On April 2, 2012, the Australian Senate closes invitations from the public on their opinion regarding the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’. This is not the first time the Senate has been requested to do so; the last time was back in 2009. Yet the political climate in Australia is markedly different now. In 2009, the Labor Government had as it’s official party policy to support marriage as man-woman only; likewise the Opposition Government. The Bill put forward to redefine marriage to “any two persons”, the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009, by the Greens (a progressive left party) was resoundly dismissed. Yet this time round, we have a Labor Government who altered their party platform late last year to support same-sex ‘marriage’ and we have three bills being reviewed by the Senate to amend the Marriage Act 1961. One of the those bills is again from the Greens: the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2010. It’s the latter bill that presents the most radical of change to the current definition of marriage in Australia. And its to that bill that I’ve composed the following submission:

Senate
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senate,

Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

I write to the Senate Inquiry Committee to voice my opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 and to lend my support of traditional man-woman marriage. I note my reasons in the following paragraphs, providing supporting references where appropriate.

Full equality already exists under current law

Marriage, for all Australian constituents, is an institution in which there already exists a full equality under the law; there is none to whom the Marriage Act 1961 unjustly discriminates. In order for anyone to marry, all must pass the prescribed criteria: 1. Be of marriageable age; 2. Be not already married; 3. Must not marry a close blood relative, and; 4. Must marry a member of the opposite sex. All Australians, irrespective of their sexual identity, are expected to meet these criterions; there is no inequality of law in their application to either the homosexual or the heterosexual. Both the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same restrictions.

While this response may be unsatisfactory to many homosexuals, it must be noted that the existing criterion for marriage in Australia does not require desire or love between the two being married. Although love and desire are important to the marital union, it is not required by law, but assumed. Government does not regard desire as key to the marital union because such unions encompass not only love but also provide a unique social good¹.
Read the rest of this entry

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

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.

According to the Associated Press and Elizabeth Prann from FoxNews.com, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama took “more than two days … to apologize for controversial remarks he made during a Martin Luther King Day speech.” So what did the governor say during his speech that was so terrible he needed to apologize for it?

There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit. But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.

1. Both the Associated Press and Prann said this comment “condemned the beliefs of non-Christians,” an indictment so irrational it staggers the mind. There is absolutely nothing in Bentley’s comment that condemns anyone of anything. It is a theological matter of fact in Christianity that those who reject Christ are not the brothers and sisters of those who are in Christ. There is an important and substantive distinction in the New Testament between someone who is your neighbor and someone who is your brother or sister, the latter being a matter of adoption into God’s family.

2. They also criticized Bentley for telling “the crowd he is color blind. But just minutes later he went on to say [that] if they don’t have the same ‘daddy’ then they are not brothers and sisters.” Indeed. But now I have a question for you remarkable examples of irrationality: what does the one have to do with the other? Are you so delusional as to also think Bentley’s statement had something to do with race? You do realize that the expression “color blind” is a racial point, right? And that being a brother or sister in Christ is not a racial point but a theological one? No, of course you don’t, because that would require rationality and accuracy, which is not as sensational.

3. Joey Kennedy with the Birmingham News, who followed the reaction to Bentley’s remarks, had this to say: “In the city and the state there are segments of the population who were offended, and others said it was good what he said.” Thank you for such an informative piece of reporting. Kennedy went on to say, “He is not a civilian anymore, he is not a private person anymore. He is the governor of Alabama every day, twenty-four hours a day.” I am sure Captain Obvious will have more to reveal in the coming days that is just as informative.

4. I especially enjoyed how Kennedy decided that context is irrelevant to content. The fact that Bentley was speaking at the King Memorial Baptist Church as a Christian (he is also a Sunday school teacher and deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa) about his Christian convictions “doesn’t matter,” Kennedy tells us. It might occur to you to ask Kennedy if he was in attendance at King Memorial Baptist Church that day, as Bentley delivered his speech, to know what the point being made was, but you have to remember that Kennedy thinks context “doesn’t matter” with regard to what Bentley meant and whether or not it was appropriate. The legacy of Martin Luther King was anything but exclusionary, he said, ignoring the fact that Bentley described himself as governor of “all of Alabama—Democrat, Republican, and independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor,” and Bentley’s director of communications Rebekah Mason who wrote to Fox News, “The governor had intended no offense by his remarks. He is the governor of all the people, Christians non-Christians alike.” Doesn’t matter.

