Study: Consent Laws Reduce Teen Sex
By AFA JournalNovember 17, 2006Next stories will be posted on Nov. 27, 2006
(AgapePress) - According to a new study, abortion notification and consent laws actually reduce risky sexual behavior among teenagers.
The finding is the result of data collected from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and examined by Jonathan Klick, Florida State University College of Law professor, and Thomas Stratmann, economics professor at George Mason University.
The men used gonorrhea rates as an indicator of risky sexual activity and compared them to parental notification laws that were in place at the time.
By doing so, they discovered that teen gonorrhea rates decreased by an average of 20 percent among Hispanic girls and by an average of 12 percent among white girls in states where consent laws were practiced.
"Incentives matter," Klick said. "They matter even in activities as primal as sex, and they matter even among teenagers, who are conventionally thought to be short-sighted. If the expected costs of risky sex are raised, teens will substitute less risky activities such as protected sex or abstinence."
Where these consent laws are in place, it is hard for teen girls to avoid telling their parents about an unexpected pregnancy. Therefore, the laws function as an incentive for girls to engage in less risky sex activities since they do not want to face their parents with news of a pregnancy or plans for an abortion. As a result, there was a decrease in gonorrhea among girls younger than 20.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 44 states have adopted parental notification or consent laws, but in nine of those states, the laws have been either blocked by the courts or are not yet being enforced.
This article, printed with permission, appears in the November/December 2006 issue of AFA Journal, a publication of the American Family Association.
© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Brown bans evangelical organization of students
Brown bans evangelical organization of students
01:00 AM EST on Monday, November 20, 2006
By Richard C. DujardinJournal Religion Writer
PROVIDENCE — An evangelical student group that has been banned from advertising or meeting on the Brown University campus has enlisted the help of a national organization that defends the free-speech rights of students on college campuses.
The Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education announced last week that it is supporting the 100-member Reformed University Fellowship, which was notified in a Sept. 13 e-mail from the university’s chaplain, the Rev. Janet Cooper Nelson, that its status as a recognized student organization had been withdrawn.
Leaders of the group say they were given different reasons for the action. At first, they were told it was because their local sponsor, Trinity Presbyterian Church, had withdrawn its support, which it hadn’t. Then they were told that it was because the group’s former leader had been two months late in September 2005 when he submitted the group’s application to be recognized as a campus organization. But the third reason is one that group leaders say is most baffling: the Rev. Allen Callahan, Protestant chaplain, asserted they were “possessed of a leadership culture of contempt and dishonesty that has rendered all collegial relations with my office impossible.”
Student leaders said they still don’t know what he meant, and wrote a0 long letter to the chaplain’s office seeking elaboration. There’s been no response.
“We were disappointed that the university administration should treat us so lightly that they wouldn’t even acknowledge our letter,” said the fellowship’s president, Ethan Wingfield, a senior philosophy major. “We felt disrespected.”
“We turned to FIRE because it seems they have a strong history of sticking up for campus organizations that are having their right to assemble and practice their religion withheld.”
On Oct. 27, the student-rights group wrote to Brown President Ruth J. Simmons asking her to examine how student religious organizations are being treated by the chaplaincy office
After Russell Carey, the university’s vice president of campus life, wrote that he was “satisfied” that the chaplaincy’s action was warranted, FIRE posted Brown’s actions on its Web site and sent news releases around the country, hoping public scrutiny would force the university to reconsider. Tara E. Sweeney, a senior program officer for FIRE, said that Brown, as a private institution, is not directly bound by the First Amendment, but that it does promise its students the right of peaceful assembly. Denying those rights, she said, “is a serious matter requiring a reasonable explanation.”
Brown chaplains and administrators deliberated for two days last week after The Providence Journal asked the chaplains for a response. Late Friday, Michael Chapman, vice president for public affairs, issued a statement confirming that the Reform University Fellowship had been suspended “due to its failure to abide by guidelines established for all religious groups on campus.”
Chapman declined to say what guidelines the group broke. He said Brown has offered to assist the group in “taking the necessary steps to have its affiliation restored” but gave no indication when that would be.
Edward Park, a Brown alumnus who is director of student ministry for Trinity Presbyterian, says the Reformed University Fellowship underwent its most recent name change in 2003 but that its roots go back to the early 1990s when it was known as the Hands of Providence Fellowship. He said it was the largest evangelical student group on the Brown campus.
Wingfield, the group’s president, says activities have included small-group Bible study on Friday nights and worship on Sunday.
Bible classes used to be held in Wilson Hall, but because of the ban are held at the church on Clifford Street, near the Jewelry District. Sunday worship is at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church near Brown. Because of the ban, the group’s ability to recruit has been severely restricted, Wingfield said, causing the number of members to plummet from 150 to fewer than 100 this year.
“We’ve been blacklisted. A message went out to all the university offices that they were not to provide us with services of any kind – not even use of a copy machine or a stapler.”
Wingfield said the group was amazed that Brown would use a year-old incident — the failure to submit a reapplication on time — to ban an organization. They “Brown is one of the most relaxed institutions there is. Students can drop out of a course on the last day of the semester and get the class erased from their records,” said Wingfield.
“For Brown to say an organization should be suspended because of a late form strikes most people as unreasonable.”
© 2006, Published by The Providence Journal Co., 75 Fountain St., Providence, RI 02902.
01:00 AM EST on Monday, November 20, 2006
By Richard C. DujardinJournal Religion Writer
PROVIDENCE — An evangelical student group that has been banned from advertising or meeting on the Brown University campus has enlisted the help of a national organization that defends the free-speech rights of students on college campuses.
The Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education announced last week that it is supporting the 100-member Reformed University Fellowship, which was notified in a Sept. 13 e-mail from the university’s chaplain, the Rev. Janet Cooper Nelson, that its status as a recognized student organization had been withdrawn.
Leaders of the group say they were given different reasons for the action. At first, they were told it was because their local sponsor, Trinity Presbyterian Church, had withdrawn its support, which it hadn’t. Then they were told that it was because the group’s former leader had been two months late in September 2005 when he submitted the group’s application to be recognized as a campus organization. But the third reason is one that group leaders say is most baffling: the Rev. Allen Callahan, Protestant chaplain, asserted they were “possessed of a leadership culture of contempt and dishonesty that has rendered all collegial relations with my office impossible.”
Student leaders said they still don’t know what he meant, and wrote a0 long letter to the chaplain’s office seeking elaboration. There’s been no response.
“We were disappointed that the university administration should treat us so lightly that they wouldn’t even acknowledge our letter,” said the fellowship’s president, Ethan Wingfield, a senior philosophy major. “We felt disrespected.”
“We turned to FIRE because it seems they have a strong history of sticking up for campus organizations that are having their right to assemble and practice their religion withheld.”
On Oct. 27, the student-rights group wrote to Brown President Ruth J. Simmons asking her to examine how student religious organizations are being treated by the chaplaincy office
After Russell Carey, the university’s vice president of campus life, wrote that he was “satisfied” that the chaplaincy’s action was warranted, FIRE posted Brown’s actions on its Web site and sent news releases around the country, hoping public scrutiny would force the university to reconsider. Tara E. Sweeney, a senior program officer for FIRE, said that Brown, as a private institution, is not directly bound by the First Amendment, but that it does promise its students the right of peaceful assembly. Denying those rights, she said, “is a serious matter requiring a reasonable explanation.”
Brown chaplains and administrators deliberated for two days last week after The Providence Journal asked the chaplains for a response. Late Friday, Michael Chapman, vice president for public affairs, issued a statement confirming that the Reform University Fellowship had been suspended “due to its failure to abide by guidelines established for all religious groups on campus.”
Chapman declined to say what guidelines the group broke. He said Brown has offered to assist the group in “taking the necessary steps to have its affiliation restored” but gave no indication when that would be.
Edward Park, a Brown alumnus who is director of student ministry for Trinity Presbyterian, says the Reformed University Fellowship underwent its most recent name change in 2003 but that its roots go back to the early 1990s when it was known as the Hands of Providence Fellowship. He said it was the largest evangelical student group on the Brown campus.
Wingfield, the group’s president, says activities have included small-group Bible study on Friday nights and worship on Sunday.
Bible classes used to be held in Wilson Hall, but because of the ban are held at the church on Clifford Street, near the Jewelry District. Sunday worship is at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church near Brown. Because of the ban, the group’s ability to recruit has been severely restricted, Wingfield said, causing the number of members to plummet from 150 to fewer than 100 this year.
“We’ve been blacklisted. A message went out to all the university offices that they were not to provide us with services of any kind – not even use of a copy machine or a stapler.”
Wingfield said the group was amazed that Brown would use a year-old incident — the failure to submit a reapplication on time — to ban an organization. They “Brown is one of the most relaxed institutions there is. Students can drop out of a course on the last day of the semester and get the class erased from their records,” said Wingfield.
“For Brown to say an organization should be suspended because of a late form strikes most people as unreasonable.”
© 2006, Published by The Providence Journal Co., 75 Fountain St., Providence, RI 02902.
Liberal Professor Targeted Me From Day One, Says Christian Student
Liberal Professor Targeted Me From Day One, Says Christian Student
By Meghan
Mulhern CNSNews.com Correspondent November 20, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - A Christian social work student who took Missouri State University to court after a liberal professor targeted her for refusing to lobby for homosexual adoption said Thursday she and the teacher had clashed over her beliefs from day one.
Emily Brooker was vindicated when the university agreed to an out-of-court settlement, and the professor was disciplined.
In her suit, Brooker, who has since graduated, accused the university of violating her First Amendment right to free speech by exercising her Christian convictions.
Brooker brought the case after the professor, Dr. Frank G. Kauffman, filed a "level three" grievance against her - the most serious in the school's disciplinary system - after they clashed over an advocacy assignment.
She told Cybercast News Service that the class was required to write a letter to their senator advocating for homosexual adoption and foster care. Brooker said she opposes homosexual adoption because of her beliefs as a Methodist.
Brooker said she and another student objected.
"We were willing to do all of the research and the other parts of the assignment, even writing a letter - we just didn't want to sign it and send it to our senator. We did not feel that advocating for this is in our personal beliefs," she said.
The other student, who was not held in violation or involved in the lawsuit, has not been named.
Brooker described her first class with Kauffman.
"The very first class I had with him, he introduced himself as Dr. Kauffman and [said] that he was a liberal professor - but to feel free to share any other opinions you might have," she recalled.
"There were several times during that first class that we disagreed on a few political issues, and he made it known to me that my opinions were not acceptable in the class."
After Kauffman filed the grievance, Brooker faced a lengthy session of questioning by an ethics committee, during which she was asked questions like: "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I'm a sinner?"
She was accused of violating the school's Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education - a black mark on her record that she knew would affect her future career as a social worker.
Brooker sought help from the Alliance Defense Fund. The group, which defends religious liberty, agreed to represent her. She filed the lawsuit on Oct. 30, but the university last week signed an out-of-court agreement with her legal representatives.
The university said in a statement it had agreed to clear Brooker's record, pay her $9,000, and cover the costs of a two-year Masters degree course, plus living expenses, at any state university in Missouri.
It said Kauffman had voluntarily stepped down from his administrative duties as director of the Master of Social Work program. He would also not be teaching for the remainder of the semester.
