Yesterday, the closest mosque to me held an open house and having business in the vicinity, I stopped by. This is an annual event that draws quite a crowd of local, non-Islamic visitors. The small parking lot was full and cars were parked up and down the street.
The open house included guided tours of the facility, information about Islam and the local center, questions and answers, free food, some “sweet water” from Mecca, free literature, and some Islamic art. As with the only other mosque I have visited (the al-Hussein Mosque adjacent to the mammoth souk in Cairo) visitors had to remove shoes before entering. The prayer room with the carpet with spaces pointed towards Mecca is small, about the size of a large living room.
The imam introduced himself to me, quite a friendly and gregarious fellow. He, along with all of the males, were dressed in western fashion. A few had the kufi, a white cap. Many of the females were covered but I didn’t see any with the full coverings. There may have been uncovered females but with a large crowd, I wouldn’t know how to identify the Muslim women. The imam I recognized from local newspapers, since he is the local source for comments on Islamic matters, terrorist attacks, and the like.
One might note from the information given that the purposes of the open house was:
- Come and meet your Muslim neighbors. The locale, Athens, is a university town and has a sizable international population. I do not know what percentage is Islamic. The mosque is quite small.
- Take a tour of the mosque. It is interesting. I wasn’t present when any of the various call to prayers were held.
- Try henna tatoos or try a hijab. No thanks.
- Enjoy some snacks. I did indeed. They were good.
- Attend Q & A. No questions off the table. I wasn’t present for this but bet it was interesting. Note the specific statement that there would be “no questions off the table.” As an aside, I did learn that the Quran is in Arabic. A translation of the Quran is not a Quran (sort of like the KJV 1611 only folks maybe?).
Athens is a liberal-minded community, above average in education with the major employer being the University of Georgia, and probably more ecumenical and open minded than a typical Georgia city. The county was in a minority of such that voted for Clinton in the election, about 70% in her favor attributable to the sizable minority population and the more liberal “gown” part of a “town and gown” community. The mosque has been around for years and there was no protest or controversy about its establishment.
One can judge the reason for the open house: demystify Muslims to folks with whom they work, shop, attend school, and live. It’s tough to generate a general hatred or bigotry to folks whom you know and whose behavior is the same as yours, dignified, civil, law-abiding. With general hostility towards Muslims a little hospitality and openness goes a long way in establishing goodwill.
Our constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
There are those who would have the state classify Islam as some hybrid religion, a geopolitical movement deserving either no state first amendment protections or some limited version of such. My views on church and state are not influenced by a mosque tour and a few free snacks. All religions should have the same rights of free exercise as does mine – Christian, Protestant, Baptist, Southern Baptist. I doubt a friendly imam and some Baptist-like hospitality at a mosque will influence those who seek to restrict religious liberty for Muslims in our country but it might help to de-demonize all Muslims by getting to know a few neighbors.
There are something like a billion and a half Muslims in the world. I’ve been around a few of these in a half dozen countries, eaten in their homes, talked with them, visited their places of worship. In America, where Muslims, Mormons, or Baptists should have the same religious freedoms under our constitution. Where worship practices or behavior of Muslims, Mormons, or Baptists run counter to our laws, they should be stopped.
This Baptist, while wishing and working for the salvation of all who do not follow Christ, favors protecting the religious liberty of all.
William,
Athens in the time of Paul could have been considered to provide constitutional freedom of religion. Paul, nonetheless, was disturbed:
“Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.” ??Acts? ?17:16? ?NASB??
When we behold a temple of Satan such as you describe, should not our spirits likewise be provoked?
I don’t know where you live Doug but I’d speculate that it is as godless and idolatrous as where I live. Do you live in a state of perpetual indignity?
William, Yes, my spirit is provoked such that I seek to point out this sin of idolatry as Paul was led to do. “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”” ??Acts? ?17:30-31? ?NASB?? You should likewise be disturbed. Polytheistic Religious Freedom is a form of relativism. It is based on the principle that God… Read more »
Doug: This is the United States of America. Separation of church and state. IOW the laws are not based on what you believe religiously, but based on the principle of freedom. Our forefathers did this with a purpose in mind. Freedom being the key factor.
