Monday, June 8, 2015

Josh Duggar and Hypocrisy

I’m seething after listening to an NPR report (Morning Edition, 8 June 15) on the recent scandal involving Josh Duggar, the 26 year old son of the reality TV family “19 Kids and Counting.” I’ve never seen an episode of the show, but the themes are well-enough known. A Christian family, which avoids birth control (and apparently practices lots of sex), raises a massive brood of children. They are outspoken advocates of “traditional family values” and lend support to conservative political campaigns. Now they are exposed as hypocrites – at least that is what NPR and other media outlets would have us believe.

This much is known and admitted by Josh and the Duggar family. Twelve years ago Josh fondled five sleeping girls, four of which are his sisters. He did this over their clothes while they were sleeping. This become known to the parents who then sought Christian counseling and secured the sleeping girls away from further opportunities to molest. A year later (I don’t know why), they had Josh talk to the police about what he did. He was not convicted of a crime. Now, InTouch magazine heard a rumor about the molestations and obtained his juvenile arrest record through a Freedom of Information request. They then ran story on the incidents. Josh has now lost his job with the Family Research Council and the TV show’s fate is in question.

Mike Huckabee has defended the Duggars and so has Sarah Palin. Rick Santorum has said that he is “sickened” by the story. NPR covered the story by interviewing its own TV critic, who highlighted the Duggar’s hypocrisy while mentioning most of what I outlined above.

From a journalism perspective, their coverage was a colossal failure. The charge of hypocrisy is laughable. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another, it is not sinlessness accompanying morality. It is not necessary for a person holding morals to be sinless. The Duggars intervened and stopped Josh’s sin. They say it was wrong and Josh says it was wrong. As far was we know, he has not done anything else like this. Hillary Clinton cozied up to Jews to win her New York Senate seat, all the while known privately as an inveterate anti-Semite. That’s hypocrisy.

NPR didn’t mention that the release of the juvenile police records is possibly illegal. Juvenile court records are sealed, because of precisely these kinds of situations. Do we want juvenile bad decisions ruining people’s lives as adults? There may be a loophole in the law which technically allows for the release of the police records and not the court records. This is brazenly unethical because it affords protection for kids convicted of crimes that it doesn’t afford for kids accused of crimes. The police records are never released for that reason.

NPR mentioned Sarah Palin crying hypocrisy at the media, but studiously avoided her reasoning. Media darling Lena Dunham admitted to kissing and touching the naked genitals of her (now lesbian) sister and they went into hysterics when Truth Revolt accused her of sexual abuse. How is it different? The mainstream media has ignored the story or defended Dunham. I think the double standard DOES merit the hypocrisy label.

Other important questions are also completely ignored by NPR. To what extent should a young teen be forced to pay for his wrongdoings into adulthood? Who decides which wrongdoings if the legal system doesn’t? The legal system decided that he WOULDN’T pay for this into adulthood. Who now can say that he should? Apparently a magazine can.

Should disclosures of this type be governed at all by the needs of the victims. Four of the five victims are sisters. Two of the sisters, perhaps speaking for the others, have said that they are more hurt by this public disclosure of a private matter than they were from the actual molestation. Was this disclosure about protecting children or hurting the Duggars?

The Duggars have been excoriated for waiting a year to report to the police. Are we setting the standard that parents must report their minor children for sexual contact with other minors? In all cases? Lena Dunham.

I await the vast trove of disclosures of the childhood sins of prominent liberals. I’m sure I will die waiting.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Question to Muslims

I have revised my article, Muslims or Mohammadeans, because of some renewed interest in it, by adding documentation to many of the statements. I'm interested in what you think about it, especially if you are a Muslim.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Operation United Front

(Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller)

It was bound to happen. Anders Breivik set off a bomb in Oslo and then killed nearly seventy young people at a political retreat and the mainstream media (CNN, BBC, ad nauseum) have now discovered the greatest threat to peace, democracy and human rights on the plant. And the answer is...wait for it...wait for it...

Conservative Christians and anti-jihadist bloggers. They discovered that - gasp - in the 1500 page manifesto that Breivik uploaded before he went on his terror spree there are references to Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (noted anti-jihadist bloggers, authors and speakers), Mark Steyn (conservative columnist and radio personality), and others. Basically, it works like this: Because they and others have pointed out the link between Islamic terrorism and Islam, they are guilty of inciting violence. It's a little like blaming an abused wife for reporting her husband by saying that she "asked for it" by her complaining. Nice.

