I Took This Shift Because Of Her --- Politics - Justice - And Wrestling With The Angel
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Hillary Clinton has stepped up and done the right thing. She has condemned the makes of the Bush Assassination Movie:
CHAPPAQUA — Sen. Hillary Clinton this morning blasted the producers of a new film depicting the assassination of Pres. George W. Bush.
"I think it's despicable," Clinton said of "Death of a President," a fictional film that features a staged assassination of the president in 2007. "I think it's absolutely outrageous. That anyone would even attempt to profit on such a horrible scenario makes me sick."
A Relgion Of Love
Which Rejects Violence
Is A Big Lie
This, from the horse's mouth.
Yes, the Islamic world has got it mapped out. They know exactly what is gonna happen:
Islamic Movement head: Jerusalem destined capital of caliphate (The Caliphate is the worldwide Islamic government.)
Israeli Arab Muslim cleric Sheik Ra'ad Salah declared that Jerusalem will soon become the capital of an Islamic nation at a rally in the northern town of Umm al-Fahm, Israel Radio reported on Friday.
The leader of the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement Salah, told a crowd of 50,000 gatherers that Israel's occupation of the Temple Mount was nearing its end.
My take on Oriana Fallaci almost exactly coincides with this:
Those who have read “La rabbia e l’orgoglio [Rage and Pride]” and other writings on Islam by Oriana Fallaci – an author of worldwide fame who has lived in New York for many years – will find many points in common with hers in the essay by Bertacchini and Vanzan.
Oriana Fallaci is an extremely harsh critic of the religious and cultural factors that, in her view, feed into the Muslim world’s challenge against the West and Christianity, which she fiercely defends in spite of being a declared atheist.
She is a great admirer of Benedict XVI, who has read a number of her books and received her in a private audience last August 1 at Castel Gandolfo.
The only substantial point that separates Oriana Fallaci’s analysis from that of Bertacchini and Vanzan is that, while she maintains that Islam is incapable of reform and incompatible with the Christian West, the other two acknowledge that an integration of the two civilizations is possible, albeit extremely difficult.
And Benedict XVI is also known to acknowledge this last possibility.
With God all things are possible, even a reformation of Islam, even a reformation of Satan. I will not deny this reality for all the money in the Stock Market.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Pope Benedict has insulted the prophet and humiliated Allah:
ISTANBUL, Turkey - Pakistan's legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.
By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests.
The last outpouring of Islamic anger at the West came in February over the prophet cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper. The drawings sparked protests — some of them deadly — in almost every Muslim nation in the world.
Some experts said the perceived provocation by the spiritual leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics could leave even deeper scars.
"The declarations from the pope are more dangerous than the cartoons, because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world — the cartoons just came from an artist," said Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo, Egypt, who studies Islamic militancy.
Notably, the strongest denunciations came from Turkey — a moderate democracy seeking European Union membership where Benedict is scheduled to visit in November as his first trip as pope to a Muslim country.
Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion.
"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."
"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."
In the West, freedom comes before religion. This means that one can choose their religion, or they can choose to reject religion entirely.
In the world of Islam, religion comes before freedom. This means one does not have a choice.
God wants to be worshipped and followed by those who choose to do so. A follower without a choice is a slave, and an angry one at that.
Considering that fact, maybe it is not surprising that the followers of Allah so consistently react with violence.
From the Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist, Charles Krauthammer, in the New York Daily News:
In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not "leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons." There's only one such current candidate: Iran.
The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: "It's very important for the American people to see the President try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force."
"Before" implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy.
With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.
The costs will be terrible:
- Economic. An attack on Iran will likely send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150 a barrel. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40% of the world's exports flow every day. Iran could do this by attacking ships in the strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.
The U.S. Navy will be forced to break the blockade. We will succeed, but at considerable cost. And it will take time - during which time the world economy will be in a deep spiral.
- Military. Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.
