Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?
The “good without God” movement is one small step for humans and one giant step for humankind. So much violence and evil has been done in the name of God, and the humanist movement seeks to reclaim the human capacity for good that has been hijacked and distorted by religious traditions over the centuries.
I agree that humans have the potential for great good and for great evil, and this has nothing to do with belief in a higher being. The Nazis were Christians, and the evils they committed during the Holocaust will forever represent the lowest point of man’s inhumanity to man. At the same time, most of those whom they victimized were Jews, whose helping and caring for each other showed the depth of human kindness possible even in the midst of unspeakable horror.
Darwin would say that living beings are on an evolutionary journey to higher levels, and that the cruelty and violence they inflict upon each other are merely the consequence of evolution. And so may belief in God be part of evolution: religious beliefs may have helped our ancestors survive great hardship. Certainly faith in God helps millions today cope with life’s challenges and suffering.
But religion also has been and can be a crutch, preventing people from taking a stand against great evil or allowing them to explain it away as “God’s will.” Where is the human responsibility and accountability in doing good or refraining from evil only because a higher being desires it? Human values and ethics—and the will and agency to choose the good—must come from within each of us rather than from conformity to a set of rules.
As life on this planet evolves toward greater and greater complexity—from particles to atoms to molecules to living beings to human populations and, finally, to the community of all created life—we will only survive through activities that are life-giving rather than life-taking: cooperation, empathy, caring, peace-making. And belief in God itself—if it is to be life-giving and if it is to further the evolutionary process—must evolve as we do, moving us toward greater human accountability and responsibility.
I believe in a God who is the author of everything—life and death, creation and destruction, good and evil. My sense of right and wrong comes from my belief that not only are humans created in God’s image, but also are imbued with God’s wisdom, passion, and creativity. As a practicing Christian, I also believe that the purpose of Christ’s humanity was to show us our origins in God and to give us a glimpse of who we are becoming, who we already, in some ways, are. To show us that the light of God is found not only in Christ, but in each and every human soul. With these gifts come a profound freedom and an enormous responsibility.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Misfortune Telling
Talk of a second economic stimulus package has left me wondering if we’ll ever find a way out of this crisis: have we ratcheted up our debt to a point of no return? I’ve been reluctant to buy into the “rapacious rich crushing the downtrodden poor” argument as the cause of this crisis, but when you take a closer look at how the whole thing started, there is pure greed at the core of it.
When the mortgage companies began giving loans to lower-income home buyers, it was in response to an initiative begun way back with Jimmy Carter and continuing with Bill Clinton. So it wasn’t extending the loans in the first place that created the problem; it was Wall Street leveraging the loans to raise capital. The leveraged value far outpaced any real value in the properties, the housing market fell, foreclosures ensued, and the rest is history.
The intent of the deregulation introduced by Carter and Clinton was to encourage companies to give back to the poor. Lenders and mortgage companies, though, used it for their own purposes, distorting the original spirit of the law.
In Judaism, it's forbidden to charge interest on loans or to profit from someone else's misfortune. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy offer clear mandates on this: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him…Do not take interest of any kind from him…You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.” (Lev 25.35-38)
For Christians, the ban on usury goes as far back as the third century, when it was grounds for excommunication from the Catholic church.
Islam also forbids Muslims riba—exploitative interest charged by a lender to a borrower: “If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay,” (Sura 2.280) and constitutes hoarding of wealth by the rich. Forgiving a loan is especially worthy.
Hoarding wealth is an abuse of the gifts given by God to all of creation. Perhaps it’s time to seek ethical guidance from world religions--and quit amassing fortunes built on the misfortunes of those in need.
When the mortgage companies began giving loans to lower-income home buyers, it was in response to an initiative begun way back with Jimmy Carter and continuing with Bill Clinton. So it wasn’t extending the loans in the first place that created the problem; it was Wall Street leveraging the loans to raise capital. The leveraged value far outpaced any real value in the properties, the housing market fell, foreclosures ensued, and the rest is history.
