Recently, I had a change of heart about a certain issue. Parenting books I have been reading emphasized the importance of immediate obedience. I understand where they are coming from, that children need to learn obedience because they always have to obey authorities. However, I struggled with this idea because of images of a drill instructor barking orders at scared recruits. I saw that as disrespectful to children because we would not think of talking to adults this way.

     However, some event at my work made me realize the importance of the idea of immediate obedience. Here is what happened. Part of my work is taking kids to doctor's appointments. One day I took a kid to his Doctor's appointment and I told him to go see the doctor now. At that moment, that kid was listening to some music. The kid told me to wait. Since I was lenient about kids obeying immediately, I allowed this kid to keep listening to his music. The kid must have made the doctor wait for five minutes, and honestly the doctor was not completely ready either so I did not bother to really make this child hurry.

     Besides my leniency, what gave this kid the idea to make the doctor, who could have been really busy, wait for five minutes? I believe now that making others wait is a sign of selfishness and it needs to be addressed. Like this kid, we sometimes get so focused on our agenda that we do not honor the one asking help from us. Don't get me wrong, I still believe that we shoud not talk to kids in such a way that they are disrespected, in a way that we would never talk to adults. However, I believe strongly now that this behavior of making others wait, by ignoring or just continually saying "wait" needs to be addressed. We and our kids need to develop the virtue of cooperation, we need to develop the heart habit of wanting to be of assistance to others, whoever they are and within reason. What would a cooperative person do when asked to do something? He would either stop what he is doing and help with a cheerful disposition (not reluctantly), or ask if he could help later, and then accept a person's no, help is needed at the moment.

     Some may think that this is a mundane issue but understanding the virtue of cooperation will shed light on some issues we Christians deal with. There is a question I heard from a Christian radio station that I used to think about, whether Christians can work alongside atheists or not, for example, in building houses for the homeless. Some Christians see it as a good way to have conversations with atheists about Christianity. Some will say no, that it is not right to do anything with unbelievers. I have some thoughts in this matter.

1. I believe we sometimes overanalyze an issue. The bottom line is some people need houses and this is an opportunity to build houses for them. Helping people is a virtue and God definitely wants us to be virtuous. Jesus healed people just because he has compassion on them and we need to be compassionate too. Therefore, if a group of Christians want to build houses, then good for them, even if those with the equipment are atheists. God blessed the work of Joseph even though he is working for a gentile Pharaoh in helping the Egyptians through a time of famine. Anyway, in the workforce, we always work wih those who do not share our beliefs. Is cooperation a necessary virtue in the workplace? You bet, and God wants us to be cooperative too and have a good reputation.

2. The thought of helping people or working side by side with people for the sake of evangelism is not right. We should not help people and work with them for an ulterior motive. A good work ethic- doing good work for people for its own sake, is a virtue that we need to develop and virtue should be an end in itself. Jesus healed both those who believed in him and those who did not. Don't get me wrong, I believe it is important to share our faith. However, sharing the hope that is in us should be part of our conversations as we build relationships with people. Just as we may talk about our work, we should also be talking about why we work hard and why we help people. It is because God gave us a compassionate heart, the heart of Jesus.

3. Although it is good to help people, we should always remember that the only one who could really give us peace is the Lord Jesus Christ. Having houses for people may help them live better lives, but the life that would give peace is a life lived with Jesus. Whether we are involved with a diaconal Christian ministry or a secular service organization, we should do our best to be in relationship with people because it is in relationships, not in food distribution or work programs, that souls find healing. The healed soul is one that finds peace with God through Jesus. 

The bottom line is to love our neighbors by caring for them in anyway we have been given an opportunity to.  

     Although I have great respect for most Christian leaders, there is a statement they make that have bothered me. This statement is "Christianity is not a religion, its a relationship." I have reflected on why this bothered me and I have pinpointed the reasons.

1. The statement is simply inaccurate about its view of religion. Although "religion" is somewhat a nebulous term, it can be said that religion is man's way of connecting to a power/s that somehow influences his destiny. It is a natural response to the mystery of this power/s. Just as people fall in love, they formulate a religion. To judge it as bad would be tantamount to saying falling in love is bad. Some may avoid falling in love, but its part of a person's makeup to fall in love.

