How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

Categorized | Loon Pastors, Loon Politics

Tags | Amalekites, Child Evangelism Fellowship, Evangelical Christians, Extremism, Good News Club, Guardian UK, Ilisha, Katherine Stewart, Separation of Church and State, What if they were Muslim

How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

Posted on 05 June 2012 by Ilisha

Child with Bible

While many in the West are myopically focused on Muslim extremists, another form of religious extremism is poised to reach thousands of children in public schools across the US.

Aside from the disturbing implications for those who advocate a clear separation between church and state, the alarming content of the curriculum begs a question about the sponsors: What if they were Muslim?

How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

By Katherine Stewart, Guardian UK

Good News Clubs’ evangelism in schools is already subverting church-state separation. Now they justify murdering nonbelievers.

The Bible has thousands of passages that may serve as the basis for instruction and inspiration. Not all of them are appropriate in all circumstances.

The story of Saul and the Amalekites is a case in point. It’s not a pretty story, and it is often used by people who don’t intend to do pretty things. In the book of 1 Samuel (15:3), God said to Saul:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Saul dutifully exterminated the women, the children, the babies and all of the men – but then he spared the king. He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs. God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. “In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul’s memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors,” writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses (HarperCollins).

This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly “Bible study” course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club.

There are now over 3,200 clubs in public elementary schools, up more than sevenfold since the 2001 supreme court decision, Good News Club v Milford Central School, effectively required schools to include such clubs in their after-school programing.

The CEF has been teaching the story of the Amalekites at least since 1973. In its earlier curriculum materials, CEF was euphemistic about the bloodshed, saying simply that “the Amalekites were completely defeated.” In the most recent version of the curriculum, however, the group is quite eager to drive the message home to its elementary school students. The first thing the curriculum makes clear is that if God gives instructions to kill a group of people, you must kill every last one:

“You are to go and completely destroy the Amalekites (AM-uh-leck-ites) – people, animals, every living thing. Nothing shall be left.”

“That was pretty clear, wasn’t it?” the manual tells the teachers to say to the kids.

Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it. The instruction manual reads:

“The Amalekites had heard about Israel’s true and living God many years before, but they refused to believe in him. The Amalekites refused to believe in God and God had promised punishment.”

The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Asking if Saul would “pass the test” of obedience, the text points to Saul’s failure to annihilate every last Amalekite, posing the rhetorical question:

“If you are asked to do something, how much of it do you need to do before you can say, ‘I did it!’?”

“If only Saul had been willing to seek God for strength to obey!” the lesson concludes.

A review question in the textbook seeks to drive the point home further:

“How did King Saul only partly obey God when he attacked the Amalekites? (He did not completely destroy as God had commanded, he kept the king and some of the animals alive.)”

The CEF and the legal advocacy groups that have been responsible for its tremendous success over the past ten years are determined to “Knock down all doors, all the barriers, to all 65,000 public elementary schools in America and take the Gospel to this open mission field now! Not later, now!” in the words of a keynote speaker at the CEF’s national convention in 2010. The CEF wants to operate in the public schools, rather than in churches, because they know that young children associate the public schools with authority and are unable to distinguish between activities that take place in a school and those that are sponsored by the school.

In the majority opinion that opened the door to Good News Clubs, supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned that the activities of the CEF were not really religious, after all. He said that they could be characterized, for legal purposes, “as the teaching of morals and character development from a particular viewpoint”.

As Justices Souter and Stevens pointed out in their dissents, however, the claim is preposterous: the CEF plainly aims to teach religious doctrines and conduct services of worship. Thomas’s claim is particularly ironic in view of the fact that the CEF makes quite clear its intent to teach that no amount of moral or ethical behavior (pdf) can spare a nonbeliever from an eternity in hell.

Good News Clubs should not be in America’s public elementary schools. As I explain in my book, The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children, the club exists mainly to give small children the false impression that their public school supports a particular creed. The clubs’ presence has produced a paradoxical entanglement of church and state that has ripped apart communities, degraded public education, and undermined religious freedom.