5. William Nigut, a regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, thinks that an apology does not go far enough. “An apology is only meaningful if it is consistent with a sincere understanding of what a person has done wrong,” he said, which assumes that Bentley did something wrong. He wants to know Bentley realizes his error, “that we are all brothers and sisters.” Someone needs to explain to Nigut that Bentley must first do something wrong before he can realize it. And not to put too fine a point on it, but it is Nigut who is wrong; we are not all brothers and sisters, for we do not all have the same parent either genetically or theologically.

6. The executive director of the First Amendment Center, Gene Policinski, said that Bentley needs to keep in mind that his office represents all faiths—which is complete hogwash. The governor’s office does not represent any faith whatsoever; it represents the executive branch of the state’s government, its powers and interests, which has nothing to do with any religious faith. His office governs the state in which people of diverse faiths reside; it does not represent any faith, much less all faiths. It is a little strange to think the executive director of the First Amendment Center, of all things, would need to brush up on his civics education.

7. Policinski also suggested “there is an implication when a particular faith receives favorable or disfavorable treatment.” That may be, but where did the Alabama state governor’s office give a particular faith favorable treatment? Nowhere.

Earlier this afternoon Bentley made a public apology:

If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

No, sir, do not apologize—for you have nothing to apologize for. If someone felt offended by your comment, then that is their problem, not yours. It is absolutely impossible to avoid offending someone somewhere of something. If offending people is not allowed, then speaking is not allowed. Consider for example the idea that your apology itself offends a lot people—like a great many Christians. Now what are you to do? Are you to apologize for the offending apology? Then what of those who were originally offended? Will they not be offended that you now apologized for the offending apology?

You know why it is okay to offend Christians? Because we are neither that retarded nor that insecure. Unlike so many others out there, we are rational grown-ups.

Since Eugene Robinson does not get the driving force behind the Tea Party movement, he decided that it must be racism—thus proving that he truly does not get it!

In an article for the Washington Post Writer’s Group published at RealClearPolitics.com 2 November 2010, Robinson attempted to demonstrate how the driving force behind the Tea Party movement must be latent racism.

Almost immediately after the inauguration of the first African-American president, Robinson writes, there arose an “overwhelmingly white and lavishly funded” national movement which targeted every initiative of that president, while breathing new life into “the discredited and moribund” Republican party—a series of events that he says is no mere coincidence. What Robinson seems oblivious to, ironically, is the racism in his very own article, which he injects from the very first paragraph. Take notice that he described both the president and the Tea Party movement in terms of race, as if that is somehow relevant. I guess to Robinson it is, which is fine albeit disappointing; but it is certainly irresponsible of him to project that onto others.

Tea Party activists and supporters are united in their cry for taking their government back, he rightly observes. But then he baits the reader by asking the question, “Take it back from whom?” This simply proves his confused ignorance, since it is not a ‘whom’ that they want to take government back from, but rather a ‘what’—namely, a titanic and ever-expanding centralized government, which many in the Tea Party movement described pejoratively as the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil. The problem is not a specific person but a political administration and its agenda, which occupied not just the White House but also both houses of Congress. That Robinson thinks it is a ‘whom’ the Tea Party movement is targeting just proves that he truly does not understand it.

He also refers to the comment from Mike Huckabee about returning government to the American people and then asks, “Who’s in possession of the government right now, if not the American people?” And the answer remains the same: the Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration in Washington that was defying the Constitution and refusing to listen to Americans. Once again, that is not a ‘whom’ but rather a ‘what’ and in the shaking fist of so many Tea Party activists and supporters was the contractual “consent of the governed” that those elected officials had sworn under oath to support and defend, the U.S. Constitution. If the federal government pursues its own agenda while ignoring the outcry of its citizens and brazenly overreaching its enumerated powers, then indeed the government is not in possession of the American people. It is creeping tyranny.

