Elections: Texas Faith - Commander in Chief or Preacher in Chief

Is God a villain of Jeb Bush, Carson, Kasich, Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee, Santorum and others? Is God a friend of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio?

Here is my write up at Dallas Morning News  published February 16, 2016.

MIKE GHOUSE, Foundation for Pluralism

My father’s words jumped at me when I read the phrase, “outward professions of faith.”

He was a mayor as well as a respected uncle of the town, and everyone came to him with their problems for solutions. It was a small town called Yelahanka, a suburb of Bengaluru, India. Obviously the majority was Hindus, but we had Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jains, Christians and the Dalits.

Every time someone came and said, “Believe me, I am a good Christian, Hindu, Muslim or a ….” My father’s ears would perk up, and he would become extra vigilant. After the individual left the house, he would tell my mother, “I am still waiting for an individual who would say, I am an honest guy and I have this problem with the other person. He would add I rather believe the person who does not profess “outward professions of faith”; Why does he need to use God or a religious shield?

Indeed, my ears perk up when I encounter those who wear their religion on their sleeve. In fact, a handful of imams, rabbis, priests, and pastors have not failed me in my caution, no one has robbed me, but they have not been truthful to their congregations in my interfaith interactions with them.

When Ted Cruz said, “Let me first of all say, to God be the glory” and Marco Rubio uttered “my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Is God favoring these two over others? Is God a villain of Jeb Bush, Carson, Kasich, Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee, Santorum and others?

God expression should be personal and not for public consumption. God loves each one of us equally and does not favor one over the other. If he does, we don’t need a prejudiced, discriminatory God like that. Would God place an individual in the White House to carpet-bomb civilians elsewhere or bomb the nations to the ground? Heavens no, God is not in the business of bombing people. He has given us the discretion: Some get it, and some don’t. We the people need to elect those who are determined to preserve harmony of the creation be it among individuals, between nations and the environment.

When God created animals, he gave them horns, fangs and paws to settle their disputes with an attitude of you survive or I. But when he created humans, he did not give us fangs, paws or horns to fight, but a tongue to talk and resolve our disputes. Anyone who wants to bypass talks need not be our president.

Cruz and Rubio (and others) are running for public office and not the pulpit. I have seen politicians of all religions deliberately use God in their language. It may be a part of their nature to make God expressions, but when they say it in public, making it obvious for the camera, I question their sincerity. Maybe God is all that’s left to rescue them rather than their record or their abilities. Should I trust a candidate because he or she invokes God or because he or she is capable?

Please don’t invoke God in the public for the purpose of show, unless you are God deficit and need God to side with you to hurt others.

# # #

There are six more opinions on the issue at Dallas Morning News
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/texas-faith-commander-in-chief-or-preacher-in-chief.html/

Mike Ghouse
Text or Talk at (214) 325-1916

Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com 

Texas Faith: Have Muslims effectively confronted terrorism within their own community?

The Muslim community should not apologize for the crimes they did not commit. They are as American as anyone, and have the same concerns about extremism, violence and terrorism. They should assert their rights, and consciously earn the support from the sane majority to speak up with them against the Anti-Muslim bigotry. We have to stand up for each other and build a cohesive America, where all of us can function effectively without apprehension of any - Mike Ghouse

 
 Texas Faith: Have Muslims effectively confronted terrorism within their own community?

  By Wayne Slater | Dallas Morning News | Published at 3:15 PM on April 30, 2013

The Boston bombings have heightened the debate over connecting religious affiliation with violence and militancy. There seems to be no doubt that the attacks were associated, at least in the minds of the alleged bombers, with Islam. The drumbeat to convict Islam is loud among some on the right. But many on the left, worried about being politically incorrect, have tried to explain away the hijacking of a major religion by virtually avoiding direct mention of Islam altogether. Neither approach is helpful.

Into the heart of this debate strode Ruslan Tsarni, an uncle of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers. Activist and author Asra Nomani notes in the Washington Post that while others were avoiding or exploiting the issue, Tsarni confronted a central question head-on. Tsarni said his nephews had brought shame on the family. He confronted the dishonor of terrorism within his own community and denounced it. Normani wrote: The collectivist-minded Muslim community needs to learn an important lesson from Tsarni: It’s time to acknowledge the dishonor of terrorism within our communities, not to deny it because of shame.”