The CEF’s new emphasis on the genocide of nonbelievers makes a bad situation worse. Exterminist rhetoric has been on the rise among some segments of the far right, including some religious groups. At what point do we start taking talk of genocide seriously? How would we feel about a nonreligious group that instructs its students that if they should ever receive an order to commit genocide, they should fulfill it to the letter?

And finally, when does a religious group qualify as a “hate group”?

Steve

So, to sum up, the bible is a shoddy work of fiction, jesus wasn’t a jew, he was a muslim and mohammed perfectly remembered what he claimed he had been told and he perfectly told his mates who perfectly remembered everything he said then it was written down perfectly some time later. Cool, religion eh? weird.
Sam Seed

@Susanna,

“Judaism and Christianity both came first and the Scriptures are not corrupted, its in your Quran. Man cannot corrupt Scripture as your Quran also says. If, according to your Quran, the Gospel are reliable then Jesus is not a prophet, but God”.

Sorry, but they have gone through many changes (according to Christian Scholars). The Bible confirms itself that it has changed. For example, which Bible do you believe in because we know the King James version is different to the Protestant Bible (ie has 7 books less), which is different to the New International version. So it clearly has been changed.

The Quran clearly states that the Gospels were a revelation but not the Bible. The Quran doesn’t say the Gospels are reliable, rather it says what was sent to Jesus was a true revelation from Him.

And finally, you can claim Jesus is God all you like, but produce from the authority of Jesus where he claimed that he is God (where he uttered the words ‘I AM GOD, WORSHIP ME’) otherwise you are doing what the Buddhists do, idol worship (because as far as I’m aware Buddha never claimed that he was God).

As far as the Quran goes, the proof is the Quran itself that it has not been corrupted. There is only one Quran in Arabic and has been preserved through memory and that is proof enough that it has not changed.
Wanderer

Once again you prove how ignorant you are about Islamic scripture. You are in fact flat WRONG about the Qur’aan confirming that the Bible is uncorrupted. The Qur’aan mentions many times that the Bible was changed by the hands of men. But man cannot change the Word of God. That Word that was there in the beginning? I believe God mentions this Word in the Bible, and it does not refer to terrestrial texts.

Your argument is disappointingly weak. I will refrain from engaging you any further, I already feel I have sacrificed too much time on a straightforward issue. .

Thank you for the laughs though:). Have a fantastic weekend (no sarcasm).
Susanna

@ Wanderer

A protracted mind relies on the material and not the spiritual aspects of Scripture. Judaism and Christianity both came first and the Scriptures are not corrupted, its in your Quran. Man cannot corrupt Scripture as your Quran also says. If, according to your Quran, the Gospel are reliable then Jesus is not a prophet, but God. A life time of being a Christian and studying the Word of God does qualify me academically and spiritually to comment with accuracy biblical truth.

“And finally, when does a religious group qualify as a “hate group”?” To your comment to stick to the topic “What if they were Muslim” I would be worried about what you wish for!
Wanderer

Susanna

Give me an “L”! Give me an “O”! Give me an “L”! What does it spell?! No really, what does it spell? My protracted mind can’t grasp it.

You see, Miss Cheerleader, the problem I have with Sir Proverb(ial town jester) is that he claims authority in the field of Islamic theology and philosophy, making unsubstantiated claims about Islamic texts’ not mentioning anything “of substance” about God’s relationship with Abraham (may peace be upon him). A simple Google search will reveal him for what he is, an ignoramus. He seems to know a lot about Jews and how they should believe in Jesus (Peace be upon him). Name-dropping like sad people usually do. But the FACT is that he only knows what his own mind has postulated about Islam.

I urge both of you to take a more academic approach when deciding on what Islam does and does not provide. Proverb’s views on the Qur’aan being “invented 1400 years ago” proves his complete ignorance of the Islamic traditions he is so quick to ridicule. And his utter disrespect for the beliefs of 1.7 billion Muslims. Despite his decent grasp of words, his ignorance of Islam coupled with his arrogance to make incorrect conclusions about Islam is EXACTLY the kind of thing that feeds Islamophobia. Please notice that I have steered clear of disrespecting the Bible, because I acknowledge my limitations. Proverb, however, apparently has no limitations.
Wanderer

Proverb

Well now you see what ur asking me to do is difficult. Firstly, I would never pronounce myself a history scholar if the Qur’aan was my only source. You may be comfortable relying solely on your single source, but I will not be so presumptuous.

