A Conversation About Alawites Involving Alawites

Here's a link to a Christian webpage on the Alawite sect of Shia Islam.

http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/mid-near-east/syria-alawites/

Though it's a Christian site dedicated to disseminating information that could help in Christian missionary efforts, this page has attracted Sunnis and Alawites who want to debate on whether Alawism is actually a Muslim denomination.

Two things to note:
(1) One non-Alawite Muslim here claimed that Alawites "were patronized by French colonialists just like the Qadiyanis were patronized by Britsh in India."
(2) All Alawites here claim to be just as Muslim as the guy next door, and deny any and all heresy they are alleged to flirt with. One thing none of them mention is that many of their teachings are secret. Maybe they don't know that. Maybe the majority of them honestly believe that they really are just a moderate sect of Shi'ites.

Probably the most you'll learn online about the heterodoxies of Alawites is at these two Sunni fundamentalist websites, here and here, and this evangelical Christian website.

You should be mindful of 3 things when you study a small, mysterious denomination like Alawite Shi'ism:
(1) Hostile sources could be flat-out lying about the denomination, or sincerely believing and propagating lies about the denomination.
(2) Sources who belong to the minority denomination could be overstating their commonality with the mainstream, and understating their differences with it, for practical and political reasons.
(3) The denomination actually could change over time. This can get really interesting when, as is alleged about Alawites, many of the group's beliefs and practices are secret.

The two biggest Alawite Facebook pages are I'm Alawite, with 1,858 likes, and Muslim-Alawite, with 985 likes. Muslim-Alawite is obviously very pro-Assad; I can't tell with the bigger group I'm Alawite, mostly because there aren't any Assad posters and pretty much all the posts are in Arabic. Below is a picture at I'm Alawite, which I found pretty interesting.

The American Religion

The following is a comment thread that formed on a post by the woman here known as Post-Bush Neocon's Mom. The post was a pic of four white schoolchildren with their hands over their hearts, facing a flag which was being held by a fifth white schoolchild. The bottom of the pic had a caption which read:

"We no longer do this for... fear... of offending someone !!! Let's see how many Americans re-post this ." (all sic)

The first comment posted was mine.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Me: "From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as 'Jesus the Socialist.' Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker's paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country's 'industrial army' at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy's novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than any other 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom's Cabin. Bellamy's book inspired a movement of 'Nationalist Clubs,' whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston's first Nationalist Club...

"Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it's important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without 'under God'?"

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-conservative-about-pledge-allegiance.

DS: Prior to going back to work I would walk the path of the local park a couple of times each morning. The park is located adjacent to a middle school. Much to my surprise I heard the Pledge Of the Allegiance over the loud speaker...under God is still a part of it. The pledge is still being said.

Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: Isaiah Sage I'm not ignoring your post. Actually, I needed to do a little research to see if what you've posted is 100% accurate. And while it is, it doesn't address the "spirit" in which this pledge was composed. Now I cannot expect either of us to go back into time and into the minds of the people living during this age; but it is safe to say that "war" to protect the freedoms the country offered (more than any other) was ongoing.

I know for me when the pledge was taught and introduced to us as children (1963 - when I entered school); it was from the "spirit" of pledging to uphold, fight and protect freedoms granted us by God in the good ol' United States of America.

If anything during my time (1960's) of entering school; slavery was a hot topic. The pledge, the constitution and the Bible was a weapon against the inequality of man; black and white. When I looked around my class room ALL races were reciting the same pledge, praying or having a "moment of silence" to their own God, in thankfulness for this great country.

So with all of your research and accuracy, what you have no window into is the hearts or attitude of those who recite this pledge. You have only the biography of the author.

And may I remind you of Balaam, even a donkey was used to bend the Will of God.

Me: I disagree. The biographical details of the Bellamy cousins, and the language of the pledge, are evidence of "the spirit" in which Francis wrote the pledge. And that spirit is one of complete subservience to the nation state.

Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: Yes, Isaiah Sage I agree with you to a point; but you still do not know if his heart changed coming to this country. When you get to be my age; you look back and you see that all is not what it seemed. Hence, my reference to Balaam and his donkey. :-)
[Editor's Note: Both Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy were born in the U.S., but I let go her mistake about Francis immigrating.]

Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: P.S., what I am saying is Mr. Bellamy is the donkey.

Michael KS: http://oswego.patch.com/blog_posts/why-i-love-the-pledge-of-allegiance

[Michael KS's comment included only the above url. The meat of the blog post is:

"...The more important thing to worry about is how does one person come to power who can remove the rights and wishes of the larger community? Some might say, it's just the Pledge....not a big deal. What difference does it make if you stand and honor a flag with a few simple words? Well, pose that question to the thousands of individuals, parents, spouses, loved ones and friends of troops who have gone to fight to defend that very symbol and what it stands for? Ask that question of a Gold Star parent whose child died to uphold that red, white and blue symbol of freedom and democracy around the world? Ask a veteran who put his life on hold while he went to serve his country. Ask a child who misses their parent because they're serving in some distant land. And, by all means, go and ask that of a hero who is missing an arm, a leg, their sight, or their sanity for that "not so important" symbol!

"And so, the next time you think that saying the Pledge of Allegiance means nothing, try to remember the price that has been paid for that flag....over and over again. Freedom isn't locked in a box, or a stagnant thing, but instead is a living, breathing, evolving entity that is the heartbeat of this beautiful country. Remember that for many of us we've never had to pay anything. It's been given to us as a gift by those who have sacrificed so much, and the very least we can do to say I'm proud and grateful for that gift is to stand, put our hand over our heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I always have...and by God, I always will. No one person will ever take that right from me. Rights can only be stolen by those who allow it...."]

Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: Profound article. In the same Spirit of that which I wrote. :-)

Me: That blog post is off point. I do not say that the pledge means nothing. It means something very big. It means "We perform this ritual in which we apotheosize a group of people who hold a monopoly of power over others."

Michael KS: I don't know what "apotheosize" means.

Me: http://www.google.com/search?q=apotheosize&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-Address&ie&oe&rlz=1I7ADFA_en#hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7ADFA_en&q=apotheosize&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=0igoUK6IC7DpiwKi3YG4CQ&ved=0CFEQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2856fc618e8e7f94&biw=1000&bih=639.
Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: And how do you define Divinity, Isaiah Sage?

Me: A group of people who kills other people non-discriminately, and pretends to do so justly, pretends to have divinity or the stamp of it, regardless of what words they use.

Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: So you are saying the Flag represents indiscriminate killing collectively justified through the misunderstanding that the pledge of allegiance is divine?

Me: What I am saying is that the pledge and the flag are aspects of a religion in which people prostrate themselves to the nation state, to the point that they are encouraged to willingly kill and die for "the country", where they uncritically embrace the mythic narrative of their nation state and describe it as if the history of their nation state is the history of Justice being made manifest among men, where they sing hymns ("Mine eyes have seen the glory..."), hear sermons ("There is nothing to fear but fear itself..."), read scripture ("Four score and seven years ago..."), and where they judge others by how enthusiastically they embrace the group narrative, get behind the group leaders or the leaders of their specific faction, and identify their leaders with the mythos of the group narrative.

Julie Altman: Sorry Isaiah, I think you're full of it. (respectfully).

Post-Bush Neocon's Mom: What I love about your thesis is the idea that you are attempting to find truth. Unfortunately, Isaiah, truth is relative based on the authority therein it lies. I find in your assessment a tremendous amount of shallow conclusions. While on the surface this appears to have been well thought out and articulate, in fact it lacks the benefit of the doubt or personal knowledge of the individuals motives that were involved.

Unfortunately, you have a book and I have an experience. The difference between us comes from the fact that I lived in an era where acts of patriotism were commonplace, saying the pledge was purehearted and people were and many still are ready to die for the country this flag represents.

Honestly, I find it most surprising that your assessment is most judgmental with no grace or room for error. I guess there are some things we learned where it is easier to switch gears and call it evolution.

