King's Letter From Prison

I just finished reading two letters. Both letters were written in April 1963. The first entitled, “A Call for Unity”, was written by eight Alabama clergymen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second letter was Dr. King’s reply, entitled, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

Allow me to provide the background that warranted the writing of the letters. African Americans were living under some of the most horrendous conditions. Their churches and homes were being firebombed. Jim Crow laws prevented them from sharing with whites in various public settings - their sense of worth was denied.

Civil rights leaders peacefully protested the injustices of segregation. In order to protest, even peacefully, it was necessary to break Alabama’s segregation laws. In responding to this situation, the eight clergymen wrote to Dr. King. Their letter was “an appeal for law and order and common sense.”

They asked for the discontinuation of the protests. They cautioned that the demonstrations were providing opportunities for others to become violent. Hence, in order to avoid possible violence, discontinue the demonstrations; obey the law and resort to dialog with the authorities.

Dr. King’s response from the Birmingham City Jail should be read by everyone interested in civil discourse. The spirit and tone of the letter is a lesson in civility and Christian grace. As he came to the end of the ten-page document (single-space), he said, “If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.”

Other than the tone of the letter, Dr. King’s response was well-reasoned, biblical and sensitive to needs of hurting people. Although he never challenged the good intentions of the clergymen, he clearly challenged their devotion to “order” at the expense of “justice”. In essence, the clergymen were asking that their peace be maintained, as peace was delayed and denied for others.

The clergymen believed Dr. King’s peaceful demonstrations were tantamount to extremism. To this charge, he reminded them that Jesus was an extremist for love. He called for a radical reaction to opposition – “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44 KJV).

As though that were not radical enough, Dr. King went on to cite the Old Testament prophet Amos. He was an extremist for justice when he said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).

For Dr. King, the issue was not merely being branded as extremist, “but rather, what kind of extremists we will be.” He went on to ask, “Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. King contended, “any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” As such, all segregation laws were unjust – they damaged human personality. “Segregation gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”

Here we are, almost 57 years since those letters were written and no one cares to know the names of those clergymen. However, Dr. King’s name and contribution are known around the world – as a matter of fact, to be able to honor his birthday with a national holiday speaks volumes.

In an article on the meaning of the holiday, the King Center website states that “the King holiday honors the life and contributions of America’s greatest champion of racial justice and equality, the leader who not only dreamed of a color-blind society, but who also lead a movement that achieved historic reforms to help make it a reality.”

This week we commemorate Dr. King’s great dream of a vibrant, multiracial nation united in justice, peace and reconciliation; a nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child. We are called on this holiday, not merely to honor, but to celebrate the values of equality, tolerance and interracial sister and brotherhood King so compellingly expressed in his great dream for America.

As we celebrate this week, culminating with the federal holiday on Monday, January 20, we have much for which to be thankful, much has been accomplished in race relations in America. Let us stop looking to others and ask, what more can I do to help?

EVERY Black Life Matters

The fact that black leaders have served as President, Attorneys General, Secretaries of State and other cabinet positions does not make a difference – there are voices in America that contend, the lives of some black people do not matter. The issue concerns an ethnic group – black skinned people. People in this category are often of African descent.

As a member of this ethnic group, I am very concerned about specific behaviors in our society that suggest, black-skinned people do not matter. In response to that attitude, I contend, “Every Black Life Matters.” Here are some situations that help to shape my concerns. 

ABORTION
In the United States, more black babies are killed by abortion than any other ethnic group. Black children are aborted at nearly four times the rate as white children. A black abortion rate that for years has vastly surpassed that of every other racial group. Thirty out of every 1,000 black women obtained an abortion in 2011. That rate is nearly triple that of white women and double that of Hispanic women. Put succinctly, while about 13 percent of Americans are black, more than one-third of all abortions are administered to black women. (source)

FAMILY LIFE
In black communities, more babies are born out of wedlock than any other ethnic group - preliminary data indicate that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, which is appalling, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders. (source)

CRIME
Black people in the United States are more likely to be victims of violent confrontations with police officers than whites because blacks commit more violent crimes than whites per capita.

Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites. More up to date FBI statistics tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. 

UNEMPLOYMENT
The unemployment rates among blacks are higher than any other ethnic group in America. In February, the unemployment rate for African-Americans was 10.4 percent, while the comparable rates for whites, Hispanics and Asians were 4.7 percent, 6.6 percent and 4.0 percent, in that order, according to data recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

MARRIAGE
The black divorcee rate has increased nearly five-fold over the last thirty years, and is double the rate of the general population. The result, according to The Decline in Marriage Among African Americans, is a greater share of family responsibilities being borne by women, an increased vulnerability to poverty and violence, and an erosion of community ties. 