People that come to this country should be free. And that includes Muslims in this country.
You need to take another look at that second to last sentence. It says that where our worship practices are contrary to the law they should be stopped. As it reads, if the law made him singing illegal, we would have to stop doing that. I don’t think you really mean that. Surely you meant something else.
I meant it but with proper nuance. If worship practices included child sacrifice, incitement to riot, kill or commit terrorist acts, and the like these should be stopped by the state. Otherwise, the state should protect the free exercise of any religion.
I am going to be contrary here for a moment. What I want to know if is this same freedom should extend to devil worshippers and covens of witches. Do they have an inherent right to worship if it doesn’t include some child sacrifice of murder? What about their right to build a temple to Satan? Does it also extend to them too? Just wondering how far this logic goes. I am guessing that for the sake of consistency in application, most would say yes Would we sign an amicus for a Satan Temple to have the right to be… Read more »
These already have such freedoms. You are free to make a cogent argument that it should be denied.
It does seem to apply to Satanists and witch covens. They have not been arrested or fined for being Satanists or witches as far as I know.
And when was the last time you heard of murders or sacrifices from these people? I think we are more superstitious than practical when using them as a argument against the freedom of Muslims to worship. It’s kind of like the left behind series, more hype than truth in the argument.
This is good. Thanks, William.
Very good article, William. Much wisdom, insight, and practical guidance. As Islam grows, it is wise for us to employ strategies to engage with the goal of impact, rather than to put up barriers out of fear. That conveys a confidence in the strength of our God and his ability to grow his kingdom as we stay true to Biblical principles and values.
There was (is?) a guy named Anton De Vay [spelling could be wrong]. He was active in Marin County and the greater San Francisco area in the 1980-1990 time frame. He wrote what he called “The Satanic Bible”. As far as I know everything he did was consistent with the laws of the United States of America and the State of California. I believe we are on a slippery slope if we start enforcing the edict that “Christianity” or any other religion is the only one that is allowed by the US Government. We are in a melting pot. We… Read more »
“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.” 2 Corinthians 10:4 ESV Yes, as Christians, we are in a spiritual war against Islam—and against every other false religion and false religious idea. But it is a spiritual war, not a fleshly war. And as such, we use spiritual weapons (i.e. the preaching of the gospel, the teaching of biblical truth, and prayer), not fleshly weapons (i.e. judicial and physical means) to fight this war. I would even say that our gestures of friendship and hospitality to practicers of these false… Read more »
When we seek to use the State’s power of the sword to stamp out all other religions besides Christianity (and whose Christianity?), we risk two things: One, we risk making them stronger, because persecution often has the opposite effect of what is intended. Second, we send a message that Christianity cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. When we promote religious freedom, we not only allow other religions to practice freely, but we allow adherents of other religions to freely convert to Christianity. Paul boldly confronted the Athenians with the message of the Gospel, but he did not suggest they… Read more »
I think a study of Constantine would be in order. He favored Christianity but did not make it a predominant belief under his rule. In the time of his rule, all religions, including Christianity were tolerated with favorable result.
You might better do a little more study on Constantine. He is not exactly the poster boy for Religious Liberty.
David R. Brumbelow
Bill, Paul’s letter to the Romans is where he specifically describes the purpose of government: “it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Paul regularly relied on the roman government — God’s minister — for successful propagation of the Gospel. An incident in Acts demonstrates how he would have been murdered if not for Government intervention Acts 23:17). Note, in Romans Paul… Read more »
Doug: Do you honestly think Paul’s vision for the Roman government was to persecute and imprison non-believers and take their children away? Wasn’t this essentially what Saul did before he became Paul? Paul said to submit to the authorities, he did not say submit to the authorities once Christianity becomes the state religion and all others are ruthlessly suppressed. Your vision of America where Christians wield ultimate power and non-believers live in fear of persecution is horrifying.