The intent of the deregulation introduced by Carter and Clinton was to encourage companies to give back to the poor. Lenders and mortgage companies, though, used it for their own purposes, distorting the original spirit of the law.
In Judaism, it's forbidden to charge interest on loans or to profit from someone else's misfortune. Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy offer clear mandates on this: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him…Do not take interest of any kind from him…You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.” (Lev 25.35-38)
For Christians, the ban on usury goes as far back as the third century, when it was grounds for excommunication from the Catholic church.
Islam also forbids Muslims riba—exploitative interest charged by a lender to a borrower: “If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay,” (Sura 2.280) and constitutes hoarding of wealth by the rich. Forgiving a loan is especially worthy.
Hoarding wealth is an abuse of the gifts given by God to all of creation. Perhaps it’s time to seek ethical guidance from world religions--and quit amassing fortunes built on the misfortunes of those in need.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
When Hate Becomes the Norm
Congress is expected to expand federal hate crimes laws to add "sexual orientation" to a list that already includes "race, color, religion, or national origin." Is this necessary? Should there be special laws against crimes motivated by intolerance, bigotry, and hatred? Isn't a crime a crime?
Gay-bashing is alive and well in this country—from the seemingly innocuous bullying and name-calling taking place in schools, to derision and persecution in the military and in prisons, to full-scale beatings and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.
The fact is that it’s still okay to ridicule, discount, or condemn homosexuality—just as it has been (and still is, to some extent) accepted practice to marginalize, oppress, and persecute women, African-Americans, and Jews.
Arguments in favor of slavery (and, subsequently, against African Americans) were based on an absurd belief that all humans were not created equal; this same belief has fueled misogynistic and anti-Semitic attitudes. Intolerance always presumes the superiority of one group over another: the supremacy of white people over African Americans; the authority and power of males over females; and the primacy of Christianity over Judaism. Interestingly enough, many “haters” of women, blacks, and Jews, like gay-bashers, have found justification for their views through narrow, literal readings of the Bible.
When hateful or supremacist attitudes are allowed to flourish, hate crimes follow. And if hate crimes are minimized or ignored, hate itself can become institutionalized. Sexism, racism, anti-Semitism: each of these at one time became institutionalized when those in power failed to protect certain groups or, even worse, legitimized the assumption of one group’s superiority over another.
It is for this very reason that hate crime laws must be enacted—to counter cultural attitudes that lead to persecution of certain groups. For those in power to take a stand against the inhumanity behind hate crimes. To refuse to accept or condone hateful behaviors. To stop the spread of hate that resulted in lynching and violence against African Americans, the prevalence of rape and domestic violence experienced by women, and ongoing religious persecution of Jews.
Hate crimes are worse than ordinary crimes in their determination to silence, persecute, or annihilate whole groups of individuals. Not only do hate crimes have the potential to foster fear and loathing in the broader community, but they also constitute a sin against humanity itself, against God’s good creation.
Yes, it is crucial that we enact special laws against crimes motivated by hatred and intolerance, and this includes crimes based on sexual orientation. All individuals deserve the protection of the law to discourage others from using hate as a weapon against them, to stem the spread of hate from one individual to an entire community.
Gay-bashing is alive and well in this country—from the seemingly innocuous bullying and name-calling taking place in schools, to derision and persecution in the military and in prisons, to full-scale beatings and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.
The fact is that it’s still okay to ridicule, discount, or condemn homosexuality—just as it has been (and still is, to some extent) accepted practice to marginalize, oppress, and persecute women, African-Americans, and Jews.
Arguments in favor of slavery (and, subsequently, against African Americans) were based on an absurd belief that all humans were not created equal; this same belief has fueled misogynistic and anti-Semitic attitudes. Intolerance always presumes the superiority of one group over another: the supremacy of white people over African Americans; the authority and power of males over females; and the primacy of Christianity over Judaism. Interestingly enough, many “haters” of women, blacks, and Jews, like gay-bashers, have found justification for their views through narrow, literal readings of the Bible.
