Liberals now claim Christian parents are dangerous. This is an existential threat we can’t ignore

November 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Over the past two decades, it has slowly dawned on Christians that the implications of same-sex “marriage” are far greater for those who still believe in the traditional understanding of marriage than even the cynics first thought possible. The politicians, the academics, and the media have reached the collective conclusion that if gay “marriage” is a civil right, those who oppose it are not simply dissenters holding to a two-thousand-year-old tradition, but ugly bigots who deserve to be marginalized for their discriminatory views. Thus, “live and let live” turned into “you will be forced to participate and approve,” with bakers, florists, property owners, and adoption agencies finding themselves to be the targets of gay activists who show a shocking ruthlessness in their enthusiasm for prosecuting supposed thought crimes.

None of this will be news to most of you, but the impact of radical reinvention of our social structures is beginning to impact Christian communities in ways that are striking even closer to home. There is the fact that public schools across Canada (and many places in the United States) are beginning to implement sex education that runs directly contrary to the beliefs of many traditionalist communities—and governments are beginning to eye Christian and private schools as unwelcome havens of dissenting thought and education. And worse: Christian parents and foster parents are increasingly finding themselves “disqualified” from adopting children or taking children into their homes because of their views.

I’ve spoken to many prospective parents and foster parents over the last several years who were either overtly rejected as a result of their views on sexuality, or otherwise found that they were suddenly and abruptly rejected when their views were made known. Often, direct questions are put to Christian parents to find out if they still hold to Christian principles, with the obvious insinuation that answers not fitting with the current progressive ideology will render them unfit to care for children.

Considering the massive shortage of willing foster parents across Canada, this is a rather shocking and blunt move on the part of those in charge of the process: Essentially, Christian parents are being told that their views render them so dangerous that it is better that children desperate for a loving home are still shuffled from place to place rather than come into contact with views that were nearly universal only short decades ago. Such stories are now just beginning to surface in the mainstream media, with an Edmonton, Alberta couple being the latest example. From Canada’s national broadcaster:

Canada: Muslim leaders enraged that police reported Muslim father abusing his daughter as “honour-based violence”

Survivors of gender-based violence need to be believed and supported. They also need society to describe the harm they experience with appropriate language. Yet time and again, violence against Muslim women is framed as “honour-based,” further stigmatizing victims and the wider communities to which they belong….It’s time for this to stop.

Do people actually still believe that there is no difference between “honour violence” against women and domestic violence against women? While both are despicable, there is a critical difference.

The authors of the article below are Amira Elghawaby (NCCM/CAIR.CAN Communications Director) and Manall Farooqi. They point an accusatory finger at police, and wrongly so, in connection with a case in which a young Muslim woman filed a domestic abuse report against her father. Police referred to this as “honour-based violence.”

Elghawaby and Farooqi take offence to the use of this term, and say this about “honour violence”:

There is nothing honourable at all about the alleged actions of her father, nor is there anything within Islamic teachings that would condone such coercion of one’s family members, or of anyone at all.

Indeed, there is “nothing honourable at all about the alleged actions of her father,” but is it really true that there is nothing “within Islamic teachings that would condone such coercion of one’s family members”? For starters, Islamic teachings state….

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Qur’an 4:34)

Contemporary translations sometimes water down the word “beat,” but it is the same word used in verse 8:12 and clearly means “to strike.”

And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath… (Quran 38:44)

A woman came to Muhammad and begged him to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. (Sahih Bukhari 72:715)

Of course not all Muslims practice this, but to say that it is not in Islamic teachings — well, shall we say, this is not the first effort to conceal the teachings within Islam that are used to justify human rights abuses against women.

Westerners are not at all targeting Muslims by calling out this disgraceful abuse, but many are dutifully remaining silent instead of helping Muslim women who live in fear of serious abuses such as “honour” violence,  FGM, forced marriage, wife beatings, being regarded as of lesser value than men, etc.

“Honour violence” — as dishonourable as it is — is a widely known, widely practiced, systemic problem, as revealed in the film The Honour Diaries, in which “women’s rights advocates with connections to Muslim-majority societies” engage in an open “dialogue about gender inequality,” and indeed with “honour violence” within such societies, which are described as “human rights disasters.”

Even the United Nations recognizes the obvious difference between domestic violence against women and “honour violence” against women. “Honour violence” includes:

rape victims, women suspected of engaging in premarital sex, and women accused of adultery have been murdered by their relatives because the violation of a woman’s chastity is viewed as an affront to the family’s honour.

It is horrendous to be complicit in such human rights disasters, or try to cover them up and pretend as though Muslims were being targeted when people call out such abuses.

Law enforcement shouldn’t label such acts this way at all, nor should journalists go along with this faulty script.

This is the kind of deceptive victimology that drives “Islamophobia” campaigns. It is an effort to bully Westerners to either accept or turn a blind eye to sharia practices. Ignoring such practices in Western nations enables a two-tier legal system, in which assaults and other human rights offences committed by Muslims who consider themselves ruled by the sharia (deemed above all laws) receive immunity. This is precisely why the massive coverup of Muslim rape gang abuses happened in the UK. Police and social workers were terrified of being called “Islamophobic” and/or “racist.”

Widespread abuses in any religion or culture such should not be tolerated under the umbrella of Western constitutions, which were intended to advance the principle of equal rights for all.