A Marrocan iman by the name of Khalil el-Moumni said something similar on the Dutch television program Nova in 2001, where he was invited to discuss rising incidence of anti-homosexual violence by Moroccan youths. On the show he claimed that: “if the sickness of homosexuality spreads itself, everyone can become infected”. Later, various sources reported statements from sermons of his that were published in Arabic. He had, among other things, said that “the Europeans stand lower than dogs and pigs”

The justice ministry decided to prosecute him under Dutch anti-discrimination laws. On April 4, 2002 a court in Rotterdam announced its verdict: although in principle his statements had been discriminatory against homosexuals, they were permitted on grounds of freedom of religious expression, since they were based on the Qur’an and other Muslim documents.

Gert Wilders is currently being prosecuted under the same laws, so if he is found guilty, the court has pretty much declared that there is one law for muslims and one law for non-muslims. I sincerely doubt that the judges will steep that low, but one never knows…

I believe Proverb and Geert get their info. from the same source.

I also want to point out that Proverb, once again, is making things up as he goes. He claimed that the Uganda anti-gay death penalty bill was killed by “popular Christian opposition.” That’s a lie.

Ugandans, according to Pew research, are as anti-gay as any Muslim country, or any other country on the planet, for that matter. It wasn’t just Ugandan Christians, by the way, but American Christian fundamentalists who intervened as well that supported the bill.

The reason the bill wasn’t passed is that it created an international outrage that jeopardized Uganda’s foreign aid, which it can’t afford to lose. That’s not a concern for countries like Saudi Arabia that rely on oil revenue almost exclusively.

So in addition to making the ridiculous claim that Saudi Arabia is the “heartland” of Islam – which by itself proves that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about – Proverb has given a dishonest explanation of the Uganda example in an attempt to downplay and marginalize it.

One more thing: the modern western ideas of individual liberty and democracy do not arise from the Bible. Yes, I know many evangelicals who claim this, but the fact is that neither the New Testament or the Old Testament supports these ideas. That is not to say that the ideas are contrary to the Bible, though the established Churches were not the biggest supporters of these ideas when they were first proposed (to put it mildly).

If you disagree with me, please show me where in the Bible these ideas are supported. From a lifetime of Biblical study, I am inclined to believe that the Old Testament supports a Theocracy, and the New Testament has a focus on the world to come, not on establishing a political order here on earth. YMMV.

Several comments:

The actual Bible verse is misquoted: Rom 1:32 reads: “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (KJV)

Or: “Though they know God’s decree that those deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (ESV)

So in other words, the Bible teaches that practicing homosexuals (as well as a host of other sinners listed in the preceding verses) deserve death…but not only them, but also those who approve of their sin (for example, those that say there’s nothing wrong with homosexual acts.)

But this isn’t really odd, for Paul writes that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23) and it’s an orthodox Christian belief to hold that ALL of us are sinners worthy of death, saved by grace alone.

I do find it a bit odd to hold such a rally and not hold a rally on, say, backbiting, which is in the list of things worthy of death. Or maybe a rally against weapons manufacturers (“inventors of evil things”, v 30), or other listed sins.

But the point of having the article on LW is not to point out how “horrible” Christianity is; rather, that though culturally it is understood that few Christians want to kill homosexuals (or backbiters or inventors of evil things), if a Muslim were to say something similar, they would be severely castigated and not be given the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, Proverb points out that in some Muslim-majority nations, homosexuality IS punishable by death in fact, just as it was in ancient Israel according to Torah (recognized by both Christians and Jews as divine law). It strikes me as odd that Christians (or Jews, for that matter) would criticize such laws as “cruel” or “unjust” or “barbaric”, unless they want to speak of the Torah in the same way. And please note: just because Christians believe that these laws were abrogated by Christ’s finished sacrifice, it does not mean that we can now call these rules “barbaric”. We still believe that they were given by the Triune God and are a reflection of God’s perfect righteousness. Unless you make some kind of crazy argument that God was once cruel but has since reformed, it really does not make sense that one could criticize a law on killing those who practice homosexual acts as against God’s will–other than saying that it’s against His “marching orders for the day”–ALSO keeping in mind that most Christians believe that the unrepentant practicer of homosexual acts will receive eternal punishment from God. How can man’s law be “barbaric” when the punishment is far lighter than God’s?

Of course, modern Christians recognize two separate realms, that of God and that of the State, and that though it may be theoretically just for the State to punish “sinners” (see Rom 13:4), modern, western Christians believe that the State should play a much reduced role in this (compared to what it was in the middle ages). There is disagreement on the level, however; though most would not want to re-introduce the death penalty for homosexual acts (for example), many conservatives do support some level of criminalization for these acts. Likewise, laws about polygamy, gambling, recreational drug or alcohol use, pornography, etc. all have been debated by Christians in modern times. Most Christians recognize this.

What many Christians do NOT recognize, however, is that so-called “Islamic States” do NOT speak for them in their understanding of Shirah or in it’s implementation. Ignorance, fueling bigotry, is the main reason. And hence, sites like LW point out that if the same standard was used to judge Christianity that is often used to judge Islam, Christians would not look that much “better”.

^ Great response

If you know precisely what Shariah law is, then define it. Point out one country that practices Shariah law. Also, just because Suaida Arabia houses an important symbol to our religion does not mean that the policies of its government are representative of Islam. That makes no sense whatsoever.

And additionally, regardless of whether or not a majority of people (was there a vote or something I missed because most reports say that the debate ended because of international human rights watch groups pressuring the government)helped squash the debate, as recently as last month religious leaders were calling for renewed debate and vocalized support! for the bill.
Are these people religious extremists?? Are they the voice of all the Christians in all of Uganda? Anytime a radical Imam says something about killing homosexuals, people like you jump to the conclusion that all Muslims support such an idea. The majority of us, of course, do not and have plenty of support from our religious texts to back our stance. And just because someone is a religious leader, does not mean that they somehow embody all the values and interpretations found in that religion. You as a Christian should be keenly aware of this fact. There are hundreds of different Christian denominations, so clearly there are A LOT of different interpretations of the Bible and your faith.

There is also the twilight zone claims of Bible believers seeking to subvert the Constitution.

So are you saying there are no Christians that want to subvert the Constitution? You sir, are delusional.