Today I received a mass e-mail that contained a sad argument against the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. In part it said:
Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is proposed is not a mosque—nor even an “Islamic cultural center.”
In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.
Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing. …
In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat—literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.
The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders. …
Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value. …
The article continues on in the same vein. But, you can see what it does. It proposes to use history that is over 1,000 years old in order to prove that the current proposal is part of an old historical pattern. Unfortunately, the author did not consider that exactly the same type of argument can be used against Christianity. So, I sent an answer to the poster which said:
After reading the article you sent, I found myself thinking that I should write an article about the Christian habit of taking over sacred places and building cathedrals on them. After all, once Christianity became legal, temples were turned into churches. Even in areas outside the Empire, such as Ireland, once Christianity came in, the sacred trees were cut down and churches were built in their place. In Mexico, the cathedral in the Distrito Federal is built right on a temple. In Lima, Peru, one can go to the basement of one of the churches and see the archeological excavation of the underlying pagan temple.
Therefore, using the same exact logic as the article you sent out, Christian missionaries in any country should be forbidden to build cathedrals, since cathedrals are obviously a sign of the coming conquest and destruction of the already existing pagan places of worship. You can argue all you like about how Christianity no longer does that, but it is obvious by looking at history that you would be lying. In passing, Orthodox people should always be forbidden from building churches, since it is obvious that wherever Orthodoxy takes root (as in the Slavic countries) pogroms against Jews shortly follow. Therefore, that is even more of an argument against allowing those Orthodox to rebuild the church that was destroyed on 9/11 near ground zero.
The lack of logic and religious bias found in many of the anti-mosque arguments is sickening. However, I do stand with the Constitution, which gives freedom of worship which may not be taken away by the State nor stopped by even a majority. But, I also stand against illogical arguments that seek to justify bias based on cherry-picking history.
You see, the problem is that if one looks at the history of Christianity even less than 1,000 years ago, then a very strong case can also be made that we should be forbidden from building worship centers or “cultural” centers in any culture in which we are not the majority. In the 1300’s, the Inquisition was already going on. And in the 19th century, in the USA, our doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” gave us permission to take over the continent and wipe out any tribes in our way. In that same century southern Christians justified slavery on the grounds that it was “Biblical.” Should you not believe me, I would recommend that you read the 19th century book titled, Slavery: Ordained of God, by Frederick Augustus Ross. I have read it, and I will guarantee you that it is supposedly a fully “Scripture” based book in which many Scriptures are quoted to show that God established slavery as part of his plan of stewardship over the earth and over the “lesser” races.
As late as the 20th century, American Christians were making the “Biblical” argument that miscegenation (blacks marrying whites) was not of God and forbidden by him. It took several decisions by “activist” courts to supposedly “change the law without the approval of Congress” in order to finally destroy segregation in law, in hiring, and in practice. (Yes, I know that we are still not fully there.) In fact, I can build quite a good argument that any culture that allows the building of cathedrals and churches is simply asking for evil things to happen to them.
I would remind the reader that I was a missionary in South America. I preached the Gospel, helped to begin churches, and started an orphanage and a school. But, I was there only a couple of decades after Latin American leftists were making arguments identical to the one quoted above, against Christian missionaries. We were labeled as tools of the CIA. We were said to be the spear of American cultural imperialism arriving to make sure that America would have control in South America.
Yes, I remember those arguments, because when we arrived in 1990, I could still hear the last of them in Bolivia, the country in which Che Guevarra died. Yet, here we are, supposedly Christian, and making the same exact arguments against American Muslims that leftists in South America made against us from the late 1950’s until the fall of Communism in 1992. What a shame.
Ultimately, both sets of arguments (against American Muslims and against missionaries) boil down to a deliberate misuse of logic and history in order to “win” their point. Both sets of arguments win their point by looking at past historical behavior and positing that nothing has changed, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Remember, 9/11 was not perpetrated by American Muslims, while the segregation of the 1950’s was perpetrated by American Christians. If anything, using the methods of the writer of the article, there is more evidence against American Christians than there is against American Muslims.
Well said. I keep asking myself whether people stirring up such Islamophobia are just really stupid, or, if they realise what they’re doing, really evil.
It is largely an exercise designed to get large numbers of people who are most likely to vote a certain way out to the polls in November. No matter the results, this hysteria will greatly decrease in the weeks following the election.
Iconoclasm the sort of which you speak is easily a culture-neutral phenomenon, as Christians have done in to pagans, pagans have done it to other pagans, Muslims have done it to Christians and Jews, and Enver Hoxha did it to absolutely everyone.
