This page contains links and my comments related to maintaining constitutional provisions for Freedom from religion, and for increasing such protections. More precisely, I further document my total objection to any form of state endorsement or subsidization of religious beliefs or sentiments of any kind. It is a continuation of the pages My religious beliefs (MyRel010, 020).
Go Home.
Contents of Freedom from religion and related pages
Articles and links
. . . Page contents for My religious beliefs
. . . Links, My religious beliefs
. . . Links, Freedom from religion
. . . Articles from the Web
Directory of links re Freedom from religion
. . . Anti-secularism page ___ Atheism page
. . . Become a legally ordained minister
. . . The Biblical Ten Commandments violates the U.S. Constitution
. . . Can an atheist hold public office?
. . . Canadian coins also contain a reference to God
. . . The case against Catholicism
. . . Catholic Church opposes freedom of religion
. . . Church-State separation in Constitution ___ Clerical Fascism ___ Cloning
. . . Court decisions
. . . END WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT - TAX THE CHURCH
. . . George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative: a very regressive idea
. . . God Bless America: efforts to remove its state endorsement and display
. . . In God we Trust: efforts to remove the motto
. . . Links, My religious beliefs ___ Matthew 6:5-8 re prayer in public
. . . Organizations ___ Posting of signs and displays ___ Posting of Ten Commandments ___ Prayer in public
. . . Prayer in schools ___ Pressure to conform ___ Reference to God in Constitutions
. . . Religion is a threat to national security and sanity
. . . Reports on religious freedoms and abuses
. . . State-subsidized religious discrimination in: Canada __ Islamic countries __ Israel __ Saudi Arabia
. . . Supreme Being in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is religious discrimination
. . . Tax exemptions ___ Tax exemptions of Churches in Canada
. . . there are a lot of churches that provide no demonstrable benefit for society
. . . We need less prayer, not more ___ what is meant by prayers
Become a legally ordained minister
Universal Life Church Online: http://ulc.net/wiccan.htm Become ordained here today and begin your own ministry! As a legally ordained minister, you may perform weddings, funerals, baptisms and other functions of the clergy. . . . for life, without cost, and without question of faith.
In existence since 1959, the Universal Life Church is headquartered in Modesto, California, and has congregations around the world. . . .
Ministry Packages We offer the following ministry packages to enable you to obtain a selection of the most often needed materials for beginning your ministry. . . .
. . . Apply by email. Ordinations are conducted several times each week, so normally you will hear from us within a day or two. . . . by email.
[Might you have tax exemptions in mind? I do! Does Revenue Canada Taxation?]
Can an atheist hold public office?
Separation Articles: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/notary.htm Atheist Vies For S.C. Notary Status by Jesse J. Holland. Oct. 3, 1996.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- Herb Silverman is an atheist who wants to be a notary public. South Carolina won't allow it.
Silverman contends that's because he refuses to acknowledge God, a requirement in the state constitution for all public officers. So today he took his case to a higher authority -- the state Supreme Court.
The battle is about more than just being a notary public, with the authority to witness signatures and, in this state, even preside at weddings. Silverman, a 54-year-old math professor at the College of Charleston, says it's the first step in fighting for atheists' rights in a Bible Belt state.
"The first thing people ask you when you move here is what church you go to, and when you tell them that you don't believe in God, all of a sudden you don't have many friends," said Silverman, a Philadelphia native who moved to South Carolina in 1976.
A lower court judge sided with Silverman, throwing out the constitution's "God clause."
The state appealed, contending the case isn't about religion. Silverman, who crossed out the word God in "so help me God," should not have crossed out any word on the notary application, and besides, he did not have enough of the required signatures on his second application, the state's lawyers say. . . .
The only other states that require in their constitutions that public officers have a belief in a higher power are Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, said Robert Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, based in Washington, D.C. The rule, however, is not enforced, he added.
In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require constitutional officers to profess a belief in God. . . .
South Carolina Court Okays Atheists for Public Office. ACLU NewsWire. July 31, 1997.
An atheist does not have to swear to a "supreme being" to hold public office in South Carolina, the state Supreme Court has ruled. . . .
Church-State separation in Constitution
Founding fathers and early presidents were not pro-Christian, contrary to popular belief (Page 417)
George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative: a very regressive idea (Page Relig417)
State-subsidized religious discrimination in various countries.
State-subsidized religious discrimination in Canada
Supreme Being in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is religious discrimination
We need less prayer, not more: (letter) no state official should be urging people to pray; it constitutes state endorsement of religion.
OnlineAthens NewsTant Church, state separation is not a myth 10-09-99: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/100999/opi_1009990028.shtml
. . .
Republican shill and Christian Coalition top gun Pat Robertson who has called the Jeffersonian
doctrine of church-state separation ''a myth'' and ''a lie of the
left.'' . . . the real myth seems to be the myth
of the liberal media.
Those
who want a theocracy in this somewhat free country would be well
advised to settle somewhere like Iran, where church and state are
merged. Some of those authoritarian Americans might fit in well
among the ayatollahs. . . .
For the rest of us, the separation of church
and state is not a myth, but a mantra. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was quite correct in 1947 when he
wrote, ''The
First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That
wall must be left high and impregnable.''
President and Army Gen. Ulysses Grant spoke the truth in 1875 when he urged
all Americans to ''Leave
the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the
private schools, supported entirely by private contributors. Keep
the church and state forever separated.''
Thomas
Jefferson shows why he was
called the Sage of Monticello when he wrote in 1813, ''History I believe
furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free
civil government.''
Still, the myths continue. Evangelical editors
who would tell readers that America was founded ''on Christian
principles'' would do well to read the words of John Adams who, though he said, ''The Ten Commandments and the
sermon on the mount contain my religion,'' also wrote nearly two
centuries ago that ''the
government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion.''
Those who think that Christian prayer in
schools and at sporting events will provide some sort of panacea
for our perilous times should look back at the segregated South
of the Jim Crow era. . . . white schoolchildren
pledged allegiance to the flag and prayed in school each morning,
yet the South still was a moral cesspool of America because of
the region's treatment of its black citizens, treatment that often was
sanctioned by white churches. As crusading editor Ralph McGill
reminded his fellow Southerners in 1963, ''With a handful of
magnificent exceptions, Christianity in the South, even in some
of the larger urban centers, has supported discrimination.''
