By Tim Stratton

It seems commonplace today for entire groups of people to be painted with a broad brushstroke and labeled as being afraid or fearful. The word “phobia” or “phobic” is often attached to the end of another word which is supposed to represent a group who is scared of other people.

Phobia LGBT Jihad

So, what does it mean to be “phobic”? Consider Merriam Webster’s definition of phobia:

an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Oxford Dictionaries defines phobia as:

An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
‘she suffered from a phobia about birds’

Most have heard of certain types of fears. Here is a list of common phobias:Arachnophobia — Fear of spiders

Claustrophobia — Fear of being enclosed in a small space

Acrophobia — Fear of heights

Given these definitions, one whose fears do not follow logically or is an irrationally fearful person is “phobic.” Thus, this label can be used to communicate a psychological disorder with the person who was shot with the “label gun.”


We hear this quite often when Christians are typically labeled as “homophobes.” The one wielding the “label gun” is attempting to communicate to others (reading their labels), that Christians have an irrational fear of gay people. To be clear: as a Christian I am definitely not fearful or scared of homosexuals or anyone in the LGBT community. In fact, I do not know any Christians who are literally scared of gay people just because they are gay.

Christians do not hold an irrational fear of homosexuals; rather, most simply point out that the homosexual lifestyle is not intended by God — it is not the intended purpose of creation. Thus, the gay lifestyle “misses the mark,” and this is what it means to be sinful. These claims are not based in fear or hatred; they are grounded in love. Read my articles on this particular topic here, here, and here.

Logically demonstrating and pointing out that a person is living a sinful lifestyle should not be conflated with an irrational fear of the person. In fact, if anything is irrational, it is committing the logical fallacy of conflating a belief that a person is in sin, with fear of the person living in sin. This is unreasonable.


It is also quite popular today for Christians to be labeled as “Islamaphobes.” Is it irrational to fear Muslims? In one sense, perhaps, but in another sense, definitely not! The first thing we must realize is that it is vital to distinguish between irrational fears and healthy fears.

To be clear, although our world has been wrought with terror attacks from practicing Muslims since 9-11, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists who wage jihad like those in ISIS. Thus, it seems irrational — in this sense — to fear all of those who are Muslim. After all, just because some Christians are mean to non-believers, it does not follow that all Christians act in a similar fashion.

There is a huge and vital difference, however, between these propositions. We are discussing ideologies. Specifically, we are discussing the teachings and commands of Mohammad and of Jesus — they differ drastically!

So, if one believes that Christianity it true, and they are not living consistently with the teachings of Jesus Christ (what Christianity is based on), if they come to think they should start living consistently with what they believe, then they will start loving all people from their neighbors to their enemies. The obedient Christ follower will make a daily attempt to not be mean and to love and respect all people as Jesus commanded. So, unless one fears being treated with love and respect, it would be nonsensical to fear a person who believes that Jesus’ commands correspond to reality and that our actions ought to correspond to reality too.

However, if one believes that Islam is true, then even if they were not living consistently with the teachings of Mohammad — and were not violent terrorists trying to kill all the infidels (they are peaceful) — it is still quite rational to have a healthy fear of this Muslim. Why is this? Because if he or she believes Islam is true and then starts to understand all that Mohammad actually commanded, and then decides to start living consistently with what they believe, then it follows that there is a good chance that they will harm you, or anyone else who is not a Muslim.

The Conflation of Ideas & Race

I will get back to that topic shortly. Before I expand on this, however, it is important to point out that many today seem to imply that if one is fearful of what Islam teaches, then you must be a racist (another label)! Those who assert this are once again guilty of the logical fallacy of conflation. Namely, conflating the beliefs of an individual with their DNA. These are two completely different issues that should not be conflated.

Allow me to make my point: regarding Islam — I am “Islamaphobic” (in a sense)! This is because I have an educated understanding of what Mohammad actually taught and commanded. Thus, all “good” Muslims (the ones who strive to live according to Muhammad’s teachings) should be feared because they want to convert or kill everyone who is not a Muslim.

Now, this has nothing to do with race (and to conflate this with race as mentioned above is a logical fallacy)! After all, if a white guy became a Muslim who believed he should “kill the infidel” as Mohammad commanded, then I would be just as “Islamaphobic” of that white guy because he wants to kill me. It is healthy and rational to fear those who want to kill you! This is about ideas — not race!

Thank God most Muslims are “bad Muslims” and do not follow all the teachings of Mohammad. However, as David Wood has shown, it does not take much to get an inconsistent Muslim (one who is peaceful) to become a consistent and “good muslim” (one who wants to kill you)! That is what scares me — but that is a healthy fear based on what Mohammad actually commanded.

