Archives For LGBT religion

Any sane, fed-up, liberty loving citizen will benefit from John MacArthur’s June 13 sermon, ‘When Government Rewards Evil and Punishes Good,

Time constraints meant I couldn’t get to it after a friend dropped me the link mid last week.

The recent rash, health hazard lockdown in New South Wales seemed to provide an opportune time to tune in.

I call these excessive lockdowns a health hazard because in all frankness that’s exactly what they are.

They’re an illogical way to fight COVID-19.

It makes no sense for public health experts to issue public health orders that hurt healthy people.

The same goes for public health orders that hinder unhealthy people who need to get healthy.

Pinning them to their couch, fast food and Netflix – among other mind-numbing, life sucking drugs and devices we’ve allowed into our lives – isn’t a logical, holistic health strategy.

The excessive use of lockdowns will kill.

I’ve already argued how CCP-19 medical tyrants are harming cancer research.

We also published a piece in February pointing to the World Health Organisation’s regional director for Europe who warned that,

‘Coronavirus measures will have a ‘catastrophic’ impact on hundreds of thousands of cancer patients who’ve had appointments cancelled and screenings delayed during the pandemic.’

Additionally, information provided by Caldron Pool on Monday strongly backs the conclusion that public health orders are creating a public health crisis.

Christian’s ought to be on the frontline fighting this on behalf of the poor, the wounded and the vulnerable.

While some are. Many aren’t.

Instead, they post selfies of themselves getting “vaccinated.” Usually accompanied by a manipulative comment like “man up”, “be a big boy,” or “do your duty and help us get out of this mess.”

Some lurk on social media smugly calling those who choose to practice more discernment, “anti-vaxxers.”

Rather than stand with the vulnerable and encourage the gift of discernment, they call the “vaccine hesitant” and those who are more civic-aware “selfish.”

Any Christian who would rather self-promote, than sigh with the wounded stands on extremely thin ice.

It’s this trend that MacArthur’s sermon smacks up the side of the head.

“The true church,” MacArthur asserted, “follows Christ, not the government.”

The power of government is not its own. God gives it, and God can take it away.

Though people in power can become lawless, there is no such thing as a Lordless power.

Their power is on loan to them through the office of vocation, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Consequently, God will hold government accountable for how that power is used.

Speaking from Romans 13, MacArthur explains,

“The role of the government is to restrain evil; and when it functions to restrain evil, it is fulfilling its God-ordained purpose…It is designed as a necessary restraint in a world of sinners.”

He adds,

“This is God’s design for government. The problem is, when government ceases to function by God’s design, it yields up its authority.”

“When government turns the divine design on its head and protects those who do evil and makes those who do good afraid, it forfeits its divine purpose.”

MacArthur then lists how today “In our world rulers are designing a culture that protects the immoral.” 

First, “it desires to protect criminals, and makes those who do good afraid.”

Second, “criminals are unrestrained because they don’t fear the consequences, but the police are restrained because they fear the consequences of stopping criminals.”

Third, by propagating lies, protecting liars and persecuting those who speak the truth, “it praises the evil and persecutes the good.”

The conclusion being that “God’s design for government has been entirely corrupted.”

A corrupted government turns everything upside down, “like putting [Canadian] Pastor James Coates in prison for preaching but letting rioters go free.”

For him,

“The greatest threat to truth and virtue in this country is the government because they have totally prostituted their God-ordained design. All through history, government is the ultimate persecutor of people. Satan has to get ahold of government; and that’s where he operates—always work through government…Satan always works through evil rulers to persecute the people of God.”

COVID era government attacks on civil rights aren’t new.

For example,

“Look, in Acts chapter 4, the Jewish leaders said to the apostles, “Stop preaching!” In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar said, “Stop worshiping!” Again, in Daniel 6—we didn’t read it—the rulers said, “Stop praying, or we’re going to throw you into”—what?—“the lions’ den.”