Have Muslims been as effective as they could be in publicly confronting terrorism within their own community? Is there a danger that Uncle Ruslan’s direct, blunt and unequivocal denunciation might feed anti-Muslim bigotry? Or is it exactly what’s needed?

Our Texas Faith had some strong ideas:

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

Uncle Ruslan’s direct, blunt and unequivocal denunciation of terrorism mirrors what the Muslims do; day in and day out. Facts don’t matter to the right, and indeed it will feed anti-Muslim bigotry demanding a pound of flesh from the community. Muslims are sick of extremists just as everyone else.

In fact, most of the FBI terror suspects arrested after 9/11 were turned in by Muslims, and Muslims rejoice when one of those guys is arrested hoping and praying this to be the last one. Safeguarding America is the right thing to do and Muslims do their patriotic duty well.

I was on Hannity show twice in the last week, as well as on the national radio network. My last comment was, Muslims do condemn terrorism every time, more than their share in comparable situations, but they don’t get the microphone. “On your show Sean, I am condemning it, and almost all Muslims will do that if you stick the microphone in their face.”

Just Google, “Do Muslims condemn terrorism?” Sheila Musaji of the American Muslim has compiled anextensive list, and the Ontario consultants on religious tolerance sum it up as follows; “Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television, radio and other media outlets.”

If we are looking for each one of the 6 million American Muslims to condemn it individually, then we need to ask, did 318 Million of us Americans condemn the Newtown and other killings?

Muslim Americans are as effective in stopping terrorism as all Americans in stopping murders of 3300 Americans in the four months following Newtown shooting. Neither the New town terrorist, nor the Wisconsin killer were authorized by Americans, nor were the Tsarnaev brothers authorized by Muslims. A day before the terrorists were identified as Muslims, I boldly wrote in Huffington Post, so “What if the Boston terrorist turns out to be Muslim?”

What is needed?

The Muslim community should not apologize for the crimes they did not commit. They are as American as anyone, and have the same concerns about extremism, violence and terrorism. They should assert their rights, and consciously earn the support from the sane majority to speak up with them against the Anti-Muslim bigotry. We have to stand up for each other for a cohesive America.

...........

To see all the 9 responses, please visit:  
 http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-faith-have-muslims-effectively-confronted-terrorism-within-their-own-community.html/


....Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel,India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive Americaand offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest onSean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly atHuffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal sitewww.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: The Righteous Mind of Tsarnaev Brothers

3,300 Americans have been killed in violence since the Newtown Massacre. Was the Newtown killer, Wisconsin shooter or the Denver murderer authorized by Americans Christiansto kill? American Muslims did not authorize Major Nidal and Faisal Shahzad either. Indeed, if they had any inkling, they would have been the first to report them to the FBI. Timothy McVeigh was a looney and acted on his own, so are the Tsarnaev brothers who acted on their own - continued: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/04/texas-faith-righteous-mind-of-tsarnaev.html

Texas Faith: The Righteous Mind of the Brothers Tsarnaev 
By Bill McKenzie/ Editorial Columnist | Published 11:46 AM -04/23/2013

The part of the Boston story that mystifies me is how two brothers reportedly led fairly normal lives after they came to Boston, but then something flipped and their thinking grew rigid. So rigid that they decided to blow up innocents along the Boston Marathon route in order to make a statement.

How does something like that happen?

Jonathan Haidt argues in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion that the righteous mind can readily shift into combat mode in political and moral arguments.We launch rhetorical grenades, which impress members of our own group, writes Haidt. But that does little to change the minds of our opponents, especially if they are in combat mode, too.

Of course, the Tsarnaev brothers did more than launch rhetorical grenades. They chose murder over the hard work of persuasion.

“If you really want to change someone’s mind on a moral or political matter,” Haidt counters, ” you’ll need to see things from that person’s angle as well as your own. And if you truly do see it the other person’s way — deeply and intuitively — you might even find your own mind opening in response.”

In other words, it is risky business trying to persuade people. The exercise may prompt us to change our own minds, which can be unsettling.”

