Christians arrested for preaching... or not...

There is enough actual persecution of Christians in various parts of the world. Why are we inventing this nonsense? This is like that thing in California where a Bible study was “busted” and prevented from assembling because of zoning and other concerns, but it was posted everywhere as a violation of freedom of religion. It was said many times- I never thought I'd see that in my lifetime!"

I say this not to bash Christians or evangelism, but as a reminder to be careful about how you do it. There is a tactful and respectful way to approach any topic. Sometimes this is lost in an effort to be direct and clear. Or other reasons. I don't really know.

I commented on something on the web about the “Ground Zero mosque” (Park51/ Cordoba Project) and the person brought up this video of possible Christian persecution by not so much Muslims as Dearborn police who are overly protective of Muslims because obviously Muslims have taken over Dearborn- if you believe some people…

The video:

‘Sharia Law in Dearborn Michigan’

http://americanelephant.com/blog/commentary/sharia-law-dearborn-michigan/

(And by sharia, they mean that you can’t evangelize or that Christianity is restricted. What sharia really means, most people are clueless. Including me.)

The video shows people passing out part of the Bible outside what they call a Muslim festival (15^th annual Arab International Festival). They are swarmed by police and arrested. That definitely could look like a violation of rights.

I had a sneaking suspicion that it wasn’t the whole story. And it wasn’t.

Upon further investigation, the group called Acts 17 Apologetics was harassing people in many cases and caused an angry incident/confrontation either in 2009 or this year. This year, the police were called when a (non-Muslim?) festival worker was being harassed and videotaped. The group kept returning to the site and nearby area to see how close the police would let them get. Never mind that they could have gotten a booth inside the event and spoken and leafleted til their hearts were content. Or, they could invite a Muslim leader or individual to a debate or series of debates. Or offer to study and exchange beliefs together - a group of themselves with a group of Muslims. But, no, they chose a more confrontational method that got them in trouble.

And everyone’s upset about the police not allowing the filming. That’s not new. Some states have laws against it. Here’s an interesting NPR piece I heard recently on this topic: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128387108

I found bringing this up completely irrelevant to the mosque debate. Those Muslims weren’t harassing people, disregarding laws, leafleting, or attending Christian events to convert them to Islam. They are praying there now and want to build a community center and mosque.

***

In addition to also lumping this with the Park 51 mosque issues, Gingrich has this to say:

Newt Gingrich continues to demonstrate his unusual (for a politician) awareness of the stealth jihad threat. In this case, he quite rightly points out that Christians trying to preach to Muslims or convert them to Christianity is not illegal under U.S. law; it is only illegal under Sharia.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/gingrich-on-christians-arrested-in-dearborn-they-were-on-a-public-street-outside-an-arab-festival-in.html

***

Most of what I saw when I googled Christians arrested at Dearborn festival were blogs and news items sensationalizing this and seizing on the fact that Christians were arrested and “all they were doing” was passing out copies of the Gospel of John. All the usual suspects picked up the story.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/06/21/christians-arrested-for-witnessing-at-arab-fest/

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/06/arrested-for-being-christian-preachers.html

http://thepersecutiontimes.com/three-christians-arrested-by-dearborn-michigan-police-during-muslim-outreach/2010/06/19/

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=169577

Very few bothered to see if there were other circumstances. What is the background info? What are the rules in Detroit for gathering? What are the rules in Detroit when a festival is present? Who is this missionary group and what is their track record?

***

The city’s response:

Arrests at Arab Fest a Matter of Public Safety

http://www.cityofdearborn.org/government/city-services/public-information/latest-news/441-arab-fest-response

The mayor’s 5 page letter of response, including background info:

http://www.cityofdearborn.org/images/stories/PDF/Government/Mayor/mayorletter07-09-2010.pdf

***

Here’s a Muslim weighing in on the issue of the so-called missionaries arrested by Dearborn police. He includes bits of the police reports that prove preaching lovingly to Muslims weren’t “all they were doing.”