Bill,
My vision is nothing other than what Christ instructed us to envision in our daily prayer, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It corresponds with Psalm 2. Zeal for the LORD should consume us.
We believe in a constitutionally limited form of government not because we believe in the goodness and wisdom of man but because we do not. We do not cede the power of choosing which religions are “legal” to the state because sooner or later the state will abuse that power. The state is not our friend in such matters.
Of course Paul would be troubled in his spirit with the worship of false God’s but that is not nearly the same thing as invoking the police power of the state to prevent false worship with force.
JohnR,
Good points. But realize the citizenry as a whole should not be viewed as more competent than government authorities to make decisions in matters of religion. After all, Pilate recognized the innocence of Christ and wanted him released. It was “the people” who were stimulated to cry “crucify him!” That said, no individual or organization makes decisions error-free. Nevertheless, we don’t dismiss these individuals or organizations as incompetent.
I don’t think any reasonable reading of the New Testament would suggest that we prefer occupation by a foreign power as a system of Government, Pilate or no. The founding fathers believed in the republic and the various checks and balances because they did not trust either the morality or the competence of any individual to make all the decisions. It’s a system of government founded in a Christian view of the fallenness of man. Just as an aside, they did not trust the mob to make decisions either. My point was not the unfailing error of the government but… Read more »
Many good comments here. I will add that if we support persecution of other faiths, we do not truly practice our own.
William: ” A translation of the Quran is not a Quran.”
So how would they view an English translation, for example? Do they consider a translation a bad thing, or just that it is for dummies, but not actually the real Quran?
I didn’t discuss it with any Muslim scholars, just the young man at the open house. The Islamic center offered classes in Arabicfor those who want to read the ‘real’ Quran.
They do not believe that a translation has the same supernatural power or authority to convert an unbeliever. Muslims believe that the reading aloud of the Quran in Arabic has the power to convert people instantaneously, but if it is in any other language than it loses its power. Thabitit Anyabwile does a great job of educating Christians on basic Islamic doctrine in his book “The Gospel for Muslims” as does J.D. Greear in his book “Breaking the Islam Code”.
Thanks, William, James. I did a little searching after William’s response. The best I could decipher from several Islamic sites is that they (generally) think the current text in Arabic is identical to the words they believe were revealed to Mohammed, with zero corruptions in transmission.
There is two points of view to consider. The secular POV is that there should be a freedom to practice religion as each person sees fit within certain boundaries, like no child abuse for example. The Christian POV is that therein no freedom in the worship of one’s god unless you are worshipping the Trinitarian God including the Lord Jesus Christ. Our corporate bodies -our churches, our schools, our connections, and the like should do two things: 1] Seek no law or restriction on the secular POV. But neither seek to support it. And 2] Boldly proclaim the Christian POV… Read more »
“Our freedom to worship OPENLY depends ONLY on the Lord, not on the political landscape.”
Are you saying that those who I call and believe are chidren of God, are not worhsipping freely when they meet in secret churches? Or when they go underground to worship instead of worshipping in the OPEN, where others have been kiiled for such a thing, they know no freedom?
The underground churches around the world are a result of the political landscape in their regions.
I hope I am misreading you.
Traditionally the view here is that we are always free to worship God. The state is free to kill us for it but it has no authority stop the worship of God- Jesus said they can kill the body but not the soul. The underground Church around the world is an example of this. Right now as you read this there are brothers and sisters in Christ who are in prison or are being persecuted for their faith. Right now they are free to continue to worship Jesus and share the Truth to those around them and they are in… Read more »
Jon,
Yes, you are misunderstanding me.
Those that worship underground worship freely but not openly [they do so underground].
They do worship hidden because of the political landscape. Thus it is not openly.
You added the word “free” or actually, “not … free”, not I.
Politically, the freedom to worship is a governmentally granted right.
But we are to appeal to the Lord, not depend on the government to have such a right.
