On November 7, 2020, four days after the General Election, a millennial friend who identifies as a Christian and is a devoted disciple of critical race theory and BLM posted this sacrilegious image on her Facebook page:

These were the last words of Christ before he died on the cross. The debt mankind owes to God for our sin and rebellion was finished, that is, paid in full, by Christ’s suffering and death. Jesus provided the means—the only means—for man to be reconciled to God. Satan was defeated. The sinless lamb of God’s self-sacrifice for the sins of man fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies. And this millennial Christian used that biblical allusion to celebrate the defeat of Donald Trump.

In addition to being sacrilegious, it is nonsensical as an analogy. If “it” refers to Trump’s tenure as president, in what precise way or ways is that analogous to Christ’s finished work on the cross? If Trump’s presidency is in no ways akin to Christ’s finished work—which, of course, it wasn’t—why use that allusion? Did she think it was clever? Funny? Unifying?

One thing is clear, this millennial and countless other Never-Trump, pro-Biden evangelicals believed that the country suffered under Trump’s presidency and that Biden would be America’s savior. And with their eyes blinded by rage at Trump and their minds clouded with foolish ideology, they have brought untold suffering to the world.

Cultural regressives who self-identify as “progressives” ripped Trump for his purported foreign policy ineptitude, claiming that he was destroying America’s reputation on the international stage. And here we are now with Western European leaders publicly savaging Biden’s astonishingly inept exit from Afghanistan, the effects of which worsen every day. As of this writing, two ISIS-K bomb blasts at the Kabul airport have left at least 12 U.S. service members dead, 15 injured, and an unknown number of Afghans dead or injured.

Politico has reported that “U.S. officials in Kabul gave the Taliban a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to grant entry into the militant-controlled outer perimeter” of the Kabul airport. An outraged defense official who described this act as “appalling and shocking,” said, “they just put all those Afghans on a kill list.”

Rebecca Klapper writing in Newsweek Magazine—no friend of conservatism—paints a vivid picture of the dim view European leaders have of bumbling Biden and his gang of accomplices who are too busy planning the forced entrance of men in dresses into women’s locker rooms to plan an exit of soldiers and allies from one of the most dangerous countries in the world:

Markus Soeder, a leading member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s center-right Union bloc, called for accountability from the United States.

Soeder said Washington should provide funding and shelter to people fleeing Afghanistan, since “the United States of America bear the main responsibility for the current situation.”

…

Even in the United Kingdom, which has always prided itself on a its “special relationship” with Washington … barbs were coming from all angles.

Former British Army chief Richard Dannatt said, “the manner and timing of the Afghan collapse is the direct result of President Biden’s decision to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. At a stroke, he has undermined the patient and painstaking work of the last five, 10, 15 years to build up governance in Afghanistan, develop its economy, transform its civil society and build up its security forces. ” Dannatt said Wednesday in Parliament.

In response to attempts to “absolve” Biden of culpability for the botched exit, Charles Cooke writing for National Review said,

The Biden administration could. … quite obviously have ensured that before our troops were drawn down we had got every American, permanent resident, and eligible Afghan out; we had removed both our weaponry and any sensitive information; and we had consulted properly with our allies. That part … was within Joe Biden’s control. And he completely and utterly screwed it up.

Allies are not angered by just the exit debacle but also by Biden’s unconscionable lies concocted to shift blame, lies that provoked unprecedented bipartisan rebukes by members of Parliament:

Biden putting much of the blame on Afghan forces for not protecting their nation has not gone down well with Western allies, either.

Conservative Parliament member Tom Tugendhat, who fought in Afghanistan, was one of several British lawmakers taking offense.

“To see their commander-in-chief call into question the courage of men I fought with, to claim that they ran, is shameful,” Tugendhat said.

Chris Bryant, from the opposition Labour Party, called Biden’s remarks about Afghan soldiers, “some of the most shameful comments ever from an American president.”

Cranky leftists with their gender-neutral underpants in a twist repeatedly croaked that Trump lied about Stormy Daniels, lied about the weather on his inauguration day, and lied about the number of attendees at his inauguration.

Contrast those lies with Biden’s. Biden lied when he said al Qaeda was gone from Afghanistan. He lied when he said, “we know of no circumstance where American citizens are—carrying an American passport—are trying to get through to the airport.” He lied when he said, “I have seen no question of our credibility from our allies around the world.” And he lied when he said, “The Afghan military gave up, sometimes without trying to fight.”

Add those lies to the mound of whoppers from leftist journalists, members of Congress, Democrat Party operatives, the CIA, and FBI (aided and abetted by the algorithmic mischief of Big Tech) throughout Trump’s presidency and the 2020 campaign—lies which were created to take down a duly elected president and then to prevent his reelection.