"The matter's behind us, it's been resolved in a collegial fashion, and we wish Emily nothing but the best," John Black, general counsel at Missouri State University, said Friday.
"Nobody here has anything but the best hopes for Emily ... and are confident she will do very well."
Black said that the university had "good grievance procedures."
"This was an event that when the university investigated it, we didn't confirm everything that was alleged, but we were concerned enough that we thought action needed to be taken and taken quickly."
'Silencing the opposition'
Erik Stanley, chief counsel for the religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel, told Cybercast News Service it was "appalling" that Brooker had been required to sign a document that violated her religious beliefs.
"I don't think anyone should be required to do that, regardless of social workers' ethics. Those types of issues like homosexuality or abortion - things that are very divisive and that people hold very strong religious views on - should not be mandated by the government in order to engage in these kinds of professions, like social work," Stanley said.
"The end result of the homosexual movement is not same-sex marriage," he added. "It is silencing the opposition. The end goal of the same-sex movement cannot tolerate anybody that has an opposing view point. These kinds of cases are indicative of that."
"I only wish other administrations would respond as quickly to violations of students' rights," ADF senior legal counsel David French said.
"Being a Christian shouldn't make you a second-class citizen on a college campus," said French in a statement.
"Instead of being a marketplace of ideas, some professors try to silence or even punish students whose beliefs do not conform to their personal worldview. To its credit, the university launched an investigation immediately after Emily's case was filed and has taken appropriate action against the professor and to repair Emily's reputation and record.
Brooker said people had asked her if she would do it again.
"I would definitely do this again. It was very important to me to let my voice be heard. I was very afraid for other students that didn't want to stand up, didn't want to say anything or question the authority that the professors have in the classroom," she said.
Brooker had no ill-feeling towards Kauffman.
"He is very knowledgeable in what he does. He knows the information, and he is a very good teacher in that aspect," she said.
"I was never setting out to get him fired - that was never my goal. I just wanted him, the department and the university to realize that the authority that professors perceive to have in the classroom has gone beyond what our policies allow them," Brooker added.
Kauffman did not respond to phone and email requests to comment for this article.
All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service.
By Meghan
Mulhern CNSNews.com Correspondent November 20, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - A Christian social work student who took Missouri State University to court after a liberal professor targeted her for refusing to lobby for homosexual adoption said Thursday she and the teacher had clashed over her beliefs from day one.
Emily Brooker was vindicated when the university agreed to an out-of-court settlement, and the professor was disciplined.
In her suit, Brooker, who has since graduated, accused the university of violating her First Amendment right to free speech by exercising her Christian convictions.
Brooker brought the case after the professor, Dr. Frank G. Kauffman, filed a "level three" grievance against her - the most serious in the school's disciplinary system - after they clashed over an advocacy assignment.
She told Cybercast News Service that the class was required to write a letter to their senator advocating for homosexual adoption and foster care. Brooker said she opposes homosexual adoption because of her beliefs as a Methodist.
Brooker said she and another student objected.
"We were willing to do all of the research and the other parts of the assignment, even writing a letter - we just didn't want to sign it and send it to our senator. We did not feel that advocating for this is in our personal beliefs," she said.
The other student, who was not held in violation or involved in the lawsuit, has not been named.
Brooker described her first class with Kauffman.
"The very first class I had with him, he introduced himself as Dr. Kauffman and [said] that he was a liberal professor - but to feel free to share any other opinions you might have," she recalled.
"There were several times during that first class that we disagreed on a few political issues, and he made it known to me that my opinions were not acceptable in the class."
After Kauffman filed the grievance, Brooker faced a lengthy session of questioning by an ethics committee, during which she was asked questions like: "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I'm a sinner?"
She was accused of violating the school's Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education - a black mark on her record that she knew would affect her future career as a social worker.
Brooker sought help from the Alliance Defense Fund. The group, which defends religious liberty, agreed to represent her. She filed the lawsuit on Oct. 30, but the university last week signed an out-of-court agreement with her legal representatives.
The university said in a statement it had agreed to clear Brooker's record, pay her $9,000, and cover the costs of a two-year Masters degree course, plus living expenses, at any state university in Missouri.
It said Kauffman had voluntarily stepped down from his administrative duties as director of the Master of Social Work program. He would also not be teaching for the remainder of the semester.
"The matter's behind us, it's been resolved in a collegial fashion, and we wish Emily nothing but the best," John Black, general counsel at Missouri State University, said Friday.
"Nobody here has anything but the best hopes for Emily ... and are confident she will do very well."
Black said that the university had "good grievance procedures."
"This was an event that when the university investigated it, we didn't confirm everything that was alleged, but we were concerned enough that we thought action needed to be taken and taken quickly."
'Silencing the opposition'
Erik Stanley, chief counsel for the religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel, told Cybercast News Service it was "appalling" that Brooker had been required to sign a document that violated her religious beliefs.
"I don't think anyone should be required to do that, regardless of social workers' ethics. Those types of issues like homosexuality or abortion - things that are very divisive and that people hold very strong religious views on - should not be mandated by the government in order to engage in these kinds of professions, like social work," Stanley said.
"The end result of the homosexual movement is not same-sex marriage," he added. "It is silencing the opposition. The end goal of the same-sex movement cannot tolerate anybody that has an opposing view point. These kinds of cases are indicative of that."
"I only wish other administrations would respond as quickly to violations of students' rights," ADF senior legal counsel David French said.
"Being a Christian shouldn't make you a second-class citizen on a college campus," said French in a statement.
"Instead of being a marketplace of ideas, some professors try to silence or even punish students whose beliefs do not conform to their personal worldview. To its credit, the university launched an investigation immediately after Emily's case was filed and has taken appropriate action against the professor and to repair Emily's reputation and record.
Brooker said people had asked her if she would do it again.
"I would definitely do this again. It was very important to me to let my voice be heard. I was very afraid for other students that didn't want to stand up, didn't want to say anything or question the authority that the professors have in the classroom," she said.
Brooker had no ill-feeling towards Kauffman.
"He is very knowledgeable in what he does. He knows the information, and he is a very good teacher in that aspect," she said.
"I was never setting out to get him fired - that was never my goal. I just wanted him, the department and the university to realize that the authority that professors perceive to have in the classroom has gone beyond what our policies allow them," Brooker added.
Kauffman did not respond to phone and email requests to comment for this article.
All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service.
Best Buy Bans Use of Merry Christmas in Advertising
Best Buy Bans Use of Merry Christmas in Advertising
Best Buy has announced they will be using "Happy Holidays" this coming Christmas shopping season, and they will not be using "Merry Christmas."
UPDATE!
Best Buy is blocking emails! Please call their corporate office and ask for Chairman Schulze to express your displeasure at their "Anti-Christmas" policy. The number is 1-612-291-1000.
Dawn Bryant, a spokeswoman at Best Buy Co. Inc., says their advertising will not be using the term "Merry Christmas." "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them," Bryant said. Click here for reference article.
While many other retailers have decided to begin reusing "Merry Christmas", Best Buy will not be among them. Best Buy considers the use of Merry Christmas to be disrespectful.
But while Best Buy, the largest consumer electronics company in the nation, will not be mentioning Christmas, they sure do want the shopping dollars from those who remember the Reason for the season.
Send an e-mail to Best Buy telling them of your disappointment at their decision to ban Christmas in their advertising. (You may receive an auto-reply. If so, that is ok. Don’t worry about it, your e-mail has been received.)
Send Your Letter Now!
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
Best Buy has announced they will be using "Happy Holidays" this coming Christmas shopping season, and they will not be using "Merry Christmas."
UPDATE!
Best Buy is blocking emails! Please call their corporate office and ask for Chairman Schulze to express your displeasure at their "Anti-Christmas" policy. The number is 1-612-291-1000.
Dawn Bryant, a spokeswoman at Best Buy Co. Inc., says their advertising will not be using the term "Merry Christmas." "We are going to continue to use the term holiday because there are several holidays throughout that time period, and we certainly need to be respectful of all of them," Bryant said. Click here for reference article.
While many other retailers have decided to begin reusing "Merry Christmas", Best Buy will not be among them. Best Buy considers the use of Merry Christmas to be disrespectful.
But while Best Buy, the largest consumer electronics company in the nation, will not be mentioning Christmas, they sure do want the shopping dollars from those who remember the Reason for the season.
Send an e-mail to Best Buy telling them of your disappointment at their decision to ban Christmas in their advertising. (You may receive an auto-reply. If so, that is ok. Don’t worry about it, your e-mail has been received.)
Send Your Letter Now!
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
Wal-Mart Gives $60,000 To Homosexual Group To Support Homosexual Agenda In Workplace
Wal-Mart Gives $60,000 To Homosexual Group To Support Homosexual Agenda In Workplace
November 14, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends
Company Goes On Record As An Advocate For The Homosexual Agenda
Wal-Mart has gone on record that they are an advocate for the homosexual agenda. In the Out & Equal 2006 Workplace Summit Program Guide, Wal-Mart placed a full-page ad which explicitly stated that it would be an advocate for the homosexual movement. Keep in mind this ad was developed for the homosexual conference and aimed at participating homosexual groups.
Not only did Wal-Mart place the ad in the program guide, they also gave $60,000 to Out & Equal, a homosexual organization pushing the same-sex agenda, including same-sex marriage, in the workplace. Out & Equal served as conference host and the donation went to help sponsor the Out & Equal Workplace Summit held this past September in Chicago.
The purpose of the conference was to train homosexuals to convince the companies for which they work to support the homosexual agenda and to encourage other companies to do the same.
At the conference, Pride, Wal-Mart's in-house homosexual group, presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing how they were successful in getting Wal-Mart to support the homosexual agenda. The PowerPoint presentation, telling Pride's story, contains 51 frames. Each page of the presentation contains the line "Confidential Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." It was used to encourage conference participants to follow Pride's example in the companies for which they work.
Take Action
1. Sign the petition to Wal-Mart letting them know you will be one of the 1,000,000 families who will not shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club on the Friday or Saturday following Thanksgiving.
2. VERY IMPORTANT! Millions of Americans are not aware of Wal-Mart's support for homosexual marriage. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. 3. Print out and distribute the Wal-Mart Pass-along Sheet by clicking here. For past Wal-Mart Action Alerts, plus answers to your questions (where to shop?), Click Here.
Click Here to Sign the Petition to Wal-Mart Now!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and ChairmanAmerican Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
November 14, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends
Company Goes On Record As An Advocate For The Homosexual Agenda
Wal-Mart has gone on record that they are an advocate for the homosexual agenda. In the Out & Equal 2006 Workplace Summit Program Guide, Wal-Mart placed a full-page ad which explicitly stated that it would be an advocate for the homosexual movement. Keep in mind this ad was developed for the homosexual conference and aimed at participating homosexual groups.
Not only did Wal-Mart place the ad in the program guide, they also gave $60,000 to Out & Equal, a homosexual organization pushing the same-sex agenda, including same-sex marriage, in the workplace. Out & Equal served as conference host and the donation went to help sponsor the Out & Equal Workplace Summit held this past September in Chicago.
The purpose of the conference was to train homosexuals to convince the companies for which they work to support the homosexual agenda and to encourage other companies to do the same.
