Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Multiculturalism. Show all posts

Thursday, March 31, 2016

THE IMPENDING DEATH OF THE WEST





Western Europe is beginning to acknowledge that Islam can be a problem. Editor of MercatorNet Michael Cook wrote:

  • Prime Minister David Cameron described the fight against “this poisonous ideology” as “one of the great struggles of our generation.” (Salvo Magazine, Spring 2016, 48)
Recently Cameron reasoned:

  • Do we close our eyes, put our kid gloves on and just hope that our values will somehow endure in the end? Or do we get out there and make the case for those values, defend them with all that we’ve got and resolve to win the battle of ideas all over again?
  • In the past, I believe governments made the wrong choice. Whether in the face of Islamist or neo-Nazi extremism, we were too tolerant of intolerance, too afraid to cause offense. We seemed to lack the strength and resolve to stand up for what is right, even when the damage being done by extremists was all too clear.
How true, but does Cameron go far enough? After all, what is right for the Muslim is not necessarily “what is right” for the UK. I think that Cook’s analysis is quite illuminating:

  • Democracy and the rule of law are the hard-won glories of Western culture, but they don’t appeal to the existential passions of young people trying to shape a meaning for their lives. ISIS recruits are being promised suffering, sacrifice, and eternal glory. To them, Cameron’s words must sound like the huffing of a latter-day Colonel Blimp. (46)
Sadly, even for many of the non-Muslim English, Cameron’s appeal is nothing more than cultural imperialism. On March 28, 2016, The Telegraph reported:

  • Teaching children fundamental British values is an act of “cultural supremacism”, teachers have said, as members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) vote to replace the concept with one that includes “international rights”.
  • However, teachers argue “fundamental British values” set an “inherent cultural supremacism, particularly in the context of multicultural schools and the wider picture of migration”.
These remarks make it obvious that more is needed than the preaching of the traditional principles of the UK. Instead, the West needs to argue that its system of justice and morality represents the truth, and the Islamic system represents falsehood. If we are unwilling to do this, then we are unwilling to stand against the insipient onslaught of Islam. If we do not have an adequate rationale for our culture, it will eventually be destroyed, and we see this happening now.

What is an adequate rationale? Clearly, tradition alone is no more than “cultural supremacism.” A pragmatic defense of our traditions is not adequate, especially in light of the pragmatic carrot offered by Islam of a glorious afterlife with 70 virgins, all your own.

Instead, pragmatism must embrace truth! Why do we believe in equal rights? Well, it might work for us, but the Muslim is convinced that subjugation of all non-Muslims under the sharia is far better. How do we argue against what they believe? By showing them that they are wrong! How? By demonstrating that the Bible is truth and the Koran is not, and that their system of justice is not!  For example, we are all created in the image of God, and this makes us all, not just Muslims, precious in God’s sight:

  • And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:5-6 quoting 1:26-27; ESV)
This means that we cannot behead others because they do not share our faith; nor can we turn them into sex-slaves.

Is such a conflict with Islam distasteful? Of course, but living (or dying) under sharia will be far more distasteful. But how can we pin our hope on the God of the Bible if we do not believe in it or even in God? Perhaps believing is not the obstacle that we think it is. As Jesus had promised:

  • “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:7-11)
I, among many others, have found His words to be true!

Thursday, November 19, 2015

FAVORING CHRISTIAN REFUGEES AND THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE CHURCH





At the G20 summit, President Obama stated:  

  • “When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”
However, Pam Geller countered:

  • But it is Obama who is shameful. He’s the one who has applied a religious test to migrants. He has refused Christians seeking refuge from jihad genocide. He has refused to meet with Middle Eastern Christian leaders. They are the true victims of the jihadi wars.
  • “Discrimination: 2,098 Syrian Muslim Refugees Allowed Into America, Only 53 Christians,” (John Nolte, Breitbart News, November 17, 2015)
Geller adds that only 53 Christian Syrian refugees have been allowed in since 2011. In light of this, it is Obama who is showing favoritism. Meanwhile, it is the Christians who are suffering the worst victimization.

  • Syrian Christians have been singled out for the worst kind of persecution under ISIS, including mass beheadings that do not discriminate against innocent women and even small children.
Geller adds that:       

  • Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.
  • Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
While Obama claims that showing preference for Christians is “not who we are,” this is what we have always been. The US has always discriminated in terms of who we accept into the country.

Meanwhile, Geller adds that:

  • The F.B.I. has already admitted that it cannot adequately vet these refuges, and ISIS has promised to use the Syrian refugee process as a means to infiltrate the West with terrorists. Early reports indicate that two of the gunmen that hit Paris Friday snuck in through the refugee program.