MacArthur continues,

‘So we are beginning to see persecution from government. This is the most formidable persecution: COVID, LGBTQ, transgender, social justice—all these new ideologies are now going to become the only acceptable moral standards. And if you don’t accept them, you’re going to be the enemy of the government. Truth, the Bible, Scripture is going to be cancelled. The government’s taking control; they want to take control of absolutely everything. The church has become the main enemy of the government—nothing new.”

He closes with prayer, but not without first reminding us that Romans 13, when removed from the context of Christ’s Lordship, has been used to justify “horrendous abuses of individual human rights”:

“Hitler’s Holocaust, racism in the apartheid of South Africa, both the Jews in Germany and blacks in South Africa were viewed as a threat to public health and national security… “‘Trust us,’ said government…‘we truly have your best interests at heart. All we want to do is help . . . keep you safe.’”

Preaching from Romans and Revelation, MacArthur acknowledges the battle lines between the World (Kosmos), Satan and Parousia (physical return of Christus Rex – Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords).

The Lamb wins. The Lamb has already won. The Lamb will overcome.

We can vent at government abuse, and vent we should.

Be Ephesians 4:26 angry. Fervent in prayer as James the brother of Jesus instructs (James 5:16).

Likewise, James in 4:7, restrained righteous anger stops the triumph of evil.

This reflects where I think MacArthur’s main points land.

As I wrote last week, Government as God is a government gone wrong.

The full transcript of MacArthur’s sermon can be accessed here.

WATCH:


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th August 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

In a controversial move, Australian Liberal Nationals Senator, Amanda Stoker is asking for concerned citizens to support her petition aimed at preserving ‘objective truth,’ ‘basic biology’, parental rights, and ‘common sense,’ against proposed, weaponised legislation packed inside the LGBTQAAI+ trojan horse transgenderism.

Stoker argues that ‘when you get to the heart of the transgender debate, you realise that you and I are being expected to abandon objective truth.’

Adding, ‘for too long now, the Left has told you what you can and cannot say, the time for action is now.’

She’s right. Biology isn’t a social construct. Everything about the “LOVE IS LOVE” mantra pivots on forcing people to believe a lie, and forcing them to deceive others.

Telling a child, for example, that they don’t have a father or a mother, only a parent, and or, birth parent. (And other examples can be added to this one).

There’s a distinctive line between tolerance, and intolerable tyranny.

Acknowledging this, the Queensland senator wrote,

‘Australians are polite people.  If a grown man chooses to wear women’s clothing and change their name, we are generally content to live and let live.  No one wants to make anyone feel ‘less than’.

Most people agree that adults are free to live their life the way they want.

But that doesn’t mean we abandon truth.  It doesn’t mean we abandon common sense or our understanding of basic biology.

The transgender agenda’s list of demands is completely unreasonable and it’s time you and I stood up for common sense.

Stoker joins Tasmanian, LNP senator, Claire Chandler, whose pro-women opposition to queer theory’s invasion of women’s sport, is a popular target for Cancel Culture’s hungry Radical Leftist Jihadists.

Despite the Left’s manipulation of anti-discrimination law, issuing their usual threats, and intimidation, Chandler has, with significant credit to her, remained unmoved.

If not more determined, posting to Facebook on International Women’s Day,

‘remember that ‘woman’ is not a feeling, a political movement, an identity, a fashion or a trend. A woman is a female. The more people who acknowledge that fact, the more chance we have of making the world a better place for women.’

Chandler and Stoker’s pro-woman platform deserves our support.

We have a right, as Amanda worded it,

‘to know what your child is being taught about gender and sexuality in school. You do have a right to keep women’s sport for women. You do have a right to protect children from hormone treatment and surgical procedures. You do have a right to teach your children they are born as either a boy or a girl and that gender isn’t something we can choose.’

This isn’t “slippery slope” anti-marriage equality, homophobic, transphobic, right-wing supremacist, “you’re all Nazi’s and Trumpists”, hate speech.

This is genuine representation on a political level; an invitation for stakeholders, which include the unconcerned, and concerned voter, to stop the new Barbarianism before it removes the right to life, light and liberty, replacing it with servitude, and subjugation.

