Cats and meat

Muslim women wear a veil and cover their hair because their beauty is to be for the pleasure of their husbands alone. In Australia, apparently, such clothing items are also weapons against would-be rapists.

Last week, Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly claimed that women who went out of their homes without being veiled were guilty of inciting rape. He also compared women who exposed their skin in this way to meat left out for wild cats. And, after all, if the cats attack the meat, whose fault is it? Not the cats’, because they are just acting according to their nature.

Needless to say, these comments have provoked intense outrage in Australia. The Muslim cleric has been suspended from preaching for three months, but he is not going to resign. And his apology for his remarks sounds incredibly like a non-apology apology, because he says “I am sorry if any woman was offended, you are quoting me out of context, I was speaking in defense of women.”

This story is really “revealing” in more ways than one. One of the reasons that the sheikh preached this sermon was that a group of Lebanese thugs went on a gang-rape spree several years ago and received harsh sentences just this year. Did the poor Australian victims “have it coming” because they did not adopt Muslim clothing styles? Although there is widespread condemnation of this cleric’s sermon, it must be wondered how pervasive this viewpoint is among the world’s jihadists. Do western nations like Australia and the United States deserve to be attacked because our women wear shorts and miniskirts?

It goes without saying that the provocative dress of a female is not an invitation to a male to rape her. Violence against women cannot be defended in any way, shape, or form. But it also should be expected that Christian women ought to be modest in their choice of attire, in order to minimize visual temptation.

What do you all think? React and debate.

The scariest part of Bush is his Christian faith

News reports from Germany this weekend included an announcement of the publication of the memoirs of former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who led the central European power until last year’s electoral ouster by Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrat party. Mr. Schroeder was an avowed critic of the Iraq war, and resisted any and all efforts to include Germany in the American-led “coalition of the willing.”

Germany is still a nation haunted by the ghosts of its past. They still observe a day of national mourning in November in order to reflect with somber penitence over the 20th-century wars initiated by the Kaiser and the Fuehrer. No matter how seemingly just the cause, there is an immediate and reflexive reaction on the part of most Germans to pull back from military engagement. They believe that no one wants to see German troops in the field again, and so they try to prove to the world that they are now peace-loving.

That’s fair enough, and certainly Herr Schroeder would have been well within his rights to explain his leadership and reluctance to go with the US to Iraq in that historical light. But that is not all there is to it. No, Schroeder’s memoirs include the following quotation:

“What bothered me, and in a certain way made me suspicious despite the relaxed atmosphere, was again and again in our discussions how much this president described himself as 'God-fearing.’” Furthermore, “We rightly criticize that in most Islamic states, the role of religion for society and the character of the rule of law are not clearly separated," Schroeder wrote. "But we fail to recognize that in the USA, the Christian fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible have similar tendencies."

This isn’t just Gerhard Schroeder speaking. Many liberals are convinced that evangelical Christians have on their agenda the establishment of a theocracy. Read a little bit in the web site of “Theocracy Watch.” Here’s an excerpt:

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.
According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers,
True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.

What is it about Christian faith that makes people afraid? Do a Google search pairing the words “Bush” and “scary” and most of the hits will be descriptions of his professions of Christian faith!

In the light of the struggles of the Puritan colonies in New England (and their disastrous problems) to actually establish a theocracy based on their strict Calvinistic worldview (see also the leadership of John Calvin in Geneva, Switzerland, or that of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell in England after its Civil War), the story of America was one of the development of religious tolerance, not of imposed theocracy. Don’t misunderstand—just because we acknowledge the rights of all to worship or not worship as they please (a phrase that President Bush has often used, contrary to those who find him “scary”) does not mean that they all equally save. Evangelicals who take an interest in politics are hardly interested in imposing a Bible-based theocracy similar to the Sharia-based system in places like Iran or Taliban-led Afghanistan.

