For purposes of this blog, please consider adhering to the following definitions:
- A Secularist believes that religion has no place in the public sphere and that government (the state) can solve all societal problems. A secularist is quick to bring up their belief in separation of Church and State. In doing so, they will usually misstate it to mean that lawmakers, judges and other government officials are not allowed to let their religion impact the decisions they make in their professional or official capacity. A secularist believes that a person’s faith should be totally private even when the person is not acting in any official governmental capacity. All “worship” is to take place in private or at least within the four walls of a church or home.
- A Relativist rejects the existence of truth, especially objective moral truth. A relativist says that everything is relative – what is true for you, may not be true for the person next to you. Actually, relativists do believe in one truth, a truth upon which their entire ideology depends: “The only truth is that there is no truth”. I know, it doesn’t make sense, but that doesn’t stop them.
- A Liberal is quick to reject the practical and realistic (traditional) approaches to social and political issues in favor of new ideas that are based more on theoretical grounds than on pragmatic and time-tested grounds. The new ideas most favored by liberals usually involve more government programs and services to address the perceived needs of society.
- A Progressive believes that reality is always changing and it changes for the better, so the best ideas are usually the most recent and will be slowly replaced with better ideas in the future. Progressives promote social change based on the presumption that we need to think in a way that is consistent with the perceived reality around us and that the best way to achieve change is through increased laws and government regulation as well as increased non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) which are usually subsidized by taxes. Originally, progressives used to be fairly religious, but in the past few decades, progressives have almost universally rejected organized religion and if they still subscribe to any religion, it is a self-serving interpretation that affirms whatever they want it to affirm.
Few people will agree with my definitions. However, two liberals will often disagree on what it means to be a liberal and two progressives will commonly disagree on what it means to be a progressive, etc… You can take or leave my definitions, but they certainly tell you where I’m coming from for purposes of this blog.
Because people on the left of the sociopolitical spectrum often subscribe (in varying degrees) to all four of these ideologies, I’m going to lump all four of them together by simply referring to them as “progressives” as I believe progressivism is the logical extension of the left. Again some may disgree with me on this and insist that socialism or marxism is the logical extension. If you believe that, just substitute socialist, marxist or communist whenever I use the word progressive and the message of my blog will remain intact. Nearly every progressive is going to also be a relativist and a liberal. A high percentage of progressives are also secularists. Again, a lot of people will disagree with this classification, but since those on the Left can’t even define themselves, we need to do it for them. They can thank me later.
Now that you have the “legend” necessary to navigate this blog, let’s dig in:
Playing Both Sides
In my blogs and on my social media, I post some fairly opinionated statements on things like marriage, family, the sanctity of life and faith. These posts have prompted some fairly long discussions over the past few years. Most people would consider me a pretty conservative thinker, so the discussions are usually fueled by progressives who take issue with my sanity, intelligence, motives, etc…, but rarely with the facts I use to back up my opinion.
The discussions usually go like this: I offer facts and the progressive lobs insults at me. I ignore the personal insults and continue offering examples, studies, statistics and historical facts as the progressive begins to label me as a religious extremist (even when I have not mentioned religion, the Bible or God as any basis for my position). I ignore the inaccurate and unfair attacks, known as logical fallacies, because any reasonable reader or listener realizes that the progressive is not able to defend their position, so they try and attack the messenger (me). Once the progressive realizes that I’m not upset and that further discussion will only make them look and feel even more foolish, they curtail the conversation alltogether.
Granted, there are times when I have referred to religion in these discussions, but only when the other party has brought it up. When the original discussion is purely secular, I stick to purely secular facts, including medicine, psychology, sociology, anecdotal evidence, polls and surveys. I do this because:
- Some progressives deny the existence of God;
- Some progressives who do not deny God’s existence have serious doubts about God’s existence;
- Many progressives consider the Bible to be partially or substantially a book of fiction;
- Almost all progressives believe that the separation of Church and state means that we cannot consider our faith when we are discussing things like laws and regulations; and/or,
- Progressives who still believe in God, have accepted such a horrifically distorted interpretation of Scripture, they believe abortion, same-sex marriage and mercy killing are sacred ground.
