Rss

  • youtube

Connecting the dots: The homosexual agenda

Posted by :admin On : October 17, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Education, Equality, Homosexuality

For many Americans who have been clueless about the homosexual agenda and its ultimate goal for American culture, the rapidity of recent events has caused their understanding to become clearer as the relevant features of the agenda reveal the big picture. Much like connecting the dots on a child’s line art puzzle, Americans are increasingly able to connect the dots of the homosexual agenda as each event/demand/right is connected with a preceding event/demand/right until what was once a jumble of seemingly unrelated and innocuous platitudes, occurrences, demands, and actions becomes a recognizable and frightening reality.

One of the major tools for winning concessions for the homosexual agenda is the plea/demand/right for tolerance and equality as defined by humanism. The humanists would force all to bend their knees at the altar of tolerance and equality, but that altar requires bowing to the god of humanism and embracing the consequent moral relativism which provides no means for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that fail to bow, they become the objects of intolerant harassment through restrictions on free speech (speech codes), coercion, intimidation, and loss of religious freedom.

Current examples of the sacrifice of religious freedom upon the altars of humanist tolerance are legion. One of the many is the effort to crush religious freedom at Gordon College, a 125 year old nationally ranked liberal arts Christian college with 1700 students located in Wenham, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. The college’s website states that it “…combines an exceptional education with an informed Christian faith.”[1] However, the college’s effort to fulfill its promise regarding the provision of an informed Christian faith has caused it to run afoul of the New England Association of schools and Colleges‘ Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Gordon is being charged with potentially violating the standards of the accrediting agency because of Gordon’s longstanding policies prohibiting gay activities among students, faculty, and staff, both on and off campus and its public opposition to hiring protections for gays and lesbians. Loss of accreditation typically results in loss of U.S. Department of Education federal financial aid for students which tends to be a death knell for colleges.[2]

Commission director Barbara Brittingham states that the commission has not dealt with a case involving potential sexual orientation-related discrimination but that, “It’s a matter of looking at the information we have and deciding if the institution is meeting our standards.”[3] [emphasis added] One wonders if the commission’s standards include consideration of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

But that is not the end of the story. It seems that the tentacles of humanistic tolerance must reach into all levels of society to choke out perceived discrimination. The City of Salem now refuses to let Gordon use its city-owned Old Town Hall because of the college’s policies violate a municipal ordinance that prohibits Salem from contracting with entities that discriminate. The mayor of Salem was exceptionally sharp in his criticism of the college. “The clear message is that homosexuals are not worthy of employment, or even recognition of their existence, in the Gordon community. It is a slap in the face of every gay and lesbian person, particularly every gay and lesbian Christian, that says you are somehow less of a human being, you do not belong in the embrace of God’s merciful arms.”[4] Apparently, the mayor has never read the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans in which God condemns homosexual behavior.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth…Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves… [Romans 1:18, 24. RSV]

A planned White House executive order will bar federal contractors from discriminating in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation and include colleges such as Gordon whose students receive federal financial aid. Numerous Christian leaders have requested the President to include a religious exemption.[5] If an exemption is not allowed, Christian colleges and universities across the nation will be forced to accept students and hire teachers whose beliefs contradict the beliefs, mission, and goals of those institutions.

One Gordon graduate and subsequent employee left Gordon because he could not come out as openly gay. He subsequently formed GordonOne, an LGBT organization. He believes that Gordon’s president “has made Gordon a fortress of faith rather than a place where the doors are open to people who want to be part of a conversation about what it means to be a Christian.”[6] [emphasis added] It is apparent from this former student-employee’s comment that we must begin any conversation about what it means to be a Christian with three assumptions: the Bible is not the final authority on what it means to be Christian, the Bible’s explicit condemnation of homosexuality cannot be accepted, and the doors of Christianity are not open to homosexuals. Only after these suppositions and assumptions are accepted can the conversation begin. In other words, Gordon’s goal of providing an “informed Christian faith” is acceptable only after being sanitized by the LGBT community to meet their litmus test of tolerance and equality. To pass that test, Gordon must surrender beliefs in unchanging biblical truth and that it must accept practicing homosexuals as Christians.