Chandler and Stoker’s have, and are, voicing concerns about the totalitarian weaponization of legislation by the LGBTQAAI+ lobby, and the movement’s perpetually angry, jackboot wearing foot soldiers.

Something that might already too late for some Western nations, such as Canada, but not yet here in Australia.

Demonstrated in Ben Davis’ latest article, where, in essence, a Canadian father has been charged with “family violence” and then imprisoned, for refusing to bow to the LGBTQAAI+ religion because he chose to affirm his daughter’s biological sex, instead of lie to her, and participate in her LGBT conversion indoctrination.

Another example is Twitter’s lockout of Binary’s, Kirralie Smith, for asserting the male and female scientific, binary distinction, alleged by Twitter to be “hateful conduct.”

I’ve followed Kirralie on Twitter for a few years. She’s never posted anything close to the kind of hate I see vomited up, and out by the propaganda wing of Radical Leftist Jihadists.

Proving one thing: Twitter may protest against accusations of bias and partiality, but it’s clear by their behaviour that they are NOT a politically neutral organisation.

We can be thankful that the Senate passed a ‘motion banning’ the use of radical queer theory language, such as “Chest feeding” and “Lactating Parent”, but the march towards affirming it, is still moving forward.

As the imperfect, anti-Nazi theologian, Karl Barth wrote,

‘The incontestable truth that male and female as such are together man [humanity] becomes a lie when it is not significantly counterbalanced by the recognition that man as such is male or female and not a third term.’ [i]

So goes objective truth, so goes humanity, and with it, civilisation.

Where civil rights are exalted over civil liberties, hell on earth is sure to follow.

You can support Amanda’s pro-science, pro-common sense, pro-truth, pro-man and pro-woman, petition here.

References:

[i] Barth, K 1951. CD.3:4 Man & Woman p.159


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd March 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

Twas the night before the Happy Holiday (formerly known as Christmas) when with much fanfare, the 21st Century Herod and his advisers bitterly proclaimed thus:

“This baby, the so called “Prince of Peace” is a Nazi, racist, and homophobic bigot. We deem him a threat to our “happy holidays”, all “religions of peace,” our entitlements, and the glorious goals of our perpetual revolution. We, the protected minority. We, the ruling class therefore command that all male Hebrew children be killed. Our dominion, our choice.”

With that they called in their keyboard warriors, social media trolls and paramilitary “peaceful protestors”, saying:

“The Christ child’s birth is nothing but a conservative, bourgeois conspiracy, comrades! According to our Intersectionality rubric, He is violence against everything we stand for, which is surely justification enough for our violent suppression.”

Legacy media, obeying the script handed to them, ran headlines demonising the Christ child. Crying in well-funded unison they whined,

“His existence as an outright repressive assault on everything we’ve built; everything we want people to believe in.”

The Bethlehem Times produced article after article arguing that this birth was,

“blasphemy against the State and that it must not go unpunished. We’ve heard of the academics; how three bourgeoisie wise-men cheated us. Traitors to our glorious academic-industrial complex, all of them!! Therefore, any who refuse to give up this child’s location should be tried and tortured; and treated like the vermin, we say they are.”

The Herodian News Network anchors ran wall-to-wall panels, with repeated 24/7 coverage, saying,

“It’s their kind that hinders us from completely implementing the tolerant and inclusive ways of our glorious leaders. The way of our glorious revolution. This child, the “Prince of peace” is a threat! He challenges us, our religion of peace, and our people. He must be found and executed!”

Celebrities even weighed in posting impromptu sing-a-longs imaging there was no heaven, stating,

“Comrades, you know that ‘State power must be exercised in all spheres, even in that of thought! For what we do is for the good of the people, we know what’s best for them, better than they know themselves.”’ 1

Academics took to Twitter hashtagging in anger that their

‘tenured collective’s survival rested on their egos and ideas dominating the higher ground in the hearts of the people. God would never come as a cisgender man! The future is female! Cancel the bigots who disagree!”

“I concur!” said another.