Three Links on Happiness

Happiness and Freedom: http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8859/2000a-full.pdf. According to this study, though freedom does not always contribute to happiness, there is a net positive correlation between freedom and happiness, with economic freedom having a greater correlation with happiness than do personal and political freedom.

Religion and Happiness: (1) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-13/news/sns-201204131141usnewsusnwr201204120412religionapr13_1_religious-groups-health-benefits-social-networking, (2) http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/16/jubilant-jews-study-finds-jewish-people-are-the-happiest-religious-group/

According to the last article, which is from last year, Jews are the happiest religious group, followed by atheists and agnostics, then by Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims. Protestants are the unhappiest religious group of them all. It strikes me that of the five happiest religious groupings, all the actually religious ones have ethnic or "ethnic" dimensions to them in America. I'm also reminded of a book by Durkheim I had to read about in college. And, finally, I'm reminded of some stats on divorce rates by religion.

Revelation through Prophets vs. Revelation through Intuition

Today I celebrated Eid among Ahmadiyya men at the mosque in Milpitas, CA (they made vegetable biryani just for me!). The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was founded in the late 1800's in colonial India by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed that he was the Messiah promised by all the major world religions.

Ahmadis are derided as a few things by exclusivist non-Ahmadi muslim clerics, but this neat little video is the first interesting thing I've heard from non-Ahmadi muslims in their debate with Ahmadis.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad once prophesied that rival Messiah claimant John Hugh Piggot will not withdraw his Messiah claim and will die in the lifetime of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and that that death will demonstrate the truth of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim and the falsity of John Hugh Piggot's claim. This death prophecy was published in the Ahmadiyya newspaper the Ahmadiyya Gazette. Contrary to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's death prophecy, John Hugh Piggot died nineteen years after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad died - demonstrating, according to the maker of the video, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claim to be a prophet was wrong.

It's things like this that make me think religions should rely more on revelation through intuition ("Inner Light", etc.) and less on revelation through prophets. Death prophecies are too easy to falsify, and dangerously so.

Workfare, WPA, etc.

Online comments like this reinforce my impression that the rugged individualism and relative economic conservatism of the everyday American is not in the least bit laissez-faire. What Americans dislike is not gov't involvement; what they dislike is gov't benefits for free. The saying I learned in Christian elementary school was "A man who does not work shall not eat." The saying was not "Tax dollars shall not be used to guarantee a minimum standard of living to anyone willing to work."

I use the phrase "Roosevelt Republican" to describe the political beliefs I had during highschool and the first half of college. I think my gf at the time might have been a Roosevelt Republican too, because she expressed resentment that so many people get money without working for it, and said that a New Deal-style jobs program would be a better kind of gov't assistance. A couple years after I graduated from college, a Facebook friend expressed a similar sentiment about the idea of bringing back the W.P.A. If anyone is to get assistance, he said, it should be for doing socially-productive things like building infrastructure.

I remember that back in the early days of the Tea Party, the San Jose Mercury reported that some of the Tea Party activists were older folks who were distraught with the poor quality of services they were getting from gov't assistance programs. In March of this year, the Wall Street Journal reported: "Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security 'unacceptable.'"

Today's conservatives are confirming the charicature of a Reagan clone who cuts schools, public sector jobs, library hours, collective bargaining privileges - everything except the military. And yet, I imagine that if a known and popular conservative had demanded a jobs program, a whole lot of red-blooded American men and women might have more than heartily jumped onto the bandwagon. And demanded that it be restricted to native-born U.S. citizens.

From a FB thread on Banning Circumcision

Dustin Gray: Calling it "genital mutilation" is incorrect. I suggest you look up the word "mutilation."

Me: I would ... like to hear a definition of mutilation that excludes cutting away pieces of someone else's flesh with neither their express nor implied consent.

Dustin Gray: ‎@ Isaiah Sage; Sure, will you accept one from wordnet?
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=mutilation

(n) mutilation (an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part); (n) defacement, disfigurement, disfiguration, mutilation (the act of damaging the appearance or surface of something) "the defacement of an Italian mosaic during the Turkish invasion"; "he objected to the dam's massive disfigurement of the landscape"

Again, I understand why the term "genital mutilation" better fits your narrative, but that does not make it an accurate or effective term. If you feel as though the facts of your argument are not persuasive enough, opting for more aggressive terminology does not strike me as a good way to go about improving it.

