Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity

Pages: 1 2

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Michael Coren, a television host, radio personality, syndicated columnist, author, and speaker. His TV show The Arena airs on Sun News Network in Canada. He is the author of Why Catholics Are Right, which was on the Canadian best-seller list for three months. His new book is Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity.

FP: Michael Coren, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with you telling us why you wrote this book.

Coren: The most direct and practical answer is that the publisher, Random House, asked me to do so. The last one, defending Catholicism, had sold more than 50,000 copies, and so a large, secular publishing house had realized what a hunger there was out there for books explaining the Christian position to a mass audience. I wanted to go beyond the Catholic Church, to the attacks on universal Christianity and Christians. There are lots of books about prayer for example – perhaps too many! – but very few that respond to all of the most common attacks on the Christianity. I always take an eclectic approach. So as well as history and theology, I cover science and abortion, the De Vinci Code and biographies of great Christian writers, and so on. It’s supposed to be a handbook of Christian self-defense if you like.

FP: Share with us why and how Christians and Christianity are under attack in our culture. What are some of the lies and myths about Christianity and Christians?

Coren: The book takes on the most common and toxic of the attacks on Christianity: Jesus didn’t exist, Christians oppose progress, are scared of science, they’re obsessed with abortion, they’re racist and supported slavery, Hitler was a Christian, and so on.

But the supportive premise is that Christians are not treated fairly. Take the example of the Norwegian murderer Anders Behring Breivik. After his arrest, it took only hours for the media to label him a Christian. He identified himself, they said, as a “cultural Christian”. Those of who understand religion, however, know that this is shorthand for “only a cultural Christian”. Then we had Breivik’s manifesto. “Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God.”

But none of it mattered. Just as it doesn’t when we’re told that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian – he left the Church when he was a youth, and wrote that, “science is my religion.” The reason that so many in mainstream media are so hysterically eager to call Breivik and McVeigh Christians, or claim that abortionists are regular targets for armed pro-life fanatics is not only that they are opposed to Christianity, but that they are obsessed with relativism.

Commentators take every shape imaginable in their attempts to report Islamic terror as something other than Islamic. Because, they argue, all religions are the same, and all equally capable of producing violent fundamentalism. Yet Christian fundamentalism is extremely rare, and when it does occur leads to rejections of evolution rather than rejections of law and order, and snake rather than dynamite handling. For the media to admit that different religions lead to different assumptions about pluralism and different approaches to human dignity would lead to the invincible conclusion that there is a qualitative distinction and hierarchy. That, to the moral and intellectual relativist, is heresy itself.

The examples of anti-Christian behavior are legion. In the west it takes the form of ejection from the public square and the workplace, legal restrictions, mockery, and abuse. In the developing and Islamic world it is far more serious: persecution, arrest, torture, murder. Objective, secular sources agree that Christians are the most oppressed group in the world right now, and the number and intensity of attacks is staggering. A mere book cannot do very much for the millions of believers who risk life and limb, but it can empower and perhaps even embolden Christians in the west who feel weighed down every time a critical remark is made.

Being a book about Christianity, Heresy is in the forgiving business. But forgiveness does not mean forgetting the truth. We have to be resolute in what is and what isn’t, which is why I’ve taken on the most frequent arguments used against followers of Christ. Some of them are simply ludicrous, the stuff of internet wisdom and website philosophy. The notion that Hitler was a Christian is schoolboy stuff, and profoundly insulting to the Christians who opposed the man and who he in turn slaughtered. Of course there were people calling themselves Christian who were Nazis, but this says nothing at all about Christianity but a great deal about hypocrisy. Nazis were often street thugs, but National Socialism itself was an ideology, replacing Messiah with Fuehrer, Church with party, love with hate, soul with will, protection of the weakest with survival of the fittest. Even a cursory reading of Nazi theorists will reveal the sheer idiocy of the claim.

