Award-winning religion reporter Richard Ostling recently noted a “neglected story” from 2018, namely the November 29 signing of the American Charter of Freedom of Religion and Conscience. This deeply flawed document, “at 5,000 words needlessly repetitive” in his description, includes several nefarious exponents of political Islam in an initiative that will ultimately do little to promote freedom.
The charter correctly emphasizes that religious freedom is a “fundamental right grounded in the dignity of the human person” and correspondingly notes the 1776 Declaration of Independence with its expression of natural law. America’s founding document is part of the “great tradition of freedom-loving peoples and their ringing declarations” such as the 1215 Magna Carta and the 1791 United States Constitution. This tradition evinces that “Americans’ political commitment to the Republic is rooted in deep pre-political conviction.”
The charter notes that religious freedom “has played an irreplaceable role in the story of our nation” and created “social capital…vital for human flourishing.” Correspondingly, the charter lauds the religious leadership in American reform movements, such as those against slavery and segregation. The charter thus announces its “distinctively American,” character while its authors universally “commend the vision, principles, and goals of the Charter to other nations.”
Yet the leadership of a prominent conservative Montana evangelical church (they believe in “young-Earth creationism” and that “Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit Christianity”) scorns the charter’s underlying ecumenical universalism. The church’s popular website Pulpit and Pen (PP) criticizes the fact that the charter “places oppressive religions like Islam in the same category as Christianity and credits them all with equal contributions to the American way of life.” While the American abolitionist and civil rights movements drew heavily upon Christian faith, the charter’s general terms are “gutting America of its theological underpinnings, minimizing its Christian heritage.”
The 19th-century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville provides compelling witness for PP’s valid observation that “America’s commitment to Christianity is responsible for its national exceptionalism.” American “pre-political” human rights values come from the “uniquely Christian doctrine” of mankind being made in the “Imago Dei.” By contrast, as the esteemed Catholic intellectual Robert Reilly has lucidly analyzed, Islamic orthodoxy’s denial that humanity shares a divine likeness has resulted in Islamic denigration of the human reason that underlies free societies.
Notwithstanding the charter’s prioritization of “pluralism” in America and abroad, observes the Christian commentator Cody Libolt, “some cultures are better than others.” The charter’s citation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) among freedom’s “ringing declarations” ignores the fact that the UDHR resulted from centuries of human rights advocacy in which Christians were preeminent. All the other “ringing declarations” merely represent the “great tradition of freedom-loving peoples” in Anglo-American culture.
PP rightfully suspects that certain charter language would prevent policymakers from exercising precisely such necessary cultural awareness with respect to Islam. The charter vaguely opposes “any governmental policy that would discriminate against individuals or groups based on their religion.” The charter further condemns “rhetoric and actions by governmental leaders and others that demonize individuals or faith communities” or that “hold entire faith groups collectively responsible for the evil deeds of a few.” As PP observes, the charter apparently targets “policies like that threatened by President Trump” to “place a temporary moratorium on immigrants from primarily Islamic nations who want to destroy the United States.”
Review of the charter’s Muslim signatories only confirms PP’s wariness towards multiculturalism. Both Mohamed Magid and Sayyid Syeed, a man who wants to “to change the constitution of America” that is so praised by the charter, have not-so-“freedom-loving” pasts, as evidenced by both men’s leadership of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-derived organization and terrorism-financing unindicted co-conspirator demonstrated its continuing Islamic supremacism at ISNA’s 2018 annual conference with a rogue’s gallery of jihad terrorism apologists and Israel-haters.
Likewise Eftakhar Alam and Anwar Khan represent Islamic Relief USA, the American branch of another global MB organization known for antisemitism and terrorism support. Omar Suleiman’s apologetics for honor killings and sex slavery, along with his vicious antisemitism and Islamic myths that deny Jewish Temple Mount history, hardly befit the “dignity of the human person.” The Shiite Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini is similarly anti-Semitic, as indicated by his Dearborn, Michigan, Islamic Center of America hosting Louis Farrakhan as well as a 2010 memorial service for Hezbollah leader Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.
