Killing Homosexuals an Islamic Law (Sharia), not a Terrorist Law

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
For nearly 25 years, we’ve been clinging to the fiction that groups such as ISIS are anti-Islamic. 

Various reports indicate that the death toll from the jihadist attack overnight at a popular gay club in Orlando may exceed 50 people, with more than 50 others wounded.



The terrorist’s identity has been reported: He is Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American citizen and devout Muslim from Fort Pierce, Fla., the son of immigrants from Afghanistan. The FBI has indicated that Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with police at about 5 a.m., was an Islamic extremist. Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, says the shooter was “trained in the use of weapons.”

As we have noted here many times, military training is generally the key that separates competent terrorists from wannabes. But whether actual or would-be jihadists, these Muslims are motivated by Islamic supremacism, the belief that sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian law, must be imposed on society. Based on all this, there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved inanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this: Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion.

“Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like.

Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form. This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

We need to consider separately Islam and its sharia law. There are various ways to interpret Islamic scripture in order to attempt to evolve it out of violence. This, of course, does not change the fact that supremacist, fundamentalist Islam is a legitimate, mainstream, virulently anti-Western interpretation of Islam; but it does at least mean that there can be other mainstream versions of Islam that reject violence and Islam’s politico-legal system.

Sharia, on the other hand, is basically set in stone. (Or should I say “stoning”?) Even most Islamic reformers acknowledge that it badly needs reform — not that it can be reinterpreted, but that it needs to be changed. Its provisions and especially its draconian punishments were largely fixed a millennium ago. The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture. 


al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

 I’ve observed several times, an English version of the classic sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller has been endorsed by scholars of al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning since the tenth century; by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood think tank that is influential in Washington; and by other influential Islamic governments and commentators.

Here is its teaching on homosexuality, found in the chapter on “Enormities” — the most grave offenses:

Sec. p17.0: SODOMY AND LESBIANISM 

Sec. p17.1: In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery [AM: which is punished brutally, including by death]. 

Sec. p17.2: Allah Most High says: “Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” (Koran 26:165-66). 

Sec. p17.3: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.” “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.” 

“Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.” 


Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi

As I noted many times, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be Sunni Islam’s most influential living sharia jurist.

Here, as reported by the Middle East Forum, is Qaradawi’s teaching on homosexuality: 

We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all what leads to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. (The same applies equally to the case of lesbianism.) 

The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. 

The story of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot), peace be upon him, as narrated in the Koran should be sufficient for us. Prophet Lut’s people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul, and illicit practice. That is why their Prophet Lut, peace be on him, told them, “What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!” (Koran, 26: 165–166) 

The strangest expression of these peoples’ perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut, peace be upon him.

Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.


Ayatollah Ali Sistani

Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been no shortage of praise for Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whom the Bush administration frequently lauded as a “moderate” and a supporter of “democracy.” (We critics countered that Sistani is a fundamentalist sharia-supremacist who supported “democracy” — meaning popular vote — in a Muslim-majority society because that was the most direct, efficient way to impose sharia.)

Sistani is as influential a Shiite sharia authority as there is. As I have previously recounted, when asked, “What is [Islam's] judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?” Sistani replied: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.” Yup, let it sink in: “killed in the worst manner possible.”

The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed. See, for instance, this 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq — notwithstanding its new, U.S.-supported constitution). Note, again, that Omar Mateen is the American-born son of immigrants from Afghanistan, where homosexuality may also be punished by death — notwithstanding American nation-building efforts there for the last 15 years.

 As I have argued before, while a categorical ban on Muslim immigration would be bad policy, our immigration law must distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism, the sharia-supremacist political ideology, which tends to grow strong support wherever Muslims form a critical mass.

There absolutely should be severe restrictions on immigration from countries, regions, and communities (e.g., in Europe) in which sharia standards are de jure or de facto imposed. The problem with mass immigration from sharia enclaves is not merely that trained terrorists may infiltrate the immigrant population. It is that sharia-adherent, assimilation-resistant Muslims will form sharia enclaves in the U.S., as they have throughout Europe, where young Muslims will be “radicalized” under our noses in the years to come.

