new

The movie “For the Bible tells me so” (forthebibletellsmeso.org) was shown in my home community of Flint, Michigan in the fall of 2008 as part of a series of gay events called “Out’N About.” Although the movie was billed as a documentary, it was first and foremost a gay propaganda film.

The movie has two distinct elements to it. The documentary element examines the lives of five homosexuals and how their immediate families responded to their homosexuality. That part of the movie is actually a documentary, interesting, emotionally moving, and somewhat objective. The other part of the movie is pure gay political propaganda arranged to disparage conservative Christians and present the gay political movement as the enlightened possessors of the real truth about homosexuality.
From my observations as a scholar on the gay political movement this movie has the imprint of the gay political organization known as Soulforce (www.soulforce.org).

Soulforce has been a branch of the gay political movement specifically targeting the Bible believing Christian church. Mel White is a cofounder of Soulforce and a prominent leader in the gay political movement. A favorite target of Mel White and Soulforce has been Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family (www.focusonthefamily.com).
The fact that the movie specifically targets Dr. James Dobson and that Dr. Mel White is a predominant spokesperson throughout the movie gives the Soulforce manipulation away. The movie at the time of this writing was featured on the Soulforce website and on the website of America’s largest gay lobbying organization – The Human Rights Campaign. A fifty page study guide comes with the movie to assist in molding the interested convert into an advocate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender equality with heterosexuality.
Besides the deception and lies presented as truths, the gay theology espoused in the film claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior is considered by many a self-serving concoction. It would take a whole book to accurately address all the deception and lies in the propaganda part of the movie, so I will select instances that best support my accusations.
Scientific lies and deception
Like most gay propaganda the movie begins its justification of homosexuality by contending that homosexuality is not something that is not chosen.

Conservative Christians knowledgeable on homosexuality, including ex-gays, and psychotherapists who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, agree that clinical science has shown that homosexual attractions are not usually something that an individual chooses. That there is agreement on this point is never brought up in gay propaganda and it is not acknowledged in the movie. Instead Christians, ex-gays, and therapists who disagree with the gay worldview are shown as ninnies who ignore this and other clinical facts. Knowledgeable Christians, ex-gays, and therapists do distinguish between attractions and behavior, and most certainly maintain that individuals have a choice of whether or not they engage in any form of sexual behavior. This distinction is never mentioned in gay propaganda or the movie.

Gay propaganda and clinical science diverge after the fact that homosexuals do not choose their attractions to the same sex. Using that fact as a premise gay propaganda and the movie conclude that homosexuality is an innate condition that is unchangeable and therefore equivalent to heterosexuality. The movie specifically states that “sexual orientation cannot be changed or prevented.”

There are no facts to support the innate theory, so the movie shows a cartoon series that mocks the clinical evidence on the causal factors of homosexuality and sexual orientation change. What researchers have found is that male homosexuals usually have had past experiences of prolonged rejection by the same sex parent and same sex peers throughout childhood. As a child the homosexual never felt he was a part of his gender group, and the longing to be part of the group and the mystery of the same sex turned into same-sex attractions at puberty. This is not always the causal route to male homosexuality, but it has been documented enough to be referred to as the standard causal route.

Clinical science has also documented hundreds of cases where homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation. The evidence is overwhelming. The movie claims ex-gay organizations and psychotherapists use shame and guilt to coax homosexuals to repress their true feelings, thereby presenting ex-gay organizations as a sham and destructive to the mental well being of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that ex-gay organizations like Exodus International (www.exodus.to) offer real hope to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Many individuals have overcome homosexual behavior and desires. A significant percentage have changed their sexual orientation, married a person of the opposite sex, and raised families.
A sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual is partly a reparative process and partly a cognitive process. Motivation is the main part of the cognitive process. The motivation usually comes from religious beliefs, aspirations of a heterosexual marriage, and from a fact that gay propaganda avoids like the plague, which is that many who enter the gay world find its lifestyle very destructive. The main part of the reparative process is to understand and deal with the memories and hurt of same-sex rejection in childhood. Often there was sexual abuse that contributed to the unwanted same-sex attractions. This short introduction on the causal factors of homosexuality is more accurate than the sum of all the causal information in the movie. The movie mocks this knowledge, and in doing so mocks the truth.