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/dearborn-police-report-proves.html

***

Here are some interesting points made by a ( I assume) former Muslim whose site most likely aims to find holes in Islam’s teachings. I don’t know much about it. I know even less about the incident surrounding a Mr. Caner to which he goes into detail in this post, however.

The points critical of the missionaries are interesting and telling (and maybe more honest?), given what his site aims to do.

http://husseinwario.com/blog/2010/08/06/acts-17-apologetics-claims-examined/

***

In this blog, the person was first critical of Dearborn police, wrote the Department, got a letter back (I assume it’s the 5 page letter the mayor put out- see above), and found that there were details she hadn’t considered and maybe was too quick to judge:

http://studygrowknowblog.com/2010/07/10/city-of-dearborn-responds-to-arrests-of-arab-christians-at-festival/

Last post on the Great Mosque-oversy?

I hope so. I heard nothing about it on the way in to work today. Maybe it's fizzling already and won't be an election issue after all.


Protest sign: “I learned all I need to know about Islam on 9-11.”

Newt Gingrich: "We can't let the Nazis put up a building next to the Holocaust Museum"

There's also a protest sign talking about Ground Zero being a burial ground, but from what I understand, there's a mall planned or already built right inside the very soil of Ground Zero, not two blocks away. A tacky expression of our consumerism and excess is ok for the burial ground, but a place of worship (several blocks away from and not visible at Ground Zero) reinforcing the first amendment and community center that plans to bring people and faiths together is an insult.

The so-called Christian American reaction is interesting (and bugs me) for two reasons (maybe more):

One is that in the Bible it talks of the doctrine's propensity to cause offense. The way it is often misused - righteous anger replaced with slander and vengeance. When you're sinning, you're wrong and you realize it, this causes shame and maybe defensiveness. When you realize your family is in error and they don't want to change, this causes friction. These are the kinds of offense I think scripture talks about. It is the right thing to do to hold to the truth even though it causes offense. Sometimes, as I felt in this mosque controversy, it seems that Christians feel entitled to say hurtful things and spread lies and put it in the same category as the righteous offense described above. If the response had sparked a real doctrinal discussion rather than - they want to kill us, they're trying to get rid of Christians or Christianity, etc- I'd have still thought that Muslims have the right to practice and build that mosque, but I'd have also been able to be proud of the Christian or American response. When Christians of any kind discuss Islam, it tends to end up that way. I've heard and read very few real discussions and comparisons of teachings - meaning discussion of actual Muslim beliefs rather than an extremist caricature written by a Christian highlighting every verse that can possibly be interpreted negatively. I for one, have more faith in the Bible that it can stand up to a real discussion. Jesus was provacative, but he used truth; he didn't go around making things up or repeating rumors that reflect negatively on the people he reprimanded.

The other reason, finally, is the Ramadan connection.

So, this thought ran through my head last month during the Palin comments on the mosque, but in commenting on all the garbage that was out there, I forgot to add it.

Ramadan started August 11. Palin's comments or tweets (she loves her some Twitter; no room for annoying nuance in 140 characters) were in July; I don't know when in August I started hearing about mosque opposition and protests on TV each morning, but it could have been around then.

Ramadan. The Muslim holy month. The time when they focus on giving to the less fortunate. In fact, if I understand correctly, the fast is to help them identify with the people they are supposed to help. It's a bit ironic or hypocritical that Christians would choose this month to get all up in arms about Muslims. This is when similarities should be quite evident (if we knew anything about Muslims beyond the TV stereotype). They've been praying at that spot for a year with no one saying anything and now they want a mosque. Big deal. And they are focusing on helping the less fortunate now. What on earth is wrong with that? Christians should probably do less complaining about Muslims and more of that. Same goes for me about complaining about those complaining about Muslims. :)

Instead of any mention of this relevant item, we are hearing repeated lies and generalizations about Muslims. They kill their children. They hate us. They want to wipe Christianity off the map. They hate Jews. A mosque near Ground Zero is a monument to terrorists.