The problem is that America was founded just after the Reformation shattered the European’s unity as Christians, but not before the reality of a Christian people became undone. Thus we have a religiously neutral founding document that contains vestiges of Christian history, penned by intellectuals who had vestiges of Christian of thought in their minds, to rule a nation of people who considered themselves Christian… to varying degrees.
American has (or had) a Christian body with an atheist mind, to put it one way. Since it technically is not a Christian country, it cannot legally proscribe any religion that threatens its polity. But the bulk of Christians in the States, who have been Christians since the times of their forefathers, feel differently.
The fact is the only way, historically, to roll back Islamic expansionism is only with force. I’m not going to list the usual Catholic examples; there’s a reason why India is predominantly Hindu even though it has had Muslim rulers in the past. But short of Enver Hoxha resurrecting from the dead and becoming the dictator of the United States, Islam will only continue to grow exponentially. No one wants to fight them and everyone wants them to like us, and even Bush moronically said that Islam is a religion of peace. Even The Visible Head of The Church ™ dare not criticize Islam.
Not that America falling under Shariah is a bad thing; Orthodox seem to enjoy the rod of their Muslim taskmasters.
Father Orthoduck does not believe that force is necessary in the United States. You see, we are probably the most practiced country in the world at receiving immigrant people and completely changing their insides to our cultural way of thinking. People from other cultures who come here may retain their outer way of practice for one or two generations, but by the second generation the children have already begun to think like individualist Americans. By the third generation only a few will retain the outer practices in their full rigor. And, by the third generation, inter-marriage will further dilute the culture.
We have seen that in immigrant culture after immigrant culture. Thus, it is not necessary to stop Islam in the USA by force. It is only necessary to, uhm, defeat them from the inside, as it were. This does not happen in every country on earth, but it certainly happens well here in the USA. LOL. Sadly, this same “defeating from the inside” has been part of the problem of American Christianity, which also has been vastly gutted by this culture.
As to your last sentence, Father Orthoduck wishes to remind you that his father was from Spain, a country which fought the Syrian (then Moroccan) conquerors for 700 years, then won the battle. Also, please look at the largest Orthodox Church in the world, the Russians. They certainly successfully fought, and are still fighting, Muslims who try to conquer them. I would suggest that you study history some more.
“Not that America falling under Shariah is a bad thing”:
And the chances of that? About the same as the passage of a constitutional amendment declaring the U.S. to be the “United Soviet Socialist States of America.” (Or the Baltimore Orioles wining the World Series this year.)
“Orthodox seem to enjoy the rod of their Muslim taskmasters.”
That is a cheap shot not worthy of anyone who claims to be any kind of Christian.
If you’re saying it’s nonsense to use 1000 year old history to rebut Mr. Rauf, why is it OK for Mr. Rauf to call his project the “Cordoba House”, based on the salad days of Islam 1000 years ago?
Please let them name it that. Father Orthoduck’s father was born in Spain, and would remind readers that the great mosque at Córdoba is now a Catholic cathedral. Let it be a sign of the eventual triumph of Christianity when Our Lord Jesus Christ returns and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord.
However, Father Orthoduck will comment that everyone has chosen to deliberately interpret the name as a metaphor for coming conquest. But, Córdoba was also a seat of learning, where mathematicians such as Maimonedes did their work, and Europeans would come and study. The sciences, etc., flourished at Córdoba, and during its golden period, it became a bridge city that allowed learning, etc., to flow back and forth. There is a reason why we call our number system “Arabic numerals” today. It comes from that golden period.
As Father Ernesto pointed out in his article, the problem is that anything named for any site 900-1,000 years ago can always be said to have bad connotations. For instance, lets name it Roman house. Oops, 900 years ago Rome was on the verge of the Inquisition. Well, let’s name it London house. Oops, 900 years ago the Normans were killing Anglo-Saxons and stripping them of their kingdom. Let’s name is Kiev house. Oops, 1,000 years ago there was forced mass conversion to Christianity in the Kingdom of Rus. Well, then, let’s name it Gettysburg house and see how many unreconstructed southeners stand up and howl.
Do you see the problem? Father Orthoduck can take almost any name you care to put to the mosque, and show how it is an evil name. The game that is being played by the anti-mosque people is a game that Father Orthoduck can carry on for a long time himself. These are ad-hominem arguments that are based on cherry-picking history.
This is heresy. Obregon writes, “Therefore, using the same exact logic as the article you sent out, Christian missionaries in any country should be forbidden to build cathedrals, since cathedrals are obviously a sign of the coming conquest and destruction of the already existing pagan places of worship. You can argue all you like about how Christianity no longer does that”
But I wish that Christianity did still obliterate the temples/mosques/holy places of other faiths and replace them with its own. And I have no idea how any serious Christian could believe anything else.