America has the highest church attendance of
any Western nation, yet conservative Christian commentators
continue to push the big lie that Christians are somehow
discriminated against. . . .
Those
who would tear down the wall of church-state separation to push
for shows of public piety at high school football games would do
well to remember that Christ admonished his
followers to pray in private, in secret and not for show. [See Matthew
6:5-8 re prayer in public and We need less prayer, not more.] . . .
Religious Freedom vs Religion: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/batte-rf.htm The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State. Excellent discussion of misquoted Madison and why state funding of religious schools should not be allowed -- through vouchers, for example.
The Southeast Michigan Chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://www.atheistalliance.org/michigan/ RELIGION: SOCIETY'S OPPRESSOR. Ways in which religious beliefs promote mental illness, violence, spousal abuse, and criminality. Detailed references to studies by psychologists.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AT RISK.
The Religious Freedom Amendment, which was recently approved by the House Judiciary Committee, is a tremendous threat to religious freedom in the United States. The Religious Freedom Amendment, promoted by Congressman Ernest Istook, ("Religious . . . Introduced" 1) a far-right activist, reads:
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. ("Religious . . . Introduced" 1)
The wording of this proposal is intentionally deceiving. Who would question religious freedom? But what many Americans may not consider is the fact that our Bill of Rights already contains a religious freedom amendment. The First Amendment of our Bill of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ." But for some reason the religious freedom of the First Amendment does not satisfy the religious right. Why not? Because the First Amendment protects the religious freedom of all Americans, while providing a wall of separation between church and state. What the religious-right wants is the freedom to proselytize in schools, in government, and all other public arenas, and they want to use our tax dollars in doing so. The religious-right is in favor of fundamentalist, Christian religious freedom; not the freedom to believe and practice according to the dictates of one's own conscience. That, however, is not religious freedom. . . .
It is critical that citizens express this concern to their House and Senate representatives and keep a close eye on what is transpiring with this amendment. Currently, Americans truly enjoy religious freedom. It is imperative that we fight to keep it that way.
The Oslo Declaration on Freedom of Religion or Belief: http://www.kirken.no/engelsk/engelsk_oslo.html The conference adopteed the following statement: THE OSLO DECLARATION on FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF . . .
Recognize that religions and beliefs teach peace and good will; . . .
Recognize that religions and beliefs may be misused** to cause intolerance, discrimination and prejudice, and have all to often been used to deny the rights and freedoms of others; . . . [** This is partly a cop-out. Some major abuses are caused not by misuse but by the 'proper' use in accordance with the religion.]
Urge scholars and teachers to study and apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1981 Declaration as universal standards on freedom of religion or belief and as a way to solve problems of intolerance and discrimination caused by competing beliefs; . . .
The Globe and Mail Search:
Cloning stirs up storm By DANIEL LEBLANC. With reports from Reuters and AFP. Nov. 27, 2001 – Print Edition, Page A1.
OTTAWA -- World leaders expressed nearly universal condemnation yesterday of a U.S. laboratory's cloning of a human embryo.
U.S. President George W. Bush said that such acts were morally wrong and should be forbidden.
"We should not as a society grow life to destroy it, and that's exactly what's taking place," Mr. Bush said.
The Vatican called for the "unequivocal condemnation" of the research into the cloning of embryos.
"The beginning of human life cannot be fixed by convention at a certain stage of embryonic development; it takes place, in reality, already at the first instant of the embryo itself," the Vatican said . . .
Quotes from many leaders -- scientific and political -- contra such cloning. . . .
Advanced Cell Technology Inc., based in Massachussets, announced on Sunday that it had created a six-celled human embryo from an egg, but not a sperm, as part of experiments into "therapeutic cloning." It said such embryos might eventually yield stem cells, undifferentiated cells that can transform into various body tissues. . . .
The Russian Orthodox Church condemned the U.S. cloning experiment sharply yesterday, saying the destruction of the embryo involved was tantamount to murder.
"We condemn therapeutic, as well as reproductive, cloning because the embryo from the moment of conception can be considered the carrier of human dignity** and blessed with the gift of life," Father Antony Ilyin, an official representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, said.
** A weird concept! See next entry for comments from the Globe and Mail.
A theologian (Christian scholar REGINALD STACKHOUSE) defends cloning, as does an ordained priest of the Anglican Church:
ZENIT News Agency--The World Seen from Rome: http://www.zenit.org/english/ Human Cloning Is Grave Threat to Life, John Paul II Says. Reaction to Experiment Carried Out by U.S. Company.
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 28, 2001 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II warned that human cloning experiments are a scientifically programmed threat against human life.
. . . in the wake an
announcement this week by U.S.-based Advanced
Cell Technology Inc. that it had cloned a
human embryo.
"True humanism can never allow methods and experiments that
are scientifically and systematically programmed threats against
human life," the Holy Father stated today.
. . . The Vatican Press Office published a statement Monday
denouncing "the
dramatic character" and moral "gravity" of the
human cloning experiment.
A human
being
** was created, which was still in
the embryonic stage, and was then destroyed,
the Vatican document stated. The statement suggested that, in the
future, medicine
should experiment with stem cells taken from adults***, which have proved
scientifically valid and which respect the dignity of human life.
My (WRP) comments:
** According to a stem-cell research scientist interviewed on CBC Radio 1 in Ottawa on 27 Nov 01, the so-called human being in question resulted from the growth of a single fertilized cell that had reproduced through six generations of cell divisions -- for a total number of cells = 2**6 = 64, according to my calculations, although this conflicts somewhat with his statement that the final 'being' consisted of about 150 cells or less. Just how much of a human being can there be with just 150 cells to work on? Could it cry Mamma? Even calling it an embryo, although scientifically correct I presume, is somewhat inflammatory in light of its more usual interpretation as being a potential human being of more than just 150 cells. How many cells are there in a flea?
*** The scientist is pursuing work primarily with stem cells from adults, although he thinks that stem cells from very young embryos offer greater potential.