Secondly, the traditions according to the Bible are not in accordance with those in the Qur’aan. So you have to ask yourself, which is the more reliable source? I do not pretend to be a scholar of authenticity, though you seem more than happy to claim that little scout badge. Well done sport.

Lastly, according to Islamic lore, EVERY single Prophet of God (Peace be upon them all) were Muslim within the contextual definition of their time. It is even written that Abraham is the one that named our religion Islam and its adherents Muslim. Therefore, a Muslim, using the same model of single source authenticity that you have used, is in fact bound by the Covenant that Abraham by virtue of the fact that he was Muslim when he made it.

Let’s stop pretending to be the scholars that we are clearly not. Google and bible study are unfortunately insufficient for you to claim authority on the subject. And even if it was, go to another more appropriate site to post your provocative hoots. In fact, go defend ur views on the indoctrination of all other Christians on one of their websites. Surely you will be doing the Lord’s work much more effectively combating all that indoctrination.

Let’s stick to the topic of “what if they were Muslim” if you feel the need to continue quacking. Quack.
Susanna

Proverb, You have been kind and truthful in your discussion with JSB and I ditto everything you have put forth. It is disheartening that Wanderer can’t take the time to READ and learn. Unfortunately, the truth seems to escape the protracted mind. Thank you for your truth.
Pingback: How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper
Proverb

@ Wanderer wrote “And I know better than the Muslims themselves what Covenants they have undertaken millenia ago”.

Kindly amaze us with your historical scholarship to the effect that Muslims have existed for “millenia” and that, during those “millenia” of their existence, they undertook “covenants”.

In case you are too slow to catch on, until Mohammed invented Islam about 1400 years ago, there was no Islam, no Islamic creed, no quran or other Islamic texts, no imaginary Islamic “covenants” you speak of, etc.

So, uhmmm, LOL away…
http://thewanderer05.blogspot.com Wanderer

LOL at Proverb. (I’m paraphrasing here): All other Christians that don’t adhere to the Christianity I am advocating are indoctrinated. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the only source I need to combat all your criticisms of the Bible. And I know better than the Muslims themselves what Covenants they have undertaken millenia ago.

I agree that this is not the forum for debating the contents of religion. I love this site because it is informative and effective in arguing against bigotry, and it is not a religious advocacy site. I also appreciate the more tolerant leanings of the debate between some elements in this thread. I like it when people courteously agree to disagree. But when you have people like Proverb and Susanna quacking academically dodgy provocative dribble, can we please have the moderators step in? They really are spoiling a good show.
Proverb

@ Just Stopping By

Thank you for the discussion. In all honesty, I ALWAYS enjoy discussing Scripture with Jews.

But, not being Jewish, I might not always give the kind of “full response” that, someone like Dr Michael Brown (a Jewish believer in Jesus Christ) might give. He gets into interesting discussions and debates with Jewish rabbis and scholars. And by “full response”, I mean a response that might juxtapose Jewish scholarly approaches to “Messianic prophecies” with the New Testament.

In short: Christianity places primary importance on the Biblical Covenants (Old and New Covenants). Everything is seen through the lense of the Covenants – including salvation for gentiles.

Thanks once again and take care.
mindy1

@Just stopping by agreed
Just Stopping By

@Proverb says, “The Jewish acceptance that Muslims are able to have their own relationship with God (outside of the Covenant) is something that Jesus Christ would completely reject…”

I guess that makes us Jews closer to Muslims.

I still don’t get how “from” is a summation of “to,” but I do accept your sincere belief in that. And that’s an honest statement from me to you, or perhaps vice versa.
Proverb

@ Just Stopping By

As you are referring to Jews, Paul was a pharisee and a scholar of the Tanakh. He studied under Gamaliel (who was the grandson of Hillel). Jews had a standing tradition of summation, a tradition that Paul would have embraced in teaching.