The problem is the anti-jihadist movement is a movement of non-violence campaigning against violence. No mainstream anti-jihadist supports, explicitly or implicitly, violence against Muslims or others, except in unavoidable self-defense and by lawful governments taking lawful actions against unlawful combatants. In other words, none of us are complaining about bin Laden's demise at the hand of Seal Team Six.

All of the alleged "Christian terrorists" are actually non-Christians that the Left are trying to baptize after the fact. Tim McVeigh was a non-Christian white supremist. Jared Loughner was a non-Christian who read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Anders Breivik is a "cultural Christian" who explicitly rejects the key tenets of Christianity. No Christians, no Jews, all of the terrorists are atheists and Muslims (mostly and overwhelmingly, Muslims). Loughner was a big fan of children's literature (Lewis Carroll). I wonder what THAT means?

Particularly galling to Muslims and the Left is the initial reporting that the Oslo and youth camp attacks were the work of jihadists. To the Left this is just more evidence of the Right's hatred and incitement against Muslims. I wonder why the anti-jihadists suspected Muslims? Maybe it was that an Islamic terrorist organization took responsibility, or maybe it was that Muslims took to the streets in celebration, or perhaps it was just that Muslims have committed over 17,000 acts of terror since 9/11? Christians and Jews? Zilch. Hmmmm.

With all that said, I stand with Zilla in the United Front of Resistance in support of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, the Gates of Vienna, and other bloggers seeking to make the world aware of the darkness and violence of Islam. The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to do so in order to protect children and women and resist the lies of the false prophet Muhammed.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Missions and Heresy: A Short Video on the Insider Movement

This is a video which explains the challenge facing Christian missions in the Islamic world today. Many evangelicals have been captivated by a missions heresy which teaches Muslims to stay in the mosque and that Mohammed is a prophet of God. Several MAJOR evangelical organizations have bought into this.

Church Takes Stand on IM & JIQ from Mark Stephan on Vimeo.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Oslo, Norway 2011 - What a Difference a Savior Makes

In keeping with the principle that early reports of tragedies are almost always riddled with inaccuracies, the Oslo terror attack and the massacre of youth at the island retreat in Norway continue to get stranger and more horrific. It turns out, to the shock even of Muslims, that the bombing and massacre are probably NOT the work of a Islamic terrorist organization, but instead the work of a lone non-Muslim, Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik seems not only to not be a Muslim, but a right-wing anti-islamist radical who MIGHT consider himself a Christian.

First, the qualifiers before the commentary.

It is telling that even Muslims thought that this was the work of Islamic terrorists. Muslims have been planning and plotting to attack Norway since the publication of the "Mo-toons" in accordance with Sharia (which affords Mohammed more honor than Allah). So jubilant criticisms of anti-jihadists are pretty empty, like this tool on JihadWatch.

JihadWatch has reported that this guy tried to join a huge Facebook group "Stop the Islamisation of Europe" but was rejected because he had neo-Nazi material on his FB page. Do you think that ANY prominent Muslim group is as scrupulous as that? Not a chance. That apparently hasn't stopped the media from trying to blame the same anti-jihadists who rejected the guy.

There's some reported that Breivik is a Christian, but Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs (love that woman!) has found evidence that the identifiers "Christian" and "Conservative" were added AFTER THE ATTACKS. I wonder why someone would do that?

There is no mainstream Christian group or group of any size which advocates violence. There is no conservative group connected with the anti-jihad movement which advocates violence, even obliquely.

Here's the commentary.

When Muslims commit acts of violence, Islamo-apologists always turn the conversation to "intolerance" of Muslims or "offenses" against Islam as the cause. Islam is the most blame-shifting religion on the planet. Every time a Muslim commits an act of violence, it is someone else's fault, the Christians, the Jews, Israel, poverty, name-calling, ANYTHING but the offender and Islam.

Breivik is SOLELY responsible for his actions. It doesn't matter if a Muslim blew up his church or raped his sister, NOTHING excuses or causes his actions. He is to blame and anyone who directly helped or encouraged him is to blame as well. This is NOT the Muslims' or the Liberals' fault. I do not blame them, none of us do. You will not hear Robert Spencer or Wafa Sultan blaming this on anyone except the perpetrator. Christianity and Judaism (and the worldviews they spin off) are religions of personal responsibility and accountability.

