrating Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ into this world and, hopefully, into your heart.

Do listen to Kaylee Rodgers’ video. It is beautiful and, indeed, moving, especially when you consider her handicap. Here goes:

Why we rejoice when autistic girl sings 'Hallelujah'

Kaylee Rodgers is autistic. When she began school, she wouldn't talk or read in class. Now a video of her singing the lead in Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" has gone viral. It's impossible to hear her sing about Jesus' birth and not be moved by her gifts and God's grace.

The Farrell Brothers

Another video making headlines is the reunion of Matt and Bo Farrell. Matt plays point guard for Notre Dame; Bo serves with the Army in Afghanistan. After last Monday's game, the stadium displayed a video message from Bo to his little brother. Then Bo walked onto the court, shocking Matt.

Notre Dame head coach Mike Brey and his staff had been planning the reunion since Bo was deployed in May. Matt told reporters, "We don't ask for much for Christmas, so this is the best present I've ever gotten." It is impossible to watch either video without being moved deeply. Why? And why are such messages especially welcome at Christmas?                                 Terrorism and God's Image There's something in us that recoils at the conflict between the tragedies of our day and the birth of the Prince of Peace. We watch the manhunt for the Berlin truck terrorist and grieve for the victims of the Mexico City explosion. We are shocked to learn that human traffickers are trapping more children into forced labor than ever. As we read the news, we know instinctively that this world is not the way it was meant to be. We were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), and we long to be restored to what God created us to be. Justin Martyr observed that there are "seeds of truth" implanted by God in each person. That's why every culture known to history has worshiped God or the gods in some way. Even Star Wars followers who tried unsuccessfully to have Jediism certified as a religion point to a reality beyond themselves. We rejoice when an autistic girl sings or separated brothers are united. In them we sense a part of ourselves being made whole. But only a part. When the video is over, the world comes rushing back like the tide, crashing into our sandy souls and obliterating the serenity we felt. Now we are left with a choice. We can search for more inspirational videos to help us escape the unrelenting drumbeat of calamity. We can bemoan the fallenness of our world and our lives. Or we can find within us a Power greater than the pain around us.                                              Henri Nouwen In his classic Return of the Prodigal, Henri Nouwen admits his "resistance to living a joyful life." He explains: "Somehow I have become accustomed to living with sadness, and so have lost the eyes to see the joy and the ears to hear the gladness that belongs to God and which is to be found in the hidden corners of the world." Father Nouwen speaks for many of us. We are so used to bad news that we can stop looking for good news.                                                                                             The Sum of It A dear friend recently noted that the expression "God is good" (Psalm 34:8) reminds us that wherever there is good, we find God. The Bible tells us that "every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17). Nothing in our changing world affects the unchanging character of God. If he is good, he is always good. And he is at work wherever good is at work. So be inspired (which literally means "to be breathed into by the Spirit of God") by Kaylee Rodgers and the Farrell brothers. Then ask God's Spirit to show you the good he brings into your life today. Ask him to use you for good wherever he will. And the Lord who became flesh at Christmas will become flesh again in you (1 Corinthians 12:27). Is there a greater privilege than being the Bethlehem of God?

Post 140—Muzzling the Gospel at Christmas

    

Jonathan Chaplin is a brilliant British Reformational or Calvinistic philosopher who is much sought after as an international speaker and whose writings are spread far and wide. He wrote a most humorous article that is at the same time very serious. In case you don’t know this, it is difficult to be serious in a humorous way, at least in a sustainable fashion.  Well, Chaplain managed it very well in the article I am sharing with you. 

His title is “How to Muzzle the Gospel at Christmas” and it is published in the magazine Klice Comment, December 2016. In other words, it’s brand new. “Klice” stands for “The Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics,” which you can visit at  <  klice.co.uk  >.

Chaplain begins with an apology to C. S. Lewis, the famous ex-atheist who became one of the most beloved Christian writers of modern times. Chaplain’s article clearly borrows its style from C. S. Lewis. Even the opening salutation of this fictional “letter” is reminiscent of Lewis:  “Dear Wormwood.”

