When religious foreigners come knocking

There has been an awful lot of ink spilled over many, many a decade on the question of what the discovery of an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would mean for terrestrial religions, especially the Big Three - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That's mainly because the Bible (and associated texts) make no mention of ET, and thus human beings are the one and only apex of God's creations. Discovery of ET would throw that alleged apex into more than just a bit of theological confusion.

However, theologians tend to make light of this and suggest along the lines that there's an awful lot of real estate out there, and since God can do whatever He damn well pleases, well maybe He populated some of that real estate with one or more extraterrestrial societies. I mean the Bible doesn't mention Antarctica or penguins. The discovery of both didn't upset the religious applecart, so why are aliens relevant to vie for Biblical space and commentary and why should they, if they exist, upset the religious applecart?

In short, one answer boils down to, is everything out there in parallel with everything down here, at least as far as the big three monotheistic faiths go? Do all planets with intelligent aliens have extraterrestrial Adams and Eves that muck up their alien Gardens of Eden and get the boot? Do all alien civilizations have sin, a flood, a Chosen People, a Promised Land, etc?

Now apparently the biggest of the big theological question is, assuming the existence of ET civilizations, is whether or not Jesus (assuming the reality of a Jesus of course - not a given) visited these worlds and got subjected to the ET equivalent of The Cross. Did Jesus have to hitch a ride on interstellar spaceships in order to get to all those other sinful other-worlds, assuming those other-worlds are sinful other-worlds? Methinks the questions are as similar to how many angels dance on the head of a pin!

IMHO, the odds that our religious histories in broad-brush form would happen on each and every other-world housing an extraterrestrial civilization is so remote as to not be worthy of even two seconds of pondering.

Okay, so if UFOs land on the White House lawn tomorrow, or radio astronomers detect obviously artificial radio signals from an extra-solar other-world planet that's home to ET, big deal. Church attendance will probably not alter greatly, at least after the initial shock. If those of the monotheistic faiths embrace all of humanity as equals, then it's not a huge step upwards to embracing extra-solar 'humanity' - ET - as equals as well.

But, and this is a very real but, what if our advanced aliens are not just technologically advanced aliens, but theologically advanced aliens, who in fact have a theology that bears no similarity with any terrestrial theology! Then what? Might ET take a leaf out of our religious histories and violently preach their version of hell, fire and brimstone to us? What leaf you ask?

The basic reality is that members of the trilogy of major monotheistic religions (and lots of minor ones as well) have in the past wished, and continue to wish, to impose their beliefs by any means fair or foul (usually foul) on anyone and everyone else. If fact, all too often those wishes were turned into reality.

If one had to list all of the atrocities inflicted on various cultures by Christian missionaries, including the abduction and indoctrination of young children, well let's just say comparisons with the Nazi Third Reich regime wouldn't be all that inappropriate. From across Africa to the Pacific Islands and points beyond, it was the Christian duty of the faithful to force-feed if necessary their religious doctrines to all those thus far spared monotheism fanaticism. And it wasn't just a matter of polytheistic to monotheistic conversion, it was the absolute and total destruction of anything and everything part and parcel of their 'pagan' traditional beliefs that had to be eliminated, so much so that most of the culture, say of the Aztecs and the Incas, have now been lost forever - thanks due to God, or rather His ever faithful representatives.

Then throw in the Inquisition, the Crusades, and all manner of Holy Wars and God's Old Testament reign of terror has been taken to heart by the faithful whose duty is to see that it is 'to be continued' and on, and on, and on it goes. Your option: be a living Christian; or a dead pagan. Well there's an exception to that - the last of the Inca emperors was given this option: a relatively quick and easy death as a born-again Christian, or a very slow and very painful death as a pagan. Needless to say Christianity won out yet again. Belief in God can be very persuasive when you're faced with being burned at the stake as an alternative.

Albeit more civilized today, the indoctrination goes on. It might be religious fanatics picketing in front of abortion clinics or forcing public schools to delete Darwinism (Darwinian evolution) from their curricula and replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design (you'd think that had been settled once and for all with the 1925 Scopes Trial). It often takes the form of all those televangelists knocking your socks off and all those religious billboard signs warning you of this, that and the next sinful thing. Then of course there are those ever pestering Bible-pushing Christians knocking at your door, eager beavers telling you how much God loves you, but in return for a donation He'll love you even more!

But take note, its God the singular, not gods the plural. I mean is it a God / Jesus Bible-thumper who bangs on your door or is it an Osiris / Odin / Quetzalcoatl / Zeus, etc. person who disturbs your peace and quiet, trying to convert you to the wisdom of polytheism? Did I hear you say God / Jesus? I thought so. Despite the fact that the Bible isn't a legal document like a search warrant or a summons, it nevertheless seems to give Bible-pushers carte blanch to do whatever they please, as long as the Bible tells them it's okay to do it, like chewing your ear off (not literally of course) with tales of hell, fire and brimstone and trying to scare the shit out of you into making a donation to the cause.

If there were any polytheistic cultures who tried to ram their gods down the throat of other cultures I'm not aware of them, which is not the same as other cultures assimilating the gods of another culture. As an example, there ultimately proved to be an amalgamation of ancient Greek and Egyptian deities. Ramming has been the 'divine right' and privilege of monotheistic cults and examples, including all of the very graphic details, would fill an encyclopedia. Would aliens perceive their having a 'divine right' to ram their theology down our throats? Yes, if our own history is an example. If God is on your side, you can do no wrong!

In the history of our terrestrial civilization, there have been lots and lots of refugees. Many are economic, escaping poverty by chasing that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow away from their homeland where it never rains (thus no rainbow). Some are political. Some are for racial / racism reasons. A fair share of all refugees, past and present, are religious refugees, an obvious example being the Pilgrims that migrated to the United States of America before there was such a name as the United States. So the issue of religious freedom, or freedom from having someone else's religion rammed down your throat, is not trivial.

When it comes to ET, the traditional Hollywood image, often reinforced by some scientists, is that when the aliens come calling, it will be with ray-guns blasting away (like in "The War of the Worlds"), unless they are sneaky like in "Village of the Damned" plus sequel "Children of the Damned", or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (several versions). Justification for depicting ET as nasty is often given based on terrestrial histories of invasions and conquests. A warfare scenario pessimist is hardly ever disappointed; a peace scenario optimist frequently is.

But let's look on the bright side. ET arrives and there's not a ray-gun in sight. It's the dawn of a new and enlightened era! But let's substitute their ray-gun replacing it for their extraterrestrial religious text, a text in which ET worships the Almighty Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes (or in Hollywood fare, "The Blob").

Okay, so based on religious tolerances (or lack of same) as expressed within and by terrestrial societies, what can we expect from ET? When it comes to a religiously inclined and pushy ET, well that's hardly ever mentioned as a possible scenario, but ultimately it's really terrifying, in a potential sort of way. A fanatical religious ET vis-à-vis an invading ET, is perhaps a more likely ET and what we may really need to worry about is that they'll come in peace alright, but as fervent missionaries to spread the word that their version of a supreme being [the Almighty Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes] is the only true version of a supreme being and that all of us terrestrial heathen, pagan infidels had better see the error of our untrue faiths and convert to their extraterrestrial theology quick-smart.

More likely as not ET won't be Jesus-like and certainly won't allow themselves to be nailed to a cross (or a higher-tech version); they will probably be more along the lines of the Conquistadors or perhaps akin the Inquisition, or even worse Koran-thumping Islamic extremist-types. After all, they have to be very, very strongly motivated to come out to our neck of the boonies, and they are going to want favorable results, or else. All hail the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes!

Now here's a very rough translation and commentary on the first few bars (it's also an opera) of ET's "Holy eBook of Slime and Ooze". It goes something like this:

"Once upon a time the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes, ejaculated and gave rise to the Holy Ooze and the Holy Ooze was without form and the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes felt that this was how it should be and everything was Almighty fine. And that ended the First Great Cycle of Cycles.

On the Second Great Cycle of Cycles, Ms. Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes took her less than better half partner, the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes to task for creating a Holy Oozy Mess and told her less than better half, the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes to clean it up, or else! And so it came to pass that the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes swept the Holy Ooze all under the Heavenly Cosmic Carpet.

But the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes wasn't through with His creation, and under cover of the Cosmic Night, He played with His toy biochemistry set and infused animation into the Holy Ooze that had been swept under the Heavenly Cosmic Carpet. And that was the Third of the Great Cycles.

The animated Holy Ooze multiplied in an Oozy sort of way and expanded outwards, ever outwards from under the Heavenly Cosmic Carpet and the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes was Almighty pleased and totally up Himself with His skills. And thus was concluded the Fourth Great Cycle of Cycles.

On the Fifth Great Cycle of Cycles, Ms. Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes, totally fed up with her less than better half, packed her Heavenly Duffle Bags and left the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes for even greener pastures. She moved in with the step-brother of the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes. His name was the Greater Greener Slime Being, who, unfortunately had fallen from Grace [mutiny I believe] and had been stripped of his Almighty Supreme title and status - such are the fates in family disputes and Wars in Heaven between rivals for power."