It is therefore entirely irresponsible to bring in Muslim refugees who, in light of both religion and history, will practice Jihad on their adoptive country. According to the Koran, immigration is also a means of Jihad for the Muslim:

  • He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah [Jihad], will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies. (Koran 4:100-101) 
Meanwhile, Obama fails to acknowledge that Christian refugees will not cut off heads or bring down buildings or try to impose their ways on our nation. Instead, it is the Christians who are likely to make the most positive adjustment and contributions to the US. And so why shouldn’t this be a consideration!

Meanwhile, there are other possible humanitarian responses to the Muslim refugees. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said:

·       "It's absurd — just think about it, when the Germans say they will spend billions on providing for the new arrivals instead of giving the money to the countries around the crisis zone, where they [migrants] should be stopped in the first place. It would be better for everyone. They wouldn't come here. It would cost less. And our approach couldn't be called into question morally either."

However, in September, France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve attacked the idea of preferring Christian refugees:

·       "I really don't understand this distinction," Cazeneuve said. "I condemn it, and I think it's dreadful. A whole series of minorities are being persecuted in the situation in Syria.”

How many more Paris attacks will be necessary for these multicultural zealots to rethink their position! Even now, they admit that they have lost control of the situation.

However, it is not them alone who need to do some re-thinking. Seeker-sensitive churches, springing up in metropolitan areas, also think it illegitimate to favor Christian refugees. Often, they will not even single out Christian refugees for prayer.

However, loving their brethren is to take preference over all other expressions of Christian love (Galatians 6:10). Even Jesus showed favoritism, identifying so closely with His Brethren that when they suffered, He too suffered:

·        “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:40)

For Jesus, the way to love the world and to draw them to the light was to demonstrate the light of our love for our brethren:

·       "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

·       "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)

The best way to love the world is to start by loving our own. Although such a conclusion is politically distasteful to younger Christians, it will not be so if we would only think about it for a bit. The best way to love our children is to love our spouse, which would create a loving family environment. Likewise, the best way to love our community is to love our children, thereby raising responsible and loving neighbors.

This doesn’t mean that we do not love our neighbor’s children. However, to put their welfare above that of our own children will create bitterness and, eventually, brokenness. Such “love” will also be seen as hypocritical. To care for my neighbor’s wife as I do my own can only bring forth bad results.

To bring in dangerous Muslim refugees who will murder, according to their religion and for the sake of imposing their Caliphate, will also engender bitterness and dissolution.

To ignore these very apparent realities will bring great disrepute on the church. Instead, we are to provide light and leadership and not a pathetic pandering to the prevailing culture.

In light of this, giving must be performed with great discretion and wisdom. It must be conducted in a way that doesn’t endanger the innocent. Bringing in tens of thousands of Muslims into the USA is a sure prescription for violence, and it is antithetical to Christian love. Instead, our hearts must go out first of all to the Christian refugees - the ones who will make a positive adjustment to the West - without forgetting charity to others.

Friday, May 16, 2014

An Evolving Unitive Pluralism




Violence can result from different religions making different competing claims. Religious pluralists are therefore seeking a new way – a common unifying language or Esperanto - drawing from the common truths of the other religions. They insist that we can no longer thrive with an “us vs. them” mentality. Instead, we must find common ground upon which to build unity and sharing.

For the pluralist, there can be no exclusive truth. The fact of the existence of a multitude of world-class religions means that all are merely grasping after the truth. In No Other Name: A Critical Study of Christian Attitudes toward the World Religions, Paul F. Knitter wrote:

  • The new perception of religious pluralism is pushing our cultural consciousness toward the simple but profound insight that there is no one and only way.

Why not? Disagreement, even if widespread, does not mean that there isn’t a single truth. Knitter has made an insupportable claim. Certainly, he wouldn’t tell scientists or historians that “there is no one and only way,” simply because they might entertain a number of different theories and solutions.

The same is true regarding the resurrection, for example. Either it happened or it didn’t. Simply because historians disagree, we shouldn’t conclude that “there is no one and only way” or truth!

Interestingly, even Knitter doesn’t proceed as if “there is no one and only way.” Instead, he suggests that there is a way – a “unitive pluralism”:

  • And yet our new awareness of pluralism also makes us recognize that even though there can be no one way, even though there will always be many, nevertheless the "many" cannot simply exist as many. We feel that the many cannot exist in splendid isolation, yawning at each other in a kind of lazy, indifferent tolerance. Nor can they exist in angry opposition, confronting each other down the barrels of their guns or from behind the launch pads of their missiles. Somehow, they must meet each other and relate to each other, not in order to obliterate or absorb each other but to learn from and help each other.