The Jihadi Triangle

Consider the “Three Stages of Jihad” from David Wood:

As stated above, most Muslims are peaceful (thank God), but this is because they lack one of three essential ingredients that a seemingly “good” Muslim ought to possess:

1- Belief
2- Knowledge
3- Obedience

The foundation of the Triangle of Jihad is a simple belief that Islam is true. This belief does not have to be justified as one can hold this belief merely because their father told them that “there is no God but Allah.” This foundation is not sufficient for Jihad and terror, but it is a necessary condition.

The second part of this triangle is knowledge. That is, the individual believes that Islam is true and now they study the Qu’ran and the Hadith to understand exactly what Mohammad taught and commanded. Basically, this is an educated Islamic believer.

The final part of the triangle of jihad is obedience. An educated Islamic believer who has reached the decision that he ought to be obedient to Allah’s prophet is one who everyone should fear! This individual believes that Islam is true, understands that Mohammad commanded Muslims to kill everyone who is not a Muslim, and they believe they should obey Mohammad’s teachings, and thus, they want to kill you!


It is vital to note that Jihad all starts with one simply believing that Islam is true. So, even though it seems safe to say that Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Cat Stevens, Dave Chappelle, or Lindsay Lohan (the latest convert?) probably will not attempt murder, they do possess the first necessary condition that logically leads to the other two lines of the jihad triangle. Let’s hope these Muslims never gain an understanding of what consistent Islam entails.

Bottom line: it is not a phobia if a fear of something or someone is justified and thus, a rational fear. In fact, it seems irrational to not possess a healthy fear of a person whose worldview entails your demise.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

Original Blog Source:

Free Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
23 replies
  1. Andy Ryan says:

    By this logic, paedophiles can say: “Hey, if you look at the Latin toot of the word, it just means ‘loving children’, and who could have a problem with that?”. Racists can say: “Xenophobic? Hey, I don’t FEAR black people, I just want to deport them all, so that word is bogus”.

    In short, it’s extremely reductive to reject a word by quoting an extremely narrow definition of it, based on splitting it up into into its Latin components. Any decent dictionary definition of ‘homophobic’ includes the definition: “having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.” If you think that prejudice is justified then just say so and proudly admit to being a homophobe.

    Andy yes, arguing, for example, that gays shouldn’t be able to marry each other is homophobic. Claiming it is being done out of love is specious in the extreme and brings to mind this CS Lewis’s passage:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

    That’s the key part, but he goes on:

    “They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

    • Jamie Y. says:


      Based on your cited definition (which I believe came from the Oxford English Dictionary), where in this article did Tim Stratton show prejudice?

      I’m curious, where might I find that C.S. Lewis quote?

    • Greg LaPrade says:

      If God doesn’t recognize a “marriage”, then why should I? By defintion, there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”. Marriage, according to God’s Word (which is good enough for me) is a conevant between a man and a woman.
      This does not mean I am hateful or discriminating against homosexuals. They have always had the same rights as anyone else in America. What’s hateful is celebrating a behavior which is known to be harmful.

      • Andy Ryan says:

        Fifty years ago Christians were saying the same about interracial marriage, giving the same justifications as you. That’s aside, you address none of the points in my post.

      • Ed Vaessen says:

        Greg LaPrade says:
        “If God doesn’t recognize a “marriage”, then why should I? ”

        Indeed. Why should you? Seems you never learned anything else but to worship a disgusting god and eat his shit.

    • J. Yonker says:


      Thanks for posting and giving us a different perspective. I’m curious, where do you see prejudice against homosexual people in Tim’s article? From what work does your C.S. Lewis citation come?

      • Andy Ryan says:

        “From what work does your C.S. Lewis citation come?”

        Google is your friend.

        “where do you see prejudice against homosexual people in Tim’s article?”

        You don’t think saying someone’s lifestyle is sinful is prejudiced against them? If I said it was sinful for a white person to sleep with a black person, would you not see that as prejudiced against interracial couples?

        • Jamie Yonker says:

          Google is a friend…and an enemy at the same time. I found that the quote is taken from the book God in the Dock-a collection of essays. The essay in question, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, is a critique of the use of punishment of criminals, not because they deserve it, but in order only to deter others and mend the criminal. It is an exhaustive essay that makes a good case against Humanitarian theory of punishment of criminals, but really has no bearing in this discussion since we are not talking about the laws of men.

          I didn’t say anything about whether or not Tim Stratton had shown prejudice, you did. I was merely asking where you saw it. That being said:

          Prejudice (noun)
          1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
          2. harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgment

          According to the first definition, Tim’s opinion does have a reason on which it is grounded (he gives no indication of his experience). You may not agree with his reason, but he has a reason nonetheless. So, his statement is not prejudice in the first sense.