And it goes on and on and on from there, over ten eBook volumes worth that kind of make the Bible read like a short story. But in a bit of a twist, a role reversal, the underdog, the Greater Greener Slime Being ultimately triumphs and comes out on top to become the new Almighty Greater Greener Slime Supreme Being. Well after all the Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes really was a bit of a twit.

The former Greater Greener Slime Being and the former Almighty Great Green Slime Supreme Being, Lord of All That Oozes' Ex - His more than better half - together, it is prophesized, will have a child who ultimately will become the role model for, obviously, "The Son of the Blob", who is to grow so blobby that His massive gravity will prove enough to cause the Heavenly Cosmic Carpet and all that it contains (life, the universe and everything) to roll up in on itself and turn into a singularity. It will be the End of Days, the Cycles of Cycles - the Big Crunch will have arrived! If I recall correctly, that Last Great Cycle is numbered somewhere over the million mark of all things Cyclic. Amen.

Although you'd hope that advanced alien beings would have long since out-evolved such religious nonsense, that's not a given. That missionary scenario is even more frightening than them coming here with their ray-guns blasting away IMHO. So if those extraterrestrial evangelists come knocking at your door, with tales about the Holy Ooze, or the Almighty Greater Greener Slime Supreme Being, be afraid, be very afraid!

Science librarian; retired.

Religious leaders are the key to peace in Pakistan

In segments of Pakistani society, the segment that is more influential is 'religious leaders', as Pakistan is a religion-oriented society. They are recognized by a religious body as having some authority within that body, for example, Khateeb, Imam, Maulana Mufti (of Muslims); PADRI, Bishop, father (Christian); Pandit, Swami (in Hindu) and Giyani, guru (in Sikhs). Of these, the Muslim religious leaders have much influence on the society in Pakistan is a Muslim-majority country.

The current circumstance of uproar, anarchy and insecurity in Pakistan seems to be unbeatable security and implementation of law institutions. Each day that passes it leaves disastrous and disappointing impacts to the psychology of the people of Pakistan. But the democratic Government and political parties are in 'verbal grip' with another, only to the governing class, not for the general public interest. "This conflict of interest, the public in general of Pakistan is losing its sense of security and Pakistan is entitled as a ' State of security" rather than a "welfare State". This is the worst indicator for peacekeeping and peacemaking in Pakistan.

Despite the disappointments and frustrations, there is still a ray of hope for the people of Pakistan, leaders, i.e. religious of various creeds, particularly of Islam — and their respective denominations and schools of thought. If a deep commitment to peace, have based on their commitments to faith, can serve as a people who can build a peaceful society and non-violent. They can contribute a great deal towards the consolidation process through the implementation of specific strategies and approaches to peace. There is a general consensus that anything dealing with the mixture of religion permeates the minds of the listeners of audiences more effectively. Therefore if they take the responsibility for peace in Pakistan, can contribute significantly for practicing certain criteria such as; addresses and preaches that the mixture of the foundations of peace, i.e., necessity and importance, peace education at Madrasah, the use of religious leaders moral authority and objectivity to advance the peace process in the society, serving as a model of peacekeeping will be emulated by his followers in their religious communities and other such approaches of exploration.

This revolutionary step should be taken to promote such components that can help move his follower in peaceful coexistence. It is a healthy indicator for the public of Pakistan that certain religious leaders of different faiths and their respective schools of thought have taken this initiative to realize its role and responsibility in this regard.

Hopefully that you for better.

Do you have a religious addiction?

I used to be bound by a religious addiction, that is, until the Lord delivered me.

Looking back, I had no mind of my own where all things spiritual were concerned. I was subservient to whatever denomination I was affiliated with, bowing to manmade rules and dogmas both in Protestant and Catholic camps as I moved from one to the other. Though the Scriptures declare that "there is none good but God," I was considered a good soldier, loyal and obedient through and through and very adept at rule-keeping. I was driven by my religious addiction and was much more diligent about serving the church (the denomination anyway), subconsciously trying harder to "be good and be seen" than I was trying to get to know Jesus through His Word, fall in love with Him on a personal level, obey His doctrine and advance His Kingdom.

Frankly, I don't recall that kind of thinking ever entering my mind.

My thoughts of God were more along the lines of "Hope He saw that!" while I adhered to church policies and procedures like a champ. In all honesty, I never knew what Jesus really taught for I rarely cracked the pages of His book (the Bible). I was a "good" kid and the Christian world in which I had immersed myself at the time was generally fine with that as I excelled - at least in comparison to others. I fit in. I was one of their own and was even considered an example to be followed. One minister even called me "a churchman" before the congregation. Talk about stroking my ego...!

Don't get me wrong; good guys are more useful than bad guys and good-deeds-for-the-day actually DO tend to help people. Unfortunately, God's not impressed with our acts of self-righteousness, which are referred to as "filthy rags" in the Book of Isaiah. It's all about the motivation of the heart. Those who hope they're "scoring points" or making amends for past sins by their good works are sadly mistaken.

I was deceived in believing that I was not only impressing others but that God must surely be pleased as well. There were those who mistook my good-guy nature for devout Christianity; including Christian women. I felt accepted and, to my carnal mind, that's all that really mattered. At least, until the day came that I really needed Jesus and The Church and found I was left holding a bag full of nothing but powerless, meaningless, deceptive religion.

THE TRUTH SET WILL SET YOU FREE...WHEN YOU KNOW IT

Jesus taught that knowing the truth will set us free. Problem? In our reluctance to admit that we have any problems at all, we fall into denial, even where our spiritual lives are concerned.

The religious addiction is not so much an addiction to anything in particular as it is paying consistent homage to a demon Spirit of Religion - a literal entity - the very Spirit that drove the self-righteous Pharisees. Sure, it's much more socially acceptable to acknowledge that one has an addiction to religion than it is, say, to pornography or crack cocaine. That's because the human tendency is to judge what's on the outside because we really don't have time to deal with the spiritual and emotional bondages and burdens of individuals. Generally, so long as they show up for services, look good and smell good and sing along, we're OK with "them." They might be living a private Hell but the Church at large is content NOT to believe anything could possibly be wrong with one who is committed to the denomination, follows the rules and does the work of the group or attends services every time the door is open. Such a one is often lauded as a model of the faith.

Those afflicted with a Religious Spirit are often folks who have struggled with "other" addictions during the course of their lives (e.g. alcohol, drugs, sex) or are Adult Children of Alcoholics. Actor and Director Mel Gibson was recently arrested for drunk driving. An interview with Dianne Sawyer was re-run this morning where he admitted how easily he was addicted to almost everything including drugs and alcohol. That's the nature of the beast. Apparently, the transference of one addictive lifestyle for another is fairly common, and when addicts come to faith in Christ, such a transference of spirits often occurs. Such demons can be dealt with and commanded to leave but, sadly, far too few Believers believe that they have that authority...or they don't believe in demons at all (Satan loves that about us).

In many cases, an individual's relationship with God can be stunted by his/her upbringing. Let's face it, we're receptacles, taking in good and bad from day one, then dishing out whatever's been poured in. Some have been raised in a performance mode, jumping through hoops to gain approval from parents or always in competition with siblings. Perhaps they were compared to the kids next door. Likewise, where that person's spiritual life is concerned, they often struggle with trying to constantly gain acceptance or approval - in the eyes of the congregation, church leaders... and ultimately from God Himself. Though this type of misguided behavior can never satisfy, it's all many individuals ever know and it defines the lackluster Christian life of multitudes of pew potatoes from cradle to grave.

Such an addiction serves to attract other demonic characteristics such as self-righteousness, pride, false piety. As the afflicted person carries out his/her religious duties, a subconscious "look at me everybody" attitude gradually creeps in. Oftentimes, that attitude is simply a silent prayer such as, "God, I hope this pleases you" as that individual is never sure how much is enough. Have I prayed long enough? Did God hear that? Am I REALLY going to Heaven? Have I volunteered enough? Did I perform this or that duty often enough to appease the Father? How about the deacons? The religious addict never seems to grasp the fact that all their sins, past, present and future, were forgiven. These people tend to judge others by what they DO and themselves by their good intentions.

The discerning Christian can see Satan's claw prints all over this powerless, goody-goody behavior. Again, it's a deception that far too many have fallen into. I'm not only talking about Christians here. All the religions of the world are ruled by this type of Spirit. He can be found in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples around the globe. Bear in mind that the word "religion" means "return to bondage" according to Webster's Dictionary; Jesus, on the other hand, came to set us free.

GIVE ME A SIGN!