Were it not so painful, I could go on to provide statistics on incarceration, education and drugs. Honestly, we need a campaign where politicians, educators, religious leaders and everyone committed to human development would engage in civil conversation. We need a non-partisan approach to bring about healing within black communities.

I beg to disagree with those who argue that because of slavery the situation is hopeless. As a nation, and since slavery, America has benefited greatly from the contributions of blacks. There are many blacks who have invented a multitude of items or made discoveries in the course of their lives. These have ranged from practical everyday devices to applications and scientific discoveries in diverse fields, including physics, biology, mathematics, plus the medical, nuclear and space sciences. 

I sincerely believe a big part of the solution is in the family. Stable families provide the foundation for stable communities. It is in the family we learn to respect authority structures. It is in the family we learn the value of faith and appreciate social graces. 

Social experiments have invited parents to explore career opportunities, thus limiting the time parents spend nurturing their children. Electronic devices and social services cannot and should not be expected to replace parents. 

Let us stop the posturing and get to the heart of the matter. Let us begin to educate and reward healthy families. We cannot continue to empower single mothers and allow irresponsible fathers to abscond. If every black life matters, we must be intentional and address the family, the nursery for stable communities.  

Christian Jailed in US

I like Kim Davis. Last week a federal judge ordered Davis to jail following her refusal to comply with a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The county clerk has sought a religious liberty exemption, stating that it would violate her Christian beliefs to affix her name to a license for same-sex couples.

Davis’s lawyer, Roger Gannam with the Liberty Counsel, said following Judge David Bunning’s decision to imprison his client: “Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what that belief is. This is unprecedented in American law.”

According to Kim Davis, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. I’m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place.” She added: “I’m no different than any other Christian. It was my appointed time to stand, and their time will come.”

Judge David Bunning, who ruled against Davis, argued his case compellingly. He said: "Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the US Supreme Court's decisions regardless of our personal opinions. Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."

In addition, Judge Bunning contends, "Davis repeatedly states that the act of issuing these licenses requires her to 'authorize' same-sex marriage. The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. It simply asks the clerk to certify that the information provided is accurate and that the couple is qualified to marry under Kentucky law. Davis' religious convictions have no bearing on this purely legal inquiry. It is not a sign of moral or religious approval."

In other words, Davis was not asked to solemnize something with which she disagreed – she was not employed as a Minister of Religion. What if her job required her to certify legal entities like gambling establishments or night clubs? Would certifying such activities violate her Christian beliefs or conscience?

However, according to Davis, “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties.” The clerk currently has a case in federal court seeking a religious liberty exemption, allowing her not to have to affix her name to same-sex marriage licenses. 

The First Amendment to our US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, the citizen has the freedom of religion; the state should not institute an atmosphere of freedom from religion.

For me, some questions must be answered, was Kim Davis imprisoned for the exercise of her religious views? Did the government create an atmosphere that would limit or prohibit Davis from practicing her religion?

The Religious Freedom Restoration ACT (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993, establishes the principle that when someone complains that a federal law burdens his religious conscience, the government has an obligation to demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in applying the law.

Could “a compelling interest” be determined in Davis’ case? For Davis, this is a matter of religious liberty which is protected under the First Amendment. America’s history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience.

For example, the Supreme Court's much-debated Hobby Lobby ruling exempts private businesses from issuing health insurance that offers contraception services to employees if that violates the religious conscience of their owners. 

Was Davis offered exemptions that accommodated her First Amendment rights? According to Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “Kentucky accommodates conscientious objectors for other types of licensing.” Why weren’t these “other types of licensing” extended to Davis?

Mat Staver, Head of the Liberty Counsel said “Davis has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done.

Furthermore, I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.”

Kentucky Govenor Steve Beshear could issue an executive order and correct the problem, but he would not. Also, the legislature could pass a law removing clerks' names from the licenses, but it won't be in session until January. In the meantime, Kim Davis is languishing in jail. 

This case reminds me of a few lines in Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail: “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him [or her] is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” 

Like Esther, Kim Davis believes she was elected as Clerk of Court “for such a time as this.” Esther requested of the Jews that they should fast while she prepared herself to stand before the king. In like fashion, we need to stand with Kim Davis. Rightly or wrongly, she is taking a stand for everyone who cherishes religious liberty against judicial tyranny.

Immigrants!

Our first request to migrate to the United States was turned down. The immigration department feared, as graduate students, we would become a liability to America. It was a church that came to our rescue. Recently I reminded the New York congregation of their compassionate gesture almost 25 years ago.