And with this I’m going to let you loose. Please access the article at: http://tyndalehouse.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/r/C95148A54A77C8312540EF23F30FEDED/0DBF6AEFBC7CBD42EBAD456BEB5F1DD6

Post 139—Wishing people “Merry Christmas"

Post 139—Wishing people “Merry Christmas"                            

Jim Denison somehow has switched the banner under which he writes and now does so under the Denison Forum. Anyhow, he has an interesting take on whether or not to wish people “Merry Christmas” that I am sharing with you today. A relevant topic for this pre-Christmas week, don’t you think?

He wisely ends without giving you a definite “yes” or “no.” So, here it is and think it through with him. Instead, he asks you to think through your motive for your “yes” or “no,” trusting the Spirit of God to guide you.  That’s a great way to avoid any semblance of legalism like Yes! Or No!

Dr. Denison, you have the floor….

Should we wish others a "Merry Christmas" this week? Americans are deeply divided on the issue. According to a new survey, 47 percent of us think we should greet each other with "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" out of respect for those of different religious faiths; 46 percent of us disagree.

As we will see, the issue is larger than it seems.

I can understand the case for being inclusive. Christians are to defend our faith "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15) by "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). We want our beliefs to be respected, so we should respect the beliefs of others.

In addition, Christmas is not a holiday mandated by Scripture. It was not celebrated by the church until the fourth century after Jesus' birth. Nowhere does the Bible require us to wish others "Merry Christmas," an expression that did not become popular until the early twentieth century.

Why, then, shouldn't we broaden the holiday to include everyone regardless of their faith (or lack thereof)? Consider three questions.

One: What about other religions?

If "Merry Christmas" might offend non-Christians, could Ramadan offend non-Muslims? Could Hanukkah offend non-Jews? Could Vesak (the celebration of Buddha's birthday) offend non-Buddhists? Should any religious holiday that might offend any person who is not part of that religion be abolished or amended?

Two: What about the sentiments of Christians?

Requiring Christians to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" feels to many believers like a depreciation of their Savior and their faith. If we should avoid offending non-believers, why is it acceptable to offend believers?

Three: Should the minority dictate to the majority?

Some claim that Christian holidays are unique among religious traditions in America because they are so ubiquitous. You can ignore Ramadan or Hanukkah if you wish, but it's hard to avoid the Christmas season. Thus, Christians, more than those of other faith traditions, should be made to honor the sentiments of non-Christians.

By this logic, however, the minority would always be able to dictate behavior to the majority. This logic would extend even to heaven and hell. In The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis exposes what is behind the claim that none in heaven should be happy if souls are perishing in hell: "The demand of the loveless and self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy; that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven."

So, how should we approach the "Merry Christmas" debate? Here's my advice: Ask the Holy Spirit to show you how he wants to use your words and witness in engaging non-believers today. Ask for the sensitivity to respect the beliefs of others while stating your beliefs clearly and boldly. If the Spirit leads you to wish someone a Merry Christmas, do so with sincerity and grace. If he leads you to defer, be sure you do so only out of sensitivity to them and not from a lack of commitment on your part.

Here's the larger lesson behind this simple subject: We are called to be Jesus' witness in the power of the Spirit every moment of every day (Acts 1:8). When we fulfill our calling, those who accept the Christ we proclaim will have a Merry Christmas, indeed.

