Suicide bombers in the Bible?

Philip Jenkins argues that Samson's suicide in the temple -- "down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived." (Judges 16:30) is an ANE equivalent of the contemporary suicide bomber. Do you agree?

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) July 15, 2019

At a generic level there's some analogy between Samson and suicide bombers. That, however, is a deceptive comparison. "Suicide bomber" has very specific connotations in modern usage. The stereotypical suicide bomber is:

• A Muslim jihadist
• Casts himself in the role of a martyr
• Expects his death will seal his entrance into Paradise, with a harem of nubile virgins eagerly awaiting his arrival
• Is protesting Israel's "occupation" of "Palestinian" land.
• Is killing Jewish civilians indiscriminately

By contrast, Samson is targeting the Philistine ruling class, thereby decimating their ability to threaten Israel. While he may be motivated by personal revenge, he's playing his divinely-appointed role as a guardian of Israel.

A more accurate analogy would be the plot to assassinate Hitler, which targeted the Führer and his war cabinet.

"IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE!"

We will never be a Socialist or Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America. Certain people HATE our Country....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 15, 2019

In light of Pres. Trump's recent remarks directed at Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib:

Is Trump our Sharon?

A parallel occurred to me between Israeli and American politics. To my knowledge, the Israeli electorate is generally quite liberal (although the demographics may be changing since pious Jews have bigger families than secular Jews.) In the past, Jewish voters used to alternate between hawkish prime ministers and dovish prime ministers. However, every time a dovish prime minister bent over backwards to make peace with Muslims, his efforts were rewarded by Muslims attacking Israel. As a result, liberal Israelis have been voting for very hawkish prime ministers like Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. If Israelis felt safe, if it wasn't for the security issues, figures like Netanyahu and Sharon wouldn't be viable candidates. A lot of voters dislike them. But militant Muslims have forced the Israeli electorate to move to the right for national self-preservation. Even otherwise liberal Israelis aren't suicidal.

We have an analogous situation in the US. Progressives made Donald Trump possible. And they may ensure his reelection. There are voters who wouldn't vote for Trump in normal times, but they will vote for him because he's the buffer between them and the progressive lynch mobs. 

When seconds count, police are minutes away

More of my recent debate with Darrell Bock on gun-control:

If we're going to do international comparisons, here's a broader sample group: 

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

This only goes to 2015 so recent major events in the USA are missing including Orlando, Las Vegas, and now Florida. We have had several recently which raises questions.

That cuts both ways. We'd need to update the survey to include additional jihadist attacks abroad, since I was responding to a commenter who tried to compare the USA to Australia. With that in mind:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/europe-attacks.aspx

Unclear how updating the survey helps your case. The fact that Europe is a gun-free zone, due to gun-control laws, makes it a soft target for jihadis. 

So I take it, Steve, you think we are Ok and just have to accept these incidents and make no effort to think through options.

Lots of permutations to that question. Let's break it down.

i) To begin with, I presume you appreciate the fact that we do have to accept a certain level of criminality. The best we can reasonably hope for is to keep crime at manageable levels. To prevent crime from spiraling out of control.

Utopian schemes to eradicate crime degenerate into totalitarian police state regimes that not only suppress civil liberties, but produce massive unaccountable corruption. So there are tradeoffs in a free and open society. 

ii) There is, more over, the question of whether gun control laws are symbolic feel-good measures that fail to solve the problem. For instance:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/08/why-bans-on-so-called-assault-weapons-are-unlikely-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths/

There are some things we can do to try to improve the general culture. 

iii) For instance, I know about a church where the senior pastor and the young pastor are both volunteer coaches at the local high school. 

iv) Likewise, we can defend the civil right of Jewish/Christian students to form voluntary Bible clubs in school. 

v) We should oppose the NEA's war on boys (e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers), which likely causes a backlash by creating resentful boys. 

Unfortunately, Obama voters like you made it harder to improve the general culture when you elected a man who empowered the secular progressives. 

Handicapping the Spencer/White debate

I'd like to comment on the recent radio debate between Robert Spencer and James White, hosted and moderated by Michael Brown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCWsabA5Y4

1. The larger context of this debate is the current political situation in the Mid-East, Africa, Europe, the UK, and the USA, where Muslims are a source of violence and oppression. Apologists for Islam claim that critics are misrepresenting Islam. 

