Responses to Common Questions: Part 1

We'll start off by dismantling the the falsehoods of Acts 17 Apologetic's June 23, 2010 post:

I haven’t really been following the comments, since I’m waiting for police to return our illegally seized video cameras, which will show that Nabeel was peacefully sharing his views with Muslims who were insulting and threatening him. It is obvious to everyone that Chief Haddad has not given us the footage because it is extremely embarrassing for his department, and because the footage proves that our rights were repeatedly violated.

Here David mentions that Muslims were not just part of the problem, they were the root of the problem. They also give us a one-sided view by stating 'it's obvious to everyone', referring to those who support their fan base, that Chief Haddad did not return the cameras because the situation was embarrassing for the police. Who said it's embarrassing? David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics.

However, my wife went through some of the comments and came up with a list of some of the most common objections to what happened. I typed in some brief responses. I’ll probably add to the list as more comments come in.

So, what we see is a tag-team effort by Wood and his wife - nothing news worthy aside from the fact that Wood can't clean up his own mess.

Q: How can you say that you were harassed and persecuted when other Christian groups, such as Josh McDowell’s, were not harassed and persecuted?

A: There are three general reactions to the rights violations at the Arab Festival. First, some accept the oppression, praise the Muslims at the festival, praise the mayor, and praise the police department, regardless of how Christians are being harassed. The goal is to get into position to distribute something to the Muslims despite the obstacles. This was the approach of certain ministries. Second, some seek to expose the oppression, while still following the rules. The goal is to draw attention to injustice, so that Dearborn will eventually have to correct the injustice. This was the approach of Nabeel, Paul, Negeen, and me. Third, some disobey the festival rules. This was the approach of a few Christians who handed out materials despite the unconstitutional rule against it.

It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why police and security would harass people who follow the second approach, while ignoring people who follow the first approach. The goal of Chief Haddad and the Dearborn Police Department is to reduce Christians to dhimmitude. Christians who accept that they are second-class citizens are welcome. Christians who insist that they have Constitutional rights are harassed, and even arrested.

David Wood tries to justify the charges of indictment laid against him and the rest of the Acts Team by listing there general reactions to the rights violations at the Arab Festival. We'll list them again for the sake of clarity:

1. Some accept oppression and blindly 'praise the Muslims', 'praise the mayor', and 'praise the police department'.

2. Some expose the oppressions, 'while still following the rules', notably Acts 17 Apologetics (the only missionary to be arrested on that day).

3. Some disobeyed the festivals rules by handing out Christian material.

What's interesting about this list is that it ostensibly proclaims to expand the reader's understanding of the the socio-political situation at Dearborn Michigan. Lets look at some census reports to see if their claim of ubiquitous oppression stands. According to the United States Census Bureau in 2006 the approximate population of Dearborn was 92,382. A 2000 census reports that the Arab population was a robust 29,181 at a time when the population was 97,775. With the advent of 9/11 immigration become more selective and the collective increase of Arab and Muslim immigrants in Dearborn, let alone the United States, came to an abrupt halt. It's safe to say that despite the recent fall in population of Dearborn the ratio of Arabs to non-Arabs has remained 29.8% or roughly 30.0%. Does it surprise you that David and Nabeel chose one of America's Top Ten heavily populated Arab cities to do their missionary work? But not all Arabs are Muslims, so to say that Sharia has been adopted by Dearborn's security forces is but an idle claim. The Acts Team's claim that Sharia is being practiced by law officials would make more sense if the Muslim population was greater than or equal to 50% of residing persons of the city, but even the population of Arabs hasn't broken 30%. The current demographics show that Muslims cannot be in majority and therefore the city's judicial system was only acting in accordance with the law on the day of David's and Nabeel's arrest.

We now know why David Wood associated 'Muslims' with the words 'mayor' and 'police department'. It was to justify that Dearborn was somehow under threat of a booming Muslim population in Dearborn. Points 2 and 3 are of lesser importance and are auxiliary in his attempt to convince his fan base that Christians are being subjugated by Dearborn's Muslim populace. Are they being serious?

Q: Why did you bring video cameras, knowing that this would upset people?

A: We learned last year that Muslims won’t hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us. Our cameras vindicated us last year and proved that security was persecuting Christians. Security had been harassing Christians all weekend. The only difference was that we got the abuse on tape. Hence, we were careful to record everything this year, because we knew that someone would probably pull the same dishonest stunt. And we were right. A volunteer lied about us and said that we surrounded him and harassed him. We can only prove that this is a lie because we have the supposed incident on tape. If we didn’t have cameras, the charges would stand.

I would just like to add that it’s a sad state of affairs when a Christian can’t walk among Muslims without a camera because so many Muslims are willing to lie about Christians. I would be horrified if Christians were so renowned for dishonesty that people were scared to walk among us without getting video footage. Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?

First thing to note is that David makes the bold statement that, 'Muslims wont hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us.' Two stereotypical assertions are made: 1) Muslims are liars. 2) Muslims don't like Christians (within context).

Secondly he says that, "our cameras vindicated us last year..." The question then arises who were they exactly vindicated from? The Muslims of Dearborn? He further goes on to say, "and proved that security was persecuting Christians." Astounding! What a childish claim to accuse the security for persecution and discrimination, considering that many Arabs, especially the Lebanese, are Christian folk - who were largely present at the Arab Festival 2009. David also claims that security had been 'harassing Christians all weekend" - slightly disconcerting considering that Acts 17 Apologetics was the only ministry to report the persecution and on tape. I smell a rat, do you? What grabbed my attention was the following quote, "Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?" This then begs the question how could people have used deception 'two years running' when David just mentioned that they were able to catch the persecution on tape.

Q: Why did you go to the festival even after you had been threatened, knowing that there could be problems?

A: We don’t believe in backing down from Muslim threats and intimidation, as this only encourages Muslims to engage in further threats and intimidation. Hence, if we’re told, “Stay off of this public street or else,” we’re probably not going to stay away.

One could question the veracity of David's answer. David states that his entire team 'doesn't believe in backing down from Muslim threats and intimidation," but is he being truthful? Did David and Nabeel go to the Arab Fest 2010 because they simply didn't want to back away from a threat or were they looking for something controversial to report on the collective Muslim populace of Dearborn?

Stay tuned for Part 2....