For decades, churches have had to balance compassion and immigration - especially among illegal immigrants. Christians are expected to show care to everyone, especially to the less fortunate. The writer to the New Testament book of Hebrews stated clearly: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.”

Honestly, I have been blessed as an immigrant. Trinidad and Tobago first opened the doors to my grandparents from Barbados, later the country did the same for my mother as an infant from St. Vincent. Jamaica opened her borders to me as a student, and 42 years later I call a Jamaican my wife. 

One can therefore understand my sensitivities to immigration issues in the United States – possibly the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Agreed, for security and national identity, we must secure our borders and put equitable laws in place. 

The recent random, heartless murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a five-time illegal alien deportee, who benefited from the city’s sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.

Many are equally annoyed by churches across the country that are brazenly thumbing their noses at immigration laws. For instance, in Northeast Portland, Oregan, the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Franscisco Aguirre-Velasquez, after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation laws.

In Chicago, illegal alien Elvira Arellano settled at the United Methodist Church of Adalberto for a year before finally being ejected back to Mexico. Last year, the serial law-breaker somehow returned to the Windy City to protest her status “in the shadows.”

Like in my case, it is one thing to show compassion to legal immigrants, legitimate refugees and to persons who were abused and mistreated. It is quite another matter to conspire against orderly immigration laws.

The mixture of compassion and politics leave the church confused. Is there another way to address unfair immigration laws? According to the Bible, compassion is not optional. Early in Jewish history, the Hebrews were reminded: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).

Hundreds of years later, at the time of King Solomon, there were about 150,000 non-Jews in Israel (2 Chron. 2:17) or about a tenth of the country’s total population. As is usual today, most of these were unskilled workers (1 Chron. 22:2; 2 Chron. 8:7-8).

However, the question remains, what should be the church’s attitude to illegal immigrants today? I have found Chawkat Moucarry’s volume, The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity to be most helpful. In this volume, Dr. Moucarry suggests at least three things:

Watchfulness – we must always keep in mind the danger of nationalism, whose victims would be minority groups living within the borders of nations. The practice of “ethnic cleansing”, the rise of extreme right-wing theories and inter-tribal warfare remind us that this danger is real and current. 

At the global level the more powerful nations need to be on guard against exploiting poorer and weaker ones, and as Christians we should play our part in encouraging governments to develop international relations founded on principles of solidarity and equity.

Clear-mindedness and Tolerance - Christians should know better than others what really separates people from one another: the hardest barriers to break down are not geographic, political, economic or cultural, but spiritual. For instance, two Americans can be much more foreign to one another than a Mexican and an American who share the same faith in Jesus.

Evangelism - By sharing our lives and not just our words, immigrants will see that Jesus Christ really is unique: unique because of His life, His teaching, His love, His death and His resurrection. He is also unique because He alone can reconcile us to ourselves, to our neighbor and to our God: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Romans 10:12-13).

Fire-Chief Fired

On Tuesday, January 06, Atlanta’s Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran was fired after more than 34 years of distinguished service as a fireman. According to Atlanta Mayor, Kasim Reed, Cochran was fired because of sentiments he expressed in a book.

The Mayor told reporters Cochran was ousted because of poor judgment. The mayor accused the chief of not getting permission to write the book, a charge Cochran denies.

The Mayor also alleged Cochran distributed the book to members of the fire department. Cochran readily admits that he gave copies of the book to close associates within the department. It should be noted that the individual who initially complained about the book did not receive a copy from the fire chief.

Sources in Atlanta City Hall told a local television station that Cochran was going to be fired, not for writing the book, but because he did not go through proper channels to write it in the first place.

According to the Mayor, “Not one time during the course of preparing this book did the chief ever think it was appropriate to have a conversation with me.” However, the former fire chief told reporters he received permission from the city's Ethics Department to write the book and in fact he sent a copy to the Mayor's Office, giving it to the Mayor's assistant.

Mayor Reed, surrounded by members of his administration, including city officials, some who are part of the LGBT community, said he fired Cochran for bad judgment, not for writing the book which calls homosexuality a perversion. Interestingly, a city investigation determined the fire chief had not discriminated against LGBT employees by writing his book.

The book, Who Told You That You Were Naked (2013), was really written for Chief Cochran’s Sunday School class. Cochran is a deacon, a Sunday School teacher and Bible study leader at Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church. In the book, aimed at helping Christian men overcome past sins, Cochran expressed his belief that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.

