A decades-old prophecy is materializing, right before our eyes

A long time ago, decades ago — 1965, to be exact — one of the best commentators ever to grace the airwaves, Paul Harvey, delivered a commentary titled “If I Were the Devil.” It rocked his listeners then, as they saw elements of this prophetic vision around them already. Today, we see even more of it, although some things have yet to become completely or precisely fulfilled.

“If I were the devil …” he began, “If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee.”  

“So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’”

Much of this commentary does not yet exist in a word-for-word form, but the general ideas are there for all of us to see. The devil’s goals are much nearer.

Religion had to be attacked, because no more-powerful being could be allowed to exist in the devil’s new world.

“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’”

Then he took aim at the way we live, and the things we do. “And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.”

“If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed.”

Next came our major influences, such as education and the media, where the devil’s workshop exists, doing his work. “And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions — just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

And then the weakened culture would receive more attacks. “Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography — soon I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress.”

“And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.”

“If I were the devil I’d take from those who have, and give to those who want until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.”

“And what do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would caution against extremes and hard work in Patriotism, in moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be.” 

“And thus, I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were the devil I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.”

And following all of that seeing into the future, he closed with his famous conclusion: “Paul Harvey, good day.”

Apparently, the devil heard Paul, and followed his prophetic vision. 

Today, the American spirit has been attacked and weakened. Millions somehow do not know how great — although not perfect — our country is. They don’t understand how much better it is than other places these misinformed masses wish to emulate.

When some of us find one thing someone did or said that they don’t like, they seek to cancel them, to remove every last vestige of that person, forever. A life of true excellence can be over-written by one thought or deed from years or decades before.

Factions work to destroy the nation’s true history, attempting to redefine each of us as either the oppressed, or the oppressor, depending upon the color of our skin. This fallacious point of view ignores the profound, sensible aspiration of Martin Luther King, Jr., who understood and preached that one’s skin color is far less important than one’s character.

Truth is under attack; political reality is more important. Not even our Constitution is held above being subverted.

If Paul were alive today, he might warn us, “Don’t be ‘woke,’ be awake!”

Religious beliefs take a beating in today’s politically correct world

Issues of religious freedom have been in the news a good bit lately. Primarily, these news events occur when someone finds their religious beliefs in conflict with another person’s secular desire. A baker or a florist who regularly sells their wares to gay/lesbian customers declines to bake a cake or make floral arrangements for their wedding because their religious beliefs do not approve homosexual marriage. Despite the fact that there are many, or if not many, at least some alternatives to those bakers or florists, those who refused to provide services were persecuted and some driven out of business by the uproar the offended gay/lesbian couples instigated because these people held to their religious beliefs.

More recently, a county clerk in Kentucky refused to sign marriage licenses of gay/lesbian couples after a court ruled that treating gay/lesbian couples differently than heterosexual couples is discrimination, and therefore illegal. A judge jailed the clerk for refusing to act, despite the commonly observed practice by judges of using the least radical punishment for such problems first, and then proceeding to more stringent punishment and ultimately jail as the last resort.

This last episode is a much different situation than those previously mentioned, as it involves a government employee refusing to do her sworn duty. But the attention it received and the way the judge handled the clerk does illustrate the size of the schism between people following their religious beliefs and social preferences or legal mandates.

If there were options other than punishing these Americans for following their religious beliefs, why were bakers, florists, and others who have had similar misfortunes singled out for what may rightly be termed persecution. This point is particularly relevant in a nation in which the first right among four specifically enumerated rights in the first of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights is the free exercise of religion?

It is also relevant to note the degree to which these events attract media coverage, which highlights how unpopular traditional religious practices have become to the media and many Americans in the 21^st century.

Combine a media mindset apparently hostile to religious practices with a tendency to try to tear down Republican presidential candidates and you find Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson being given rough treatment after saying that a Muslim shouldn’t be President of the United States. "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," he said a while back on NBC's "Meet the Press."

A bit later in the interview, he said, when asked about a Muslim running for Congress, that it would depend upon the individual in question. "Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just like it depends on what anybody else is," Dr. Carson said. "If there's somebody who is of any faith but they say things and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them."

Host Chuck Todd also asked him whether a president's faith should matter to voters. "I guess it depends on what that faith is," he said. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." Asked whether he thinks Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't – I do not."

