We Want Equality

by C Douglas Love Love

  As was inevitably the case, the court started to come up with mixed decisions in spite of the clear-cut Lemon test. In Wallace v Jaffree (1985), they determined that Alabama’s law authorizing a period of silence for “meditation or prayer” did not pass the test. So much for the belief that a moment of silence would have been the solution to the school prayer issue. In Estate of Thorton v. Caldor, Inc (1985), it was determined that giving employees the right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violated the Establishment Clause.

  In County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989), it was deemed unconstitutional to display a nativity scene at Pittsburgh’s city display, but it did not violate the Establishment Clause for the state of Texas to display a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments (Van Orden v. Perry 2005). In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the court deemed clergy-led prayer at graduations unconstitutional. In 2000, they determined that it was unconstitutional for students to lead a student group in prayer at football games. The school district allowed it; the court overturned it (Sante Fe Independent School District v Doe).

  In Locke v. Davey (2004), Washington state’s decision to not award scholarship funds to college students pursuing devotional divinity degrees was deemed constitutional. And finally, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the Hasting College of Law. In this case, the Hastings College of Law at the University of California denied the Christian Legal Society’s recognition as a student organization because it required its members to agree to a ‘Statement of Beliefs.’

  You are free to agree or disagree with the decisions of these cases. The problem the Lemon Test caused is obvious. There is no ‘secular purpose’ to open a legislative session with a prayer, allow observance of a chosen Sabbath, or to allow the use of hoasca or peyote, yet all of these actions were upheld. This has made it more onerous for religious freedoms to be protected and easier to challenge them. And depending on who gets to make future appointments, it’s likely to get more difficult for those fighting to maintain those freedoms.

  While the Left was carefully crafting their legal challenges, they had an area where they could have even greater impact, the culture. With their attacks meeting little to no resistance, there was unlimited potential and they took full advantage of it.

  First, they tried to secularize Christmas. While the Supreme Court was hearing cases about nativity scenes, the secular progressives were challenging municipalities throughout the country to allow alternative displays. Atheists and those worshiping the occult wanted equal displays. Then they pressured companies to stop allowing their employees to say, “Merry Christmas.” They claimed “Happy Holidays” was more inclusive. But inclusive to what? The holiday is uniquely Christian. Many will say it’s not a big deal, but who is making it a big deal?

  It’s logical to assume that if 70% of the country identifies as Christian and the majority of those who don’t aren’t bothered by the sentiment, saying “Merry Christmas” will generally be accepted. It’s those who rail against wishing others Merry Christmas that are making it a big deal. And yet, it seems that at some point, trying not to offend morphed into deferring to an extremely small percentage of the population.

  Next, they used propaganda to shift the attitude of the public. Journalist focused on stories that made Christians seem intolerant or racist. Turn on any TV program and they are bound to have an episode displaying religious people, mostly devout Christians, as cult leaders, child abusers, white supremacists, serial killers, anarchists, and racists. They are close-minded zealots who reject science and hate the government. This is how Hollywood views Christians and how they want you to view them.

  Twenty-six years ago, Sinead O’Connor famously tore a photo of Pope John II during a Saturday Night Live performance; at least she was vilified by many. Today, celebrities get bonus points for mocking Christianity. Miley Cyrus slammed Christians for believing the story of Noah’s ark and went on to say those who believe in traditional marriage should not be able to make laws. Joy Behar of the View mocked Vice President Pence for speaking to God. Larry David urinated on a picture of Jesus in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Stephen Colbert said, “I grew up in a cult too!” speaking about Catholicism in an interview with Rose McGowan.

  At the movies, they take one of two approaches, they mock Christians or they take the Word out of context. Movies like Rapture-Palooza and This is the End reference the Bible in a comedic attempt to minimize its message, make the prophesies seem absurd and to take every word literally; in a farcical manner. Other movies like Noah and Gods and Kings profess to tell the story without mocking religion directly. While this is a step up, they tend to focus more on action and drama than the religious component. They become riveting stories of fiction whose message is lost. It’s also telling that both movies were directed by Atheists.

