Facebook post causes muslims to attack Christians' homes and churches in Egypt

A mob of Muslim villagers attacked the homes and shops of Coptic Christians in Egypt’s Minya governorate over rumors that a Christian man had posted a comment denigrating Islam on Facebook, according to reports.

At least one elderly woman was hospitalized for burns suffered in the fire in her home after groups close to Islamist groups used stones and Molotov cocktails to target the Coptic Orthodox community in al Barsha Thursday, according to Independent Catholic News.

The man accused of posting  the comment against Islam on his personal Facebook account said that his page had been hacked.

The mob also tried to attack the church of Abou Sefin, where the congregation was celebrating the beginning of the Coptic fast, reported the U.K.-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a United Nations-recognized NGO that works in several countries to assist persecuted communities.

A minibus belonging to the church was also reportedly burnt.

Soon after the attack, General Osama Al Qadi, the governor of Minya, called a meeting with village leaders to ease the tensions and calm the passions, ICN reported. Al Qadi also urged Muslim clergy to promote coexistence and tolerance through their sermons in mosques.

“Despite these appeals, proclamations continue to be spread through social media that foment opposition and clash between Muslims and Coptic Christians, instigating new sectarian attacks,” ICN added.

The number of people arrested on charges relating to contempt of religion and blasphemy has risen significantly this year.

“This incident must be thoroughly investigated, with those responsible brought to justice,” CSW CEO Scot Bower said. “The societal hostility underpinning sectarian discord, which facilitates frequent outbreaks of violence in the area, must also be addressed. We encourage the Egyptian authorities to engage positively with human rights organisations to promote religious diversity and equality of citizenship through civic engagement and education.”

According to the Christian persecution watchdog group Open Doors USA, Egypt is the 16th worst persecutor of Christians in the world.

“Many Egyptian Christians encounter substantial roadblocks to living out their faith,” it notes. “There are violent attacks that make news headlines around the world, but there are also quieter, more subtle forms of duress that burden Egyptian believers. Particularly in rural areas in northern Egypt, Christians have been chased from villages, and subject to mob violence and intense familial and community pressure. This is even more pronounced for Christians who are converts from Islam.”

According to the U.S.-based advocacy group Coptic Solidarity, restrictions of free speech, free assembly and freedom of the press have been well documented since President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi rose to power in 2014.

“Crushing political dissent, imprisoning journalists and censoring the press are rarely discussed in relation to church building permits, discriminatory practices and violence against Copts in Egypt,” wrote Amy Fallas of The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy early this year.

Source

Baby Born after 5 Months of Pregnancy and Weighing Less Than 0.5kg Survives!

Harper Rose Schultz, a beautiful baby girl born to two Michigan parents, was born June 29th, four months before her due date.

Weighing in at just 11 ounces, Harper is the smallest baby to ever be resuscitated at the Covenant HealthCare Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, where she was born, Michigan Live news reports. One-hundred and twenty-eight days after her birth, Harper's parents were finally able to take her home, at a healthy 6 pounds 10 ounces.

"We came in for some abdominal pain that was radiating down her sides and we just thought, worst case, we'd go home on bed rest," the father, Patrick Schultz, said in a YouTube video published on Covenant HealthCare's YouTube channel. "And that Monday was life-changing for sure."

The mother, Emilee Wendzik, also commented on the experience in the YouTube video, saying, "That day went by so fast. When they told me later in the afternoon, ‘we're taking you in for an emergency section,’ my mind was blown. We expected somewhat early just not that early."

Dr. Martin Nwankwo, a neonatologist who also works in pediatric care for the hospital, noted in the video, “To see her grow from where we started to going home now in reasonably good shape, it's mind-boggling for us. We've never done this before. And, to be honest with you, half the hospitals in the United States would not have attempted this."

The reason Dr. Nwankwo said most hospitals would not attempt such a resuscitation is because the equipment is not designed for babies that small, so there is a much larger risk of hurting or killing the micro-preemie (the term for babies born very early). Statements from other hospital staff reported they did Harper's breathing for her when she was firstborn. "She needed to grow into our equipment," Respiratory Therapist Sara Nitz stated in the video. "Our equipment is made for preemies, but she was really small."

In all, the father and mother are very thankful for the care they received, calling it "nothing short of extraordinary." The father also stated, "The fact that they can take something so small and be life-sustaining is nothing short of a miracle."

Source

Americans getting more comfortable with the church's disregard of COVID-19 restrictions according to survey

A new survey reveals that the American public is much more accepting of churches defying coronavirus lockdowns than they were when the pandemic first broke out in March.

Paul Djupe, an affiliated scholar with the Public Religion Research Institute, and Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University, collaborated on a survey asking 1,750 Americans for their views about the coronavirus pandemic in October. They had previously collaborated on a coronavirus-related survey in March, when they spoke to 3,100 Americans.

When asked if they agreed with the statement, “If the government told us to stop gathering in person for worship I would want my congregation to defy the order,” 34% of respondents who participated in the October survey agreed (with 16% strongly agreeing). By contrast, 21.8% of Americans surveyed in March said that they agreed (with 10.7% strongly agreeing) with their congregation defying in-person worship restrictions.

Meanwhile, the share of Americans who disagreed with churches’ defiance of worship restrictions dropped significantly from March to October. In October, 39.1% of Americans disagreed (with 25.8% strongly disagreeing) with the defiance compared to 55.6% (with 36.4% strongly disagreeing) in March.