Clearly, Dr. Carson believes that anyone subjugating their religious beliefs, whatever religious beliefs they may hold, to the requirements of our Constitution is the key element.

He appeared on ABC News’ “This Week” last Sunday where reporter Martha Raddatz grilled him on that same statement, either ignorant of his other comments further defining his view on the issue, or unwilling to acknowledge them. Here is part of that interview:

Raddatz: “I want to go back to your controversial comments on the possibility of a Muslim president. The question seemed quite clear. The question was: Should a president’s faith matter? You said, I guess it depends on what that faith is. The question was: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution, and you said no, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. 

Do you stand by that now?”

Carson: “Well, first of all, you know, what I said is on a transcript and it’s there for anybody.”

Raddatz: “I’m reading the transcript, Dr. Carson, that’s exactly what you said.”

Carson: “No – read the paragraph before that where I said anybody, doesn’t matter what their religious background, if they accept American values and principles and are willing to subjugate their religious beliefs to our Constitution. I have no problem with them.

Why do you guys always leave that part out, I wonder?”

Political correctness – or opposing unpopular things in favor of popular things – is the order of the day, in life and in the media.

You vill obey! You must do vhat I say!

Comments are invited

Muslims Really Don’t Discriminate Against Women

The conventional wisdom in the West is that Muslims view females as second-class citizens, deserving of being treated as property, subservient to males and quietly obedient. This is why they cover their bodies from head to toe, showing only their eyes so that they can see where they are going.

A news item today puts that idea into debate, and shows once again that we in the West really don’t know or understand Islam and the Muslim culture, by revealing that women are just as good as men, at least for certain roles.

The news report says that “U.S.-led coalition forces are increasingly catching militants suspected of training women to become human bombs or finding evidence of efforts by al-Qaida in Iraq to recruit women” as suicide bombers.

And, apparently al-Qaida is not as maniacally wedded to the fundamentalist fringes of Islam as we once thought, because it goes against religious taboos in Iraq to involve women in fighting. The three recent suicide bombings carried out by women indicate, perhaps, that al-Qaida really doesn’t hew so closely to the dictates of the Islamic faith, or maybe, as the news story suggested, insurgents are merely growing increasingly desperate.

Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Radical Islam, Religion, Islam

Latinos Say US Has Hostile Climate for Immigrants

A letter from Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans—MARCHA—calls upon United Methodists to be sensitive to the plight of immigrants this Christmas seasons. The letter is signed by retired Bishop Elias Galvan, interim CEO, and the organization's president, Rev. David Maldonado Jr., who list problems that they say Latinos are plagued with.

"During this Christmas season, when we remember [that Jesus was] born to parents journeying in a foreign land for the sake of their survival," the letter states, "we invite The United Methodist Church to join MARCHA in standing against the negative and anti-Latino forces and voices around us. Let us be truly The United Methodist Church."

How's that again? "Journeying in a foreign land for the sake of their survival?" What Bible do the good people at MARCHA read? The Bible I am familiar with tells us that Mary and Joseph, the future parents of Jesus, were in Bethlehem where Joseph was born to register for the census or to pay taxes, depending upon which version you like, at the demand of emperor Caesar Augustus. That's just a little different than being in a foreign land for the sake of survival.

This twisting of the Christmas story to draw a fallacious, self-serving parallel is vaguely reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's efforts a few years ago when she made a similarly erroneous charge, claiming that Mary and Joseph were homeless people. We might expect such cheap tricks from a politician, but most of us expect a Methodist bishop and minister to be more forthright or at least to know their scripture.

The letter goes on to say that "Latinos face daily suspicion of their citizenship and rights as residents of our communities," and that "they are subjected to racial profiling and suspicion as they seek employment, housing, or simply driving down the street." Asking Latino families "to prove their citizenship in order to rent a house, to be employed or enroll their children in school" is "legalized racism," the letter says.

Methinks that MARCHA protests too much. There are, after all, some 20 million Latinos in the US illegally, and it is against the law to hire illegals and to assist them in remaining in the US illegally. And with the increased focus on stopping illegals from entering the country, smart employers will be careful whom they hire, and landlords and school officials will be wise to do likewise.

This defensive, victim attitude is similar to the attitude of some Muslims, who can't understand why Americans are suspicious of young Muslim men on airplanes.