So, what is a religious addiction and how does one know when one has been so afflicted? There are some signposts we can be looking for but one must be brutally honest with one's self-assessment just as an alcoholic must finally admit to his addiction before he can receive and apply the help that's available. Confession, as you may know, means to agree with that which God already knows about us. 1 John 1:9 tells us "If we confess our sins (agree that we DO have a Problem and that Jesus IS the answer) He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

A Religious Spirit will rear its head when confronted with the truth. You can count on stirring up a demonic hornet's nest every time. Often these attacks are quite extreme as in the situations where I have personally been dealt death threats and received hate mail and have been booted of my Internet provider over 20 times, mostly by people who claim to be Christians, in response to my online Christian broadcasts. It's OK to simply disagree - or offer correction where one thinks I made a mistake. But some of these responses were quite excessive. The reason they reported me to AOL, I was told, was defined as "broadcasting objectionable material." I can't help but wonder if they respond the same way to off-color online humor, obscenity and the like.

I knew a converted Jewish woman who claimed that she was receiving extra-biblical revelation from God. Despite the willingness of others in the Body of Christ to offer correction, reproof, teaching, etc., she had little use for any of it so long as God was speaking to her. So much for being part of "The Body." Any "limb" that does its own thing is considered spastic, as I understand it. Most of her faith was based upon Old Testament teachings that suited her own needs. I confronted her on a number of occasions, one day causing her to cry and yell quite emotionally. In time, I helped her find a place to live, found her a job at the local university and even gathered a wardrobe for her as she owned very little. The response? She filed false charges against me. Oddly, her case never made it to court. Actually, she wound up in state jail herself after being convicted of a past crime that finally caught up with her. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

Jesus Christ had little trouble where demons of sickness and the Spirit of Death was concerned but He faced stiff opposition from those controlled by the Religious Spirit. Certainly, they did not know they had given place to such spirits. "Surely we represent the true religion of God," they must have thought. Who would want to be free of that which make them feel important and more righteous than others? For the chief priests and scribes who entertained religious pride and hardness of heart, even Jesus could not guide them to the Father. They had made their choice.

ARE YOU A TRUTH-SEEKER?

A thing is either true or it's a lie. It's that simple. That applies to the case of religious addictions as well. The same Spirit that motivated the Jewish religious leaders to conspire against and kill Jesus are still working today among people who know God. The Bible reveals many clues showing us signs that reveal when the Religious Spirit is present. It's an extensive list of 23 symptoms but, if you'd be interested in seeing what some of those tell-tale signs may be, perhaps as a guide for some self-assessment, simply hit REPLY and type HELP in the SUBJECT Bar. Protestant or Catholic, if this subtle spirit has crept its way into your life, don't delay. Deal with him today and experience the peace that passes all understanding and the unspeakable joy that Scripture promises you!

Michael's mission is to bring Discipleship and Encouragement to the Body of Christ. Since 1999, he has broadcast nearly six hundred inspirational articles and a dozen booklets on subjects that will interest the thinking Christian, all designed to accelerate the process of spiritual development in God's people.

He is the founder of t.e.a.m. ministries (team1min@aol.com). An Author, Pastoral Counselor and Teacher, his eMail broadcasts, known as "Your Town for Jesus" are reaching millions around the globe WEEKLY. Write team1min@aol.com if you'd like to SUBSCRIBE.

A licensed/ordained minister, a Certified Workplace Chaplain, and a Professional Member of NIBIC, he has ministered in Methodist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Baptist, Disciples of Christ, College and Cowboy churches. He is also a Speaker on the Christian Speaker Network and may be available to speak to your church or Christian group.

Three reasons why what religious Crisis always occurs in Nigeria

Religious crisis in Nigeria dates to the early 1970s and to date still persist. The ancient city of Kano is known for the pyramid of peanuts in the 1980s, it is one of the most volatile spot where there have been religious crisis in Nigeria. At that time, a man named Gideon Akaluka created a provocative gesture when he tore the Holy Koran in public. The Islamic fundamentalist instantly declared a fatwa on him and were a step further, when they burst into the prison and took away Gideon Akaluka. His head was cut off and they marched in the streets of Kano. This singular Act instigated a religious revolt that claimed the lives of many Christians and Muslims.

What may be responsible for the continuous religious crisis in Nigeria, especially in the northern part of the country?

Intolerance

The birth of the movement Pentecostal in Nigeria in the early 1980s came with some negative effects in Northern Nigeria. They weren't careful enough respect for the culture and the religion of Muslims, but rather was about winning souls and preaching the word of God with zeal and fearlessness. The churches traditional - Anglican, Baptist, Methodist and Catholics were a little tactical in their religious activities, and there lived amicably between its Muslim counterpart. The arrival of the Pentecostal movement changed the whole Assembly however, as Muslims upset its aggressive approach to evangelism and prayers. The tension created soon led to a religious crisis. On the other hand, Muslims were not willing to respect the opinion of the other. They felt Christians want to christianize his Muslim brothers and were ready to resist with his blood.

Economic issues

In the northern part of Nigeria, Christians are economically backward as Muslims have taken all the available business openings. This has created much tension between Christians and his Muslim counterpart. The distribution of wealth is uneven, because it favours Muslims over Christians. This has given rise to continuous clashes between these two religious main entities, as they try to gain importance in the scheme of things. The anger and bitterness of being deceived remains a primary factor in the minds of Christians.

Policy

This is also a factor that has warmed the system already loaded between Christians and Muslims. It is a fact that some notable politicians know they have sponsored some Muslims wrong in the creation of disturbance which soon degenerated into a massive war between the two bodies that lead to the deaths of innocent souls. These politicians have used the crisis to score cheap political points, insisting that the security situation in those places, called a State of emergency. This was the exact state of Plateau stage more than one year ago. A curfew was imposed in the State, and Christians fled their homes for fear of being attacked by the aggrieved Muslims. It was so serious that the Federal Government had to deploy the army to maintain order and peace.
The issue of religious violence has always been a periodic decimal in the history of Nigeria, but the Government has continuously paid lip service to find a lasting solution to this important issue. He has always called for tolerance, peace and unity among all religious groups, but the situation has not changed significantly.

Sadjere Clement is an author, a motivational speaker and an expert in sales / marketing information product. It came via phone at + 2348052790262
He is the owner of http://www.grelohi.com a Web site free article directory

Should religions taking responsibility for the wars of religion?

Religions are now again in the news. This time, religions are accused for the wars and conflicts in the world. Almost every day, there is some blast in some part of the world that is caused by so called Religious Fundamentalists and the victims are none other than their own brothers and sisters. As a result religions, particularly Islam, is accused to be the inspiration can cause of the terrorist attacks and violence that has gripped the world in last one decade as most people involved in the violence happens to be Muslims, the followers of Islam.

However, the truth is only partly revealed by terming one religion as violent while calling other religions as peaceful. It is only few decades ago that Christians were fighting against each other in the two World Wars that killed almost 65 millions of people, mostly Christian and resulted of the execution of more than 7 millions Jews including children just because they belonged to a particular religion. It is impossible to imagine how the followers of Christ, the God of love, can engage in such brutalities against each other. A German Philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer has said sarcastically in 18th century

"The fruits of Christianity were religious wars, butcheries, crusades, inquisitions, extermination of the natives of America and the introduction of African slaves in their place"

It is easy to blame religion for the conflict, more so if the people committing violence do not belong to your religion. However, one dare to look in their own religion, they are bound to find out that their own religion had often been used and can be used for creating conflict and wars. The Biblical concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" appears in Bible (Exodus 21:22-27) had been used not only by Jews but also by the Christians. Gita, the Holiest book for Hindus, teaches the concept of eternity of Soul and the need for war in the following words of Lord Krishna

Considering your specific duty as a warrior, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. O Partha, happy are the warrior to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets. (Gita 2:31-32)

The fact is that religions had always been used for wars.

Yet how correct it would be to blame a religion for the wars?

What's Wrong with Religion

Let us first understand what we mean by religion? Religions are based on the Scriptures which contains the "revealed knowledge" of the Prophets or saints. The knowledge of the scriptures contains certain truths that are believed by the followers of the religion. As per one definition

"A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth".

However, most people of any religion have never read their scriptures and never known these "revealed truths". They consider themselves as part of the religion simply because they were born from the parents following their religion. Therefore, while they call themselves religious or "theist", they hardly understand anything of their religion. They are often guided by their Priests, Monks and Imams to know their religions. These people provide the people only "little knowledge' which suits their vested interest and as always "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" and that danger is often manifested in the form of wars.

Not only religion, but every single piece of knowledge had been used constructively and destructively by human beings. The knowledge of relativity and mass-energy-equivalence discovered by Albert Einstein was not only responsible for the birth of "Modern Physics" and the modern development in the field of electronics but also responsible for the development of the nuclear bomb that killed millions of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can we call Einstein or the theory of relativity responsible for the nuclear weapon or the wars? Why should we not give Einstein the credit for the development of the modern science and technology and development of nuclear energy for the world?

Every single invention had been misused by the human race. "Dynamites" was not only used for breaking mountains to make roads but also used for making bombs that killed millions. Internet is not only being used for dissemination and communication of knowledge but also for pornography and a number of cyber crimes. The televisions and radios had been used not only for entertainments but also for propaganda.