  Russell Crowe, who plays Noah in the movie, had this to say about his character:

  "The funny thing with people, they consider Noah to be a benevolent figure because he looked after the animals: 'Awww, Noah. Noah and the animals.' It's like, are you kidding me?" he says with a laugh. "This is the dude that stood by and watched the entire population of the planet perish."168

  For those who see the legal battles and the cultural shift and think it doesn’t matter, look at what has happened in the last 50 years. The schools have gotten demonstrably worse, crime reached new heights, chivalry died, and common courtesy was replaced by the me generation. Open promiscuity, especially of women, and acceptance of drug use became the norm. Things people would have only done or said in private 50 years ago they do in front of cameras now.

  Many would say that the loss of religion in our culture has nothing to do with it. They will have a hard time defending that argument. Even those who don’t believe would have to say that the Bible teaches morals and good behavior. Without God, where would we get our morals from? They’d just be whatever one feels and feelings can change. There is no way that having God be ubiquitous in society for generations then disappearing into the shadows in thirty years can have anything but a disastrous effect.

  The anything goes attitude has led to more poverty, single-parent households, homelessness, mental illness, and crime. Art imitates life, so the media and entertainment constantly portray the ugly side of society on a loop. It has now soaked into the fabric of our culture. This has led to the only logical conclusion, politicians crafting policies in an attempt to help alleviate these problems. As well-intentioned as they are, they can’t fix behavior and, what’s worse, we end up losing freedom as their new laws don’t conform with the Constitution, but our desperation allows them latitude.

  Progressives will read this and accuse me of being another Christian whining with no cause for alarm. Let’s look at this another way. Of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, are they treated equally in America? The answer is clearly no. In media, Christianity is challenged as aggressive, Islam is generally protected from alleged Christian attacks, and Judaism goes mostly ignored.

  Feel free to think religion is fantasy and is constantly used to condone bad behavior. This has nothing to do with the fact that Christianity is singled out. It is often said that the Bible is full of murder, wars, and bad acts. Some still use slavery or the Crusades as a justification of the dangers of Christianity. These people are either ignorant or deliberately overlooking the facts. But their argument proves my point of inequality. 300 years of slavery proves Christians are bad, but not 1,300 years of slavery by the Arab Caliphates. Christians were wrong for the Crusades but Muslims weren’t wrong for conquering most of the Middle East.

  Take a moment and think about each religion. Ignore, for the moment, the theological differences and focus on the text each religion holds sacred: The Holy Bible and the Quran. Now compare the teachings of each to the shift in culture the Left is promoting. It is hard to dispute that this cultural shift goes against each religion, not just Christianity. Let’s look at how some of
the areas those seeking equality focus on and see what each religion says about them.

  WOMEN

  The Holy Bible

  The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, strutting along with swaying hips, with ornaments jingling on their ankles. Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the Lord will make their scalps bald. (Isaiah 3:16-17)

  Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

  The Quran

  Men are the maintainers of women, with what Allah has made some of them to excel others and with what they spend out of their wealth. So the good women are obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded. And (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the beds and chastise them. So if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Surely Allah is ever Exalted, Great. (4:34)

  SEXUALITY

  The Holy Bible

  If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. (Leviticus 20:13)

  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)

  The Quran

  And go not nigh to fornication: surely it is an obscenity. And evil is the way. (17:32)

  Will you come to men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly. (27:55)

  If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. (4:16)

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

  The Holy Bible

  Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Genesis 9:6)

  But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death. Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. (Exodus 21:14-16)

  The Quran

  As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. (5:38)

  Believers, in case of murder, the death penalty is the sanctioned retaliation: a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female. However, if the convicted person receives pardon from the aggrieved party, the prescribed rules of compensation must be followed accordingly. This is a merciful alteration from your Lord. Whoever transgresses against it will face a painful punishment. (2:178)

  They each talk about providing charity and helping the poor but this help comes from the believers, not the government. They also both speak of treating people the same regardless of status. The rich are chided for taking advantage of the poor but the poor should not be shown favor.

  SHARIA

  Sharia, or Islamic law, is a list of guiding principles used by Muslims to maintain adherence to the Quran. It is often compared to theology for Christians. Some Muslim-majority countries base their laws on Sharia, while others do not. There has been controversy over the laws some follow as well as whether or not the laws should be allowed in the west. Here are some examples:

  Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands.

  Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran, Muhammad, or Allah is punishable by death.

  A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.

  A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.

  A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).

  A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery.

  A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death.

  A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.

  Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab.

  A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.

  Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

  There is a stark difference in how Christianity is treated vs Islam. Here’s an example of how Sharia Law was defended in Huff Post and CNN articles. In the Huffington Post article, the writer gave no info about Sharia Law. Instead, she said things like, “It’s a personal relationship,” “Asking someone not to believe in Sharia Law is a blatant violation of religious freedom,” and “It’s not all about punishment.”169 Doesn’t that mean it’s partially about punishment? She should have at least mentioned something specific about the laws.

  The CNN article did the same thing. This is what they do. They deflect, excuse, or make a false equivalence with Christianity. In the Huffington Post article, the writer includes a tweet from ‘Christian’ columnist and blogger Rachel Held Evans which read, “Deuteronomy 21:18–21 calls for stoning disobedient children. Want to deport "all people who believe the Bible now?”

  I’d like to respectfully ask her to produce a case where a Christian parent stoned his or her child for being disobedient, not in recent history, ever. I’d have no problem producing a case where: people were killed for criticizing Muhammad (Charlie Hebdo)170, a woman found guilty of committing adultery being killed (Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow; though she was actually raped),171 and genital mutilations (millions).

  What’s important for our purposes is not how many Muslims practice these laws or how stringently they are enforced. The comparison of note here is how the laws are treated in relation to other religions. In the HuffPost and CNN articles, the writers looked to minimize the impact of Sharia law on Muslims in the west, dismiss any violence or inequalities in the Sharia as myths, and to dismiss those critical of Sharia as racist.172 One must simply ask, if Christians had similar laws, would these writers defend them?

  JIHAD

  Finally, it is important to address Islamists and their continued jihad against non-Muslims. There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides. Those on the left dismiss it as a small, isolated problem. Like the Sharia example above, they tend to highlight the positive and downplay obvious dangers. On the right, they exaggerate the number of Muslims who are willing to kill innocents in the name of Islam. While far too many are amenable to the actions, that is different than participating. They also conflate verses of the Quran to suggest that it condones violence, without context.

  I am by no means an authority on Islam or the Quran, but I’ve read these alleged ‘jihad verses’ and, in context, the vast majority of them are speaking of actions to be taken toward those who wage war against Islam. Several others speak of what will happen to those who go against Allah but doesn’t reference anything the reader should do first hand. Even verses that may seem to invoke violence like, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection,” (9:29) and, “So do not follow the unbelievers and strive against them a mighty striving with it,” (25:52), may be figurative rather than literal.

  All of this is immaterial when reviewing the difference that truly matters. What the religious text commands is less important than how it is interpreted by its adherents. It’s impossible to know, but if we assume a mere 1% of Muslims believe the Quran commands them to commit jihad against non-believers, that’s over 10 mil
lion people. What is the numbers for Christians? An honest observer would have to say it’s close to zero, or at most, tens of people.

  In defending Jihadists, those on the left get creative. When they’re not reaching back hundreds of years to point out the Crusades or slavery in America, they point to attacks by white supremacists. For instance, Dylan Roof, the terrorists who killed nine parishioners at a black church in South Carolina was used an example of Christian Extremists. These attempts are laughable. First, if Dylan Roof is a Christian, so were the members of the church. It’s dubious at best to assume all white supremacists are Christians. More importantly, is the fact that with the exception of the Army of God and a couple of radical anti-abortionists, none of these people claim they are killing in the name of Jesus Christ. The jihadists, on the other hand, make that very claim, moments before the attack, no matter how skewed their belief is.

  Worse, even if all of the white supremacist attacks were in the name of Jesus, the numbers would dwarf the attacks committed by jihadists. Yet the religious disdain in the mainstream media is heavily skewed against Christians. This is hard evidence of the lack of equality.

  Whether you are talking about same-sex marriage, gender roles, faith, crime, sexual behavior, capital punishment, or government oversight, all three religions have similar beliefs. Of course, you can find some religious leader who preaches against the doctrine, but the text, and most adherents, have beliefs that are vastly different than the progressives. So why is it that only the Christians are attacked for their beliefs? The logic board portends there may be bias involved:

  One reason is simply because they are the easiest target. They are the most vocal and disliked religion of the three. Also, since they are the majority, no one is worried about being accused of discrimination. But it’s deeper than that. The Left’s views on Islam is interesting. Based on the aforementioned quotes from the Quran and the large percentage of Muslims who practice or affirm Sharia Law, you’d think their beliefs would be antithetical to the goals of the Left. Why then, do they advocate on behalf of Muslims rather than attack them like they do Christians?