Rss

  • youtube

Joseph – Man in the shadows

Posted by :admin On : December 19, 2014
3

Category: Archives, Christianity

During my lifetime I have probably looked at dozens of nativity sets and observed many Christmas plays depicting the night of Christ’s birth. The cast of characters includes baby Jesus, Mary, the shepherds, the three wise men (who actually appeared much later in time), assorted cows, chickens, sheep, and other animals typically found in a stable. Oh yes, we must not forget Joseph. In arranging our nativity scene, Jesus is always placed at the center with Mary hovering nearby or holding the child. Inconspicuous Joseph is standing there, seemingly as an afterthought, merely because of his status as the husband of Mary. In modern parlance, Joseph was the typical wallflower, a fifth wheel, the original invisible man. Never in the spotlight, Joseph was a man who always seemed to be in the shadows.

Prior to Jesus birth, Joseph is mentioned only once in Luke’s first chapter, “To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of house of David…” [Luke 1:27. RSV] In Chapter 2, Joseph is mentioned a second time when he traveled with his pregnant wife (but “who knew not a man” in the quaint phrasing of King James) from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be taxed in accordance with the decree of Caesar Augustus. [v. 4] Joseph’s unimportance in the events surrounding Christ’s birth appears to be confirmed by the sparse mention of his name in Luke’s record of that first Christmas. He receives far less discussion than the lowly shepherds who had a remarkable encounter with an angel and a multitude of the heavenly host telling of Christ’s birth. The shepherds then hurry from the fields where they tended their flocks to the stable to find “Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.” [v. 16] When the days of Mary’s purification were completed according to the Mosaic law, Joseph and Mary traveled from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to present the babe to the Lord and to offer a sacrifice as commanded by the law of the Lord. When Joseph and Mary presented the child to Simeon and to receive a blessing as was the custom of the law, they marveled at Simeon’s prophecy with regard to the Christ child. [v. 22-35]

We must look to Matthew’s gospel to learn a little more of Joseph. Matthew tells us that after finding Mary was pregnant, “…her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” [Matthew 1:19. RSV] But an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him he should keep Mary as his wife because the baby was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that His name would be called Emanuel (God with us), and that He will save His people from their sins. “When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” [v. 24-25]

Some period of time after their return to Nazareth, wise men from the east hoping to find Him who was born king of the Jews followed his star. They found the child residing with His parents and presented their treasures to the child king. [Matthew 2:1-12. RSV] Soon thereafter an angel of the Lord appeared unto Joseph in a dream, warning him to flee with his family to Egypt. Joseph was obedient to the Lord and fled with Mary and Jesus because Herod sought to kill the baby. They stayed in Egypt until Herod’s death. [v. 13-15]

We have only one more reference to Joseph twelve years after Jesus’ birth. Mary and Joseph experienced every parent’s nightmare—a missing child. After a day’s journey on the way back to Nazareth following their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem where they attended the feast of the Passover, Joseph and Mary discovered that Jesus was missing. They had presumed Jesus was with their kinsfolk and acquaintances traveling with them. Returning to Jerusalem, they sought him for three days before they “…found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.” [Luke 2:46-47. RSV]

It appears we have not discovered a lot of material in the scriptures to flesh-out the caricature of Joseph that most of us see as we look at our nativity sets. Yet, after a closer reading of the scriptures we gain new insights into the real flesh and blood Joseph who was far different than we have imagined. We see a man who was compassionate. He did not want to make a public spectacle of Mary because of the skepticism as to her explanation of her pregnancy. He favored a quiet divorce. But, he changed his mind after hearing from an angel from the Lord who told him not to divorce his wife. Therefore, he was obedient to God. Unlike many modern-day absent fathers, current live-in boyfriends, or uncaring stepfathers, Joseph loved and cared for his family as shown by a day’s journey back to Jerusalem and a three-day search for the missing twelve-year-old Jesus. Joseph was also a man who obeyed the laws of the land (he paid his taxes) as well as the laws of God (he took his child to the temple and presented him unto the Lord). Joseph protected his family as evidenced by their sojourn in Egypt.

