Americans continue to be suspicious of the Mormon religion. What has changed is not the amount of trepidation but rather the commitment to tolerance.

The 21st century American religious narrative contextualizes the embedded tenants of tolerance, compassion, and respect. Today, Americans are no longer threatened by religious ideas and streams that differ from the traditional and historical faiths. Globalization, the internet, and sectarian violence have succeeded in transforming the pillars of religious orthodoxy from preservation via intolerance to preservation via accommodation.

Continue »

Beyond the idea of a Just War and the notion that at times we must fight in order to secure the peace, one thing is certain, Faith and religion should never be the impetus for War but always the justification to end wars and bring peace.

Ironically the biblical narrative describes God as Jehovah Shalom or the God of Peace while another portion describes him as The Lord of Hosts or the Lord of the Armies. Where is my faith in times of War? My Faith rests In the God of Peace and in the Lord of Hosts.

Faith that if war falls upon us, “The Battle is Mine Saith The Lord”
Faith that “All things work for Good for those that believe” ROMANS 8:28
Faith that tells me we battle not against Muslims, Arabs, Christians, Atheists or Jews but against Principalities, and Powers of Darkness
Faith that reminds me “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does” 2 Corinthians 10:3
Faith that dresses me with the full armor of God: Ephesians 6:3

How do I reconcile my faith with calamity and War? With unbridled understanding that warmongers are not blessed but peacemakers are. At the end of the day my Faith will strengthen me and preserve me for the peace to come by reminding all of us that Victory is not obtained by might, nor by power but by MY SPIRIT , SAITH THE LORD.

Embedded in the historical narrative of the Democratic Party is the indisputable fact that somewhere in the 1970’s and solidified in the 1980’s, this party lost its faith. Suddenly, in the 21st Century of Blue and Red states, John Kerry and Al Gore discovered that America is without a doubt, a religious and spiritual nation. Hence, on the Road to Damascus (Pennsylvania Ave), Democratic Presidential hopefuls have seen the “light”. Does this benefit our Nation? Absolutely!

Contrary to popular opinion, the three most admired Republicans are not Lincoln, Reagan and Jesus Christ. You can’t blame the GOP for taking advantage of the Democratic Parties egregious strategic decision to abandon the faith conversation. However, the stranglehold must come to an end. Our country does not benefit by any party manipulating the faith conversation. In the matter of fact, by embracing Faith again, the Democratic Party can accomplish the following:

1. Expand the faith and family values agenda to include Poverty, health care, AIDS, Darfur, Economic and other social justice issues in addition to Life and family issues. These are not Democratic or Republican issues, this is Luke Chapter 4: 18 and 19.

2. Attract Latino Voters. 44% Voted for Bush in 2004. The exit polls indicated that Faith was the driving impetus behind the Latino affinity towards Bush.(I believe the recent immigration debacle may provoke Latinos to reconsider crossing the aisle and sitting in other pews). Without faith, the Democrats will never attract a viable Hispanic constituency.

Christians and people of all faiths cannot be the extension of one particular party. We must be able to speak truth to power regardless of the platform. We are citizens of God’s Kingdom First. This is how righteousness and Justice will prevail.

Without dissecting the theological tenents and moral triggers for a “justified or Just War”, America carries a moral obligation as it pertains to the war in Iraq. Such obligation requires us to leave Iraq secure with hope for a future. Regardless of the plethora of errors committed in the onset of and for this war, the current sectarian violence and de facto civil war demand that we fix a situation that exists as a direct result of our engagement.

To leave Iraq today without creating the economic, political and security infrastructures necessary for success would exponentially increase our liability and compound our errors. Reconstruction after the Civil War, the Marshall Plan after World War II, and economic aid after numerous military excursions successfully employed the values of Justice and Reconciliation embedded in the American narrative.

We may not have had a legitimate moral imperative for war in Iraq. Today, we do have a moral imperative to stay in Iraq until we secure peace. A nation demonstrates its military prowess in war, its moral authority in advocating peace.

At the end of the day, our moral imperatives must drive us to advocate a foreign policy of justice. If we must take the lead on the war on terror, let us simultaneously take the lead on the war on poverty. If we are committed to eradicating Al Qaeda, let us be equally committed to eradicating AIDS. We went into Iraq with faulty intelligence; let us depart with righteous conviction after we heal and reconcile.

Once again, I am thoroughly convinced that the current religious debate in America does not conform to what the media portrays as a struggle between Christian Evangelicals and The Left or even between church and state. America's 21st century debate on religion invites a triad of philosophies to contend in the ring of American public opinion: religious secularism, religious pluralism and religious exceptionalism.

Religious secularism enters the fray with the least amount of support, endurance and possibility of victory. This nation may not be a Christian nation but one cannot deny it embraces spirituality. From our founding fathers, whether Deists or Christians, the faith narrative contextualized in our history cannot be denied.

Continue »

The Religion of the Middle East is War. Religious discord serves the political apparatus in the region. The birthplace of the world’s three most prominent faith narratives compete in the market place of ideas with the assistance at times of bulldozers, Qassam rockets, enriched uranium and improvised explosive devices.

Roadsides in Iraq become memorials, refugee camps in Lebanon function as sanctuaries for extremists and alleyways as monasteries for jihadists. Poverty serves as High Priest while Oil anoints the powerful elite.

Does it matter? Absolutely! To understand the political, moral and socio-economic dynamics that drive the region, one must accept the religious impetus behind the political and military conflicts. However, the real war is not between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The true conflict, under the guise of religion, exposes two opposing forces; poverty and authoritarianism on one end and freedom and peace on the other.

Meanwhile, in the birthplace of monotheism where the name of God is invoked daily, He may very well be a prisoner of War.

As a nation, we are not obliged nor are we predisposed to elect a Christian President. Our commitment, as the electorate, drives us to elect an individual who will uphold the Constitution of The United States. We are electing a President and Commander in Chief, not a National Pastor.

However, this does not inhibit legitimate scrutiny of a candidate’s religious beliefs. If religion plays a significant part in the life of the Presidential hopeful, then this nation must carefully analyze the impact of such religious tenets within the framework of possible domestic and foreign policy initiatives.

Americans exercise a defacto two tier test as it pertains to Presidential elections and the religious beliefs of the candidates. First, does the religious credo of the candidate interfere or contradict with the constitutional and moral obligations of the office. Second, does such belief respect and appreciate the historical Judeo-Christian ethos embedded in the American narrative.

Therefore, the question arises, was Senator McCain correct in stating that he "admired" Islam but would prefer a President with "a solid grounding" in the Christian faith? It may have been a politically incorrect statement; however I do believe it reflects the sentiment of the majority of our citizens. Yet in a world where religion and faith have been hijacked to disseminate hatred and bigotry, my hope is that our Nation will demonstrate that religious pluralism strengthens our nation and intolerance strengthens our enemies.

No other partnership can possibly offer humanity and our Planet a chance for survival like the collaborative relationship between faith and science. Truth emerges from the nexus of both streams in order to address the crucial issues of our very existence.

Rather than the historical supposition that both these fields land on opposite sides of the spectrum, both must converge via the avenue of inquiry and discover solutions to critical issues such as global warming, poverty, famine and disease.

Religion will provide the moral imperative for science to press forward in research and development of viable alternatives and solutions to the current issues of our time. Recently, the Creation Care position embraced by many evangelicals in partnership with Harvard Professors, demonstrates the potential impact on society as the followers of Christ, Mohammad and Moses walk along side the disciples of Galileo, Newton and Einstein with the objective of protecting all of God’s creation.

This partnership is not a possibility; it is at the end of day, the solution.

To have within our borders 9 million children without health care coverage is a political disaster, an economic divestment and above all, a moral travesty.

Opponents of abortion passionately argue for the right to life of the child in the womb. The argument falls short in the marketplace of ideas if it does not extend itself beyond the womb. Consequently, the same vociferous opponents must become the lead spokespersons for health care coverage for children, or risk losing intellectual and faith based argumentative legitimacy.

As for the recent failure in Congress to pass the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan or SCHIP demonstrates the moral dissonance between the executive and legislative branches as it pertains to health coverage for children. Is it the responsibility of parents to provide the coverage or does the government count with a moral imperative to guarantee that each child is cared for? The answer, as with many similar queries, is both.

Parents carry the primary responsibility of providing the necessities for their children. However, when parents, for economic or other reasons cannot provide, we as citizens committed to a justice ethos and blessed with the moral wherewithal to exercise faith teachings that instruct us to care for the least of them, must come together, and fill the corresponding need. Our society enriches the collective experience of our citizenry when we articulate, embrace, and include within our corporate sphere a commitment to Life.

Health care coverage for children is a natural extension of a Pro-Life agenda that resonates with the same passion and conviction of a platform that addresses life from the womb to the tomb.

Huckabee’s call to somehow reconcile the U.S. Constitution with God’s standards presents a provocative proposition that very well may redefine the church and state relationship while depicting the Christian majority in an unprecedented role as theocrats.

Before we begin to apply a religious rubric to the American Constitution, let us measure the viability of such proposal with a question. Is the U.S. Constitution a secular or religious document?

Undoubtedly, our founding fathers, though all were not believers, did incorporate a biblical worldview into the birthing of our nation. From the Liberties to the responsibilities, what separates us from the French in respect to their core beliefs and consequently, our uniqueness as a Democracy is our spiritual DNA.

From the onset, our founding documents addressed the concept of inalienable rights. Our rights as Americans stem not from the collective agreement of men or the power of governmental authority but from God.

If the alignment of standards equates to converting America to one religious narrative, then we must reject the effort. If alignment incorporates and reinforces the original intent of our founding fathers then we do not need constitutional amendments. We need Federal and Supreme Court judges who evaluate original intent rather than construct new definitions and applications.

Let us remember that the Battle of our lifetime is not between secularism and religion, but rather between religious pluralism and religious totalitarianism. Let us make sure we preserve a Constitution that refuses to endorse neither secularism nor Christianity but rather guarantees the God given right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sexism and racism are as American as apple pie. Both existed in the formation of our nation and 232 years later, still occupy a significant place in the stage we call the American experience.

The current campaign for the Democratic Presidential Nomination between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama and subsequent outcome will speak accolades on the question of race and sex. Actually the 2008 Presidential elections define a battle, not between Republicans, Democrats and Independents but rather between, Sex, Race and Age. This election speaks more about “isms” than policy.

Continue »