The burning question is whether the very nature of Islam is the source of the problem. Does Islam pose an existential threat to Jews, Christians, and democratic societies?

Is terrorism an authentic expression of Islam? Indeed, a more authentic expression of Islam?

2. One weakness of the debate was a myopic focus on terrorism or jihad. But that's not the only expression of Islamic violence. You also have honor killings, gang-rape, &c. 

3. White takes the position that Islam can develop in tolerant as well as intolerance directions. No particular development is more authentic or legitimate than another. In addition, he said his aim is to reach people where they are, reach them with what their beliefs are rather than enforce something on them.

Let's take a comparison: both Catholicism and Mormonism have undergone dramatic development. But certain kinds of development are inconsistent with the prophethood of Joseph Smith. There comes a point at which an intellectually honest Mormon should stop tweaking the Mormon paradigm and admit the paradigm is fundamentally flawed because Joseph Smith was a charlatan.

Likewise, there comes a point at which an intellectually honest Catholic must admit that post-Vatican II theology can't be squared with a divine teaching office. What we have is not a continuous logical development, but a dramatic break with the past. Compare the Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, positions taken by the BPC under Leo XIII, or Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, with subsequent positions. Compare Unam Sanctam (ratified by two ecumenical councils) with subsequent positions. Compare the Tridentine anathemas with subsequent developments. 

Protestant apologists rightly point out that these developments are illegitimate in the sense of sabotaging the notion that the Roman Magisterium enjoys special divine guidance and protection from serious error. 

Presumably, James White agrees with that. By parity of argument, certain developments in Islam would be incompatible with the prophethood of Muhammad. There's a point beyond which you can't keep tweaking the same paradigm. If the paradigm needs that much tweaking, then that's a flawed paradigm from the get-go. You need to scrap the paradigm. White either believes that Islam raises parallel issues or not. Does he take a different approach to Islam than Catholicism or Mormonism? 

4. White said Spencer's approach can lead to one of two things. Do we want to actually try to argue to Muslims that to be a true Muslim you need to become violent?

i) We need to distinguish between pragmatics and principle. People can relieve a dilemma in one of two directions. It's better that Muslims be inconsistent than consistent. 

ii) However, Christian apologists routinely take an opposing position to a logical extreme as a wedge tactic. Consider atheism. Christian apologists routinely contend that consistent atheism is logically committed to moral and existential nihilism. In theory, an atheist could be persuaded by the argument, then choose the nihilistic horn of the dilemma. Do we want an atheist to become a psychopathic killer? No.

But surely White doesn't think we should avoid pressing an atheist on the logical consequences of atheism. How else can we argue against atheism?

5. White said he can't look into people's hearts and minds to divine their intentions. True, but so what? In many situations, we're entitled to draw reasonable inferences about people's motivations. That's unavoidable. White is a culture warrior. He routinely comments on the ideology that's driving secular progressive and social justice warriors. 

6. White suggested that Spencer's position is inconsistent because Spencer is skeptical about the existence of the historical Muhammad. 

i) Spencer responded by comparing Muhammad to Macbeth. A fictional character can have a clearly identifiable profile. 

ii)  In addition, there's an elementary distinction between an outsider's perspective and an insider's perspective. Historians, philosophers, and Christian apologists are supposed to practice critical detachment. They have their own view of an ideology or religion, but they may also adopt the opposing viewpoint for the same of argument to evaluate it from the inside out. 

Obviously, Spencer doesn't have the same view of Islam that devout Muslims do. But the question at issue is how Muslims view Muhammad. Assessing Islam on its own terms. The inner logic of Islam given Muslim presuppositions. Even if Spencer thinks Muhammad is a legendary figure, Muslims do not. 

7. Is there a presumption in favor of taking Muslim disclaimers at face value? Do Muslims engage in dissimulation? White cited the example of Yasir Qadhi. That, however, raises the question of whether White is being played by Qadhi. For instance:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/christian-minister-james-white-has-kindred-spirit-in-jihadi-imam-yasir-qadhi

Three cheers for Dante's Inferno!

I've often said I think the torture chamber model of hell is an overgeneralization. I doubt hell is uniform. I expect the punishments are customized. 

That said, there are situations in which an eternal torture chamber would be poetic justice. Assuming this report is true,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-slice-nine-youths-half-8747418

I don't have any problem with God consigning the killers to an eternal torture chamber. It's something to keep in mind when sentimentalists object in principle to everlasting "torture". 