Similarly with the alleged Christian opposition to science and progress. The Christian Church has in many ways been the hand maiden of science, and the only reason opponents mention Galileo all the time is that he’s about the only scientist who Christianity didn’t always treat properly – mind you, his story is far from the caricature presented by Brecht and his comrades. The same applies to the claim that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, or that The De Vinci Code is credible, or that bad things happening to good people is somehow a difficulty for Christians. This one is especially annoying, because it’s so badly thought out. Not only do bad things happen to good people, but – just as annoying – good things happen to bad ones. But that’s a problem for the atheist, not the believer. We understand that God guaranteed not a good life, but a perfect eternity. The dying child, the cancer-stricken philanthropist is a dilemma for the materialist, not for someone who knows there is an immortal soul and that life does not end in the hospital sick bed.

Neither this nor any of the other atheist talking points that I dismantle in the book are terrors to anybody who know their faith. The problem is that too few Christians do fully understand it, and many of those who do have been cowered into silence if not submission by a culture that imposes uniformity in its purported lust for diversity. There’s irony for you.

FP: A big double standard with how Muslims and the Islamic faith are treated right? How come?

Coren: As I mentioned above, the hypocrisy is overwhelming. A lot of this is the racism of lowered expectations – the liberal elite assume such behavior is typical of black and brown people, and also that it would be ban manners and politically incorrect to judge them. Sickening!

White guilt is a terrible thing to waste. Something that became profoundly clear during the trial of Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Yahya and their son Hamed. Although the case was shocking, it was in fact only the most recent of a dozen murders in the last twelve years, most involving Muslim patriarchs killing young girls who wanted to be horribly western by wearing nice clothes, doing nice things. Which brings us to the greater point here, with more long-term consequences than this single repugnant case. The authorities – be they police, politicians, social workers, media – are obsessed with appearing to be non-judgmental when Islam is concerned; partly out of a fear of being accused of Islamaphobia, but also because they genuinely believe that the white, Christian west has more to learn from Islam than the contrary. The Shafia girls had pleaded with their teachers for help, and while front line social workers acknowledged that the situation was potentially disastrous, the concerns evaporated as soon as they reached middle management. So Mohammad Shafia, who had written of his daughters that he hoped “the devil shits on their graves” was, effectively, permitted to commit mass murder.

Yet even months after the Shafia case, commentators are embarrassingly, cringingly, reluctant to link the crime in any way with Islam, and it is described as domestic violence. No! This was not domestic violence but yet another example of an Islamic psychosis that has its epicenter in Pakistan, but extends to most parts of the Islamic heartland, and many in the Muslim diaspora. It’s a self-evident truth that not all Muslims behave so brutally, but it’s also undeniable that Islam teaches that a woman is the property of a father, then a husband. Most fathers and husbands are kind, but if they are not they are empowered by Koranic teaching and the prism of Sharia law to behave pretty much as they like.

While it’s true that honor killings are not exclusively Muslim, Islam is the only faith that boasts textual defense and sacred justification for such grotesque acts. When 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez was murdered in 2007 honor killing by her Pakistani father and brother, CAIR Canada told the gullible that, “It’s important not to generalize. There are cases of violence across all faiths and all cultures.” That was rubbish, but worse than Muslim extremists hiding the truth, are non-Muslims embracing lies without question. We saw this during the Parisian riots, when mobs of overwhelmingly Muslim youths beat and torched their way through the city, often screaming “Allahu Akbar.” Yet they were almost never described as being Muslim by the media. So different from when the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik, a freemason who wrote that he had no relationship with God and had not attended a church in fifteen years, was repeatedly defined as a “Christian fundamentalist” on international television.

In the United States, President Obama played this game of obscene hide-and-seek when he dealt with Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the US Army psychiatrist  who killed 13 colleagues and wounded dozens more. Even though Hasan identified himself as a Muslim radical and told friends that it was the duty of a Muslim to wage war against the US Army, Obama refused to refer to the man’s religion.