Those who strongly disagreed with churches’ defiance of in-person worship restrictions made up a plurality of the respondents in March but by October, a plurality of respondents (26.9%) said that they neither agreed nor disagreed with defiance of worship restrictions.

The survey also analyzed the responses to the question based on political party affiliation, finding that support for defiance of coronavirus worship restrictions had increased among all party identifiers. “Our data suggest defiance is growing across the board. Even strong Democrats are urging a more defiant stance, though the growth among Republicans is much greater,” Djupe and Burge wrote.

According to Djupe and Burge, another factor explains the increased support for churches defying worship restrictions: adherence to the prosperity gospel, which teaches that “religious belief is a quid pro quo, returning a wide range of benefits for believers, especially health and wealth.”

“Prosperity gospel belief is also linked to opposition to state health orders, and the connection is easy to see: if the church is the instrument of personal health, then shuttering the church is a direct threat to personal safety during a pandemic,” they said.

Data collected by the researchers show that the correlation between adherence to prosperity gospel beliefs and the opinion that churches should defy worship restrictions was even stronger in October than it was in March. They measured adherence to prosperity gospel beliefs using a “three question index.”

They attributed the increased support for lockdown defiance among prosperity gospel believers to “the messaging they are hearing from religious and political sources,” including Republican politicians who “continue to take a freedom-first approach.” 

“Agreement with prosperity gospel views has grown about 3 percent since March,” they said.

Other findings show a drop in the percentage of adults who believe “the government should tell churches and houses of worship that they should stop meeting in person to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.” While 66.1% of Americans agreed with that in March, 56% said the same in October.

As the idea that churches should defy in-person worship restrictions has gained ground since March, the idea that “hysteria over the coronavirus is politically motivated” has become less popular. In October, 22.5% of Americans strongly rejected that idea, an increase from the 14% who strongly disagreed with that assessment in March. The share of Americans who either agree or strongly agree with the idea that hysteria over the coronavirus was politically motivated dropped from 42.5% in March to 40% in October.

In their analysis, Djupe and Burge offered two theories to explain Americans’ changes in views about the coronavirus over the past seven months. The first theory contended that “people are responding to an elite messaging that combines with unorthodox Christian beliefs to promote an individualistic, go-it-alone style response,” an idea that they argue is “widespread enough to spell doom to efforts to inspire collective action against the behaviors that are spreading the virus.”

Their other explanation rests on the premise that “Trump’s gross mismanagement of the pandemic soured Americans on Trump as well as on government efforts to curtail the pandemic, which, strangely enough, redounded to the benefit of Republicans opposed to state action.” They concluded that “a bit of both explanations are in play.”

The survey comes as more states returned to strict lockdowns after reporting another surge in coronavirus cases since October.

After the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America sued, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday to temporarily block New York’s restrictions on houses of worship, saying that the rules “cannot be viewed as neutral” and appear to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Source

Important Information for Pro-Lifers about the Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford COVID-19 Vaccines

 

Pharmaceutical companies in recent days announced promising trial results of three separate vaccines, boosting hopes that the worldwide pandemic could be months away from an end.

Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna/National Institutes of Health, and Astrazeneca/University of Oxford each released results from their phase 3 trials showing the vaccines to be at least 90 percent effective in preventing Covid-19. 

But from a pro-life perspective, the three vaccines were not created equal. 

The pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute lists the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as “ethically uncontroversial,” yet it lists the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine as “unethical” because of its use of a fetal cell line, derived from an abortion, in the design, development and production of the vaccine. The Lozier Institute is the research and education institute of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

Representatives of the National Catholic Bioethics Center reached a similar conclusion, as did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both said the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are ethically sound. 

Following is a more detailed overview of the three vaccines:

PFIZER/MODERNA VACCINES

Neither the Pfizer vaccine (known as BNT162b2) nor the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273) used fetal cells in their design, development or production. Because of this, the Charlotte Lozier Institute lists both as “ethically uncontroversial.” 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a memo on Nov. 23 approving the ethical soundness of both vaccines. 

“Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccine involved the use of cell lines that originated in fetal tissue taken from the body of an aborted baby at any level of design, development, or production,” the memo said. 

Some controversy, though, has surrounded the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines because a fetal cell line was used in a later testing stage. The fetal cell line (known as HEK293) was derived from an abortion in the 1960s or 70s. 

John Brehany of the National Catholic Bioethics Center said the action by Pfizer and Moderna is far less problematic than using it in the design, development and production stages. 

“The Moderna vaccine and [the] Pfizer vaccine, which are closest to implementation, are not produced using the [fetal] cell lines,” Brehany told Currents News. “… They did come in at a certain point in the process, sort of at a final stage ... in testing, but they are not produced using those cell lines, like many other vaccines are.”

The U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops called the connections between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and the fetal cell line “relatively remote.”

Because the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines did not use fetal cell lines in their design, development or production, they do not contain traces of DNA from the aborted fetus within the vaccine itself – as does the Astrazeneca/University of Oxford vaccine. 

ASTRAZENECA/UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD VACCINE

The Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine (known as AZD1222) used the HEK293 fetal cell line – derived from an abortion in the 1960s or 70s – during all four stages: the design, development, production and testing phases.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute lists it as “unethical.” 

The use of the HEK293 fetal cell line means the Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine contains a trace of the DNA from the aborted fetus, according to Politifact. Paul A. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in a video this summer that vaccines derived from fetal cells contain “small quantities of trace DNA” from the abortion “in the vaccines.”