The scientist and I disagree with the Vatican. This is not a situation in which the intent is to clone living beings that will become babies. The reasoning of the Vatican seems to be based on the premises that (1) a collection of cells can be called a person or a human being, and (2) human life is sacred. I maintain that both premises are false. On premise (2) the Vatican seems to contradict itself when it seems to prohibit abortion on the basis that life is sacred, in spite of the fact that the Vatican is in favor of the death penalty (and of the killing of people in justified warfare). See my following letters, which include detailed references to the Catholic Encyclopedia -- an excellent source of information:
Abortion as death penalty? Why is the Catholic Church against abortion when it is not, in principle, against killing adults?
Archbishop offers a refreshing dissent re could religious terrorists go to heaven. Yes, they could, but I might not!
God Bless America: efforts to remove its state endorsement and display
ACLU Says God Bless America Unconstitutional in School: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/541459/posts School rallies to retain sign: The ACLU says the message 'God Bless America' divides kids by religion and is unconstitutional. By Ryan McCarthy, Bee Correspondent. Oct. 6, 2001.
. . . an instructional aide at Breen, said, "Rocklin has been closer than ever in the wake of the terrorist attacks. It's so sad this has arisen."
The ACLU contends that the words broadcast "a hurtful, divisive message."
The organization's . . . letter to Breen Elementary calls the message a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code."
"It must be replaced immediately," says the letter from . . . the ACLU of Northern California . . .
In God we Trust: efforts to remove the motto
Fact Sheet OPC-11 -- History of the Motto In God We Trust: http://www.ustreas.gov/opc/opc0011.html Office of Public Correspondence (OPC), Department of the Treasury The Learning Vault. The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. . . . This gives the production history, but not the legal wrangles.
The American Center for Law and Justice - ACLJ - Jay Sekulow: http://www.aclj.org/news/nf_010919_in_god_we_trust.asp FROM: Jay Sekulow RE: Legislative history of the words "in God we trust" in the national motto. . . . Supreme Court Pronouncements on the Constitutionality of the National Motto. . . .
Conclusion
Under existing case law, there is very little upon which to stake an argument that the national motto violates the Establishment Clause. All authority on point is against such a contention.(2) Although enterprising lawyers can find support for just about any proposition in the Supreme Court's multifarious Establishment Clause pronouncements, pressing a claim that the national motto violates the First Amendment comes close to frivolousness.
Excellent.
In God We Trust Appeal, Freethought Today, Jan-Feb 1996: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/jan_feb96/tiernan.html "In God We Trust" Appeal By Robert Tiernan. This was delivered on Nov. 11, 1995, to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit.
. . . It is our position that "In God We Trust" has no secular purpose. The government argues that it does; that the objective is to have a national motto and that this objective makes it secular. This is fallacious. The motive is to have a national motto; the purpose is to have a law mandating "In God We Trust" on coins. The first is secular; the second is religious.
Ford has a plant in Dearborn, Michigan. The motive for building the plant was to provide transportation to the consuming public. The purpose is to build cars.
Looking at it another way, the end of "In God We Trust" is to have a national motto. That may be laudable. The means is "In God We Trust." That is not laudable. It is unconstitutional. This court should not let the end justify the means.
It is also our position that the effect of "In God We Trust" is to endorse and promote religion. That question of endorsement is one of fact, that is, would a reasonable observer consider or not consider it state endorsement of religion. . . .
we leave the court with the following thought.
"In God We Trust"
What about "In God We Believe"? Would that be acceptable? Probably not. Yet, trust implies belief plus reliance. Therefore, "In God We Trust" is worse than "In God We Believe."
What about "In Jesus We Trust"? There would be a hue and cry. I believe this court would be very likely to hold "In Jesus We Trust" unconstitutional. And yet, the difference between "In Jesus" and "In God" is not one of a kind, but one of degree. They are both out of the same cloth. It would be odd to say that one is unconstitutional and the other is not.
What about "In Muhammed We Trust"? There would be a greater hue and cry.
What about "In Atheism We Trust"? Another hue and cry.
If "In God We Trust" is acceptable as the district court held, why wouldn't these other ones be equally acceptable?
"In God We Trust" is inaccurate and misleading. It would be accurate to say, "In God Some Trust." It would be more accurate to say, "In God Some Trust and Some Don't."
This is not a nation under God. We have a completely secular constitution which contains a prohibition against religious establishments. Putting religious beliefs on money is repulsive to our constitution. Not allowing us to present the facts supporting our complaint is contrary to accepted procedure. Therefore, we ask that this case be returned to the lower court for a trial. . . .
In God We Trust Lawsuit: http://www.ffrf.org/igwt.html
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sued the federal government to have "In God We Trust" removed from currency and as our national motto.
The motto was put on all paper currency by an Act of Congress in 1955. The phrase was chosen as our national motto by an Act of Congress in 1956. It first appeared on paper currency in 1957.
The Foundation lawsuit was dismissed by a 10th-circuit federal judge on the grounds that "In God We Trust" ** is not a religious phrase. The Foundation appealed the dismissal.
[** If that is not a religious phrase, what is? Incredible!]
Includes links to the details.
U.S. national mottos E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust: http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. THE U.S. NATIONAL MOTTOS: History, debate, origins, controversy. . . .
American currency since 1957 has included the motto "In God We Trust." The Freedom from Religion Foundation has been unable to find any other country in the world which has a religious motto on their money. However, it appears that: . . . Although not a motto, many British coins contain a drawing of the queen identified as "Elizabeth II D.G. REG. F.D." This is an abbreviation of a Latin phrase which means "Elizabeth II by Grace of God Defender of the Faith." In Britain, the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Canadian coins carry the phrase "Elizabeth II D.G. Regina." She is the queen of Canada but not "Defender of the Faith," because Canada does not have a state religion for her to defend.
[So, in light of the D.G. (by Grace of God) on Canadian coins, Canadian coins also contain a reference to God. This is totally unaceptable in a secular society.]
This is an excellent site with many links.