Regardless of the fact that I am rarely the first one to bring up religion, I still end up being labeled a religious fanatic or extremist because the progressives cannot overcome the secular evidence that shows the flaws in their ideology. Their only hope is to imagine that I’m a wacked out fanatic. Of course, these are the discussions that take place in person or on my own page or website. When I’m on another page or website, the progressives typically block me from further comment or “unfriend” me in an effort to keep their friends from recognizing that progressivism is ridiculous.
Freedom To Worship…Kind Of
But all of this changes when the discussion turns to terrorism. The very same progressive who called me backward, claimed I was on the wrong side of history and/or alleged that I was clinging to an antiquated religion, turns into a religious freedom champ when the subject turns to terrorism. The same progressive who tells me Christianity has no place in the public sphere, commonly defends Islam as an honorable and peaceful religion and one to which I should pay gratitude and homage.
If I suggest that ISIS is Islamic or that Islam actually teaches terrorists to engage in their atrocities, progressives call me a hater, a bigot, judgmental or the mother of all progressive faux pas, a “phobe”. Progressives use the word phobe to label anyone who disagrees with them. In this case, they would label me an Islamophobe because they think I have an extreme hatred for Islam. In calling me these names, the progressives overlook the fact that they are being very judgmental of me. They are also being intolerant, bigoted and at times hateful, when they attack my faith. It is interesting to see a progressive claim that all Christians are horrid killers, then lable another person an Islamophobe because the progressive simply cannot cope with a person who says Islam promotes terrorism. Isn’t such a progressive a Christophobe? Actually, I think it makes them an Islamophile.
Progressives switch back and forth between a lot of things these days. When the topic is the freedom to practice the Christian faith, they are secularists. When the issue turns to terrorism, they become defenders of religious freedom for Islam.
Many progressives condemned all Christians because a mentally ill white man (Robert Dear) opened fire outside a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. Many of those same progressives (Like our friend Amanda the Twitter user) rushed to the defense of Islam when two very religious Islamic terrorists (Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik) opened fire on dozens of people in San Bernardino, California 5 days later. It does not seem to concern progressives that Robert Dear is about as Christian as he is Muslim. Nor does it concern progressives that Dear appears to be so mentally scatter-brained that he cannot explain why he started shooting people. Let us not overlook the fact that Farook and Malik were 100% Islamic and were very clearly motivated by their interpretation of the Quran.
Why is it so easy for a progressive to defend Islam and suppress Christianity at the same time?
- Is it true that Christians are more likely to shoot and kill Americans than are Muslims? No.
- Is it true that the Bible teaches it is okay to kill people because they are not Christian? No.
- Is it true that the most deadly terror attacks carried out on American soil in the past 25 years have been carried out by Christians? Not by a long shot!
- Is it true that we who reside within American borders are in no danger of attacks by Islamic terrorists? Apparently not.
- Is Islam more tolerant of homosexual behavior and homosexuals than Chrisitanity is? Are you kidding me?
- Is Islam respectful of women and observant of women’s rights? Um… Nothing could be further from the truth.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
I think progressives like Michael Moore, President Obama, Ben Affleck, Whoopi Goldberg, Jake Tapper and Hillary Clinton (and Amanda), have surrounded themselves with so many back-slapping progressive friends, they can’t recognize truth from fiction. These people live in a progressive echo chamber. They only recognize information that seems to support their progressive ideology. Truth tends to get in the way when your idea of a good time involves amassing wealth, popularity, comfort, power, pleasure, etc… Therefore, progressives are forced to live in a fictional dimension in order to maintain their headlong pursuit of their ultimate goals in life.
Because most progressives (whether they realize it or not) are relativists, they are obliged to think Islam is just as valid as any other world religion (or no religion at all). Their focus on perceived equality then requires them to aggressively promote their misperception, especially when this perceived equality is challenged. When it is suggested that Islam is not a perfectly acceptable religion or that there are very problematic teachings and practices in Islam, progressives push back with strong words such as hate, bigot, idiot and the current favorite, Islamophobe.
