I Love My Name (by Omar Al-Rikabi)
My parents had an agreement: If my father could name his children, then my mother could raise us in the church. So I was given a full Muslim name, but I was baptized as a Christian. Growing up I never really liked my name very much - Omar. For a little kid in Texas, a foreign sounding, deeply ethnic name was a nuisance. It stood out too much. It made a scene. In classrooms full of Mikes and Peters and Amys and Stephanies, Omar felt like the person who wore jeans to a wedding while everyone else was in suits. Very out of place. I always wanted to be a David.
Over the years, in classrooms and sanctuaries, as different Middle Eastern dictators and terrorist groups made headlines, my name was the butt of many jokes, varied translations, and stupid questions (imagine the fun in junior high when "Moammar Gadhafi" sounded too much like "Omar Rikabi").
Not too long ago, I was given the opportunity to preach in a Baptist church in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Before the service started I was introduced to the senior pastor. "Hello," I told him, "my name is Omar and I'll be doing the preaching tonight." As he shook my hand, he pulled me close and asked loudly with his southern drawl, "Omar? You're not a terrorist are you?"
I have to admit that this was not the first time my Muslim name was taken as a suggestion that I was "one of them." By "them" I mean "the enemy." The politics and preaching of fear saturates us. Representative Keith Ellison, the Muslim congressman from Minnesota, had to endure talk show host Glenn Beck's ridiculous questions about his loyalty to "the enemy." And now Senator Barack Obama is under attack because his middle name is Hussein.
But here is my question: What if Obama were a Muslim? So what? I resent the idea that just because my family is Muslim, or that I have a Muslim name, we are somehow part of "the enemy" who cannot be trusted. I know scores of Muslims in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Europe, and the U.S. who do not hate Christians, Jews, the U.S., or "our freedoms." But sadly, at a time when tensions are high and we should be working for peace, too many politicians and pastors seem all too willing to fuel the fire of war with proclamations and sermons of ignorance and fear.
What stings even more with the Obama situation is the implied notion that being a Muslim, or having a Muslim or Middle Eastern name, means that you are not as qualified for a position that anyone else with a "normal" background or name could have. Does the fact that my first name is Omar, my middle name is Hamid, and I have an Iraqi last name mean that I cannot be a good pastor? Or that my dad cannot be a good father? Or that my cousin cannot be a good surgeon?
No one ever claimed that Ted Kennedy could not be a senator because Irish-Catholics were involved in violence in Belfast. Or imagine the outrage if talk show hosts attacked Senator Joe Liberman simply because he was Jewish. They would quickly be recognized as anti-Semitic and taken off the airwaves. But when it comes to Muslims and the Middle East, we seem to be operating with a different set of rules.
It does not matter that the e-mail rumors about Senator Obama being a Muslim are false. For those who are all too ready to click the "forward" button have exposed their real thoughts and convictions of bigotry and mis-placed fear toward the Muslim world.
And for those of us who claim that we say and do what we do "in the name of Jesus", we should remember that "name" also means "nature." So then, are we saying and doing what we do in the very nature of Christ, who had a radically different nature when it came to enemies and foreigners?
We must remember that the enemies of the U.S. are not always the enemies of God. The world may have radical enemies who happen to be Muslim, but Muslims are not the enemy. The real enemy is the ignorance and fear we see being trumpeted over Obama's name. And in the end the only testament left will be the further alienation of millions of people who will continue to wonder why the West seems to hate the Muslim world.
We can do so much better.
I love my name.
Rev. Omar Hamid Al-Rikabi is a campus minister at the University of Arkansas Wesley Foundation. He is the son of a Muslim father from Iraq and a Christian mother from Texas. He shares his stories on his blog at www.firstbornstories.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
My thoroughly white, European, anglo-saxon mother, thought that "Omar" Shariff was a hotty. As did most women of her ethnic makeup back in those days when "Omar" was a movie star. Kids will always be mean to one another. If you don't play football in Texas, for example, no matter your name, you're gonna get it . . .
Posted by: Wake up! | February 29, 2008 11:34 AM
Thanks, Rev Al-Rikabi, for telling your story.
It's a rerun of similar episodes that ran in the US during earlier times of war and uncertainty:
Families with German surnames might have stories about the things their grandparents or great-grandparents faced during World War I.
And of course, Americans with Japanese surnames have their own stories of their ordeal during World War II.
In both cases, people thought others with these names couldn't be "loyal" Americans, weren't to be trusted, had to be collaborating somehow with the "enemy." In both those cases, these sentiments proved themselves false.
But here we go again. For example, I have a Muslim student in one of my classes. She wears a veil. She's also unemployed and has been trying to get a job--any job--to help pay bills while she's working on her nursing degree. Nobody will hire her. Her brother and sister support her. She has written about it. She doesn't write that nobody will hire her because of her veil, but it's easy to read between the lines.
Why do we repeat the sad errors of history, when we know from experience that these sentiments aren't valid?
And we think we're so enlightened.
God's blessings, Rev. Omar!
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 11:58 AM
Bravo Omar! Bravo!!
I couldn't help but be reminded of a famous Shakespearean line: "What's in a name?...." It's from the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet. The first part of the conversation is dedicated to talking about each other's last names. Juliet makes the realization that "'Tis but thy[Romeo's] name that is my enemy." However, if you know the story, they both deny their names and transcend the baggage those names bring to one another. They both continue to love each other despite their families disputes, and end up dying for that love.
I don't mean we should deny our names (embrace them!), but we can all learn a little bit from this story: that despite the power and baggage from certain names, we can be bigger than that and love one another. Shakespeare is not the "Ultimate Authority" on matters like these, but I thought it was a good comparison.
May we overcome and transcend the stereotypes that names bring upon us, and not judge those according to their name.
Posted by: Matt G. | February 29, 2008 12:10 PM
People ought to remember that America is not the church, the Body of Christ. There may be a few people living in America who are members of that Body - if it were up to me everyone - as there are in every other nation, even the enemy nations - but Jesus said the way to salvation is narrow and the path to destruction broad. Sadly, most people in the world, along with most Americans take that broad and easy path. Regardless of which religion they decide to hate or kill each other for, in violation of the Savior's command to His own to love our enemy.