“This birth represents heteronormative oppression. We must rally people to take up arms against it. He who says that God became man is guilty of hatred towards women. It is said that the husband, one carpenter by the name of Joseph, has wed this woman, Mary, under strange circumstances. As it has been told to us, this Joseph is said to have been given the task of caring for the child by Angels. This only reinforces the evils of patriarchy. It will perpetuate the lies that claim healthy child-rearing at its best, involves both a man and a woman; a father and a mother. This heteronormative oppression MUST be stopped! We must cancel this Christ-child!”

I have an idea, boasted yet another,

“We’ll paint this cisgender male Christ-child, and the nativity scene itself, as evil; constructed to further the chains of bigoted societal norms.”

Blue tick accounts on social media piled on, frantically sharing and resharing that,

“The birth of the “Prince of Peace” threatens our control over what we say is peace; We must have war! War is peace! These ‘Christ-child’ breeders are an assault on ALL humanity. The State alone is the peace bringer. The State alone is the saviour of the people.”

Herod and his bureaucrats, sensing some quick political gain, sent their support, declaring:

“At the heart of this child there is a war on peace! He will stand against our truth and its phobic misrepresentations. He will not be easy to control through our mass propaganda and He will unhinge progress.”

Scientists fell in line justifying the murderous “peaceful protest” against the Christ-Child as “the betterment of humanity.”

Expert after expert filed peer reviewed papers claiming that this “Christ-child was anti-science.” That in order to do science, science mustn’t be questioned. “All must believe the science.”

Feminists staged a women’s march and rose up in their thousands, demanding that Mary be brought to heel by Herod’s men in charge, chanting:

“Hell, yes! Hell, yes! How dare this woman choose to keep her unexpected pregnancy! Worst of all, she claims to have been chosen by God! Send her to Planned Parenthood, where she’ll be re-educated in feminist healthcare and women’s rights! That child must not be allowed to live!”

Others screamed:

“How dare she stand against us and think for herself. This must not go unpunished! Think of the women who might follow her and keep the child?”

Still more, applauding the “peaceful protest” against the “Prince of Peace” cried out,

“Love is love! Her convictions and religious beliefs are phobic, sexist, and irrational. This woman’s pregnancy, and the prophecy attached to it is a farce, therefore this child’s life should be deemed not worthy of life.”

Members of the judicial community, waving their flags of virtue, also chimed in gaslighting Mary claiming she was to be held to blame for Herod’s bloodletting.

“It’s perfectly just. We cannot be to blame; we wouldn’t have had to act as we have if Mary had been willing to treat the child as a sexually transmitted disease and remove it. Thus, we decree that Mary is to wear the blame. This woman has forced Herod’s hand.”

Herod, buoyed by the support, wrote into law that,

“the decision was unanimous. Therefore, let nothing sway you.”

His soldiers were to wipe out all males up to the age of two. Making certain that the Christ-child was eliminated.

Not to be left out, the approved opposition among Herod’s theologians and poets lined the pavements with salutes, arguing that Herod was showing

 ‘great compassion. His ridding the State of this Christ-child was the liberation of his people. His chosen course was the only socially just action he could take. The birth of the Prince of peace; the Son of God, and its proclamation before everyday people would inspire ignorance, non-conformism and counter-cultural activists into disobedience. Zealots will rise. Worst of all it will inspire unity and solidarity amongst those we seek to control for their own benefit.”

The poets and theologians then sang,

“Only Herod could be called King. Only the State and the glorious leaders of the revolution can be called saviour! There can be no other!”

Herod, whose preferred pronouns were he/him, then proclaimed,

“Then let it be made known that all who disagree with us are traitors, haters and infidels! Anyone not thinking along with us is against us.”

“We’re told that the prophecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled, that this child is a saviour.”

“But the quiet proclamation announcing the birth of a Jew; a baby boy from Judea is ethnocentric; it’s offensive to other “races”. It propagates the legitimacy of Israel’s existence, and threatens our power on the world stage.”

“Organise the outrage! Get the wheels of the State moving and manipulate the ignorant. Send out the murderous minions and shut down all this unlicensed good cheer. The party must not be seen to approve of this unsanctioned movement. Stop the early rumblings of this pathetic prophetic Jesus movement.”