He has gone further. Under the current administration, and to a degree even under his predecessor, moderate Muslims have been marginalized and almost excluded from the political establishment and halls of power. It’s the racism of lowered expectations. Fundamentalist organizations have convinced white liberals that only activists with beards or burkas are genuine Muslims, and to think otherwise is colonial and patronizing.

Pages: 1 2

  • StephenD

    "…because we are giving more and more ground to those who do want compromise, but total victory over all that the faith stands for. We see this with radicals within the gay community. They were not always well treated, but won all of their battles some years ago. It’s no longer about tolerance but affirmation; unless we support and encourage, we are to be condemned."
    I never before now considered this. It is no longer about tolerance but affirmation. We see it in presentations, entertainment, schools, everywhere. This is an eye opener for me.

  • tagalog

    Attacks on Christianity are not heresy. Heresy is Christian theology that doesn't work; one way of defining it is that heresy is an attempt to characterize Christianity within the worship of God and Christ in a way that, if adopted, makes it either (1) impossible for Christ to have done what He did, or (2) to obtain redemption.

    No doubt Mr. Coren understands that there is a distinction between Arianism, Manicheanism, and a dozen other well-known heresies and things like atheism and hostility to Christianity for the excesses committed in its name over the course of history.

    Saying Christianity is bad is not heresy. It's just an attack on Christianity.

  • Shaun

    Okay. Christians. Please stop using The Da Vinci Code as an example of a secular attack on Christianity. IT’S A NOVEL. IN THE F-I-C-T-I-O-N SECTION. Please STOP. Bringing it up just makes you look INCREDIBLY stupid. That is all.

    • Stephen_Brady

      The fact that "The Da Vinci Code" is a novel in the fiction section actually increases its usefulness as an anti-Christian tool. The ideas presented in novels and their spinoffs … movies … have a deleterious effect upon the critical faculties of people. This is the "I don't want to look stupid" effect. And, it's incredibly powerful when presented to young people, as the movie "Code" was when it was played in hundreds of thousands of public schools, in the United States.

      There's an old sci-fi story, set in the star-faring future, in which a spacecraft is going to examine a star that had a supernova, eons ago. The two main characters in the story are an atheist and a Jesuit priest. When they arrive in the system, they find a planet and … upon investigation … they find that an advanced civilization existed there, once. It was peaceful, environmentally-friendly, no war, no disease, no racism, and so on.

      Finally, doing some calculatkions, they discover that this supernova was present in the sky on earth, at the exact time that Jesus Christ was born. Naturally, the priest loses his faith …

      Do you get it?

    • 48kindagal

      Shaun-Apparently you don't get it. The problem with such fiction books is that the Biblically illiterate think they are the truth and thus end up further away from actually finding the Truth.

    • flyingtiger

      Fiction can sell an idea better than non-fiction. There were many non-fictional books about slavery in the South before the ACW. The book everyone remenbers is the novel, Uncle Tom's cabin. The Di Vinci code has brought anti-christianity into the mainstream.

  • flyingtiger

    Proestants killed over (05 of the witches. The Catholics only started doing this after the Reformation started. In the Catholic churh you had to prove someone was a witch (Often hard to do) and that they used their powers to commit evil (again hard to do.) Under the Proestants, all you had to do was prove someone was a witch.

  • mrbean

    I believe that man is a folorn creature on an water planet in a minor solar system circling an ordinary middle-aged star on a outer arm of a mid size galaxy amongst billions upon billions like it in a vast and chaotic universe and he shall have come and gone as though he had never been as have an untold multitude of species before him. All of the religions are nonsense whether they be extremely sophisticated or simply primitive.

  • g_jochnowitz

    "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). In the centuries before the 18th century, when people really believed in Christianity, we had the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition, witch trials, etc.
    Today, the sect of Christianity that is still accepted with blind faith is Marxism–despite the fact that Marxism is an atheistic denomination.

  • RoguePatriot6

    "He identified himself, they said, as a “cultural Christian”. Those of who understand religion, however, know that this is shorthand for “only a cultural Christian”.

