Genesis 3:4-5. “But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’.” This was the original appeal to the foundational sin and desire of the human race, “you will be like God”, also known as pride. What are the godlike attributes of humans? Only the ability to create, or procreate, life, and the ability to take life. These are also the battlefields of incompatible worldviews. I am going to talk about the worldviews from the perspective of what their respective scriptures or true adherents say, not what every individual does, because the heart of man is “desperately wicked.”
The Christian views about procreation is that God wants human offspring to have dominion over the earth for the purpose of stewardship until the day God’s kingdom is ushered in, and to spread the knowledge of God throughout the earth. In that worldview, sexual activity is for those lofty purposes, and to give pleasure in the marital bond. Women in that worldview are companions, helpers, responders, and the Bible says that women must be treated with respect lest “your prayers be hindered.” God will not respond to the prayers of men who mistreat women. Sexual lust outside of the bounds of marriage is a temptation to be resisted, though Christian men (and women) are also sinners and will fall into temptations. When they do, repentance and restoration should follow. This worldview tries to honor rather than usurp God’s power to give and to take life.
Yesterday the big news was the suicide bombing murder of 22 mostly young women and children at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester England. Many more were injured. Of course, ISIS claimed responsibility, or rather boasted of the massacre. In their statement, they rejoiced in the deaths and suffering of the “crusaders.” Say what, crusaders? Most of those victims were kids. For you and I, this is insane, but to the perverted minds of jihadists, the Crusades were yesterday. But these perverted souls aren’t really fighting against the crusades, they are fighting something very ancient with a modern expression, though few will admit it and fewer still even understand what they are fighting.
We will have to go back some years, before the term “islamophobia” was invented by the apologists, in order to find some Muslim leaders who were totally honest about their real enemy. Before he got down to the brutal truth, former Grand Mufti of Australia Sheikh Taj el-din Al-Hilal, in MEMRI.ORG (Middle East Media Research Institute), Feb. 18, 2004, blamed their usual suspects: “Sheikh Al-Hilal accused the U.S. of terrorism and expressed support for martyrdom/suicide attacks: ‘We are proud of the Islamic resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, Kashmir, and everywhere in the world that seeks to achieve its legitimate rights in accordance with the international resolutions, the human rights conventions, and the U.N. resolutions. We are also proud of the Islamic resistance that liberated southern Lebanon, led by Hizbullah, the legitimate Lebanese national movement, that forced the Israeli occupation army to withdraw from southern Lebanon, dragging trails of disappointment and shame behind it.
‘We are also proud of what Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are both doing in the occupied territories. We support the resistance and support, with all our might, the martyrdom operations carried out by the Palestinian liberation movements, operations that are a legitimate act against the cruel occupation, according to all international norms and conventions. Also, whoever carries out a martyrdom [operation] is a pure Shahid and one of the men of Paradise. Moreover, he stands at the head of the Shahids.”
This is the same guy who now condemns ISIS for taking it too far. But what really underlies the Shahid terrorist jihadi worldview is something else: In another interview, Sheikh Al-Hilali discussed Muslim life in Australia: “More dangerous yet are the sex education classes in the schools. In the West, the society is divided, generally speaking, into different parts in accordance with how interesting they are. First comes caring for dogs and cats. In second place is the woman, and in third place is the child, and in fourth place is the male. Australia is one of the Western societies, and it has recently enacted laws allowing men to marry men and women to marry women. The church officially registers them… These are the dangers of freedom and permissiveness.” As a Christian, I don’t totally disagree (well, I think cats should not be lumped in with dogs, since they are more interesting, but that’s me) but generally Christians don’t kill and destroy what they disagree with.
Two years later he was even more bold in asserting their true enemy. He had a lot to say about female modesty: From The Guardian, Oct. 26, 2006. “Sheik Taj al-din al-Hilali delivered his comments in a religious address on adultery to around 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, but they only came to the attention of the wider public when they were published in the Australian paper today.
“Sheik Hilali was quoted as saying: ‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside … without cover, and the cats come to eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred’.”
Sheik Hilali, the top cleric at Sydney’s largest mosque, is considered the most senior Islamic leader by many Muslims in Australia and New Zealand. He has served as an adviser to the Australian government on Muslim issues, but has attracted controversy before. In 2004 he was criticised for saying, in a sermon in Lebanon, that the September 11 attacks were “God’s work against the oppressors”.
This is the second incompatible worldview: While he says “it is the duty of man to avert his glance or walk away,” a sentiment I do agree with–though in my own weakness and bad thought habits I often fail to observe–too often men in his world transmute their guilt about their lusting into the Shahid jihadi version of Islam, while constructing an entire philosophy of victimhood around what they think are acceptable rationales for mass murder (to avoid confronting the real reason for their hatred of the West). Both history and an understanding of human nature should make it apparent that covering up women to protect men from lustful thoughts is futile–lust of the eyes is hard-wired. That being said, there are passages in both the Bible and the Quran that address female modesty, though those in the Quran are far more restrictive. female modesty in the Quran
The sentiment behind both the Bible and Quran passages about modesty are intended to protect women and (at least in the Bible) to honor them in their respective cultures. But that protection is from lustful actions, not thoughts. It’s a very long leap from protecting female modesty to justifying the murdering thousands of people because men so guilty and frustrated by their raging lusts have twisted their religion to call their hatred holy. I have read parts of the Quran which appear to justify murder of “infidels”, but have also read parts that condemn the murder of innocents. The Quran, or Koran, is probably the most disagreed-upon major scripture in the world. But what I absolutely believe is that the justifications explicitly used by jihadis to murder, rape and torture–such as “Muslims are victims of the west, imperialism, Zionist conspiracy, The Crusades, Israel suppressing the Palestinians,” you name it–are all political cover for the real driver, which is their unfulfilled lustful fantasies and the attendant guilt, which they project upon women. For jihadis, rape and murder are inseparable, and for the Shahids, the most twisted of all, murder comes first and rape is deferred to the afterlife. This worldview claims to do their god’s work, but is usurping the one true God’s power to take life.
Which brings me to the third incompatible worldview, the one that seeks to usurp God’s power of life and death, and to supplant God in every way: That is the worldview of total expression of sexual lust, and complete denial of it’s consequences. While it is the mirror image of the previous worldview of sexual lust suppression, it’s still a culture of death. If anything goes and there are no rules or moral codes and no deity above your own desires, then nothing has a value except what each individual assigns to it. There is no reason that children should be protected, nor should women, no reason the strongest shouldn’t rule, no reason to care for the sick or comfort those who suffer or mourn.
Such conclusions are clearly unacceptable to those high-minded promoters of total license, so like the high-minded jihadis and Shahids, they have developed elaborate political covers and self serving philosophies. Freedom is the rallying cry, but freedom from what and to do what? The cornerstone of their freedom is being like God, by exercising the power to create life through unfettered sexual activity, and exercising the power to take life by killing the unwanted consequences of the former.
When you read what these radicals are saying and add up the signs they march with (their scriptures), the equation becomes clear: The right to any kind of sexual expression – the consequences of that expression + cost to taxpayers – cost to participants of that expression = freedom. Then there is the corollary: Denial of taxpayer funding + moral code = oppression, fascism, war on women, narrow minded bigotry.
Holders of those assorted worldviews are invited to prove me wrong, by using the following formula: research + reasoned argument + supporting quotes = defensible conclusion. What I expect, however, is the old standby: ad hominem attack + name calling + accusation of __________phobia = smug sense of superiority. Their arguments will prove where they stand, like those unveiled comments of planned parenthood (this world’s ultimate euphemism!).