Among the lesser military dangers, Iran might activate terrorist cells around the world, although, without nuclear capability, that threat is hardly strategic. It also will be very difficult to unleash its proxy Hezbollah, now chastened by the destruction it brought upon Lebanon in the latest round with Israel and deterred by the presence of Europeans in the south Lebanon buffer zone.
- Diplomatic. There will be massive criticism of America from around the world. Much of it is to be discounted. The Muslim street will come out again for a few days, having replenished its supply of flammable American flags, most recently exhausted during the cartoon riots. Their governments will express solidarity with a fellow Muslim state, but this will be entirely hypocritical. The Arabs are terrified about the rise of a nuclear Iran and would privately rejoice in its defanging.
The Europeans will be less hypocritical because their visceral anti-Americanism trumps rational calculation. We will have done them an enormous favor by sparing them the threat of Iranian nukes, but they will vilify us nonetheless.
All things old are new again:
... the signs are clear: the far Right is on the march in Eastern Germany.
The neo-Nazis, picking up an astonishing level of support on the home turf of Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, look set to win a big chunk of seats in regional elections on Sunday. And to make sure that middleclass voters do not panic ahead of the ballot, they have donned camouflage.
“What did you expect,” asked Michael Andrejewski, the new face of the extreme Right. “That I would beat your brains out with a baseball bat?” Blinking from behind gold-framed glasses, Herr Andrejewski looked as threatening as a maths teacher — unlike the five young men who formed a protective semicircle around their leader. “You’ll be wanting to move along,” said one of them with menacing politeness. One quickly got the point. The slogan on his T-shirt read: “Granddad was right”.
According to the latest opinion polls the NPD, the National Party of Germany, is poised to win between 4.8 per cent and 7 per cent of the vote this weekend in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the lush flatland that borders the Baltic Sea.
Since most Germans are afraid of admitting that they intend to vote for neo-Nazis, the betting is that the party will easily win the 5 per cent needed to capture parliamentary seats. It will be the second region, after Saxony, to have neo-Nazi members of parliament — a slap in the face for Frau Merkel, whose political constituency is in Mecklenburg.
Young Germans are leaving the area in droves in search of work. In East German days there were more than 20,000 people in Anklam, mainly fishermen and factory workers. Now there are barely 15,000. “It was the Leftists that got out,” says Herr Andrejewski, 47, who is likely to become a regional MP. “But our people stayed.”
That is only part of an extraordinary story — the economic transformation of the far Right. In Anklam and neighbouring Baltic villages ultranationalists own internet cafes and drink delivery services. They run music shops that are stacked with far Right rock bands. “There is a whole network of right-wing-run companies, above all in the local building business,” says Günther Hoffmann, who set up an association in Anklam to monitor the rise of the neo-Nazis. Small hotels are being bought up. A giveaway paper called The Island Messenger is edited and published by the extreme Right and is widely read.
This economic power — in a region where unemployment is more than 20 per cent — has translated into political clout. Firms in right-wing hands hire right-wing sympathisers as apprentices. Slowly but surely, neo-Nazis have become an indispensable part of society in northeast Germany.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
A very creative song by Muse. Kind of reminds me of Queen and the Beatles. Check it out.
CAIR (the Council of American-Islamic Relations), a radical Islamist front group, has ranked members of Congress, and guess who is winning?
By my count, there are 154 Democrats in the House of Representatives who get a 100% rating from the terror apologists at CAIR. Currently there are 201 Democrats total in the House, which means that a full 76%, more than 3/4’s, of them get the CAIR stamp of approval.
On the flip side, there’s only 8 Republicans who get CAIR’s approval out of the 231 GOP’ers in the House. That’s 3.5%.
I can’t find where CAIR has issued rankings like this for the Senate, but I think you get the drift as to the sort of politicians CAIR lends its support to.
