By Roland Clarke
Most politicians in North America including educators, judiciary, media, as well as many businesses have bowed to pressure tactics from the LGBTQ lobby as noted in my previous article, "What does the rainbow signify?" Such capitulation is indicated by public displays of Pride logos and flags. More recently, however, there has been a growing push-back especially from Muslims and conservative Christians objecting to pro-LGBTQ inclusive sex education in schools which basically indoctrinates children, covertly or overtly. Shannon Douglas writes from a secular perspective for Woke Watch Canada on the Canadian Gender Wars. He reports on “the many…parent protests across the country...Thousands and thousands of them awakened to woke, keeping kids home from Pride Events.” (Click on the title bar to open the full article.)
Wissam Al-Aethawi's Review of Scott Cherry's New Book, "The Reason of Job"
Get the book here: The Reason of Job on Amazon.com
قد تكون لغة الكتاب (نموذج المسيح) عسرة الهضم على المبتدئين, الا ان الكتاب يوفر كل المعلومات اللازمة لفهم اطروحته. يجادل المؤلف ان قصة ايوب هي نموذج المسيح, وان هذا النموذج يتكرر على طول الكتاب المقدس وعرضه. والنموذج هو نمط متكرر يمكن تمييزه مرئيا او سمعيا او خياليا. وايوب هو نموذج من نوع (النزول للصعود) لانه ينحدر الى وادي الياس ليخرج منه بافضل حال. يتولى سكوت مهمة طرح حجته في رحلة تاخذك للكتب السماوية والادب والثقافات المعاصرة ومحاوراته مع اصدقائه, والكتاب مساهمة ثرية للمكتبة المسيحية وقد يكون بركة شخصية للقارئ.
وسام العيثاوي, الخدمة العربية المسيحية
In his new book, The Reason of Job, Scott Cherry has assumed the monumental task of building his argument in a journey that takes the reader through scriptures, literature, pop culture as well as real-life conversations with his friends. This book is a rich contribution to the world library and can be a real blessing to the reader, Christian, Muslim, or other.
–Wissam Al-Aethawi, Arabic Christian Ministry, Dearborn, Michigan
Get the book here: The Reason of Job on Amazon.com
Jonah's Story Was A Central Motif in Jesus's Preaching
“[L]et us consider which is harder, for a man after having been buried to rise again from the earth, or for a man in the belly of a whale…to escape corruption.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catechetical Lecture 14.18 
The Jewish Tanakh, or the Hebrew scriptures of the revelation library that is the Old Testament of the Bible, contains the full writings of all the writing prophets. This includes the entire book of Prophet Jonah (4 chapters). Jonah is also importantly referred to in the New Testament by Jesus himself, as recorded seven times in two of the four gospels: three times in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 12, once in verse 16:4, and three times in the Gospel of Luke chapter 11. In both gospels Jesus is asserting that he himself is greater than both Jonah and Solomon, and that is all the more reason why his audiences should repent. So much so that if they did not, then both the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites will rise up at the time of the final divine judgment to condemn them. Very strong words. But where did Jesus get off claiming to be greater than both prophet Jonah and King Solomon? Where indeed? Clearly Jesus believed he was the greatest of the prophets, and more than a prophet, the one-and-only Messiah, and rightful King of Israel (even though he never sought political power). If he was not then it
Why Zeinab got it wrong in her critical post of June 1
*This intro part of the article was posted verbatim in my Facebook page on the same day that this was posted here.
I am a 24-year resident of East Dearborn and have frequented Hemlock Park many times for many reasons. On June 1st a young woman named Zeinab Chami posted in Facebook the following criticisms about our exceptionally civil open-air event at Hemlock Park the night before, Memorial Day. I was present among several dozen Christians from probably 10-12 churches. That event featured a main speaker, Georges Houssney, who spoke for about 30 minutes, followed by Q&A. We also had a book table set up on the lawn stocked with religious books. Both the event and the books were intended for adults, but at the very start four children approached the book table and were observed by Zeinab. One of our partners also observed this and explained to them that there were no items for kids and that the entire event was intended for adults only. The children asked repeatedly but were told no unless they had a parent with them. When Zeinab approached, they left. However, Zeinab either did not observe that exchange or did not believe it because she immediately began making a scene that attracted a sizable crowd. In short, Zeinab accused us of 'preying on children' in the park by attracting them to our event, which was false. The next day she made the following post reiterating her false narrative. Since she and I are not Facebook friends, I only became aware of it because one of her friends tagged me. I would like to have responded in order to provide clarity and perspective, but I was not enabled to make comments, and so I was voiceless. When I became aware of Zeinab’s false and unflattering words, I immediately private-messaged her with these short messages:
You sent June 1 at 12:38 PM
Zeinab, please activate my ability to comment so I can add clarity to this.
Main Point: Contrary to the spin, we do not want children at Hemlock. We have nothing for them. If they come we send them away. We wish they would stay away.
To her credit, Zeinab attempted to allow me to comment, as some of her friends suggested she do, but that never became possible because we did not become FB friends. In one comment she said she was patiently waiting for a comment from me, but I could not. There were many comments from her friends, most were very critical of me, but some were favorable.
Scott Cherry's Assessment of the 4/9 Debate Between Ted Barham and Ozair Tahir
Last Friday I attended an informal debate between Ted Barham and Ozair Tahir on the question, "Is the trinity logical, rational?" This is my assessment of that debate and my personal rebuttal of Ozair’s argument including a summary of the doctrine of the trinity. Ozair assumed the standard Muslim position that the trinity is non-rational/illogical. But although he is a Muslim, he did not overtly argue his position on the basis of the Qur'an, rather on the pretense of logic and reason. But what he thought was good logic and sound reasoning was, in fact, fallacious. Throughout the course of the debate Ozair repeatedly demanded of Ted, "If the Bible said there were squared circles, would you believe it?" It was a trap that Ted would not fall into. Although Ted could have been much more assertive in putting forth biblical examples of the trinity, Ozair seemed generally disinterested in such evidence anyway. Instead his mind was made up that the trinity was a "squared circle" as he repeatedly resorted to this pet question.