Catholics, Muslims, and the Mosque

Here’s a smart read for a Saturday. Two historians address the Ground Zero Mosque issue and the plight of American Muslims today in the context of the difficult integration of Catholics into the American mainstream in the 19th and 20th centuries. Like in all historical comparisons the parallels aren’t perfect, but there’s enough similarity for their argument to be enlightening, I think.

Total Depravity and being Left Behind

The latest entry in Slacktivist Fred Clark’s long-running (over six years now) series deconstructing the Left Behind series for its crimes against literature and theology took an interesting rabbit trail this week, as Clark posted a brief dissertation on the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity states (quoting from Wikipedia) “that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God.” It is of course the first of the five points of Calvinism, though can one find some agreement in Lutheranism and other Christians influenced by Augustinian thought.

In his essay, Clark takes Total Depravity to mean encompassing all aspects of the human being—spirit, conscience, reason, will, physicality—and says this is what Calvin actually argued. He contrasts this definition with how many Christians use the term today, which he says is better defined as utter depravity, meaning absolutely base, vile, rotten to the core. While attacking Left Behind for constantly “telling and not showing” a world gone mad because Christians and children have been raptured from it (a regular Slacktivist refrain: LB is “not scary enough”), he attacks utter depravity as neo-Platonism and ignorant of the divine spark in beings created in God’s image. Going further, he argues utter depravity makes for rather undemocratic politics, as humanity cannot be trusted with the pursuit of justice or rational self-governance. The answer is totalitarianism or lawlessness.

A committed Calvinist would say Clark flirts with semi-pelagianism in this interpretation. Still, I thought it was worth a read, as is much of the work in Clark’s Left Behind series. Six years in and only the first movie and a book-and-a-half done. Maybe he’s banking on a thousand-year reign after all…

Lutherans in Convention

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is holding its triennial convention this week in Houston, Texas. Since we have a couple Lutheran writers on this blog, and some Lutheran readers too, I thought it would be worth looking at what’s going on. I’m following the events via the ALPB Forum, but you can also go to the official convention site for the video feed (zzzzz), press releases, photographs, and so on.

The big news so far is the surprisingly convincing (54 percent to 45 percent) defeat of two-term incumbent Rev. Dr. Gerald Kieschnick at the hands of Rev. Matthew Harrison, current executive director of LCMS World Relief, a missionary and relief organization. Rarely in LCMS history has an incumbent synod president been defeated in convention, though the “moderate” Kieschnick lost to the “conservative” Harrison 643-527. I put the political terms in quotes because they’re both pretty conservative in theology as far as world Christianity goes (it is the LCMS after all), but that’s how they line up within the denomination (think a Texas primary between Kay Hutchison and Rick Perry). LCMS World Relief is one of the denomination’s better organizations, so Harrison figures to be a good choice. He’d previously also served as a pastor in Iowa and Fort Wayne, Indiana. Ironically, the convention also passed much of the restructuring and consolidation of power that outgoing president Kieschnick wanted. Ooops.

(In secular politics this happens all the time. Make consolidating power in the chief executive a conservative issue, and then the people elect Barack Obama. This mistake is avoided with what I’ve always called “The Hillary Clinton Question.” It’s one of the more conservative questions a person can him or herself: “Would I support this executive action if my political opposite [Hillary Clinton] were in office?” If no, then don’t do it. This question works surprisingly well…)

The LCMS in convention also responded to the ELCA’s actions last summer where they announced support for “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships” as morally acceptable and authorized the ordination of homosexuals in committed relationships. (See the related links below for ITA’s coverage of that event). Compared to the ELCA, the LCMS was quite united on the issue and very much opposed. The delegates adopted two resolutions overwhelmingly (1133-35 and 1093-61) affirming the the belief that “the practice of homosexuality—in any and all situations… must be recognized as sin,” but committing themselves “to approach those with homosexual inclinations with the deepest possible Christian love and pastoral concern, in whatever situation they may be living.” Here is the full press release.

An Open Letter to Conservatives

It is my impression that some of us have joined those who are now in the process of fighting the plans of a Muslim group to build a mosque on property that it owns a few blocks away from Ground Zero, in New York City. I am writing to ask you to reconsider this position.

