No Explanation Required... Unless You've Confused the Issue

Religious belief that homosexuality is sinful not at odds with notion homosexuals shouldn't be bullied

The Toronto Star is reporting that Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale MP David Sweet is refusing to explain his participation in a recent "it gets better" YouTube video produced by John Baird.

This is as it should be. No explanation is required.

But for those obsessed with headhunting for Conservative MPs, Sweet's participation is as infuriating as Baird's. For a time, Baird was criticized for making the video while not being publicly fabulous enough. Baird refused to take the bait, so now the headhunters are on to their next target: David Sweet.

“For them to stand up and say, ‘It gets better, just hang in there kids,’ is so disrespectful and disingenuous and shows they’re out of touch with the community,” complained EGALE Canada executive director Helen Kennedy, who also complained the Tories aren't doing enough to satisfy the legislative demands of the LGBT community. “They actually have the power and authority and the responsibility to make it better. We’re talking about politicians who enact legislation, who bring in bills to the legislature, into the House of Commons to make a difference in everyone’s life and in particular in the case of our LGBT youth and the community in general and they’re not doing that.”

Of particular complaint has been Sweet's 2002 remarks that he believed homosexuality is a sin.

“Yes, absolutely,” Sweet agreed at the time. “We take the Scriptures as the word of God. We look at homosexual behaviour and say that’s not what’s prescribed in the Scripture.”

Some look at these comments, then look at Sweet's participation in an anti-bullying video, and suggest he has something to explain. They're absolutely wrong, on the most fundamental of logical pretenses.

Simply put, a religious belief that homosexuality is sinful -- a notion with which this author actually vociferously disagrees -- is not tantamount to a belief that homosexuals should be bullied. Nor is it at odds with a belief that homosexuals should not be bullied, because no one should be bullied.

The attitude adopted by those who believe Sweet has anything to explain seem to presume that Christians have some kind of moral duty to condemn anyone who sins on an existential basis. While some extreme religious sects seem to believe this to be the case, for the average Christian it isn't so.

Rather, Jesus Christ mandated that sinners are to be treated with compassion. So if one believes that homosexuality is sinful -- again, this author vehemently does not -- one's moral duty as a Christian is to offer them compassion and guidance.

Your not-so-humble scribe would posit that David Sweet is wrong about homosexuality. It doesn't disqualify him from speaking out against homophobic bullying, just as John Baird isn't disqualified for not being "out" enough.

If Helen Kennedy and her compatriots can't wrap their heads around that idea, that's their problem, not David Sweet's. Vis a vis his participation in the "it gets better" video, Sweet has nothing to explain, and so should explain nothing.

The Single Thread That Unravels Joe McGinniss' Career

McGinniss' double-talk has destroyed his credibility

Once upon a time, Joe McGinniss was a reputable and respected journalist.

After The Rogue, he isn't anymore. He never will be again.

The full extent to which McGinniss' creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has destroyed him seems to be entirely lost on McGinniss, along with the fact that his double-speak regarding Palin has not escaped notice.

For example, McGinniss claimed in an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan that the linkage of his book to supermarket tabloids was the result of the National Enquirer publishing tales contained in his book, only to later admit that he used that publication as a source.

But that isn't McGinniss' most serious problem.

McGinniss' most serious problem is the single thread that unravels not only The Rogue, but McGinniss' entire career.

Two separate claims are made in The Rogue that, together, cannot be true. Only one or the other can be true.

In the book -- an assertion McGinniss has repeated at length during the rapidly-dwindling media interviews he's given in support of the book, he claims that Palin is a religious fanatic.

"She sounds stupid and she is stupid, so that part is real," McGinnis remarked. "This folksy, family values kind of thing, it's just the opposite. She's not folksy, she's not warm, she's not personable, she's not just the girl next door. She's a vengeful, mean spirited, somewhat paranoid woman who's also a religious fanatic."

The banal malice of McGinniss' words have long been typical of the manner in which she's approached by the left.

But, as The Rogue would also have it, Palin actually is not religious at all.

As revealled by an embarrassingly-fawning review in the Toronto Star:

"'There was no religion,' an insider reveals. 'There was nothing about God. There was no Christ. Nobody prayed. No Bibles. No crosses. None of that was ever there. Never.'"

So McGinniss writes that Palin is, deep down, a fanatical religious fundamentalist. And he also writes that Palin's public displays of religious belief are a sham, because she and her family are not even remotely religious.

It doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to recognize that both of these things can be true. One could be true. Or the other could be true. But not the two together.

So which one of these two possibilities is true? So far, it's a question that the few media outlets that have allowed his presence to pollute their broadcasts have so far declined to ask him.

With the media turning away from McGinniss, it's clear that they've figured out that the precise worth of his book is pure bullshit.

The fact that he can so rarely keep his story straight is just the icing on that particular pile of cow dung.

The Road to Jerusalem

Today, Jack Layton will be laid to rest.

Some may find it odd that sometimes a man's most vociferous critics may be the ones who admire them the most.

I won't pretend I respeceted or admired Jack Layton any more than anyone else.

Nor will I pretend that the long mourning period observed by Layton's followers hasn't been more than a little off-putting. Perhaps even as off-putting as John Diefenbaker's funeral.

But the long mourning period did give me the opportunity to do something that Christie Blatchford didn't do when she wrote her graceless -- but not altogether unjustifiable -- comments: think long and hard about it.

