39 posts tagged “christianity”
I hope there are some who appreciate this Easter message as much as I have.
I hope you and your loved ones have a happy and safe Easter.
- Chezza
The Political Meaning Of Easter
By Jim Rigby
08 April, 2009
Countercurrents.org
Even in progressive churches that challenge the political and theological orthodoxy, Easter is a day many people want to find comfort in the traditions of Christianity -- a special day for putting on one's sharpest-looking outfit for church and the family gathering. But especially on Easter I feel called to preach in a way that reminds us that if we take the text and our tradition seriously, we will be uncomfortable in our imperial society.
So, I can't give a traditional Easter sermon, one that makes us comfortable about Christianity, about our nation, about ourselves. On a day when people typically want to take a break from politics, I feel compelled to talk politics.
A sermon for Easter Sunday
When I was young and heard about the Nazi holocaust, I didn't ask the question many of my classmates asked. I didn't ask “how could Germans do such a thing?” I asked, “how could Christians do such a thing? How did the holocaust happen in the very cradle of the Reformation?” The Lutheran faith was born in those same places that eventually embraced fascism. How is it possible, in our own country, that Christians would go to church every week and not realize there was something deeply evil about slavery? What kind of theology allowed that to happen?
Those Christians said the same creeds we say. They sang many of the same hymns. And yet, their theology did not trigger an alarm when an atrocity was happening. And so I asked myself a question: “Do I have that same theology? Have I been propagandized in a way that I will turn against my brother and sister if they happen to be born in a different country or different religion?”
When I first began in ministry, I was popular. I remember someone once said, “Jim, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about you.” At the time, that seemed like a compliment, but is it really? If we really love other people, we need to love them enough to risk offending them. Paul tells us to speak the truth in love. We have to do that for each other. You have to do that for me, and I have to do it for you, because we cannot see ourselves from the outside. We cannot always step outside of ourselves and realize when we're doing crazy or cruel things.
Most people, inside the church and out, were taught a view of the resurrection that had no ethical implications at all. You were probably taught a theology that's not immoral, but it's amoral. In that view, the biblical is about magic tricks. A man is born of a virgin, and then, gets up from his grave. If you believe the story, you're saved, if you don't you're damned . And I want to say, that's bad theology. When we study the life of Jesus, there are clear ethical implications from the day Jesus says he has come to announce good news for the poor, to the day he tells Peter to love Him by caring for other human beings. The story of Jesus has clear ethical and political implications. And Easter is no exception.
I think Paul is giving us three warning labels for doing theology: The first warning is never let religion talk you into surrendering responsibility for your life. The second warning is never to let theology reduce down to hypothetical truth claims. And finally, Paul warns us never to reduce your worldview down to your own group.
Our text today is a passage in Colossians where Paul tells us, “Because you have been resurrected with Christ, set your heart on higher things. ” ( Col 3:1) Paul says something very interesting here. He says: “Because you have been resurrected with Christ.” He doesn't say, “Because Jesus was resurrected.” He's talking about your life. What kind of a theology tells you to surrender responsibility to Jesus? Jesus didn't say that. What happens when we do that is that someone else always steps in on Jesus' behalf.
If you're Catholic, it may be the church hierarchy; a priest, bishop, or pope may step in to tell you what Jesus wants you to do. So, you're not surrendering responsibility to Jesus so much as to a cleric. In a Protestant church, we're cleverer than that. We say, “It's all about the Bible. Just believe in the Bible.” But then we step in to tell you the right way to interpret the Bible. That's how we disguise what we are doing. We can pretend that it's the Bible we care about, but if you're watching, our interpretation of the book always puts us in power and control over other people. We aren't trying to control others -- it's just one of those darn things that just keeps happening.
In Colossians, Paul is explaining the Resurrection in a different way than the gospels do. The gospels tell you a story at a level that a child can understand. Even when you're tired, even when you are afraid, the story gives you a compass. What Paul does is unpack the story and show you how to apply it in particular situations. But you can't take either version of the story literally.
There are types of theology that completely dis-empower the follower. I would suggest that is what happened in Germany when they told people that obedience was a virtue, no matter what. So the first thing we should know about theology is that it would lead us to our own core. Christ is a symbol of your own soul in its fullness. Christ is your own best self that you can't always find. Yes, Jesus was a person, but a person who completely died into love, and held nothing back. So in following Christ, we should always discover ourselves as well.
The second warning is not to let theology become a set of theoretical assertions about reality. Notice that Paul now moves to a plea for unity in the early church. The symbols of religion should not point outside our experience to hypothetical beings but should waken us to the real people in our lives. So Christ is a symbol not only of your life, but of the life of your friends and your enemies. Paul tells us to bear with each other, to forgive each other as a way of making love real.
When religion becomes hypothetical, we are disoriented from ourselves and each other. The resurrection didn't take place when a body got up. That would be a theoretical historical claim. The resurrection took place when the disciples could see Christ in each other. Believing that Jesus got up from the grave does not mean that one has experienced the risen Christ. That we find in the eyes of each other.
There is a hidden life in us all. A radiant being, that permeates every plant, animal, and person that you will ever meet. Christ is a symbol of that hidden life in us all. To be a Christian does not mean to join the Christian sect, it means to be irradiated by that one life. It means to live out of that life and for that life.
The third “warning label” is not to reduce your allegiance to any one group. Paul says in Colossians as in Galatians, “in Christ there is neither Greek nor Hebrew, neither Jew or Gentile, neither barbarian or Scythian, neither slave or citizen. There is only Christ, who is all in all.”
When we hear our leaders say that they will do whatever is in the best interest of America no matter what, or when we hear Christians say that people are saved through Christ alone, we should hear and recoil from the same rhetoric that leads to a holocaust. The words are not purified because they come through our lips. Whenever we put sectarian brackets around our ethics, then we have no ethics. When I am ethical only to those within my brackets, I am unethical to anyone outside them. When I only serve America , and you have the bad judgement to be born on the other side of that boundary, guess who pays for my arrogance?