Gordon is not the only one in the crosshairs of the homosexual agenda. No organization is too large or too small to be strangled by the tentacles of its intolerant agenda. We’ve heard of the woes of various cake bakers who, based on their religious beliefs, had the effrontery to refuse to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. Now we have the case of the Kentucky tee shirt decorator who refused to make tee shirts for participants in a local gay-pride parade. After two years, Lexington’s Human Rights Commission ruled that the tee shirt maker violated the city’s “fairness” ordinance and was ordered to attend “diversity training” for re-education. The commission’s Executive Director Raymond Sexton believes that Christians in the marketplace must “…leave their religion at home.” Otherwise, he warned, “you can find yourself two years down the road and you’re still involved in a legal battle because you did not do so. We’re not telling somehow how to feel with respect to religion, but the law is pretty clear that if you operate a business to the public, you need to provide your services to people regardless…”[7] [emphasis added] But the Human Rights Commission is telling someone how to feel with respect to their religion. That is the purpose of diversity training…to tell someone how they ought to feel and think.

As the dots are connected on the picture of the homosexual agenda in America, it becomes increasingly evident that it portrays the suppression and consequent eradication of Christianity from the public square in America. The first amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Religious beliefs and feelings translate into exercise thereof, and the Constitution protects not only religious feelings and beliefs but free exercise as well. Commissioner Sexton and others promoting the homosexual agenda would prohibit both.

In light of the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, how can the President, the New England Commission on Higher Education, the City of Salem, the City of Lexington, and a legion of others sidestep the Constitution by requiring Christians to abandon the exercise of their most deeply held religious beliefs? They cannot unless we allow them to do so. If we allow the demagogues of humanistic tolerance and equality to prevail, then the free exercise of religion will mean little more than that which can be practiced behind the closed doors of a silent church or in the muzzled confines of one’s heart. This certainly cannot be the intent of the Founders.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Gordon College, http://www.gordon.edu/ (accessed October 8, 2013).
[2] Matt Rocheleau, “Accrediting agency to review Gordon College,” The Boston Globe, July 11, 2014.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies-violate-accrediting-standards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html (accessed October 8, 2014).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Evan Allen, “Gordon College joins request for exemption to hiring rule,” The Boston Globe, July 4, 2014.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/03/gordon-college-president-signs-letter-asking-for-religious-exemption-from-order-banning-anti-gay-discrimination/79cgrbFOuUg7lxH2rKXOgO/story.html (accessed
October 13, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Tony Perkins, “Intolerance fits liberals to a T (Shirt),” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 9, 2014.
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/intolerance-fits-liberals-to-a-t-shirt (accessed October 13, 2014).

Same-sex marriage will be a bust for civilization

Posted by :admin On : October 10, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Homosexuality, Humanism, Marriage

Lisa Bracken believes that legalization of same-sex marriage would be good for Oklahoma’s economy (“Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy”[1]). She is wrong on two counts.

In the short-term, the supposed economic gains will be enormously offset by costs associated with societal dysfunction caused by same-sex marriage. Even though the legitimization of same-sex marriage is relatively new, its devastating effects are already being felt in those countries that have allowed it. Documenting 10 years of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Hoover Institution researcher Stanley Kurtz found that it has led to far fewer marriages and soaring illegitimacy in which “80 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of children born thereafter are born to unwed parents. This has a devastating impact on children since unmarried parents are much more likely to separate.” Kurtz wrote, “Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline—an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood—can be linked to gay marriage.”[2]

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermines society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

Supporters of homosexuality believe that they have the right to marry just as heterosexuals, and those rights are based on equality. However, homosexuality is a choice, and choice does not automatically equate with a “right to” nor mandate equal consideration. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered.

In his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time published 50 year ago, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”[3] Homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are issues that must ultimately be dealt with in the arena of morality and cultural health. The economic considerations of Chamber of Commerce cheerleaders such as Ms. Bracken are both inappropriate and crass with regard to the debate about homosexuality and demands for its legitimization through same-sex marriage. But such dollars and cents concerns are to be expected from those with a humanistic view of life based on the material and denial of universal and timeless concepts of right and wrong.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Lisa Bracken, “Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2014, A-19.
[2] D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., “Five Good Reasons to Reject Same-Sex Marriage,” Coral Ridge Ministries – Crosswalk.com, July 7, 2004. http://www.crosswalk.com/1272492/ (accessed September 30, 2014).
[3] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.

The quest for equality and the loss of respect – Part II

Posted by :admin On : October 3, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Humanism, Worldview

As noted in Part I, another name for equality is egalitarianism which is a fundamental tenet of humanism whose worldview has captured almost all of the institutions of American life and its leadership. The purpose of Part II is to reveal the undeniable linkage between humanism’s quest for equality and the consequent loss of respect in every facet of America life.