Different religions–contrary to empty liberal “Christian” belief–are not so many flavors of ice cream. They make different, contradictory truth claims, only one of which, or none of which, can possibly be right. We Christians know that we have the truth. If we don’t know that, then we are, as Paul writes, to be pitied above all men, as the hopeless fools who are waiting on a resurrection they don’t really believe is coming. What pathetic weakness.
We don’t owe the Muslims, Hindus, Jews or anyone else any concession to their false claims to truth. The only thing we owe them is a kind, but firm, explanation of their falsehood and, upon their rejection of us, the dust from our feet. That’s the Bible, sir, which you’re supposed to be preaching. The idea that we owe them land and space to build monuments, monuments, to their falsehoods is outrageous, heretical and blasphemous. How could we ever tolerate the propagation of lies in our own midst?
We are Christians and thus we know that Christianity is true.
If Christianity is true, then all other faiths are false.
If all others faiths are false, then (just like any other lie) we have an obligation to oppose them wherever and whenever they may occur.
Any other claim is a lie, which originates from that Father of Lies, Satan. Repent of your lies, Mr. Obregon, and our Lord might yet have mercy on you.
We tolerate their building of monuments, as you call them, because that is how our forefathers set up the Constitution. They had experienced first hand what it meant to have a particular Christianity in charge, and it sent them fleeing from Europe to set up a country in which different people could practice as they wished. I assume then that you are condemning George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc., to hell since they are the ones who ensured that this country would allow various religions to practice their religions as they wished.
Father Orthoduck never said that the claims of other religions were correct or were another path to salvation. Rather, his comments have been based on our Constitution, on what even those fathers of this country who were strong Christians agreed to so as to guarantee religious freedom to all, and on the conviction that the Religious Right is completely wrong in interpreting the Constitution, interpreting both the secular and the religious founders of this country, and in their overall interpretation of what is Christian.
And which comes above which? If the Constitution is in conflict with the Bible (and I dispute your claim that it is), then it is your Christian duty to uphold the Bible alone. If you refuse that duty, you refuse our Lord, and make a mockery out of our claim to know the truth.
It is amazing that you would claim a secular, 200 year old governing contract should come above the very truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Whatever our Constitution says, Jesus Christ did not guarantee us the “right” to believe whatever we please. If we believe wrongly, we will act wrongly. And if we act wrongly, life will go badly for us and all those unfortunate enough to be dependent upon us. I have no idea why you think we do not have the “right” to believe a falsehood and yet to enjoy the benefits of the truth. The Muslims believe in lies, and we believe the truth. We have the duty and obligation to speak the truth; and they live under the divine mandate to keep silent with their lies, lest they lead little ones astray.
Any society that refuses to demand the silence of liars and miscreants invites the deception and ruin of its people. I find it difficult to believe any of our Founders sincerely desired this.
That should read, “I have no idea why you think that Muslims have the ‘right’ to believe and propagate a falsehood and at the same time enjoy the benefits of believing the truth.”
I do not see the Bible as saying that when I have the majority in a country I must deny others the right of freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Your argument boils down to the idea that because the Bible is right then we have God’s permission to legally forbid any other belief. However, since everyone else is wrong, they do not have the same right. Now, there is a recipe to ensure that no one will let Christian missionaries come to their country!
Part of Jesus’ stance during this time before his Second Coming is that his kingdom is not of this world. This does not mean that we cannot participate in politics nor does it mean that no moral legislation may be enacted. But, it certainly does mean that this is a time when God is not insisting on all his rights (see Philippians 2) in order to give space for the Gospel to go out and people to come to him. And, in this space, there is substantial freedom in several areas. I think the Founding Fathers had it right when it came to what a Christian’s attitude should be at this moment.
Now, the other problem with your idea is the Inquisition. You see, sooner or later you would begin to decide that certain Christians are not really Christians and that you had to silence them in order to ensure the purity of the faith. And, sooner or later you would begin to justify putting your fellow Christian in jail, or simply executing them, as has already happened in the Inquisition.
Fr Orthoduck, you have really honed your skills at rationalizing for Islam. Islam is not just a religion, and arguing from the Constitution is not entirely logical. I doubt that the Constitution would recognize the right of Aztecs to practice human sacrifice or cannibalism.
Muslims kill people, lots of them, and their killing is commanded by their so-called holy books. They murdered 3,000 people on 9/11, and others in London, Madrid, Beslan and Mumbai. Oh, am I cherry picking history? I don’t think so. Islam is the only major religion whose religious texts call for eternal warfare against believers of other faiths.
Your arrogance is not justified by the facts.
Father Orthoduck would suggest that you read some of the Old Testament Psalms should you wish to read about warfare and the desire that enemies be slaughtered. He would also suggest that you read about the early part of the conquest of Canaan, during which the invading Israelites put entire towns to the sword or enslaved them.
