Prissy Princes of the Press Censored Me!
When my book ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! was published, the Chattanooga Times Free Press asked for a copy and agreed to do a review a few days before I was to do a book signing at the local Barnes & Noble store. The paper, one of America’s best and most conservative, backed out of the review although they had reviewed two other books of mine positively. They danced all around the issue, but simply did not want to offend local Muslims.
They also refused to do a review of my book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! Can’t imagine why.
The same paper permitted a local Muslim to accuse Cal Thomas of bigotry comparing him to Jew-haters in Nazi Germany! What chutzpa! A Muslim “spokesperson” accusing a highly respected and talented Christian journalist of bigotry! That’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! I wrote in defense of Cal but the editors refused to publish it.
Later, they ran a cartoon showing an “Evangelical Zealot” standing on the chest of a hapless and helpless Muslim as the “zealot” crams “Fundamentalist Christian Dogma” down his throat? For those who did not understand the cartoon, the heading informed readers the gist of it was “Converting the Muslims.” Again, I came to the defense of Truth but the editors refused to make a correction.
I called the editors and publishers and challenged them pointing out historical truth but they refused to budge. One editor did admit that the cartoon was a mistake but evidently, they didn’t have enough paper and ink to permit me to write a correction! It was a matter of courage or lack thereof.
ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website dealing with creation and evolution since there had been much coverage dealing with the subject in various journals. Evolutionists had been hammered and major university professors had begun to ask embarrassing questions making evolutionists uneasy. Consequently, major journals cranked out hysterical propaganda pieces to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates who bow before the idol of evolutionary science.
Galloping to the rescue of beleaguered evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do, it is not really hard.)
Evolutionists trotted out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “Fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggested that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.
With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the evolutionary myth.
Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media moguls wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people! Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.
But the censorship continued.
I wrote the editor of Pulpit Helps, a major Christian publication with which most preachers are familiar. My concern was with a review done by the editor about a book of sermons by Martin Luther King, Jr. I enclosed a column that dealt with King that they could publish providing some fairness and balance. They refused to publish my column. The correspondence was very revealing and by no means unusual:
To the Editor:
I just read your message to me regarding Martin Luther King, Jr., and of course, we can disagree about King. I have fought for that privilege (to disagree) in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for 35 years.
However, I am surprised and amazed and somewhat disappointed that Pulpit Helps would be fearful of facing the truth of any matter. It is one thing for secular journals to worship at the shine of political correctness and another for Christian magazines to do so.
You mentioned that you were in high school when King was killed so you have grown up in an atmosphere where King has been idolized and almost beyond scrutiny especially in the public schools and the media.
You wrote, “I wanted to view King’s life in a balanced perspective and have an accurate view of him as a man, civil rights leader, and preacher.” You surely must be kidding! You did not do that in your review. Did you have “balance” in your review when every word was positive? You wanted accuracy when you praised his preaching and never mentioned his heresy! I assume that your reading of King was very limited; maybe only to the book you were reviewing!
You also wrote, “Neither do I agree with those who demonize him.” Is telling the truth demonizing him? You know, I believe between the two of us, I have a much more balanced, fair, and accurate view of King. I think some good came from some of his work while enormous harm also resulted. Unlike many conservatives and many haters, I think King was right in the bus boycott and I believe that because Blacks should have equal rights to public facilities (since they pay taxes) as do Whites. Blacks should not have been subjected to back of the bus status and colored water fountains. However, private businesses are something else altogether! The government has no authority (power yes, authority no) to tell a private businessman how he must run his business. But of course, that is another issue.
You said, “Since the piece in Pulpit Helps was a book review and not an article we will not print your submitted article.” Of course, that is a classic cop-out! Surely, Pulpit Helps is interested in balance, truth, and accuracy.
You did not deal with the various criticisms of King in my article. Please note that your book review dealt with King’s preaching. While you might like the particular book you reviewed, surely you were obligated to reveal to your readers that the book did not reflect King’s preaching and his beliefs. King was a life-long Liberal who rejected the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ. Do you take the position that one can reject those doctrines and be a Christian? If so, you have removed yourself from mainline, orthodox Christianity!
Remember that the Apostle of Love in his second epistle told us not to even bid one God speed if he did not hold to the doctrine of Christ. Do you disagree with John or do you disregard John? And to disregard means to disobey! It seems you are more impressed with the writings of King than you are of John! At this point, you are defending King and disobeying John! King often spoke publicly to radio and television audiences of Christ and “faith” but never did he challenge men to place faith in the propitiatory work of Christ to experience personal salvation! He did not because he did not believe that was essential for one to have eternal life. I assume you and the folks at Pulpit Helps do believe it.
You did not deal with King’s many adulterous affairs as he admitted to Parade magazine. How can you do a book review of such a man without one word of caution, without one word of suggestion to readers that further research might be helpful? And to emulate his life would be disastrous.
Do you think the fact that King was murdered wipes out the many sins in his life? Do you think that because Blacks were mistreated during that period, that fact somehow excuses his sins? Are you suggesting that because he made some positive contributions, his doctrinal errors and his wicked life should be overlooked?
Does King get special treatment because he was black or because he was murdered or because he was a preacher? What drives you and others to give him the “kid glove” treatment? Why not treat him fairly, honestly, and accurately? Why do you and others seem to have a mission to protect King’s image? Why not tell the truth as you do, I assume, in other matters? Question: If David Duke wrote a book that was true, fantastic, a classic and an incredible contribution to American literature, would you review it without mentioning that he was a former KKK member? I think not.
Another question: Bill Clinton writes a classic bestseller. Not one paragraph in it that any honest, fair, and informed person disagrees with. Would your review be totally positive without mentioning that he had been a moral leper, had been impeached by the House, had lied under oath, and had sold or given valuable information to the Chinese Communists, etc.?
Brother, why not treat people like people, not as white, black, rich, or poor? Just people. Why make decisions based on how you and the magazine will be perceived rather than on the merits of the case? Does truth matter anymore?
You refused to deal with King’s thievery of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University and many of his other writings that were plagiarized from others without even a suggestion of giving credit. If you did not know about that, it is inexcusable. If you did know about it and refused to mention it in your review, that too was inexcusable.
You did not even try to deal with King’s love affair with Communist Party functionaries during his very public life. Note that he was not simply involved with Communists but with Party activists! He hired many Communists to run various field offices and even refused to fire them when he was told by his politically sensitive friends that such action would be wise. Your selective quote of his regarding Communism does not cancel his ardor for the Communist Party members with whom he climbed into bed.
King was a Black opportunist who used people: Blacks, Whites, union leaders, the media, etc., to further his own cause. You have helped perpetuate his false image by burning incense to him with your book review. I am disappointed in Pulpit Helps not being willing to stand for Scriptural truth regarding separation from doctrinal error as well as separation from personal immorality.
Don Boys, Ph.D.
Christ said that He was the Truth so how can anyone, claiming to know Him, be careless with the truth?
Censorship is alive and well in America.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.