Of the making of moonbat ideas there is no end. Every day we seem to encounter more bizarre and destructive ideas in circulation. And the mainstream media is quite happy to disseminate such foolishness. Let me focus on just one culprit, the Melbourne Age. As evidence A, consider two recent articles found there.
The first was a feminist case for polygamy. I kid you not. Actually the writer says she has converted to Islam, but she tries to make her appeal in terms of feminist theory. Polygamy may not be so bad after all, she tries to argue.
Mind you, she does try to add a caveat, to make her argument appear less appalling than it in fact is. She says, “Nevertheless, the reality is that polygamy can leave women and children vulnerable. Ironically, it is probably easier to abuse polygamy in Australia, than in traditional Muslim societies, for Islamic law insists that polygamous men be held accountable for their responsibilities, particularly as the Koran warns that if a man is unable to treat more than one wife with justice, then he may not consider polygamy.”
This of course is pure Islamic propaganda: the idea that women in Islam are actually treated pretty well, and that wives in polygamous marriages are safe and protected. She is simply living in lala land here, and is whitewashing a very serious issue. The abuse and mistreatment of women in Islam, especially in polygamous marriages, is well documented.
But here we have a Western intellectual (she is finishing her PhD and is a researcher at the Centre for Islam and the Modern World at Monash University), and Muslim apologist trying to con us into thinking that women do just swimmingly in Islam, and the Age is happy to run this bit of indoctrination without the slightest qualms.
But let me pick up on another of the many silly things said in this article. Rachel Woodlock concludes her piece with these words: “Polygamy is a reality for some families”. OK, and what of it? May I remind her that drug abuse is a reality for some families. Incest is a reality for some families. Child abuse is a reality for some families. Domestic violence is a reality for some families. By her reasoning, we should merely shrug our shoulders and say – using her own words – these are also “part of the diverse fabric of family life in 21st century Australia, although admittedly a minority practice.” So as she contemplates legalising polygamy, she should in all fairness also consider legalising these situations as well.
What was that line from Orwell? “There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them.” But wait, there’s more. Just a few days later, the Age ran an opinion piece by High Court Justice Michael Kirby, arguing that the Bible should not be used to condemn homosexuality, and that genuine religion will simply live and let live on this issue.
There is much in this article that can be contested. Let me focus on just one bit of woolly thinking. Kirby says this: “Most of the world’s great religions are founded, ultimately, on simple principles of loving God and one another. It is from those principles that religious tolerance derives.”
But the good judge is clearly out of his depth here. Not only is he apparently ignorant of the major differences which exist between the various world religions, but he seems not to know much about particular religions as well. His description could not be used of Buddhism, for example, as it does not even posit a god. And Hinduism has many gods – up to 330 million. And the Koran hardly even mentions the word love. Submission to Allah is clearly the central tenet of Islam.
Christianity might seem to come closer. Jesus did say the greatest commandment is to love God and our neighbours. But the word ‘love’ needs to be carefully defined here. Jesus made it clear that if we love him, we will keep his commandments. And he made it quite clear that he supported the Jewish thinking about human sexuality, which said that only heterosexual marriage is an option here.
Indeed, love is never mere mushy sentimentality in the Bible. It is hard-headed stuff. Love is closely bound up with our obedience to the Father. Those who do not obey show that they do not really love. And obedience means we let God be God, and let him determine what appropriate sexual morality is and what is not.
Love in the New Testament is defined by moral and mental clarity. For example, Paul in Phil 1:9-10 prays that our love may abound more and more. But he does not stop there. He wants this love to abound in “knowledge and discernment”, so that we can “discern what is best, and be pure and blameless” when Christ returns.
This sort of love has nothing to do with the wishy-washy tolerance which is so much a part of contemporary culture. It certainly is not a love which makes excuses for sin, and seeks to call right what God has clearly called wrong.
Paul warns us in Col. 2:8 to “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”. There is plenty of godless philosophy and vain deceit, based on human tradition, being pedalled these days. The Melbourne Age is full of it, as are most other media outlets.
We are told to steer clear of such false worldviews and shoddy intellectualism. The trouble is, so often today the same sloppy thinking and mushy morality can be found in the Christian churches. No wonder we are losing so many battles. It seems that a lot of open minds really need to be closed for repairs. And the sooner the better.