So what do we say about this? Well, maybe we should consider why it is that a terror-apologizing, terror-connected group like CAIR overwhelmingly supports one political party over the other. It just makes sense that CAIR should support the Democrats. The Dems oppose aggressive anti-terror techniques like NSA call monitoring, Treasury Department finance tracking (which has tripped up CAIR in the past as I pointed out above), and aggressive interrogation of terror detainees. They oppose fighting the war on terror in the middle east. They seem to think that we can hide out within our own borders and just react to terror attacks as they happen. ...
As far as I’m concerned, CAIR’s list of recommendations works as a list of people Americans concerned about the war on terror shouldn’t vote for under any circumstances. I think the people on this list, and the people who agree with the people on this list, need to consider the fact that they’re finding themselves on the same side of our foreign policy as the allies of our enemies. I won’t go so far as to say that they actively support terrorism, or that they are happy about receiving CAIR’s endorsement, but the fact remains that their policy choices line up with CAIR’s interests...and that’s not a good thing.
Here's some information about CAIR, if you aren't familiar with their dissembling and support of terror.
George Bush is evil and stupid:
The federal budget deficit, helped by a surge in government revenue, is running 14.1 percent below the pace of last year, the government reported Wednesday.
The Treasury Department said that with just one month to go in the budget year, the deficit totals $304.3 billion, down from $354.1 billion during the same period a year ago.
The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the entire year will be $260 billion, which would mean that September will see a sizable surplus.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The famous graphich novelist (that's fancy-schmancy for Comic Book guy), Frank Miller, was featured yesterday on NPR, extolling the virtues of Patriotism:
Both of my parents were World War II veterans. FDR-era patriots. And I was exactly the age to rebel against them.
It all fit together rather neatly. I could never stomach the flower-child twaddle of the '60s crowd and I was ready to believe that our flag was just an old piece of cloth and that patriotism was just some quaint relic, best left behind us.
It was all about the ideas. I schooled myself in the writings of Madison and Franklin and Adams and Jefferson. I came to love those noble, indestructible ideas. They were ideas, to my young mind, of rebellion and independence, not of idolatry.
But not that piece of old cloth. To me, that stood for unthinking patriotism. It meant about as much to me as that insipid peace sign that was everywhere I looked: just another symbol of a generation's sentimentality, of its narcissistic worship of its own past glories.
Then came that sunny September morning when airplanes crashed into towers a very few miles from my home and thousands of my neighbors were ruthlessly incinerated -- reduced to ash. Now, I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had shown up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country. Breathing in that awful, chalky crap that filled up the lungs of every New Yorker, then coughing it right out, not knowing what I was coughing up.
For the first time in my life, I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die. All of a sudden I realize what my parents were talking about all those years.
Patriotism, I now believe, isn't some sentimental, old conceit. It's self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation's survival. Ben Franklin said it: If we don't all hang together, we all hang separately. Just like you have to fight to protect your friends and family, and you count on them to watch your own back.
Frank Miller is currently at work on a new Batman comic called Holy Terror Batman. Click here to learn about it.
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Islamic Jihadis will do anything they can to kill as many of us as is possible. They will do whatever they can to kill as many of us as is possible. If they can get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will use them against us.
They would like nothing more than to bring down our civilization.
Therefore, we must work to strengthen our understanding of what it is that makes our civilization great. We must understand that the precious freedoms we are afforded are a treasure. We must understand their origin.
And, we must understand how fragile our life is, and that Western Civilization is a unique oasis of goodness when seen in the scope of the barbarity of history. We can not afford to lose our civilization and it's values. We must do anything we have to to protect our beautiful culture.
Look at that destruction, that massive, senseless, cruel loss of human life ... and then I ask you to look in your hearts and recognize that there is no room for neutrality on the issue of terrorism. You're either with civilization or with terrorists.
On one side is democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life; on the other is tyranny, arbitrary executions, and mass murder.We're right and they're wrong. It's as simple as that.
-- Rudy Giulani, October 1, 2001
"You love life, we love death."
-- Osama Bin Laden March 14, 2002
Remember the Firemen
They ran into the buildings, while everyone else was running out.
Remember the heroes.
"There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for a friend."