The defining characteristic of humanism is the exaltation of self, and this emphasis on self leads to inward focus and results in egotism. Humanist Manifesto II preaches that “The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.”[1] The practical outworking of humanism’s view of self invariably leads to a quest for equality, the roots of which reach back to the leveling theories of the French Revolution. For biblical Christianity, the central theme is about relationships as demonstrated by the sacrifice of God’s only son at Calvary to make possible fallen man’s redemption and restoration to right relationship with Him.

Worldview

Universals are called by various names including norms, permanent things, eternal truths, and first principles. These universals apply to all of mankind, in all cultures, and all of human history. Human nature reflects a number of universals. Man’s craving for order is a human universal. Above all man must have order, and as man attempts to achieve order he constructs his worldview—his perception of reality, an understanding of the way the world works, his basic beliefs. The affliction of modern man is his propensity to cast off the universals as he constructs his worldview. The order upon which one builds a worldview cannot be based on whim, choice, or man-made theories but must reflect unchangeable truth. One of those truths is that man was created in the image of God, and the order sought by any worldview must reflect these image-of-God qualities and what it means to be human. When a worldview fails to account for the true nature of man, it is false and destined for failure because it cannot provide a sustained order.

Therefore, the superiority of a worldview must be measured by its ability to bring order, and this is the measure we must use in evaluating humanism and Christianity. Which of these worldviews provides the respect sought by human nature or becomes the catalyst for loss of respect: humanism’s exaltation of self through its quest for equality or the value Christianity places on relationships? The prescriptions offered by these competing worldviews for achieving respect between men in the conduct of human affairs are mutually exclusive. One must be true and the other false.

Christian worldview

Wilfred McClay wrote, “…we shape our relationships, but we are more fundamentally shaped by the need for them, and we cannot understand ourselves without reference to them…we are made by, through, and for relationship with one another.”[2] One of the fundamental needs (universals) of mankind is to dwell together, in other words, a need for relationships. For the Christian, the importance of human relationships is a reflection of the Trinitarian relationship, a picture of His fundamental being. God’s being is shown by the Father-Son relationship and the relationship of Christ with the Church of which He is the head and we are the body.

For mankind, these relational patterns are present in various entities—marriage, family, community, nations, and the Kingdom of God. In his first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul gives an insight into the operation of these relational patterns which speak of brotherhood and not equality, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit…If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them as he chose.” [1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 17-18. RSV] Put another way, we are one human family, but not every member of the family can have the same place and position. Distinctions in the family are required. Status in family is determined by God. To sum up, man’s relational patterns are hierarchical.

Humanist worldview

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) was one of the principal founders of the humanistic psychology movement. In his 1943 A Theory of Human Motivation, Maslow developed the concept of a “hierarchy of human needs” which proposed to rank the needs of humans.

Self-Actualization – Morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. Self-actualizers are people who strive for and reach a maximum degree of their inborn potential.

Esteem – Self-esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others.

Love-Belonging – Friendship, family, sexual intimacy.

Safety – Security of body, employment, resources, morality, the family, health, property.

Physiological – Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion.[3]

Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs conflicts with the human universal of the primacy of relationships in motivating human beings. In Maslow’s hierarchy, the sex act is labeled as non-relational physiological need and banished to the lowest level of needs. Family at the second level is merely for safety’s sake and non-relational. It is only at level three that we see relational needs: family, friendship, and sexual intimacy.[4] The other four levels deal substantially with self, whether basic physiological/safety or esteem/self-actualization.

Maslow’s theories of human motivation are based on the humanistic worldview. They fail as human motivators because they dramatically diminish the importance of relationship in favor of self. Apart from physiological and safety needs which are creational givens, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is upside down as it reflects human nature and leads to a false worldview. The societal disorder that permeates the entire planet is a result of the widely held humanistic worldview which has elevated self above relationships. And the engine driving this topsy-turvy worldview is the quest for equality which demands a leveling of society which in turn can be achieved only through socialism. Therefore, humanism’s imposition of equality as a means of establishing a foundation for respect in individuals and society in general is fatally flawed.

Humanism’s equality attempts to re-structure society by eliminating distinctions and thereby increasing respect, but it does the opposite. This is evident from the writings of Richard M. Weaver, “The most portentous general event of our time is the steady obliteration of those distinctions which create society…If society is something which can be understood, it must have structure; if it has structure, it must have hierarchy…” Weaver called the elimination of hierarchy through the egalitarian notion that in a just society there are no distinctions a perversion. “…the most insidious idea employed to break down society is an undefined equalitarianism…Such equalitarianism is harmful because it always presents itself as a redress of injustice, whereas in truth it is the very opposite.”[5]

Here Weaver reveals the fatal flaw at the heart of equality and its failure to instill respect among people. Justice breeds respect…respect for authority, property rights, institutions, customs, and traditions, and to regard with esteem people who share that understanding of justice. But, equality that pretends to insure justice is inherently unjust in doing so. Forced equality’s injustice is inevitably corrosive to human relationships and leads to loss of respect in all facets of society.

Undeniable linkage

How does this Christian view of the supremacy of relationship promote respect in a dog-eat-dog world focused on its rights rather than responsibilities? Just as a focus on self inevitably fades into a demand for equality, fraternity (brotherhood) is the product of relationship. Brotherhood taps into human emotions that are rooted in mankind’s divine connection – those image-of-God qualities indelibly imprinted on man’s being. Man was made for brotherhood, and the emotional bonds of brotherhood link him with family, community, and nation. Those connections give us status in family which extracts duties and obligations from its members, entangling alliances that call for and fosters fidelity and respect.

Equality is rooted in self and demands its rights which often are nothing more than gossamer imaginings of a humanistic worldview. The undeniable linkage between the humanism’s quest for equality and the consequent loss of respect at all levels of human activity and relationship are obvious. Humanism’s forced equality leads to suspicion, resentment, disunity, and ultimately to disrespect of people, laws, authority, institutions, and the nation’s central cultural vision. It fails to provide an order based on truth which is requisite for respect. Only through the Christian worldview’s focus on relationships and consequent brotherhood can man give and receive the respect that flows from his image-of-God qualities found in his human nature.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifesto I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 18.
[2] Wilfred McCray, “The Soul & the City,” The City, Vol. II, No. 2, (Summer 2009), 8-9.
[3] Neel Burton, M.D., “Our Hierarchy of Needs,” Psychology Today, May 23, 2012.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs (accessed September 18, 2014).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 35, 40.

The quest for equality and the loss of respect – Part I

Posted by :admin On : September 26, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality

Loss of respect for authority and time-honored institutions, customs, and traditions is one of the major casualties in the quest for equality in all facets of American life. Here we do not mean the equality spoken of by John Adams who defined equality as—a moral and political equality only—by which is meant equality before God and before the law. The humanist understanding of equality is synonymous with egalitarianism: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges. Basically, it is a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among men.[1] When we speak of equality in this article and the one to follow, it is meant to describe the humanists’ definition of equality. To properly understand the corrosive nature of the quest for equality on human beings and culture in general, one must understand humanism.

Humanism is focused on the individual and self as opposed to relationships. The humanistic philosophy proposes that nature is all there is and exists independently of any outside consciousness (God). Man is an evolutionary product of nature and his values and morals arise from his experiences and relationships on this earth alone. Truth is relative and discovered through advances in science and reason through which man will achieve his purpose—happiness, freedom, and unending progress—on this earth for there is no life after death.[2] Equality as a tool to level society is a product of humanism, and the tenets of humanism and its consequences to society must be understood before we can understand the role of equality in loss of respect. The antithesis of humanism is the biblical Christianity, and the two are the principle combatants in the raging culture wars.

It is from these two worldviews that we examine respect for people and their institutions, customs, and traditions. One sees loss of respect in every facet of society: personal conduct, marriage, family, the workplace, dress, law, government, education, and manners to name just a few. Before we examine the link between society’s quest for quality and loss of respect, we must first examine and understand the consequences of a loss of respect. In other words, the symptoms that lead to diagnosis of the disorder and its prescriptive remedy.