Islamophobia & Political Correctness
The greatest ally to perceived equality is political correctness because political correctness prohibits inconvenient facts from being written or spoken. The absence of troubling facts allows the progressive to simply continue living in a state of blissful fantasy. The Obama Administration’s recent efforts to make college campuses safe spaces is a way of regulating a fantasy into existence through politically correct speech. Most of our colleges and universities abandoned their pursuit of truth about 50 years ago. They are now being encouraged to abandon freedom of speech. Nevermind the fact that most American college and universities profess values that include “free and open discourse, exploration and creative expression”. If facts make you sad, go to college and stay there where you will be safe.
There is one fact that causes progressives’ political correctness into hyper-sensitive mode: Muslims are a minority in the United States. Any self-respecting progressive will tell you that this is enough to lambaste anyone who fails to rush to the defense of Islam. We don’t even need to know what or agree with anything Islam teaches. It is enough to know that Muslims are not at least ½ of the population of the U.S. To progressives, inequality is original sin. It would be the the only sin if they could just stay in their safe places. Outside their safe places, they have to suffer people who disagree with them. Progressives also believe it is sinful to disagree, unless it is the progressive, disagreeing with someone like me.
Maybe progressives would be reasonable if we just educated them on the fact that Islam is anything but a peaceful religion. If we helped them understand that Islam has been so historically militant, intolerant, misogynistic, oppressive and violent, that the terrorism we see in the world today is unavoidable, progressives would come to their senses and stop blindly defending an ideology of which they know very little. I realize these are facts and therefore, are completely irrelevant to progressives (as well as being near occasions of sin), but maybe if enough of us keep bringing these things up, progressives will eventually admit to their foolishness.
Is Islam an ideology we should unquestionably honor in the United States?
Let’s look at some facts to help us answer this question.
Islam has stifled education and academic progress:
- There is a serious problem with literacy and contemporary ideologies among Muslims. According to a 2003 United Nations Report, Spain translates more books into their native language in a single year, than the entire Arab world has translated in the last 1,000 years.
- Nearly 40% of the Muslim population worldwide, is illiterate.
- Muslim countries often have schools that disregard education in science, mathematics, and literature, and focus solely on religious education.
- Out of fear of suffering the wrath of Islamic fundamentalists, Muslim scientists fail to point out that the Quran is not consistent with science and Islamic theologians lack sufficient understanding of science to enter into a substantive discussion with regard to faith & reason. As a result, many aspects of Islam are practiced and followed without regard to reality (sounds familiar, huh? Maybe this is why progressives like Islam so much).
- The education of Muslim women will be addressed below.
Islam is hostile to homosexuals, not merely the behavior of homosexuals:
- While progressives are aggressive champions of LGBT rights, they fail to acknowledge that Islam is extremely hostile not only to the rights of the LGBT population, but to the individuals that make up the population.
- If you perform a simple internet search on homosexuality in Islam, you will read numerous reports of the brutal execution of homosexuals by militant Islamic groups, including a particularly shocking form of execution which includes throwing the accused from the top of tall buildings. Apparently the accused is stoned after they hit the ground.
Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, UAE and Mauratania are 100% Muslim. Iraq is likely now at about 100% Muslim due to the persecution of Christians over the past two years. Iran is 98% Muslim. Qatar is about 77% Muslim. Nigeria is about 70% Muslim. I think I see a commonality here and it is not that Christians believe in executing homosexuals. But wait, there’s more…
Islam teaches the secondary status of women (and children):
- Muslim women have little or no rights in many Muslim countries and cultures. This impacts their ability to obtain an education, drive a vehicle, speak with men, own property, testify in a court of law, travel, move around freely in public, and it can require them to wear a full burqa which seems a stark contrast to the fashion style of Helen Gurley Brown and the Women’s Liberation Movement.
- Women are subjected to specialized cruelty in some Muslim countries and cultures as well. These include childhood marriage to adult Muslim men, female genital mutilation (which is not solely an issue with Islam, but does have a higher occurrence in the Islamic world than among non Muslims), honor killings in which women are killed by their own family members if it is discovered that they have been raped or have voluntarily engaged in premarital or extramarital sex and non-Muslim women are subject to rape and to being take as sex slaves by Muslim men.