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union Home page: http://www.aclu.org/index.html
American Atheists: http://www.atheists.org A Service of AMERICAN ATHEISTS "Leading The Way For Atheist Civil Rights And The Separation Of Church And State."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State: http://www.au.org/
"Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
...The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The Constitution mandates it. Most Americans believe in it. But today it is under threat as never before.
Church-state separation stands as one of the foundations of our Nation. Because of it, Americans enjoy unparalleled religious liberty and nurture one of the most vital religious communities in the world. Separation guarantees you the freedom to worship or not to worship as you choose.
But today, powerful religious leaders and misguided politicians have joined forces to undercut the First Amendment. Here's how you can help preserve your liberties.
Protecting Religious Freedom
Since 1947, Americans United has worked to protect the constitutional principle of church-state separation, a vital cornerstone of religious liberty. . . .
Mandatory prayer in public schools, tax dollars for parochial schools, government intrusion into religious affairs and meddling in partisan politics by religious groups are among the troubling issues that threaten the protective wall between church and state. Daily, on your behalf, we confront these problems and those who seek to force their religious views on the public.
Americans United, with more than 60,000 members . . .
Litigation Working Through The Courts
Americans United calls on the expertise of the Nation's leading church-state lawyers to direct our program of protecting religious rights and church-state separation through court action.
We are regularly involved in a large number of court cases, setting legal precedents in behalf of church-state separation. We initiate lawsuits, provide legal counsel and support in other cases, and serve as partners in joint lawsuits.
. . . many of our cases have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. . . .
Educating Decision-Makers And The Public
Each month Americans United publishes Church & State, an authoritative and often-quoted magazine covering the church-state field. . . .
Excellent site and articles!
Baylor University Church-State Studies: http://www.baylor.edu/Church_State/Church-State_organizations.html Links to Organizations and Web-sites Related to Religion and Politics and Contemporary Church-State Issues. . . . The list includes both "liberal" and "conservative," "separationist" and "accomodationist" organization and perspectives. While most of the sites are of interest to American religion and politics, a few international ones are included . . . . Many excellent links.
Freedom from Religion: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/rel/freefrom.htm
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.: http://www.ffrf.org/ Since 1978, the nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation has been working to keep state and church separate and to educate the public about the views of nontheists.
The Freedom From Religion Organization. http://ffro.org/
Positive Atheism Magazine (since 1995): http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml
OCRT An agency promoting religious tolerance as a human right: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance.
ZENIT News Agency--The World Seen from Rome: http://www.zenit.org/english/
ZENIT is an International News Agency.
Our mission is to provide objective and professional coverage of events, documents and issues emanating from or concerning the Catholic Church for a worldwide audience, especially the media.
Our team consists of independent, professional journalists, translators and information staff
Freethinkers of Colorado Springs news and happenings that affect our world and our Colorado communities: http://www.freethinkerscs.com/news.html Posted Nov. 22, 2001: AANews (cg@atheists.org) American Atheists.
A sign declaring "God Bless
America"
which was put up in response to the September 11 terrorist
attacks has now been removed following complaints by a student.
According to the El Paso Times, the
unidentified senior class member told school authorities that the
marquee slogan was inappropriate and even offensive, and that a
more inclusive patriotic message needed to be displayed instead.
The signs now boasts "United We Stand."
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a
resolution giving public schools the right to display the "God
Bless America" slogan which critics say endorses religion and
violates the separation of church and state. The measure is now before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. The motto has been at the center of a
national debate, though, with many religious and political groups
encouraging its display.
Assistant Principal Mike Olivas of Eastwood High School said that
he had "no problem" with the religious slogan.
"The senior who wrote the letter is a very intelligent,
articulate student who felt that some students were offended by
the 'God Bless America' message and
suggested we be more inclusive." The issue was originally
raised by a group of Del Valle High School journalism students
who are part of the CNN Student Bureau in El Paso. Dr. Melvin
Straus, a political science
professor emeritus at University of Texas at El Paso said that the students "have raised a
legitimate issue," and noted the inconsistent policy
regarding the First Amendment separation of church and state.
. . . Hector Garcia, a student at Del Valle,
told the Times that he questioned the right of schools to promote
religious belief. Another student, Oscar Juarez, said that he did
not believe in a deity and was offended by the "God
Bless America sign." Others . . .
defended the marquee, pointing to the inscription of "In
God We Trust" on dollar bills.
A nun serving in the Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso expressed
displeasure that the sign had been changed, declaring that
America "has taken the separation of church and
state way beyond what it was intended."
Rabbi Stephen Leon of a local Jewish congregation said that
taking down the religious slogan was "trivial,
coming as it does when we still remember Columbine and the
September 11 attacks and (when) we're asking for God's
blessing."
Pastor Frank Proffer of the Cielo Vista Church was also upset. "If
there's ever a time when we need God in every aspect of our
society nd in every part of our life, it's now,"
he said. "By taking down the 'God
Bless America' sign, we're asking God, once again, to leave the
public schools."
[It was specifically inended by the signers of the Constitution that God should never have been in the public schools in the first place. These religious spokesmen exhibit, once again, the intolerance of religious freedom by their religions. Founding fathers were not Christian]
We need less prayer, not more: (letter) no state official should be urging people to pray; it constitutes state endorsement of religion.
Good advice about public prayer: http://www.reporternews.com/opinion/molly0611.html June 11, 1998. By Molly Ivins.
AUSTIN -- For bigotry, un-American and un-Christian behavior, it's pretty hard to top some of the lobbying on behalf of the Istook amendment, which failed in the U.S. House on a vote of 224-203 . . .
Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas described the amendment as "a horrible solution in search of a problem." The so-called Religious Freedom Amendment was an effort to "improve" the work of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other Founders by Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma. This would be less droll if Istook were not such a knothead.
The Istook amendment undertook to solve a nonexistent problem. It was supposed to establish religious liberty in the United States -- as though the First Amendment had not already done so (in mercifully fewer words than Istook's poorly written, vaporous amendment ) and as though America has not been the envy of the world for over 200 years for the extent of our religious freedom.
Freedom of conscience is the very first of all the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights. What Istook is aiming for is forced prayer in the schools.
