Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and high-profile conservative intellectual, announced yesterday that he is officially in the running for the Republican nomination for president. Along the way he's been playing the politics of religion.
In the speeches and media appearances he did in preparation for his run, he has emphasized two things. The first is the importance of God and morality in the public square, referencing his own conversion to Catholicism to give him credibility. The second is to rail against the dangers of Islam in America.
This two-pronged approach underscores just how far we have come in America on issues of religious tolerance, and also how far we have to go.
Just a half-century ago, John F. Kennedy's Catholic faith was widely viewed as a significant liability to his presidential aspirations. Kennedy had to do the opposite of what Gingrich appears to be doing: effectively de-emphasize his faith, and say that it would play no role whatsoever in informing his public acts. "I am not the Catholic candidate for president," he told the American Association of Newspaper Editors in April 1960. "I am the Democratic party's candidate for president who happens to be Catholic. I do not speak for the Catholic Church on issues of public policy, and no one in that church speaks for me."
The irony, of course, is that many of the same slanders leveled at the Catholic Church are now leveled at Islam in America. Catholicism was considered incompatible with liberty, democracy and pluralism. Any inroads made by Catholics into the corridors of power was considered a threat to the American way of life. Catholics were considered loyal to the autocratic Pope, not the American flag. Catholic politicians would enact policies to advantage their Church and hurt American values, everything from appointing an Ambassador to the Vatican to sending public funds to parochial schools.
The 'No Popery' signs of previous eras feel remarkably like the 'No Sharia' signs of today. The view of the Catholic faith as inherently incompatible with American values mimics today's view of Islam. And the hysteria about the effects of increasing Catholic influence on American culture sound precisely like today's fears about Muslims. Norman Vincent Peale, a powerful Protestant minister and a leading anti-Catholic anti-Kennedy voice, put the matter of Kennedy's possible election in stark terms to a Who's Who group of conservative Protestant leaders: "Our American culture is at stake."
The same is said, frequently, about Islam in America. And one of the leading voices in raising such fears is none other than Gingrich. He compared the Muslim group seeking to start an interfaith center near Ground Zero to Nazis putting a plaque near a Holocaust memorial. His film 'America at Risk' raises fears of Muslim domination. In some of his statements, it feels as if Gingrich is channeling Peale: "America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization."
The historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. wrote that anti-Catholicism was the "deepest bias in the history of the American people." The fact that Gingrich can proudly advertise his conversion to Catholicism as a personal and presidential asset is a sign of how much progress we've made. But it is profoundly un-American to replace one bias with another, and even more troubling that a man whose Catholic forbears experienced discrimination because of their religion should turn around and peddle such prejudice himself.
The forces of inclusiveness in America always turn back the forces of intolerance -- we've seen it in the defeat of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and segregation. Gingrich, who has a PhD in history, is well aware of this. Which makes it all the more surprising that he is willing to risk being remembered on the wrong side of that divide.
This piece originally appeared on the Washington Post, "On Faith."
Follow Eboo Patel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EbooPatel
Julian Guthrie: How Progressive Democrats Remain Catholic
Eliana Lopez: A Marine Discovers Islam in Iraq
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy: An Open Letter to Herman Cain
Robert Ellsberg: Editing Henri Nouwen
Why Newt Gingrich Converted to Catholicism - TIME
Newt Gingrich Explains His Conversion To Catholic Faith
Newt Gingrich Catholic - The Daily Beast
Christopher Buckley on Newt Gingrich's Catholic conversion ...
Newt Gingrich: a Catholic running against Islam? - The Faith ...
Let's keep politics out of religion.
Who created religion............................Any religion????????????????
Who created creation?
Who created?
no one knew how to write
who wrote what?????????
MOST OF THE PROPHETS & DISCIPLES OF ANYONE WERE ILLITERATE
MANY WERE SHEPHERDS, FISHERMEN
SOME CARPENTERS
VERY, VERY FEW LITERATE
GOD NEVER WROTE A THING
JESUS NEVER WROTE A THING
MOSES NEVER WROTE A THING
ABRAHAM NEVER WROTE A THING
That's quite interesting. Shall we ask whether native americans and former slaves agree?
Gingrich has swapped one irrational idea for another, while railing against a third. In a more rational country that would make him look less like a trustworthy person and damage his electoral chances. In the UK Tony Blair wisely kept his shifting superstitions to himself until after he was rendered unelectable for other reasons.
moral, intellectual, American values, the importance of God in his life....
....you get the picture.
During the Clinton impeachment fiasco he was one of the most vociferous opponent, who uses language to vilify Pres. Clinton in the most harsh tone, while at the same time he was having an affair with his secretary.
In a TV interview Gingrich said: "I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them.” he also went on to say, “There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards.”
So here is a man running as conservative admitting he intentionally committed a wrongful act and falls short of God's standards yet still attacks others for being less of a Christian.
But one could say Gingrich platform for running for president as a conservative Christian, while using Islam and Muslim as scapegoat to instill fear on Americans, is just another form of hypocrisy, since Christianity has a history of regression and oppression when in power.