It is certainly true that no person with sense would or should forget what happened on September 11, 2001. There is no dispute on that point. Additionally, I see no reason to take the position that there should be a mosque at Ground Zero. I desire a mosque near Ground Zero as much as I desire a Starbucks in the same place. The only issue is whether we ought to take political action to oppose it, and I hope that by the time you finish reading this open letter, you will agree with me that a good-natured indifference is the proper conservative reaction to the mosque-construction plans.

First, I urge you to consider the possibility that fighting the mosque is contrary to our conservative principles. Opposing the mosque, instead of leaving it alone, would be inconsistent with our principle of private property rights, among others. The land where the mosque is to be built, which is not at Ground Zero at all but is rather a few blocks away, is private property, already owned by those who are seeking to build on it. (A mosque will not be built at Ground Zero itself. The World Trade Center is being built at Ground Zero.) On what basis would we — or even could we — deny them the right to do with their property as they wish?

In addition to being an inexplicable exception to our respect for private property, fighting the mosque would also be inconsistent with our principle of individual freedom, which, if the term means anything, must extend to the beliefs and behaviors of other people, regardless of whether we agree with them. It is true that the right to freedom does not extend to everything that another person might decide to do, but is it not well-settled, at least, that that right extends to thought, communication, and other innocuous, nonviolent activity, including religious belief and worship?

Aside from the plain and unassailable rightness of freedom of religion and conscience, that freedom is additionally one of the most firmly, frequently, and emphatically-established traditions of the American Revolution. These are the traditions that American conservatives are supposedly conserving. This aspect of the right to freedom is recognized and protected by our federal and state constitutions alike, and, at the time of the Revolution, it became more and more the law of the land as our new, post-independence constitutions were adopted, incorporating it. It even played an important part in the settlement of the original colonies, and the Continental Congress deliberately determined that it should be a defining principle in law of all states formed under the Northwest Ordinance. Considerations of freedom, the Constitution, private property, and even tradition each demand the same result: conservatives should not oppose this mosque — not for religious reasons, anyway.

Second, no one has even alleged that the particular Muslims connected with the proposed Mosque have done anything wrong. Why, then, should they be excluded from the area near Ground Zero? What reason or right do we have to forbid them to build? I admit that it has been difficult for me to identify a clear and unified theme in the opposition to the mosque, but unless I am mistaken in my impression, this opposition is an incarnation of identity politics; it is a mirror-image reflection of liberalism, and not conservatism. There is one lone fact, out of all of those that have any importance, that sets the September 11 terrorists apart from the rest of the world. That fact is, of course, that they murdered several thousands of people. Like most of us, the people who want to build the mosque do not share that distinction. We should leave them alone.

Third, this issue and others like it are distractions, and we, as conservatives, cannot afford to continue to put our time and energy into them. There are other issues (issues of consequence!) that we need to discuss and address. Two of the bigger issues, I think, relate to what will happen in the upcoming 112th Congress. The first of these issues how to give the needed direction to the self-described conservatives who are likely to lead the Republican Party in that Congress, instructing them to avoid the big-government Republican agenda of this past decade but also telling them what we do want them to do. Whether we do this by supporting the Tea Party-related “Contract From America,” Mark Levin’s ten-part legislative agenda, or some separate or additional document, we need for our decision to be clear to each other and to our representatives. (That is why it needs to be discussed, with the full attention of the conservative community.) The second of these issues is, assuming that we succeed in causing GOP leaders to adopt it, to determine how we will prevent this agenda from suffering the same fate as the conservative reforms of 1995. As energized as conservatives seem to be right now, some of us, realistically, will not have the same energy once Speaker Pelosi becomes the outspoken Democrat minority leader and Senator Reid finds work as an author, as a lobbyist, or in some other position appropriate for an ex-Senator. If the Democrats begin a vicious smear-campaign, based on their successful effort of late 1995 and early 1996, we will not be able to win unless we have a plan, and I doubt that it will be possible for us to have a plan until we, the conservative community, have a clear and common understanding of what we hope to accomplish.

We conservatives have a lot of work to do, and it is important that we give your responsibilities the proper attention. The Conservative Idea, I think, is to thoughtfully collect, preserve, and value lessons from throughout history, up through the time of the American Revolution and also between that time and the present, refusing to discard great or proven ideas and traditions simply because they came from an imperfect society or distant time, or because they tend to restrain a self-important, ideological, hubristic, and myopic modern conception of “progress.” In order for us to accomplish this, there are many issues that will need our attention. The mosque-near-Ground-Zero issue is not one of these.