They lied when they claimed Trump called all illegal immigrants rapists and murderers. They lied when they said Trump put immigrant children in cages. They lied about Trump and a Russian prostitute. They lied about Russia-collusion. They lied about Hunter Biden and his colorful computer.

And now in addition to the tragic scene of suffering on our southern border created by Biden, China, Russia, Iran, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS-K are celebrating the humiliation of America. Our relations with our allies have never been worse. Americans are dead or stranded in the hellhole of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And Afghan women and girls await their fate as sex slaves to barbarians.

I wonder if my millennial friend still thinks the election of Biden signaled the arrival of a savior who will end the suffering caused by former President Trump. It’s hard to know because she hasn’t posted a single thing about Biden since her sacrilegious post.

You may have thought I was overstating things in my recent article, “Will California Go from Banning Religious Books to Burning Them?” You may have thought I was exaggerating when I referenced LGBT activists who compared Christian conservatives to ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Be assured that there was not a word of hyperbole in what I wrote. The truth is unsettling enough.

To put things in perspective, when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he stated clearly that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. And he knew he needed to do this to win the conservative, black vote.

Today, you are branded a radical and a dangerous fanatic if you espouse that same view. You will be grilled by the tolerance inquisition!

Ten years ago, you would have laughed me to scorn if I told you Bruce Jenner would become Caitlyn Jenner and be named woman of the year. You would have ridiculed me if I told you the federal government would punish schools that refused to open the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms to boys who identified as girls.

Today, “transphobic” is a household word, a gender-confused teen has his (her?) own reality TV show, and drag queens are reading stories to toddlers in libraries.

Ten years ago, you would have said “Impossible!” to the idea that a minor with unwanted same-sex attraction would be forbidden by law to receive professional counseling, even if that child expressly requested it and even if that child had been sexually abused. And you would have dismissed completely the notion that some states would seek to bar such counseling from adults as well.

Today, a number of states have outlawed this much-needed counseling for struggling minors, while California is poised to make it illegal for anyone of any age to receive professional help for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender-confusion. That is the unvarnished, unembellished truth.

And what happens when we draw attention to this outrageous California bill? We are attacked as maniacs.

As one gay activist put it (specifically, in the context of my opposition to the California bill), “Brown is a religious zealot — a Christian convert — who is barely distinguishable from the folks who flew airplanes into buildings for their god. Unlike them, Brown is nonviolent. However, like those 9/11 maniacs, Brown substitutes literalist religious belief for logic, science and common sense. Brown, I think, relishes the negative attention and while I say that he is nonviolent he does equivalent violence to LGBT people every day through misinformation.”

To parse these words in any serious way is to give them a dignity they do not deserve. I simply post them to say, “You see! I was not exaggerating.”

This is what comes your way when you oppose radical LGBT activism. This is what you can expect when you take a stand for liberty and freedom. This is what happens when you tell the truth.

This same gay activist wrote, “In the final analysis, Michael Brown is an advocate of pseudoscience in order to conform the world to his religious beliefs. It should be noted that Brown sports a PhD in Near Eastern Languages. Obviously, he has no training or work experience relative to human sexuality.”

And after claiming that there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through counseling or that gender-confused children can, with help, become at home in their own bodies, he writes, “If Michael Brown knows of more compelling research, he has not cited it. He has failed to make any meaningful argument in support of conversion therapy. Promoting the existence of this mythical approach only creates prejudice and discrimination. It serves no useful purpose. Come to think of it, Michael Brown serves no useful purpose. It is a cheap shot but the guy rails against LGBT people all day, every day. Maybe he needs a new hobby.”

Actually, I and others have been citing scientific literature for years, along with an endless number of personal anecdotes from friends and colleagues. (I’m talking about former-homosexuals and former-transgenders.) But whoever we cite gets discredited immediately, since the psychologists and psychiatrists and therapists and scholars do not adhere to the standard LGBT talking points.

Ryan Anderson provides ample scientific literature about transgender issues in his new book, while a major review of scientific literature by two prominent psychologists addresses broader issues of sexual orientation change as well. Be assured that the science is there.

This, however, is not to deny that there are many gays and transgenders who have tried to change, without success. They have suffered depression and fear and self-loathing, spiraling even deeper into hopeless after unsuccessful therapy efforts. I do not minimize their struggles, I do not pretend to be able to relate to what they have endured, and I constantly call on the Church to show great compassion to such strugglers.

But to each of them – and to the critics who attack us with such venom – I make a simple appeal. Allow others to find their own path.