Post 138--CPJ: Poverty in Canada

Post…  -- Poverty in Canada                                        4.9 million people in Canada live in poverty. CPJ—that means “Citizens for Public Justice.” I t’s an organization to which I have belonged for years.  It was started originally by Neo-Calvinists or Reformational thinkers right here in Canada. If you want to know what all that means, I direct you to the various pages of my website < www.SocialTheology.com > where you will find it all over the map. Sometimes explicitly spelled out; at other times embedded in the text of the many articles on the website. The original founder, the late Jerry Vanderzande, received the Order of Canada reward for his brave attempts on behalf of the poor of our country. Jerry is gone, but CPJ is his legacy that continues to work in his style and spirit.  So, please read this and consider joining them. The rest of this post comes from the CPJ staff. See what you think of it. CPJ’s Dignity for All campaign is calling for a national anti-poverty plan to address the root causes of poverty in Canada. This campaign is supported by 649 groups and 11,091 individuals. In October, CPJ and Dignity for All organized Chew On This! in 64 communities across Canada. We sent thousands of postcards to Minster Jean-Yves Duclos to ask him to hear the voices of those living in poverty as he develops this plan. Climate Justice CPJ is encouraged by the range of emissions-reduction measures contained in the government's new national climate change plan. Sadly, the target upon which this climate plan is built is out of step with the intent of the Paris Agreement. While this plan was developed, CPJ has made your voice heard. Three times this year, CPJ met with Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna. In February, we delivered over 3,000 climate petitions calling for an ambitious Canadian GHG emission reduction target. Throughout the summer, 272 Canadian Christians made active use of CPJ’s online climate consultation tool to share their stories and submit climate action recommendations directly to the government. 2017: A Year of Action But as we enter a new year, we need to go beyond consultations. It’s time to act! We want to make 2017 the year that Canada finally has a strong national plan to end poverty. CPJ is preparing for our new Give it up for the Earth! spring climate action to call on our leaders to make bold commitments on climate change. And in 2017, we will be publishing new research on refugee resettlement. It’s time to address the challenges of poverty elimination, climate change, and refugee policy! Thank you for joining us in the important work of public justice! —Joe Gunn

Post 137—Ex-envoy Criticizes New Human Rights Office

The Harper government established an office to monitor religious freedom in various countries. It is interesting that, to the best of my knowledge, Canada was not among the nations to be monitored. Why do you think that was? No problems with religious freedom in Canada? Are you kidding? Many of the previous posts hint at restrictions on religious freedom in Canada, but it’s not usually identified as such and so no one recognizes it. I will try to make that more clear as we go along.  In the meantime, think about or even check out various earlier posts and see if you cannot find evidence or instances of it.

The Trudeau government has closed down that office and merged the concern for religious freedom with a new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. No more special attention for religious freedom; only freedom in general. Marie-Danielle Smith wrote a piece about this development in which she summarizes and quotes various statements on this merger by Andrew Bennett, formerly in charge of the Harper office. I encourage you to access it at this URL:

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ex-envoy%20criticizes%20new%20human%20rights%20office

Pay special attention to Bennett’s critique of the new situation. The concept of inclusion in the merged office is, he said, “ill defined and thoroughly vague” so that it “could muddy the water and distract from specific religious persecution issues faced by minorities abroad.  More training is needed for the staff, “because there is a ‘relative ignorance’ of religion in the public-service ranks and a ‘false understanding of separation of church and state’ still seems prevalent.

Ask yourself what Bennett said about ignoring the public role of religion. Yes, the office’s attitude is out of step with recent scholarship. It used to be said that religious issues were basically a sub-set of economic and political. You solve the latter two, and the religious issue will be solved as well. It is now widely recognized that this is not the case: religion is an issue in itself.

What is “historically inaccurate” according to Bennett? 

What are Canada’s allies wondering about with respect to our government?

Post 136--Justice in the World of Clothing

Frankly, I just cannot keep up producing posts regularly, even though I love to share my thoughts with you. The past month I have been hindered from writing them for various reasons. These have included: the priority of developing my website— www.SocialTheology.com--; health issues; visiting far-flung children and grandchildren; local church and society obligations; occasional but needed recreational activities.

I have come close to throwing in the towel, for I am tired of the tension between my blogging and all those other activities. But I have just come with a partially satisfying solution, namely to pass on to you writings by others that reflect my own and, hopefully, your interests. I will mostly do this by just presenting you with the URLs of such articles that you can then easily access with a single click. I may write a short introduction or make some other comments, if only to let you know I’m still around!

So, today I am treating you to a URL that discusses justice in the world of clothes, a world that includes all of us every day and that thus involves most of us in situations of injustice that you may never have thought about. Well, here it is, for you to consider a change in your life style, specifically clothing style: 

 http://churchforvancouver.ca/new-justus-video-series-guides-viewers-through-issues-of-poverty-and-justice/ .

I do have a question about one specific recommendation, namely to buy your clothes online. You should ask yourself what that could mean for your own local businesses.  Online buying can and does lead to your local stores closing. And when you buy clothes online, you likely buy other stuff there as well and you end up with a whole lot of “For Lease” signs on your Main Street.  Is that what you really want to happen?  I leave you with the question.

