This Weeks Sound Off

Anti-Shariah Conference Loses Nashville Hotel Home

Group claims free speech is threatened after Nashville hotel cancels contract

A Nashville hotel has canceled its contract with an anti-Shariah conference out of fear the event could attract protests and disrupt business.

Organizers of the Preserving Freedom conference, who include Lou Ann Zelenik of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, had planned to meet Nov. 11 at the Hutton Hotel in Nashville.

Hotel management said they received complaints about the event from the public and from their clients. Steve Eckley, senior vice president of hotels for Amerimar Enterprises, which owns the Hutton, said he wasn’t aware of the details of the conference until recently.

“If this group had let us know what kind of program they were planning and who was involved, we wouldn’t have booked it,” Eckley said.

Zelenik said her group is being censored for opposing radical Islam, and the hotel’s action shows Shariah law is a threat to free speech.

“I feel the Hutton is now under Shariah law,” she said.

Among the event’s scheduled speakers are Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller; Murfreesboro mosque opponent and Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney; and former Republican Rep. Fred Grandy, who played the character Gopher on the popular TV series The Love Boat.

Last week, the Hyatt Hotel in Sugar Land, Texas, near Houston, backed out of an Oct. 18 event featuring Geller, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, an anti-Islam nonprofit. Hyatt issued a statement Monday: “In a recent phone conversation with the event organizer, we apologized for not working hard enough with the group to address concerns about potential business disruptions the way we should have to find a resolution.”

In 2009 the Loews Vanderbilt hotel in Nashville backed out of a conference for New English Review, an anti-Islam website.

'Blatant oppression'

William Murray, chairman of the Preserving Freedom conference, said the event is in jeopardy. He said organizers began looking for an alternate site last week after hearing what happened in Houston. So far they’ve had no luck.

The conference program included workshops on organizing opposition to mosques, on promoting anti-Shariah laws and criticizing the lack of women’s rights under Shariah. Tickets for the event were $75 and $125.

Murray said about 100 people had registered for the event, most of them from outside Nashville. He said an additional 200 locals were expected.

Among the sponsors for the event are the American Center for Law and Justice and the Liberty Counsel, two Christian legal groups and the conservative website WorldNetDaily.

“This is not some local anti-Muslim group,” Murray said. “This was a responsible organization of national organizations meeting to discuss the issue of Shariah law.”

He said the Hutton has offered to refund more than $7,000 in deposits. That’s not good enough, he said.

“This is blatant oppression of free speech,” he said.

The group’s website, www.shariafreeusa.com, accuses the Hutton of caving in to pressure from radical Muslims.

J. Lee Douglas, a member of the Nashville chapter of Act for America, said he’s planning to attend the conference no matter where it meets. He said Muslim organizations, including the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American Islamic Relations, have accused critics of Islam of promoting bigotry. He said that makes it difficult for hotels to allow anti-Islam groups to meet.

Lawsuit considered

Amir Arain, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Nashville, said the hotel made the right decision. He said the conference was promoting bigotry and had no place in Nashville.

“We can just hope they don’t keep spewing hatred against Muslims,” he said.

Organizers say they are considering suing the Hutton for breach of contract, said Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and one of the scheduled speakers at the conference. Staver also said any organization that issued threats or tried to disrupt the conference could be sued. He said the timing of the cancellation puts organizers in a bind.

Stephen Barth, founder of HospitalityLawyer.com and professor of leadership and hospitality law at the University of Houston, said hotels must abide by anti-discrimination laws. They can’t, for example, refuse to rent space to a Christian or Muslim group based solely on their religion. But they do have leeway to protect their clients and staff from harm.

“You don’t have to disrupt your business to do business with a particular group,” he said.

Eckley said he made the right decision and won’t back down.

“I’d rather face a lawsuit than have one of my employees get hurt,” he said.–The Tennessean

Shariah law, 1 … Freedom of speech, 0

By canceling the anti-Shariah conference we give Shariah law legitimacy and this cannot happen here in America. As American’s and a nation founded on Christian principles, we cannot cave into demands from a religion that threatens our very existence. Shariah law has no place at the American table.

Ragbag Headliners

Americans Are Paying Others To Murder Christians

If you’ve been watching the news and following any of the ‘Arab Spring’ stories coming out of the Middle East, you may have seen your tax dollars at work as armored personnel carriers mowed down protesters in Egypt.

These protesters were conducting a peaceful protest asking for their right to protection from persecution.  They were not abdicating the overthrow of the government or anything to do with violence of any kind.  All they were asking for was to be treated equally the same as other Egyptians.  In the midst of this peaceful protest, the Egyptian government sent in the police to stop the protest by whatever means possible.

What you may not be aware of is that the protesters killed were Coptic Christians and that US funds have been helped to pay for the armored vehicles and the police driving them.  Reports surfaced that there were some yelling that they would kill any Christians they can get their hands on.  Just last week the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram reported that 36 Coptic Christians had been killed so far.

The US endorsed the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and has since been supportive of the military regime running the country.  Part of that military regime is made up with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is known to be a more militant and radical group with a history of using terrorism and threats of terrorism to advance their agenda. –Vision To America

<><><>*<><><>

Herman Cain’s ‘Choice’ Stance On Gays Doesn’t ‘Wash’

Herman Cain’s insistence that he be shown the science, the evidence that being gay is an inherent trait like eye color or skin color is well known. And it’s disgusting. So it should come as no surprise that the front-runner for the Republican nomination continued the offense last night during an interview with Piers Morgan.

Asked by the CNN anchor to confirm that he believes that homosexuality is a sin, Cain said, “I think it’s a sin because of my biblical beliefs and, although people don’t agree with me, I happen to think that it is a choice.” Challenged on his backward “choice” assertion, Cain asked, “What does science show? You show me evidence other than opinion and you might cause me to reconsider that.” He went on to say, “I respect their right to make that choice. You don’t see me bashing them. I respect their right to make that choice. I don’t have to agree with it. That’s all I’m saying.”

Then, Morgan went there.

Morgan: It would be like a gay person saying, Herman, you made a choice to be black.

Cain: You know that’s not the case. You know I was born black.

Morgan: Maybe if they say that, you would find that offensive.

Cain: Piers, Piers. This doesn’t wash off. I hate to burst your bubble.

Morgan: I don’t think being homosexual washes off.

Trust me, many black folks hate that analogy. Tough.

Just as Morgan argued in his questioning, a gay person no more wakes up in the morning saying, “I quite fancy being a homosexual today” than a black person chooses to be black.

Being black or being gay are immutable, God-given traits. And some of us — like me — are both. I had no choice in either matter. And yet I and millions of others have had to contend with the bigotry, hate or indifference from people who have a problem with one or both of my identities.

For Cain to insist that I can change my sexual orientation despite evidence to the contrary is further evidence that this man running for the privilege of sitting in the Oval Office should come nowhere near it. Ever.

By Jonathan Capehart—The Washington Post

<><><>*<><><>

Church-State Debate On The Slopes

Atheists want a statue of Jesus removed from a remote area of U.S. Forest Service property in Montana -- because of the remote chance someone might be offended by it.

The statue has stood on a 25-by-25-foot parcel of land leased to the Knights of Columbus since 1953. But because of a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Forest Service has not renewed the lease.

Hiram Sasser of Liberty Institute tells OneNewsNow that the statue constitutes "private speech" and is legal.