When hateful or supremacist attitudes are allowed to flourish, hate crimes follow. And if hate crimes are minimized or ignored, hate itself can become institutionalized. Sexism, racism, anti-Semitism: each of these at one time became institutionalized when those in power failed to protect certain groups or, even worse, legitimized the assumption of one group’s superiority over another.
It is for this very reason that hate crime laws must be enacted—to counter cultural attitudes that lead to persecution of certain groups. For those in power to take a stand against the inhumanity behind hate crimes. To refuse to accept or condone hateful behaviors. To stop the spread of hate that resulted in lynching and violence against African Americans, the prevalence of rape and domestic violence experienced by women, and ongoing religious persecution of Jews.
Hate crimes are worse than ordinary crimes in their determination to silence, persecute, or annihilate whole groups of individuals. Not only do hate crimes have the potential to foster fear and loathing in the broader community, but they also constitute a sin against humanity itself, against God’s good creation.
Yes, it is crucial that we enact special laws against crimes motivated by hatred and intolerance, and this includes crimes based on sexual orientation. All individuals deserve the protection of the law to discourage others from using hate as a weapon against them, to stem the spread of hate from one individual to an entire community.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself
Polls show a majority of Americans are concerned about the H1N1 virus (swine flu), but also about the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine. Is it ethical to say no to this or any vaccine? Are there valid religious reasons to accept or decline a vaccine? Will you get a swine flu shot? Will your children?
America is a culture of fear. We’re afraid of violence, natural disasters, terrorists, street crimes, fraud, job loss, poverty, illness—you name it. Fear-mongering is rampant, but the most interesting part is this: Americans love fear.
Those who deny the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine are choosing fear over a possible solution. And they don’t have to look very far to find scare-mongers who will feed their worst expectations.
These voices speak the loudest, of course, but they also play on a preoccupation with, and a morbid interest in, tragedy. Like gawking at a car accident or watching a house burn down, this obsession with disaster can lift people out of the daily grind and make life more exciting. Buying into unfounded fears or believing worst-case scenarios allows people to see the world as essentially unsafe. It allows them to throw up their hands and avoid responsibility for making choices that could enhance their lives.
This is the reason Internet rumors about the swine flu vaccine, regardless of the source or credibility, carry more weight than valid information from public-health officials.
It’s also the reason religious groups are able to control people through fear. Earlier this year, a Wisconsin mother faced charges of second-degree homicide for the death of her daughter from untreated juvenile diabetes. The mother’s faith taught her—and she chose to believe—that medical treatment would harm, rather than help, her daughter.
And it’s the reason pop culture figures and celebrities can get away with posing as authorities on politics, ethics, and health care. Jenny McCarthy, for example, a former Playboy model and MTV star, speaks publicly (and has written several books) about the dangers of vaccines and her belief that they are a primary cause of autism—a belief not grounded in scientific fact.
“Fear Factor” was a hit show for six seasons precisely because it played on this human fascination with the grotesque. Other reality shows speak to a voyeuristic interest in car crashes and near-death experiences. Even a cursory look at American entertainment today reveals a belief that humans are powerless in the face of inevitable calamity. After all, there is a kind of safety in believing this.
The H1N1 virus, by last count, has shown up in 191 countries, infecting millions and killing nearly 4,000 people. Every adult has a legal right to refuse the vaccine. But each person also has a moral obligation to protect children who don’t have the right to choose. There also is an ethical call for accountability to the community, to not harm or put others at risk as a result of individual choices. It is time for Americans to stop believing the scare-mongers, to become informed about possible solutions to problems, and to take responsibility for safeguarding themselves, their children, and members of their communities.
America is a culture of fear. We’re afraid of violence, natural disasters, terrorists, street crimes, fraud, job loss, poverty, illness—you name it. Fear-mongering is rampant, but the most interesting part is this: Americans love fear.
