Tennessee Pastor Speaks Out on Ergun Caner by Peter Lumpkins

Tennessee Pastor, Tim Guthrie, honks the nose of those who continually badger Ergun Caner, charging him in fabricating his Muslim roots.

In Guthrie's post entitled "The Whole Truth" he quotes a living, breathing witness who knew the Caner family up close:

"My name is Jamal Jivanjee, and I was born and raised in the greater Columbus Ohio area. My mother is an American & my father was born and raised in East Africa and is of Asian Indian decent. My father was a devout Muslim and we attended functions at the same mosque/ masjid that Ergun, Emir, & his family attended on east Broad street in Columbus, Ohio.

Ergun & Emir’s father, Mr. Acar Caner, was a very prominent leader within the Islamic community that we associated with and was very involved with this mosque. As a result, I remember as a young child going to their home with my family to have dinner with their family. Mr. Acar Caner was also the acting landlord of the apartment community where my family and I lived for a number of years..."

Read Guthrie's entire post here.

Will the Baptist Calvinist bloggers who've teamed with Muslim attack sites in attempting to bring Ergun Caner down back off? Will they drop their crusade to tarnish Caner even further? 

Not likely, I'm afraid.

With that, I am...

Peter

UPDATE #2: After Wade Burleson committed himself not to write on the Caner issue again, unless I miscounted, he has since posted three posts on his blog.  I wonder if making a public commitment not to do something but then doing it thrice would be considered an act of dishonesty?  Ummm. 

At any rate, Burleson showed up on this thread posing what he deemed a relevant question: "Could it be that the real problem is the assertion of innocence without the establishment of innocence?"  After his point was shown to be both legally and morally absurd (//link), he packed his gear and went back to Enid, posting an even longer version of his same point.  Evidently, Burleson does not realize that adding words to an absurdity does not make absurdity go away. Indeed it may make it even more absurd! 

Even so, Burleson's conclusion reveals nicely the wrong-headed, skewed thinking at work in so many of Caner's critics.  Burleson writes:

"I am hoping for the first resolution above, but as long as "friends" of Dr. Caner dogmatically and viciously assert his innocence before they have even thoroughly examined the facts, then they actually work to prevent the former from occuring" [sic] (italics added //link).

Let me get this straight.  I dogmatically and viciously assert Caner's innocence before I have even thoroughly examined the facts? Frankly, it is Burleson and his sidekicks who have pronounced Caner guilty before sufficient facts have been gathered to establish guilt!  

For the record:  to my recall, I have never asserted Caner's innocence. I have continually and consistently denied that the evidence offered by the critics--including Burleson--was sufficient to establish guilt. Why is this basic, fundamental legal and moral distinction so difficult to grasp?  One must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Anything less is the overthrow of the presumption of innocence. Indeed prematurely pronouncing guilt is, from my perspective, patently ungodly.

Honestly, if this type of upside-down thinking Burleson and company are peddling ruled our legal system, what kind of justice system would we be?

UPDATE #1: Our brother, Matt Svoboda, editor at SBC Voices, attempts to engage my post  here with one entitled, "What is the Caner Controversy Really About?" The odd thing is, we had a perfectly good conversation going on here.  Indeed Matt was the first to comment. 

Even more strange is, not only does Matt curiously complain about my not answering questions this post definitively was not about, he ducks the questions concerning the duplicity of his statements on this thread.  In other words, Matt leaves us totally confused about what he was/is actually asserting about Ergun Caner (note here & here).

It makes me wonder if some of those who condemn Caner as liar had rather pronounce someone guilty than prove someone guilty. Come to think of it, that is a much easier thing to do.  It is also, from my perspective, an ungodly thing to do.

   

Comments

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

On the point about name calling- it had nothing to do with a fiddle.

"What I do know is this: were the above reasonable accurate, only the most belligerent, literalistic nincompoop would unalterably conclude it is undeniably established Ergun did not live in Turkey. Ergun lied."