Examples of loss of respect abound in most Western cultures, and they are rooted in rebellion and disrespect for authority. One British study by Dr. Aric Sigman, psychologist and fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, reports that “…nursery-age children are becoming increasingly violent and disrespectful towards their teachers, ‘parent battering’ is on the rise, and the number of policemen attacked by children is soaring.” Dr. Sigman stated that the parents of these children have raised a “spoilt generation” with an inflated view of their own self-importance, and these “little emperors” are used to having their demands met by their parents. Such a combination hardly prepares the child for adult life. The consequences of this widespread lack of discipline among children have led to Britain having “…the highest rates of child depression, child-on-child murder, underage pregnancy, obesity, violent and antisocial behavior, and pre-teen alcoholism since records began.” The authority of teachers and parents has been enormously weakened legally, professionally, and culturally which has led to a rise in violence in the home, at school, and society in general. Dr. Sigman believes that respect for authority is a basic health requirement for children.[3]

The two people with the greatest impact on shaping the behaviors of American children in the twentieth century were John Dewey, architect of the American educational system, and Benjamin Spock, child psychologist and author of the most influential book on child-rearing in the twentieth century. Their humanistic child development and education theories, centered on the empowerment of children and coupled with a lack of discipline in the home and classroom, are primarily responsible for a loss of respect for authority throughout the Western world.

The premier generation birthed and baptized in the humanistic worldview was the Boomers born immediately after World War II to the end of 1964. J. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman wrote Generation Ageless, a book describing the general mindset of Boomers.

The economy, not protests, is the central dynamic shaping the shared generational character of Baby Boomers…Boomers didn’t have to aspire to the American Dream; they felt they were born into it…they championed a new notion: that of an unfettered, indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self.[4] [emphasis added]

It is the Boomers’ indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self that is the defining characteristic of humanistic worldview. In conjunction with focus on self, the Boomers embraced humanism’s “unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions.”[5] This caustic combination of self and a relentless questioning attitude is the vaccine with which many Boomers were inoculated against respect for authority, tradition, custom, and heritage.

If self is the defining characteristic of humanism, its polar opposite is the overarching importance of relationships (man to God and man to man) that is the keystone of the Christian worldview. The central theme of the Bible is found in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross and whose story speaks overwhelmingly of the inestimable value that God placed on His relationship with man. The necessity of the cross was not an unforeseen accident, Plan B, or a last minute making the best of a bad situation because God foreknew the cost of His creation. The knowledge of that cost was over-ridden by God’s will to love, an expression of His very character, to share the inner life of the Trinity with His special creation. Being created in the image of God, man’s nature was also transfused with the importance of relationship with God and earthly relationships with man.

A picture of the importance of relationships as opposed to self is expressed throughout the Bible. It is interesting to note that nine of the Ten Commandments speak directly or indirectly with regard to relationships. Three speak directly of relationships. “I am the Lord your God…” is a direct ordering of the relationship between God and man, and “You shall have no other God before me…” gives clarity to that relationship. The third speaks directly to the relationship between child and parent: “Honor your father and your mother…” Six others prohibit actions which would be injurious to relationships: misuse of the name of the Lord, worship of false gods, murder, adultery, theft, and coveting a neighbor’s possessions, wife, or servants. Only the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath may be considered as dealing most closely with man’s self.[6]

Additionally, the biblical view of self is far different view from the unfettered, indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self of humanism.

As to the unfettered freedom of self promised by humanism, the biblical answer is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry…But now put them all away; anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.” [Colossians 3: 5,8. RSV]

Jesus condemned humanism’s indulgent, pleasure-seeking intemperance in the parable of the rich man who took his ease, ate, drank, made merry, and was consumed with his own plans. But Jesus called him a fool whose unprepared soul was required of him that night. [Luke 12:16-20]

Jesus dealt with the self-absorbed in the parable of the Good Samaritan when he answered the question of one of his disciples, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus exposes the heartless self-centeredness of the Pharisee and Levite and elevates the importance of relationship among all of mankind regardless of pedigree, purse, nation, or religion.

Matthew’s gospel makes plain Jesus’ attitude toward those with a celebratory self. “He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” [Matthew 23:11-12. RSV]

The foundation has been laid for an examination of the role of humanism’s quest for equality in the general loss of respect in society. This foundation has included an examination of humanism and Christianity’s differing conceptions of self and relationships and the consequences thereof. In Part II we shall examine how the humanistic exaltation of self as opposed to the biblical focus on relationships has undeniably linked the quest for equality with a loss of respect for authority and time-honored institutions, customs, and traditions.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] “egalitarian,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), p. 264.
[2] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, Revised (Amherst, New York: The Humanist Press, 1992), pp.35-37.
[3] Fiona MacRae and Paul Sims, “The Spoilt Generation: Parents who fail to exercise authority breeding youngsters with no respect for anyone,” Mail Online News, September 14, 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213236/The-spoilt-generation-Youngsters-lack-respect-authority-attacking-parents-police-teachers.html (accessed September 11, 2014).
[4] J. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman, Generation Ageless, (New York: Collins, 2007), pp. xii, xiv.
[5] Lamont, p. 15.
[6] Exodus 20:3-17. RSV]

Quran verses taken out of context? Thousands of Christian deaths say “No.”