Those who deny the safety and efficacy of the swine flu vaccine are choosing fear over a possible solution. And they don’t have to look very far to find scare-mongers who will feed their worst expectations.
These voices speak the loudest, of course, but they also play on a preoccupation with, and a morbid interest in, tragedy. Like gawking at a car accident or watching a house burn down, this obsession with disaster can lift people out of the daily grind and make life more exciting. Buying into unfounded fears or believing worst-case scenarios allows people to see the world as essentially unsafe. It allows them to throw up their hands and avoid responsibility for making choices that could enhance their lives.
This is the reason Internet rumors about the swine flu vaccine, regardless of the source or credibility, carry more weight than valid information from public-health officials.
It’s also the reason religious groups are able to control people through fear. Earlier this year, a Wisconsin mother faced charges of second-degree homicide for the death of her daughter from untreated juvenile diabetes. The mother’s faith taught her—and she chose to believe—that medical treatment would harm, rather than help, her daughter.
And it’s the reason pop culture figures and celebrities can get away with posing as authorities on politics, ethics, and health care. Jenny McCarthy, for example, a former Playboy model and MTV star, speaks publicly (and has written several books) about the dangers of vaccines and her belief that they are a primary cause of autism—a belief not grounded in scientific fact.
“Fear Factor” was a hit show for six seasons precisely because it played on this human fascination with the grotesque. Other reality shows speak to a voyeuristic interest in car crashes and near-death experiences. Even a cursory look at American entertainment today reveals a belief that humans are powerless in the face of inevitable calamity. After all, there is a kind of safety in believing this.
The H1N1 virus, by last count, has shown up in 191 countries, infecting millions and killing nearly 4,000 people. Every adult has a legal right to refuse the vaccine. But each person also has a moral obligation to protect children who don’t have the right to choose. There also is an ethical call for accountability to the community, to not harm or put others at risk as a result of individual choices. It is time for Americans to stop believing the scare-mongers, to become informed about possible solutions to problems, and to take responsibility for safeguarding themselves, their children, and members of their communities.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Patriotism and Peace: Unlikely Partners
What does the controversy over President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize tell us about patriotism in our country today?
The Republican National Committee attributed the award to the president’s “star power,” and claim that he took it away from those who’ve made real progress toward peace and human rights. Other opponents have sided with the Taliban and Hamas in claiming that President Obama doesn’t deserve the award.
SNL joked that he won it for not being Bush. One conservative commentator noted that “God has a sense of humor,” suggesting the award is a joke on God’s part. The most offensive comment comes from RedState.com, claiming that the prize reflects “an affirmative action quota.”
Rush Limbaugh accused the president of emasculating the America and claims that the “elites” of the world are rooting for a “weakened, neutered U.S.”
Is this what passes for patriotism today?
The president himself accepted the award as a call to action, a “call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” This statement, reflective of his intent to promote an agenda of peace and justice, is offensive to some Americans.
A year ago, the World Council of Churches sponsored an international conference among 300 religious leaders from around the world. What these leaders confirmed is that religious traditions the world over value dialogue and respect as avenues for peace and reconciliation—and for finding solutions to global problems like poverty, injustice, and war.
This is exactly what President Obama has attempted to do—inject the values of dialogue, respect, and collaboration into his administration—the values most crucial for moving us toward solutions. But promoting peace is now considered emasculating and weakening our nation. It’s downright unpatriotic.
What does the controversy over President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize tell us about patriotism in our country today?
The Republican National Committee attributed the award to the president’s “star power,” and claim that he took it away from those who’ve made real progress toward peace and human rights. Other opponents have sided with the Taliban and Hamas in claiming that President Obama doesn’t deserve the award.
SNL joked that he won it for not being Bush. One conservative commentator noted that “God has a sense of humor,” suggesting the award is a joke on God’s part. The most offensive comment comes from RedState.com, claiming that the prize reflects “an affirmative action quota.”
Rush Limbaugh accused the president of emasculating the America and claims that the “elites” of the world are rooting for a “weakened, neutered U.S.”