Source

Condemning Islamic Terrorism does not Translate to Islamophobia

 

For more than two weeks now, the world’s attention has been on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. As I write this, America remains divided on who is the rightful victor of the 2020 presidential election — and it could take weeks before the matter is officially settled.

Yet outside of the U.S., life has gone on, and other countries are dealing with political crises of their own. In particular, France has been in an intense debate over the limits, or lack thereof, of freedom of expression following the death of Samuel Paty, a French teacher. 

According to news reports, Paty was beheaded by an 18-year-old refugee of Chechen descent after the teacher showed his class cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. These were the same cartoons published by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, which inflamed tensions with the Muslim community, culminating in a mass shooting at the magazine’s offices that killed 12 people.

Paty’s murder is inexcusable — that is something we should all be able to agree on. We should also be able to agree that freedom of speech allows for people to express what they think or believe, even if we find it offensive, and condemning this horrible crime as an act of terrorism is not in the least Islamophobic. Yet some state and religious leaders do not seem to agree.

President Recep Erdogan of Turkey called for a boycott of French products after French President Emmanuel Macron condemned Paty’s murder and cracked down on religious leaders and groups spreading extremist ideologies in France. Imran Khan, prime minister of Pakistan, also accused Macron of encouraging “Islamophobia” when the French president condemned “Islamist separatism” in his country. In fact, Macron’s stance triggered protests in Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan and even India, my home country. 

“I understand and respect that people can be shocked by these cartoons,” Macron said in an interview with the Arab news channel Al Jazeera. “But I will never accept that someone can justify the use of physical violence because of these cartoons. And I will always defend freedom of speech in my country, of thought, of drawing.”

The anti-French protests are not as much against France, Macron or even “Islamophobia” but against freedom of speech. The inability of leaders such as Erdogan and Khan to tell the difference is disturbing, and sadly, religious leaders who should be able to call these protests out for what they are have remained silent.

As a religious leader myself, I am deeply grieved to have to say something that should be obvious: religiously-motivated violence committed anywhere, by any religious group, must be classified as an act of terror. 

Religious leaders should have no qualms about speaking up when faced with the realities of religious terrorism or extremism. And there should absolutely be no discussion about whether we will hurt someone’s feelings if we call the attacks in France — or last year’s Easter church bombings in Sri Lanka and the shootings at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and at the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand — acts of terror.

However, we live in precarious times. It seems religious leaders are sometimes more quick to be offended than to call out those who exploit their religions to do harm. In some cases, these attacks are explained away or even condoned, as if a religious motive gives a divine sanction for terror while victims and their families and friends have to quietly watch and endure. 

Another common argument against calling religiously-motivated extremism “terror” is that such extremism does not represent that particular religion in its entirety. That is a purely academic argument, one that does not sound borne of personal experience. What is needed is an unflinching argument by religious leaders of those same faith groups that such protests actually empower extremist forces. 

Any ideology that promotes violence against adherents of other religions, agnostics or atheists must be dealt with under the strongest possible means of the law. There must not be appeasement of or allowances made for any religious group, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or otherwise when they engage in terror attacks. Moreover, a history of religious struggle in any nation cannot serve as an excuse for not standing against present-day violence.

President Macron is right not to compromise the hard-won freedoms of speech and expression and the democratic values developed in the West. He clearly believes in freedom of religion for all, which is why his tough stance is not Islamophobic as some are claiming. Simply condemning the individual perpetrators and saying “this is not Islam” is no longer a sufficient response.

Source

Physics and Free Will: What Do Our Decisions Actually Mean?

When Christians use the term “free will,” it’s often in discussions about divine sovereignty and predestination. Whether we choose God or God chooses us has been at the center of theological debate for centuries. On the other hand, when the term “free will” is used by evolutionary biologists, the debate is over whether choice itself is real, whether it is an illusion produced by our brains.

Materialists have long insisted, because they kind of have to, that human actions and decisions are determined, not free. In other words, we think we make real choices as humans, but we don’t. Our choices are really the inevitable outcomes of a whole chain of material causes that go back, like falling dominoes, to the Big Bang.

This idea is called “determinism.” If true, a scientist with perfect knowledge of all of the conditions from the beginning of the universe could, like a cosmic weatherman, predict everything that would ever happen. 

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who runs a popular blog called “Why Evolution Is True,” has long held this view. As he puts it, “our choices and behaviors are the result of the laws of physics…” Given our chemistry, the arrangement of atoms in our brains, and outside forces acting on us, we cannot help doing what we do. 

Obviously, determinism does quite a number on issues like meaning and moral responsibility, among other things.

Determinism is an unavoidable conclusion if you start with the assumption that the world is only a place of natural causes and processes. However, if you start with the evidence, it’s another matter altogether.

For example, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor points out at “Mind Matters” that quantum physics suggests we do not live in a deterministic universe. As early as the mid-60’s, physicists had devised experiments that strongly pointed to the fact that nature does not determine every event beforehand. Quantum events, such as those that put a certain spin on an electron, are not the result of “hidden variables” at the subatomic level. In fact, we don’t know what determines them!

While Jerry Coyne seems to be recognizing the implications of quantum physics for his determinism, he has chosen to double down rather than admit his framework is flawed. Reviewing a PBS video entitled “Can Free Will be Saved in a Deterministic Universe?” Coyne reiterates his belief that our sense of having free choice is merely an illusion. “…we could not have done other than what we did at any moment in time,” he writes. “And, except for the action of any quantum events, the future is completely determined by the past.”