2. When some Christian leaders separate Christianity from the term religion, they are basically saying that Christianity is not about becoming good enough to become acceptable to God, but about having a relationship with Jesus. That may be true but there are several things wrong with that thought. It is true that religion could be works-centered, but religion does not have to be. As an example, the Hare Krishnas are an example of a religion focused on devotion to Krishna. Christianity is about devotion to Jesus. Christians are devotees of Jesus. Some Buddhists believe that only through the grace of Amida Buddha can a person find enlightenment (their goal is not being acceptable to "God" which points to the error of the thought that religion is about being acceptable to God). This belief is similar to the Christian belief that only through the grace of God in Jesus can a person be made acceptable to God. Some may argue that Christianity influenced this group of buddhists but that is debatable. A word about works-centeredness. For valid reasons, people are uneasy with the thought that a profession of faith is enough for "salvation" however that is conceived. That is why elaborate works systems (rituals and/or ethics) are added to the original confession of faith as a standard for "salvation". For example, Muslim scholars debate whether the confession "Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his prophet" is enough to make a person a Muslim, or are there works that accompany a good Muslim. 

3. There is a third reason that this well-meaning Christian leaders are probably not completely aware of. In their zeal to assure people that being a Christian is not about being religious, these Christian leaders have accommodated themselves to a bad attitude among many people in this culture. When some people hear religion, they hear "Priests" telling them what is right and wrong. Many people today are anti-authoritarian, whether that authority are church leaders or a set of convictions. This is shown by people avoiding the organized church or telling themselves that it is okay to believe whatever they want to believe. Some may have bad experiences with church, but I believe that some people just want to be able to do what they want to do, without the input of any authority or community. Their God is their desires. Therefore, I appeal to Christian leaders not to feed into the anti-authoritarian individualism that has pervaded society and respect the organized Church and the Church fathers who have contended for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  

     The story of a church picketing the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq made me think of the dilemma of law- it tries to build a peaceful society but it could not. This case has now reached the supreme court- hearings have been heard and a decision will be made next year. To be decided is if the church had the right of free speech to picket a funeral, or if they had to pay damages for harassment.

     The reason this made me think of the dilemma of law is the obvious insensitivity of this church, to disrupt a service to mourn the loss of a human being. Their defense is that they have the first amendment right to free speech. The letter of the law may be on their side but the law of sensitivity is definitely not on their side. This law of sensitivity is not something that can be legislated because it is a heart issue, but very important for the peace of a society. Insensitivity is a heart issue and this act would be considered insensitive by most people.

     I struggled with why there seems to be a negative attitude in the bible of living according to the law. It seems good to live according to law. The usual explanation is that nobody can follow the law completely, and any small violation leads to judgment. However, another explanation is that law does not necessarily make for a peaceful society. This case definitely shows that. The church that picketed was within the bounds of the existing laws, but their actions left more pain for the family of this deceased soldier. Lawful people is not what God wants but people who show the fruit of the spirit, which includes kindness. The act of this church did not seem kind, not only for what they proclaim but the circumstances in which they chose to express themselves.

     The reason that law could not make for a peaceful society is that it is objective, which it has to be for law to be fair and enforceable. It only deals with human behavior but not the human heart. Law may stop speeding but it does not stop reckless attitudes. However, there seems to be a movement towards making subjective laws. Subjctive law could be oppressive. One subjective law is the hate crimes act-adding consequences for crimes that are due to prejudice. The problem with hate crimes is that, except for a clear confession, no one really knows whether an act of road rage against a gay person is just that, a person upset about being cut off for example, or an act of someone who is prejudiced against gays. There may be some ativist lawyers who are ready to make any crime against gays a hate crime, a heart issue that the government has to enforce.

     The case of the church that pickets funerals with a provocative message (God is punishing America because of its tolerance of homosexualiy) may pave the way for another subjective law if the justices make a judgment concerning the message of this church. The justices may decide to ban "offensive" speech because it may incite others to crime. The bad thing about a ban on "offensive" speech is that what is offensive is subjective. Any speech that disagrees with a point of view can be considered "offensive." People would then be afraid to speak their minds, and this would be the end of free speech.

     Let us hope that the justices don't rule on the content of this church's message, despite its hatefulness. Let us hope that they make an objective ruling, maybe keeping protesters away from funerals a certain distance. A funeral should not be a place for protesting an ideological issue but a time to mourn the deceased. However, a people that could not accept dissent will descend into totalitarianism.  

     I have a vision of a future generation, men and women who are not sure what is true and false, who could not begin to grasp what is important in their world. They sit around trying to figure out what life is about, with discussions that do not produce answers. They have no will to fight for right because they are not certain about what is right and wrong. They have lost touch of a transcendent reality, therefore there is no faith to be found. 

