Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Part II

Divided Nation / Divided Christians

Reading the comments in social media is alarming to me. It seems to me that many Christians today are traveling the same path that Islamic radicals are traveling they feel they are right and there is no discussion on the matter.

I believe that the Quran contains passages about fighting and I believe that the Bible contains passages about fighting that we would not agree with in 2016. I believe most Muslims today read those passages in  the same way most Christians read stories from Joshua in our Bible about the killing of Canaanite men, women, and children.  Most Muslims and Christians do not see these passages as commands to kill those who do not share their faith. However there are some Islamic extremists that see the Quran’s passages about the rules of engagement in wars from Mohammed’s time and prior as permission for violent activities and there are some Christians extremists (generally those who translate the Bible literally) that see the violence in the Bible towards those that did not believe as they did as a pass to violence today. The Quran and the Bible all contain passages that are not peaceful and passages that are peaceful. It is how we react and interpret those passages that makes the difference in 2016.

The Five Pillars of Islam are: (1) There is only one God – Christians should not have a problem with that; (2) Pray five times a day – it would be helpful if Christians adopted that practice; (3) Give to support the needy – Christians have always believed that; (4) Fast from dawn till sundown during the month of Ramadan – many Christians practice the tradition of fasting and I believe it is a healthy tradition; and (5) If possible make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime – many Christians go to Israel each year and many more would like to make a pilgrimage to Israel.

You see we have many things in common. Why don’t we try and concentrate on those things. Why do we generalize that all Christians and all Islamist are bad? Why are the extremist on both sides determined to prove that the Quran and the Bible is evil from beginning to end?

There are divisions among Christians and there are divisions among Muslims. Muslims and Christians have their own liberals, moderates, conservatives, fundamentalists, and extremists.

ISIS truly believes what it professes: that it is engaged in a conflict to bring about the end times. The primary enemies of ISIS are other Muslims who do not share their beliefs. The Islamic view of end times involves victory in a climactic battle in Syria among all the nations of the world and God’s people.  I would say the majority of Christians believe that there will be a climatic battle in the Middle East among nations and God’s people. Because Fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Extremist believe what they are doing is God’s work they are a difficult force to fight. Is it even possible to win over Christians who think God wants all homosexuals dead and when they voice hated for homosexuals they are doing God’s work or Islamist that believe God wants all Christians dead? I honestly do not know. If it is it will take a mighty work of the Holy Spirit to do so.

The division in the U.S.A. now over racism, disdain for the police, riots in the streets, a few rogue police officers, yelling at  one another on Kelly’s show (FOX) and bigoted social media post does not speak well around the world for the U.S.A. or Christianity. I think a  lot of people around the world and in the U.S.A. believe some American’s are acting as extremist. Many of us want to think of ourselves as a Christian Nation so we should act like it.

Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, expresses how we are to wage spiritual war: never avenging ourselves, never repaying evil for evil, overcoming evil with good. Most of us believe it’s wrong to judge an entire category of people based on the actions of a relatively small number of extremists within that group. At the same time, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists within our midst have heightened our concerns about future attacks — from Adam Hamilton. I am not saying we should not use military force against ISIS. I am saying we cannot generalize about any group of people and we must be careful to the best of our ability to target ISIS and not all Muslims in general. I certainly do not want to be associated with literal radical Bible interpreters and many Muslims do not want to be associated with I.S.I.S.

We have legitimate fears about attacks by Islamic extremists, but how do we apply our faith in ways that balance those concerns for people’s safety with our belief that it is wrong to judge someone only on the basis of religion or nationality or gender or sexual inclination?

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21). These scriptures are extreme and it  may be impossible to follow all of them, but the harder we try to follow them the better we will be and the world will be.

We are not battling Islam, because there is no such thing as one Islam. One Islam cannot be extracted from the numerous offshoots, branches, and sects that make the world's 1.3 billion Muslims as ideologically, religiously, and politically fractured as the other two monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism.

The "War on Terror" should really be called the "War on Militant Islam or War on Radical Islamic Terrorist." The terrorists of September 11, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban all adhere to an ideology we have come to know as militant Islam, a minority outgrowth of the faith that exudes a bitter hatred for Western ideas, including capitalism, individualism, and consumerism.

It rejects the West and much that it has to offer seeking instead to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran and sharia (Islamic law). America, as radical Muslims see it, is the primary impediment to building an Islamic world order.  Radical Muslims have a history of violence against American, Western, and even Muslim interests. But the movement did not appear spontaneously it has taken 14 centuries to evolve.