Paul is talking about a universal humanity into which we become members. He is talking about the common body of humankind. If you look at the text, it seems clear to me that the salvation that's being talked about is not just joining the Christian church. We are being called to the common body of humankind beyond race, gender, or religion.
What good does it do to take up the Christian label, and then serve the selfish needs of any one group? Two thousand years is enough to know that sectarian Christianity doesn't lead to peace. But what if we loved universally the way Jesus did? What if we saw, neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female?
This is the ethical content of Easter. If I think that Christians are better than Jewish people, then the resurrection hasn't fully happened for me yet. If I think the rich are better than the poor, the Resurrection hasn't fully happened for me. If I think my group is superior to other groups just because I was born in it, the resurrection has not yet happened in my life.
When we awaken to our common life, something happens to our fear. Our greatest fear is no longer that someone will hurt us, but that we might harm another. Our only fear is of losing the universal love that Christ has given us. So I need not fear that someone will rob me of my life. If I am true to the virtues of patience, kindness, love -- the things that Paul lists there -- there is nothing on earth that can rob me of that basic, core energy that early Christians called “eternal life.”
And that is why, even though it's Easter, I'm not going to say that the resurrection is when Jesus got up from the grave. Or that, if you believe in Jesus' resurrection, then your body will get up too someday. That's a religion for children. We all start out as children and that's fine. But if our faith does not grow, then when we are afraid our immature religion will cause us to hurt other people, our immature religion will cause us to reject those who are different, our immature religion will be capable of taking advantage, enslaving, or even killing other people.
That kind of immature, cruel Christianity is a mockery of the One who died and rose again in a small band of Easter people. To be Easter people means to live out of a radical solidarity with our whole human family. To be an Easter people means to have a radical hope that can look at our dangers and unblinkingly affirm that love is stronger than any empire, stronger than any weapon. You know the Easter has happened when, for human betterment, you are willing to face death itself.
Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, http://staopen.com/sermons/ , and an activist for universal human rights. He can be reached at jrigby0000@aol.com .
It is Thursday night, for those who celebrate Easter it is the night before Good Friday.
I have just read this Christian message.
It is a message that I can relate to, a message I can appreciate and a message I feel inspired by.
This is the Christianity I grew up with and this is the Christianity I believe in.
I will always love and respect this version of Christianity, even if I do not call myself a Christian.
Peace and justice to all. I hope you all have a safe and peaceful Easter.
- Chezza
Christians, Resurrections And Revolutions
By Eileen Fleming
08 April, 2009
Countercurrents.org
"You may be an ambassador to England or France…You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk…You may be the head of some big TV network…You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome. You might own guns and you might even own tanks…you might even own banks. But you're gonna have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord , but yes indeed you're gonna have to serve somebody." -Bob Dylan, 1979.
In the March/April 2008 edition of Tikkun Magazine, Walter Wink, Professor emeritus of Auburn Theological Seminary, pondered upon what happened to Jesus and his disciples:
"No two resurrection accounts in the four Gospels are alike. At the core of all these accounts is the simple testimony: we experienced Jesus as alive…The resurrection appearances did not… take place in the temple before thousands of worshippers, but in the privacy of homes or cemeteries. They did not occur before religious authorities, but to the disciples hiding from those authorities.
"What happened was every bit as real as any other event, only it was not historically observable…Though skeptics might interpret what the disciples experienced as a mass hallucination, the experience itself cannot be denied…what may have happened: the very image of God was altered by the sheer force of Jesus being. God would never be the same. Jesus had indelibly imprinted the divine…In Jesus God took on humanity, furthering the evolution revealed in Ezekiel's vision of Yahweh on the throne in "the likeness, as it were, of a human form." -Ezek. 1:26.
"Something also happened to the disciples. They experienced the most essential aspect of Jesus as remaining with them after his death…after his resurrection, to interpret the unleashing of those powers [to heal, preach, and cast out demons] in themselves, [was] as if Jesus himself had taken residence in their hearts…In their preaching they extended his critique of domination. They continued his life by advancing his mission. They persisted in proclaiming the domination-free order of God inaugurated by Jesus." [1]
When Jesus quoted the psalmist, "I said, you are gods: you are all children of the Most High God" he not only agitated the temple teachers of the law, he challenged state authorities by equating all people as sisters and brothers and co-equals with Caesar.
It has been said, tell me your politics and I will know who your god/God is:
A god of war, or the God of peace? A god of injustice, or the God of justice? A god who seeks vengeance or the God of compassionate mercy? A god of violent retaliation or the God of nonviolence?
When we who claim to be Christian learn of and worship the God Jesus illuminated; the God of peace and nonviolence, not the god of state or nation, we will be a person who seeks peace by pursuing justice and remain physically nonviolent, but never silent.
Jesus was NEVER a Christian; the term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus/AKA: The Prince of Peace walked the earth and taught that it is the peacemakers who are the children of God, NOT those that bomb, occupy or torture others.
2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning and was not a piece of jewelry.
When JC said: "Pick up your cross and follow me" everyone THEN understood he was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads into Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Empire and Military Occupying Forces.
Jesus, while never a Christian, was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up against the corrupt Temple authorities and challenged their job security by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God LOVED them just as they were:
Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under the Roman Empire and Military Occupation.
What got JC crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Empire and Occupying Forces by teaching the subversive concept that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under the Roman Empire and Military Occupation above the elite and arrogant.
The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be and that his sisters and brothers were those that DID the will of the Father: "What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8
"Everyone in the world knows that Jesus and his teachings were non-violent: except Christians." -Gandhi
Jesus has been accused of being a pacifist, but his nonviolent responses to evil were never passive!
Turning the other cheek when struck is the sublime response to resist violence by disarming the attacker by maintaining the highest ground: self-controlled nonviolence.
"In the nations in which Christianity has predominated, Jesus' teaching on nonviolence has been perverted into injunctions to passive nonresistance, which…is the very opposite of active nonviolence…Jesus always resisted evil…The Greek word translated as “resist” [antistenai], is literally “to stand [stenai] against/anti.”
"The correct translation is given in the new Scholars Bible: “Don't react violently against the one who is evil.” The meaning is clear: don't react in kind, don't mirror your enemy, and don't turn into the very thing you hate. Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil, but only not to resist it violently." [2]
Programs of practical nonviolent responses to the evil that is violence have been articulated since the days of Hebrew midwives, Jainism, Buddhism, Jesus, St. Francis of Assisi, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Muslim Badshah Khan.
Jesus vented his righteous wrath when ever confronted with hypocrisy by being outspokenly courageous, aggressive and sarcastically witty. He also was always gentle with humble sinners, children, misfits, outcasts, cripples, diseased, widows, orphans, prisoners, refugees and preferred to spend his time alone in prayer or in the company of regular people.
Legend has it that President Bush got a message from God to go and bomb Baghdad. I contend that had he meditated/thought upon what his self-proclaimed favorite philosopher-Jesus-actually taught and modelled, he would have changed course.
A few months after America began to bomb Baghdad, President Bush granted an interview with a TV reporter who asked had he prayed for Saddam Hussein before bombing his country. Bush looked like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights, stuttered some and then admitted he had not.
Jesus was very clear that one must pray for, forgive and bless/do good towards one's enemies.
One's enemies can teach one more about oneself than listening to one's own voice.
Jesus warned the adults of his time to never do anything that would cause harm to children. USA sanctions on Iraq before 2005 had already killed nearly a million people- over half of them children under five.
There is nothing about Jesus' life and teachings that can support the anti-democratic dictatorships and State in the Middle East, some of which would collapse without benefit of American foreign policy and USA tax dollars.
No pretext, rationale or spin can change the fact that Jesus would never condone violence, no matter who wears the uniform or how noble one believes their cause; not for mom, apple pie, democracy or Zionism, would Jesus say it was OK to wage war that terrorize children and all innocent beings.
It will take an evolutionary step-a transformation of hearts and minds to stop the cycle of violence, and the only force that can defeat that evil, is by NOT mirroring it.
Jesus called us to love all our neighbors, to show compassion toward everyone, to seek justice for the poor, to forgive our enemies, to put down the sword and take up the cross of struggle for justice and peace. Jesus laid down our life and calls his followers to risk theirs for love of God in all of humanity, and that includes our enemies.
Jesus' death on a cross said: enough! This violence against another life ends with my broken body. But, many did not know what they were doing, because they did not know god was already within all themselves and every other, for all are gods; all are children of the Most High God.
Jesus might call it a blasphemy what is spun as "collateral damage" for human kind was created in the image of the Divine. The command remains "thou shall not kill" and the promise he gave was that the peacemakers are the daughters and sons of The Lord.
"We live in a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants, in a world that has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. We have solved the mystery of the atom and forgotten the lessons of the Sermon on The Mount. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about dying than we know about living." - General Omar Nelson Bradley, Armistice Day, 1948.
About 2,000 years ago, when Christ was about 33, he hiked up a hill and sat down under an olive tree and began to teach the people;
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven."
In other words: it is those who know their own spiritual poverty, their own limitations and sins honestly and trust God loves them in spite of themselves who already live in the Kingdom of God.
How comforted we will all be, when we see, we haven't got a clue, as to the depth and breadth of pure love and mercy of The Divine Mystery of The Universe.
God's name in ancient Aramaic is Abba which means Daddy as much as Mommy and He/She: The Lord has said, "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not yours." -Isaiah 55:8
Christ proclaimed more: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
The essence of meek is to be patient with ignorance, slow to anger and never hold a grudge. In other words: how comforted you will be when you also know humility; when you know yourself, the good and the bad, for both cut through every human heart.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they will be filled."
In other words: how comforted you will be when your greatest desire is to do what "God requires, and he has already told you what that is; BE JUST, BE MERCIFUL and walk humbly with your Lord."-Micah 6:8
"Blessed are the merciful, they will be shown mercy."
In other words: how comforted you will all be when you choose to return only kindness to your 'enemy.'
"For with the measure you measure against another, it will be measured back to you" Christ warns his disciples as he explains the law of karma in Luke 6:27-38.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they see God."
In other words: how comforted you will be when you WAKE UP and see God is already within you, within every man, every woman and every child. The Supreme Being is everywhere, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. Beyond The Universe -and yet so small; within the heart of every atom.
"Blessed are The Peacemakers: THEY shall be called the children of God."
And what a wonderful world it would be when we all seek peace by pursuing justice; for there can be none without the other.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires, theirs is The Kingdom of Heaven."
And one fine day the lion will lie down with The Lamb and man will make war no more and that is the Kingdom of God.
"I said you are gods: you are children of the Most High God."-Psalm 82:6.
When we come to that evolutionary realization-as Jesus had-no way would we, could we wage war, harm children or remain silent in the face of injustice, oppression or hypocrisy.
"You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome. You might own guns and you might even own tanks…you might even own banks. But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed you're gonna have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord. But you're gonna have to serve somebody."-Bob Dylan, 1979.
Imagine what a transformed world it would be, if every Christian would ponder upon just who their Jesus is, just what god/God do they serve. That would be revolutionary!
"If enough Christians followed the gospel, they could bring any state to its knees." -Father Philip Francis Berrigan
1. http://www.spiritualprogressives.org
/article.php/20090402223955947
2. http://www.futurenet.org/article.asp?id=485
Eileen Fleming, is the Founder of WAWA: http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Author "Keep Hope Alive" and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory"
She produced "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu" because corporate media has been MIA all during a Freedom of Speech Trial in Israel.
--
Only in Solidarity do "we have it in our power to begin the world again."-Tom Paine
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
This article is a refreshing article after the article I posted yesterday about the apparent roll back of Shia women's rights about to occur under Afghan law. Although the situation in Afghanistan is regrettably still the same, what is refreshing is to once again read that the apparent lack of women's rights in Islam is not a universal occurrence and is more related to patriarchal customs rather than the true interpretation of the Qur'an.
Sadly fundamentalist Christian , Jewish
and Hindu
sects/dominations are currently plagued by the rolling back of women right's in
their respective religions, with increasing violence against women being
condoned in the name of religion. I hope this apparent trend will not
continue and I hope that women will not accept these views which are being
forced upon them in the name of religion.
There is no excuse for violence against women, even in the name of religion.
- Chezza
Doha, Qatar - How is it that one religion – Islam – seems capable of undermining women and promoting them at the same time?
Anyone attempting to take stock of the position of women in the Muslim
world cannot help but be confused. One finds stories in the media all
the time about injustices committed against Muslim women, such as
"honour" killings, child marriages and discriminatory legal judgments
in matters of divorce, custody and inheritance.
On the other hand, one also comes across stories about the remarkable
strides made by Muslim women in education, career development and
political activism in countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Morocco and
Turkey.
How can we make sense of such a dichotomous picture?
The answer is simple: by distinguishing the religion of Islam from the Muslims who practice it.
Those who study the Qur'an know that Islam elevated the rights of women
beyond anything known in the pre-Islamic world. In fact, in the seventh
century Muslim women were granted rights not granted to European women
until the 19th century, such as property ownership, inheritance and
divorce.
That said, Muslims who codified the Qur'an and Hadith
(sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) into Islamic law did not succeed in
expunging the patriarchy of the pre-Islamic world from their practices.
This distinction between the faith and the various manifestations of its practice is a subtle but extremely important one.
When a Westerner is trained to pick up on the distinction, he/she comes
to recognise that the Muslim woman who criticises Muslim practices is
not usually rebuking her heritage in favour of Western ideals – the
kind of rebuke that hits best-seller lists in the West and that feeds
Western stereotypes about the religion – but is instead encouraging
other Muslims claiming allegiance to Qur'anic teachings to live up to
its highest principles.
This inward criticism and call to action is often called Islamic
feminism, a promising paradigm which supports change from within, and
not in imported formulas.
While adopting the Qur'an at its core, Islamic feminism challenges two
main norms: the patriarchal cultural customs mistaken for Islamic
teaching and patriarchal interpretations of certain Qur'anic verses.
The project of disentangling what is true Islamic teaching from
cultural traditions historically practiced in a Muslim territory is an
ongoing project for Muslim feminists.
Arifa Mazhar, the manager of gender issues for the Pakistan-based Sungi
Development Foundation, whose goal is to effect policy and
institutional changes relating to development by mobilising
marginalised local communities, declared at the International Congress
on Islamic Feminism in Barcelona in 2008: "Instead of debating Islam,
we should be debating culture and its impact…. There are a lot of
social taboos and tribal traditions that oppress women, and they have
little to do with Islam."
Islamic feminism's second challenge is to attempt to reinterpret verses
in the Qur'an – especially given the present context – that have been
misinterpreted or over-generalised.
One example is the disproportionate weight given to the few Qur'anic
verses giving men authority over women within family structures versus
the many others that emphasise equality between men and women. Islamic
feminism encourages women to study the words of the Qur'an for
themselves, and to judge whether the misogyny and failure to take women
seriously prevalent in some customs is a matter of Islamic doctrine or,
indeed, of cultural impositions on such doctrine. Islamic feminism thus
provides the grounds for changing civil and national law in ways that
prove progressive for women.
Sisters in Islam, a leading Muslim women's rights group in Malaysia,
has been trying to reform the issue of polygamy. Rather than calling
for the abolition of polygamy, for example, it calls only for its
restriction to certain situations – such as obtaining permission from
the first wife and from the court – and is working on public surveys
that would provide empirical evidence of the negative effects of
polygamy on society.
Rooted in Islam and the Qur'anic spirit of equity, Islamic feminism
provides a credible political voice for women. It gives women's
organisations, women's rights advocates, and gender scholars in the
Muslim world legitimate grounds for action – and change – as fulfilment
of society's religious obligations.
###
* Amal Mohammed Al-Malki is an assistant teaching professor of English at Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar and a member of the Qatar National Competitiveness Council, which promotes reform and transparency in the national economy. This article first appeared in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) as part of a series on Muslim women and their religious rights.
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 31 March 2009, www.commongroundnews.org
During Friday evening prayers a suicide bomber detonated a bomb in a Pakistani mosque killing 50 people and injuring 153 people.
The mosque was frequented by tribal police and paramilitary officers fighting against the Taliban and other Islamist militants in Khyber, as well as local residents.
Pakistani security officials said they suspected the bombing Friday was to avenge operations against Taliban and other Islamist militants aimed at securing NATO supplies into Afghanistan.
Fifteen security personnel were killed in the attack, while 20 tribal police and two paramilitary forces were wounded.
A bombing such as this clearly shows that when it comes
to Islam and the people who practice Islam, there are different ideologies
practiced in the name of Islam. It is sad to think that people who were
peacefully practicing their religion in a holy mosque, were targeted by people
who supposedly belong to the same religion. The mind of such a terrorist
must truly be twisted if he honestly believes he will be judged favourably by
Allah.
I cannot imagine that the god of any religion would judge in favour of the killing of people who were in the act of worshipping that god. Just as a cannot believe the Christian god would be in favour of a Christian man shooting people while they worshipped in a UU Church in the US. Where the congregation's only crime was that according to the shooter they were too liberal for the shooter's liking. A congregation that "liberally" believed in love, compassion and tolerance.
The logic of such violence is totally twisted and should not be seen to represent the ideals of a whole religion and the people who practice that religion. It should be clear that such people have taken the religion and used it to further their own causes which in reality have little to do with the religion in its entirety.
As the following article explains, there is more than one form of Islam and the majority of Muslims are in favour of peace and non-violence.
At a gathering of experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) in Geneva this week, much of the focus was on countries and societies where Muslims form a majority of the population. There was also a discussion of terrorism, and how groups that engage in terrorism can be dealt with in relation to IHL. Much of this discussion centered on terror in and from Islamic societies.
This is understandable to a large extent, given the massive media coverage of the terror that has become such a common and disfiguring part of many Muslim-majority societies. It would be the same if a discussion of modern anti-Semitism ended up talking mostly about Christian Europe and Russia; or a discussion of covert operations for regime-change addressed the actions mostly of the United States and Great Britain in the past 50 years; or if a review of settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing centered largely on modern Israel and Apartheid South Africa.