     Many wll blame the dilemma of this generation on postmodernism, which I will define (this is not comprehensive) as the attitude of suspicion towards metanarratives. An example of postmodern iconoclasm is the movie Shrek. They made the savior figure, brave prince charming, into a bumbling villain and having the ogre, who used his wits, become the one to save the princess who can hold her own in a fight. The story of a helpless princess being saved by a brave prince is lambasted in this movie.

     In a way, the postmodernists have a point. Ideologies have told us what will make us happy, but they end up not delivering. Marxists say that if wealth is given to all the people collectively, then the class war will be over and we will be a better society. The fall of communism belies that claim. Advertisers tell us that buying certain products will make us more popular and attractive. Despite the images, Nike shoes won't make anybody better basketball players. Comfort may help performance but it will not increase skill. Postmodern thought reminds us that under the sun, absolutist claims must be questioned.

    However, the problem with most postmodern thought is its denial of the voice of God. God has spoken and has told us what will make us happy as individuals and as a society. That is the voice we must listen to and all other voices must humble themselves and refrain from dogmatism. God's voice is transcendent and he sees all of reality. All we see are phenomenon and our theories try to make sense of those phenomenon (e.g. evlutionary theory tries to explain how humans came to be). How do we know the voice of God? Through the Bible, which is the story of God and his actions in history on behalf of his people. Many see the bible as just another voice under the sun, something bound by human existence. I see the bible's fulfilled prophecies as evidence of a voice beyond the voice of the men who wrote its words. Jesus, the one who died and rose again, saw the scriptures as the voice of his father, the creator and sustainer of the universe.      

     Another problem with most postmodern thought is its disrespect towards tradition. Some denominations are questioning whether the historical church's position concerning homosexual pratice is wrong. Although it is possible that older generations are wrong, it must be remembered that they are unanimous in their condemnation of homosexual practice  and they have also reflected on the same scriptures that we have. Some denominations are willing to throw away that clear witness of history for the purpose of making the church acceptable to a certain segment of humanity. The result is a church that just echoes what the sinful world wants to hear. No wonder those who are looking for transcedence are losing interest. Another result is a church that does not reflect the humility of the Lord who humbled himsef before his father, being born as a man and giving himself for many.

     If we are to be effective in guiding the future generation, we need to recover a committment to listening to the clear voice of God and the humility towards our ancestors who imparted to us their wisdom. Although the world has changed in some ways, the heart issues remain the same. All generations of the church have reflected on the question of how to live faithfully in this world. It behooves us to listen to them. When our children asks us questions like- why do I need to wait for marriage to have sex, why should I be nice to this person, etc., we need to be able to stand up and say this is what God says will give you peace and our ancestors have found this to be true. Although the world may say that there are many legitimate voices, let us tell our children that God has spoken and his voice stands above all voices.    

     Proposition 8 has been reversed! Prop 8 was a measure in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This proposition was approved by the people of California in a referendum. This measure would have effectively banned gay marriages and place a clear limit on marriage.

     Some conservatives accused this judge of judicial activism, which is another way of saying disrespect towards the intent of the constitution (law). A judicial activist would make his interpretations of the law without regard for the intent of the law, but through the lens of his ideology. In the case of Prop 8, the judge is biased towards the homosexual lifestyle, therefore he overturned the will of the people of California.

     In one sense, those who are unhappy about this judge's decision is correct. I believe that the intent of this country's founders was to have a government by the people. The forefathers held to the principle of democracy. To overturn the people's decision means to go against the principle of democracy.

     On the other hand, it can be argued that the forefathers wanted to safeguard life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To violate the right to the pursuit of happiness is against the principles of the forefathers also. The forefathers wanted rule by the majority but protection of the rights of the minority. It can be argued that Prop 8 does violate the right to the pursuit of happiness, in this case the rights of homosexuals to have their union with the one they love and want to spend their lives with recognized by the state. The forefathers would probably be against gay marriage but we don't know that with certainty. The forefathers did not envision this issue coming up, therefore it is up to the present generation to decide this issue. 

     This referendum should have been challenged immediately and not allowed on the ballot if gay marriage is an inherent right (an issue that could open up a can of worms), a question that should have been settled first. By putting it on the ballot, it becomes an issue for the people to decide and the people decided to limit marriage to monogamous adult heterosexuals. The principle of rule by the majority is a clearer principle than the principle of the right to the pursuit of happiness and should be respected.

