IT IS NOT RACIST TO WANT TO LIVE SAFELY IN PEACE

In a New York Times article, “‘I’ve Become a Racist’: Migrant Wave Unleashes Danish Tensions Over Identity: The thousands of Muslim asylum seekers pouring into Denmark have spawned a backlash, and questions over whether the country has a latent racial hostility at its core” (Sept. 5, 2016), there was no mention of Islamic violence. However, it is clear that Denmark is also being plagued by Islamic contempt and disdain for the Danish people as is occurring in other Western nations:

·       "Crime rates broken down by nationality in Denmark show that individuals from Muslim countries make up eight of the top nine places on the list. In addition, 2012 figures show that Somalis were sentenced for crimes, including innumerable sexual assaults, almost ten times more often than those with Danish citizenship. Indeed, more than half of all convicted rapists in Denmark have an immigrant background, according to official statistics, despite the fact that immigrants and their descendants account for less than 10 per cent of the population. “Iraqis, Iranians, Turks and Somalis are dramatically overrepresented among convicted rapists in Denmark,” reports BT.dk." (http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/)

Clearly, Islamic violence is not a national phenomenon. It is a religious phenomenon.

Is it so unusual and unacceptable that Danes do not want to be raped and beheaded and to be placed under shariah law? Is it racist to want to see peace and harmony prevail? However, The NYT and other mainline media outlets act as if it is.

WHY ARE WOMAN INCREASINGLY THE OBJECTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON CAMPUS?

According to the NYT, sexual assault seems to be a growing problem on college campuses. Esther Boykin, a marriage and family therapist and chief executive of Group Therapy Associates claims that:

* “About 75 percent of my female clients had traumatic experiences in college, almost always sexual assault."

What has caused this scourge? We need go no further than the ubiquitous social influences that impact the worldview of our youth:

- Values like honor, dignity, and courage have been replaced by moral relativism - whatever feels right for you.

- Life, therefore, is about fulfilling yourself to the max, which often means getting as much sex as you can.

- We are just accidents of a purposeless evolutionary process. This leaves little room to affirm the idea of treating women with all due respect. They are merely wet machines to be used.

- Our culture is life-denying. We abort our babies because they interfere with our lifestyles and pleasure. It is inescapable that once we degrade the life of the pre-born, we also degrade all human life.

- If females are no longer entitled to the privacy of female bathrooms and showers, why should they be spared from incursions to their very body.

- Women are convinced that men will think that they are prudish if they don't allow touching. However, this opens the door to unwanted intrusions.

- Society has objectified the woman with pornography and the acceptability of the hook-up culture. This has further served to remove taboos that had required men to honor the woman.

- The Christian influence has served to protect and honor the woman. However, as it fades, this protection will also fade.

Higher education has not led to a higher standard of morality. Why not?

ARE CHRISTIANS LACKING IN MERCY FOR NOT WANTING TO RECEIVE MORE MUSLIM REFUGEES?

This is a common accusation. It actually seems to have merit:

* “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.” (James 4:17)

However, is bringing in more Muslims who want to kill, rape, and eventually take over to set up their Caliphate "the good?"

Also, we are told that we are exercising discrimination and should be caring for these refugees:

* “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27)

However, if we truly care about orphans and widows, we should be careful not to bring among them those who will kidnap and rape them. Sadly, Western society is often unwilling to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. However, once we fail to uphold this critical distinction, society will decay, and God will be grieved:

* “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the Lord detests them both.” (Proverbs 17:15)

Instead, it is the essence of justice to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. In fact, God ordained the criminal justice system to make these critical and necessary distinctions:

* “Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:2-4)

The Islamic faith will not accept non-Muslim institutions and will battle against them. Should not the Christian, therefore, guard against this inevitable eventuality?

This does not mean that we shouldn't show mercy to the Muslims already here. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't show compassion to the Muslim refugees. However, it is better to support them in their own Muslim nations.

The Horrible Impact of Evolution on Morality

What is the impact of evolution on morality? One evolutionist wrote me:

·       Rape has a good side evolutionarily speaking. A strong sex drive perpetuates the species but is countered by the woman choosing an enhancing male, not an abandoning one. Genocide is good in hindsight if it unites peoples and makes survivors stronger. Not good for the annihilated tribes.

According to the “wisdom” of evolution, the most heinous behaviors are justifiable. If “rape has a good side,” well, I’m sure that many would not need their arm twisted too far to perform this “good” public service. Any reservations we might have will easily be overcome by this assurance that, by raping or killing, we are doing the “good” thing.

This is not merely an academic or ephemeral issue. It impacts our every-day lives. Serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, talked about the impact of evolution on how it released him from the grip of his very necessary inhibitions:

·       “As far as we know, we only have one life and we share this planet with billions of other life-forms that have the exact same purpose as we do.”

If evolution is true, then we are just another animal to be used for the benefit of the powerful.  His case is not isolated. Many have documented the destructive role played by evolution in our two World Wars.

This, in itself, doesn’t negate Darwinism. However, a theory that carries such a high price-tag should be re-examined.

Masochism, Western Elites, Sweden, and Rape

A recent video places Sweden as the rape capital of the world. 