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."- Matthew 16:19
Here on the fourth anniversary of September 11, let's look back at an article Michelle Malkin wrote on the third anniversary:
The third anniversary of Sept. 11 is upon us. We remain at war -- and the media remain in denial.How many times have you picked up a newspaper and read about terrorist attacks perpetrated not by Muslim terrorists, but by generic "militants" or "guerrillas" or "rebels" or, as Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes noted the Pakistan Times called them, "activists"?
It wasn't no-name militants or wayward guerrillas who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone. Anniversary reality check:
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Russia stabbed babies to death, shot toddlers in the back, forced children to eat rose petals and drink their own urine, raped teenage girls, executed their teachers and blew themselves up in a crowded school gymnasium. Death toll: 338.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Spain detonated bombs on four commuter trains during Madrid's rush hour. Death toll: 190.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Bali blew up a beach resort with an electronically triggered bomb at one bar and a car bomb hidden in a van at another nightclub filled with young Western tourists on holiday. Death toll: 202.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Pakistan kidnapped and beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl.In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia kidnapped and beheaded American engineer Paul Johnson.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and beheaded American independent contractor Nick Berg.In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and executed Italian security guard Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in the Philippines kidnapped and killed American missionary Martin Burnham.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Israel engineered near-simultaneous suicide attacks on two buses, killing at least 15 people.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Morocco waged suicide bombing attacks in Casablanca.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Turkey bombed synagogues and the British consulate.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in America hijacked and incinerated three planes full of men, women and children, trapped pregnant women and firefighters in smoke-filled stairways, and forced office workers to leap 99 stories to their deaths after saying final prayers from the ledges of the World Trade Center on a peaceful September morning. Death toll: 3,000.
And I will add some of my own:
In the name of Allah, the Islamic government of Sudan has carried out a 21 year long campaign of genocide against Christians, Animists and Sufi, killing 2.2 million people.
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists detonated four bombs on London's public tranportation system, killing 56 people and injuring over 700.
In the name of Allah, over 200 bombs were set off in India one morning, killing one and injuring over 100.
In the name of Allah, countless bomb attacks have been waged against the ordinary citizens of the Philippines, killing scores and injuring people by the hundreds.
In the name of Allah, Saudi Arabia has a policy of "No Jews Allowed" inside the borders of their countries.
In the name of Allah, Muslims across the world perform cliterectomies on their daughters. In one Kurdish province of Iraq a study was done recently which revealed that two-thirds of girls have been genitally mutilated.
And finally, remember that this is just a partial list. I could go on and on and on, for page upon page.
Why The Christian Church Must Take On The Battle For The Defense Of Western Civilization
In yet another sign that Europe is waking up to its problem with Islamofascism, the official church of the state of Denmark has announced that Muslim Imams are not welcome in their churches, and that Muslims and Christians do not direct their worship at the same entity (report from Dymphna at Gates of Vienna):
(The) state church, Folkekirken, which is Denmark’s official evangelical Lutheran denomination. No one has to join, and you can opt out of paying any tax for its upkeep, though if you’re a lazy or indifferent type and don’t phone the local municipality, you will be billed for church maintenance. What’s interesting is that while eighty four per cent of Danes pay the tax and are official members, only about five per cent of these citizens are actually church-goers.
" ... Imams are not welcome in Danish state churches," says a new network of Islam-critical priests and theological experts. The purpose is to state that Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God, and that the church and the mosque are not religious equals says the new network of 60 priests and theological experts.
Well-known priests and opinion-makers such as Niels Højlund, Sørine Godtfredsen, Edith Thingstrup, Morten Kvist and Katrine Winkel Holm are among the prominent members. According to the Newfounded Network admitting imams into Danish churches is problematic.
The Danish People’s Church cannot agree with the imams without betraying the Lord Christ — who according to Islam is nothing but an inferior “prophet”, subordinated to Mohammad. When priests and imams are praying together, they are in essence ridiculing the Gospel, the network states. At the same time it distances itself from recent events such as religious councils with imams.