    The article was dead a dead on hit, but when you think about it, what else is new? People read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear. People really don't know what they are doing when they slam Christianity. I know I'm going to get it for this, but here it is. Judaeo-Christian beliefs and teachings is the basis for a lot of civil laws and strongly influenced the writing of the Delcaration of Independence and the COTUS. To attack it or degrade it, is to attack the very fundamentals and values that made this a great nation. As we erode these principals we erode this country.

    Now, I know alot of lib/progs are REALLY burned by these facts but they are what they are. Some how they think that Christians want to take away their freedoms to do whatever they choose and what's ironic is that the people that are dead intent on doing this, they embrace with open arms. (cont'd)

  • RoguePatriot6

    The ACLU is somewhat of a spearhead for much of the legal persecution of Christian values and beleifs in this country. "Separation of church and state" is something that Jefferson mentioned in his letter, yet lib/progs have used and twisted it out of context. This phrase was meant to protect the Church from the state however our current administration has done the exact opposite and they too, have used it in an effort to remove any and every influence or appearance of Christianity from the public eye. Part of the problem is the ommission of the COTUS from our children's education and it's importance in how we govern ourselves as a nation. When people aren't aware of their rights then it's easy to take them away.

  • RoguePatriot6

    It's funny that when it comes to Islam and shariah, you never hear or see the ACLU nor any of their arguments opposing it, like thier main one, "separation of church and state". When it comes down to it, this nation had some people who had a problem with Christianity and those problems may have been legit, considering the hypocrisy that some of them showed towards outsiders of the faith. However, what must be remembered was that when these people twisted and used the scriptures to fit their base goals and ambitions, that made them twisted and evil, not Christ. He was who He was, is who He is and will be forevermore.

  • Richard Colonel

    Six years before President Barack Obama ran for president of the United States in 2002, when there were legislators coming up with new ideas on how to redraw the lines in some of the political districts in Texas, I stood up before a group of people and made the announcement that "here we are 226 years after the start of the American Revolution, and we are still a divided nation. Not as Abraham Lincoln said, half slave and half free, but we still couldn't decide among ourselves whether we are American citizens or hyphen American citizens, for example: Hispanic-American, Iraqi-American, African-America, or Islamic-American or whatever – American. It is time now ten years since I spoke those words to those people. Seems too many are too proud to Just Be AMERICAN, but they got to tell you the country that they are from. None are assimilating into the idea of being American, but they want to carry on the ways of the country that they left. They want to shove their cultures on American citizens.

  • Richard Colonel

    It is time that they learn the Ameircan way and that should be the only way. If the ACLU wants its way, then let them try to enter another coutnry and try to become one of that country's new immigrant citizens. It won't work! Mexico, for example, sends its people to the U.S. and tells them that they can gain American citizenship, and still retain their Mexican citizenship. In other words, what they call Dual-Citizenship. It don't work that way. Those who have not yet gain citizenship after being here 20 to 30 years are no longer citizens of the country they left. Nor are the citizens of the U.S. They are people without a country.

  • Richard Colonel

    As for the Muslim Brotherhood that has enveloped governments iin the Middle East, such as Egypt and Libya, it's their way of gaining a strong hold on government and passing laws that would send those countries back to the year 500 B.C. For them only the weak will survive, the strong will perish to make way for those who would have no Christianity in their midst but would make all people muslim or as they call themselves ISLAM! Hence, a THEOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

  • Richard Colonel

    Of course, they spread lies about Christianity, because they don't want to hear the truth. They are no different than the men who sat on the Senhadrin when Stephen preached to them. They knew they were hearing the truth and the truth was making them look bad, therefore SEVENTY men became as one and thre Stephen out of the Temple out of the City and rocked him to sleep.

  • tagalog

    The good news is that whatever is forbidden with regard to the expression of the Christian religion is also forbidden to other religions. The statue of Themis is what First Amendment jurisprudence would characterize as a non-religious expression employing a figure that has a religious origin, but which is no longer seen as religious.