And everybody said: “Long may our glorious revolution, the party who enforces it, and its leader who embodies it, reign!”


References:

Weil, S. 1936 Oppression & Liberty p.109 Routledge & Kegan Paul 1958.

First published on Caldron Pool 24th December, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

LGBTQAAI+ activists have attempted to decimate a twenty-three-year-old’s animation business, after Emily Arunt, a Regent University student, declined to ‘compromise two commissioned pieces with a transgender flag, and promotion for the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement.

As a result, Arunt was blacklisted following activists, and those within the animation community falsely accusing her of harboring “transphobic and homophobic” views.

Twitter’s typical juvenile drivel used Arunt’s Twitter and YouTube handles, ‘Lupus Vulpes’, to incite a hate pile-on trend under the hashtag #lupisvulpes, with users stealing designs. Then taking to social media with reworked images mocking her artwork with symbolic LGBTQAAI+ propaganda icons attached to it.

One Twitter user called for the “#lupisvulpes community to be petty…”, with another arguing “if you continue to support transphobic and homophobic artist just because their art is good, YOU are part of the problem.”

CBN news reported that the celebrated artist saw the ‘Animation community quickly turn on her with what’s known as an “official callout” which ‘led to a six-page online document complete with links to screenshots and social media posts detailing her so-called crimes.’

In late August, refusing to “people-please”, Arunt refuted the claims, stood on the Gospel, and answered her false accusers in a five-minute YouTube video stating,

‘”I love each and every one of you,” she said, “even those that hate me and viciously attack me now. I don’t hold it against you, because I know those who attack likely have suffered attacks in the past and must be hurting deeply inside to be doing this to me. I’m also praying for you, because I want you to find joy in your life… If I need to apologize for anything,” Arunt continued, “it’s that I’m sorry I didn’t share more openly with you how much God cares about you.” (Decision Magazine)

Writing on her Facebook page, Chapter Two Creations, Arunt also thanked those who’ve supported her, saying that she was ‘completely blown away by the overwhelming kindness, encouragement and words of wisdom.’

Arunt’s work which has so far paid for her way through college, is now in doubt.

According to Decision Magazine, though Arunt believes that her reputation is tarnished in the animation community and her business is “destroyed,” she also believes that God brought her to this, and that He will bring her through it.

Those injected with the venomous doctrine of intersectionality may have struck again, but Arunt’s response, though costly, encourages another sober-minded, Christian way forward for those faced with cancellation, or the denial of trade. Simply because they refused to plead fealty via an ersatz Hitler oath or take the mark.


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Under the already oppressive cloud of the Coronavirus crisis, graduates at St. Olaf College, in Minnesota, are currently being denied an official graduating ceremony, unless they’re part of the graduating student body who ‘self-identifies as a person of colour’, International or LGBTQAI+. Though the College’s website states that ‘due to COVID-19, 2020 Commencement festivities are postponed until late May/June 2021’, the College’s Centre for Equity and Inclusion, has sent out an email invite, saying that it will be hosting virtual graduation ceremonies for minority students.

Minnesotan based Alphanews, published a copy of the invitation, written by Dr. Maria C. Pabon Gautier (Director of the Taylor Centre for Equity and Inclusion). Delivered by email, Gautier fails to mention any consolation for non-minority graduates, but firmly outlines that there would be ‘three virtual graduations’ in May for three special groups, beginning with: ‘Multicultural Graduation (Domestic Students of Colour), International Graduation (International Students) and Lavender Graduation (LGBTQIA+ students).’

Kyle Hooten, (who also penned the more evidence based Alphanews article cited above), first raised the news on April 22nd via Campus Reform. He noted that Campus Reform checked in with ‘multiple graduating seniors at St. Olaf, [and] none said [that] they’d been informed of any online ceremony for the general student body.’