What exactly is your point? That mass murder is OK because the ancient Hebrews did it 3000 years ago? That the Abrahamic religions are all murderous?
You have to twist fairly hard to try come to the conclusion that Father Orthoduck was either approving mass murder or was arguing that the Abrahamic religions are all murderous.
Essentially all religions (with some pacifist exceptions) have gone through periods during which they turned violent. And, when they turned violent, they did so against both those within the religion and those outside the religion. Every religion with violence in its past has some within it that continue to advocate that violence even today, including Christianity. But, to argue against a religion because it had violence in its past and has some who advocate violence today is to shoot oneself in the foot. This is because it is very easy to turn that argument around and use it against anyone who uses it.
In passing, atheist and agnostics should not feel that they are home-free. The vast Communist gulags, etc., were started by people who were officially atheist.
Atheism, though, is not a ‘system’ of any kind, nor does it require, promote, or encourage (or not require, promote, or encourage) any kind of ‘congregation.’
Pointing to events perpetrated by atheists rings fairly hollow, in that it is a decision made independent of atheism–it is not driven *by* atheism, nor used as a justification, because atheism is an absence or void.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there has not been any call for the extermination of anyone “because there isn’t a God,” where there certainly has been in the name of God (or gods of various types).
There is no centralization to atheism, because it is without centre. Be that good or bad, it makes grouping of atheists awfully silly except as a way to describe the non-theistic beliefs of those for whom the term is relevant. The congregational, historical aspect is the Soviet Union, or whatever other grouping actually held them together, in that they were not huddled about their non-belief (else it would be a belief!)
The Marxists (not the overall socialist, but specifically the Marxist socialist) were an odd bunch in their full heyday. Let me give you a full quote from Karl Marx.
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”
When Marxists came into power, they were not only officially atheist, but they also followed Marx’s advice to try and abolish “religion as the illusory happiness of the people…” In this case, they were indeed organized atheists, I admit that it was not because they were atheists per se but because they were Marxists. That is, they were not Marxists because they were atheists, but they were atheists because they were Marxists and they were indeed an organized belief!
I would suggest that you may be playing at words a little bit when you say that if they “huddled” around their non-belief that it would then become a belief. I could also use the same logic to argue that if someone conducts an Inquisition that is proof that they are not really Christian and therefore no Christians ever conduct Inquisitions. That may be true in a theological sense, but I do not think that many would buy that.
Certainly, I would not debate that the Marxists were atheistic, nor that Marx was, but it’s still in combination. There is no “central” atheism is my primary point. Marxists are not part of the history of “atheists” in that there is no definitive tie between those atheists and modern atheists, other than the absence of religious belief, whereas there is the tie of the Bible for Christians between eras (however wildly different their interpretations!) and the Quran for Muslims so on and so forth (with varying bits of errata depending on sect/denomination, naturally).
There’s no realistic or fair way to group atheists as a historical force, as it is not always arrived at as a belief by the same source or method, which is what I mean by “huddling about their non-belief”–there’s no major “source” or “text” or anything.
And actually I would agree with the argument that Christians could not truthfully carry out an Inquisition (and remain Christians, at least), at least personally. But even that comparison: we are taking belief in a specifically defined system (albeit one that has been taken as open to interpretation) in the teachings of Christ, whereas there is no atheistic “text” or “origin,” at least not a universal one, where all Christians come from Christ.
It’s a bit semantic, I’ll grant you, but it’s a matter that I feel is unfair; the grouping of “atheists” doesn’t really make sense, as I say. It’s like grouping, say, people who don’t believe in string theory (just trying to find a somewhat non-controversial idea!) and saying that there have been people who don’t believe in string theory who have committed violent acts. Entirely possible, and I’d believe there have been, but it doesn’t really form any connection to another person who doesn’t believe in string theory.
Do you follow me on this?
I’m not trying to be contrary or rude, merely noting that atheism is not a “system” to which one can really look to good OR bad history and describe–it’s not really a group so much as a descriptive term, in that the only central element is atheism itself, no belief system, no absence of belief system, no drive or motivation that is universally present.
The leftist game of moral equivalence between the Old Testament and the Koran is pitiful coming from any intelligent person. The passages in the Old Testament dealt with the Promised Land and those within it. Did Jews have a command to go across the Mediterranean and conduct raids against non-Jews? Did they have an imperative to battle non-Jews wherever in this world they might be found?
Perhaps these distinctions might explain why we do not fear Jewish “jihad” today, but we do fear Islamic jihad.
Take a look at the entire world, and tell me of one place that meets these criteria:
1) Muslims constitute a significant proportion of the population, say more than 10%, but not a majority.