Vlad

I got into an impromptu Facebook debate over this quote:

To vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils is as much to say as there are circumstances under which you would vote for Hillary. She is an utterly corrupt politician, true enough, but anyone who thinks we couldn’t get a worse set of choices hasn’t read very much history. How about Hillary vs. Vlad the Impaler? We have gotten down to this atrocious choice because we have been following the “lesser of two evils” strategy for more than a generation.  

https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/20-hungry-mongrels.html

Some NeverTrumpers are making the same mistake as Trumpkins in reverse. Just as Trumpkins redefine principles to support Trump, some NeverTrumpers are now at risk of redefining principles to oppose Trump.  

It's one thing to argue that choosing Trump over Hillary represents a misapplication of the lesser-evil principle, another thing to reject the principle altogether. To repudiate the lesser of two evils in principle leads to moral paralysis. Leads to positions like pacifism.

Steve Hays Actually, Vlad the Impaler saved his country from Muslim conquest and subjugation.

Christopher Wood That's like saying Dubya saved America from Muslim terrorists.

Steve Hays Your reply is an argument from analogy minus the supporting argument. What do you actually know about the history of Rumania in relation to Islam? Do you deny that Vlad repelled the Muslim invaders?

In what sense did Vlad "stir" them up? He didn't provoke them to invade Rumania. The Ottoman Turks were aggressors. Anyway, you're using my comment as a pretext to attack Bush's foreign policy, That has precisely nothing to do with my original comment. And, no, I don't agree that America stirs up terrorism. I do think the Iraq war was a miscalculation, and while the Afghanistan war was just reprisal, the nation-building component was a boondoggle. Again, though, that's all irrelevant to my original comment.

"It's not irrelevant, it reveals your position. You seem to think that 'they started it' is a reasonable defense."

A reasonable defense of what? If Ottoman Turks attack Europe, Europeans have the right to counterattack. Yes, it does matter who started an unprovoked war of aggression. 

If an armed burglar breaks into my house, I have the right to kill him. Yes, it makes a difference who started it. Sorry if that rudimentary moral distinction eludes you.

Perhaps you think the Ottoman Turks were peacenik vegans who wore love beads and Nehru jackets until Europeans "stirred them up."

"'Miscalculation' is a great euphemism for something that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians."

Since I'm not defending the Iraq war, I have no need for euphemisms. Of course, prior to the Iraq war, there were constant complaints about how the UN sanctions were killing innocent Iraqis. 

From what I've read, most of the civilian causalities in Iraq were inflicted by the "insurgents," not Coalition forces.

Speaking of which, it wasn't just an American operation. For instance, British forces made significant contributions to the war effort. Is it chauvinism that prevents you from making Tony Blair share some of the blame?

"And I suppose you think the regular drone bombings with their associated 'collateral damage' are also justified?"

That's obtuse. Since I said at the outset that I don't support the Iraq war, it follows that I don't think drone bombings in relation to the Iraq war are justified. 

Or were you referring to drone attacks in general? Just about every war has collateral damage. Drone attacks didn't create collateral damage for the first time in military history. So unless your a pacifist, what precisely is your objection? 

Collateral damage is justified if the war is justified, and collateral damage is a necessary side-effect of prosecuting a justifiable war. So the real issue take us a step back to whether the war in question is justifiable, and not the incidental, but inevitable consequences of said war.

"I'm sorry if the rudimentary moral distinction between self-defence and war eludes you."

That's simple-minded. Try to wrap your head around the principle of a common defense. Self-defense often requires people to pool their resources. So to posit a disjunction between war and self-defense is a false dichotomy. Any other logical fallacies I can help you with?

"Yes drone attacks in general, the US has been striking many countries in addition to Iraq."

So you're actually not talking about drone attacks in general, but US drone attacks in particular. 

"but so far as I know, bombing civilian targets has never been shown to be an effective strategy."

Tell that to the Japanese.

Moreover, you somehow treat collateral damage as synonymous with targeting civilians. Thanks for illustrating your basic conceptual confusions.

"Bombing military installations, airfields, and production is quite different to assassinating families or bombing schools and hospitals."

That overlooks the use of schools and hospitals as human shields. Something Muslims in Israel routinely do (to take one example).