Voluntary prayer is, of course, permitted at all times and in all places. However, the Supreme Court has held since 1962 that mandatory prayer composed by the state and led by school authorities is not permitted.** Students are free to meet on their own for prayer in school.
. . . the Christian Coalition attacked those who opposed the amendment for "anti-Christian bigotry." Hello?
To take a stand that clearly threatens to impose one set of religious beliefs on everyone else and then attack them for bigotry is seriously bizarre. Pat Robertson -- a man with his own television network and multimillion-dollar enterprises and a powerful political operation under his influence -- actually compared Christians in America today to Jews in Germany under the Nazis. . . .
For American Christians to claim they are somehow victims of bigotry is just standing reality on its head.
I've always thought these problems would disappear if Christians would just read Matthew 6:5-8:
"But when you pray do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogue and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." -- Jesus.
The Bible says not to make a show of piety. Good advice, I always thought. [Me too!]
** Rightfully so! Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Canada's situation, in which separate (Catholic-only) schools, including prayer, are actually funded by the state -- in blatant violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights treaties for the prevention of religious discrimination. I find this situation to be intolerable. No such funding for any religion should be allowed! Nor should prayers in Government service at any level, nor any mention of prayer by any public official in carrying out his official duties -- including the Prime Minister. Allowing for such things amounts to state endorsement and indoctrination of people as to the validity of religious belief. Let's leave such indoctrination to the Communists, separate-school supporters in Canada and Germany, and the Islamic Mullahs -- they are all very strong endorsers of such indoctrination, as was Hitler, a strong supporter of state-subsidized religious schools.
What's Wrong With A Few Harmless Prayers: http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/whatsafewprayers.html What's Wrong With a Few Harmless Prayers in Courtrooms or Classrooms? By Ronald J. Barrier, American Atheists National Media Coordinator, Summer 1997.
. . . in Etowah County, Alabama, circuit judge Roy Moore hit the major headlines . . . as to just how far an elected official can force his religious beliefs on others or use religious belief as a tool for personal political advancement. . . . Mr. Moore was in the habit of conducting daily prayers in his courtroom as well as exhibiting a wooden display depicting the fictitious Ten Commandments. . . . the ACLU, on behalf of the Alabama Freethought Society, received a ruling against these practices from Judge Charles Price -- not only another Alabama judge but a steward of the St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church as well. In effect, Judge Price issued an injunction enjoining Judge Moore from conducting prayers and, upon a second review, to remove the Ten Commandments display. Judge Price had determined, and rightly so, that the Ten Commandments "replica" was nothing short of "purely religious in nature."
Well, as Christian goodwill would have it, Judge Moore not only refused to stop inviting exclusively Christian clergy to conduct prayer ceremonies at the beginning of court proceedings, he also refused to remove the decalogue. Then Alabama Governor Fob James joined the party -- threatening to call out "the national guard, and the Alabama football team" to prevent the commandments from being removed. . . .
Sacramento, California was the site of the last American Atheists convention in 1993. The featured speaker, Madalyn Murray-O'Hair, was giving those in attendance an in-depth analysis of the Atheist dilemma in a theistic society. But besides the obvious hazards, she also addressed the cowardice of many Atheists and other freethinkers to address the issues, especially when it comes to religious beliefs, in a direct, up-front manner. Regarding the prayer debate, she questioned why many Atheists would rely solely on constitutional arguments and First-Amendment interpretations to battle the pro-prayer forces. She questioned why Atheists did not ask that question which is the central issue regarding the ritual of prayer, "To whom is this prayer to be addressed?" . . .
we received many communications via e-mail . . . I have chosen one which to me represents a concise composite . . . It goes like this: "Come on you guys (and gals)! What's wrong with a few harmless prayers in courtrooms or classrooms? Isn't it simply one's freedom of speech?"
First let us consider exactly what is meant by prayers, let alone the "harmless" variety. Prayer, if it is to be considered in its most commonly accepted concept, i.e., communication with a perceived power, carries with it certain theological baggage from which it cannot be distanced. The following preconditions, or presuppositions, must be part of one's mental state before undertaking such an activity. You must be mentally pliable and sufficiently submissive to accept the following statements without any degree of skepticism whatsoever:
(1) There is a self-conscious, self-aware, determinate being responsible for the creation and maintenance of the cosmos and all life within it. This being is also capable of manipulating our thoughts and influencing our actions and ultimately is responsible for the fate of each and everyone one of us.
(2) This being is accessible twenty-four hours a day and access can be accomplished in any number of ways. In certain religions this can be accomplished through individual, direct, subjective communication. Most religions resort to organized gatherings through which a representative of that being is designated or appointed, i.e., a priest, mullah, rabbi, minister, etc., to act as a magnifier or conduit. This conduit, or channeler, can "funnel" the collective needs of the congregants and, by virtue of special communicative status, can enhance the supplications by adding a certain degree of urgency to the matter. Many theists actually believe that this organized collective groan, funnelled through a magic man, is more beneficial than their own solo performances could be and will elicit a quick and favorable response to their supplications.
(3) This being not only can be communicated with but will, upon whim, actively and consciously decide which of the supplications it will grant and which it will deny. This takes into consideration that this being has the time to process literally millions of such individual supplications on a daily, if not hourly, basis. This being is also capable of suspending the laws of nature (as we understand them) in order to perform mighty feats of magic for the purposes of persuasion and to elicit expressions of awe, supplication, and - ultimately - slavish submission.
Taking the above three preconditions into consideration, the prayer debate takes on a new dimension which is overlooked in the media. The language which couches the debate utilizes religious euphemisms to disguise the actual agenda -which is to force people to pray. While everyone is discussing prayer in a cavalier and off-the-cuff manner, as if everyone is doing it, the issue of just what exactly is prayer is totally and completely ignored. This is intentional. Why? Let us dissect this divine communication called prayer . . .
The question for Atheists is, How can one look upon all of this and come to the conclusion that it is harmless? It is our conclusion that all of the above is in fact harmful -- very harmful and antithetical to Human Reason. Prayer, in the context described above, is conjuring. You are either summoning the assistance of spirits and hobgoblins, or in the Christian faith, contacting a specific dead person . . . and requesting his influence . . .