Humble, compassionate, obedient to God, law-abiding, honest, concerned parent, protector, provider—all paint a picture of Joseph as a righteous (virtuous) man and loving husband and parent. What better set of adjectives could a man ask for when describing his life? However, for most people in this self-obsessed modern world, Joseph does appear to be a man whose life was lived in the shadows. But in God’s account book, a man’s worth is not measured by his popularity, bank balance, worldly success, or fame as evidenced by a pile of press clippings. When God looked at Joseph the shadows disappeared because the righteous “shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” [Matthew 13:43. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part I

Posted by :admin On : December 12, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

A significant cause of the decline of the Western church is its fascination with and desire for cultural relevance. This persistent affliction of Western civilization is not of its own making but has been present since before the fall of man.

The business of Satan is to compromise the church. If he is successful, the message of the church will be adulterated and its continued existence imperiled. His favorite weapon is first to plant doubt. Doubt expressed and considered is then followed by the brazen lie. In Genesis 3, the serpent said to the woman, “…Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” Eve was not ignorant of God’s instruction and she gave the right response to the serpent, “…we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’.” But the serpent challenged the truth spoken by Eve with the lie, “You will not die…” [Genesis 3:1-4 RSV] Although knowing the truth, Eve believed the lie and ate of that which was forbidden.

Thirty-five hundred years ago the story of Nadab and Abihu and their sudden and ignominious demise was recorded in Leviticus. This brief story has been a warning to God’s people down through the ages and continues to be applicable to the twenty-first century church. First, we must review a little of the back story preceding the disobedience of Aaron’s two sons, both highly regarded leaders of ancient Israel. Chapter 9 recounts Moses instruction to Aaron, his sons, and the elders of Israel to make a sin offering and burnt offering for the people. Having done so, “…the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. And there came a fire out from the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: when all the people saw, they shouted and fell on their faces.” [Leviticus 23b, 24. KJV] God accepted the atonement for the sins of the people, and they demonstrated their joy. “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” [Leviticus 10:1-2. KJV] The fire was strange [unholy] because it was not holy fire from God but common fire of man’s creation.

Matthew Henry wrote that the motivation for Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience arose from pride and presumption.[1] Like Eve, Nadab and Abihu were not ignorant of God’s instruction, and like Eve, their disobedience cost them their lives. When God’s commands are compromised by anyone in church leadership, the sins of pride, presumption, and disobedience must be properly addressed by the church or the entire church is endangered. [See: Leviticus 10: 4-7. RSV]

The greatest enemy of Christianity in its two thousand year history is humanism, and one of the reasons for its success is because humanism personifies Satan’s implantation of doubt followed by the big lie. One of the cornerstones of humanism is its rejection of absolute or objective truth. Without a belief in objective truth, all other human ideas of truth become debatable and therefore lend themselves to compromise. In humanism’s definition, truth is perceived as merely situational, of one’s own making, a product of the times and subject to change, a difference of opinion. And without the benchmark of objective truth as presented by God’s word, it is ever so much easier to embrace the lie even when one has known the source of unchangeable truth.

The modern humanistic surge began during the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Throughout the nineteenth century, humanists’ corrupted use of scientific knowledge and advancement spread seeds of doubt as to the truth and authority of God and His Word. The nineteenth century’s icons of the humanistic faith included Charles Darwin and his Origin of Species in the biological sciences; Christopher Langdell, dean of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895 and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. at the beginning of the twentieth century in the realm of law; John Dewey and the progressive education movement which began in the 1890s; and William James who divorced psychology and the study of human nature from the biblical worldview. In the early part of the twentieth century, many in leadership of the various spheres of American life were sufficiently conditioned to move from objective truth, to doubt, and then acceptance of the big lie: there is no God.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, many mainline churches felt the effects of a loss of cultural authority as secular humanism advanced. In order to retain a modicum of cultural authority in the face of humanism’s onslaught, Protestant leaders began embracing secular human sciences to lend credibility and cultural relevance to the tenets of their religion. One of the great Christian leaders of the era who embraced the secular human sciences was Charles Clayton Morrison, publisher of the influential journal Christian Century.