"It's actually a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to say that the monument has to be removed, because it's private speech," the attorney explains.

"Unlike most of the other monuments that you see, this is a private organization that is leasing federal land for private use. Anyone could put up a memorial there that they wanted to, as long as they went through the proper steps and procedures," Sasser notes.

He says it would be viewpoint discrimination to require that the Jesus statue be removed.

Sasser questions whether anyone is really offended by the statue that for years has been a curiosity to skiers on Big Mountain near Whitefish.

"Here's what's sad," he says. "I doubt that anybody who is objecting to this -- the small minority of folks who are objecting to this memorial -- have ever even gone up on the mountainside to go find it and see it."

After withdrawing its initial decision to remove the statue, the Forest Service has opened a public comment period to gather different views before making a final decision on whether Jesus has a place on the mountain. –One News Now

Sharia Lobby Shifts Into Fifth Gear

Sharia advocates desperately want to convince legislators and the public that Islamic law is plain vanilla --- and totally nonthreatening to existing U.S. legal codes. Notwithstanding a nationwide Muslim Brotherhood-backed pro-sharia push, nothing could be further from the truth.

“There are many unpleasant doctrines within Islam,” including its “repugnant” criminal code, honor killings, female genital cutting, and a Quranic verse Muslim clerics often cite, proclaiming “wives as a tilth unto you” (2:223), to deny the existence of marital rape. [1]

So allowed sharia professor Sadiq Reza at an Aug. 25-26 New York Law School (NYLS) conference. Any attempt to enforce its criminal code, he added, “would violate Constitutional law.” He insisted, though, that western Muslims don't “favor” these aspects of Islam and none seek to impose them. Evidence that they do abounds (here, here, here, here, here) but Reza said his broad web search found none.

Northwestern University Islamic law professor Kristen Stilt, too, disdained sharia criticism as “lunacy.” And University of Toronto Islamic law professor Mohammed Fadel referred the audience to a glossy, Soros-funded condemnation of skeptics, breathlessly entitled “Fear, Inc.” to persuade the gullible.

Soon afterward, journalist Joseph Klein recalled some points of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood “scholar” Yusuf Qaradawi, revered by the Islamic world --- and “Fear, Inc.” co-author Wajahat Ali. Qaradawi identifies fully with sharia as described by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and fellow so-called hate mongers headed by Center for Security Policy CEO Frank Gaffney, not Ali and his co-detractors. Qaradawi considers charity “jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money,” as I noted in fall 2007. Like the MB-backed Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Qaradawi also seeks to internationally criminalize insults to Islam or Mohammed.

CSP's sharia description is quite correct --- not the “hate” or “lunacy” that Reza, Ali, Stilt and Fadel call it. Sharia is indeed a

“complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law… Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society.”

Despite all sharia's sobering negatives, orchestrated campaigns to hype it and smear its critics --- with Reza in a vocal role --- have worked their expected magic. Days after NYLS's pro-sharia confab, in a Sept. 2 New York Times op-ed, Yale assistant professor Eliyahu Stern dutifully parroted the line of former Harvard Custodian of Two Holy Mosques prof. Frank Vogel, who thinks sharia “quite brilliant.” (On Sept. 3, its shine likewise compelled an unasked Dutch cleric, to “invite” Queen Beatrix to Islam.)

One might think a Yale assistant professor or the Times would check their facts prior to publication. One would be wrong. True enough, over 12 U.S. states are currently considering legislation that would outlaw using laws alien to U.S. foundational precepts in American courts. But Stern misspoke. A “bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote 'the destruction of the national existence of the United States',” he incorrectly groused.

Stern cited the summary of a proposed Tennessee bill version not actually passed into law. The real banana, Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011 (House Bill No. 1353), signed into Tennessee law Jun. 16, 2011 to amend its criminal code on terrorism, never once mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.” Nor does American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts, House Bill No. 3768, signed into Tennessee Public Chapter 983 in May 2010, to address foreign laws containing discriminatory or unequal precepts or clauses otherwise alien to U.S. and state civil, criminal and Constitutional laws and public policies.Yet --- evidently, without any independent study of sharia --- Stern admonished its U.S. critics to forgo their Constitutional rights to free speech, and worse, allow and accept U.S. court recognition of Islamic law.

But also on Sept. 2, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (ALIC)endorsed Michigan's proposed HB4769version of American Laws for American Courts.

Though apparently oblivious, in assuming a pro-sharia position, Stern effectively accepted a 7th century sharia dictate intended to suppress second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis): Islamic rule prohibits non-Muslims especially, at dire risk, from criticizing Mohammed, Islam or sharia, what most Muslims project as divine, perfect, immutable --- and indivisible --- laws. (Several conference speakers unwittingly echoed Qaradawi and, while lauding sharia, also noted Islam's total ban on its criticism.)

Put another way, the professors want American non-Muslim critics to comply with sharia and shut up.

Many women suffer real “oppression” in Muslim majority lands, for example, especially rape victims living under zina (extra-marital sex) or other sharia statutes, U. of Wisconsin law professor Asifa Quraishi admitted. Yet at every opportunity, including the NYLS conference, Quraishi has pushed hard to integrate sharia for Muslims into U.S. courts. Meanwhile, she's advised international women's rights advocates in Muslim majority countries that they would serve best “not to mention Islamic law at all.”

Quraishi blamed overseas human rights opposition to “sharia legislation (and sharia in general)” for exacerbating the plight of Muslim women. They “created an unwinnable and unnecessary war, of 'sharia vs. women’s rights'.” That again said Muslims will not adapt, and infidels must follow sharia.

Here is the 7th century dictate to second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis), write large: non-Muslims' criticism of Mohammed, Islam or sharia equals blasphemy. Such efforts to silence legitimate discussion render exceedingly troubling any consideration of separate and unequal sharia practices for use in U.S. courts. Already, too many U.S. Muslims ask and expect fellow citizens to censor themselves on sharia-related questions --- or suffer bullying, and name calling best limited to pre-schoolers.

In 19th century Europe, Stern wrote, both political elites and philosophers embraced “fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty.” Immanuel Kant “argued that the particularistic nature of 'Jewish legislation' made Jews 'hostile to all other peoples',” Friedrich Hegel opposed Jewish dietary and other Mosaic laws as limits on an ability to identify with “fellow Prussians” or provide dutiful civil service and Bruno Bauer demanded that Jews renounce private religious rules in exchange for “full legal rights” and citizenship.

However, European Jewish history offers no logical reason for U.S. sharia critics to forgo their “full legal” and Constitutional rights to free speech or to allow Islamic law in secular courts. All citizens, including Muslims, already hold full rights, which no one seeks to revoke. Freedom requires no fixing.

To Muslims, sharia means justice, we're told. Ironically, accepting such law in U.S. courts would create injustice, by making American Muslims more equal than others. They'd get exclusive rights, namely civil court access to religious cannon, not allowed to anyone else. This would substantially differ from the right to privately adhere (within the law) to religious cannon, which America has always allowed. Reinforcing this truth, the courageous U.S. men and women of AILC have clearly enumerated,

“the law should treat people of all faiths equally, while protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts to use the legal instrument of shari‘ah (also known as Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous understanding of Islam that is generally known as “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.”