Today, we have gotten another glimpse of radicalization, which is not “homegrown” but rather fueled by a foreign, anti-American, anti-liberty ideology.

 — Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

The Next Front in the War on Christianity - Thanks to Islam and Us

ANALYSIS - After Orlando, time to recognize that anti-gay bigotry is not religious freedom

Will targeted nightclub shooting begin an overdue conversation about religions' attitudes toward gays?

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
Senior Correspondent

Neil Macdonald is a Senior Correspondent for CBC News, currently based in Ottawa. Prior to that he was the CBC's Washington correspondent for 12 years, and before that he spent five years reporting from the Middle East. He also had a previous career in newspapers, and speaks English and French fluently, and some Arabic.

In December 1989, Marc Lépine armed himself with a Ruger Mini-14 semiautomatic rifle and headed off to Montreal's École Polytechnique, hunting women.

He separated male and female students and ordered the men to leave. He then killed the women, execution-style.

By the time he turned the weapon on himself, he'd slaughtered 14 young women for the offence of being women, earning himself a place at the apex of misogynistic violence.

Lepine's suicide note read, in part:

"I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker … The feminists have always enraged me." 

The atrocity, and its stated motivation, immediately triggered an angry and overdue conversation in Canada about misogyny and collective male guilt.

Men who'd never as much as lifted a hand to a woman in their lives were told that even so, if they'd ever smiled at a sexist joke or tolerated discrimination against a woman, they'd done their bit to shape a culture that culminated with the funerals of those 14 women in Montreal.

It was hard to swallow, but only a dullard could reject the logic outright.

And, at least partially as a result, open sexism and misogynistic humour became far less okay after Polytechnique, at least in polite company. It was a transformative moment.

The Orlando gunman has been identified as Omar Mateen, of Fort Pierce, Fla. Police say he was killed in a shootout with SWAT team members. (Omar Mateen/MySpace)

Now, after Omar Mateen armed himself, reportedly professed allegiance to ISIS and went hunting gays in an Orlando night club, could there possibly be a better time to have the same conversation about organized religion, and what responsibility it bears for the pain and misery and death inflicted on gays for so many centuries in the name of god?

And not just the Muslim god. That is happening now because of Mateen, and deservedly so, but restricting the discussion to Islam is far too easy.

Islam may be more overt about its homophobia than the other major religions — anyone who's worked in the Middle East has heard some fool in high office declaring that there are no gays in Islam, and therefore no AIDS — but the fact is, conservative iterations of all the monotheistic faiths are deeply and actively and systemically anti-gay.

The sacred monotheistic texts contain prohibitions that would by just about any legal definition be considered hate speech in the modern secular world.

The Old Testament Book of Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

The Old Testament Book of Leviticus, like other OT books presented the Mosaic Law as handed down from God. I know you don't believe in God, Neil, so that is all just foolishness to you, as is all religion. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were first told in the OT - God Himself providing the fire and brimstone.

That was OT. With the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God completely changed the playing field. The only deaths at the hand of God in the New Testament happened to two people who chose to lie to the Holy Spirit. There is no mandate in the NT to punish anyone outside of the church; the mandate is to love them. To show them the love of Christ Who died for us while we were yet sinners.

I admit we do an abysmal job at that. Many 'Christians' want to invoke OT laws in an attempt to create a Utopian society. They are completely wrong and they alienate those who most need salvation. This is the opposite of what Christ taught us to do and is the reason why the church has rendered itself unChrist-like and incapable of carrying out the Great Commission.

The Qu'ran proscribes sex between Muslim males, and mandates punishment, although it does sometimes allow for leniency. Elsewhere, though, it cites the destruction of Sodom, held as divine punishment for homosexual sex, as a lesson.

And the Hadith, the Qu'ranic commentaries, contain references to punishing the "abomination" of gay sex with stoning or immolation.