Theological lies and deception

A Rev. Keene makes the statement in the movie that “All loving relationships are honored in the Bible.” This is an easily refutable lie. In the same chapter of Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned there are a number of family related sexual relationships that are prohibited. Surely sexual relationships between close relatives can be loving relationships, yet contrary to Mr. Keene they are condemned. Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” There is no insinuation that if a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman in a loving relationship, then it is equal to a heterosexual loving relationship.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul was informed of a man in the Corinth church who was in a loving relationship with his stepmother. Paul told the church in Corinth to “Expel the wicked man from among you” (I Corinthians 5:13). In another incidence John the Baptist was martyred for saying that it was immoral for King Herod to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). Mr. Keene’s statement is a fabrication of what he wants the Bible to say.

Mr. Keene’s statement is also a misrepresentation of gay and liberal morality. Liberal sexual morality is based on consensual sex and is not dependent on a loving relationship or marriage. In general consensual sex without love in this moral code is as just as moral as sex in a loving relationship.
The movie presents many arguments of the new gay theology. The most amusing is “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” The answer is “nothing,” if one ignores his comparison of the destruction of Sodom and the fate of those who did not repent after seeing miracles and hearing the gospel message (Luke 10:12). The sin of bestiality (humans having sex with animals), which happens to be listed in Leviticus 18:23 right after homosexuality, was not mentioned by Jesus in the written record of the gospels. If we use the gay logic that because Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not immoral, then the same logic applies to bestiality, and it too is no longer immoral behavior.

When one examines Satan’s appearance in the Bible as a serpent in the Garden of Eden or tempting Jesus in the wilderness, it becomes evident that Satan’s method of persuasion is to present half truths. Likewise gay propaganda often persuades with half truths. One such instance in the movie was the gay theological argument that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the city was steeped in homosexual behavior, but because it was inhospitable.
The half truth that gay theology presents is that Sodom was indeed inhospitable to the two angels sent to their city in the form of handsome young men. Instead of welcoming the strangers, the men of Sodom sought to anally rape the young men. What the movie does not reveal is that in the ancient world accepted homosexual behavior was not two men of the same sex in a loving reciprocal relationship. It was a dominate man sodomizing a subordinate man or youth, usually a slave or captive from a battle. It was considered a humiliation for a man to be sodomized in any type of relationship.
In a related half truth the movie states that pederasty (an adult man sodomizing an adolescent male) is not homosexuality. It is true that pederasty is considered a specific sexual orientation in itself, but it is definitely a form of homosexuality. Intellectual elites in Ancient Greece during the time of Plato and Socrates considered arranged pederasty relationships the most preferred of all loving relationships. In the late 1980s gay authors Kirk and Madsen referred to the pederasty relationships of ancient Greece as the “traditional gay family.” The values of the Grecian society allowed the free man to not only have sexual relations with his wife, but also prostitutes, both female and male slaves, and a young free man to whom he would also be a mentor. When the young free man became an adult the pederasty relationship ended, because it was dishonorable for a man to be sodomized or have effeminate characteristics.

Deception in the storytelling

The five families featured in the movie were rated as to how supportive they were to their gay child. One family, the Reitans, was given the distinction of being “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Advocates.” In the movie the family is shown taking part in a Soulforce sponsored demonstration at the Focus on the Family facility in Colorado Springs. With his parents at his side the gay child, Jake, makes the accusation that Focus on the Family teaches parents to reject their children.

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide.

The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships.
Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation.

Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach.

Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide.

Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so.
Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

The idea of a Caliphate is constantly mocked by the West and their secular Muslim agents that rule over the Muslim World. The people who call for it’s implementation are labelled extreme and radical in the Western World and are imprisoned, tortured and even killed in the Muslim World. This is besides the fact that an Islamic Caliphate was implemented for over a 1000 years and is a part of history that cannot be ignored. In this article, we take a look at some of the contributions of the Caliphate to the World.

The first Islamic State was established by the Prophet Muhammed ? himself, in Madina Munawara in the 7th century. Based on monotheism it united people of different colours and creeds and eradicated status inequality. It eventually came to be embraced by many nations and peoples. At its height it stretched from Morocco and Spain in the west, to the Philippines in the east, from the Steppes of Khurasan to the north and to the jungles of modern day Congo to the south. The Muslim world leapt from a period of ignorance and division to a time of unparalleled unity and strength. All of this can be seen from many periods of Islamic history.