Many Muslims adapted to the fast-paced changes common to Western industrialization and modernization, but some Muslims rejected them. Instead, they created a rigid ideology embedded in the traditional values and laws of the Koran. This is the known today as Islamic fundamentalism, or Islamism.

Islamism represents a yearning for the "pure" Islam as practiced by the prophet. Not unlike the American Amish, the movement rejects much that is innovative. Islamist, however, take the rejection of modernity a step further. They perceive those who have introduced these innovations as its enemy.

Islamist Radical Muslim Terrorist not only reject the influence of the West, they reject the legitimacy of their own governments in the Arabic world, which they see as subservient to the West. Therefore the overthrow of these regimes has become an important part of their agenda.

The biggest push for this agenda came in 1928, with the founding of the Ikhwan al-Muslim or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This organization became the cornerstone for most of today's Islamist movements, advocating Islamic beliefs and values as expressed by the common Egyptian. The organization rejected western rule and England's secular influence over Egypt. Obama made a grave mistake when he embraced the Muslim Brotherhood over the dictator ruling Egypt for over three decades.

"The earthquake" came in 1979 when Iran became the first modern Islamic republic, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew Iran's secular regime and established a new order in which sharia became law. Suddenly, Islamism was no longer an ideology of movements. It had inspired a state. America's first violent introduction to militant Islam came shortly after Khomeini's Islamic Republic was established in 1979, when Islamic extremists seized the U.S. embassy in the Iranian capital of Tehran.

Given that militant Islam has plagued America for 22 years the attacks of September 11 should not have been surprising. A trend had been established. So, perhaps the biggest shock of that tragic day was the nation's utter surprise. Psychologically, America was completely unprepared for the attacks - why? I think because our government has refused to make it clear who our real enemy is and name them – all for the sake of political correctness and a President Obama that seems to have some need to defend ALL Islam thinking that we are so naive that if we reject some Islam we will reject it all.

Bin Laden's own words. "We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars...We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God."

Militant Islam has strongholds in Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan, to name just a few countries. The challenge now for the western world is finding ways to destroy the radical infrastructure and arrest or kill militants while bolstering the influence of moderate Muslims.  No one in the Obama administration seems to know how we can accomplish this task. We cannot win without the support of moderate Muslims.  Hatred of ALL Muslims is not going to gain the support of moderate Muslims. Americans must come to terms on who are enemy really is and it is not ALL Muslims.

Until we Americans learn to love ourselves and each other we cannot expect the world to love and respect us. If we want to talk about Radical Islamic Recruitment I would imagine showing the division among our people is a great tool to use in their recruiting. One 30 second video of Americans fighting among ourselves in the streets is worth millions of words. It becomes okay to kill homosexuals if you can demonstrate that even your enemies, the Americans, hate homosexuals. It is easy to claim that Americans are out to destroy you if you can demonstrate that Americans are willing to destroy other Americans that do not agree with them. Finally it is easy to demonstrate that Democratic Laws do not work when we take to the streets and riot over injustice in our country rather than engaging in civil conversations about our differences and injustices.  

We are divided as a Country and as Christians.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Abraham Lincoln is most known for that quote, but actually Jesus Christ said if before Abraham Lincoln even thought of it.  

Our Nation is more divided today than I have ever seen it in my lifetime. It is worse than during the turmoil of the 60’s when Vietnam and Love-Ins were festering topics.

How are we divided well let us count the ways: 

We do not listen to one another any longer. If someone does not agree with us we question their motivation. Immediately anyone who does not agree with our religion or our politics or our views in general are judged stupid and evil. We are no longer willing to have reasonable discussions and reach a consensus on what we have in common and work from there.

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats had difference in opinions on how the country should be run. But, we did not hate one another and try to destroy one another. We had political differences and that was it – simple.  The elections came and went and the losers accepted their loss and we moved on as one supporting the elected candidates. What is ironic is there are far fewer differences in the two parties than ever before and we do our best to destroy each other before and after the election and nothing productive is ever accomplished.

One only has to follow social media to see that we no longer have thoughtful, and respectful discussions. We no longer are interested in trying to win anyone over to our way of thinking, instead with our words we do all we can to turn them away by attacking their sincerity, intelligence and faith.