My thoughts continually take me back to the evening of May 2, 2011, when the Conservative Party won a majority government. In the middle of finding the bottom of a celebratory bottle of Jack Daniels, I took some time out to pray for Layton's health. It was actually the first time I prayed for a politician's health. Strangely, it was the first time I had actually considered praying for the health of a politician.

At the time, it just seemed like the right thing to do.

It was entirely natural that my thoughts when back to that when Layton announced that he was stepping back -- temporarily -- to fight a new cancer. Many media commentators could tell right away that there was good reason to be concerned.

Once again, I prayed for Layton's health. Sadly, those prayers weren't answered.

But it also occurs to me that I may have been praying for the wrong thing. I'm reminded of a tale Evander Holyfield related in his book, Becoming Holyfield, regarding the passing of his mother. She had been in a car accident, and arrived at hospital in a coma.

Trying to focus on his training, Holyfield asked a close spiritual advisor what he should do. He was told to pray for the right thing to happen.

Those who have experienced a family member passing away from cancer -- this author has witnessed two family members die of the disease, and has had four others successfully fight it off, the youngest at the age of two years old -- understand full well how painful fighting terminal cancer is. Sometimes, the cancer cannot be beaten. The best thing to hope for is a quick, painless, merciful passing.

The specific details regarding Layton's final days are not of public knowledge. This is as it should be. We don't know how much pain Layton was suffering before his passing. His friends and family do, and that's information best reserved for themselves.

I take some comfort in hoping that Layton's passing was a peaceful one, and in hoping that he didn't suffer.

If he did, I take comfort in knowing that his passing at least ended that suffering. And although I disagree with Layton's politics, I admire Layton's character, and firmly believe he's in a much better place now.

If Layton's passing ended a period of suffering, it was the right thing to happen. It's a sad thing nonetheless, but there's comfort to be taken from it.

Jack Layton has followed Tommy Douglas down the road to Jerusalem. There is no doubt in my heart that he arrived safely.

The Ultimate End Game for No One is Illegal

In Britain, the battle against Shariah law is intensifying.

In Wolfenstow, in East London, a group led by Anjem Choudary has set out to set up its very own Shariah law zone. They have even boasted that they've assembled vigilante groups to roam the streets enforcing Shariah law.

Among the prohibited activities in these zones are drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol, and music.

They've at least shown the courtesy of displaying posters declaring Wolfenstow to be a Shariah-controlled zone. Police, meanwhile, have promptly set to removing the posters everywhere they are put up. There is a law in London, and it is not Shariah law.

But if groups like No One is Illegal have their way, Shariah law in East London -- and around the world -- really will be unstoppable, as Choudary insists.

No One is Illegal has managed to remain obscure enough that their core beliefs remain a mystery to the vast majority of Canadians. But among them is the rejection of any idea of being a "good immigrant" and integrating into the societies they immigrate into.

In other words, No One is Illegal believes that people should be able to immigrate at will, then do as they will. So long as No One is Illegal can convince themselves that such people are not "colonizers", then everything is OK in their eyes.

For those paying attention to the group, NOII's response to this will finally clarify where they stand on the issues they themselves so eager racialize. If they stand up and declare that the clear colonizing tactics of these groups -- including the comically named "Muslims Against the Crusades", who are now waging a crusade of their very own.

If they declare the actions of this group to be acceptable, or failt to respond at all, it will be clear that NOII has a clear racial bias in the application of their own ideals; that only whites can colonize, even if individuals like Choudary will be far more unjust and oppressive than anything ever imagined by British settlers arriving in Canada.

No One is Illegal calls North America "occupied Turtle Island". What would their name be for an Islamic, theocratic Emirate established in Wolfentow? When one considers that their goal is for as many radical Shariah-backing Muslims to move about the world as wish to do so, perhaps it's entirely fair to consider it NOII's ultimate end game.

How Well Do Religion and Economics Mix?

Could faith-based economics be tolerated in a democratic society?

With economic policy once again at the heart of public debate, the dominant debate has been between economics' two heavyweight theories: those of John Maynard Keynes and those of Friedrich Hayek.

Yet with Keynes and Hayek occupying the dominant positions in this debate, it's easy for any alternatives to get squeezed out. Of course, this begs a key question: which of the alternative theories are worthy of consideration, and which should be rejected?

Rarely receiving careful consideration are the so-called faith-based economic theories. While Keynes and Hayek are hotly debated in the university classroom, so-called faith-based theories are relegated to the homeschool classroom.

Yet some theorize that these theories have garnered far more influence than it would seem.

One of these theories is that of Christian Reconstructionism, championed primarily by Gary North. North is something of a recluse. His reclusiveness may have something to do with the detail that his name is on a watchlist of "libertarian theocrats"

(This is an oxymoron if there ever was one, but it's likely entirely lost on the studious "scholars" of the far-left.)

North is a disciple of Rousas John Rushdoony (himself during his life a feirce advocate of home schooling, unsurprisingly). Rushdoony preached an approach to economic political policy that turned an eye to charity, but not with inexhaustible patience for those who would rely on it.

"In the New Testament, Consider what Paul was doing," Rushdoony told a sympathetic interviewer prior to his passing. "Offerings to alleviate the poverty of the saints during the famine in Palestine; counseling that the needy be cared for, but 'He who will not work, let him not eat.'"

