Dr Douglass,

Let me tell you what Korean Adventists do when the South Korean government imprisons young men who can't conscientiously continue their 2 year compulsory military service because they are asked to do weapons training on Friday evening!!

 This is not a hypothetical!

'Good' (his English name), a young Adventist was imprisoned by the South Korean authorities  for a period of 16 months, in December 2006 for refusing to do weapons training for a period of 3 consecutive Friday evenings. A Korean Adventist pastor was in court with him to explain the Adventist position on the Sabbath.

By all reports, (from the young man in question who had been an English major at our Adventist Sahmyook University) the judge at his trial, who was a Christian was surprised when 'Good' explained from the Bible that Saturday was the Bible Sabbath.

This young man was made to do hard labor in prison. At night he slept on the floor, having sufficient room for his body size. He also refused to eat the pig food they served him in prison. (Thankfully, one of my foreign colleagues at Sahmyook University supplied food and money to him, and by his own testimony she was the most helpful support to him during his imprisonment). He had no father, and although his mother was an Adventist, she did not agree with his conscientious stand.

Most of the Adventist pastors, even those few who visited him did not agree with his stand on conscience. They prefer that 20 year old men who are doing their compulsory military service do not value freedom of conscience. They prefer them just to compromise their conscience.

Prison visits to that young man were only 10 minutes long.

Does the Adventist Church in Korea speak up for the cause of freedom of conscience. The answer is a deafening NO!

As I have explained above, most of the Adventist ministry in Korea expect that young men in this situation will just forget their conscience as has been done by all able-bodied Korean Adventist men for decades. Those in the Korean Adventist ministry who secretly agree with living according to your conscience are mute.

More than 50 years ago soldiers of the free world and their governments sacrificed enormously in blood and treasure to prop up a military dictatorship here in this wonderful land of SOUTH KOREA. A series of military dictatorships lived on in SOUTH KOREA for another 30 years. Now South Korea has a democratic goverment of sorts.

Yet here is one outstanding example of how the SOUTH KOREAN government tramples on the rights of freedom of conscience. THIS IS HORRIFIC. BUT EVEN MORE HORRIFIC IS THAT THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IN KOREA DOES NOTHING.

At this time people in the free world are disturbed by the less than civilized treatment meted out to two American journalists working on a very political story on the Chinese-Korean border. And rightly so.

Yet each year, hundreds of South Korean Adventist young men are drafted into compulsory military service and forced to violate their conscience about the Sabbath with nothing more than token moral support from our church and it's leaders in KOrea.

(I know I have my facts correct. I heard "Good" give his testimony last SAbbath afternoon. I asked him many questions. Subsequently, I have emailed both the GC PARL and the North Asia Pacific PARL. They confirm that they have known about this situation for years and the seemingly uncaring and lame attitude of the Korean Adventist church leadership).

WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP OUR BROTHERS WHO ARE IN CHAINS?

Professor Peter Marks

Sahmyook University

 

Most of the states that have the least religious freedom are Muslim countries.  For much of the past century-and-a-half, the West has been influential in pressuring Muslim countries into adopting Western outlooks with regard to such issues as slavery, civil rights, religious freedom, polygamy, education, equality for women, etc.  One important Muslim country, Turkey, tried of its own volition (admittedly in repsonse to losing a war and its empire) to Westernize itself.  But the past 30 years have seen a resurgence of Islam.  (We in the West tend to call it "Islamism" or "political Islam", or "Islamic fundamentalism," but it is merely Islam.)  In a way, the Islamic umma has seemlessly replaced the communist world (now gone, except for Cuba and North Korea) as a large, powerful, retrograde, anti-freedom, anti-human force.  Ironically, the same U.S.-supported war (the guerilla resistance in Afghanistan) that hastened the passing of world communism, also hastened the current rise of Islam, by encouraging a renewed call to Jihad in the Muslim world.

One of the consequences of a resurgent Islam is that most Islamic countries are even less likely to allow any real religious freedom.  Islam is a totalitarian ideology that purports to regulate all aspects of the believer's life.  While Islam is not in principle opposed to democracy, any democratically elected lawmaking body, just like any unelected dictator, has no legitimate authority to pass laws that conflict with sharia law.  Most Muslims agree that the purpose of the state is to implement sharia law and provide a safe environment for the religion of Islam.  All schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the appropriate penalty for leaving Islam for another religion is death.  Islamic jurisprudence teaches that the Muslim world (dar al Islam, "house of  Islam") is in a permanent state of hostility with the non-Muslim world (dar al harb, "house of war").  Most Muslims agree that non-Muslims are not on an equal moral or legal footing with Muslims.  The life, wife, and property of any non-Muslim is potentially forfeit to any Muslim, without penalty, unless the non-Muslim agrees to abide by the d'himma (treaty), pursuant to which the non-Muslim pays a special tax called the "Jizyah," submits to rightful Muslim rulers, and submits to numerous legal disabilities vis-a-vis Muslims.  If a non-Muslim becomes a "dhimmi" and abides by these restrictions, his life is protected. 

While Christianity spreads by preaching, Islam has traditionally been spread by warfare.  Conquest allows the imposition of sharia law and the dhimma.  Eventually, states that were majority Christian when they were conquered become majority Muslim over a long, sustained period of persecution and dhimmitude.  This is true of Egypt, which was majority Christian for centuries after it was conquered, and in which the dwindling Copt minority continues to be systematically persecuted and suppressed.  Ironically, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, an extremely ruthless, bloody dictator, has been a catastrophe for Iraqi Christians; Hussein had no interest in persecuting the Christians, but the current weak government has neither the ability nor the inclination to prevent a return to Islamic business as usual, and the tiny Christian minority in Iraq is being persecuted much as the Copts in Egypt are.  Many have been forced to flee. 

What to do about the Islamic world is question that defies easy answers.  The first thing to do, however, is to acknowledge that Islam is a problem, that its values are alien to, and irreconcilable with, our values.  Until we acknowledge that Islam is a totatlitarian ideology very similar to communism and Nazism, we will have no idea how to formulate an appropriate response. 

Thanks David,

I appreciated your comprehensive view of the rather restrictive and war-like features of Islam.

The initial and bottom line question on this blog by Herb is still a good one - "Would my sense of loyalty to God's Holy Word hold my tongue when freedom of conscience and expression is denied...."

Please, can others speak to this issue!! It is an important one!!

The maturity of our faith, and our shield against religious deception of all kinds can be measured by the degree to which we follow our conscience, even in the face of threats or penalties, plus the degree to which we facilitate and promote this fundamental divine gift for others.

Issues that are raised by David and Marks are not philosophical. They are facing red-blooded men and women all over the world. Because we in the United States live in the "land of the free and the home of the brave," we have anesthetized ourselves from the real world of today and the real world just on the edge of tomorrow. But we, wherever we live, will one day soon be caught up in an "overwhelming surprise" that will scare the pants of many who should be preparing for it. Freedom is the center of future issues just over the horizon. How much do we believe that we would be willing to die for?  Cheers, Herb

Herb,

 It was interesting to me that none responded to you NOR did you suggest in this article that the "source of fear" should be the "religious right."

 I have long felt that should not be the source "of fear."

Rather, I suggest, it will be strong central government authority that desires unity for their centralized planning to "save the planet...and humanity." If you are not onboard you leave yourself open to the loss of all liberties. They no doubt will use an "inclusive" religious facade out of necessity to gain public support. "Religious Exclusivity" is out even if one recognizes "religious liberty" for all.

My 2 cents that recognize the similarities of all "collectivist" systems that presses "public necessity for the greater good at the expense of individual liberty." It was not the "conservative creedal group" that joined Hitler but religion that sought the State as Savior and co-laborer. regards,

pat

Dear Mr. Read,

Before I continue, I would like to encourage the Moderator to prevent this blog from becoming an Anti-Muslim sounding board.  My intention in saying this, and the comments that follow, is to as respectfully as possibe give an alternative viewpoint to Mr. Read's. 

Mr. Read's smattering of facts mixed in amongst his selective memory with regards to Religious History is insulting to Muslims, and his inaccuracy is embarassing to those of us who share his western, Christian cultural roots. 

Rather than go point by false point or comment by inflammatory comment, I'll simply highlight a few low points...

First, Mr. Read states that in order to fix an alleged "problem," one must acknowledge that Islam is a problem.  While there is a Muslim-Christian conflict, I take umbrage to Mr. Read labeling Muslims as a "problem" to be dealt with.  It is incendiary in nature, and infantile in substance to assert that one side in a conflict bears all the responsibility.  Should a Muslim web-surfer happen by this site, it would be important to me that they understand that not all Christians and certainly not all SDA's share Mr. Read's point of view.

And to insinuate that Muslims are more violent in nature than Christians, by saying they primarily spread Islam by force is simply inane.  Most of us recall the Crusades.  Any 9th grade history student could tell you about the Conquistadors, spreading the word of Christ in the New World at the point of a sword.  All of us can recall the Eric Rudolph bombings, and the recent murder of Dr Tiller by a right-wing religious fanatic.  Might I suggest that every religion, including Christianity, has a segment of their population that has the tendency towards violence.  The very common Middle Eastern problems of  poverty and hopelessness increase the numbers of those that answer the call to arms from blind mullahs - as well as here in the west, as our economy stumbles, the  Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillies. 

Religious freedom is a worldwide issue, and problems arise here in America, in Asia, in the Middle East, and every country in the world.  I'm not sure why an anti-Muslim commentary would find a home here, when problems and issues know no borders, and no single religion is the "Problem" to our Christian "Solution."

Again, Moderator, I'd just as soon you delete my post too, if you're inclined at all to delete Mr. Read's post, as you well should.  I just felt that Mr. Read shouldn't be able to post his comments without a reply from a different viewpoint. 

 Is Religious Liberty at risk here in the United States?  Is it possible that someday, our own government will forbid us from worshipping as we please?  How could we get there from where we began as a nation, from where we are today, where our rights are "protected" by the Constitution and the law of the land?

I find it interesting that here in America, one typically hears that a voter should "vote their conscience."  Take California's recent Proposition 8, an amendment to California's laws designed to defend the holy sanctity of Marriage from the gays. 

As SDA's should we have voted to ban gay marriage, legally establishing the Christian norm of "One man, One woman" as the law of the land?  Or should we have voted to protect religious decisions from the embrace of our lawmakers?  If we're willing to advance the cause of legislated religious norms, rather than advance the cause of religious freedom for ALL, including gays, are we setting ourselves up - creating an atmosphere where our fears of religious intolerance, written into law, come to fruition?