Our brothers and sisters who do not worship openly still freely worship.
They aren’t to appeal to their governments for open worship, but to God.
William – Very good post. A good way for all believers in Chris to create an open door to witness to the Muslim world is to treat the person, especially the way we might approach them with the gospel, with respect. I had a great converation with a Muslim taxi driver from Pakistan last week. The 30 minute car ride gave ample opportunity to present Jesus. He asked what kind of work I did in Dubai. I told him I was a Priest (the term used by the governemt to identify all non-Muslim evangelical Pastors). He did not understand. As… Read more »
Scripture must form the basis of our political theory, after all, Government is of divine origin no less than marriage. Nowhere in Scripture do we see government restraint of True religion condemned. In Daniel 6 we see a repentant King Darius make a decree, “that in all the dominion of my kingdom men are to fear and tremble before the God of Daniel…” This is seen as bringing forth fruit “in keeping with repentance” as John the Baptizer would say. Likewise, Christ condemns those who would persecute for righteousness sake, not persecute for unrighteousness, as St. Augustine pointed out in… Read more »
William, you may be wondering, “Why did I write this?” or maybe “Why did I post it here.” Hang in there. 🙂
I had forgotten that Doug is an extremist theocrat or dominionist or some such. Not sure if he is SBC or not and, while being SBC is not required for participation here, I’d be interested in his affiliations. I’m not optimistic about any sensible discussion with him on any issue touching on such things.
I’d encourage Doug to submit an article to Adam if he wants to put his stuff here and have it discussed. I’ll pass on continuing down this black hole.
I appreciate the comments.
William,
I make no claim to the labels you place on me. As for affiliation, I’m with Mount Carmel Church in Haywood, Virginia. It is traditionally “baptist,” but there is great freedom “in Christ.”
Doug W. The founding fathers of the United States had a lot of experience with “christianity” enmeshed in the state, most of it awful. To secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their children they fostered a system of government that would never again allow for a state religion. They chose this path out of a deep desire to be free to worship not to have some elite, religious or otherwise, tell them what to do. To preserve that freedom we have to allow others the legal freedoms we claim. While you might not claim the title of… Read more »
JohnR,
It seems our perspectives on the founding of our nation differ much. Christianity was deeply “enmeshed” with the state. There was no problem. Our Constitutional government was formed at the time State Churches were the norm. The States zealously wanted this status to continue and be protected in order to agree to national union. The First Ammendment was thus enacted to guarantee unhindered continuance of state-controlled religion. It must be noted, this Constitutional government collapsed in civil war.
QUOTE: The First Ammendment was thus enacted to guarantee unhindered continuance of state-controlled religion. RESPONCE: You said WHAT?!?! That may be the most historically ignorant thing I have ever heard, and I was working on my MA-History at a secular state school (heard some doozies there). The first clause of the First amendment states; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” In England, the church (Church of England) and the government (the Crown) were one in the same. The English Monarch was head of the Church of England. The ArchBishop of… Read more »
You are quite correct that we have very different perspectives. More like alternate realities. The United States constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state religion. As a result the church never had the kind of state level power that was present in England, France or other European nations. Our republic was founded to avoid that. Unfortunately that language has been used to create a state hostile to faith which was never intended. It’s easy to test the historical truth of your statement though. WHICH religion was the state-approved, state-controlled faith? The anglican’s of the south? The congregationalists? The few… Read more »
I don’t agree with Doug W.’s position on religious liberty, and his statement that the First Amendment was enacted “to guarantee unhindered continuance of state-controlled religion” is misleading. But it is not some kind of “alternate reality” that many did in fact view the First Amendment as limiting the Federal government — not the state governments. Disestablishment of state-sponsored religion (states as in Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.; not “state” as in the nation under one government generally) did not come immediately with the passage of the Bill of Rights and in some cases took many years to undo. In the William… Read more »
Robert Vaughn, thanks! A quote from the excellent paper you linked: “Contrary to popular myth, the First Amendment did not disestablish anything. It prevented the newly formed federal government from establishing religion or from interfering in the religious establishments of the states. The First Amendment thus preserved the status quo.” Many do not realize that the nature of the original Constitution was totally transformed at the end of the civil war with passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, as state’s rights were legally abolished (though it has taken many years to broadly apply it). Thus, after the collapse of… Read more »
To be clear, I don’t agree with what I perceive as your view of church and state. But a discussion of this sort needs to consider some of the historical facts of which many people are not aware. To that end I made the reference. On the one hand, some of these states did support religion, even providing for “towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic” to “make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality…” [Massachusetts, Article… Read more »
Thanks for the link!