“We see no evidence that statutes like HB 4769 will adversely impact the free exercise of our personal pietistic observance of Islam, which is not in conflict with the U.S. or Michigan constitutions. We recognize that not only Muslims, but also Jews, Christians and all people of faith need the government to protect their right to peaceful assembly, mediation and arbitration free of coercion, ... within the bounds of American constitutional principles. Therefore, we stand together as a diverse coalition in support of any legislation that serves to protect and integrate our communities into the fabric of this great nation, by strengthening our accountability to the laws of the land, and the constitutions of the various states in which we live.”

If sharia were advanced, progressive, wonderful and “brilliant,” its truth and beauty could withstand all criticism and questions. But sharia raises a major reg flag, in banning free speech and inquiry. How it would play out in the U.S. is perhaps best examined by looks at Britain and Germany, where all sharia's ills stand fully exposed. One needs no PhD or LD to realize that officially accepting any part of a legal system so often demonstrably at odds with our own would, yes, prescribe genuine national disaster.

If anything, intense pressure from closet Muslim radicals for U.S. sanction of sharia should push every state that can to pass its own bill as quickly as possible.

NOTES

[1] Andrew G. Bostom, “Sharia-sanctioned marital rape in Britain---and North America,” American Thinker,Oct. 15, 2010,, citing “Is there such a thing as marital rape?,” AMJAonline Jurisprudence Section, Association of Muslim Jurists in America, May 30, 2007, (first viewed 10/15/2010). Based on sharia, the influential Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America insists that marital rape is not a crime. The imams actually approve of felony attacks on wives. In 2007, a husband asked AMJA,“Is there such a thing as marital rape in the shariah?...is a man permitted to FORCE his wife to have sexual intercourse with him? ... she is naashiz and unwilling to have coitus.” Fatwa # 2982 replied,

“For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz [rebellious] under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and Islam. She is a former Senior Fellow for the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008); former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991). She was previously an Associate Editor at Forbes, where she worked upwards of 12 years (1978-1990), and an editor and staff writer at several other publications. She is also a poet. Her website is http://www.alyssaalappen.org. –Family Security Matters

A [Supposedly] True Story

One reality in the world is the fact that not all heads-of-state and foreign dignitaries speak or understand English. That is why, it is common to have an interpreter, who translates conversation(s) between non-English-speaking and English-speaking dignitaries or diplomats.

Nonetheless, some non-English speaking leaders want to "give a good impression", so they try to say something in English; by the same token, some English-speaking officials, who visit a foreign country, also try to say something in that country's "native tongue", such as, John F. Kennedy, who said "Ich ein Berliner" [in which he meant to say: "I am a Berliner!"] during his visit to West Berlin, Germany in the early 1960s -- [East Berlin was Communist then].

A recent story is told about a certain newly-elected foreign head-of-state, who neither speaks nor understands English, but who wanted to say something in English during his visit to the White House. So, before the scheduled trip to Washington, DC, he was given some basic lessons in American greeting customs, and also had several "practice sessions" with his country's coach/instructor [who acted as "US President"] which went as follows:

While shaking the US President's hand [played by the coach], the dignitary was instructed to say: "How are you?"

Then, the "US President" [the coach] responded: "I am fine, thank you. And you?"
Then, the dignitary was instructed to say: "Me, too."

And from that point on, the head of state was informed that the [officially appointed] interpreter was to translate the conversation between him and the US President.

During the actual visit in Washington, DC, the following exchange took place:

Upon meeting and while shaking Obama's hand, the visiting head-of-state somehow said: " WHO are you?"

Thinking that the guest was trying to be funny and jocular, Obama responded: "Well, I am Michelle's husband."

To which the foreign head-of-state replied: "Me, too!"

There was a long silence in the room!

Author Unknown

Beware Of The Hotel/Motel Scam!

This hotel/motel scam is more likely to occur in foreign hotels/motels. However, it still can/may happen in some US hotel/motel, so it is best to BE AWARE than BE SORRY.

How Does The Hotel/Motel Scam (Usually) Work?

After you check-in at the hotel/motel front desk --- where you give your credit card to the front desk clerk --- and you go to your room and settle in. . . the scammer calls the front desk and randomly asks for "Room 620, please?" [just for example. . .and which happens to be your room].

NOTE: For security reasons, USA hotel/motel front desk staff and/or operators do NOT give any kind of guest information, [e.g., the guest's name and/or the guest's room number], to anyone over the phone. It is only when a caller [inside or outside the hotel/motel] asks for a specific guest by name, that the USA hotel/motel operator will put the call through to the guest's room without giving the caller the guest's name and/or room number!

Then. . . [let us assume] your hotel room phone rings. You answer and the person on the other end [may] say the following, "This is the front desk. After you checked in, we came across some problem with your credit card. Would you please be so kind to re-read to me your credit card number and verify the 3-digit security numbers on the reverse side of your charge card?"

Since the caller says that he/she "is from the front desk", it is possible that you may not suspect that the caller is actually a scammer, and you give the person the information. By then, it is too late. . .you have been scammed!

Believe it or not, the above scenario actually happened to someone's friend while on vacation!
How do you avoid becoming a victim of the hotel/motel scam or any other scam via the telephone [or your computer]?

Again. . .NEVER give any personal and/or credit card information to anyone over the phone or your computer!

The only time you should give any personal and/or credit information over the phone or computer is if/when you yourself initiated the call or action to pay for some merchandise or service that you personally ordered or purchased. –Source Unknown

Carolina Camera: The Original Motorcycle Dog

An Appeal To Writers: Don't Confuse Christ With Christianity

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. - Martin Luther King Jr

I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity. - Mahatma Gandhi

I am no friend of present-day Christianity, though its Founder was sublime.         -Vincent Van Gogh

I may be skeptical about formal religion, but I know the power and promise of personal faith in God. After nearly a year of writing this column, I am more convinced than ever about the need to differentiate between Christ and Christianity, religion and faith. Convincing people of the impotence of religion at times seems a hopeless task, but  I know there are people out there who are thinking this through.

“Faith,” the Scriptures tell us, “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” That speaks of conviction, longing and trust, not clichéd, boring religion.

The fact remains that most people don't desire true life-giving faith in God; they prefer the convenience of inherited religion. The reasons are obvious: Religions give you rules to obey. They are handed down, no thinking need be done, and most people prefer to hang on to their institutional club membership for the tradition and the perks.

Paying dues regularly to secure membership, they feel they are in control, but it's the other way around: Religious middlemen keep people corralled, like so many different herds kept in bondage to expansionist, power and money-seeking organizations all their lives.

Not surprisingly, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, authors of God is Back, claim that one of the key factors driving the surge of religion is the same thing that drives the success of market capitalism: competition.

Like sex and drugs, religious conviction is addictive for its self-righteous high, making promises it cannot keep. Its carrot and stick strategy dangles mystical inducements which always remain just out of reach. Like rats on an exercise wheel, people are kept piously striving in a religious stupor, even though their lives show no transformation.

Everything in religion is determined by those in control. As we follow organized belief systems, our faith becomes farce, changing into what people in power say it is. It is not genuine, humble faith in God.

Responding to my recent article on testing all the great religions, Soni, a dear friend from Canada wrote: “I feel your call to 'authentic, life changing faith,' can be misunderstood. I have firsthand accounts of my friends who testify that their lives changed for the better after doing yoga, meeting a guru or adopting another religion, and they genuinely believe that and their life style shows it! If I have learnt anything from the harsh winters in Canada it is this: You can have little or no faith in a foot of frozen ice sheet over a lake but still be safe, or have immense faith in two inches of ice to carry you and drown. Ergo a person’s faith is as good as the object of one's faith.”