Religious freedom can be impeded by government, and that barrier can be unwittingly created by our unwillingess to sometimes stand beside people that don't share our exact viewpoints.  Sometimes, in order to expect tolerance for our beliefs, we need to show tolerance for others and their views.  Hatred and Intolerance are two of the early steps to persecution.  I hope we don't hasten the day when we find ourselves outside the "Christian Norm," and are forced to do battle with those we once called our brethren in fights to establish laws defining things we consider holy and sacred. 

Here is a timely article in USA Today:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-06-15-hate-crimes_N.htmConservative

Christians are willing to repeal historic religious protections in order to prevent those protections from being extended to the gay community.  Are we cutting off our noses to spite our faces?

StatefarmSteve, I really wish you had gone "point by false point" because I'm pretty sure I didn't make any false points.  I didn't say that "Muslims" were a problem, I said that Islam, the totalitarian religio-political ideology, is a problem.  But I try to be careful to separate the ideology from the people.  Individual Muslims may or may not be a problem to be dealt with, and the overwhelming majority are not.  But Islam, the totalitarian religio-political ideology most certainly is a problem, much as fascism, Nazism and Communism were.  Muslims who have converted to Christianity will generally agree with this point. 

 I also didn't say that Muslims were more violent in nature than Christians.  I think human nature is pretty much uniform across the human race.  But the system of Islam, as embodied in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, encourages violence in a way that Biblical Christianity does not.  I would think that most Adventists would understand that the Crusades and Conquistadors do not spring from biblical Christianity but reflect a time, during the middle ages, when Church and state were united, in the Muslim fashion.  You can always find individual acts of violence by Christians that do not have support in the Christian community, but the acts of Muslim terrorists often have widespread support in the Muslim community.  (It is interesting that you mention the murder of Dr. Tiller without also mentioning that, the very same weekend, an American Muslim convert attacked two soldiers at a recruiting post, killing one.) 

This is because, as I noted, the official position of Islam toward the non-Muslim world is one of permanent hostitlity and intermittent warfare.  The Jihad warrior, following the teachings of Muhammed, is directed first to ask the non-Muslim to accept Islam, then, if he will not accept Islam, to accept the dhimma, pay the jizyah and become rightfully subject to Muslim rulership, and finally, if the non-Muslim will do neither of these, to make war on the non-Muslim until he is either dead or accepts the dhimma.  This is not the aberrant behavior of some violent extremist trying to hijack a great "religion of peace," it is core Muslim doctrine.  Jihad is a universal Muslim obligation; those who cannot participate in physical warfare are to support Jihad financially, which is why Islamic charities are so often found to be supporting terrorism.  Jihad is a religious obligation; that idea that Jihad is the result of "poverty and hopelessness" should have been exploded by the fact that Ossama bin Laden is a very wealthy man, and the son of one of the wealthiest men in Saudi history. 

The reason for my first post is that the problem of religious freedom is acute in most Muslim countries.  Most of the larger, more populous nation-states that the Adventist church is having a very difficult time evangelizing are Muslim states.  This is because the idea of religious freedom is alien and anathema to Islam.  Many Muslim states do not allow public evangelism.  Under Islam, the function of the state is to enforce Sharia law, and Sharia law prescribes death for any Muslim who would convert to another religion. Hence, Muslims trying to convert to Christianity typically face systematic persecution. 

StatefarmSteve, the definition of marriage as one man, one woman is a Western idea that long predates Christianity, and was the norm in pagan Greek and Roman civilization.  While Eastern pre-Christian civilizations allowed poygamy, pagan Greece and Rome did not.  As far as I am aware, no civilization in the history of the world (until very recently) has ever recognized the marriage of a man to a man, or a woman to a woman.  You are simply mistaken to assert that marriage being defined as one man, one woman is an exclusively Christian norm.  It is a very widespread norm that existed long before Christianity. 

Mr. Read - I apologize for insinuating that the "Defense of Marriage" so embraced by the radical right political wing in America was defending a "Christian Norm."  Thank you for educating me that this movement is in reality a tribute to the Greco-Roman traditions of "one man, one woman," and more of a historical preservation society, kind of like the Daughters of the Confederacy.  I don't know how it got into my silly little head that this had something to do with morals and applying our traditional Christian standards to legislation.

As for your prior post, you referred to Islam as an "Anti-Human force."  Your post contains incorrect, incomplete history (i.e "Christianity spreads by preaching, Islam has traditionally been spread by warfare.)  Your post also contains inflammatory generalizations, which begin with "Most Muslims..." or "Most Islamic countries..." 

You've declared  Islam a "Problem" and its values "alien...  Irreconcilable with, our values" and "very similar to communism and Nazism."  You said they are "permanently hostile" to the non-muslim world.  In a thread discussing religious liberty, you've posted what appears to be a very, very thinly veiled call for the destruction of Islamic nations. 

StatefarmSteve:  Obviously the definition of marriage (as one man and one women) is a Christian norm.  But it isn't just a Christian norm, it is a norm of Western Civilization going back to pagan Greek and Roman times.  (And I'm certain that the ancient Greeks were fully apprised about the existence of homosexual behavior, and man-boy love, and Sapphic love on the Isle of Lesbos, all that other special stuff.  But the Greeks didn't recognize "marriage" between two males, or between two females.)  Marriage is a pre-Christian institution, and to argue that only Christians are concerned with preserving it is disingenuous.  The reasons marriage should be restricted to people of opposite sexes are not dependent upon revealed religion.  Marriage is about forming families, conceiving and raising children, and children need both a male and a female parent, because men and women are very different.  There is no civilization in the history of the world that has recognized same-sex marriage (until the last 10 years or so), probably because people of the same sex cannot naturally conceive children. 

 As to Islam, the idea that it has generally been spread by Jihad warfare and Christianity has generally been spread by preaching is not incorrect.  It is true.  Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to both propositions; there have been times when Christianity was spread by warfare and when Islam spread by preaching, but that doesn't make the generalization untrue.  The exceptions prove the rule. 

Whether something is or is not "inflammatory" depends on the hearer, not the speaker.  Muslisms become inflamed over stuff that wouldn't have much effect upon a Western audience.  I don't think what I wrote is "inflammatory," but I will concede that it is alarming.  I think we should be alarmed about the Islamic resurgence of the last 30 years, because it is a very negative development.  I'm not calling for the destruction of Islamic nations, but I am calling on the West to understand what Islam is, and be cognizant of the threat posed by a resurgent Islam.  

David - as titillating as it is to read on this forum about sapphic and man-boy love, it doesn't distract from the fact that protecting the sacred institution of marriage by creating legislation preventing immoral gay people from abusing said sacred institution is a conservative Christian-driven movement that uses the American political process to further their moral crusade. 

As for reproduction being the foundation for marriage, I have spent tens of thousands of dollars and countless hours of despair undergoing fertility treatments with my wife in an unsuccessful attempt to have children.  It's nice to know that the God you worship and your political party feels that my marriage is invalid because we have failed to conceive.  I hope your next move is not to ban infertile men from marrying and to force infertile couples to divorce, in the interest of preserving the historical, child-bearing nature of your marriage institution.  Just so I'm clear, if "marriage is about forming families, conceiving and raising children," what is my marriage about? 

I'll skip over addressing your non-factually based assertion that Islam is spread by warfare and Christianity by preaching, because it's simply inane, and get on to the more interestingly inane fact that you pass responsibility  for the inflammatory nature of your comments to the listener or reader, as if you may say anything,  in whatever manner you choose, and the end result is someone else's problem.  Please, walk down Crenshaw Blvd in Compton, yelling the N-word.  This should help you gain clarity with regards to the definition of "inflammatory."

As if Muslims are "oversensitive" if they are offended by your latest statement that the spread of Islam "is a very negative development."  I'm not Muslim, and I'm offended, so I must be really, really, oversensitive. 

Dave, you're coming across as a hate-monger, thinly disguised as a pseudo-intellectual, lightly covered in the veil of Christianity.  I hope such a statement isn't "inflammatory" but I find it appalling that you'd have a forum in which to spout your vitriol and wildly unsupported facts unopposed. 

 

Statefarm:  Conservatives and Christians are not the aggressors on the marriage issue.  Gay activists are trying to change the definition of marriage from what it has been everywhere in Western civilization for well over 25 centuries.   And they are trying to change it into something it has never been anywhere at any time in world history.  It surely is strange to characterize those who oppose this almost unbelievably radical change as being "on a moral crusade."  I think the shoe is on the other foot.   The radical LGBT community is on a moral crusade to change the normal definition of marriage because they think it immorally un-inclusive that same sex couples cannot be married.

Thankfully, this is still America, and America still has the First Amendment, so I can stil speak truthfully about Islam.  Believe me, I'm fully cognizant of the fact the Left hates freedom of speech, and doesn't think offensive or "inflammtory" speech should be legal.  And I'm fully aware that it isn't legal in places where the Left is in control, like universities, with their odious "speech codes," and places like Canada, with their "Human Rights Commissions."  But since I'm not in Canada nor enrolled in a university, I still have freedom of speech, and I intend to use it, no matter how painful you personally find it.

While we're on the subject of the Left and its hatred for freedom of speech, I find it highly ironic that after all these years of being warned, by our SDA religious liberty folks, against the Religious Right, it turns out the Left, including the Religious Left, is the most urgent threat to freedom of religion.  It turns out that once the speech police are on the beat, you can't say anything that would make anyone uncomfortable, including both gays and Muslims.  That includes church sermons that say that homosexuality is wrong.  Pastors have been arrested in Europe for just such sermons.   A pastor in Sweden, Ake Green, was sentenced to a month in jail for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon in church in 2003.  And in Canada, Rev. Stephen Boissoin was found guilty in 2007 by a "Human Rights Commission" panel of having exposed homosexuals to "hatred and contempt" by publishing a letter in the Red Deer Advocate warning against the dangers to the social order of homosexual activism.  Rev. Boissoin was prohibited for life from preaching sermons that are critical of homosexuality and was told that he cannot criticise homosexuality even in his private communications such as e-mails. Rev. Boissoin was also ordered to pay a total of $7,000 in fines, plus his own court costs and attorneys' fees.