Oblivious Irony

A post on Hudson New York discusses rising anti-semitism in the Netherlands, including this lovely anecdote:

Last week, a television broadcast showed how three Jews with skullcaps, two adolescents and an adult, were harassed within thirty minutes of being out in the streets of Amsterdam. Young Muslims spat at them, mocked them, shouted insults and made Nazi salutes. “Dirty Jew, go back to your own country,” a group of Moroccan youths shouted at a young indigenous Dutch Jew. “It is rather ironic,” the young man commented, adding that if one goes out in a burka one encounters less hostility than if one wears a skullcap.

I think the appropriate response for a Jew in Amsterdam being told by a Moroccan to “go back to your own country” is “You first!”

(h/t: Jay Nordlinger)

Megachurch template

A clever video from Northpoint Community Church in Atlanta perfectly captures the formula widely used in today’s megachurches:

Although the video effectively satirizes these popular elements, it doesn’t propose an alternative, leaving me wondering exactly what its creators had in mind. There’s certainly nothing wrong with structuring worship services on a consistent, recognizable template: churches have had liturgies for centuries. Nor is there anything wrong in my opinion with using contemporary music, casual dress, or multimedia presentations to reach people who are not comfortable with a traditional church atmosphere. I think where “contemporary” worship services go off the rails is when a carefully-groomed image becomes of greater importance than preaching the truth of God’s word.

Cracking Skulls for Christ

The New York Times on the hot new Christian fad, mixed martial arts ministries. Surprisingly, Mark Driscoll’s name does not appear in the article.

Cowering before radical Islam

The ongoing saga surrounding South Park creators Matt Parker and Trey Stone’s conflict with Comedy Central censors over depicting Muhammad in their show (which infamously mocks religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Scientology) reminded me of a passage from ITA friend David Heddle’s novel, Here, Eyeball This!. The entire novel is an enjoyable and thought-provoking read. It centers around a group of physics grad students and their shared experiences in grad school. Some scientific concepts are discussed, but in a way that is comprehensible to a non-scientist.

Anyway, the following passage is particularly relevant to the issue of the special treatment of Islam. The scene involves one of the grad students (Bernie Roche) sitting in on the first class of a course in comparative religion. Also in the class is an undergraduate acquaintance of Bernie’s named Leila.
(more…)

Atheists versus the National Day of Prayer

A federal district judge has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the President to declare a national day of prayer, as has been done every year since 1952. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which filed the lawsuit against the declaration, is of course pleased with the decision. Bill Egnor, an editor at The Seminal, comments that the declaration is “a real thumb in the eye” of atheists. I certainly understand why some atheists (probably the most zealous ones) would perceive it as such, though it’s not at all the intent of the day. Not unlike “Make a Difference Day,” the National Day of Prayer is intended as an occasion to honor something the vast majority of Americans consider to be a good thing. Is it any wonder why so many Americans have a negative view of atheists, when vocal atheists try to use the courts to strike down a tradition which so many people like, and none are actually harmed by?

When I tried to see this from an atheist perspective, at first I thought of a “National Day of No Prayer.” I would indeed be offended by that declaration, but it’s not an apt analogy because it doesn’t honor a thing, it disparages a thing. Then I thought of a “National Day of Rationality,” but of course virtually no one would be offended by that, because all people think they are rational in their beliefs. I think perhaps the reason that vocal atheists get offended so easily at seemingly benign declarations and celebrations is that their belief system is based on the denial of all other beliefs (or at least all belief in the supernatural). Whenever someone’s religious beliefs are being celebrated or honored, the atheist perceives that his belief is being implicitly denied.

My faith does not require the endorsement of a government proclamation and in an alternate United States where no such proclamations had ever been made, I wouldn’t lobby for any. However, I am opposed to the broad reading of the Establishment Clause promoted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and similar groups. So I’ll be hoping this decision is overturned on appeal. (But I won’t be praying for it…I have more important things to pray about.)

He is risen!

I’ve posted this before, but thought it was apropos for Resurrection Sunday: