All Comments (35)

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

hqibeo kthmg wvamxpes bhtsap viayr izmxfh megvfqu

hqibeo kthmg wvamxpes bhtsap viayr izmxfh megvfqu

hqibeo kthmg wvamxpes bhtsap viayr izmxfh megvfqu

hqibeo kthmg wvamxpes bhtsap viayr izmxfh megvfqu

Problem here, Concerned, is that you project your ideas about religion onto Pagan subgroups.

We can, in general, all get together and circle up just fine. In fact, those who would choose to be Chaplains in the armed services would also have to be willing to help Christians and Jews and the Muslims who don't even appear on the survey you cite.

One thing you have to understand, too, about these surveys, is that apart from the obvious fact that Pagans have every incentive to not go on record as Pagans in a world full of a high level of hostility, is that, yes, our numbers in the military do exceed those of other groups with plenty of chaplains.

The Lakota people will thank you not to lump them in with us, even if they might just be gladder to see a Pagan chaplain than someone like the self-professed Christian chaplain who posted to another thread who said he was incapable of serving anyone who didn't believe in Jesus, except to try and make them believe in Jesus.

The numbers are lowballed, constantly, and in fact, religious surveys do tend to be phrased in ways that cause honest answers to questions to not parse as what someone calls 'being of a religion.'

I've taken a few, myself.

There's a hostile political climate and very real discrimination, very real and potentially damaging consequences if certain types get word you're not Christian, (not the least of which being as has been asserted right on this forum that not being Christian makes one an 'Unamerican traitor...' If *you* had kids, would you be exposing them to that? ...in my current heavily-Christian community, where we're pretty much *all* in hiding, there chance to be seven of us on my *block,* dude.

Pagan troops exist. In great numbers. They do not deserve to go unrepresented.

Just so people can say we're 'Unamerican traitors who don't deserve a voice or some spiritual care.'

Consistently, Pagan clergy have gone well out of our way to meet the 'standards,' only to find the 'standards' changed when they might include us.

I'm quite confident in saying, Concerned, that there's *well* over a million of us in America at large.

I've been places they don't count. :)

What's your problem, here.

Our diversity is not this kind of problem to us.

It's yours.

Boo. :)

2004?

Paganplace,

These 4300 Pagans in the US military apparently are divided into as per Mary Cunningham's referenced statistics into a large number of Pagan groups. The possible solution, one Sioux medicine person/chaplain stationed at the Pentagon with e-mail and website support of the entire military's Pagan population???

1st number is adherents (2004 estimate)
2nd is %Population

Hinduism: 1,081,051 0.4%
Unitarian Universalist: 887,703 0.3%

Wiccan/Pagan/Druid: 433,267 0.1%

Spiritualist: 163,710 0.05%
Native American Religion: 145,363 0.05%
Baha'i 118,549: 0.04%
New Age 95,968: 0.03%
Sikhism 80,444: 0.03%
Scientology 77,621: 0.02% +22%
Humanist 69,153: 0.02%

Source:http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

If even 4300 people don't count for anything, why are people flogging 9/11 still when they keep our troops in harm's way?

watch this video to see how the weak are treated in muslim societies. then go to rawa.org and see what happened to their founder for speaking the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DihBTOAcU0w

http://www.milpagan.org/media/statistics.html is the cited source of the # of Pagans in the US military. A Defense Department reference would be the only real source of accurate information.

But let us do the math anyway: 4300 Pagans/6702 military bases (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm) or less than one Pagan per base on average.

There are probably more Pagans working for Wallmart. Maybe they should add a few Pagan chaplins to the "welcomers".

And there are probably a heck of a lot more atheists in the military. Another positive for atheism. No chaplins required!!

And with so few Pagans in the military, why are we discussing this issue?????

I think, Ba'al, that if you believe the Only God Of Everything insists that everyone should believe the same way, and do this by swearing some kind of obedience, that it may seem natural to figure that everyone who swears by the same God must therefore agree with you.

The fact that this doesn't work out in reality results in a great deal of unnecessary strife and confusion, not to mention Bush and Cheney getting re-elected when even everything they *actually say* they want to do (except enrich the rich) comes out backwards. :)

Where and why and how did anybody decide that what this dolt has to say is of any interest to anyone -- assuming that there is a coherent thread through any of it, which is not self-evident. A fellow "Abrahamic"? The mind boggles at the mass of mutually exclusive contradictions that everything encompassed by that term implies.

Prof. Nyang wrote:

"Much as they have their rights to be part and parcel of the American enterprise, I would personally find it difficult to cast my vote for them. Not because I do not like all of them at the individual level, but because since I have the choice to vote or not to vote for whoever I want, I prefer to confer my vote on a fellow Abrahamic."

Responding:

Prof. Nyang does an excellent job elucidating the Cold War tensions behind much of the de jure and de facto endorsement of monotheism. Interestingly, he leaves us with this provocative quote at the end, offering no justification beyond pure personal preference. That is his right, of course, but it does strike me as a cop-out to be asked a question, and answer it without investigating one's own answer.

What is it that Prof. Nyang finds intrinsically politically comforting in Abrahamic religion that he doesn't see in Buddhism, Hinduism, the monotheistic religion Sikhism, or the related set of Pagan traditions? Why is this expressed in terms of voting politics, and not citizenship or military service?

Answering these questions publicly of oneself is what intellectual honesty demands of us when we agree to enter the public sphere of discourse here. And Prof. Nyang' obvious ducking of these questions does a disservice to his historical argument, and causes one to be skeptical of the his seeming dissonance between the "personal" and the "historical."

Jihadist,

You apparently are not keeping up with the "singularitity commentary". Too much time reinvesting oil/blood profits? It is ironic how Muslim profits from our oil purchases go right back to supporting terror to keep the oil prices high!!!

Anyway:

B16's "new" book is simply the NT rehashed once again. For a better buy, see Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997 (878 pages). The book is "Catholic" approved (imprimatur and Nihil obstat) and more than likely was used by B16 to prep his book (416 pages). Father Brown also reviews the historical Jesus movement in more than two pages.

Another "view from a recent review":

"For this reason, Crossan's new book _God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now_ (2007) represents far more forward-oriented thinking about Christian tradition than does Ratzinger's well-publicized new book. "

Posted June 23, 2007 4:19 AM on Randall Balmer's page

Now back to my plea for "liberal" Muslims to address the major issue in today's world i.e. the threat of another world war because of the teachings of the koran. Again address the problem if you care anything at all about world peace.

The specific issue yet once again:

"Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, who had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who added a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers all in the name of Allah."

Jihadist, like the rest of us, you were bred, born and brainwashed in your religion. Unlike a lot of us, however, you are trapped in Islam because of its "no escape clauses". Considering the conduct of the seven UK Muslim doctors, you may now never get a chance to escape to a "freedom of religion" country.

"I could be wrong, but the Pope (whom Muslims like others, recognise as the head of the Catholic Church) seem to have has drawn a line against the NT scholars on Christ. Is an intelletual and spiritual battle looming within and among the Catholics?"

Where you been? Oh, umm, elsewhere. OK.

It's been going on a long time, actually.

*Real* long time.

They think they only get one life, remember? :)

Viejita

You observed : "In reality all things are rarely equal. I don't see where he would necessarily rule anyone out for being a member of a different faith, just that he is confessing that he'd find
them harder to understand."

I set higher standards and expectations for scholars and academics. Dr. Nyang is not a Taliban who, by his poverty, only has access to the Deobandi schools and weaned only on the Salafist/Wahhabi strain of Islam.

I am still surprised Dr. Nyang stated that. What if he is an immigrant to India where the majority are Hindus? Many Muslims voted for Hindu candidates in India. What if he is a Muslim in Buddhist majority Thailand? In fact, in the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, there are polytheists/pagans (called animists) among Dayaks, Ibans, Penans etc. Not all of them become Muslims or Christians, and some remain animists and hold public offices at the district and state levels and elected in by those of even the Abrahamic faiths, including Muslims.

It is also hard for me to understand Dr. Nyang saying that for he is an immigrant naturalised as an American. One who is a minority by the colour of his skin and his religion in the US - a country born and forged and formed also by people persecuted for their beliefs apart from finding a better life.

I would also be surprised if Dr. Nyang, as a scholar, would find Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus etc hard to understand - their beliefs or their politics or their stance on issues? Surely he would know that just as there are many shades and stripes of Muslims, there are many shades and stripes of Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Jews, Christians etc. Even on family planning and abortion, for some Muslim states and Muslims, the position is closer to Protestants than Catholics. So, whatever Dr. Nyang's personal views on family planning and abortion is, even among candidates of the other Abrahamic faiths or People of the Book, he will have to decide whether his views on family planning and abortion is closer to Protestants or Catholics.

And lastly, I am shocked that as a Muslim scholar, Dr. Nyang seems to have forgotten a Sura in the Qur'an where God says It has mades us into many nations and peoples so we can know one another. It seems to me Dr. Nyang can't or won't even get to know and understand the peoples within his own nation.

Best regards

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

I ignored all your posts in the last few months due to their singularity.

But, something came up.

Pope Benedict has a new book out - "Jesus of Nazareth". In it, Pope Benedict does not seem to agree with the views of Jesus as put out by the OT/NT scholars, many of whom are members of the Jesus Seminar, including JD Crossan. And these are the views you advocated here in On Faith threads.

I could be wrong, but the Pope (whom Muslims like others, recognise as the head of the Catholic Church) seem to have has drawn a line against the NT scholars on Christ. Is an intelletual and spiritual battle looming within and among the Catholics?

It would be lovely if you consider looking into this as a "Catholic of Reality" and "Crossanized Christian" as you call yourself, and to share your thoughts with us on it. You know the Catholic faith better than you know Islam, and I am relying on your expertise here on what Pope Benedict wrote in his book and how it will affect Catholics world-wide.

I have to say, more than once some of those Orisha type guys have turned up to respond to the same situations as myself. Don't entirely get it, but I'm usually glad to see em. :)

Dr. Nyang,

It may come to a complete surprise to you that many modern Pagans of all races are embracing the ancestral religion of Africa. Yep. White people in growing numbers are embracing the Orishas. How do you like that?

Sulayman,

May I respectfully suggest a more rational basis for your future votes than whether or not a candidate is Abrahamic in religion:

Vote for the candidate with the best looking and least expensive haircut. Today's electronic WaPo has yet another story about John Edwards's $400 haircuts (plus travel, out-of-pocket expenses and time-lost compensation).

To which I commented:

"I'm a Vermont Democrat who was elected to our legislature five times. My haircuts cost $13 at the present time - they cost less back then. My $13 cuts look better than John Edwards's $400 ones - and I got elected, while he didn't. Does this tell you something about the foibles of the rich and famous?"

The haircut variable is certainly a more rational basis for choosing a candidate than religion, because it relates to the common sense and worldly wisdom of the candidate.

I'm not running for anything right now, but if I do may I count on your vote?

Viejita,

You wrote:

"Dr. Nyang states his prejudice, that all things being equal he prefers another follower of Abraham."

No, it's actually worse than that. He didn't say "all things being equal" he'd vote for an Abrahamic.

He clearly said that he'd vote for the Abrahamic candidate even if that candidate was inferior to the other candidate.

Regards.

*sigh.* Paganism is not a 'cult,' as the word's defined, Concerned: for that you need certain things like central authority structures and other things you won't find in Paganism.

As for the rest.... err.

the venerable Mr Nyang
has contributed a few columns to this site
that are as unbelievably obtuse as this one.

if, like me, you are shaking your head in disbelief that he could actually take this position,
review some of the earlier ones.

If it were not for the "bred to kill", koranic crazies, we would need significantly fewer military personnel and therefore significantly fewer chaplins of any religion or pagan cult.

Jihadist, you should emphasize the eradication of these "bred to kill" crazies in your liberal Islamic commentaries. Until you do, we unbelievers will continue for our own safety to adhere to the following principle:

Gators vs. Muslims-- Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims it depends but with the koran as their operating manual, we cannot trust any of them. The recent conduct of the seven Islamic doctors in Great Britain proves the point.

DR. Nyang states his prejudice, that all things being equal he prefers another follower of Abraham. In reality all things are rarely equal. I don't see where he would necessarily rule anyone out for being a member of a different faith, just that he is confessing that he'd find them harder to understand.

I feel that way about certain kinds of Christians. I have voted for born-agains in the past in spite of their religion, but only when the candidate had some other strong argument in his or her favor. In 21st century America you also have to make sure they -- especially Christians -- don't apply too many religious tests to political questions.

So we do have a litmus test for religion. I wonder if the black man who knew he was qualified felt marginalized by his skin color? Should those who are Pagan be a part of Don't ask, don't tell?
Do we meet back in the shadows for our worship?

So we are citizens but not quite good enough to be given every right of all other citizens. Blah!

PP, last I read was that by 2012 we will be the third largest religion in this country. Shall numbers make us more worthy of leadership...any more then the lone Muslim in the Congress? Does might make right? It must in this nation of the free and brave.

We can pay taxes, love our country, fight in her wars, serve in all ways allowed, but not accepted because of religion. I wonder how the Deist founders that called on Nature's God would feel?
terra

"I prefer to confer my vote on a fellow Abrahamic." and I, as a Muslim, would confer mine on a pagan many times over before I vote for another Christian fundamentalist or a neocon Jew; We are all aware of the consequences of having them in power. I say: Panganplace for president! :)

"I prefer to confer my vote on a fellow Abrahamic." and I, as a Muslim, would confer mine on a pagan many times over before I vote for another Christian fundamentalit or a neocon Jew. We are all aware of the consequences of having them in power. I say Pagaplace for president :)

"Whatever happened to the belief to do what is best for the community?"

This is why America's deeply endangered by obligatory public piety and and Abrahamic 'religious tests' for office.

Sulayman Nyang

You stated : "Not because I do not like all of them at the individual level, but because since I have the choice to vote or not to vote for whoever I want, I prefer to confer my vote on a fellow Abrahamic."

Masha Allah!

You have not actually been to other Muslim majority countries have you? Including Indonesia and Malaysia.

Muslims in Bali voted for Hindu candidates. Muslims in Malaysia voted for Chinese Buddhists and atheists and Indian Hindus and Sikhs, and not just those of the Abrahamic faiths. Party platform, personal characteristics are important criteria, not just personal beliefs and level of piety. There are even Zoarasters in the Iranian Parliament and they are not of the Abrahamic faith.

My Member of Parliament is a Chinese atheist. He is a better public servant than the Muslim voted out. It is all about issues and delivery of services as expected by constituents. It is useless and pointless to vote along race and religion anymore.

It would seem that some Muslims in some Muslim countries are more open and accepting of others not Muslim or of the People of the Book than some American Muslims.

Whatever happened to the belief that the best person accepted by consensus lead and serve a community? Whatever happened to the belief to do what is best for the community?

Never mind and thank God there is no central authority in Islam. A billion Muslims can make a billion interpretations on Suras and Hadiths so it seems and for the better too in the long run for the weeding out of bad beliefs and interpretations.

As with the muftis, members of the ulema and Muslim scholars in Muslim countries, you will have to fight it out in public for the hearts and minds of Muslims, who as ever, remain independent and critical of fatwas and views of the Muslim muftis, members of the ulema and scholars unless they make perfect sense in their lives. Muslims do ridicule and/or question them for their more interesting pronouncements.

May peace be with you.

Who knew Cal Thomas had a black brother?

The absurdity of Mr Nyang's conclusions about voting has been demonstrated in the first three apt responses.

How can Mr Nyang not have anticipated these obvious cannon balls fired through his morally and ethically and intellectually flimsy position?

(sound of my head shaking sadly).

"...I prefer to confer my vote on a fellow Abrahamic."

Even if the Abrahamic candidate was a vastly inferior candidate to the Pagan?

Even if the Abrahamic candidate was a Muslim convicted of terrorism?

Fair enough, I suppose.

But I wonder:

Would you choose to cast a vote for a 'Fellow Abrahamic' with whom you disagreed and was less qualified to represent you, if the alternative were a Pagan whose policies you approved of?

As for characterizing our struggle for the rights and freedoms that our citizenship is supposed to guarantee us as this:

"clamoring for recognition beyond the acceptance of their citizenship"

That sounds like the old conservative saw that people who don't want to be marginalized by Abrahamic power blocs.... who seek the equality that is our birthright, ....are looking for 'special rights'

I'll tell you this, ...we're not such a 'tiny fringe minority' as we're sometimes cast... I think estimates run to near a million of us, anyway. The last time there was a major Pagan gathering in Washington, the press estimates of our numbers, nationally, were so lowballed that it would appear every single Pagan in America was there, according to the park Service. (Sorry, folks, couldn't make it. :))

I think seven hundred thousand is the current accounting, and given how many of us ...don't stand up to be counted in that sort of way, I wouldn't think a million is an unreasonable figure.

Certainly, there are more Pagans (that's just the ones serving openly) in the military than Muslims, and as numbers go, I believe there are more of us counted in the population at large. (I need to go find these figures, I think.)

However fringey that makes us.

"Much as they have their rights to be part and parcel of the American enterprise, I would personally find it difficult to cast my vote for them.

"Not because I do not like all of them at the individual level, but because since I have the choice to vote or not to vote for whoever I want, I prefer to confer my vote on a fellow Black Man."