What happen to LOVE!  Mention homosexuality to some Christians and you will see the most vicious, vile rhetoric come from their heart and their mouths. The Orlando massacre shined a light on the bigotry of some lay and some ministers within the church. For example, “I wish one Saturday night a group of people would organize all around the country and go to every gay bar in America and kill ever single queer in there and that would stop them from leading our children and grandchildren astray”, “They were not afraid in that restroom in that queer bar in Orlando. They were too busy having sex to be afraid”, “My only problem with the dumb terrorist in Orlando was he did not kill them all.”  The list goes on and on and on and the people vow up and down they are CHRISTIANS.

I think some Christians are going to be shocked when they reach the Pearly Gates and find them padlocked. I do not think the words some Christians are using in speaking of homosexuals are the words God wants them to use.  

I realize some Christians say they are  tired of being made into the bad guys. They’re tired of being called the bigots, the haters, etc. I was told by one Christian,  “If I do not speak out loud and clear now to stop the homosexuals one day I may lose my right to do so.” I do not think it is the agenda of homosexuals to prevent Christians from believing as they wish or to take away their right to free speech, but it is their agenda to be able to speak and live as they believe. There are bigots on both sides of the issue and if you do not want to be called a bigot then do not act like one.

At the Indiana Statehouse, Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. of the Indiana Pastors Alliance addressed a roaring crowd: “We’re not here today because we’re angry. We’re not here because we hate people. “We’re actually here,” he said, “because we love Jesus.” He went on to say, “How can government force people to act against their religious consciences — against an unshakable belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?” Has the government ask any Christian to do that?  There are laws about discriminating in a PUBLIC business. The government has only ask that we respect the rights of others to believe as they want, just as the Christians opposed to homosexuality do. 

I heard similar arguments at my Grandmothers church, First Baptist Church of Pratt City, Alabama against integration and interracial marriages. The only words coming from his mouth that I agreed with was, “I’m not asking for special protected class status. I’m asking to be left alone, for crying out loud.” Rev. Ron Johnson that is all the gay community really wants.

For some evangelical Christians, who are led by ministers like the Indiana Pastors Alliance there is no compromise. Expanding the state civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes would effectively feel like a betrayal of their constitutional rights.

Not all Christians share their views. Some Christians agree with enacting nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, including a coalition of mainline Christian denominations and a group of 141 faith leaders who signed onto a letter of support. Bishop William Gafkjen, who oversees Indiana and Kentucky congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said he doesn’t feel that adding to the civil rights law threatens his religious freedom.

Christian’s are more divided today than ever before in my lifetime. There has always been some that thought if you did not belong to their church or denomination you could not go to heaven. There has always been some that thought they were the only ones that knew how to interpret scripture. But, there are some Christians today that are nearly or they are militant about their opinions.

If you believe me to be wrong then next Sunday after church start a conversation with those you just worshiped God with about immigration.  If one person does not explode like a stick of dynamite has been ignited in them - I would be shocked.  A recent National Public Radio report noted, “Immigration is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and emotional topics in the 2016 presidential race.”  Even among us Christians.

We seem to forget that all Americans have immigrants in their genealogy if they take time to go back far enough.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned racial criteria for immigration. From that time on, people would be admitted “on the basis of their skills and their relationship to those already here” and to find refuge from oppression. The problem is not immigration the problem is that our immigration laws are not being following by our politicians. The law never intended to allow illegal immigration into our country.

 There are approximately 11.3 million persons in the U.S. today without authorization—without some kind of Visa or Green Card. Of these, roughly half came here on a Visa or Green Card that has now expired, and half came into our country by crossing the border without authorization. The problem is not all immigrants the problem is illegal immigrants and whose fault is that they have freely crossed our borders and overstayed their visa’s without any repercussion. If I was from a depressed country and could get to the Promised Land legally or illegally I would. I would especially do so when the President of that country encouraged it. Now this is the question that will set fire under some - would it be legal or illegal today for the Jewish people to take the land of the Canaanites, which is now Palestine? Would the Jewish people at that time be consider illegal aliens today?

The Bible has many references to immigrants—in fact, foreigners, strangers, and aliens are mentioned more than 150 times.

In Leviticus, God says: “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

The question of immigrants is complicated today by the extreme radical Muslims. I think the main solution to that problem is strict enforcement of our Immigration Laws. I am not convinced discrimination against any one particular group of people is the answer.

