Dear Dr. Esposito,

I just recently read through your article New Narrative for 9-11 and Muslim Americans. It is an interesting piece of writing, and I am always looking for people who are willing to give an apologetic for their viewpoint. In your article, you try to make the case that fears of Islamic extremism in the Muslim American community are unfounded, and that Muslims in America as a whole are well integrated into the rest of western society. I must confess that I am not convinced of your article’s thesis, and I would like to explain why. Read the rest of this entry

Recently, apologist Frank Turek has written a short but excellent article on the hypocrisy of LGBT activists who accuse Christians who oppose homosexual behaviour of being bigots. He also shows how they abuse the term “bigot” by mis-applying it to everybody who disagrees with their position, even when they have valid reasons for doing so. In the process, they expose themselves as the real bigots. Here is Turek’s article in full:

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.

I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”

I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”

He said, “Fear and intolerance.”

I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”

He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?

Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature. That’s why the state recognizes marriage to begin with—not because two people love one another but because only heterosexual unions can procreate and best nurture the next generation.

Everyone also puts limits on behaviors. But opposing behavior is not the same as opposing or “hating” people. In fact, to really love people, we often have to oppose what they do! Parents know this, and all former children know it as well.

Original Article

• Frank Turek  - Who Are the Real Gay Bigots and Bullies

The debate over the increasing acceptance of LGBT lifestyles in mainstream culture is one issue which — at least in Canadian society — has been more or less dominated by one side, which seeks to label all dissenters as “bigots,” “homophobes,” and even “extremists.” If you do not give them your unconditional assent and affirmation, they will level the most relentless forms of criticism against you. And this is precisely the case in the recent controversy over Toronto city mayor Rob Ford’s decision not to attend the annual Pride Parade.

To give a little background to people who are unfamiliar with this issue, Rob Ford is one of the most Conservative city mayors that Toronto has had in a long while. This particularly manifests in his policies regarding LGBT issues. He has publicly stated that he disagrees with same-sex marriage during his mayoral campaign, has refused to show up at a Pride flag raising at a public square, and has at least once threatened to cut public funding to the city’s annual Pride Parade. After all, why should the city spend public funds on such a parade anyway? Shouldn’t the LGBT community get its own funding if it wants a parade? Mayor Ford isn’t even targeting the LGBT Pride Parade in particular on this issue, since he has said in an article for The Star that “the public sector shouldn’t be funding parades, no matter what parade it is … The private sector should be sponsoring these parades.”[1] Be that as it may, the Pride Parade still got the funding that it wanted. There is just no stopping the LGBT agenda these days.

That being said, however, the biggest faux pas he has made recently (at least from the standpoint of the politically correct Left) was his refusal to attend the pride parade which took place earlier this month, on the grounds that it conflicted with a family tradition where he would spend the long weekend in a cottage away from the city. The responses that have been produced by Leftist pro-LGBT commentators and activists on newspapers and blogs have been merciless; most of them show relentless criticism of Mayor Ford for his personal choice. Now, if that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is. These activists who demand society to affirm and support their ungodly lifestyles and personal preferences become very militant when others make personal choices that contradict the party line that LGBT activists force everybody else to follow. It seems that these days, their unofficial slogan is, “Support our campaign against bullying. If not, we’ll bully you until you do.” Read the rest of this entry

(HT: @Shinar_Squirrel)

Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today published an opinionated response to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler who seized upon Congressman Anthony Weiner entering “treatment” to make a point about Jesus Christ being the only answer for the problem of sin. Mohler tweeted the following on June 11, “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Grossman’s scurrilous opinion piece about Mohler began by describing his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at Jews like Weiner and other non-Christians.” That sounds rather scandalous, does it not? But if you remove her spurious histrionics about Jews it loses all its force. For instance, consider if Grossman had instead described his tweet as throwing “an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians.” But that risks representing Mohler and his tweet accurately—gasp!—which targeted Weiner as a person, not as a Jew. And in a subsequent blog post Mohler also points that out. “I never mentioned Judaism,” he writes. “Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation” (emphasis mine).

As she goes on to characterize Mohler’s tweet (in this and another article), notice how persistently Grossman harps on Jews and Weiner being Jewish:

• “… an evangelism tactic … aimed at people like Jews such as Weiner …”
• “What he told the Jewish congressman was …”
• “So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a Jewish person in crisis as a sermon springboard … Right?”
• “He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is Jewish …”
• “… a turn-or-burn message addressed to a Jewish person …”

The fact that Weiner is Jewish was never a relevant point in Mohler’s tweet. And if she were to give it even a moment’s thought Grossman ought to realize that. The relevant point was that Weiner as a person struggled with a particular sin and chose to seek “treatment” to make himself well, which can never work apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on behalf of all believers. She can make a big fuss about this person being Jewish or that one being Muslim but at the end of the day she has a battlefield full of straw men of her own making, none of them being relevant to Mohler’s gospel point which stands irrespective of the religion of this or that person, Weiner included. It is about people inescapably being sinners regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and so forth.