This is why the Pacific Union religious liberty point man, Alan Reinach, was so opposed to gay marriage and in favor of Prop. 8 in California (reversing the CA Supreme Court's decision to adopt gay marriage).  Because once gay marriage becomes the law, it will be exceedingly difficult to maintain certain biblically sound doctrinal positions that go counter to the prevailing zeitgeist. 

But, as I say, I'm not in Canada and not enrolled in a University, so I still have some residual freedom of speech.  I wouldn't abuse that freedom to say something factually untrue and, of course, you haven't shown any factual errors in anything I've written. 

David - I have never suggested that we use the legal system to curb your freedom to be a bigot or to make offensive statements.  After all, the freedom for you to be a bigot  and my freedom to point it out is a uniquely American tradition.  And I can't think of a single University that has the legal standing to pass a law making it a criminal offense to speak your mind (another factual error on your behalf that you'll surely choose to ignore.)  You may choose to go the extra mile and establish proof of your allegations, either of the primarily war-based spread of Islam or perhaps point out the municipal, county, or state civil or criminal statute passed by a University that you purport to criminalize your freedom of speech. 

You also assert that your bigotry and vitriol effect some sort of emotional or physical pain to my person.  Another untruth.  Your simple-minded ignorance causes me no distress, physical or otherwise. 

Your reporting of the Boisson case is hilariously bent and conspicuously missing information with regards to the case.  Mr. Boisson was not hunted down by the gay community, preaching sermons on the immorality of homosexuality.  He published a diatribe asserting that the gay community was causing "psychological and physiological harm" to children.  Such statements, even in places like America where freedom of speech is protected, must have some factual basis in order to garner any such protection.  To accuse a group of causing physical harm is to accuse them of a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime is not legal here in the US, either.   

Green, meanwhile, called gays "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society."   While I am unsure if calling someone a horrible tumor arises to the level of hate, I am fairly sure that such comments deserve no protection under the umbrella of religious freedom, nor should the Adventist church extend our support to purveyors of such discourse, as you have chosen to do. 

So, please, continue to exercise your freedom of speech.  Your blustering about not abusing said freedom to make an untrue statement (which in itself is another untrue statement) could be so easily settled.  Please just post any source showing Islam has been primarily spread by war contrasted with the spread of Christianity by peace.  This would be step one in establishing your honest intent to promote truth.

StatefarmSteve:  You know, I say things like, "the Left hates freedom of speech" hoping that I'm wrong, or least that I'm exaggerating.  Alas, you are too anxious to prove me right.  Is calling a group "a cancerous tumor in the body of society" offensive?  Of course it is.  But it is only offensive speech that requires protection.  Inoffensive speech doesn't need any ironclad constitutional guarantees, because no one would ever try to ban it.  So I think the "cancerous tumor" phrase should be protected free speech, and the idea that someone could be jailed for saying that is thoroughly horrifying to me, but obviously not to you. 

What if, in his sermon, Ake Green had not used that particular phrase, but only quoted Bible verses, like "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." and "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”  Before answering, you should be aware that the prosecutor commented, "Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech."  Would merely reciting topical Bible verses "deserve no protection under the umbrella of religious freedom"??

Regarding Rev. Boissoin's statements, which were published in a newspaper, stating that something causes "physiological harm" is not necessarily nor usually accusing someone of a crime and is probably protected speech in the USA.  The recourse might be to bring a libel action, but you can't really libel an amorphous group like "militant homosexual activitsts", and a libel action would have to be brought in a real court with real protections for the defendant, not the kangeroo court of  a "Human Rights Commission" where, for the defendant, the process is the punishment.   But what is of real concern is the ruling that Rev. Boissoin, on a going forward basis, may not preach any sermons about homosexuality.  A lifetime gag order on what he can preach in his own church; do you really think that's acceptable??  Do you really believe that Rev. Boissoin's rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech should be trumped by the bogus right of homosexuals not to be offended (which can never be appeased, because what offends is subjective and constantly changing)?  Please tell me this isn't true.  Because, as I said, I really do want to believe I exaggerate when I say the Left hates freedom of speech.

Regarding university speech codes, I never said they had the force of criminal law, and that is not a remotely reasonable inference from what I said.  But they can get students disciplined and even kicked out of school.   Good article on Wisconsin's speech code here:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31068.html.

In my previous posts, I have been trying to explain how Islam has been spread by war.  Before they were conquered by Muslims, North Africa, Palestine, the Levant, and Turkey were all predominantly Christian.  Once these areas were conquered by Muslims, the Sharia-mandated system of dhimmitude was put in place.  The legal and financial disabilities of dhimmitude were such that Christians very frequently converted to avoid the persecution, and eventually these lands became predominantly Muslim.  (This didn't always happen; Muslim rulers were in control of both Spain and Greece for several centuries, but the majority of Spaniards and Greeks never converted.)  By saying that Islam was spread by war, this is what I'm referring to.  In the East, it was more often the case that Islam was spread by outright "convert or die" force, because unlike Christians and Jews, heathen idolators (e.g. Hindus)  were not entitled to become dhimmis.  And even Christians taken in raids or piracy were not necessarily given dhimmi status, but were enslaved and might be forced to convert or die. 

For a fuller discussion, I recommend, Bat Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" or "The Legacy of Jihad" ed. Andrew Bostom.

David, your quote regarding freedom of speech reads "it isn't legal in places where the Left is in control, like universities."  I'm not sure if you're redefining "legal" but to say that something is not "legal" refers to the breaking of a law.  So unless you have rewritten the definition of "legal" (and the rewriting of definitions deserves constitution protections, mind you,) you are clearly guilty of telling an untruth. 

It is clear to me that the Canadian government has found Rev. Boisson to be a person deserving of a "gag order."  Our own government sometimes finds people deserving of surrendering constitutional rights, like someone found guilty of armed robbery who can no longer exercise their right to bear arms.  If Canada, a democratic nation, votes to establish such societal norms of "no hate speech," more power to them.  Here in America, such speech is controlled more by our civil courts.  For instance, if you published an article claiming that African Americans cause physiological harm to children, I hope and believe that you'd get served a notice of suit with haste.  Is such a statement actionable here in America?  Absolutely.  And your hypothetical regarding Ake Green remains just that - a hypothetical.  Hypothetically, Mr. Green could be a homosexual himself, hiding his man-lust behind anti-gay rhetoric. 

And your post regarding the spread of Islam through North Africa completely fails to support your hypothesis that Islam is spread through war in contrast to the peaceful spread of Christianity.  In the Americas  (formerly non-Christian continents conquered by Christians) a billion people exist in a largely Christian society that was spawned by conquest.  I don't know how this number compares to the number of Muslim converts in North Africa, but I'm guessing it's somewhat larger. 

As for your assertion that I hasten to quell your freedom of speech, I don't think I can be any clearer than I was in my prior post.  I fully support your right to be a bigot and to use offensive language in your descriptions of other religions and people.  But I refuse to allow you to do it unchallenged.  I refuse to watch you post your hate-speech on here as fact or in a manner that could be misinterepreted as commonly held belief in Adventist circles.  So once again, keep speaking and preaching against the evil abominations of gays and muslims.  Just don't think everyone will stand idly by while you do it. 

 

 

StatefarmSteve:  The Left really does hate freedom of speech.  Not only do you hate freedom of speech, you're actually proud of your opposition to it.  You say you support my right of free speech, but you clearly don't.  In your first post, you asked the moderator to strike my comments (all true) about Islam, and now you've revealed that you agree with divesting the Reverends Green and Boissoin of their freedoms of speech and religion.  If Canada wants to outlaw free speech, "more power to them", you say.  The Left really does hate freedom of speech, and I hate being right all the time.

Why are you fixated on North Africa?  What I have written about Islam is universally appicable, including Palestine, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, all the "stans", India, (and Southeastern Europe, Spain, Sicily, and Greece when they were controlled by Muslims), etc.  Actually, some of the Southeastern Europeans were treated worse than dhimmis, because every so often the Sultan's officers would come around and take the best looking Christian boys to be forcibly converted to Islam and serve in the Sultan's Janissary corps (and sometimes girls were taken for the harem), and when the Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians rebelled, the Ottomans would massacre them in great numbers, such as in the Batak Massacre.

Your argument that a billion native Americans were forced to accept Christianity is beyond silly.  You can't count the European-Americans in your number, because they were already Christian and brought Christianity with them.  If you're talking about indians, the number of 1 billion is truly ridiculous.  In North America, the natives were thin on the ground, and very few of them were forced to accept Christianity.  Several denominations sent missionaries to the indians.  In South America, probably more were forced to accept Christianity by the Catholic Church (oops, I may have said something offensive about another religion), but even there I doubt that a very large number were actually compelled to accept Christianity.  The mission system was the main method the Catholics used to bring Christianity to South and Central American indians, and it was not based upon force but upon persuasion and cultural exchange.  Priests often went into indian territory alone and unarmed, and many priests lost their lives trying to bring Christianity to hostile natives.  As recently as 1956, five protestant missionaries were killed trying to bring the gospel to the Waodani indians of Ecuador, as dramatized in the recent movie "End of the Spear."  So the idea that a billion native Americans were forced to accept Christianity is basically insane. 

Where do you come up with this stuff?  You seem to hate not only freedom of speech, but facts and logic, as well.  In fact, I venture to say that is why the Left hates freedom of speech:  not because of speech itself but because speech is how facts and logic are transmitted, and facts and logic are what you really, truly hate, because they interfere with ideology and political correctness. 

As I suspected, David, you chose to ignore your "False Statements" and once again, made more false statements.  I never stated that 1 billion Native North, Central, and South Americans were forcibly converted to Christianity.  I clearly stated that this number refers to the people "existing" today as largely Christian nations.  Just like anyone who took 7th grade history, I'm perfectly aware that there were less than half a billion people existing on the entire planet circa 1500, when Europeans first landed on American soil.  So for you to both misread my post and  think that there were a billion native Americans, is just a little revealing of your ignorance of basic history.  Read, David Read.  Then think.  Then react.  Just a suggestion. 

As for your "doubt" that natives were forced to accept Christianity, followed immediately by your assertion that peaceful Missions were the main tool utilized for spreading Christianity in the New Word...  This is a perfect example of your intentional ignorance, of your turning a blind eye to fact, while you use selected tidbits of semi-truth mixed in with huge chunks of falsehood to create your historical record showing that Islam is a violent problem.  Then, for an added measure of evil, you tell of Muslims stealing beautiful Christian boys (who were probably thankful to have escaped their altar boy "duties".)