Morrison was the son of a Disciples of Christ minister and attended a Disciples of Christ College in preparation for ministry. He was heavily influenced by H. O. Breeden, another Disciples pastor that supported evolution and biblical criticism. Morrison continued graduate studies at the University of Chicago where he studied psychology and philosophy as opposed to theology. John Dewey and others in the functionalist [practical, utilitarian] school of psychology were his teachers. Any remnants of Morrison’s revivalist faith were completely abandoned. He wrote of this transformation.[2]

When I left [the University], I was thoroughly immunized against every form of rationalism, apriorism, or speculation of any kind based on dogmatic or authoritarian ideas. Ideas, I saw, arise in experience, they are conditioned by experience, they refer to experience…In a word, ideas are functional for experience.[3]

Founded in 1884, the Christian Oracle was the liberal voice of Disciples of Christ ministers and laity. The journal’s name was changed to the Christian Century in January 1900, but the journal continued to struggle with low readership amidst intermittent bouts of bankruptcy. Morrison acquired the journal at a sheriff’s sale following another bankruptcy in 1908. Under Morrison’s editorship, the Christian Century’s commitment to liberal theology was strengthened. Darwin was “hailed as the most important figure of the nineteenth century…and that evolution does not contradict but affirms the Christian account of creation.” Liberal Protestantism was profoundly affected by the promotion of psychology through Sunday school teachers training courses, promotion of books on psychology, pastoral care and counseling, seminary training, and Sunday school classes.[4]

By 1938, Morrison had been the editor of the Christian Century for thirty years. In that time the journal had attained great cultural prominence but at the loss of much of its Christian character. Although indistinguishable from many of its secular peers, the journal was recognized as the preeminent voice of mainstream American Protestantism. One year later, Morrison shockingly wrote “How My Mind Has Changed” in which he described the secularizing consequences of the publication on American Protestantism in which he and his staff “…introduced and popularized psychology with a language of instinct and personality, which displaced the Christian theological language of morality and grace.”[5]

I had baptized the whole Christian tradition in the waters of psychological empiricism, and was vaguely awakening to the fact that, after this procedure, what I had left was hardly more than a moralistic ghost of the distinctive Christian reality. It was as if the baptismal waters of the empirical stream had been mixed with some acid which ate away the historical significance, the objectivity and the particularity of the Christian revelation, and left me in complete subjectivity to work out my own salvation in terms of social service and an “integrated personality.”[6]

Morrison’s quest to make the church culturally relevant was in reality comparable to Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire—an introduction of man’s ideas and methods devoid of biblical authority and truth in order to make the church acceptable to a fallen culture. From such pride and presumption, great damage has been inflicted upon the church and its witness as to the unchangeable truth of God’s Word. Unfortunately, the American church’s quest for cultural relevancy is alive and vigorous in the twentieth-first century. In Part II, we shall examine Christianity’s modern expressions of its efforts at cultural relevancy which have completely captured the liberal church in America and is now invading many evangelical churches.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), pp. 122-123.
[2] Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California:
University of California Press, 2003), pp. 273, 277.
[3] Ibid., p. 277.
[4] Ibid., pp. 273-274, 278-292
[5] Ibid., p. 302.
[6] Ibid., p. 269.

Gridlock – Governmental stalemate arising from a deeper cultural divide

Posted by :admin On : December 5, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Constitution, Government, Progressivism

Gridlock is a favorite bogeyman of journalists, columnists, and commentators in recent years, especially following national elections. They may as well save their breath and barrels of printer’s ink for the political divide has never been wider and deeper. Perennial prescriptions of non-partisanship and cooperation disappear as quickly as the morning mist following Election Day. One must ask if political polarization always results in gridlock which is shorthand for the inability of government to govern effectively. A cursory review of American history reveals many times of intense polarization, but the country and its government survived. Why was that possible then and not possible now? An examination of one of the defining moments in our nation’s history suggests an answer.

The fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention had labored through the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. Their efforts to draft a constitution for the fledgling nation were floundering and near failure amidst bitter debate and hostile feelings. On June 28th, eighty-one year old Benjamin Franklin rose to his feet and addressed General Washington who served as Convention president and the other 54 delegates. Here we recite only portions of this perhaps nation-saving speech.

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question…is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.

In this situation of the assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God Governs in the affairs of men…

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: we shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages…I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business…[1]

Franklin noted on the bottom of his copy of the speech that the convention, except for three or four, thought prayers were unnecessary.[2] But he was wrong. Jonathan Drayton, delegate from New Jersey, reported the response of the convention.

The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected.[3]

Upon motion of James Madison, seconded by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, Franklin’s appeal for prayer was approved by the delegates who further voted that at the request of the Convention a sermon be preached on July 4th and thereafter prayers be used in the Convention every morning.[4]

On June 30, two days after his speech, Franklin would help set in motion events that would break the impasse and ultimately help shape the new nation.[5] John Drayton noted a profound change in the convention as they assembled on July 2nd. “We assembled again; and …every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”[6]

The entire delegation assembled at the Reformed Calvinistic Church on July 4th to hear a sermon preached by Reverend William Rogers. Rogers prayed that the delegates would be favored “…with thy inspiring presence, be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the great whole…” He closed with, “May we…continue, under the influence of republican virtue, to partake of all blessings of cultivated and Christian society.”[7] God answered Rogers’ request. On September 17, 1787, the delegates approved the Constitution of the United States of America. This was not the first of many instances of God’s providence in the founding and preservation of the nation amidst polarizing events and difficulties including the greatest threat of all—the Civil War that divided the nation not only politically but also divided families and friends.

In reality, the political divide in the nation’s first 150 years was probably more dramatic then than it is today. So what makes modern political divisiveness more intractable than that of our forebears?

The fundamental divide in America goes far deeper than mere political polarization and gridlock. This divide is the result of the ascendance of a humanistic worldview that believes that “change and progress are the law of life.” To maintain progress, America must be unshackled from the past. On the other side of the divide are those who are concerned with the nature of man and values.[8] It is on this side we find the central cultural vision of the colonial Americans, the Founders, and most Americans since then.

The collective consciousness of those early Americans was essentially Christian in the way they saw the world. Man was fallen but redeemable. Their values were fixed by timeless truths found both in the natural law and the revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. Even though Franklin and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were mired in deep philosophical disagreements regarding the details of founding a nation, the Christian worldview held by virtually all of the delegates defined their basic beliefs and informed their deliberations which made possible compromise and success in creating a document that reflected their understanding of timeless values and the nature of man.

For those who believe that change and progress are the fundamental forces for directing life, it is essential that the Founders’ central cultural vision and values be discarded. In their central cultural vision, man is not fallen. He need not look to any god or the supernatural for solutions to his problems for those solutions come only through man’s reason and scientific advancement. As man progresses, values must change to reflect the times and accommodate current attitudes and situations.

The problem with the worldview of progress and change is that it violates the essential requirements that define a viable and sustainable culture. The essence of culture is to give allegiance to a center of authority that reflects moral codes and laws whereby it enforces what it believes is right and good for society. In other words, a culture must have a unifying central vision of how things ought to work, what’s important, its moral values, and what must be included and what must be excluded from that culture.

The progressive view of culture is essentially disintegrative because it has no unifying, cohesive central vision for it, by definition, produces multiple centers of cultural vision. Progressives attempt to create coherence and cohesiveness among these multiple centers of vision by substituting falsely defined concepts such as diversity, equality, and other egalitarian ideals as the cultural center of authority. However, these concepts do not resonate with man’s innate understanding of truth and freedom and fail to answer the basic questions of life. Therefore, these humanistic concepts inevitably lead to tensions and frictions, are inherently divisive, and result in cultural disintegration.