In other words, Coyne’s determinism applies everywhere in the universe … except for quantum events. Other than an undetermined variable that influences literally every physical process in the universe, everything else is determined?

Michael Egnor has responded with a personal challenge to Coyne: What in nature isn’t the action of quantum events? Certainly, every event in the brain is quantum in nature—every brain state…every bit of protein synthesis or ion flow—is the consequence of quantum events. Because all quantum events are non-deterministic, then all brain states are non-deterministic, and the free will deniers’ claim that nature is deterministic falls to pieces.”

All of that physics jargon is making an important worldview point. In a Christian worldview, human attitudes and human actions are not only morally significant, but central to what it means to be in the image of God. We are not mere effects of material causes. It is because our minds are not mere emanations of our brains that we can talk about “right” and “wrong” as real concepts, to hold people accountable for their actions.

It also makes all of our talk about physics or neuroscience meaningful. To borrow an argument from Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, if our minds are merely the products of material causes, why should we trust our thoughts to conclude anything, including that our minds are merely the products of material causes? Ironically, Jerry Coyne is assuming free will and rationality in arguing against free will and rationality.

This is one of those things we can’t not know about ourselves: Our thoughts, decisions, and beliefs are morally meaningful, not pre-determined. Anyone who is determined to deny this must assume their denial wasn’t determined.

Source

Dr. Ben Carson Says 'God is Still in Charge' after Being 'Desperately Ill' with COVID-19

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson and his wife Candy are thanking everyone for their “support and prayers” after dealing with COVID-19.

In a Facebook post on Friday, Carson explained that he experienced “dramatic improvement” after taking the initial treatment, Oleander 4X. But his symptoms would later accelerate as he became “desperately ill” due to several co-morbidities.

Carson noted that President Trump had been following his condition and cleared him for the monoclonal antibody therapy that Trump took during his bout with the infectious disease last month. After taking the treatment himself, Carson believes that it ultimately saved his life.

“President Trump, the fabulous White House medical team, and the phenomenal doctors at Walter Reed have been paying very close attention to my health and I do believe I am out of the woods at this point,” Carson wrote.

He hopes that “that we can stop playing politics with medicine and instead combine our efforts and goodwill for the good of all people. While I am blessed to have the best medical care in the world (and I am convinced it saved my life), we must prioritize getting comparable treatments and care to everyone as soon as possible.”

Carson noted that there are a number of “promising treatments” that still are in need of testing and approval before it can be distributed. He also spoke of a legal process that must take place before the vaccines can officially be released to the public.

“There are a number of promising treatments that need to be tested, approved, and distributed (sooner rather than later) so that the economy can be re-opened and we can all return to a semblance of normalcy,” he explained. “Also, people should recognize that there are a number of defined steps that legally have to be taken before vaccines are released to the public and trying to cause alarm by saying dangerous shortcuts were taken only serves to stoke fear.”

“Together we will be victorious. God is still in charge,” he concluded.

Source

Air Force Chaplain of 30 Years Retired for Preaching against Sexual Sin

Curt Cizek, a former Air Force chaplain, is calling believers to fight for religious freedom after he was let go from the military for preaching a message that addressed sexual immorality.

“Men put so much of who they are into what they do and having that rug pulled out from underneath me was difficult to go through," Cizek told CBN News in a recent interview.

He explained how in 2013, he had preached a sermon to recruits at Lackland Air Force Base. Prior to his message, Cizek had never faced repercussions for preaching.

“The message was about sin that we don't think is that bad,” Cizek said, adding that scriptures on sexual immorality were included.

“If you're having sex with somebody that you're not married to, then you need to stop,” he recalled. “I said, 'you know, sometimes the Christian church has gotten the reputation for being prejudiced because we look at one sin, homosexuality, and then we turn a blind eye and don't say anything about heterosexual sin, and that's hypocritical.”

Following the message, Cizek would experience a series of events that led to his eventual discharge. He told CBN News that it began when a lesbian trainee filed a complaint alleging that he said, “homosexuals were going to burn in hell.” Cizek asserts that he never made those remarks in his message.

The trainee’s complaint would reach an openly lesbian commander working in basic training and in Cizek’s words, she “wouldn’t let it go.”

“My performance reports were down-graded, my promotion recommendation was downgraded,” he explained. “I got passed over for promotion twice and involuntarily separated from the Air Force in 2016.”

He also noted that 2,500 trainees heard that day's sermon and as far as he knows, only one person filed a complaint.

Sadly, Cizek was not able to retire from the Air Force despite having nearly 30 years of service, with almost 20 years being on active duty. He added that while it's a net loss of more than a million dollars in pension and health benefits, there is a bigger issue at hand.

"Even if I did say what she said that I said, it's covered by my First Amendment right to preach and teach according to my religious beliefs," Cizek said. "Either we believe that everybody has First Amendment rights, or we don't."

Cizek’s attorney, Paul Platte added that all Cizek wants to do is “serve God and serve his country.”

“Air Force regulations specifically allowed him to give that type of sermon,” he explained. “The First Amendment protects his freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So, quite frankly, we think it's preposterous what happened to him.”

They noted that the Air Force never wrote that Cizek’s sermon resulted in the poor performance reports but that he violated unrelated protocols, which Cizek denies.

Cizek, who after appealing to the highest levels of the Air Force, received a document that supposedly explained the reasons for the decision, but the text had been redacted.

“Here at the top of the page it says the reasons for the decision and then it blanks out everything explaining the reason for the decision," Platte said as he held up the document. "But we know why because he was disciplined three days after he gave the sermon about sexual immorality.”

