Love Sometimes Demands Toughness: A Letter to an Atheist

I took up for you about the name-calling, but certainly there are weightier issues at hand, as our friend indicated. Let me try to illustrate.

On numerous occasions, you have arrogantly challenged me to debate. I either didn’t respond or I told you that I wasn’t interested. However, I never really explained why I wasn’t interested. It was for fear of hurting your feelings. But if we care, sometimes feelings must be hurt in hope of more important gains. It’s these gains that I seek – a real meeting of minds based upon your embrace of Christ.

Now, your heart and mind are quite hardened. You speak of relations with women as merely a matter of “getting laid,” without the slightest appreciation of what they truly need (despite their own blindness – being cut off from their own humanity) – a true love, cherishing, nurturing and adoration of who they are as people, not just their bodies. As it now stands, you are merely using another human for your own selfish gratification!

This hardness manifests itself in another way between us. You can’t hear what I say. You are so locked in to your own worldview (as you claim that I am) that you consistently misconstrue what I say. For example, you are either unable or unwilling  (perhaps both) to grasp the fact that it is disingenuous of you to insist that I prove God, when you have completely failed to prove that even you exist.

This is frustrating and totally unsatisfying – no give-and-take at all! It is like talking to a five-year-old who refuses to hear what you say. At least with a five-year-old, you can spank some sense into them. Meanwhile, you call me a coward because I won’t debate you, one-on-one. Frankly, it’s a waste of my time.

Jesus talked about those who hate the light and therefore reject it entirely (John 3:19-21). This describes the way I had been and also you. Now, you can avoid the light – the evidence! However, there will come a time when the light of Christ will be so intense and undeniable, that you will flee it in favor of a place of eternal torment. If you hate the Light here, you will definitely hate it there.

I say this to you, not to put you down (without the light of Christ, we all share the same boat of denial), but to shake you out of your rut and to see what is manifestly obvious to the rest of the world. I pray that someday, we might be brothers and only laugh together about these present disagreements.

Pedophilia as a Birthright

It is argued that because many homosexuals are born with same-sex attraction, the homosexual lifestyle is therefore acceptable. This argumentation is now being applied to other orientations, namely pedophilia.

An article written by Gawker West Coast editor Cord Jefferson argues that we need to regard pedophiles in a more compassionate way if they are born that way:

• But there is a growing number of researchers, many of them out of Canada, whose work suggests that pedophilia is an illness deserving of the public's sympathy the way any brain disorder is. Some of the scientists say pedophilia is a sexual orientation, meaning that it's unchangeable, regardless of how much jail time or beatings or therapy someone is dealt. Others have reason to believe that pedophiles are born that way, and that some of them will suffer through entire lives without hurting a single child. If this research proves to be correct, it should help shape both our public policy and our public attitude,

There is no plausible evidence that homosexuals or pedophiles are born as such. However, even if they are, “should [this] help shape both our public policy and our public attitude?” Should what is genetically innate determine what is morally acceptable? I’m sure that the wife-batterer or any assaulter can just as easily make the claim that he is born that way. Closer to home, the adulterer can also claim the same and that one woman can’t satisfy him. Should this make adultery right?

Well, if pedophilia should no longer be a crime, what should remain a crime? Besides, are we now to be considered “hate-mongers” if we don’t agree with wife-beating or child-abusing? Jefferson seems to want pedophilia decriminalized:

• Currently, there is no significant longitudinal evidence that pedophiles can be made to not be attracted to children, and thus it can be defined as their orientation. And if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that also means it's futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attractions.

Jefferson confuses orientation with behavior. Pedophiles aren’t sent to jail because of the orientation but because of their behavior. We all have criminal “orientations” – whether it’s an orientation towards lying, stealing, or seeking revenge.  However, our orientations shouldn’t excuse our crimes.

If Jefferson simply wants us to be more compassionate towards the pedophile, his goal is commendable. However, this compassion should extend to all law-breakers, not just pedophiles. Also, it should take the form of tough love and not an indulgent “love” that encourages the law-breaker to continue in criminality, causing his own self-destruction and the ruin of others.