So, here’s the question for you: Is it possible to keep the combat mode of the righteous mind from kicking in? If so, how?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism
 

America’s success in creating a cohesive environment to work and function effectively has hinged on a can-do attitude. Indeed, we have a choice “to keep the combat mode of the righteous mind from kicking in” or we can opt to let things go sour. But at the end, we have to restore the balance. We cannot function in a chaotic society.

Jonathan Haidt’s statement is certainly unsettling. The idea of seeing another person’s angle takes time, patience and humility. There is a fear in us, that knowing another point of view might change us, and we strongly resist it. On the surface, it amounts to self-negation, compromise or giving up on our own values, but shamelessly some of us demand the same from others.

The Tsarnaev brothers chose murder over the hard work of persuasion. They simply did not understand how democracy functions.

The Muslim community has done everything possible to guard the safety of fellow Americans, and nearly all of the bad guys caught by the FBI were reported by Muslims. Indeed the NYPD surveillance report violated civil rights, but the outcome absolved the Muslim community from radicalization.

GOP Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House’s homeland security subcommittee said this week: “Ninety-nine percent of Muslims are outstanding Americans, but the fact is, that’s where the threat is coming,” and added, ““If you know a threat is coming from a certain community, that’s where you look.”

As a Muslim I welcome this with a caution to Congressman Peter King: No witch hunting, sir. You will do more harm to the cohesive fabric of America than those terrorists could ever do. Please heed the wisdom of Martin Luther King Jr. He said “Injustice to one is injustice to all.” Inflicting apprehension on Muslims is drilling fear in all Americans.

Since the Newtown massacre, 3,300 Americans have been killed in violence. Was the Newtown killer, Wisconsin shooter or Denver murderer authorized by American Christians to kill? American Muslims did not authorize Major Nidal and Faisal Shahzad either. Indeed, if they had any inkling, they would have been the first to report them to the FBI.

Added 

Timothy McVeigh was a looney and acted on his own, so are the Tsarnaev brothers who acted on their own. US News on NBC reports that Dzhokhar has admitted to acting alone. 

As a society we need to make an effort to be inclusive in everything we do, from schools to places of worship and work place, a new culture of cohesiveness needs to emerge, where no one feels alienated. We need to watch for those, who have difficulty in resolving conflicts through dialogue and fall prey to the temptations of taking other's life.

To see all the 7 responses, please visit:  
 http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-faith-the-righteous-mind-of-the-brothers-tsarnaev.html/


....Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel,India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive Americaand offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest onSean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly atHuffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal sitewww.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: Do we believe differently about different kinds of truths?

I had a hard time swallowing that Moses split the Red Sea, Jesus walked on water, Muhammad put a crack on the moon or Hanuman (Monkey in Hindu tradition) carried the mountain on his palm. Of course, I do believe in miracles now as metaphors to convey a point about the power of faith.
  

Continued: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/04/texas-faith-do-we-believe-differently.html
 
Texas Faith: Do we believe differently about different kinds of truths? 
By Bill McKenzie/ Editorial columnist |  wmckenzie@dallasnews.com  | 4:57 pm on April 2, 2013

What does it mean that we may believe differently about certain issues, particularly about ultimate questions? I’m not looking for a discussion about how Jews differ from Christians or Christians from Muslims or Buddhists from Taoists or some other contrasts. Rather, what does it mean that as individuals we may believe differently about different kinds of truths? How, for example, do your beliefs in history or science differ from your religious beliefs?

This is a more theological and even philosophical question, so I look forward to your answers.

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism


When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, I took pride in it against some of my Neanderthalic religious friends who did not believe. My Muslim friend said, it is against God’s will, and the Hindu said, it must be a camera trick. I laughed at them; I was a vainglorious rationalist then, a follower of the father of modern atheism, Dr. Abraham Kovoor.

Neil Armstrong’s words “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” have never left me. Reason and rationality must have made home in me. I believed in science and shied away from mythology. I had a hard time swallowing that Moses split the Red Sea, Jesus walked on water, Muhammad put a crack on the moon or Hanuman (Monkey in Hindu tradition) carried the mountain on his palm. Of course, I do believe in miracles now as metaphors to convey a point about the power of faith.