All people that desire to enter our country should be vetted and required to meet stringent guidelines regardless of their religion or country of origin.  I think people should prove they can contribute to the betterment of the United States in the future in order to enter and that seems harsh to a lot of liberal thinking Christians. I think there should be set time limits as to when they must demonstrate they have a command of the English language.  But, I am no longer for discrimination against a certain group of people.  I once was because I feared radical Islamic Muslims.

I disagree with many other Christians on taking in refugees. I am for HELPING and protecting refugees in their own homeland. I do not think as Christians we can stand by and not offer assistance, but to bring their problems to our shores when we already face so many problems I simply cannot support it. If we do allow them to enter the United States I think we have a Christian obligation to treat then as  fellow citizens of the United States.

TO BE CONTINUED

Obama persecutes Christians with his rhetoric and actions!

Obama persecutes Christians with his rhetoric and actions

If you do not think Obama persecutes Christians then consider the following items. In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration claimed that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings. President Barack Obama commented at the Easter Prayer Breakfast that some Christians are acting "less-than-loving". He cannot say the words “Islamic Terrorist”, but he has no problem being critical of Christianity. Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast compared Islamic terrorism to the Christian Crusades, but fail to mention that Muslims had their own crusades in history. Obama has failed to bring attention to Christian persecution at the hands of the Islamic State. Last year, 2015, was the worse year in modern history for the persecution of Christians. In 2015 over 7000 Christians were murdered simply because they were Christians at the hands of terrorist who share the same Islamic faith. In 2015 over 2400 churches were destroyed simply because they were Christian Churches at the hands of terrorist who share the same Islamic faith.

It is obvious that Obama has been more critical of Christians than Muslims. Why is Obama afraid of Christianity? Is Obama Muslim, Christian or neither? His actions and words lead me to think he is definitely more Muslim than Christian. If he was truly Christian he could accept people who follow the Islamic faith, pray for them, love them, help them, but like me decry in a loud voice those within the Islamic faith that practice horrible, horrendous deeds in the name of God and Islam.  He could call them for what they really are “Islamic Terrorist”.

Obama has a very strange definition of freedom of religion. His definition is not only strange to me it is foreign to me. He believes in freedom of religion as long as you agree with him, but if you disagree with him then he wants to bring all the powers of government against you. Persecution of Christians in the Middle East has gotten worse and spread within America because Obama is sympathetic to Islamic terrorist.

Obama’s views in my opinion are the results of having spent time in Indonesia growing up under the influence of his father and stepfather, both of whom were Muslim. His Christian belief came only because it made it easier for him to advance in the American society and the arena of American politics. His frame of reference is shaped by Islam not Christianity because of his youth. I must be honest and state I personally do not believe Obama believes in anything, but himself.

What do you call it when 12 Christian men are drowned at sea by Muslim men for praying to Jesus? I call it religious persecution, but Obama and Renzi (Italy) say it was not a problem or a clash between religious people of different religion it was just a onetime event that happen among angry men." While the prime minister of Italy and Obama plunged their heads into the sand the Italian authorities arrested and charged the Muslim migrants with "multiple aggravated murders motivated by religious hate.” Obama stood next to Reni and did not appear to be outraged at all by the incident. Obama’s mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually following a public outcry) are few and far between.

You still believe Obama bears no responsibility for Christian persecution around the world - a week and a half after Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being "people of the cross." They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Freedom of religion to Muslim Terrorist means - the Christian community convert to Islam or pay a tax for being Christian. Obama needs to talk more about the “Crusades”, but include the modern day “Crusades” of the Muslim Terrorist who all share the same Islamic faith and supposedly follow the same leader “Mohammad”. 

*POLITICAL NOTE: The pendulum of history swings both ways - with Obama it swung to the far left and with President Ted Cruz it will swing to the far right - we need for the pendulum to stay in the middle.

Should we give up our culture/tradition to appease Muslims?

Some politically correct politicians in Italy made a decision to cover up nude statues from Roman antiquity during a visit by President Hassan Rouhani of Iran. Some of Italy’s political leaders were willing to ignore their national identity in order not to offend Rouhani, Iran and the Muslim world.  Many of the citizens of Italy are rightly upset. They also hid the wine! Once again a non-Islamic government gave in to Islam. This is not the first time Italy has done this. During an official Saudi Arabia visit to Italy they covered up all the nude modern art.

