My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
My Stuff
On The Web
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5


Friday, August 13, 2010

Mr. Krauthammer, Only God Determines What Is Sacred

In a recent article, Charles Krauthammer criticizes the proposed building of a Mosque and Islamic Center "at" Ground Zero. This is because of the horrific 9-11 attacks and the deaths of close to 3,000 Americans at that site has made the ground sacred. Krauthammer joins a chorus of conservatives in implying that building a religious building belonging to the group responsible for the destruction is sacrilege (http://article.nationalreview.com/439065/sacrilege-at-ground-zero/charles-krauthammer). We will leave it to the reader to prove the implication. The answer key says false.

Mr. Krauthammer seems to not know what sacred means. Rather, he shows the all too natural human tendency to deify one's own group, this is similar to when we anthropomorphize what is dear to us. According to both the Old and New Testaments, only God is holy and thus only He declares what is sacred. If we were to put this in modern jargon we would say that only God can say what is special. Everything else is profane, including us and all of our endeavors.

The human tendency to try to do God's job of declaring what is sacred is sometimes used to maintain one's superiority over others and that is what Mr. Krauthammer et. al. are doing here. In the land of religious liberty, these conservatives are calling for an exception to the amendment guaranteeing this liberty because who would be exercising this liberty are Muslims--see the above implication.

In addition, the conservative logic here has another problem because it pits a "sacred" place vs a "sacred" document: Ground Zero vs the First Amendment. And to conservatives like Krauthammer, the winner is obvious. The problem for the rest of us is that this puts the Constitution in the loser's bracket where we would have to speculate what else could beat it and thus what liberties do we have left.

So Krauthammer suggests that if the Islamic religious center is built anywhere else, there would be no problems. And we could believe him unless we watched a recent episode of the Daily Show where Americans were protesting the building of mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California.

If we would keep to the rule that only God determines what is sacred, then, perhaps, we would stop trying to use religious language to declare our own superiority over others. If only God determines what is sacred, perhaps we would truly regard all others as equals. If only God determines what is Sacred, perhaps we would be better people who have a realistic chance at making peace than being those bent on committing global suicide through war. If only God determined what is sacred.


klatu said...

Only God determines:

The first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the Gospel and moral teachings of Christ is on the web. Redefining all primary elements including Faith, the Word, Law, Baptism, the Trinity and especially the Resurrection, this new interpretation questions the validity and origins of all Christian tradition; it overturns all natural law ethics and theory. At stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history and moral teaching. What history, science and religion have agreed was not possible, has happened.

Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle, and offers the promise of its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds directly to an act of perfect faith with a demonstration of His omnipotence, an individual intervention into the natural world; 'raising up the man' correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Intended to be understood metaphorically, where 'death' is ignorance and 'Life' is knowledge, this experience, personal encounter of transcendent power and moral purpose is the 'Resurrection', and justification for faith. Here is where true morality and perfect virtue, called righteousness begins.

Here then is the first ever viable religious conception capable of leading reason, by faith, to observable consequences which can be tested and judged. This new teaching delivers the first ever religious claim of insight into the human condition, that meets the Enlightenment criteria of testable, verifiable, direct cause and effect, evidence based truth embodied in action. For the first time in history, however unexpected, the world must measure for itself, the reality of a new claim to revealed truth, a moral tenet not of human intellectual origin, offering access by faith, to absolute proof, an objective basis for moral principle and a fully rationally, justifiable belief!

This is 'religion' revealed without any of the conventional trappings of tradition. An individual, virtue-ethical conception, independent of all cultural perception in a single moral command, and the single Law finds it's expression of obedience within a new covenant of marriage. It requires no institutional framework or hierarchy, no churches or priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, dogma or doctrine and ‘worship’ requires only conviction, faith and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new, single moral imperative and the integrity and fidelity to the new reality.

If confirmed, this will represent a paradigm change in the moral and intellectual potential of human nature itself; untangling the greatest questions of human existence: consciousness, meaning, suffering, free will and evil. And at the same time addressing the most profound problems of our age.

Trials of this new teaching are open to all and under way in many countries. For those individuals who will question their own prejudices, who can imagine outside the historical cultural box, with the moral courage to learn something new, and test this for themselves, to stand against the stream of fashionable thought and spin, an intellectual and moral revolution is already under way, where the 'impossible' becomes inevitable, with the most potent Non Violent Direct Action any human being can take to advance peace, justice, change and progress.

Published [at the moment] only on the web, a typeset manuscript of this new teaching is available as a free [1.4meg] PDF download from a variety of sites including:


Curt Day said...

I appreciate you stopping by. From a Christian Fundamentalist point of view, we have already had the final and complete revelation of God in his Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus reduced the law down to two principles, to love God and to love others. But there is a greater principle behind that since laws and principles incite us to sin. That is no one is saved by following one super principle, or two super principles or 10 or more. That is because, in the end, all valid principles and laws reveal how sinful we are. So Christ came down to die for our sins and rose to conquer death so we might follow him.

Iambic Admonit said...

Hello there, Curt. Thank you for this post. For once, we agree! While I think that the building of the Muslim Community Center in Lower Manhattan might be a little tactless, and perhaps a little unsympathetic with the feelings of some victims' families (in an ideal world, perhaps this controversy would not have arisen; but in an ideal world, neither would the attacks have occurred), I agree that the space is not "sacred" because of the tragedy that happened in that location. Also, it is not a mosque -- it is a community center that includes a prayer room, which counts as a mosque. And it is not at Ground Zero; it's a few blocks away. A couple of points opponents tend to overlook. So, thanks for your thoughts.

Curt Day said...

Actually, there is a coalition of family of 9-11 victims and troops returning from the Middle East who eagerly support the building of the community center.

In addition, I don't think it is a bit insensitive at all. In fact, the stated purpose for building the center there was to further peace by showing that Islam is not defined by the acts of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of violent extremists. The Imam behind the building of this center is a Sufi. Sufism rejects political Islam.

When we are tempted to say that this center is insensitive, we should ask if all crosses should be removed from the South. The reason is that since the KKK has committed their atrocities in the name of Christianity, then placing a cross anywhere in the South should be offensive. Of course, that would be foolishness because we can make the distinction between the KKK and Christianity as a whole. So why can't we make the distinction between the 9-11 attackers and Islam as a whole?