I couldn’t agree  with her more.

But I remind myself that while I can discuss Christ – the reason for my faith – I cannot prove he is true for others. The ultimate journey to the truth must be made alone, even in the midst of fellow pilgrims pointing the way.

I can only confront Christianity and point people away from the religion I grew up in, because its historical misrepresentation of Christ continues. I have no in-depth knowledge of other religions, so I won't argue that they share Christianity's problems.

Christianity Today reports that America’s largest Protestant denomination, the 166-year-old Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), with over 16 million members, may be changing its name. The decision is being considered because its regional name has a negative impact on people’s decision to visit or join an SBC church. "When they hear Southern Baptist, it's a regional perception there,” admits Bryant Wright, SBC president.

I think it's high time Christians realized that the term ‘Christianity’ itself has serious negative connotations. Most of the world sees Christianity as a western construct. Furthermore, it has an indefensible, depraved history, and many of its clergy and adherents are its worst ambassadors.

Christianity Today is a magazine I respect and read, but I wonder if those who publish it realize they are stuck with a title that belongs to a religion that dishonors the sacred name it exploits. CT supports an  extravagant religious edifice, which could  not have been the intent of the humble Savior who persistently scorned the pride and trappings of clerical power, pride and hypocrisy.

In the 2,000 years since its inception , Christianity as a religion has made little difference in the world except for swelling the ranks of its nominal professors. Most of the two billion people who claim to be Christians have deluded themselves that they are genuine followers of Christ.

If Christianity were all it claims to be, should it not have made more of an impact? Men like Gandhi, Tolstoy, and many others saw through it, and became convinced that it did not authentically represent Christ. I cannot understand why its high priests don’t denounce it before a world which longs for the Truth.

Think of what would happen if Christian leaders admitted that they made a terrible mistake, then obliterated all denominational distinctions - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." They might lose members to other religions for a while, but people would then have to seriously consider what, or rather who, is the way, the truth and the life.

My earlier appeal to Billy Graham, to declare that following Christ and Christianity are not the same thing, fell on deaf ears. I wonder if this appeal to writers to stop using the word Christianity to describe faith in Christ, which only promotes belief in an institution, will make any difference.

C.S. Lewis wrote, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Unthinking statements like this perpetuate the myth of Christianity – from his testimony there is no question that Lewis was referring to Christ, not the religion called Christianity.

I receive regular responses from readers, posted as feedback to this weekly column. What often comes across in these is pride, hate, prejudice and a shallow understanding of what true faith in God is.

One doesn’t have to read news headlines to see that the religions people follow have little impact on their moral behavior. Rather, like flies on sticky paper, people are trapped in their religious loyalties.

God cannot be just if he does not reveal himself to every individual, giving each person the opportunity to know who he is. Only then can we exercise our free will to acknowledge him or reject him.

From my own experience as well as countless other  testimonies, I know he gives us that opportunity. –The Washington Times

Note: Frank Raj is based in the Middle East where he has lived for over three decades. He is the founding editor and publisher of ‘The International Indian’, the oldest magazine of Gulf-Indian society and history since 1992. Frank is listed in Arabian Business magazine’s 100 most influential Indians in the Gulf and is co-author of the upcoming publication ‘Universal Book of the Scriptures,’ and author of ‘Desh Aur Diaspora.’ He blogs at www.no2christianity.wordpress.com

WIDE IS THE GATE

The Emerging New Christianity

Can We Test The Great Religions?

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.  – Albert Camus, French philosopher

It is hard for many people to give up the religion in which they were born; to admit that their fathers were utterly mistaken, and that the sacred records of their country are but collections of myths and fables.— Robert Green Ingersoll, Politician, Orator, Agnostic

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven. – Mark Twain (American author and humorist)

The world should watch India carefully: What is happening here is relevant to every society. It is the spectacle of a people long held in bondage because of their own failings by their elected criminal politicians, realizing at last that a corrupt way of life is untenable.

What ignited the turmoil in the subcontinent and the Arab world? Is it religion, or is something else causing the convulsions? Established religion is restraining change rather than revitalizing these countries. It is technology-driven awareness of their wretched conditions and the yearning for a better life that is driving these revolutions.

In 2008 a sceptical world watched the U.S. elections, wondering, would Americans really elect a Black President? In India the question is, can a nation of 1.2 billion people change its corrupt social order?

India’s anti-corruption activists have succeeded in forcing the government to agree to their demands, but the odds are against the kind of change Indians seek: The country's rot is too deep. People are disinclined to let go of their corrupt ways on their own. They hope that legislation will magically end corruption for them.

Looking around our world today, it seems that few nations can distinguish between right and wrong. This is especially true in countries like India, which is ranked among the most corrupt countries in the world.

The cultural heritage of a country may be impressive but it is worthless without a genuine moral foundation. Corruption, intolerance, cruelty and fanaticism have eaten into the vitals of Indian culture and the highest levels of government.

In 1981 a popular music group, The Police, sang: Poets, priests and politicians, have words to thank for their positions, words that scream for your submission.

A spiritual contest to win people's hearts and minds rages as never before. All the major religions are in the fray, but there are also potent contenders from the media and entertainment world. Better informed today, people are moving away from traditions to options. Individualism and diversity increasingly mark people’s lives, new values that have virtually eliminated the old ones.

People are influenced and empowered by access to improved health, education, travel, technology, and market economies. They constantly assess their career prospects, bank balances, etc. But they rarely examine their core beliefs.

Most folks dislike discussing matters of faith, clinging to the odd notion that they are a personal matter and their traditions must be retained at any cost.

I spent three decades in ignorance, confusion and pain before I realized the impotence of my inherited beliefs and abandoned institutional religion. I'd spent years kissing the backsides of clueless, often unprincipled clergy, calling them “Father,” thinking they had control over my relationship with God.

Christianity has added a suffix to the one name in history that needs no embellishment. Its rules, rituals and traditions divert millions from Christ. Like me, they don't recognize or understand the work of the Saviour and take decades to grasp that understanding.

Where politics and religion have bungled, can genuine faith make a difference? Religion plays a crucial role in people's lives, but if instead of creedal tribalism if we cultivated genuine spiritual values, could conflicts be mitigated or overcome?

When Benjamin Franklin stood before America’s Constitutional Convention more than 200 years ago, he declared, referring to Jesus in Matthew 10:29-31, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

India’s track record as an ethical society is dismal, but if Indians forsook their duplicity and genuinely turned around as the ancient Ninevites did in Jonah 1-4, what would happen? If the country cannot find a way to stem individual rot, there is no hope for a genuine social revolution. Any gains would be lost.

Is this the test the of a religion's effectiveness? India is  a pluralistic country in great ferment, and an experiment might be worth trying.

Exploiting people with religion is an unscrupulous business. But what if India allows every religious establishment that seeks to win people’s hearts to openly spread its message if only it prove their creed’s commitment and worth by helping Indians to be better?

After all, of what use is a belief system if it cannot transform people?

Why not challenge all the major religions to come up with strategies to alter people’s lives and lead them to authentic faith, whatever that maybe?