Some historical concepts are indelibly associated with some parts of the world. The association of terrorism with Islamic societies is a sign of our times. When I was asked to speak on these issues, I suggested that the best way to get an accurate and complete picture of Islamist political trends and the role of terror in Muslim lands was to acknowledge six ways to approach Islam, that help to define it. These sometimes converge, and often do not:
First, Islam as a religion, which has many varieties around the world;
Second, Muslims as individual men and women who seek the comfort of dignified citizenship within stable statehood;
Third, Islamism as a widespread phenomenon of political mobilization and expression that transcends countries and religious movements;
Fourth, nationalist Islamism, that operates with a view to liberating oneself from foreign occupation or to changing a state's policies;
Fifth, social and community Islamism that sees individuals living their lives and organizing their local communities according to Islamic dictates of justice, modesty, compassion and generosity;
Sixth, Salafist militants and terrorists like Al-Qaeda and smaller groups that have sprung up around the world, that see themselves fighting a global defensive jihad to protect the Islamic umma (community) from foreign domination or internal subversion and corruption.
When I hear people speak about "what's wrong with Islam" or "Islam and the West", my immediate response is to remind them that there is no such thing as a single "Islam" that can be diagnosed, analyzed or engaged as a monolithic whole. The variety and dynamism of changes in Islamic societies, and in the hearts and minds of individual Muslims, is staggering these days. This is understandable, given the intensity of the degradation that many Muslim-majority societies have suffered in the past half-century of foreign manipulation, domestic mismanagement, and abuse of political power, and local deterioration of social, environmental and economic conditions.
The six different forms of Islamist identity and expression that I suggested above evolve constantly, reflecting changing realities at the local level in most cases. Turkey has become the world's most impressive democratic, constitutional and largely secular Muslim-majority society, and one of the few where the military and security forces are largely under civilian oversight. Egypt, on the other hand, sees Islamism spread throughout society mostly in the form of the increasing piety of individuals and the activism of groups at the community level - while Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood engage in formal politics, knowing very well that the military-dominated ruling elite will always control policy.
It is noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Islamist groups has rejected the violent strategy of the small Salafist militants such as Al-Qaeda. But it is also worrying that the core grievances of both the militants and the non-violent majority are virtually identical. Salafist militants decide to bomb foreigners and Muslims alike, but most disgruntled Muslims deal with their predicament of imprecise citizenship rights in slightly incoherent and often corrupt countries by trying to lead more pious lives, while challenging the status quo and the power elite as they can.
If we disaggregate Islamic societies or Muslim-majority countries into our six categories of individuals, community, political, transnational and nationalist groups, core religious values, and a handful of extremists, we would appreciate that most Muslims and Islamist groups have responded to their individual and national predicaments with patience, rationality and non-violence.
Most of them - individuals and movements alike - are still trying to express their grievances and articulate the positive values (justice, equality, accountability, rule of law, compassion) that they would like to see define their lives and societies. The handfuls of criminals and anarchists in the Islamic world should not detract from the reasonable aims of the majority any more than anti-Semites, settler-colonialist fascists or criminals should be allowed to define the entirety of Christian Europeans, Israelis, South Africans, or Americans and British.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.
I find it sad that women are still oppressed and are not seen as equals in all of the world's major religions. It seems the more fundamental a religion becomes, the more oppressive it is to women. Even in Christianity and Judaism today there are actually moves by some to wind back the progress women have made in their respective religions. Some branches of these religions have become more oppressive to women, which is a very worrying trend in these supposedly more enlightened times.
Congratulations to all of the women among the many faiths who are not prepared to be oppressed by other members of the religions they belong to.
International Women’s Day (March 8) is a good time to reflect on the efforts of women of faith to reform or repeal texts and practices within their religions that contribute to women’s inequality or oppression.
For those of us in the United States and Europe, of Christian and Jewish traditions, the effort has focused on reinterpreting texts, working for the inclusion of women in ministry, for non-sexist language, and for the elimination of violence against women. The effort has not been easy; Christian and Jewish women still have a long way to go and we’ve experienced a fair amount of derision and even lost jobs, but none of us has actually risked our lives or ended up in jail as a result of this work.
Some of the most prophetic among us have found some acceptance. The Philadelphia Eleven, Episcopal women who were “irregularly” ordained in 1974, ushered in regular ordination by 1976 and the consecration of the first woman bishop, Barbara Harris, in 1989. Roman Catholic women began ordaining themselves in 2004 after an initial irregular ordination by a male bishop in 2002.
While these women (who number about 50 priests and five bishops) have been excommunicated, they are living proof that the institutional church has only the power we give it. They go about the business of ministry and service with skill and good grace.
Increasingly, Buddhist women have been seeking full ordination within the various branches of Buddhism. In Korea, Taiwan, and China, Buddhist nuns have been fully ordained for centuries, in an unbroken lineage back to the Buddha. In other countries and branches of Buddhism, the practice of fully ordaining women has not survived. Buddhist women have organized for ordination, and these are increasing. Thai Theravada Buddhism, which is linked to the state, has been most resistant to these ordinations, and Tibetan Buddhism under the Dalai Lama has been considering reviving the tradition, but as of today, no final decision has been made.
Muslim women—and feminists—are following a different and complicated path. This was brought home last month when I participated in a five day international conference in Malaysia which brought together 250 women from 47 countries, many of them predominantly Muslim with strong links between religion and state. The conference launched the Musawah Movement, a loose network of Muslim women’s groups working to ensure that Muslim family law recognizes and operationalizes the equality of women within the family. Muslim feminists are as diverse as other feminists which was reflected throughout the conference; Muslim feminism is not new. This conference, for example, was the result of 20 years of research and advocacy by a Malaysian group called Sisters in Islam (SIS). Zainah Anwar, the coordinator of Musawah (equality in Arabic) said:
Musawah is in some ways a vindication of a long and difficult struggle to find liberation within my faith and to translate into action my utter belief in a just God. This is the last frontier in the feminist movement to break the theological stranglehold of the patriarchs that prevents Muslim women from enjoying equal rights.
