Dean's World

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.

The above is a popular traditional English version of what is known as the Lord's Prayer. It has been translated into hundreds of languages, and is probably the best known and most often repeated prayer in the Christian religion. I've even known some Jews who use it.

I had a deacon in church recently point out something interesting about the line, "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." I'd always thought of those as two separate statements, as in, "God should forgive me, and I should forgive others." But the language is actually stronger than that: it's asking God to forgive us to the same extent that we forgive others. If you can't forgive others, you can't expect God to forgive you. It's not two separate statements on forgiveness, it's one statement: forgive me as I forgive others.

It's not always easy, following things like this.

I continue today my largely ecumenical look at ancient Christianity.

We turn now to the subject of what a "Pope" is. Believe it or not, this is almost a mere addendum to my earlier article, "What Is A Bishop?"; once you understand what a Bishop is, understanding a Pope is not very hard at all.

There are today three men within Christendom who go by the title of "Pope." The best known in the Western world is the chief Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, who traces his line of succession through the laying of hands and the Holy Spirit to the original apostle St. Peter. Another Pope is Theodore II, and a third is Shanouda III. The latter two are, interestingly enough, both claimants to the episcopy of the apostle Mark, who founded the Church in Egypt; one of them is a member of the Eastern Orthodox branch of the faith, and the other is a member of the Oriental Orthodox branch of the faith. You can see how they both trace their lines of apostolic succession right here.

Probably the most important thing to understand about the title "pope" is that it began in all cases as a title of love and affection: literally, it means "papa" or "daddy," and it started gaining use in the 2nd century. It's really just shorthand for "ultimate head bishop."

Why would you need a head bishop? Well, in the earliest days of the Christian Church, when there were 12 original apostles running around, and adherents of the faith were numbered in the hundreds or thousands, this wasn't much of an issue. However, as the apostles and their successors consecrated more and more bishops, and adherents to the faith began to be numbered in the hundreds of thousand and millions, in multiple languages and all around the known world, the responsibilities of a bishop multiplied. Thus a hierarchy was developed, and titles began to be put into place: "archbishop," "patriarch," "metropolitan," "pope," etc. to denote a hierarchy that could settle any confusion or disputes that came up--which of course they would. See Acts chapter 15 or Galatians Chapter 2, for example, which illustrate that the need to settle disputes amongst the bishops began all the way back with the original 12 apostles.

So, a Pope is just a chief bishop, or super-chief bishop if you will. Unique among the various branches of the Christian faith, however, is the Papacy in Rome. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that the chief Bishop of Rome is the inheritor of the authority of St. Peter as the chief of the apostles (see Acts 15 for example), and thus has the highest authority amongst all the world's bishops. On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Protestant denominations (mostly notably the Episcopalians) recognize that he is the legitimately consecrated chief Bishop of Rome, but assert that this gives him only a place of honor and no special authority beyond any other chief Bishop. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, has no problem recognizing the other popes, patriarchs, and chief bishops amongst the Orthodox, but says these folks ought to recognize that the Pope in Rome is chief of all bishops worldwide and is first in authority.

Protestantism began specifically as a breakaway movement of the Church in the West that rejected the Roman papacy and its authority. That subject would require multiple articles in order to explore it, because Protestantism itself is splintered into so many competing sects, such as the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the "we have no creed but the Bible" Christians who are increasingly popular in North America. They all have different viewpoints. However, a look at this list of Christian adherents yields the following:

Roman Catholic: Approximately 1.2 billion adherents worldwide. Views the Papacy as the chief bishop of Rome and chief of all apostles/bishops in authority.

Eastern Orthodox: Approximately 260 million adherents worldwide. Includes Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and quite a few other churches in full communion with each other. Views the Pope in Rome as a legitimate bishop, asserting that he has a special place of honor but no special authority.

Oriental Orthodox: Approximately 79 million adherents worldwide. Their position on the Bishop of Rome is basically the same as the Eastern Orthodox, although they're a little further splintered because they reject all of the ecumenical councils after the third. (I'll explain what the ecumenical councils were in a later article.)

Protestantism: Approximately 675 million adherents worldwide. Their views of the Popes are all over the map. The Anglican communion, for example (77 million adherents worldwide) views the Roman Pope pretty much the same as the Orthodox, as a legitimate episcopacy and place of honor but no special authority amongst the world's bishops, whereas others like the Lutherans and Baptists have in the past gone so far as to declare the Pope in Rome "anti-christ" and not legitimate at all.

Those who dispute the authority of the Pope are quite numerous, especially in the West and especially in North America. However, if we look at Christianity as the worldwide religion it is, the numbers are interesting: if you add up the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the old-line Protestants like the Anglicans, it becomes obvious that the vast majority of the world's Christians view the Pope in Rome as a legitimately consecrated Bishop in apostolic succession stemming all the way back to the Church of Acts, with the only argument being how much authority he's really got.

You can view a list of Roman Popes going back to St. Peter right here. The Orthodox, as well as the Anglicans and some other Protestants, take no major issue with that lineage, but some Protestants roundly and quite loudly reject it.

Next up: what were the ecumenical councils, and where did the Christian Bible come from exactly?

*Update*: Here is a good look at the issue from the perspective of an Eastern Orthodox bishop. The Eastern Orthodox are the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, the Ukranian Orthodox, and numerous others, who are all in communion with each other and broke away from the Bishop of Rome around the year 1054.

In the New Testament, in the Gospel According to St. John, the following passage appears in Chapter 20, verses 19-22, described as occurring after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection from the dead:

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Later, in the Acts of the Apostles, the remaining eleven of Jesus' original twelve disciples/apostles decide to restore their number to twelve, to replace the traitor apostle Judas who had died. In Acts 1:12-26, they voted and cast lots to determine the new apostle, and wound up choosing Matthias. Later in the book of Acts, such as chapters 6 and 8, the apostles lay hands on believers to impart upon them the Holy Spirit and certain powers and authorities, a tradition that stems itself apparently from the Old Testament Jewish practice of laying hands to spread the priesthood and for other functions (see Genesis 27 and Leviticus 16). In later New Testament verses (Philippians 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:5-11 for example), the specific titles of "bishop" and "deacon" and "prebyter" emerge, with the term "bishop" coming from the Greek "episcopos," which is where we get both the words "bishop" and "episcopacy" (or "episcopalian"). There is some debate within the Christian community over each of these terms and their exact function, but all are broadly understood to stem from these events, practices, traditions, and scriptures.