Since progressives are so passionate about equality and peace, Islam should be the very last ideology they would care to defend. But progressives are masters at intellectual suicide when they run across facts that do not support their goals. If you force a progressive to acknowledge the atrocities practiced under the authority of the Qur’an, he or she will always dismiss the inconvenient truth in order to draw your attention to the belief that Islam is a religion of peace.
This requires a short pause so you can take a moment to gather yourself… Islam is the absolute opposite of a religion of peace.
Religion Of Peace You Say?
Islam is about as peaceful as a grizzly bear. A grizzly is perfectly peaceful if you are nowhere near the grizzly. But if you were to travel North in order to give a grizzly a big peaceful hug, you will be mauled to death in an instant. Do you remember Timothy Treadwell? The wild grizzlies of Alaska treated him about as peacefully as the militant Jihadists of Syria have treated tens of thousands of peaceful people within the past few years.
Progressives want you to ignore the violent Muslims so you can focus on the peaceful Muslims instead. Here’s the problem, there are a lot more violent Muslims than progressives care to admit. According to a 2007 Pew Study, 26% of young American Muslims (ages 18-29) believe that suicide bombings can be justified in order to promote Islam. There are currently about 2,750,000 Muslims residing in the United States. That means that there may be hundreds of thousands of American Muslims who currently believe suicide bombings can be justified in order to promote Islam.
Here is a link to a short but extremely educational video (this really is a “must see”) which will help you prepare for the next time a friend, coworker, family member or any other person suggests that Islam is a peaceful religion.
Another approach to help you comprehend Islam’s role in the world is to listen to two of the most gifted minds in religion debate the issue for nearly two hours. You can watch the debate here. From this congenial debate you will understand that “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim”. That sounds like a contradiction, but here is what Dr. Kreeft means: If a Muslim truly lives by strict adherence to Islam, he or she is hostile to Christianity and the rest of the non-Muslim population of the world, making him a Muslim who has no interest in peaceful coexistence. As a result, the Muslims we want on our side are those who follow only a portion of the Qur’an, rejecting those teachings that are violent, misogynistic, intolerant and intent on nothing short of Sharia law. This makes them substantially less than a “good Muslim” in the eyes of Islam. In fact, it makes such a Muslim just as likely to be killed by the “good Muslim” as the rest of us infidels.
Even though Islam is not a peaceful, tolerant or inclusive religion, there are many peaceful people who identify as Muslim. These peaceful Muslims are cultural Muslims who have little or no interest in following many of the teachings of Islam. They are peaceful specifically because they do not follow all the teachings of Islam. Should we treat these people differently simply because they say they are Muslim? I think we should. I think we should do all we can to evangelize them. Since they are not really practicing Islam, the true Muslims would have them killed. They are probably not practicing all that Islam commands based on their personal rejection of violence. This makes them great candidates to convert to Christianity.
Don’t let the progressives get you down. Keep offering them the truth, and maybe someday, something will click. Until then, you can have fun as you watch them perform their stange mental trick called self-deception.
As for the Muslims, don’t condemn them. Evangelize them. If they are a terrorist, they will flip out and try to kill you. If they succeed, at least you will die a martyr and help the rest of us identify the dangerous ones in the process. If you evangelize a Muslim who is not a terrorist, you may assist in their conversion and thereby save their soul, or you might simply end up with a new friend who happens to be a peaceful Muslim. Hey, at least you tried.
A word of caution with regard to evangelizing Muslims. Do not fly over to the Middle East to attempt this. You probably should not even try to evangelize in some parts of London, Paris or Calgary. Remember Timothy Treadwell? It is best to approach the Muslims right here in the U.S. At least for the time being, we still have law enforcement and local governments who will respond to threats and problems. I wouldn’t count on Homeland Security or any other federal agency to rush to your protection given what we have learned about Phil Haney and the State Department’s decision to force him to shut down his investigation into Sayed Farook’s Mosque. Still, local law enforcement is going to follow up if you have spoken someone about Jesus and they respond by telling you they are going to shoot you or blow you up.