"We do know that anyone who became unemployed was given three days income," Rushdooney continued. "After that they found work for him. Another Christian would hire him, but at lower than his normal pay so there would be no incentive to stay under that diaconal care."

That would certainly be an unwelcome shock to those demanding 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Rushdooney also invoked the Roman experience with courts to justify the establishment of religious courts. In his view, they simply worked better.

"We know from 1 Corinthians 6 [paraphrase] that Paul said: 'Don't go to the civil courts. They're ungodly. Create your own courts.' And they did," Rushdooney explained. "They were so efficient that after a while pagans were coming to the church courts and saying: 'Adjudicate our problems for us. It takes years to get a case heard in the civil courts and it bankrupts us and then we don't get justice. Would you do it for us?'"

"When Constantine became Emperor, he called in the bishops and he said, 'The courts of the Empire are failing. We have cases that have been in the courts forty years with no justice. I want you men when you go out in the streets to wear the garb of a Roman magistrate by my orders so that the people of Rome and of the Empire will no that they can come to you for justice.'"

Rushdooney declared that when Rome fell, it was only the Christian courts that remained to provide any semblence of justice.

"Then the deacons took care of the sick, the poor, the orphans and the widows, of needy people in general, of captives, because as the Roman Empire began to breakdown, pirates and lawless bands would take men for ransom, hold men captive," Rushdooney explained. "One bishop in the early church ransomed 15,000 captives. When Rome fell, for six centuries, the only courts of Europe were the church courts for arbitration."

"When Rome was gone, the government, the state was gone, but Europe had justice because the church provided it," Rushdooney continued. "This was the pattern through much of the Middle Ages. It was the pattern of the Reformation."

Unlike the Roman courts, which were maintained through taxation by the state, the Christian courts were maintained by voluntary offerings. (Although a clear case exists that these offerings were coerced through social means.)

"There were two offerings taken every Sunday: one for the work of the deacons so that all of the needy were cared for so that apart from crime, the church through these diaconal courts and through various independent Christian agencies provided for the basic government of the community," Rushdooney said.

Courts being a foundational institution of any market (along with governments, markets and financial institutions), a very simple fact of economic life emerges: whomever controls courts can effectively control much of the economy.

Under Christian Reconstructionism, important facets of the economy would effectively be relegated to the Church. But even if religious courts historically out-performed Roman courts, should Christian Reconstructionism be seriously considered?

Absolutely not.

For one thing, Rushdooney's vision of a state based on Christian Reconstructionism is unconstitutional in the United States. In fact, it's unconstitutional in any country that guarantees religious freedom within its foundational law (including in Canada).

For his own part, Rushdooney insisted that a Church-dominated state should not be offensive to non-Christians. Confoundingly, however, the only basis of support he argues for this idea is based on religious scripture. He simply stated: "Our Lord said, 'Occupy until I come.'"

The only way Christian Reconstructionism could become the basis of law in the United States is if these constitutional guarantees of religious freedom were removed through an amendment.

This would extend a dangerous invitation to things like Shariah law. In a properly democratic society, law based on Islam -- or any other religion -- would be just as permissable as law based on Christianity. The only means by which Rushdooney could guarantee that social structures that are every bit as socially destructive as Christian Reconstructionism, if not more, would be to rebuke democracy as the basis of American politics.

So not only could a democratic state not enshrine North and Rushdooney's faith-based economics as the basis of state policy, North and Rushdeooney's Christian Reconstructionism could not accept democracy as the basis of the political regime.

Simply put, there is no room in a democratic and free society for this kind of religious law.

There's certainly plenty of room for alternative economic theories to Keynes and Hayek. But Rousas John Rushdooney and Gary North unequivocally do not provide such an alternative.

Frankly, there's a reason Rushdooney's and North's work have been relegated to homeschooling. Anyone advocating faith-based economics as the answer to any economic dilemma should promptly be sent back to the drawing board.

PETA's Easter Spanking

Jesus not a vegetarian; loved fish

Paying any passing amount of attention to a PETA ad campaign is basically like watching an Old Navy commercial: everyone in vegetarianism.

Including, it seems, Jesus Christ. PETA seemingly delights in pushing the idea that Jesus is a vegetarian.

Comments by PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich suggesting the same were recently taken to task by Todd R Post, a travelling missionary.

In a letter appearing in the Fargo-Mounthead InForum, Post confronts PETA's claims with some very basic citations from scripture.

"Twice Jesus helped Peter catch abundant amounts of fish (Luke 5:4-7 and John 21:5-11). Luke 24:41-43 clearly shows that Jesus ate fish with his Disciples in their presence," Post explains. "In the Parable of the Lost Son, Jesus talked about the father killing the fatted calf to celebrate his son’s return (Luke 15:23). When Jesus instructed his followers to take communion, he used the phrase “eat my flesh” (John 6:53) when referring to the bread representing his body."

Not that Post entirely rejects PETA's biblical take of animal rights. In fact, he agrees that the Bible instructs not to abuse animals.

"I do agree that the Bible commands man not to deliberately abuse animals," Post continues. "Proverbs 12:10 (NIV) says, 'A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal.' I also agree with Friedrich’s disapproval of some modern agriculture methods. Seeing the movie Food, Inc inspired me to minimize my fast-food consumption."

But this is not to say that animals have the same value as humans. Post insists that the Bible clearly indicates otherwise.

"But animals do not have equal status with humans. Jesus said in Matthew 10:31, 'Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.' The Lord also said in Matthew 12:12, 'Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?'"

