Comments (9)

By Bruce, August 18, 2010

Ethical dilemma over building a mosque at ground zero in New York exposes some front lines in the culture war raging across America. First, it reveals agendas that become visible when comparing what people say to what they do. Second, it provides opportunity to compare the relative importance of values held by sides in the culture war.

Concerning agendas, most of the people who are pro-religious liberty for building the mosque at that location are anti-manger scenes on public sidewalks. A hidden agenda among many in this pro-mosque group may be counterbalancing their intolerance for one kind of religious expression with tolerance for another. Ironically, most of the people who oppose this location for this mosque are pro-other kinds of religious expression, such as prayer in Jesus’ name at public events. A hidden agenda among many in this anti-mosque group may be to promote one religion over another.

Regarding differing systems of values, ethical dilemmas reveal values priorities. Telling the truth is important. However, during Nazi occupation, many Dutch families hid Jews and lied to occupying forces. Telling the truth wasn’t as important as preserving those lives. The mosque at ground zero exposes competition between at least two important values: 1) National Dignity/Security; and 2) Constitutional Freedoms.

On national dignity and security, some believe allowing the mosque to be built at ground zero will underscore American pluralism and undercut popular support for America’s enemies. For those with overarching concern for America’s dignity and security, however, this mosque location will embarrass America, embolden her enemies, and encourage support for groups like Al-Qaeda. Based upon my personal experience among Muslims and upon what I am hearing from many scholars and reform-minded Muslim leaders, I consider the latter outcome to be the most likely.

With respect to constitutional freedoms, many believe that, in the interests of taste and national security, the government can zone against the religious use of certain private properties. For those with the overarching concern that religious expression should be private and free from public interference, however, such a zoning intrusion would be an unthinkable human rights violation of much greater concern than any dignity or security issues.

As in most wars, one side will win and the other side will lose. Such an outcome in this culture war would be unfortunate for all of America. Reaching a “diplomatic” solution so that both sides can win will require exposing and marginalizing hidden agendas and then accommodating and affirming both sets of competing values. In the quest for public image, the side that wins will likely lose.

Comments (0)

By Bruce, August 10, 2010

The Islam on YouTube is filled with divergence and disagreement revealing Muslims are in a desperate search for authentic values and lifestyles. Do not be satisfied with drinking in what others say about Islam or what Muslims say about themselves. Learn from the raw material of  what Muslims say to and about each other. YouTube presents a glorious window into the world of art, music and instruction by Muslims for Muslims.

Here are some examples:

• Skit encouraging Muslim women to wear the head covering
• American Muslim scholar explains/interprets about beating wives
• Arabic Muslim scholar explains how to properly beat your wife
• Rap style Muslim music calling Muslims to piety
• Muslim sacred music male voices, percussion instrumentation
• Country Western style Muslim music with a message
• Pop/contemporary Muslim music video with a message
• Persian religious poetry recitation in English
• Zikr: Folk prayer/worship ritual
• Call to prayer with English subtitles
• Three prayer types explained by Muslim pop musician
• Testimony at concert by Australian Muslim pop musician
• Advice from a convert on how to treat converts
• Street interview testimonies of converts to Islam in Europe
• American Muslim addresses stereotypes and his pride in Islam
• Dialog on Jordanian TV on infidel and apostates
• Spoof of Islam by Muslims
• Humor “Ten things Muslims find scarier than Halloween”
• Muslim Scholar explains a technicality on Muslim writings
• ABC expose on American bigotry towards Muslims
• Al-Jazeera report on the pilgrimage to Mecca
• A Muslim and Christian debate the deity of Jesus
• CNN Report about converting to Islam in the USA, why and how

Comments (3)

By Bruce, May 18, 2010

Last month, I discovered a “thinking error” of national “groupthink” proportions that frustrates defeating terrorism and undermines peace negotiations around the world.

“Thinking errors” are logical fallacies that affect self-image and behavior. The idea, “I am nothing but a worthless loser,” is an example. Thinking errors come in dozens of varieties that are identified and treated in the domain of cognitive behavioral psychology. They can be responsible for everything from minor depression to suicide and killing sprees.

The social psychologist Irving Janis described and popularized the concept of “groupthink” in 1972. It often results in disastrous decisions when otherwise intelligent people elevate consensus above critical thinking and moral judgment. In 1982, he noted that the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon White House was a good example of “groupthink”.

