Democracy, not Theocracy

just a test to see if this will post and I can see other comments

Pluralism is an unfinished business in the United States and elsewhere. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a member of the Hindu faith open the Senate with a prayer. Let us remember the wise words from the sacred Hindu text the Rig Veda which says "Truth is One, the wise call it by many names." The nation is blesed to have Bishop Chane, a Bishop who understands that we have to offer the "other" the Dignity of Difference, to use a term coined by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Hopefully an Imman will be invited to read a prayer in the Senate as well.

Pluralism is an unfinished business in the United States and elsewhere. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a member of the Hindu faith open the Senate with a prayer. Let us remember the wise words from the sacred Hindu text the Rig Veda which says "Truth is One, the wise call it by many names." The nation is blesed to have Bishop Chane, a Bishop who understands that we have to offer the "other" the Dignity of Difference, to use a term coined by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Hopefully an Imman will be invited to read a prayer in the Senate as well.

There is much truth in the post by Rev. Chane. I am certainly not an authority on what our early founders believed, but I think (certainly hope) they believed in freedom of (and from) religion. They were certainly opposed to a theoracy.

I am not opposed to prayer in the Senate provided representatives from various religious groups are given opportunities to do the praying and provided the prayers do not promote a particular religion. However, if I were in charge there would be no formal prayer in the Senate. I would open meetings with a brief time for meditation, reflection, and personal redication to the work for which Senators were elected.

I think there is little chance of a truly open discussion of almost any religious topic. The true believers can never tolerate openness.

I also think there is considerable truth in the following quote by BEGONE:

There is nothing more dangerous than a large group of misguided people who are absolutely sure they have God behind their efforts. That they are doing God's will.

His use of the word "misguided" bothers me some. Assumes all religious people are misguided, which may or may not be true.

There is much truth in the post by Rev. Chane. I am certainly not an authority on what our early founders believed, but I think (certainly hope) they believed in freedom of (and from) religion. They were certainly opposed to a theoracy.

I am not opposed to prayer in the Senate provided representatives from various religious groups are given opportunities to do the praying and provided the prayers do not promote a particular religion. However, if I were in charge there would be no formal prayer in the Senate. I would open meetings with a brief time for meditation, reflection, and personal redication to the work for which Senators were elected.

I think there is little chance of a truly open discussion of almost any religious topic. The true believers can never tolerate openness.

I also think there is considerable truth in the following quote by BEGONE:

There is nothing more dangerous than a large group of misguided people who are absolutely sure they have God behind their efforts. That they are doing God's will.

His use of the word "misguided" bothers me some. Assumes all religious people are misguided, which may or may not be true.

If you are a secular humanist of some stature (e.g., Paul Kurtz), you should be able to give a "prayer" before Congress. It would not be a religious or god-oriented prayer ... more like a secular inspirational invocation. Why not? Does anyone really believe that someone is listening other than the human attendees in the chamber or watching on TV? Are the only individuals capable of inspiring Congress to do good work theists?

Well Douglas Farah, there's two ways of taking that. The most obvious supported by what we see on TV is that it's the real thing. Then there's the nagging, aggravating possibility that the document is a hoax. Those who yell hoax will be trace at best. In either event Americans need to wake up.

Religion by it's very nature demands spreading. Why is perfectly clear. It's a con game and the more suckers the greater the take. And of course, the stronger the sucker's faith the greater the take. All issues eventually boil down to money.

Have you heard? http://wwwo.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul which is just one of thousands of interpretations of the Bible shows clearly that the big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell. The Bible is God's word you know and therefore one can rely on what it says. Seem to apply to Muslims as well as Christians and Jews too.

All kidding aside. There is nothing more dangerous than a large group of misguided people who are absolutely sure they have God behind their efforts. That they are doing God's will. And this particular group about whom you speak seems to have been born with AK-47 in their hands. Time for another bloodbath on planet earth an order or two of magnitude greater than the last time a large group of people were convinced they were in the right. Adolph Hitler was God wasn't he?

Have a look at the pictures of angels fighting at that web site. The good news is them Gods can be shot. The bad news is they have a billion or so bad angels behind them born with assault rifles. "Lock and load. Now send them to hell!"

I'm confused. Is the bishop saying there is only one "living God", whatever that means? Can I, as an atheist, in theory, give a prayer to open proceedings in Congress? Or does a prayer have to have a god oriented perspective?

Aug 1, 08:53
Finally, The Smoking Gun

One of the most fascinating exhibits presented by the prosecution in the Holy Land Foundation case (provided by researchers for the NEFA Foundation) is a memorandum on the Muslim Brotherhood’s multifaceted plan to convert the United States to an Islamic nation. It is the smoking gun of the Ikhwan’s long-standing efforts to destroy the Western world as we know it.

The most interesting exhibit is a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May 22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan vision of the future. He leaves no ambiguity as to the nature of the Ikhwan calling. (The exhibits will be posted and written about more completely in the NEFA website in coming days).