In fact, Post insists, Jesus would take issue with people such as those in PETA, who treat animals as if they have greater value than humans.

"In Jesus’ day, some people valued the lives of animals more than the welfare of humans," Post writes. "In Mark, Chapter 5, Jesus delivered a demon-possessed man and allowed the unclean spirits to enter into a herd of swine, which ended up drowning. The pig farmers didn’t rejoice when seeing the demoniac set free. They were more concerned about losing their 'deviled ham' and told Jesus to go away."

One should likely presume that the "demonic possession" in this case is metaphorical for something. Likely the entire tale is metaphorical. But it's fairly clear: PETA's claims that the Bible grants equal value to animals as to humans is clearly false.

These arguments offered by PETA are -- as they so often are -- sloppy, lazy, and opportunistic.

"Today’s animal-rights advocates misuse Scripture to condemn meat-eating but neglect more important matters like people’s eternal destinies," Post declares. "This is a prophetic fulfillment of 1 Timothy 4 Verses 4 and 5 from this chapter go on to say, 'For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.'"

According to Post, it's permissable to consume meat, although the Bible does instruct believers to be thankful and appreciative of animals.

But PETA doesn't want Christians to realize this. They're too busy trying to use people's religious beliefs to push their own extreme agenda.

Hate Hits the Wall

In sports -- particularly those that involve running -- there's a phrase for when a competitor begins to lose energy and momentum. They call it hitting the wall.

In BBC documentary film maker Louis Theroux's Most Hated Family in America in Crisis, Theroux returns to Topeka, Kansas to catch up with the Westboro Baptist Church.

What emerges is a portrait of a social movement -- and a family -- in crisis.

Maybe it's charitable to describe the WBC as a social movement. Perhaps its more fitting to describe them as part of a hate-based religion movement that includes individuals such as Florida's Pastor Terry Jones and the Taliban. The hate-based religion movement is basically a multi-faith hate cult.



In the four years since Theroux was last with the WBC, it has slowly hemhorraged followers. As it does this, the Phelps family itself hemhorrages family members.

It's against this backdrop that it's startling to see Shirley Phelps-Roeper so enthusiastic about the state of her church when it's in fact more troubled than its ever been before.



It's almost as if Shirley Phelps-Roeper has always been emotionally thriving off the hatred she provokes. With the WBC attracting more and more hatred, Phelps-Roeper seems more and more pleased with herself.

In fact, Phelps-Roeper seems more disturbed than ever before. Presenting some pint-sized hate placards, she describes them as "cute".

She even describes President Barack Obama as "the anti-Christ".



Even more shocking than the kid-sized signs she shows off is hearing the Phelps' own very young children -- some seeming to be as young as seven years old -- spouting the same hate rhetoric. This is just a form of victimization by the elder members of the hate-cult. The children have no idea what they're saying; they don't actually understand the hate they're being taught.



Most striking is that the WBC's hate-based religion makes victims of the Phelps children. They are essentially not allowed to be children. While the elder Phelps have allowed themselves to make friends, find love (even if it's with despicable people) and have families. They do not allow their children the same opportunities to live.

It repeatedly becomes thematic throughout the film: the hypocrisy of the WBC is slowly driving its children away.

At the end of the day, however, Louis Theroux should accept that his quest to understand the Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church is futile. Try as they may, good people -- and Theroux seems like a genuinely good person -- will never truly understand evil.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 4

Today on the Nexus series fact-checking the Shit Harper Did website, we examine the site's descent from specious half-truths and outright lies into sheer religious bigotry:

Of course, all of this is based on the work of Douglas Todd.

As if to provoke some very severe doubts about the nature of Todd's work, it seems that his claims about the Alliance Church's beliefs regarding an apocalypse are corroborated only by works by himself. That's suspicious, particularly when Todd tips his hand when he attempts to also link Harper's religious beliefs to Sarah Palin.

It would be bad enough if it weren't just blatant dog-whistle politics. It's also poorly supported.

Todd offers examples of work by Vision TV's Randall Mark and Fraser Valley University professor Ron Dart. Mark's and Dart's works on this subject are not peer-reviewed, and themselves cite no sources.

In other words: they don't pass scholarly muster.

Not that anyone should expect such scholarly matters to be of any concern to the people behind ShitHarperDid. After all, the website is all about dog-whistle politics -- about making statements that would rightly be rejected by most people as utter rubbish, yet serves to get the far-left base all fired up for the election.

As it turns out, however, the joke may actually be on the creators of Shit Harper Did: the far-left base is already fired up to vote. It's moderate voters they desperately need, and moderate voters are likely to be repulsed by the kinds of lies being told at the Shit Harper Did website.

What's been seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Ther are more.

Religious Freedom: It's Not About Secularism...

...At least not in the way 'secularists' believe

When the Conservative Party recently proposed the creation of an office within the department of Foreign Affairs dedicated to promoting religious freedom abroad, it was only a matter of time before they began to draw heat over the proposition.

The opposition is coming from various quarters: from the self-proclaimed secularists at the Centre for Inquiry to the thinly-veiled Islamists at the Canadian Islamic Congress.

The CIC's Wahida Valiante pointed to the Conservative Party's failure to deliver a proposed office that would promote democracy abroad by collaborating with foreign political parties. The Conservatives backed away from this proposal (which was probably for the best, as it was fraught with the possibility of interference in foreign domestic politics).