These issues and more certainly were—and are—being articulated and protested by so many in the Tea Party movement loud and clear in town hall meetings, rallies, and campaigns. Is there a problem with lobbyists and special interest groups? Obviously, and the Tea Party is very upset about that. However, the more egregious problem is who Washington is not listening to: the American people.

After issuing a typical canard about President Bush, Robinson finally wonders why it was only now that people felt “somehow the government had been seized or usurped” by hands not belonging to the American people. “Why,” he asks, “would this concern about oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now?” It is simply incredible that Robinson could be so out of touch as to pose this question, with the history of this movement not only so readily available but with an answer so clearly obvious. This concern became so acute now because that was the progression of its growth. While its meager, scattered roots can be traced back three or four years ago to the libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, the voices started becoming more numerous under the final years of the Bush administration and its wasteful spending, but rose to a deafening crescendo under the Obama administration because it escalated federal spending to dizzying levels. From the 2006 midterms to 2010, the House of Representatives under Speaker Pelosi committed to five trillion dollars in deficit spending, three trillion of which was under the Obama administration. But in addition to skyrocketing national debt and federal budget deficit, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis also put together a major national health care bill in defiance of the growing outcry throughout the states to such unconstitutional overreaches of the federal government, e.g., individual health care mandate. Add to that the tax hikes, including letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011, and it is frankly obvious why the Tea Party movement organically coalesced into the remarkable powerhouse it turned into and why this concern about oppressive, intrusive government became so acute now…

…and why a Republican tsunami swept the nation’s political map this week.

“I have to wonder what it is about Obama,” Robinson pondered, “that provokes and sustains all this tea party ire.” A slightly less myopic view of the American political landscape and what the Tea Party is actually protesting very clearly and loudly will help enlighten Robinson to see that it was not about Obama as a person but about his administration and its dizzying tax-and-spend socialist experiment supported by the Democrat majority in both chambers of Congress; i.e., the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis. It had nothing to do with Obama as the first African-American president. It is patently absurd to think that all the Tea Party activists and supporters would have been just fine with skyrocketing national debt and federal budget deficit and unconstitutional overreaches of the federal government if the president had only been white.

If you are truly concerned about racism, sir, you should start paying closer attention to some of the things that President Obama says, with particular interest in his speeches and interviews when he was stumping for Democrat candidates this past midterm.

Update: 4/Nov/2010

Adding insult to injury, frequent Tea Party speaker Lisa Fritsch from Project 21 had the following to say about the 2010 midterm election results, further confirming my point in this article—and from a black woman:

An explosion of American enthusiasm and a return of the government to the American people was witnessed last night. Though there were a few races where conservatives came up short, the momentum for conservative values and principles cannot be denied. The tea party has translated protest into power. And we are just getting started restoring our rights and founding principles to America.

Would Robinson suggest that Fritsch has a latent racism against black people? (Well, probably; he could suggest she suffers from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, similar to how Charlie Crist accused Marco Rubio of turning his back on his Hispanic family.)

Is there anything more hilarious and ironic than liberals embarrassing themselves over Christine O’Donnell?

In a recent debate with the bearded Marxist Chris Coons at Widener University Law School in Wilmington, Delaware, conservative Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell was engaging the issue of “the overreaching arm of the federal government getting into the business of the local communities,” which she predicated on a question for Coons about teaching both evolution and intelligent design in public schools.

When Coons asked O’Donnell for her view on evolution, she tried to explain for him what a completely irrelevant issue that is. And she is quite correct, for she is not seeking a job teaching evolution, but rather to represent the state of Delaware in the U.S. Senate; the qualifications for that job do not include a specific view on either evolution or creation (U.S. Const. art. I, § 3). While O’Donnell clearly realizes this, Coons the attorney does not seem to.

“I believe churches have the absolute right to believe whatever religious doctrine they wish to,” Coons said, “but you cannot impose—”

“And do local schools have the right to teach that?” O’Donnell asked.

“They do not,” Coons answered.

“Local school do not have the right to teach what they feel—” she began, taken aback.

Coons cut her off. “They do not.”