If we don't have the uncommon sense to make the choice to love, against all our common sense, then there can be no reconciliation and no redemption.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 29, 2008 12:28 PM
I have no problem with standing up to bigotry, but Keith Ellison could have diffused any number of questions had he not participated in bigotry by aligning himself with Farrakhan's group. It is precisely because he did not stand up to bigotry (and even perpetuated it) that the criticisms stuck.
"We must remember that the enemies of America are not always the enemies of God."
Which of Americas enemies are not enemies of God? Terrorists and insurgents are assuredly enemies of God, though not necessarily by virture of their opposition to the U.S.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 12:33 PM
Kevin, someday, please just try out the words, "Omar, thank you. I express my sorrow with you; and agree, We can do better."
In sorrow, I accept your call that we stand up to bigotry.
Your post is bigotry. It is bigotry that stops you from seeing that Omar experienced being "One of them"--and that he is expressing that he is not the enemy. It is bigotry that shoves Farrakhan back into the face of Obama and Ellison. I am saying nothing about Obama and Ellison. I am speaking about your words--my fellow Minnesotan and follower of Jesus.
I call you to open your ears and heart wide. Allow your brothers and sisters here to make a contribution to you. Your care, love and passion are evident. We need to listen; I need to listen; you need to listen.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 1:02 PM
Its unfortunate that this article even had to be written. As if a given name identifies one as a "terrorist" or applies some other brand.
Posted by: Steve S | February 29, 2008 1:02 PM
"Your post is bigotry. It is bigotry that stops you from seeing that Omar experienced being "One of them"--and that he is expressing that he is not the enemy. "
Dude, calm down. Bigotry in this instance would be the intolerance of an ethnicity. I am not exhibiting that, so don't cheapen the expression by applying it to me.
If the author were simply saying that it is sad that people judge him by his name, then I wholeheartedly agree. But he wants to make broader political points about foreign policy and Keith Ellison. All of which is fine, but I retain my right to disagree with his political points.
w/r/t Farrakhan, you perhaps need to do some research into why associating with him is such a bad deal. Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and I am not a bigot for being intolerant of that guy.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 1:19 PM
"Your post is bigotry. It is bigotry that stops you from seeing that Omar experienced being "One of them"--and that he is expressing that he is not the enemy. "
Dude, calm down. Bigotry in this instance would be the intolerance of an ethnicity. I am not exhibiting that, so don't cheapen the expression by applying it to me.
If the author were simply saying that it is sad that people judge him by his name, then I wholeheartedly agree. But he wants to make broader political points about foreign policy and Keith Ellison. All of which is fine, but I retain my right to disagree with his political points.
w/r/t Farrakhan, you perhaps need to do some research into why associating with him is such a bad deal. Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and I am not a bigot for being intolerant of that guy.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 1:21 PM
Bigotry in this instance would be the intolerance of an ethnicity. I am not exhibiting that, so don't cheapen the expression by applying it to me.
It's bigger than that, which is letjusticerolldown's point. You've made very clear from past posts that you don't care for Muslims, so I can see why someone would call them bigoted.
Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and I am not a bigot for being intolerant of that guy.
That doesn't mean that he can't make good points. Some years ago I heard Farrakhan say on TV that Israel was created "in violation of the Jews' own law" -- and from what I read in the Old Testament he may have been right.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 1:31 PM
But Kevin, why bring up Farrakhan at all on this thread? Rev. Al-Rikabi's post doesn't mention him. It's not the topic of this post. Why do you, as Letjustice points out, "shove Farrakhan back into Obama's (and our) faces"?
I tend to feel as Letjustice seems to feel, that your comments were totally out of place here. It distracts us from Omar's comments and concerns and sends us on a tangent.
It may not be bigotry, but it sure is too bad that you felt you had to tack the Farrakhan issue onto Omar's heartfelt comments.
D
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 1:36 PM
"You've made very clear from past posts that you don't care for Muslims,"
I have made no such thing clear.
"But Kevin, why bring up Farrakhan at all on this thread? Rev. Al-Rikabi's post doesn't mention him. "
You answered your own question. His post implies the Ellison faced criticism simply for being Muslim. There was much more to it than that.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 1:55 PM
The Farrakhan thingie is Kevin S.'s talking point this week probably because it's the Republican National Committee's talking point this week - and Kevin in his guise as Republican ideologue and political promoter probably wants to stay "on-topic" even if it's "off-topic" here.
In the new Orwellian terms of political propaganda techniques, it's called "framing." Moving the terms and perceptions and context to where you want it to be instead of in reality. And it might be that Kevin S. is an unwitting victim of being used that way.
But it does seem he has an agenda other than dialog, one essentially subversive to teachability - that is, ideological advocacy rather than political neutrality where truth-seeking is concerned..
Karl Rove has said that in his world, the very perceptions of those in power, in a new imperial context, can create their own realities for others that supplant reality-based analysis.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 29, 2008 2:01 PM
There was much more to it than that.
More to it that justified Beck's asking him about loyalty to the "enemy"???
If Ellison had been Japanese and Beck had asked that question in 1942, would you today think it was justified?
D
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 2:06 PM
When you decide you are going to use violence to kill a lot of individuals you don't know - that's the definition of war - you have to get angry enough to suspend good judgment.
Good judgment has to be suspended, because you have to gin up a state of mind that will seemingly justify trying to murder a whole bunch of people - an act that violates every human conscience. So justification has to be found, and it has to be essentially falsified.
The justification is that the humanity of the people to be killed is erased in the mind of the ones ordering or doing the killing, to disable conscience. Other human beings just like oneself must be demonized as less than human, or absolutely evil, their sins exaggerated beyond any possibility of redemption, their lives, thoughts and hopes and right to think made worthless in comparison to one's own.
That self-deception is the only way conscience can be deadened enough to commit murder. After all, what crime has a warrior on any side done, other than to swear or be ordered allegiance to nation, tribe or religion by those who command and control him, that makes him eligible for execution by those who don't even know one another?
This is why "Muslim" has to be a dirty word.