MARCHA wants the Methodists to stand against the treatment they call racism, to oppose what they view as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino laws enacted by cities and states, and also to support Latinos subjected to bad treatment.

What the Methodists decide to do on this issue is their business, but one would hope that they base their decision on the fundamental tenets of their religion, and not succumb to the dishonestly twisted facts about Jesus' birth that MARCHA employed in its letter. And we would hope that the governing body of the Methodist Church would not encourage its adherents to break their country's laws to satisfy MARCHA's narrow aims.

The Straight Face Test

[Editor's Note: My friend Kenna Amos has a blog titled "The Straight Face Test," now inactive due to Kenna's work demands. I invited him many months ago to submit columns to me for publication on Observations whenever he had something he wanted to say and the time to say it.

This is Kenna's first opportunity; I hope there will be many more.]

_______________________________________________

Theologian-in-chief—maybe even Christian?—Bush’s Not

Few Christians will ever get the chance to witness for Jesus the Christ as Methodist George W. Bush has had and still has.

Unfortunately, he hasn’t capitalized on those opportunities.

I’ve always given the president the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his professed Christianity. In mid-December 1999, during the first presidential campaign, he said, “When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me.”

OK.

That’s what you’d expect a believer in the Christ to profess.

But in that same interview, he named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher. Come again? I’ve heard Jesus called many things, honorific and respectful as well as degrading and insulting, but never that. Perhaps a reading of the Holy Bible, especially the Gospels and New Testament, as political theory might be enlightening?

Regardless, that’s when I first suspected Bush would equivocate later, perhaps significantly, about his faith. And the more I’ve heard him call Islam a “religion of peace,” the more I knew Bush’s big, false declaration about God was coming.

Well, as they’d say in France, “Il est arrivé.”

He did that when he told Al Arabiya in an Oct. 4, 2007, interview at the White House that, essentially, everyone prays to the same god. “I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace,” he declared.

His statement about all of us praying to the same God wasn’t just mistaken, as someone has said—it was flat-out ignorant and wrong for a Christian to say.

How so? Because God’s declared He’s the only one. Him. The I Am That I Am. Yahweh. The Lord Jehovah declares His divine singularity in the Old Testament, for example, in the Book of Isaiah at Chapter 44, verse 6; d Chapter 45, verse 6 and verse 22; and Chapter 46, verse 9. And since the Word of God says He cannot lie, then it’s true, if you’re a Christian.

Sure, Bush can be forgiven. Of course, he’ll need to consider what he did and his motivation for doing it.

But those printed words traveling speedily around the world, especially Islamic countries, will haunt not just America, but Israel and the rest of the non-Islamic—especially, Christian—world for a long time.

Thanks be to God, that’s nothing that He, the Almighty—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—can’t handle. But it could make the sledding a tad rougher for some of us earthly mortals.

As for the president saying once again that Islam is “a religion of peace”? That continues to empower the Islamofascist terrorists.

For him to continue to spout that deceitful theological ignorance and political propaganda, something he’s done since 9/11—especially to an Arab Muslim newspaper—makes the president at least either a dupe or one of the biggest unpaid propaganda mouthpieces the Islamofascists have, or both.

If he were less politician and perhaps a real believer in Christ, he would never have uttered what he did to Al Arabiya, either about God or Islam.

That, too, though, is something the Lord Jehovah can handle. But, again, Bush only makes it tougher, more potentially violent for us mortals when he speaks with spiritual ignorance and deception.

These days, to stand one’s spiritual ground, particularly if you’re a Christian in a post-if-not-anti-Christian America and the anti-Christian world, it takes courage, it takes commitment and it takes clarity—and knowledge.

Sadly, the president seems to have exhibited none of these recently, when he had to opportunity to stand for the one he’s called Savior. Perhaps he hasn’t figured out how to “render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Or that it’s impossible for someone to serve two masters, say politics and God?

Technorati Tags: Religion, America, George Bush

Continuing the Creation/Evolution Discussion

What follows is a continuation of the previous article, Creation Museum Stirs Scientists’ Opposition, and is based upon a comment by Leo, a new commenter to Observations, which poses a thoughtful challenge to my original post. I chose to make the following exchange an article of its own because I think it will be interesting reading, and because it might have been “lost” if left in the Comment section. Leo’s comment has been slightly edited, and the unedited comment can be found among the comments to the original article.