Sadly, Jefferson doesn’t distinguish between love as indulgence and enablement and a love that seeks the ultimate good for the other. He therefore assumes that Jesus would simply indulge the pedophile:

• One imagines that if Jesus ever came to Earth, he'd embrace the poor, the blind, the lepers, and, yes, the pedophiles.

For one thing, Jefferson is committing category confusion. He wrongly associates “the poor, the blind, the lepers” with another category of people who are committing immoral acts – pedophiles! Secondly, he is distorting Jesus’ life and message.

Indeed, Jesus had compassion on all sorts of people, even an adulterous woman. However, He warned her, "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11), precisely the thing that Jefferson is unwilling to tell the pedophile.

Jesus received sinners, but He warned them all against their sinful, unrepentant behavior.

• Unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3-5)

Jesus never gave anyone license to continue in sin. Such license wouldn’t be compassionate but a glossy invitation to death and destruction.

This is the invitation that Jefferson and others are circulating, saying, in essence, “Since your desires are innate, well, have at it!”

Koran Burning, Apologies, Confrontation and Free Speech

In this age of Islamic violence, our right to free speech is undergoing reconsideration. George Stephanopoulos lamented the fact that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer thought that Koran burning might be added as an exception to free speech – like crying fire in a crowded theatre:

• But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning. 

However, the court has protected free speech in the past, even when offensive and encouraged criminal behavior, according to Charles Lane of the Washington Post:

• Over time, the court developed today's standard, which allows even the advocacy of illegal conduct unless it is both intended, and likely, to incite "imminent lawless action." Indeed, in 1949 the court allowed a Chicago demagogue to make a racist speech in a packed theater, even though police said it would cause an opposing crowd outside to riot: "A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute," the court opined. "It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." And, of course, in 1989 the court upheld a constitutional right to burn the American flag, despite arguments by proponents of a ban that flag-burning might trigger riots by offended patriots. 

We live in an age when just about everyone is offended by one word or another. If offense became a basis to disqualify speech, then there would remain little to say apart from, “It’s a nice day today!”

Free speech is the grease of a democratic society. Without it, no society can remain robust, dynamic, and accountable to its citizens. We sometimes need to hear unpleasant ideas. So where does Koran burning fit into this picture, especially in view of the fact that innocent people are murdered because of this.

Should the prevention of such offenses be the goal of Christian love or would this “love” enable unacceptable behavior?

Sometimes, love must be expressed as a “tough love” – a love that requires dialogue and confrontation rather than placation. If my son refused to ever do the dishes but demonstrated that instead he was willing to joyfully do any other chore that I might require of him, I might be insensitive to push for confrontation and “tough love.” Perhaps he merely has a strong aversion to dishes for some inexplicable reason, while he demonstrates a willingness to cooperate in a hundred other ways. I think, in this case, wisdom would require that I indulge him.

However, this is not the case with Koran burning. If the burning of Korans was only the offense, I would argue for indulgence. However, there seems to be an endless list of unpardonable offenses. This intolerance is partly fueled by the Koran, which forbids any form of criticism of Islam:

• [Surah 33:57-58] Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them—and those who undeservedly insult believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin. (Haleem)

• [Surah 33:59-61] Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted. God is most forgiving, most merciful. If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (Haleem)

Consistent with the above surahs, James Arlandson recounts one of the sayings of Mohammad through which he okayed his followers to kill someone taunting him:

• “Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, "Who would rid me of [Kab]?" Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, "O apostle of God [Muhammad], we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter." (Arlandson, 5)

Instead of indulgence, confrontation is required. Questions need to be asked. Are Muslims willing to be part of a Western democracy where their beliefs will be questioned and subjected to criticism? Will they retaliate violently? Do they even believe in democracy or merely the imposition of Shariah Law, making everyone else second class citizens?

If we believe in free speech and its necessity for a healthy society and transparent relationships, then we need to ask these questions. We don’t need to burn Korans, but I think that there are many valid concerns that are being buried out of fear, hoping that they will just disappear.