While I hate ignorant speech and intentional falsehoods in speech, such as yours, I don't hate freedom of speech any more than you apparently hate democracy.  Canada is a democratic nation whose laws are set up by the voters there.  Apparently, they, as a group, decided to set up this commission to monitor hate speech. That is their right as a people, as I understand it.  They have a governmental system to provide checks and balances, and if such a law survives those checks and balances, then absolutely more power to them. 

As I said before, calling any group of people "a cancerous tumor" deserves no such protection under the umbrella of religious freedom.  If Buisson used such terminology to describe black people or hispanics or asians, his speech would be protected in the US, but not in Canada.  And in any case, such speech should not be defended by the religious establishments.  Mr. Buisson broke established Canadian law from the pulpit, and it is now his personal problem that his freedom has been restricted.  Just like I might lose my 2nd Amendment rights here in America if I choose to misuse my right to bear arms. 

What I truly resent, David, is your use of an Adventist publication as your forum to spew your ignorance (which you choose to falsely label as "fact") and your vitriol (which you choose to falsely label as "logic".)  Your two chosen targets are Gays and Muslims (you do choose to refer to them as "Societal Cancers" and "Global Problems.") 

I love America and I appreciate AToday for providing a forum for you to safely run these groups of people into the ground and spread your message of hate.  Might I suggest that God is calling you to spread this message from the street corners of the Castro District in San Francisco or from a pulpit in Tehran?  After all, it takes no courage at all to spread such a message here on Adventist Today Online.  A true Christian such as yourself would heed the call of your peaceful forefathers and bring your important message to where it is most needed.  It's possible that you've found your calling. 

StateFarmSteve:

You may not have stated that 1 billion native Americans were forcibly converted, but your implication was to draw a parallel between Christians and Muslims with regard to spreading religion by the sword, by force.  You clearly meant to imply that Christianity has been spread by the sword as much as Islam.  This is, after all, what we are discussing.  For you to merely state that the Amerias were "conquered" and settled mostly by Europeans, and are now largely Christian is an irrelevant non sequiter, so I interpreted your meaning as being that a substantial percentage of this billion were forced to accept Christianity.   That was the only way to interpret your comment as having some relevance to our discussion. 

I don't see how you can deny that you are motivated by a deepseated desire to try to show or imply moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam.  This desire for false moral equivalence is a strong impulse in modern liberalism, which goes hand in hand with cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and the unwillingness to make judgments.  Unfortunately, in some cases, as in yours, this unwillingness to make judgments is taken to the extreme of being unwilling to accept as facts those facts that would tend to challenge your liberalism and cultural relativism.  I assure you that everything I have written about Islam is true, but I urge you to look these things up for yourself. 

Just to clear the air one more time, I never referred to gays or Muslims as societal cancers or global problems.  Islam is a problem, but as I have said before, I make a distinction between the people and the ideology.  The ideology is a problem, the people are not. 

David, you never should have interpreted my comments to imply that a billion Native Americans were converted by force to Christianity, because as most middle school students know,  there never was at any time in the past or present, a billion ethnic Native Americans.  You used geographic references first in our discussion of the spread of Islam and Christianity, and I was merely following your lead in discussing the geographic spread of Christianity and giving the current population living within that geographic area.  Euros did conquer North, South, and Central America by force, and brought Christianity with them - just like the Muslims did in the places you mentioned.  I'm sorry that you lacked the capacity and the basic education to avoid the confusion, but your use of latin is a nicely high falutin' touch.  Perhaps you should have taken a basic history elective is school, rather than latin.

There is a strong relative equivalence with regard to the morals outlined in both Christianity and Islam.  The hugely, overwhelmingly vast majority of Muslims are peace loving, honorable people.  Their jihad is what the prophet Mohammed said it was - an internal moral struggle.  The term has been hijacked by radicals to mean something entirely different, but 99.99% of Muslims are just like most Christians - more concerned with their personal journey of faith than with the global politics of democracy or oil or nuclear power. 

Yet you have been willing to lump them all together.  To judge a world religion of a billion and a half people by the actions of a tiny sliver of their most radical and violent sects.  To pass judgement on them based on their worst acts throughout history.  My point has been merely to say that there are violent Christians, too.  If you judge us Christians on our worst historical acts or by the works of the worst of us, we don't look very good, either.  And please don't forget that we as Americans are constantly pushing to spread our system of democracy to the rest of the world.  And the Muslim world doesn't necessarily want  everything that comes with it, like pornography, strip clubs, Victoria's Secret, R-rated movies, liquor stores, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, prostitution, gun violence, etc.  If America is the shining light of a Christian dominated Democracy, can you blame Muslim nations for shying away from converting and replicating our society?  Do many Muslim nations err on the side of being too restrictive, just as many Christian nations err on the side of being too permissive?  If so, which one is worse?

I don't deny for a second that I 100% know for an absolute, irrefutable fact that Islam is just as morally upright a religion as Christianity, and I challenge you to find a religious scholar or minister worth his or her salt that would disagree.  In fact, most Muslims are more morally conservative than modern Christians.  Muslim women are more modest in dress.  There is much lower rate of teen pregnancy and teen sexual activity in Muslim nations.  There is a lower divorce rate in Muslim countries.  They spend much more time in prayer than most Christians. 

While you maintain that you never referred to Gays or Muslims as "cancerous tumors" or "societal problems," you stauchly defended Rev Green's position with regards to Gays as "cancerous tumors."  Actually, you were quite indignant that he couldn't preach "Gays are cancerous tumors" from the pulpit any longer.  And, I'll concede that you never said that Muslims were a problem, just that  their religion was.  And as a Christian, you surely understand the shallow nature of religion, how it's surface dressing, an accessory, like a kerchief or a broach, not an integral part of the person that you're so careful not to criticize. 

Do you really think I belive your  position ot harsh, unjust, hateful criticism of "Islam, not Muslims" is anything more than a failed gratuitious effort to avoid looking like a bigot?

StatefarmSteve:  I'm still not getting through to you with regard to dhimmitude, a system in which non-Muslims are not on an equal legal or economic footing with Muslims.  Under the dhimma, Christians had to pay a special tax called the jizyah that Muslims did not pay, Christians had to wear a distinctive symbol on their clothing (which is probably where the Nazis got the idea to make Jews wear a star of David armband), Christians could not build new churches or repair old ones, Christians could not build their houses higher than neighboring Muslim houses, Christians could not own firearms, Christians could not testify in court against Muslims, etc.  A good resource with multiple links to multiple papers on dhimmitude is here:

http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.html.

When European Christians immigrated to the Americas, they did not set up a system in which non-Christians had to pay special taxes, and endure all sorts of legal disabilities vis-a-vis Christians.  There has been bigotry and racism, there have been slaughters and massacres, but there was never a systematic privileging of Christianity and a systematic persecution of other religions (at least not in North America). 

I've never disputed that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are honorable, peace-loving people. (That was true in Muhammed's day, as well, but the Qur'an strongly condemns those who didn't want to go fight jihad. [Sura 9:38-39, 42-53, 88-93]).  However, you are quite mistaken if you believe that Muhammed taught that Jihad was only an internal struggle.  Muhammed was a warlord who led and personally participated in several battles.  In fact, it was upon returning from a war or battle that Muhammed uttered the line attributed to him in one of the hadiths, "We have returned from the lesser jihad [war] to the greater jihad [struggle against sin]," that is often used to support the idea that the greater jihad is internal struggle.  Unfortunately, this hadith does not appear in one of the six reliable collections, and is considered weak, if not outright false.  And it has never been taken seriously by most Muslim imams and ulema.  Scholar David Cook writes:

In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language . . .  would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.

Bernard Lewis has written that, ""the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."  And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare."  Bukhari is the gold standard of hadith collections.  I'm afraid there isn't any real dispute that jihad means primarily physical warfare, not inner spiritual sruggle. 

It is interesting that you argue that Islam is just as moral as Christianity, especially in the sexual realm.  This would have come as news to 19th Century Christians, for whom Islam's allowance of four wives and unlimited concubines, and its promise of sexual gratification in paradise, were scandalous.  Speaking of Islam's sensual paradise, John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammed tied "all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy . . ."  Winston Churchill wrote, "A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." 

But you are quite correct that today, the West's sex-drenched culture has put the shoe on the other foot.  With little stigma, much less legal punishment, attached to pornography, pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, abortion, no-fault divorce, homosexuality (even homosexual "marriage"), strip clubs, "swinging," massage parlours, etc., it is the West that seems to swim in a "degraded sensualism."  I think perhaps it is not a coincidence that the sexual revolution in the West was followed, in less than a decade, by the resurgence of Islam.  Perhaps the renewed scourge of Islam is intended to punish Western sexual decadence.  (Of course, that's roughly what Jerry Fallwell said on Pat Robertson's TV show right after 9/ll--although he wrongly singled out gays--and he was cowed into apologizing.  But the idea that God uses infidel nations to punish his own people for their sins is a thoroughly biblical concept, repeated over and over in Old Testament history.)

Even in the sexual realm, however, Islam still has problems.  I don't agree with you that Islam is "certainly as morally upright as Christianity."  You should read up on "pleasure marriages", a practice approved in Shia Islam, in which a "marriage" of any duration, but often less than one day, can be contracted for a negotiated sum.  I'm sorry, but to me this looks alot like prostitution.   

 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-04-pleasure-marriage_x.htm. 

For himself, Muhammed had more than four wives at once, some of which he took as war trophies after vanquishing their tribe, and he also had concubines.  There is a hadith in which Muhammed says, "wives are playthings, so take your pick."  (I don't know how reliable that hadith is, but I doubt it is less reliable than the one about lesser and greater jihad.)  Then there is the fact that he married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine (his favorite wife, Aisha).  He also encouraged men to married off their daughters before menarchy.  Then there is the problem of "honor killings," a custom not specifically Islamic in origin, but which now exists mainly in Islamic countries and which Islam has been unwilling to extirpate.  Granted, alot of these customs are intended to prevent sexual immorality, but reducing women to chattel partakes of a type of immorality that is also troubling. 

Finally, I didn't defend Rev. Ake Green's "position," and certainly not that unfortunate phrase, but I absolutely defend his right to take that position and even use that phrase without being jailed for it. 