I discovered this “thinking error” of “groupthink” proportions at the Air Force Academy. The class discussion was polite. Around five cadets were calling themselves non-religious. The other forty or so claimed to be religious. When asked why they were non-religious, the minority said that it was because all religions are basically the same with none demonstrably truer than another. No one contradicted this claim. No one had the courage to assert that religions were different or that one was better. Instead, the majority talked about how their religious practices, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, were personally meaningful to them.

These students intuitively sensed that if all religions are basically the same, then religious distinctions are irrelevant. Rather than challenge the proposition, they resorted to demonstrating how religion was personally relevant to them. It’s a good existential argument. It facilitates harmony when religious differences are relevant personally but not publicly. However, it will not work when religious differences have profound public impact. It’s one thing to have interfaith harmony when differences are inconsequential, as they might be at the Air Force Academy or even in America. It’s quite another to have peace when the differences have public consequences.

In the article “Separate Truths” published on 25 April 2010 in the Boston Globe at Boston.com, Stephen Prothero calls “this view that resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture” odd and intriguing. He notes, “No one argues that different economic systems or political systems are one and the same.” Throughout his article, he calls this concept “untrue,” “disrespectful,” “dangerous,” “false,” “condescending,” and “a threat.” He writes, “How can we make sense of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir if we pretend that Hinduism and Islam are one and the same? Or of the impasse in the Middle East, if we pretend that there are no fundamental disagreements between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?”

Only about fifteen percent of American population calls itself non-religious, but nearly one hundred percent of news reporters and policy makers are in this “groupthink” echo chamber. They are conveniently ignoring at least three ways that Muslim and Judeo-Christian religious differences have consequences in the public arena. Without addressing these differences, there will be no hope for peace in the Middle East and little chance to stem the growth of homegrown attacks from the likes of the Fort Hood shooter. These three differences are: 1) equality before the law between men and women; 2) freedom of expression; and 3) freedom of conscience.

Yes, it is true that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of acts of terror in the name of Islam and favor peaceful means to advance their religious views, but it is also true that the vast majority of Muslims disapprove of what they consider to be immodesty, blasphemy, and apostasy. As most Americans readily support war to preserve political, economic, and religious freedom, most Muslims will similarly defend against what they consider to be challenges to the place of women and the honor of Islam. If Judeo-Christian civilization refuses to recognize these religious differences so that it can resolve them diplomatically, then it will continue suffering the consequences of violence from unaddressed differences and unwillingness to negotiate.

Comments (0)

By Bruce, November 10, 2009

Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Ft. Hood along with most responses from secular and Muslim institutions underscore a thesis posted at http://www.atfp.org/articles/9 that violence done in the name of Islam is like alcoholism in a codependent dysfunctional family. Both systems feature excuses, denial, and enabling behaviors of people inside and outside of the systems.

Neither justice nor excuses for violence done in the name of Islam are deterring it. Underlying enabling systems and attitudes must be addressed and changed. If public opinion starts deriding this kind of violence done in the name of Islam as a disease like alcoholism, then Muslims themselves may work harder to address it than they are working to excuse it.

Nothing impacts alcoholics and their dysfunctional families like a reformed alcoholic, and nothing changes an alcoholic better than prayer. Similarly, no one can preach better against violence done in the name of Islam than a reformed terrorist, and nothing can change these deranged people better than prayer. Pray for the miracle of seemingly impossible changes in these desperate lives and their dysfunctional system.

Comments (1)

By Bruce, September 9, 2009

In my Do’s and Don’ts for Deployment handout, I advise service personnel operating in majority Muslim areas to, “Avoid giving Bibles to people who ask you for one.” Several friends have questioned my advice.

Giving someone a Bible when they request one is not proselytizing, but the issue is not just proselytism but also the appearance of proselytizing. Print, audio, and video materials can become “evidence” to substantiate slander. Whether or not the material was solicited becomes a matter of one person’s word against another’s. An unfriendly public will choose sides based on stereotypes and prejudices. Under community pressure, people to whom the material was given may feel too insecure to admit that they requested the material.

Although it’s inadvisable in many situations to give out religious materials even when they are solicited, it may be possible to help seekers obtain materials themselves. They may find materials on a public bookshelf, at the gym, or abandoned. It may be possible to direct seekers to a store or web site where they can purchase materials on their own.

Legally service personnel may be “innocent as a doves” when giving religious materials to people who spontaneously ask for them. Being “wise as a serpents” requires attending to those requests in ways that avoid risky appearances.

Comments (0)

By Bruce, September 9, 2009

Recently a soldier asked me, “What are the regulations for sharing the gospel with Iraqi interpreters and counterparts in the Iraqi security forces?” He wanted to be able to answer questions about Jesus, but he also didn’t want to break any regulations or cause any problems for his small team of advisors.

