We have to be careful about trying to put all this guilt on ourselves, that we don’t give all our money to other countries and that we sacrifice the military and our own welfare to help other countries, especially if it’s not doing any good and it’s helping these corrupt governments to become ever stronger. And I was thinking along the lines of Franklin Graham who has come under such harsh criticism by a lot of religious leaders and others, but the thing of it is, he does what works. And he’s been working; he’s been helping Muslims before it was cool to help Muslims. He goes into poor countries and builds schools and he has this shoebox program where children get all these wonderful boxes of things at Christmas every year, and at the same time he can bring the gospel in an inoffensive way and maybe somebody outwardly, some officials might criticize, but they want him there. So this big worry about Franklin Graham going to Iraq and bringing the gospel and some of these other things . . .

Christians are not all just shoot-from-the-hip, ignorant people. They do excellent work and they are the ones who treat AIDS, people with AIDS, they’re the first. Religious people are the first to do all these dirty jobs. I think we forget what kind of country we live in and what our foundations are, and what made this country great. And instead of criticizing our own country, we should try to export some of the good instead of exporting Hollywood, which I don’t know what you do about that. That’s the thing that’s so hard. But we need to get behind mission organizations. If you are going to give your money, give it to a Christian organization that you know is doing the job.

My son was in the Peace Corps and was in Honduras and they picked up street kids, off the street, and gave them a trade. And I just think if we could export more people in that area, and forget about trying to make them little Christians, because we don’t need to make the Muslims little Christians any more than I want the Muslims coming to me telling me that I need to change because they’ve got a better way. And I just think the attitude that Christians have so often is that we’re just a cut above all these others, it’s just very irritating to me. But another thing I have to say is I think that another problem with our country right now is just plain greed. I think when I see these offshore people who don’t pay taxes, when all of us sitting in this room are paying our little bit of piddle taxes. I think that greed is the biggest sin of all, maybe not the biggest one.

The Dali Lama is a very charismatic person and a lot of people come to him and say: I’m ready to convert to Buddhism, and his answer to them is, stay in your own faith, all the religions have good in them. That takes a lot of courage for a religious leader to say, don’t convert to Buddhism, stay in your own faith. Gandhi flirted with Christianity for a while until he realized that they were meat eaters and smokers and they sinned a lot. He was tempted to convert to Islam just to try to make the peace happen on that subcontinent, but he too stayed in his own tradition, warts and all, because that is where he belonged.

I think as we move towards a world culture we are going to have to really think twice about the traditional mission. When I was in India I was very impressed with the Roman Catholic mission in India. They were building hospitals, and they were building schools and only in the northeast were they baptizing. They had too much respect for their Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist neighbors to go out and knock on the door, because the Hindu usually said, “Oh I believe in Jesus, he’s a reincarnation of Vishnu”. Only in the Northeast where there are no Hindus do the Roman Catholics go through and baptize, but the Pentecostals come in and re-baptize and it really causes a lot of . . . it’s chaotic.

But I think we really need to rethink. The Roman Catholic mission in Asia is an educational and medical mission. They are not converting people to Christianity. I think we’re going to have to start respecting all the religions of the world, because all of the religions of the world have good in them, and they have a good strong moral basis.

And Franklin Graham, I don’t care how much good he does, he shoots from the hip, he says hateful things about Islam, and I think that is not the way a Christian should speak. Jerry Falwell shoots from the hip and does injury to Christianity. Pat Robertson shoots from the hip and does not represent the true spirit of Christ.

The rest of the world, especially the Islamic world, thinks differently--here is the military occupation, basically by the U.S. with its massive force. And then follows Franklin Graham with his missionary zeal. How is this going to be perceived? There are some critical editorials around the country about what Graham is up to . . . and I mean no disprespect to those who are committed to Graham/Robertson type of Christian fundamentalism; I repeat I don't mean any disrespect. But we must broaden our perspectives a bit. How are these zealots likely to be perceived in the rest of the world, especially in that [Islamic] part of the world, with its 1.3 billion people, almost one-fourth of the world population? This is why some insist that we need to be a little more cautious. And perceptions matter--especially when one thinks of the history, the occupation, the crusades, the imperialism, and all that.