Cochran used about half a page of his 160-page book to refer to homosexuality as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate” behavior. He shared a few copies of his book with firemen colleagues who shared his worldview. About three members of staff, who did not share his worldview, also received copies. One fireman, who was not given a copy of the book, was reading it and noticed Chief Cochran’s description of persons who chose the gay lifestyle.

The allegedly offensive lines were shared with some in city administration who were sympathetic to the gay lifestyle. Following this, Chief Cochran was suspended without pay for one month. He was also instructed to attend a course in sensitivity training. At the end of his no-pay suspension, he was fired.

Interestingly, the Mayor was praised for dismissing Chief Cochran by openly homosexual councilman Alex Wan. Wan said, “...when you’re a city employee, and your thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”

Wan’s view is the epitome of bigotry. And so is The New York Times, which said it doesn't matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That's not the point, they argued Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled, God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department – “It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians."

The editorial went on to say, "His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens."

Where in this situation did Chief Cochran even attempt “to foist his religious views on other employees”? What crime did Chief Cochran commit to even deserve a one-month-no-pay suspension? Why should this decorated firefighter be subjected to this array of bigotry and ‘religiophobic’ rhetoric?

In one interview, Chief Cochran said, “...the LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.”

Did I hear an AMEN for that? Personally, I believe if Chief Cochran were gay and similarly expressed an opinion about persons who did not share his worldview, he would be still employed as Atlanta’s Fire Chief.

Flames in Ferguson

Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson is both a police officer and a symbol. As a police officer, he was taken before a St. Louis County grand jury for the death of Michael Brown. After several days of deliberation, the twelve-panel jury saw no grounds for indicting the officer for the shooting death of Michael Brown. 

Brown was shot to death by the police officer following a confrontation with the officer. From information released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Brown was at fault in that he accosted a uniformed police officer in a marked police car. The police officer contended that “he feared for his life, that he had never before seen such aggression directed towards a police officer.” 

As a police officer, Darren Wilson was set free. He was not freed because he was white. He was freed because as a police officer he was within his rights to defend a personal threat and a threat to his authority as a law enforcement officer. 

However, as a representative of a system of power, he is still being tried. This time the trial is taking place on the streets of Ferguson. Opportunists, angered by a system that targets minorities and uses excessive force to subdue them, have resorted to violent protests.

In order to understand this tragedy, many persons must be blamed. Many in the media must be blamed for the use of inflammatory language, totally unrelated to the facts of the Michael Brown case. For example, to describe the victim as “an unarmed, black eighteen-year-old,” or as “a gentle giant” is to suggest to the reader that an innocent and gentle teen was overpowered by “a white armed police officer.” Such descriptions appeal to the emotions and are not intended to provoke thoughtful analysis of what actually happened. 

Some of the local and federal politicians must also share blame for the flames in Ferguson. Rather than use the occasion to foster healthy dialog and defuse tension, politicians chose to encourage peaceful protests. Many knew that peaceful protests would not be possible. Then why did the politicians not encourage more civil discourse? Why did the politicians not assure the people of Ferguson that the judicial system was designed to bring about a just result? 

Why were people not reminded that many changes in a civil society begin at the ballot box? When people choose not to vote, they should not blame others for their negligence. Elected officials appoint persons who they believe are suitable to serve. When we elect officials of our choice, we are more likely to see civil servants reflecting our choices.

For instance, 70% of the residents in Ferguson are black. However, in 2013, less than 12% of blacks, eligible to vote, actually cast a ballot. The result, Ferguson's black majority is minimally represented in its government. Ferguson black residents need to reshape their city’s electoral landscape – legally, that takes place at the ballot box and not through violence on the streets. 

In a recent Early Voting appeal in Ferguson, citizens were reminded that five of its six city council members and 94% of its police force were white. The appeal went on to say “...if we want a better, safer future for our children, it’s up to us to vote for change. The choices may not always be perfect, but the cost of inaction is simply too great.”  

In the absence of responsible citizenship, the Justice Department has begun a federal probe into whether police officers in Ferguson have used racial profiling or overly aggressive force. The Civil Rights Division is also investigating whether Officer Wilson violated Michael Brown’s civil rights. 

Whatever the political outcome, the parents of Michael Brown will continue to carry the pain of losing their son prematurely. As expected, they were disappointed with the outcome. Very maturely, they appealed to protesters to channel their frustration in ways that will make positive change.  

They further appealed to everyone to “join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera. We respectfully ask that you please keep your protests peaceful. Answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction. Let’s not just make noise, let’s make a difference.” 

The Browns are echoing a Christian theme – we should make every effort to live at peace with everyone. In his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:18-21). 