     Is a definition of what the state would recognize as marriage necessary? To have a legal basis for judgments on inheritance or justice issues when a union breaks up, a limitation of what the state recognizes as marriage is necessary. For example, think of a polygamist (polygamy would also be covered by this referendum) who dies and did not have a will. He has children by his "wives". If there is a dispute on inheritance, who will get his property? If only the first marriage is recognized, then the decision is clear, although not emotionally easy. The children by the first wife gets his property, not the other "wives" or their children.

     Following the principles or the intent behind the law is not always a black and white issue.  Does the right to bear arms give people a right in this country to have an arms race- some people having RPGs or AK47's? Some may say that weaponry could prevent an oppressive government and protect homes, and that is why the forefathers safeguarded the right to bear arms. However, the forefathers did not foresee the weapons of today, therefore, the right to bear arms have to be rethought in this generation.

     What then should the criteria for a judge be? Remember that those for Prop 84 and those against Prop 8 can co-opt the constitution. What then should we really be looking for in our judges? We should be looking for judges who advocate for justice and mercy, things that God values. They must apply the law equally, not favoring the rich, the poor, or those who share their lifestyle. They must apply the law in such a way as not to destroy the guilty, and with compassion for the victim.

     Now that President Obama has declared the end of "formal" (it is not really over) combat operations in Iraq, many of us ask the question "Was it worth it?" Was all the bloodshed, the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the Iraquis killed in the midst of combat, worth it? This question will initiate lots of debate. One side will say that it is worth it because a dictator who killed many has been overthrown. The other side will say it is not worth it because there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

     Perhaps, it is more fruitful to ask the question, was America's motives right for going to war? In the end, we could not completely control the results of our decisions. However, we can examine our hearts to see if our heart is in line with the heart of the loving God who is sovereign over creation. We are all guided by our hearts, our values and concerns. Some in the administration may have been driven with compassion for the oppressed, which is in line with God's heart. Some in the administration may have been motivated by protecting American interests in oil. Some really believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. Motivations, good and bad, coalesced and created the fervor for war. When many people are involved, there will also be multiple motivations. That is why scriptures command us to pray for our leaders. We pray that the motives behind their actions may spring from a heart whose concern is in line with God's concerns. As an aside, some may say that war is always wrong, but I believe that violence is sometimes necessary.

     After high school, I joined the Marine Corps. As I look back, I see that my motivation was to be able to say that I went through the hardest boot camp, and behind it was a heart obsessed with making myself look tough. I could evaluate this decision as wrong because it is not in line with God's heart. However, it is also in the Marine Corps that I became closer to Jesus, which is of infinite worth and God's desire for all. Therefore, I could look back and say that joining the Marine Corps was worth it. I was motivated for wrong reasons, but God made it result in good.

     The soldiers who gave up their lives could be seen as victims of bad motivations from our leaders. However, because of the sacrifice of our soldiers, some Iraquis can now live without the threat of being gassed. Some Iraquis can now sleep at night knowing that the government will not barge in their door and take their loved ones. I know there were bad results, including more persecution of Christians. The persecution may be intended to eliminate the light of Jesus from Iraq, but God is sovereign and he can make this persecution result in the light of Jesus even shining brighter in Iraq.

     Does being prophetic mean always being in conflict with others? I heard of a church planning to burn Koran's on Sept. 11, although I think they abandoned the plan. The idea was to turn Muslims away from Islam. There is another church that pickets a gentleman's club near it's location, and even going so far as to get the license plates of the cars that are in the parking lot and posting them on the internet.

     Surely, this churches would stand behind the First Amendment, their right to free speech, besides, the police have been posting pictures of men who have solicited prostitutes. This brings up the question, does legal mean right? Additionally, there are precedents to displays of iconoclasm in church history to bring groups of people to the church. In Europe, a missionary took down a tree sacred to pagans. A long time ago, the Conquistadors commanded a whole tribe of Mexican Indians to burn their idols in exchange for their support in a war with another tribe. Was this right?

     The zeal for the faith among these Christians is commendable. God did tell the Israelites to rid their land of any pagan influences. However, there are a few things they need to think about.

1. The apostle Paul acknowledges that Christians have to live in the midst of evil. The church is like later Israel, it is a pilgrim community. The pilgrim community was called to seek the peace of the city where they live in, with all its evil. On the other hand, early Israel is God's hand of judgment. In creating this nation, other nations were punished for rejecting the God who has been kind to them. I know many people don't like this judging God, but a nation that raises its head against God will destroy what God values, his creation. I believe that God is showing that because of the prevalence of the sinful nature, his kindness only hardens the hearts of men. This points to the need for God to directly change hearts. Sometimes, no amount of rehabilitation can change people, and God is not obliged to change hearts, it is his gracious prerogative. 