. . . how does the this situation affect our public schools, public courtrooms, public anywhere? The public schools are for education, not indoctrination. The schools are there for young people to learn how to think, not what to think. The responsibility of whether or not a child is to be brainwashed in religious hokum is up to the parents of that child, not to the parents of their classmates and friends - and certainly not the state. Additionally, this should not be determined by "majority rule" or "mob rule" (which is the term I wish to apply to this situation). This is not an issue subject to popular vote. None of the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment are subject to "majority rule." Just read it and tell me where there is one freedom that you personally value that you would subject to the voting process.
The idea of Christian prayers in the public schools is a Trojan Horse from which other forms of Christian mysticism can crawl out into the school curriculum. It is also a way to expose minor children to religion behind parents' backs and without their permission. . . . It is a blatant attempt to prey on the immature and formative minds of young children before they have developed the critical thinking skills necessary to understand and debate arguments predicated upon appeals to emotion and superstitious ramblings. . . .
The courtroom is supposed to be, at least in theory, where we all stand equal before the law, not before a lord. The first amendment guarantees individual freedom when it comes to holding religious ideas. . . . each of us is free to study, research, embrace, or reject any and all religions. . . . that we have the freedom to choose one religion over all others or to be free from religion completely. This right has no bearing in a court of law and no judge who is elected or appointed by a secular government should be requiring those that have to be in that courtroom, on that day, and at that time -- . . . to participate in the choreographed conjuring rituals of a specific religious persuasion. This is nothing but heavy-handed harassment and is as complete a violation of intellectual freedom as can exist. . . . This is simply Christianity rampant, using the state as a mechanism to coerce and brainwash citizens into thinking that the state endorses Christian theological claims.
Unbelievably, a majority of Christian Americans firmly believe that somehow our First Amendment rights come from the First Commandment. They simply do not realize that the First Commandment does not allow for any of this. The First Commandment expressly states who is to be worshipped. There is no room for discussion. Doubt is a character flaw, and rejection is punishable by divine retribution.
Many have claimed that the idea of prayer in schools or in courtrooms is a matter of free speech.This is not an issue of free speech, because we already have free speech. Supplicants are free verbally to grovel or debase themselves in front of their imagined deity anytime, and anyone who understands religion knows this. They are free to build and support any edifice as exercises of symbolic speech, conduct any meetings, and believe any lunatic idea without any infringement on their rights.
What is occurring is that right-wing, evangelical Christians are manipulating the state into giving them leave to charge into any building of their choosing and command all to stop whatever they are doing, so they can satisfy their self-absorbed urge to conduct ritualistic gyrations in front of the unwilling or uninterested. And then to top it off, they would blame the audience because of a resistance to participate. They would blame the audience because divine communication cannot be effectively established unless they are silent and in a posture displaying the reverent awe required for this intrusive behavior.
Just look in the phone book: why does no one look there to find the hundreds of thousands of churches in the United States where they can participate in every type of channeling exercise imaginable? Why are churches the last places the religious wish to perform their orchestrated supplications? The answer is obvious: prayer is ineffective within those buildings. It has been suggested that prayer is much more effective in front of a television camera or on a stage.
No. The issue has nothing to do with free speech, but everything to do with respect - a virtue not found in Christian theology. Respect for the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Respect for the diversity of opinions held by the people. . . .
Christianity has long resented the omission of explicitly Christian terminology in our Constitution, and this grudge rears its ugly head during these prayer controversies. The history of Chistianity's dealings over the past centuries in the face of religious competition or outright rejection is written in blood and the carbon black of burned flesh. There is no reason to think it would be any different today if we did not have the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
See also Prayer in public.
Taking Disbelief Out of the Closet: http://members.aol.com/Alaco/dershowitz1.htm "Taking Disbelief Out of the Closet"by Alan M. Dershowitz, Guest Author. Published in "Free Inquiry", Summer, 1999.
The most insidious genre of censorial political correctness in America today involved belief in God. Few people in public life are prepared to disclose that they are atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or humanists. For a politician, such a declaration would be death as evidence by a recent controversy in Canada when a young rising star in Parliament introduced a resolution seeking to remove a phrase from Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms that declared
"the supremacy of God." He was immediately punished by parliamentary leaders and forced to apologize. Although there are many closet disbelievers in politics today, few have the courage to acknowledge their skepticism in the face of religious hegemony.
Even academics, whose tenure guarantees them the right to speak freely without consequence, rarely publicize their disbelief for fear of alienating students, alumni, and the administration. Being an atheist or agnostic in America is relatively cost free, so long as you remain in the closet. Most public institutions have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to disbelief.
The situation is very different throughout Europe, where atheism and agnosticism are openly acknowledged. Numerous heads of government have made no secret of their disbelief.** Despite - perhaps because of - the fact that most European nations have established churches, there is more actual freedom of disbelief in Europe than there is in the United States, whose Constitution guarantees freedom of and from religion. ** Established churches have a way of encouraging free thinking among those who don't want to be told what they may believe or disbelieve. **
[** I find this very hard to believe. I have not heard much of such candor. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Unlike the USA, several countries in Europe have blasphemy laws. See Blasphemy page; UK; and Germany, with its very repressive measures supported by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches. People have been jailed in Germany for blasphemy -- something that would be impossible in the USA, but not the UK. In fact the UK is currently (Nov., 2001) making its blasphemy laws even more severe and extensive -- apparently in response to recent Islamic terrorism! (Yes -- I meant Islamic, not just Islamic-inspired.)]
The time has come for atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and humanists to come out of the closet and to openly confront the religious hegemony in America that has created a political correctness so powerful that even the most courageous are afraid to violate it openly. Unless such a challenge is mounted, the situation will simply grow more dangerous. Already the Democratic Party, which traditionally was more secular than the Republican, has begun to run on God's coattails. It started with Jimmy Carter. It got worse with Bill Clinton. And it promises to get even worse with Al Gore, who is explicitly pandering to what he calls "faith-based organizations." . . .
[And it is now even worse than that. Witness George W. Bush's Faith-Based Initiative: a very regressive idea.]
