The answer to both questions is a resounding yes. Israel today is a nation, a free democracy, with vital political contests for office. Like any other state, it can make mistakes, it can be wrong.

Continue »

I believe that education at either the high school or college level is impoverished when religious teaching is not included.

Continue »

The answer is yes and no. The media, after all, is made up of fallible human beings who often get things right and sometimes don’t.

Continue »

A Christian, and I would assume a Muslim and Jew as well, can engage in certain practices common to Eastern religions.

Continue »

While thankfully the vast majority of Muslims do not practice violence, the answer to whether Islam is a violent religion is: Regrettably, Islam spawns violence.

Continue »

This question is prompted, I assume, by Mitt Romney’s candidacy for President. I do not believe, nor should any Christian believe, that there should be a religious test of any kind for public office.

Continue »

It is debatable whether paganism is a religion, per say. It is generally defined as a pre-Christian state, but it takes a wide variety of forms—all the way from relatively benign New Age-style nature worship, to pantheism, to witchcraft, and even human sacrifice.

Continue »

The press coverage of Pope Benedict’s statements about the Catholic Church being the true church is much ado about nothing.

Continue »

As a Christian, I have experienced working with Muslims in prisons for the last thirty years. Apart from that, I would not feel really qualified to speak out in this week’s discussion.

Continue »

I don’t know what law would prohibit this. Nor do I think it is an issue of separation of church and state. It is a question of appropriateness, however.

If there were Hindu members of the Senate, then it would be appropriate from a pastoral sense. If there is not a member being represented in the Senate, then there would be no point in having a Hindu pray because, as I understand it, this is a prayer for the Senators. I personally don’t see any problem with representatives of a religion, practiced by the members, praying.

To the religious extremists, some of whom brought us 9/11, I would say, if you believe there is anything in the teaching of your religion that promotes the death of innocents, you should flee from that.

Continue »

In one sense, it is true that all major religions encourage love, compassion, and forgiveness. But scratching below the surface, there is quite a difference, especially when it comes to what motivates these acts of charity. For the sake of space, let’s consider just one of these: forgiveness.

For the Buddhist, forgiveness is prescribed because it prevents harmful emotions that disturb one’s “mind karma.” This is beneficial teaching, but it lacks moral force. Hindus are urged to forgive, since it is characteristic of one born of a divine state, as one teacher describes it. But Hinduism has no concept of grace; what you have done in this life will inevitably be done to you in the next, which perpetuates the evil cycle.

Both the Old Testament and the Qur'an teach forgiveness. But Judaism and Islam are religions of works, where one must earn God’s forgiveness and favor. Islam is especially problematic: Whether God’s will to forgive applies to everyone is questionable, and evil done against the unrighteous can become virtuous. God has a double standard in Islam when it comes to forgiveness that introduces a potentially deadly relativism into Islam’s ethics.

Only in Christianity does God sacrifice himself to pay the debts of humankind. This is the basis of the compulsion that uniquely directs the Christian toward moral behavior: If Christ lives in me, and Christ has died for my sins and the sins of others, how can I be unforgiving of someone who has hurt me? Forgiveness is not an option -- it is a mandate. And failure to forgive is disobedience to the One who died for us. Similarly, love and compassion are encouraged in other world religions, but motivations are very different from religion to religion.

The British have a wonderful way with words. The issue is more than political correctness. We are being “daft” by suppressing even the public mention of one’s religion or religious holidays.

My dictionary defines “daft” as “silly, foolish, mad, insane”; but I prefer the old English translation: “simple and stupid.”

To refuse to discuss or recognize religious convictions in the public square is to deny the very nature of our humanity. People are irresistibly religious, always have been, and in my view always will be. Our religious convictions profoundly influence our public behavior whether we talk about it or not; for many like me it is the primary influence on our values, attitudes, and behavior.

Continue »

I have read carefully the Archbishop of Canterbury’s words and believe that he muddled them. I don’t believe any responsible Christian leader would ever propose trying to mix Anglo-American jurisprudence with the law of a regressive theocratic movement.

Continue »

The Question: Pope Benedict's recent baptism of a well-known Italian Muslim has prompted criticism in much of the Islamic world. Has Benedict done enough to build bridges to Islam?

No one in the Islamic world should bear ill will towards Pope Benedict, especially in regard to the conversion of the Italian Muslim, Magdi Cristiano Allam. From my understanding, Allam didn’t convert because he was wooed over; he had long ago turned against Islam.

Continue »