I wish for you and everyone in Ferguson, a blessed thanksgiving. Upon arrival to the United States, the first four thanksgiving celebrations my family and I observed were in St. Louis, Missouri. Despite the gloom, I am confident that there are still more good things for which we can be thankful.

Another Beheading

The recent beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff in Iraq were savage acts. Many watched the videos of their murders by Islamist State militants and were horrified. Muslim organizations around the world distanced themselves from the militants and decried the brutal slaying, making it clear that the acts did not represent Islam.

Our opinion of associating beheading with barbarism is consistent with a modernized view of capital punishment. For instance, the Romans were brutal and beheading was not uncommon. In the New Testament there was the case of John the Baptist’s head on Herod’s platter. Interestingly, the Romans considered beheading to be more honorable than crucifixion. They beheaded their own people but limited crucifixion to non-Romans.

Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century. Interestingly, all the European countries that previously used beheading have now totally abolished the death penalty. As recent as 2007, 153 men and three women were beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Beheading is still practiced in Iran.
Apart from being used as a means of capital punishment by a state, the act of beheading is used to obliterate enemies. According to Ian Tuttle of the National Review Institute, “beheading is not just a warning or a promise; it is a ritual expression of an ideology. That this ideology seeks to annihilate and tyrannize is clear from the jihadists’ beheading method; not a quick, clean blow, but a slow, agonizing sawing motion that keeps the victim alive to experience his own execution.”

The vicious murders of the journalists were not done as acts of capital punishment – like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, they committed no crime. The beheadings were done in the name of religion. It would seem as though Islamists practice beheading because they believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Their intent is to weaken the will of opponents. 

According to Professor Timothy Furnish, “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings” (The Middle East Quarterly: Spring 2005. Volume 12: Number 2).

Jihadist groups justify the decapitation of opponents with Qur’anic Scripture. In chapter (sura) 47 verse (ayah) 4 of the Qur’an it says: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” With little variation, Muslim scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks.”

Many modern interpretations of this verse remain consistent with those of early Islam. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” he argued (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 1378).

In Islamic history, beheading of captives is a recurring theme. The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. The earliest biographer of Mohammad is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, [translated]).

Since Mohammad’s time, many Islamic leaders have followed his model. History is replete of examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was often referred to as the decapitation state. Upon their victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners. In the early 19th century, even the British fell victim to the Ottoman barbarianism. An 1807 British expedition to Egypt resulted in “a few hundred spiked British heads left rotting in the sun outside Rosetta.”

So much for history – we do not expect such barbaric behavior in the 21st century. As people groups migrate, they take their religious ideas with them. In the process migrants are expected to live with people who share differing worldviews. As we share opportunities for advancement, we should be free to learn about the religious or irreligious views of our neighbors.

For Christians, migration brings opportunity - opportunities to learn from others and to share with others. Like Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17), we must be ready to share our faith in the marketplace of ideas. We must listen and learn how to share our faith without attempting to destroy others who may disagree with our approach to life.

Jesus clearly taught us how to deal with people who disagree with us. He never taught violence as an option. Instead, He instructed us to pray for those who disagree with us. As an evangelistic strategy, compassion is always more effective than confrontation.

“PSYCHIC GUILTY!”

Jurors took just five hours to find Rose Marks guilty of masterminding a $25 million fraud. Marks told clients of her psychic business that she could foresee the future, fix the past and even control the Internal Revenue Service.

The four-week trial in South Florida featured bizarre testimony from former clients, including best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux, who testified that Marks and her family exploited their vulnerabilities, and their religious and spiritual beliefs, to fleece them. 

The jury found 62-year old Marks guilty on 14 charges, including fraud, filing false tax returns and money-laundering conspiracies. Bond was refused and Marks was imprisoned, pending sentencing on December 09. Prosecutors told South Florida Sentinel that Marks can face up to 20 years in prison.

Deveraux, who was swindled as much as $20 million, said she went to Marks to help her get out of an abusive marriage and continued seeing her for 17 years through a series of crises, including failed relationships, several miscarriages and the accidental death of her eight-year old grandson. Following the trial Deveraux said to a reporter concerning anyone in a similar vulnerable position, “Reach out to your friends, get professional help... don’t go to a psychic.”

Upon hearing the verdict, Marks’ family members were shocked to witness the demise of the family matriarch. One family member threw a Bible in the courtroom, yelling, “I hate this Bible...I don’t want this Bible anymore.” 

That behavior would seem to suggest that the Bible played a role in the family’s psychic practices. I would really like to see where in the Bible the family found endorsement for their fraudulent practices. Unfortunately, the Marks’ family will not be the last group to use the Bible to fleece others.