"Every country, every nation has their own laws to protect their citizens," Valiante declared. "We have our Charter rights in Canada. In that, our freedom to practice religion is guaranteed. That shows that Canada is a model in which diversity of religion is protected. We can only be a model to others."

To put it charitably, Valiante's statement is just untrue. There are no laws to protect religious freedom in countries like Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, Libya and a host of others. Moreover, Canada can do more than simply be a model of religious freedom. It can be an advocate of religious freedom. That's the point.

The Centre for Inquiry's Justin Trottier has reportedly suggested that religious freedom is a "sensitive area" for the government to venture into, and even suggested that the office could wind up taking sides in religious disputes.

Which is actually the polar opposite of what the office's mandate would be. Frankly, Trottier's objections are simply confusing.

Simply put, the establishment of an office to promote religious freedom isn't about secularism. At least not in the way Trottier seems to think.

Secularism cannot actually exist without religious freedom. Religious freedom, after all, entails the freedom to not be religious, and the freedom to be secular.

That kind of freedom is what this is about, and that's why the establishment of this office is so vital.

THE Great Idea Whose Time Has Come

Tories pledge to take a stand on global religious freedom

Who says that Canadian political parties don't talk about foreign policy at election time?

Surely, they don't do it nearly enough. But sometimes, it happens. This was the case very recently, as the Conservative Party announced they would create an Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs.

"We think there's a need to put a particular focus on this," announced Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney. "This is something the United States did more than a decade ago through the creation of the Office for International Religious Freedom in the State Department."

"You'd be looking at things, in part, from a religious freedom prism," he continued. "As a champion of human rights around the world we should be entirely comfortable with focusing on the rights of vulnerable religious minorities."

For his own part, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae was not convinced, and seemingly not amused. He accused the Tories of naked political opportunism.

"It has much more to do with Canadian domestic politics than it has to do with the necessity of having a coherent strategy for the promotion of democracy and human rights," Rae complained. "It's more a domestic strategy than a foreign affairs strategy."

In his own rush to find something in the policy to criticize, David McGuinty complained about separation of church and state. He also suggested that an office promoting religious freedom abroad is not necessary.

"We have a document in this country that does that, it's called the Charter of Rights," McGuinty mused.

In this, McGuinty has missed the point. In countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and (yes) Afghanistan there are no such documents. They have no such freedoms. Moreover, the office would also allow Canada to take a stronger stand against the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who annually introduce their anti-blasphemy resolutions at the UN.

Canadians believe religious freedom to be a global good. Canada would be remiss not to promote it abroad.

This is an idea that the Liberal Party should enthusiastically support. If anything, their greatest criticism of the Conservatives should be that they didn't create such an office years ago.

Their lack of enthusiasm about this idea indicates that the Liberal Party has taken a step away from Canadian values. In their assumption that they define Canadian values just by virtue of existing, the Liberal Party has lost touch.

Jason Kenney seems to have little time for those opposing this idea.

"Perhaps there are some rabid secularists out there who don't understand there are a lot of vulnerable religious minorities under attack around the world," Kenney remarked. "To those people who would challenge it because they are uncomfortable with religious faith, I would say, 'Get over it'. We're talking about fundamental rights here."

If this initiative wins more votes from ethnic Canadians, it will be for good reason: because they understand the importance of this issue, and they know that the Conservative Party shares that understanding.

Yes, There Is Something Creepier Than Fred Phelps' Grandaughters....

...And it turns out to be a convert to the Westboro Baptist Church. Yes, shokcingly people convert to that particular hate cult.

Louis Theroux's Most Hated Family in America was a startling look behind the public face of the WBC. Upon returning to revisit the Phelps family, Theroux was confronted as a "sewer of inequity" by a former filmmaker turned hate cult member.

The amiability with which the former filmmaker compares Theroux to Pontius Pilate would almost be shocking if it wasn't just so damned creepy.

It's Devil's Night!

The Forgotten Islam

For the most dedicated critics of Islam -- those better described as "Islamophobes" -- Sufism is not only the Islam they forgot. Rather, Sufism is the Islam they refuse to even acknowledge.

Sufism could perhaps best be described as the Salvation Army of Islam.

Sufism combines the joyous music and adulation of God with the generous philanthropic outlook of the Salvation Army.

Sufism refutes the iconoclastic nature of Islam, and finds its route to God through music and art -- much to the objection of Muslim fundamentalists.

Contrary to the stereotype of Islam as backward and culturally stagnant, Sufism is progressive and culturally dynamic. Sufi musicians experiment openly with their stylings, including flirting with electronic music.

It's a shame that Sufism has become the forgotten Islam. It should be the Islam that everyone remembers.

Is Hollywood Really Anti-Christian? (Part One)

An argument has long existed that Hollywood is anti-Christian.

Many of the portrayals of Christians in Hollywood films are far less than flattering. Meanwhile, a perception exists that films that present Christianity in a positive light tend to get a bad rap from so-called Hollywood elites (unless there is some kind of controversy involved).

To Save a Life is such a movie, and at least one of the actors cast in the film seem to think the film has gotten a bad rap.

To Save a Life opens with a funeral. Jake Taylor (Randy Wayne) is mourning the loss of a friend whom he turned away from in High School. His social circle is a simple one: his girlfriend Amy (Deja Kreutzberg), his best friend Doug Moore (Steven Crowder), and -- because Jake is the star of the school basketball team -- everyone else in the school.