"Are you really saying Vlad's violence was all justified, incidental and inevitable?"

If that's what I was really saying, you could simply quote me saying that. If you have to ask, then the question answers itself.

"War is simply common self-defence only in ideals, not the real world."

Except that you deny that you're a pacifist. So where does your dichotomy between self-defense and common defense leave you? Are you saying self-defense is moral, but common defense is immoral? Yet you apparently grant the necessity of common defense in some situations.

"US is just the most prolific example (by far)."

You still don't get it. The question at issue is whether you reject drone attacks in principle. 

"There is little doubt that Japan was going to surrender even without the city bombing."

What was the incentive to surrender? Fear of invasion from the US or Russia? That would have resulted in massive civilian casualties.

"Granted it may have taken slightly longer, but that doesn't justify the massive loss of life."

You suffer from persistent inability to keep track of the argument. I didn't comment on the morality of nuking Japan one way or the other. Rather, I responded to your allegation that "so far as I know, bombing civilian targets has never been shown to be an effective strategy."

Whether or not nuking Japan was justifiable is a separate question from whether that was an effective strategy. You need to acquire the mental discipline to follow the argument and stick with one issue at a time. 

From what I've read, Nagaskii was a secondary target. The primary target was Kokura, which had greater military significance. However, it was cloudy over Kokura when the bomber arrived at the site, so they fell back on Nagasaki.

"No, targeting civilians is often called 'collateral damage'"

Often called by whom? By people who don't know the conceptual distinction? 

"Whether a case of 'we bombed these houses because we thought a target was in them' or rules of engagement that encourage firing on non-combatants."

Typically, an ethical distinction is drawn between intended harm and foreseen harm as an indirect, but unavoidable effect of doing good. 

"So if someone uses your family as human shields, you think it's simply justified to kill them?"

Try to keep more than one idea in your mind at a time. The answer depends in part on which side of the conflict is in the wrong.

"Then you should take back your statement about 'the incidental, but inevitable consequences of said war."

Which, once again, illustrates your failure to grasp the distinction between targeting civilians and collateral damage. "Targeting" civilians is a term of art. Pay attention to the ethical distinction I drew a few sentences above.

Just war theory maintains a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. I was talking about the loss of life of Japanese civilians."

i) I haven't framed the issue in terms of just-war theory. I haven't used just-war terminology. Rather, I've talked about what's "justified" or "justifiable". 

ii) Since I'm not Roman Catholic, I don't regard just-war theory as morally authoritative. It makes sense for Catholics like Elizabeth Anscombe and Germain Grisez to espouse nuclear pacifism because they treat just-war theory as dogma, but that's not my framework. I'm Protestant. 

iii) The distinction between combatants and noncombatants is often ad hoc. Is the guy who flies bombers fair game, but they guy who builds bombers off-limits? Just defaulting to the combatant/non-combatant false dichotomy is morally frivolous. We need a more fine-grained analysis.

On the face of it, your position is morally incoherent. On the one hand you deny that your'e a pacifist. On the other hand, you seem to repudiate the permissibility of collateral damage.

i) There are situations where harming the innocent is unavoidable regardless of what you do or refrain from doing. Either you will harm them or you will permit the enemy to harm them, because you refuse to intervene.

ii) Given that forced option, it is permissible to harm some innocents with a view to saving other innocents. 

iii) You should minimize the harm done consistent with doing good. 

Put another way, There are situations where an agent performs an action that has two effects: one good and one bad. Moreover, inaction on the agent's part will have a bad effect, without the compensatory good effect.

The action may still be licit provided that the intended effect desired by the agent is good while the bad effect is merely foreseen, and not intended.

An advantage of inflicting harm yourself, rather than leaving it to the enemy to inflict harm, is that you have more control over how, where, when, and to whom the harm is inflicted. You can be more discriminating than the enemy, and minimize the harm, or mitigate the harm the enemy would do.

If you reject that principle, you need to explain why you're not a pacifist.

Did Christianity Spread by the Sword?

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2016/06/did-christianity-spread-by-sword.html

Why atheists ought to vote Christian

Recently, Marco Rubio responded to an atheist. It was a good off-the-cuff answer, especially for somebody who's not a philosopher:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430036/marco-rubio-responds-atheist-civility-and-truth

But here's how I'd respond to the atheist. Let's begin with his question:

You say you want to stand up for religious freedom. My question is for atheist voters who are looking somebody who will uphold their rights as Americans: how do you plan on upholding our rights? 