Consider the following rewrite and notice how her opinion piece loses just about all of its scandalous punch when the spurious histrionics about Jews is removed (the underlined text indicates where I made a change):

One of the nation’s top Southern Baptist leaders takes sexting-pol Anthony Weiner’s case as a chance to throw an evangelistic dig at people like Weiner and other non-Christians. … This reads as an evangelism tactic, riding in on the Weiner headlines but aimed at people like Weiner, Woods, and many others, such as Weiner’s wife, who hold different ideas about salvation, different approaches to atonement.

And a rewrite of her follow-up piece:

What he told the congressman was, “There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.” … So, Mohler wasn’t targeting Jews, he was using a person in crisis as a sermon springboard to preach to his known flock to return to traditional faith. Right? But he didn’t begin “Dear Christians…” He addressed his pitch to someone he knows is a sinner … Evangelism is Mohler’s job description: He is charged with preaching the Good News, as Christians believe it, to the world and using every vehicle he can, even the sad case of #Weinergate in Twitterspeak… So, it would be no surprise if many read a message that starts, “Dear Congressman Weiner,” as a turn-or-burn message addressed to a person in the public domain.

All of a sudden Weiner being Jewish is irrelevant—as it always was. With all of her spurious histrionics about Jews removed, all of a sudden Grossman is reporting about an evangelist addressing a sinner about the necessity of being in Christ in order to “make himself well” (which Weiner’s spokesman Risa Heller said his aim is). Apart from the sanctifying grace of Christ no “treatment” will save him from his carnality and sin. This goes for everyone, completely irrespective of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth.

References:

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 12). “Baptist to Jewish Weiner: Christ is the only ‘treatment’.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Grossman, Cathy L. (2011, June 15). “Baptist leader stands by ‘Christian love’ for Weiner.” Faith & Reason, USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/

Mohler, Albert (2011, June 14). “Theology, therapy, Twitter, and the scandal of the gospel.” AlbertMohler.com.
http://www.albertmohler.com

On Valentine’s Day, 2011, gay lobby group Australian Marriage Equality, in partnership with the progressive activist group, GetUp!, released a short video advertisement¹ promoting gay “marriage” in Australia. Predictably, they used the standard term employed by gay “marriage” advocates, “marriage equality”, serving the perception that there is nothing equal about the current legal status of marriage. While intentionally innocuous, the term “marriage equality” is nevertheless stuffed with worn-out and rebadged rhetoric: why oughtn’t two people who love each other be allowed to marry?; gender has nothing to do with marriage; its not fair that John and Jim can’t marry each other, but that Dean and Denise can.

Yawn. I’m getting sleepy already.

Yet the proud tag line on Australian Marriage Equality’s website² follows that same hum-drum line: “Marriage is about love and commitment, not your partner’s gender.”

Further, GetUp!³ state on their website for this campaign that “all love is equal and all relationships deserve recognition.”

Well, no. Not all (romantic) love is equal, and neither is marriage founded on love and commitment alone. Marriage is very much a gender-based institution no matter how much organizations like Australian Marriage Equality or GetUp! espouse the “love is all” card. Read the rest of this entry

I know I’ve asked this question before on my old blog, but I thought it would be a good idea to ask it again here in the interest of generating conversation from a different crowd. And being Easter it ties in nicely.

Eating meat on Good Friday? Is it blasphemous to eat red meat on Good Friday? Where did the vegetarian/fish policy come from?

After speaking to a Catholic colleague; the custom has was originally adopted by the early church (and since maintained by the Catholic Church) from the custom on the Jewish Sabbath. Not only is the Sabbath a no work day but is also a no meat day. And fish is not considered meat to the Jews.

My own thoughts were that there is no problem with eating meat on Good Friday. Looking at the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:10-11, 16-20

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.

Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.

To me this is Jesus lifting all the Jewish food restrictions and saying “Whats food got to do with anything, its just food. There are more important things to dwell on.”

If, on the other hand, having a meat ban on Good Friday leads you to reverent reflection and remembrance of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, then I don’t see any harm.