For the vast majority of Christians worldwide today, it is broadly understood that the direct successors to the apostles are the bishops. The oldest lines of Christianity can point to specific bishops who draw their authority through direct succession by the laying of hands and the Holy Spirit to certain of the original twelve apostles; the current Bishop of Rome in the Catholic Church is widely regarded as the bishop inheritor of the apostleship of Peter, whereas the head bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East is broadly believed to be the successor through the laying of hands of the apostle Thomas, and the head of the Coptic church in Egypt is widely believed to be the successor of the apostle Mark, also directly through the laying of hands and the action of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, when someone asks "where are the apostles today?" most of the world's Christians would say, "they're right there" and point to the bishops, whose job is to stand as the apostles, to exercise the teaching authority of the church and to convey lesser offices onto others such as priests and deacons.

What is notable about all this is that, in America at least, there is a large segment of "protestants," of the evangelical/fundamentalist bent, who know little or nothing about this stuff, or who simply reject it. It is not insulting to say that they are a minority of Christians worldwide, because they are. What I have described here is in no way unique to Roman Catholic theology; it is basically how it is viewed not just by the Roman Catholic Church, but also the Eastern Orthdox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Independent Catholic movement. Amongst Protestants, this is also the basic view of the Lutherans and the Anglicans/Episcopalians--indeed, the latter group is called "Episcopalian" precisely because they are a branch of Protestantism which accepts this view of apostolic succession, and is thus ruled by Bishops whom they believe to have come down from the original 12 apostles in precisely the same way as all the others (through the original original Archbishop of Canterbury, who received his office through the Bishop of Rome initially but in later generations split with Rome).

It is always difficult to talk about what "Protestants" think about apostolic succession, since there are so many varieties of Protestant. Methodists still use the term "Bishop," for example, but they mean something a little different by it than the Episcopalians or the Orthodox. I've heard that some Pentacostalists and Baptists have taken to using the rank "Bishop" again, and I know the Mormons have their own bishops. I've never quite wrapped my head around how the Presbyterians view all this, but they basically seem to have split the difference and lumped everything under the term "elder," which is what a "presbyter" is. But in short, no one can give you a concrete answer as to what "protestants" think bishops are because there are so many opinions on the matter.

However, all the oldest lines of Christianity view it exactly the same way, whether they're in communion with the Bishop of Rome or not: a bishop is a successor to the office of apostle, through the laying on of hands and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from the time of the original 12 apostles to the present day.

For more on bishops as they're seen in various Christian denominations, see this excellent Wikipedia article.

Next in this series: what's a Pope?

I'm going to be writing a series of posts on ancient Christianity. I see a lot of misconceptions when I write occasionally about my journey back to the Christian faith, so maybe this series will be helpful to some. Or not--I'm going to write it anyway. ;-)

First up: understanding what the catholic church is and is not.

Most of the world's Christians consider themselves to be part of the catholic church.

The word "catholic," it surprises many to learn, simply means "universal." When you refer to "the catholic church," you're simply saying "the universal church." Although in casual use people will say "catholic" to refer to the church led by the Vatican in Rome, it turns out that many denominations continue to use this word to describe themselves, or a general concept they have of Christ's Church. This is why many people refer to the church led by the bishop of Rome as the "Roman Catholic Church."

The phrase "one holy apostolic and catholic church" actually comes from two of the oldest and most universal creeds of Christendom, the Nicene Creed as well as the Apostle's Creed, which are part of the standard teachings of not just the Church in Rome, but also all of the Eastern Orthodox and the largest Western Protestant denominations including the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and others.

Why the need for creeds? Because the Bible alone, created by the church in the context of the early centuries of the church, admits to multiple interpretations of all sorts of issues. Creeds were established by the early leaders of the church to help separate heresies (which simply means false teachings) from orthodox (which simply means correct belief). It is simply not possible to create a consistent and complete view of the Christian faith by reading the Bible alone, and those who wrote and edited and preserved the Bible over the centuries never suggested it was (and indeed, the Bible never says this about itself).

Most Christian denominations hold to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, and most Christians believe themselves to be members in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It's only a fairly radical minority that don't believe that.

Next up: What's a bishop?

thabet provides a comprehensive roundup of excerpted links to analysis of l'affaire Williams in the blogsphere and the media. Needless to say, the depth exceeds what you find in the jafisphere, where all they can focus on is "omfg sharia cooties". Click over to thabet's blog and take a look.

My friend thabet, a muslim blogger formerly in the UK, has linked to several excellent commentaries on the matter of Archbishop Williams' remarks regarding Shari'a. The question is really what kind of game is Williams playing? Is he supremely saavy, or astonishingly naive?

First, this by Cranmer:

Dr Williams did not advocate Shari’a law; he said quite distinctly that ‘aspects’ of it might be incorporated into British law. He said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for ‘constructive accommodation’ with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction. [...] the Archbishop’s naivety is astonishing. He treats Radio 4 as if it were an Oxford theological college, and assumes that his audience is made up of academics with the ability to dissect and analyse words with his professorial precision.

Shari’a may be a complex and convoluted legal system, but it means only one thing in the UK: oppression, barbarism and injustice. This judgement may in itself be unjust, but the word is alien and, like ‘jihad’, has taken on its own meaning. Shari’a law is in fact profoundly complex, and varies in interpretation and application from Islamic community to Islamic community.

Cranmer goes on to make the necessary distinction between "private" and "public" Shari'a, noting that the former, not the latter, is acceptable as a framework for inclusion into law. That the archbishop failed to clarify this in his remarks, but rather treated Shari'a as a single static unit, is astonishing.

Another blog, Global Dashboard, notes:

As ever, when you actually listen to what he says, he comes across as thoughtful, considered and nuanced; he points, for instance, to the fact that Orthodox Jewish courts already exist in the UK. But I can’t help wondering whether this is a pretty bad error of judgement in communication terms. Even the BBC’s own coverage of the story on BBC News Online loses most of the nuances; I’ve listened to the whole interview, and I’m not sure that I fully understand where Williams is going with this.