Instead of defending the use of an inaccurate (yet satisfying) term, why not approach it the problem reasonably: is it a beneficial medical procedure or is it pointless?

The consent issue confuses me and seems to be besides the point. Neonates are incapable of giving consent. Should we not perform and medical procedure that may result in the loss of some part of their body? What if the newborn REALLY wanted a lotus birth (where the umbillical cord is not cut off, and is allowed to fall off naturally)? By your own logic wouldn't that be belly button mutilation?

Me: The wordnet definition does not exclude removing the foreskin from a newborn boy. You're assuming that the foreskin is not an important part of the body, but it is. I treasure mine, and I empathize with men who resent having been deprived of theirs. http://www.youtube.com/user/TLCTugger#p/u/14/aZ2ZyxyZJrk.

Consent is very relevant here. Whether a procedure is a beneficial medical procedure is really only relevant when (as you point out about newborns) the patient is presently incapable of giving consent. If you are a libertarian, Dustin Gray (though I don't know if you are), you would oppose any medical treatment of an adult against his express denial of consent, even if it were beneficial to him. So (and again, this is assuming you're a libertarian) you wouldn't boil everything down to medical beneficience vs. pointlessness. The medical beneficience of a procedure on a baby is necessary because it establishes *implied* consent.

The benefit of a medical procedure has to be substantially high to form implied consent. It has to be necessary to address an immanent threat of death or serious bodily injury or disfigurment, or - if the threat is not immanent - it has to have serious numbers behind it, like the decreased infant mortality rates that result from the innoculation of infants. Claims about the medical benefits of circumcision are too dubious to establish implied consent.

Your example about belly button mutilation vs. lotus birth is clever and very worth considering, but cutting the umbelical cord is only a little analagous to infant male circumcision. When a baby boy is circumcized, he is more or less permanently deprived of something from which he could have derived much sensual pleasure as an older boy and as an adult. When a baby's umbelical cord is cut, he is deprived of something that would have fallen off two to three days after birth anyway. Yes, I do think a lotus birth is more in-line with libertarian principles; but "belly button mutilation", as you suggest I call it, is nowhere near as invasive and nowhere near as presumptuous as cutting off a baby boy's foreskin.

Independent Baptist Newspaper Reacts to ABC 20/20 Report

Shelton Smith, the editor of the independent fundamental baptist "Sword of the Lord" newspaper, has written an article in the May 13, 2011 issue of his paper in which he denounces the ABC 20/20 report on sexual abuse within some IFB churches as libelous and not representative of the broader IFB movement. I was unable to find the complete online text of Smith's article, so I am reproducing it below. One response to Smith's article can be found here. Another is here. I might eventually post my own response.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"ABC 20/20 Report Slams Independent Baptists"
By the EDITOR

Independent Baptists are not perfect people, and our churches are not perfect churches; but when there is a cause for criticism, we would hope that, whatever the complaint, the critic would deal with it in a fair and honest way. It is especially important, when the media get involved, that the issues are dealt with factually. When a newspaper or a television network reports a story in such a way that they become the story, then you know that something has gone wrong.

When ABC Network aired their 20/20 report on April 8, they picked up a couple of isolated stories and proceeded to tear into all independent Baptists as though everyone so identified is a scoundrel and involved in a cult.

Elizabeth Vargas, the network reporter, seemed intent on smearing all independent, fundamental Baptists. Perhaps we misread her intentions, but I don't think so.

Thirteen years ago, while Dr. Chuck Phelps [no close relation to Fred Phelps, pastor of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas] was pastor of a New Hampshire church, a man who was an active member of the church was accused of a sexual crime.

In a telephone interview with the SWORD OF THE LORD, Dr. Phelps, who is now a pastor in Indianapolis, Indiana, told us:

When this happened thirteen years ago, I called the police and notified other appropriate authorities. I was told to sit tight an dlet them handle it. The did not deal with it immediately. When there are unproven charges against someone, you had better be careful what you say and do, lest you get sued for slander and defamation.