Earlier today, France has just put into effect a law banning the niqab and the burqa. This law was enacted about a month ago but has just been implemented now. It is the first in all of Europe, which is not surprising, given that France has the largest Muslim population in all of Europe (about 5 million of them at the very least).

Violations of this ban result in a fine of €150. Already, however, there are people within the Muslim community who are making efforts to undermine this law, such as Kenza Drider, who intends to travel from Avignon to Paris wearing a niqab. Another notable figure is Rachid Nekkaz, a tycoon who will be paying off the fines of the burqa law violators. So far, it seems that the French are keeping their word. Two women have already been arrested as a result of this burqa law.

So what are we supposed to make of all this? There are two ways of looking at the situation. The first way (which is the popular approach among those Liberal left and those who are steeped in political-correctness) is that this a violation of the French Muslims’ human rights. Funny since only 2000 women actually wear the veil. Also, if this was the case, then why do Muslims continue to immigrate in large droves to France? Truthfully, large sections of France have already been given over to them, as evidenced by the fact that there are now at least 751 no-go zones in France. Far from violating their rights, France has already bent over backwards to accommodate the Islamic population, and the latter seem to just want more and more.

The second way of looking at the situation is it aims to “protect women from Islamic fundamentalism and improve public security” (link). After all, what better symbol of Islam’s subjugation of women is there than the veil? Also, there is also the security concerns involved, since men have been known to disguise themselves with burqas to commit crimes (as in the case of two armed men in Sarajevo and one radical cleric in Pakistan). Finally, why the total face veil in the first place? For the vast majority of Muslim women in the west, the hijab is already sufficient, and it is only stricter interpretations of Islamic doctrine (the same stricter interpretations one would normally find groups such as the Wahabbis and Deobandis) that advocate going further than that.

Personally, I think the wearing of the veil does the exact opposite of what it’s alleged to do. Muslim apologists say it is for the sake of modesty and to divert attention away from the woman. Yet far from diverting attention away from them, it actually attracts the attention of many of those around them, especially when the women who wear the niqab/burqa is necessary. Also, France has made its move a little too late. The nation as a whole is already on the fast track to becoming a Muslim majority country (possibly the first to go in western Europe), and the burqa ban is just a small bump on the road for those who are advocating the implementation of Shari’a in France and the rest of Europe. Aside from the few instances where the police have successfully arrested offenders, I highly doubt that this law will be enforced with any degree of effectiveness.

In response to opposition of same-sex marriage, an often used retort from homosexual activists and their supporters is “Same-sex marriage will not affect you, so why not let homosexuals marry each other?”

Firstly, as Bill Muehlenburg wrote in his book “WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage”, the evidence shows that countries with pro-homosexual legislation and same-sex marriage have been a disaster for heterosexual marriage and the well-being of children. Consider Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, who has a doctorate in social anthropology from Harvard University, has documented how marriage and children have suffered there. In 2004 he wrote:

Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of firstborn children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend towards the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern – including gay marriage – is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was [already] increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birth rates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood is acceptable.

Later in 2006, Kurtz wrote:

Shifting to a broad ‘menu’ of experimental family forms may feel liberating to some, but it is really a recipe for thinning out society’s commitment to children. Each unconventional experiment reinforces the others, ultimately yielding a significantly less stable family regime. Which is to say, gay marriage undermines marriage.

Read the rest of this entry

The other night, 60 Minutes Australia ran a story on multiculturalism and focused on Islamic fundamentalism. See here for a transcript of the story. The story looked mainly at Islam in Britain and how a group of non-Muslims are fighting for the British way of life against the invasion of Islamic extremism. As evidence of this, 60 Minutes had some secret footage of an Islamic school in Birmingham which showed Muslim children being taught to hate anything non-Muslim.

This sentiment was also shown in the story to exist here in Australia where a similar story of Islamic extremism was told. The thing that got my attention was the response from a young Muslim woman Samah Hadid. Samah was Australia’s youth representative to the UN in 2010. What always seems to happen is that the media here in Australia will go to someone like Samah as a sample of the Islamic community here in Australia for their opinion. Her response to the presence of extremist Islamic ideology amongst the Muslim population was:

SAMAH HADID: I wouldn’t identify with that sort of ideology at all.

MICHAEL USHER: Would many Muslims identify with that?

SAMAH HADID: Absolutely not, not the ones that I know anyway. You know, there was a play about the Cronulla riots…

MICHAEL USHER: Samah Hadid is among the vast majority of Australian Muslims who embrace our social diversity and agree with the Federal Government that multiculturalism has been a stunning success here.