Although Knitter sets forth the noble goal of the different faiths working together, he too violates his own principle: “there is no one and only way.” Evidently, he believes that he is right and every other religion is wrong for insisting that their way is the correct way. However, Knitter doesn’t seem to realize that he is doing the same thing by adding a new religion to the mix. However, his is an evolutionary religion:

  • The world and everything in it is evolutionary or in process. The catch phrase is that we are not in a state of being but in a state, or better a process, of becoming. Nothing in the world is simply given, or prefabricated, merely to be assembled according to a predetermined plan.

Even though Knitter’s solution is vague and uncertain, it is still another solution squeezing its way into an already crowded market.

However, it seems that he has introduced an additional problem. If everything is in process, and therefore the dawning of the truth has not yet arrived, how then should we live? Should we love? Who knows! The truth has not yet arrived to inform us of what to do.

And why even place any hope in this “truth” if it is not the product of a higher “predetermined plan” – if its origin is simply mindless evolution and not the product a greater wisdom and plan? However, such a “hope” is highly acceptable in educated circles.

Ironically, it is because I believe that there is one way – the way of Christ – that I endeavor to love others and to put their needs above my own, even as I falter terribly in this. However, it is my confidence in Christ that keeps me focused.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Islam is Proving Western Multiculturalism Wrong






Scholar and writer, Raymond Ibrahim, has written persuasively about the degradation and slaughter of Christians under Islam:

·       From one end of the Muslim world to another, Christians are suffering under the return of Sharia…Whenever Muslims are in power or getting more power, churches are outlawed, burned or bombed, while Bibles and crucifixes are confiscated and destroyed. Freedom of speech – to speak positively of Christianity or critically of Islam – is denied, often on pain of death…Christian women and children are routinely abducted, raped, and forced to convert to Islam. (Crucified Again, 8)

Why is this happening? Ibrahim writes:

·       Islamic doctrines unequivocally create hostility toward Christians… Muslims around the world are quite deliberately enforcing the provisions of Sharia law against Christian worship, Christian evangelism, freedom of speech, and even freedom of conscience. But Christians also suffer violence at the hands of Muslims. (157)

Laws regarding apostasy from Islam are one example. Ibrahim cites Samuel M. Zwemer’s 1916 book Law of Apostasy in Islam:

·       The law of apostasy… is not a dead letter. It is known to all Muslims from their youth up, if not in its detail of legal penalties, yet in its power to producing an attitude bitterly hostile toward converts to Christianity. What else could such a law produce except a fanatic attitude toward all who are not Muslims? The more Muhammadan a country or a community, the more does it despise the Christian. (159)

This hatred has been embodied by Islamic rituals. Ibrahim cites Travels in Arabian Deserta by C.M. Doughty, a British writer:

·       Arabia’s Muslims would, circumambulating around the Ka’ba, supplicate Allah to “curse and destroy” the Jews and Christians.

Ibrahim, citing a present-day chant, argues that this practice remains unchanged:

·       O Allah vanquish the unjust Christians and the criminal Jews, the unjust traitors; strike them with your wrath; drape them with endless despair, unrelenting pain and unremitting ailment; fill their lives with sorrow and pain and end their lives in humiliation and oppression; inflict your tortures and punishments upon the unjust Christians and criminal Jews. This is our supplication, Allah; grant us our request! (159)

It is not surprising that, all around the world, Muslims act in accordance with these sentiments. Ibrahim quotes Marco Polo (13th century) to demonstrate that these same sentiments have always been part of Islam, pre-dating colonialism:

·       “The inhabitants [of the Arabian Peninsula] are all Saracens [Muslims], and utterly detest the Christians.”

These sentiments are also expressed in Islamic education. Ibrahim cites Arabist E.W. Lane who traveled Egypt in 1820:

·       “Children in Egypt are often taught, at school, a regular set of curses to denounce upon the persons and property of Christians, Jews, and all other unbelievers in the religion of Muhammad.” (161)

Ibrahim shows that, even today, these beliefs and practices are promoted in Islamic textbooks:

·       In October 2012, the Daily Beast reported how the Saudi education system continues to indoctrinate children with hatred and incitement, especially against Christians and Jews, despite Saudi promises to reform their textbooks. For example, a ninth-grade textbook published by the Ministry of Education states, “The Jews and the Christians are enemies of the believers, and they cannot approve of Muslims.” An eighth-grade textbook says, “The Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians.”… Islam’s clerics remind authorities that these are teachings of Islam and that to suppress them is to suppress Islam – and to be declared apostate rulers. (162)

No wonder Saudis have done nothing about these textbooks. However, the same phenomenon is occurring in this country among the “moderates.” Ibrahim writes:

·       Fox reported that “one such school outside Washington, D.C., uses textbooks teaching 11th graders that ‘the day of Judgment can’t come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews.’ … Americans generally assume Islamic hate teaching resided ‘out there’ – in Cairo or Riyadh. (162)

It is therefore no surprise that the level of violence against Jews is skyrocketing in the West, especially around sizable Islamic populations. It is also no surprise that even the educated Muslim promotes terrorism.