2) Muslims are not in violent conflict with non-Muslims.
I can name no such place. Across all differences in culture, wealth, geography, historical heritage, there is one constant from Nigeria to the Philippines to Malaysia to India and even France. Where there are a significant number of Muslims, they are in VIOLENT conflict with everyone else.
Why? Because their scriptures teach them that they must conquer the infidel. When they are 2% of the population, they know that they must postpone conquest. When they are 30% of the population, things change dramatically.
Take your talk of the Constitution to Dearborn, Michigan. Try to exercise your Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion by quietly handing out Orthodox Christian literature across the street from a Muslim conference. See if the Muslim police will protect your rights.
Can the same be said about any other location in this country?
There is too much to answer here, but let Father Orthoduck post a couple of thoughts on the Dearborn encounter. First is a quote from the blog of the camerawoman for the Christians involved. The quote comes from her blog, http://confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/06/arabfest-in-dearborn-michigan-2009.html.
Some of you by now have heard about the incident at the Dearborn Arabfest with David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi of http://www.answeringmuslims.com and myself (camerawoman). If not, here’s is a brief description of the events or you can read the article in The Texan here.
At the festival, there was a booth entitled “Islam: You Got Questions, We Got Answers” that was handing out a pamphlet with the title, “Islam’s War on Terror.” Nabeel wanted to ask a question about the pamphlet with reference to Surah 9:29 in the Qur’an and video tape the response to put on their blog. So we went to the booth and asked the question. The first reaction from the booth was to ask us to turn off the cameras. After Nabeel made a comment about their unwillingness to answer on video and questioned if this was deception, the gentleman with whom he was speaking agreed to be filmed. Shortly thereafter, the security guards for the festival (not Dearborn policemen) showed up at the booth and a woman associated with the security guards told me I had to turn off the camera several times. When I did not turn off the camera, she then proceeded to hit the camera, closing the LCD display window. Then she put her hand on the front of the camera. She asked me if I was no longer recording. I showed her on the display that it was not recording, but she did not believe me. So I turned the camera off.
Our encounter with the security guards did not end here. We had a much worse encounter later on, after verifying with police and security that we were well within our rights to videotape a response to the question. This time there was more hitting of our cameras, plus threats. David and Nabeel have not posted this video as of yet.
The encounter can be viewed in parts at David and Nabeel’s blog, http://www.answeringmuslims.com.
Scroll down to VideoBlog#3 for the first part.
OK, now here is the Muslim version of the events from The FOT Foundation. It can be found at http://thefotfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/06/arabfest-invasion-2009-dearborn-usa.html.
When Acts 17 Apologetics produced it first YouTube video, I was quite pleased. Here, there was finally someone that seemed to fit the actual claim of an “Ex-Muslim Christian” who was interested in serious but sincere respectful dialogue. I suppose I was let down on many fronts, but it was my own fault, I set myself up for this one and I should have known better.
I read Dr Nabeel Qureshi’s testimony and was moved by it, in terms of the feelings his family went through. I told him so via email. I re-read it a little while back and noticed the small print, you would almost miss it if you blinked, I did the first time. He was an Ahmadi, a group that is regarded by Muslims of all sects, unanimously, as being outside of Islam.
Strike ONE.
But thats not all that bad, at least he would have read the Quran and have a reasonable amount of knowledge about Islam. The debut YouTube video of Acts 17 Apologetics seemed very good superficially but any slightly detailed look demonstrated the error of the position put forward by Dr Nabeel Qureshi.
I did just that, took a detailed look at the position he put forward and showed the deficiencies in a two part video response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMQPkDKnOCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eghBcXYddk
Which Dr Nabeel Qureshi said that he liked in a private message to me.
I was looking forward to another YouTube video from Acts 17 Apologetics and was rewarded, so I thought initially, by not one but TWO YouTube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEt6Vyta-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtiO3pUfnZw
These videos can be paraphrased as follows:
An Arab/Islam Festival called Arab Fest 2009 was taking place in Dearborn USA. Glorious sunshine light the streets and smiling families eating ice-cream wonder past giddily revolving children’s rides. The hubbub of gentle talking and children’s laughter ripples across the scene. Momentarily, there is peace on God’s earth.
In this serene setting Dr Nabeel Qureshi, Mr Wood and others in a crew of debaters with a camera in hand were on a mission. Having obtained a leaflet that claimed that Islam was a peaceful religion Dr Qureshi authoritatively quotes Surah 9 verse 29 to his camera wielding crew member in an effort to “demonstrate” that Islam is not a peaceful religion.
A few clouds are now beginning to gather on this idealic scene and a few nervous glances are cast by passersby at this threatening camera crew and women glance around to see if their children are within sight.