The statues, in a corridor leading to a grand hall in Rome’s renowned Capitoline Museums, were covered in tall white boxes ahead of a news conference that Mr. Rouhani held on Monday with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy. Rouhani and Renzi say they did not ask for it to be done. The director of the museum says Prime Minister Renzi did request they be covered so as not to offend Rouhani. Some media reports suggested the Iranian delegation had asked Italian officials to hide the statues to avoid Mr. Rouhani any potential embarrassment in Iran.  Maybe they should have held the news conference at McDonalds or Kentucky Fried Chicken – no pork and no nude statues.

One Italian newspaper reported that in the grand hall at the Capitoline where the two leaders spoke, the lectern was moved to the side — not the front — of an equestrian statue of the emperor Marcus Aurelius to avoid having images of the horse’s genitals appear in news photographs.

One of the statues was the “Capitoline Venus,” a Roman copy of a legendary fourth century B.C. work by Praxiteles; some of the other sculptures were of ancient Greek and Roman gods, dressed minimally, if at all. I understand an austere Islamic government that promotes chastity and piety was visiting a country with a largely secular culture that has a reputation for embracing life’s pleasures, but I believe St. Ambrose said in 387 A.D., “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”

On May 13, 2015 a group of Islamic youth bullied, threaten and insulted a Catholic group in Northern Italy. The young Muslim’s were immigrants, not citizens of Italy, and they certainly did not care if Catholics were offended when they interrupted a Catholic procession in honor of the Virgin Mary. No charges were ever filed against the young men. It seems Obama and Prime Minister Renzi is more concerned about not offending Muslims than they are the citizens of their own countries.

Mr. Rouhani, 67, comes from a religious family, but he has a Ph.D. in law from Glasgow Caledonian University, in Scotland, and is not known as a religious hard-liner. Iran’s politics are extremely complex and religious matters are carefully policed by the theocratic regime that exercises ultimate power in Tehran. The supreme leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Public depictions of nudity are forbidden in Iran, but Mr. Rouhani was not in Iran he was in Rome, Italy. I do not know about you, but it frightens me that some world leaders expect their citizens to adopt Islamic customs, traditions and beliefs while ignoring our own in order not to upset Muslims.

It seems obvious to me some Italian political leaders put economic interests (18 billion dollars in new contracts) ahead of cultural legacy, just as Obama put his presidential legacy ahead of the safety of the American people when he negotiated his secret deal with Iran.

The covered statues were icons of classicism and models of humanism and are the foundation of European and Mediterranean culture and civilization. To cover them in order to satisfy Iran and not offend the Iranian citizens they offended their own Italian citizens. I think they offended most of the world tourist that went to Rome to see the statues and just happen to have made the mistake of traveling to Rome when Mr. Rouhani was there.  

Thank God Pope Francis did not cover the crucifixes when he greeted Rouhani at the Vatican.  I am not ashamed of Western culture. I do not want to bow to Iran’s demand or any other countries demands. If I went to Iran I would follow theirs laws, culture and traditions as long as I did not have to deny my Christian faith. I expect the Iranians not to demand or request I ignore the laws, culture and traditions of my own country when they are guest in my country. Respect for others cultures should not mean denying our own.

The French experienced some awkwardness in hosting Mr. Rouhani. In November, during a visit by the Iranian president and Iranian government officials when they refused to attend an official luncheon at the Élysée Palace, reportedly after the Iranians learned wine was to be served to the guest that requested it. Wine with meals is expected in France. The French officials refused to give in to Iran’s demand and served wine.

Italy’s Prime Ministers accommodation to the Iranians should be as embarrassing to the Italians as it was to Americans when Obama bowed to the Saudi King when he first took office. It seems Obama and other world leaders are more concerned over offending Muslims than they are in protecting their own citizens from a repeat of 9/11 or any other attack that these murderous thugs are planning. And yes they are still planning attacks against our country and other countries.

I do not believe what the Prime Minister of Italy did was for accommodation purposes I believe it was an act of submission! It makes no difference if you face reality and utter the politically incorrect words “radical Islamic Muslims” or not the fact is on 9/11 those who killed and destroyed were Muslims and killed in the name of Islam. Yet, the fact that the killers were Muslim and killed in the name of Islam is not only at the center of why we were attacked, but it is the ONLY explanation for the reason we were attacked.

It has become so ingrained in world leaders psyche to not offend Muslims that we cannot mention anything bad about radical Islamic Muslims even if it is true. They are now using it as a weapon against us so called infidels. The fear of offending radical Islamic Muslims has given the terrorists who killed so many in terrorist attacks a victory over our people, our country and the non-Islamic nations of the world. The fear of offending Muslims has in some respects almost crippled our country and as a result has given terrorism a victory over us and our nation.