The risk here is that what would have been fine as an article in Prospect, say, or the London Review of Books, ignites a firestorm by dint of appearing first on a broadcast medium, followed by immediate pickup on the internet. Just wait for the reactions from the US right wing blogosphere to roll in as they gleefully take this as confirmation of all their predictions about dhimmitude. It’s the “unavoidable” bit that’ll really drive the story. They’re going to have a hard few days’ work in the Lambeth Palace press office…

And over at The Independent,

Rowan Williams bridles when anyone suggests that he is the Anglican church’s equivalent of the Pope. But he has made the same mistake in discussing sharia law that Pope Benedict XVI made in his ill-fated foray on the subject of Islam at the University of Regensburg two years ago, which sparked protests around the world, the murder of a nun and much else.

The error is assuming that the leader of a major church has the same intellectual freedom that he had when he was merely an eminent theologian. The cold fact is that the semiotics are entirely different. An academic may call for a nuanced renegotiation of society’s attitudes to the internal laws of religious communities. But when the Archbishop of Canterbury does that the headline follows, as night follows day: “Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, says Archbishop.”

And finally, at the Guardian:

Dr Williams, characteristically, is interested in the arguments over what sharia law actually says. The rest of the country is more interested in whether and how it might be enforced. Only if Islamic law can be reduced to a game played between consenting adults can it be acceptably enforced in this country; and that’s not, I think, how it is understood by its practitioners. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

For many years during my Bible studies I'd feel compelled to ask, "Where are the prophets?" As a Christian I was familiar with the New Testament's many warnings about false prophets and people coming in Christ's name that were not of Him. Every Christian is. However, it seemed strange to me that after John the Baptist prophets vanished from the pages of history. Nowhere in the Bible is it prophesied that God would stop sending prophets and, indeed, Christ Himself said:

Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Matthew 23:34

Christ said He's going to send prophets out into the world. If we're warned time and again in the Bible against false prophets doesn't that mean that there must also be real prophets too? Why tell your flock to watch out for false prophets if no real prophets were ever going to be sent anyway? Right?

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about those that may get a prophetic word. I'm talking about the Office of the Prophet in the five fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11. Not everyone that gets a prophetic word (and it's doubtful that many that think they do actually are) is a prophet. Teachers can get prophetic words. Pastors can. Apostles and evangelists too. God can and will tell anyone in the five fold ministry anything He needs to. But these people are not prophets. And, even more unsettling, it seems many churches want to cram all five of the offices into the pastor. There's a separation for good reason and no one walks in all five. One absolutely. All of God's children are called to one of these five offices. Some maybe even two. But no one does or should walk in all five save Christ Himself.

We all know evangelists, teachers, and pastors. Apostles and prophets are probably the most unfamiliar to most of the Church. Who in your own congregation would you say fills these two offices? Who is the prophet send by God to speak to your church? Ephesians 2:20 tells us that the prophet and apostle are the foundation of God's household, with Christ being its cornerstone. If the prophet is one half of the foundation of God's household, the Church, who is the prophet in our own congregations?

I wonder if perhaps we've driven them out? Look at the second half of Matthew 23:34 I quoted above. Christ was speaking to the Pharisees specifically but the pattern is clear. An unrighteous people would drive the prophets out. They'd kill, crucify, flog and chase them from town to town. How quick are we to defend our own doctrines in the face of opposition? How quick are we to call people that bring into question our interpretation of Scripture heretics, blasphemers, and false teachers and prophets?

We're very, very quick to.

The Church is fractured. We pretty much split along three main lines we call Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy. These three main groups are fractured more still. And each group thinks they're more right than the others. I mean, why stay Baptist if you think the Lutherans are correct? Why stay Protestant if you think the Orthodoxy is correct? Right?

So, what does this mean for a prophet that might come onto the scene? Well, if the Tanakh is any indication, he's probably going to say pretty much everyone is wrong. Which, if you think about it, aren't we already saying when we call ourself whatever denomination we like? If I'm Pentecostal I'm saying that my denomination is the most faithful to the Word of God. Therefore, everyone else must be, it logically follows, less faithful to the Word of God. To some degree or another everyone else is wrong and I am right.

So, a prophet is going to call everyone to task for ignoring Scripture (they must be if everything is so fractured). But what gets them killed or chased from town to town isn't that they stop there. We can look past stones being thrown at everyone. No, what gets a prophet killed is when he starts throwing stones at just you. We don't like that. When everyone is getting chided we can fade into the background. Maybe even think he's not talking to us. But when he's looking right at us, telling us to burn down the idols and false gods in our lives, we get a little upset. We like our idols. We like our false gods. We don't want to be told to tear them down.

"Heretic!" we say. "Blasphemer!" we say.

Are we really so close to God to say that about just about anything?

Christ said the prophets would be killed, crucified, flogged, and chased from town to town. They are because they are intolerant of sin and demand righteousness from the children of God. If Israel loathed her prophets why would the Church be any different?

Christ said He's sending prophets. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever state God ever stopped sending His prophets. "Beware of the false prophets!" the Bible tells us. Beware because false prophets will be mixed in with the real ones and we need to be able to discern the difference.

God did not send His prophets to His children to tell them they were doing good. He sent His prophets to correct His children and bring them out of sin. A false prophet will tell you what you want to hear. A real prophet will tell you what you need to hear.

So, before you jump to call someone a liar, heretic, deceiver, blasphemer, or false teacher recall how Israel treated her prophets and ask yourself; Are you really so righteous to know better? Are you really so righteous that a genuine prophet of God will not see any cherished idols in your life he could call out out on?

One last thing before I close. Recall, if you would, Amos 3:7.

Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

What prophet approved the Christian canon? What prophet approved the move of Sabbath to Sunday? What prophet approved the doctrine of Papal Succession? What prophet approved the split from the Catholic Church? What prophet said if you don't speak in tongues you're not filled with the Holy Spirit?

We can track throughout history the developing doctrines of the Church, the splits in the Church from those doctrines, and the development of new doctrines in response to those splits. Where were the prophets to say, "This is of the Sovereign God."? God does nothing without revealing His plans to the prophets.