It is very important to be able to debate and defend our positions on such issues as abortion, marriage, education, and national defense on the basis of Scripture—when we are in an audience of people who begin from the same philosophical and worldview moorings. In the public square, among secularists and the “enlightened (rationalists, not Buddhists!),” we must do better than declare what God’s will for marriage is, for example. Our Christian faith must inform our worldview, but to defend controversial positions using premises that the unbeliever rejects as invalid (For example, using the phrase, “The Bible says…”) only serves to reinforce the impression that evangelicals are out to gain political power in order to impose a theocracy.

Always be prepared to give an answer, when someone asks you to give a reason for the hope you have.

___

The latest from India

In commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the conversion of outcast Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar to Buddhism, a ceremony of mass conversion of 10,000 Dalits (outcasts) took place over the weekend in Nagpur, India.

The Indian government, touted as the “largest democracy in the world,” recently passed legislation requiring anyone who leaves Hinduism to obtain a certificate verifying that they did so out of their own free will and not under coercion. If you convert without this “permit,” you could face imprisonment. There was even a law that classified Buddhism and Jainism as branches of Hinduism, denying them status as unique religions.

The staunch Hindu conservatives in government have claimed that Christian missionaries have used “enticements” to lure the outcasts out of Hinduism. On the other hand, David Griffiths of Christian Solidarity Worldwide said about the anti-conversion legislation, “ It imposes restrictions on conversions, which should be free. There is ostensibly an agenda to keep the Dalits and tribespeople oppressed within the caste system.”

Read the links to the two stories and consider these questions: in what ways does the Hindu caste system still show itself today, even though it has technically been unconstitutional for decades? How are the Dalits (untouchables) treated? Why, do you suppose, that of the 10,000 converts who left Hinduism this weekend, only 500 became Christian and the rest became Buddhist? What challenges do Christian missionaries face in India that are unique to that culture?

God hates f*gs--and little Amish girls?

Little did I realize last week when I wrote on the subject of the school shooting in Weston, Wisconsin that the very same day would witness an even more horrific crime. In the little village of Quarrysville, PA, Charles Carl Roberts entered a one-room schoolhouse of 10 little Amish girls and proceeded to kill six of them before taking his own life. The killer claimed that he had molested little girls 20 years ago when he was a boy and “dreamed of doing it again.”

Because the Amish are a people who have chosen a separatist way of life, refusing the use of such modern things as automobiles and electricity, it is unlikely that any fancy electronic security system would have helped save the girls’ lives. And, as we have discussed last week, the one individual to blame is Charles Carl Roberts, and he surely is being held to account by his maker. In a statement typical of mankind since the garden of Eden, the murderer blamed God: his prematurely born daughter Elise died after living only 20 minutes in 1997, which filled him with hatred toward himself and God. Consequently, other families should apparently know the feeling of pain at losing a daughter.

Soon afterwards, the “who’s to blame” crowd came out of the woodwork. The Violence Policy Network, a gun-control group, writes on its web site,

In the wake of three high-profile school shootings in one week, the last committed by an apparently law-abiding gun owner until he pulled the trigger executing five Amish schoolgirls, America will once again go through the now-predictable exercise of trying to identify any single, possible factor for these gun deaths--except for the guns themselves.

A mother of four from Georgia, Laura Mallory, used the recent spate of shootings to resume her crusade against Harry Potter.

Referring to the recent rash of deadly assaults at schools, Mallory said books that promote evil - as she claims the Potter ones do - help foster the kind of culture where school shootings happen. That would not happen if students instead read the Bible, Mallory said.

But perhaps the most outrageous “analysis” came from Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church, a group that has garnered headlines for its picketing and protests at the funerals for servicemen who lost their lives in Iraq. Oh, no, they’re not Democrats or part of the cut and run peace crowd. Check out their web site, and all will be clear. America is a “f*g” nation, and every death on 9-11 was deserved and every serviceman’s death is deserved because of our national tolerance of homosexuality.