When you try to pass laws that will take away essential freedoms of those you differ with, and when you demonize those who oppose your values, you only discredit yourselves. In the long run, this will work against you. We will overcome your venom and anger and bills and laws with grace and truth and love – and God’s help.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

Written by Stan Guthrie

Confucius once said, “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” When it comes to radical Islam, it’s clear that too many people have chosen foolishness over wisdom. The question is, in these dangerous times, are there enough of us willing to embrace wisdom?

Our answer will go a long way toward determining whether the West, founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, will prevail over radical Islam. For, as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said recently, “You cannot remedy a problem if you will not name it and define it.”

The Obama administration’s verbal contortions over the nature of our self-avowed enemies would be comical if they weren’t so seriously misguided. After a recent atrocity by the Islamic State (also called ISIS or ISIL), the president opined, “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean offered this: “I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.” These statements bring to mind the odd Bush administration mantra after 9/11: “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Then there’s the absurd statement by one of the current president’s spokesmen. He asserted that the Taliban—which murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and which saw one of its affiliates slaughter 132 schoolchildren and nine staff in Pakistan—isn’t a terrorist group. No, it’s merely an “armed insurgency.” Cut from the same cloth is the refusal by Al Jazeera’s English service to use words such as “terrorist,” “jihad,” and “Islamist” when describing Al-Qaeda and ISIS. As one executive at the network said, “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”

Contrast this kind of politically correct denial with the growing realization in Europe that things must be called by their proper names. The massive march in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacres is one sign. Another is the willingness of growing numbers to speak up.

“Europe has tacitly accepted that from now on the freedom of satire is valid for everything but Islam,” writes Angelo Panebianco in Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper. “Now [Islamists] are aiming for a more ambitious objective to strike at the religious heart of the West, forcing us to accept that not even the pope is free to reflect aloud on the specificity of Christianity or that which differs from Islam.”

Czech President Miloš Zeman warns that the world faces a challenge similar to the Nazis. “We have to ask ourselves if a repeat of the Holocaust could happen,” Zemen said in a recent speech in Prague marking the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. “This time it would not comprise 6 million Jews, but rather members of countless faiths as well as atheists—and even Muslims. Which is why I would like to welcome the fact that moderate Arab countries recently joined in the battle against Islamic State.”

Another president, Egypt’s Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, says it is time for a fresh start for Islam, which he avows is a tolerant religion. “The terrible terrorist attacks which we have seen and this terrible image of Muslims is what led us to think that we must stop and think and change the religious discourse,” he said, “and remove from it things that have led to violence and extremism. We need a new discourse that will be adapted to a new world and will remove some of the misconceptions.”

Removing those things won’t be easy. In an editorial, National Review acknowledges that most Muslims worldwide seek to live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors. But that does not end the discussion about whether Islam is a tolerant faith or ISIS killers are “true” Muslims.

The editorial notes “a large minority of Muslims—maybe hundreds of millions worldwide—who cleave to interpretations of their faith that enjoin murder, rape, torture, and cruelty as pious, even mandatory, acts. They take their diabolic faith seriously, and the result is what we saw in Paris. . . .

“Thus, there are in practical terms two Islams—a religion, if not of peace, then of peaceful accommodation, and a religion of death.”

That is so for several reasons that cannot be dismissed lightly. First, there appear to be two basic approaches to interpreting the Qur’an and how to make sense of verses that call for violence, side by side with those that call for peace and tolerance.

The older, classical school of interpretation, the one followed by the Islamists, endorses what is called the “law of abrogation.” This law, actually a hermeneutical principle, says that earlier verses in the career of Muhammad must be interpreted in light of later ones. If there is an apparent contradiction, they say the later ones must hold sway. Defending this approach, they point to verses such as 2:106: “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?”

The problem for those who insist that “Islam is a religion of peace” is that the later verses reflect the more warlike stance of Muhammad and the Muslim community, when the movement was strong and aggressive. So the oft-cited verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), has been abrogated in the minds of Islamists. They point to later verses, such as 9:5: “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.” They say the later, more violent verses are controlling.

Of course, so-called “moderate Muslims,” such as El-Sissi, disagree. They point out that the law of abrogation implies that the Qur’an has errors, which they do not believe. It is an ongoing theological debate among Muslims worldwide.

There is a second reason we cannot dismiss the fact that there are at least two Islams around the globe. Simply put, there is no interpretative authority that all Muslims recognize. There is no “pope” or modern-day prophet to resolve all the theological disputes within Islam. Not only are there two main branches of Islam—Sunni and Shi’a—there are multiple religious leaders, each with varying levels of influence. While all Muslims revere the Qur’an and Muhammad and seek to follow the Five Pillars, they do not agree on all the particulars of the religion. Whatever you or I might think of the “true” DNA of Islam, if this global faith of 1.6 billion people is ever going to settle on a peaceful vision, it won’t be non-Muslims who talk them into it.