“Free exercise of religion and conscience requires other fundamental rights also guaranteed by the First Amendment, including the freedoms of speech,” the charter proclaims, yet its Muslim signatories have consistently belied this sentiment. Al-Qazwini called in 2012 for censoring the internet film Innocence of Muslims as a form of incitement, while Suleiman has aided Google’s suppression of “Islamophobia.” Maha ElGenaidi wrote to Stanford University about her horrified opposition to a 2017 lecture by the “well-known national fomenter of Islamophobia,” Jihad Watch’s own Robert Spencer.
Similarly, Princeton University Muslim Life Coordinator and Chaplain Imam Sohaib Sultan tried to stop a 2009 address by the Egyptian-American Muslim convert to Christianity Nonie Darwish. His fellow signatory Asma Uddin once promoted the deranged leftist Israel-hater, academic fraud, and “Islamophobia” scam artist Nathan Lean at a Washington, DC, event by the Rumi Forum, part of the shadowy Islamic Fethullah Gülen network. She has correspondingly downplayed Islamic sharia law’s dangers and has wrongly argued that state law prohibitions on judicial application of foreign laws like sharia in violation of constitutional rights would ban private Islamic religious arbitration.
The Muslim charter signatory Usra Ghazi’s speech raises troubling questions of its own. She once responded to the internet sensation of a woman who wrote about concealing her Muslim identity to other Muslims, because she feared their condemnation for wearing traditionally non-Islamic female attire such as shorts. Ghazi argued that such “chastisement comes from a place of love” and is “taking really literally and personally the Koranic commandment [i.e. Quran 3:110] to enjoin good and forbid evil for the sake of the salvation of other Muslims.” While under the law in free societies such as America, she may debate such Islamic hijab dress codes for women, other women globally know from bitter personal experience how oppressive such Islamic enjoinment can be.
The charter proclaims with sacral invocations a religious freedom “commitment that is, at its heart, covenantal, based on a solemn and binding promise between citizens as embodied in the U.S. Constitution.” Yet the charter’s Muslim signatories inspire little confidence that they will embrace any such solemn commitment and its Western moral and theological underpinnings. By contrast, these dubious individuals will benefit from the legitimacy of associating with such a lofty-sounding charter and its implied opposition to “Islamophobia.” However, the charter will provide less benefit in protecting the religious freedom concerns of the charter’s often naïve non-Muslim signatories, as a forthcoming article will analyze.
Elisha says
Yet the leadership of a prominent conservative Montana evangelical church (they believe in “young-Earth creationism”
There’s plenty of scientific evidence that supports that, kids:
https://creation.com/search?q=young+earth
https://creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=XatoDTlXRgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuhcA7ciQoU
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. – Hosea 4:6
tninfidel says
Nothing scientific there in those links Elisha. Creationist conspiracy theorist delusions. I’m guessing you also have a geocentric view of the earth also since that’s in the Bible. Have you considered joining the flat earthers? I’d imagine you are one already.
Mark Swan says
Elisha,
In our world, science and the Bible seem constantly pitted against each other, and it is true that there certainly are outstanding questions to be resolved. But many such “conflicts” are illusions, arising either from misunderstanding the scientific data or from failing to understand the truth of God’s word.
One example is the age of the earth. Must Christians put themselves at odds with the current theories of reputable geologists in order to accept the claims of the Bible? Just how old is the earth?
We can see very clearly in Scripture that the creation of the plants, animals, and mankind, itself—Adam and Eve—took place around 6,000 years ago. The Bible gives us enough information concerning the ages of the patriarchs and their descendants to make this conclusion hard to dispute. On the origins of mankind in the Garden of Eden—nearly six millennia ago—God’s word is clear.