Post 135--Muslim Reaction to US Election

       

Today, I welcome a special guest for the occasion.  Many Christians have problems with the secular establishment of both Canada and the USA, even though that establishment includes many Christians, including both our Canadian Prime Minister and the American President.  In my opinion, though I appreciate some of their decisions, I am dumbstruck at some others. In both countries the secular establishment is slowly putting the screws on religious liberty. However, no time today to deal with that in detail.

Many Muslims are having similar problems. So, today I welcome Abdul Malik Mujahid, who sends out emails under the name Sound Vision. This is what he circulated today:

Assalamu Alaikum (Peace to you)

Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, whom we love so much, would get all sorts of questions. One day, while sitting in the wilderness, someone asked him about trust in God: “Should I trust in God and not tie my camel?” 

The camel was the primary mode of transportation at the time in Arabia. If you lost your camel, you’d lost one of your key assets. And if you were traveling far in the desert, losing your camel could mean death.  

The Prophet’s answer: Tie your camel, then put your trust in God.

That principle does many things for us. 

As Muslims, we have been become political footballs, first in Europe, then in Canada, and now in America. We are the number one victims of ISIS, as well as war and terror. Yet, we are blamed for causing terrorism. 

We had two choices in this election: Someone who hit us where it hurt us the most. Then there was the other presidential candidate who swung right back, defending Muslims and the diversity of this country. 

For many of us Muslims, who spent millions of dollars and votes supporting Hillary Clinton, we tied the camel - I guess. 

Now is the time to trust God. He controls the world. We do not. He sees the whole picture and truly knows the best for everyone. We love Him, we trust Him. He is the Creator of us all. He created you and I, as well as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He strategizes and He is the best strategizer (Quran 8:30).

Houston Rockets NBA star Hakeem Olajuwon illustrated this beautifully. He had always been a good basketball player, and was always a Muslim. However, when he truly embraced his faith in a mosque in Houston in the 1990s, he transformed. 

He would still lose games, but he ultimately led the Rockets to victory. And this is what he told me about trusting God (Tawakkul). 

"Before I started practicing my faith, I used to completely rely on myself,” he said. “When I had done my best, I would be extremely frustrated if I didn't win. It would irritate and anger me. And that was causing me to be bad to others by fighting and swearing.

"But when I started practicing my faith, I learned that results are not my property. I started doing my best but then I left success and failure to my Creator. Now I was not irritated by failure and was not over-inflated by success. That caused me to calm down and improve my behavior towards others on my team and we became a team."

So trust God. Don’t despair (Quran 39:53), and don’t give up. That is not Sabr (patience). Sabr is to do your utmost and endure whatever it takes to achieve that goal. 

I have a personal goal. And I would like you to be my partner in achieving that goal. To liberate America from fear, hate, and anger, which were there before Trump, and may not end with this election cycle. 

We must engage with America to end the cycle of war, terror, and hate, which has caused us to lose trillions, kill millions, and dehumanize each other, despite all of us being God’s creation, Who created us from the same man and woman (49:13).

Seek help with Sabr (patience) and Salat (prayer). That increases trust in God. Open your hearts and minds for your neighbor, white, blacks, and all shades in between. 

And pray that God opens the hearts of our neighbors toward us. 

It is time for reflection as well. It will take many Sajdas (prostrations to God) and many Duas to achieve balanced, thoughtful conclusions. But for now, I will say this: American Muslims are achievers. They achieve what they set their mind to. We wanted to build mosques and we have doubled the number of mosques since 9/11; we wanted to build Muslim schools and we have tripled the number of Muslim schools since 9/11; following the beautiful example of the Prophet, we have responded to disasters in America and abroad by rushing to help, thus multiplying our relief organizations. 

But what we have not done is devote resources to take America forward. We have not invested even one percent or .01 percent in what we have invested in mosques, schools, and relief organizations. 

So for now, I would just say, let’s do a personal audit: An audit of our personal time and money. What percentage are you committing to your empowerment to take this country forward? That is the camel that still needs to be tied before we expect God to do miracles for us. 