While St. Olaf’s Director for Equity and Inclusion has seemingly failed to include the majority, or even reassure them that they have not been forgotten, overlooked, or worse, segregated, some consolation did come from ‘Associate Director of Communications Kari VanDerVeen’, who ‘told Campus Reform that the school is “exploring a number of ways to celebrate the Class of 2020,” but that plans were not yet “finalized.” (Hooten)

To be fair, reasons for having, what look a lot like segregated graduation ceremonies, probably include logistical limitations, technological capability, and the ease with which smaller student numbers can be catered for in a virtual graduation environment.

This said, it doesn’t provide a total explanation for the apparent contradiction between the St. Olaf’s Centre for Equity  & Inclusivity, and the claim that official ‘Schedule of Events’ which clearly states that ‘2020 Commencement festivities have been postponed until 2021.’ Neither do these reasons explain the absence of any public information reassuring the general student body about whether their graduation will be accommodated in a similar fashion to that of these minority.

While the Lutheran college’s mission statement states a specific goal towards achieving ‘inclusivity’, its Centre for Equity and Inclusivity appears to be intentionally excluding non-minority students.

Gautier may be too distracted to care, or worse, is being derelict in her duties as director. The evidence suggests either an innocent oversight in trying times, asinine good intentions, or something more malicious. All three are likely. There’s a dissonance created by Gautier. Inequality in the name of equality exposes what Jean Bethke Elshtain called ‘phony equality.’[i]

The academic world is bogged down in a quagmire of sameness. This is the direct result of political correctness; tolerance introducing ‘equality where equality is fatal’ (C.S. Lewis) [ii]. With its perversion of Christianity – reducing its primary tenants to an ethic of niceness; the academy’s obsession with identity politics, safe spaces, and inane virtue signaling, education is replaced with indoctrination.

Special privilege is rubbed in the faces of those who are excluded for their assumed privilege; excluded because of their skin colour, heterosexuality, presumed “evil” right-wing political sympathies, and “sinful” passion for living out a no compromise, honest biblical theology.

It’s a package deal. Year by year, the academy not only continues to manifest Orwell’s, ‘all are equal, but some are more equal than others’, it normalizes the special treatment of the few, with disdain and disregard for the many – the destructive anarchist vacuum of pagan tribalism.

The general student body should expect more from the director of equity and inclusivity, who like some Republicans and most Democrats, currently appear to be willingly absent at the helm. Surely Gautier and those in her team understand that ALL of their graduates are under a lot of unexpected uncertainty and anxiety.

Those graduates face the dismal prospect of trying to fit into a job market severed to pieces by multi-level government agencies enforcing questionable Coronavirus lockdowns, its consequential suffocation of the economy, and the massive rise in unemployment. Students being told in not so many words that they don’t meet the criteria for care by their own Centre for Equity and Inclusivity, is far from helpful, it’s a downright harmful abdication of responsibility.


References (not otherwise hyperlinked):

[i] Elshtain, J.B. 1995 Democracy on Trial Basic Books, Perseus Books Group p.83

[ii] Lewis, C. 1944, Democratic Education In Walmsley, L. (Ed.) 2000 C.S Lewis Essay Collection Harper Collins p.190

First published on Caldron Pool, 27th April, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Ahmed Shaheed, lecturer and volunteer adviser to the U.N., is advocating that religions conform to an eventual universal, “progressive” law. In his latest report for the U.N, the religious freedom advocate provides an argument for a blueprint, which will outlaw any theological critique or practice, unless it has first been approved, or established by LGBTQAAI+ activists, radical feminists & academics who advocate from a Leftist worldview.

Steve Warren from CBN news rightly noted that recent ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (available as a Word Document here), makes no distinction between who and what religion Shaheed’s volunteered prescriptions pertains to. Instead Shaheed appears to have subsumed all religions into one category of hate, bigotry and discrimination.

Shaheed accuses all governments of failing to stop discrimination against women, and those who identify as LGBTQAAI+, stating:

‘Governments in all regions of the world have also failed to uphold their obligation to protect people from gender-based violence and discrimination perpetrated against them by private individuals or entities claiming a religious justification for their actions and to sanction the perpetrators of such acts. Gender-based violence and discrimination is being perpetuated both in the public sphere and by and within religious communities and entities.’