I assume when you write that, "And as a Christian, you surely understand the shallow nature of religion, how it's surface dressing, an accessory, like a kerchief or a broach, not an integral part of the person that you're so careful not to criticize" you're being ironic, intending to make the point that when you criticize the religion of a deeply religious person, you're criticizing the person himself.  Well, if so, so be it.  The Muslims who wear Islam like a broach or a kerchief are the Muslims I like.  The ones who take it more seriously . . . well, lets just say that I can also admire them, but I would prefer to admire them from a distance.  A long, long distance. 

David - agreed that you're not getting through to me regarding the evil Muslim practice of taxing conquered non-believers.  I guess I'm blinded by the Christian American tradition of conning the Indians out of their land with beads and trinkets and committing genocide by giving them blankets contaminated with smallpox, all in the name of Manifest Destiny.  Maybe I keep stumbling over Christian history, like the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch trials...

Nice work, too, quoting western scholars regarding jihad.  There probably is no bias in their viewpoint, coming from a western, Christian perspective.  It's a little like getting "Fair and Balanced" news from Fox regarding Obama, or news from CNN regarding Bush.

And as for polygamy being an immoral character trait of Muslims, isn't our own Bible filled with tales of David and his multiple wives, as well as other polygamists, such as Abraham?  These are people that God communicated closely with, sometimes directly, and other times through prophets.  Is there any record of God telling them to not take multiple wives?  Why is polygamy rejected by Christians, yet the very forefathers of our religion, the forefathers of Jesus Christ himself, were polygamists?  And you hold polygamy up as evidence of immoral Muslim behavior? 

And pleasure marriages are hardly a generally accepted Muslim practice.  A small segment of their religion practices it, much like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced polygamy until recently.  And while it occurs, it is no more widely accepted than the behavior of upright Christian American leaders such as Mark Foley's solicitation of young boys for sex, Gov Sanford's Argentine extramarital affairs, Sen Ensign's cavorting with an also-married campaign staffer, Sen Vitter's compulsion for high-dollar call girls, or any number of Christian sexual misdeeds. 

Your efforts to paint Muslims as inherently evil are filled with half-truths, assumptions, anecdotes, slanted research, and colored by an absolutely transparent hatred for Islam.  In spite of your protestations that you separate the political/religious Islam from Muslims, your last few sentences of the final paragraph in your latest post are a clear revelation of your unmitigated bigotry.  You'd prefer to admire [sarcasm clearly indicated] Muslims from a long, long distance.  Keep them out of America in general, your town in particular. 

You are spreading bigotry and hatred.  I don't mean this as a personal attack, nor as anything other than simple fact.  Your self-righteous qualifications aside, you clearly despise Muslims because of their religious beliefs, and go to extensive effort to convince others that Muslims are immoral, violent evil-doers that need to be "dealt with."  Forget that the Hadiths you quote are paralleled in our Bible, regarding destroying idol-worshippers and pagans.  Forget that the stories of war are celebrated in our Bible (Saul has killed thousands, but David has killed ten thousands...)  Forget that David expanded his kingdom in the name of God, killed the non-believers, stole a conquered Hittite's wife, and had him murdered.  We have a tradition of violence, expansion, and a seamy side, just like the Muslims.  It doesn't make it right, but it should prevent us from holding ourselves up as moral beacons above Muslims when we share so much historical DNA.

Your anti-muslim views are not, and should never be, widespread among educated people, especially among educated Christians and SDAs.  Please, please go back into your hole.  It is really unfortunate that you are even able to post such stupidity on a forum such as this. 

StateFarmSteve:  The interesting thing about this discussion, for me anyway, is what it reveals about liberal psychology versus conservative psychology.  For a conservative, the natural thing to do is to defend one's own country, religion, and culture.  For a liberal, the natural thing to do is defend everyone else's country, religion and culture, and to be extremely derogatory toward one's own.  (This is neatly illustrated by Obama's [or Carter's] foreign policy, which consists of apologizing for us, attacking our allies, and sucking up to our enemies.)  It is obvious that you don't know anything about Islam, but you know that Islam is Other, it is not us, and therefore it must be at least basically okay, and you know that I am criticizing the Other, and therefore I must be a bigot.  Liberal default modality takes over and determines your responses.  There is no need for you to actually investigate and find out the facts.  To the contrary, there is a risk that the facts might interfere with the smooth delivery of liberal attitudes.  (Here's a good mental exercise for the liberal/progressive:  Try to open your mind to the idea that other people's nation/culture/religion/ideology may not always be right, and ours may not always be wrong.  It will take hard work, but if you really commit to this exercise, it will yield rewards.)

Polygamy is definitely Other, so to a liberal it must be okay.  Admittedly, polygamy is not explicity condemned in the Bible.  The concept of marriage as one man and one women seems to be a Western (Greek-Roman) idea reinforced by Christianity.  The funny part is that when I said this in the context of same sex "marriage," you insisted that the traditional Western concept of marriage was in fact a matter of Christians enforcing their narrow sectarian beliefs.  By the way, there's another example: same-sex marriage is Other also.  In fact, it is Other not only to the Christian West, it is Other to the entire history of the human race--the best credential imaginable in liberalism--so it must really be an excellent thing. 

The Shia may be a "small segment" of Islam, but there are about 200 million of them, and they are a large majority in Iraq and Iran, so it isn't quite like the Mormons.  But where you're wrong is in saying that pleasure marriages are not acceptable. They are acceptable according to the Shia ulema (the Muslim Pharisees/religious lawyers).  Even Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani has given pleasure marriages his stamp of approval, as has this American ulema:

Alidina runs the education department at the Al Khoei Islamic Center, a prominent Shiite institution in Queens [New York]. Like most Shiites, he supports the concept of Mut’ah marriages, but says young Muslims like Selman don’t take them seriously enough. “The obligation is not over by saying a few words,” says Alidina. “Even if it is temporary, it is still a marriage with serious commitments.”

Alidina says the crucial components of the Mut’ah marriage are the mutual acceptance of the marriage, a bridal gift to the wife paid in cash, and her obligation to stay single for two menstrual cycles after the marriage ends to ensure she is not pregnant before entering into another. The husband is responsible for a child conceived during the marriage, even if the marriage lasts only a few hours, and religious leaders recommend that the contract be put in writing so women can claim their rights in Islamic courts that recognize Mut’ah marriages.

As long as these tenets are followed, Alidina thinks Mut’ah marriages provide an important physical outlet for young Muslims. “They are young and unemployed and these marriages are cheaper options,” says Alidina. “Mut’ah creates some obligation on men rather than dating or going to a prostitute.”

I know Governor Sanford was rambling during that press conference, but I'm pretty sure he didn't say, "It was all legal because me and the Argentinian entered into a pleasure marriage contract before we did it."

There's no question that there is much more violence in the Old Testament, by orders of magnitude, than there is the Qur'an.  But modern Christians and Jews view that history as history, not as enjoining a continuing obligation to fight and kill.  In Islam, by contrast, the obligation of Jihad is perpetual until "all the religion is Allah's", i.e., until Islam is supreme throughout the world. Islam is a violent, supremacist, universalist ideology. 

There's also no question that Old Testament figures like David were much more violent (and had many more wives) than Muhammed.  But David is not so much an example for us to emulate as an example of God's amazing grace towards a sinner.  Muhammed, by contrast, is seen in Islam as an example to emulate.  He is seen as the perfect man.  Thus, when he consummated a marriage with a nine-year-old (favorite wife Aisha), it means that more progressive Muslim governments are always going to have difficulty outlawing child mariiage.  When he hacked off the heads of the 700 men of the Jewish banu Qurayza, that is something admirable and praiseworthy, as even one of the victims admitted:

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off.

 

Ergggg - pains me after our happy little moment of agreement on the other thread, which indeed served to remind me that we probably have much more in common than one would think, including the fact that we are both sincere in our efforts to live, think, and become more Christ-like, to walk a just and righteous walk, get help doing so, and offer help to others when we are able.

I'd first like to apologize to you for my harsh words, and promise to be more respectful and open minded in our discussions.  As I told Bill on the other thread, any fire I flash is only sparked by my passion to be a good person.  Please do accept my apology.

I will be the first to admit I fall into a more liberal bent with regard for the manner in which I deal with others, while trying to maintain a conservative stance for myself and my family.  My liberal ideology is not my ticket to be a polygamist or violent person or Muslim, as I am a monogamist pacifist Christian.  But I do try to understand others' perspective before I try to understand their character or their religious beliefs.  I'll leave the political discussion for another place and time.

With regards to pleasure marriages, I am not defending them or advocating their use.  However, it appears that some of these pleasure marriages are entered into with more reverence and they last longer than some of our Western traditional marriages.  I find it difficult to criticize Muslims and label their concept of marriage as immoral when our western culture's respect for marriage, as evidenced by our apalling divorce rate, is laughable.  Rush Limbaugh, our Christian conservative American spokesperson, after having been divorced three times, was caught with 30 unprescribed Viagra returning from a trip to the Dominican Republic.  Whatever he was engaged in at a well-known (often underaged girl) sex-junket destination, with dozens of erection pills, was probably at least as unsacred as a pleasure marriage.

I've never been shown biblical evidence of polygamy being immoral.  Yes, it is illegal here in the States, but I don't know how we can decry it as immoral.  Insane, yes!  But only from my personal perspective of hardly being able to handle my relationship with my one wife.  I know Muslim families with more than one mother, and these families are wonderful, well-balanced, gracious people.  I don't advocate it, nor do I practice it, but for some people from other cultures, polygamy works.  You'd have to be a much better man than I to handle more than one wife.  But in my experience, the people that I've met that are involved with polygamy are good, upright, moral people.  Their homes are beautiful, loving families, with present, involved fathers, doting mothers, and good, good kids.

I'm just having a hard time swallowing the picture you are painting of Muslims.  In my personal experience with Muslims, they've been good people, with a strong moral code.  We are friends.  They've never tried to emulate Muhammed and hack off my head, inspite of my Christianity.  They've never tried to pleasure marry my underage daughters.  A huge chunk of our Christian American dollar bills flow out to Muslim nations in exchange for their oil.  They don't hack off the the heads of the Christians living in the Exxon towns there in the Middle East.  One of my favorite restaurants here in Miami is a Middle Eastern restaurant, owned by a Muslim family.  I've never been poisoned or had my head hacked off there, either.  The owner actually has just one wife, and he has also never tried to purchase my daughters or trade me food for their hand in pleasure marriage. 