One reason why so many disbelievers are unwilling to acknowledge their views with intellectual honesty is that the religious establishment has managed to persuade large segments of the American public that there is some correlation between belief in a supernatural God and human ethics and morals. Disbelievers are deemed immoral. Consider the response of Canadian Parliamentarian Randy White to the Parliamentarian who tried to remove God from the Charter: "What do we stand for in this country? What are the values? What are the morals? Every time you turn around, you see government slipping lower and lower into the gutters of this country." But history has shown that if there is any correlation between belief in God and personal morality - which I personally reject - it is as likely to be a negative as a positive one. Surely as much immorality has been committed in the name of religion as any other cause. The millions murdered by cynical, godless tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin are dwarfed by those killed in the names of Jesus, Muhammad, and Jehovah throughout history. In any event, Stalin and Hitler do not represent the morality of disbelievers any more than Torquemada represents the views of believers.
The most moral people in the world are those who act selflessly without promise of reward or threat of punishment in the hereafter. Pascal's's wager - that it is better to bet on the existence of God even if He doesn't exist, than to risk the punishment of disbelieving - is nothing more than a crude cost-benefit calculus having little to do with morality. I am aware of no empirical data showing that believers are less likely to commit crimes, cheat on their wives, or abuse their children than nonbelievers. Our prisons are full of people who profess religious beliefs, and the most beneficent human beings include many who are disbelievers.
I suspect that tens of millions of Americans are skeptics or nonbelievers but are afraid to speak out. We must make it safe for such people to express their views openly. Disbelief in God must become as legitimate as belief in God in every forum of American life. We must confront religious authoritarianism in the marketplace of ideas, with respect but with vigor.
Having called for more openness in the expression of views regarding the existence of god, let me follow my own example. I am a skeptic about everything, including God and theism. I am not certain about issues of cosmology. Sometimes I believe that our universe is the result of random forces. Other times I believe that there must be some order or purpose, thought I do not begin to understand what or who it could be. I do not expect that these cosmic doubts will ever be resolved in my mind. I am more certain that the miraculous stories that form the basis of most religious beliefs are myths. Yet I respect the Bible and enjoy reading and teaching it. Indeed, I find it even more fascinating as a human creation than as a divine revelation. I consider myself a committed Jew, but I do not believe that being a Jew requires belief in the supernatural. When I attend synagogue, as I often do, or conduct Sabbath, Passover, or Chanukah services at home, I recite prayers. I am comfortable with these apparent contradictions. I am part of a long tradition that links to my heritage through the words and melodies of prayer. Indeed, it si while praying that I experience my greatest doubts about God, and it is while looking at the stars that I make the leap of faith. But it is not faith in the empirical truths of religious stories or in the authority of hierarchical religious organizations. If there is a governing force, He (or She or It) is certainly not in touch with those who purport to be speaking on His behalf.
The important point is that everyone must have the right to question faith and to decide these eternal issues by their own lights, without being condemned if they disagree with today's religious consensus. Remember that religious views change over the millennium. People were killed for believing in Jesus and then for not believing in Jesus, . . . Today, thankfully, Americans are not killed for their religious believers or disbelievers. But they are condemned as immoral and unfit for public office if they publicly declare their skepticism. The world must be made safe and secure for disbelievers. America was founded on religious dissent and skepticism. We must not accept religious hegemony or preference for religion in public life. Atheists and agnostics are every bit as American, every bit as moral and every bit as qualified to hold public office as people who believe in an intervening God. Disbelievers should not accept second-class status in a nation whose traditions and laws forbid tests of faith as a condition of citizenship or office holding.
Alan M. Dershowitz
Reference to God in Constitutions
See also Should God Be Removed From The Constitution?
Reports on religious freedoms and abuses
See also State-subsidized religious discrimination in Canada.
State-subsidized religious discrimination in Israel
Freedom of Religion in Israel: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kdt0 WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM - DURBAN. by Prof. Shimon Shetreet.
Religious institutions in Israel enjoy wide state financial support, in the form of both direct funding and tax exemptions. Both forms of state support are not uniform with regard to the various religious communities. However, the lack of official recognition of religious communities does not affect the ability of these communities to practice their religion freely or to maintain communal institutions. . . .
The integration of religion and state in Israel is visible in many fields, some expressly regulated by statutory law and some relying on a legal regulation. Among them are the application of a religious test to the Law of Return, which provides for automatic Israeli citizenship to Jews wishing to reside permanently in Israel; the exclusive application of religious jurisdiction and religious law in matters of marriage and divorce; the conduct of religious education financed out of state funds; and the establishment of a special Ministry of Religious Affairs. . . .
Israeli law, at present, provides examples of coercion of religious law that are not accepted norms within Israeli society. The application of Jewish law to marriage and divorce, and the subjection of citizens and residents to the exclusive jurisdiction of the religious courts in such matters, is an improper coercive enforcement of a religious norm. And the very necessity to marry before a religious authority results in a number of restrictions of wider ambit. A woman who has left the faith loses property rights. The marriage of a Cohen, a man whose descent is traditionally traced to the ancient priesthood and a divorcee is forbidden. None of these matters are to be found in any statute. . . .
6. State and Religion in Israel: Challenges and Problems
The population's religious needs are supplied by authorities established by law (the religious councils), budgets are allocated for religious purposes, and there is a Minister of the Cabinet responsible for religious affairs. The religion's involvement in the state's matters is expressed, for example, in the fact that kosher food is by law provided in IDF (Israeli Defense Forces), and in the government facilities, and special orders in the matters of religion were set in the IDF. Many laws are of religious nature, such as the laws limiting the raising of swine**, or the laws forbidding the public showing of leaven (hametz) in Passover. **[What utter supersittion!]
This situation causes a continuous debate. There are scholars who claim that the lack of separation results in the absence of "freedom from religion", which is, as described above, a fundamental value in a democratic state, and in the system of fundamental civil rights.
Thus, every citizen in Israel is subject to the authority of religious institutions in matters of marriage and divorce even against his will. There is no civil alternative for religious marriage. The situation creates difficulties, especially when religion forbids the marriage of a couple (such as in the case of a divorced woman and a Cohen), but also in the case of a secular couple that refuses to marry in a religious ceremony. This legislature's choice of an exclusive form of religious marriage violates freedom of marriage, but also freedom from religion, because it obliges the couple to get the services of a religious agency in its most intimate hour.