At the conference, Pride, Wal-Mart's in-house homosexual group, presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing how they were successful in getting Wal-Mart to support the homosexual agenda. The PowerPoint presentation, telling Pride's story, contains 51 frames. Each page of the presentation contains the line "Confidential Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." It was used to encourage conference participants to follow Pride's example in the companies for which they work.
Take Action
1. Sign the petition to Wal-Mart letting them know you will be one of the 1,000,000 families who will not shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club on the Friday or Saturday following Thanksgiving.
2. VERY IMPORTANT! Millions of Americans are not aware of Wal-Mart's support for homosexual marriage. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. 3. Print out and distribute the Wal-Mart Pass-along Sheet by clicking here. For past Wal-Mart Action Alerts, plus answers to your questions (where to shop?), Click Here.
Click Here to Sign the Petition to Wal-Mart Now!
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and ChairmanAmerican Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!
American Family Association P O Drawer 2440 Tupelo, MS 38803 1-662-844-5036 Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
India Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile
India Test-Fires Nuclear-Capable Missile
Nov 19, 6:21 AM (ET)By ARCHANA MISHRA
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061119/D8LG3SN80.html
BHUBANESHWAR, India (AP) - India on Sunday successfully test-fired a medium-range nuclear-capable missile with a range of up to 300 kilometers (180 miles), a defense ministry official said.
The Prithvi missile was fired into the Bay of Bengal from the test range in Chandipur in the eastern state of Orissa, the official said on condition of anonymity as he is not allowed to reveal his identity under ministry rules.
India's Prithvi test comes three days after rival Pakistan carried out a similar test of its nuclear-capable Ghauri missile, also known as the Hatf 5.
Sunday's test was "routine" and "part of the country's air defense exercises," Press Trust of India news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying.
India routinely test-fires missiles it is developing for military use, as does Pakistan. When either country tests larger missiles they normally inform the other before the launch. Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said Sunday that India had informed Pakistan ahead of time about the test. She declined to make any further comment.
On Saturday, district authorities in Chandipur evacuated around 2,750 villagers living near the missile testing range to two large shelters around two kilometers (1 mile) away, PTI said.
India's missile arsenal includes the short-range suface-to-air Akash missile, the medium-range Agni missile, the anti-tank Nag missile and the supersonic Brahmos missile.
The missile has been developed by the state-owned Defense Research and Development Organization.
Sunday's test also comes days after longtime nuclear rivals India and Pakistan concluded a crucial round of peace talks in New Delhi aimed at resolving their differences, including the thorny issue of their territorial dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir.
The two countries have fought three wars - two of them over Kashmir- since independence from Britain in 1947.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Nov 19, 6:21 AM (ET)By ARCHANA MISHRA
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061119/D8LG3SN80.html
BHUBANESHWAR, India (AP) - India on Sunday successfully test-fired a medium-range nuclear-capable missile with a range of up to 300 kilometers (180 miles), a defense ministry official said.
The Prithvi missile was fired into the Bay of Bengal from the test range in Chandipur in the eastern state of Orissa, the official said on condition of anonymity as he is not allowed to reveal his identity under ministry rules.
India's Prithvi test comes three days after rival Pakistan carried out a similar test of its nuclear-capable Ghauri missile, also known as the Hatf 5.
Sunday's test was "routine" and "part of the country's air defense exercises," Press Trust of India news agency quoted an unnamed official as saying.
India routinely test-fires missiles it is developing for military use, as does Pakistan. When either country tests larger missiles they normally inform the other before the launch. Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said Sunday that India had informed Pakistan ahead of time about the test. She declined to make any further comment.
On Saturday, district authorities in Chandipur evacuated around 2,750 villagers living near the missile testing range to two large shelters around two kilometers (1 mile) away, PTI said.
India's missile arsenal includes the short-range suface-to-air Akash missile, the medium-range Agni missile, the anti-tank Nag missile and the supersonic Brahmos missile.
The missile has been developed by the state-owned Defense Research and Development Organization.
Sunday's test also comes days after longtime nuclear rivals India and Pakistan concluded a crucial round of peace talks in New Delhi aimed at resolving their differences, including the thorny issue of their territorial dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir.
The two countries have fought three wars - two of them over Kashmir- since independence from Britain in 1947.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Mass. Governor Wants Gay Wedding Vote
Mass. Governor Wants Gay Wedding Vote
Nov 20, 4:34 AM (ET)
By DAVID WEBER
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061120/D8LGNDGG0.html
BOSTON (AP) - Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state's highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.
Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.
Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.
People in favor of gay marriage staged a protest across the street.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that such marriages were legal. Since then, more than 8,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot in the state.
More than 170,000 people had signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as between only a man and a woman.
Romney has criticized lawmakers since they refused earlier this month to take up the question during a joint session, voting instead to recess until Jan. 2 and all but killing the measure.
"A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation's founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people," Romney said earlier. "The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution."
Because the Legislature is in recess and did not adjourn, Romney has no legal authority to call lawmakers back into session.
Supporters of gay marriage defended lawmakers' procedural move.
"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."
Messages seeking comment from legislative leaders were not immediately returned Sunday.
The Legislature grappled with various efforts to ban same-sex marriages even before the high court ruling in 2003. Lawmakers refused to vote on a citizens' initiative in 2002, and two years later voted down their own proposed amendment that would have banned gay marriage and legalized civil unions.
In the November elections, amendments to ban gay marriage passed in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. Only Arizona defeated such an amendment.
Vermont and Connecticut have legalized civil unions that give same-sex couples benefits similar to marriage. New Jersey's highest court has ordered the Legislature to allow either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Nov 20, 4:34 AM (ET)
By DAVID WEBER
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061120/D8LGNDGG0.html
BOSTON (AP) - Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state's highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.
Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.
Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.
People in favor of gay marriage staged a protest across the street.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that such marriages were legal. Since then, more than 8,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot in the state.
More than 170,000 people had signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as between only a man and a woman.
Romney has criticized lawmakers since they refused earlier this month to take up the question during a joint session, voting instead to recess until Jan. 2 and all but killing the measure.
"A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation's founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people," Romney said earlier. "The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the Constitution."
Because the Legislature is in recess and did not adjourn, Romney has no legal authority to call lawmakers back into session.
Supporters of gay marriage defended lawmakers' procedural move.
"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."
Messages seeking comment from legislative leaders were not immediately returned Sunday.
The Legislature grappled with various efforts to ban same-sex marriages even before the high court ruling in 2003. Lawmakers refused to vote on a citizens' initiative in 2002, and two years later voted down their own proposed amendment that would have banned gay marriage and legalized civil unions.
In the November elections, amendments to ban gay marriage passed in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. Only Arizona defeated such an amendment.
Vermont and Connecticut have legalized civil unions that give same-sex couples benefits similar to marriage. New Jersey's highest court has ordered the Legislature to allow either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
How to Witness to Muslims
How to Witness to Muslims
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/howtowitnesstomuslims.shtml
In Acts 17:22–31 the apostle Paul built on areas of "common ground" as he prepared his listeners for the good news of the gospel. Even though he was addressing Gentiles whose beliefs were erroneous, he didn’t rebuke them for having a doctrine of devils— "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God" (1 Corinthians 10:20). Neither did he present the great truth that Jesus of Nazareth was Almighty God manifest in human form. This may have initially offended his hearers and closed the door to the particular knowledge he wanted to convey. Instead, he built on what they already knew. He first established that there is a Creator who made all things. He then exposed their sin of transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments. Then he preached future punishment for sin.
There are three main areas of common ground upon which Christians may stand with Muslims. First, that there is one God—the Creator of all things. The second area is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet of God. The Bible makes this clear: "And He shall send Jesus Christ,…For Moses truly said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you of your brethren, like to me; him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say to you" (Acts 3:20–22). The Qur’an (Koran) says: "Behold! The angel said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth you Glad Tidings of a word from Him. His name will be (Christ Jesus) the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah’" (Surah 3:45). In Surah 19:19, the angel said to Mary, "I am only a messenger of thy Lord to announce to you a gift of a holy son." Surah 3:55 says, "Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take you and raise you to Myself." It is because of these and other references to Jesus in the Qur’an that a Muslim will not object when you establish that Jesus was a prophet from God.
This brings us to the third area of common ground. Muslims also respect Moses as a prophet of God. Therefore, there should be little contention when Christians speak of God (as Creator), Jesus the prophet, and the Law of the prophet Moses. Most Muslims do have some knowledge of their sinfulness, but few see sin in its true light. It is therefore essential to take them through the spiritual nature of the Ten Commandments. While it is true that the Law of Moses begins with, "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before Me," it may be unwise to tell a Muslim, at that point, that Allah is a false god. Such talk may close the door before you are able to speak to his conscience. It is wise rather to present the Law in a similar order in which Jesus gave it in Luke 18:20. He addressed the man’s sins of the flesh. He spoke directly to sins that have to do with his fellow man.
Therefore, ask your hearer if he has ever told a lie. When (if) he admits that he has, ask him what that makes him. Don’t call him a liar. Instead, gently press him to tell you what someone is called who has lied. Try to get him to say that he is a "liar." Then ask him if he has ever stolen something, even if it’s small. If he has, ask what that makes him (a thief). Then quote from the Prophet Jesus: "Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:27). Ask if he has ever looked at a woman with lust. If he is reasonable, he will admit that he has sinned in that area. Then gently tell him that, by his own admission, he is a "lying, thieving adulterer-at-heart." Say, "If God judges you by the Law of Moses on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty?"
At this point, he will more than likely say that he will be innocent, because he confesses his sins to God. However, the Qur’an says: "Every soul that has sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it in ransom" (Surah 10:54). In other words, if he possessed the whole world and offered it to God as a sacrifice for his sins, it wouldn’t be enough to provide atonement for his sins. Imagine that a criminal is facing a 50,000 fine. He is penniless, so he sincerely tells the judge that he is sorry for a crime and vows never to do it again. The judge won’t let him go on the basis of his sorrow, or his vow never to commit the crime again. Of course, he should be sorry for what he has done, and of course, he shouldn’t break the law again. The judge will, however, let him go if someone else pays the fine for him.
Now tell him that Moses gave instructions to Israel to shed the blood of a spotless lamb to provide a temporary atonement for their sin; and that Jesus was the Lamb that God provided to make atonement for the sins of the world. Through faith in Jesus, he can have atonement with God. All his sin can be washed away—once and for all. God can grant him the gift of everlasting life through faith in Jesus Christ on the basis of His death and resurrection.
The uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth was that He claimed He had power on earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2–6). No other prophet of any of the great religions made this claim. Only Jesus can provide peace with God. This is why He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
God commands sinners to repent and trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, or they will perish. To try to justify himself, your listener may say something like, "The Bible has changed. It has been altered. There are many different versions, but the Koran has never changed." Explain to him that there are many different versions, printed in different languages and in modern English, to help people understand the Bible, but the content of the Scriptures remains the same. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that God has preserved the Scriptures.
Tell him that the 100% accurate prophecies of Matthew 24, Luke 21, and 2 Timothy 3 prove that this is the Book of the Creator. Your task is to present the truth of the gospel. It is God who makes it come alive (1 Corinthians 3:6,7). It is God who brings conviction of sin (John 16:7,8). It is God who reveals who Jesus is (Matthew 16:16,17). All God requires is your faithful presentation of the truth (Matthew 25:21).
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/howtowitnesstomuslims.shtml
In Acts 17:22–31 the apostle Paul built on areas of "common ground" as he prepared his listeners for the good news of the gospel. Even though he was addressing Gentiles whose beliefs were erroneous, he didn’t rebuke them for having a doctrine of devils— "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God" (1 Corinthians 10:20). Neither did he present the great truth that Jesus of Nazareth was Almighty God manifest in human form. This may have initially offended his hearers and closed the door to the particular knowledge he wanted to convey. Instead, he built on what they already knew. He first established that there is a Creator who made all things. He then exposed their sin of transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments. Then he preached future punishment for sin.
There are three main areas of common ground upon which Christians may stand with Muslims. First, that there is one God—the Creator of all things. The second area is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet of God. The Bible makes this clear: "And He shall send Jesus Christ,…For Moses truly said to the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you of your brethren, like to me; him shall you hear in all things whatsoever he shall say to you" (Acts 3:20–22). The Qur’an (Koran) says: "Behold! The angel said ‘O Mary! Allah giveth you Glad Tidings of a word from Him. His name will be (Christ Jesus) the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah’" (Surah 3:45). In Surah 19:19, the angel said to Mary, "I am only a messenger of thy Lord to announce to you a gift of a holy son." Surah 3:55 says, "Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take you and raise you to Myself." It is because of these and other references to Jesus in the Qur’an that a Muslim will not object when you establish that Jesus was a prophet from God.
This brings us to the third area of common ground. Muslims also respect Moses as a prophet of God. Therefore, there should be little contention when Christians speak of God (as Creator), Jesus the prophet, and the Law of the prophet Moses. Most Muslims do have some knowledge of their sinfulness, but few see sin in its true light. It is therefore essential to take them through the spiritual nature of the Ten Commandments. While it is true that the Law of Moses begins with, "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before Me," it may be unwise to tell a Muslim, at that point, that Allah is a false god. Such talk may close the door before you are able to speak to his conscience. It is wise rather to present the Law in a similar order in which Jesus gave it in Luke 18:20. He addressed the man’s sins of the flesh. He spoke directly to sins that have to do with his fellow man.
Therefore, ask your hearer if he has ever told a lie. When (if) he admits that he has, ask him what that makes him. Don’t call him a liar. Instead, gently press him to tell you what someone is called who has lied. Try to get him to say that he is a "liar." Then ask him if he has ever stolen something, even if it’s small. If he has, ask what that makes him (a thief). Then quote from the Prophet Jesus: "Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:27). Ask if he has ever looked at a woman with lust. If he is reasonable, he will admit that he has sinned in that area. Then gently tell him that, by his own admission, he is a "lying, thieving adulterer-at-heart." Say, "If God judges you by the Law of Moses on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty?"
At this point, he will more than likely say that he will be innocent, because he confesses his sins to God. However, the Qur’an says: "Every soul that has sinned, if it possessed all that is on earth, would fain give it in ransom" (Surah 10:54). In other words, if he possessed the whole world and offered it to God as a sacrifice for his sins, it wouldn’t be enough to provide atonement for his sins. Imagine that a criminal is facing a 50,000 fine. He is penniless, so he sincerely tells the judge that he is sorry for a crime and vows never to do it again. The judge won’t let him go on the basis of his sorrow, or his vow never to commit the crime again. Of course, he should be sorry for what he has done, and of course, he shouldn’t break the law again. The judge will, however, let him go if someone else pays the fine for him.
Now tell him that Moses gave instructions to Israel to shed the blood of a spotless lamb to provide a temporary atonement for their sin; and that Jesus was the Lamb that God provided to make atonement for the sins of the world. Through faith in Jesus, he can have atonement with God. All his sin can be washed away—once and for all. God can grant him the gift of everlasting life through faith in Jesus Christ on the basis of His death and resurrection.
The uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth was that He claimed He had power on earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2–6). No other prophet of any of the great religions made this claim. Only Jesus can provide peace with God. This is why He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
God commands sinners to repent and trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, or they will perish. To try to justify himself, your listener may say something like, "The Bible has changed. It has been altered. There are many different versions, but the Koran has never changed." Explain to him that there are many different versions, printed in different languages and in modern English, to help people understand the Bible, but the content of the Scriptures remains the same. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that God has preserved the Scriptures.
Tell him that the 100% accurate prophecies of Matthew 24, Luke 21, and 2 Timothy 3 prove that this is the Book of the Creator. Your task is to present the truth of the gospel. It is God who makes it come alive (1 Corinthians 3:6,7). It is God who brings conviction of sin (John 16:7,8). It is God who reveals who Jesus is (Matthew 16:16,17). All God requires is your faithful presentation of the truth (Matthew 25:21).
Islam: What is it?
Islam
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/islam.shtml
KEY FIGURE IN HISTORY: Muhammad (A.D. 570–632)
DATE OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT: A.D. 622
ADHERENTS: Worldwide: Estimated 800 million to 1 billion; 58 percent live in South and Southeast Asia; 28 percent in Africa; 9 percent in Near and Middle East; 5 percent other. U.S.: Estimated 6.5 to 8 million.
WHAT IS ISLAM?
Islam is the world’s youngest major world religion. It claims to be the restoration of original monotheism and truth and thus supersedes both Judaism and Christianity. It stresses submission to Allah, the Arabic name for God, and conformity to the "five pillars" or disciplines of that religion as essential for salvation. From its inception, Islam was an aggressively missionary-oriented religion. Within one century of its formation, and often using military force, Islam had spread across the Middle East, most of North Africa, and as far east as India. While God is, in the understanding of most Muslims, unknowable personally, His will is believed to be perfectly revealed in the holy book, the Qur’an. The Qur’an is to be followed completely and its teaching forms a complete guide for life and society.
WHO WAS MUHAMMAD?
Muhammad is believed by Muslims to be the last and greatest prophet of God—"the seal of the prophets." It was through him that the Qur’an was dictated, thus according him the supreme place among the seers of God. A native of Mecca, Muhammad was forced to flee that city in A.D. 622 after preaching vigorously against the paganism of the city. Having secured his leadership in Medina, and with several military victories to his credit, Muhammad returned in triumph to Mecca in A.D. 630. There, he established Islam as the religion of all Arabia.
WHAT IS THE QUR’AN?
The Qur’an is the sacred book of Islam and the perfect word of God for the Muslim. It is claimed that the Qur’an was dictated in Arabic by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad and were God’s precise words. As such, it had preexisted from eternity in heaven with God as the "Mother of the Book" and was in that form uncreated and co-eternal with God. Islam teaches that it contains the total and perfect revelation and will of God. The Qur’an is about four-fifths the length of the New Testament and is divided into 114 surahs or chapters. While Islam respects the Torah, the psalms of David, and the four Gospels, the Qur’an stands alone in its authority and absoluteness. It is believed to be most perfectly understood in Arabic and it is a religious obligation to seek to read and quote it in the original language.
WHAT ARE THE "FIVE PILLARS"?
They are the framework for the Muslims’ life and discipline. Successful and satisfactory adherence to the pillars satisfies the will of Allah. They form the basis for the Muslim’s hope for salvation along with faith and belief in Allah’s existence, the authority of Muhammad as a prophet, and the finality and perfection of the Qur’an.
The five pillars are:
The confession of Faith or Shahada: It is the declaration that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. Sincerity in the voicing of the confession is necessary for it to be valid. It must be held until death, and repudiation of the Shahada nullifies hope for salvation.
Prayer of Salat: Five times a day, preceded by ceremonial washing, the Muslim is required to pray facing Mecca. Specific formulas recited from the Qur’an (in Arabic), along with prostrations, are included. Prayer is, in this sense, an expression of submission to the will of Allah. While most of Islam has no hierarchical priesthood, prayers are led in mosques by respected lay leaders. The five times of prayer are before sunrise, noon, midafternoon, sunset, and prior to sleep.
Almsgiving or Zakat: The Qur’an teaches the giving of two-and-a-half percent of one’s capital wealth to the poor and/or for the propagation of Islam. By doing so, the Muslim’s remaining wealth is purified.
The Fast or Sawm: during the course of the lunar month of Ramadan, a fast is to be ob- served by every Muslim from sunrise to sunset. Nothing is to pass over the lips during this time, and they should refrain from sexual relations. After sunset, feasting and other celebrations often occur. The daylight hours are set aside for self-purification. The month is used to remember the giving of the Qur’an to Muhammad.
Pilgrimage or Hajj: All Muslims who are economically and physically able are required to journey to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. The required simple pilgrim’s dress stresses the notion of equality before God. Another element of the Hajj is the mandatory walk of each pilgrim seven times around the Kaabah—the shrine of the black rock, the holiest site of Islam. Muhammad taught that the Kaabah was the original place of worship for Adam and later for Abraham. The Kaabah is thus venerated as the site of true religion, the absolute monotheism of Islam.
THE DOCTRINES OF ISLAM
God: He is numerically and absolutely one. Allah is beyond the understanding of man so that only his will may be revealed and known. He is confessed as the "merciful and compassionate one."
Sin: The most serious sin that can be ascribed to people is that of shirk or considering god as more than one. Original sin is viewed as a "lapse" by Adam. Humankind is considered weak and forgetful but not as fallen.
Angels: Islam affirms the reality of angels as messengers and agents of god. Evil spirits or Jinn also exist. Satan is a fallen angel. Angels perform important functions for Allah both now and at the end of time.
Final Judgment: The world will be judged at the end of time by Allah. The good deeds and obedience of all people to the five pillars and the Qur’an will serve as the basis of judgment.
Salvation: It is determined by faith, as defined by Islam, as well as by compiling good deeds primarily in conformity to the five pillars. Marriage: Muslims uphold marriage as honorable and condemn adultery. While many Muslim marriages are monogamous, Islamic states allow as many as four wives. Men consider a woman as less than an equal, and while a man has the right to divorce his wife, the wife has no similar power (see Surah 2:228, 4:34). Nonetheless, the female has a right to own and dispose of property. Modesty in dress is encouraged for both men and women.
War: The term jihad or "struggle" is often considered as both external and internal, both a physical and spiritual struggle. The enemies of Islam or "idolaters," states the Qur’an, may be slain "wherever you find them" (Surah:5). (See Surah 47:4). Paradise is promised for those who die fighting in the cause of Islam (see Surah 3:195, 2:224). Moderate Muslims emphasize the spiritual dimension of Jihad and not its political element.
ANSWERING MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY
Christians and Jews are acknowledged as "people of the book," although their failure to conform to the confession of Islam labels them as unbelievers. Following are several questions that Muslims have about Christianity.
Is the Trinity a belief in three gods?
Christians are monotheistic and believe that God is one. But both in His work in accomplishing salvation through the person of Jesus Christ and through biblical study it has become clear that His oneness in fact comprises three persons —Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. Mary is not part of the Godhead. The notion of God, who is three-in-one, is part of both the mystery and greatness of God. God is in essence one while in persons three. This truth helps us understand God as truly personal and having the capacity to relate to other persons. As well, Christians confirm the holiness, sovereignty, and greatness of God.
How can Jesus be the Son of God?