During the Abbasid rule of the Khilafah, they began a project of creating a capital city that would be revered around the world. The Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mansur assembled engineers, surveyors and art constructionists from around the world to come together and draw up plans for the city. Over 100,000 construction workers came to survey the plans and were distributed salaries to start the building of the grand city.

Baghdad was the first circular city in the world. Within fifty years the population outgrew the city walls as people thronged to the capital. Baghdad became a vast emporium of trade linking Asia and the Mediterranean. By the reign of Mansur’s grandson, Harun Ar-Rashid (786-806 CE), Baghdad was second in size only to Constantinople. European towns, cities and settlements built walls to prevent raids from outlaws and armies but were typically vulnerable at four points; the corners. If enough pressure was applied at any of these points the wall would collapse and troops could flood through the breach. The Muslims solved this problem by building circular cities.

After the defences of the city were complete, attention turned to how the Abbasids would feed the rest of the Ummah. The development of agriculture under the Abbasids was a phenomenon; the scarcity of water had converted the barren Arab lands into a vast desert, which had never yielded any substantial agricultural produce. The scattered population always imported supply of food grains to supplement the dates and the little corn grown in their own lands. Agriculture in Arabia had been very primitive and was confined to those tracts where water was available in the form of springs. Madina, with its springs and wells was the only green spot in the vast desert. The Abbasids dealt with this by first controlling the flows of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers. The irrigation system in the land was greatly improved by digging a number of new canals, the largest flowed between the Tigris and Euphrates. This canal was called Nahr Isa (Isa canal) and was open to ships for transportation between Syria and Iraq. This led to navigation routes opening to India and the Persian Gulf. The Abbasids reconstructed the existing canals, lakes, and reservoirs, which were first built under Hajjaj Bin Yusuf in 702 CE. After this the swamps around Baghdad were drained, freeing the city of malaria.

The Abbasids in the 8th century initiated probably the greatest translation project translating the work of the Ancient Greeks into Arabic to preserve them from being lost forever. The careful and painstaking archival work took time, effort and coordination. An institute named Bayt Al-Hikmah was set up and run by the Abbasid Khilafah in Baghdad for this purpose.

At the behest of the caliph an observatory was built and numerous educational institutes which made literacy widespread were created. Other rulers such as Al-Mansur ordered plentiful resources to achieve the task. Translation became a state industry and the Muslim scholars succeeded in what is still regarded today as a truly incredible feat.

Observatories were set up in Baghdad and became an unrivalled centre for the study of humanities and for sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, zoology and geography. The scholars, scientists and specialists drew upon the translated works of previous civilisations such as the Persian and Greek works that included those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. Such works were accumulated and Baghdad became home to a great collection of world knowledge.

Europe had been embroiled in almost constant wars of horrific brutality. Invading hordes and fleeing refugees swamped the continent. In contrast large sections of the Muslim world especially those parts not on the frontiers were serene and tranquil for hundreds of years. In this atmosphere various cities flourished and the story was the same throughout the rest of the Muslim world.

When the Muslims entered Spain in the early 8th century they found people who lived in stone hovels, dirty places with a central hole in the primitive roof to let out the smoke from the small fire they lived around. The inhabitants of these pits would be consumed by soot, tears streaming down their faces. Eye and respiratory diseases were common.

The Spanish would refuse to wash, believing in a form of spirituality that meant they had to avoid an earthly or materialistic life. The animal furs they wore were handed down from generation to generation. The stench was often overpowering particularly as they lived close together in their airless cells. The Muslims, were used to courtyards, canals and gardens. The great city of Damascus in Syria had over a hundred thousand gardens alone. Guided by Islam and a vision of the betterment of humanity the Muslims sought to change this. By the 10th century the Spanish city of Cordoba had two hundred thousand homes, over half a million places of worship, nine hundred public baths and libraries containing hundreds of thousands of volumes. Moreover the streets were paved with stone, cleaned, policed and lit at night. Conduits brought water to the people’s homes and to the city’s many squares and gardens. Students from all over Europe descended upon the city to learn from the acknowledged master scholars of the age.

Throughout almost all of Islamic history the Khilafah and the Muslims were a minority ruling over majority non-Muslims. The Qur’an and the examples of the Prophet highlighted how non-Muslims should be treated. The Treaty of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, in which he guaranteed the Christians of Jerusalem their right to practice their faith in total religious safety became the standard model in Islamic history.