The Westboro Baptist group scheduled a picket for the funeral of the little Amish girls, but were diverted by a unique offer from conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher discovered that the Westboro people wanted “to be heard,” so he gave them an hour of time on his radio show in exchange for their promise to cancel their picket of the service. You can read Gallagher’s explanation here, as well as criticism of his offer that compares what he did to appeasing terrorists. I think the author may have a point. If it were a jihadist group going to “protest” American servicemen’s funerals and saying that they deserved to die for fighting for gay rights, and Gallagher offered radio time in exchange for their promise not to picket, we’d say that he was giving in to terrorists’ demands.

What does this have to do with little Amish girls? In a companion website called “God hates America,” Westboro Baptist writes,

The Amish children from Pennsylvania are even now in hell. Stop spreading the lie that they were innocent. They were just as degenerate and deserving of hell as the pervert who killed them. You get what you deserve, America! You raised these murderous beasts and perverted their minds, and now you act surprised? As long as you people try to stop us, you will be punished, just as Pharaoh was punished when he would not let God's people go (Ex. 12:30). Gov. Ed Rendell brought this down on you, get mad at him, not us!

It’s embarrassing that this group identifies itself as Christian. I’d be even more ashamed if I were a Baptist. It’s embarrassing because many people will associate the legitimate preaching of God’s law against homosexuality with the hateful message of Westboro Baptist. Preachers need to be bold yet tactful. One can be correct theologically (yes, God hates sin; yes, God hates homosexuality and adultery; yes, the Amish girls were no less sinners than any other human) and never save a single soul. Westboro Baptist is not a Christian church because they do not preach the law in the service of the Gospel. In other words, they do not reveal to a sinner their sinful condition in the hope of leading him to his Savior and ultimately to heaven. They have replaced the mission Christ gave to save souls with one of their own fabrication, namely, to hate f*gs with self-righteous fury.

Greater love

Greater love hath no man, than he lay down his life for his friends. Those who make the ultimate sacrifice—giving their own lives so that others might live—truly display the highest quality of love. Obviously, Jesus himself made that ultimate sacrifice, and now we live—and will live with him forever—because of it.

This past Friday, students at Weston High School (WI) arrived to a bloody scene. Their popular and friendly principal, John Klang, had been shot fatally by a 15-year-old student Eric Hainstock. According to this account from the AP wire, the murderer was armed with a shotgun and a handgun, which he had stolen out of a cabinet at home. Although a maintenance man was able to wrestle the shotgun away, Klang was shot three times as he attempted to pry the handgun loose. Before losing consciousness, the principal managed to sweep the weapon away, and the assailant was taken into custody where he was charged as an adult.

Why did he do it? Accounts vary, although it seems that the student was upset that he was going to receive an in-school suspension for bringing tobacco to campus. Apparently he was picked on and students “rubbed against him.” Another account said that he just “wanted to be heard.” And now three children are fatherless, and a school community is mourning the loss of a friend.

There will be many attempts to fix blame for this shooting. Some will point out that a friend heard Hainstock talking and making threats, but neglected to report it to the authorities. Others will point to the dastardly evil of handguns and fix blame on the parents for having such firearms in the house. Others will alert us to the killer’s perception that he felt unheard and picked on, and did not believe that the teachers cared enough to step in and defend him. And still others will correctly observe that many students feel isolated, picked on, and receive discipline from school authorities yet don’t commit murder—the responsibility lies totally with Mr. Eric Hainstock, and he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The principal ought to be remembered as someone who loved his students, and demonstrated that love by making the ultimate, Christ-like sacrifice. And we ought all remember that our school administrators and authorities have our own safety at heart when rehearsing lock-downs and other emergency procedures, and we ought to cooperate rather than question their necessity. God forbid that such a tragedy should ever occur in our neck of the woods, so let us continue to watch out for each other and be alert to warning signs that someone may be ready to hurt himself and/or others.