According to a statement sent to CBN News, Air Force officials explained that Cizek alleged that he was a victim of reprisal.

The statement reads, in part: “The applicant, Curt Cizek, alleges he has been the victim of reprisal. … based on the board's review, they do not conclude the applicant has been the victim of reprisal. the board maintains the applicant has failed to establish that …”

Cizek has also reached out to lawmakers and even the White House for assistance.

While the office of the Vice President referred his case to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records for reconsideration, officials there refused to re-open his case. At the present time, the Department of Defense Inspector General's office is taking Cizek’s case into account.

Cizek is calling on Christians to help him in the matter and asserting that religious and individual freedom is at stake.

“This is a time for conservative Christians to be heard letting their legislators, letting the White House, letting the Air Force, letting the Secretary of Defense know how they feel," he argued. “The real intolerance is preventing people from speaking the truth. that's the real intolerance and bigotry that exists in our nation today.”

Cizek believes that time is short as Joe Biden may be taking office in January and is unsure as to whether or not his administration would hear him out.

Source

'Pastor' Who Says He is Pro-Choice Rather Than Pro-Life Gets a Huge Backlash

Georgia minister and U.S. Senate candidate Raphael Warnock sparked a cultural and social media debate this week about Christianity and the unborn when he called himself a “pro-choice pastor” and said he will fight to keep abortion legal.

Warnock, the senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, is the Democratic candidate in the Jan. 5 runoff against U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Republican.

“I’m a pro-choice pastor, and I believe that a hospital room is way too small for a woman, her doctor, and the United States government,” Warnock wrote in a social media post for Facebook and Twitter.

He also wrote on both platforms, “I will always fight for reproductive justice.”

The posts launched an impassioned debate on Facebook and Twitter about religion and abortion.

Lila Rose, president of the pro-life organization Live Action, quoted one of his posts and tweeted, “Murdering a child is the antithesis of justice. How dare you claim the name of Christ while you advocate for the ‘right’ to slaughter His children, made in His image. Your words are Satanic.”

Christian singer Danny Gokey tweeted in response to Warnock, “Killing boys & girls in the womb is not a brave or heroic act like the left loves to portray. Everyone of us needed someone to fend & fight for us when we couldn’t defend ourselves. Most confusingly – abortion has murdered millions of woman & blacks – The ones they say they fight for.”

Benjamin Watson, a pro-life advocate and a former NFL player, tweeted, “Pastor, Equal access to kill a son or daughter is NOT justice. JUSTICE is the equitable distribution of punishment AND protection. JUSTICE is rooted in the dignity of every human endowed by their Creator. One cannot truly fight for JUSTICE while simultaneously denying it.”

Loeffler, who is pro-life, retweeted Watson’s tweet. Loeffler wrote in her own tweet, “Your version of ‘justice’ is using the Bible to justify killing innocent babies. My version of justice is protecting innocent life and the most vulnerable among us.”

Some, though, supported Warnock’s comments.

“I am an Episcopalian and my spouse is an Episcopal priest,” one person tweeted. “We stand with you and are supporting your campaign with both prayer and funds. God bless you!”

It wasn’t the first time Warnock implied the Bible supports abortion. In August, he was asked by a radio host how the pro-choice views of the Democrat Party align with his faith.

“I believe unequivocally in a woman's right to choose, and that the decision is something that we don't want government engaged in – that's between her and her doctor and her minister,” Warnock answered. “... “I've been focused on women's health, women's choice, reproductive justice. That is consistent with my view as a Christian minister. And I will fight for it.”

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/pastor-says-he-is-pro-choice-rather-than-pro-life.html

Source

Major LGBT Group Implore Biden to Withdraw Accreditation of Christian Schools and Colleges

The nation’s largest LGBT advocacy group is urging the future Biden administration to help pull the accreditation of Christian colleges and schools if they don't have a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Human Rights Campaign posted its goals for the Biden administration in a Nov. 11 document, Blueprint for Positive Change. The 22-page brief includes dozens of objectives for the Biden White House, but its targeting of Christian institutions would have a major impact on religious schools.

Under a current law known as the Higher Education Opportunity Act, accrediting agencies are told to ensure their standards “respect the stated mission of the institution of higher education,” including a school’s “religious” mission.

HRC, in its blueprint, says the language “could be interpreted to require accrediting bodies to accredit religious institutions that discriminate or that do not meet science-based curricula standards.”

The Department of Education, HRC says in its blueprint, “should issue a regulation clarifying that this provision … does not require the accreditation of religious institutions that do not meet neutral accreditation standards including nondiscrimination policies and scientific curriculum requirements.”

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, calls such a recommendation “sinister.”

“I’ve not seen any document like this before – the Human Rights Campaign is effectively calling for religious colleges and schools to be coerced into the sexual revolution or stripped of accreditation,” Mohler said this week in a column and on his Briefing podcast. “... In terms of accreditation, that is an atomic bomb.

“In clear text, for all the world to see, the Human Rights Campaign summons the Biden administration to deny accreditation – or, at the very least, to facilitate the denial of accreditation – to Christian institutions, Christian colleges and universities, and, for that matter, any other religious institution or school that does not meet the demands of the LGBTQ orthodoxy. This would mean abandoning biblical standards for teaching, hiring, admissions, housing, and student life. It would mean that Christian schools are no longer Christian.”

Mohler called it an “open threat to the ability of Christian colleges and schools to operate by Christian conviction.”