If it isn't made the filthiest of words and accusations, invoking it won't be a powerful enough talisman to allow us to kill with impunity, to look the other way from the mirrors of our souls found in the eyes of every other.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 29, 2008 2:38 PM
When we allow bigotry of the world to seep into to the "body of Christ",we are aligning ourselves with the world and it's evil leader(Satan). The body of Christ must make a different in this world. The infant church turned the world upside down with the gospel. Why have chritians becomje puppets for the GOP. Why can't we convert the GOP,instead of beign lead by them? The GOP is good at demonizing others,and we think this is a lesser sin than sexual sin. Have we choose to serve Caesar rather than God?
Posted by: LJ | February 29, 2008 2:43 PM
I have made no such thing clear.
Indeed you have. On one thread you blatantly called Islam "a lie," which in that context meant that you were allowed to say anything you wanted to blast its practitioners with impunity.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 2:47 PM
"Indeed you have. On one thread you blatantly called Islam "a lie," which in that context meant that you were allowed to say anything you wanted to blast its practitioners with impunity."
It is ironic that you discuss context while extricating two words from one sentence. That I believe Islam to be a lie (which, if you believe the Bible, it is) does not mean that I "don't care for Muslims."
"The Farrakhan thingie is Kevin S.'s talking point this week probably because it's the Republican National Committee's talking point this week"
Why would I bother repeating talking points here? I haven't seen any Republicans talking about Farrakhan at all.
"More to it that justified Beck's asking him about loyalty to the "enemy"???"
No, though Beck is taken out of context a bit. Maybe the author isn't trying to make a broader point about Ellison's political challenges, but that is how it read to me.
Posted by: kevin s, | February 29, 2008 2:58 PM
It is ironic that you discuss context while extricating two words from one sentence. That I believe Islam to be a lie (which, if you believe the Bible, it is) does not mean that I "don't care for Muslims."
It's one thing if you believe that Islam is a false religion. It's something else that you feel the need to denigrate those who practice it primarily because they don't support your ideological agenda. That's what you did then, and that's what you apparently are doing now.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 3:38 PM
"Why would I bother repeating talking points here? I haven't seen any Republicans talking about Farrakhan at all."
But, in fact, the "Farrakhan thingie" is a Republican talking point this week. All the usual right-wing media megaphones have been chattering it up. The biggest of the mouthpieces has been in on it, too, in his harmless little fuzzball way.
Here's the lowdown today from that maven of the pesky mainstream media, the NYT (but certainly factual in this case):
"After the Republican National Committee rebuked the Tennessee Republican Party for a news release this week using Mr. Obama’s middle name and a picture showing him in a traditional African outfit — Mr. McCain also expressed his disapproval — the state party removed the middle name and the picture.
"But for at least some period of time, it left the text of the release on its Web site, seeking to link Mr. Obama to the views of some of his most controversial supporters, including Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam."
This resembles "Know-Nothingism" - those of the nineteenth century that poisoned politics with their xenophobic and nativist cant, then claimed they "knew nothing" about it once the rumors and innuendo they helped spread took hold of the public mind.
For Christians, we ought to be especially careful before repeating what ought to be recognizable as potential slander, because doing it falls under spreading false witness, which God hates.
There's nothing wrong with debating real issues for governance and policy, rather than attempting to demagogue religious/ethnic conflicts.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 29, 2008 3:50 PM
NM Rod, this reads all too familiarly.
A page out of Rove's playbook, perhaps?
D
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 3:55 PM
I WISH Barack Obama would come out with a statement saying:
It seems as if some people want me to
apologize for having the parents I have and
the name I was given. I will not. I am proud
of who I am and the name I was given. If
that name causes problems for some, I cannot
help that, but I will not apologize for who
I am.
That said.....BRAVO! Your post was spot on.
Posted by: Kasey Henton | February 29, 2008 5:28 PM
"It's one thing if you believe that Islam is a false religion. "
Which is all I said. You assume the rest.
"It's something else that you feel the need to denigrate those who practice it primarily because they don't support your ideological agenda."
Foreign policy aside, my ideology is not all that different from most Muslims in America. I have nowhere said that Farrakhan represent most Muslims. In fact, I am criticizing Christians for their allegiance, not Muslims. I have denigrated no one.
"All the usual right-wing media megaphones have been chattering it up."
I even did a search on National Review and RealClearPolitics for an instance of what you are talking about. I could not find one. Suffice to say, I'm not taking marching orders from "right-wing media megaphones" about which I am not even aware. I don't know what the Republican Party of Tennessee did, as I do not hail from there.
"For Christians, we ought to be especially careful before repeating what ought to be recognizable as potential slander, because doing it falls under spreading false witness, which God hates."
For the record, it is not slander to say someone's middle name, and neither have I made it a point to do so. In fact, all I have said here is that Keith Ellison had ties to Farrakhan. That is manifestly true, and he even admitted it (in the midst of lying outrageously about the nature of those ties).
Regarding Obama, I simply said that he should be more vocal in his split with his pastor. He is not doing so for political reasons, in my view. You might disagree about how he is playing his cards there, but this idea that I am simply spewing RNC talking points is ludicrous.
I can assure you the RNC has no interest in making this the story about Obama. All it does is give his supporters a platform to brand anyone who supports his opponent a racist. If this race is about ideas, McCain has a shot. If it's about victimhood, Obama wins in a landslide.
"A page out of Rove's playbook, perhaps?"
Yes, Don, this is all a Rovian attempt to subtly disparage Obama in hopes of somehow convincing his fan club not to vote for him. It's all working splendidly, isn't it?
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 5:32 PM
Rick Nowlin complaining about people being bigotted or prejudiced is a laugh. Consider the vile hatred he spews at everyone who disagrees with his politics...
And if you want to see vile and hate-driven words come out of the mouths of every leftist, no matter how piously they claim Christianity...
Mention Karl Rove.
Apparently, leftist politics is of way more value than the First and Great Commandment.
Posted by: The Watcher | February 29, 2008 5:45 PM
In fact, I am criticizing Christians for their allegiance, not Muslims. I have denigrated no one.
You keep bringing up Farrakhan and Ellison when they have nothing do to with this thread. You're trying to say that with a straight face?
I even did a search on National Review and RealClearPolitics for an instance of what you are talking about. I could not find one.
You're looking in the wrong place.
If this race is about ideas, McCain has a shot. If it's about victimhood, Obama wins in a landslide.