I loaned my boat the other day to a Muslim friend of mine, along with his one wife and son who was home from college.  The son, who is a computer software engineering major at USC was super respectful.  He's super smart, just like his dad.  The wife, was so polite (it was my first time meeting her) and gracious and thankful that I loaned them my boat so they could have some quality family time out on the Miami water.  They are good people and a good family.  And they are Muslim, and they did not try to kill me.  This friend and I have discussed religion, some days at length, and we are always amazed at the similarities, the historical ties, and the common threads that run throughout our respective religions. 

This is my experience, and this is my research, and for me, it has revealed Muslims to be something other than an oppressive regime that suppresses religious freedom. 

StateFarmSteve:  There is a difference between failing to meet a standard and having a lower standard.  The Christian standard for marriage is marriage for life, with divorce only permissible, according to Jesus, for reason of adultery.  The Shia standard is that marriages of any duration are lawful, and in fact laudable because they help hormone-maddened men to avoid fornication.  That is the Shia standard.  The Sunni standard is that a plurality of wives is permitted, and divorce is permitted, to the man, for almost any reason, and can be accomplished by him by repeating his intention three times.  (Although Mohammed bin Laden--Osama's father--was never married to more than 4 women at a time, he was at various times married to 22 women, with whom he fathered 54 children.  Mohammed fobbed Osama's mother off on one of his executives, when he was through with her, and died in a plane crash in 1967 on the way to check out another teenage bride-candidate.)    

You are strangely unable to compare standards and come to the conclusion that Christianity's standard is obviously much higher than Islam's.  "I find it difficult to criticize Muslims and label their concept of marriage as immoral when our western culture's respect for marriage, as evidenced by our apalling divorce rate, is laughable."  So until every single Christian lives up to the high standard of Christian conduct, you can't compare Islam's standard with Christianity's standard and make a value judgment?  And because I don't share your bizarre disability, I'm a bigot?  There's something deeply imbedded in the liberal psyche that screams that is wrong, wrong, wrong ever to make a value judgment, that making a value judgment is the worst thing a person can ever do, or at least ever admit to in polite company.

If you don't understand why polygamy is immoral, I suggest you ask your wife how she would enjoy competing for your time and affection with another woman, or three other women.  I believe she can help you understand the problem.  In fact, ask your Muslim friend's polite wife how, leaving aside religious considerations, she would enjoy sharing him with another woman, or three.

For the hundredth time, I'm not painting a picture of Muslims.  We all have anecdotal evidence about the behavior of Muslims we have met.  I have a Muslim client who seems like a very upright, honest guy.  He pays his bills on time; once he even asked me to send him a bill so he could pay it.  He's never tried to hack my head off.  I've never personally had a problem with a Muslim.  Of course, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on the other side, starting with 9/11 hijackers.  I bet hardly anyone in the twin towers had ever had a problem with the Muslims they had met, right up until the day that Muslim terrorists killed them, or caused them to jump to their deaths from 70 floors up rather than be burned alive. 

Then there is something that Daniel Pipes has named "sudden jihad syndrome", in which previously peaceful, unremarkable Muslims have committed acts of violence:

 • A 30-year-old Muslim man, Naveed Afzal Haq, who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center in Seattle, announcing 'I'm a Muslim-American; I'm angry at Israel.'

• An Egyptian national, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who shot two and wounded three at an Israeli airline ticket counter at LAX.

• A bearded 21-year-old student, Joel Hinrichs, who blew himself up with a backpack filled with TATP (the explosive of choice in the Mideast) outside a packed Oklahoma University football stadium not long after he started attending the local mosque.

• A 23-year-old student, Mohammed Ali Alayed, who slashed the throat of his Jewish friend in Houston after apparently undergoing a religious awakening (he went to a local mosque afterward).

• The D.C. snipers — John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, both black Muslim converts — who picked off 13 people in the suburbs around the Beltway as part of what Muhammad described as a 'prolonged terror campaign against America' around the first anniversary of 9/11, which he had praised.

• Omeed Aziz Popal of Fremont, Calif., who police said hit and killed a bicyclist there then took his SUV on a hit-and-run spree in San Francisco, mowing down pedestrians at crosswalks and on sidewalks before police caught up with him, whereupon the Muslim called himself a 'terrorist.'

• A 22-year-old Muslim, Ismail Yassin Mohamed, who stole a car in Minneapolis and rammed it into other cars before stealing a van and doing the same, injuring drivers and pedestrians, while repeatedly yelling, 'Die, die, die, kill, kill, kill' — all, he said, on orders from 'Allah.'

• A 22-year-old Iranian honors student, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who deliberately rammed his SUV into a crowd at the University of North Carolina to 'punish the government of the United States' for invading Iraq and other Muslim nations.

My point is that there are all sorts of anecdotes, and they may, or may not, tell us anything about Islam.  Maybe the violent incidents don't spring from any legitimate or widely held interpretation of Islam.  If our knowledge of Islam is confined to anecdotes about what some Muslims have or haven't done, we're going to remain clueless. 

Fortunately, there is no need to confine our knowledge of Islam to anecdotal evidence about Muslim behavior.  Islam is a religio/political ideology that has a real, actual existence, that can be studied apart from the actions or behavior of any particular Muslim.  Just as Seventh-day Adventism has a real existence--real doctrines, real authoritative writings--that can be studied apart from the behavior of any particular Adventist, so with Islam.  By studying Seventh-day Adventism, we can evaluate whether a person claiming to be an Adventist really is acting according to Adventist precepts and principles.  So with Islam.  In fact, it is only by studying Islam, apart from the actions of particullar Muslism, that we can evaluate whether it really is a "religion of peace" that has been hijacked by a "tiny minority of extremists," as we are so often told by Western politicians. 

Studying Islam -- its doctrines, its teachings, its history-- is my research, and it has revealed Islam to be a dangerous, aggressive, violent religio-political ideology that is hostile to virtually everything I believe in, including Christianity, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, democracy, representative government,equality for women, etc.

Your final paragraph significantly strays from the philosophy of the man you quoted as an authority above in your post.  Pipes, a true scholar and well respected author and lecturer on Islamic-Western relations,  has long maintained that "Radical Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution."  He doesn't lump all Muslims into a group with a statement such as yours that "Islam... [is] a dangerous, aggressive, violent religio-political ideology that is hostile to virtually everything I believe in..." 

I'm also curious as to why it is strange to you that I refuse to hold up a standard that we don't live up to as an example of how we are more morally upright than Muslims.  If an airline advertised it's 100% safety goal while crashing and burning into the ground 50% of the time, would you brag about how that airline has a better goal than another?  A standard that we as a culture don't live up to is hardly a cultural standard.  Besides, the true comparison is between concepts  of marriage and family, not whose cultural bias makes them better.  Muslims view marriage differently, just like our Bible contains different views of marriage than the modern, western concept of get married, get divorced.  Then repeat.  Again, if you so desire.  It's so common that it's a joke in movies, TV shows, and literature. 

As for using my wife's opinion as a source for moral judgement of Muslim's inferiority, I would expect my wife to not want to share me, as she was raised here in America with western concepts of marriage and family.  But it doesn't mean that polygamy is immoral.  Until you can show me a biblical  reference that clearly states that polygamy is immoral, I'll continue to maintain that we, as a culture, have imposed our views onto the moral landscape only based on our western biased, man-made ideology absent of any scriptural basis whatsoever.  But please note, that just because I don't find it scripturaly immoral, I do prefer my cultural viewpoint of marriage, and have no intent to take a second or third wife.  Ever. 

More to the point of this original blog post - I can assure you that any religion mixed with politics is a bad combination.  This holds true for Islam as well as Christianity.  History is rife with examples of religion mixing with politics, and the result is always, always, intolerance, violence, persecution, and misery. 

StatefarmSteve:  Kudos to you for doing some research and getting it right.  Daniel Pipes is a well respected scholar, author and lecturer on Islamic-Western relations, and he does say that "Radical Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution."  So you have your facts completely correct, for once.  Now wasn't that fun? 

I'm not as optimistic as Pipes about nourishing a "moderate Islam" that could act as a counterweight against radical Islam.  Pipes is under no illusions as to what Islam has been historically, he just believes that Islam must adapt to modern [read Western] mores, and that it can and will be something different in the future.  In other words, he is hoping that a moderate Islam will be created, even if there hasn't been one historically.  I hope he is right, but I'm afraid it might be a "Pipes dream."  For a much longer and more detailed critique of Pipes, see the following web sites:

http://myislamwatch.com/2008/09/24/is-there-a-moderate-islam.aspx.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9781.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/atlas-exclusi-2.html.

Regarding standards and living up to them, I think I conceded, way back in my July 1st post, that modern, post-sexual revolution, Western culture is not living up to the Christian standard of sexual behavior, and is in many ways more sexualized than Islamic culture.  But I don't know why you can't concede the point that the Christian standard is higher than the Muslim.  The Christian standard is marriage for life and divorce only for adultery.  The Christian standard makes no allowances for unruly male sexuality, whereas the Muslim standard clearly does, allowing the variety-craving male up to four wives, unlimited concubines, and easy divorce (as well as temporary "pleasure marriages" for the Shia).  

I don't know what Bible you are reading, but mine takes a dim view of polygamy.  God created just one wife for Adam, and God's original creation was "very good."  The first polygamist mentioned is the murderer Lamech (Gen. 4:23-24), so polygamy starts out with a poor pedigree.  The fact that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah must have caused the latter no small amount of emotional pain.  Esau, who despised his birthright, is mentioned as another polygamist.  (Gen. 26:34)  Samuel's father, Elkanah, loved his mother, Hannah, more than he loved his other wife, and the other wife got back at Hanna by taunting her about her infertility.  (1 Sam. 1:1-7)  So the Bible has several examples of the unhappiness caused by polygamy.

In the New Testament, Jesus' teaching about marriage and divorce makes no sense except against a background of monogamy as the norm.  He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for infidelity, and marries another commits adultery."  Mat. 19:8-9.  He only commits adultery because his prior marriage is viewed as still binding and valid.  But in a polygamy-normal world, if his prior marriage is still valid and he marries another woman, he still hasn't committed adultery, he just has two wives.  By implication, Jesus is teaching that you can only be married to one woman at a time, and that anything else is adultery  Then there is the counsel that elders and deacons must be the husband of only one wife.  (I Tim. 3:2, 12)  So, on balance, the Bible is clearly anti-polygamy. 

Finally, you are exactly right about the problems that always flow from the unholy matrimony of church and state.  But in theory, there is no separation of Mosque and state.  Please see here:

http://myislamwatch.com/2009/01/24/islam-is-a-totalitarian-system-as-muslims-freely-admit.aspx.