Here is my response.

General Order #1 says not to proselytize. It means service personnel cannot offer inducements or enticements, and cannot use positions or authority to propagate their personal faith.

Webster’ definition of proselytize is:
1. : to induce someone to convert to one’s faith
2. : to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause
3. : to recruit or convert, especially to a new faith, institution, or cause

Wikipedia says, “Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion.”

Proselytize is grammatically transitive. It has an object or an implied object. The object is the target that the subject wants to change, and the subject is the person, who is trying to make a convert.

Military legal counsel has concluded that proselytizing is not constitutionally protected as a first amendment right to free exercise of religion. Proselytizing in Afghanistan and Iraq would damage national interests and endanger many lives.

However, religious speech is constitutionally protected speech! Courts consistently rule that service personnel may talk about religion when the audience wants to hear it. Talking informatively about personal faith can be different than trying to make converts. Religious speech breaks regulations when the audience does not want to hear it, or when the speaker does not know whether the audience wants to hear it or not.

Giving someone unsolicited religious material can also be proselytism. In nearly all cultures it’s bad form to refuse gifts. Giving religious material, or even asking people if they want to receive it, can appear to be pressuring and can be called proselytizing.

However, when the listener requests the religious speech, it is not proselytism. Under such conditions, the speaker is the passive responder to the listener, who has actively solicited the testimony or the religious materials.

So the short answer to the question is, “Yes, service men and women can talk freely about their faith with interpreters and counterparts as long as they offer solicited information, and as long as they do not pressure or induce others to solicit it.”

Comments (0)

By Bruce, June 15, 2009

One of the projects I’m working on is developing a “theology of catastrophe” and guidelines for ministry in those conditions. My research tells me that it’s not a question of if a WMD will hit US soil but when. My intuition tells me it will be a natural consequence of national choices — not a judgment, and that it will be an opportunity for the church. My heart tells me that leaders in the church could be doing a better job of preparing the church-at-large for ministry under conditions like what Jeremiah faced. The eye of my mind sees a picture of Satan at God’s throne accusing American Christians like the way that Satan accused Job. “They worship you because they have it so easy!” Satan accuses.

I think the book of Job could be a prophetic parable for the American church. I also think American church leaders need to be careful not to be like Job’s friends. By faith and in Christ, the church is righteous before God no matter how things may look through the eyes of observers (like Job’s friends) at ground level.

Of course, like with Job (and also with Jesus), righteousness draws rather than prevents tribulation. Jesus said about the approaching crucifixion, “Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him” (John 13:31). Jesus’ brother told his scattered audience to face tribulation with joy (James 1:2).

The world and Satan hate us, not only because they hated Jesus (John 15:18) but also because of the grace that we have received. That is the lesson from the older son in the parable of the prodigal son. Our righteousness in Christ could be a lightning rod for coming affliction. Can we face it with hope and expectation?

Comments (0)

By Bruce, June 15, 2009

General Order #1 which prohibits deployed service personnel from “proselytizing” supports good theology. Christians never convert anybody anyway. It’s God that does the converting.

Jesus tells his disciples they will “be” witnesses to the ends of the earth, not that we will “do” witnessing (Acts 1:8). Paul says “some” are called to be evangelists, not everyone (Eph 4:11). The job of every Christian soldier in Afghanistan is to “be” a testimony, not to “do” evangelism. “Being a testimony” does not violate General Order #1.

In its original Greek language, Jesus’ Great Commission (Mat 28:19-20) literally says, “as you are going” (participle) “disciple” (main verb) “the ethno-linguistic groups” (direct object). The command is not to disciple individuals on a one-on-one basis like we individualistic Americans like to think about it. The command is to disciple whole ethno-linguistic groups. “Baptizing” and “teaching” (more modifying participles) are functions of the church not individuals.

The Great Commission is basically a command to transform whole communities at a time and is not restricted to one-on-one evangelism. Such a mission is a multi-disciplined or “combined arms” process requiring people with many different gifts and callings. The soldiers, with stability operations and a good testimony, are contributing to the combined effort of transforming whole communities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

General Order #1 prevents soldiers from distributing Bibles in local languages, but it does not prevent people who are not soldiers (i.e. returning Afghan refugees) from translating, distributing, and teaching God’s word in a newly stabilized environment.

So what can soldiers “do” under General Order #1 to faithfully “be” witnesses and contribute to community transformation? For more Dos and Don’ts see the Dos and Don’ts for Deployment page.