Dr. Phelps has set up a web site (drchuckphelps.org) on which he has provided full disclosure of the matter. He said to us, "We did the best we could do; there was no cover-up."

He also indicated that he gave all this same documentation to the ABC reporter, but she chose to side with a few folks who are angry at him and at the church.

The Vargas report went so far as to accuse independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches of providing an authoritative climate that promotes the abuse of women and children.

She spoke in a demeaning way about dress standards, beliefs about loyalty to a church and a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible.

Apparently it is okay with the reporter and her network if they are authoritative in their reporting.

Apparently it is deemed just and fair to take some incidents of sexual abuse (which all of us would condemn loudly) and demonize every IFB church in the country.

In response to the bashing that the ABC report gave, Dr. Jeff Amsbaugh (pastor, Grace Baptist Church, Columbia, Georgia) wrote:

1. Independent Baptists by definition are "independent." There is no network, and many independent Baptist camps and colleges shy away from other independent Baptist camps and colleges. In the 20/20 episode, those of the Hyles camp of fundamentalism were linked with those in the Bob Jones network. Yet, these two streams of independent Baptists would rarely endorse each other. Therefore, to imply, as ABC did, that all camps of independent Baptists are in cahoots with one another and networked into some type of cultic structure is simply not true.

2. To the degree that ABC was accurate in its reporting any cover-up of sexual misconduct by Baptist ministers and churches, it should be applauded. Those who are guilty of sexual misconduct and those who cover up such deviancy should be exposed, even if they are members of our movement - indeed, especially because they are members of our movement. We should not allow the deviants within our movement to define us. The must be exposed in order that the reputation of the movement may remain above reproach.

3. To the degree that ABC was inaccurate in its reporting and blindly accepted the word of disgruntled church members without investigating the veracity of the accusations, it should be condemned. Proper journalism demands hearing both sides of the matter before rushing to meet a broadcast deadline. If ABC improperly slandered any godly minister or ministry, it should be held accountable.

Another definitive report has been written by Dr. Charles L. Surrett. Dr. Surrett is the academic dean of Ambassador Baptist College (Lattimore, North Carolina) and pastor of Emmanuel Independent Baptist Church (Kings Mountain, North Carolina).

On Friday, April 8, 2011, the ABC television network broadcast, on their weekly 20/20 program, a journalistic view of independent fundamental Baptist churches. The conclusion they were trying to reach is that the doctrines of IFB churches lead to physical and sexual abuse and that such churches should be considered to constitute a cult.

As a college-level teacher of logic, I noted several ways that the fundamental rules of Aristotelian logic were broken by the network and the hostess..., Elizabeth Vargas.

One such rule is that "evidence should be presented as failry and completely as possible." The fallacy which breaks that rule is called "special pleading," which is intentionally presenting favorable evidence to one's case, while at the same time purposely omitting unfavorable evidence. It is commonly practiced in courtrooms, where attorneys for one side of the argument present only that evidence which is favorable and attempt to suppress evidence that is unfavorable. This is acceptable in the courtroom, because the whole truth should come out, if both sides do their jobs properly.

However, when ABC's case was presented, it was totally one-sided, with a great deal of evidence that did not favor their argument being completely ignored. This may be sensational journalism, but it is not fair to present our nation with such a slanted view of those who call themselves independent fundamental Baptists. It is neither fair to the IFB churches and constituents nor fair to the general public....

[T]he current concept of the term "cult"...should be examined to see if IFB churches qualify. There is no "living leader," except for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and IFB churches could hardly be blamed for following Him! Since these churches follow a Bible that is ancient, their doctrines cannot be called "new" or "strange and mysterious." They do not live in communes, nor do they require people to contribute all their possessions. Their "exclusive religious truth" is not of their own subjective invention but is extended to all who will accept the Bible as authoritative. Although there are some that demand more from their members than do others, it is not even close to the truth to assert that all IFB churches "command absolute obedience." Each individual local church should be judged upon its own merits. Therefore, since IFB churches do not have any of the characteristics of a cult, it is dishonest and unfair to label them as such.