Let each major religious group furnish the people of India with a blueprint for change, outlining a specific time-limited program for achieving its claims. The objective is not merely to allow them to win converts, but to produce better citizens.

Five years should be time enough to demand from them results.

During that period the government should ensure peace and harmony in the country so that no group tries to intimidate the other. Every organization should be given complete freedom with no restrictions on converting to another faith.

The media should motivate the entire country to encourage the groups and spur them on.

After the deadline, a panel of carefully chosen, impartial experts from academia, media, business, politics, etc., should review the results and declare who has made the most impact in improving the lot of Indians. They should measure not just the number of converts, but all-around transformation in people’s lives.

More evidence of change would be a significant drop in India’s 87th place ranking by the anti-corruption watchdog, Transparency International.

After five years the people will be able to figure it out for themselves.

Can you imagine the impact if the highest spiritual ideals were employed to improve the country? Qualities like love, tolerance, kindness, honesty, and self-control?

If such a program were implemented, the entire country would stand to win - including the groups making a marginal impact! They can try again.

Even if only a portion of the population were rejuvenated, it would have a huge impact on religious harmony.

India is already home to the great religions, but it is mere religiosity that governs its society. There are unnecessary conflicts and official policy restraints. If the government is cooperative, the experiment could be implemented by the various organizations on their own initiative.

All religions compete in the battle for hearts and minds, but why does authentic, life changing faith elude most people?

By Frank Raj-The Washington Times

Note: Frank Raj is based in the Middle East where he has lived for over three decades. He is the founding editor and publisher of ‘The International Indian’, the oldest magazine of Gulf-Indian society and history since 1992. Frank is listed in Arabian Business magazine’s 100 most influential Indians in the Gulf and is co-author of the upcoming publication ‘Universal Book of the Scriptures,’ and author of ‘Desh Aur Diaspora.’ He blogs at www.no2christianity.wordpress.com.

Lemon Squeeze

There once was a young woman who went to Confession. Upon entering the confessional, she said, 'Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.'

'Confess your sins and be forgiven.'

'Last night my boyfriend made passionate love to me seven times.' the young woman said.

The priest thought long and hard and then said, 'Squeeze seven lemons into a glass and then drink the juice.'

'Will this cleanse me of my sins?'

'No, but it will wipe that smile off of your face.' the priest said.

Author Unknown

The Human Planet

Hertz Suspends Muslim Shuttle Drivers

Once again we witness a group of Muslims demanding special accommodations not afforded to anyone else.

In the MSNBC story below, we read that Hertz suspended Muslim shuttle drivers who took time off work to pray but did not clock out when doing so. (Not all Muslim shuttle drivers refused to clock out and those who did clock out were not suspended.)

Clocking out is a perfectly reasonable requirement—in spite of what a union official said. The union official said requiring the Muslim drivers to clock out to pray “is like having workers clock in and out for smoke breaks or bathroom breaks.”

Uh, no it isn’t.

In case you missed it, here’s another example of Muslims demanding special treatment. This time, it was at a New York theme park in August, where Muslim women were told that safety rules required they not wear headscarves on certain rides.

Again, sounds perfectly reasonable to us—but not to some of the Muslim women. A brawl erupted.

Some foolishly and incorrectly called this safety requirement further evidence of “Islamophobia.” Would those people be willing to pay the legal costs incurred by the park if a Muslim woman got strangled by her headscarf on a ride and then her family sued the park for not protecting her safety? Of course they wouldn’t.

A central element of radical Islam is an ideologically-based supremacist mindset that demands that societies accommodate them, rather than their assimilating into their host societies. This also reflects sharia law’s requirement that human laws must always be subordinate to Islamic law. –Act For America

^^^*^^^

Hertz Suspends Praying Muslim Shuttle Drivers

Thirty-four Somali Muslims who drive airport shuttle buses for Hertz were suspended Friday over a dispute over praying on the job.

In the three years she's worked as a shuttle driver for Hertz at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Zainab Aweis, had always taken time out of her shift each day to pray.

An observant Muslim, she prays five times a day — with one, sometimes two of those prayer times falling during her shift.

"That was the one benefit of the job," the 20-year-old said.

On Friday, she and 33 other drivers — all of them Somali Muslims — were suspended indefinitely from their jobs after they took religious breaks to pray while at work without first clocking out.

A spokesman for Teamsters Local 117, which represents the workers, said it is trying to get the workers back on the job.

Both the company and the union late Thursday said they were waiting to hear back from the other.

While the drivers were allowed two, 10-minute breaks during their work shifts during which they could pray, Teamsters officials said managers had agreed in negotiations that workers would not have to clock out and in, though the contract itself does not address the matter.

And the workers and their union said Hertz had previously not required that workers clock out for prayer. The union said it has filed an unfair-labor-practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against Hertz for failing to notify the union in advance of what it called a policy change.

But Hertz said the rules aren't new; that it had been trying for some time to enforce the terms of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settlement it reached with the workers two years ago that required them to clock out.

A Hertz spokesman said the workers had been repeatedly told they needed to clock out and that the 34 suspended workers had not complied.

"We felt it was reasonable for our Muslim employees who need to pray a couple times during the workday to clock in and clock out," said Rich Broome, spokesman for Hertz.

Broome said it's not about pay — break time is paid time — but to ensure that workers were staying within the 10-minute time slots, which has been a problem.

He pointed out that Muslim workers who clocked out were not suspended.

On Wednesday, a few dozen people from area labor and faith organizations protested on behalf of the workers outside the Hertz counter at the airport, waving signs saying, "Respect me, Respect my religion."

The Teamsters represents about 79 drivers at Hertz — about 70 percent of whom are Muslim — earning between $9.15 and $9.95 an hour. They receive no health benefits, vacation or sick leave.

Aweis said she was not aware the rules had changed until she arrived at work on Friday and managers told her and six other women who were about to pray that several other workers had been sent home that day for praying.

"He said, 'If you guys pray, you go home,' " Aweis recalled.

"I said, 'Is that a new rule?' And he said, 'yes.' "

They prayed anyway, she said, contending that managers stood over them taunting and disrupting them.

"I like the job," Aweis said. "But if I can't pray, I don't see the benefit."

Mohamed Hassan, of the Somali Community Services Coalition, said the workers cannot afford to be away from their jobs. "They need to pay rent and buy food for their children."

By Lornet Turnbull
The Seattle Times

"...Many Other Things..."

"This is the disciple who testifies of these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are alsomany other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." -John 21:24-25

If you or I sat down to read only the words of Christ from the pages of the Holy Bible, it might take us two or three hours (maybe slightly more or less) - over 99% of His words are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Jesus lived a total of 33 years. Three of these years, the final three, are considered His "ministry years," and it's within these three years that all of His words from the four Gospel accounts are taken.

But, what else do you suppose Jesus said and did in his 33 years? Isn't that an exciting question to ponder? Did He say, "Mom, what's for dinner?" Probably. Or maybe, "Can I go over to Johnny's house and play for awhile?" I like to think of Christ in this childlike, human light.

We've learned all of our lives that Christ was fully human...and fully God. The human side of Christ makes Him real to us...gives us a firm, sure way to relate to this remarkable and incomparable individual. This remains the wonderful and intentional plan of God.

But, what else did He do? What else did He say? What other diseases did He heal? Did He raise up anyone else from the dead? How many other life-saving parables and stories did He tell that inspired people to believe in, and rely on, a loving, forgiving, and all-powerful God?