Nostradamus (16th century French psychic), along with clairvoyants like Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce, mediums, spiritists, and others, often make remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy. Such levels of accuracy could not satisfy the standards set for biblical prophecy.

Some scholars believe approximately 2,500 predictive prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible. Each of these prophecies must satisfy a 100% standard of accuracy set in the Old Testament: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22). 

Biblical predictive prophecy can be defined as “a declaration of future events, such as no human wisdom or forecast is sufficient to make - depending on a knowledge of the innumerable contingencies of human affairs, which belongs exclusively to the omniscience of God; so that from its very nature, prophecy must be divine revelation.” 

Biblical prophecy must possess sufficient precision so as to be capable of verification by means of the fulfillment. Some Christian researchers believe some 75 to 80% of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, meeting the 100% standard of verification. People are named before birth, kingdoms are outlined before their historical existence and the outcome of battles have been announced before the wars began. 

In interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Daniel predicted three kingdoms that would succeed Babylon over a period of hundreds of years. Today we can confirm from non-biblical history, that Daniel was accurate in describing the kingdoms of Medo-Persia, the Greeks and the Romans. 

In the New Testament, Jesus predicted that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:2). Based on the date of the writing of Mark’s gospel, we know that Jesus’ prediction was documented before the Temple was actually destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In other words, within 40 years His prediction was fulfilled to 100% accuracy.

Furthermore, unlike the Marks’ family, biblical prophecy was never intended for the benefit of the prophet. The actual meaning of a prophet is “one who speaks on God’s behalf.” In other words, the prophet never spoke on his own behalf and for his own benefit. Peter, a disciple of Jesus understood this when he wrote, “...that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

For this reason, it is safe to conclude, even when the Bible is used, much of what is predicted today, does not meet the standard of 100% accuracy, and should not be considered to be biblical prophecy.

“Bow...or Burn”

This headline, “Bow...or Burn,” smacks with arrogance. Actually, the words came from the lips of a Babylonian king, more than 2,500 years ago. The words were a part of an ultimatum given to three Jewish colleagues who refused to comply with the king’s order to give allegiance to a god, other than the God they worshiped. 

The event, as recorded in Daniel 3, is a classic case study in civil disobedience. The appropriateness of the event for such a study is supported in the historical accuracy of what was recorded in the text.

Specific details like location, civil officers, musical instruments and names of people in royalty can be verified in non-biblical historical documents and archaeological discoveries in recent years. In addition, structures like huge idols and the use of furnaces for capital punishment can also be verified in other historical events.

For example, Herodotus [1.183] mentioned a similar image, forty feet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not the same image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura. In addition, Julius Oppert (1825-1905), the French-German Assyriologist/ Archaeologist believed the site he located in Dura, Babylon, with “a large brick square, forty-five feet on a side and twenty feet high” may have been the foundation for the ninety-foot high image referred to in Daniel 3.
It was at that site, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the Jewish exiles to “bow...or burn.” Despite the views held by some liberal scholars, the story is no “fairy tale” like Cinderella or Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We must deal with both the history and mystery of the story.

The history is simple. The Jews were captive to the Babylonians. Thousands of Jews were forced to leave their land and go into exile some 1,000 miles away. While in exile, the king of Babylon gave instructions that everyone must bow to the golden image he built. The effort may have been intended to unite the massive empire of nations Babylon inherited and conquered. 

The Jewish colleagues refused to bow. Their response was clear, “we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up” (Daniel 3:18). These guys were convinced that the God they served was able to deliver them from any punishment imposed. Even if they were not delivered, their resolve was the same – we will not bow.

As promised, the king ordered that they be thrown in the furnace to burn. The king was even heard to say, let me see “what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands.” At that point, recapitulating was not an option. 

Historians have a problem in recording what happened next. The men who would not bow could not burn. According to the biblical text, “...the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them” (Daniel 3:27). Although tempted to comment on this amazing miracle, as promised, I must instead address the defiance of the Jewish men to civil authorities.

Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down to the golden image is one of those rare instances when godliness is expressed by civil disobedience. There was no chance, as in Daniel 1, for the three Hebrews to please God and the king at the same time. What the king commanded was clearly condemned by the Old Testament Scriptures. 

When placed in a position where one must either obey God or men, then one must obey God and disobey men. If obedience to one of man’s laws would result in our disobedience to one of God’s laws, we must obey God by disobeying men.

They quietly obeyed God by not bowing down; and then, without resistance, they accepted the king’s punishment. They left the rest to God. That kind of godly disobedience is far from inflammatory. It is the only kind of disobedience one finds in the Bible.