Just as clearly, nearly all reputable geologists looking at evidence of our planet’s age conclude that the earth has been in existence for a long time! “Ask any geologist how old the Earth is,” writes American geologist G. Brent Dalrymple, “and the odds are very good that he or she will provide an answer very close to 4.54 [billion years]” (The Age of the Earth, p. 305). And, while future discoveries may overturn this conclusion, 4.5 billion years is very consistent with other evidence of the earth’s age, such as that taken from meteorites and lunar material.
An age of 6,000 years is certainly a far cry from 4,540,000,000!
Still, those who have put the Bible to the test in their lives have learned to trust it as the very word of God. So, what does the Bible truly say about the age of the earth? Surprisingly, it says both much more and much less than many understand!
It is wonderfully and literally true that “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:17) and that this “creation week” took place nearly 6,000 years ago, just as indicated in Scripture.
But, what many miss is that the planet Earth and the heavens around Earth were already in existence at the beginning of that week!
We read in the very first verse of the Bible, before the events of that week, that: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). As we will see, that initial “beginning” of the earth and the heavens—before Adam and Eve, and before the animals and plants with which we are familiar—may have occurred long, long ago!
But notice carefully the second verse of Genesis, which many read right over, missing its clear implications, because of its usual translation: “The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2).
A simple statement—but it contains much more than meets the eye! The English words “without form, and void” are translated from the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. These two words, used together in Scripture just three times, indicate an uninhabitable wasteland—a condition of desolation or destruction.
Significantly, the other two passages where tohu and bohu are used together—Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23—indicate that such desolate states of ruin and devastation were brought about by sin.
Furthermore, scholars point out that the Hebrew hayah—translated “was” in Genesis 1:2—elsewhere can convey the idea of “became.” Later in Genesis, in the passage describing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we read that Lot’s wife “became [hayah] a pillar of salt” (Genesis 19:26). Certainly Lot had not married a pillar of salt; she had not always been so! Similarly, Genesis 1:2 could more appropriately be translated literally that “the earth became” a desolate waste—the Hebrew does not imply that it was created in that condition!
Putting these facts together, we can understand that God would surely have created the heavens and the earth with great order and beauty, yet that through some sinful circumstance they became desolate and devastated—ruined and uninhabitable—in need of renewal (cf. Psalm 104:30) before the creation of mankind! Indeed, Genesis 1:1–2 can accurately be translated: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth had become a desolation and a chaotic ruin, and darkness was on the face of the deep.”
So, does the Bible describe any sin or rebellion against God, before Adam’s creation, that could have brought such chaos and ruin? Yes, it does! Scripture tells us what Satan had done before he met Eve in the Garden of Eden, seeking to lure her into sinning against God (Genesis 3:1–5). God’s word makes it plain that angels were present before the earth existed, and they shouted for joy when they saw its foundation laid (Job 38:6–7)!
Lucifer—who became Satan the devil—existed at this time. Scripture describes this corrupted, sinful creature leading a prideful angelic rebellion (Ezekiel 28:12–16; Isaiah 14:12–14)—a rebellion that Scripture indicates included a third of the angels (Revelation 12:4).
Isaiah 14:14 describes this prideful being’s desire to “ascend above the clouds” to take God’s very throne for himself—which implies that his assigned responsibilities were below the clouds, and therefore on the earth! Lucifer had the free will either to obey or to disobey God, and by refusing to carry out God’s will he became Satan—an adversary to God.
As sin always does, Satan’s rebellion brought destruction and ruin—in this case devastating the earth that had been his charge to prepare for God’s purposes.
It is this chaotic and ruinous devastation, tohu and bohu, that we see reflected in the words of Genesis 1:2, and it is the miraculous six-day RESTORATION of this planet—to a state of beauty and wonder fit for God’s creation of mankind—that we see in the rest of Genesis chapter 1!
So, as we can see, there is ample room in the words of Scripture to recognize the very ancient age of planet Earth.