I will never condone the burning of the Koran, damaging mosque, discriminating against all Muslims or denying them their Constitutional rights.  But, I do not believe our Founders ever intended for the Constitution to be used as a weapon of the politically correct. Those Constitutional rights were never intended to be used as a weapon to condone wrong.

We are so concerned about offending Muslims that we will not call the Islamic radicals who killed on 9/11 “radical Islamic Muslims”, we will cover valuable and beautiful art work that is nude or partially nude, we will not serve wine at meals and we will forgo our own culture and traditions all for the sake of not offending Muslims, but they do not care how much they offend Christianity, Judaism or other religions.  We will either defend our people and our nation against radical Islamic terrorist or we will bend over and let them do whatever they want to us and one day we will live in constant FEAR!  We cannot allow fear of being attack to allow wrong to take over the world.

Fear and intimidation is the tool of terrorism and whether it is done with planes, guns or words or demanding accommodation it has the same affect. It forces those who kowtow to that fear and intimidation into submission and allows the perpetrators of terror to have their way no matter what the consequences are.

Americans know the difference between the Muslim radicals and the moderates. We know the difference between those who follow Islam as a religion and those who use it as a weapon to kill. We do not need to be reminded on a daily basis on how to be tolerant of Muslims. We do not need to be reminded daily that there are Muslims who live in the United States as good citizens and do not follow the ideas of the radicals. We as a nation do not need to bend over and ,”tolerate,” Muslims to the point that we are afraid to even mention the word Muslim or the religion of Islam without fear of offending someone or being accused of being racist.

We are told by Obama that we need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslim. WHAT ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE FAMILIES AND AMERICANS WHO STILL REMEMBER 9/11 and that in 2014 there were 2999 radical Muslim Islamic attacks in 55 countries, in which 32262 people were killed and 27522 injured?

Grow a full beard and become holy, wise and loved by Muslims.

A senior bishop in the Church of England believes the vicars, or parish priests, should grow full beards as a way of reaching out to the fast-growing Muslim community. What will he want next? I guess Christian women should begin to wear the Hijab and men wear the Kufis. I live in the Philippines where the Muslim community is prominent in the malls and streets. I respect what they wear if that is what they want to wear to tell the world they are followers of Islam. I do not expect them to wear a crucifix simply because the Philippine people are predominantly Catholic.  

The senior bishop thinks we Christians should make ourselves as appealing to Muslims as possible – political correctness really gone amuck. He claims the beards will make their Christian ministers appear to be more holy to the Muslims. I am not interested in my bishops and priest appearing to be holy I am interested in them trying to BE holy.

He said, “In Islam beards are viewed as an adornment and Muslim men are encouraged to wear them to honor the Prophet Mohammed.” That is all the more reason for me not to want to wear Islam garb or grow a full beard. I honor and serve Jesus Christ not the Prophet Mohammed.

He also claims a scripture in Leviticus bans a man from shaving. I believe Leviticus is Old Testament (old covenant) and Christians are supposed to adhere to the New Testament (new covenant). I find it strange that he would pick one scripture in Leviticus that supports his personal belief about reaching out to Muslims and ignore all the other laws of Leviticus.

 The Rev Adam Atkinson, Vicar of St Peter’s church in Bethnal Green one of the first to start wearing a full beard has said the reason he did so was he saw it as an alternative to getting a tattoo. That sounds real holy to me! He also said he had since been struck by how often it helped him forge new links with teenage boys who might not normally want to talk to a vicar.

Sometimes it is hilarious how church leaders use scripture. One of the scriptures they use for growing full beards is St Paul saying, ‘I become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some’, 1 Corinthians 9:19. If this is isolated from the rest of Scripture one can assume that Paul was willing to do anything to reach the lost, including adopting their lifestyle and compromise his ethics, moral and beliefs. This is a doctrine that is popularized among the evangelism crowd today. If we use this logic then one cannot reach a drug addict unless we become one and we cannot reach a drunk unless we drink alcohol. Paul did not mean that.

 Paul taught that believers are to “abstain from any appearance of evil”, 1 Thess. 5:22. Paul would not have done anything contrary to Christ and His ways in his own life and ministry. Remember he rebuked Peter for his compromise of the gospel to the Jewish brethren. Paul was simply saying when speaking to a religious Jew he would use the law to speak to them and when speaking to a gentile he would use his conscience and culture to speak to them.