Bishops and imams are not religious colleagues separated only by different merchandise. It is of paramount importance that priests in the Danish Church make that fact very clear — as well as studying and criticizing Islam, says the network — which at the same time underscores that the intention is to criticize Islam, not the individual Muslim.
Dymphna, at Gates of Vienna, comments:
Is this what Christians would call a “Christian attitude”? In a smaller sense, no. But in the larger sense of putting a stop to the inroads some of the more notorious imams in Denmark have made into a hither-to civilized cultural life, and the economic damage they have caused Denmark by spreading taqiyya in the Middle East, causing boycotts of Danish goods and the destruction of Danish embassies, they are possibly serving a greater good.
The shameful spinelessness of American mainstream churches in the face of militant Islam, their divestment from tiny, besieged Israel, their unwitting and ignorant support of the spread of Islamicist propaganda in this country, makes Denmark’s line drawn in the sand a refreshing change.
I think this is a good starting point for me to discuss something I have been thinking about of late. The question Dymphna poses is a wise one. "Is this a Christian attitude," or, in other words, does it betray Christian values to reject ecumenicism, or, an approach of agreement, cooperation, and understanding, with an Abrahamic religion?In short, I think we need not even address that question. Because, before we even get to it, our answer should be clear to us.The first principle of the Judeo-Christian Christian tradition, and really, the first thing the Bible, itself, discusses, in Genesis, about the relationship of God and man, is that man was created in the Image of God.This does not mean that we look like God. What it means is that we were created with the attributes of God.And, what are the attributes of God?We need only look at that passage in the beginning of Genesis to understand. "In the beginning,1) God created the heavens and the Earth,"2) He created the beasts of the field,3) He separated the waters,4) He created man of dust, and5) breathed His own life into him, and then,6) seeing that it was not good for man to be lonely, and moved by compassion, He created, for him, a female companion named Eve.We can take from this that man God and, thereby man, are, among other things,1) Creative and magnificent of vision2) in love with reproduction and the process of life3) analytical in our creativity, and completely willing to remake, or reshape, what we have already made, even if we have seen that "it is Good."4) in love with matter itself5) generous, willing to give of ourselves in our own creative process6) loving, reasonable, and willing to change our plans, when moved by compassion.There are many other things that can be inferred from the opening passage of Genesis, but this is enough for my argument. The point is, both Judaism and Christianity teach that God is loving, reasonable, and creative.Both Judaism and Christianity teach that man, having been made in the Image of his Creator, also inherently possesses these attributes to some extent. Therefore, man is meant to be creative, he is meant to love matter, he is meant to be reasonable and analytical, he is meant to reshape his work, and even, the work of God's hands, using the gifts of reason and analysis, and more than anything, man is meant to be Free, as God, most indubitably, is Himself.And, what's more, God wants man to have Freedom of choice. He wants man to come to Him of his own accord. When man sinned, God could have unmade the sin, and started over, but instead, God worked with the new reality man had created, and even promised to make something more glorious of it. In other words, when God was confronted with man's sin, and He banished the sinners from the Garden of Eden, He did not make it His next step to take away man's Free Will, but instead, chose for man to retain Free Will, and He chose to remain a partner in man's creative endeavors.Reading the rest of the Hebrew Bible, and the Gospels, and the Letters, it becomes apparent that God made this decision precisely because He wants man to be Free, otherwise, man would not be free to choose Him.In other words - and I can't stress enough how important this is -The first principle of the Bible is that man needs to be Free, and this comes before anything else.This is not at all a principle of Islam. In Islam, a good Muslim is to learn the Koran by heart, and to follow its rules by rote. He is not to be analytical, because his analysis can never add anything to that which Allah has already provided. The Koran, itself, is the final word of Allah to man. It is not to be amended or added to. It is to be followed only.Man's creativity is to be impeded. Music must not be made of anything more than chanting and drums. Art must not be representational. It is forbidden for a Muslim to depict the human form in a sculpture, for instance.Man is to love the paradise Mohammed calls him towards. He is not to love the Earthly realm of matter. In fact, much of the material world is haram, to the extent that man is forbidden to even view the form of any female not his own wife.In Islam, man is not forbidden to be generous to other men, so long as his fellow man is a Muslim. But, there is no reason to be generous to a non-Muslim. In fact, one is not to take a non-Muslim as a friend.In Islam, compassion is not the central theme. Allah can not be said to be the equivalent of Love, as the Bible tells us Yahweh is. Allah is instead, probably, more easily called a god of justice, as defined by Allah. Or, is that justice defined by Mohammed. We can't be sure, because when it comes right down to it, the only person from whom we have learned of Allah, is the prophet himself. And, we shall never hear another new word about Allah from anyone else.So, we see, the god of Islam is not anything like the God of the Bible. We delude ourselves if we think the two can be compared.