For Sisters in Islam finding liberation in their faith has involved a two-prong strategy: theological education and political advocacy. SIS takes religion seriously. In its early years, SIS reached out to Islamic scholars, studied the Qur’an and came to adopt a modernist methodology of interpreting the Qur’an and the Hadiths. Those of us with less knowledge of Islamic scholarship are unaware of the fact that since the mid-19th century (and before), Islamic scholars have offered modernist methodologies of interpreting Islamic texts that have been developed independently but share some characteristics of modern biblical interpretation.
Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at Melbourne University and a conference speaker, offered a methodological framework for interpretation that included understanding the Qur’an as a text influenced by the history of the time in which it was written and requiring analysis of how it was and is received as an element of legitimacy. He notes that progressive scholars and classic modernists in Islam emphasize “core Islamic values of justice, goodness and beauty” and engaging both Islamic tradition and modernity on the issues of human rights, social justice, gender justice, and pluralism.” It is this tradition that Sisters in Islam and Islamic feminist scholars including Norani Othman, Fatima Mernissi, and Riffat Hassan have engaged.
Not all at the conference (nor in the broader Muslim feminist community) are in sync with a theological approach to Muslim feminist advocacy. There was loud grumbling on the second day of the conference from feminists who want nothing to do with religion. For them, the task of Muslim feminism is to secure pluralism and democratic legislation in Muslim countries, based solely on human rights theory and treaty obligations.
Zainah Anwar weighed in on this approach in an opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune:
The decision of so many activists to ignore religion has had undesirable consequences. It has left the field wide open for the most conservative forces within Islam to define, dominate and set parameters of what Islam is and is not.
Anwar makes sense. In many Muslim-majority countries civil family law is based on Shariah. To try to change those laws without addressing its underlying religiosity and offering a respectful but different understanding of the Qur’an is unlikely to succeed. Moreover, in some countries where Shariah is not accepted as civil law, Shariah courts exist within the Muslim community and Muslim women are urged by their families to take issues of family law to these courts rather than civil courts. There have also been efforts by Muslim conservatives in the UK and Canada to pass legislation that would make Shariah courts the legal arbiters of family law for Muslims. These moves have been opposed by Muslim women and human rights advocates although some mainstream political leaders have naively assumed that recognition of such religious courts was an act of respect for cultural diversity.
Shariah is already interpreted differently from country to country, used and abused to justify practices that limit women’s human rights. Women are stoned to death and imprisoned for adultery, and even for reporting rape. Custody laws, which automatically award children to husbands, keep women in abusive marriages. In some countries, women can be divorced without their consent and with no provision for support. So-called honor killings go unpunished; girls’ education is limited or forbidden; women are beaten with impunity by husbands, fathers and sons.
One moderator of a “talk show”-format session, in which women leaders described their personal efforts to change conditions for women, called them “warriors.” In some quarters of feminism and religion, such a word would raise hackles. We are a “kind and gentle people.” But in other circles we combine a fierce sense of bravery and rage, a willingness to do battle for women with the instruments of reason, scholarship, and compassion in pursuing justice and equality. Let us celebrate all the strategies women use to survive and thrive.
Who would have thought that non-believers in America are actually on the increase. I find it sad though that non-believers in America have had to become an organised special interest group just to be recognised and respected.
It is much nicer here in Australia where your religion or lack of religion is not such a big deal and people are generally respected for who they are and not necessarily judged by their religious belief systems. Possibly Muslims do get a raw deal in this respect even here in Australia, but I hope that is a situation that can be reversed through greater interaction between people of the different belief systems and by doing so we can then understand each other better.
In recent years, non-religious Americans have won a modicum of public acknowledgment. Not long ago, politicians insulted them with impunity or at best simply overlooked them. But the heightened public religious fervour of the Bush years led the country's infidels to organise as never before, turning atheist authors like Sam Harris into celebrities and opening lobbying offices in Washington, DC, just like religious interest groups do.
Politicians have responded. In his inaugural address, Barack Obama – doubtlessly realising that secularists constitute a big part of his base – described America as a "nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus ... and non-believers." Even Mitt Romney came to express second thoughts about leaving atheists and agnostics out of his high-profile campaign speech on faith. The United States is not Europe – it will likely be a long time before we have a publicly agnostic president – but it is becoming more tolerant of the godless.
It has to be: no religious group in the United States is growing as fast as those who profess no religion at all. The latest American Religious Identification Survey, which Trinity College published last week, shows that the number of non-religious Americans has nearly doubled since 1990, while the number of people who specifically self-identity as atheists or agnostics has more than tripled. An astonishing 30% of married Americans weren't wed in religious ceremonies, and 27% don't expect to have religious funerals. This suggests whole swaths of the culture are becoming secular, since one can assume that non-believers in religious families often acquiesce to traditional marriage rites and expect to be prayed over when they're dead.
The irony, though, is that even as the country becomes more secular, American politics are likely to remain shot through with aggressive piety. What we're seeing is not a northern European-style mellowing, but an increasing polarisation. In his recent book Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, the sociologist Phil Zuckerman described the secularised countries of Scandinavia as places where religion is regarded with "benign indifference". There's consensus instead of culture war. That's not what's happening in the United States. Instead, the centre is falling out.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey, Christianity is losing ground in the United States, but evangelical Christianity is not. Just over a third of Americans are still born-again. Meanwhile, the mainline churches, beacons of progressive, rationalistic faith – the kind that could potentially act as a bridge between religious and non-religious Americans – are shrinking. "These trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians," write the report's authors.
In some ways, there's a symbiotic relationship between evangelicals and secularists. The religious right emerged in response to a widespread sense of cultural grievance stemming from the social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Today's newly organised atheists and agnostics were mobilised by the theocratic bombast of Bush-era Republicans. More than ever, one's religion is tied up with one's political choices rather than family history.
That means faith won't fade into the background. If European secularism is defined by disinterest in organised religion, American secularism is largely defined by opposition to it. Thus non-believers in the United States are increasingly becoming an organised interest group, demanding their share of civic respect. The more they want to escape organised religion, the less they can ignore it.