Another example of the deprivation of the freedom from religion which results from the lack of separation, can be found in the subject of the "Sabbath" (Saturday) the day of rest, and especially concerning the issue of opening businesses on the Sabbath. Until 1990, the law authorized the municipalities to regulate the opening and closing of shops, workshops, cinemas and other places of public entertainment and to decide the opening and closing hours on holidays. According to this law, many municipal bylaws were enacted, which forbade the opening of businesses on the Sabbath. . . . the Government, which was supported by a coalition composed also of religious parties, advanced an amendment to the Municipalities Ordinances, that in fact reversed the court's decision, and allowed the municipalities to forbid businesses' opening on the Sabbath. This development in the law has shown that the lack of separation between law and religion enables the legislature, influenced by political considerations to command the support of the religious parties in the Knesset to diminish the civil rights and freedom from religion.
Nation Profiles - Religious Freedom Page: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/nationprofiles/ This ignores Canada's violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Religious Freedom and Human Rights: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/religion.html Links to many organizations.
Religious freedom in islamic countries. 1998 Report: http://www.alleanzacattolica.org/acs/acs_english/acs_index.htm Hosted by Catholic Alliance - Cristianita'. Gives lots of horrible details. A better title might have been Barbaric religious dictatorship and total lack of religious freedom in Islamic countries. See Saudi Arabia, for example. Excellent site!
A Report on Freedom of Religion in Saudi Arabia: http://www.domini.org/openbook/saud96.htm Excerpted from Human Rights Practices in Saudi Arabia, 1996. U.S. State Department Jan 30, 1997. Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the practice of other religions. There are isolated reports of harassment and arrest of foreign workers conducting clandestine worship services, particularly around non-Muslim religious holidays. One Christian worship service was broken up by police and Mutawwa'in, and the man who hosted the service was punished by lashing. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy. Public apostasy is a crime under Shari'a law and punishable by death. Islamic practice is generally limited to that of the Wahhabi sect's interpretation of the Hanbali School of the Sunni branch of Islam. Practices contrary to this interpretation, such as visits to the graves of renowned Muslims, are discouraged. The Ministry of Islamic Affairs directly supervises and is a major source of funds for the construction and maintenance of almost all mosques in the country. The Ministry pays the salaries of all imams and others who work in the mosques. A governmental committee is responsible for defining the qualifications of imams. The religious police, or the Mutawwa'in, receive their funding from the Government and the general president of the Mutawwa'in holds the rank of minister. . . .
State-subsidized religious discrimination in Islamic countries
See also lack of religious freedom in Islamic countries.
Terrorism and Islam: http://www.leaderu.com/common/terrorismandislam.html Terrorism and Islam By Otto J. Helweg, Ph.D.
Since the religiously motivated attacks on the United States of September 11, so much has been written about terrorism and Islam that one might ask, "Why another article?" As one who has spent over ten years in the Middle East, studied Islam at the University of Tehran, classical Arabic, and the Middle Eastern culture, I want to clarify some of the fundamental aspects of Islam that the popular media has ignored.
Vastly Different Worldviews of West and East First, few Westerners understand what Raphael Patai calls "the Arab mind," in a book by that title. The Middle Eastern culture is so different than ours in the United States that we consistently misunderstand the rhetoric and actions emanating from that part of the world. Second, few have made the effort to understand Islam and its history. In our misguided efforts to be inclusive and tolerant, we have glossed over the basics of Islam, attempting (unwittingly) to see this religion through the glasses of a culture still steeped in Judeo-Christian assumptions. There is no question that many Arabs and Muslims decry terrorism and are loyal Americans; however, there are a significant number in the Middle East -- probably a large majority -- who genuinely hate the United States and rejoice in the success of the September 11 attacks.
To understand the source of this animosity it is first important to note that in Islam and the Middle East, there is no concept of the "separation of church and state." Social, political, economic, and religious systems are all subsumed under Islam. Indeed, Muslims boast that the Qur'an, the Hadith (the sayings of Muhammad), and the Sharia (the legal writings) deals with all aspects of life.
This worldview has two ramifications: first, I have observed a widespread embarrassment of American economic, political and military success. For example, Tony Horwitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal quoted several Saudis after the Gulf War who said, "If we had a real army, we wouldn't need the West to defend us." Another said, "It makes me feel more shame that pride," referring to the U.S. victory in the Gulf War.
If, as its adherents believe, Islam is true and Christianity is false, why are their nations relatively unsuccessfully in comparison to the infidel nations of the West? Many see this disparity as an attack on the veracity of their faith and a continual source of frustration. (Much of the above is chronicled in Robin Wright's book, Sacred Rage. Condemnation of virtually everything Western results. . . .
However often Islamic apologists may declare that Islam is a religion of peace and that it was not spread by the sword, the facts remain. The Qur'an contains many verses that encourage and sometimes command fighting for the faith against pagans and infidels, which are defined as non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews. Historically, while Christians and Jews could coexist in countries conquered by Muslims, they were forced by pain of death to pay a special tax and could never rise above certain levels in any government service. When Abu 'Ubaidah invaded Jerusalem "...he invited you to one of these three terms, either entrance into Islam, or the payment of the jizyah-tax, or the sword" Talk to Christian Copts in Egypt and they will confirm the discrimination and even persecution that they endure -- even in one of the more liberal Muslim nations. . . .
[Passages from the Koran.] . . .
From these passages alone one can easily understand how a Muslim terrorist would view his suicidal death during a terrorist jihad as ensuring a place in Heaven. . . .
. . . the events of September 11 are only unique in the magnitude of the destruction and the location . . . The hatred for the "Christian West" dates back to Islamic invasions of Europe, the Crusades, the establishment of Israel -- . . . merely a continuation of this modern jihad (holy war). . . .
It is naïve to believe that we can eliminate Islamic terrorism and optimistic to think that we can contain it. When fanaticism is fueled by religious fervor, it breeds a disease with no military or political cure.