With that statement you just shot down your own argument, especially with McCain himself being a recent "victim" but not trotting any new ideas.
...this is all a Rovian attempt to subtly disparage Obama in hopes of somehow convincing his fan club not to vote for him.
Hardly -- all Rove cared about was 50 percent + 1; how he got it mattered not at all.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 5:51 PM
Rick Nowlin complaining about people being bigotted or prejudiced is a laugh. Consider the vile hatred he spews at everyone who disagrees with his politics...
Again, "Physician, heal thyself!" As someone who has largely overcome his own bigotry, I recognize it when I see it on either side. Yeah, go ahead -- if you can't stand what someone says and the way he says it, call him a bigot. You cheapen the word and make yourself look like a fool.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 6:02 PM
"You keep bringing up Farrakhan and Ellison when they have nothing do to with this thread. You're trying to say that with a straight face?"
Ellison was brought up in the post as an example of bigotry. That was what I was responding to.
"You're looking in the wrong place."
Stands to reason.
"With that statement you just shot down your own argument, especially with McCain himself being a recent "victim" but not trotting any new ideas."
I suppose, with the NYT thing. Nonetheless, a campaign narrative that pits Obama against the forces of historical ignorance is a nightmare for the RNC.
"Hardly -- all Rove cared about was 50 percent + 1; how he got it mattered not at all."
Well, he didn't get it by focusing on persuading the readers of progressive blog sites.
"Yeah, go ahead -- if you can't stand what someone says and the way he says it, call him a bigot. You cheapen the word and make yourself look like a fool."
Agreed.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 6:36 PM
Now I *know* that Kevin S.'s living in an alternate universe that's somehow broken through to mine at the dimensional intersection of God's Politics:
"I even did a search on National Review and RealClearPolitics for an instance of what you are talking about. I could not find one."
But in my universe - and I don't believe mine is the Bizarro one - a search turns this up, and they are all about this very topic, Obama's purported Farrakhan ties:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 11,200 for NRO Farrakhan. (0.20 seconds)"
It's among the hottest of the top hot conservative topics.
"NRO" stands for "National Review Online," the digital version of the late Bill Buckley's influential conservative media flagship, The National Review. (BTW, has anyone else noticed that NR no longer carried Buckley's columns for the last two years, since he turned against the Iraq War, and he then renounced his interest in NR, even going so far as to sell his remaining stock?)
I think my world is ruled by Lester Cool instead of Chester Square, so there!
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 29, 2008 6:44 PM
"The real enemy is the ignorance and fear we see being trumpeted over Obama's name. And in the end the only testament left will be the further alienation of millions of people who will continue to wonder why the West seems to hate the Muslim world.
We can do so much better."
Kevin, this is what Omar wrote. Can you agree with that?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 6:54 PM
Yes, I am aware that National Review has written about Louis Farrakhan, and rightly so. I didn't mean to suggest that they have never written about him. That's absurd. It's a real issue, as I have said, and Obama is playing both sides. If he flat out rejected the endorsement, he'd lose votes, and lot's of them.
I hadn't realized that Farrakhan recently endorsed Obama, and that this was a question during the Ohio debate, and I can't imagine how any magazine would neglect to cover such an endorsement.
Nonetheless, there clearly is not some coordinated effort to disseminate RNC talking points on the issue, and that was what you accused me of doing.
""Results 1 - 10 of about 11,200 for NRO Farrakhan. (0.20 seconds)"
It's among the hottest of the top hot conservative topics."
Your searches prove very little.
Dailykos Farrakhan - 22,400
NRO Buckley - 43,300
NRO McCain - 227,000
NRO "michelle obama" - 217,000
NRO Hillary - 255,000
NRO NAFTA - 56,200
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 10:36 PM
"Kevin, this is what Omar wrote. Can you agree with that?"
Sure. The rest of the paragraph is more troubling.
If I wrote this sentence:
"All children need to be beaten severely. Children misbehave, and this misbehavior can present a quandary for parents who wish to balance discipline and acceptance. In the end, parents know best. In the end, however, it's best not to have children."
Would it matter at all if you agreed that
"Children misbehave, and this misbehavior can present a quandary for parents who wish to balance discipline and acceptance. In the end, parents know best."
???
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 10:40 PM
I hadn't realized that Farrakhan recently endorsed Obama, and that this was a question during the Ohio debate, and I can't imagine how any magazine would neglect to cover such an endorsement.
Honestly, I don't see the big deal about Farrakhan -- there isn't much "there" there except for his big mouth. The Nation of Islam has only about 35,000 folks, if my facts are right; it lost most of its strength after Malcolm X left and Elijah Muhummad was caught in a sex scanda. Most African-American Muslims now subscribe to "orthodox Islam." (Indeed, most Muslims consider NOI a cult.) Furthermore, Farrakhan supposedly was terminally ill.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 11:08 PM
"On one thread you blatantly called Islam "a lie'
It is one thing to defend faith , its another to defend it based on race . Islam is a false religion , to a Christian . Interesting you defend the integrity of false religions , but undermine the integrity of fellow believers who don't agree with your Idealogical race baited politics .
Posted by: Mick | March 1, 2008 2:22 AM
Indeed, most Muslims consider NOI a cult.) Furthermore, Farrakhan supposedly was terminally ill.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin |
Hence the million man march where all groups linked hands with a racist and bigots as a leader . Islam also teaches that spaceships brought the white evils down here . A few years ago they were giving out their newsletters to the folks attending a Martin Luther King Celebration , I grabbed one . I was surprised , but by not much no media reported it . Islam is the David Duke withoutthe real media scrunity ,sThey sing the same song , different words, but the melody is the same .
Posted by: Mick | March 1, 2008 2:28 AM
"(Indeed, most Muslims consider NOI a cult.)"
Exactly. It's a fringe movement, one that sees the need to "separate white and black people into separate territories". That's why the potential associations are so troubling. It's not just that Ellison happens to be Muslim, it's that he spent years working with these lunatics. There are thousands of Muslims in Minneapolis, and the party couldn't find better than that piece of work.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 10:59 AM
It's easy for well-off whites to dismiss others who are trying desperately to find answers outside a broken American majority culture that marginalises and demonizes them, but not to see that they themselves exhibit, from a perspective other than their own, evidence of "lunacy" as well.