Another criticism was it's 9/10 or 9/11 opening. How could they be so insensitive? That is actually the end of the fast this year. It is always a big deal with feasting and visiting family, things not uncommon to the rest of us who have ever observed a holiday. Should we expect them to cancel their holiday and/ or curb their freedoms 9 years out from the national tragedy that also claimed Muslim lives? Who is really being insensitive? Is it non-Muslims or is it Muslims?

I also put this analogy forth on Facebook. I think it's valid. Maybe I'm off the mark. Many say Muslims have the right to build, but they should relocate because it is proving divisive and insensitive to 9/11 victims. Besides painting all Muslims with the same broad brush, this brings to mind this problem. Let's say a black man invades my house and kills a family member. Would I have a negative feeling about all black people? Should I? Would it be acceptable of me to ask all black people to respect my sensitivities and quit plans to build or move within a 2 block or mile or whatever radius of me? Or would I be racist? The example doesn't quite fit in that Muslims died on 9/11, too, but you get the idea.

Soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (however rightly or wrongly depending on your understanding) because of 9/11, like it or not. While I don't think our soldiers in either place are fighting for our freedom, as many say, are they not fighting for the freedom of religion which would allow Muslims to practice in the same way as anyone else with no restrictions?

Maybe this hazing is indeed part of becoming American (see last post). Many an immigrant community has endured this sort of thing, including violence against them. I mean, at one time we tried to scientifically prove that black people were inferior. I have a picture of the textbook illustration depicting this burned in my brain. This kind of thing is absolutely dismissed, considered ignorant and racist today. As it should be. It's hard to believe that it was once mainstream and popular. I hope it will soon be the same with the crazy stuff said of Muslims.

Obama and THE Mosque

Here is the first time I commented on this mosque debate:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/07/she-could-have-been-our-vp.html


I thought Palin was a lone wolf crazy lady on yet another issue. Turns out, 80% of America is with her this time. Doesn't make her right, though.


And now the President weighs in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/14/barack-obama-ground-zero-mosque

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100814/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ground_zero_mosque_obama

Muslims have the right to build it. But he's not commenting on the wisdom of it. So, is that him saying that it isn't wise? Or is he really saying that it's not his business to comment on the wisdom. I hope it's the latter. Because really, what's the big deal? Whose business is it besides the zoning committee in that area of NY? Who cares if there is a giant catholic cathedral or a mosque or a religious buffet squarely on top of Ground Zero (let alone however many miles from it)??

I just don't understand the opposition: "It stabs hearts." "It's an insult to those who died on 9/11." "It's pouring salt in our wounds." "It's a slap in the face."

Isn't this America? The place people flee to when they want religious freedom or freedom of expression? Didn't Muslims also die on 9/11? Why are we still lumping together extremists with a political agenda who were hanging out in a bar and not acting too Muslim (who rammed planes into buildings) with the majority of normal Muslims who generally have the same basic values as Christians and Jews?

And what about the other mosques near ground zero? Why are they no big deal? They don't have community centers. Is that the issue? If this one is such an insult, will we insist that these others be closed? Should Muslims be banned from Ground Zero, NY, the northeast, public office, the US?

When we talk about having a few already in Manhattan, so there should be no problem with adding one more, the counterargument is why one more? Why can't they go to existing mosques. I guess that would be an ok argument if you were prepared to apply it to Christianity and Judaism as well... If we want our rights/ freedoms/ privileges preserved, we're going to have to protect those of others. Or cease being a democracy and haven for free expression and freedom of religion. It's a decision one has to make.