These tensions and frictions are most evident in the modern political arena and result in gridlock. Present day political polarization has become insurmountable because the conflict flows from fundamental differences in our basic beliefs that can’t be compromised without destroying who we claim to be as individuals and as a nation. And it is in these basic differences of belief that we see the flashpoints in the culture wars which include abortion, same-sex marriage, and homosexuality.

For over 150 years America overcame its political polarization and gridlock because its citizens and leaders were guided by a single cultural vision. Now, many of the leaders in the nation’s spheres of influence adhere to and promote a humanistic view of life in which God is a myth and man is the master of his own destiny. From such beliefs come political solutions that conflict with the central cultural vision that has been held by most Americans for three hundred years (colonial Americans, Founders, and most citizens since then). And without the cohesive and coherent central cultural vision of the Founders, there is no firm foundation upon which America’s leaders can overcome political polarization and gridlock. In Franklin’s words, they have become “the builders of Babel.”

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc.1996), pp. 248-249.
[2] Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin – An American Life, (New York, Simon & Schuster), 2003), p. 452.
[3] Federer, p. 249.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Isaacson, p. 452.
[6] Federer, p. 250.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), pp. 4-5.

The difference a day makes – Another interpretation

Posted by :admin On : November 28, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality, Government, Homosexuality, Marriage

The voters of Oklahoma amended its state constitution in November 2004 to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Following a suit filed in Tulsa County, U.S. District Judge Terrance Kern ruled the ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal, gay marriage became legal in spite of the wishes of approximately 75% of Oklahoma’s electorate. [1]

Toby Jenkins, head of Oklahomans for Equality, hails the decision as a sunrise on a new day that ended “marriage discrimination” in Oklahoma. He cites four examples of such alleged discrimination: failure to process loan applications by same-sex couples, prohibition of same-sex couples from sharing an apartment in an assisted living center, prohibition from having a vehicle title issued in both names of a same-sex married couple legally married in another state, and prohibition of the right to request cremation of a deceased partner by the other partner in a same-sex relationship. [2]

However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear challenges to rulings allowing same-sex marriage in some states may be more of a go-slow approach than an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ November 6th ruling favored those that define marriage as being between one man and one woman and almost guarantees the highest court will take up the issue at some point. The language within the Sixth Circuit’s ruling is significant, “…marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” [3]

In upholding the traditional view of marriage, the court’s verdict ended with these words. “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.” [4]

For most people in Oklahoma and America, Mr. Jenkins’ sunrise for equality is in reality a sunset for liberty. Ultimately, same-sex marriage is not just about equality, honor, and dignity for the proponents of same-sex marriage but a means to force the majority of Americans to forfeit their religious beliefs, bow to the god of equality, and embrace the consequent moral relativism which provides no means for finding truth or judging something based on the concept of right and wrong. For those that deny this reality of the LGBT agenda, just ask the president of Gordon, a Christian college that is being threatened with loss of accreditation because of the school’s longstanding policies prohibiting gay activities among students, faculty, and staff and its public opposition to hiring protections for gays and lesbians. [5] Or ask the Lexington, Kentucky, tee-shirt maker who was found to have violated the city’s Human Rights Commission’s “fairness” ordinance and was ordered to attend “diversity training” for re-education. His crime? He refused to make tee-shirts for participants in a local gay-pride parade. [6] Or ask Jennifer Keeton, a former graduate student in counseling at Augusta State University, who was threatened with expulsion unless she changed her religious beliefs that failed “to conform to professional standards” with regard to LGBT issues. [7]

