MayJune04 Challenge - The Christian Challenge

U.S.: “Under God”—For Now
America will remain “under God”—for now.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a 2002 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals ruling that the words “under God” in the Pledge of
Allegiance are unconstitutional.
The reversal was based on a technicality. Notably, however,
the decision was announced on June 14, Flag Day, and the 50th
anniversary of the 1954 vote in Congress to add the words “under
God” to the Pledge.
The high court said that Michael Newdow, the atheist who
brought the case, did not have legal standing to sue on behalf of
his ten-year-old daughter, whom he believed was being religiously
indoctrinated during school recitations of the Pledge.
Five of the justices ruled that Newdow’s rights do not trump
those of the mother, Sandra Banning, a Christian who has legal
custody of the daughter, who likes reciting the Pledge.
Three of the justices, however, argued that Newdow had the
legal right to bring the case, but that his premise, that the Pledge
is unconstitutional, was flawed.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that reciting the Pledge
is “a patriotic exercise, not a religious one,” and that a student
may opt out of saying it. To give the parent of such a child “a sort
of ‘heckler’s veto’ over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated
in by other students,” simply because it mentions God, he
wrote, “is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause.”
*NEWDOW ALSO LOST OUT recently on a case involving
the legality of congressional chaplains. A U.S. district judge dismissed
Newdow’s lawsuit claiming that the presence and prayers
of chaplains robbed him of his right to observe government without
having to “confront religious dogma he finds offensive.” The
judge based his denial of Newdow’s claim on a 1983 Supreme
Court ruling that it was not unconstitutional for the Nebraska legislature
to open its sessions with a chaplain’s prayer.
Sources: U.S. Supreme Court Public Information Office, The Washington Times,
The Christian Observer
DOCTORS CALL the partial birth procedure “intact dilation
and extraction.” Developed in the early 1990s, it requires
partly delivering an intact fetus, typically during the second trimester,
and piercing and compressing its skull. A small percentage
of abortions are performed this way each year.
Many abortion providers argue that it is necessary because it
can be lifesaving for some women and can protect the fertility
of others. Opponents call it barbaric infanticide, and (among
other things) cite Congress’ finding that late term abortions are
never medically necessary.
That fact has been underscored by evidence presented in all
three cases involving the Act—which have also heard compelling
testimony that the fetus feels intense pain during the gruesome,
life-ending procedure, and that the baby’s hands and feet
move during the abortion—at least until its skull is crushed by
forceps. Testimony also indicated that the procedure often involves
decapitation and/or dismemberment of the fetus. As well,
questions have been raised about whether the procedure is safe
and would not have long-term consequences for women.
Sources included The Daily Telegraph, The Washington Post, The Washington
Times, American Center for Law and Justice
Carey Repeats Call
For Muslim “Responsibility”
Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey says that
reports of a controversial speech critical of Muslims that he
delivered in Rome in March overlooked criticisms of the West
included in his talk.
However, Dr. Carey recently reiterated his call for Muslims
to stand more strongly against the extremist, terrorist elements
that are hijacking Islam.
“Muslims really have got to face up to their responsibilities
and distance themselves from the hard people who are using
the good name of Islam as a weapon,” Carey said in an interview
with Robert Crampton.
In his earlier remarks, Carey had said that, “Sadly, apart from
a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn—clearly
and unconditionally—the evil of suicide bombers
who kill innocent people.” The claim drew angry denials
from some Islamic leaders in Britain.
Moderate Muslims must “resist strongly” the taking over of
Islam by radical activists and “express strongly” their “abhor-
rence of violence done to innocent lives in the name of Allah,”
Dr. Carey said in March.
In other recent remarks, he said that Muslims and the West
needed to confront mutual suspicions. “The association of Islam
with terrorism” is an issue that should concern Muslims as
well as non-Muslims, he said.
*ARAB AND WESTERN SPECIALISTS ON ISLAM condemned
the decapitation in May of Nicholas Berg, a civilian
American hostage, by terrorists; by deadline, a few other such
executions had taken place. “Even the most literalist interpreters
of the Koran must reject the claim that [Berg’s murder] was a
legitimate revenge for the abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq,” said Tariq Ramadan, currently the most prominent
spokesman for Muslims in French-speaking countries. However,
much of the Islamic world generally seemed to have no objection,
while the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, which did not involve
murder, continued to be prominent in world attention.
*ONE EXCEPTION to this situation appeared to be a public
relations campaign recently launched by American Muslims, stress-
Jesus, or Allah?
Some Simple Distinctions
This is one of the most remarkable pieces we have seen
on this subject. Attributed to Rick Mathes, a well known
leader in prison ministry, the following account was widely
circulated on the Internet, and we thought it worthy to pass
on to CHALLENGE readers. - Ed.
Last month I attended my annual training session that’s
required for maintaining my state prison security clearance.
During the training session there was a presentation by three
speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant, and
Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam
had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics
of Islam, complete with a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions
and answers. When it was my turn, I directed my question
to the Imam and asked: “Please, correct me if I’m wrong,
but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have
declared a holy jihad (holy war) against the infidels of the
world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command
36 THE CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE, MAY-JULY, 2004