Peace

Though there are significant core differences between our two religions, we also have many similarities that we need to capitalize on. Much of what Abdul writes today resonates with me. I similarly feel that Christians spend way too much time, money and effort on “religious” matters when they should instead be religiously engaged in society by contributing to its welfare, to the common good. But religiously, not secularly. With the Spirit of God in their hearts not only but also in their minds, in how they create images of a just society according to the insights of their religion.

So, thank you Abdul. Perhaps we ought to sit down together and see how far we can work on this together.

Post 134--A Rose by Any Other Name

Remember the cold I suffered last week? Well, it ain’t over yet. It still has me down and out, something that has hardly ever happened to me. I get one about once a year; it comes and goes quickly and I’m my old self again. Not this time. But I don’t want you to think I’m slacking off. So, another postponement of the third prostitution post and, instead, an easy one that will not take a lot of stamina on my part.

I utilize two prepared documents laying on my desk and I will use some of each. They both report on various situations of persecution. When we think of persecution, we often think of Muslim persecution of Christians and others. Well, that will be one side today. The other side, however, may well surprise you…but let me keep you in suspense for a few more moments.  Just remember Shakespeare’s adage above.  Persecution may come in very different forms and from very different quarters, but it’s still persecution. So, though today’s info will not take much stamina from my reduced stock, it does weigh heavily in me and carrying such burdens takes another form of stamina.

First, a few items of Christians under Muslim persecution—a few from what could take up innumerable tomes, believe  me. These are reported by BarnabasAid, a UK ministry to persecuted Christians all over the world.

Aasia Bibi languishes on death row in Pakistan for years on basis of totally false accusations of blasphemy, a tool used frequently by Pakistani Muslims to take revenge for personal reasons.  Check out her name on the Internet!  In that same country, “Christian girls and women are kidnapped by Muslim men, raped, forcibly converted to Islam and forcibly married to Muslims. Of course that happens in many Muslim countries. Another Pakistani situation is that of bonded Christian laborers in brick kilns. They cannot escape the grueling work for substandard pay. Their cruel bosses trick and exploit them, keeping them in permanent debt. Some Christian children are even held as slaves.

21 brave Christian migrant workers in Libya refused to deny Christ. They will killed by ISIS militants. If I were more computer savvy, I would reproduce a picture of all of them on their knees in orange outfits with masked militants standing behind them, poised to kill them momentarily. 

Ugandan pastor, Umar Mulinde, is a convert from Islam. Muslims three acid in his face. He was terribly burned and lost one eye, but he continues to evangelize and preach boldly.

Nissar Hussain and his wife, from Bradford in the UK, are condemned as apostates. They and their children are persecuted for following Christ. Their home was burned to the ground. Their car was attacked. Nissar was beaten up and hospitalized. Falsely accused to the police, he was detained in a cell for many hours. The same thing happened to his wife. Rejected by church, law enforcement, and society, they continue to follow Christ. They can no longer live in Bradford. Yes, in the UK—and this is by no means the only incident in that country.

And now a totally different scene that at first sight you might not dub “persecution,” but remember that adage…. This time the persecutor is no one less than the US government, and not about religion this time, but about science they don’t like. The following is a long quote:

Picture being an an award-winning scientist -- you've just published your latest findings. And then your government tries to stop you speaking about your research. And when you refuse, you're suspended -- then fired. That's exactly what happened to Jonathan after he discovered a link between bee die-offs and bee-killing pesticides. Now he’s attempting to continue his research in the private sector, and the USDA is STILL harassing him by blacklisting him from USDA-funded research grants and pressuring other scientists to not collaborate with him. It’s time for the USDA to end their attacks on scientific freedom. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is notoriously friendly with giant corporate agribusinesses, and lobbyists for big pesticide companies like Monsanto and Bayer don’t want government researchers looking into the impact of bee-killing pesticides. But rarely have we seen such a blatant and ongoing assault on scientific freedom, even at the USDA. SumOfUs members have donated tens of thousands of dollars to help our friends at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) defend Dr. Lundgren. With our help, Dr. Lundgren has fought back by filing a whistleblower complaint, a scientific integrity complaint, and a federal lawsuit. Dr. Lundgren’s case has gotten enormous press coverage, and he was personally honored with the Joe A. Calloway Award for Civic Courage—a prestigious award for public-interest activism. But the USDA continues to harass Dr. Lundgren, and as long as that continues, it’s sending a chilling effect to researchers everywhere. That’s why we must continue to fight for his right to conduct research freely, without lobbyist interference or government censorship. A rose by any other name….

