Secular Politicians touting the goodness of Islam?

When I was in high school, our school was sued by the ACLU because each Monday a student would pray over the intercom.  This was deemed by the ACLU an unacceptable promotion of religion as such by an arm of the government, and the court agreed.  It has come to be accepted orthodoxy in our legal circles that government organizations or representatives should not favor or promote one religion over another, or over non-religion.  So this raises the interesting question asked in THIS ARTICLE at The Economist blog:

"SHOULD democratically elected leaders in more or less secular countries ever say that this or that religion is essentially good or essentially bad?"  

Are they not acting as theologians when they claim that Islam is a good and beautiful and peace-affirming faith?  Are they not promoting one religion over another?  I've never heard our President make such sweeping positive claims about United Methodism - though I would be happy if he did.  Could it be that they do not trust the general public to think for ourselves and come up with the "right" decision regarding the relative merits of Islam?  Here are a few more quotes from the article:

"In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11, arguments about the fundamental nature of Islam caused some acrimony between George W Bush and his evangelical supporters. The Bush administration's line was that Islam as such was not the adversary. On the contrary, it was worthy of respect as a great and inspiring religious tradition in which millions of people found comfort....
Meanwhile Tony Blair went through a phase of carrying a Koran around with him, and arguing passionately that Islam in its truest self was an inspiration to peace and altruism. He seemed convinced that his own passionate Christian beliefs gave him some insight into the problem of scriptural interpretation. A few days ago, it was Barack Obama's turn to make a solemn distinction between Islam itself and people who claimed to be waging a terrorist war in its name. In a speech to the UN General Assembly, he said:The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims all over the world aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice...

The article goes on to raise the issue - always an important one in any theological statement or statement about theology - of authority or credibility.  Presidents Bush and Obama and British Prime Minister Tony Blair all claim to be practicing Christians who have never been practicing Muslims.  Do they really know more about Islam than those "Islamic State" militants who have been practicing Muslims all their lives?
As the article states: 

...it is somehow odd for a Western politician to be telling anybody, however horrible and unworthy of respect: "You don't understand your own religion, but I do..." 

Perhaps it would have made more sense for President Obama to point to the recent Open Letter from 120 Muslim scholars denouncing The Islamic State as "un-Islamic."  The problem is that there is disagreement and diversity of opinion among Muslims themselves as to what their religion requires or allows - what Allah desires - when it comes to the use of violence in the name of Islam.  So again we are left with a prickly question about what a supposedly secular leader should do?  Is it appropriate for a President or Prime Minister to promote certain understandings of Islam as actually more faithful to Allah or to "the true spirit of Islam" than others?  Or to swing the question around, would it be appropriate (though it has certainly happened before) for a President or Prime Minister to tell us that either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism was more true to Christ than the other?  

The suggestion at the end of the article actually makes good sense to me:

Almost exactly the same rhetorical effect could have been be achieved if Mr Obama had confined himself to saying something like: "We know that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims in America and across the world who share our abhorrence of Islamic State..."  That would be a statement about political science or religious sociology, rather than theology...

-------------------------------------------
In other news the Islamic State recently destroyed one of Iraq's oldest Christian Churches in its continued campaign of persecution against the followers of Christ.  As a pastor and Bible-teacher rather than a politician, I am quite sure that the Islamic State represents the most viciously evil and demonic political ideology that we have seen since the days of Stalin or Hitler; it is without a doubt "anti-Christ" in its aims and its actions.  

I'll leave it to Muslims (who know far more about the Koran than I) to debate whether the Islamic State is a legitimate expression of Islam.  It seems to me that the great majority of Muslims say that it is not true to Islamic teachings, but a sizable minority obviously believe that it is - which I suppose is what an outside observer would have to say if asked whether any particular Christian denomination is a legitimate expression of Christianity.  

Scottish Independence?

Christene and I recently returned from a trip to Italy.  While there I was able to grab an "International Edition" of the USA TODAY (a rather flimsy paper that could have used a few more pages, considering the cost) to keep up with the news.  The paper had 4 different stories about "separatists" in various countries: a group in Spain that wants independence for their region, the Pro-Russian Separatists in Ukraine (who seem to me likely to accomplish their goal of independence), an Islamist movement in the Philippines that was seeking greater autonomy for their region of that country in order to govern themselves by Islamic Law, and finally the coming vote by the people of Scotland on Thursday on whether to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I've got some Scottish as well as English roots myself (descended from both McLains and Hixons) and as someone who has visited both places (and hopes to do so again) I hope that they exercise their freedom to choose to remain part of the United Kingdom.  Though I'm just an interested observer.

Flags of the countries making up the UK and the Union Flag

While polls have shown the "stay with the UK" side leading, HERE is an NPR audio story discussing the recent surge in the numbers supporting succession so that the vote now looks (as they say) "too close to call."  Interestingly, the leaders of the US and Australia - both of which have gained independence from Great Britain - have expressed hopes that Scotland will remain with the UK.

When I visited Scotland on a mission trip back in 2010, I had some interesting conversations with some elderly men (though we were primarily there to help with a Christian youth-center).  I remember sitting up one evening talking with a fellow who spoke of being a child during World War II, when the German Blitzkrieg was a horrifically real danger for him and his family.  He also lamented that many of the younger generation saw themselves not so much as "British" like his generation, but more as "Scottish" or "English" and so on.  He seemed a bit baffled (or at least annoyed) by that, after all the trials that the UK had faced and surmounted as a unified, British, people.

I told someone a couple of years ago that in an age of globalization, I expect we will see a trend towards greater global unity on an economic level, but (because a one-size fits all approach to law-making will not be acceptable to many people in an increasingly diverse society) a corresponding trend towards more local-ism and regionalism - even tribalism - on the political level.  All of the movements mentioned above are, I believe, good examples.  I would also not be surprised to find more electoral victories here in the US by Libertarian or - perhaps in conservative areas of the country - old fashioned "states' rights" Republicans in our own country; but we shall see.

Though I'm firmly opposed to the break-up of the US (growing up in the South, I think I've known a few secessionists - though they are apparently far more numerous in Scotland), I certainly would like to see greater autonomy for the states - especially on "culture war" issues - and greater allowance for diversity of laws, government structures, and regulations within the broader unity of country (which is exactly what the framers of our Constitution had in mind to begin with).

Thinking on all of this while travelling caused me to notice that, while in Italy, whenever people asked where we came from, the answer that came most readily to my lips was "Louisiana" - and if they looked confused I would add "in the United States."