Posted by :admin On : September 19, 2014
3

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Islam

Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw said: “The Quran clearly states that non-Muslims should be killed. Arab is the ethnicity, not Muslim or Islam. Be wary of the individuals who claim to be ‘Muslim-American.’ Be especially wary if you are a Christian.” Mike Jones’ in his editorial[1] (“Out of Line-Bennett’s Muslim-bashing goes too far.”) accused Bennett of cherry-picking verses from the Quran and using them out of context. However, Jones is either naive or woefully uninformed with regard to the Quran and Muslim persecution of Christians around the world in the name of Islam. There are 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Unlike practically all of the Old Testament verses of violence which are limited by the historical context in which they are presented, those in the Quran are mostly open-ended and not constrained by time or context in its call for war on non-believers.[2] For many countries dominated by an emboldened Muslim faith, the rallying cry has become “convert to Islam or die.”

Open Doors ministry reported that of the fifty countries with the worst persecution, forty-one are Muslim.[3] Exhortations to violence and persecution against infidels (any who do not believe in Allah or his messenger Mohammed) are found in the particulars of the Quran and are practiced by many of its followers, especially in countries dominated by Islam. Both the Vatican and the Center for Study of Global Christianity reported that 100,000 Christians died in 2012 because they were Christian—devout, nominal, or cultural. Christians were killed for their beliefs or ethnicity, killed while worshiping in a church, murdered because they were children of Christians, or killed because of their Christian witness.[4] Most of the deaths were at the hands Muslims and committed in the name of Islam as dictated by the Quran.

Bennett’s charges that the Council on American-Islamic Relations has ties to terrorist organizations are called unfair by Jones. However, CAIR’s founders had direct ties with known terrorist organizations, and its continuing ties to terrorist organizations are extensive and well-documented. In defense of CAIR, Jones notes CAIR’s condemnation of ISIS’ actions including its recent highly publicized beheadings. For CAIR and other Muslim organizations, ISIS has become a Muslim-Islam public relations nightmare. But in truth, ISIS’ actions reveal what a world dominated by an unrestrained Islam may look like. Such world domination by Islam is the unifying call of almost every Muslim-dominated nation and Muslim terrorist organization. CAIR’s condemnation of ISIS is about PR, not revulsion at their deeds. Otherwise, CAIR condemns the Quran which says, “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” [Quran, Sura 8:12]

The tenets of Christianity speak of God’s creation of all peoples with one blood and mandate that we treat each person we meet with kindness, patience, and dignity. It is those biblical principles of Christianity and its predecessor upon which the nation was founded and made it possible for all faiths including Muslims to live and practice their religions in freedom. America’s story is not one of perfection but an example of what can be. But the reality is that Christians are being persecuted by the millions and killed by the tens of thousands throughout much of the Islamic world. A second reality is that that same Islamic world threatens America. And whether they are Christians or Muslims who reject the Islamic jihadist mentality promoted by the Quran, Americans must recognize the growing Islamic threat to their safety and religious freedom. This vigilance is not born of fear as Mr. Jones believes but a somber recognition of what’s happening everyday all over the globe.

If Jones really wants to understand the real meaning of fear, he should visit Christians in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, or dozens of other cities in northern Iraq. He will be able to easily find Christians because many of their homes and businesses have been marked with the Arabic symbol for N. N stands for Nazarenes by which is meant Christians. Such markings effectively give license to steal from, maim, rape, and kill the inhabitants. The Nazis used the same tactic to mark the homes and businesses of Jews with the Star of David which also marked the beginning of the genocide.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Mike Jones, “Out of Line – Bennett’s Muslim-bashing goes too far,” Tulsa World, September 14, 2014, G1.
[2] “What does the Religion of Peace Teach About…Violence?” TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm (accessed September 15, 2014).
[3] “World Watch List Countries,” Open Doors. http://www.worldwatchlist.us/ (accessed September 15, 2014).
[4] Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “Counting the Cost (Accurately),” Christianity Today, August 21, 2013. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/september/counting-cost-accurately.html (accessed September 16, 2013).