There are different ways of fielding that question, but here's one way: either your rights come from God or government. That's what it boils down to.

God-given rights are above government. God-given rights are normally inalienable, although, in some cases, it's possible to do something that forfeits your ordinary immunity to harm. 

By contrast, if your rights derive from gov't, then whatever gov't gives it can rescind. What rights you have at any particular time and place depends on what rights the ruling class chooses to grant. Your rights exist at the indulgence of the state. And the state is capricious. 

Since atheism has no absolute standard, some groups have more rights than others, and it rotates. Take identity politics. The establishment adopts a social mascot. After a while it gets bored with its toy and abandons that for a new social mascot.

For instance, anti-Semitism used to be chic. That was popular among the educated classes. Then, after the Holocaust, the establishment was pro-Israel. But later the establishment shifted from pro-Israel to pro-Palestinian. So it's come full circle. We're right back to anti-Semitism. 

In addition, the establishment has a pecking order. It supports black rights and Latino rights unless that conflicts with gay rights. Asians take a backseat to blacks and Latinos in college admissions. It supports blacks so long as they are dutifully liberal. It supports women so long as they are dutifully liberal.

There's now a civil war between feminists and transsexuals. Feminism is the old guard. But feminism is passé. Feminism is based on gender essentialism whereas transgenderism is based on gender conventionalism. Gender is a social construct. Gender is not about plumbing or chromosomes but how you self-identify. Transgenderism is the new fad. Feminists are losing their hegemony. The ruling class has found a new social mascot to pamper. 

It's like a king with royal wives and mistresses. His favorite one year may be demoted the next year. 

In the pecking order, the ruling class has decided that Muslims have greater rights than anyone else. Muslim rights not only trump Christian rights, but Jewish rights, gay rights, women's rights, &c.

A secular ruling class won't protect atheists from Muslims. It's demonstrated that repeatedly in Europe and the UK. Ironically, atheists can't trust their fellow atheists to defend their life and well being from Muslim religionists. 

The primary opposition to sharia and jihad is coming from conservative Christians (and Jews). It's the Christians who are standing between atheists and Muslim oppressors. Likewise, only Christians will protect the right of atheists not to be aborted or euthanized. 

If atheists want to be safe, they should vote for Christian candidates.

Asking for trouble

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/10/finding_sensible_rulers.html

Patronizing evil

One of the striking things about life in a fallen world is the spectacle of evil or dangerous people with powerful friends who protect and promote them. So often, evildoers have patrons who excuse them and empower them. 

In response to yesterday's college massacre, Democrats immediately called for gun control, ignoring the fact that the shooter was (reportedly) targeting Christians. Ignore the real motivation. 

Consider Obama's policy towards Muslims. His plan is to effectively subsidize the Iranian nuclear weapons program by dropping sanctions while simultaneously sending them a huge foreign aid package. 

Likewise, consider his domestic policy. Under his watch, we've had a string of jihadist attacks on American soil. This includes Muslims in uniform. His response is to blame everything and everyone else except Islam. And he has a plan to import tens of thousands of "Syrian refuees" (euphemism alert) into the US.  

Or take the promotion of Muslim Rep. André Carson to sensitive national security positions. Why take the risk? Why invite disaster? 

On a related front is Obama's nomination of an open homosexual to be the next Army secretary. Likewise, giving homosexuals access to underage kids (e.g. homosexual Scout leaders). And we now have an incipient movement to mainstream pedophilia. 

The pattern is to promote the most subversive elements of society to positions of power and influence. Once motivation is to prove how tolerant we are. The onus is not on Muslims (or homosexuals) to prove that they are trustworthy. Rather, the onus is on us to trust them. To give them every benefit of the doubt. Put others at risk. 

This is nothing new. Last year there was a hagiographic film (The Imitation Game) about Alan Turing. His security clearance was revoked, which many people find unfair. Keep in mind, though, that Turing was a member of the same Cambridge circle that produced the infamous spy ring (e.g. Philby, Burgess, Blunt). 

And that's not coincidental.You had the intersection of the Cambridge Apostles with the Bloomsbury circle. A common denominator was atheism. In addition, many members were avid homosexuals. No doubt this was fueled by the boarding school system. 