The Bible’s clear description of placing the humans we see here today, nearly 6,000 years ago, is not in conflict with its description of angelic activity occurring long before the Genesis 1:2 event—activity long ago when the world had been entrusted to Lucifer and his angels for God’s purposes before the creation of mankind.
But exactly how long ago did this occur? How long did Satan’s rebellion last? Did the dinosaurs exist at this time? Was it billions of years ago—close to the scientists’ estimate of a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth? Or was it earlier or later? On these details, the Bible is silent. But there is no conflict between the words of Scripture and the general scientific observation of a very ancient planet Earth.
Truly, science reveals many mysteries yet to be solved. But we should never let the changing findings of science—which are sometimes overturned entirely with the next discovery—cause us to doubt what the unchanging God says in His word! The evidence of history and science, properly understood, will always agree with the word of God. As Jesus Christ declares: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17)!
Mark Swan says
This charter is a product of the religious freedom institute,
which wastes its time on including Islam, if this institute
accepts donations from Muslims—then it should be
obvious that it is just another means for Islam to
legitimize and promote itself.
Islam is as opposite to religious freedom as can be found—
it is a Militant Political Movement, Feigning Religious
Purpose—it portends absolute control, through combining
its ideology with government.
Islam is a tremendous threat to all forms of government
and all other beliefs.
Michael Copeland says
” In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.”
Maududi
http://4freedoms.com/group/theology/forum/topics/mawdudi-panorama-and-the-mcb-islam-is-a-form-of-fascism?page=1&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A95361&x=1
GROO the Wonderer says
thank you Micheal Copeland for the link.
Walter Sieruk says
Just the very first part of the heading of the above jihadwatch article alone in interesting. For it the very idea , words that “Islam and Freedom.don’t mix” is very true. As seen in the many essays which have exposed that freedom of thought and speech concerning Islam, let alone any criticism of Islam, however mild such criticism might be is strongly and forcefully forbidden , even by the violent threat of murderous duress
This may be ,somewhat illustrated by the essay which might be fittingly be title THE CAVE OF ISLAM
The Greek philosopher Plato is one of the contributors to Western Civilization. He may shed some light into the subject of those people who are shackled in the chains and darkness of Islamic thought. In Plato’s REPUBLIC he gave an allegory of a cave where “the condition of men living in a sort of cavernous chamber…Here they have been from childhood, chained by leg and also by the neck, so that they cannot move and see only what is in front of them.” This can fit into what the Imams do in the mosques and how they brainwash the young people in the madrassa’s by always programming Islamic doctrine into their victims and not exposing them to other worldviews. Furthermore, even in Islamic tradition when Muslims have their newborn child the father whispers words of the Quran into the infants ear so that that Quran verses are the first thing the newborn person hears. This programming process takes place all their lives. These are some of the chains that keep them bound in a mosque [cave]. The chains do not let them reach out for dialectic reasoning and let them examine the evidence both for as well as against, or even question whether Muhammad was a true prophet of God or not, and if the Quran is a hoax or not. As the chains and darkness of the cave blinds and holds the prisoners back from reality, so Islamic propaganda holds back the cognition to reason with the question if Islam is true or not. They are forbidden from even thinking to question Islam. Furthermore, if a Muslim by some miracle wakes up to the truth about Islam, it would be like the man in Plato’s cave allegory who was released from his chains and taken outside to the real world. At first direct light would be painful and disorienting, it would take some time for him to understand what the truth is all about, he even might cling to the shadows and still for a time believe some of the illusions to be real. But he would finally come to know “what he had formerly seen was meaningless illusion.” And that was “what passed for wisdom in his former dwelling place.”And that the other cave prisoners also needed to see the light [the truth] for he “was sorry for them.” and he would re-enter the cave just to rescue them. Nevertheless, the cave prisoners wouldn’t understand and “if they could lay hand on the man who was trying to set them free.” And if they could “they would kill him.” Likewise, when someone escapes from the shackles of Islam, those still in the darkness of this religion would not understand and if possible kill him for leaving Islam, and even more so if he were to try to enlighten them about the truth about Islam. For these people in Islam are chained to an empty imitation of truth and godliness.