O’Donnell seemed a little astonished that Coons walked straight into that one with such bold audacity, perhaps not expecting it to be so easy. “Well, there you go,” she said. “Do you want a Senator who’s going to impose his beliefs—”

Interrupting her, Coons emphasized, “Religious doctrine does not belong in our public schools.”

“Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools!” O’Donnell remarked.

“Right,” Coons nodded.

“I’m saying that if the local community wants to teach the theory of evolution, it’s up to the school board to decide,” she said. “But when I made those remarks it was because the school board wanted to also teach the theory of intelligent design and the government said that they could not. You have just stated that you will impose your will over the local school district, and that is a blatant violation of our Constitution.”

She should have received a strong applause at this point because she is absolutely correct, for the education curriculum of public schools within the several states does not fall under any of the enumerated powers granted to the United States Congress. All powers not delegated and enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the several states and the people, according to the Tenth Amendment. What Coons represented in his answer is precisely the overreaching of federal government that O’Donnell was talking about; i.e., Congress has no authority over what this or that state school board chooses to teach in their public schools. That is a state and local issue, not a federal one.

So Coons tried shifting the argument to the issue of the First Amendment, asserting that one of the indispensable founding principles “is the separation of church and state.” O’Donnell, quite astutely, turned and asked him, “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” The sudden burst of laughter from the audience and later the media proves that they missed the powerful salience of her question. Utterly nowhere in the Constitution is there any separation of church and state, as construed in Coons’ argument. When he said the First Amendment “establishes a separation” he revealed that he is the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution, not O’Donnell. The concept of separation of church and state was something that was established by the courts, not the Constitution, beginning with Justice Hugo L. Black in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

But there is an even more significant issue that completely escapes Coons, the audience in that debate, liberals, and the media: the First Amendment of the Constitution imposes a limitation on the federal government—not on state or local governments. This gets right back to the whole point that O’Donnell was raising in the first place against Coons, who as a Senator would happily impose the will of Congress over state and local governments not only outside the enumerated powers delegated by the states to Congress but in defiance of the very separation he referred to! How can anyone fail to notice that the First Amendment begins with the phrase, “Congress shall make no laws…”? Does Coons not recognize that this includes the Senate? If there is a wall of separation inherent in the First Amendment, it is one that exists between the federal government on one side with state and local governments on the other, prohibiting the sort of reach Coons suggested.

By both the First and Tenth Amendment, Coons’s argument was an epic fail. As Ronald Reagan said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Disclaimer: The Aristophrenium does not endorse every single statement that is made by the producer(s) of this video. For instance, it is claimed that “other religious books” have contradictions in them. We do not believe that the Bible has any real contradictions in it and that any apparent contradictions can be explained and harmonized using sound Biblical exegesis. That aside, though, this video does provide good information regarding Islamic sharia law and what the Qur’an says regarding jihad, tolerance and deception. Please pass the information on.

As for those who want the primary sources, here are various quotes from the Qur’an and hadiths (as well as a quote from Ibn Kathir’s commentary) on jihad, sharia and taqiyyah:

Read the rest of this entry

This Saturday the 21st of August 2010 is the Australian Federal Election. On this day Australia votes for who they want to run the country for the next three years. It is similar in a way to the U.S. Presidential election in that we too have only two parties that have any chance of winning the election. They also have similar left and right leanings as in the U.S. In Australia they are called the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. In comparison some might say that the Australian Labor Party is similar to the Democrats in the U.S. while the Liberal Party is similar to the Republicans when it comes to conservative policy. In addition there are some minor parties who align themselves with the major parties and form a sort of coalition for a stronger balance of power.

Ahead of this year’s election the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has provided an excellent summary of the positions of various parties on issues that may be of significant interest to Christian voters. Some of the questions they pose are not likely to be prominently discussed in the wider election coverage. Issues such as abortion, marriage, classification standards, sexualisation of children, religious freedom and chaplaincy, to name a few.

The results of the ACL’s questionnaire can be found here.