“This is an outright attempt to eliminate religious freedom for Christian schools – or for any religious school that refuses to bow to the moral revolutionaries at the Human Rights Campaign,” he said. “... This is an undisguised attempt to shut down any semblance of a Christian college or university that would possess the audacity to operate from a Christian worldview.”

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/major-lgbt-group-want-biden-to-disaccredit-christian-schools-and-colleges.html

Source

Iranian Christian Convert Serving Jail Term Gets 80 Lashes for Taking Holy Communion Wine

An Iranian Christian convert, who is serving a six-year prison sentence, has received 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. He is the second convert to receive such a punishment in just over a month.

Article 18, a London-based nonprofit that exposes abuses against Christians in Muslim-majority Iran, reports that Zaman Fadaee (who goes by the name Saheb) was flogged on Sunday in connection to a 2016 conviction for drinking wine as part of communion.

In Iran, it is illegal for Muslims to drink alcohol but the practice is permitted for religious minorities. However, advocates warn that Iran does not recognize former Muslim converts as Christian.

Fadaee is serving a six-year sentence in Tehran’s Evin Prison for the charge of organizing house churches and “promoting ‘Zionist’ Christianity,” according to Article 18.

The converts were each initially given 10-year prison sentences in 2017, which they began serving in 2018. But during a retrial earlier this year, their sentences were reduced.

While Fadaee and Nadarkhani’s sentences were reduced to six years in prison with two years of internal exile, Omidi’s sentence was reduced to two years. He was released from prison in August and began his two years of internal exile a month later.

Mossayebzadeh was also sentenced to 80 lashes. But Article 18 reports that he has not been summoned yet to receive the lashes.

“It had been assumed that both Saheb and Yasser would be flogged after their release from prison, as happened in Youhan’s case,” the Article 18 report states. “However, Saheb was summoned to the Shahid Moghadas Revolutionary Court next to Evin Prison yesterday, and told his sentence must be carried out then and there.”

News of Fadaee’s flogging was condemned by State Department official Gabriel Noronha.

“Now hearing from @articleeighteen that another Iranian Christian has been lashed 80 times for drinking communion wine — and is serving 6 years in prison for organizing house churches,” Noronha tweeted. “ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic Republic of Iran are birds of the same radical feather.”

In October, State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus condemned the reported flogging of Omidi.

“Deeply disturbed by reports Iran lashed Mohammad Reza Omidi 80 times for drinking communion wine,” she wrote on Twitter at the time. “He already served two years in prison for belonging to a house church. We condemn these unjust punishments and urge Iran to allow all Iranians the freedom to practice their beliefs.”

The U.S. government and international human rights activists have often criticized the Iranian government over human rights abuses against religious minorities. Governed by a theocratic regime and Islamic law, Iran is listed by the State Department as a “country of particular concern” for tolerating or engaging in systemic violations of religious freedom.

Open Doors USA, a persecution watchdog group that monitors human rights abuses in over 60 countries, ranks Iran as the ninth worst country in the world when it comes to Christian persecution.

Among many restrictions on the Christian community, the government prohibits church services from being conducted in the Farsi language. The government also bans Muslims from leaving Islam.

Christian converts who participate in house churches do so in fear that they could be arrested for doing so.

During the 2020 reporting period — Nov. 1, 2018, to Oct. 31, 2019 — Open Doors reports that at least 169 Christians were arrested in Iran.

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/iranian-christian-convert-serving-6-year-jail-term-gets-80-lashes-for-taking-holy-communion.html

Source

The Lord’s Prayer by a Football Coach Sparks Complaint from Atheist Group

A tweet showing a football coach leading his team in the Lord’s Prayer has sparked a letter of complaint from a national atheist group.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation mailed a letter Oct. 30 to the Fannin County School superintendent after Fannin County’s football coach, Chad Cheatham, was seen on social media standing in the middle of his players as the group quickly recited the Lord’s Prayer. The 12-second prayer took place after his post-game speech and after Fannin County defeated Pepperell to remain unbeaten.

Cheatham that night posted the same video on his own Twitter account, writing, “We battle on and off the field! There is so much adversity in today’s world! We all feel the pressure and anxiety! We have to quiet the noise! Stay focused on the vision and mission! Love to All!”

But the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which represents atheists, agnostics and skeptics, said in its letter that the prayer is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent. The letter cited the social media post.

“It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer. The Supreme Court has continually struck down school-sponsored prayer in public schools,” the letter said. “... We ask that the District commence an investigation into the complaint alleged and take immediate action to stop any and all school-sponsored prayers occurring within any District athletic programs. Please inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to remedy this serious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment.”

On Nov. 3, a law firm representing the school district responded to the Freedom From Religion Foundation and said the complaint had been addressed.

“The Superintendent has met with the high school principal, and a plan is in progress to meet with all coaches this week to discuss issues related to the First Amendment, including the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause,” the letter said. “The District is confident that all of its schools make good faith efforts to fully comply with the requirements of the Constitution and protect the rights of all parties.”

The U.S. Supreme Court most recently issued a ruling on school prayer in 2000, when it struck down a Texas school’s policy that allowed student-led, student-initiated prayer over the public address system at football games. The decision was 6-3. Since then, seven of the nine justices have either retired or died. It is not known how the current court – which is more conservative than the one in 2000 – would rule on such a case.