The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 CE is considered a seminal event in history, but it was also the first time the Ottomans came to rule over a large number of non-Muslims. Constantinople had historically been the centre of the Orthodox Christian world, and had a large Christian population. As the Ottoman Khilafah expanded into Europe, more and more non-Muslims came under Ottoman authority. In the 1530s, over 80% of the population in Ottoman Europe was not Muslim. In order to deal with these new Ottoman subjects, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed instituted the Islamic rules of ruling over a diverse population, later institutionalised into the Millet System.

Under this system, each religious group was organised into a millet. Millet comes from the Arabic word for “nation”, indicating that the Ottomans considered themselves the protectors of multiple nations. Each religious group was considered its own millet, with multiple millets existing in the Ottoman Khilafah. For example, all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Khilafah were considered as constituting a millet, while all Jews constituted another millet.

Each millet was allowed to elect its own religious figure to lead them. In the case of the Orthodox Church (the biggest Church in the Ottoman Khilafah), the Orthodox Patriarch (the Archbishop of Constantinople) was the elected leader of the millet. The leaders of the millets were allowed to enforce their religious practices related to worship.

In addition to worship, millets were given the right to use their own language, develop their own institutions (churches, schools, etc), and in some cases collect taxes. The Ottoman Sultan generally exercised control over the millets through their leaders. The millet leaders ultimately reported to the Sultan, and if there was a problem with a millet, the Sultan would consult that millet leader.

The Ottoman Khilafah reigned from 1300 to 1924 CE. Throughout most of its history, the Millet System provided a system of religious harmony and belonging throughout the Khilafah. As the Khilafah expanded, more millets were organised. Separate millets existed for Armenian, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians, with each sect being divided further into more specific regional churches.

These decrees by the Ottoman sultans Mehmed II and Bayezid II granted the Greek community ownership of the church. The decrees and church remain in Istanbul today.

As the Khilafah weakened European intervention took place and they began to use each millet against each other – something that did not happen for hundreds of years. When the liberal Tanzimat were passed in the 1800s, the millet system was abolished, in favour of a European-style secularist government. The Ottomans were forced to guarantee vague “rights” to religious minorities, which limited their freedoms. Instead of being allowed to rule themselves according to their own rules, all religious groups were forced to follow the same set of secular laws. This actually ended up causing more religious tension in the Khilafah and was one of the causes of the genocide of the Armenians during World War One in the Ottoman Khilafah’s dying days.

The Millet System was a unique and creative solution to running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious, transnational state. The rights and freedoms it gave to religious minorities were far ahead of their time. While Europe struggled with religious persecution into the 1900s, the Ottomans created a harmonious and stable religious pluralistic system that guaranteed religious freedom for hundreds of years.

Whilst no doubt, the Khilafah also had many problems as any human state will have, it’s contribution to the World was unparalleled. The history of the Khilafah demonstrates that there isn’t a contradiction between Islam and Science. In fact, it was under the Caliphate through which scientists such as Ibn-Haitham were to revolutionise the approach to build conclusions upon the observable universe through testing and observation. The motivation for Muslims to excel in science and technology was underpinned by the Qur’an which encourages mankind to exploit the earth’s bounties for the benefit of all peoples.

“He put at your disposal that which is in the heavens and that which is in the earth, all from Him.”[Al-Jathiyah:13]

It also dispels the myth that the Caliphate has a barbaric view towards Non-Muslims. Whilst there maybe incidents in history of Non-Muslims not being treated fairly, this doesn’t change the fact that Islam inherently mandates Non-Muslim citizens to be treated fairly.

“He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.” -Tabarani

These are but only some of the contributions of the Caliphate to the World. It’s clear that the backwardness and camel age attributed to the Khilafah is part of an ideological propaganda campaign to smear the concept of an Islamic polity. Today, Muslims all over the World have the desire to live under Shari’ah law despite the propaganda against the Khilafah. The only obstacle to this, are the imperial powers and their agents that govern the Muslim World by Secular rule. However, the arrival of a Khilafah based upon the method of the Prophet PBUH is inevitable as it has been promised by Allah SWT. The acceleration of the aggression against Islam and those who call for it’s implementation via a Caliphate by the World superpowers is only but a testimony to it’s nearness. Once the Khilafah arrives it will once again lead the World in science and technology without compromising on addressing and solving the problems of mankind.

There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method” and then he remained silent. (Ahmed)