I am not sure what the purpose of this article is. It seems to be a proponent of political correctness for some reason that I do not understand. NOT promoting a false god, NOT enabling followers of a false god and NOT entering a high place of a false god has nothing to do with religious liberty. Perhaps if Paul’s sermon about the meat offered to an idol applies in this situation your presence in the mosque had the potential for a weak Christian to stumble. Let me provide one quote from the inscriptions inside the Dome of The Rock… Read more »
Mike, I wrote: “This Baptist, while wishing and working for the salvation of all who do not follow Christ, favors protecting the religious liberty of all.”
Not sure how this relates to political correctness. Are you the Georgia politician Mike Crane who just lost a US house race?
Doubt I will ever make it to the Dome but may visit the Hagia Sophia and will try to give a scintillating report of the same.
William, no I am the Morganton Mike. My Namesake lives in the Atlanta area. I did run for State Senate as an independent a decade ago so a lot of people get us confused. Apparently I did a poor job phrasing my response. I will try again. As I understand Scripture Islam would be worship of a false god, a mosque would be a high place o false god and if Paul’s sermon on the meat offerred to idols (false gods) applies and a Christians association caused a weaker brother to stumble it would be a sin. You apparently believe… Read more »
Thanks for the clarification on who you aren’t.
I don’t feel any need to justify a visit to a mosque for educational or neighborly purposes. I reject notion that such would cause a weaker brother to stumble. Some baptists churches worship false gods but you can’t know until you’re stuck in a service.
I do recognize, however, that we are never far from fundamentalists who have an exaggerated view of separation.
Thanks for the measured response, though.
William,
Thanks for the chuckle when you said:
“I don’t feel any need to justify a visit to a mosque for educational or neighborly purposes. I reject notion that such would cause a weaker brother to stumble. Some baptists churches worship false gods but you can’t know until you’re stuck in a service.”
But its really no laughing matter.
As for walking into a mosque, didn’t Paul visit synagogues?
Didn’t the apostles go to the temple?
Maybe not the same, though.
William thanks for the reply. Am not trying to be argumentative on the subject but when I see statements from SBC members about various aspects of Islam and “religious liberty” I consistently ask for a Scriptural justification. Guess I am just an old fashioned type – I place great emphasis on that. But I do thank you for the straight forward reply. Parson Mike, I would say that both the Temple and synagogues were and are and always will be quite different than a mosque or Dome of Rock, Medina or Mecca are. Jesus also went to Temple and synagogues.… Read more »
William, thanks for sharing. Not long ago, a classmate and I sat with an Imam in his Mosque here in Marietta. We talk to him for a little over two hours. The Imam was very cordial. Seems wise to use open doors to reach Muslims when available.
The Constitution grants freedom of religion for all religions, including Islam. I have not seen a cogent argument against granting Islam such freedom. Oddly, we have no record of the early church, with any of their interaction with secular government, pressing to outlaw other religions.
Mark, The early church was considered a sect of the Jewish religion, tolerated by the Romans and despised by many Jews. Eventually, due to their growth and their insistence that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, they were considered a threat and persecuted. During those early church times [which is when God had His Word finished being written] and due to the political atmosphere, the church did not consider appealing to the government for anything, let alone religious exclusivity. When the tide turned politically and the Romans embraced Christianity [Constantine] the problem became forced religious conversion. Church and state were wed… Read more »