Scripture affirms that Jesus was conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary. It does not in any way claim that Jesus was directly God the Father’s biological and physical son. It rejects the notion of the Arabic word for son, walad, meaning physical son, for the word ibin, which is the title of relationship. Jesus is the Son in a symbolic manner designating that He was God the Word who became man in order to save humankind from its sin. The virgin birth was supernatural as God the Holy Spirit conceived in Mary, without physical relations, Jesus the Messiah. In this manner even the Qur’an affirms the miraculous birth of Christ (see Surah 19:16–21). Jesus was in this sense "God’s unique Son." During His earthly ministry He carried out the will of the Father. Notably the Qur’an affirms Jesus’ supernatural birth, life of miracles, His compassion, and ascension to heaven (see Surah 19:16–21,29–31, 3:37–47, 5:110).
How could Jesus have died on the cross especially if He’s God’s son?
The testimony of history and the Injil, or the four Gospels, is that Jesus died on the cross. If it is understood that God is love, and that humankind is lost in sin, then is it not likely that God would have provided a sacrifice for sin? Jesus is God’s sacrifice for all the sins of the world and is a bridge from a holy God to fallen and sinful humans. This truth is revealed in the Injil, John 3:16. Even the Qur’an states in Surah 3:55 that "Allah said: O Isa [Jesus], I am going to terminate [to put to death] the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me." What other way could this concept have any meaning apart from Jesus’ death for sin and His subsequent resurrection? Muslims believe that God took Jesus from the cross and substituted Judas in His place, or at least someone who looked like Jesus. He was then taken to heaven where He is alive and from where one day He will return.
ANSWERING MUSLIMS’ QUESTIONS TO CHRISTIANS ABOUT ISLAM
What do you think about the prophet Muhammad?
Muhammad was apparently a well-meaning man who sought to oppose paganism and evil in his day. While he succeeded in uniting the Arabian Peninsula and upheld several important virtues, we do not believe he received a fresh revelation from God. Jesus Christ fulfilled not only the final prophetic role from God, but He is the Savior of the world and God the Son. While Islam believes that some Bible passages refer to Muhammad (see Deut. 18:18–19; John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7), that is clearly not the meaning of the texts. Other passages may help in understanding and interpreting the previous texts (see Matthew 21:11; Luke 24:19; John 6;14; 7:40; Acts 1:8–16; 7:37).
What is your opinion of the Qur’an?
It is a greatly valued book for the Muslim. It is not received or believed to be a divine book by the Christian. The statements of the Qur’an are accepted only where they agree with the Bible.
What is your opinion about the five pillars?
Salvation is from God and comes only through the saving work of Jesus Christ. When we put our faith in Him, we may be saved (see John 3:16–21,31–36).
WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS
Be courteous and loving.
Reflect interest in their beliefs. Allow them time to articulate their views.
Be acquainted with their basic beliefs.
Be willing to examine passages of the Qur’an concerning their beliefs.
Stick to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith but also take time to respond to all sincere questions.
Point out the centrality of the person and work of Jesus Christ for salvation.
Stress that because of Jesus, His cross, and resurrection, one may have the full assurance of salvation, both now and for eternity (see 1 John 5:13).
Share the plan of salvation with the Muslim. Point out that salvation is a gift and not to be earned.
Pray for th fullness of the Holy Spirit. Trust Him to provide wisdom and grace.
Be willing to become a friend and a personal evangelist to Muslims.
Phil Roberts, Director of Interfaith Evangelism. Copyright 1996 North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Alpharetta, Georgia. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/islam.shtml
KEY FIGURE IN HISTORY: Muhammad (A.D. 570–632)
DATE OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT: A.D. 622
ADHERENTS: Worldwide: Estimated 800 million to 1 billion; 58 percent live in South and Southeast Asia; 28 percent in Africa; 9 percent in Near and Middle East; 5 percent other. U.S.: Estimated 6.5 to 8 million.
WHAT IS ISLAM?
Islam is the world’s youngest major world religion. It claims to be the restoration of original monotheism and truth and thus supersedes both Judaism and Christianity. It stresses submission to Allah, the Arabic name for God, and conformity to the "five pillars" or disciplines of that religion as essential for salvation. From its inception, Islam was an aggressively missionary-oriented religion. Within one century of its formation, and often using military force, Islam had spread across the Middle East, most of North Africa, and as far east as India. While God is, in the understanding of most Muslims, unknowable personally, His will is believed to be perfectly revealed in the holy book, the Qur’an. The Qur’an is to be followed completely and its teaching forms a complete guide for life and society.
WHO WAS MUHAMMAD?
Muhammad is believed by Muslims to be the last and greatest prophet of God—"the seal of the prophets." It was through him that the Qur’an was dictated, thus according him the supreme place among the seers of God. A native of Mecca, Muhammad was forced to flee that city in A.D. 622 after preaching vigorously against the paganism of the city. Having secured his leadership in Medina, and with several military victories to his credit, Muhammad returned in triumph to Mecca in A.D. 630. There, he established Islam as the religion of all Arabia.
WHAT IS THE QUR’AN?
The Qur’an is the sacred book of Islam and the perfect word of God for the Muslim. It is claimed that the Qur’an was dictated in Arabic by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad and were God’s precise words. As such, it had preexisted from eternity in heaven with God as the "Mother of the Book" and was in that form uncreated and co-eternal with God. Islam teaches that it contains the total and perfect revelation and will of God. The Qur’an is about four-fifths the length of the New Testament and is divided into 114 surahs or chapters. While Islam respects the Torah, the psalms of David, and the four Gospels, the Qur’an stands alone in its authority and absoluteness. It is believed to be most perfectly understood in Arabic and it is a religious obligation to seek to read and quote it in the original language.
WHAT ARE THE "FIVE PILLARS"?
They are the framework for the Muslims’ life and discipline. Successful and satisfactory adherence to the pillars satisfies the will of Allah. They form the basis for the Muslim’s hope for salvation along with faith and belief in Allah’s existence, the authority of Muhammad as a prophet, and the finality and perfection of the Qur’an.
The five pillars are:
The confession of Faith or Shahada: It is the declaration that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. Sincerity in the voicing of the confession is necessary for it to be valid. It must be held until death, and repudiation of the Shahada nullifies hope for salvation.
Prayer of Salat: Five times a day, preceded by ceremonial washing, the Muslim is required to pray facing Mecca. Specific formulas recited from the Qur’an (in Arabic), along with prostrations, are included. Prayer is, in this sense, an expression of submission to the will of Allah. While most of Islam has no hierarchical priesthood, prayers are led in mosques by respected lay leaders. The five times of prayer are before sunrise, noon, midafternoon, sunset, and prior to sleep.
Almsgiving or Zakat: The Qur’an teaches the giving of two-and-a-half percent of one’s capital wealth to the poor and/or for the propagation of Islam. By doing so, the Muslim’s remaining wealth is purified.
The Fast or Sawm: during the course of the lunar month of Ramadan, a fast is to be ob- served by every Muslim from sunrise to sunset. Nothing is to pass over the lips during this time, and they should refrain from sexual relations. After sunset, feasting and other celebrations often occur. The daylight hours are set aside for self-purification. The month is used to remember the giving of the Qur’an to Muhammad.
Pilgrimage or Hajj: All Muslims who are economically and physically able are required to journey to Mecca at least once in their lifetime. The required simple pilgrim’s dress stresses the notion of equality before God. Another element of the Hajj is the mandatory walk of each pilgrim seven times around the Kaabah—the shrine of the black rock, the holiest site of Islam. Muhammad taught that the Kaabah was the original place of worship for Adam and later for Abraham. The Kaabah is thus venerated as the site of true religion, the absolute monotheism of Islam.
THE DOCTRINES OF ISLAM
God: He is numerically and absolutely one. Allah is beyond the understanding of man so that only his will may be revealed and known. He is confessed as the "merciful and compassionate one."
Sin: The most serious sin that can be ascribed to people is that of shirk or considering god as more than one. Original sin is viewed as a "lapse" by Adam. Humankind is considered weak and forgetful but not as fallen.
Angels: Islam affirms the reality of angels as messengers and agents of god. Evil spirits or Jinn also exist. Satan is a fallen angel. Angels perform important functions for Allah both now and at the end of time.
Final Judgment: The world will be judged at the end of time by Allah. The good deeds and obedience of all people to the five pillars and the Qur’an will serve as the basis of judgment.
Salvation: It is determined by faith, as defined by Islam, as well as by compiling good deeds primarily in conformity to the five pillars. Marriage: Muslims uphold marriage as honorable and condemn adultery. While many Muslim marriages are monogamous, Islamic states allow as many as four wives. Men consider a woman as less than an equal, and while a man has the right to divorce his wife, the wife has no similar power (see Surah 2:228, 4:34). Nonetheless, the female has a right to own and dispose of property. Modesty in dress is encouraged for both men and women.
War: The term jihad or "struggle" is often considered as both external and internal, both a physical and spiritual struggle. The enemies of Islam or "idolaters," states the Qur’an, may be slain "wherever you find them" (Surah:5). (See Surah 47:4). Paradise is promised for those who die fighting in the cause of Islam (see Surah 3:195, 2:224). Moderate Muslims emphasize the spiritual dimension of Jihad and not its political element.
ANSWERING MUSLIM OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY
Christians and Jews are acknowledged as "people of the book," although their failure to conform to the confession of Islam labels them as unbelievers. Following are several questions that Muslims have about Christianity.
Is the Trinity a belief in three gods?
Christians are monotheistic and believe that God is one. But both in His work in accomplishing salvation through the person of Jesus Christ and through biblical study it has become clear that His oneness in fact comprises three persons —Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. Mary is not part of the Godhead. The notion of God, who is three-in-one, is part of both the mystery and greatness of God. God is in essence one while in persons three. This truth helps us understand God as truly personal and having the capacity to relate to other persons. As well, Christians confirm the holiness, sovereignty, and greatness of God.
How can Jesus be the Son of God?
Scripture affirms that Jesus was conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary. It does not in any way claim that Jesus was directly God the Father’s biological and physical son. It rejects the notion of the Arabic word for son, walad, meaning physical son, for the word ibin, which is the title of relationship. Jesus is the Son in a symbolic manner designating that He was God the Word who became man in order to save humankind from its sin. The virgin birth was supernatural as God the Holy Spirit conceived in Mary, without physical relations, Jesus the Messiah. In this manner even the Qur’an affirms the miraculous birth of Christ (see Surah 19:16–21). Jesus was in this sense "God’s unique Son." During His earthly ministry He carried out the will of the Father. Notably the Qur’an affirms Jesus’ supernatural birth, life of miracles, His compassion, and ascension to heaven (see Surah 19:16–21,29–31, 3:37–47, 5:110).
How could Jesus have died on the cross especially if He’s God’s son?
The testimony of history and the Injil, or the four Gospels, is that Jesus died on the cross. If it is understood that God is love, and that humankind is lost in sin, then is it not likely that God would have provided a sacrifice for sin? Jesus is God’s sacrifice for all the sins of the world and is a bridge from a holy God to fallen and sinful humans. This truth is revealed in the Injil, John 3:16. Even the Qur’an states in Surah 3:55 that "Allah said: O Isa [Jesus], I am going to terminate [to put to death] the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me." What other way could this concept have any meaning apart from Jesus’ death for sin and His subsequent resurrection? Muslims believe that God took Jesus from the cross and substituted Judas in His place, or at least someone who looked like Jesus. He was then taken to heaven where He is alive and from where one day He will return.