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/the-Lords-prayer-sparks-complaint-from-atheist-group.html

Source

Finding the Courage to Remain Steadfast in One's Beliefs

The governor of Mississippi made a remarkable statement on his Facebook page this week. Tate Reeves wrote: “It is fair to say that this last week and a half has been—personally for me—the most difficult of 2020—a year we can all agree has by its very nature been tough on all of us.”

He explains: “My two oldest girls have been by themselves in self-isolation since the Wednesday after Halloween. My youngest tested positive (along with many of her precious friends and classmates).” His family’s difficulties, along with all that he faces as a governor in these hard days, have obviously been painful for him.

As a result, he admits, “I wanted to feel sorry for myself. I wanted to focus on the challenges. Honestly, I wanted to focus on all of the negatives. But then I prayed.”

When he did, he shared, “God put the book of Isaiah on my heart. Specifically, Isaiah 41:10—’Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.'”

As a result, Gov. Reeves wrote, “We are going to get through these tough times. We are going to persevere. We are going to come out even stronger on the other side. Why? Because God is with us and because God is our ‘strength and refuge’ (Psalm 46).”

I am grateful to live in a nation where the governor of a state has the freedom to express his personal faith so powerfully and persuasively. And I pray for the courage to do the same, despite the growing chorus of opposition to such freedom today.

HAMLET'S MISGUIDED MOTTO

Yesterday we focused on the escalating threats to religious liberty in a culture where so many consider biblical morality to be bigoted discrimination. Today, let’s ask: Why is this such an issue in our day? Biblical truth with regard to abortion, homosexuality, and marriage has not changed. What has?

In what could be the motto for our day, Hamlet claimed, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” For decades now, we have been taught that “truth” is the result of our subjective interpretation of our subjective experiences. Your mind processes your senses differently than my mind processes mine. As a result, there can be no such thing as objective truth, only “your” truth and “my” truth.

The fallacy of this reasoning becomes apparent the moment we recognize that those who reject absolute truth do so absolutely. “There can be no such thing as objective truth, and we’re sure of it,” is their claim. It also fails the practical test: If all truth is personal and subjective, what objective basis do we have for rejecting al Qaeda’s version of 9/11 or Hitler’s beliefs regarding the Jews?

Nonetheless, it is conventional wisdom today that says because truth is personal and subjective, all truth claims must be tolerated without judgment. This is the approach our culture takes to abortion, homosexual acts, marriage, and other divisive moral issues. It’s commonplace to hear someone say, “I would never have an abortion, but it’s not my place to tell others what to do with their bodies.” Or “I would never marry someone of my sex, but I have no right to tell others who they can love.”

OPPOSING THE WORSHIP OF MOLECH

If you and I reject these claims on religious grounds, our religion is branded by definition as discriminatory and bigoted.

It’s important to note that most evangelical Christians would agree if the issues in question were different. I would never countenance the claim that the Bible justifies racial prejudice or forbids interracial marriage. I would obviously oppose someone who champions child sacrifice to Molech, the deity worshipped in this horrific way by the ancient Canaanites. Or a Jehovah’s Witness physician who refused to give my wife a blood transfusion on religious grounds.

This is how many feel about evangelicals who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage today. As a result, we can expect battles with regard to religious freedom to continue and even escalate in coming years.

The reason this is especially challenging in the United States goes back to the First Amendment of our Constitution, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [the “establishment clause”] or prohibiting the free exercise [the “free exercise clause”] thereof.”

An article in NPR raises the foundational questions being asked today: Does the free exercise clause mean that believers can act on their religious objections to abortion, same-sex marriage, and accommodation policies for transgender persons? Or does the establishment clause mean that religion-based arguments should not be used to justify so-called discrimination or the denial of civil rights and basic human services? (For more, see my latest video, “What does the Bible say about freedom?“)

"HE MAKES ME TREAD ON MY HIGH PLACES"

We can expect this issue to be litigated in the courts on a case-by-case basis for years. My focus today is more personal: How can you and I find the courage to testify publicly to our faith in our Lord despite the opposition of our culture?

Habakkuk was God’s prophet in a day when “the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted” (Habakkuk 1:4).

Nonetheless, he foresaw a day when “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (2:14).

And he could close his book with one of my favorite faith statements: “Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord; I will take joy in the God of my salvation” (3:17–18).

As a result, Habakkuk could testify, “God, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the deer’s; he makes me tread on my high places” (v. 19).

Can you say the same today?

Will you?

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/the-courage-to-stand-fast-for-ones-beliefs.html

Source

Evangelicals and Muslims Collaborate to Fight Religious Extremism

Last November, when the General Assembly of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) took Sunday off for worship and relaxation near Jakarta, Indonesia, a group of top leaders did something different. We got in a van and traveled to the offices of an Indonesian Muslim youth organization.

There we spent several hours in stimulating conversation with a group of Muslim intellectuals. Afterwards, at dinner, we were joined by Indonesia’s ambassador to the United States.

Why would WEA leaders pay so much attention to a group of Indonesian Muslims? And why would our hosts and even a high government official be so interested in welcoming us? Two reasons.

First, both we and our Muslim counterparts are idealists. We share a vision of a world in which people are free to choose their religious belief without risking their lives.

And second, we think a high-level alliance between one of the world’s largest evangelical organizations and one of the world’s largest Muslim organizations can uniquely move humanity in that direction.

Not just any Muslims

Our conversation partners were not just any Muslims. The most prominent figure among our hosts was Yahya Cholil Staquf (Pak Yahya), who served 20 years ago as press secretary to Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid. Pak Yahya is now the general secretary of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), a 94-year-old Muslim organization that claims 90 million adherents worldwide.