Mohammed, 1400 years ago, reversed the message of grace in the NT and returned people to OT legalism. Jesus did not suffer and die so God could put the world back under legalism. This apparent reversal of direction for God only serves to verify that Islam's Allah is not the God of the Bible and not the God of Abraham. He is, in fact, not a god at all!

Such prohibitions could be dismissed as antediluvian anachronisms, not to be taken seriously in the modern world.

But of course they are taken quite seriously. Deadly seriously.


Rights and religious freedom

Fundamentalists and traditionalists of all three faiths not only regard such passages as divine instruction, they actually portray their homophobia as a matter of religious freedom; something noble, protected by constitutions and essential to democracy, when in fact they are working to oppress and deny fundamental rights to people based solely upon the sexuality with which they were born.

As a Christian of some 30 years and a veteran of more than a dozen churches and several denominations - I have never viewed homophobia that way, nor have I ever met anyone who did.

There is no scientific proof that anyone was ever born gay. The dean of gay genetic research, the guy who started the lie that gays are born gay, Dean Hamer, now has stated that the majority of gays are NOT born gay. 

If being gay was inherited it would have bred itself out of existence long ago.  The majority of gays, at least, are gay because of environmental factors in their childhood - very dominant mother, very weak father, distant or unknown father, abusive father, etc.


Supreme Court Gay Marriage What Might Happen


California's Proposition 8 to overturn the state's legalization of same-sex marriage passed with the support of major churches in 2008, but was later overturned in the courts. (Rich Pedroncelli/AP)

A perfect example is Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative whose purpose was to block the advance of same-sex marriage, on the grounds that it would somehow harm or invalidate heterosexual marriage, and would result in schoolchildren being taught that gay sex is normal and acceptable.

Prop 8 proponents included the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, the California Catholic Conference of bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), the Union of Orthodox Jewish Organizations of America and assorted evangelical Christian groups. Together, they poured a fortune into the campaign. The Mormons alone provided $20 million.

They won, then immediately lost when the initiative was vacated by secular courts.

Since then, organized religions have continued their anti-gay activities, often going to court to ensure their right to discriminate against gays in hospitals and schools and other religiously affiliated institutions.

Yes, it is true that Pope Francis has softened his church's line on homosexuality. But his tolerance is only remarkable in contrast to his hardline predecessor, and church doctrine remains unchanged.


Nightclub Shooting Florida


Kelvin Cobaris, a local clergyman, consoles Orlando city commissioner Patty Sheehan, right, and Terry DeCarlo, an Orlando gay-rights advocate, as they arrive on the scene near where a mass shooting occcured in Orlando, Fla., Sunday. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via Associated Press)

It is also true that the Reform and to an extent the Conservative streams of Judaism have moderated their tone where gays are concerned.

Not so Islam. That religion remains largely hostile to gays, and anti-gay sentiment is woven into the laws of many Muslim countries.

Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar, a British-born physician and imam, has spoken at public venues in the United States, softly and diffidently asserting that as a matter of compassion, homosexuals should be put to death.

There are many, many other sheikhs like Farrokh Sekaleshfar.

And while evangelical Christians don't seek the death penalty for homosexuality, many do want it punished. In 2004, Dr. Richard Land, the Oxford-educated former president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told me on camera he thought gay sex should be outlawed. 

This is very unfortunate that a man with those credentials could be so unlike Christ. Christ didn't outlaw anything; He concentrated solely on spiritual aspects of life. It is to our own shame that so few of us Christians follow His example.

In any event, this much is singularly true: the worst mass murder in American history was directed at one group, and it was done by some one who had sworn allegiance to a fundamentalist religious group.

If casual misogyny and sexist humour helped create Marc Lépine, then organized religion must reflect on helping shape a culture that will this week have led to 50 funerals in Florida. It's not just the extremists who want to deprive gays of human rights.

People of faith might ask themselves this: even if they've never so much as lifted a hand to a gay person, have they smiled at a homophobic joke? Or overlooked mistreatment? Or nodded during an anti-gay sermon?

And if so, wouldn't this be a good time to speak up?

I am speaking up, but if Christians won't listen to God, they are not likely to listen to me.

Excellent Insight into the 'Falling Away'

Viewpoints: Why is faith falling in the US?

From BBC Magazine (2012)

Hundreds of people stand with umbrellas and rain gear in front of a tent
Thousands attended an atheism rally in Washington DC this March

A new poll suggests that atheism is on the rise in the US, while those who consider themselves religious has dropped. What's the cause? Two writers debate.

Recently, researchers conducting a WIN-Gallup International poll about religion surveyed people from 57 countries.

The poll suggests that in the US, since 2005:
the number of people who consider themselves religious has dropped from 73% to 60%
those who declare themselves atheists have risen from 1% to 5%

What's behind the changing numbers? Is the cause churches that chase modern trends at the expense of core beliefs? Or are those who have always been ambivalent about religion now less likely to identify as Christian? We asked two writers for their take.

Rod Dreher: Progressive churches fuel apathy

As a practicing Christian of the Hitchens sort (Peter, the good one), I welcome the news that more Americans are willing to identify as atheists. At least that clarifies matters.

I respect honest atheists more than I do many on my own side, for the same reason Jesus of Nazareth said to the tepid Laodicean church: "because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth".


About the contributors

Rod Dreher is a senior editor at the American Conservative. He is the author of Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots. Dreher lives in Louisiana with his family.

Dreher

He also has, according to Wikipedia, become associated with a new religion 'The Templeton Foundation', dedicated to finding 'spiritual truths' through scientific pursuits (sound like 'Scientology"?)

There is no mention of God or Jesus Christ in their mission statement. It is certainly possible that he can maintain his faith while associating with Templeton, but I suspect it will be difficult over the long-haul.

Dickerson

David Ellis Dickerson is also the author of House of Cards: The True Story of How a 26-Year-Old Fundamentalist Virgin Learned about Life, Love, and Sex by Writing Greeting Cards. He has also contributed to the Atlantic and This American Life. He lives in Tucson, AZ. And he is a Christian turned atheist.

Take this summer's General Convention of the Episcopal Church, the triennial gathering of the main American branch of the Anglican Communion.

The church's legislative body approved a liturgy for same-sex unions and removed impediments for transgender people to serve as priests.

During the debate on transgender clerics, one bishop said the proposal, if adopted, would bring about theological confusion. Another rose to say that confusion is precisely why the measure should pass. As it did, easily.

At a special communion service after the victories, a lesbian bishop of the church recited an offering prayer thanking the "Spirit of Life" for "disordering our boundaries", and asking the non-specific, non-patriarchal spectre "to feel your laughter".

Laughter indeed - but not the sort the liberal bishop was looking for, I fear.

This is not to make fun of the dignity of sexual minorities, but rather to marvel at the way these Episcopal elites run like lemmings off the cliffs of progressive extremes.

Like Wile E Coyote of the old Warner Brothers cartoons, one of these days the bishops are going to look down and see that there is no ground beneath their feet.

America's postmodern religious future would appear to belong to theological slackers who believe in a vague deity, who makes no demands and only provides psychological comfort. Who needs that mush?

They are nearly there already. The Episcopal Church, like all of America's mainline Protestant denominations, is in steep decline, and has been for decades.

Yet as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat laments, progressive Christians and secular media sympathisers are unable to admit that that their willingness to radically redefine the faith is helping drive liberal Christianity to extinction.

Douthat points out that the media freak-out over the Vatican's chastising liberal American nuns conveniently ignored the complete collapse in female vocations. Over 90% of US nuns are 60 or older. Conservative women's religious orders are the only ones growing.

Conservative US churches may be doing better, but can't gloat. According to exhaustive social science data analysed by Robert Putnam of Harvard and David Campbell of Notre Dame, all organised American religion is in demographic decline.

So, good news for atheism? Not really. Putnam and Campbell, writing in their much-praised 2010 book American Grace, found that atheism continues to be confined to a relatively tiny population, disproportionately concentrated in academia and media.