Remember I wrote earlier what is next. Reverend Atkinson said, “A Muslim friend said to him, ‘I will lend you a hat (kufis) and you can join me on Friday [prayers]. It was done in a jokey way but I felt it was quite affirming.”

The other vicar, the Reverend Rogers of All Hallows Bow, said: “One guy approached me about a year and a half ago and said ‘I can respect you because you have got a full beard’. If wearing a full beard made the man respect him then the man must be very shallow. Charles Manson a mass murder wore a full beard. He went on to say the full beard shows wisdom and he added: “I like the idea of being the ‘wild’ priest rather than the gentleman priest.

The Senior Vicar said, “David Beckham is the nearest we have to a popular secular saint, and his flirtation with various styles of beards has stimulated countless imitators.” David Beckham also gets a lot of attention by modeling underwear so I guess priests and vicars should start running around in their underwear. David Beckham is no saint to me.

Growing a beard in Islam is not dictated in the Holy Koran. It's a tradition. It is not a commandment of the Prophet Mohammed it was a suggestion. The prayers of those who shave off their beard are heard just as those with full beards.

Wearing a cross does not make you a Christian and having a full beard does not make you holy or a Muslim. Keep in mind the Hutterites, prevalent in the Canadian Parries and the Amish, prevalent in the Northeastern USA are Trinitarian Christians and have always worn full beards. Orthodox Christian priests and Orthodox Jews wear full beards. I think the fact that Orthodox Jews who wear full beards are hated by radical Muslims proves that having a full beard means little to Muslims/Christian relationships.  

I thought the timing of the beard comments by the Vicar in England was appropriate. His suggestion came two days after the earliest Christian community in Iraq was wiped out by radical Muslims and at a time when militant Islam is harassing, persecuting and murdering Christians – beard or no beard – across three continents. 

My prayers are with the citizens of France.

My prayers are with the people of France today. As 9/11 is a day Americans will not forget I am sure what happen last night will not be forgotten by the people of France. It should not be forgotten by civilized people of the world.

I know that I am going to offend some people, but I feel the need to express my opinion on the Muslim terrorist situation that has changed the ‘norm’ of civilized society.

I have heard a well-known Fox News commentator and host say often on various programs that the people of the world cannot allow the terrorist to win. We must go on with our daily lives as if nothing has happen. The goal of the terrorist is to disrupt life as the world knows it. They want to instill fear. That all sound good and is probably valid, but his daughter was in Paris in the stadium where one of the terrorist attacks took place. Fox News got his daughter on a live broadcast and this same reporter that tells us to go on with our lives as if nothing happened is now telling his daughter, “Baby you stay where you are. Do not go outside. Do not answer the door. Do not talk to any strangers. Daddy has chartered a private plane and will come and get you the first thing in the morning. Baby do you want to come home to which the daughter replies, “yes, daddy I want to come home as soon as possible come get me.” It is amazing how our attitudes change when circumstances are affecting us or our family personally.

I have thought and shared with close friends, one being Muslim, that Non-Muslims cannot solve this terrorist problem. Muslims must solve the problem. All we can do is assist them in doing so. Far too long now moderate Muslims have remain quiet and allowed a group of Muslim thugs to highjack their religion. I believe as long as these moderates refuse to speak out and attack the terrorist the problem will persist and only grow worse.

How do we get the moderate Muslims to take action is the big questions? Muslims are no different than the rest of society. People in today’s society do not get involved in problems until it begins to affect them directly. How do we make sure that all Muslims around the world are affected by the problem, especially the wealthy and middle-class Muslims?

Perhaps First World countries should stop all immigration of Muslims. Perhaps First World Country should stop issuing study visa’s to Muslims. Perhaps First World countries should stop issuing travel visa’s to all Muslims for twelve to twenty-four months. Perhaps First World countries should stop issuing medical visas. Perhaps First World countries should stop allowing trade with Muslim countries that are known to be supporting terrorist causes. I know these are all harsh recommendations and will create problems for Muslims that are not terrorist but perhaps harsh actions is what it will take to make them take action against the Muslim terrorist.  