2. In the early stage of God's history with Israel, he was showing them that even a nation whose foundation is Godly would someday drift into ungodliness. Israel became like other nations, worshipping idols and making alliances with nations instead of trusting God. Again, this shows the prevalence of the sinful nature which no amount of kindness can change. God has to forgive sins and change hearts. The corollary to early Israel is the church. It is to be kept pure from ungoldiness. However, even in the church, the prevalence of sin is noted. The apostle John calls Christians to confess their sins and for a Christian to to say that he has no sin is a lie. The difference of the church from the world is its attitude of repentance.

3. God calls us to be at peace with our neighbors. I don't believe that the actions of these two churches promote peace with its neighbors. Are Christians then supposed to keep quiet in the face of evil? Are they supposed to be politically correct? We have become a society that is too sensitive. Any disagreement with a certain lifestyle could be construed as hateful speech, which could bring about persecution from certain people. On the other hand, there is such a thing as hateful speech. Christians should not engage in speech that demeans people, making them to be less than human. Christians should engage wrongs with gentleness and respect. To destroy a people's icons, even if there was a precedent, is hateful speech. How would we feel if somebody burns crosses and bibles. Do not do unto others what you don't want them to do to you is a criteria for hateful speech. On the other hand, we should not consider hateful speech respectful and honest criticisms of us. It is legitimate to expect (not demanded) to be treated with gentleness and respect. Even though the police display pictures in the Internet, I don't believe it is a practice that Christians could follow. It demeans men who rightfully should take account for their actions. I believe a correct response would be to confront the man in love and then if he is exposed, it should be only to the one affected by his actions directly. This assumes that the person gets to know the man.

     Moses allowed the people to divorce, something that God hates.  There comes a point where evil could not be stopped by pleading for what is right, where people are adamant in maintaining evil practices. Instead of destroying people who insisted on their way, God made concessions and remained kind to them. This does not mean that God changed his mind about divorce. This seems to be where we are in our history. The push for legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is an adamant refusal to follow God's standards. How do we deal with this? God's continued kindness is a paradigm of how we face evil in society. We continue to be a prophetic voice against evil and at the same time, love people even to the point of giving them freedom to engage in their evil practices. We still pray for the peace of society, and this includes its peace with God.   

     One of the top news of the day is the proposed building of a mosque/community center in the site of the former twin towers, those two buildings that were destroyed on September 11, 2001. I still remembered that day, I was on an Amtrak train to Chicago from St. Louis. I can imagine how much more memorable this day was for those who have lost their loved ones that day. It was a day of pain and sorrow.

     I understand the sensitivities of those who oppose the building of a mosque at this site. This was a burial site and the mosque will remind people of the evil that happened that day. How is that so? Let me explain.  I reflected on what would I feel if a loved one was murdered in a certain place. The closest analogy I could think of is if a family member of the murderer built a house in that place. I would be very uneasy, even though my resentment is against the murderer himself.

     I suspect that the issue is not that a building is being built in on the site because I see crosses erected on a highway, on the site of a big accident where a death occured. I suspect that if a church is proposed in that site, there would not be too much rumbling. There is a deeper issue to be considered. The resentment, whether they like it or not, is against Muslims themselves. People see Islam as the culprit in this evil, not just individual Muslims. 

     Moderate muslims can distance themselves, saying that the hijackerrs were not real Muslims or they are misled. This reminds me of Christians, responding to those who point to the crusades as an example of "evil" that Christians do, saying that the crusaders were not real Christians or just misled. The problem with this reasoning for a muslim is, how could you tell a real Muslim from a fake Muslim, especially since the hijackers looked zealous for their faith. Answering this question would make this conversation degenerate into an endless theological discussion, instead of what would really serve the cause of peace, a heart to heart conversation.

   Also, the underlying assumption is that real Muslims "like them" don't do such things? They may not kill but its a possiblity that they hurt other people's feelings- their own spouses or their own children. Does not evil reside in all people? If they deny this, saying that they are better than those other muslims (or fake muslims), then they are being unreal. Evil does reside in all people, no matter how closely they follow their religion. Christians who respond to the crusades issue in the same way are unwittingly denying the universality of the sinful nature, and consequently, the gospel.