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be referring to the second definition. I will grant that harm or injury could result, but that harm or injury would be perceived by the person to which he is speaking (I do have personal experience with this). In context, it is clear that his intent is not to harm or injure. It seems to me that if we use harm or injury to determine if someone is prejudiced against us, we would never accept when we are wrong. We would always be offended at the correction coming from others. We would never see the views of others worth considering. This is not helpful for dialog.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            So, I’ll ask again, if I said it was sinful for a white person to sleep with a black person, would you not see that as prejudiced against interracial couples?

            The CS Lewis has every bearing on the discussion at hand. It reads like he wrote it as a direct response to this blog.

        • Andy Ryan says:

          “According to the first definition, Tim’s opinion does have a reason on which it is grounded (he gives no indication of his experience). You may not agree with his reason, but he has a reason nonetheless”

          Jamie, that’s the cop out for all prejudices – its not prejudice because he’s got reasons. “I’ve got great reasons to think black people are worth less than white people – look at all these scientific studies! Look at the crime rates!”. Not good enough.

          “…has no bearing in this discussion since we are not talking about the laws of men”

          What a bizarre comment. When Christians are ‘branded homophobes’ for campaigning against gay marriage, of course we’re talking about the ‘laws of men’. It’s humans passing laws that allow people to marry. You can talk about God’s laws all you want, but 50 years ago, a white man couldn’t marry a black woman in Virginia until the loving before Loving vs Virginia court case. First humans prevented it, then humans allowed it.

          • Jamie Yonker says:

            I did not answer your question because I don’t see it as relevant to the conversation. How do you see interracial marriage and racial discrimination being a relevant to the topic of homosexuality?
            Tim Stratton said nothing of public policy or laws. How is it that a C.S. Lewis discussion about public policy and laws applies to this discussion?

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Jamie, I said this: “Arguing, for example, that gays shouldn’t be able to marry each other is homophobic. Claiming it is being done out of love is specious in the extreme and brings to mind this CS Lewis’s passage”, which I then quoted. If you don’t see how the CS Lewis’ quote doesn’t illustrate my point then I don’t know how to help you. It’s as if I quoted the Good Samaritan story to someone who didn’t want to help others, and he replied that it didn’t apply to him because he wasn’t from Samaria.

            “I did not answer your question because I don’t see it as relevant to the conversation”

            It’s a pretty simple Yes/No question, Jamie. We can pick up the conversation when and if you work out your position on the issue.

  2. Ed Vaessen says:

    “Christians do not hold an irrational fear of homosexuals; rather, most simply point out that the homosexual lifestyle is not intended by God —”

    Let us not forget that Tim Stratton knows God very well. God speaks to him on a daily base.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            What makes you think I haven’t heard from God?

            Archbishop Desmond TuTu supports gay marriage. Has HE heard from God? Is Tim a better Bible scholar than the Archbishop?

  3. Ed Vaessen says:

    What we see here is that fanatic Christians have no idea what real morality is. Their morality comes from so called holy scriptures that they adopted without thinking. Stone age shit.
    Holy scriptures are many. They may have been written by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Moses, Mohammad, Paul or Joseph Smith. Invariably, these scriptures are written by madmen who never knew or even wanted to know about the golden rule.
    Whatever these madmen wrote, the fanatic (he may be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Fascist. Communist or whatever) who does not like to think, will adopt them gladly.

    • Tyler Dickinson says:

      Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

      Stone Age morality: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” – Leviticus 19:18

      “And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” – Luke 10:27

      “Serve God, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess [the slave]: For God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious” – (Quran 4:36)

      I can’t speak for Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot but I’m pretty sure they knew the Golden Rule, even if they didn’t adhere to it.

      • Ed Vaessen says:

        Perhaps you want to say that even stone age people occasionally wrote laws that resembled the golden rule? One can always cherry-pick.
        It is however striking that both Christianity and Islam condemn people for the sole reason that they do not believe in their God. That is where the fanaticism surfaces.

  4. Ed Vaessen says:

    What is all too obvious is that the apologists here use the tactic of exhaustion and evasion, keeping their eye fixed on the fence sitters they target. They try to engage opponents as much as possible, but without ever fighting a real, open battle. As soon as they have no answer to the critics about their lack of arguments and reasoning, or if no answer is deemed useful, they withdraw in silence and try another way to attack reason and science. Then, people like Wallace dump another article here.

    This really is a war fought with foul means by apologists, a war on reason that was never declared by them in clear daylight.
    If Jesus Christ is anything, then certainly he is the patron saint of liars.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *