Politicians accuse each other of failure, which is to be expected. Each side has their “narrative,” and the truth often loses out (although I am thankful for the honest and courageous ones who do speak the truth).

But since I’m not a politician, but instead have a prophetic journalistic voice, I will speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

There is one area in particular where it is hard to find the truth spoken by either Republicans or Democrats: namely, this whole idea that Muslim people yearn for democracy. It is a glaring short-sightedness that both sides hold in common.

To be sure, many of my Muslim friends long for Western-style democracy and freedom. But they are always thwarted (and always will be) by the majority view. That is why even those friends of mine would admit that democracy is incompatible with Islamic ideology.

Knowledgeable people will agree that democracy and freedom is a delicate rose that was planted in the soil of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation turned the people of the dark ages back to the Bible, with its deeply-rooted respect for the individual.

The Bible unequivocally declares that God values “the individual.” God not only created a man and a woman to be compatible in every way, but God gave man the management responsibility for His creation—thus God placed “the individual” at the helm of importance.

The Christian faith testifies to the fact that although humans fell in the Garden of Eden, God saw fit to redeem them at a colossal cost to Himself—such is the value he places on us.

That is the soil that gave Western democracy its ideals.  

Now enter some misguided Republicans and Democrats who think that the ideology of Islam can be rehabilitated and made compatible with Western Christian values.

Neither political side understands that, contrary to the biblical view of man, the root of Islamic ideology declares that man is of no consequence. Allah is. The human individual is of no value; he is only to serve the whim of Allah, his prophet, and the successors (caliphates) of the prophets of Islam. Democracy and freedom rise from the bottom up, whereas Islam is a top-down ideology—Allah, whose words they claim to have received, is all that matters.

So when George W. Bush often said that freedom is “God's gift to humanity,” thoughtful people needed to ask some important questions.

Such as, which God? Yahweh, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ? Or Allah of 7^th century Arabia?

As well-intentioned as his administration was, a cursory look at our effort to bring democracy to Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Egypt offer proof of the apparent impossibility of the task.

And when President Obama speaks of Muslims yearning for freedom as we do, one must ask: whose definition of freedom is he talking about?

Well over 90 percent of the Islamic states that signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and the right to freedom of religion contained within it—would immediately qualify it by declaring that “freedom” means freedom to be a slave of Allah and nothing more.

That is why the definition of freedom is so important. Using that emotive word sounds good in the Western press, but it is meaningless in Islamic culture. Just take a look at the president’s efforts in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt for confirmation.

To get a taste of the dominant view of Islamic ideology, one need only watch the countless videos of Islamic religious leaders available on the internet. Videos like the one of Egyptian Cleric Sheik Murgan Salem after the Boston bombing will help skeptics understand why I hold such contrarian opinions.

Those men do not speak only for a few; they speak for the vast majority. Regardless of whether it’s the one who declares that U.S. aid is a jeziah that infidels must pay to Muslims, or the one who says that Islam will one day dominate the West, they all prove the folly of not facing the facts.

As long as that folly is shared in a bipartisan fashion, the prospects for peace in the world will be very bleak. 

Tweet

In his article, Toobin wrote: “There are really only two reasons that gay marriage is still illegal in more than three-quarters of the country: that’s the way it has always been; and the very idea of same-sex marriage makes some people, well, uncomfortable.”

Then he went on to define that discomfort as “tradition and bigotry.” So much for returning the tolerance they preach and demand from others—others who actually have legitimate reasons for their beliefs.

The gay lobby—which I contend is the most powerful lobby in America today—has successfully infiltrated the minds of the less-grounded generation. And with that infiltration, they have dismissed the importance of what the Creator Himself demands of His creation.

They have succeeded in framing the argument, not from the creation point of view, but from one of justice and human rights. And who could oppose human rights? I, for one, applaud every effort to give the 100 million persecuted Christians around the world their human right to be left alone in peace.

But according to gay activists, human rights demand that gay couples be allowed to marry regardless of their gender. They are attracted to each other—why shouldn’t they marry?

That is a flawed argument, however. Marriage is a far more significant institution than trivializing it as between any two people who like each other.

In the Jewish and Christian understanding of creation, the Creator has ordained marriage for a far greater purpose than that short-sighted and shallow definition.

As the Anglican Book of Common Prayer declares: “Marriage is an honorable estate, instituted by God . . . and therefore not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering the causes for which matrimony was ordained.”

Marriage is far from the concept of being just for two people who love each other—whether it be for a month, a year, or longer. Marriage is far from a hunger for sexual pleasure in whatever way one deems fit. Marriage is far from the idea that, if it feels good, then society must support you in doing it.

The Creator ordained marriage for three vital reasons: for the survival of humanity, for the procreation of children, and for lifelong companionship—specifically a lifelong companionship where one finds the only proper expression of sexual intimacy.