Under the heading “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” he writes:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated ad God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

But wait, there is more:

“Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”

Akram then spells out in some detail the role of the Brotherhood in moving the project forward: “As for the role of the Ikhwan, it is the initiative, pioneering, leadership, raising the banner and pushing people in that direction (the Jihadist process). They are then able to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a master of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

The document then gives rationale for setting up Ikhwan organizations across the country: “We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”

The document also deals with the criticism among the Brothers that the focus on the United States will drain support for the establishment of the global caliphate. The response is two-fold:
1) “The success of the Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the the best support and aid to the global Movement project.”
2) The global (Ikhwan) movement has not “succeeded yet in distributing roles to is branches, stating that what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani branch will have a far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.”

The document ends with a list of Ikhwan groups trying to coordinate, including all the usual (ISNA, ICNA, IIIT etc.)

What is so interesting about the document is the breadth of ambition, the conviction of ultimate success and the care with which the campaign we see today was being thought about 16 years ago. So is the the clarity of the ultimate objective of ending our years as a functioning democracy, built on the rule of secular law, minority rights and freedom of religion, press etc.

The infiltration of the government by members and sympathizers, the coordinated role of the organizations in pursuing specific objectives, the recruitment of the best and the brightest into the movement, and other objectives are far advanced, perhaps further than the author could have imagined in so short a time.

The rationale, for those like Lieken et al who want play footsie with these groups bent on our destruction, is truly mindboggling. I don’t think the Brothers who have been on the cusp of the new PR campaign, from Ramadan to Akef, have bothered to spell this out like the Brothers do for themselves.

But here we have it, in their own words, written by their own hands. There is much more to say, and I will revisit the topic as more information comes in.

Will anyone pay attention?

posted by Douglas Farah

Someone has to quietly and calmly present the evidance you have shown, without name calling where ever Ikhwan forces choose to speak in the US.

Ikhwan spokesman then have 3 choices:

-deny and call you names

-change the subject abruptly

-question your integrity

But either way this information is

(This is also in response to the Bishop of Durham)
We Episcopalians believe in using scripture, tradition, and REASON in approaching Christ through our religion.
I have two points, which may seem contradictory on the surface, but here goes:
1. Reason and common sense would tell us that we should value the prayers of all people, no matter which god(s) they are addressed to. After all, we take our faith as just that--faith. There is no actual proof that prayers actually get anywhere other than the ears of the listeners. So, religious expediency would tell us "The more prayers the better", because what if, just WHAT IF, the Hindus are right and we're not??

2. The emphasis on tradition, and also Martin Marty's approach tells us that we can tolerate some of 'religion' in the public sphere just because it has been there for so long. My question is, would the pre-Constantine Christians, who were living in a society without 'Christian tradition', have been able to make their cases without at least some tolerance (sporadic persecutions notwithstanding) of their beliefs by the so called 'pagans' who ruled according to the tradition of emperor worship?
Surely, the truth shall make us free (John 8:32).
Why do American Christians of the fundamentalist stripe fear the truth that make others free if it different from the truth that makes them free?

I can't believe this is my Bishop or that the Church allows for this drivel.

Suggesting that "One Nation under God," is a religious mandate does not equate to a Theocracy. Try a basic highschool civics lesson or a dictionary for the real meaning of a theocracy.

I also found the rambling first paragraph regarding the lack of theological insight of our forefathers to be full of assumptions and overreaching. I am confused as to the what this has to do with a governance issue or a poor attempt at defining a theocracy.

Good article. However, I question that the Founding Fathers were unaware of the complexities of monotheism. I suspect Jefferson, Madison, et al. had a pretty good understanding of religious diversity, although their views were largely deistic, suggesting they considered such complexities as irrelevant. They wisely saw the danger of institutionalizing any one religion or set of religions (Christian or not) in government. Hence the wall of separation.

"To be sure, the vision of the early founders of this Nation was based on their understanding of Providence as defined by Christianity."

It is very convenient to draw that conclusion. It's not so. The founders identified the God. It's NATURES GOD not be be confused with Jehovah, Yehweh, Trinity, all sons of Gods and any and all others like Hindu gods that might sneak in later.

The founders were divinely guided no doubt. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us just how divinely guided they truly were. One nation under Devil? Ridiculous! Is God behind hoax buster. Devil isn't, had His mask pulled off. He ain't no Lone Ranger.

Note: All men are created equal including Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and even America's pastor Billy. None of the afore mentioned took, agents of Devil are not equal even though they started out equal.

It must be noted that a large portion of American Christians are of the firm belief that theirs is the exclusive and superior set of religious beliefs that deserves to dominate all others. The thoughtful voices of Rev. Chane unfortunately represent the slim minority of religious leaders--many more are quite happy to breed and harness the power of xenophobia and intolerance in their flocks. It is time that we begin a discussion about religious radicalism and the destructive force it represents to any society.