Here is what some Muslim authorities have to say on the subject:

"As we have mentioned, in Islam God is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority.  In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His.  Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’  Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy.  In the pre-westernized Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose.  The distinction so deeply rooted in Christendom between church and state has never existed in Islam."

Obviously, any faithful Muslim will look to create a situation in which Sharia law is enforced by the governing authorities, which is why any hope of domesticating Islam as just another religion is a dangerous delusion. 

 

Wow David.  Thanks for your generous, magnanimous, backhanded, condescending complement.  I'm touched.

 Your innate duplicity serves you well, as you first quote Pipes as an authority on Islam, then call the foundation of his philosophy on the subject a "Pipes Dream."  Very clever play on words.  I'm still giggling inside. 

Your ability to play both sides of the coin is further displayed by your desire to uphold western standards that we don't live up to above Muslim standards, as if we deserve extra moral credit for having an ideal written down somewhere. 

Your law degree (from, you mentioned, a distingushed university) has also come in handy, as you show a remarkable ability to draw a conclusion from a completely undocumented assumption regarding Leah's unhappiness.  Did you attend the same university as John Edwards, who once was the "voice of a dead child, speaking from the grave" before a jury in order to win a tort case?  If so, such a skill must be obtained sometime after the time I spent in law school, and the school I attended must not have been as good as yours.  Perhaps I, too can obtain this skill in some sort of continuing education seminar? 

And your ability and willingness to put words into Jesus Christ's mouth regarding polygamy must mean you have achieved some sort of enlightenment that I, too, would hope to acquire at some point in the future.  Your translatory powers are impressive indeed, and your clarity regarding Jesus' "implication" are extraordinary.  Congratulations, and I'll suggest to the GC that they have you bronzed when you pass so we can all worship before you and bring offerings to lay at your feet.  Yet you still haven't shown me where the bible condemns polygamy (with the specific exception for deacons and elders, and the hilariously glaring omission of any such ban for laypeople.)  And the bible contains many, many stories of upright, Godly men who achieved great things and walked closely with God, while having more than one wife. 

Also, very clever quoting and using yourself and your blog as references to back up the accuracy of your statements.  I'm a genius - just ask me!  Very convincing indeed. 

StatefarmSteve:  The Bible is not silent about the fact that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah.  Based on that fact, I'll gladly channel Leah's unahppiness to any jury you want to empanel.  I've never met John Edwards' wife, either, and I'm also willing to go way out on a limb and assume that she was not happy to learn of his love child with Rielle Hunter.  Interestingly, Ellen White comments not about Leah's unhappiness (which, lets face it, was irrelevant to the biblical narrative) but about the fact that the sisters' rivalry embittered Jacob's life.  "Rachel was ever the one best loved; but his preference for her excited envy and jealousy, and his life was embittered by the rivalry between the sister-wives."  PP. 189-190.  Poor Jacob.  The bible does contain stories of upright, Godly men who achieved great things and walked closely with God despite having more than one wife, but the overall picture is that a plurality of wives causes needless problems.

But what is amusing to me is that, at the beginning of this thread, you were arguing that marriage, defined as one man and one woman, was a parochial Christian institution that right-wing fundamentalists were trying to foist on the world.  Now, you are arguing that it doesn't actually have any support in the Bible, and that polygamy might be just as Christian.  Wow.  Based upon that level of, um, flexibility, I think your law school must have been at least as good as mine. 

I don't think I ever disputed your assertion that Jacob loved Rachel more than he loved Leah.  After all, he worked a long time to marry his first cousin Rachel, and not his other first cousin, her ugly sister Leah.  I do believe that even if you were able to channel the ugly sister's voice from the grave, I would be forced to object over the use of your psychic abilities on the basis that her unhappiness is simply not probative of God's disfavor of polygamy.  Especially in light of his continued blessings heaped upon Jacob, who furthermore took 2 more wives after the pretty girl and her ugly sister. 

A simple psychological profile would hint that Leah probably had a massive daddy-issue that continued to plague her life and her husband's life and the other wives' lives because Rachel was obviously the more pretty, more favored child and wife.  I would suggest that this story is more indicative of God's disfavor upon a man marrying two sisters, especially if they are his first cousins.  (Leviticus 18:18 also forbids marrying two sisters)  I can't see where biblically (Ellen White's statements are inadmissible, since she also saw tall magnificent people living on Jupiter) there is a negative overall picture painted of polygamy. 

Here is a list of polygamists in the Bible - all men who were blessed by God in some way, shape, or form, lending doubt to and "overall" negative biblical picture of polygamy:  Abdon, Abijah, Abraham, Ahab, Ashur, Caleb, David, Esau, Ezra, Gideon, Heman, Hosea, Ibzan, Issachar, Jacob, Jair, Hehoiachin, Joash, Lamech, Moses, Saul, Simeon, Solomon, Terah, and the list continues.  

And I never said that monogamy was parochial, nor did I ever accuse you of trying to force it upon the rest of the world.  I did accuse you of trying to claim moral superiority for yourself based on the practice of monogamy - a practice which is not biblically supported - at all!  Based on everything I've read, there is no Christ-centered or biblically supported evidence that polygamy would be a sin.  I understand that here in the West, it's illegal, and I personally have no interest in breaking the law by personally taking on the burden of multiple wives.  But that doesn't distract me from the fact that you seem to feel a certain license to translate the bible to better suit your mood, or elevate yourself above others at your moral whim. 

And my law school certainly was better than yours.

Deleted by moderator.

StateFarm:  "her unhappiness is simply not probative of God's disfavor of polygamy."  It is for me.  God always disfavors things that are bound to make people unhappy, as polygamy is.  Why would Scripture require that people who have authority in the church (deacons, elders) be monogamous if monogamy were not the favored condition?  The edenic arrangement and Jesus' statements also indicate that monogamy is the favored institution.  Your unwillingness to admit this--along with the drive-by slander of Ellen White (who never said she saw people on Jupiter)--speaks volumes about your unwillingness to submit to authority, but nothing about what the authority is actually teaching. 

With any luck, someday you won't have to break the law to take on multiple wives.  If the blind indulgence of Islam encouraged by you and your ideological ilk is not successfully counteracted by me and my ideological ilk, Sharia will someday be the law of the land here, and you can have three more wives. 

David - Why on earth would Scripture specify that elders and deacons refrain from polygamy, if there was no Scriptural intent to exclude laypeople from such an arrangement?  Why not simply say that godly people in general should refrain from polygamy?  Why was polygamy, in all the times it was mentioned in the Bible never condemned?  Why did God speak directly to and greatly bless people like Abraham and Jacob and David and Solomon, while never once mentioning to them that having more than one wife was a bad idea? 

As for Ellen G White and Jupiter people, she was quoted by JN Loughborough as having said so (the quote was actually a retelling of an EGW planetary vision witnessed by Ms Truesdail, and can be found in his book The Great Second Advent Movement , originally published by our church and now found online at http://www.historyinfo.net/books/jnlgsam.pdf .  The quote is found on pg 213.  She specifically refers to them as "inhabitants" meaning they reside there in a permanent manner.  This vision of Jupiter people was documented just like her other visions - by eyewitness accounts which were then published by the SDA church. 

David, you are the one who brought EGW into this discussion, not me.  I didn't "drive by" her and fire off random slander - I simply related an account of her visions that was published by the SDA church that we now know to be inaccurate.  As we "drive by" thugs like to say - Don't be hatin'!  Also of note - in first year, first semester Torts class at my law school, we learned that slander is spoken, while libel is written, meaning you oughta know that should have accused me of "drive-by libel" of Ellen White.  Are you still a member of the bar?  I'm having TONS O' FUN with this game of counting and documenting  David C Read accusations that are based in either mistake or ignorance!

If either of us is guilty of "blind indulgence", it would be you and your bold-type, italicized defense of Ellen White's Jupiter people vision.  Your "That's not True" defense is a noteworthy comment on your time spent practicing law - I'd hope you'd come up with a better response, considering your distinguished status as a barrister.  As for your vision of an America someday ruled by Muslims and Sharia law, is it safe to assume that some well researched, scholarly and wise man (who should know the difference between slander and libel) might publish this vision on that bastion of fact myislamwatch.com?

StateFarmSteve:   Does it bother you at all that the same type of argument you are making for polygamy was made about slavery by Southerners in the 19th Century?  Slavery is never specifically outlawed in the Bible, either.  If God was against slavery, why didn't he just outlaw it outright?  In fact, there are many biblical passages in the OT that regulate aspects of slavery (as there are a few, such as Ex. 21:10, that regulate aspects of polygamy).  You could argue that by making provision for slavery, and trying to make it less inhumane, God was endorsing slavery.  But that would be wrong.

It is pretty clear that the overall tone and context of Sripture is anti-slavery, just as it is anti-polygamy.  (Read Philemon with the background knowledge that the runaway slave Onesimus, who had apparently stole something when he ran away, could by rights have been executed by Philemon.)  And it is also clear that much of the opposition to slavery in modern times, such as by Wilberforce in England and the abolitionists in the Amercan north, was explicity Christian in character and motivation.   I would say that Christians have had an easier time seeing that polygamy is not part of God's plan than they have had in acknowledging that slavery is not in God's will.   Utah was, for over 30 years, prevented from joining the union by the representatives of an American republic whose citizens were extremely hostile to polygamy.  It was only after the Mormon church finally jettisoned polygamy that Utah was allowed into the union.

Re: your libel of Ellen White--sorry for having accused you of slander instead of libel (I should remember that I am dialoging with a legal expert, expert being defined as someone who gets all the little details correct while sweeping on to the grand fallacy), I researched the incident in question before my last post, so nothing you've written comes as news to me.  Loughborough was relying on letter from Mrs. Truesdail written in 1891, some 45 years after the vision she witnessed, which was reportedly in 1846.  (Since I know how you love legal trivia, think about a 45 year old recollection in the context of the statute of frauds, statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, the hearsay rule, etc)  Ellen White never said what planet she was seeing, nor where the tall inhabitants were.  Apparently, Truesdail and/or Bates assumed that she was referring to Jupiter, and Loughborough retails that assumption.  While our knowledge of Ellen White's physical condition during her visions comes from eyewitnesses to those visions, our knowledge of what Ellen White saw, or claimed to have seen, in her visions comes exlusively from what she said or wrote after the visions were over.  Thus, I consider the fact that she never said or wrote anything about tall inhabitants of Jupiter after this vision to be pretty good evidence that she never saw these things in the vision. 