Leo's Comment: I have a question for you, if you believe religious ideas of creationism are correct and you have faith in those ideas why attempt to falsely couch them behind the guise of science?

In other words, there are plenty of churches and Sunday schools where religious people are FREE to teach their children any theory of creationism they desire, so why would religious people feel the need to open a "museum" which is historically an arena reserved for purely intellectual/factual/secular teaching???

The only logical answer to this question that I can think of is that the said religious people wish to present their beliefs in a secular/factual type of setting in order to convey a false presumption that their beliefs are not based on faith, but on fact, which is backed up by science. In my opinion this is the same reason that some religious people want to tout "intelligent design" as a science instead of what it is, which is a purely faith based opinion/theory.

I'm sure you will not particularly enjoy my point of view on this subject, but before you jump to the conclusion that I'm some sort of atheist, I'll let you know I'm actually a weekly church-goer who has enough faith in my religious beliefs to feel comfortable continuing to use the mind God gave me to reason, and allow that while God created the universe there is plenty of evidence that evolution is factual and the Bible does not have to be taken completely literally when it comes to the seven-day time frame.

I think there is room in one's mind to believe that science and religion do not have to be diametrically opposed.

Response: First, it isn’t clear from your first sentence whether “you” refers to me, or whether it refers more broadly to believers. I frequently take science and scientists to task for its/their dismissive attitude toward people who believe in God, and quite frequently I am identified as someone who is a believer defending the position of believers. However, I actually am neutral in these arguments. This labeling of me as a believer with no more proof than a neutral argument is evidence, I believe, of the pro-science/anti-religion arrogance of many scientists and science advocates, and a hypersensitivity and hyper-defensiveness about their theory. Truth be told: I see the Big Bang/evolution theory and the Biblical account as compatible stories, not as mutually exclusive accounts in which one is right and one is wrong.

I haven’t seen the Creation Museum, so I cannot comment on whether or not it attempts portray religion as science, but I have to disagree with your characterization of museums as vehicles of “purely intellectual/factual/secular teaching,” as there are numerous types of museums: Museums of art, music, history, science, natural history, broadcasting, etc. I doubt that all of these are scientifically oriented, and the definitions of “museum” do not indicate this as a required characteristic. Therefore, the Creation Museum may be no more than a place where exhibits have been created to represent in concrete form the concepts portrayed in the Bible.

A couple of definitions of “museum”:

1 - A building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed. (Dictionary.com)

2 - A museum is a "permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education, enjoyment, the tangible and intangible evidence of people and their environment" (ICOM definition).

As for intelligent design, it is not a new theory, having its origins hundreds of years before Charles Darwin was born, so I do not regard it as some recent effort to “legitimize” a God-centered view of creation by trying to make a science out of it. Instead, I see it as a third view of how things began that, while centered on an intelligent being—a supernatural creator—that some regard as God, represents a view as different from the creationist story as it is from the evolution story.

So, I maintain my position that science, for whatever reason or set of reasons, desires to stifle the efforts of religious people to advance their beliefs in an arena outside the traditional, and limited, arenas of churches and religion-oriented schools and media.

Technorati Tags: Science, Religion, Freedom

Creation Museum Stirs Scientists’ Opposition

The argument between science and religion has raged for a long time, and it rages still. How did the world begin? How did man come to be? Science tells one story; religion tells another. The science version of things is taught in schools, public and private; the religious version is not taught in public schools. Hundreds of museums tell science’s version to the public, but no museums tell the public religion’s version. Where interaction with the general public and children is concerned, science has a big advantage, as people are routinely presented with the scientific story in compulsory schooling and in routine public activities, but they must actively seek out the religious version by attending church or a church-sponsored school, or through other means. So, with such a great advantage on their side, you might think scientists would pay little attention when one museum based upon the creation story sets to open. You would be wrong.

A Creation Museum, the first in the United States, is set to open this weekend in Northern Kentucky, and scientists have reacted negatively toward this project. The Museum presents the literal Biblical story of a six-day creation of the universe, and is the product of Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis, and who arrived in Northern Kentucky from Australia in 1994 with dreams of building the Museum. "We admit that in this place, our bias, our starting point, is the Bible," Ham says. The Bible, he said, "is the word of God, who knows everything." His organization rejects one of the cornerstones of modern science - the theory of evolution, a key tenet of which is that all life on Earth descended from a common ancestor, a process that happened over billions of years.