Post 133—Public Funds for Private Schools

My intention for this post was to finish my mini-series in prostitution. Alas, it’s been almost two weeks since I did the second in the series. The reason for this long gap is that I’ve had a rough time, what with a surgical procedure topped up with a simultaneous bad cold. Since I am not exactly at home in the world of prostitution and need to do some serious thinking before I write the 3^rd in the series, I just don’t have the mental stamina for that. Instead, I will write a post on a subject matter more familiar to me and get back to that series when my mental stamina is up to it, hopefully next week.

The other day, one of my favourite Vancouver Sun columnists, Pete McMartin, blew it as far as I am concerned. He inveighed against private schools. His main emphasis was on the private elite schools but also referred to religious schools. Here’s the URL for the article, in case you want to read it yourself: http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/pete-mcmartin-this-is-egalitarian-canada-so-why-should-private-schools-get-public-money.

I am going to focus on the religious schools. I sent the following letter to the editor, but doubt it will be published, since they have already published three others on the subject. So, you are invited to read a rejected letter!  Sorry. Here goes, two paragraphs in all:

“Oh, no, not again! More secular dribble about private vs public schools!  McMartin’s (22-10-2016) is a sorry case of secular blindness. Canada is a multi-cultural/religious country, where every religion is supposed to have the freedom to express itself. However secularism insists on defining these religions as private/personal affairs, which they are not and never have been. Secularism thinks it has a monopoly on reason and operates from a neutral platform, both of which are delusions. Religious people want their kind of school as much as McMartin wants his. Imposing his kind on the rest of us is nothing short of discrimination and oppression. We’ve rejected the de facto Anglican monopoly on education in BC long ago and have replaced it with secular monopoly, exchanged one public worldview monopoly for another. Secularism is now the de facto establishment worldview, while it pretends we have no favourite establishment! Nice try!

“The only neutral arrangement is for disestablishment of secular schools in favour of equal funding for all schools that meet the basic provincial educational standards. But that would require secularists to open their eyes, know themselves and admit to the belief system underlying their faith in naked reason—a far cry!” 

Now that letter contains nothing new. The same sentiments have been expressed thousands of times in defence of Christian schools. A hefty book has even been written about the struggle for public funding and the purpose of such schools in BC, but my secular friends, including Pete, seem to have deaf ears. The arguments for such schools are clear, rational, cogent, fair, etc. etc., but they run up against the rationalistic wall secularists have built around themselves. Trump could learn a lesson or two from them about effective walls; they are not brick and mortar; they are ways of thinking in which people imprison themselves.

As Christians, we know the core of our belief. It centers on Christ and then goes on from there. You take out Christ, and the whole thing collapses. Something similar is true for secularists. Among their core beliefs—and it is a belief, not an established or proven fact—is that their perspective is the only rational and neutral one; all others, whether religious or not, are subjective and irrational. That being the case, the only rational and neutral thing to do is to educate our kids within that framework. The objective and rational argument against that position is that, since it has not ever been proved and never will, it, too, is a belief system at the same level as that of the religious. So what is so neutral about it? There ain’t—and Pete and his cohorts better begin to realize that and quit living by their mythical delusion.

But that would exact a heavy price. You take Jesus out of Christianity and you’re left with a blank. You take the sense of a neutral and objective rationalism out of secularism, and they’r stranded, also left with a blank, without any further arguments. That price may be too difficult to pay.

Religious people do not demand that secularists give up their faith; they have a right to it. They just demand that secularism recognize the same right for believers without imposing theirs on the latter.

 Believers, did I say? Yes. We’re all believers, secularists as well as the rest of us.  We all believe in the core of our worldview or philosophy or belief, whatever you want to call it. Secularists, including Pete, you’re welcome into the company of believers!  You are one of us—you believe!  Now quit pestering us and acknowledge our equal right!