Clearly, it is God's plan for us to read only the words that are printed in today's Bible - these are the words and concepts inspired by God, handed down to us, and meant for our ears and hearts today. But Christ's disciple and friend, John, tells us that "...there are also many other things that Jesus did..." Jesus Christ, the living, breathing Lord of all - God-come-to-earth in human form - we can only imagine the unlimited vastness of the attributes that are at His command.

Written by Jim Coleman
A Positive Minute-Hour of Power

* * *

PRAYER:

Lord, You mean the world to me...You are EVERYTHING to me...yet, I can only grasp such a small portion of the total You. Thank You for visiting with me yesterday, today, and always. Amen.

* * *

Of all of the words, sayings, healings, and activities of Christ described in the pages of the Bible...which one means the most to you? Study this favorite passage more...read it and reread it...pray about it and seek and search it for new insights. What did you discover?

A Blue Rose

Having several house guests --- family members from out-of-town visiting, my wife was very busy, so I offered to go to the store for her to get some needed items. So off I went. I scurried around the store, gathered up my goodies, and headed for the checkout counter, only to be blocked in the narrow aisle by a young man who appeared to be in his teens. I wasn't in a hurry, so I patiently waited for the boy to realize that I was there. This was when he waved his hands excitedly in the air and declared loudly, "Mommy, I'm over here."

 It was obvious that he was mentally challenged. He was startled as he turned and saw me standing so close to him, waiting to squeeze by. His eyes widened in surprise when I asked him, "Hey Buddy, what's your name?" 

"My name is Denny and I'm shopping with my mother," he responded. 

"Wow! That's a cool name. I wish my name was Denny, but my name is Steve," said I. 

"Steve, like Stevarino?" he asked.

"Yes," I answered. "How old are you Denny?" 

"How old am I now, Mommy?" he asked as she slowly came over from the next aisle. 

"You're 15 years old Denny; now be a good boy and let the man pass." 

I acknowledged her but I continued to talk to Denny for several more minutes about summer, bicycles, and school. I watched his brown eyes dance with excitement because he was the center of someone's attention. He then abruptly turned and headed toward the toy section. 

Denny's mom had a somewhat puzzled look on her face as she thanked me for taking the time to talk with her son. She told me that most people wouldn't even look at him, much less talk to him. I told her that it was my pleasure and then I said something I have no idea where it came from other than by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. 

I told her: "There are plenty of pink, red, and yellow roses in God's garden; however, blue roses are very rare and should be appreciated for their distinctive beauty. Denny is just like a blue rose; if one doesn't stop to admire and appreciate his being rare and unique, then one missed a blessing from God." 

She was silent for a few seconds, then with a tear in her eye she asked, "Who are you?"
Without thinking I said, "Oh, I'm probably just a dandelion, but I sure love living in God's garden." 

She reached out, squeezed my hand, and said, "God bless you!" Then, I had tears in my eyes. 

May I suggest that the next time you see a blue rose, please don't just turn your head and walk away. Take the time to smile and say hello. Why? Because a blue rose's mother or father could have been you. The blue rose could have been your child, grandchild, niece, or nephew. What a difference a moment can mean to that person or family.

Author Unknown

Ex-Muslim Speaks About 'The Koran Dilemma'

It's been 10 years since Muslim terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks. Yet polls show that most Americans still have very little understanding of Islam.

CBN News recently spoke with one former Muslim who is looking to change that by revealing the politically incorrect truth about the Koran.

Al Fadi, a Saudi native, said it's no coincidence that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

"When I lived in Saudi Arabia, not only did I look at non-Muslims as second class, you would look at non-devout Muslims as second class citizens," Fadi told CBN News.

"If Islam has to prosper, be the superior religion, then certain steps must be taken by its followers, including spreading Islam at any cost, including the sword and killing any opposition," he said.

Real Life Under Islam

These days al Fadi, which is a pseudonym, lives in the West. He also left Islam for Christianity, a move that would bring a death sentence in his native country.

"The Koran will emphatically say in chapter 4, verse 157 that the crucifiction never took place, that someone else was made to look like Jesus and was put in his place," Fadi explained.

"So you learn all of these things and then of course you learn that the Koran tells you to hate the Christians and the Jews," he said.

Fadi wants to bring these bitter truths about Islam's holiest book to a Western audience. Like other former Muslims, he's written a book called'The Qur'an Dilemma.'

The book analyzes the teachings of the Koran from the perspective of someone who actually lived under them.

According to Fadi, life under Islam is much different than the whitewashed version often presented by the Western media and Muslim pressure groups.

That includes the Koran's call to jihad, or "holy" war, against non-believers.

"It is basically a proscriptive demand found in the Koran when it comes to jihad - killing the infidels, spreading Islam until there is no other religion on earth except the religion of Allah," Fadi explained.

"The West does not know many, if not all, of these things because they're basically oblivious to what the Koran teaches as a whole. They're only fed portions of the Koran," he said.

Violent Turns

Those peaceful portions, Fadi says, came during the early stages in the career of Islam's prophet, Mohammed.

During these years, Mohammed lived in the Saudi city of Mecca with only a handful of followers.

His message changed dramatically once he moved to Medina and gained converts and political power.

Many of the Koranic verses from that later Medina period include calls to violence and intolerance.

Like chapter 8, verse 12: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

Then there is the infamous verse of the sword in chapter 9, verse 5: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…."

Meanwhile, chapter 5, verse 51 warns Muslims not to befriend Jews and Christians.

Loving Your Enemies

Fadi said these later verses represent Mohammed's final say on the matter. Any older, more peaceful verses were cancelled out--or abrogated--by the later "revelations."

"You cannot stand against the religion, you cannot critique the prophet or the teaching of the Koran, and you cannot leave the religion because you're not free to do so," Fadi said. "There is no equality between genders, there is no equality between people of other faiths."

Fadi experienced this belief system firsthand growing up in Saudi Arabia, Mohammed's birthplace. He was a radical Wahhabi Muslim who knew members of the bin Laden family.

As a young man, Fadi wanted to follow in Osama bin Laden's footsteps and take on Soviets in Afghanistan.

"I was willing to go fight and die. And then that opportunity didn't take place," Fadi recalled.
That's when he decided to attend college in the West - in the very backyard of his sworn enemies. Fadi planned to promote Islam to anyone who would listen.

But a funny thing happened along the way. For the first time in his life, Fadi actually met and spent time with Christians.

"Basically, the more I met people who follow Christ, the more I realized that they are distinct and unique in their character. They're kind, they're patient, they're loving, they have moral values, they don't look at others with hatred," he recalled "At some point I heard the teaching of Christ to love your enemies. Technically speaking, I am their enemy, and they didn't hate me, they actually loved me," he said.

Leaving Islam

Before long, Fadi was ready to do what had once been unthinkable: to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. But the decision was not an easy one.

"For you to leave Islam, you are leaving your identity, your culture, your community, your family, everything that you grew up to believe to be true," he said. "There is no separation between state and mosque, state and religion."

Fadi's family in Saudi Arabia eventually came to grips with his leaving Islam. One of his brothers, however, still threatens his life on a regular basis.

But he said the threats won't stop him from telling the truth about his former religion.

Infiltrating the Infidels

"Muslims know very well that the best way to conquer is not by the sword anymore," Fadi said.