So, remember that the next time you call someone a false prophet. Odds are, no prophet approved the doctrine you hold to be true. There's a saying, "Who is worse, the fool or the one that follows him?" What does that make you in light of Amos 3:7?

Beware of false prophets. But be watchful and ready to receive the real prophets. God has sent them to save you. And in doing so they're going to say things you will probably not much care for. Such are the toils of growing up.

UPDATE: I've closed comments and, if you've noticed, I've done a fair bit of pruning in the comments that are already here. This thread was written by a believer to fellow believers. Those that simply want to call Christianity a myth like the Norse gods, or look down their nose at people of faith, have no place here. I'm tired of threads getting filled with posts by people that find the entire premise of faith laughable and feel they must state as much at every opportunity. Grow up. The kid that needed to wave his arms and shout so the whole class would look at them got old at about the 1st grade. In the future I will immediately delete any comments I feel are off topic or inappropriate.

Contribute to the discussion in a thoughtful and meaningful manner or keep your mouth shut. If you feel unable to do that I hear Rosemary loves to have people like you troll around on her blog. Ply your trade there.

I acknowledge the reality behind the need for Obama to distance himself from muslims. But I also pile on some expectations from Obama, should he win the nomination, for my forebearance.

Presented for your perusal without further comment.

A church and Christian newspaper in Malaysia are suing the government after it decreed that the word "Allah" can only be used by Muslims.

In the Malay language "Allah" is used to mean any god, and Christians say they have used the term for centuries.

Opponents of the ban say it is unconstitutional and unreasonable. [...] There has been no official government comment but parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said the decision to ban the word for non-Muslims on security grounds was "unlawful". "The term 'Allah' was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed," he said.

Well, one comment: obviously, the ban is wrong and any muslim supporting it is an idiot.

I am increasingly bemused by the number of people I meet who seem to think that the text of any document, especially one long and complex, can be easily interpreted. I find this to be true of laws, of the US Constitution, of the Bible, of the Koran, or of anything else: do people really think anything so complex and with such a rich history can be read in a straightforward and indisputable fashion?

This article on judicial interpretation got me thinking on that. Some people seem to think that the way to interpret various complex documents is "obvious." Such people increasingly astonish me.

Our friend Kevin seems to want to have it both ways; first he suggests that he could never vote for someone who considers Christ to be related as a sibling to Satan, then he suggests he'll support those who honestly and sincerely seek God's will. Well which is it? Or is it impossible to honestly and sincerely seek God's will and still think Jesus is related somehow to a fallen angel? Which, while questionable in orthodox Christian thinking, hardly suggests that Mormons don't seek to follow God's will; it would suggest they're theologically mistaken about something important according to standard Christian doctrine.

Is it agreement with someone's faith you seek, or simple honest seeking of God's will, Kevin?

By the way, there are any number of Christians who don't believe in the Holy Trinity, which after all isn't even mentioned directly in the Bible, at least not by name and is only mentioned once in one disputed verse. Also, the "Jesus as Satan's brother" belief held by Mormons (of which I am not one and never will be one) is hardly to suggest that they're morally or spiritually equal. Here is a fair look at what Mormons actually believe on the subject. (You might want to see this too.)

By the way, I'd have no trouble voting for a Mormon. Or, for that matter, a fundamentalist Christian, even though I pretty much think the theology of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Fundamentalist Christians are all equally whacky and counter-biblical. Because I know most of those who follow those faiths are basically honest and decent people who seek to do God's will as they understand it.

America was neither founded as a "Christian nation" nor founded by a group of secular humanists or deists. Not a single one of our first five Presidents was even a devout Christian, let alone a Biblical Fundamentalist. The real truth is handled pretty well in this excellent book review. Looks like something more people should read to me, on both left and right. Facts have an inconvenient way of getting in the way of far left AND far right ideology.

Since everyone else is all about their religion vs. atheism lately I figured I'd jump on the band wagon. And instead of making a title that an atheist might misread, misinterpret or mis-whatever and get insulted I figured to insult right out the door.

That's called being efficient.

So, what's Kevin D. got to say that will turn the world on its head and make believers out of the heathen masses? Not a darned thing.

Listen, I think we're all reasonable and intelligent people here. And we're passionate about what we believe. But, frankly, most of us don't know one another from Adam and things as deeply held as faith isn't something to be debated. That's to say, I've never head of a case where anyone was swayed either way by two people pounding at one another. Most of the time we root for our side and hiss at the other.

And I'm pointing at myself too here.

The best witnessing tool at our disposal is our life. We can speak a great game but if our life isn't something to be envied then what we say won't carry much weight with anyone. This goes for atheists and theists alike.

Let your life be your witness.

And that's the problem we have here at the D. World. We don't know one another beyond what words we read here. So, we let our rhetoric get out of control because we don't have the silent witness of our life to back us up. I mean, for example, Dean's said some stuff that, had I not known the guy, had I not been able to come to him on a personal level, I'd have written him off some time ago. But because we have that personal relationship, I've gone to his home, he's come to mine, I know that what I read may not be the whole story of what's going on.

I think we forget that. The words we read on the page is all we can know of most people here but we forget that it's a real thinking, breathing, feeling, flawed person writing them. And the five seconds or so we spend reading their words is nowhere near the totality of that individual or what may be going on behind the scenes that is coloring them. In most cases then we’re either unwilling or unable to say, “Hey, is everything okay?”

It's not something easy to do, believe me, but let's step back a moment and consider that we are not the possessors of all that can be known and, more than likely, we're probably wrong about a great deal we think we're right about.

I heard someone once say you can't get 75 years worth of experience until you've lived 75 years. I think we're often grasping beyond our experience because, well, we want to be right. It's only natural I suppose. No one certainly wants to be wrong! And when someone attacks that, especially some uppity dolt we've never met on a blog, we get defensive.

What I believe I know to be true is what I try to live and to attack what I believe I know to be true is to attack how I live. In many cases, we're not just attacking what someone believes about existence, we're also attacking how they live because the two cannot be separated. Remember that the next time you speak harshly of another's beliefs. You’re walking into their home and pronouncing judgment upon everything therein.

Speaking for myself here, I'm more open to the judgments of those I know in life, those I've shared a meal with, those I've invited into my real-life home, then "CrazyB0B452." And I'm more likely to return his words about my beliefs, no matter how innocently said, with vitriol because he doesn't know me and I don't know him.