“To Zion” becomes “out of Zion”, due the Biblical theme of salvation “coming out of Zion” (e.g. in the Psalms, which Jesus Christ declares speak of Him).

Jesus Christ was not quoting Hillel. He was quoting the Torah. That Hillel may have held the same view is to his credit, but Jesus Christ never referred to him and certainly didn’t seem interested in doing so. And this is the crux – Christ never taught like the great Jewish teachers who deferred to some authority, etc. It was this aspect that the Jews noted and marvelled at (that He did NOT teach like others): Jesus Christ taught with authority. He is the only one who could boldly say: You have heard it said, BUT I SAY – fullstop.

The Jewish acceptance that Muslims are able to have their own relationship with God (outside of the Covenant) is something that Jesus Christ would completely reject, as confirmed by this Biblical account of His conversation with the Samaritan woman (note that Samaritans are closer to Judaism than Islam can ever be):

“19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 YOU [i.e. the Samaritans] worship WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW; we [i.e. the Jews] know what we worship, for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS. 23 But the hour is coming, AND NOW IS, when the TRUE WORSHIPPERS will worship the Father in SPIRIT AND TRUTH; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.””

Jesus Christ was clear on His position regarding Samaritan worship. Note: these Samaritans accepted the Torah and some of the major Jewish Feasts, etc, yet Jesus Christ does not congratulate her on sincere worship or even imply that she is a true worshipper.

Jesus Christ is clear that the Father requires worship in the spirit (i.e. in the Holy Spirit) and in truth (i.e. in Jesus Christ, for Jesus says that HE is the Truth).
Just Stopping By

@Proverb:

Thanks for the clarification. So the apparent misquotes are summations. I’m not sure how “from” is a summation of “to,” but I understand your general point.

As for Jesus’ summation of the greatest commandments, the first is nearly a correct quote, and the second is in fact an actual quote, both of which are well known, and I feel reasonably confident that Jesus and his audience knew them. Jesus’ answer is also a well-known paraphrase of what Hillel the Elder said a generation earlier in response to roughly the same question, again something that Jesus and his audience would have known.

And, just so that this point is clear, though Jews don’t believe that Muslims share the same specific covenant with God, they have always held that Muslims do worship the same deity (and can worship Him with all their heart, soul, and might) and thus are able to have their own relationship with Him. That is, faithful/ethical Muslims would fulfill the summary of the Law as described by Jesus.
Proverb

@ Just Stopping By

No, it isn’t a misquote of Isaih 59: 20-21, for it isn’t a DIRECT quote of Isaiah 59: 20-21. Paul is giving a Biblical prophetic summation, inspired by Isaiah and the other prophets in the Bible.

He has summed up prophetic references tying Messiah with His coming TO ZION, COMING OUT OF JUDAH and REMOVING SIN (Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah).

Afterall, if Paul was giving a DIRECT quote from Isaiah regarding the new Covenant, he would have also included the words: “As for Me,” says the LORD, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the Lord, “from this time and forevermore.” He didn’t, even though he makes express reference to the Covenant.

Even Jesus Christ used summation. He summed up the totality of the commands of the Law and the Prophets into 2 commandments: 1. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind and 2. Love your neighbour as yourself.

Take care.
Just Stopping By

@Susanna and Proverb: Can you help me out, because I want to see if you (both Christians, I assume) agree on a few points? Thanks.

1. Susanna says that the words of the Bible cannot be corrupted.
2. Proverb quotes Romans as saying, “As the Tanakh says,
‘Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer;
he will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov…’”
3. That appears to be a misquote of Isaiah 59:20: “And a redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.” Note “to Zion,” not “out of Tziyon [Zion]” and it is not the redeemer who turns away ungodliness, but he comes to those that have already turned away from transgression/ungodliness. [The Hebrew uses the word transgression, but I would take ungodliness as a rough synonym: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1059.htm

So, isn't it clear that Romans misquotes Isaiah?