Is this what passes for patriotism today?
The president himself accepted the award as a call to action, a “call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” This statement, reflective of his intent to promote an agenda of peace and justice, is offensive to some Americans.
A year ago, the World Council of Churches sponsored an international conference among 300 religious leaders from around the world. What these leaders confirmed is that religious traditions the world over value dialogue and respect as avenues for peace and reconciliation—and for finding solutions to global problems like poverty, injustice, and war.
This is exactly what President Obama has attempted to do—inject the values of dialogue, respect, and collaboration into his administration—the values most crucial for moving us toward solutions. But promoting peace is now considered emasculating and weakening our nation. It’s downright unpatriotic.
The World According to Beck
Glenn Beck and the American Family Association have cost the American public $7.5 million in an effort to oppose government spending. Interesting.
For a mere $30 a pop, 2.5 million supporters of this campaign have clicked a button to have “pink slips” sent to all 535 members of Congress—warning them that they’ll lose their jobs if they “continue to flout American values.”
According to Beck, these values are honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude—and he is the self-appointed arbiter of those values. Most people would agree that these are important values, but the AFA claims that our current administration has failed to uphold them. In response, Beck proposes a radical drive to “take back control of our country” by ousting House and Senate representatives from their jobs.
The header on the AFA Web site reads: “We the People Demand Answers.” Doesn’t “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution refer to all Americans? Is this campaign targeted to all Americans, or just those increasingly outraged that “their country” doesn’t look the way it did 100 or 200 years ago?
Beck’s aim is get America back to “everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again.” And what exactly would this look like? A world of fear and terror, grief, mistrust of “outsiders,” despair and a loss of hope, a sense of American exceptionalism? Is this the world Beck envisions and hopes to lead us back to?
Glenn Beck and the American Family Association have cost the American public $7.5 million in an effort to oppose government spending. Interesting.
For a mere $30 a pop, 2.5 million supporters of this campaign have clicked a button to have “pink slips” sent to all 535 members of Congress—warning them that they’ll lose their jobs if they “continue to flout American values.”
According to Beck, these values are honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude—and he is the self-appointed arbiter of those values. Most people would agree that these are important values, but the AFA claims that our current administration has failed to uphold them. In response, Beck proposes a radical drive to “take back control of our country” by ousting House and Senate representatives from their jobs.
The header on the AFA Web site reads: “We the People Demand Answers.” Doesn’t “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution refer to all Americans? Is this campaign targeted to all Americans, or just those increasingly outraged that “their country” doesn’t look the way it did 100 or 200 years ago?
Beck’s aim is get America back to “everyone thinking like it is September 12th, 2001 again.” And what exactly would this look like? A world of fear and terror, grief, mistrust of “outsiders,” despair and a loss of hope, a sense of American exceptionalism? Is this the world Beck envisions and hopes to lead us back to?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
One More Nation Under God (Indivisible?)
Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the goal was to eliminate the safe haven the Taliban offered al-Qaeda terrorists, who presented a direct and very real threat to our nation’s security. In our efforts to protect the U.S., we also helped safeguard the people of Afghanistan against religious oppression.
Because the U.S. has the ability and resources to protect Afghans from religious and human rights violations suffered at the hands of the Taliban, we are morally bound to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. There also is a quid pro quo here: the U.S. occupied Afghanistan for our own gain, and it would be opportunistic to take what we need and leave the Afghan people at the mercy of a corrupt regime.
But the question is more complicated than simply safeguarding human rights. At the heart of this conflict is the deeper question of authority. The civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias, in fact, began with a disagreement over the question of the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad. Leaders in both sects believed they had the power to decide, and centuries of fighting have ensued.
So, too, Taliban leaders today believe they alone have the authority to interpret al-Sharī‘ah, the body of law guiding the Muslim community. Driven by a strict interpretation of the law, the Taliban has become an oppressive and extremist theocracy, imposing violent and brutal punishment on those not bowing to their way of faith and life.
It is ironic that at the very heart of Islam is the idea of submission to the authority of the one God. For Muslim believers, total and unconditional surrender of one’s desires to God’s authority is thought to bring personal peace. But for Afghans, “surrendering” to the authority of the Taliban has not brought peace; instead it has led to terror and violence at the hands of fundamentalist mullahs.
Does a political entity like the U.S., then, have the authority to intervene in a religious conflict? When religion is at the heart of the problem in an oppressive regime, what can be done politically and militarily to restore religious freedom?
By continuing to fight on behalf of the Afghan people, the U.S. can protect the ideal of religious freedom, standing firm in the belief that religious authority does not lie with political leaders, with ruling parties or with competing sects. We can stand against those who claim to have the “correct” interpretation of the written texts or a direct line to the prophets and teachers who bring the word of God, those who believe they are the designated interpreters of those messages—by not allowing them the forum to hijack an authority that is not rightly theirs.
As peacekeepers in Afghanistan, the U.S. can prevent the Taliban from appropriating religious authority and help restore freedom to Afghans, lifting the political to the spiritual and perhaps finding a path to lasting peace. Our actions can support the principle that religious authority—the divine guidance for how to live our lives according to God’s plan—lies nowhere but in the voice and power of the supreme, holy One we call Allah, God and Yahweh.
Eight years after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan, fighting continues. Religious extremists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda retain significant power there. What is our moral responsibility to the people of Afghanistan? If religion is part of the problem there, how can it be part of the solution?
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the goal was to eliminate the safe haven the Taliban offered al-Qaeda terrorists, who presented a direct and very real threat to our nation’s security. In our efforts to protect the U.S., we also helped safeguard the people of Afghanistan against religious oppression.
Because the U.S. has the ability and resources to protect Afghans from religious and human rights violations suffered at the hands of the Taliban, we are morally bound to prevent the Taliban from regaining power. There also is a quid pro quo here: the U.S. occupied Afghanistan for our own gain, and it would be opportunistic to take what we need and leave the Afghan people at the mercy of a corrupt regime.
But the question is more complicated than simply safeguarding human rights. At the heart of this conflict is the deeper question of authority. The civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias, in fact, began with a disagreement over the question of the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad. Leaders in both sects believed they had the power to decide, and centuries of fighting have ensued.
So, too, Taliban leaders today believe they alone have the authority to interpret al-Sharī‘ah, the body of law guiding the Muslim community. Driven by a strict interpretation of the law, the Taliban has become an oppressive and extremist theocracy, imposing violent and brutal punishment on those not bowing to their way of faith and life.
It is ironic that at the very heart of Islam is the idea of submission to the authority of the one God. For Muslim believers, total and unconditional surrender of one’s desires to God’s authority is thought to bring personal peace. But for Afghans, “surrendering” to the authority of the Taliban has not brought peace; instead it has led to terror and violence at the hands of fundamentalist mullahs.
Does a political entity like the U.S., then, have the authority to intervene in a religious conflict? When religion is at the heart of the problem in an oppressive regime, what can be done politically and militarily to restore religious freedom?
By continuing to fight on behalf of the Afghan people, the U.S. can protect the ideal of religious freedom, standing firm in the belief that religious authority does not lie with political leaders, with ruling parties or with competing sects. We can stand against those who claim to have the “correct” interpretation of the written texts or a direct line to the prophets and teachers who bring the word of God, those who believe they are the designated interpreters of those messages—by not allowing them the forum to hijack an authority that is not rightly theirs.
As peacekeepers in Afghanistan, the U.S. can prevent the Taliban from appropriating religious authority and help restore freedom to Afghans, lifting the political to the spiritual and perhaps finding a path to lasting peace. Our actions can support the principle that religious authority—the divine guidance for how to live our lives according to God’s plan—lies nowhere but in the voice and power of the supreme, holy One we call Allah, God and Yahweh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)