The blockbuster growth in American religion is happening among a category the authors dub the "Nones" - people who claim no religious affiliation, but most of whom believe in God.

This is the "spiritual but not religious" crowd. About 17% of America belongs to their number, three percentage points higher than mainline Protestantism.

But the Nones number is deceptively low, understating the generational wave now breaking upon the US religious landscape. Among young adults aged 18-29, 30% are Nones, and their numbers are rapidly rising.

Why? Gays & Republicans!

According to the research, the young are leaving conservative churches because they disagree with traditional views on homosexuality. They chafe at those churches' association with the Republican Party.

They're not joining liberal churches, the ones that make a big deal out of welcoming and affirming gays. Instead, young adults increasingly see no reason to go to church at all.

A mourner attends a funeral service in Mt Vernon, New York,
for the noted restaurateur Sylvia Woods

This rapid and widespread falling away of the young from institutional Christianity is the first harvest of what sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton dub "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism".

According to Smith's research, MTD is the default religion of nearly all American young people, both Christian and non-Christian, who are a generation of theological illiterates (Mormon youth are a fascinating exception).

MTD teaches that God exists and wants us to be nice, and that happiness is the point of life. In MTD, God, who is "something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist", doesn't have to be involved in one's life unless one needs something.

It's the perfect pseudo-religion for an individualist, consumerist, prosperous culture. You can see why a generation raised on MTD would have no interest in traditional religion, with its truth claims and strictures.

If God expects nothing of you but to be nice and to be happy, why roll out of bed on Sunday morning, even for the most progressive of liturgies?

America's postmodern religious future, then, would appear to belong to theological slackers who believe in a vague deity who makes no demands, and only provides psychological comfort. Who needs that mush? At least atheists have the courage of their lack of religious convictions.

The thing is, if America's historic religion had been about therapeutic self-love and bourgeois bedlam instead of rigour, repentance and reform, neither the 19th-century abolitionists nor the 20th-century civil rights marchers would have had a thing to go on.

At some point, the Nones may discover that neither MTD nor atheism can give them the otherworldly hope they need to endure and to triumph over true suffering.

Should that come-to-Jesus moment happen, there will be some churches, diminished, yes, but still extant, left to take in the shipwrecked souls.

Christian churches that traded their faith inheritance for a pot of progressive message will not be among them.

Email: rod.dreher@gmail.com

Conservative churches are losing the moral high ground

David Ellis Dickerson:
Atheism in America has quintupled since 2005. Or, to put it another way, it rose 400%.

Seven years ago, atheists were barely a blip.

But more significant than the atheist numbers is the 13% drop in people identifying as "religious."

Even if some of these form the new atheists, that still leaves at least 9% who have left their religious identity entirely.

Many of these respondents are presumably the religious equivalent of undecided voters; the mushy middle that shrugs at questions like this. But now they say, "I guess I'm no religion" when seven years ago they said "I guess I'm Christian".

It's a large shift, but it's probably not a passionate one. So what caused these folks to bother changing their minds at all?

Although this drop in religious identity comes during the spread of "New Atheism" in the wake of bestselling books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, attributing this change to those works seems unlikely.

Nothing has happened in the last seven years to make the philosophical arguments for God any more or less plausible.

What's more, as a person who has read Harris and Dawkins—who both treat saying grace at dinner as if it were morally adjacent to slapping Galileo—you can hardly claim that the New Atheists have mounted an unusually empathetic charm offensive.

I give them credit for a 1% atheism bump, max. Maybe two.

So what else happened? It can't be the Catholic abuse scandal, because that started over seven years ago, and it's not just Catholic churches losing members. It's not Muslim terrorism, because hostility to radical Muslims is often more a reason to cling defensively to Christianity than it is a reason to reject all religion entirely.

And as much as my liberal friends might want to tell themselves otherwise, it can't be that people suddenly woke and realised the religious right wants to clamp down on sex, birth control and lady parts in general, as if this were some surprise tactic that only liberals were ever wise to.