"It's by infiltrating the societies, the political systems, and by basically taking their time to grow, to become a majority that at some point, they will have a voice that they can topple things basically to their advantage," he said.

With The Qur'an Dilemma, Fadi hopes to ensure that never happens.

By Erick Stakelbeck
CBN News Terrorism Analyst

Author Unknown

This Weeks Sound Off

The Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that found World Vision can fire employees who don't accept its Christian doctrinal statement. –One News Now

Religious intolerance … the new frontier?

Ragbag Headliners

Baptist Pastor Taken To Task

Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck wrapped up the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC, Sunday in a wave of anti-Mormonism comments lodged towards GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

The weekend gathering of conservatives provided GOP presidential candidates a platform to present their ideas. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in downtown Dallas, was asked by Summit sponsor Family Research Council to introduce Texas Governor Rick Perry. But the Texas pastor captured more headlines than the candidates themselves when, during an interview after the introduction, described Mormonism is a "cult" and said presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is "not a Christian."

Beck, founder of Glenn Beck TV, delivered a 39-minute speech at the conclusion of the event. In a tearful moment, he defended his Mormon faith as he referred to Pastor Jeffress' remarks.

"People have come onto this stage and been for and against, I guess, members of my faith," Beck stated. "I celebrate their right to say those things in America. I am a proud member of the church of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior -- he redeemed me."

In earlier remarks, William Bennett, who served as Secretary of Education under President Ronald Reagan, also responded to Jeffress' comments, saying the pastor had overshadowed the speeches of Rick Perry and all the GOP candidates who spoke at the conference.

"Do not give voice to bigotry," said Bennett. "And I would say to Pastor Jeffress, you stepped on and obscured the words of Perry and [Rick] Santorum and [Herman] Cain and [Michele] Bachmann and everyone else who has spoken here. You did Rick Perry no good, sir, in what you had to say." -Read More At One News Now

<><><>*<><><>

Supreme Court Still Fuzzy On 10 Commandments

The Supreme Court won't resolve a conflict over a Ten Commandments display in the courtroom of Richland County, Ohio Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese.

Geoffrey Surtees of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), who represented Judge DeWeese, contends that the "'Philosophies of Law and Conflict' display, which includes the text of the Ten Commandments, is simply not an Establishment Clause violation. It was our hope that the Supreme Court would take the opportunity [to] correct the lower courts on this point of law, but for whatever reason, it chose not to do so."

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati previously ruled that the display endorsed religious views and was unconstitutional, and appeals judges have rejected DeWeese's contention that the display was a private, religious expression protected by the Constitution.

The display has been covered with a drape and labeled "censored" since a federal judge ordered DeWeese to remove it in October 2009. He admits he knew getting the Supreme Court to hear his case was a long shot. But Surtees points out that the high court's refusal to do so does not necessarily mean that DeWeese is wrong. As he notes, the myriad of different decisions in federal appeals courts has caused confusion in Ten Commandments cases.

"In 2005, the United States Supreme Court on the very same day gave us two different decisions: one upholding a Ten Commandments display, and the other striking down a Ten Commandments display," The ACLJ attorney notes. "So the Supreme Court has just not given us any clear guidelines as to what it thinks to be constitutional and unconstitutional for a government to do when it comes to displaying the Ten Commandments."

In fact, Surtees took DeWeese's case to the Supreme Court in hopes of ending the confusion over the constitutional "do's and don't's" when it comes to displaying the Ten Commandments. –One News Now

Worldview Writers And God’s Law

Students at Reformed Theological Seminary, where I was a student from 1974 to 1979, who were interested in worldview thinking first were directed to Abraham Kuyper’s 1898 Lectures on Calvinism. It was here that we were told that we would find a fully developed, comprehensive, biblical world-and-life view. Kuyper’s brand of Calvinism has been described as the “only modern exception” to the tendency of Christians either to abandon social action in favor of piety or to abandon piety in favor of social action.[1] The “Kuyperian” tradition “was at once pious and socially influential.”[2] An often quoted Kyuperian aphorism is, “there is not one inch of creation of which Christ doesn’t say ‘Mine.’”[3] In his Lectures on Calvinism, Kuyper discussed politics, science, and art — more than the familiar five points that are most associated with Calvinism and concluded,

That in spite of all worldly opposition, God’s holy ordinances shall be established again in the home, in the school and in the State for the good of the people; to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the Lord, to which the Bible and Creation bear witness, until the nation pays homage again to God.[4]

Everything that has been created was, in its creation, finished by God with an unchangeable law of its existence. And because God has fully ordained such laws and ordinances for all life, therefore the Calvinist demands that all life be consecrated to His service in strict obedience. A religion confined to the closet, the cell, or the church, therefore, Calvin abhors.[5]

Notice that there is no talk about natural law or a two-kingdom approach to ethics that separates special revelation from our world beyond the individual, family, and church. Of course, Kuyper did not dismiss natural law, but like every natural law advocate he was “reading” natural law through the prism of the Bible. He couldn’t help it. Even natural law advocate David VanDrunen agrees that in Kuyper’s thought, “natural knowledge becomes of service only with the help of special revelation.”[6] The world at large can only be read through correction of heart and mind, as Kuyper himself stated: “[F]or the Calvinist, all ethical study is based on the Law of Sinai, not as though at that time the moral world-order began to be fixed, but to honor the Law of Sinai, as the divinely authentic summary of that original moral law which God wrote in the heart of man, at his creation, and which God is re-writing on the tables of every heart at its conversion.”[7]

If this is true and necessary of the converted, how is it possible that the unregenerate will be able to read and apply the natural law properly or even know what it is in the particulars? Kuyper believed the Bible, operating as a corrective lens on our fallen selves and fallen world, was needed to read ourselves and our world. While two-kingdom adherents acknowledge this in Kuyper’s work, they reverse the order and contend that natural law is adequate to interpret natural law.

In Henry Van Til’s The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, the following is found:

Augustine believed that peace with God precedes peace in the home, in society, and in the state. The earthly state too must be converted, transformed into a Christian state by the permeation of the kingdom of God within her, since true righteousness can only be under the rule of Christ.

Not only in the realm of ethics and politics must conversion take place … [but also] for knowledge and science. Apart from Christ, man’s wisdom is but folly, because it begins with faith in itself and proclaims man’s autonomy. The redeemed man, on the other hand, begins with faith and reason in subjection to the laws placed in this universe by God: he learns to think God’s thoughts after him. All of science, fine art and technology, conventions of dress and rank, coinage, measures and the like, all of these are at the service of the redeemed man to transform them for the service of his God.[8]

Van Til believed that the building of a Christian culture is a Christian imperative. Van Til castigated the Barthians for their repudiation of a Christian culture. “For them,” he wrote, “there is no single form of social, political, economic order that is more in the spirit of the Gospel than another.”[9] While I would not want to lump our Reformed friends with the Barthians, it seems that their different theologies are taking them to the same place.

H. Henry Meeter’s The Basic Ideas of Calvinism focused on politics from a distinctly biblical starting point. The first edition (1939) was described as “Volume I.” A subsequent volume never appeared. Again, the Bible was emphasized as the standard for Christians and non-Christians because there is only one law of God.