Walter Sieruk says
A good reminder of the truth found even in the first part of the title of this main article “Islam and Freedom don’t mix” From first hand observation ans experience with different Muslims in the city of I live in and the area near but outside city limits. When ,many times I had open an invitation to a Muslim to sit down with me a have nice non- hostile friendly discussion on the subject of Islam based in both the Bible and reason . Some of them outright and blatantly reject my invitation, others agree to sit down with me an have logical ,reason Bible based discussion . on Islam and comparing and contrasting the Bible with Islamic doctrines concerning a real actual nature of Jesus. Later when I approached any of them who had agreed to talk, they then refused to talk at all and walked off.
About this ,a told man who was in past was Muslim and he is now a Christian about all this . He replied to me that “When this happens its because someone in the mosque had told them that they should have no discussion with me and to also avoid me ” This fits in with the previous information that his read which explained that “The people in the mosque are told to avoid those who might make critical comments or raise question of the truth of Islam.”
So as for the “Islam and freedom Don’t mix ” title, that reveals much for people under the influence of Islam can’t have the basic freedom to engage in a thoughtful dissension the subject of “Does Islam really have the truth or does it not have the truth.”
Related very much, to all this is the classical work of ancient Greek literature, by Plato, entitled THE APOLOGY OF SOCRATES it in written that Socrates had said that “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Likewise, in may also be said that “An unexamined religion is not worth believing in.” This is said about all religions. Yet to be specific, in this case, the topic is about the religion of Islam. Furthermore, one man who was as a former a Muslim and had lived in one of the Islamic nations of the Middle East but now he is Christian and an American citizen had explained in a book he wrote that “Driving into depths of the word of reasoned thinking and research in Islamic societies has always been costly. Some Muslim who have done this have even been excluded from their social rights and even sentenced to death.” [1]
[1] ISLAM AND THE SON OF GOD by Daniel Shayesteh page 70.
gravenimage says
Islam and Freedom Don’t Mix in New Charter (Part I)
………………..
Good article. Islam and freedom don’t mix, period.
patriotliz says
Agree…the salient point is that this evangelical group criticizes the fact that this charter “places oppressive religions like Islam in the same category as Christianity and credits them all with equal contributions to the American way of life.” ABSOLUTELY TRUE! Doesn’t matter to me what their Christian beliefs may be w/ regard to their Creationism ideology or even that they may think that Catholicism is a fake Christianity. The main fact is that they spoke the truth about Islam and it’s incompatibility w/ basic human rights which evolved out of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. Islam is a FAKE RELIGION! It was a HUGE mistake for our Founding Fathers to ignore the heinous practice of the “religion” of Islam and to not exclude it under the “freedom of religion.” Islam is about 10% faith and 90% political aggression against non-Islamic societies not to mention the obvious fact that they are instructed to kill the infidel per the example of their “religious” founder and his “holy” book…and…not to mention the fact it is the only religion we are spending trillions at war with but too afraid to state that obvious fact.
Today, 1/16/19, is National Religious Freedom Day—BUT—Religious Freedom is our Achilles heel when it comes to the infiltration of this heinous theo-political ideology of ISLAM into the West which, like Communism and Nazism, is a threat to the very freedoms we cherish. We are being forced to tolerate intolerance because this ‘thing’ is called a “religion.” Islam should have been condemned in toto on 9/11/01 and the attack should have been regarded as another Pearl Harbor. We should have at the very least banned all Muslims coming into the America and thoroughly scrutinized and monitored all American Mosques for anti-American subversive activities. What stood in the way of that common sense approach?….Islam is a “religion.”
IanB says
Islam and freedom are absolute opposites.
johnston says
Why is it that generally all the majority Christian (and Jewish) faith countries have been prosperous and the muslim countries (even those with vast amount of oil) have done badly??
WAYNEY says
Obvious isn’t it