Prevailing wisdom says that we have to attack "them" there before they attack us here and "they" attacked because they are jealous of our freedom. This is backwards. They are not going to be able to walk in and take our freedom; that is something we are free to give up. I have been arguing since 9/11 that those who are opposed to mosques or Muslims are actually doing the terrorists' bidding. That is what they (terrorists, not Muslims) want. They want us to hate them and attack, so that they will be justified in what they do. The best thing for us to do is to stick even more firmly to American values and allow Muslims the freedom to worship anywhere just like anyone else. The more we allow hate and ignorance to dictate our policies against Muslims here and abroad, the more freedom we give up. We become less American and more like those nations which inspire such hatred in these discussions. Today, we may eliminate freedoms for Muslims. That may be fine for you as a Christian or Jew- for now- but watch out. You may be next. In nations that are in the business of limiting freedoms, you have to worry about such things.

Stats are being reported as 75-80% of Americans oppose it and 25% support it or something like that. I was hoping most would say it's the residents' and zoning boards' business, not say- "Muslims. Eeew."


Despite all the opposition, one family member of a 9/11 victim had this to say, though:

The mosque is "in many ways ... a fitting tribute," said Colleen Kelly of the Bronx, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. in the attacks. "This is the voice of Islam that I believe needs a wider audience," said Kelly, who is Catholic. "This is what moderate Islam is all about."

A point was brought up on NPR's Talk of the Nation that everyone (or at least many groups) has been an outsider in this country at one time or another and it is part of the awareness and becoming American. I thought that was an interesting idea.

Another point on the same program, TOTN, was that more mosques mean more discussion among Muslims about the "radical" and "moderate" interpretations and less radicalization rather than more, so allowing mosques is probably more beneficial than banning them. There was an example of an imam in Virginia being kicked out as a result of this process and discussion. Food for thought.


And some satire on this from Jon Stewart if you like:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_1_n_684467.html


And CNN's Fareed Zakaria returned his award from the ADL over this. Go Zakaria! It's easy to see why- it was a First Amendment Freedoms Prize- and you can guess the ADL's stance on this issue.

"Hebrew slogans" and another reason settlements should be razed

Maybe not razed- if they want one secular democratic state where all Jews and all Palestinians everywhere are welcome and have equal rights...


I read a BBC article and they referred to "slogans" written by students (more accurate= suspected terrorists). I mean ynetnews even recognized them as slurs.

The BBC is usually pretty good and brings out points critical of Israel where the US media fails miserably. For example, in many stories, this appears at the end:

"All settlements in the the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this."

This time the BBC was way off.


Anyway- the slogans.

One was "We will burn all of you." A slogan? Really? If this slur is in fact a slogan or mantra, then they've got a terrorist cell on their hands and heads need to roll.

When Palestinians- or anyone for that matter, says these types of things, we call them threats or worse. When accompanied by an attack, such as the arson here, it's attempted murder, except in this case.

I'll go along with "Price Tag" being a slogan (grafitti also defacing the building). Taking into account what it means, though, I'm going to have to go with slur or threat:

"Price tag" is the slogan adopted some months ago by extremist settlers who carry out reprisals against Palestinians in response to the evacuation of settlement structures by Israeli defense forces.

"Rabbi Shapira published a controversial book last year which includes discussion of interpretations of the circumstances under which Jewish law permits Jews to kill non-Jews."

"The rabbi has been condemned for writing a book called "The King's Torah" that says it is permissible to kill non-Jewish children if they pose a threat or as a deterrent for the future. It states that only a Jew who kills a Jew violates the commandment against murder."

Hmmm. Now what do we think of and do with Muslims who teach (or support those who teach*) this type of thing? I probably don't need to tell you.
*=seminary students and a Knesset member were protesting for his release

He refused to cooperate and is suspected of withholding information. He's getting off pretty easy. Ask a Palestinian what happens when they are suspected of knowing anything about a person they suspect might become a suspect. Ask a police officer what they think of someone who refuses to cooperate. I'm guessing they think that is a sign of guilt. Not, here, though.

What are they doing with this guy? Releasing him, of course! If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a cow. Now at least they can say they "looked into it" and we in the US can feel good again about our support for normal life and natural growth in illegal settlements.