Much has already been said about the reference in Obama’s inaugural address to America as “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.” In light of Pew and Gallup survey data showing that large numbers of Americans believe that the United States is a “Christian nation”, feel that it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person, and say they would not vote for an atheist to serve in our highest public office – the president’s assertion was, in a word, astonishing.
At the 5 February National Prayer Breakfast, the president expanded on
this theme. Acknowledging that faith has too often been used as a
pretext for prejudice and intolerance, he focused on “the one law that
binds all great religions together…the Golden Rule – the call to love
one another, to understand one another, to treat with dignity and
respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this earth.”
He pointed out that he wasn’t raised in a particularly religious
household. His father was born a Muslim and by adulthood had become an
atheist; his maternal grandparents were non-practicing Methodists and
Baptists; and his mother was “sceptical of organised religion”.
Nevertheless, he revealed that this non-religious mother was “the
kindest, most spiritual person I’ve ever known”, and was the one who
taught him to love, to understand and to do unto others as he would
want done unto him.
Later in life, after living and working as a community organiser on the South side of Chicago, Barack Obama became the Christian he is today. He is clear about his faith. In his Prayer Breakfast remarks, though, he expressly acknowledged the broad array of belief systems – religious and humanist too – that profess some variant of the Golden Rule. Emphasising that common bond, he called on religious and secular Americans alike to transcend difference, and to focus beyond belief – on actions – to make the world a better place.
Obama has touched on these matters before. Addressing an evangelical
Christian gathering in June 2006, the then-senator from Illinois said:
“Because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality,
I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and
who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values
without pretending that they’re something they’re not.” He also said
that in a democracy the religiously motivated must translate their
concerns into “universal rather than religion-specific values,” and
that their proposals must be subject to argument and “amenable to
reason.”
In affirming that non-believers deserve a place at the table, Obama is
treading on ground no president has dared explore before. With a
sensibility forged from his strikingly diverse background, he embodies
the promise – albeit perhaps distant – of an end to both
inter-religious and secular-religious discord.
Obama acknowledges the significant role of faith in the lives of so
many, including his own; he likewise recognises that sceptics and
non-believers can be genuinely good human beings. Respecting religious
faith in its myriad manifestations, he invokes the Golden Rule as a
common denominator that, broadly speaking, ought to represent the
universal yardstick for our actions in this world.
In so doing, he honours – equally – the believer and the non-believer,
the churchgoer and the secular humanist, to the extent that each does
unto others, as he would have them do unto him.
###
* Michael Felsen is president of Boston Workmen’s Circle and board member of the Humanist Chaplaincy of Harvard University. An earlier version of this article appeared in Forward and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission.
Source: Forward, 18 February 2009, www.forward.com
I had a very enjoyable time with family over the Christmas period. However I am sad to say that my enthusiasm for the celebration of Christmas itself had taken an enormous nose dive.
I had intended writing a post four days prior to Christmas about the positive aspects of the Christmas story in the context of Christianity and that even non-Christians could still find some value in it.
The post was never written.
I had been doing some reading into the formation of the Christian church. I read about the appalling actions of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church and the extremes they went to in order to cement their view of Christianity onto the public that they "ruled" over. There was no love or goodwill, but instead there was violence and oppression. The RCC was an organisation that demanded total conformity from all and stamped out any divergence from their thinking and it did so with charges of heresy and ultimately death to the so called heretic.
Even deciding which books should be included in the Bible was not a pleasant discussion, but instead consisted of many meetings filled with violent outbursts between the different factions and at times the violence between the factions lead to deaths.
I knew that Christianity and the RCC had been corrupt and had done shocking things such as the Inquisition, but I didn't realise that the institution of Christianity was initially founded on such a high level of hate and violence.
I could go on and on but I won't except to say, this finding on top of the way some churches behaved in promoting Prop 8 in California, was virtually the last straw as far as my tolerance level for the promotion of hate by some religious organisations.
Thankfully there were some signs of love and goodwill out in the community away from the domineering members of organised religion.
This is the carol which was sung at Melbourne's Carol's by Candlelight which improved my Christmas cheer.
It was not the carol itself, but rather the two people who were singing it and the fact that two openly gay men who are a couple were able to sing a duet at Victoria's most traditional annual Christmas event.
Father Kennedy has been sacked for challenging traditional Catholic Church practices by changing rituals, allowing women to preach and blessing gay couples.
Father Kennedy said he felt betrayed by the archbishop but conceded that the parish he has led for 28 years was out of line with the teachings of the church. "We have broken liturgical rules," he said yesterday. "We have treated people as adults, we have embraced gay and lesbian people, we have women coming into our community to preach."
He said his liturgies were still valid. "We celebrate in a way that is relevant to Australian Catholics, rather than toeing the line in Rome."
Father Ken Howell will take over St Mary's tomorrow as an administrator and has said he wants to work towards healing.
Father Kennedy will not go quietly — he plans to say Mass at 9am on Sunday and expects 1000 people to turn up. But he has backed away from threats that he would form a breakaway church. "I don't wish to do that. We argue but we are very much within the Catholic tradition."
Instead, he will formally appeal against the archbishop's decision, and until the matter is resolved he will continue attending St Mary's.
Father Kennedy's supporters were distraught at his sacking and predicted it would destroy the good work he has done.
"People see this as the end of the
community as we know it," a spokeswoman for the parish, Karyn Walsh, said.
It is refreshing to see members of the Catholic Church taking a stand against the discrimination against women and LGBT people. I know that there have been quite a number of people trying to work within the frame work of the RCC to effect change, especially in regards to the ordination of women priests.
I cannot understand how the RCC can justify not allowing women clergy. The only justification I can see is that they are misusing Christian scripture to keep their church as an "all boys club."
The RCC generally claims that Christian scripture and its interpretation is always alive and fluid; as we continue to understand the world and as our culture shifts in positive directions, then scripture should be reassessed and possibly reinterpreted.
If this did not occur then the RCC would still:
Forbid banks to charge interest on loans.
Be in favour of slavery.
Believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Not accept evolution
Not accept democracy.
And the list goes on.
The interpretation of the Christian Bible and homosexuality also needs to be reviewed by the RCC and many other churches. There are plenty of interpretations around now to show that a committed same sex couple are not living in sin and deserve to have their relationship blessed by the church.