That’s why pronouncements from the White House or various media quarters about what constitutes “true Islam” are ludicrous. These self-appointed experts about Islam might as well declaim on whether all Christians must come under the authority of the pope.

Islam, in practical terms, is however Muslims themselves practice it—peacefully and violently. Let us pray for and encourage the former, knowing also that God is drawing many Muslims to Christ these days. But let’s also recognize that simply wishing for something doesn’t make it so.

We can start by calling things by their proper names.

This article was originally posted at the BreakPoint.org website.

 Islam in America
A Christian Response 
featuring Dr. Erwin Lutzer

May 7, 2015
CLICK HERE for Details

Written by Dennis Prager

President Barack Obama declared in his recent address to the nation that “ISIL is not Islamic.”

But how does he know? On what basis did the president of the United States declare that a group of Muslims that calls itself the “Islamic State” is “not Islamic?”

Has he studied Islam and Islamic history and concluded that ISIL, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Jamaat-e-Islami, Lashkar-e-Taiba (the group that slaughtered 166 people in Mumbai, most especially guests at the Taj Hotel, and that tortured to death a rabbi and his wife), the various Palestinian terrorist groups (all of which have been Muslim, even though there are many Christian Palestinians), and the Muslim terror groups in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere are also all “not Islamic?”

Has he concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood, which won Egypt’s most open election ever, is “not Islamic?”

And what about Saudi Arabia? Is that country “not Islamic” too?

Oh, and what about Iran? Also “not Islamic?”

Isn’t that a lot of Muslims, Muslim groups, and even nations — all of whom claim Islam as their religion — to dismiss as “not Islamic?”

To be fair: These baseless generalizations about what is and what is not Islamic started with Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush, who regularly announced that “Islam is a religion of peace.” And it is equally unlikely that his assertion came from a study of Islam and Islamic history.

The fact is that a study of Islamic history could not lead any fair-minded individual to conclude that all these Muslims and Islamic groups are “not Islamic.” Neither Islamic history, which, from its origins, offered vast numbers of people a choice between Islam and death, nor Islam as reflected in its greatest works would lead one to draw that conclusion.

Killing “unbelievers” has been part of — of course, not all of — Islam since its inception. Within ten years of Muhammad’s death, Muslims had conquered and violently converted whole peoples from Iran to Egypt and from Yemen to Syria. Muslims have offered conquered people death or conversion since that time.

The Hindu Kush, the vast, 500-mile-long, 150-mile-wide mountain range stretching from Afghanistan to Pakistan, was populated by Hindus until the Muslim invasions beginning around the year 1000. The Persian name Hindu Kush was proudly given by Muslims. It means “Hindu-killer.” At least 60 million Hindus were killed by Muslims during the thousand years of Muslim rule. Though virtually unknown, it may be the greatest mass murder in history next to Mao’s.

The groups named above are following some dictates of the Koran.

A few of many such examples:

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (8:12).

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful” (9:5).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth” (9:29).

There is also a different admonition in the Koran: “In matters of faith there shall be no compulsion” (2:256).

So a Muslim can also cite the Koran if he wishes to allow non-Muslims to live in peace.

The problem is that Muslim theological tradition, affirmed by many scholars, holds that later revelation to Muhammad supersedes prior revelation (a doctrine known as “abrogation”). And the Koranic verses ordering Muslims to fight and slay non-believers came after those admonishing Muslims to live with non-believers in peace and without religious compulsion.

The problem is that Muslim history, in keeping with the doctrine of abrogation, has far more often practiced the violent admonitions.

The problem is that more than 600 years after Muhammad, Ibn Khaldun, the greatest Muslim writer who ever lived, explained why Islam is the superior religion in the most highly regarded Muslim work ever written, Muqaddimah, orIntroduction to History: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

In other words, Ibn Khaldun boasts, whereas no other religion commands converting the world through force, Islam does. Was Ibn Khaldun also “not Islamic?” And so much for the president’s other claim that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.”

None of this justifies bigotry against Muslims. There are hundreds of millions of non-Islamist Muslims (an Islamist is a Muslim who seeks to impose sharia on others), including many “cultural” or secular Muslims. And individual Muslims are risking their lives every day to provide the intelligence needed to forestall terror attacks in America and elsewhere.

It is only a call to clarity amid the falsehoods coming from the president, the secretary of state, and especially the universities.

As the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born woman who leads a worldwide effort on behalf of Muslim women and for reforming Islam, asked in a speech at Yale University this month: If Islam is a religion of peace, why is there a sword on the Saudi flag?

If the president feels he has to obfuscate for the sake of gaining Muslim allies, so be it. But the rest of us don’t have to make believe what he said is true.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His most recent book is Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

This article was originally posted at the NationalReview.com website.