ANSWERING MUSLIMS’ QUESTIONS TO CHRISTIANS ABOUT ISLAM
What do you think about the prophet Muhammad?
Muhammad was apparently a well-meaning man who sought to oppose paganism and evil in his day. While he succeeded in uniting the Arabian Peninsula and upheld several important virtues, we do not believe he received a fresh revelation from God. Jesus Christ fulfilled not only the final prophetic role from God, but He is the Savior of the world and God the Son. While Islam believes that some Bible passages refer to Muhammad (see Deut. 18:18–19; John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7), that is clearly not the meaning of the texts. Other passages may help in understanding and interpreting the previous texts (see Matthew 21:11; Luke 24:19; John 6;14; 7:40; Acts 1:8–16; 7:37).
What is your opinion of the Qur’an?
It is a greatly valued book for the Muslim. It is not received or believed to be a divine book by the Christian. The statements of the Qur’an are accepted only where they agree with the Bible.
What is your opinion about the five pillars?
Salvation is from God and comes only through the saving work of Jesus Christ. When we put our faith in Him, we may be saved (see John 3:16–21,31–36).
WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS
Be courteous and loving.
Reflect interest in their beliefs. Allow them time to articulate their views.
Be acquainted with their basic beliefs.
Be willing to examine passages of the Qur’an concerning their beliefs.
Stick to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith but also take time to respond to all sincere questions.
Point out the centrality of the person and work of Jesus Christ for salvation.
Stress that because of Jesus, His cross, and resurrection, one may have the full assurance of salvation, both now and for eternity (see 1 John 5:13).
Share the plan of salvation with the Muslim. Point out that salvation is a gift and not to be earned.
Pray for th fullness of the Holy Spirit. Trust Him to provide wisdom and grace.
Be willing to become a friend and a personal evangelist to Muslims.
Phil Roberts, Director of Interfaith Evangelism. Copyright 1996 North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Alpharetta, Georgia. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
GLOBAL JIHAD: Bush empowering terrorists, charges vocal Islam critic
GLOBAL JIHAD
Bush empowering terrorists, charges vocal Islam critic
Wafa Sultan says 'religion of peace' pronouncement undermines her efforts to battle religion's 'barbarism'
Posted: November 18, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush is undermining criticism vital to the survival of Western civilization and empowering terrorist leaders by proclaiming Islam a "religion of peace," says one of the most outspoken critics to emerge from the Muslim world in recent years.
Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, seized attention worldwide in February when her electrifying interview on Al-Jazeera television spread across the Internet through a video clip produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Named this year to Time Magazine's list of 100 influential people in the world, Sultan spoke with WND after addressing a symposium on radical Islam and terrorism in Las Vegas hosted by America's Truth Forum. She understands Bush's position as president and believes he is only trying to be diplomatic, but insists, nevertheless, his words are "empowering" Muslim leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world.
"I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is.
In her February Al-Jazeera appearance, which has brought her death threats, she asserted the world is witnessing "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose."
President Bush with Muslim leaders in 2004 (White House photo)
The video clip is estimated to have been viewed at least 1 million times, according to the New York Times.
Sultan, who identifies herself as a secular ex-Muslim, told WND she would urge Bush to take a closer look at Islamic culture and its general embrace of violence as a means of establishment and expansion.
"Facts are very stubborn things. Facts are facts," she said. "If you are not familiar with Islamic culture, how can you claim Islam is a peaceful religion?"
The White House declined WND's request to respond to Sultan's comments.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president has made an effort to reach out to Muslim leaders at home and abroad to assure them the U.S. is not in a war against Islam.
Six days after 9-11, Bush told Muslims in remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
In an October 2002 speech in Washington, the president said, "Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."
But Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam who also spoke at the Las Vegas conference, contends President Bush and other Western leaders don't need to make any pronouncements about the nature of Islam at all.
"They would be much wiser to limit themselves to declaring that their foes wish to impose Islamic sharia (law) rule upon their countries and the world, and that they are going to lead the resistance to that," Spencer writes in his best-selling, controversial book, "The Truth About Muhammad."
'This is your Quran'
Sultan, a psychiatrist, said that amid the death threats, she has received a flood of correspondence from Muslim men and women from around the world, using assumed names, who are "encouraging me to keep up doing what I am doing."
"Once they feel protected, they will come out and speak up, I believe," she said.
One e-mail came from a man in Morocco who said he grew up in a family of mullahs.
"He printed out all my articles and made a small book out of them," Sultan said. "He gave them to his 17-year-old son and he said, 'Son, from now on this is your Quran.'"
Sultan told the Nov. 11 America's Truth Forum symposium the turning point of her life came in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo in Syria and witnessed the murder of a teacher by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 that spawned groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
"They filled his body with bullets while screaming, 'Allah is great,'" she said. "I was traumatized, and I started questioning what kind of god we worshiped."
Sultan came to the U.S. in 1989 with her husband, David, and they later became naturalized citizens.
"I decided to fight this ideology of hatred," she said, "and began to search for a new place to do what I do freely.
"And here I am doing what I do," she said to applause.
But Sultan admitted wounds remain.
"Islam is a very painful chapter of my life, and it doesn't matter how much I try to close this chapter and move on with my life – I will never be able to heal the ugly scar Islam left in my heart," she told the Las Vegas conferees.
Sultan contended, contrary to prevailing wisdom, Islam has been a major problem for the world since its inception more than 1,400 years ago.
"We need to find an effective way to deal with Islam, but it must be based on truth and honesty," she said.
Previous dialogue has failed, because it hasn't been based on truth, she said, and has ended up "empowering the fanatics."
"It's time to face the Islamic world and discuss with them the problems in the Islamic faith, without fear," said Sultan.
While many Muslim leaders and non-Muslim apologists insist terrorists have "hijacked" Islam, Sultan asserts people such as those who kidnapped and beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 are "true Muslims."
Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders are simply following the example of Muhammad, who "committed the most brutal acts against those who opposed him," she said.
By contrast, she told of meeting Pearl's mother, Ruth.
"The forgiveness and love she has in her heart is stunning," Sultan said. "She believes that by showing Muslims love and forgiveness they will see the faults and reform."
But Sultan cautioned that while many Muslims are inclined to this "civilized way of dealing with humans," the "thinking process doesn't fit with people who have been taught the true Muslim faith."
Speaking of Muslims in Western nations in particular, Sultan said regardless of how much help and benefit they receive from their country, they "will always be loyal first to Islam."
In Islam, as taught in the Quran, she said, there is no guilt toward any action against non-Muslims.
Peace, she said, is impossible to achieve with true Muslim believers.
"You must realize that for the Israelis to make peace with Palestinians, they must make peace with every Muslim country in the world. The Iranian president says Israel must be wiped out. What did Israel do to Iran?"
Muslims, she said, are coming to the U.S. and using the country's constitutional freedom of religion to advance an alien system that seeks political dominance.
It's time to "define what constitutes a religion," Sultan urged.
"Please don't let your civilized way become your worst enemy and become a weak point in protecting the country and the rest of the world," she concluded.
'Islamophobic'
Some of Sultan's critics complain she has no authority to criticize Islam because she no longer is a Muslim. Los Angeles Times reporter Teresa Watanabe argued Sultan had "never been connected with progressive Islamic groups and does not know the writings of Islam's most respected voices of reform."
In an interview with CNN, Hussam Ayloush, director of the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, called Sultan "Islamophobic" and insisted "reform is alive and well within Islam, but it will only happen by those from within Islam and not those who hate Islam."
But CAIR, a group that has had access to the White House, is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges, and the group's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring Muslims are here in the U.S. to make Islam dominant, with the Quran America's highest authority.
Sultan's February interview found her squaring off with Al-Jazeera host Faisal al-Qasim and Islamic scholar Ibrahim Al-Khouli about Samuel P. Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory. The exchange took place on the 90-minute discussion program "The Opposite Direction," with Sultan speaking via satellite from Los Angeles.
Sultan: "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations," she said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."
Al-Qasim: "I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"
Wafa Sultan and Islamic scholar Ibrahim Al-Khouli
Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."
Al-Qasim: "Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind. ..."
Sultan: "The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must re-examine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels."
Bush empowering terrorists, charges vocal Islam critic
Wafa Sultan says 'religion of peace' pronouncement undermines her efforts to battle religion's 'barbarism'
Posted: November 18, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush is undermining criticism vital to the survival of Western civilization and empowering terrorist leaders by proclaiming Islam a "religion of peace," says one of the most outspoken critics to emerge from the Muslim world in recent years.
Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, seized attention worldwide in February when her electrifying interview on Al-Jazeera television spread across the Internet through a video clip produced by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Named this year to Time Magazine's list of 100 influential people in the world, Sultan spoke with WND after addressing a symposium on radical Islam and terrorism in Las Vegas hosted by America's Truth Forum. She understands Bush's position as president and believes he is only trying to be diplomatic, but insists, nevertheless, his words are "empowering" Muslim leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world.
"I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is.
In her February Al-Jazeera appearance, which has brought her death threats, she asserted the world is witnessing "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose."
President Bush with Muslim leaders in 2004 (White House photo)
The video clip is estimated to have been viewed at least 1 million times, according to the New York Times.
Sultan, who identifies herself as a secular ex-Muslim, told WND she would urge Bush to take a closer look at Islamic culture and its general embrace of violence as a means of establishment and expansion.
"Facts are very stubborn things. Facts are facts," she said. "If you are not familiar with Islamic culture, how can you claim Islam is a peaceful religion?"
The White House declined WND's request to respond to Sultan's comments.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president has made an effort to reach out to Muslim leaders at home and abroad to assure them the U.S. is not in a war against Islam.
Six days after 9-11, Bush told Muslims in remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
In an October 2002 speech in Washington, the president said, "Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."
But Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam who also spoke at the Las Vegas conference, contends President Bush and other Western leaders don't need to make any pronouncements about the nature of Islam at all.
"They would be much wiser to limit themselves to declaring that their foes wish to impose Islamic sharia (law) rule upon their countries and the world, and that they are going to lead the resistance to that," Spencer writes in his best-selling, controversial book, "The Truth About Muhammad."
'This is your Quran'
Sultan, a psychiatrist, said that amid the death threats, she has received a flood of correspondence from Muslim men and women from around the world, using assumed names, who are "encouraging me to keep up doing what I am doing."
"Once they feel protected, they will come out and speak up, I believe," she said.
One e-mail came from a man in Morocco who said he grew up in a family of mullahs.
"He printed out all my articles and made a small book out of them," Sultan said. "He gave them to his 17-year-old son and he said, 'Son, from now on this is your Quran.'"
Sultan told the Nov. 11 America's Truth Forum symposium the turning point of her life came in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo in Syria and witnessed the murder of a teacher by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 that spawned groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
"They filled his body with bullets while screaming, 'Allah is great,'" she said. "I was traumatized, and I started questioning what kind of god we worshiped."
Sultan came to the U.S. in 1989 with her husband, David, and they later became naturalized citizens.
"I decided to fight this ideology of hatred," she said, "and began to search for a new place to do what I do freely.
"And here I am doing what I do," she said to applause.