(As an aside, I view that as an indication of the stage in Christianity in which Romans was written. Most reasonably learned Jews would have spotted that as a potential misquote pretty quickly, as "Out of Zion will come the Torah" is a well-known quote from Micah, though of course there could be two quotes that start the same way.]
HGG

Ah, nothing is better for peace among religions than calling the other’s beliefs “stupid” and “ridiculous”.

That, of course, opens the doors for those of the attacked religion to retort how the attacker’s religion can be equally stupid and ridiculous.

Before we know it, there is already a circular debate about whose’s religion is better!

FUN!
Ahmed

@Susanna,

I can’t really continue this “discussion” with you because you’re too brainwashed to see things from a neutral point of view. No, this is not an insult, this is just me stating how I feel on this matter. Sorry if I cause any offence.
Ahmed

Why?does it offend u?or r u one of these “moderates” or “liberals”?

I don’t know what your definition of liberal is, so I can’t answer your question.
Proverb

@ Zakariya Ali Sher

From what I have gathered from your response, you know next to nothing about the issues I have raised:

1. The Covenant IS rejected by Islam. To claim that there are man-made changes in the OT is to REJECT the OT and the God of the OT Who is CLEAR that He watches over His Word to perform it. Further, as Muslims claim the OT was corrupted, they bear the onus of proof. Where is this imaginary unchanged Islamic text that supports your claims? Without the OT, Abraham’s life is unknown. Period. Islamic texts can provide zero substance on Abraham’s relatiosnhip with God, at least for those who are looking for substance. You reject the OT, then you reject the Covenant and the God of the Covenant. You are not Abrahamic.

2. Now, to move on. The Covenant contains provisions that Islam REJECTS, including, among other things: Isaac is the Promised Son and Abraham’s Heir, whom Abraham was called upon to sacrifice. The Name of the God of the Bible is closely linked to the Biblical Covenant and its line of beneficiaries. The Name by which God made Himself known to Moses was no coincidence – He was CONFIRMING that He is the God of the Covenant. He introduced Himself as: YHWH God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and indicated that this is His Name forever.

3. I don’t know where you get your fictitious claim that Christians reject the OT or any part of the OT. There is no New Testament teaching that Jesus “abrogated” the OT. Jesus said (and I paraphrase): “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Matthew 5: 17-18). He also said: “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be FULFILLED which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms CONCERNING ME.” (Luke 24:44)

4. Christianity cannot logically claim Jesus Christ “abrogates”, for Messiah does not “abrogate”, he FULFILS the Old Covenant in order to bring forth the New Covenant promised by God through the Prophets of Israel. So, your claim is absurd to the point of being inherently idiotic. The OT (Tanach) speaks of Christ, how then shall He “abrogate” it?

5. As for your disbelief that I speak BIBLICAL doctrine: NATURAL branches (Jews) and GRAFTED branches (Gentiles):

Romans 11:1-2, 13-18, 25-28 (From The Complete Jewish Bible). Feel free to read the WHOLE chapter to grasp the context).

“In that case, I say, isn’t it that God has repudiated his people?” Heaven forbid! For I myself am a son of Isra’el, from the seed of Avraham,[a] of the tribe of Binyamin. 2 God has not repudiated his people,[b] whom he chose in advance.

[...] 13 However, to those of you who are Gentiles I say this: since I myself am an emissary sent to the Gentiles, I make known the importance of my work 14 in the hope that somehow I may provoke some of my own people to jealousy and save some of them! 15 For if their casting Yeshua aside means reconciliation for the world, what will their accepting him mean? It will be life from the dead!

16 Now if the “hallah” offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and YOU— a wild olive — WERE GRAFTED IN AMONG THEM AND HAVE BECOME EQUAL SHARERS in the rich root of the olive tree, 18 then don’t boast as if you were better than the branches!

[...]25 For, brothers, I want you to understand this truth which God formerly concealed but has now revealed, so that you won’t imagine you know more than you actually do. It is that stoniness, to a degree, has come upon Isra’el, until the Gentile world enters in its fullness; 26 and that it is in this way that ALL Isra’el WILL BE SAVED. As the Tanakh says,

“Out of Tziyon will come the Redeemer;
he will turn away ungodliness from Ya‘akov
27 and this will be my covenant with them, . . .
when I take away their sins.”[h]”

6. COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL:

Ephesians 2: 11-13

“11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, BEING ALIENS from the COMMONWEALTH of Israel and STRANGERS from the COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 BUT NOW in CHRIST JESUS you who once were far off HAVE BEEN BROUGHT NEAR by the blood of Christ.”

7. You rant on about “British Israelites” – what have they to do with Scriptures? You rant about European approaches to geneology – what have they to do the Scriptures? Nothing. The issue is BIBLICAL DOCTRINE.

8. Furthermore, I stand by my assertion, that Muslims have argued to me that there is a biological link (i.e. between Abraham and Mohammed via Ishmaelites (who were pagans)). As for Christians who want Jerusalem, are you referring to the Catholic Church? If so, please note that the Pope follows his own doctrine, which includes “Catholic traditions”, which are man-made.

9. Can you please provide Biblical support for your claim that Christians should worship like the Ethiopian Orthodox church? There is no such silly approach in the Bible. Jesus Christ was clear: The Father seeks those who will worship Him “in Spirit and in Truth”. What does He mean? Simple: the Spirit is the Holy Spirit (worshippers must be filled with the Holy Spirit). The Truth is Jesus Christ Himself for He said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”. In short, God only accepts the worship of those who have Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

10. Let me explain something to you in very simple terms. Biblically, a Muslim is in the same position as any non-believer. That you are “offended” by Christianity’s exclusivity is to be expected of non-believers. That you are offended by the Gospel is no surprise – all non-believers are. Ironically, the Bible is clear that with the increase in ungodliness and unbelief, many will be “offended”. Salvation comes to those who are not offended by the Gospel.

Take care.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

I find a lot of similarity in the creations of fears against Christianity because of biblical passages (taken out of context) similar to creating fears about Muslims because of Quranic passages (taken out of context). I stand with my Christian brothers and sisters on this!
Daniel

Thanks for your gracious response, Ilisha. I truly do appreciate LW and what you are trying to accomplish here.

I continue to look forward to your articles, as well as the others who contribute here.
Ilisha

@Daniel

“Ilisha, I hope you struggled with whether or not to publish this story…”

Yes, there is some deliberation anytime we have a “What if they were Muslim?” piece. What should be published in this category is a judgment call, and we won’t always agree when it’s appropriate to post a particular article. In this case, as others have pointed out, I wanted to address the separation of church and state, and to compare the reaction we might anticipate if something similar were sponsored by Muslims. I certainly didn’t want to denigrate anyone’s faith.

As for the Amalekites in the Bible, if everyone interpreted the events in a way similar to Susanna, I doubt the passages would be misused because it would apply only to a specific context. If some have twisted the message to serve a sinister agenda, as the article suggests, that should be viewed only as an indictment of the misguided people who engaged in that behavior, and not the Christian religion as a whole. I accept that and similar arguments, and believe they should apply equally to everyone—including Muslims with respect to Islam.

I agree with those who’ve said Loonwatch is not the place for a religious debate, and since we are a site devoted to fighting bigotry, it shouldn’t be on display here. It isn’t fair to make assumptions and sweeping statements about Christians in general, nor about Evangelical Christians in particular, and I don’t think intolerance here sets a very good example. The Qur’an has guidance it seems some Muslims are prone to overlook when they are engaged in debate:

“And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, ‘We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).’” Qur’an, The Spider (29:46)

“Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” Qur’an, The Cow (2:62)

“Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” Qur’an, The Bee (16:125)

In any case, Daniel, I appreciate your feedback, and will keep it in mind.
Daniel

Ahmed, JT, thanks for your comments.

I hope we can, despite differences in religious and/or political belief, unite together to combat hatred and bigotry. IMO, anti-Muslim bigotry is one of the biggest challenges in the western world today. Let’s work towards the goal of ending this, and not dissipate our efforts in unproductive debate.