In the 1970’s, the vice-chancellor of Bangalore University, Dr. H. Narsimaiah, hadchallenged the famous Sai Baba of White Field to investigate his miracles. But the politicians shut him down.

My mother’s oft-used phrase, “Ashraful Mukhlooqat,” which means humans are honored creatures, came alive when the asteroid hit Russia and the meteor struck San Diego in February this year. CNN carried some thoughtful interviews, and one of them said that in the next fifty years we would have developed systems to detect and divert those loose cannons away from our planet.

I said, Praise the Lord!

In Chapter 55, Quran says, God has created everything, and has scheduled the sun and moon to function for you precisely. Elsewhere he says, look for the signs, you need to manage the planet for your benefit.

My father shared how humans were blessed with intelligence to survive the furies of nature while other species got blasted away with fire, lightning, floods and disease. Indeed, the first species that survived against all odds was the human species. The first such man was Adam, whose evolutionary path transitioned him into a new survivable creation: man.

It’s amazing to watch how religions throw out fantastic theories, and then the scientists go out and prove it. Who would have thought that the Prophet Muhammad would describe the process of baby birth fourteen hundred years ago, and the scientist would prove it twelve hundred years later. Indeed, science beefs up the belief in God and creation.

To see all the 15 responses, please visit:   http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-faith-do-we-believe-differently-about-different-kinds-of-truths.html/

  
....Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel,India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive Americaand offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest onSean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly atHuffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal sitewww.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: How to balance compassion with justice in the immigration debate?

As the Jewish scriptures say Ve’ahavta la’ger, you must love the stranger to remove the sense of discomfort in him..... Justice is the ultimate truth in preserving trust in a given society, for the society to function cohesively and effectively. Compassion is part of the equation in achieving sustainable outcomes.

Continued: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/02/texas-faith-how-to-balance-compassion.html

Texas Faith: How to balance compassion with justice in the immigration debate?

by Wayne Slater, Dallas, Morning News/ Published 3:58 pm on February 26,2013

Courtesy Dallas Morning News

Conservative evangelicals have become unlikely allies in pressing for the establishment of a path to legal status and citizenship for 11 million undocumented residents. We published a story about that last week. People of faith have long been an integral part of the immigration debate. But it’s the increased involvement of conservative evangelicals with unquestioned social-conservative credentials that is worth noting as Congress and the White House consider immigration reform. Groups like the Evangelical Immigration Forum have sought to bring together a diverse coalition around the biblical injunction to welcome the stranger.

Wilshire Baptist Senior Pastor George Mason, a Texas Faith panel member, was quoted in the story:“Circumstances culturally and politically have thrown evangelicals back on their biblical authority, to ask what does the Bible really say about this. There may be lots of political positions that differ on how we accomplish it, but they want to be on the side of God in their minds. Otherwise, they feel they will be in some way accountable to God for their failure to be obedient.”

But what does the Bible say about immigration? The Bible does encourage kindness toward the outsider and the alien. But it also specifically says we are to follow the laws and obey civil authority. Millions of immigrants have broken the law. And we are a nation of laws.

At the heart of the political debate over immigration is the tension we often find in Scripture between justice and compassion. How do we reconcile that tension? How do faith-based people in a civil society do what’s both moral and just? Can we be both fair and right? Or do policy debates like immigration inevitably force us to take sides between two competing views — both of which make claims in our faith?

Considering the debate over immigration, what does your faith say about bridging justice and compassion?


MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

Compassion is the means to Justice, and justice is the ultimate truth in preserving trust in a given society to function cohesively and effectively.


As a nation we quietly followed the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ attitude with the undocumented workers because it suited us in boom times to meet the infrastructure needs of the 90’s. Now that we face unemployment, we are ready to throw them out, how disgustingly selfish could we be? It mocks our own sense of justice to deprive them and their children of the roots they have established here with our consent. The just thing to do is close the border first, and then offer amnesty to them as President Obama has proposed.


Here is an example of bridging justice and compassion in Islam: The 2nd Caliph of Islam Umar was known for Justice. He refused to punish a thief, as he saw that the state fell short of the responsibility to create a society where the man did not have to steal food to feed his kids, the very basic needs of life. He also removed the Christian ban on Jews to pray in Jerusalem in 638 AD after he conquered the City, the prevalent laws were no justice to him that deprived Jews to pray in what they believed.