I apologize for having even mentioned Ellen White.  I slipped up.  In my defense, let me plead that I come from the world of normal Seventh-day Adventism, where Ellen White is still held in high regard, or at least treated with indifference.  The world of Atoday and Spectrum--inhabited by ex-Adventists extremely hostile to Ellen White and, for that matter, Adventism, but who have a pathological compulsion to hang around Adventism's fringes--is still new to me, so I may, every now and again, slip up and violate its taboos.

David - I've always found the New Testament to be implicitly clear regarding slavery with the simple application of the Golden Rule.  I have neither been confounded nor conflicted regarding the biblical view of slavery. 

I also find your 2 disingenuous apologies somewhat humorous. First, your apology for mis-labeling my gang-style high crimes and misdemeanors against EGW was completely unnecessary, as I pointed out your slip-up less because my feelings were hurt, and more because it is indicative of your lax attitude toward fact and accuracy in your posts. And bringing EGW into an AToday post is perfectly OK, but I, along with many others don't view every one of her words and views as divinely inspired - for example, I own a bicycle (and I ride it, sometimes even on Sabbath!).

I'm also unsure if you're accusing Bates, Loughborough, or Truesdail of fraud or intentional deception, but I was under the impression that these were good people, who had no motivation to lie about EGW's visions, and no substantiated or documented drug-, alcohol-, or age-induced mental lapses that would cause them problems with memory. 

I'm not sure why you believe that Mrs. Truesdail would have difficulty accurately recalling what could only have been one of the most substantive, significant episodes of her life.  I can recall with great detail my first trip to Disney World more than 30 years ago, and seeing Mickey Mouse sing and dance does not begin to compare with seeing a prophet of God in full-blown vision mode.  So my only conclusion, though you didn't explicitly state it, is that you believe Truesdail lied and intentionally mislead JN Loughborough.  Her testimony regarding EGW might not pass the legal test of a criminal or civil trial in the state of California due to the statute of limitation, but I've never heard of anyone - other than you - dismissing someone's witness and testimony intended to further the work of Christ because it violated a completely irrelevant time limitation.  You're the first - a true pioneer in the melding of the legal and theological fields!  I believe congratulations are in order. 

StateFarm:  I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything.  I'm suggesting that Mrs. Truesdail misremembered the events, or misunderstood them at the time they occurred.  There's a real possibility that, 45 years after the fact, she conflated two separate visions, or combined the vision that won over Joseph Bates with something Ellen White said or wrote about another vision.  She had several visions that involved other planets.

If you asked me about something I witnessed 45 years ago, . . . oh wait, I hadn't yet been born 45 years ago.  Well, if you asked me about something that happened 25 years ago, most of it would be embellishment, or, as attorneys like to say, "filling in."  Since I know how fascinated you are with legal stuff, I'll tell you that every time I prepare a client to give a deposition or testify in court, I admonish him not to "fill in," meaning don't try to add any level of detail or specificity that you cannot actually recall with certainty.  Do not try to date an undated event by reference to a dated event with which it seems to be associated in your mind.  Deponents often get into trouble by trying to do this.  I've never seen a situation where someone had to testify about events 45 years in the past, but I imagine the "don't fill in" advice would be that much more pertinent.

That you and other Ellen White skeptics are so quick to latch on to one woman's 45 year-old recollection to discredit Ellen White is something that itself requires explanation.  Why the hostitlity to EGW?  Did your mommy tell you couldn't have a bicycle because EGW said you shouldn't?  Did she tell you shouldn't wear long skirts because they sweep dirt off the street?  Or that you couldn't wear a wig because ti would overheat your brain?  Or that you shouldn't play chess?  Seriously, what is driving this?  Because from where I'm sitting, it just looks warped and twisted.

David, I'd hardly suggest you are being modest (or accuse you of modesty) when you confess your limited powers of recall, since you were unable to differentiate between the two very basic legal terms "slander" and "libel" that you should have learned in the first semester of your first year of law school. 

And while you hilariously claim that "suggesting" Truesdail was mistaken and "accusing" Truesdail of being mistaken are significantly different, and flutter your hands about saying that in your extensive legal career you've never deposed a witness that required him to recall events from 45 years ago, this simply confirms to me that your legal expertise is limited to dog bites, public urination charges, and real estate closings.  There is no criminal charge that Ellen White is being accused of that requires the application of the statute of limitations to protect her constitutional rights. 

In this planetary vision we are discussing, Elder Bates excitedly pointed out the planets that EGW was "flying" by.  Jupiter!,Saturn! etc.  James White also published a tract within a year regarding this vision event, saying that EGW had seen "Jupiter, Saturn, and... one more [planet].  It is well known that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision."--WLF, p. 22.  I don't know how it works with your wife, but if I make a mistake, my wife is pretty quick to correct me.  I'd think EGW would do the same, especially before such errors went to print.  Now, with regards to probative statements, are you really more confident in your 150-year old extrapolation of suggestion and recall, or Mr. White's tract that he published a year after the vision occurred?  Call me crazy, but I'm going with the heretofore uncorrected husband on this one. 

As for what drives my "skepticism" of EGW - I feel compelled to examine things before clinging to them as belief.  Some things are proven over time, and others require simple faith, rather than concrete scientific proof.  Some things hold up, and other things clearly and decisively fail simple review and examination.  I believe that some things EGW said were divinely inspired.  I believe she was a good woman, and I have the utmost respect for the work she put into building our church from the ground up. 

However, I know for a solid fact that some things that she said were clearly wrong - and call me crazy, but I don't think the wrong stuff was divinely inspired.  Bicycles aren't evil (Lance Armstron is not the Devil incarnate.)  Wigs don't cause brain death (the founding fathers all wore wigs, and still came up with a pretty rockin' document.)  There might be UNO in Heaven, or even one of those big oversize resort-style chessboards (Pure speculation on my part.)  Optometry isn't nearly as lucrative as it should be, since masturbation doesn't cause blindness (or is your seeing-eye dog typing your responses for you here?)  Warped and twisted is that you believe all of this stuff came from God's mouth through Ellen G White!  You've hung an "I'M A PROPHET" sign around her neck in death that she absolutely refused to wear while she was alive.  You've turned her into the SDA Ms Cleo.  Perhaps you should get an infomercial for an 800 number where David Read solves people's spiritual mysteries with your skill as an EGW translator based upon your deaf, blind and dumb devotion to her writings.  You could get a time slot between the Sham-Wow guy and Girls Gone Wild, since Billy Mays' OxiClean spot is now vacant. 

StateFarm:  The thing I don't understand about you and the whole Spectrum/Atoday crowd is the weird hold that Adventism has over you, even though you no longer believe its doctrines.  It isn't just David Read that believes that Ellen White was a prophet; it is the Seventh-day Adventist Church corporately.  If you think she was some sort of fraud or mountebank, why would you want to be associated with a church that holds her out to the world as a prophet?  If I thought Ellen White not a divinely inspired messenger of God, I don't think I would I leave the SDA church, I know I would.  I would not want to be a tithe-paying member of a church that is perpetrating an ongoing fraud.  Where is your intellectual integrity?  Or do you even understand the concept?  Why do you want to hang around the fringes of something that you have rejected?  Close the door and move on.  Have some honor, have some pride, have some decency.  How long halt ye between two opinions?

 

David - you are blubbering, blustering and non-responsive, as I guess most who receive constant intellectual spankings seem to be.  Rather than engage in the conversation, you shift gears and change subjects and accuse the person standing across from you of lacking "intellectual integrity." 

You asked about my view of EGW.  I answered.  But rather than continue the discussion, you stomp your feet, furrow your brow, throw a temper tantrum, and attack my integrity, honor, and decency.  Is this some sort of trial advocacy technique that I again failed to learn?  This must be the rarely-used, but highly vaunted approach of "Refuse to discuss the facts and personally attack opposing Counsel instead..." 

David, our church (and I emphasize OUR church as opposed to YOUR church) was founded not on the teachings and writings of Ellen White, but rather the on the fundamental belief of Christ's soon return and the significance of the God-Mankind covenant of the Seventh-day Sabbath.  I believe in these truths with all my heart, and that's why I'm a Seventh-day Adventist.

You know David, it really kind of ticks me off that I would even have to include the immediately preceding paragraph in any discussion with a fellow church member.  "Love it or Leave it" is a bumper sticker, not part of a valid intellectual discussion.  However, I am including it because you have asked a question, and in spite of finding your question to be offensive in nature, I hope my simple answer above provides clarity for you.  Just in case it doesn't, I'll elaborate.  I don't view my membership in the church as a declaration of subservience to its corporate entity.  My membership in the SDA church is a part of my journey of salvation - an important part.  But it doesn't provide my sole spiritual identity, and its literature contributes to my life - it doesn't define it.  God just didn't give me a cattle-herd mentality when he put me together.  It's not a part of my makeup. 

In your world, that makes me a dishonorable, indecent man who has no integrity.  But then again, to you, "honor" is a patch you earn for your pathfinder sash, "decency" is remembering to cover your privates, and the only integrity you have in your body relates to your sphincters' ability to prevent you from soiling yourself.  You have no clue as to the higher definitions of these terms. 

As for your disdain for the Atoday/Spectrum crowds, and our insistence upon hanging around the church, I might suggest that we don't do it for the same reasons you hang around here on "Fringe" forums.  I believe you are a pseudo-intellectual sadomasochist.  I believe you're here for a heaping helping of a substitute for the frequent spankings that you once received from your father that you mistakenly equate with love.  You enjoy being intellectually and mentally spanked because what you define as "love" is absent from your current life, and this is your most readily available, stimulating replacement.

Most of us on the Fringe are here because people like you have pushed us here, refusing to grant us less spiritually-evolved beings, us non-conformists a lane on the road to Heaven.  If we don't look just like you, or act just like you, or believe everything that you believe, or even have the gall to question your spiritual authority, you accuse us of intellectual dis-integrity, dishonor, and indecency.  Here's some news David - The church is beginning to look less and less like you, and more and more like me.  It's modernizing, growing, and finding new things about itself every day.  The ministers that are standing at pulpits are progressively more progressive, and as they assume leadership roles in the various Conferences, the Church is evolving before our very eyes.  At what point will you show the integrity you are so boastful of and resign?  I can assure you of this though, I'll never push you out, or accuse you of being a dishonorable person because we disagree on matters of church doctrine.