Several years ago, mainstream media portrayed local opposition to the building of a mosque in Tennessee as bigots. The media also presented hand-picked gentle peace-loving Muslims as representatives of the embattled Islamic community. However, in April, a very different side of this mosque was revealed:

·       Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, a Memphis Imam based in Tennessee, preaches openly about what Islam truly is. He makes no bones about thinking that anyone other than a Muslim doesn’t deserve anything and are less than Muslims. In fact, part of Yasir Qadhi’s preaching includes rhetoric that says non-Muslims lives are forfeit and their property is legal for Muslims to take in jihad, (and this would include women as sex slaves) Recently Yasir Qadhi said that “Jews and Christians filthy, their lives and property can be taken in jihad by the Muslims.”  Yasir Qadhi is not only a Memphis Imam, but is also the Dean of Academic Affairs at the Al-Maghrib Institute. He is a hafiz (has memorized the Qur’an) and he has an M.A. in the Islamic Creed and a B.A. in Islamic Sciences from Islamic University of Medina, as well as a master’s and a doctorate in Islamic Studies from Yale. 

According to Ibrahim, this is not an anomaly. Instead, he argues that the more a Muslim becomes trained in Islamic writings, the more radicalized they become. Pakistan is a country rich in Madrassas but poor in tolerance for non-Muslims:

·       A November 2011 report from the U.S. Commission of International Religious Freedom demonstrates that Pakistani school textbooks promote intolerance for Christians, Hindus, and all non-Muslims, and that most school teachers view non-Muslim minorities as “enemies of Islam”: “Religious minorities are often portrayed as inferior or second-class citizens who have been granted limited rights and privileges by generous Pakistani Muslims, for which they should be grateful.” (163)

This second-class status characterizes non-Muslims in the entire Islamic world, even in those countries that have secular constitutions. Ibrahim presents the case of Turkey:

·       In February 2012 the Turkish Association of Protestant academics Churchs’ annual Report on Human Rights Violations noted, “Christians in Turkey continue to suffer attacks from private citizens, discrimination by lower-level government officials and vilification in both school textbooks and news media.” … Despite promising to reform its school textbooks, Turkey’s [now Islamic] Ministry of Education made no changes… “In fact, the negative and slanderous portrayal of Assyrians [Christian] has increased.” (163)

This is not surprising. Not only are these negative characterizations endemic to Islam’s holy books, but Islam will tolerate no criticism or reform. Ibrahim cites the example of the Turkish genocide against their Armenian Christians, which they still refuse to admit:

·       Most objective historians agree that about 1.5 million Christian Armenians were systematically slaughtered during World War I in a deliberate policy of genocide ordered by the Ottoman government. (164)

If these horrors are merely anomalies in the distant past, and if Islam has genuinely confessed these as sins and has given evidence that they have moved beyond this, then there would be little reason to harp on these atrocities. However, denial reigns even in the West. Ibrahim writes:

·       While negative depictions of non-Muslims proliferate in Islamic school textbooks, a whitewashed image of Islam predominates in Western education, particularly in the United States. According to a 2009 American Textbook Council report citing a number of popular textbooks used by American junior and senior high school students, “key subjects like jihad, Islamic law, [and] the status of women are whitewashed” because of political correctness, or out of fear of Muslim activists. Discussing the strikes of 9/11, one textbook never mentions Islamic ideology, referring to the nineteen al-Qaeda hijackers simply as “teams of terrorists.”… One seventh-grade American textbook offers wishful thinking in place of facts: “Jihad represents the human struggle to overcome difficulties.” (165)

A Western faith in multi-culturalism – that we can all be friends if we just show respect to other cultures – has supplanted truth and any pride in or promotion of Western traditions. According to many American textbooks:

·       Islam ambiguously “spread” or was “brought” to those [other countries]. This is from the same textbooks that allot whole chapters to bemoaning the Crusades and portraying Christians as intolerant fanatics (ignoring the fact that the Crusades were in response to jihadi conquests of Christian lands and centuries-long persecution of Christians.) (165)

Islam has a long, proven, and ubiquitous history of violence and persecution. Ibrahim therefore concludes:

·       There is one urgent reason that the West in its entirety… should take note of and respond to Muslim persecution of Christians: it is a reflection of what Islam has in store for them. (245)