Dr Qureshi followed by his camera wielding crew now make their way to an Islam Information Stand, in a live demonstration of “I iz right”. A short young man turns towards the voice of Dr Qureshi, who towers over him and who is waving said pamphlet in his face (like a subpoena or a warrant) demanding an answer to his “question”.
[This young man reminds me momentarily of Prophet David (pbuh) faced with Goliath (Dr Qureshi’s Masters in Christian Apologetics certainly adds to my perception)]
I dont really know what goes through the young man’s mind, it may have been arrest and detention without charge, extra-ordinary rendition, Gitmo (surely thats closed?) or another of a plethora of Gulag’s in which Muslims are held and tortured but his response is virtually automatic. “Turn off the camera”.
Dr Qureshi, immediately and triumphantly turns to his camera wielding crew and claims that the refusal to answer his question is “evidence” that the pamphlet is a deception and the Muslims are hiding something.
Sigh. Strike TWO.
Dr Qureshi’s use of Surah 9 to “demonstrate” Islam is not a peaceful religion is truly deserving of strike in its own right but I am generous. I would have expected Dr Qureshi to know that Surah 9 is not what he claims it to be. In fact, this is such a widely misused piece of Quran that has so often been refuted, I am sure by Dr Qureshi himself in his Ahmadi days, that I will not bother to quote it. I was disappointed to say the least.
The saga however is not over.
Mr Woods then claims, facing his camera wielder, that he was almost tricked in to handing out a Christian Pamphlet, in a effort to have him removed from the fest. So, to clarify, Mr Wood, a Christian Evangelist, Apologist and Propagator, had Christian Pamphlets with him which he brought to the ArabFest 2009 to NOT distribute [eyes roll upwards].
The indignation in Mr Wood’s eyes is matched for a moment by the Dr Qureshi’s anguish that this “virtual almost trapping” of Mr Wood was not caught on camera. Mr Wood then remonstrates about the Freedom that Islam inevitably removes from this American street and Dr Qureshi welcomes the audience to “Shariah”.
Strike THREE. Your OUT.
I wonder what would happen to some Muslims turning up at a Christian festival, carrying out similar antics? Walking around with a camera (whilst Muslim – probably a Federal offense anyway), being confrontational to stand volunteers?
What disappoints me the most is that, here, Acts 17 Apologetics are moving away from any real attempt at a discussion to try and establish Islam’s or Christianity’s position on any given topic and we have a moving towards a fear-mongering “Islam is taking over the USA and imposing Shariah law on us” proof by overt suggestion methodology.
I wish Dr Qureshi and Mr Wood all the best and would advise that to improve their attempts at teaching Muslims about Christianity they will have to change their approach. I hope that future Acts 17 Apologetics YouTube videos are not so insubstantial and so obviously fear-mongering.
For me and for many other Muslims, the resort to the tactics mentioned above is a sign of a weak position and not a strong one.
Father Orthoduck agrees with the Muslim writer. Should a Muslim camera crew go to an Alabama Christian gathering and begin to do what the Christian ministry did in the Muslim gathering, they would quickly feel violence on them, and yes they would be thrown out by security guards and counseled (or even arrested) by the police, just as happened in Dearborn. This does NOT excuse the Muslims, but it is simply to point out the delibearate extreme provocation under which the Christians put them to get exactly the response they got.
This example actually reflects badly on Christians and we should be ashamed even to cite this as an example of Muslim problems.
You disgust me. Produce examples of the Muslims in this country being told to turn their cameras off. Produce examples of Christian security guards whacking the camera. Produce examples of Christians deceitfully claiming they were assaulted, as can be seen on the Dearborn video.
You disgust me. What more can be said about someone as dishonest and contemptible as you?
In case you don’t understand the problem with your remarks, let me explain further. You are trying to make a moral equivalence between what Muslims actually did and what hypothetical “Alabama Christians” would do. The usual game of moral equivalence, as played by leftists such as you, is to compare events that are not comparable in severity or degree. But this is a novel variation: Compare real events to hypothetical events.
Should we conduct the discussion in this way? Should we each come on here and say, “In a certain situation, Father Orthoduck would probably commit such and such reprehensible act?” Is that really how you want to conduct a discussion?
By the way, why do you believe the Muslim account of events? Where is their evidence? They can say anything they want after the fact to cover their tracks. The truth is, Christians have attempted to hand out pamphlets in a very non-threatening way in Dearborn events for years. They were harassed and driven off the property. They started bringing cameras because they had no evidence other than hearsay otherwise. The Muslims recognize this and insist that the cameras be turned off. Then they can say the incident happened however they want to claim. Why would you believe them rather than believing a Christian account?