SAMAH HADID: I’d say I’m a product of multiculturalism and so I find it quite interesting when people say that multiculturalism has failed. The majority of young Muslims, Australian young Muslims, that I know do not care for political Islamic or Islamist ideology. They’re just going about their day-to-day existence, trying to contribute to their own professional fields, trying to, you know, make their communities a better place.

MICHAEL USHER: So they’re not out to force Islam on to everyone?

SAMAH HADID: Not the ones that I know and –

MICHAEL USHER: They’re not out to turn Australia into an Islamic state?

SAMAH HADID: Absolutely not. That’s really my representation of the majority of Australian Muslims that I know.

She then goes on to say at the end of the story:

SAMAH HADID: If we ever want to work towards a multiculturalism that works for everyone, we need to stamp out racism and we need to stake a stand on religious prejudices, but also take a stand on those who, you know, do peddle extremist views and say to them very clearly, “You do not represent us.”

While I would much prefer the ideology of Muslims like Samah to be the dominant Islamic ideology in this country – in any country for that matter – I do wonder how reflective her views are of the Islamic community. I don’t know the sample size of people she knows, but my concern is that this kind of reporting seems like a smokescreen designed to distract us from the real possibility that extreme Islam is present, and of considerable concern, in this country.

I also found her last statement quite interesting. The views of these extremist Islamic Muslims may not represent Samah, her friends or even the majority of the Muslim population, but are they representative of the Islamic religion? From my study of the Qur’an, there are ample texts to support “extremist” or “fundamentalist” ideology. So her statement is, perhaps, more revealing than she would have liked. It reveals how nominal her Islamic faith really is. The same is found in Christianity too. Nominal Christians, who associate with the religion but have really no idea of the tenets of that religion. In my opinion, nominal Christians are not really Christians at all and perhaps the same would apply to nominal Islamists.

Personally though, I would much rather be living next to a Muslim like Samah than a Muslim who actually knows and reads their Qur’an, and is committed to carrying out its precepts.

The Principal of a public school in my neck of the woods has tried to ban the word Easter from the Easter Hat Parade in the name of religious “tolerance.”

The story comes from today’s Daily Telegraph:

Bondi Public School principal Michael Jones wrote to parents about the decision, saying Easter was just one of many religious celebrations at this time of year.

“As we are an inclusive community which celebrates our diverse range of cultures and beliefs, I have not called it an Easter Hat parade,” Mr Jones wrote in the school’s latest newsletter.

“Many religious celebrations occur at this time of year but we want to include all students in any celebration at school. Teachers will talk to students about the different celebrations and the emphasis will be on tolerance and understanding.”

Sounds like a job for Mr Hankey the Christmas Poo. Perhaps he can come and hand out chocolate brown treats and sing songs about tolerance and love.

Or here’s something novel. They can get real about religious tolerance and teach children what real tolerance is by educating them about the religious view that grounds the holiday (and the parade) in the first place.

Here’s the thing. True tolerance is not about censoring particular points of view so as not to offend others. But is about respecting another person, even if you disagree with their view. Under the classical definition of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with them. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

But notice the irony. In attempting to promote this false brand of tolerance and understanding, Principal Jones must, by necessity, be “intolerant” of Easter.

It’s almost too obvious to have to point out: (1) It’s a hat parade. (2) It’s held at Easter time. (3) Ergo, it’s an Easter Hat Parade.

Thankfully, the Telegraph reports, there was a swift end to the insanity:

However the ruling on Friday’s fundraising event was overturned yesterday, after parents from the school in Sydney’s east expressed anger.

“This was done very quietly,” Helen Robson – who represented a group of outraged parents – said.

“Up until last month’s newsletter, these events were referred to as ‘Easter’ events.

“Without warning, the recent newsletter deleted all reference and children came home with news their Hats and Raffle tickets were not to be called ‘Easter’ anymore.”

Principal Jones could not be contacted yesterday.

Federation of Parents and Citizens Organisations Sharryn Brownlee said she was disappointed by the original decision to dump Easter.

“The Department of Education has a very clear direction, a very strong policy that Christian activities such as celebrating Easter and Christmas go ahead,” she said.

“These are long-held traditions. Categorically the parade should go ahead as an Easter function.”

Bill Muehlenberg also wrote briefly on this politically correct nonsense earlier today:

“… do you think for one moment this guy would ever even consider trying to ban something to do … with Aboriginal dreamtime spirituality? Not on your life buster. These secularist crusaders wouldn’t have the guts to try to do such a thing. But as always it is open season on Christianity.”

Check out his full article here.