The Calvinist insists that the principles of God’s Word are valid not only for himself but all citizens. Since God is to be owned as Sovereign by everyone, whether he so wishes or not, so also the Bible should be the determining rule for all. But especially for himself the Christian, according to the Calvinist, must in politics live by these principles.[10]

Since God is the Sovereign of all His creatures and creation, He must be recognized as the lawmaker for all mankind. How does one determine what that rule is? Meeter told us that the Bible should be the determining rule for all, not just for Christians and not just for settling ecclesiastical disputes.

Whenever a State is permeated with a Christian spirit and applies Christian principles in the administration of civil affairs, it is called ‘Christian.’ If that be what is meant by a Christian State, then all States should be Christian, according to the conscience of the Calvinist, even though many states are not Christian. If God is the one great Sovereign of the universe, it is a self-evident fact that His Word should be law to the ends of the earth.”[11]

Meeter had moved from “Christian principles” to “His Word should be law.” The goal, then, is God’s Word as the “law.”Meeter continues:

If God is Ruler, no man may ever insist that religion be a merely private matter and be divorced from any sphere of society, political or otherwise. God must rule everywhere! The State must bow to His ordinances just as well as the Church or any private individual. The Calvinist, whose fundamental principle maintains that God shall be Sovereign in all domains of life, is very insistent on having God recognized in the political realm also.[12]

In what way is the State to “bow to His ordinances”? Where are these ordinances found? “For matters which relate to its own domain as State, it is bound to the Word of God as the Church or the individual.” For Meeter, a “State is Christian” when it uses “God’s Word as its guide.”[13]

Meeter left the inquiring Christian with additional questions: “If the Bible, then, is the ultimate criterion by which the State must be guided in determining which laws it must administer, the question arises, with how much of the Bible must the State concern itself?”[14] He told us that “Civil law relates to outward conduct.”[15] The starting point is God’s Word. Does this mean that every law is applicable to the civil sphere? Not at all. The Bible sets forth a clear jurisdictional separation between Church and State, and I might add, the individual, family, business, and economics as well.[16]

The Calvinistic Action Committee’s God-Centered Living. God-Centered Living began with this noble goal: “This book seeks to be of help to those who desire to know what the will of God is for the practical guidance of their lives in the complex relations and situations of our modern day.” Clarence Bouma’s Introduction is titled “The Relevance of Calvinism for Today.” The Committee encouraged the reader with its intent not simply to “theorize,” describing its method as “a call to action” based on the “clarification and application of basic Christian principles. There will be no solution for our pressing modern social problems without recourse to the verities of the Word of God.”[17] The book is comprehensive, covering everything from the role of “The Church for the Solution of Modern Problems” to “Calvinism and International Relations.” William Spoelhof concludes his chapter on “Calvinism and Political Action” with these words: “Calvinists in America have the theory — all they need is the practice.”[18] This is the question of the day. How should Christians act and by what standard?

There is no doubt that Francis A. Schaeffer (1912–1984) broadened the appeal of the Reformed faith with his popular writing style and activist worldview. Schaeffer’s popularity was extensive enough that he was recognized by the secular media as the “Guru of Fundamentalism,”[19] but his worldview was nurtured in the soil of world-and-life-view Calvinism. Schaeffer filled the intellectual gap that resided in much of fundamentalism. In a sense, he carried on the tradition of his early mentor, J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937).

Prior to 1968, little was known of Francis Schaeffer. He had isolated himself from American evangelicalism by ministering to the roaming discards of society who were trekking through Europe hoping to find answers to life’s most perplexing problems. The publication of The God Who Is There and Escape from Reason introduced him to an American evangelicalism in crisis. Schaeffer had an impact where many Christian scholars had made only a few inroads to the hearts and minds of Christians. What did Schaeffer do that was different? Certainly Carl F. H. Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism[20] made an impact. It was, however, more of a statement than a system of belief with worked-out implications. Schaeffer worked at integration. His desire was to be more than just a critic of culture.

Schaeffer saw extended implications to the worldview he put in motion in his early works. He expanded the areas over which He believed Jesus is Lord with the publication of How Should We Then Live? and Whatever Happened to the Human Race? “That led to the demand of the next logical step: What is the Christian’s relationship to government, law, and civil disobedience?”[21]

Schaeffer rightly decried a de facto sociological law — “law based only on what the majority of society thinks is in its best interests at a given moment” — but offered no worked-out worldview to counter and replace it. He wrote about a “Christian consensus” and how that consensus is found in the Bible and spills over to the broader culture. This is best demonstrated in his repeated references to Paul Robert’s painting Justice Instructing the Judges.

Down in the foreground of the large mural the artist depicts many sorts of litigation — the wife against the husband, the architect against the builder, and so on. How are the judges going to Judge between them? This is the way we judge in a Reformation country, says Paul Robert. He has portrayed Justice pointing with her sword to a book upon which are the words, “The Law of God.” For Reformation man there was a basis for law. Modern man has not only thrown away Christian theology; he has thrown away the possibility of what our forefathers had as a basis for morality and law.[22]

This emphasis on the law continued to play a part in Schaeffer’s worldview theology. “In Reformation countries,” Schaeffer wrote, “the Old Testament civil law has been the basis of our civil law.” Of course, he quickly reminded his readers that “we are not a theocracy, it is true; nevertheless, when Reformation Christianity provided the consensus, men naturally looked back to the civil law that God gave Israel, not to carry it out in every detail, but to see it as a pattern and a base.”[23] Schaeffer saw the book of Joshua as “a link between the Pentateuch (the writings of Moses) and the rest of Scripture. It is crucial for understanding the unity the Pentateuch has with all that follows it, including the New Testament.”[24]

Surveys continue to show that Christian beliefs, for example, on homosexuality are changing. An attitude of “live and let live,” “love” is the important element in any relationship, and we’re not supposed to judge are three common responses to negative responses to homosexuality. There is almost no talk about God’s law. For decades the church has drilled into Christians that it’s all about grace. As these above writers show, the law of God is fundamental to a Christian worldview. There is no Christian worldview without God’s law. There is no grace without law. –American Vision

Endnotes:

1. Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe, Understanding Cults and New Religions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 126.
2. Hexham and Poewe, Understanding Cults and New Religions, 126.

3. Douglas Groothuis, “Revolutionizing our Worldview,” Reformed Journal (November 1982), 23.

4. Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1931] 1970), iii.

5. Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 53.

6. David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 280.

7. Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 72.

8. Henry R. Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, [1959] 2001), 87.

9. Van Til, Calvinistic Concept of Culture, 44.

10. H. Henry Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 5th rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, [1939] 1956), 99–100. A 6th edition appeared in 1990 with three chapters added by Paul A. Marshall.

11. Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 111.

12. Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 111–112.

13. Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 112.

14. Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 126.

15. Meeter, The Basic Ideas of Calvinism, 127.

16. Gary DeMar, God and Government: A Biblical, Historical, and Constitutional Perspective, rev. ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, [1982–1986], 2011).

17. Calvinistic Action Committee, God-Centered Living or Calvinism in Action (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951), 5.

18. God-Centered Living or Calvinism in Action, 173.

19. Kenneth L. Woodward, “The Guru of Fundamentalism,” Newsweek (November 1, 1982), 88.

20. Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 14.

21. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, 14.

22. Schaeffer, Escape from Reason (1968) in Complete Works, 1:261–162.

23. Schaeffer, Joshua in the Flow of Biblical History (1975), Complete Works, II:298.

24. Schaeffer, Joshua in the Flow of Biblical History, II:153. Emphasis added.