But let me add. All religious have enormous good to offer; and one must be most tolerant in this day and age. As some of you perhaps know, Prophet Jesus Christ is very much a part of the Islamic tradition. In fact, his name is mentioned more often in the Islamic scriptures than any other prophet except perhaps Abraham.

Every time I hear discussions where there are all these different perspectives brought in, it is usually Christianity that gets bashed by name by specific people and then what we all want to do is to say is that there’s truth in all the religions out there. I think what you have to recognize is that that kind of advocacy is polytheism, that’s what you’re advocating. And the problem that Christians have with that is that when they look at the scriptures and see Jesus saying “No man comes to the Father but by me,” there’s an exclusivity in the Christian faith that says, not all paths lead to God or to enlightenment or to whatever the current phrase would be. It doesn’t get you there, and is in fact a muddling of things and a confusion of things. Islam in its forms that are being advocated globally is far more exclusivistic and the outcry in the liberal west is, “This is horrible.” They think they know it’s true, but all these polytheists that are jumping up and down saying we have to just look at the little good at everybody are just as imperialistic and damming naming names. It’s like so now you have to say, “Well I believe that all paths lead to god.” Well bull, you don’t have to say that at all. The 1st amendment allows us freedom of religion where you don’t have to knuckle under to the demands for polytheism. So if you don’t like Christianity you don’t have to be a Christian, but it doesn’t mean that every Christian has to somehow say I’ve to be a polytheist now, I have to say that every culture has good in it, everything is just wonderful, sweetness and light, when Christians don’t believe that. And they don’t believe it just cause they’re cranky, it’s because they don’t believe it’s true. And they believe in the revelation of God in the scriptures that say that’s not true, that there is right and wrong, good and bad. Cultures can be corrupt and even wicked. And you even said Franklin Graham is wrong and wicked. According to what standard? You pick your own standard. But the point is you’re going to have your own standard but it doesn’t make Christianity wicked cause it doesn’t believe all of those things.

I don’t know how you can ask religious people, people of faith, people of morality -- and culture gives people morals in the different ways as we all know -- to just assume that their faith or their morality isn’t what counts. And as somebody who is a Christian, I see the way I’m going to experience salvation is through Christianity and the way I live. But that doesn’t mean that I have to impose my religious faith on others, or that that’s even a smart thing to do. And I think you can be a very spiritual person, but be tolerant of others people’s views without embracing the idea that morality or religion or spirituality is relative. So I think that that’s something we really have to be careful with. And I really do believe that Roy hit on something. You know it is so easy to point to somebody who you don’t identify with and you don’t like. And say. well, they’re not doing a good thing. And sometimes I sit back and ask why am I coming to that conclusion? Because we all know historically Protestants have fought with Catholics, Christians have fought with Muslims, and for so long there has been really such intolerance. Whether it comes from the liberal or conservative side, I think we have to be really careful because religion and spiritual warfare or even morality warfare has done a lot of damage to our civilization over the years and if there’s anything we should be learning in this globalized world, I think tolerance is a huge plus and helping others. And we’re in a position as the United States, I think uniquely, to reach out and really make a difference in the world and an enduring one, but I think we’re going to have to do it through tolerance.

When I was a young woman I heard this phrase, “As man may ascend to the roof by means of a rope, a stairway or a ladder, so diverse are the paths by which we reach God.” And we’ve got to have respect for other religions. And that’s what we started on, wasn’t it? That the Muslims feel that the United States wants to destroy the Muslim faith, that seems to be the universal thing among all sects of Muslim religion, is that we are the enemy; we are trying to destroy their faith.