Knowledge per-se is without any colour or attribute but people use the knowledge for pursuance of their own objective. The reveled knowledge of the scriptures is no exception.

Knowledge of God is as Immense as the Knowledge of Universe

The essence of all religion is spirituality i.e. a belief on a nonmaterial reality in this world that lies beyond the senses. This "Spirit" which permeates all creations of this universe is often called God. We know God as we too are part of God as God resides in all creations including each one of us. Thus the knowledge of God is "inherent" and as natural as the knowledge of the "self". It is for this reason that Hinduism does not distinguish between "Atman" (Soul) and Paramatman (God or Universal Soul) as there is no difference between a drop of ocean and ocean itself.

Thus the knowledge of God is extremely mysterious as one has to go "inside" the self to know God while all our sense organs only help us in seeing the outside world. Therefore, only with intuition and "Self-Enlightenment" one can know God.

There is no doubt that most of us are ignorant about God just like even the best scientists knows only a little about the universe. Even the father of science , Sir Isaac Newton admitted,

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding of a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

The same is true with our knowledge of God or the nonmaterial reality of the universe. The scriptures provide immense knowledge about the spiritual world, yet there is lot to be known and discovered by personal effort.

Religion in Theory

Religions had been used by people to achieve their political goals. They ignore all aspects of the religions which are beneficent to the humanity and use only such "words" of the religion that suits them to sow the seeds of hatred in the world and cause conflict and wars. How else a Christian can ignore these sermons of Christ and remember only "eye for eye",

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:38-40)

The word "Islam" itself means "Submission to God." The Arabic word "Islam" means the submission or surrender of one's will to the will of the only true god worthy of worship, "Allah" (known as God "the Father" in Christianity). Anyone who does indeed submit to the will of Allah as required by Islam is termed a "Muslim," Islam teaches peace like any other religion as clearly stated in Quoran,

"And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace." (Quran 25.63 )

Religion in Practice

A truly religious person is one who follows the scripture or the words of God rather than "knows" the words of scripture by heart. A man becomes religious only if he follows the path shown in the scriptures. Thus to become Christian, it is needed to follow Christ and be become like Him. Yet people have found a way to defy everything that Christ said and yet claim that they are Christian.

In the same way, a true Muslim is one who follows the path shown by Prophet Mohammad. Still people call themselves Muslims despite of consuming alcohol and other intoxicants, accumulating wealth and following the path of violence forbidden in Islam.

Hinduism too pays lot of value on the practice and believes the principle of "Karma" which alone is considered virtuous in men. Yet many people engage in evil karma, corruption, adultery and yet call themselves Hindus.

Religion is the Knowledge of God

There seems to be nothing wrong with any religion nor does any religion preach violence and hatred. Religions are nothing but a practice and ritual to know and realize the non-material reality of the world which we call God. It is only by prayers, humbleness, service, love that we can realize God. Yet, the true knowledge of God requires deep introspection and search within to develop the intuitive eyes that alone can help a man know God. Without self-realization, the knowledge of God is not only incomplete but also wrong as God is beyond any description of words. There are many people who are clever to use such ignorant people to realize their political and material goals.

Life is a mystery which can not be explained either by science or by scriptures. Truth has a body and a soul which we call science and religion. Contrary to popular perception, they are not opposed to each other but complement each other like body and soul. In fact, they can not exist without each other.

I am the founding member of The Science of Soul Foundation in India which works for the synthesis of the diverse disciplines of knowledge like science, religion, philosophy and arts. The website of the foundation is http://www.scienceofsoul.com.

I am working for the creation of a synthesis between science and religion through my articles. I believe that everyone can understand this Truth by the use of intuition and reason. You can contact me at aksinghirs [a] yahoo.com if you wish to know more about the mystery which we call life.

George w. Bush and the dark side of religious fundamentalism

A mouth that prays, a hand that kills.

- Arabian proverb

"How do you find a lion that has swallowed you?" asked Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung, commenting on the moral dilemma posed by the "shadow," his insightful term for the dark, hidden side of the human psyche.

The answer to Jung's questions is "you can't find or see that lion"--not as long as you are inside the beast. And therein resides the essential dilemma of a group's dark side or shadow: it is nearly impossible for those caught inside a group's belief system to see their own dark side with any clarity or objectivity. This hidden side grows over time, regressing, becoming more and more aggressive. It's the "long bag we drag behind us," says poet Robert Bly--where, as individuals, we dispose of all those things that are too uncomfortable to look at. "The long-repressed shadow of Dr. Jekyll rises up in the shape of Mr. Hyde, deformed, an ape-like figure glimpsed against the alley wall." Now imagine millions of Mr. Hydes and you have a sense of the group shadow of fundamentalist, right wing extremists dressed up as "compassionate conservatives," led by George W. Bush. It's like shifting from a hand gun to a nuclear bomb. And it began long ago in both the Moslem and Christian worlds.

The invasion of American Democratic institutions by fundamentalist, historically militant (as in crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions, and support of slavery) Christianity has significantly increased the stench coming from the already disturbing dark side of U.S. politics. It's like a nightmarish replay of the Christian crusades--politics with a militant, convert-the-heathens dark side. Potent, cult-like group dynamics combine with unacknowledged and unseen shadow qualities to easily overwhelm the individual's sense of right and wrong, often unleashing pure evil en masse.

As the political world and the media divided the U.S. into red and blue states, I found myself feeling uncomfortable even thinking about driving through one of those "red" states. I would imagine that every red-state person must be a card-carrying, right wing fundamentalist. From the other side of the mountain, those "blue" states are full of liberal, soft-on-terrorism, big government socialists. Both are examples of projecting our group's shadow onto the "enemy." And both views prevent us from "seeing" individual human beings. We see only that group, those people. With remarkable ease, we slide into a "programmed," either-or, group-think: we're the good guys, they're the bad guys. It's like seeing everything through red or blue-tinted glasses that color all we see and think--we've been "swallowed."

Group shadow dynamics can shift the focus of our beliefs with stunning speed to another "evil" enemy. Petty dictators are convenient "hooks" on which groups often hang their collective shadow, their dirty laundry; a perfect example being Saddam Hussein who, in 1990-1991 magically transitioned from being a relatively obscure U.S. ally (receiving military aid, weapons, satellite intelligence, and high tech equipment) into an incarnation of evil and a dire threat to humanity that we had to eliminate. Such is the hypnotic power of group paranoia combined with propaganda in stirring up a nationalistic, lynch mob mentality. In 1986, an article about Don Rumsfeld in the Chicago Tribune listed helping "re-open U.S. relations with Iraq" as one of his career achievements when he served as Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East. The State Department reported that while Rumsfeld was opening relations with Iraq, Saddam Hussein was murdering thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons.

Once a belief system gains control, those beliefs are much more likely to move us to action, propel us into roles and conduct we would never contemplate on our own. Voltaire warned, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Moreover, under the influence of any fundamentalist ideology, beliefs (often paranoid and delusional) tend to override facts--a very dangerous mental environment for making life and death decisions, or declaring war. Independent critical thinking and logic--qualities that are most threatening to any destructive group--expose absurdities. Consider this excerpt from a speech by the Nazi Party leader Rudolph Hess on June 30, 1934: "The National Socialism of all of us is anchored in uncritical loyalty..." (my italics). "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think," observed Hitler, who knew that thinking citizens were a real danger to his political ambitions.

Ignorance of the group shadow and its destructive consequences locks us into a mutually destructive embrace with our "enemies." In a perverse way each side needing the other--an ironic, group co-dependency on the others "evil" in order to perpetuate themselves. Thus the twisted rationale for a never-ending "War on Terror" that is the mirror image of the never-ending Islamic Jihad against the West. The president made this unending mission clear when he announced, "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland." The notion of permanent war against a designated "evil" or "tyranny" is a classic dark side of Christian fundamentalism that mimics the Moslem worlds' fundamentalist doctrine that declares non-Moslem countries as "Dar-al-Harb," which means "The Home of War." It's no surprise to realize that George W's fundamentalist dark side also echoes Islamic fundamentalism's oft-stated goal of a global Moslem theocracy, which a prominent Iranian ayatollah made perfectly clear: "It will . . . be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other."

Sounding a lot like a description of our current world situation, Erasmus (d. 1536), a peaceful, educated, psychologically savvy, Catholic humanist observed: "There is no injury, however insignificant it may be which does not seem to them [Christians] sufficient pretext to start a war. They suppress and hide everything that might maintain peace; they exaggerate excessively everything that would lead to an outbreak of war." In his book, People of the Lie, author M. Scott Peck explains the slippery nature of good and evil. He points out that "evil people are often destructive because they are trying to destroy evil. Instead of destroying others they should be destroying the sickness within themselves." This paradox is similar to Jung's observation that "a so-called good to which we succumb loses its ethical character," meaning that we paradoxically facilitate evil when we become one-sided, when we believe our group is on the side of goodness and virtue. When one-sided, a so-called quest for peace inevitably produces a group shadow filled with aggression and violence.