Jake is naturally troubled, considering that Roger (Robert Bailey Jr) shot himself right in front of him.

He's eventually pulled into the orbit of Chris Vaughn (Joshua Weigel), a local pastor, and decides to change his life, even over the objections of his friends.

Criticisms of the film are apparently disquieting at least some of the film's cast months later.

Moore isn't a particularly appealing character, and it would be hard to pretend that other actors haven't played such characters better. But a January, 2010 review of the film in the New York Times seemed to offend Crowder enough to write a column on it for Fox News -- eight months later.

In the column, Crowder treats the review as symptomatic of anti-Christian hostility:

"The Hollywood elitists hated it. Surprisingly in most of the nasty reviews, the arrogant critics praised the film for its high-production quality and more than capable cast. What they had a problem with…was its Christian message."

Depending on the eye one has for such details, there may very well be enough in the review to justify Crowder's response to it -- although one may also argue that an actor taking the time to single out and respond to a bad review is rather unbecoming.

The review does suggest that the film has an agenda, but doesn't go so far as to state what the author -- Anddy Webster -- thinks that agenda is. He accuses the film of exploiting school shootings in order to advance that agenda; although the shooting portrayed in the film is more of a "Jeremy"-style suicide than a Columbine-style mass murder.

To Crowder, these kinds of reactions to the film isn't stemmed in the comparative merits of the film -- or whether the critic liked it. For Crowder, the response to the film is stemmed in anti-Christian hostility rooted in liberalism:

"There’s really only one answer. The movie’s message of salvation is decidedly Christian. In the film, the main character, Jake, turns his life around through his relationship with God. Not only God, but the worst kind of God as Tinseltown would see it… the evil, Judeo-Christian God. – Cue the dramatic chipmunk.

You see, See, Jesus to liberals is like the squat-rack to metrosexual gymrats; they avoid it like the plague. They hate it, because it’s a lot of work. Whether you see Jesus as nothing more than a mythical figure or not, there’s no doubt that living your life in a Christ-like manner is a lot harder than the hedonistic lifestyle reflected in Hollywood."

Certainly, this conflicts with at least one particular genre of film: the stoner film, in which characters who would (for lack of a more appropriate term) be considered losers find ways out of their problems without ever changing the lifestyle habits that have led their lives to the sorry state they're in.

Changing a lifestyle is hard. Some film genres have given their characters the option of taking the easy way out. In the end, the characters haven't improved their lot at all, yet have solved their problem of the day. Then again, these films don't tend to do very well with the critics either.

Vaughn challenges Jake to explore his spiritual side without sacrificing his sense of self. However, it becomes clear to Jake that he has to make soem changes in his lifestyle.

Jake eventually has to confront Christian philistinism not only in those in the church, but also in himself.

Everyone is familiar with the Christian philistine: a selfish, self-righteous, judgemental and hypocritical individual who considers thsemelves to be "saved", and has nothing but contempt for those who are not.

Hollywood films are full of them.

To Save a Life seems to acknowledge the existence of such Christians. Moreover, it actually confronts that kind of individual, and challenges them to be more the way they believe they want to be.

There's a reason why the judgemental, hypocritical and holier-than-thou Christian is so popular in many Hollywood films -- such as the upcoming Easy A. It's because such Christians exist. They should by no means be taken to represent the whole of Christianity, but they very much do exist.

Critics whose personal impressions of Christianity are married to this preconception will find To Save a Life particularly challenging.

Those most decidated to maintaining their preconceptions typically don't enjoy challenges.

Many Christians themselves may find it even more challenging. They may enjoy the challenge even less.

You Mean Like This? Still No?

Canadian Muslim Congress denounces radical Islam

In the wake of arrests involving a suspected terror cell in Ottawa, various Canadian bloggers have called for Canadian Muslims to denounce terrorism.

The Canadian Muslim Congress has done precisely that.

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise," says the CMC's Raheel Raza. "We have a problem."

"There is a serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth and if we don't address this now, it can culminate into something dangerous," Raza continues. "We have to stand up and tackle this."

Raza doesn't seem to be concerned that her admissions of concern would attract attention from Islamophobes.

"There are always going to be bigots, we can't stop speaking out against radicalization just because we are afraid of a few bigots and hate-mongers," she continues. "Those people who are sensible ... will understand what we are talking about."

This comes hot on the heels of a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams denouncing radical Islam -- one that was met with cynicism by Canadian critics of Islam.

Sadly, it's unlikely that Raheel Raza's concern about the radicalization of Muslim youths -- and her organization's efforts to stop it -- will be met with similar cynicism.

Moderate Islam: Like it or Not, it Exists

Islamophobes are wron to deny existence of moderate Islam

With Cordoba House becoming increasingly controversial, the matter has become a focal point for debate of radical Islam, with the Imam leading the Cordoba group being accused of being an Islamic militant.

This despite the detail that he has given help to the FBI's counter-terrorism division.

Opponents of the Mosque have trafficiked in guilt by association -- noting his membership on the board of directors for an organization that provided funding to Gaza blockade-runners -- and statements critical of American foreign policy.

All this while they demand that Muslims denounce Islamic radicalism.

The trouble is that Muslim groups have periodically denounced Islamic extremism. This is something that the Jihad Watch crowd continually refuses -- simply refuses -- to acknowledge. Making declaration such as "Muslims take honour in deceeiving non-believers", Islamophobes have given themselves all kinds of excuses to ignore these denunciations.