In the New Testament Jesus clearly said, two different times he sent the 12 disciples and then the 70 disciples and he clearly said, at least the way I understand it, “if a community doesn’t welcome you, go somewhere else,” basically. And to me that seems like, if this is a message that clicks with the community you’re welcome there, then do that, otherwise go somewhere else. The apostle Paul also said, somewhere, I can be all things to all people. Which I think speaks to the issue of respect and respecting different people, people’s differences.

I was raised a very devout Christian and I’d like to submit that we should not be proceeding as a Christian nation. I think we should be proceeding as a nation that took the principle of separation of church and state and made a great nation on that basis. And that we should be perceived as a non-Christian nation that knows how to separate and knows how to how to allow each of its citizens to have the faith that it wants.

As we proceed to places like Iraq, like Afghanistan, and the places where we go, I very strongly believe that the best Christian, the best faith-based efforts of any kind are the ones that give with no strings attached and that simply go to help with medical aid, with material aid, and if they’re not doing it that way then they’re doing it wrong.

That’s very well put. That by example is our only hope of persuading these people that we wish them well and that we want them to be peaceful people and in control of their own country.

There has been a lot of talk about proselytizing Muslims of Iraq. They actually have started doing that in Afghanistan. There actually is a web site called “afghan bibles dot com” or something like that. And that kind of concerns me. Not that these people will convert or not convert. They have their free will. They have to answer to God and that’s their choice. But my concern is how that makes us look like?

It makes us look bad. Like we did all this war. The notion of crusades is a very bad notion. Because the Christian crusaders did not convert people. They butchered them.

I certainly hope that we don’t turn into crusaders. I pray that we don’t become imperialist. But I have to say a word on behalf of the evangelists.

Why is Franklin Graham taking Bibles over to the Muslims?

I can only assume that the reason they’re using their resources, their time, their energies, is that they believe, in short they have faith that their belief is the better belief, or the best belief that’s available. I certainly believe that.

I don’t think they’re doing it to bring hardship or bad things to anyone. I can only hope that they’re doing it because in their mind they’re doing the best thing for the people that can possibly be done.

If Iraq was a tribe that was just discovered and the Bibles were needed there, I would understand that. I would go there with Koran and the Hindus would go with Ghita. Now Iraq has a minority of Christians and they have thrived there for generations.

And I think the people of Iraq are very well aware. They are a very old nation. The people know Christianity. And it sounds very suspicious.

So we as a nation think that we want to back off once we have given the Iraqi people their freedom. And our system says majority rules. The majority is Shiite and they don’t want a country, they don’t want a government that separates church and state. They want a Shiite government. What should be the position of the American people towards their majority?

If they want a theocracy I think they should have one.

I believe that we in the United States will not allow Shiia Muslims to form a government out there. Because of their allegiance to Iran. Iran is one of the countries in the axis of evil. And how could we have another axis of evil out there, since we got rid of one?

God is too great for any human to understand. And the glory of all these different religions is they give us a special aspect of God. They emphasize a special aspect of God. One is not better than another.

I am not part of what is defined as Christianity in this country anymore.

Any flag word that has its own inherently negative connotation immediately colors the argument. And that’s what’s happened here with use of the word proselytizing.

Why not make Bibles available? Why not make the Ghita available? Why not make the Koran available in equal availability just like here in America. And every religion has the ability to express their faith. And that’s the way it should be in any country. And to use the word proselytizing—it immediately puts the negative connotation to it and pre-supposes what our decision about proselytizing should be. “No, shouldn’t have that.”

Well, I think you find that if your example is good, then they will want to know.

The true charity, according to Ghita, is defined as that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

The term that I’ve used is like, “Rice Christians.” Whoever gives me rice today, I’ll become that. So that is not religion. If you feel proud about that, handing a bible out when the guy that doesn’t even know English, or doesn’t even know how to read. That’s just statistics. And we believe in statistics. So I gave out 10,000 bibles. How many true Christians did you really make, the one who loves their neighbor?