For millions of others in America who oppose the LGBT same-sex agenda because they adhere to the tenets of their Christian faith, the sun is setting on religious freedom as the nation descends into a dark night of coercion and oppression.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Writ of Certiorari, The Supreme Court of the United States, Sally Howe Smith v. Mary Bishop, et.al., August 6, 2014. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Oklahoma-Smith-petition-8-6-14.pdf (accessed November 11, 2014).
[2] Toby Jenkins, “The difference a day makes,” Tulsa World, November 9, 2014, G-6.
[3] United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 14-1341, Opinion, November 6, 2014. p.7. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf (accessed November 11, 2014).
[4] Ibid., p. 42.
[5] Matt Rocheleau, “Accrediting agency to review Gordon College,” The Boston Globe, July 11, 2014. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/11/agency-review-whether-gordon-college-antigay-stance-policies-violate-accrediting- standards/Cti63s3A4cEHLGMPRQ5NyJ/story.html (accessed October 8, 2014).
[6] Tony Perkins, “Intolerance fits liberals to a T (Shirt),” Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, October 9, 2014. http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/intolerance-fits-liberals-to-a-t-shirt (accessed October 13, 2014).
[7] Sarah Netter, “Georgia Grad Student Sues University Over Gay Sensitivity Training,” abcNews/US, July 27, 2010, http://abcnews.go. com/US/georgia-student-sues-university-lgbt-sensitivity-training/story?id=11261490 (accessed August 7, 2010).

“Workplace violence” comes to Canada

Posted by :admin On : November 21, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Government, Humanism, Islam, Worldview

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines workplace violence as “…violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths. However it manifests itself, workplace violence is a growing concern for employers and employees nationwide.” The OSHA website also tells us that workplace violence can strike anywhere and anyone…people in homes, pizza delivery persons, gas meter readers, psychiatric evaluators…literally anywhere work is or can be done.[1] But OSHA’s definition is so broad that it is meaningless. Almost any violence can be classified as connected to the workplace however tenuous that connection might be. Not only does OSHA mask the real reasons for much of the violence, but it magnifies the level of workplace violence by equating minor non-violent and non-criminal occurrences with violent crimes such as physical assault and murder. Effectively, a large segment of general societal violence is jury-rigged to the workplace and made the responsibility of employers. The assumptive language of OSHA’s workplace violence regulations is that all such violence is workplace related.

OSHA’s workplace violence rules were written long before November 5, 2009, when Army Major Nidal Hasan shot to death thirteen people (fourteen including the unborn child of one of the victims) and wounded thirty-two others at Fort Hood, Texas. Major Hasan committed these crimes after years of open and verbal support of Islamic jihad while serving as an Army officer. Hasan is an American-born Muslim who had exchanged emails with a leading Al-Qaeda personage in which Hasan asked if those attacking fellow soldiers were considered martyrs.[2] Hasan fired over 200 rounds in the killing spree while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” which means “Allah is the Greatest” and is the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer as prescribed by the Prophet Muhammad.

Only four days after the shootings at Fort Hood, General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, appeared on several Sunday news talk shows and expressed concern regarding the speculation as to the cause or motivation behind the shootings. “We have to be careful because we can’t jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that have come out. As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” (emphasis added) Not only was the general more concerned with protecting diversity than exposing the truth regarding the attack, he deliberately switched the focus of what happened when he said that he did not think there was currently discrimination against the estimated 3,000 Muslims who served in the Army at that time. Implicit in the General’s unwarranted statement was that if Hasan had acted because of his religious beliefs, it would have been because of discrimination against Muslims within the Army.[3]

Forty-six people were killed or wounded just three days earlier on an Army base whose supreme commander was General Casey. The perpetrator was a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” and had a well-known history among his military peers and superiors of being in sympathy with and vocally supporting Islamic jihad. However, the general’s greatest concern was for discrimination against Muslims in the military and not the families of the dead and those wounded by Hasan. It is incredibly naïve for anyone to believe the general did know the complete story of Nidal Hasan within hours of the killings and not just little snippets of information.

So the United States government saw to it that Hasan’s crimes were labeled “workplace violence” as opposed to what it really was…an act of terror whose motivation was to advance the beliefs and purposes of a false religion. Workplace violence may describe the location, but it does not reveal the cause or motivation of the violence. Government leadership committed to the philosophy of humanism must at all costs defend its humanistic concepts of diversity and multiculturalism in which moral relativism rules and all belief systems are coexisting and equally valid. Thus, we can all rest well tonight because diversity has been defended and OSHA is churning out even more rules and regulations to combat “workplace violence” such as committed by Major Hasan.

Recently, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a thirty-two year old Muslim convert, shot and killed a ceremonial guard on his way to attack the Canadian House of Commons and was subsequently killed by guards. Humanism in Canada is even more advanced than in the United States, but Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the courage to call the assault on the House of Commons a terrorist attack. However, true to liberalism’s humanistic roots, liberal leader Justin Trudeau quickly reassured the Muslim community.

And to our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community, Canadians know acts such as these committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith. Continued mutual cooperation and respect will help prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion. We will walk forward together, not apart.[4] (emphasis added)

According to Muslim tradition, the Quran was verbally spoken to Muhammad and is the mother document upon which Islam rests. One wonders how Zehaf-Bibeau’s actions are a deviation from the Islamic faith when the words of the Quran repeatedly justify his actions. Two examples of many similar verses that justify Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack are found in the Quran.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.[5] [Surah 4:89. Quran]

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you, give firmness to the believers: I will instil [sic] terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.[6] [Surah 8:12. Quran]

Are these verses, which are consistent with the actions of Zehaf-Bibeau, distorted ideological propaganda as Trudeau would have us believe? The Quran either does or does not define Islam and direct the actions of its followers? If they are reflective of the Quran’s instruction for conduct of the followers of Islam, the verses cannot be distorted ideological propaganda. If the verses are not reflective of proper conduct for the followers of Islam, how does a follower of Islam determine which verses of the Quran are to be followed and which must be considered distorted ideological propaganda?

The philosophy of humanism would have us believe that all belief systems are equally valid. If all belief systems are not equally valid, then the tenets of humanism are fundamentally flawed including humanistically defined concepts of diversity and multiculturalism which are embraced by General Casey and most of the leadership of the institutions of American life. When common sense and thousands of years of human experience expose the falsity of the humanistic worldview, its defenders use the power of office and meaningless language such as “workplace violence” and bogus definitions of diversity and multiculturalism to mask its failings.

Humanism’s diversity is a close kin of multiculturalism and focuses on the differences within society and not society as a whole. With emphasis on the differences, mass culture becomes nothing more than an escalating number of subcultures within an increasingly distressed political framework that attempts to satisfy the myriad of demands of the individual subcultures. There is a loss of unity through fragmentation and ultimately a loss of a society’s central cultural vision which leads to disintegration. Humanism’s impulse for diversity is a derivative of relativism and humanism’s perverted concept of equality.[7]

…the humanist multicultural agenda reveals that multiculturalism is not intended to supplement but rather to supplant Western culture that is so steeped in Christianity. The attack on Western civilization comes through a dismissal of American religious values as they intersected with and made possible the rise of the American political system…The essence of multiculturalism has its roots in the denial of absolutes, one of the cardinal doctrines of humanism, which translates into a moral relativism. Such a values-free approach, according to the humanists, makes it impossible to judge one period or era in relation to another or to say that one culture’s ethic is superior to another.[8]

The American experience since the first Europeans set foot on its eastern shores has been centered on a Christian understanding of the world. America became the greatest nation in the world because it was founded upon principles based upon that understanding.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] OSHA Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2002.
https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-workplace-violence .pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
[2] Billy Kenber, “Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for Fort Hood shooting rampage,” Washington Post, August 28, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nidal-hasan-sentenced-to-death-for-fort-hood-shooting-rampage/2013/08/28/aad28de2-0ffa-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html (accessed November 5, 2014).
[3] Lindy Kyzer, “Gen. Casey on the strength of our diversity,” Army Live, U.S. Army, November 8, 2009.
http://armylive.dodlive.mil/index.php/2009/11/gen-casey-on-the-strength-of-our-diversity/ (accessed November 5, 2014).
[4] Erika Tucker, “Soldier killed in what Harper calls ‘terrorist attack’ in Ottawa,” Global News, October 22, 2014. http://globalnews.ca/news/1628313/shots-fired-at-war-memorial-in-ottawa-says-witness/ (accessed November 5, 2014).
[5] The Meaning of The Illustrious Qur-an, (Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah), p.49.
[6] Ibid., p. 98.
[7] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p 398.
[8] Ibid., pp. 189-190.