While our dear brothers over at Answering Muslims continue to press forward with litigation after being arrested in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S.A., for handing out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk, it looks like Muslims are doing a successful job of duping the Brits into allowing them to engage in angry protests, and the aggressive, threatening speech, and violence that you see below; all of course under the banner of "free speech".
It looks like "sweet sharia" isn't too far away for people in the U.K., should the government continue to allow for such nonsense in the name of pluralism. Worse yet, private citizens cannot own firearms and British police don't carry them on their person. In light of that fact, one wonders what means of protection many people will have when blood begins to run in the streets of Great Britain. As the foundations of cultural Christianity have long since crumbled in the U.K. and secularism has left a gaping void in English culture, it is high time we pay attention. Dear Christians, take a good look at the video below and remind yourself that this is the judgment of God on a nation that ditched Biblical truth for secular ideals (Rom. 1:18ff). After all, when the void of secularism has ravaged people of any desire to live for anything but themselves and those same people have aborted their own children multiple times, the Qu'ranic Muslims will be more than happy to take their place with 4-6 children per family combined with a robust religious and community tradition that shows secularism up for the folly that it is.
Here's another video wherein Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim, clearly states that Islamic teachings inform his pro-jihad message. Listen to him explain in his own words that Islam is not a "religion of peace", but rather a religion of "pieces" that glories in jihad. We would do well to do as President Reagan did, and study those who want our blood. We must know what these folks believe, why the believe it, what they plan to do about it, how we as Christians can minister the gospel to them, and how we must protect ourselves from them should that ever be necessary.
HT: Answering Muslims
Islam hates Christianity and Christians.
ReplyDeleteSecular Liberals hate Christianity and Christians.
Hence, even though Islam and Secular Liberals should hate each other to the point of refusing to enable one another, they will temporarily forge an alliance with one another to drive out Christianity and Christians.
Makes me glad to be a follower of Christ. Seriously.
Secularist regimes like Saddam Hussein's were actually quite good at keeping militant Islamic factions in check. Sure, it was oppressive to many, but compare the rights of women in Hussein's Iraq to current-day Saudi Arabia.
ReplyDeletePraying for them and evangelizing is a nice gesture, but modern Christians are going to have come up with a political (and yes, secular) solution to dealing with the small (but very real) percentage of Muslims who are willing to overturn every native right we have in America and who are even interested in destroying the lives of innocent people in the process.
This means: taking seriously and investigating calls for violent jihad made by Islamic clerics in this country and when necessary, shutting them down and imprisoning them for seditious conspiracy.
How does that require a secular solution, James? Doesn't it instead depend upon morality that is based on Christian principals in the first place? Because you sure won't find those rights in secular grounds.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to try.
James said,
ReplyDelete"Praying for them and evangelizing is a nice gesture, but modern Christians are going to have come up with a political (and yes, secular) solution . . ."
1. I didn't say that Christians should *only* pray. Such a comment demonstrates a myopic view of Christians. I also suggested that Christians minister the gospel to them to turn them from darkness to light so that their murderous intentions will be changed to love for their neighbor. I also noted that we must become familiar with their worldview not only for the purposes of evangelism, but also to protect and defend ourselves from them if necessary. This means vying for our first and second amendment rights (freedom of speech and a right to bear arms).
2. Given atheism and naturalism, the jihadists are just doing what every other animal does, using their various "tools" to get their genes pushed into the next generation, so what's the problem? Such inconsistency reveals the bankruptcy of your secularism.
3. I too challenge you to provide transcendent grounding for your "oughts", for if you cannot do so (and you can't), then you are the proud owner of the naturalistic fallacy.
Peter, although the rights of freedom of speech and religious expression are certainly upheld as values within some of Christian thought, I'm not so sure it's peculiar to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteThey certainly weren't part of Calvin's Geneva. Modern Christian Reconstructionists like Rushdoony and Gary North would like to implement a theonomy whereby civil government has the ability to punish those who openly present dissenting religious views - whatever that means. (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe179.htm).
In the end, folks who respect these rights as integral to life in this country are going to have agree to work to protect these rights, whether they agree on the philosophies providing the framework for this interest or not.
James said:
ReplyDeleteSecularist regimes like Saddam Hussein's were actually quite good at keeping militant Islamic factions in check. Sure, it was oppressive to many, but compare the rights of women in Hussein's Iraq to current-day Saudi Arabia.
