Censorship in America

For those that think that it can't happen here.....

Michael Graham, a talk show host, was fired this week by his ABC/Disney affiliate for making the claim that Islam was a terrorist institution. To back up his claim he quoted the statistics of a large majority of polled Muslims who would not rule out suicide bombings as a legitimate means of warfare. He noted that so called "moderate" Muslims were unable to come up with cogent condemnations of such activity. Graham argues that realities like this in the Muslim world amount to aiding, abetting, legitimizing and leading to the recruitment of more terrorists.

In response to pressure from CAIR, Council of American Islamic Relations, an organization of questionable reputation( see here), Michael Graham was summarily fired for refusing to retract or apologize for his statement. See his interview on OReilly on Foxnews.

Also this week, a federal scientist had the temerity to publish a paper written by a professor at Cambridge saying that Intelligent Design should be taken seriously. He was summarily harassed and ostracized by the Smithsonian Institution and folks from the National Center for Science Education. They basically tried to destroy his reputation and called for his firing. See his interview also on Foxnews.

Political Correctness is alive and well and its aim is to silence any voice of dissent. Free thought and speech is not welcome by much of the main stream media and the purveyors of political correctness.

Divorce and Remarriage - New Light

Imagine this: A Christian marriage is in trouble. The nominal Christan husband has already checked out emotionally and physically but simply refuses to get a divorce. He does not heed pastoral counsel. The wife, believing that adultery is the only justification for divorce suffers for years. They are living a divorced life, yet keeping up a sham of a marriage. The wife fears that if she gets a divorce, she will never be able to marry again for being labeled an adulterer. She will be condemned by God to a lifetime of celibacy and solitiude.

Is this what God's will really is?

We don't have to try to hard to imagine this scenario, because situations like this are all too common in the church.

A new work has shed much light on what the scriptures are really saying in regards to the controversial topics of divorce and remarriage. Click here for a sample of the work by scholar David Instone-Brewer.

In summary, his contention is that Jewish Law allowed for divorce on several grounds, according to Exodus 21:10. These are basically: neglect of provision, conjugal rights, as well as adultery.

The oft misuderstood words of Jesus in Matthew 19 referred exclusively to an in house debate regarding what was essentially the "any cause " divorce. The followers of a rabbi, Hillel, taught that the passage in Deuternomy 24:1 gave the right of the husband to divorce his wife for adultery and for "any cause" . The disciples of Shammai, a rival rabbi, said that Hillel interpreted incorrectly and that Duet 24:1 referred exlusively to sexual immorality only and not "any cause " as justification for divorce.

It was this debate that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19 when he said:

Matt 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."NIV

In context, Jesus was addressing this in house debate. His "except for marital unfaithfulness" was not the only biblical word on divorce. Jesus did not feel the necessity to give a full explanation of divorce at this time, but was simply addressing this debate.

This is controversial, but makes much sense in light of the later Pauline additions of abandonment as a valid grounds for divorce.

Surely there is such a thing as an invalid divorce. And remarriage may constitute adultery in some cases. Yet adultery is not an unforgivable sin. This is an eye opening study that I believe will help many expereince freedom from emotional torture resulting from religious traditions, legalism, and Satanic accusation.

Blessings,
Daniel

Israeli Disengagement and History

However you might feel about the Israeli Disengagement of Gaza, one prays that it might lead to better security for Israel. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly not appease the Islamic hatred of Israel.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert in this conflict., but I am fed up with what I perceive to be misrepresentations by the Mian Stream Media. I discovered an intriguing slideshow of the history of the conflict. Please let me know of any disparities of fact, if you find them.

Look here for History in a Nutshell
and here for history part 2 and here for the New wave of Anti Semitism.

Humanist Fundamentalism

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, especially after hearing a talk by author Karen Armstrong. (The Battle for God). In her talk she endeavors to link Islamic, Jewish , and Christian Fundamentalism together with the same banner. According to her, they are all dangerous, extreme movements, born and invigorated by the fear of modernity. This is a view that seems to be gaining in popularity in the media, yet to my mind has not been satisfactorily addressed or rebutted.

Next she attempts to link this "fundamentalist" strain with the religious right in America.

Her oversimplification of both these topics is waiting to be seriously challenged. And of course, hers is not the only voice in this growingly strident critique of Bible believing Christians in this nation.

Well, it is time for theists, especially Christians, to begin lifting their voice and pointing out the inconsistencies in this humanistic propaganda.

I am using a new term, "humanist fundamentalism", which encapsule the "religious" creeds that motivate this type of thinking.

As the brilliant Francis Schaeffer has put it " if this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore in this case man must be the measure of all things."

See his absolutely fantastic and prophetic 1982 speech.

This is one of the major planks in the religion of humanism. And religious it is. For it claims to have knowledge for which it then puts its faith in.

The inconsistencies in a person like Karen Armstrong need to be challenged. For hers is the kind of reasoned argument that is popular in the front section of Barnes and Nobles, and respected in the universities. Yet to my mind, her arguments are incredibly simplistic and incorrect.

But make no mistake, her books are not what many would like to think: "a reasonable scholarly sociological presentation". No, her comments are a direct and indirect assault on the Judeo -Christian principles themselves. I doubt she would agree with my assessment, but the strain of humanistic thought behind and prejudicing her "research" is obvious.

But a critique needs to take into account the virulent form of humanist fundamentalism that stands at the back of these ideas and that wants to present itself as the "reasonable, "moderate", "tolerant" view, when in fact is most intolerant, immoderate, and unreasonable.

Humanist fundamentalism must be challenged as the reigning religions in government, media, academia and public schools. Here is where the battle (that's what it is) will be lost or won. But who is willing to take up the battle? Will we captitulate in the name of so called "separation of church in state" which is increasingly used to scare Christians from the public arena and legislating from a Theistic worldview?