To date, the civil disobedience of our time is not primary, but secondary. In America, I am still to find a biblical precedent for disobeying legitimate laws because another law is unbiblical. Even when our obedience to God requires us to disobey a human law, there are proper ways to disobey. Daniel’s three friends disobeyed the command of Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so in a manner that did not undermine the bigger messages of godly order and civility.

Civil disobedience in apartheid South Africa and in America during the Civil Rights era leave us with some positive examples of civil disobedience. Interestingly, both situations were heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Slavery was somewhat different, in that the changes did not come about solely because of civil disobedience. However, despite the various interpretations by historians, it was the influence of Christian leaders that brought about changes.

Like in Babylon, whenever a government calls on its people to defy godly values and submit to godless values, it is time for civil disobedience.

Who Is Intolerant?

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a Christian family-owned bakery was forced to go out of business a few days ago. The Oregan bakery chose to shut its doors following months of harassment by militant homosexual activists.

Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The Kleins contend, because of their religious faith, the family could not take part in gay wedding events. Succinctly put, Aaron said, “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

Well, the lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television stations. Within days, militant homosexual groups launched protests and boycotts.

The protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with the Kleins. 

“That tipped the scales,” Klein said to a reporter. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists inundated us with phone calls and threats to kill the family. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”

Sad to say, the Kleins are among the more recent to suffer this blatant display of intolerance. Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

Jack Phillips, a Denver baker, is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. 

In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.

A T-shirt company in Lexington, Kentucky, found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.

Whereas Christians are being targeted by intolerant gay bullies, other institutions are allowed to take principled and professional positions against the LGBT without reprisals. For instance, for more than thirty years there has been a federal ban on gays donating blood.

The plan was to stem the spread of HIV. Research confirms that gay men are disproportionately affected by AIDS and hepatitis B, both blood-borne diseases. While gays make up about 4% of the U.S. population, they account for some 50% of all patients living with HIV. The Centers for Disease Control estimate six out of ten new HIV patients are men who have had sex with men. 

Despite these glaring statistics, there have been recent moves to lift the 30-year ban on gays donating blood. Interestingly, these recent moves to change federal policies have been civil and have been in process for about the last two years.

Why can’t similar civility be applied to Christians who are entitled to live in accordance with their faith and conscience? Let us revisit the Kleins in Oregon. How could they be accused of discrimination by the authorities when death threats from LGBT activists are being ignored by the same authorities?

Imagine, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced a few days ago that they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Kleins. Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbian customers.

According to the Commissioner, “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”

As Christians, we find ourselves in a culture that is hostile to our worldviews. As with slavery, we are expected to obey laws that are blatantly immoral. Although very difficult to swallow, we should not be surprised with such hostility. It is in times like these we need to remember that “the weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Innocent or Not-Guilty?

Within recent days the nation has been divided on hearing the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial. Much of the reaction however, does not concern the trial. Many used the trial as a metaphor, or as a mirror of other national issues. Some of these would include gun control legislation, racism, civil rights or even Florida’s “stand your ground law”.

The 27 pages of jury instructions reminded the six jurors of what the case was all about. It was not about who killed Trayvon Martin. Rather, it was about the reason for killing Martin. The jury was told if they had any reasonable doubt on whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.

According to the judge's instructions, "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."

The jury was never asked to declare Zimmerman to be innocent. Innocence presupposes blamelessness or freedom from moral wrong. In addition, innocence implies the absence of evil intent. To declare someone to be innocent requires knowledge no court of law possesses.

In order to come to a reasonable conclusion the court required truth. One reason that could not be determined was because one of the two witnesses was dead. In his absence, attempts at determining truth required various branches of forensic science. From this scientific evidence, the court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, and as such, Zimmerman could not be held liable on the charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

In order to determine if justice was served, one must ask the hard questions. The judicial system was not designed to take revenge. Rather, it was intended to ensure a just outcome, based on available facts.

The prosecution had the responsibility to present those facts. The prosecution also had the responsibility to share those facts with the defense. The prosecution should never attempt to withhold information that could influence the outcome of a case. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution sent the case to the judge, and attempted to willfully withhold exculpatory evidence. Interestingly, the Director of Information Technology who disclosed what was happening has since been fired by the Florida State Attorney’s Office.

According to Harvard Professor of Law, Alan M. Dershowitz, “The prosecutors denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations. Prosecutors violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”

The American legal system is one of the best in the world - however, it is not perfect. Like in the case with the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial, those who use the system try to manipulate the system for political and financial gains.