I would think these are two separate issues which may or may not be related to one another. First, the issue of whether a dictatorial regime like Hussein's was better at keeping militant Islamic factions in check than, say, a democratic Iraq. And then the issue of whether a dictatorial regime or a Muslim regime is the more oppressive one (e.g. vis-a-vis women's rights).
Peter, although the rights of freedom of speech and religious expression are certainly upheld as values within some of Christian thought, I'm not so sure it's peculiar to Christianity.
They certainly weren't part of Calvin's Geneva.
1. Of course, whether they were or weren't part of Calvin's Geneva isn't the issue. That's not what Dusman or Peter said.
2. As you've framed it, the issue is whether certain rights found in our nation (e.g. women's rights, freedom of speech) can be better grounded in biblical morality/ethics vs. secular morality/ethics.
3. BTW, just because we have certain rights in the US doesn't necessarily mean these rights are biblical. But that's another topic.
4. I'll point out that so far you've just been making one assertion after another. You haven't actually made any sort of an argument.
In the end, folks who respect these rights as integral to life in this country are going to have agree to work to protect these rights, whether they agree on the philosophies providing the framework for this interest or not.
I don't think that's right. I think the foundations do matter. It'd be like a pro-life activitist saying: "What matters isn't so much whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, what personhood entails, etc. Rather what matters is the fact that we're all against abortion."
James said,
ReplyDelete". . . although the rights of freedom of speech and religious expression are certainly upheld as values within some of Christian thought, I'm not so sure it's peculiar to Christianity."
Another red herring.
"They certainly weren't part of Calvin's Geneva. Modern Christian Reconstructionists like Rushdoony and Gary North would like to implement a theonomy whereby civil government has the ability to punish those who openly present dissenting religious views - whatever that means. (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe179.htm)."
Again, why is any of that *wrong* given naturalism?
"In the end, folks who respect these rights as integral to life in this country are going to have agree to work to protect these rights, whether they agree on the philosophies providing the framework for this interest or not.
Where do these "shoulds" and "oughts" come from if we're all mere molecules in motion?
James said,
ReplyDelete"They certainly weren't part of Calvin's Geneva. Modern Christian Reconstructionists like Rushdoony and Gary North would like to implement a theonomy whereby civil government has the ability to punish those who openly present dissenting religious views - whatever that means. (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe179.htm)."
What's wrong with this given atheism?
James goes on to say, "In the end, folks who respect these rights as integral to life in this country are going to have agree to work to protect these rights, whether they agree on the philosophies providing the framework for this interest or not."
Where do these "shoulds" and "oughts" come from if people are just matter in motion?
James said:
ReplyDelete---
Peter, although the rights of freedom of speech and religious expression are certainly upheld as values within some of Christian thought, I'm not so sure it's peculiar to Christianity.
---
It doesn't matter if it's "peculiar to Christianity" or not. What matters is if it can be defended by Christian principals (it can) and if it can be defended by non-Christian principals (it can't).
James said:
---
They certainly weren't part of Calvin's Geneva. Modern Christian Reconstructionists like Rushdoony and Gary North would like to implement a theonomy whereby civil government has the ability to punish those who openly present dissenting religious views - whatever that means.
---
So? I can show why that viewpoint is in error based on Biblical reasoning. You can't show it's in error based on secular reasoning.
James said:
---
In the end, folks who respect these rights as integral to life in this country are going to have agree to work to protect these rights, whether they agree on the philosophies providing the framework for this interest or not.
---
In what end? You want to steal Christian capital and use it to deny Christianity. Your position isn't located at the correct end.
I agree that I'd rather have a secularist defend my right to freedom of speech than to have an Islamist take that right from me; but the secularist position will fall from it's own weight in the end, so I can only rely on them as much as I would rely on a broken reed for a walking stick.
Dusman writes: "Where do these "shoulds" and "oughts" come from if people are just matter in motion?"
ReplyDeleteHave I suggested this? I don't recall that I've ever stated I subscribed to a purely material and naturalist philosophy.
It's a false dichotomy to suggest that because someone rejects (or questions) your understanding of the Bible that they are therefore nihilist materialists.
James said,
ReplyDelete"It's a false dichotomy to suggest that because someone rejects (or questions) your understanding of the Bible that they are therefore nihilist materialists."
Fair enough, but if you have been misrepresented then it is no one's fault but your own. Other than the fact that you are clearly an unbeliever, you have provided no information as to what you believe nor have we been given any information as to your basic operating assumptions. Given the style of this blog, you can't blame us when we issue return fire regardless of what type of "enemy fire" is coming our way, especially when the majority of it comes from naturalistic materialists.
Cheers,
Dusman