But Sultan admitted wounds remain.
"Islam is a very painful chapter of my life, and it doesn't matter how much I try to close this chapter and move on with my life – I will never be able to heal the ugly scar Islam left in my heart," she told the Las Vegas conferees.
Sultan contended, contrary to prevailing wisdom, Islam has been a major problem for the world since its inception more than 1,400 years ago.
"We need to find an effective way to deal with Islam, but it must be based on truth and honesty," she said.
Previous dialogue has failed, because it hasn't been based on truth, she said, and has ended up "empowering the fanatics."
"It's time to face the Islamic world and discuss with them the problems in the Islamic faith, without fear," said Sultan.
While many Muslim leaders and non-Muslim apologists insist terrorists have "hijacked" Islam, Sultan asserts people such as those who kidnapped and beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 are "true Muslims."
Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders are simply following the example of Muhammad, who "committed the most brutal acts against those who opposed him," she said.
By contrast, she told of meeting Pearl's mother, Ruth.
"The forgiveness and love she has in her heart is stunning," Sultan said. "She believes that by showing Muslims love and forgiveness they will see the faults and reform."
But Sultan cautioned that while many Muslims are inclined to this "civilized way of dealing with humans," the "thinking process doesn't fit with people who have been taught the true Muslim faith."
Speaking of Muslims in Western nations in particular, Sultan said regardless of how much help and benefit they receive from their country, they "will always be loyal first to Islam."
In Islam, as taught in the Quran, she said, there is no guilt toward any action against non-Muslims.
Peace, she said, is impossible to achieve with true Muslim believers.
"You must realize that for the Israelis to make peace with Palestinians, they must make peace with every Muslim country in the world. The Iranian president says Israel must be wiped out. What did Israel do to Iran?"
Muslims, she said, are coming to the U.S. and using the country's constitutional freedom of religion to advance an alien system that seeks political dominance.
It's time to "define what constitutes a religion," Sultan urged.
"Please don't let your civilized way become your worst enemy and become a weak point in protecting the country and the rest of the world," she concluded.
'Islamophobic'
Some of Sultan's critics complain she has no authority to criticize Islam because she no longer is a Muslim. Los Angeles Times reporter Teresa Watanabe argued Sultan had "never been connected with progressive Islamic groups and does not know the writings of Islam's most respected voices of reform."
In an interview with CNN, Hussam Ayloush, director of the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, called Sultan "Islamophobic" and insisted "reform is alive and well within Islam, but it will only happen by those from within Islam and not those who hate Islam."
But CAIR, a group that has had access to the White House, is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges, and the group's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring Muslims are here in the U.S. to make Islam dominant, with the Quran America's highest authority.
Sultan's February interview found her squaring off with Al-Jazeera host Faisal al-Qasim and Islamic scholar Ibrahim Al-Khouli about Samuel P. Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory. The exchange took place on the 90-minute discussion program "The Opposite Direction," with Sultan speaking via satellite from Los Angeles.
Sultan: "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations," she said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete."
Al-Qasim: "I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"
Wafa Sultan and Islamic scholar Ibrahim Al-Khouli
Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."
Al-Qasim: "Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind. ..."
Sultan: "The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must re-examine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels."
Chuck Norris speaks out on the Truths of The Ten Commandments. "America's code of silence"
CHUCK NORRIS
WORLDNETDAILY EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
America's code of silence
Posted: November 20, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53032
Don't Speak About Religion And Politics?
Over the past couple of years there has been much debate over the civil display of religious inscriptions, like the Ten Commandments (also called the Decalogue).
I was shocked to read this past week Bob Unruh's exclusives on WND about how the U.S. Supreme Court is even now silencing the truths about the Commandments in its own building.
People often say to stay clear of discussing religion and politics. True patriots don't do that. That is why I will address both in this article.
Revolutionary Thought about the Decalogue
I've learned some things recently about the Ten Commandments and the foundations of our country, excellently documented by David Barton and Wall Builders
Let me share just a few with you.
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, paragraph 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago: ''The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God – the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.''
John Quincy Adams, who fought during the Revolution, served under four presidents before becoming one, and who was nominated (but declined) a position on the U. S. Supreme Court under President Madison, similarly declared: ''The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes ... of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.''
John Witherspoon, president of Princeton and signer of the Declaration, and one who served on over one hundred committees while in Congress, declared: ''The Ten Commandments .. are the sum of the moral law.''
The fact is our Founding Fathers introduced the tenets of the Ten Commandments not only into their families but into law, to promote civility and morality for everyone.
God's Law and the Law of the Land
Of course our founders were merely passing along the religious and moral baton, as the Colonialists handed it to them.
The proof of that is found in the fact that every early American Colony (all thirteen except Rhode Island under Roger Williams) incorporated the complete Decalogue into its own civil code of laws.
For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution, stated that the governor and his council of six elected officials would ''have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.''
Even in 1638, the Rhode Island government adopted ''all those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24. 3, 4; 2 Chron. II. 3; 2 Kings. II. 17.''
The following year, in 1639, the New Haven Colony unanimously adopted its ''Fundamental Articles'' to govern that Colony as well with ''the Scriptures.''
From Pride to Silence
Historians, government officials, and even our courts used to proudly declare our country's relationship with the Ten Commandments.
As late as 1917, the Supreme Court of North Carolina declared:
Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity.
In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court similarly made known:
A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue ...
Unfortunately, America's once code of conduct has now turned into a code of silence!
The Ten Amendments?
It doesn't take a historian to figure out that the Ten Commandments and its law giver (Moses) played a very significant role in the moral and civil foundations of our nation.
Their influence was so profound that their imagery was indelibly displayed upon many civil structures and monuments, both state and federal.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin created a seal for the new United States, each separately proposing Moses and the Exodus prominently in the symbol.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Moses is the only one of twenty-three law givers facing with a full-frontal view, still staring down on the proceedings.
Even on the U.S. Supreme Court, there are six depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments, though, as WND recently reported, tourists are now being told there is only one, and that the tablets etched with the Roman Numerals I-V and VI-X now depict the ''Ten Amendments'' or the Bill of Rights.
Such blatant educational oversight is one of the reasons I've joined with The National Council on Bible Curriculum to bring a state certified Bible course (elective) into the public schools nationwide. You can join us.
Follow Our Fathers
Friends, I am a patriot and an optimist at heart. I must admit, however, that recent attempts these past few years to suppress the truths about our country's heritage are raising even my blood pressure.
I believe the voices of our Fathers echo down through the generations in hope of helping us remedy the rampant degradation in our nation.
I, as with many of you, still believe we can remain a great country, but that will only be accomplished by rising up new generations of decent, law-abiding, people-loving, and God-fearing citizens.
And how can we create such a society?
I believe our Founding Fathers had the answer: by not being afraid to establish some common absolutes, a code of conduct, like the Ten Commandments.
Chuck Norris is the star of more than 20 films and the long-running TV series "Walker, Texas Ranger." His book, "Against All Odds," tells the inspirational story of how he overcame abject poverty from childhood, the effects of his father's alcoholism and desertion of the family, and his own shyness and lack of strength and ability early in his life. Learn more about his life and ministry at his official website, ChuckNorris.com.
WORLDNETDAILY EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
America's code of silence
Posted: November 20, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53032
Don't Speak About Religion And Politics?
Over the past couple of years there has been much debate over the civil display of religious inscriptions, like the Ten Commandments (also called the Decalogue).
I was shocked to read this past week Bob Unruh's exclusives on WND about how the U.S. Supreme Court is even now silencing the truths about the Commandments in its own building.
People often say to stay clear of discussing religion and politics. True patriots don't do that. That is why I will address both in this article.
Revolutionary Thought about the Decalogue
I've learned some things recently about the Ten Commandments and the foundations of our country, excellently documented by David Barton and Wall Builders
Let me share just a few with you.
Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, paragraph 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago: ''The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God – the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.''
John Quincy Adams, who fought during the Revolution, served under four presidents before becoming one, and who was nominated (but declined) a position on the U. S. Supreme Court under President Madison, similarly declared: ''The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes ... of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.''
John Witherspoon, president of Princeton and signer of the Declaration, and one who served on over one hundred committees while in Congress, declared: ''The Ten Commandments .. are the sum of the moral law.''
The fact is our Founding Fathers introduced the tenets of the Ten Commandments not only into their families but into law, to promote civility and morality for everyone.
God's Law and the Law of the Land
Of course our founders were merely passing along the religious and moral baton, as the Colonialists handed it to them.
The proof of that is found in the fact that every early American Colony (all thirteen except Rhode Island under Roger Williams) incorporated the complete Decalogue into its own civil code of laws.
For example, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution, stated that the governor and his council of six elected officials would ''have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.''
Even in 1638, the Rhode Island government adopted ''all those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby. Exod. 24. 3, 4; 2 Chron. II. 3; 2 Kings. II. 17.''
The following year, in 1639, the New Haven Colony unanimously adopted its ''Fundamental Articles'' to govern that Colony as well with ''the Scriptures.''
From Pride to Silence
Historians, government officials, and even our courts used to proudly declare our country's relationship with the Ten Commandments.
As late as 1917, the Supreme Court of North Carolina declared:
Our laws are founded upon the Decalogue, not that every case can be exactly decided according to what is there enjoined, but we can never safely depart from this short, but great, declaration of moral principles, without founding the law upon the sand instead of upon the eternal rock of justice and equity.
In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court similarly made known:
A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue ...
Unfortunately, America's once code of conduct has now turned into a code of silence!
The Ten Amendments?
It doesn't take a historian to figure out that the Ten Commandments and its law giver (Moses) played a very significant role in the moral and civil foundations of our nation.
Their influence was so profound that their imagery was indelibly displayed upon many civil structures and monuments, both state and federal.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin created a seal for the new United States, each separately proposing Moses and the Exodus prominently in the symbol.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, Moses is the only one of twenty-three law givers facing with a full-frontal view, still staring down on the proceedings.
Even on the U.S. Supreme Court, there are six depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments, though, as WND recently reported, tourists are now being told there is only one, and that the tablets etched with the Roman Numerals I-V and VI-X now depict the ''Ten Amendments'' or the Bill of Rights.
Such blatant educational oversight is one of the reasons I've joined with The National Council on Bible Curriculum to bring a state certified Bible course (elective) into the public schools nationwide. You can join us.
Follow Our Fathers
Friends, I am a patriot and an optimist at heart. I must admit, however, that recent attempts these past few years to suppress the truths about our country's heritage are raising even my blood pressure.
I believe the voices of our Fathers echo down through the generations in hope of helping us remedy the rampant degradation in our nation.
I, as with many of you, still believe we can remain a great country, but that will only be accomplished by rising up new generations of decent, law-abiding, people-loving, and God-fearing citizens.
And how can we create such a society?
I believe our Founding Fathers had the answer: by not being afraid to establish some common absolutes, a code of conduct, like the Ten Commandments.
Chuck Norris is the star of more than 20 films and the long-running TV series "Walker, Texas Ranger." His book, "Against All Odds," tells the inspirational story of how he overcame abject poverty from childhood, the effects of his father's alcoholism and desertion of the family, and his own shyness and lack of strength and ability early in his life. Learn more about his life and ministry at his official website, ChuckNorris.com.