If this killer actually calls himself a Christian, and he probably doesn't, he is an apostate from Christ and destined for hell and eternal punishment after he receives justice from Norway. Breivik cannot be a Christian and an unrepentant murderer or terrorist. There is no place for offensive violence in Christianity. Christians are not allowed to commit murder because of offenses against their religion. When Jesus said, "Love your neighbor," he meant everyone, not just Christians or fellow conservatives. Unlike Islam, I might add.

Christians, even Christians who believe that violence is appropriate in defending live, do not believe that anyone can act as judge, jury and executioner. Only a lawful government can wage war, and even then it must be a just war. Only a court can convict, and then only after a lawful proceeding. Only a magistrate can bring punishment after a lawful proceeding. And even then, it is outside of the responsibility of the magistrates to compel people to adhere to religious tenets. The magistrate can jail someone for burning a church, but not for criticizing Christianity or Jesus.

But even all of this leaves a question. If Breivik really was a Neo-Nazi who hated Muslims, why did he attack a government building? And if he hated the government, why did he attack a bunch of teens at a retreat, even if the retreat was sponsored by a Liberal government? The answer is that hate destroys reason. Whether the hate is in the heart of a jihadist or a neo-Nazi, it has a corrupting and terrible influence on the mind and heart. If the root of bitterness grows it hardens the heart and represses what makes us human, an innate sense of righteousness which restrains us from evil. In the guise of "battling evil," a person can himself become evil.

Does this mean that we should not expose Islam because it might "radicalize" a non-Muslim to violence? If so, then we should also not report on the Norway massacres because it might "radicalize" a liberal or a Muslim. Denial may be the way of the modern world, but it never works. The only ultimate escape is to condemn the violence and transcend the hate. This is what the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" has discovered in South Africa. And while I know that there are plenty of Christians who are able to reject hate, it is the common grace of God which enables. When Ghandi said, "Hate the sin but love the sinner," he was quoting Augustine.

It isn't denial of the evil of Islam that will save us, but a recognition of sin and compassion for the sinner. Muslims need the same thing that the Oslo terrorist does, the forgiveness and renewal of Christ.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

New Tobacco Shipment

Here's my latest shipment of pipeweed. All four of these are untried by my inexperienced palate. I wonder if there are any smokers out there with opinions or recollections about these blends. Comments?

Video Confirms Islam's Civilizing Influence

Not really, it actually confirms that Islam makes people angry, vulgar (in the pejorative sense of the world), aggressive and dishonest. This is a video of an apparently Muslim Background Believer (MBB) preaching at an "Arab festival" in Dearborn, Michigan. The crowd becomes more aggressive throughout the video, increasingly trying to shout the preacher down with tones that sound like they're trying to start a fight. There is quite a bit of screaming and f-bombing and the Muslim bystanders are stealing from the preacher's backpack as he's trying to engage them.

A few thoughts:

This preacher is an amazing guy. He loves Jesus and it shows. He doesn't love his life so much as to shrink back from death (Rev. 12:11). He also loves these people who are hating him, never responding in kind to their anger and abuse.

The foul language (with all of the rest of the abuse) is telling, not because he's getting abused in that way (which happens to street preachers all of the time), but because he's being abused in that way IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. This is obscene religious abuse. In Islam there is no real holiness; don't let the burkha thing fool you - it's not about holiness, it's about power. Remember that bin Laden was killed with porn under his bed. Mohammed was a vulgar and profane man who lived to satisfy and justify his urges. This is real Islam. This is why Jihad Watch can publish a piece where a prominent Imam can tell his followers that it is more important that they be strong and aggressive than holy.

They are openly stealing from him because it is not stealing to steal from an infidel. Mohammed was a thief and a brigand who justified his thievery with religion. This is part of a Muslim worldview. There is no love of neighbor in Islam. There is no real equivalent to the Golden Rule.

Kudos to the young Muslim who did his best to protect the preacher. He proves the rule, There are moderate Muslims, just no moderate Islam. He wasn't being a good Muslim, but thankfully he was being a good man.

Huge hat tip to Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch for posting this. Credits to David Wood at for the video itself.

And today I smoked a vanilla mixture called "Moontrance" just because it isn't that bad and I just can't give ALL my tobacco to my good friend Bob, which is where half of it ends up when I can't smoke it. And I can smoke Moontrance, it's just embarrassing and not terribly good.