Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The ground zero mosque incident is inching us toward discussion of the real question no one wants to address: can those who follow Islam coexist in the world with those who don't? There is a lot of loose talk about "moderate Muslims." But I'm not sure there is any such thing as "moderate Islam." In any faith, there are those that sincerely believe the tenets and strive to follow them with rigor. Then there are others that are nominal believers, ethnically part of the faith but not "all in." Are there any "all in" Muslims that are moderate? That believe in a society in which Muslims and non-Muslims should have equal rights? I'm willing to believe there could be a more moderate line of theology that is adopted. Christianity certainly looks different in many ways than it did a few hundred years ago. But it's up to the Muslim community to convince others that the "real faith" is not radical. I keep looking for Muslim leaders to denounce the radicals, but see very little. Many of them keep declaring holy war on the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. has the strongest record of religious tolerance in history. We can get along with others. Muslim community: you need to prove to us that you can, too.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Post democratic U.S.

In November 2008, California voters amended their constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Today, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker decided that violated the U.S. Constitution. This is a very graphic illustration of what has been coming for a while: our form of government is no longer a democratic republic, it is a judicial oligarchy. I'm reminded of the British monarchy. They still have a queen who goes around being very important. But it's all ceremonial. She's not really a queen in the historical sense. Similarly, we go through much democratic political process - electing representatives, writing bills, passing laws. While it is not yet ceremonial, it is increasingly irrelevant. Most (all?) significant laws are immediately challenged and taken to court. The courts decide which laws they feel like addressing. The significant ones are addressed and judges make their decisions. And their decisions are increasingly arbitrary, having little foundation in prior law, historical precedent or, in the case of the Constitution, original intent.

The California Prop 8 is a particularly glaring example. It's a very simple law. It was passed by a vote of the people. It confirms a foundational value of western civilization (and most cultures world wide). If the people can't do something as simple as defining marriage to be what it is and always has been, what can we decide?