The report’s findings and prescriptions were based on ‘information gathered directly from survivors of human rights violations from over 42 countries.’ Participants ‘also included members of several United Nations agencies including UN AIDS, UNFPA, UNWOMEN, and the WHO.’

The key findings of Shaheed’s report specifically addressed,

‘Female Genital Mutilation, marital rape, early and forced marriage and polygamy; [and] noted the increasing use of religion or belief to deny reproductive health and sexual rights; criminalize protected conduct and deny the equal personhood of LGBT+ persons; or to undermine the right to freedom of religion or belief to women, girls and LGBT+ persons.’

Examples acknowledged progress, but specifically included countries such as Saudi Arabia where women ‘continue to face systematic discrimination in law and in practice in several areas and are inadequately protected against gender-based violence.’

Shaheed also stated that in Israel, ‘Denominational family law, to which there is no civil alternative, permits divorce only with the consent of the husband, which reportedly can coerce women to forfeit property or custody of children.’

In addition, the report cited Tunisia, first saying that

‘although it stands out in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for many of its  protections for the human rights of women and girls, the Personal Status Code of 1956, rooted in an interpretation of Islam, requires further amendment to guarantee gender equality in inheritance rights.’

Other nations and regions mentioned were South and South-East Asia, citing Sir Lanka’s Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act ‘which, unlike national legal provisions for non-Muslim women, does not identify a minimum age requirement or require a woman to consent to marriage; leaving Muslim women and girls unprotected by national provisions.’

This is in addition to some ‘counter-extremism’ measures from South and South-East Asia where some states have ‘targeted women from Muslim minority communities with rape, forced sterilization, and forced abortion.’

Iran got its own paragraph. Shaheed’s volunteered advice raised concerns about ‘laws inspired by religious beliefs’ such as the Iranian regime’s ‘compulsory veil legislation and the reported arrest, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention of women’s human rights defenders who protested against it.’

In the same way, the report described concerns about limitations put on Muslim women (no region or country was referenced) regarding wearing ‘headscarves, or full-face veils – in their efforts to combat gender-based discrimination, but without sufficient attention to the self-understanding and agency of women.’

As is to be expected, pro-life advocates were high on Shaheed’s hit list. Following the general abuse of language regarding abortion, Shaheed, rebelled this section: ‘State restrictions on access to sexual and reproductive rights.’ He then cited partial and total bans on abortion in some Latin American countries, claiming that ‘discriminatory religious edicts inform laws and policies that restrict sexual and reproductive rights’. His justification for this claim is that some ‘women and girls can be prosecuted for miscarrying their pregnancies, and limited access to abortion has in some cases, caused serious suffering.’

As for LGBTQAAI+ discrimination, Shaheed pointed again at South and South-East Asia, and Sub-Saharian African regions, stating that many have ‘justified’ the maintenance of the country’s legal prohibition of homosexuality on the grounds that it upholds the tenets of Islam or Christianity.‘ He argued that civil laws in these regions are ‘contributing to violence and discrimination against LGBT+ persons’.

Shaheed then addressed adultery laws, noting that in

‘countries where Islamic law governs personal laws, adultery is severely punished and may even result in a sentence of death by stoning. The sanctions are generally imposed on the women rather than the men. Additionally, sexual assault and rape often go unreported because women fear they will be charged with adultery; and there may be impunity for marital rape.’

Poland copped it too, with Shaheed labeling opposition to identity politics, gender wars, and LGBTQAAI+ ideology as ‘pseudoscience’; saying that protecting ‘heterosexual norms’ was discriminatory and doing violence to ‘LGBTQAAI+ persons’. He claims that ‘well coordinated groups are misusing freedom of religion or belief across continents and in the media – to counter human rights in the name of religion or belief.’ Calling anyone who ‘espoused that a gender ideology is harmful to children, families, tradition and religion’ an active participant in perpetuating “injustice”.

