Update 11-16-15* If you have talked about ISIS, the attacks in Paris, the attempted massacre at the draw Muhammad event in Texas, the threats to Pam Geller, the Chattanooga shooting (whose motive is admittedly being hidden by FBI Director James Comey for the sake of "not smearing people", i.e., tarnishing the name of Islam), the beheadings, or other terrorist attacks from Muslims, you probably have encountered someone (who isn’t even a Muslim) who will vehemently defend Islam by either dismissing the violent perpetrators as people who “aren’t true Muslims” or try to drag Christianity down with it (e.g. “yeah but what about the Crusades?”). If you ask them if they have read the Koran, the answer is almost always “no." If you ask them if they know the difference between Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina, the answer is almost always “no." Ask them if they know what Sharia Law is, and the answer is almost always “well, not ALL of it." So why does so much vehemence accompany so much ignorance?
The Islamophiliac who vehemently defends Islam (with very little to no knowledge of Islam) is usually (if not always) assuming from the outset a moral equivalence between ALL religions. This stems from the rejection of objective truth. Since relativists believe all truth and morality is relative (not objective), they usually believe all religions that make objective truth and morality claims are equally false. They don't say this EXPLICITLY but they say it IMPLICITLY when they say things like, "Your religion is true FOR YOU. Other religions are true FOR THEM. Therefore, all religions are equally true TO THE INDIVIDUAL." It is their patronizing way of rejecting any objective truth claim by flipping it to a SUBJECTIVE truth claim. They get away with this most of the time unchallenged because many people (who are not trained in logic or philosophy) don't recognize this when it happens.
Relativists go on to say things like, “All religions have their fanatics who don’t follow its proper teachings.” This is true, but the assumption is that since some (heretics) have killed in the name of Christ—not based on anything Jesus Christ did or taught (prescribed)--then all people who kill in the name of their religion must be going against what their religion actually teaches.
To the relativist, Christianity cannot be more true in any sense (including morally) than any other religion, and that is why you see this bizarre, almost Twilight Zone, effort from relativists to excuse and even lift up Islam so that everyone else sees all religions (including Islam) the way they do—equivocally. Despite the huge disproportion of brutal acts of violence and abhorrent brutality in this age (and throughout its entire history) from those doing it in the name of ISLAM, there is still this committed effort from relativists to defend Islam. It seems the reason for this commitment (from so many in the West) is a combination of naïveté, and understanding the implications that acknowledging a moral disparity between the teachings of Muhammad (Islam), and the teachings of Christ (Christianity) will have.
To clarify, if it can be demonstrated that the teachings of Muhammad (not Muslims—take note of the distinction) condone and prescribe the evil actions of ISIS (“Islamic” State) and other “Islamic” terrorists, then a clear moral distinction can and must be made, at least between the teachings of Muhammad (Islam) and the teachings of Christ (Christianity). This is why you see the demonization (e.g. "Islamophobe") of anyone who investigates the causal connection between Islam (the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah) and the brutal acts of terror we hear about in the news today. The stakes are huge for relativists. If Islam is examined and it is demonstrably true that the teachings of Muhammad (Islam) are more like fascism and Naziism than the altruistic and peaceful teachings of Christ and His apostles (Christianity), then a cataclysmic paradigm shift should happen, especially in academia, as relativism (the most prominent worldview espoused today in academia) will be tossed in the ash heap of history alongside other failed philosophical theories.
To be clear, we don’t judge any religion MERELY by those committing violence in its name. We judge a religion by looking into its teachings (prescriptions for conduct) and see if those committing violence are following their religion’s instructions in proper context. This is where the difference between the person who commits acts of violence in the name of Christ and the person who commits acts of violence in the name of Muhammad is glaringly obvious. But it requires a little bit of homework—homework that most are too lazy or uninterested in doing. Don't be like the lazy fools who eat whatever is spoon-fed to them from useful idiots. Do your homework! Click here for debates, commentaries, and quotes from the Quran (with an emphasis on CONTEXT) that show that Muslims who perpetuate violence, oppression and persecution toward infidels are in fact adherents to the teachings of Muhammad (i.e. Islam) and not heretics (like the relativists want us to believe). The infidels, therefore, who constantly defend this "religion" that continually produces such a disproportionate amount of violence, oppression, persecution (see Sharia Law--the inextricably bound law of Islam), and bloodshed wherever its adherents are found, are doing so for at least one of the following reasons:
1. Out of ignorance—they are just parroting platitudes (e.g., "no religion condones the killing of innocence").
2. They lack the humility to even consider that they COULD BE WRONG (i.e. they are wise in their own eyes and their pride blinds them from reality).
3. They are more interested in defending positions that affirm their worldview that allow them to be their own god (by relativizing truth and morality to their own preference) than actually arriving at the truth.
4. Out of fear—they are afraid of offending Muslims, so they defend Islam at all costs. By doing this they think that Muslims will somehow respect them now and return that respect in the future.
This is why, to the relativist, all the evidence that contradicts their philosophical position is either ignored or relativized/curve fit to complement their position (postmodern relativism) that they have already CONCLUDED is the right one. This is called circular reasoning and it can create all sorts of insanity like what we are seeing today from those who naïvely defend Islam as “peaceful” despite all the lack of peace in countries dominated by Islam, and so many attacks happening in the West by those doing it in the name of Islam. I normally don't agree with anything Bill Maher says, but when it comes to Islam he makes a good point:
"When there is this many bad apples, there is something wrong with the orchard."
*2-6-15 Note* Although this was originally written the first week of January 2015, President Obama followed through with the moral equivalence rhetoric (described above) at the National Prayer Breakfast (over 3 weeks later) saying, "during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." This may be confusing considering Obama is supposed to be a "Christian". Whether or not Obama is truly a Christian is a topic for another day so I don't want to go there. The important question regarding Christian relativists is: Why would a Christian attempt to bring down the name and history of Christianity just to equate another religion as legitimate as theirs? The answer is because they don't view relativism through the lens of Christianity; on the contrary, they view/interpret their Christianity through the lens of relativism.
Jesus said, "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through me."--John 14:6 Notice this is an objective truth claim by Christ. In other words, Jesus was NOT a relativist.
Jesus did NOT say, "I am A way and A truth and A life. Anyone can come to the Father through many ways other than me." This is why a Christian relativist is an oxymoron. Tragically, there are many out there, like Obama, claiming the name of Christ while relativizing THE truth.
*11-16-15 Note* Just days after the Paris attack on Friday the 13th, candidate for Minnesota State Senate Dan Kimmel tweeted: "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer though." He ended his campaign a day after the tweet as even those who are not just "right wingers" can still identify the most obvious forms of evil when it's in their face. Kimmel was just regurgitating what he was taught in college--relativism (i.e. that there is no such thing as objective evil). To all the relativists, like Kimmel, who are still guarding that philosophy, how's that worldview connecting with reality these days?
RSS Feed