So, what I'll endeavor to do in my life is establish those personal relationships. And I'll let my life speak for my beliefs. It's a challenge, we're an opinionated people, quick to insult and quick to be insulted, but I think it's a worthwhile goal.

not the God who is a hypothesis, or the God who is a gene, or the God who is a hole, or any of the other Gods that those who freely choose disbelief continually insist is equivalent to the God in which I have, simply, faith.

I don't want to prove God. I don't need to prove God. However, many anti-theists (a distinct subset of atheists as a whole) seem to want to, and need to, disprove God. But all of these boil down to utilitarian descriptions of God - a functional God, one whose existence is defined by human semantic constructs such as Occam's Razor, or limited by human concepts of logic and reason (proof of negatives, the immovable stone, etc), or by linear time and space (creation and causation), or even by morality (why won't god heal amputees?). I agree; none of those gods exist, and I don't believe in any of them.

There is no god. Save Allah!

(cross-posted at City of Brass)

An inspiring story.

Expect it to be missed or dismissed by the usual suspects.

I want to take a quick moment and apologize to the readers of Dean's World I have judged inappropriately. In the thread below I snidely mocked what CaliforniaJOSH believes as though I were better.

On my way to pick up dinner just now it was impressed upon my heart that I only know what I know because God has chosen to reveal it to me. Had He not I would be lost and I therefore have nothing to be proud of. The finite knowledge of God and His ways that I do have was given to me by Him. I did not earn it. I did not discern it except by that which I was allowed to know and that which was revealed to me.

I humbly ask your forgiveness. Not just of CaliforniaJOSH but to any and all of Dean's World readers. I have sinned against you and assumed a position over you that was not mine to take.

We still may disagree on theological/scientific points but I do not wish to do so believing that I am somehow smarter or more enlightened than you. I know what it is I know because God wants it that way. It's that simple and I needed to be reminded of that.

Even if it was on the way to grab dinner.

It is that time of year again for the Brass Crescent Awards, the annual celebration of the best of the Islamsphere:

What are the Brass Crescent Awards? They are named for the Story of the City of Brass in the Thousand and One Nights. Today, the Islamsphere is forging a new synthesis of Islam and modernity, and is the intellectual heir to the traditions of philosophy and learning that was once the hallmark of Islamic civilization - a heritage scarcely recognizable today in the Islamic world after a century's ravages of colonialism, tyrants, and religious fundamentalism. We believe that Islam transcends history, and we are forging history anew for tomorrow's Islam. These awards are a means to honor ourselves and celebrate our nascent community, and promote its growth.

The nomination phase is now open, so vote for your favorite blogs in each of the following categories:

BEST BLOG: This category honors the most indispensable, Muslim-authored blog there is. Period.

BEST NON-MUSLIM BLOG: Which blog writen by a non-Muslim is most respectful of Islam and seeks genuine dialogue with Muslims?

BEST DESIGN: Which blog has the most aesthetically pleasing site design, appealing to the eye, evoking Islamic themes, and/or facilitating debate and discussion?

BEST POST OR SERIES: Which single post or group of posts in the Islamsphere was the most original and important, above all the others?

BEST IJTIHAD: What blog post provided the best rebuttal to arguments of extremist ideology, and in so doing expose how those who commit evil in the name of Islam are actually profaning the faith?

BEST FEMALE BLOG: The woman's voice in Islam is equal to the man's, and in the Islamsphere we seek to make sure the female perspective is highlighted and given its rightful due. Which Muslim woman's blog has done the most to explore the role that women play within Islam and society?

BEST WRITER: Who is the most stimulating, insightful, and philosophically wise among us? This category is intended to highlight a blogger who may not post daily, but when they do post, they really make an impact.

MOST DESERVING OF WIDER RECOGNITION: Which blog is a true diamond in the rough, one that everyone should be reading but who most just haven't heard of (yet)?

BEST GROUP BLOG: Which multiple group blog in the Islamsphere has the best diversity of writers and the most interesting debate on Muslim issues?

BEST MIDEAST/CENTRAL ASIAN & BEST SOUTH/SOUTHEAST ASIAN BLOGGERS: The Islamsphere is truly a global phenomenon. In Iraq, despite the chaos and uncertainty, there is a sea change of free speech and expression, the vanguard of which are blogs. There are also bloggers in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Palestine, Jordan, and most other countries that host Muslims, all of whom have their own perspectives on faith, culture, and politics.

As always, I am honored to co-host the Brass Crescent Awards with my friend Shahed Amanullah of AltMuslim.com. Shahed has worked tirelessly to create the voting mechanism and design the graphics for the Awards this year and every year. However, as usual, please note that neither altmuslim.com nor City of Brass are eligible for any Awards.

Since it seems to be in vogue lately to label me a heretic and fool without remorse I figured I'd take a moment to describe to people that may not know what it is I believe that makes me so dangerous.

I believe the Law still applies to the Church.

Yep. That's it. That's what the whole kerfuffle is about.

It's not that I deny the deity of Yeshua. It's not that I believe Yeshua wasn't crucified for our sins. It's not that I believe Yeshua didn't exist. It's not that I believe Yeshua was a liar.

I am a heretic and a fool, damned in heart and mind by God Himself (that's what a fool is, by the way), because I dare to believe and, even worse, profess out of my mouth that the Law of Moses still applies to the Church. You know, that very same Law righteous Jews the world over are just having such a hard time with. Honestly, to hear the Church tell it you'd think they're living lives of abject misery. Instead of, you know, being some of the richest, brightest, healthiest and most blessed people on the planet.

Yep. That Law sure has done the lowly Jew a huge disservice. I can see why they're throwing it off and running into the open arms of the Church.

Oh, wait. They're not.

I had planned on going into a lesson of sorts challenging the faithful of the Church to really examine what they believe. I was going to challenge them to set aside the New Testament for a moment and justify their beliefs using the Tanakh (Old Testament) alone.

Blasphemy you say? Do I see torches and stakes out there in the distance? Well, before you burn me (as is your God-given right I'm told) consider this: Before the New Testament was voted upon several hundred years after the books that make up the New Testament were ever written, followers of Yeshua studied, preached and evangelized using the Tanakh and the Tanakh alone.