A 2013 Front Page article had placed Sweden as number two:

• Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.
  

• With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

When someone is seriously ill, he goes for testing to identify the source of the problem. Without accurate diagnosis, there can be no meaningful intervention. However, this isn’t happening in Western Europe. (See both the UK and Norway where Muslim rape of non-Muslims has also reached epidemic levels.) Instead, the diagnosis is strenuously avoided and even censured. It is as if the Western nations have a death wish or at least a virulent case of runaway masochism.

Benedict XVI wrote about this perplexing masochistic phenomenon. He notes how Western culture, en masse, has turned against itself and its Christian heritage:

• This case illustrates a peculiar western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological. It is commendable that the West is trying to be more open, to be more understanding of the values of outsiders, but it has lost all capacity for self-love. All that it sees in its own history is the despicable and the destructive; it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure…Multiculturalism, which is so constantly and passionately promoted, can sometimes amount to an abandonment and denial, a flight from one’s own heritage. (Quoted by Jean Bethke Elshtain, First Things, March, 2009, 36)

Why has the West “lost all capacity” to appreciate its own heritage? Why does it punish itself? Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim turned atheist, shares this insight:

• Liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims. To them, victims are to be pitied, and they lump together all pitiable and suppressed people, such as Muslims, and consider them good people who should be cherished and supported so that they can overcome their disadvantages. The adherents to the gospel of multiculturalism refuse to criticize people whom they see as victims. Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native white majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Okay, victims are to be pitied, but why at the expense of the well-being of our own nations? What perverse psychological mechanism is preventing our elites from valuating and protecting their own people? Do they feel guilty for the benefits that the West has enjoyed?

Guilt and shame are life-controlling forces. In Healing the Shame that Binds, psychologist John Bradshaw perceptively wrote:

• When shame has been completely internalized, nothing about you is okay. You feel flawed and inferior; you have the sense of being a failure. There is no way you can share your inner self because you are an object of contempt to yourself…To feel shame is to feel seen in an exposed and diminished way. When you’re an object to yourself, you turn your eyes inward, watching and scrutinizing every minute detail of behavior…This paralyzing internal monitoring causes withdrawal, passivity and inaction. (13)

Bradshaw’s understanding of shame might explain why the West has been bending its neck before the sword of Islam. Perhaps the West feels ashamed of its privilege and must atone for it.

Shame had also been a life-controlling and life-diminishing factor for me. My feelings of unworthiness were so powerful that I couldn’t enjoy anything. I couldn’t take a shower for more than two minutes. I just didn’t feel worthy of it. Nor could I spend any money on myself. However, when I did go without, I felt more worthy. When I didn’t, I felt psychologically threatened, as if I had done the unpardonable. I was trying to redeem myself. However, when I came to know my Redeemer Jesus, this bondage began to loosen. Since He paid the price for my sins, I no longer had to redeem myself.

It seems that we are built with a moral law that tells us that we are unworthy unless a price is paid for our unworthiness. Some indulge in self-flagellation; others in self-mutilation; while others pay the price through compulsive do-gooding and people-pleasing. In any case, we are controlled by the slave-master “shame.”

I think that this problem has gone viral, as has rape in many of the Western nations. Why? We have rejected our only protection against internal accusations of shame and unworthiness – Jesus the Savior – and are paying the just price for this rejection.

Sodom’s Sin: A Question of Interpretation?

Do our Bible interpretations merely serve to justify our own agenda or God’s? Are we using the Bible or abusing it for our own purposes? One blog – God’s Rainbow Coalition – conveniently denies that Sodom’s sin had anything to do with homosexuality or homosexual rape, but rape merely as a way to “humiliate someone”:

• Show me where it says that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality. In Genesis, it does not say what Sodom did to be destroyed other than Genesis 18:20-21, (which was said before the incident at Lot’s house) “Then the Lord said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.’” It doesn’t say homosexuality. In other parts of the Bible we find that the sin of Sodom was pride and inhospitality, not homosexuality. In fact, Ezekiel tells us the sin of Sodom in chapter 16:49-51. “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

But what were these “detestable things” (“toebah” in the Hebrew)? This is the same word used to describe homosexuality in Leviticus:

• You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. (Lev. 18:22-23)

• If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. (Lev. 20:13-14)

These teachings against homosexuality have also been carried over into the New Testament, except without any mention of the death penalty. The Book of Jude is particularly revealing about Sodom’s sin:

• Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh (“perversion;” NIV), are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 7)
  
  

God’s Rainbow Coalition wrongly concludes:

• The reason people equate Sodom with homosexuality is because of the gang rape scene that almost occurred. Back then, it was common to humiliate someone by raping them. 

Evidently, Sodom’s sin went far beyond an attempt to merely “humiliate someone.” Why then does God’s Rainbow Coalition conclude otherwise? Are they coercing the text into conformity with their own views and interests?

Doesn’t Scripture have to come first? Such an inversion of biblical priorities costs! I also had coerced the text into saying what I had wanted to find, and I suffered greatly for this. Now my prayer is this: “Lord, I just want your truths and your ways, even when they oppose my agenda. Lead me accordingly!”