Here’s a suggestion to further your education: Google “taqqiya” and read as many examples as you can. Then re-read the Muslim explanation that you found so convincing. Better yet, go to Saudi Arabia and hand out Christian pamphlets with no aggressiveness, no camera, etc., and see what happens. I suggest trying this in Mecca. Then I guess you can claim (if you are still alive) that the same thing would have happened in Alabama to Muslims. After all, who can disprove such hypothetical allegations against unnamed Alabama Christians? We have actual examples of what happens to Jews and Christians in Saudi Arabia who speak in public. How shall we compare these actual events to hypothetical ones in Alabama?
Mr. Coleman, go to my blog post https://www.orthocuban.com2010/09/mosque-vandalism-in-the-usa/ which was posted before you made these comments. Count up the number of mosques that have been vandalized or burned by those good Christians that you claim would never do such a violent thing. You are correct, I should have cited the actual news stories of the mosque burning or the actual YouTube video of the angry confrontations when city councils were forced to vote against a mosque being built.
The problem is that the Religious Right in this country is already exhibiting violent behaviors, just not as violent as the Islamic jihadists over there.
A charge of making a moral equivalence argument only works when one is comparing apples to oranges. But, I have been comparing violence to violence, and what happened when Christians were fully in charge (Inquisition or laws forbidding non-Church of England people from high office, etc.) to what happened when Muslims were fully in charge. That is apples to apples.
Why do I believe the Muslim accounts of events? Because both sides agree that three people with cameras went into a Muslim festival to disrupt one of the booths with what is called “ambush journalism” which is not a term I made up. And, when you see videos of secular ambush journalism, you often see precisely the reaction that was described by both sides and which the news media (or in this case the “Christian ministry”) are desperately hoping will happen because it makes such a good visual story. In this case the Christians behaved exactly like the secular press, hoping for exactly the same results, which is exactly what they got and then bewailed that they were attacked.
There is a legal term for that called provocation. And, there is even a term for people that go in to deliberately provoke a reaction and that is “agents provocateurs.” These were not innocent Christians going to share their faith. These were people bent on presenting themselves in a deliberately provocative way so that they could have film of the “violent confrontation” which they had conveniently triggered. That is not Christianity, nor is it a simple case of American freedom of speech. That is why there were no police charges. It was not because the Muslims were protected, it was because the police knew that the Muslims could probably win their case on a defense of deliberate and inappropriate provocation by the Christians.
Oh, and one other thing: how many of those Christian cathedrals built over pagan temples were preceded by mass murder?
Father Orthoduck would suggest you read the history of Mexico, of Montezuma, and of the conquest of the Aztec Empire by the Spanish, and the history of Atahualpa and the conquest of the Incas by the Spanish. Father Orthoduck is afraid that you will indeed find the building of cathedrals after great massacre and conquest.
Father Orthoduck would also suggest that you read the history of the Portuguese in Brazil or the English in India. He suggests that you would find blood aplenty.
Father Orthoduck is afraid that you will indeed find the building of cathedrals after great massacre and conquest.
Sort of a natural urge to Mark your Territory, Claim your new Turf, and go “PWNED J00!”
“Sadly, this same “defeating from the inside” has been part of the problem of American Christianity, which also has been vastly gutted by this culture.”
Sir:
It is interesting that you would make this observation this since your anti-church, anti-Christianity argumentation on display here is an outstanding exemplar of the modernist views that are intertwined with this terrible loss. Self-deprecating relativism may be a way to make friends and appease enemies but it is no way to help others find and keep the faith.
Relativism is the least part of Father Orthoduck’s makeup. Rather, Father Orthoduck has no doubt that Orthodoxy has preserved true Christianity and that Protestantism, particularly some of the fundamentalist strains found in America, diminish and distort Christianity. Nor is Father Orthoduck a modernist. Rather, he would point out that it is the very modern rejection by fundamentalism of Church history and of the Church Fathers that permits them to persevere in a faith that is not the faith once delivered which we are supposed to pass on as we have received. More than that, it is the very rejection of Church history and its replacement by some sort of supposed hidden true Christianity that makes too many in the Religious Right incapable of logically and validly evaluating either current events or of formulating sound arguments.
More than that, Father Orthoduck would argue that the predominant American Anabaptist interpretation of Scripture is so limited that it bears but a small resemblance to the riches that were preached by the Prophets and the Apostles.
It is those things against which Father Orthoduck argues. And, because Father Orthoduck is an American he does argue, as over against all too many in the Religious Right, for a full enforcement of the rights to free speech, the free practice of religion, and the right of citizenship to all who are born on this soil as the 14th Amendment specifies. The Religious Right keeps trying to find ways to limit Constitutional liberties using sophistry and scurrilous arguments.