This one-sided, assumed superiority or "elitism" is at the core of the Bush administration's dark side, especially their pretentious, religious and political elitism. George W's elite base includes the wealthy and the powerful. They are the hidden people he really represents, those economically "elite," special interest bosses he described so accurately in a speech at one of his private, campaign fund raising dinners: "You're my base: the haves and the have mores." They must have been some of the people he was referring to at a 2002 meeting with his economic squad about a second round of tax cuts: "Haven't we already given money to rich people?"

You know a group's shadow is active when "...our belief is in the republic and the republic is declared endangered," explains author and psychologist James Hillman. "Whatsoever the object of belief--the flag, the nation, the president, or the god--a martial energy mobilizes. Decisions are quick, dissent more difficult. Doubt which impedes action and questions certitude becomes traitorous, an enemy to be silenced." "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today... is my own nation," observed Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., who practiced nonviolent social and political change. Shakespeare (in Julius Caesar) eloquently described the bright facade of this fundamentalist, political shadow in his play about another "super power": And let us bathe our hands in . . . blood up to the elbows, and besmear our swords. Then we walk forth, even to the market place, and waving our red weapons o'er our heads, let's all cry "peace, freedom and liberty!"

"There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world," proclaimed Christian fundamentalist Pat Robertson. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams, contained this statement: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." We've been here before. The fundamentalist invasion into modern politics has resurrected a nightmarish apparition in the form of Wilsonian political monotheism. We could summarize Wilson's foreign policy as "the imperative of America's mission as the vanguard of history, transforming the global order and, in doing so, perpetuating its own dominance," guided by "the imperative of military supremacy, maintained in perpetuity and projected globally"--all thinly veiled religious elitism and hubris, missionary theology masquerading as "peace, freedom and liberty." Similarly, in a much applauded speech in 1899, Theodore Roosevelt (just before becoming President) proposed "righteous war" as the sole means of achieving "national greatness." And, speaking through his group's fundamentalist "mouth that prays," Bush made his paranoid mission quite clear: "We will rid the world of the evildoers."

Like it or not we are stuck in a psychological dilemma fueled by the collision of two toxic groups--groups with deadly shadows created by literalized Christian monotheism and literalized Islamic monotheism--both fundamentalist, both virulent strains of group-think, both after mental territory, economic and political power. One of the symptoms of fanaticism is the belief that one's mission has been "blessed or even commanded by God," says Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. George W. Bush, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, "God told me to strike at Al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." In every sense of the word, destructive, group-based beliefs are the real weapons of mass destruction that we all need to be very worried about.

"God wanted me to be President," said George W. Bush. Regarding Iraq, Lieutenant General Boykin recently declared that our "spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus." "We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name," Bush declared when announcing his "strategy" for his evangelical, political crusade" Thus, warfare is applied theology. And from either side of the bloody plain, "every war is a just war, a battle between the forces of good and evil," a ghastly, incurable, repetition--the darkness of utter evil created by what appear to be the noblest of ideals. It creates a culture of immorality governed by hypocrisy, which further reinforces a collective blindness. Hypocrisy, as Hillman points out, "holds the nation together so that it can preach, and practice what it does not preach. It makes possible armories of mass destruction side by side with the proliferation of churches, cults, and charities"--the bright "good" side covering a very destructive dark side.

This fundamentalist, political shadow has become ever more insidious as their ideological assault erodes the constitutional separation of church and state--a separation that marked a stunning acceleration of individual human freedom, establishing a nation that respected the tension between two old enemies: Enlightenment rationalism and organized religion. Americans lived no longer under religious totalitarianism. Instead they lived in an age of religious freedom and an age of reason. America embodied the revolutionary notion that only a clean separation of church and state can guarantee freedom from religious tyranny and true religious freedom.

In 1962 Supreme Court Justice Black described the intent of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause: Justice Black observed that history had demonstrated time and again that "a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion." The American historian, Clinton Rossiter wrote: "The twin doctrines of separation of church and state and liberty of individual conscience are the marrow of our democracy, if not indeed America's most magnificent contribution to the freeing of Western man."

When someone shines a spotlight into a group's dark side it arouses, almost without fail, righteous indignation along with virulent, "kill-the-messenger" attacks. That is also why it is so utterly frustrating to have any meaningful, rational discussion or collaboration with a shadow-bound individual; you can never quite reach the real person. Instead you are stonewalled; you keep getting programmed, group-speak jargon designed to abort any real scrutiny of the group's always secretive dark side. Exposing torture and gross violations of the Geneva Convention means we are guilty of "not supporting our troops."

Mark Twain would have seen right through all this shadow-speak, language intended to "demonize" and kill any serious criticism. Twain once wrote: "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutation of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders," said Hermann Goring, at his trial in Nuremberg. He added: "This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." George W. Bush brings up Bin Laden and 9/11 over and over: "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11." Constant repetition of certain ideas is a common method of indoctrination used in destructive cults. "It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion," declared Josef Goebbles, the Nazi propaganda minister, who knew that tyrannical governments require brainwashed followers. And here's George W's not-quite-so-articulate, fundamentalist equivalent: "See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," quipped our self-titled "War President" in a 24 May 2005 speech.

So the Bush administration "fixes" intelligence reports, "fixes" scientific data on climate change and greenhouse gases, "fixes" reality on the ground in Iraq for the unthinking, uncritical, patriotic, loyal, citizens. These so-called "fixes" are really "lies"--the Bush group's program to "supervise the formation of public opinion," as Goebbles stated. Indeed, the purpose of all propaganda is to program individuals to act according to group beliefs and aims. Moreover, presidential scholar, Michael Genovese suggests that 9/11 helped to create a mass illusion: "The public needed to believe that [Bush] had grown," so "we chose to see him ...as bigger, better and different than he was." You could say that we temporarily projected a "savior" image onto the president; psychologists call this the "halo effect," the same sort of illusion that can make quite ordinary people suddenly appear to be superhuman, until the truth rattles our projections and reality returns.

Bush precisely articulated his own treacherous dark side when he announced, "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." An incredible statement considering the current U.S. nuclear weapons program and the decades-long "cold war" between Russia and the United States, the latter having created nuclear weapons technology while the former copies it and both proceed to manufacture and infect the planet with over 60,000 nuclear bombs and warheads--enough destructive power to end all life on the planet many times over. Never mind the fact that the United States actually dropped two atomic bombs on innocent civilian populations in Japan during the Second World War.

Perhaps the most insidious face of the ever-darkening shadow of evangelical, fundamentalist politics and its bright, shining slogan, "compassionate conservatism," is their in-humane, COMPASSIONLESS disregard for the suffering of others. Of course war is not compassionate for either side. "Compassionate" conservatives care more about the welfare of corporate America than for human suffering. Hypocritical, shadow-laden "compassion" is not new. Hitler and Stalin were two of the most vigorous "pro-lifers" of all time, as were numerous other tyrants. They (Hitler and Stalin) also criminalized previously legal abortions immediately upon taking power. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a soldier and then as the thirty-fourth President of the United States, knew firsthand the savage, inhumane consequences of warfare. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Looking closely at the whitewashed rhetoric of fundamentalism, we hear plenty of black magic--oft-repeated mantras like, "family values," the "right to life," and a "culture of life." But what about a trickle of compassion for the estimated 29,000 children under five who die on our planet each day from preventable neglect, starvation, disease, and abuse--a horrific "slaughter of innocents." What about their "right to life?" In Iraq (at this writing), well over 2,100 American soldiers have been killed and another 15, 000 wounded, many horribly crippled and disfigured for life. Incredibly brave young men and women--yet in reality victims of a fundamentalist/political cult's deadly shadow. The independent public database, http://www.iraqbodycount.net, reports over 27,000 innocent civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the United States and its allies--definitely not good for our "image." But this barely-seen slaughter by a "compassionate," hide-the-coffins Republican cult must be kept in the shadows because, as our President recently explained: "Those people (Iraqi insurgents) kill innocent civilians... women and children."

Then we have the shadow travesty of religious fundamentalists' attempts to stop stem cell research. George W. Bush, replying to questions about proposed stem cell legislation, said "...the use of federal money, taxpayers' money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life -- I'm against that." Here's the shadow: No life-saving stem cell research but immense, treasury draining, scientific research into anti-missile systems, nuclear bunker-busting weapons and a whole new arsenal of mini-nuclear weapons--sounds a lot like "using science which destroys life in order to save life!" I hear that lion roaring! Over time, fundamentalist leaders tend to become increasingly paranoid, unpredictable, and treacherously impulsive. This toxic mix of fundamentalism, politics, and explosive shadow dynamics has placed civilization in serious jeopardy at best--a doomsday scenario at worst. Robert J. Lifton, the author of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, explains that fundamentalism exists "always on the edge of violence because it ever mobilizes for an absolute confrontation with a designated evil, thereby justifying any actions taken to eliminate that evil."