I like your example. If you go out and say here’s food, regardless of religion, the guy’s going to say, which faith are you from?” That’s much better than doing all this stuff. It will never work. You can try it out. India was totally Buddhist at one time.

Everybody seems to insist that their story is right. And everybody’s got a different story.

And what I look at is not who’s got the better story but who’s handing out the rice. What activity is actually taking place? And that’s the thing that impresses me.

I’m just full of fallacy and full of all sorts of things that don’t give Christianity a very good name in all probability. So what I’d rather do is give them the users manual and let them read it for themselves because that’s without error in my view.

If Christianity depends on people looking at me and seeing such a wonderful thing there that they all want to be like that, Christianity is in deep trouble.

Is the fact that we do this act of what we learned from God to be merciful and to be kind to everyone we can. And we’re not using this, we should not use this at all to convert somebody. It’s just a natural action based on what the Lord gave us so much and therefore we have to give out of what we learned from him. So if these people are doing it based on desire to convert, we are not better than others who’ve tried to convert by other means, force or other means. But if we are doing it out of spreading God’s principles, and his love, and his kindness, we show it. And if they choose to believe fine, and if they don’t at least we planted the seed there.

I agree with the premise of going to do good for good’s sake. And I think that’s the highest motivation of Christianity and what Christ taught with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The person who’s the good Samaritan served one who had no call upon him for anything and I think that’s the way that we should react in this case and I think the greatest good will be done that way.

In the Jewish tradition charity is given anonymously and the reason it is given anonymously is because therefore the individual giving the charity, number one, has no ego involvement, and number two, it will not expect a return favor from the person receiving the charity.

Basically, every major religion in the world has some form of golden rule. I find it interesting that when Paul writes about charity in the 13th Chapter, First Corinthians, you run into part of that passage, the 12th verse words, where it’s almost a digression: “For now we see in glass darkly, but then face to face”. But perhaps even a more technical translation would be: “Now we see enigmas in a mirror, we see puzzles in a mirror.” My worry is that as I look in the mirror, I’m going to see everything in reverse. If my ego is involved and I’m narcissistic, I’m looking in that mirror and I see everything in reverse. I think right is left.

And as I do what I think is good, if my motives aren’t pure I can end up doing the opposite of it. I can end up creating more evil. And I think that that right there suggests that we have to take the golden rule perspective, which is to see what is needed from the perspective of a refugee in the Middle East. Whether it is Afghanistan, or the West Bank or whether it is now refugees coming from Iraq. Wherever they are, what is their world like? That’s what the golden rule suggests. And that’s how you get out from the mirror. That’s how you break free from the ego as you say, I’m not going to see what I would want and then dream up the way in which I could justify superimposing it on somebody else because I have . . .

You want another metaphor . . . I got the ring of power. The ring of power should be entrusted to the person who won’t use it, not to the person who will use it.

As Gandalf, another metaphor, said, I will try to do the greatest good with it and I will end up causing the greatest evil because he knows his ego is involved and he’s looking in that mirror.

I think that we should never try to change a person. We should always try to accept that person for who he or she is. And work with them, but we don’t want to change them, you know, because I would hate for somebody to come over and try to change to try to make me be somebody that I’m not.

So I think after the war, when we’re over there, we shouldn’t try to change the Muslims. This is what they want, that’s what they do, but then we should be able to make them see the difference between religion and democracy. See, that’s where we have to really work on, not changing their religious faith. But it’s just showing them a better way to live, where everybody can live in harmony, respect each other’s religious faith, for who they are and what they are. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that the government has to be under the religious umbrella.

This is one of the things that we have to be sure that we don’t go over there and say, Ok, we’re going to make you all Christians and you’re all going to become Republicans. We can’t do that, you know. So what I’m saying is that we have to be able to accept people for who they are, help them with what they need the help the most and not try to change, make them into something that they are not.