Father Orthoduck hopes that this settles any charges that he is either not a conservative when it comes to the full faith once delivered or that he is not an American when it comes to a full support for the Bill of Rights, even for those who may not be loveable.
Your suggestion that churches not be built at all is what attracted my attention. Might this be a view that corresponds with the current state of declining birth rates for all peoples everywhere (except perhaps some Moslem groups)? Are we to suppose then that you applaud the corresponding stagnation or decline of church membership, baptisms, etc.? Growth or reduction are the only options. If the Orthodox population were bursting at the seams and in need of places for worship, what would you have them do?
Thank you for your notes on Orthodoxy v “Religious Right”. You seem to infer somehow that I have an interest in such things and perhaps fall in with the latter but in fact I do not take sides. I feel that both realms, Protestantism and Orthodoxy, are crucial for civilized Western life, as is the abatement of Islam in our midst.
Do you think it could it be the case that the deep conservatism of some American Protestants that has you concerned is to an extent a reaction to the creeping liberalism of the Eastern and Roman churches?
You bring up some excellent points. It shows that Fr. Orthoduck misunderstood the thrust of your comments. Fr. Orthoduck will do a post tomorrow explaining himself better and answering your questions.
However, Fr. Orthoduck is in favor of building churches.
“And, because Father Orthoduck is an American he does argue, as over against all too many in the Religious Right, for a full enforcement of the rights to free speech, the free practice of religion, and the right of citizenship to all who are born on this soil as the 14th Amendment specifies.”
Except that Father Orthoduck tries to offer an apology for the behavior of Dearborn Muslims who violate the free speech rights of other Americans, and then claims that he is not trying to justify what they did, but is only trying to make a moral equivalence argument against Christians.
Here’s some insight into the American Constitution and the culture that gave rise to it and supported it until recently. A true American does not qualify his support for the free speech rights of others by constantly saying “But he should not have said that.” This is the response of American Muslims whenever they are cornered on a TV talk show and asked about the rights of the Dutch cartoonists who offended Muslims. When asked if the cartoonists should have the right to publish the cartoons, they don’t simply answer “Yes” as a true Dutchman or American would do. They say “Yes, but they should not do so.” When pressed further, they stick to this formulation. An even better question would be, “If Muslims were the majority of Dutch citizens, would the cartoons be legally allowed?”
Muslims simply do not have the same culture as we do with respect to tolerating the speech they find offensive. When they grow in numbers, even in a local area only such as Dearborn, free speech rights dwindle. As non-Muslims in Muslim areas of Nigeria, France, the Middle East, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mindanao, etc. about their free speech rights when it comes to discussions of Islam. You have the nerve to bring up the Constitution and free speech while defending Muslims?
Unfortunately, with the leftist takeover of America over the last few decades, we have acquired speech codes on campuses, hate speech laws, etc. Our culture of unqualified support for the free speech rights of others has eroded significantly. When I was young, and something was said or published that we disagreed with, we shrugged our shoulders and said, “It’s a free country.” That summarized our attitude towards free speech. We did not have to qualify our support with “But he should not have said that.” These days, you are much more likely to hear qualifications, and you rarely hear “It’s a free country” spoken any more. Decades of free speech for non-Christians and non-whites, but not for Christians and whites, etc., will produce a bitter partisan atmosphere. Leftists will no doubt decry their responsibility in bringing this about.
As to the 14th Amendment, I will be happy to clear up your misunderstandings on that score, but I think that is a discussion for another thread.
Clark Coleman said: When I was young, and something was said or published that we disagreed with, we shrugged our shoulders and said, “It’s a free country.”
Mr. Coleman: Take a deep breath. Shrug your shoulders and tell Father Orthoduck that it’s a free country. You’re losing your cool.
Strange that you seem to believe the “Yes, but they shouldn’t,” is exclusive to Muslims.
How many have said that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque…”but they shouldn’t”?
Doesn’t excuse one group doing it to point out another doing it, but it certainly tends to dissolve any claim to Islam having an exclusive hold on it.
Orthocuban, Orthoduck, have you heard the one about the relationship between the three Abrahamic monotheisms? It uses the analogy of a series of movies with strong “cult” fandoms:
JUDAISM was the original.
CHRISTIANITY was the official expanded sequel that developed its own fandom (including fan-feuding with fans of the original who rejected the sequel as non-canonical).
Gnostics et al (the original joke used Mormons as an example) started out as unofficial fanfics of the sequel, but acquired their own fandoms who claim they ARE what’s canonical.
ISLAM was a retcon of the original by a different director, and developed its own fans of the retconned version who feud with all the other fans over which is truly canonical.
ROFLMAO
Funny because it’s true, dude.