Every civil system operates on an assumption of truth. To undermine truth is to undermine reality. Hence, to swear and then fail to tell the truth is perjury – a felonious act, which can result in a miscarriage of justice. Other than its mention in the Ten Commandments, the Bible speaks strongly against perjury (The false witness will not go unpunished; no one who utters lies will go free Proverbs 19:5). For this, I believe both the prosecution and the defense will be held accountable.

Since the not-guilty verdict, there has been much hostility and requests for a civil trial. Within the American legal system that route can be pursued. I believe the outcome of such a trial might bring about some healing in the nation. It is best when civil outrage can be addressed in a court of law, rather than on the streets, as persists in many countries.

However, I long to see similar outrage about the other killings. In the 513 days between the death of Trayvon Martin, and the George Zimmerman verdict, more than 11,000 African Americans were murdered by other African-Americans. As a matter of fact, almost 22 African-Americans are killed every day in America. And that is separate from the 1,875 black babies that are aborted daily.

In these killing fields of America there ought to be outrage and a refocusing on the message of wholesome living offered by Jesus. It was He who said, “I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life that they ever dreamed of” (John 10:10 – The Message).

MUSLIMS RESPOND TO Tragedy in Boston

Last Thursday, in a powerful, uplifting speech at an interfaith service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, President Obama said he went to join people to “pray and mourn and measure our loss. We also come today to reaffirm that the spirit of this city is undaunted and the spirit of this country shall remain undimmed. I’m here today on behalf of the American people with a simple message: Every one of us has been touched by this attack on your beloved city. Every one of us stands with you,” he said.

At the conclusion of the President’s speech, the 2,000 people in the crowd leapt to their feet, some with tears streaking down their cheeks, to deliver a standing ovation. The crowd then joined in singing “America the Beautiful.”

The interfaith service at the cathedral was in keeping with a religious response to the terror attack at which three people died and more than 170 were injured when two blasts were detonated near the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon.

Religious clerics have been responding because of the grief and the terrorists’ claim to be Muslims. However, unlike some previous attacks in which the perpetrators claimed to be Muslims, the reaction of Muslim clerics this time was different.

In reference to Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the terrorist who died in a shoot out with the police, one Boston Muslim cleric said he would refuse to perform funeral rites for a man accused of committing so much violence. Yusufi Vali, executive director of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in the Boston area, also refused to identify with the two killers.

The two Tsarnaev brothers, accused of the Boston bombings, occasionally attended prayer services at the Islamic Society of Boston Cambridge Masjid, a small mosque near Tamerlan’s home. In a statement from the masjid, Muslim leaders claim “the brothers never exhibited any violent sentiments or behavior in their visits to the mosque.”

In a recent interview, the Council on American Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Executive Director in Florida, Hassan Shibly said, “domestically, it appears that many of those who engage in plotting acts of terror are ignorant, troubled, and mentally unstable individuals. Some have used disagreement with US foreign policy as justification for their disgusting acts, but the fact remains that such acts are unjustifiable and are due to the individual needing serious mental health counseling more than anything else. No mentally healthy individual can accept the intentional attack against innocent civilians, especially not in the name of any divine faith.”

I congratulate American Muslim leaders on this move to condemn the Boston attack. I now challenge them to go one step further and condemn the Egyptian cleric who said the attack in Boston “was definitively a jihad by mujahedeen.” As a matter of fact, the dust had not even settled on the ground at the site of the devastating explosions at the Boston Marathon finish line before Islamists started celebrating that so many people in America had been killed and injured. There were reports from Jordan and Gaza that people explicitly allied with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad joined with ordinary citizens to dance in the streets, cheer, and pass out candy.

Such celebrations are unacceptable in today’s America - and so are the organizations that participate in the celebrations. American Muslim clerics need to challenge and discontinue supporting terrorist organizations. To challenge violence in any religion is not hate speech. 

Sinem Tezyapar, a Muslim commentator got it right when she said, “history has witnessed many sick people leading others to commit atrocities, but there is one thing for certain; whatever the perpetrator or perpetrators might profess as a religion, they are not believers. If someone is capable of killing innocent people without so much as blinking an eye, then they are murderers with no fear of God. That is indisputable.”  

That perspective deserves our support as Christians. In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul urged Christians to pray for persons in authority, “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives...” (1 Timothy 2:2). Hundreds of years earlier, while in exile, Jeremiah encouraged the Jews to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7). 

Today we are seeking peace in a hostile world. In pursuing that peace we must encourage others who are also seeking peace and condemn every attempt to challenge civility and tranquility.