Jesus essentially, his last direction to his followers was, “Go make disciples of the world.” So we would be remiss, the Christian community would be remiss, would be negligent, on not doing that. However, to ignore the needs of someone who needs food, who needs clothes, who needs medical attention, certainly those are the things that we see in the news over the last few weeks, to ignore that would be very wrong and very un-Christ like. So I think we go with that perspective. To administer to the very practical needs and allow the Holy Spirit to communicate to those people, to the recipients of that practical work, that there’s something here beyond what I’ve experienced before and I want to know more about it. And now in a nation that has been liberated from a very oppressive government they have that freedom to make that choice and to make it for themselves.

So I think that we have to come back from a faith perspective and remember that Jesus said, Go in them to me, go tell them about me. But we do it in a practical way as well as in a literal way.

I’m one of the directors at the Soup Kitchen here in Idaho Falls. And when we started that, we had to make a conscious decision, because it is an ecumenical, we have like 12 different churches that help, and we had to make a conscious decision to say you cannot proselytize, and come here and feed people. You feed people. And some churches could do that and some churches could not. They have a conviction and we honored that.

I believe that all religions are one. I think we have to respect that. In my faith, God sends them all. And over a period of time to people to see a promise. What has caused division in the world is that exclusivity that each religion wants to hold on to.

And if anything is going to help and aid in bringing peace, it is to understand that there are many paths to God but they all lead to the same place. To me that is very fundamental in our way that we approach the world and we make understanding of what we really know about why we are here.

I think one of the key components to love is the freedom to choose. If you love someone, like the saying, you have to be willing to let them go. If you have two individuals, two young ladies and one man, and the man has to make a choice. And one of the young ladies goes off and throws the other young lady over a bridge. And comes back and says, Hey it’s you and me. And the gentleman says, No, I don’t have a choice. So you don’t really know if I really love you or not, cause I didn’t choose. However if you back up and say, Ok, I choose you, that person knows that I was chosen, and so they really truly love me. And that’s what Christ is all about. The freedom to choose.

And so go over there, if they want to have a government based on their faith or their religion, then I say, hey, go full steam ahead. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, but that’s their choice, they have their choice. I think that the reality is that, hey, they need to have a choice. And so I think that, hey, I would love to see the Christians over there. If God called me to go, I’d go or send somebody. I’d love to see the Mormon, the Unitarian the Buddhist, all of them, everybody go over there, and give everybody a choice. Now, of course don’t give them the soup and say, Ahaaa!, you know. Let them have the soup, and if they want to listen to you, then listen. If they don’t want to hear it, then they don’t have to hear it.

I think that the United States, since it is the occupying power in Iraq, ought to delay elections for a period of time. Here’s why. When Moses took the Jews out of Egypt, he had several generations of people who had been raised in slavery. And in Iraq you got people who have been at least 20 years under a dictatorship. Now what Moses did is he deliberately wandered in the desert for 40 years so that a new generation of people that were born to freedom would be able to enter the promised land. And I think the United States has to, not 40 years of course, but the United States probably should delay holding elections in Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-aware enough to decide whether they want a theocracy, which is a dictatorship, or freedom.

One of the stories I really like in the Old Testament, is Jesus, in the New Testament rather, Jesus got a bunch people out in a boat, in the water. If you translate that whole story into mother psychological terms, the boat is the ego, and Jesus is basically the self, and the water is the subconscious. And what Jesus walking on the water to me always was, hey, be self-aware or you’ll be unconscious. And it seems to me that that metaphor really applies to democracy.

The Iraqi people have to reach a level of self-awareness and not be unconscious so that they can make a choice.