Islam has at least as much of a range of belief and interpretation, from ultra-conservative, dogmatic, literalist Salafism, through mainstream/moderate Sunni and Shia views, to liberal, esoteric Sufism ... as Christianity does.
We are doomed!
Discernment that an extreme religious group is leading this particular group to act in a harmful way is one thing. But "just discrimination" is somewhat of an oxymoron when applied to principles of justice.
You are playing around with words to suit yourself.
Jesus was called Issa by Buddhists and Hindus even before he began preaching to Jews, and Jesus taught Buddhist concepts and followed the tradition of Hindu Avatars by speaking for and as the Ancient One (who was "before Abraham").
Muhammad's Qur'an makes it very clear that Islam honors the previous prophets, such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Enoch, and Jesus. The Qur'an commands Muslims to speak with great courtesy to Jews and Christians, because they "all believe in the same God" (29:46)
The Qur'an condemns violence and aggression, and holds that killing is always a great evil (2:190 and 2:217). Even though the Qur'an permits a war of self-defense to fight foreign invasion and persecution, one of Muhammad's main purposes was precisely to stop indiscriminate killing.
If attacked, Muslims may respond in an appropriate way that is proportionate to the wrong suffered. However, the Qur'as states that tolerance is far more advisable than retaliation. It's similar to the teaching of Jesus, which advises us to "turn the other cheek."
Furthermore, Muhammad's mission was not to create a new world religion, but to bring the religion of Abraham and Jesus to the Arabs.
This info was quoted from About Islam, at http://messenger.cjcmp.org/islam.html
And if you respect the prophets, why do you reject their words? On the surface the teachings of Mohammed seem to match up with those of Jesus and the prophets, but on the weightier matters, they are found wanting. Verily, I tell you that the Master did indeed claim to be God incarnate and that only by and in His death and resurrection is there salvation. Furthermore, this is not a doctrine that Jesus or the Apostles invented, but one that the prophets testified to for centuries prior. Prophet Isaiah said of the Messiah's death and resurrection, "If He gives His life as an offering for sin, He shall see descendents in a long life." King David prophesied in the 22nd Psalm the manner in which the Messiah would be killed, "...they have pierced my hands and feet...so wasted are my hands and feet, I can count all of my bones. All who see me mock me, and for my garments, they cast lots." The same Psalm also prophesies His resurrection, "I will proclaim Your Name in the assembly...All the ends of the earth will worship and turn to YHWH...."
You’ve been misled about Isaiah 53, because even though Jesus did receive “stripes” and was “brought as a lamb to slaughter,” most of Isaiah 53 does not refer to Jesus. For example, the life of Jesus was cut short at age 33, but the life of the son of man in Isaiah 53 is “prolonged.” Also, Jesus was not “stricken and afflicted,” but the modern son of man has been.
As Jesus prophesied, the modern son of man has first suffered many things and is rejected by his generation, and that does not refer to Jesus because he was accepted by multitudes in his generation and suffered not first, or beforehand, but only on the last day of his life. Read http://messenger.cjcmp.org/prophecies.html
Regarding the resurrection, read http://messenger2.cjcmp.org.resurrection.html
Not only was the manner of the Messiah's death prophesied, but so was the timing. Prophet Daniel prophesied that the Messiah would die 483 years (69 times 7 years- lit. "weeks of years") after the order to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26).
You may say, "It is not right that a prophet, let alone God Himself should bear such shame." But Isaiah prophesied this reaction, too! "We thought of Him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. But He was pierced for our offenses, upon Him was the chastisement that makes us whole, and by His stripes, we are healed." (Isaiah 53:4b-5) Was it a curse to be crucified? Of course! For, "God's curse rests on the one who hangs on a tree," said Moses in Deuteronomy. But "It was our iniquity He bore," (Isaiah 53:4a). It was a curse for the Messiah to hang on a tree, but it was our curse- the curse that was on us for our sins, but He graciously took it upon Himself instead, and He bore it in full and thus made an end of it.
“God is not a man, nor a son of man...” – Numbers 23:19
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delights. I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street." – Isaiah 42:1-2
Isaiah 40:18, Isaiah 40:25, Isaiah 42:1-2, Isaiah 43:10-11 and Isaiah 46:5. say a son of man is a “servant of God," and only God is the Savior and Holy One.
"Do not liken God to any man; nor compare the likeness of God to any man or son of man; nor regard any son of man equal to God; nor worship any idol or image of any man; nor consider any son of man alike with God." That’s what Isaiah says in 40:18, 40:25, 42:8, 44:24, 44:6-8, 45:5-6, 45:21-22, 46:5, 46:9, and 48:11.
That and Hosea 13:4, Deuteronomy 4:39, I Kings 8:60, I Samuel 2:2, Joel 2:27, Luke 1:47, and 1 Timothy 2:3.is ignored by Christians who do not understand that Jesus was a son of man and sacrificial lamb, not “God Himself.” See http://messenger.cjcmp.org/christianity.html It glorifies Jesus for what he was, a Master Teacher and Avatar for the passing age.