A recent declaration issued by the Canadian Council of Imams has been similarily ignored.

In the declaration, the Imams throoughly denounce Islamic radicalism:

"1. We believe in the oneness of Allah (God) and in the oneness of humanity and that all the Messengers of God, including the final Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), have taught human beings how to come closer to God and closer to one another. Islam is a religion of nature and humanity, one that teaches that a person cannot be a good Muslim until he/she becomes a good human being. All human beings are equal, and all of them are the children of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). The best Muslim is the one who is good to his/her family and neighbors and one who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue.

2. We believe in peaceful coexistence, dialogue, bridge building, and cooperation among all faiths and people for the common good of humanity. Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, regardless of their creed, ethnicity, race, or nationality. The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws. Islamic rulings do not – and should not – contradict natural laws. Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings.

3. We believe in the preservation of all the necessities of life. Islam upholds the sanctity of religion, life, intellect, family/society, and property.

4. We believe that the well-being of our fellow citizens is the well-being of Muslims, and that the well-being of Muslims is the well-being of our fellow citizens. Being law-abiding people is part of the Islamic practice, and following the pristine teachings of Islam leads to good citizenship.

5. We believe in gender equity and each man and each woman’s divine right to education, social contribution, work, and treatment with respect and dignity. Men and women complement each other, and healthy relationships between them are essential to a healthy society.

6. We believe that it is the right of every individual adult person to determine for themselves their conduct towards and within their society (for example, in matters of dress or good manners), and their personal conduct in matters of faith and belief as well, as long as their conduct does not threaten the common good. Likewise, we believe that every society must be allowed to express and celebrate humanity’s profound cultural diversity, as long as the expression of that diversity does not include the compulsion of any individual to violate their own human rights, or their personal values, or their human nature, or otherwise threaten the common good of all people.

7. We believe and strongly encourage Muslims to seriously engage in civic life and contribute to their communities and society as much as they can."

Naturally, this is a statement that Canada's Islamophobes have chosen to ignore, even as they demand that Muslims denounce radical Islam.

Arguments have been raised by those who deny the existence of moderate Islam that religious training centres are breeding grounds for radical Islam.

As it turns out, those worried by Islamic terrorism should want more, not less, religious training for Muslims.

A recent report from Duke University has found that Muslims who have received religious training are the least likely to be radicalized.

Denunciations of radical Islam, self-policing, and the creation of an identity as Muslim-Americans rather than simply as Muslims have figured largely into the effort of American Muslims to combat radicalism.

These are facts taht, sadly, those who have based their knowledge of Islam on individuals such as Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer simply choose to ignore.

But whether they like it or not, moderate Islam exists -- not that they'll ever admit it.

Complaints, In Perspective

Starring Zombieland's Emma Stone, Easy A is still more than a month away from release, and it's already provoking complaints.

Judging from the trailers, Easy A casts Stone as Olive Penderghast, a High School student who, as an act of compassion, pretends to loudly have sex with a gay classmate.

This attracts the wrath of Marianne (Amanda Bynes), the ringleader of an ultra-conservative band of religious students on campus. Marianne, believing herself to be morally superior by virtue of her Christianity, attempts to run Olive out of her school.

In response, Olive adopts the famed scarlet letter in order to scandalize her detractors.

The film has already provoked predictable complaints from the religious right that the film demonizes Christians.

The complaint is predictable, but not worthy of realistic consideration. If Christians object to the portrayal of morally-snobbish and stuck-up Christians, then it is up to them to challenge the excesses of such Christians.

The more interesting complaint actually comes from atheist circles, where some atheists are claiming that the film is subverting the red A they use as a symbol.

They seem to have forgotten that this symbol had been adopted as a condemnation of adultery and, more broadly, sexual promiscuity long before atheists adopted it as their symbol. Thus, if anything, it was atheists who suberted the symbol for their own purposes.

But the response of another atheist to the suggestion that the film risks subverting their symbol is very telling:

"We co-opted it because it was a symbol of religious persecution."

It's worth noting: modern atheists wanted to believe they were the victims of religious persecution, and so they willingly adopted a symbol of religious persecution as their own.

Easy A sends a stark reminder of what's wrong with the most conservative strains of Christianity. But it also serves as a reminder of what's wrong with the scarlet A-toting adherents of fundamentalist atheism.

God Hates... Terrible Music? Redux

Justin Bieber WBC's most recent random target

If there was any doubt that the hate-worshippers at the Westboro Baptist Church were picking the targets of their protests at random, the announcement of their most recent target has pretty much confirmed it.

When Justin Bieber fans turn up to his concert in Kansas City, they can expect to be confronted by Fred Phelps and his congregation.

While the WBC's recent attempts to picket at the San Diego Comic-Con and at Lady Gaga Concerts met with a humiliating response, it seems that this church has resorted back to its original, cowardly tactics:

Pick on those unlikely to fight back.

After all, it's unlikely that the pre-pubescent teenage girls attending Bieber's concerts even know who the WBC are, let alone are they likely to be prepared to meet the church's bigotry with the response it deserves: contempt and ridicule.

Sadly, it seems Bieber fans are about to get a crash course in precisely how deep and dark the malice of a bigot truly runs.