The report did distinguish between beliefs and interpretations of those beliefs. Shaheed gave special praise to (Leftist) activists in religious communities, for showing that ‘not necessarily all members of a religious community held to [“oppressive beliefs” based on interpretations of religion].’ He inferred that this was the correct way to use freedom of religion, and it’s for these people alone, that religion of freedom should be protected.

In sum, citing specific examples and allegations from within the Middle East, African, Poland, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Latin America, Tunisia, South and South-East Asia, Shaheed is claiming that all religions are doing violence to women, girls and people who identify as LGBTQAAI+. As such, he seems to be advocating a “need” for religion to be brought into line with the “glorious benevolence” of what could be rightly termed the religion of Leftism. Shaheed’s suggestions present a strange irony, given that he is a well-known, advocate for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and of belief.

Given that Islamism makes up the majority of areas where Shaheed’s concerns rest, by subsuming all religions into one melting pot of discrimination and violence, out of what seems to be a fear of discriminating against Muslims, Shaheed is doing unfair violence to Christians and Jews. He, among all people should know that playing the ‘they’re all just as bad as each other’ card is dismissively childish and in some parts lazy. It buttresses ignorance of, and encourages an increasingly prejudice against Christianity, and all traditionally free societies built on Biblical Christian foundations.

Shaheed (and potentially the U.N as a whole) is saying that those who choose to provide a loving “no” to transgenderism, or refuse to embrace the LGBT flag, and its ideology; alongside Christian pro-life advocates in Western nations are to be equated with Islamists beheading infidels, murdering their wives in honour killings, taking child brides, and throwing homosexuals from rooftops.

Thus the lack of definition and distinction regarding specific religious, judicial and theological contexts raises red flags. It’s ludicrous to brand Christians as extremists simply for holding to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that there are only two genders.

Where we can agree with Shaheed is that ‘traditional, historical, religious or cultural attitudes must not be used to justify violation of human rights’. I’m all for this. But again, let’s define our terms of reasoning, and examine the context before making broad recommendations that could give rise to the U.N equivalent of the Gestapo, and Soviet gulags.

The Christian theological understanding of the world, agrees at this point with Shaheed. The Biblical witness testifies that sin pervades human existence, kills relationships, hinders God’s providential fatherly Lordship at work in the world, and affects male and female genders, nations, and ethnicities equally.

Abuses and abuse does occur, not just in the name of religion, but name of ideological paradigms – all man-made systems of salvation and condemnation, both civil and ecclesial. Borrowing Karl Barth’s terminology, these ‘towers of Babel’ should be challenged, because God challenges them. The most obvious example of this is in His remedy for sin, via a reckoning and forgiveness of sin, through Jesus Christ.

Where we should depart from Shaheed is his politically motivated generalizations. This is evident in his broad use of religion, and his push to protect freedom of religion or belief, only for those who fit neatly within a universally approved ideological paradigm (Leftism).

His only issue with Christianity appears to be pro-life advocates, and Christians who uphold both binary gender, and the equality of the physiological, biological union, which sees man free woman, and woman free for man.

In sum, Shaheed’s recommendations resemble a receipt for re-education camps. His definition of ‘human rights defenders’ might be better translated ‘social justice warriors’ or Leftists; and his call to protect them, seems to be advocating freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

Worth noting: it’s strange Shaheed has overlooked Communist countries. The report doesn’t mention Communist Chinese persecution of the Muslim minority Uyghurs and Christians. It makes no mention of Christians suffering in droves at the hands Islamists in Nigeria, Asia, The Middle East, or the African Continent; and he makes no mention of oppression in Vietnam, North Korea, or even Russia.

As for people characterizing others as “immoral actors”, Shaheed may want to look in his own “progressive” backyard first, and observe the caricatures of Christians made en masse by radical feminist and LGBTQAAI+ activists, his so-called ‘human rights defenders’. To quote Warren, ‘mainstream Christianity doesn’t call for violence or discrimination against anyone, even though some opponents of orthodox Christian belief have tried to characterize it that way.’


References:

First published on Caldron Pool, 21st March, 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020