Religion has been used, misused and abused to suit our lust for power. As a moderate Republican, I welcome the change of hearts among hard core Republicans with caution. Mason is right, “they want to be on the side of God” and I must add, hope they are sincere and not using God to gain new voters to get back in power to push their beliefs onto others.


The Bible, Quran and most of the scriptures say spread the good word to the four corners of the world. Mark 16:15, ‘Go into the entire world and proclaim the good news’ to the whole creation. Jesus, Moses, Krishna or Muhammad did not have political boundaries to worry about immigration. Do we follow them?


As the Jewish scriptures say Ve’ahavta la’ger, you must love the stranger to remove the sense of discomfort in him. Indeed, it is obligatory in all religions to greet the stranger and welcome him with a Salaam, Shalom, Peace, Namaste and other greetings. The long term security of the world comes through generosity and caring about others.

To read contributions of all the 14 panelists go to:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/02/texas-faith-how-to-balance-compassion-with-justice-in-the-immigration-debate.html/ 

My 4 minutes Speech on Immigration Reforms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjU0KULv-Y
...

 Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam,Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building aCohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day atwww.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: Do we need a new national conversation about marriage?

Humanity is diverse, that's God's intentional creation. The male/ female ratio has always remained around 50/50 with +/- 2 points variation on either side. The world would never be 100% male or female, likewise the world would never be 100% Gay, it will be a natural 10-15% of the population. Mike Ghouse
Texas Faith: Do we need a new national conversation about marriage?

By Bill McKenzie / Editorial Columnist
Dallas Morning News, Published on February 5, 2012

Ten panelists contributed to this forum, to read the contributions from all the panelists, please visit - http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/02/texas-faith-do-we-need-a-new-national-conversation-about-marriage.html/

Has the conversation about marriage reached a dead-end in our country, as Blankenhorn suggests? If it has, please explain what you would like this conversation to now include. If you think we don't need a new conversation, please explain.

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

The conversation on marriage has just opened up, and we are far from reaching the dead-end. But until that time we will need two parallel societies. They will not be in conflict with each other, but each on its own path.

What is missing in the conversation is our untapped ability in understanding the wisdom of God. As humans we are disgustingly selfish, and grind on to the selective verses that suit our insecurities to force the weak (minority) into obedience, as if we gain something.

The conservatives among us, particularly those who are Christians and Muslim, are stuck in the dished-out versions of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. We need to follow Jesus in spirit, and follow the merciful and inclusive God of the Universe (Quran).

God has endowed us with free will. He let Adam make the mistake without slapping him for eating the forbidden fruit. Instead, he kicked us out, and gave us an opportunity to multiply and live out in a bigger world with free will. He wanted us to figure out living with each other without punishing the few, who opt not to multiply.

As a futurist of interfaith trends, I have been struggling to understand sin. I found guidance in Buddhist literature about sin from this analysis, which I read on ReligionFacts.com:

"'Sexual misconduct' has thus traditionally been interpreted to include actions like coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery. As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka), most interpreters have taken this to mean that homosexuality should be evaluated in the same way as heterosexuality, in accordance with the following principles: I) Intention - Is the act motivated by love, generosity and understanding? And ii) consequential - does the act cause harm and regret (in oneself or others) or benefit and joy?"

As a pluralist, I draw upon different religious scriptures, and here is a corollary from Quran about carrying on a civil dialogue. "Respectfully, I do not practice what you practice, and you do not practice what I practice, so you live with your belief as I do with mine, as long as we understand our differences and not harm each other."

The dialogue must continue until we learn to respect the otherness of others and live in harmony. No one's belief should be thrust on the other. That kind of freedom is a hallmark of civil societies.
 …
The phobias that acknowledging and accepting the gay sexual orientation will cause more people to become gay is as ridiculous as saying eating Chicken will make you a Chicken. The sooner we accept this, the quicker we can put this fear behind and move on with our lives, instead of harassing and denigrating fellow humans. Thank God, I am blessed to be friends with all of God's creation including many gay and lesbian friends. The alarmist attitude will evaporate one day, why not junk it now? Indeed, it's a blessing to be free.
…..