One thing I did note with interest was that the Greens Party regularly declined to answer many of the questions – even on the issue of marriage, despite recent unsuccessful attempts to destroy this institution with a Bill that would modify the Marriage Act. I believe many would agree that the Greens are the most Anti-Christian of the more prominent political parties. So perhaps their reluctance in answering many of these questions is due to their concern over losing the Christian vote?

While we will be electing a party to run the country, we will also in effect be voting for Australia’s leader. Sometimes a persons opinion of the would-be Prime Minister can have a large influence in determining a persons vote, regardless of how they feel about party policy. The religious nature of each candidate could be a factor in this election. We have Julia Gillard (Labor) – who will incidentally become our first officially elected female Prime Minister should Labor be returned to power. She currently holds the office of Prime Minister due to a Party coup where she controversially deposed the previous leader. Oh, she is also a confessed atheist. On the opposite side we have Tony Abbott (Liberal) who is a confessed Catholic.

However it turns out, it will be an interesting election. And one that some will believe provides a glimpse into the general direction Australia is heading from a religious perspective. Are we heading down the path of atheism or theism? Some will no doubt believe – perhaps with good reason – that the answer to that question was clear long before Julia Gillard ever stood for Office.

Mark Lamprecht wrote a curious article over at HereIBlog questioning how Christians should react to the building of an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero. And I deem that article “curious” because it largely escapes me how this calls for an internal reflection by Christians. In the final analysis, the matter is a political issue. While there may be something to be said about us being consistent with our Christian faith when it comes to engaging political issues—how we evaluate some legislation, who we consider voting for in elections, how we conduct ourselves in political office, etc.—I really don’t see how the Ground Zero Mosque poses a challenge for Christians and our biblical convictions. Unless, of course, that is precisely what Lamprecht intended with his question; that as followers of Christ we should be careful that we remain consistent with the gospel and our faith as we engage this controversial political issue.

Lamprecht said that his gut reaction was basically, “No way!” But then he walks that reaction back a little, suggesting that it may not be the best reaction. Okay, but why not? What was wrong about that gut reaction—one that is shared by several million Christians all over the United States and beyond? What issue of faith or doctrine does that reaction conflict with, thereby calling for his restraint and perhaps ours?

He does not cite any. Rather, he invokes the freedom of religious exercise protected by the Constitution, tempering the substance of his attitude by that. I have two problems with this. First, as Christians our orthopraxic ‘gut check’ is not predicated on human laws and legal documents. When it comes to tempering our attitude and behavior, the governing authority is the Word of God. In other words, if there is something not quite right about that reaction, we want to see the case made on Scriptures, we want to see something in the Bible which says that reaction is a bit off. Second, the controversial issue of the Ground Zero Mosque does not have anything to do with freedom of religion at any rate. Nobody is saying, “You cannot build a mosque in New York.” As a matter of fact, New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques. Rather, what people are saying is, “You should not build a mosque there in New York.” I have never heard anyone deny Muslims their right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. They most certainly do have that right. To invoke the vocabulary used by the President on this, the conversation is not about the ‘right’ but rather about the ‘wisdom’. When people (like New York City mayor Michael Boomberg) cite the First Amendment they are obscuring the issue with an irrelevant red herring.

Yes, they can build a mosque near Ground Zero; that is their right. No, they should not build a mosque there; that is not wise. And the reasons for why it is not wise are quite numerous, but I do not wish to explore them right now. When Christians react with a loud and strong “No way!” to the idea, it is neither wrong nor inappropriate; they are not in conflict with biblical orthopraxy, nor are they denying anybody their freedoms under the Constitution, for the argument is that the Ground Zero Mosque shouldn’t be built there, which is very different from arguing that it can’t be built there.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has worked hard to portray himself as a ‘bridge-builder’ in the eyes of the American public and the interfaith community, and the location being so close to Ground Zero “was precisely a key selling point” for him, as reported by Ralph Blumenthal with the New York Times. Abdul Rauf wants a presence that close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell” because he thinks it will send “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” However, I have got a message for Abdul Rauf: when the majority of the American public is opposed to the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, and you proceed with your construction plans in defiance of them, you are not building any bridges. As Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah from the Muslim Canadian Congress wrote for the Ottawa Citizen, “As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to soothe the pain.”