Scientists are apoplectic: Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "Everything science has taught us over the course of the last 200 years teaches us that this kind of literal, biblical, creationist notion is misguided at best, and just plain false at worst." "When they try to confuse (kids) about what is science and what isn't science, scientists have an obligation to speak out," said author and Case Western Reserve University physics professor Lawrence Krauss. "There's no doubt these are documented lies."

Ham noted that the vast majority of natural history museums and textbooks available to students are devoted to teaching evolution, "and they're worried about one creation museum? I think they're really concerned that we're going to get information out that they don't want people to hear."

"We're not talking about free speech. We would not protest the museum," Leshner said. "However, we are concerned that we not mislead young people inadvertently or intentionally about what science is showing."

Leshner makes one critical mistake: He operates from the position that the museum attempts to falsely portray a scientific theory, when in fact the museum is presenting a contrary theory to that of science. Leshner further appears to possess the arrogance that many scientists and science advocates possess, which results in a closed-minded belief that science is always right and every other theory is wrong. The fact is that even though evolutionary theory is widely accepted and believed true by a large number of people, it is incomplete; there are cavernous gaps in the theory that must be filled in for evolution to be an accurate and provable explanation for how things came to be as they are.

Scientists often gleefully ridicule religious adherents for hanging their beliefs on faith rather than fact, as if faith is inferior. Yet, being unable to prove their own theory of creation, scientists also are guilty of relying on faith.

The scientific community is indeed attempting to limit the free expression of people like Ken Ham. Perhaps this arises from arrogance, as I suggested earlier, or perhaps it arises from insecurity in the theory of evolution. It must be very frustrating for scientists to believe that their theory is correct, but be unable to prove it. But the upshot of all of this is that science is either correct in asserting evolution as the correct explanation of creation, or it is mistaken, and science is unable to prove absolutely that evolution is the correct explanation. So, objectively, the best science can claim is that evolution may be the correct explanation, and that is essentially the same argument that those who believe in God or a supreme being make.

So, if science and scientists are the objective truth-seekers they claim to be, they ought to abandon this humiliating effort to stifle contrary opinions.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Science, Freedom

Well, Duh!

I came across this item from Asia News, via Spero News, which publishes my columns: “In a unanimous decision, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) of Pakistan on March 31 ruled that a woman forced to have intercourse (zina-bil-jabr) should not be considered guilty of adultery, but should instead be viewed under the law as a victim of rape. The ruling de facto modifies the Hudood Ordinances and represents a great step forward in Pakistani Law.”

I hardly know what to say; it seems so obvious to those of us who live in the civilized world. Things like this in the Islamic belief system baffle non-Muslims, compounding the confusion created when adherents of the so-called “religion of peace” hijacked airplanes and crashed them and their innocent civilian passengers into buildings occupied by other innocent civilians.

A belief system that does not tolerate any other belief system, even if it was always peaceful in its intolerance, is foreign to the Western way of thinking. A belief system that holds itself superior, and considers non-believers inferior as a matter of philosophy, is inconsistent with Western ideals.

There are a lot of Muslims in the world; approximately 1.2 billion. But all totaled there are 6.5 billion people on Earth, and that means only one-in-six Earthlings is a Muslim. Significantly, there are nearly twice as many Christians as Muslims. Such facts lead me to believe that if Muslims are going to survive and live in harmony with the rest of us, they must learn to accept that most of us do not believe as they do, and they must adapt to that reality. Fortunately, many of them, and perhaps most of them, are able to do that.

It is a positive sign that Pakistan has counteracted one of Islam’s ancient and barbaric customs, but not every Muslim group has renounced this ridiculous practice, and there are other customs that are equally uncivilized and irrational.

So Islam has a lot of work to do to evolve into the 21^st century and become the great belief system its adherents imagine it to be. The quicker that happens, the better for all of us.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Islam, Radical Muslims

Muslims Often Create Their Own Problems

Item I - Muslim cashiers at some Minneapolis Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions. Some Muslim cashiers had declined to scan products such as bacon because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. They would ask other cashiers to ring up such purchases, or some customers scanned the items themselves.