What's more, we put ourselves in danger, and, we put our very ability to practice our religion in danger, if we accept the idea that God and Allah are the same. Because Allah does not accept divergence of opinion. It's Allah's way, or the highway. No other opinions, or ideas, or beliefs, are allowed. Free Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Democracy, these are all but the baubles and bangles of a decadent Western Civilization, as far as the most learned men of Islam are concerned. They all lead to disobedience, and sloth, and weakness, we are told. And most importantly, what we need to know is they all lead away from Allah.
Therefore, if we are to accept that Allah is the same as the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, we are accepting that Allah is preeminent, and our God must be subservient. We are accepting, therefore, that we are no longer to be free, rational, and analytical beings. Therefore, we are accepting that we no longer can make our own choices, for Democracy, for Freedom of Conscience, or for our God Himself. If we accept such, we are condemning ourselves to the destruction of Western Civilization, and we are taking away the very duty of man himself, that is to express himself as a being made in the Image of God.
The Christian Church, in general, must come to understand these things. The most important endeavor the Christian Church can undertake, at this point in time, is to understand that the defense of Western Civilization is of utmost importance to the existence of Christianity. Without the protection Western Civilization provides to Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Speech, and Democracy, Christianity itself would go into a dark age. Christians would be forced to worship underground, away from the light of day. Fewer people would hear the gospel preached, and therefore, fewer people would be free to make a choice to follow the God of the Bible.
The Christian Church must understand that Western Civilization and the Bible go hand in hand. The Christian Church must become warriors for Western Civilization. I am not saying that this means the Church itself must call for violence. No, the Church, at this juncture has the luxury still of keeping its advocacy in the realm of peace. We can still fight our battles in the realm of ideology.
However, if the Christian Church, and the West, allow too many of our cherished Freedoms to slip away, it will become incumbent upono the Church, once again, to go into the business of War. And, that will be a shame upon us, not because it would be wrong to call for war in such a case, but, because we could have won our war without violence, if we had only acted sooner.
Let this be a warning to all Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, and Teachers of the Bible of the God of Abraham.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Oh, all the things that make Muslims angry. What are we to do about it. We know they hate Piglet. Well, we could ban Winnie the Pooh. They hate the British flag. What are you gonna do, ban the flag?
Muslims hate dogs too. So, what are we gonna do, ban Paris Hilton?
They don't like a lot of things that we do like here in the West. And, sometimes yes the things they don't like are funny and ought to be dealth with with ridicule and/or gentle humor. But, sometimes the things that get Muslims mad are truly frightening. As is the case in this example, where a moderate Muslim Member of Parliament in Denmark says we ought never condemn Sharia law:
Centre Democrat Ben Haddou, a member of Copenhagen’s City Council, has stated: “It’s impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them.”
Read that statement again, and read it carefully. Muslims in the West consider it “a form of warfare against them” if they have to live by our secular laws, not their religious laws. Will they then also react in violent ways to this “warfare” if they don’t get their will? Moreover, since sharia laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, doesn’t “freedom of religion” for Muslims essentially entail the freedom to make non-Muslims second-rate citizens in their own countries?
How do we dialogue with such people?