White male evangelicals and their churches are probably the most racially segregated group in America. Having little contact with others outside their enclaves of mutually-reinforcing suburban, white, upwardly-mobile middle-class culture, they don't know a thing about the problems and difficulties those outside that comfortable world face. That makes them unsympathetic, because they just don't understand how it could be otherwise - all those people need to do is become Godly, just like them, they think.
They think that although their society gave them all the advantages, because now in the later innings when the score's ahead for them, blacks no longer have to sit in the back of the bus and American Indians can vote, everyone else should just "get over it" and be satisfied with their inferior social position. They tend to conveniently blame those who aren't in their own position of being morally responsible for their own inferior class position.
Is it any wonder in the face of the white evangelical church's absolute failure to include inner city people, 88% of whom are non-white, that they search desperately for answers elsewhere?
You might self-righteously call attempts like Nation of Islam "lunacy," but what are YOU doing to try to address the drug-abuse, crime, unbelievable incareceration rates and violence against women and children endemic to America's abandoned-by-white-evangelicals inner cities?
Maybe you could start by watching Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" to see how things look like from another perspective, of people just as fully human and equal to yourself, and how much you have grievously misunderstood.
Sociopathy - the inability to empathize with or have a normal consience, to callously disregard others and elevate one's own wants - is a form of lunacy, too.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 1, 2008 11:41 AM
It is one thing to defend faith, its another to defend it based on race. Islam is a false religion, to a Christian. Interesting you defend the integrity of false religions, but undermine the integrity of fellow believers who don't agree with your Idealogical race baited politics.
I thought this was not supposed to get personal.
Let me say this: In no way do I support the tenets of Islam, for racial or any other reasons precisely because I am a Christian. In fact, I confronted a Black Muslim who was selling the issue of "The Final Call," the NOI's propaganda organ, with the faces of Bill Clinton and Sister Souljah on the cover that said, "Who's the racist?" because I felt it was out-of-line. (She of course was the female rapper whom he dissed during the 1992 campaign.)
That said, you need to understand that someone like Farrakhan can organize something like a "Million Man March" is precisely because people like you complain about him -- blacks don't particularly like those people but absolutely despise conservatives and conservatism, so if right-wing whites don't like someone that's all the more reason to ally with him or her. Most blacks do not belong to the NAACP, but conservative attacks have always given it bona fides. Blacks didn't like Bill Clinton all that much but rallied to his defense because they already suspected the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary complained about. Colin Powell was popular in the black community only as much as he challenged GWB on policy concerns; when he played the "good soldier" his ratings went into the tank. And so on, and so on ...
And as for your diatribe insisting that Islam is by definition racist and anti-white, nothing could be further than the truth. In fact, Malcolm X left the NOI after his pilgrimage to Mecca, when he encountered Muslims who had "eyes the bluest of blue, hair the blondest of blond and skin the whitest of white" and concluded that the NOI was not teaching true Islam. After 9/11 I interviewed a local Muslim leader who told me that the mosque he attended in New York in the 1960s helped to moderate Malcolm's racial views.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 12:07 PM
Seems like we have huey and dewey trying to defend why a hate group would receive support in a march.
Lets see because they hate other people so much , its ok to join in with another hate group that hates all people . This is a time for some lefties to take the high road here . I thought Obama answered it right on . Amazing what has been said here , Karl Rove ? LOL
Teachings on race
The Nation of Islam teaches that Black people were the original humans. Louis Farrakhan has stated that "White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet
"The Blackman is the original man. From him came all brown, yellow, red, and white people. By using a special method of birth control law, the Blackman was able to produce the white race. This method of birth control was developed by a Black scientist known as Yakub, who envisioned making and teaching a nation of people who would be diametrically opposed to the Original People. A Race of people who would one day rule the original people and the earth for a period of 6,000 years. Yakub promised his followers that he would graft a nation from his own people, and he would teach them how to rule his people, through a system of tricks and lies whereby they use deceit to divide and conquer, and break the unity of the darker people, put one brother against another, and then act as mediators and rule both sides
Posted by: Mick | March 1, 2008 1:12 PM
Mick -- Please. I know what the Nation of Islam teaches and it has nothing to do with why Farrakhan is considered a leader in the African-American community; in fact, I just told you. It's people like you that blacks can't stand.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 1:33 PM
Mick, seemingly married to his white American-ness, and merely having an affair with rather than being the bride of Christ, finds it difficult to move outside his comfort zone of support for all his culture's selective and non-Christian self-justifying beliefs.
Isn't it interesting that he calls Rick "Huey" (Newton?) and an American Indian - me - "Dewey"?
Well, maybe he's "Louie" and we can get all our Christian ducks in a row.
Especially since I'm not a "liberal" at all, especially theologically and socially and neither is Rick from what he's written.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 1, 2008 2:34 PM
"blacks don't particularly like those people but absolutely despise conservatives and conservatism,"
Right, it's about politics, not race. Which is why Obama can't publicly distance himself from Farrakhan.
"It's easy for well-off whites"
I'm not well-off.
"White male evangelicals and their churches are probably the most racially segregated group in America."
Evangelical churches are the least segregated.
"Having little contact with others outside their enclaves of mutually-reinforcing suburban,"
I live on the North side of Minneapolis, not a suburb, and not the wealthy part of the city.
"You might self-righteously call attempts like Nation of Islam "lunacy,""
It's self righteous to dub a call for racial separatism lunacy? What if it were a product of a poor white community calling for the same? How would that be different?
"Maybe you could start by watching Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" "
I saw it when I was ten. It remains one of my favorite films to this day.
"Sociopathy - the inability to empathize with or have a normal consience, to callously disregard others and elevate one's own wants - is a form of lunacy, too."
Your definition of a sociopath simply encompasses those who disagree with your worldview. You can leave Websters out of this. I am not a sociopath, and I resent the insinuation.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 2:47 PM
Right, it's about politics, not race. Which is why Obama can't publicly distance himself from Farrakhan.
It's about neither -- it's about ideology, which is different from politics. Truth be gold, the only thing that would link Farrakhan and Obama is that conservative activists hate both of them and many of the people they represent because they don't kiss right-wing butt. That was why I mentioned that above.