Don't believe me? Read the Book of Acts. And use some common sense. There was no New Testament when Yeshua walked the earth. There was no New Testament when the Apostles brought people to Yeshua by the thousands. And even after those books of the New Testament were composed they weren't as readily available as the books of the Tanakh. All they really had, for the first few centuries, was the Tahakh and it, apparently, seemed to be good enough for them (Ah, I can almost hear it now, "Give me that old time religion. Tis the old time religion, Tis the old time religion, And it's good enough for me...").

And now you know why I'm a heretic. I challenge believers to justify their faith by the words of Moses and the Prophets. The very same sources Yeshua and His Apostles used to proof what they said.

I ask you: If Yeshua and the Apostles had no problems doing this (indeed Paul praised the Bereans for doing it) why does the Church? And why do some of the Church have such a problem when presented with the very same challenge?

Might it be because the Church has fallen into the same trap the Pharisees did? That they have become so infatuated with their dogmas and traditions that they'd rather silence those that point out their unrighteousness rather than repent?

It's easy enough to prove me wrong, you know. It really is. All the Church needs to do is find proof for their teachings in the Tanakh. You find it and I'm shut down.

Or is shouting, "Burn him!" more appealing?

I dunno. It might be. I'm as big a fan of a campfire as the next guy.

Who wants s'mores?

--EDIT--

In just a few comments below the conversation has completely derailed. I didn't write this post to start an arguement. I wanted to explain for those that may not know where I am theologically that gets me branded a fool and heretic.

If you want to answer my theological concerns please to so as I've described above. I'm not going to address New Testament passages any longer because Messiah and the Apostles didn't get to have a New Testament and they seemed to do alright. If you want to use a New Testament dogma, fine, but please show proof for it in the Tanakh - as Yeshua and His Apostles did.

Be like the Bereans! You say the Tanakh is part of your faith. Use it! You should be as versed in it as you are in the New Testament. Yeshua said the Law and the Prophets pointed to His coming. You'd think the books He was talking about would be something worth studying then. Yeesh!

--EDIT 2--

Think of what I'm saying this way if it helps:

It's AD 40ish. I'm a Torah-observant Jew bopin' around in Israel. The New Testament doesn't exist. The books that will make them up haven't even been put to parchment yet. I hear some rabble talking about this Yeshua dude rising from the dead and it's suppose to be a big deal or something. I don't know and I don't care because, dammit, these pots I got ain't gonna sell themselves.

You're Paul (or Peter, or John, or whatever your favorite flavor of Apostle happens to be) and you come to me and want to share the good news of Yeshua with me. You got all this new stuff to tell me about but you only have the books of the Tanakh to work with. You teach against the Law or the Prophets without showing me where those changes are foretold in the Tanakh, you're getting a pot upside the brain box.

Go!

Somewhat in response to Naftali's recent posting, I thought I'd explain the term "Hashem" to some folks who might now know it.

Believing that the name of God is sacred, some traditionalist Jews use the term "Hashem," which is basically Hebrew for "The Name." Some I've met will also just say "El," which is the first part but not the whole part of one of God's names in Hebrew. (There's more than one, which is a complicated subject in and of itself.)

Some somewhat more liberal will go ahead and say "God" is okay since that's obviously not God's name (in the Hebrew, anyway) but some to be safe will spell ing "G_d" just to avoid offending the almighty.

The actual names of God most well-known to Jews are "Elohim" and "Yahweh," although there is some controversy over that; in ancient Hebrew, YHWH are the only letters known, and the vowels are just sort of guessed at. One of the more improbable guesses is "Jehova," which very, very few Hebrew, Jewish, OR Christian scholars accept as valid. But nobody's actually sure what the vowels in YHWH were originally. They are not clearly remembered in oral tradition or spelled out anywhere reliable.

By the way, it is with some amount of discomfort that the traditionalist Jew hears either "Elohim" or "Yahweh" blurted out loud in casual conversation, although when they hear it from gentiles the usual reaction is to say "well they're just uneducated, they don't know better." Most Jewish scholars, from what I've seen, would agree that it's not actually offensive for a gentile to reproduce "Elohim" or "Yahweh" in writing, but, they would say it would be offensive to print those out and then treat what is printed with contempt, or to curse those names. But just having them there electronically is perhaps startling but not truly offensive.

Seeing the four letters in Hebrew is a little more startling, but that's an even touchier subject.

Those of you who treat all this with contempt, by the way, really embarrass yourselves. It's such a small thing, to ask for a modicum of respect for a thousands of years old religious symbol. I thought so when I was an atheist. I think so now that I'm a Christian. You don't have to share the same view of it although for thousands of years most Christiaqns respected it, which is why they transposed "THE LORD" for "YHWH" or "Elohim" whenever they translated the Old Testament. You see it all over the King James, but also in most other modern translations.

I think the most cringe-inducing opinion on all this I ever saw from this was from a "Messianic" Christian (a tiny offshoot radical minority of sorta-Christians) angrily bloviate that being respectful and careful about using God's name was just the Jews being stupid. But contempt for Jews runs very deep in some so-called "Christian" circles, even those who claim to support them.

Anyway, you wondered what "Hashem" was? Now you know: devout Jews who would prefer not to offend God by casual use of His name. I don't have to agree with all their theology to treat it with respect (and really, is treating other beliefs with respect so much to ask?).

Sorry to Naftali if he thinks I overexplained something. I just know there were readers going, "What the heck's a hashem?"

As someone currently attending Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, which is a Christian conversion process that goes back to the very earliest days of Christianity, I find reading the works of Mark P. Shea extremely helpful. As a former non-denominational evangelical (like I once was) he has insights I find very helpful. His attitude and humor are also inspiring.

Of course, he does have one of the most severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen (it's almost as bad as Ali Eteraz's), and he's a bit on the Islamophobic side, but enh, nobody's perfect (as any good Christian can tell you). Here's a great one on some recent idiocy out of Ann Coulter and an equally clueless mainstream media dingbat (who also happens to be Jewish). He's right on target. And, Catholics, Orthodox, and most mainline Protestants will probably enjoy this one: You may remember the Reformation.

I liked this one on the "growth" of the Pope fun too.