I cant be anymore clearer... I have dealt with the questions you raised, you just didnt like my answer or refused to accept that it was in fact my answer. On the points in which guilt hasnt been established I have not condemned Caner in anyway- I have given him the benefit of the doubt. On the points that guilt has been established I have asked for Ergun to answer for. I believe guilt has been established on some points- If I am wrong then Ergun can simply clarify his testimony and I will be happy. If I am right then he should apologize and then we can move on.

Maybe we mean two different things when we say "condemning Caner" because we are clearly speaking past each other. When I say I dont condemn Caner I simply mean that even on the points where I think guilt has been established I am still giving him a chance to clarify and/or respond. I am not so full of myself to think that I have absolutely everything figured out. It does appear that Caner has lied, but I would like to give Caner a chance to respond in case I am mistaken. So yes, in my mind, it appears that Caner has lied about his testimony. But, I am not the final authority on the issue and I am not condemning him guilty. I am asking for him to clarify his story since it does appear he has lied. If he clarifies his story and it lines up with official documents then I will say thank you and move on. If he has lied and he apologizes then I will say thank you and move on.

The problem with your argument and logic is that it is all based off assumption. You are defending Caner about "living" in Turkey off of your own "what ifs." What if he lived there for a month? What if he visited his relatives with is dad in Turkey? etc...

Your entire argument on that point is based on your own what ifs and not on any evidence, at all. You dont even know whether or not he lived in Turkey temporarily. You are just assuming the "what if" in order to help your "side."

The evidence I am talking about is the evidence that shows he was born in Sweden and moved to the US when he was 4. There is no evidence of him ever living in Turkey, as he said he did.

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

Simple fact is that Ergun Caner even claimed to be born in Istanbul, Turkey when it HAS been proven that he was born in Stockholm, Sweden.

So, when he said that he was born in Turkey, but wasn't, is that lying? How do you explain this one away?

[Steve]

So what did Matt do? Die in kansas? ... welll ... it may be a fate worse than death but I doubt it.
:)

[Lucas DeFalco]

Peter,

Just saw an announcement on Liberty's site that Provost Ron Godwin is "forming a committee to investigate a series of accusations against Ergun Caner."

Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. said, "Liberty does not initiate personnel evaluations based upon accusations from Internet blogs. However, In light of the fact that several newspapers have raised questions, we felt it necessary to initiate a formal inquiry.”

Isn't it strange how the questions of three confessed believers in our Lord Jesus Christ get tossed aside as "bloggers" while inquiries from secular, liberal media get much more serious attention. Where are the priorities on Liberty Mountain?

[peter]

Matt,

I've decided to respond with a full post. What needed to be addressed in my comment got entirely too long. It will be up sometime today.

Grosey,

Welcome! No Matt did not get lost in Kansas as you can see above. But I do think the rabbit hole just got deeper.:^)

On a serious note, I am continually stunned thinking Christians buy the absurd hullabaloo being peddled today by so many evangelicals.

Grace, my friend.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

While I am looking forward to your response, I will be traveling starting this afternoon so my interaction will be very limited, if I can manage any at all.

Thanks for the discussion.

Matt

[Brennon]

Some of the White-ites here are seemingly claiming that conflicting stories = guilt. But that's a total non-sequitur. Even if there were conflicting stories on Caner's part, that wouldn't mean he is guilty of anything he is being charged with. Provide positive evidence, not little snippets taken out of context and posted on youtube before you destroy the career of a Christian

[peter]

Matt,

You will be sorely disappointed if you think my post initiates dialog with you or anyone else concerning the hopeless wreckage settling in on this issue, wreckage mainly due to irresponsible, premature pronouncements of guilt toward the life and ministry of Dr. Ergun Caner, guilt without evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Brennon,

Disputing the claim that conflicting stories = guilt and identifying such as a non-sequitur comes as a breath of fresh air, in a thread brimming with so much unmitigated nonsense.

Thank you, my brother.

With that, I am...
Peter