Evangelical churches are the least segregated.
In fact, they're more likely to be segregated than mainline "liberal" churches. You're thinking of the "mega-churches," which are more integrated but even now have only a minority of adherents in the evangelical world.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 3:32 PM
Before continuing this discussion about Farrakhan, I urge you to read the comments from Letjusticerolldown that were recently posted on the "Defending the Facts on Obama's Faith" thread: Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 1, 2008 2:57 PM
Especially Mitch, Kevin S, and Wolverine, if he's reading today. It's addressed to you three.
D
Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 3:33 PM
Sorry. I meant Mick, not Mitch.
Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 3:35 PM
"Truth be gold, the only thing that would link Farrakhan and Obama is that conservative activists hate both of them and many of the people they represent because they don't kiss right-wing butt."
No. I dislike Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitism. I don't hate Obama at all, but I do not want to see him be president. Those are quite different issues.
"You're thinking of the "mega-churches," "
So is Sojourner, I'm pretty sure. But, as I've said before, mega-churches tend to be evangelical churches.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 4:12 PM
I dislike Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitism. I don't hate Obama at all, but I do not want to see him be president. Those are quite different issues.
Which, really, have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
So is Sojourners, I'm pretty sure. But, as I've said before, mega-churches tend to be evangelical churches.
No, not necessarily -- in fact, the predominately white and staunchly conservative Christian & Missionary Alliance, which is pretty small overall (I belong to one of those churches) is moving in that direction.
Anwyay, I'm referring to such conservative denominations as the Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (where I grew up), Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod and the Free Methodists, which certainly are not well-integrated. And most of them aren't mega-churches, either.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 4:23 PM
Evangelical churches are generally segregated. That people can't see the obvious in front of their eyes and fantasize that it's otherwise is part of the problem - denial.
This includes many megachurches, designed for the fastest growth by targetting and appealing to a particular demographic. Hybbel's church, for one, was intentionally not addressing segregation issues because it wanted salvation numbers, not broaching touchy social issues that might turn some off. Megachurch marketing uses psychological techniques of selling and appeal. Rick Warren speaks of the typical person that Saddleback attracts: professional, highly educated, possibly with an advanced degree, early forties, married, two children and economically well off.
BTW, many don't consider themselves well-off, but they certainly are by the standards that minorities face.
Edith Webster writes,
"Segregation, or separating access to facilities and institution by race, is no longer the law, as it was after slavery ended and through the 1960s in America.
"In 2006, more than 90 percent of America’s 300,000 churches remained largely segregated, according to “People of the Dream: Multiracial Congregations in the United States,” by Rice University professor Michael Emerson.
Today’s segregated churches are a sign of sin, namely a lack of faith, said the Rev. Michael O. Simmons, pastor of Rockford’s Spring Creek United Church of Christ.
“Rather than trusting God and God’s children, we live in fear, and we are marginally less afraid when we are with people who look like us, speak our language and live according to our standards of good living,” Simmons said. “Our fearfulness perpetuates itself in our brokenness and dividedness.”
"White congregations view the issue from a position of privilege, said the Rev. David Aslesen, pastor of Rockford’s Grace United Methodist Church, which is predominantly white.
“We fail to see how our worship style, mannerisms, music, traditions and fellowship are geared to a culturally white audience,” he said.
"Cultural diversity trainer Harlan Johnson of Rockford said, 'The biggest white privilege is not having to think about it.'"
Multnomah Biblical Seminary professor Paul Metzger, in his recent book, "Consuming Jesus," analyses how the invisible hand of consumer preference and affinity groups shape evangelical churches into segregated and unfaithful sub-cultures which seek to appeal to the “felt needs” of strikingly homogeneous bodies of believers.
Metzger, draws from evangelical sources including Jonathan Edwards’ theology of the religious affections to speak prophetically to evangelical churches who, by and large remain segregated along a racial and economic divide.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 1, 2008 4:55 PM
"Rick Warren speaks of the typical person that Saddleback attracts: professional, highly educated, possibly with an advanced degree, early forties, married, two children and economically well off."
Saddleback is located in Orange County, which explains that. The non-denominational evangelical movement, the one you were mocking, is more diverse than other church movements. That is a fact.
But yes, the Methodist and Episcopalian churches are built on privilege. Are Methodist churches considered evangelical? I know Episcopalian churches are not.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 10:28 PM
The non-denominational evangelical movement, the one you were mocking, is more diverse than other church movements. That is a fact.
It is anything but. The only truly interracial evangelical movement I'm aware of in history is the Azusa Street Pentecostal revival in L.A. at the beginning of the last century, and it didn't take that long for even that movement to fracture along racial lines. We're talking not about body counts of people in the pews but leadership, which is the real key to an interracial partnership. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's still largely white.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 10:53 PM
I'm not mocking any church, just citing the data that shows that evangelical churches are mostly segregated along racial and economic lines.
I'm afraid my own experience of decades, although anecdotal, supports that finding. Being evangelical, my experience has not been within the mainline denominations, but in Pentecostal, non-denominational evangelical and Southern Baptist.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 2, 2008 2:49 AM
Kevin, someday, please just try out the words, "Omar, thank you. I express my sorrow with you; and agree, We can do better." Don
Right on Don
"Dude, calm down. Bigotry in this instance would be the intolerance of an ethnicity. I am not exhibiting that, so don't cheapen the expression by applying it to me." Kevin S.
That is your on biased spin. Objectively, the shoe fits. Enjoy wearing it.
"w/r/t Farrakhan, you perhaps need to do some research into why associating with him is such a bad deal. Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and I am not a bigot for being intolerant of that guy." Posted by: kevin s.
McCain just received the endorsement of Kenneth Hagee. Kenneth Hagee has been sharply criticized for anti-Catholic statements. McCain in openly accepting the endorsement, stated that he did not agree with Hagee's views on Catholicism. Maybe McCain should have declined the endorsement. Or was that one okay with you?
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 2, 2008 7:40 AM
Hagee's "OK" with a lot of powerful folks, due to his Christian Zionist theology that justifies the most extreme behavior, regardless of innocent human life concerns. Think not just overt approval from neocon Republicans or Joe Lieberman but the most extreme of the AIPAC lobby and settler extremists. These folks have no sympathy for "Araboushim" but see them, man, woman and child (babies' heads to be scripturally "smashed aganst the rocks") as lives that are completely expendable and expellable, with the entire Promised Land to be returned messianiclly to Jewish inhabitance alone. Any idea of allowing land for Palestinian use is completely anathema, hence their mantar, "No land for peace" and even the assassination of moderate Israeli politicians.
So quite the contrary to there being hypocrisy about tarring Obama with Farrakhan's unsolicited support, accepting support from Hagee is quite within a certain radical consistency of being rabidly "pro-Israel, right or wrong," to the extremists.
However, from a Christian perspective, being victimized, as Jews certainly have endured, including genocide, never gives any moral permission to then victimize others in turn.
But, the unChristlike ways of the world being what they are, that is what we are seeing.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 2, 2008 11:30 AM
Kevin, someday, please just try out the words, "Omar, thank you. I express my sorrow with you; and agree, We can do better." Don
Right on Don
Actually, James, those were Letjusticrolldown's words, not mine.
But I thoroughly agree with the sentiment.
D
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2008 1:20 PM
"Maybe McCain should have declined the endorsement. Or was that one okay with you?"
I addressed this already, if you would bother to read my comments before assailing them. He should decline it for a number of reasons, in my view.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 1:20 PM
"Actually, James, those were Letjusticrolldown's words, not mine.
But I thoroughly agree with the sentiment."
What is meant by "we" in his statement. I have not mocked Obama's name or questioned his heritage. So if I apologize and say "we can do better", what I am saying (and what you are saying) is "other people can do better". That's a conceited thing to do.
LJRD's tact, then, is to make any criticism of Obama, irrespective of merit, part of an all-encompassing sledgehammer that whites are using to defeat blacks. That logic is flawed, and he has not made any sort of case for his assertions.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 1:42 PM
I addressed this already, if you would bother to read my comments before assailing them. He should decline it for a number of reasons, in my view.Posted by: kevin s. |
My bad. I saw your comments after I posted mine. I knew that you would pounce on it with alacrity. Usually I don't read a lot of your comments. Reading useless dribble is just a waste of my time.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 2, 2008 2:18 PM
"My bad. I saw your comments after I posted mine. I knew that you would pounce on it with alacrity."
I wasn't pouncing at all, but simply clarifying my position.
"Usually I don't read a lot of your comments. "
I know you don't, which is why I don't understand why my presence here makes you so hostile.
"Reading useless dribble is just a waste of my time."
Now you're just being a comment meanie.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 4:04 PM
"Now you're just being a comment meanie." Posted by: kevin s.
Coming from such an authority on the subject, I take that as a compliment.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 2, 2008 5:50 PM
"Reading useless dribble is just a waste of my time."
Yes, it's a meanie when phrased that way - it should be "drivel" not dribble, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by: Born to Drool | March 2, 2008 6:02 PM
Well, it appears that John McCain has been actively courting Hagee's endorsement for over a year. Specifically, on January 29, 2007, the two met. And he made a "surprise appearance" last July at Hagee's Christians United for Israel conference in Washington.
Those who continue wishing to make an issue out of Farrakhan's unwelcome endorsement of Obama need to reevaluate their concern, IMO.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/2/29/112513/406
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2008 7:12 PM
I, for one, have already said it is an issue, though I don't find Hagee's screwy theology to be as eminently problematic as Farrakhan's stances.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 10:02 PM
I, for one, have already said it is an issue, though I don't find Hagee's screwy theology to be as eminently problematic as Farrakhan's stances.
You should. Hagee professes Christianity while Farrakhan does not.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 2, 2008 11:42 PM
"You should. Hagee professes Christianity while Farrakhan does not."
In that context, yes.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 12:27 AM
Then, kevin, drop it. Please.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 3, 2008 7:27 AM
Nuttshell, you are exactly right. These folks continue to monopolize this blog with their negativity. It's really too bad that they feel they have to interfere with what could be productive discussions.
This post was about stereotyping based on names and appearances, and they take us way off topic.
Sad.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 7:27 AM
"Now I await the onslaught of hatred and name-calling..."
I have engaged in nothing of the sort, here. I post here because it the name of the blog is "God's Politics", and therefore claims to speak for God.
"Then, kevin, drop it. Please."
Retract the charge that I am a bigot, and I will do so.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 8:51 AM
I felt Omar's post was an advance in the dialogue. I thought it was one everyone could affirm up front.
I do not want to say Kevin, Wolverine, etc. should not raise questions or opposing assertions. They are not the only folks (e.g. mainstream media, email propoganda, political hacks, etc.) raising quesions (some honest, some dirt). In this case I thought the dialogue did digress/regress--without good evidence/reason/question to do so.
We need the capacity in our dialogue and wisdom of mind & heart, to move dialogue forward. There are times to say "Hey, wait a minute."
I appreciate Kevin had the decency to lay out his points so all could examine whether they made sense which is a whole lot more than a lot of folks do.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 3, 2008 9:07 AM
Kevin--I assigned "bigotry" to your comments in the same way I might read a comment and say "well-argued."
I am perfectly able to make comments ranging from the intelligent to insulting to inane to bigoted. I concluded earlier in life I am a bigot and a racist. I have racist thoughts--step back in my mind and say, "That's racist." I don't apply it to myself in a condemning way.
I heard a comment a couple days ago: "Good preaching is the ability to lead persons to repentance without the feeling condemned."
I suspect my "preaching" was not very effective here.
Please don't take it as condemning of you.
I consider continued raising of the Obama/Farrakhan/Muslim matter by responsible voices (e.g. media or you) to be unwarranted and to amount to bigotry. That is my standard applied to words. You, or anyone else, is free to reject that standard or assesment
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 3, 2008 9:24 AM
Retract the charge that I am a bigot, and I will do so.
I never made that charge.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 3, 2008 10:39 AM
"I suspect my "preaching" was not very effective here.
Please don't take it as condemning of you."
I didn't. I knew what you meant. The Farrakhan tie has been used as a bludgeon in the past, and people can use a potential tie as a means of casting any black person as an extremist. There is nothing wrong with questioning whether that might not be the case.
Obviously, though, the term tends to whip people into a stir.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 10:43 AM
Rev. Al-Rikabi,
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. I do hope you'll return to God's Politics with more offerings..
Posted by: Damian | March 3, 2008 4:17 PM
I am surprised that the name of General Omar Bradley has not been mentioned. He is probably turning in his grave at the tone of some of the comments on this post. He was, reportedly, a most polite and courteous man (he was also, to judge by some of his obiter dicta, a strong candidate for an appearance on "Verse and Voice" - see below).
"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Our is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living"
- General Omar Nelson Bradley
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | March 3, 2008 4:59 PM
Omar is a simpleton who, apparently out of zeal for his Muslim name, misses the fact that the problem with Obama's being a Muslim would not simply be that trait but the fact that he would be a crypto-Muslim deceptively claiming to not be a Muslim but a Christian.
Posted by: Chum Lee | March 3, 2008 9:03 PM
Chum,
Please stop. You're comments are just plain bigotry. You're not advancing the cause of Christ with your comments. You just come across as xenophobic.
Posted by: Nuttshell | March 4, 2008 12:40 AM
"Chum" is aptly named.
Posted by: carl copas | March 4, 2008 3:22 PM
Wonderful article Omar, I love it!
And Kevin, you said:
"Which of Americas enemies are not enemies of God? Terrorists and insurgents are assuredly enemies of God, though not necessarily by virture of their opposition to the U.S."
Saul of Tarsus by his own admission falls into the enemies of God category before he found Christ. And so do many of us. We have a responsibility to pray for every lost soul or enemy be they from here, Middle East, or anywhere.
Posted by: Miro | March 5, 2008 10:27 PM
*delurking*
Whew, I used to enjoy reading comments on postings here. Don't you folks have an alternate location/forum/comments area where you can take conversations among just a few people? I'm not suggesting censorship, some of the very early postings were thought-provoking, but this has just turned into a barely-on-and-often-tangential discussion, dominated by a very few.
I very much appreciated Omar's discussion and would have liked to hear more response to it directly. Just my two cents'...
Posted by: Lorna | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM
Hey Omar, we do miss you at Asbury. Although I never worked directly with Omar he and I had common friends who worked towards common interests in the Kingdom. Omar is a wonderful man of God and I am proud to know him. I agree with you, Omar, that using Barack Obama's middle name as a sort of "attack" is wrong. He is not a radical terrorist because he has a Muslim name. He would not even be a radical terrorist if he were a practicing Muslim. It is a shame that we lump the two together.
Now, I will say something unpopular. The war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are being fought precisely because our government recognizes that not all Muslim's are terrorists. President Bush understands that Muslims are people created in the image of God (whether they recognize the love of God the Father or not) and that they have a right to be in a politically free nation. As for Barack Obama, I don't believe he is a terrorist, but news is finally starting to break about his ties with terrorists and those who hate the United States. It is these type of ties that make it impossible for him to be a good leader of the United States. How can he lead a nation that his associates and friends hate?
You are right. Let's lay off attacks on the name. Let's look at the politics. And when we do that, Obama true self shows.
Posted by: Matt Riley | March 6, 2008 10:35 PM
Posted by: Mick | March 1, 2008 2:28 AM :
" ... Islam also teaches that spaceships brought the white evils down here. ... "
Muhammad knew about spaceships!!???
Crikey, I may have to convert! ;-)
I gather you mean the 'Nation of Islam" which is a politico-religious sect or cult & something quite different from the Islamic faith.
I agree with Omar & think his piece here was spot on.
Salaam, Shalom, peace
Posted by: Salaam =shalom = peace | March 7, 2008 1:59 AM
"Muhammad knew about spaceships!!???
Crikey, I may have to convert! ;-)"
Don't worry - just joking. (&, yes, I believe God has a sense of humour!)
It is ironic that weseem to consider, (to put prob'ly too bluntly but..) Islam as a "black" religion and Judaism & Christianity as a "white"religions when Jesus and Muhammad were from ethically and nationally very similar cultures.
Both most likley were of "Middle-Eastern" or more accurately "South-West Asian" physical appearance. Of course, we believe one was the Son of God, the other merely a deluded but charismatic military leader and religion founder .. so their innernature was somewhat different - but then Jesus inner nature was different from everyone then and now.
It is ironic axiom that the 'Semitic' ethnic group includes both Jews and Arabs so Israel in persecuting its Palestinean population and neighbours is being anti-Semitic itself! But then battles among brothers are often the worst .. & a good friend - or parent - or judge - does best to NOT take sides and work for an objectively fair solution.
Sadly, America generally seems to take one side in the most partisan and unfair manner ... which ultimately helps neither side nor ourselves.
Peace, shalom, salaam.
Posted by: Salaam = Shalom = Peace | March 7, 2008 2:11 AM
Amen Omar! From your family at Asbury Theological Seminary a hearty and warm AMEN!!!!!
Posted by: Jeremy | March 7, 2008 9:52 AM
Good to see Omar's material coming up here. I had the pleasure of being a fellow student at Asbury Theological Seminary (which is a fine institution!)
While I did not experience the sort of discrimination that Omar faced growing up due to his name, I did face racial discrimination often because of my south asian appearance post 9/11. While it was unfair, it was also the response of a grieving, emotion and fear-filled people. Reminding myself of this, I tolerate it.
And Omar is not an Islamic name, it is a name ethnic to Arab culture. It is unfair to expect people from a certain ethnic group to give up their ethnic names when they accept the message of Christ. I think Omar was headed in that direction when he mentioned his name, but didn't say it outright.
Anyhow, keep it up Omar!
Posted by: Leslie | March 7, 2008 10:08 PM
While it is unfortunate and very likely caused deep hurt to Omar while growing, yet today these same and continuing experiences of error are revealing a spirit within many Christian church's that are not of Christ.
Today from the signs of the times, it is imperative that those still searching for the true church-body of Christ, take note of these false spirit/s within possible false churches.
A true church of Christ is fulfilling the will and purpose of the Lord, building up in unity and maturity, preparing the many parts for works predestined. Rebuke and correct error if possible, otherwise leave any church that does other than Jesus taught.
Posted by: DeWayne | March 22, 2008 5:34 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?