NU formed as a reaction to the rising influence of Wahhabism, the more puritanical version of Islam that had come to dominate what is now Saudi Arabia. Many Indonesian Islamic leaders received training in Saudi territory, so Wahhabi repression and persecution of more broad-minded Muslims had a direct effect on them.

Over decades of seeking to counter Islamic extremism in Indonesia, NU leaders realized that to achieve their goals, they had to directly challenge the radical versions of Arab Islam. As Pak Yahya puts it, “Whenever we defeat the threat in Indonesia, they get outside reinforcements.

Over the past five years, NU leaders have crafted a series of documents of great intellectual depth that challenge, from a well-established Muslim perspective, the tenets of Islamic extremism. They contend that from its founding up to the 15th century, Islam evolved to deal with constantly shifting cultural circumstances through ijtihad, or independent legal reasoning, but that the faith then became ossified and resistant to change.

This is why, as their 2018 Nusantara Manifesto states, “A wide discrepancy now exists between the structure of Islamic orthodoxy and the context of Muslims’ actual (lived) reality.” Specifically, Islamists in many countries are trying to restore a caliphate, exterminate “infidels”—including followers of less extreme versions of Islam—and impose sharia law on a globalized, pluralistic world.

In contrast, NU leaders’ vision of “Humanitarian Islam” proposes a clear distinction between eternal or universal religious norms and contingent, temporary norms. In their view, the obligation to show universal love and compassion is unchanging; the obligation to compel obedience to Islam by military force or to execute apostates is contingent and no longer relevant to the modern context. (It’s a parallel to Christians’ belief that the Ten Commandments are universal but Old Testament penal law no longer applies.)

If you’ve never heard of NU, you should read Christianity Today more closely. This magazine reported on Pak Yahya’s meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence in May 2018, after which Pence promptly tweeted a photo and the message, “Trump’s admin stands with NU in its fight for religious freedom and against jihad.”

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/evangelicals-and-muslims-partner-to-fight-religious-extremism.html

Source

There is No Weakness in Forgiving Your Oppressor

I just read the controversial column penned by well-loved American syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts entitled, "America repeatedly sold out blacks to appease whites."

I read this column as a black man and a black father while visions of George Floyd crying out for his mama and a disfigured corpse of Emmett Till, lying still in his casket, dance around in my head.

Every bone in my body, every vessel in my heart, every part of my – soul cry out to endorse everything I have just read.

I thoroughly understand it is beyond human capability to forgive people who have committed egregious acts against you, who also engaged in a protracted effort to deny your basic humanity. They were people who questioned your legitimacy to occupy or aspire to certain offices. We acutely remember the long standing "birtherism" claims. Indeed some still hold on to that long ago debunked belief.

I am asking myself, are they deserving of such a generous, altruistic gesture? History has shown us that we – the victims – are always being asked to give way and extend the hand of compassion, while those now on the wrong side of the equation never exhibit the same kindness when they are on top.

It is so natural, so human, so reasonable, so deliciously tempting to return back in spades that which you received.

Indeed that is the attitude of some today.

They firmly believe in an eye for an eye and that people who take it on the chin without fighting back are losers and suckers.

To reach out and forgive an oppressor is a stupid, unreasonable idea reserved for weak people.

They fully subscribe to the notion, "never apologize, it is a sign of weakness."

Oh! how I yearn to say, "Yes, I agree, that is the right thing to do."

Pitts is fed up and you can feel it reverberate through each line of his spotlessly written prose.

He writes:

“I view this moment through the prism of an African-American man who is a student of history. And one thing that prism has impressed on me is how often this country has sold out Black people in the name of some supposedly greater good….Now in 2020, this great-grandson of slaves is expected, in the name of a supposedly greater good, to seek reconciliation with followers of one of the most flagrantly racist — not to mention misogynistic xenophobic and Islamophobic — presidents in history? In a word: No. In another word: Enough.”

I identified with Pitts. So much of what has happened in the last four years has left me with a feeling of disdain for those in leadership and for those who follow blindly.

Then I was jolted into remembering, it does not matter how I feel. It does not matter how unfair the situation. It does not matter how inconvenient, unpleasant and difficult, I regard the circumstances. It is required of me to trust and obey Him. I was keenly reminded that the business of the cross that He handled for me was a really big deal and demands a similar response.

He has commanded me to forgive, not seven times, which in itself an unheard of, absurd notion — not humanly possible or practical — but seventy times seven. Moreover, He has warned me that if I do not forgive men their trespasses, He will not forgive mine.

That tooth for tooth business is definitely more appealing.

Who can and should do that?

The annoying, simple answer is — I should.

It does not matter if Trump and his supporters do not reach out, I am obligated to do so whether I like it or not. Furthermore, at the risk of sounding unduly harsh, my opinion, feeling, pain, hurt or emotion or those of Mr. Pitts and the supporters of Mr. Trump have no bearing on this transaction.

I am not expected to live down to their standards. I am expected to live up to His.

He is the one who loved me and gave his life for me, when I did not deserve it or demonstrated that I merited any kind of compassion or consideration.

That kind of love and sacrifice constrains me and prevents me from doing anything that shows disregard for such devotion and commitment.

It is my prayer that Mr. Pitts, Mr. Trump and his supporters will someday arrive at the same conclusion.

Nevertheless, if they do not, I will not be deterred, because in the final analysis, it is a matter between He and I.

https://www.dailydevotionalsonline.com/forgiving-your-oppressor-is-no-weakness.html

Source