So what can you and I do about this group shadow dilemma? Shadow work requires brutally honest self-examination, the courage to admit one's errors and mistakes, and the moral integrity to change policies, ideas, and opinions that have proven to be fallacious or harmful to others. It's time for civilized, compassionate, courageous people everywhere to refuse to participate in sanctifying a morally bankrupt administration hiding behind patriotic doublespeak. James Madison warned, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." In his book, Faces of the Enemy, Sam keen explains the "first rule" for understanding our own shadow: "Listen to what the enemy says about you... Borrow the eyes of the alien, see yourself from afar. ...Look with suspicion on the rhetoric of your nation."

As for religious groups, the Dalai Lama has a straightforward strategy: "This is my simple religion," he says. "There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." At some point, so-called moderate, non-violent Christians and Moslems must take responsibility for the militant consequences of their beliefs systems. Like the German peoples' denial of Nazi death camps or the world's ongoing blindness toward genocide, every peace-loving Christian and every peace-loving Moslem who remains silent, has the blood of innocents on his or her hands, as does each and every politician who has cowardly fallen to their knees before the brutal gods of religious fundamentalism, fanaticism and war.

Unless we change, I see an increasingly dangerous slide into the past, into a sinister dark side that poets describe best: "And we are here as on a darkling plain...Where ignorant armies clash by night."

John Goldhammer, Ph.D., is a Seattle, Washington (USA) psychologist and author of three books including, Under the Influence: The Destructive Effects of Group Dynamics (New York: Prometheus Books). He created and taught these university classes: The Psychology of Hate and The Psychology of Groups.

For article references and notes see website: [http://goldhammer.com/articles.htm].

Religious Tolerance Forum Hosted by the King of Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia initiated inter-religious meeting at the United Nations this week. King Abdullah called his initiative a "Culture of Peace Summit," to promote tolerance among the world's major religions. Participants who gathered in New York on Wednesday and Thursday called for promoting mutual understanding and tolerance, through dialogue. Among those who attended are leaders from Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Britain, Spain and the Philippines, said Enrique Yeves, spokesman for U.N. General Assembly president Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann. President Bush joined the leaders this morning and gave a speech at the U.N General Assembly hall.

Other participants include U.N. Secretary General Ban Li-Moon and the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the bloc of Muslim nations spearheading a campaign at the U.N. to outlaw the "defamation" of religion.

Critics note that while King Abdullah hosted leaders from different Muslim sects in Saudi Arabia, his other initiatives have taken place outside the kingdom. Any inter-religious meeting inside Saudi Arabia could draw opposition from conservative clerics unhappy with the presence of Christian and, especially, Jewish religious leaders.

The underlining results of this Summit are to make non-Muslims accept Islam and the shari'a law as well as the Islamic banking system without any recognition by Muslims to other faiths. The whole focus of the Summit is to endorse a U.N. Resolution of anti-blasphemy law against Islam around the world.

In 1999, Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced a measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council to spread shari'a law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.

The measure was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since. In 2005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. The 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again.

In 2007, a non-binding Resolution 62/145 says: "It notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001." It also "stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular."

The resolution is really designed to permit countries with a dominant religion, such as Islam, to squelch any free-speech rights of religious minorities, according to Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council (FRC). "So for instance, in some Muslim countries, it's considered blasphemy to just say what a Christian believes - because that is consistent with what Islam teaches," Saunders explains. "Or, to try to switch from Islam to Christianity, that's considered apostasy, and in those situations you can be punished by death."

This also means that, it will be ILLEGAL to practice any other religion in an Islamic country other than Islam.

Critics say that Saudi Arabia's policies are marked with oppression towards non-Muslims, which is in direct conflict with their attempt to promote religious tolerance abroad. By endorsing King Abdullah's call for "religious tolerance" critics say, the U.N. General Assembly is "partaking" in religious oppression in Saudi Arabia.

Muslims of Egypt has been, for a long time, persecuting Christian Coptic minority, under the auspices of the strict Islamic rule of Hosni Mubarak. The Christian minority of Iraq are being persecuted by the Muslims, with immunity and Christian churches are bombed with explosives in Pakistan.

There is a widespread concern that the resolutions are being used to justify harsh blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan.

In addition, every single constitution of the Middle East countries (except Lebanon and Turkey) has a provision stating that the laws of the land are based on the Islamic shari'a.

The U.S. government mission in Geneva, told the U.N. Human Rights Council that "defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human right" around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web.

Felice Gaer, chairman of the U.S. Commission for International Religion Freedom (USCIRF) was travelling Monday and could not be reached for comments, wrote CNS News. But a spokeswoman pointed to recent remarks Gaer gave to Fox News: "We'd like to see a conference like this take place inside Saudi Arabia and the fact that it isn't speaks volumes," she said. "That's true of the Madrid conference [in July] and true of the one at the U.N."

Gaer voiced the view that "the conference was part of a Muslim campaign to promote a religious "defamation" resolution at the General Assembly," said CNS News on November 11, 2008.

The European Union said the text proposed by Islamic countries was "one-sided" because it primarily focused on Islam. E.U. diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The European Center for Law and Justice filed a brief with the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in June 2008 warning that such anti-defamation resolutions "are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.

"Saudi Arabia calling on international religious tolerance is a little bit like the wolf calling for a sheep convention," responded Carl Moeller of Open Doors USA to Saudi Arabia's hosting a forum to promote interfaith dialogue.

In fact the U.N. "blasphemy resolution" has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:

- On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel "The Jewel of Medina," which gives a factional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that "credible and unrelated sources" said the book could incite violence by a "small, radical segments."

- A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.

- In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison fro writing a post that critiqued Islam.

- In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary about the abuse of Muslim women.

- On November 6, the Parliament of Kyrgystan adopted unanimously a new religious law targeting Christians and other religious minorities. It bans "proselytizing" and prohibits the conversion of Kyrgyz citizens to a different faith.

The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed.

Gabriel Sawma, a lawyer dealing with International Law, mainly the European Union Law, the Middle East Law and Islamic Shari'a law. Professor of Middle East Constitutional Law, Islamic Shari'a, Arabic and Aramaic languages. Expert witness on Islamic marriage contracts, including the mahr contract; expert witness on U.S.-Middle East commercial contracts. Member of the Beirut Bar Association in Lebanon; The New York State Bar Association; Associate member of the American Bar Association. Author of "The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an." Author of an upcoming book on "Islamic marriage Contracts in U.S. Courts.
http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com
Editor of International Law website: http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com
Email: gabrielsawma@yahoo.com

La guerra de venida con Irán - un examen de perspectivas religiosas

For the past few weeks, Israel and Iran have overtaken Iraq in Middle-Eastern news. They're fighting over the nuclear designs that Iran says will used for peaceful power generation. Israel claims that Iran is developing a bomb to wipe them off the map. These claims are muddled, due to the fact that the IAEA has given differing levels of intelligence concerning exactly what Iran plans to do, and whether they are in a position to fully develop their capabilities. Their current head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has been a controversial figure, as the US and Israel claim that he is being too lenient with the government of Iran. All in all, we are looking at the setup for a massive Middle-Eastern shootout.

What's the fight over? On the surface, the claim is over what Israel's Arabic neighbors call " the occupation". It boils down to an argument that the land where Israel sits is Palestinian land. The Arabs want Israel to either be destroyed, cede the land back to the Palestinians, or, best case scenario, for both to happen at the same time. The Israeli's claim that their statehood was declared somewhere around 1000 B.C., and since they were driven from their land, they are just retaking what is rightfully theirs. The reclamation and reestablishment of Israel is therefore just and fitting, and the Palestinians should deal with it. This is the argument that has been made since Israel redeclared statehood, back in 1948.

Below the surface, where the really deep tensions lie, is a family feud based on two religions, with the input of a third: Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The issue is over which son was the chosen one. Islam teaches that Ishmael, the offspring of an Egyptian handmaiden was the chosen son. Judaism, along with the torah, teaches that Isaac was the son chosen by God to inherit the blessings that He gave to Abraham. This does not sit well with Islamic Arabs, not at all. It's one thing to be best loved by daddy, it's another to be the favorite of God on top of that. Along with this, goes the story of Isaac's children, Jacob and Esau. Some traditions teach that the Arabs are descendants of Esau, and the Torah clearly teaches that Jews are the descendants of Jacob. God even took the guesswork out of it by changing Jacob's name to Israel. It is written that God said "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.", it's pretty clear from Jewish perspective who has the most favor. Not something you want to bring up at the family reunion.

Another problem that many Israeli's have is the Islamic declaration that Jerusalem is a Muslim holy place. This is a recent development, as most scholars agree that the case for this argument was not made until Israel moved back into the neighborhood in '48. Since Israel is never mentioned in the Qur'an, Muhammad never visited Jerusalem(despite the Night Journey of Muhammad legend), and Muslims always pray facing Mecca, Jews consider this a trumped-up claim. The argument goes something like this: "How can Jerusalem be holy to Islam if it was never visited, mentioned, or declared holy by the foremost prophet of the religion, in the most holy book of the Islamic tradition?". Talk about a hard question to answer, I personally would just let it go and move along.

What about the Dome of the Rock, that's an Islamic shrine, isn't it? Yes, yes it is. There is just one peculiarity that sets the DOR apart from the average shrine. The shrine was built over an older Christian church, and it was built specifically to get Christians to convert to Islam(there is a long story behind this.For more information, look up the Islamic concept of a "dhimmi"). This was never built for a Muslim audience to inhabit, rather to get Christians to abandon their faith in Jesus as Messiah, and accept Allah as the one true god. One other interesting thing: When you enter the shrine, you face away from Mecca. Every other Muslim holy place situates you so that you naturally face Mecca, that you might give respect to that place, and pray more easily. Think about it. It's pretty inconvenient to get 5-700 people turned around, have them kneel, and then bow, when you could have just had them face the proper way in the first place. Let's recap: Old Christian shrine, built over with new shrine, for the sole purpose of converting Christians to Islam. No other importance in Islamic history than that. There goes the Muslim argument for the Temple Mount, and all the hoopla that it has caused over the years. If anyone should want the place, it should be the Christians, so they can restore the church that once stood there.

So where's the beef? This is where we get at what is driving Ahmadenijad and his ilk in the Middle East. Islamic eschatology (or Qayamah) concerns itself with the end of days, last judgment of the world, and the obliteration of all unbelievers by Allah. Yeah, nice. Allah is going to have his faithful kill all those who will not convert to Islam, then he'll send them to hell and, well, I'll just let the Qur'an speak for itself:

 004.056

YUSUFALI: Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

and

047.015

SHAKIR:...(Are these) like those who abide in the fire and who are made to drink boiling water so it rends their bowels asunder.

Yeah, I think I'll pass. The thing is, they also believe in someone who will come and be Allah's instrument for that purpose: The Mahdi. Ahmadenijad is a big believer in the Mahdi. The Mahdi will throw Israel out of it's land, and will lead the Arabs in a fight against foreigners that occupy the land. The Mahdi will proceed the second coming of Jesus, who will deny that he is God's son, and point all to the one true god, Allah. If you are a student of the Judeo-Christian eschatology, you will notice a few parallels with Tanakh's book of Daniel and the New Testament book of Revelation. In the Judeo-Christian version, the Mahdi would fit nicely into the role of the beast, alternately known to the Christians as the anti-Christ.

Ahmadenijad is a fan of the Mahdi. So what? Well, he's more than a fan, apparently. Here's a quote from May 2008, straight from this article in the Washington Post:

TEHRAN, May 7 -- Several leading Iranian clerics criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad on Wednesday for saying that the last imam of Shiite Islam, a messianic figure who Shiites believe was hidden by God 1,140 years ago, leads modern-day Iran.

"We see his hand directing all the affairs of the country," Ahmadinejad told theological students in the city of Mashad during a speech that appears to have been given last month but was not broadcast until Tuesday. "A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities. God willing, Iran will be the axis of the leadership of this movement," Ahmadinejad said.

This sounds nice enough, but there is a much darker meaning hovering beneath the surface of this statement. The preconditions for the full revealing of the Mahdi are that the world must be pure, and at the height of it's reason and morality. To a fundamentalist Muslim, this can only be accomplished when two things have happened: The Great and Little Satan (the USA and Israel) must be dealt with in judgment, and the world must be converted to Islam. After all, what could be more logical and moral than to eradicate the evil that afflicts the earth, and have the world see the light that is Islam.

Naturally, the US and Israel are against this proposition, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would be a little shaky on conversion at gunpoint. This is why war is coming, not because Iran is developing nuclear capabilities, but because Iran has a leader who believes his religion gives him a mandate from god to destroy and conquer the world.

To all agnostics and atheists who believe that Christians are to blame for dismissing their place in society, think about the man who would destroy completely those who try to express themselves in it. To all those who have labeled George W. Bush as a fascist, Hitler, whatever, I strongly urge you to redirect your focus to a man far crazier, and far more dangerous. To all who claim their sexual preference is being restricted here, take a gander at the man who claimed that " There are no homosexuals in my country....We do not have this phenomenon in our country." If that were true, it would only be because he has methodically exterminated all of them.

In fairness, not all Muslims or even all Iranians share the Apocalyptic visions of grandeur that Mr. Ahmadenijad so vehemently espouses. The problem is, they are not the ones who control the country of Iran. They cannot tell scientists to stop enriching uranium, or stop purchases of Russian military equipment. They are not even at liberty to chose a religion without the threat of death hanging over their heads.

Ahmadenijad hears the footsteps of the Mahdi...how long will you turn a deaf ear?

Kurt Hartman has meandered to the beat of a different drummer his entire life. He's been a marketer, AV Pro, and general techie for the better part of his existence. His main goal is to share his knowledge with others.

In doing so, he prays that he has made your life a little easier, your thought process, a little richer, and your laugh, measurably longer.

Pope Benedict's Invitation to the World's Religious and Policymaking Communities

The furious reaction that ensued following Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 lecture at the University of Regensburg all but drowned out the vital issue he was raising, not to mention his invitation for cross-cultural and interfaith dialogue. His lecture was not about Islam, or disrespect for Islam as a number of Muslim critics decried, but about the role of reason in the context of religion. That is a universal issue that extends to all the world's religions and beyond.

Early in the lecture, the Pope quoted a 14th century dialogue carried out between Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar. At the time, a decaying Byzantine Empire was facing a growing struggle with a rising and expanding Ottoman Empire. That struggle had religious overtones. Therefore, the fact that the Emperor raised a key question concerning religion and religious doctrine is not at all surprising.

Emperor Manuel's preeminent argument was that, in general, violence is incompatible with religion. Under such an assumption, coercion in the name of religion is also inappropriate. "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul... not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature... Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats," the Emperor argued. "To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death," he added. In short, Manuel II felt that religious decrees needed to be constrained by what is reasonable.

That constraint of "reasonableness" extends beyond religious doctrine, especially in the post-Enlightenment world. Secular policy is constrained by "reasonableness." The Laws of War that have evolved since the 19th century offer a classic example. For example, under the Laws of War, it is reasonable for military combatants to target one another. However, it is unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful for military combatants to make civilians who cannot defend themselves their targets.

In his lecture, the Pope decried modern efforts to restrict the role of reason to matters that are observable or testable. Instead, he advocated a broader role for reason, one that extends to religious concepts and teachings, in addition to matters of science. Toward that end, far from seeking to isolate Muslims, the Pope called for a "dialogue of cultures and religions". He asserted that such a dialogue is "urgently needed today." Keeping with his theme, he also asserted, "The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason... this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time... It is to this...breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

That is an inclusive and tolerant message that his angry critics missed or ignored. In terms of foreign policy, the Pope's point is crucial. Unless states and leaders are willing to limit the means by which they pursue their policy objectives to discourse, the threat of violence or war will always remain very high. Diplomacy seeks to offer an alternative to war. It attempts to resolve disputes or pursue common ends though dialogue, persuasion, and compromise. Diplomacy is premised on the assumption that people are reasonable. If so, people can accommodate one another in finding common ground or forging an agreement that best protects their core needs or advances their interests. Moreover, modern free societies are founded on the idea that reason not force is society's arbiter. By any other assumption, free societies would simply cease to be feasible.

Apparently, the Pope's critics found his notion that "acting reasonably" applies to religion unreasonable or worse. For some, one can perhaps understand why. If religion demands that one act "reasonably," then the small number of extremists who seek to build a totalitarian caliphate based on their radical interpretation of Islam would no longer be able to justify their quest on religious grounds. If so, their endeavor would simply become just another totalitarian pursuit that has scarred human history and they would find themselves isolated by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The university setting offered Pope Benedict an ideal forum for raising one of the big questions that has remained with humanity since the convergence of religion and reason and even earlier. In the best traditions of academe, it is exactly those big, difficult, and controversial questions that should be subject of rigorous inquiry, debate and discourse. Open debate on even controversial matters or deeply-held positions is what academic freedom is all about. Moreover, if people are "free to choose" (so long as they don't cause harm to others in the classical liberal tradition), then when it comes to matters of faith and conscience, persuasion ought to be the sole means by which opinions, views, or perspectives are formed or embraced. If the acts of people and states were constrained by a triumph of persuasion over coercion, then the resulting world would be far more peaceful and tolerant than it is today.

Nonetheless, Benedict's critics swept aside the Pope's message. Instead, they focused solely on Manuel II's challenge to the Persian scholar to "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." By doing so, they missed the Pope's invitation to greater interfaith dialogue and a pursuit of a more peaceful and tolerant future.