References:

 New York Times piece on Blankenhorn. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/in-shift-blankenhorn-forges-a-pro-marriage-coalition-for-all.html?_r=0

American Values, marriage a new conversation
http://www.americanvalues.org/marriage-a-new-conversation/index.php

Buddhism about Homosexuality
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm

Quran about Civil Dialogue
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/buddhism.htm


. . . . . . .
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place and standing up for others as an activist. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a strong presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News, fortnightly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes everything you want to know about him.

Texas Faith, Is the religious left too nice and without influence?

The future of our society will be shaped by the moderate majority, for the first time in our long history, the moderates have discovered that they don't need to bang their fist on the table, or scream bloody murder to be heard, they have done it effectively at the ballot box, they waited for the left or the right to move towards moderation, and the left jumped on it and got the ride in 2012, and now the right is scrambling for the ride. Continued at: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/01/texas-faith-is-religious-left-too-nice.html
…..

Texas Faith, Is the religious left too nice and without influence?

By Bill McKenzie / Editorial Columnist, Dallas Morning News, January, 29, 2103

The Washington Post's Lisa Miller wrote earlier this month about how "nice isn't going to win the battle for the religious left."

Miller noted how the religious left once made the case for issues of great consequence, such as women's suffrage and civil rights. But she contends the religious left needs to greatly improve how it makes its priorities and activities more compelling and newsworthy.

Wrote Miller: "Kumbaya is not a story. Why can't we all just get along is not a story. Since the rise of the religious right in the 1970s in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, the religious left has failed to gain any comparable visibility, traction or voice on major issues in the political sphere.

"News releases from the precincts of the religious left continue to emphasize niceness over moral authority….There's nothing wrong with being polite, of course. But a great, galvanizing, undeniable moral argument is better. 'Civility is a great friend of the status quo,' says Jim Naughton, partner at Canticle Communications, which advises faith-based groups. 'People aren't going to change because you're nice to them.'"

What do you think of her point? Is the religious left indeed without the same influence and profile as the religious right? If so, is it because the religious left has tried more to be civil and nice than to make a compelling moral argument?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas


We are conditioned to seeing everything from a binary perspective; left or right.  We lose sight of the critical third dimension; the deadbeat moderate majority. This is the group that is meek, civil and polite, but does act decisively while casting the ballot.

Indeed, the religious left is more influential than the right in pulling the moderate votes.

Obama is reelected with a greater margin over his rival on the right.  The public support for legal abortion is accumulating despite the religious right. Same sex marriage is gaining greater acceptability. Obama care is in, Immigration reforms are underway, and gun safety regulation is gathering momentum. Heck, the wars will end with no desire to engage in another senseless war.

On the other hand, the religious right is losing, not because of inadequacy in their principles, but because of their belligerent, unintelligent pounding on the airwaves, and turning the moderate majority off.

Jim Naughton makes a powerful point that Civility is a great friend of the status quo; he is talking about the moderates, and not the ones on the left. Whether it is the city council meeting, church gathering or in informal gatherings, it is always the people on left or the right who drive the conversation, they have no qualms in speaking out passionately, even though they get shot at alternatively by the other, they don’t lose the enthusiasm for their point of view. Whereas the moderates, keep raising their hand politely, hoping to get their turn, but never get a chance to get their point across, they don’t know how to bang their fist on the table, such an act is rude and stupid to them.

Years ago, a Nun made a remarkable point on Tim Russert’s Meet the press. The right will frighten the public and attempts to win by guaranteeing to take care of them, the left will match their tall claims, while the moderates have difficulty in embellishing and giving false hopes, they lack passion.

America is moving towards the center, the moderate majority is realizing its power to keep things at an even keel; they want an America that is good for every one of her citizens, in fact they made that difference in 2012 through the ballot, as they do not have the passion to speak out. Indeed, Americas’ future will be shaped by the moderates.

. . . .

Eleven panelists contributed to this forum, to read the contributions from all the panelists, please visit -  http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/texas-faith-is-the-religious-left-too-nice-and-without-influence.html/  

------------

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place and standing up for others as an activist. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News, fortnightly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes everything you want to know about him.