The usual suspects are already seething. I guess green is the new symbol of dhimmitude; don't tell the Irish :)

I have some thoughts on Eid, plug some postal products, and deliver praise for the President and former Speaker Hastert at City of Brass, where I am capping up my series on Ramadan. Eid mubarak to everyone!

Without going into a great deal of detail, I know enough of about Islam--the real religion, not the cartoon religion that Robert Spencer makes his very comfortable income selling to people--to know that anything called "Muslims Against Sharia" is the rough equivalent of calling yourself "Jews Against Talmud" or "Christians Against The Cannibalism Known As The Lord's Supper." It's a non-starter. Sharia is not one monolithic thing, it's a summary of legal judgments with many schools of thought, just like biblical or talmudic interpretation. There are things done in the name of "Sharia" that many Muslims reject, but telling them they have to reject "Sharia" entirely, or reject the Koran entirely, is just plain idiocy in my view.

And no, by the way, try as you might you conservatives, you cannot pin the "moral relativism" label on me. Go ahead and try, you f***ers. I believe in good and evil, I believe some cultures and ideas are superior to others, and yes, I reject Islam as a religion. So what? That doesn't render me stupid enough to accept stupid assertions about that other religion. I may think Joseph Smith was no prophet (and by the way, I don't think he was) but that doesn't mean I make up vicious, semi-plausible lies about Mormons.

Ditto Muslims.

Anyway, I say all that merely to introduce the following email I just received:

Dean,

Because you've talked about Muslims Against Sharia on your blog, we thought you'd be interested in the interview we're airing tonight.

---

On tonight’s "A Field Guide To American Politics" podcast, we will have an interview with Khalim Massoud of the Muslims Against Sharia weblog. It is an interesting look behind the scene at one of the more controversial blogs in 2007.

That’s at 10pm EST tonight at Talkshoe. Feel free to call in. All the info is on our podcast page at http://www.allamericanblogger.com/podcast/

---

Our hope is that you might help us promote this interview with a mention on your blog.

Regards,

Andrew & Duane All American Bloggers

As a Roman Catholic, I respect most everything Pope Benedict has said on this matter. I also accept some o the criticisms that have been leveled at him, but, I also say there's nothing he's ever said on the matter that I actually disagree with--and he's said much that should give the Islamophobes pause (and yes, by the way, there is such a thing as Islamophobia).

Also, by the way, I never posted anything for or against "Muslims Against Sharia." My brother Aziz Poonawalla, a Dawoodi Bohra (and one of the finest Americans I've ever known, even if he is a lefty dork sometimes) posted that. I had no opinion. I still have no opinion, because I haven't read the site. But knowing Aziz to be the intellectually honest guy that he is, and knowing what I do about the *real* Sharia (as opposed to the Cartoon Sharia that gets sold to eager Muslim-haters), I am basically sympathetic to his view.

So anyway I won't be calling in, but any Dean's World subscribers who want to call in and/or listen are welcome to. Either way, I'll link the transcript if it's available later. I otherwise have only one piece of advice to the "All American Bloggers": you should have given more than a few hours' notice.

A real American Muslim who knows these issues will wipe the floor with you guys. After all, the average American Muslim may not agree with you on all things theological, but virtually none are terrorists or violent or insane. I somehow doubt such people will be represented in this show, but I can hold out hope.

Shorter response: give a little more advance announcement, guys. These are complicated issues. You don't just say "hey, here's a big complicated issue, can you talk about it in-depth in the next 4 hours and sound coherent?"

I know I hate it when people do that to me.

I hope DW readers participate anyway. And I wish the All American Bloggers all good will, and God's blessing.

Muslims Against Sharia claims to be a group of muslims who believe,

- "We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike." - "Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century […], or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past."

All well and good. What exactly are their prescriptions accordingly? Looking at their manifesto, we see these action items:

Inconsistencies in the Koran: they wrongly assert that the qur'an contains many passages that "call for Islamic domination and incite violence against non-Muslims." They also want to "change" that.

The Koran & the Bible: They claim that the Bible and the Torah are more pure and that the Qur'an is a corrupted text, stating baldly (and falsely on both counts) that "While neither Testament calls for mass murder of unbelievers, the Koran does."

Accepting responsibilities: This is probably the most offensive of all - they say that "we (sic) must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils." Why should any muslim accept even one tiny iota of responsibility for evil done in the name of the faith by twisted extremists? They follow that with another call to censoring "evil passages" in the Qur'an so that "future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages". How benevolent.

and it goes on and on. It boggles the mind that any muslim would capitulate so utterly to the Osama bin Ladens of the world thus. The answer to extremism is to expose the false fatwas and selective tajweed for what they are, not accord the extremists' warped interpretations the status of orthodoxy and try to excise them.

One more thing. The so-called muslims against Sharia aren't actually muslim at all. Among the blog team there is Pamela Geller (of the ultrarightwing blog Atlas Shrugs). If there are any true muslims at MAS who have some pride in their faith, then why do they work alongside someone who explicitly called for Islam to be banned?

With "allies" such as Pamela on board, it's painfully obvious to all but the most deluded, naive fools that the true agenda of MAS is to attack the principles of Islam from within. These people are far worse than the Irshad Manji/Hirsi Ali types who make earnest calls for "reform", because the latter are at least honest about what they are and what they seek.

Today is the first day of Ramadan 1428H according to the Fatimid Hijri calendar.

I intend to blog during Ramadan at City of Brass, and also my friend Shahed Amanullah is Ramadan blogging over at Beliefnet. Please join us in this holiest of holy months.

Aside from its utterly embarrassing series of bullcrap by Scott Beauchamp, it remains that The New Republic is still a magazine with great writers. I was particularly moved by this story of a Wheaton, Illinois Evangelical minister's spiritual journey, which isn't all that far from my own:

Ellsworth began reading more and more about Orthodox Christianity--eventually spending close to $10,000 on Orthodox books. By 2005, he was regularly visiting an Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago (the Antiochian Orthodox Church is Middle Eastern in background and the seat of its patriarchate is in Damascus). By late 2006, Ellsworth realized that he wanted to be Orthodox himself. On the first Sunday of the following February, an Orthodox priest in Chicago anointed him with holy oil and he was chrismated--or formally received--into the Orthodox Church. A month later, at the age of 62, he was ordained as an Orthodox priest himself.