Heck, that's been part of the public platform of the religious right since the Moral Majority, and people on those platforms continue to get elected to Congress.

The real issue is homosexuality.

The conservative Christian church, though it may still own the label "religion", no longer owns public morality along with it.

Consider: In the early 2000s, the Barna Group—an evangelical survey organisation that has long tracked American attitudes toward religion—discovered that, almost overnight, the reputation of evangelicals had cratered.

For the first time in Barna's polling history, Americans were more likely to view Christians negatively than positively. This attitude was especially marked in Americans aged 16-29, and so David Kinnaman, now the president of Barna, spent the next three years examining why.

When he asked these younger people what words described evangelicals, the number one answer was "anti-homosexual," at 91%. (You can see the full survey results in his book, unChristian).

Evangelicals were also called judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), too involved with politics (75%) and out of touch (72%), but any of these critiques could have been—and have been—levelled by Christians' enemies since at least the 1970s.

Only our attitudes toward homosexuality have actually changed since 2005, and that change tracks with younger respondents. So does loss of religious identity. I'm no pollster, but this does not seem coincidental.

I speak from personal experience here, too. I was raised a devout evangelical, and studied to be a pastor.

But although scholarly readings of the Bible troubled me, and although I was startled that many of my fellow students weren't Christians but still seemed like moral people, I remained a devout conservative.

Global findings

Worldwide, 59% of those polled consider themselves religious; 23% consider themselves non-religious and 13% say they are atheists

Top three atheist countries: China: 47%, Japan: 31%, Czech Republic: 30%

Top four religious countries: Ghana 96%, Nigeria 93%, Armenia and Fiji, 92%

82% of Hindus said they were religious, compared to 81% of Christians, 71% of Muslims and 38% of Jews

Source: WIN-Gallup International 'Religiosity and Atheism Index'

It was only when three of my friends came out of the closet in one month that I was forced to look at the consequences of my theology. It was The Literal Bible As I Understood It v My Friends, and my friends won.

What a pity your faith was in the Bible, not in the One Whom the Bible reveals. Had you really prayed and sought the mind of Christ on the issue, you would not have abandoned Him Who died for you. He is your real Friend, not the ones who pulled you away from Him.

Historically, friends always win. When Republicans have spoken in favour of gay rights they have always talked about their love for family and friends, and their unwillingness to yank happiness away from others.

You need to read the column above by Rod Dreher, or the writings of any classic Christian: happiness is not the purpose of life! I'm not defending Republican attitudes towards gays, that is indefensible and abhorrent, but it seems that perhaps you were one of those MTDs Dreher was talking about.

That's the unanswerable argument: Why would God be against good people loving each other? If that's what religion is, we can do better.

Forgive me for answering the unanswerable argument but Jesus Himself said that there is none that are good, no, not one. Also, people who are practicing something that God abhors enough to obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah, can hardly be called 'good'.

God did not make gay people, and He did not make people gay. Sin makes people gay - sin is 'my right to make my own decisions regardless of God'. That is exactly what you have done, Mr Dickerson, and worse, you have judged God and found Him wanting. I would not want to be in your shoes when the situation is reversed.

This is why it's good news that mushy-middle people are saying "I'm no religion" in response to poll questions. Not because anyone's behaviour has actually changed—I doubt these folks were going to church anyway, even when they called themselves merely "religious" in 2005—but because it means that "no religion" is now the safe neutral thing to say.

It means that the conservative Christian church, though it may still own the label "religion", no longer owns public morality along with it. Can't argue with that, unfortunately.

This gives everyone else—other Christians, other religions, and even atheists like me—room at the conference table.

And it also means that evangelicals will have to change if they plan to stay popular enough to convert people, as they've always striven for. Can't argue with that either.

For the near future, and if it can manage to, the conservative church is going to have to listen, humbly, to homosexuals and atheists who are both fresh out of the closet.

Because on this issue, those are the groups that currently have the moral high ground. If evangelicals don't change, their numbers will continue to fall. Can argue with that! Evangelical numbers are not falling, they have increased steadily for decades. 

