I come to you as a brother in Christ, and one of your biggest defenders. I have defended you in the comments below your Charisma articles from believers who continually slander you for being bold in your quest for sharing the truth about the dangers of homosexuality. So please understand I come as a friend (trying to sharpen iron), not as a foe.
In one Facebook post you wrote, “I am committed to boldly proclaiming Jesus even if it means death. I'm not committed to NEEDLESSLY offending those I want to reach." Your comment reiterates the sentiments from your recent article on the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas: “And so, while I defend Geller’s right to hold the contest and, to repeat, while I commend her courage and boldness, I personally believe it is an UNNECESSARY provocation of Muslims…” I emphasized NEEDLESSLY and UNNECESSARY because that is the crux of my disagreement with your comments. You seem to believe the offense was needless while Pamela Geller, I, and many others believe that it was needed. I will get to why I believe it is needed and not needless later, but first, have you considered your posts and pictures that shed light on the brutality committed in the name of Islam? You have also provided Quranic verses that show how Islam’s holy book justifies these acts. Don’t think I am condemning these posts. I cheer them on because they reflect the truth—a truth many are ignorant of and therefore NEED to be informed on. But you do realize these posts probably offend Muslims; therefore, some Islamapologists or even some Christians could just as easily point to your posts and say, “while I defend Dr. Brown’s right to post on Facebook, while I commend his courage and boldness, I personally believe it is an UNNECESSARY provocation of Muslims.” In fact you know from experience that your posts offend Muslims because they have complained to Facebook and have had your page shut down.
But I am guessing that you post these not with the INTENTION of antagonizing Muslims, but with the INTENT of informing/raising awareness to a spiritual and even physical danger that cloaks itself in a religion called “Islam.” And maybe that is where you are drawing a distinction between you and Pam Gellar—INTENT. Your intent is to inform/raise awareness and you believe Pam’s intent is to antagonize. But if that is the case, the assumption that Geller’s intent is to antagonize is nothing more than that—an assumption. It is based on nothing that she has said explicitly or implicitly. When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper, “What was the purpose of holding an event that specifically focused on drawing Muhammad?” Geller responded, “Well that’s where the war on free speech is coming from…” (2:45 mark below)
So now the question comes down to whether her methods of raising awareness are “needless.” Is there any other way she can raise awareness of this threat (to the level she did) without going to the level of offense that she did? I don’t think so. She can post all she wants on her own Facebook, and Twitter accounts about the threats of Islam (like many Americans like you are doing), but it took an event like that to show how disproportionate, extreme, and belligerent reactions from Islamists can be to things that offend them. This event also showed that the dangers of Islam are not just a threat and a problem in the Middle East and Europe; despite what many of our politicians keep trying to tell us, Islam is a very real and growing threat here at home. In short, her event drew a reaction that affirmed what she has been claiming: “Islam is a threat to our liberty!”
Too many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are naïve to Islam and the threat it poses to the West. What this event showed is that Islam is not compatible with The Constitution. Unfortunately, the media (including our side) dropped the ball when they followed this rabbit trail of, "Should we use the First Amendment to 'poke Islam in the eye?'" That is a secondary issue. The primary issue and what the national conversation should have been (following this extreme reaction from Islamists) was, "Does this 'religion' really advocate violence toward those who simply draw something (i.e. exercise their First Amendment right)? What else cannot be said about their prophet that may incite a violent response? How does Constitutional protection for a 'religion' work when a religion cannot tolerate the freedoms of The Constitution? What gives? The Constitution or the so-called 'religion' that is the antithesis of The Constitution?
What about our witness? I agree with you that we don’t want to put a stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited (2 Corinthians 6:3). However, a ministry will not be effective AT ALL if you are dead or will be dead because of your ministry. There is a time for witnessing, but there is also a time to defend liberty. Our generations have been spoiled by living in a time of immense liberty. We take it for granted like it will always be here, but I agree with the words of Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
And maybe this is where you and I disagree. Perhaps you don’t see the threat from Islam—via the Trojan Horse of political correctness—like I do. But if you don’t, I’m curious why you have as many posts as you do exposing “radical Islam.” And now we come to the term “radical Islam.” It is worth noting the mother of one of the Muslim shooters said of her son, “Yes, he was a practicing Muslim, but not in an extreme sense.” In other words, her son was not a “radical.” He was just a devout Muslim. While I appreciate you (and others) raising awareness of the dangers of "radical Islam" in America and the West, it seems as long as we keep inserting the word "radical" in with the threat itself (ISLAM) we are giving the impression that those committing these acts of terror are actually not followers of Muhammad, but just a bunch of crazies taking the Quran out of context. But that is not what we see when we investigate the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran and the Hadith. What we find is that any Muslim waging war on the infidel (through physical violence or any means necessary) for the advancement of Sharia Law and submission to Allah is actually following the teachings of Muhammad. The more we use the term "radical" in the same sentence as what threatens us, the more we lend credence to those who say they stopped using the term "Muslim" altogether when describing the terrorists because they (the terrorists) are no more Muslim than they (the liberals) are. That was a paraphrase from Howard Dean.
When we were at war with the British, we were at war with the British (not "radical" British), when we were at war with the Nazis, we were at war with the Nazis (not "radical" Nazis), when we were at war with the communists, we were at war with the communists (not "radical" communists). We are at war today with Islam (not "radical Islam" and not with "Muslims" that subscribe to some watered-down western version of Islam--that is the million dollar distinction).
That is, we are at war with ISLAM proper. We are at war with the version that seeks Sharia Law and submission to Allah throughout the world (by any means necessary, including jihadist terrorism). I'm sorry to say, that is not "radical" Islam; that IS ISLAM!
While Islam is at war with us, many of our fellow Americans don’t realize this. Additionally, many Christians today act as if we should merely pray for Islamists, who hate us, want to impose Sharia Law on us, or want us dead. My response to them is: would you also merely just ask Christian Americans to "pray for the Nazis" in WWII? What about someone who breaks into your home to rape and kill your family? Would you just pray for them as well? As Christians, we should pray for our enemies but we also need to use common sense and defend our lives and liberty. This war is not just a physical war; it is an ideological war. Ironically, the brunt of resistance/conflict we face in the ideological war with Islam is not with Islamists, but rather with many in the West who are committed to defending Islam as a religion of peace. We are fighting against the media, our universities, and politicians (who have already begun acquiescing to the Sharia) in this ideological war. Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in the battle of ideas, and the draw Muhammad event provided a rhetorical bomb for us in this ideological war. Whenever someone repeats the lie, “Islam is a religion of peace” we can easily respond, “unless someone draws a cartoon of Muhammad.” Did we need this event to be able to say that? No, but it was needed to give this rhetoric the relevance, freshness, poignancy and power that it didn’t quite have before.
In closing, I pray you consider your own experience of being accused of “hate” or of having malicious intent like Pam is today. Pam Geller is showing tremendous courage in what she is doing for freedom’s sake (our freedom’s sake). Perhaps we should be more careful with what we claim is needless, lest our own words and methods end up being what we are claiming the words and methods of others are--needless.
Your brother in Christ,