Between homosexuality, atheism, and academia, they represented a countercultural outlook that was contemptuous of normal men and women who get married and have children. In the nature of the case, homosexuality cultivates a carpe diem philosophy. They don't think in terms of posterity. It's a childless youth culture.

They really were a security risk. And spies like Blunt evidently had friends in high places who protected him. Why might that be? One reason is the possibility of blackmail. People like Blunt were in a position to out high-ranking officials. 

But above and beyond that, atheism and homosexuality sap a capacity for genuine moral disapproval. Loyalty was defined by allegiance to the cult of homosexuality. Likewise, atheism fosters moral relativism–or nihilism. 

Its a subculture that doesn't identify with normal human social life. It has contempt for Christian morality. Contempt for the common lumpen.  Alienated from all that's natural, normal, good, and decent. 

Carson kerfuffle

Ben Carson is hardly my first pick for prez. However, the typical reaction to his Muslim president comment reflects a characteristic chasm between the political elite and the rank-and-file. I seriously doubt most conservative voters had any problem with his answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424671/islam-ben-carson-krauthammer

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424379/ben-carson-and-islam-andrew-c-mccarthy

White House spy

Predictable, Ben Carson is getting pounded (even at NRO) for an answer he gave to Meet the Press. Here's the whole exchange:

CHUCK TODD:

Let me wrap this up by finally dealing with what's been going on, Donald Trump, and a deal with a questioner that claimed that the president was Muslim. Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

DR. BEN CARSON:

Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

CHUCK TODD:

So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

DR. BEN CARSON:

No, I don't, I do not.

CHUCK TODD:

So you--

DR. BEN CARSON:

I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

CHUCK TODD:

And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress?

DR. BEN CARSON:

Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-september-20-2015-n430581

i) He was speaking off-the-cuff. And he's not an expert on Islam.

That said, his answer was perfectly reasonable. He gave a nicely qualified answer. 

As a matter of fact, Islamic theology/ideology is antithetical the US Constitution. Islam demands a coercive state religion. Religious dissent is either intolerable or punished by fines. Non-Muslims don't have the same civil/legal rights as Muslims.

A nominal, secularized Muslim might reject all that, but then, he isn't really a functional Muslim.

ii) I'd add, going beyond what Carson said, that Islam is the religion of our mortal enemy. And that's not an incidental relationship. Islam is what is motivating our mortal enemy. That's what fuels jihad. 

To have a pious Muslim president would be making our enemy the commander-in-chief. It would give him access to all our classified intelligence and classified military technology. In effect, it would be putting a foreign spy in charge of the CIA, Pentagon, &c.  It's like asking if, during the Cold War, a Leninist should be the US president. That would instantly subjugate us to the enemy.  

Censorship tropes in the media

http://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

The pope and the PLO

The Vatican has formally recognized "the State of Palestine." I suppose there's a certain logic in that. A fictitious vicar of Christ makes a treaty with the fictitious state of the fictitious Palestinian people. What it lacks in reality, it makes up for in symmetry. 

A few quick observations:

i) This is additional evidence that the church of Rome has become just another mainline denomination. It is not a moral leader, but a moral follower. It takes its cue from the secular elite.

The church of Rome has had some lingering conservatism on ethical issues. However, under Pope Francis, even that residual conservatism is rapidly eroding.

ii) It's nice to see the Vatican give formal recognition to a jihadist terrorist state. Such moral discernment!

iii) Then we have this statement:

Hanan Ashrawi, PLO executive committee member, welcomed the Vatican's recognition of the state of Palestine.
In a statement, Ashrawi said: "The significance of this recognition goes beyond the political and legal into the symbolic and moral domains and sends a message to all people of conscience that the Palestinian people deserve the right to self-determination, formal recognition, freedom and statehood." 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/vatican-palestine-recognition-150513171949183.html

Ashrawi was an instrumental propagandist. She's the daughter of the PLO cofounder. 

When Peter Jennings was Beruit bureau chief, she became his girlfriend. Recruiting him to the "Palestinian" cause proved to be a very strategic dalliance. It's hard not to suspect that she functioned as a honeypot or Mata Hari. Seducing Peter Jennings was a public relations bonanza for the PLO. He went on to become the ABC anchorman, in which position he could influence elite opinion, recasting Muslim terrorists in the role of freedom fighters, victimized by Israel. Having a PLO plant at the helm of a major American news network was quite a coup, facilitating a successful propaganda campaign.