How do you define ' moral high-ground'? I admit far too many of us Christians fall well short of the moral high-ground. But to suggest that homosexuals and atheists don't fall short, is absurd. Most gays and atheists don't tolerate Christians any better than immature Christians tolerate them. So where's the high-ground? That's for God to determine, not you.

Ex-Mega Church Pastor Leading Us Gleefully into Apostasy

Rob Bell, former megachurch pastor turned spiritual advisor to Oprah Winfrey, said that the culture is ready to embrace homosexuality and same-sex marriage and if the church hopes to stay relevant, it must accept those relationships and stop looking to the Bible as its best defense.

Bell was recently asked by Winfrey on her network's show, Super Soul Sunday, how close Christian churches are to accepting homosexuality. Bell said they are "close" and warned that if they don't, they will become even more irrelevant than before:

I think culture is already there and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense, when you have in front of you flesh-and-blood people who are your brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and co-workers and neighbors, and they love each other and just want to go through life with someone.

You could say the same thing for a pedophile. The only difference between a pedophile, a gay, and a straight person in this context is their choice of partners. There is also the problem that one is illegal, one used to be illegal but now is not, and one is legal in some contexts. 

What is moral, however, is quite another question. Pedophilia is immoral in the eyes of most people, but unfortunately, not all. Gay sex is immoral in the eyes of some people, and unquestionably, in the eyes of God. It is not just 2000 year old letters (inspired by God) that confirms this, but the Old Testament also confirms it and reveals just how much God hates homosexuality in the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and a few neighboring cities.

To suggest the God suddenly started liking homosexuality somewhere between the Old and New Testaments, or between the writing of the Bible and now, is absurd. God's character never changes - you can't improve on perfect. The proliferation of homosexuality in society today, in many countries is a clear indication that the judgment of God is very near.

Winfrey stated the obvious: "You sound really progressive to me."

That's supposed to be a good thing - progressive! Western societies have progressed into ever increasing vulgarity and preoccupation with lust. Just look at the box office results for the first week-end of 50 Shades of Gray. It set a record for the month of February. Oddly enough, the previous record holder for February was The Passion of Christ.

50 Shades is, by all reviews, a lousy movie, yet people were drawn to it because of unbridled lust and a complete lack of sexual morality. That's progress?

And that Bell is. He has long been dubbed a heretic by other Christian leaders for moving away from the Gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ and into pop-psychology. His best selling books include, Love Wins and Sex God. Bell has also made waves by questioning the existence of Hell and a God of love that would condemn people to be there.

Jesus spoke more of Hell than of Heaven. If He was that concerned about it, then isn't it stupid if we aren't the least bit concerned about it?

Before he moved to Los Angeles and teamed up with Oprah Winfrey, Bell was the pastor of the 10,000-member-strong Mars Hill Bible Church, Grandville, Michigan. He is no longer attending church and says he, his wife, and the group of friends they are "journeying with," are "churching" all the time in service to their surrounding communities.

Bell once said of Winfrey, "She has taught me more about what Jesus has for all of us, and what kind of life Jesus wants us to live, more than almost anybody in my life. Is she a Christian? That word has so much baggage, I wouldn’t want to answer for someone. When Jesus talks about the full divine life, you think, this is what he’s talking about."

So, you are Oprah's spiritual adviser and you don't know if she is a Christian or not? What are you advising her? Are you just making it up as you go? 

You are learning about Jesus by watching Oprah not by reading your Bible and seeking His face in prayer. I'll admit that Oprah, like Jesus, has some compassion for hurting people; but Oprah is one of the richest women in the world, if not the richest, and Jesus never knew where His next meal was coming from. Also, Jesus spent time with His Father every morning and obeyed His every wish and command. As Christians we are called to obey the words and commands of Christ; to do so is to love Christ, to do your own thing is to despise Christ.

One definition of sin is, "doing our own thing, rather than doing God's thing". Mr. Bell is going to be very uncomfortable standing before Christ on the great and terrible day.