Nerds 1. Westboro Baptist Church Can Still Go Fuck Itself

Nerds welcome WBC to San Diego Comic-con
'Nuff said. Excelsior!

Marci The Victim

Marci McDonald complains about "right wing attacks"

Writing a column in the Ottawa Citizen, Marci McDonald -- of The Armageddon Factor fame -- complains that she's been treated rather unjustly by Canada's conservative media.

Citing sources of attack such as Ezra Levant, David Frum and Blazing Cat Fur, McDonald decries the injustice of it all, and insists that she had no malignant intent in mind.

She writes:

"I've found myself in a firestorm of controversy, the object of distinctly un-Christian invective and the unbridled wrath of the right-wing blogosphere. Charting the uneasy minuet of religion and politics in Stephen Harper's Ottawa appears to have given me a level of notoriety summed up in a current title on the best-seller list: I am, as one friend quipped, the girl who kicked the hornet's nest."

Others would argue rather differently: they would argue that McDonald invented the hornet's nest out of nearly whole cloth, then deliberately punted at conservative and Evangelical Christian Canadians.

If she didn't do so herself, she's clearly been content to decline to speak out against the numerous Canadian ideologues using her book as a tool of cultural warfare against conservatives.

She in particular identifies Ezra Levant as the alleged source of her woes. But within her complaints about Levant's admittedly-vociferous criticism of her comes an interesting admission:

"We clearly missed four errors among the litany he alleged and will correct them at the earliest chance.

But his zeal does raise an obvious question: Do four errors in 400 pages constitute what he calls an 'error-riddled' book?"

If ony there were only four errors in McDonald's book. But as many experts have pointed out, McDonald's work is indeed laden with errors -- factual, interpretive and conceptual.

One must turn again to the review of McDonald's book by Yale PhD candidate Molly Worthen, who points out the numerous follies of McDonald's book.

To start with, Worthen points out that McDonald has polarized Evangelical Chrisitians into two camps:

"She reduces their diverse beliefs to two extreme nodes: Christian Reconstructionism, a theocratic vision that seeks 'dominion' over society by reinstating Mosaic law; and dispensationalist premillennialism, a view of the end times in which human history tumbles into chaos until Christ sweeps up believers in the Rapture and fights the final battle of Armageddon."

Moreover, McDonald's source notes reveal an effort to simply transplant politically-motivated fear mongering from south of the border north of the 49th parallel:

"Her source notes reveal that her account relies heavily on a handful of books by American journalists who over-simplified evangelical thought in an effort to galvanize liberals during the George W Bush era."

Moreover, as it turns out, McDonald doesn't even have the most damaging insinuation of her book -- the suggestion of a theocratic bent amongst Canadian Evangelical Christians -- right:

"Some of her subjects may indeed dream of ruling Canada by divine mandate, but she paints all – from Dutch Reformed to Lutheran to Mennonite – with the same theocratic brush, despite the fact that many of these churches have either rejected or severely qualified their views of Christian 'dominion' and the Rapture-centred vision of end times. Although most evangelicals still believe that prophecy has something to do with current events, premillennialism has mellowed significantly in recent years."

In other words, McDonald suggests that the idea of premillienialism is becoming more dangerous at a time when it is, in fact, becoming less dangerous -- if there was ever any significant danger at all.

Worthen also points out that McDonald rushes to find any hint of Christian Reconstructionism so she ignores key elements of the philosophy of politically-engaged Christians:

"The Evangelicals that McDonald meets occasionally declare their 'biblical worldview' or denounce the myth of neutrality in the public sphere. What she takes for the language of Christian Reconstructionism is actually a feature of Reformed cultural theology, a broad tradition that urges Christians to engage in all spheres of life through a unified worldview. To miss this point is fundamentally to misunderstand the intellectual position of many evangelicals. They have critiqued secular ideas of objectivity and the exclusion of religion from the public square by suggesting that in this postmodern age – when even atheist philosophers doubt there is just one true understanding of reality – Christian presuppositions are no less valid grounds for a worldview than those of secular rationalism. McDonald does not take on this argument, nor give the reader any hint of this broader context."

Based on all of this -- the assessment of an actual expert on Evangelical Christianity -- it's clear that McDonald's book is troubled by far more than simply four of the errors cited by Ezra Levant. Yet just as McDonald has yet to intercede against the Murray Dobbins and Dennis Gruendings of Canada who are intent on using her book as a weapon in a culture war that they are gleefully eager to fight, McDonald seems to have yet to respond to this criticism.

Better for McDonald to tackle the Levants and Frums of the world -- whom McDonald's target demographic already despise -- than the criticisms offered by experts. All while McDonald tries to pretend she's playing nice with the real experts on Canadian Evangelical Christianity -- individuals like Lloyd Mackey, who knows the subject far better than she does -- and insisting that she's a moderate.

Apparently, people are supposed to simply overlook passages such as this, in which she suggests that Canadian Evangelicals would transform Canada into a:

"Christian nation [in which] non-believers ... have no place, and those in violation of biblical law, notably homosexuals and adulterers, would merit severe punishment and the sort of shunning that once characterized a society where suspected witches were burned."

This, despite the fact that McDonald simply has it wrong. The extreme fringes of the far left, who so desperately want McDonald's conclusions to be true, will ignore simply ignore this. It's always been their modus operandi.

McDonald, in the meantime, will continue to aid them by playing the victim card.

It's a sad, sad gambit from someone whose work has been judged, tested, and found wanting.