At a time when the world is facing a challenge posed by radical Islamist terrorists--as separate and distinct from Muslims and Islam--the world's Muslims have a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate that what Mohammed "brought" was not the "evil and inhuman" coercion the Byzantine emperor feared, but in fact the kind of tolerance, co-existence, and role of reason that prevailed at the height of Classical Islamic greatness. Moderate Muslims have an opportunity to protect their faith from the extremists' interpretations. Those radical interpretations seek to divide the world's peoples between the "faithful" and "infidels," justify the use of force for earthly purposes of raw aggression and conquest, and impose a totalitarian coercion that suffocates people's freedom to live and worship as they see fit. It is strictly those radical interpretations that are "inhuman" and in need of being delegitimized and disassociated from Islam.

Benedict's message, if it is taken to heart and preserved in its proper context, plants the seeds for helping launch that process. Its call for a "dialogue of cultures and religions" is an invitation that both the world's religious communities and its policymakers should accept. It is that dialogue that could offer the world a new "Road Map" that just might lead to the kind of increased peace and tolerance that seems so elusive in the first decade of the 21st century.

Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Politicians Exploiting Religious Prejudice With 9-11 Mosque Issue

La mayoría de los estadounidenses, basado en encuestas recientes, se opone a la construcción de un nuevo centro comunidad islámica, de Park51, en la ciudad de Nueva York porque contiene una mezquita. Comprendo y simpatizar con este punto de vista. La mezquita es cercana a cero y miles perdieron la vida a dos cuadras de los extremistas islámicos.

Toda persona tiene derecho a sentir lo que quieren sobre esta situación. Estoy seguro de que la mayoría de ustedes estarán de acuerdo que no todos los musulmanes son terroristas. Pero la realidad es que es la única manera posible que cualquiera podría ofendido por una mezquita pacífica si de alguna manera equiparen la toda religión del Islam con el terrorismo. Si bien somos todos simpatía a las víctimas y familias devastadas por el 9/11, simpatía nunca es una excusa para la intolerancia y los prejuicios.

Los opositores originales de la mezquita, después de todo, fueron bloggers radicales que están contra el Islam en general. Tienen nombres como detener la islamización de América y Jihad Watch. Estos grupos efectivamente cambian "centro comunitario de Park51" en "mezquita de 9/11". Como si esto no fuera lo suficientemente loco, los principales políticos y expertos como Sarah Palin y Rudy Giuliani han dado a los opositores mezquita credibilidad usando el discurso de odio para ganar votos.

El Islam es fundamentalmente Pacífico. El Corán dice claramente que la vida de otro ser humano es contra la voluntad de Alá (National Geographic, 25/09/2001). Pero cualquier religión pacífica puede ser reinterpretada para promover la violencia. Los cristianos han muerto en nombre de Dios durante las cruzadas y la Inquisición española. Grupos terroristas judíos en Israel han llevado a cabo ataques contra los árabes en la Ribera Occidental. El Klu Klan Klan afirma en su sitio Web que es "un mensaje de esperanza y liberación para llevar blanco de Christian de América."

No musulmanes estadounidenses deben aprender a reconocer que no hay más que ver con el Islam corriente principal de la Iglesia Bautista de Westboro tiene que ver con el cristianismo mainstream terroristas islámicos. El Islam es una parte de este país y por lo tanto es tolerancia religiosa. Después de todo, nuestras colonias americanas, fueron fundados por puritanos y cuáqueros que buscan la libertad religiosa. Washington él mismo escribió a la congregación hebrea en Newport, Rhode Island, que nuestro Gobierno "no da al fanatismo facciones, persecución sin asistencia". Jefferson Lee la Biblia y el Corán.

Los políticos que utilizan los prejuicios religiosos para su ventaja deberían avergonzarse de sí mismos. Expertos como Rush Limbaugh han utilizado términos como "Obama Osama" para convencer a los estadounidenses que Obama Presidente es un musulmán y, por tanto, mal. Esta es la historia que se repite. Oponentes de Lincoln difusión rumores que él era católico. Oponentes del FDR lo llamaban un judío.

El proyecto de Park51 ha proporcionado los políticos con otra poderosa palanca para utilizar odian ganar votos. Sin gurús deliberadamente encendiendo el debate, un centro de comunidad musulmana claramente no sería un problema. Después de todo, hay otras mezquitas en la misma zona (ABCNews.com, 02/08/2010) y cualquier número de bloques puede considerarse "demasiado cerca de cero". Si la mezquita fueron cinco, diez o veinte cuadras podemos estar seguros de que todavía se hará en un problema.

El costo del uso de odio para beneficio político es un creciente sentimiento antimusulmán en todo el país. En Temecula, California el Centro Islámico había intentado construir una mezquita para reemplazar el almacén habían estado orando en. El 30 de julio se congregaron los conservadores locales contra ellos con carteles tales como "No más mezquitas en América". (Time Magazine, 21/08/2010) El Pastor de la Iglesia Bautista local criticó la mezquita como un imán para las creencias islámicas intolerantes. Y dentro de los últimos días, un taxista musulmán fue apuñalado en la ciudad de Nueva York - probablemente debido a los prejuicios inflamados creados por el debate de la mezquita.

Newt Gingrich, entretanto, ha comparado el proyecto Park51 para agregar un símbolo Nazi a un memorial del Holocausto. ¿Le gustaría preguntar Sr. Gingrich quien es el verdadero Nazi - el hombre que se levanta para tolerancia religiosa o el hombre que persigue una etnia para conseguir votos para su partido? Nuestro Presidente no podría ser popular ahora, pero al menos puede ir a dormir tranquilo sabiendo que se negó a hundir a nivel del Sr. Gingrich.

Espero que nosotros, como los estadounidenses abrazar los valores de nuestro país y nuestra historia de tolerancia religiosa en lugar de dar en perjuicio. Espero que los políticos que han explotado este tema para ganar votos serán impulsados fuera de oficina. El 9/11 terroristas nos golpeó, pero lograron destruir los valores y la integridad de nuestra nación. No deberíamos permitir que los políticos codiciosos intervenir para destruir lo que el terrorismo no podía.

Let There Be Peace on Earth - Let it Begin with the Two Largest Religious Groups

The purpose of this article is emphasizing the positive rather than the negative. The hope is that after reading it, we would all come away feeling that we would like to be our brother's keeper.

Islam Believes:

There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.
If anyone harms another, God will harm him; and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him.

If one focuses on the actions of a few militant Muslims, one would never arrive at this conclusion. Considering the facts below could go a long way to assist each and every one of us to arrive at a more balanced conclusion:

Estimates of the total number of Muslims range from 0.7 to 1.8 billion worldwide including 1.1 to 7 million in the U.S. The present estimates indicate that 33% of all people follow Christianity while 23% follow Islam. With the rapid growth of Islam, it is estimated that it will out-grow Christianity by the mid-21st century if the present trend continues. We have to differentiate between Radical and Moderate Islam. The vast majority of people belong to Moderate Islam. Christians should make an effort to get to know the people from Moderate Islam better and encourage and assist them to take a stand against their Radical brethren. Islam phobia or hatred of Muslims is not the answer. We cannot assume that all Muslims are extreme, violent, fundamentalist terrorists who are out to hurt us.

Christians and non-Christians seem to regard Christianity and Judaism as having a positive influence on society. Most would agree that this is so. It does not mean that we should view other religious groups with suspicion and treat them with hostility.

Take a stand when hate crimes against mosques and individual Muslims are committed. As members of the human race, won't it be great if we all believed in the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support and caring simply because they are human. Obtain a balanced understanding of positive and negative contributions of religion, including religious sources that inspired Gandhi and Mother Teresa who committed their lives to unselfishly serve humanity.

Religious beliefs have contributed to hatred, violence, unjustified discrimination and suffering as well as mass murders and genocide. These were committed in many countries including Nazi Germany, Kosovo, Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

Promoting Love and Peace is something that we could all aspire to do. Perhaps the followers of Christianity and Islam would like to get together to ponder this. It could be the start of a great movement.

We could all subscribe to this movement in small ways. Reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters. We could start with tiny steps such as a smile, an invitation to coffee, pleasant conversation on a bus or train, small gestures like that. Then allow it to develop in its own way.

If we all believe that we are one in all and all in one, then we would reach out to everyone regardless of religion, race, nationality or sexual preference. The purpose of our existence is not to judge. It is to reach out, to touch and to love each and every one of our brothers and sisters in this Universe.

Let this be our motto. Let us be all inclusive and not leave out any individual, race or nationality. Let us resolve to make this World a Better Place starting now.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am a Roman Catholic and I have no prejudice against any human being because of race, color, nationality, religion or for any other reason for that matter.

It is my hope and prayer that I shall leave this earth a better place than I found it. The intent of this article is not to write about Christians and Muslims. This is about the human race. It is about being our brother's keeper.

I wish you all Pure Love and Pure Light.

Sheila Baumann,
President - Lighthouse Mind Body Soul Ltd.
URL: http://MindBodySoulandLight.com
Email: MindBodySoul13@gmail.com