A time to love, and a time to hate

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/418067/print

I double dare you!

Unsurprisingly, there's lots of moral confusion regarding how to respond to the jihadist attack in Garland. The kneejerk liberal response is that the organizers of the event are to blame because they incited Muslims to violence.

Of course, this treats Muslims as if they have no impulse control. If, in fact, that's the case, then Muslims are dangerous. You can't have a functional society in which a significant block of adults lack impulse control. 

Then you have Christians who are conflicted because they think it's wrong to give unnecessary offense. But that's confused.

i) To begin with, there's an elementary difference between what I might do, and defending the right of somebody else, even if what he did isn't something I'd do. 

It's not a question of whether he should do it, but whether he should be free to do it. 

ii) Relatedly, if somebody draws a line in the sand and dares you to cross it, sometimes it's necessary to call his bluff. If we don't do that, we embolden people, empower people, cede power to people, who will abuse that usurpatious power to dictate to the rest of us what we're allowed to say, think, or do. 

If they dare us not to do something, and we capitulate, we've given them power over us. Power to tyrannize us.

So, yes, sometimes it's necessary to make them back down. Sometimes it's necessary to force the issue. They need to lose. 

iii) That doesn't mean we do it all the time. We should pick our battles.

Suppose I don't normally frequent Chick-Fil-A. Suppose, though, the power elite declares a day in which customers should boycott Chick-Fil-A to protest its adherence to Christian sexual ethics. 

In that event, I might go out of my way to patronize Chick-Fil-A on that day to express soldarity with the beleaguered business and foil the boycott.  

"Christian Zionism and American Evangelicalism"

Arminian Bible scholar Scot McKnight quoted a boilerplate attack on Israel by former Sojourners' editor, "journalist," and "social justice" activist Ryan Rodrick Beiler:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/03/25/christian-zionism-and-american-evangelicalism/

This, in turn, elicited two corrective comments from a reader:

Luke
Scot, I was on the tour (mentioned in the article) that visited Alex Awad in Bethlehem. One of the things that the article missed is that while many of the people in my group could agree with Alex on points of theology i.e.. Jesus fulfills the need for a sacrifice, etc. The nationalism that permeates much of the Palestinian Christian church turned a lot of people off. It is a complicated conflict, but if Christians are going to argue for a Palestinian state they need to do so on the basis of basic human rights. Unfortunately, those human rights are absent from the Palestinian Territories apart from anything Israel might be doing. The PA has promised that a future state would be based on Sharia. It regularly intimidates journalists who challenge the corruption within the leadership. The PA has also promised a future state would not permit Jews to live there. So it is difficult for me to see how one can argue about justice for a people that promises to be unjust to its own people. Please [be] more thoughtful. 

To your question, within the Palestinian Christian community there are several key groups. One group is the old churches like the Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran churches. This group is largely nationalist and very influenced by Palestinian Liberation Theology,ie "Palestinians are crucified every day..." type rhetoric. The second group would be the Evangelical churches that are evangelistic to a degree, but are reluctant to criticize the PA and are very anti-zionist. The third is the Evangelical churches that are overtly evangelistic and are not anti-Israel. There is a surprising number of these churches. The most famous among those of us that engage in this stuff is Bethlehem Baptist Church. As you might imagine those groups do not get along well. 

When my groups went to Bethlehem we met with leaders from the two Evangelical camps. It was a stark difference that my group picked up immediately. The anti-zionist Evangelicals spent a lot of time talking about their struggle with the occupation (which I accept is significant) while the evangelistic Evangelical church talked about his outreach to the community, the small groups and small businesses they were trying to assist. So the issue was less theological and more political. The less political the church, the more pressure they receive from their own side (if you are soft on Israel you are seen as a collaborator), but the gospel is changing hearts. By nationalism I am meaning that sense you get when the political seems to be the priority focus and the gospel is used as a political tool. 

I could go on... The situation is very complex and deserves more than all Christian Zionists are heretics and all Palestinians are terrorist type rhetoric. If you can avoid that stuff you will help greatly.

Should Christians support a Palestinian state?

http://philosproject.org/should-christians-support-a-palestinian-state/

Urban II

Since Obama has dusted off the chestnut of the Crusades, here's the primary source that got the ball rolling:

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html