The only way the RCC will change its doctrine is if enough people start to challenge the RCC.
I wish Father Peter Kennedy and his supporters the best of luck in their endeavour to challenge the teachings of the RCC.
The world needs more people like Father Peter Kennedy.
For more information on interpretation of Christian scripture in regards to both women clergy and LGBT people in the church see these websites:
The ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church
A Letter to Louise - A Biblical Affirmation of Homosexuality
Homosexuality
This is a message from Focus on the Family; you will find my personal feelings regarding this message at the bottom of this message.
A Christmas message from Focus on the Family
Last
year, Focus on the Family helped Christmas shoppers across the U.S. by letting
them know which major retailers were embracing the use of "Christmas"
in their advertising.
This year, we gave retailers an opportunity to communicate their intent months
before the shopping began.
In April, Focus on the Family sent certified letters to the CEOs and marketing
executives of 33 leading retailers inviting them to share their plans to
generously use the term ”Christmas” in their 2008 catalogs and Web
publications. We also requested information about their policies regarding
in-store use of the term “Merry Christmas.”
In exchange for an early commitment to use the term “Christmas,” we offered to
share their decision with our constituents early in the shopping season.
Eight of the 33 retailers replied with enthusiasm and stated their plans to
generously use the term “Christmas.” In fact, a number of them intend to
increase their use of “Christmas” this year.
The eight that plan to intentionally recognize Christmas are:
Best Buy
Cabela's
Kohl's
Lowe's
Nordstrom
Pier 1 Imports
Toys "R" Us
Wal-Mart
We trust these industry leaders will make good on their promise and publish
“Christmas-friendly” material as they roll out their catalogs and Web sites. As
you observe their “Christmas-friendly” approach, please thank them and
patronize their stores. (We have included contact information at the end of
this story.)
GAP, Banana Republic and Old Navy were also kind enough to send a reply but did
not convey a clear commitment to use the term “Christmas.” Rather, they
communicated their intent to approach their marketing in broad and diverse
terms. We’ll have to observe and see if what they publish avoids an insulting
marginalization of Christmas.
We have not received a reply from the following retailers:
American Eagle
Barnes & Noble
Bed, Bath & Beyond
Bloomingdale's
Borders
Circuit City
Crate&Barrel
Dick's Sporting Goods
Dillard's
Eddie Bauer
The Home Depot
JCPenney
KB Toys
Kmart
Lane Bryant
Lands' End
Linens 'n Things
L.L. Bean
Macy's
Neiman Marcus
Sears
Target
After we review the publications for all 33 retailers, we will publish our
ratings. Watch for the complete list and more details on CitizenLink.com.
TAKE
ACTION
Since our staff can’t possibly monitor what’s happening in local stores across
the country, please let us know what you notice as you visit these 33
retailers. We encourage the utmost respect and kindness, of course, should you
offer any feedback to your local stores. You can e-mail us your observations.
As you observe the “Christmas-friendly” approach of these eight retailers, please thank them and patronize their stores.
------
So what we have here is the follow up to a “friendly” request by an organisation telling major retail shops if you promise to add the word Christmas to your catalogues then we will advise our followers to buy from your shops. If you don’t, then we will inform our followers which retailers did not reply and therefore we will assume you will not be using the word Christmas on your sales catalogues and our followers will probably not buy from your shops.
Well Mr Dobson you and the organisation you represent appear to be behaving like a bunch of stand over men and small time thugs who enjoy pushing their weight around. Thank God you are not in a position of greater power, as who knows what totalitarian laws you would attempt to force onto a democratic society in the name of your brand of Christianity.
I honestly cannot believe that a so called Christian organisation has even done this. I mean honestly do people really believe that God and Jesus will be rejoicing in the fact that their followers are celebrating Christmas by buying material possessions from sales catalogues with or without the “Christmas” logo attached to them.
This type of thinking is an attack on the true Christian meaning of Christmas. Christmas for Christians is supposed to be about rejoicing the birth of Jesus; it is supposed to be a time of joy and goodwill and not a time to have petty fights over sales catalogues. It is a time of giving and I don’t mean materialistic giving, I mean giving of oneself, giving help to people who need it and sharing love and compassion to family, friends and even the people we do not know.
These sort of petty actions are the very things which turn people away from Christianity, which make Christianity a laughing stock. These are the actions which make some afraid of Christianity because Christian views are being forced onto people and one wonders just how far these people are prepared to go in order to force their Christian views onto others.
This
sort of behaviour is totally foreign to me.
I live in Australia, one of the most secular countries in the world and
there doesn’t seem to be this perceived war on Christmas that the American
Christian Religious Right seems to be in a frenzy about. Perhaps there is no “War on Christmas” (if it
actually exists at all) in our country because we aren’t having Christianity
forced onto our citizens.
In Australia as I write this, the Christmas decorations are going up in homes and in shops. Christmas carols are starting to be played in shops across Australia and our letterboxes are stuffed with sales catalogues with the words Christmas plastered all over them. It is no big deal.
As for the drama that seems to surround wishing people a “Merry Christmas” well that is not an issue in my country either, we just do it and when we say it we mean it. Perhaps some of us have a religious notion attached to it and others don’t, but we don’t analyse what the person’s religious background is before we accept or reject the greeting. When Australians wish you a Merry Christmas they just want you to have a happy Christmas whatever your definition of Christmas is.
If you come from another culture and I know it, then I am happy to wish you happiness as you celebrate your festival. If I don’t know your religion or that you are not into Christmas and I wish you Merry Christmas, you shouldn’t take it as an insult but you should accept it is the spirit it is given, which is one of kindness and the sincere wish that you are happy.
Life at times can be very difficult and it is just plain silly to make what should be happy occasions into mean spirited culture wars.
I believe it is Thanksgiving in America, so happy Thanksgiving to all Americans around the world who are currently celebrating Thanksgiving.
Peace and goodwill to all.
My Groups
-
Life and Photos Updated: 15 minutes ago
-
Atheists Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Stuff That Makes You Laugh Updated: 1 hour ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