Item II - Citing their religious beliefs, some Muslim taxi drivers from Somalia have refused to transport customers in Minneapolis carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. It started with one driver a few years ago, but the average number of fare refusals has grown to about three a day, a spokesman said. "Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," he says. "Sometimes, several drivers in a row refuse carriage."

Item III - Six Muslim imams who were forcibly removed from a US Airways flight last year and are now suing the airline for discrimination may also be suing some passengers who were aboard the flight. In the lawsuit filed last week, the imams say that unnamed "John Doe" passengers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport reported that they engaged in "suspicious" behavior — praying in the terminal — before they boarded the plane on Nov. 20.

One might be tempted to ask, “What is going on in Minneapolis?” But that is the wrong question; these problems are not of Minneapolis’ making.

One of the many great things about the United States is our recognition and protection of personal freedoms, and those include the freedom to worship as one chooses, or to not worship at all. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Muslims, theists and atheists alike have the same rights in this regard; they are free to follow their beliefs, so long as they don’t break laws. So, what’s the problem?

Muslims don’t have to give a ride to someone carrying items that are prohibited by their religion, or to sell such items to someone. Muslims have the right to pray whenever and wherever they please (except, one would guess, in public schools). This is not about what rights Muslims have in the United States. To paraphrase the Captain (Strother Martin) in “Cool Hand Luke,” “What we have here is … failure to integrate.” What Muslims must do is to determine how our society functions, and then figure out how to fit into it. If Muslims don’t want to take all customers that want a cab ride, don’t be a taxi driver. If Muslims don’t want ring up all the products their employer’s customers want to purchase, don’t be a checkout clerk. If Muslims don’t want to be singled out and embarrassed or inconvenienced, then don’t do things that in the United States are considered unusual and suspicious in airports and on airplanes.

Attention Muslims in the United States: This is not rocket science, folks. It is your obligation to adapt to our culture, not our obligation to adapt our culture to suit you.

You have two choices: Learn to fit in, or go somewhere else.

Technorati Tags: Culture, Religion, Islam, Immigration

Thoughts on the Unknowable

Many years ago I had an interest in astronomy. I read magazines such as Omni, and Sky and Telescope; the heavens and the pictures and descriptions of those extraterrestrial bodies that scientists had studied and written about fascinated me.

I bought a 4.5-inch reflector and began to look around for myself, but of course such a small telescope severely limited what I could see. I began reading more about the universe and theories of its origin. I read books on anthropology and cosmology, wondering about the origins of life and of man. They were fascinating, profound subjects.

Through that search for knowledge I accepted the Big Bang theory as the explanation for how it all began and the theory of evolution for the origins of life.

As a youngster I attended a Presbyterian church, and at church I heard that version of the origin of the universe and of life.

Many people today see religious explanations as fairy tales, lacking in hard evidence. And, of course, the key to every religion is faith, faith in the spiritual center of that belief system. These folks embrace the scientific explanation of our origin.

For my part, I don’t see the Biblical story and the scientific story as mutually exclusive; believing one does not negate the other. I believe they fit very nicely together: Neither is absolutely provable; both require faith from their adherents.

“What’s that?” you say. Yes, it’s true: Darwin’s theory is not a seamless story; it has gaping holes in it that scientists have thus far been unable to fill with provable data. You may have heard the term, “the missing link?” Well, there are a few of them in the story of evolution, and lacking proof to fill in the gaps, to provide the links, it is faith that enables one to accept evolution as real and true. How, then, is evolution substantially different from religious belief?

Professor G.R. Kerkut has written that “[i]t is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available.”

The reality is that it takes no more faith to believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth than it does to believe that creation occurred as a sort of magnificent accident. This concept is expressed eloquently by Harrison Matthews, FRS, in the book Intro to Darwin’s “The Origin of the Species,” who wrote, “The fact of evolution is the back bone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? … Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.”

Most evolutionists will not be persuaded by my effort to point out the flaw in their theory, and will continue to believe that the wonders of the universe just happened, just because an improbable group of factors came together at just the right time in just the right circumstances producing the Big Bang and starting a chain of events which brought us to the here and now. And religious folks will continue to have faith that their theory is correct, that an omnipotent being willed the creation of the universe and all it contains.

However, regardless which camp you reside in, regardless of how avidly you believe what you believe, you have a thorny question to deal with.

For scientists, the question is: Where did all the matter released in the Big Bang come from?

For the religious, the question is: Where did God come from?