I think you’ve hit on the conundrum of democracy. If you go to people and say, Choose your government, and 65% of the population says we want an Ayatollah, sign of God. And we want a theocracy. Then how do you claim that that lacks some form of legitimacy? Because it is the choice. By saying they’re not self-aware? Well, if they were self-aware they would have chosen what I would have chosen. Because I’m the definition of self-aware. I do that all the time. It’s my ego. I do it with everybody I meet. I do it with my kids and my wife. The notion of breaking down the ego, again, has to be the golden rule. 4:12

What do they want? I don’t see another way around it. Because if it’s going to be democracy, they get to choose, but if I pull out the trump card of “Well, they weren’t self aware . . . ” All that does is it shows the procedure to be a sham to them. And I think they would resent that very, very deeply.

I think the self-awareness has to come with certain kinds of tools. I think the Iraqis need a toolbox. They need a rule of law, they need a court system. They need a stable population.

If you look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs first thing of course is food, clothing and shelter. But you still, in order to stabilize a country, need a rule of law. And you can’t have elections and you can’t have free choice if you don’t have a rule of law.

One guy showed up in Iraq last week or the week before and declared himself mayor. And he ran around for four or five days until the U.S. army said, hey pal you know, that’s not the way it’s going to work.

So free choice has to take place with a rule of law and if you don’t have a rule of law you don’t have choice.

I agree, I think democracy is a lot more, and a lot deeper than just voting. And in order to vote you need to be an informed voter and I think it has to be organic, it has to come from within.

And if you want a democracy that, except for Rumsfield who said you can have a democracy but you can’t have a Islamic one, which I thought was very interesting. But I think is so much more, it’s just not voting. I agree with Dan totally that we really should give them some breathing room and some growing room.

Because it was secular, the women in Iraq are much better educated than any other Islamic nation, they are much more aware of what’s going on in the world than we give them credit for. And I think if we allow them to grow in this newfound freedom they might just surprise us. I mean to me it’s like they’re kind of in their teenage stage, and you know, let them grow into adults and flourish. I think they’ll surprise us.

I agree with what’s been said and I think there’s a great need for patience. We are not particularly known for patience in this country. But we do need patience.

You think of how the roots of our American democracy really started with the Magna Carta, don’t they? And the great traditions we had coming from England . . . We’re talking hundreds of years, centuries. So we need to have patience. I agree with all the things that have been said, to give them time to grow into it and faith to do it.

The real problem is going to be if they don’t choose. If they do something that’s going to exclude women, and it’s going back to where it’s tight and it’s going to be harmful to other people. And I don’t know the answer to that, and I’m not sure if those who are in charge know the answer.

I think it has to play out, I like what you said about the toolbox, I totally agree with that. And give them some time and space and faith and prayers, right?

I think if you leave the Iraqis alone eventually they will come up with the right answer. But you have Iran, you have Syria, you have all the surrounding Muslim countries that are pushing them in one direction, they are pushing them to go in one direction and right now they’re saying, don’t listen to what the Americans are saying because they want to strip you of your oil, they want to strip you of your heritage and this and that, because they want Islam to grow even more.

So the dilemma is how do you weed out all of the outsiders, kick them out, and let the Iraqis make the decisions that need to be made that will serve them?

It seems to me that it needs to start with a rule of law somewhere. I would say at the beginning to just start with a constitution. Don’t label it anything, just find out what principles these people want to live by. What is meaningful to them? What do they want to achieve? Where is their country going? Which they have never been asked that question, they’ve always been told, you know, where it is going to go and how it is going to be.

So to me, it would seem like perhaps introducing some thoughts about what do you want with the very basics of law and constitution and let the people have an opening their minds to thinking and taking their future in their hands by becoming education in ways of how to choose their destiny.

Our form of democracy may not be suitable for every other part in the world. Although we’d love to see that, but I’m not sure that this necessarily has to work the same way we have.

I think that the best we can do at this point is just isolate them from the outside pressure and give them some time to come to the point that they can compare different systems and choose for themselves what they but we cannot force our form of democracy on them because even if it works now, it’s not going to work in the future.