Ellsworth's story is hardly unique. Most of the approximately 150 members of the Orthodox parish he now leads are former evangelicals themselves. Even Ellsworth's transition from evangelical minister to Orthodox priest is not uncommon. Of the more than 250 parishes of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, some 60 percent are led by convert priests, most of whom are from evangelical backgrounds. And, according to Bradley Nassif, a professor at North Park University and the leading academic expert on Evangelical- Orthodox dialogue, the Antiochian Archdiocese has seen over 150 percent church growth in the last 20 years, approximately 75 percent of which is attributable to converts.

Most Evangelicals know little to nothing about church history prior to the Reformation, and falsly believe that the Roman Catholic Church invented all by itself a bunch of things that it did not. Mistake #1 comes from thinking you can just read the Bible and figure it all out for yourself, and just shop around until you find a church that agrees with your own prejudices. The spiritual emptiness that so many evangelicals eventually come to feel is expressed powerfully here in the same article:

Indeed, as she continued to talk, it became clear that, as an evangelical, she had felt very small and alone. It was a surprising sentiment to hear from someone about the evangelical movement. After all, ever since the rise of the Moral Majority, American evangelicals have arguably been the most politically powerful religious group in the country. But perhaps the most telling revelation of the Orthodox conversion trend is that this political power has not translated into a sense of spiritual power--or belonging. For these converts, it seems, the Orthodox Church has solved the unbearable lightness of being evangelical. "When I was in [an evangelical church], I was thinking, This is great, I love this,'" DeRenzo said. "But I thought, and I don't mean to be morbid, but eventually some day this pastor is going to die or I'm going to move away, so if this is the only place in the world where the truth is, that's tragic." DeRenzo paused and looked around the sanctuary at the icons and the candles. She went on, "Coming to the Orthodox Church means that I am in communion with that church no matter where I am in the world, that I can go into that church wherever I am and have the same liturgy and celebrate the same way. I'll be in communion with other people. And that is so huge. That hugeness is so exciting."

2,000 years of unbroken tradition (oral and written) in direct descent from the 12 apostles is an awfully different experience from the "let's just read our favorite translation of the Bible and talk about what it means with people we agree with" folks.

Anyway, read the whole thing here. And for more on Orthodox Christianity in America, you can hardly beat the Our Life In Christ guys.

I see Dan Riehl is yet another on the right growing aware of the irrational prejudices of some on the right toward Muslims. This time in a dustup with the Hot Air folks. Although I hold them no ill will, I felt ill-treated by those folks last time I weighed in on this subject, so it's rather nice to see that others are willing to take some heat.

The cause this time? Freaking out over the hijab, a traditional woman's head scarf, which some female US politicians recently wore out of respect when attending a special Muslim religious event. Dan's latest response is a good one, and he rightly points to examples of US politicians respectfully wearing the kipa or yarmulke (a traditional Jewish men's head covering) when visiting certain Jewish holy sites or services, also out of respect.

Good point. I might also point out the growing trend of conservative Christian women to wear head coverings, which has clear Biblical basis (1 Corinthians 11: 4-5) and has been practiced by countless millions of Christian women for, literally, thousands of years:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

As an interesting note, I was recently at a gathering of a small group of Christians who are trying to Judaize the New Testament. I noticed, oddly, that the men covered their heads with traditional Jewish prayer shawls while praying. [shrug] People read what they want into the Bible sometimes I guess, and ignore the rest.

Anyway, women who read 1 Corinthians this way are found amongst Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Evangelical groups around the world. And the Western practice of Christian men removing their hats while in church may well stem from the same verses, some to think of it.

Of course, there are those who think this is an excessively literal and out-of-context reading, which is not unusual with a complex document like the Bible and a constantly-evolving faith like Christianity.

What gets most tiring about this sort of thing is that if you ever bother pointing out similarities between Christian, Jewish, and Muslim practices, you are accused of "attacking Christianity" or "attacking Judaism." So basically you can't accuse Christians of being hypocrites, ever, or not understanding the many variations of their own faith, ever, or of generalizing irresponsibly about another faith, ever. If a Muslim does it, it's sinister and dangerous; if you point out a Christian doing the same exact stinking thing, you're accused of having it in for Christians. What a special form of hypocrisy that is.

By the way, the practice of head covering is accepted by some Christians as necessary only in church, some as all the time, and still others as simply something cultural that the apostle Paul was talking about 2,000 years ago that doesn't really apply now, and note that Paul was often hyperbolic on some things (Paul also once claimed that any Christian man who got circumcized was destroying his own salvation, but I know few Christians who take that literally either).

Extreme versions of the Muslim faith have burkas that cover women from head to toe, based on some very literalist and extreme prooftexting from the Koran. Some are more moderate, and view wearing a simple head scarf (a hijab) as a voluntary thing that some of them wear all the time and some only at religious services.

Acting like any of this inherently sinister or, worse, acting as if an American politician visiting a religious group of Muslims is somehow surrendering to Islamic extremism is paranoid nonsense, and still more proof that at least some on the right have gone off the deep end in their fear and hostility toward Islam.

It's worth considering by the way, what the actual definition of "bigot" is. Perhaps looking at it will help:

Bigot: One strongly loyal to one's own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others.

I'd say I'm a bigot in some ways, and we all have some bigotry in us. Would any sane Christian suggest there's no such thing as a Christian bigot? If confronted with the charge that you're holding people to double standards and acting like a bigot be something a good Christian would immediately reject? Or one they'd actually stop to carefully (and perhaps prayerfully) consider?

Anyone who thinks voluntarily donning a hijab out of a sign of respect while visiting a special Muslim religious event is somehow a sellout to radical Islam is someone who really needs to stop and think about just how far close to the edge of paranoia and, yes, bigotry, they're dancing toward.

And that's not calling names. It's a call to conscience and to simple human decency. I don't accept that Muhammed was a prophet but if I visited a mosque I'd at least take my freaking shoes off.

No offense toward Bryan Preston, but please dude. You guys are too often over the top with this stuff.

Pew Research has a fascinating comparison. Although frankly I found none of it surprising, especially the comparison between black protestants, white evangelicals, and muslims.

More detailed look at Muslim-American attitudes here.