Cross Removal: A Dangerous Precedent?
Cross Removal: A Dangerous Precedent?
Sarah K. Cron
CBN News
November 16, 2006
CBNNews.com - The removal of an historic chapel cross at the College of William & Mary is not taking well with many alumni and students. They're fighting back with petitions and appeals to school leaders.
The school's president had the cross removed in an effort to be less "faith-specific." Students and alumni fighting for the cross are concerned about where such thinking regarding the removal of a religious symbol might lead.
Several petitioners, from various belief backgrounds, claim that the logic used to remove the cross sets the precedence for removing any offending symbols.
"By conceding that students and citizens have a solemn right not to be offended by public symbols and by elevating above all else the sensibilities of those who may not feel sufficiently 'welcomed,'" said Bill Reidway, 1995 graduate, "Nichol is setting the stage for the exclusion from society all things religious, ethnic, and cultural."
Vince Haley, a 1988 graduate, and several current students are petitioning the college's Board of Visitors to reverse a decision by the president that removed the two-foot tall gold cross from the Wren Chapel altar where it had been on display for more than 75 years.
Haley, with the help of several current students, started an online petition in an effort to restore the cross to the altar. That drive garnered more than 1,400 signature, and the petition was handed to board leaders Thursday before they began their quarterly meetings.
In October, college President Gene R. Nichol confirmed to students through an e-mail that the cross was removed to make the space less "faith-specific" and more " welcoming" to people of all faiths. The cross was earlier removed from behind the chapel altar and locked in a nearby closet. "Let me be clear. I have not banished the cross from the Wren Chapel," Nichol wrote in the e-mail. ".But the Chapel is also used frequently for college events that are secular in nature - and should be open to students and staff of all beliefs."
Haley said that because colleges are leaders in social debate, points of disagreement or offense should remain open for discussion, not removed.
"We think it was a radical decision and inconsistent with intellectual tradition at William & Mary," he said. Deciding to remove the cross "extinguishes the very candle that gives light and warmth to the place."
The college's Board of Visitors, led by Michael Powell, graduate and son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, could possibly take up the matter Friday before adjourning.
"I'd be very surprised if they don't consider the matter," Haley said. "Hopefully, they will evaluate how the president made the decision. People are very upset by it."
Last week, legislation was introduced to the Student Assembly Senate that would have restored the previous policy of allowing the cross be displayed unless its removal was requested for certain events, according to The Virginia Informer, an independent student paper. That proposal was rejected by a 14-4 vote, with two abstentions.
If the board does not consider the petition tomorrow, Haley said that he and others will continue to pursue the issue.
"William and Mary tradition is to engage in reasoned argument," he said. "We will continue to make the argument that this is wrong."
Nichol could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The College of William & Mary has maintained an informal relationship with the historic Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg since the American Revolution. After being renovated, the parish gave its altar cross to the college's Wren Chapel for permanent display. Video clip courtesy of CBN Reporter Heather Sells.
Sarah K. Cron
CBN News
November 16, 2006
CBNNews.com - The removal of an historic chapel cross at the College of William & Mary is not taking well with many alumni and students. They're fighting back with petitions and appeals to school leaders.
The school's president had the cross removed in an effort to be less "faith-specific." Students and alumni fighting for the cross are concerned about where such thinking regarding the removal of a religious symbol might lead.
Several petitioners, from various belief backgrounds, claim that the logic used to remove the cross sets the precedence for removing any offending symbols.
"By conceding that students and citizens have a solemn right not to be offended by public symbols and by elevating above all else the sensibilities of those who may not feel sufficiently 'welcomed,'" said Bill Reidway, 1995 graduate, "Nichol is setting the stage for the exclusion from society all things religious, ethnic, and cultural."
Vince Haley, a 1988 graduate, and several current students are petitioning the college's Board of Visitors to reverse a decision by the president that removed the two-foot tall gold cross from the Wren Chapel altar where it had been on display for more than 75 years.
Haley, with the help of several current students, started an online petition in an effort to restore the cross to the altar. That drive garnered more than 1,400 signature, and the petition was handed to board leaders Thursday before they began their quarterly meetings.
In October, college President Gene R. Nichol confirmed to students through an e-mail that the cross was removed to make the space less "faith-specific" and more " welcoming" to people of all faiths. The cross was earlier removed from behind the chapel altar and locked in a nearby closet. "Let me be clear. I have not banished the cross from the Wren Chapel," Nichol wrote in the e-mail. ".But the Chapel is also used frequently for college events that are secular in nature - and should be open to students and staff of all beliefs."
Haley said that because colleges are leaders in social debate, points of disagreement or offense should remain open for discussion, not removed.
"We think it was a radical decision and inconsistent with intellectual tradition at William & Mary," he said. Deciding to remove the cross "extinguishes the very candle that gives light and warmth to the place."
The college's Board of Visitors, led by Michael Powell, graduate and son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, could possibly take up the matter Friday before adjourning.
"I'd be very surprised if they don't consider the matter," Haley said. "Hopefully, they will evaluate how the president made the decision. People are very upset by it."
Last week, legislation was introduced to the Student Assembly Senate that would have restored the previous policy of allowing the cross be displayed unless its removal was requested for certain events, according to The Virginia Informer, an independent student paper. That proposal was rejected by a 14-4 vote, with two abstentions.
If the board does not consider the petition tomorrow, Haley said that he and others will continue to pursue the issue.
"William and Mary tradition is to engage in reasoned argument," he said. "We will continue to make the argument that this is wrong."
Nichol could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The College of William & Mary has maintained an informal relationship with the historic Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg since the American Revolution. After being renovated, the parish gave its altar cross to the college's Wren Chapel for permanent display. Video clip courtesy of CBN Reporter Heather Sells.
"How should I witness to a homosexual?"
"How should I witness to a homosexual?"
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/howshouldiwitnesstoahomosexual.shtml
Rather than offend homosexuals by directly confronting the issue of their sinful lifestyle, modern evangelism often tries to soften the approach by saying that "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner." This isn’t a new concept.
Charles Finney stated, "God is not angry merely against the sin abstracted from the sinner, but against the sinner himself. Some persons have labored hard to set up this ridiculous and absurd abstraction, and would fain make it appear that God is angry at sin, yet not at the sinner. He hates the theft, but loves the thief. He abhors adultery, but is pleased with the adulterer. Now this is supreme nonsense. The sin has no moral character apart from the sinner. The act is nothing apart from the actor. The very thing that God hates and disapproves is not the mere event—the thing done in distinction from the doer; but it is the doer himself. It grieves and displeases Him that a rational moral agent, under His government, should array himself against his own God and Father, against all that is right and just in the universe. This is the thing that offends God. The sinner himself is the direct and the only object of his anger."
So the Bible shows. God is angry with the wicked [Psalm 7:11], not with the abstract sin. If the wicked turn not, God will whet His sword—He has bent His bow and made it ready—not to shoot at the sin, but the sinner—the wicked man who has done the abominable thing. This is the only doctrine of either the Bible or of common sense on this subject" (The Guilt of Sin).
The biblical way to witness to a homosexual is not to argue with him about his lifestyle but to use the Law to bring the knowledge of sin. This will show him that he is guilty of breaking God’s holy Law, and he is damned not because of, but despite his sexual preference. The Law was made for homosexuals, as well as other lawbreakers. See Psalm 5:5 and 2 Peter 2:6–8 footnotes.
Once the homosexual acknowledges their sin, and are humbled (not proud of it), then they are ready for the grace message found only in the Good News of Jesus Christ. This is the same formula used to witness to any other type of sinner (adultery, liars, thiefs, drunkards, etc.) The formula is always: Law to the proud, Grace to the humble.
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/howshouldiwitnesstoahomosexual.shtml
Rather than offend homosexuals by directly confronting the issue of their sinful lifestyle, modern evangelism often tries to soften the approach by saying that "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner." This isn’t a new concept.
Charles Finney stated, "God is not angry merely against the sin abstracted from the sinner, but against the sinner himself. Some persons have labored hard to set up this ridiculous and absurd abstraction, and would fain make it appear that God is angry at sin, yet not at the sinner. He hates the theft, but loves the thief. He abhors adultery, but is pleased with the adulterer. Now this is supreme nonsense. The sin has no moral character apart from the sinner. The act is nothing apart from the actor. The very thing that God hates and disapproves is not the mere event—the thing done in distinction from the doer; but it is the doer himself. It grieves and displeases Him that a rational moral agent, under His government, should array himself against his own God and Father, against all that is right and just in the universe. This is the thing that offends God. The sinner himself is the direct and the only object of his anger."
So the Bible shows. God is angry with the wicked [Psalm 7:11], not with the abstract sin. If the wicked turn not, God will whet His sword—He has bent His bow and made it ready—not to shoot at the sin, but the sinner—the wicked man who has done the abominable thing. This is the only doctrine of either the Bible or of common sense on this subject" (The Guilt of Sin).
The biblical way to witness to a homosexual is not to argue with him about his lifestyle but to use the Law to bring the knowledge of sin. This will show him that he is guilty of breaking God’s holy Law, and he is damned not because of, but despite his sexual preference. The Law was made for homosexuals, as well as other lawbreakers. See Psalm 5:5 and 2 Peter 2:6–8 footnotes.
Once the homosexual acknowledges their sin, and are humbled (not proud of it), then they are ready for the grace message found only in the Good News of Jesus Christ. This is the same formula used to witness to any other type of sinner (adultery, liars, thiefs, drunkards, etc.) The formula is always: Law to the proud, Grace to the humble.
Gay Marriage Debate Continues in Mass.
Gay Marriage Debate Continues in Mass.
CBN News
November 17, 2006
CBNNews.com -- The governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, is demanding that state lawmakers let voters decide on gay marriage.
Romney will appear at a rally Sunday on the issue.
Last week Massachusetts lawmakers decided to recess instead of considering a ballot measure that would leave the issue up to the people.
More than 170,000 citizens signed a petition in support of the ballot question.
It would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Romney says "people have a right to participate," but lawmakers who support gay marriage say there's no mandate requiring them to vote.
A similar amendment on gay marriage died in 2002 when lawmakers refused to vote on it.
Homosexuality is increasingly accepted in our culture.
Many Christians want to know how they can effectively reach out to homosexuals without compromising what the Bible says about same-sex relationships.
For a closer look at the issue, watch an interview with Alan Chambers, author of the book God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.
Chamber is also president of Exodus International, a ministry for those struggling with homosexuality.
CBN News
November 17, 2006
CBNNews.com -- The governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, is demanding that state lawmakers let voters decide on gay marriage.
Romney will appear at a rally Sunday on the issue.
Last week Massachusetts lawmakers decided to recess instead of considering a ballot measure that would leave the issue up to the people.
More than 170,000 citizens signed a petition in support of the ballot question.
It would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Romney says "people have a right to participate," but lawmakers who support gay marriage say there's no mandate requiring them to vote.
A similar amendment on gay marriage died in 2002 when lawmakers refused to vote on it.
Homosexuality is increasingly accepted in our culture.
Many Christians want to know how they can effectively reach out to homosexuals without compromising what the Bible says about same-sex relationships.
For a closer look at the issue, watch an interview with Alan Chambers, author of the book God's Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.
Chamber is also president of Exodus International, a ministry for those struggling with homosexuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