ABC seemed content, rather than using any clear standards for defining a cult, to allow a small group of people in a room to verbalize that they think IFB churches constitute a cult. Without any real evidence, then, the assessment of an extremely small minority is taken as an indictment against hundreds of thousands of people. Merely stating that some think IFB is a cult does not make it so! But then, that is another fallacy, called "begging the question."

Dr. Surrett's essay is produced in full on the web site of Dr. Phelps.

Let's Set the Record Clear and Straight!
1. IFB churches are not given to the abuse of women and children. To the contrary, we preach and promote their full avalue and worth. We want them to be treated like royalty. If someone is being abused, no one in IFB circles would tolerate it.
2. IFB churches are full of law-abiding, God-fearing, patriotic citizens. We love our country. We salute our leaders, and we obey the law.
3. IFB churches are Bible-believing churches. Criticize us if you please, but, yes, we make a big place for the Bible and its teachings.
4. IFB churches do have a strong leadership structure, as does the ABC television network for whom Ms. Vargas works. Does she have people in charge of her department? I suspect she does.
5. IFB churches are not perfect! The pastors and the people are human (like TV reporters). Humans sometimes make mistakes or misjudgments. What may seem at the time to be good judgment may not look so sharp later on.
Our churches are not perfect, but we do not tolerate evil, even if someone in our leadership does it.
6. Accusations against others must always be handled with care. There are cases (lots of them), where accusations were falsely made by someone with a grievance or an agenda.
What may appear to be just accusation on the surface may prove to be totally false after an investigation has been done.
7. Legal counsel should be sought immediately when any such issues arise. Pastors and churches can turn to Christian legal groups for coaching. Groups like Lighthouse Legal Ministries, Christian Law Association, the Rutherford Institute, Liberty Counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund and others are available.
8. Preachers, including some IFB men, do sometimes make foolhardy statements. Some of the cutesy statements that are thought to be humorous in a friendly crowd may not seem so funny on YouTube or on a network expose.
Having a loose tongue when teaching or preaching can bring trouble to your doorstep.
If you are prone to pop off in the pulpit you may be setting yourself up for heartache and creating an embarrassment for the rest of us too.
But a preacher here or there who says something foolish does not constitute cause for a blanket indictment of the entire IFB movement.
9. IFB pastors and churches will report sexual abuse and other criminal matters. We do not claim special privilege when there is a crime or the accusation of a crime. We will call the local authorities when there is cause for concern.
We will not enable predators or perpetrators. We will neither shield them nor defend them.
A zero-tolerance policy is the mindset we have on such things.
10. IFB churches are not a new way of having church. We are Baptist in the historic sense of the word.
The fact that we do not have a headquarters and a hierarchy does not disenfranchise us and strip us of our legal rights.
11. IFB churches are given to fellowship that is characterized by loving, caring and compassionate interchange with each other. You'll not find any place on the planet where everybody is treated with more respect than at an IFB church.
12. IFB churches are not located in compounds behind high walls and locked gates. Everyone comes voluntarily, and everyone can leave voluntarily. There is no coercion of anybody.
Of course, we don't want you to leave. We love you, and we like having you with us. But should you decide to leave there are no bars on the windows.
Because we care about you, we will try to talk you into staying. But if you want to leave, the door is always ajar. You can leave if you choose to do so. Anyone who suggests anything to the contrary just doesn't have a grasp of reality!

Conclusions
We believe Dr. Phelps and the church in New Hampshire got a raw deal from ABC News.

We know for sure that the blanket condemnation of all IFB churches was a piece of very "yellow journalism."

We pray for any and all who may have had a crime or other abuse committed against them. People who commit such acts should be in jail. Churches should be especially supportive for victims or alleged victims.

We pray for the ABC network and its reporter, Elizabeth Vargas. They have erred on this, but we can pray they will yet tell the real story of IFB churches.

We understand that in these days we are apt to be thrown under the bus by media and others. It hurts, but we will not quit. We are saddened by such biased reporting, but we will not lose heart. We will press on!