The Maker of humankind instituted that triune foundational bedrock, and one’s lack of religious beliefs cannot alter that elemental truth.

Many people argue that marriage cannot be looked upon with that triune purpose because so many marriages fail. The institution itself is damaged goods, they say. But that’s a false argument. Even if all marriages were to fail, that would not negate the purpose for which it was ordained.

Here’s the crux of the matter: loving someone, even if one intends for that love to be permanent, is not enough to constitute marriage. That trivializes marriage.

Although love is an essential ingredient for marriage, it is by no means the only ingredient—especially when that love is of the selfish nature so common today. Emotional love and good feelings will ebb and flow. But lifelong, deep commitment between a man and a woman, buttressed by children, is the Creator’s purpose for marriage.

Children need a father and mother. And the concept of a father and mother is based on a male/female relationship. There’s no getting around that. It is a foundational concept. But in bowing down to the powerful gay lobby, ten state legislatures have politicized and trivialized it.

I understand that some homosexual activists want recognition and feel that homosexual marriage is the only way for society to recognize them. But even if that happens, they won’t stop there. The next stage will be the demand that homosexual marriage be, not only protected and privileged, but preached as a virtue—even superior to natural marriage.

For deep down—too deep for some of them to admit or even recognize—they know they were created in the Creator’s image and are going against His ordained order. Thus their conflicted conscience will drive them to push society for more and more recognition. They will not be able to stop.

That is the proper understanding of the “gay marriage” debate. It is far more than just intimidating the people they falsely accuse of “bigotry.” It craves and demands respect, even from those who disagree with it.

I, for one, respect people with whom I disagree. That’s just general human courtesy. But no amount of name-calling will give those who reject the created order the respect they seek. That can only come from within, from a conscience that is aligned with God’s will for His world. 

Tweet

Why would a president who claims to be a Christian seem to deliberately help install and collaborate with an Islamist government in Egypt? Many highly-placed Egyptian leaders have revealed that his collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood began long before President Mubarak’s fall.

Why would Mr. Obama remain silent after being informed again and again of the atrocities committed against Christians in Egypt—atrocities committed by the very government he helped bring to power?

Why would Mr. Obama allow Egypt to remain as the second-highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid while the greatest terrorist build up since al Qaida in Afghanistan now takes place in the Sinai Desert?

Why would Mr. Obama offer no public criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood after their police stood watch while the Coptic Cathedral was attacked by Islamists and then tear-gassed by the police themselves?

Why would the so-called “leader” of the so-called “free world” remain silent while other world leaders speak up? Recently, Angela Merkel of Germany boldly stated that “Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world” Mr. Obama, however, says nothing.

The answer to the question of “why” can only come from evaluating the man who has now been on the national scene for ten years.

First, we must look at how President Obama views himself. He has convinced many of us that he is a man who is in love with himself. Self-worshipers also love to be worshiped by others, especially by those whom they deem to be important.

Notice how he loves to speak to young people, for example. He admitted as much while in Israel recently. The young people of this generation, who feed on the language of text messaging and Twitter, tend not to be very analytical. Their limited experience, plus the “wanting everything for nothing” attitude of youth, offers a soothing response to a president who can speak their language.

Second, Mr. Obama is very selective in the use of tragedies. He capitalizes on them if they promote his worldview, and he ignores or minimizes them if they do not.

Take the Fort Hood massacre, for example. After he heard about the shooting right before giving a speech, Mr. Obama then spent the first two minutes of his speech saying nothing about the tragedy; instead he gave a “shout out” to someone in the audience and pushed for the passage of health care reform.

However, when it came to the equally tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the president decided to follow the words of his one-time chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and would not let a crisis go to waste. Mr. Obama has used that tragedy to begin dismantling the Second Amendment.

To be sure, that selective use of crisis is not unique to President Obama. Other presidents have used it before. But he has perfected it to an art form.

Which brings me to his tin ear toward the desperately suffering Christians in Egypt and elsewhere.

The Egyptian Christians and their supporters will not worship Mr. Obama, and since they aren’t compatible with his personal agenda, he cannot exploit their crisis for his gain. So helping them would not serve his purpose. It’s too bad that the persecuted Christians don’t have friends among the elite of Hollywood; then the White House would have received them with open arms.

Whether the president believes it or not, the Day of Judgment is coming when the mighty and powerful will face the Judge of all the earth. And He will not be intimidated nor persuaded by office holders or celebrities.

This Judge will not only see actions and words, but He will also read the secrets of hearts and minds. He will judge motives and intentions. His judgment will not be open to loopholes nor insanity pleas. He will not be clouded by rationalizations of political expedience, nor the excuse of “my advisors made me do it.”

I plead with Mr. Obama to examine the Scriptures and read about those who stand with the persecuted and the sufferers. I plead with Mr. Obama to convert his tin ear into an ear attuned to the sound of their plight.  

Tweet