     An honest answer, which probably serves reconciliation better is to own the Muslim hijackers as their own and empathize with the pain of the people affected by this act of fanaticism. This would open up heart to heart conversations, which will begin the healing of resentments.

    I end with a message to fellow Christian. The evil that resides in the crusaders also resides in us (greed, murder, etc.) Let us confess that, and also remind others that evil resides in them also. That evil was taken away when Jesus died on the cross. To those who believe in Jesus, their evil nature has also died. The life of the follower of Jesus is a life of living in that reality. Sometimes we may fail but if we turn back to the cross, there is forgiveness.  

     I notice that when children take an interest in gangs, most adults immediately discourage them instead of trying to explore why children would want to be in gangs in the first place. I have thought about this issue as one who works with children and have come up with reasons why the gang culture appeals to children.

1. Gangs are like a family. There is guidance and there is protection. In fact, some gangs have bylaws, like a society in itself. Whether they live up to this bylaws is another issue. In a world of broken homes, children look for family to belong to. Gang members protect each other, whereas sometimes parents abuse their children, reject them, or at least don't listen to them.

2. Gangs exemplify toughness. Sometimes children are beaten up and made to feel very weak. Some children retreat to their own worlds where they are strong, feared, and/or loved. The gang lifestyle of showing strength against enemies by "defending" territory, and having dangerous initiation rites, give the impression of the gang as a symbol of strength. That symbol of strength draws children, especially when they feel they are respected in the group.

3. Another drawing power of gangs is the promise of easy money. For some, moneyis a pressing problem. However, for some, it is easier to get money doing illegal activities than doing honest work. Therefore, no matter the danger, they would rather dedicate themselves to the gang than become law abiding citizens.

     I hope this reflection makes us think of how to serve our children instead of judging them for becoming affiliated with gangs. Some preliminary thoughts are the importance of family. The church, or at least a family in the church can start becoming fathers, mothers, and siblings to children who have no families. We must reiterate that toughness is not the way to peace but following Jesus to the cross. Humility and the acceptance of weakness is the way to peace. Finally, we must reiterate the importance of work (God made man to work that creation would benefit mankind), that it develops character and makes us good citizens in God's world. Who knows, maybe gangs that are usually devoted to the destruction of order may become devoted to brotherhood and service.

     Recently, Franklin Graham called Islam an evil religion, offending many Muslims and causing him to be uninvited for a speaking engagement in the Pentagon. This sweeping statement that the Rev. Graham made is an example of the black and white thinking that does not do justice to reality. However, the opposite reaction of denying that there may be strands of intolerance in Islam also does injustice to reality.

    If we are to take into account the truth that men and women are made in the image of a good God, and that men and women are also sinners, not just in their actions but in thedirection of their hearts, we could not make these black and white statements. There is a good strand in Islam. Although I don't claim to be an expert, it is zealous for the creator God. Now some may argue that Allah is not the same as Yahweh, the creator God, but I beg to differ.

     As a Christian, I do believe that God has revealed himself fully in the Old and New testaments. I believe that Muslims do worship the one who created all things. The point of monotheism is that there is a God above all creation, and that everything else is not god. Other spirits may be acknowledged, but there is to be only one God to be worshipped. Muslims have zeal for this God. Another good strand is that Almsgiving is one of the pillars of Islam. This shows love for neighbor, something that is right. 

     However, there is also an evil strand. The prophet Muhammad did engage in Jihad (holy war), and although Jihad can be reinterpreted, it definitely included war on those who do not follow Allah so Islamic law could be implemented. Also, the concept of Jihad shows an "us and them mentality" which denies the universality of human sinfulness. In biblical thought, all men have sinned, and that does not exclude those who follow God. Therefore, humanity's stance towards God and man should be humility. That is why the exiles of Israel were called to live in peace wherever God placed them, not overthrow the structures of society and implement biblical law.     

     It is not realistic to judge an ideology/religion as completely evil or completely good. If we do that, then we are denying the truth about human beings as both glorious and fallen. I want to conclude by saying a little bit about the proposed construction of a mosque in the former site of the World Trade Center. Instead of making an argument for or against it, I want to propose a good use of this site. It could be a memorial museum to the effects of terrorism. We can feature stories of men and women whose lives have been cut short because of a suicide bomber. This may not make as much revenue, but this could have a sombering effect towards those who take lightly the toll that terrorism takes in the hearts of people. I have been to Auschwitz and it is a somber experience. It made me think about these men and women whose dreams of life in peace have been cut short because of man's disregard for life, in the service of their ideology.