My caregiver is Muslim. I know the actions of the terrorist are not the true religion of Islam. I respect his religion as he respects mine. I would never try to convert him. If he is to be converted that is the work of the Holy Spirit. I can live my life in such a way that he may be inclined someday to convert. I would not be honest if I denied the fact that two of his brothers being members of the M.I.L.F. did not offend me. What offends me the most is the rest of his family do not speak out against them even though they disapprove of their membership? He tells me they do not speak out against their brothers because it would cause the brothers to “lose face” and they want to maintain peace in the family. What about maintaining peace in the world? If this is the practice and attitude of all Muslim families the terrorist will not be stopped.

War is not the answer. The terrorist want war. They want to die. They want to be martyrs. You eliminate one there are fifteen waiting to replace the one. We are engaged in a situation our government does not understand, especially President Obama.  Our government nor did the French government understand the Vietcong and both major powers left Vietnam defeated. Are we going to be defeated in the battle against Muslim terrorist? Are we all going to be forced to convert to Islam one day – that is what the terrorist want!

 

How can you 'hate' Islam and be a Christian?

Bible Believers is a “Christian” organization known for signs and messages that communicate “overtly” anti-Muslim sentiments appeared with a severed pig’s head and began preaching at the Arab rally. IS THIS WHAT CHRISTIANS DO?

A federal appeals court said police violated the free speech rights of “Christian” evangelists by telling them to leave a June 2012 Arab-American festival in Dearborn, Mich.

By an 8-7 vote, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday said Wayne County and two deputy police chiefs were civilly liable to members of Bible Believers for violating their First Amendment rights.

The case now returns to a federal district judge to award damages and attorney’s fees.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2013, and a divided three-judge 6th Circuit panel upheld that ruling in 2014. Wednesday’s decision reversed those holdings.

Bible Believers are nothing more than a mob of heckler’s. It insults me for them to be referred to as CHRISTIANS. I believe in First Amendment Rights unless they put the safety and lives of people in danger and this mob did just that at the Arab-American Festival. 

“We’re very pleased, and all freedom-loving Americans who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment should be pleased,” said Robert Muise, senior counsel for the American Freedom Law Center, who represented Bible Believers. I am one freedom-loving American Christian that is not pleased that the American Freedom Law Center took donated money to defend a group of fanatics - a group of fanatics that misused the name "CHRISTIAN" for their actions did not represent any action Christ would take.

The American Freedom Law Center believes Bible Believers are entitled to damages because some of the people at the festival started throwing objects at them. WHAT DID THEY EXPECT? They knew what was going to happen before they went to the festival with a pig’s head and hate signs to protest. They got exactly what they wanted and probably planned the lawsuit before they went.

I agree with Judge Rogers who was the lone dissenter on the court that said,” I agreed for police to act as they did to help stop the violence.”

Should the Bible be "X" rated?

The Old Testament, talk’s a lot about sex and violence. It includes stories of fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, polygamists, ethnic cleansing and other forms of cruel activity.

The Old Testament is also full of sexual violence. We read of rapists, pimps, and other perpetrators of sexual exploitation. The Bible is not different than everyday life in 2015. There are moral lessons to be learned from the Bible that apply to us today.

Most Christians tend not to read those stories or they don’t pay attention to them and in doing so they miss out on the moral lessons the authors are trying to teach. We certainly miss the main premise of the Bible which is the love of God and His forgiveness when we try to ignore them. It always amazes me how some ministers can manage to take the ‘X’ rating out of these stories when they present them on Sunday mornings.

Father Abraham slept with his wife’s servant. In Egypt he ordered his wife to tell the Egyptians she was his sister. He allowed the Pharaoh to reward him for permitting him to make his ‘sister-wife’ part of his harem. Abraham was more concerned for his own safety than his wife’s. Yet, the Bible calls Abraham a man of great faith and he was, but he was far from being perfect.
 
Before you start condemning Abraham you need to ask yourself how many Christian church goers cheat on their wife’s and how many Christian church going women do the same? What would you do if today you were faced with death or telling an untruth. Abraham chose to lie, would you? When reading these stories do you stop and think how they can apply to our lives in 2015? 

Judah was tricked by his dead son’s widow Tamar to have sex with her. He did not know who she was because she was disguised as a prostitute. Should Judah a man of God be having sex with a prostitute in the first place?  Judah was sexually immoral and a judgmental hypocrite when he planned to have Tamar killed for having sex with an unknown man. When he discovered that the twins Tamar was carrying were his own he became a changed man and repented.

By all cultural and tradition practiced at the time Tamar was only doing what was right to make sure her dead husbands line continued, but she went about it in the wrong way. Even so God blessed her in the end. God forgave Judah and Tamar and God will forgive anyone today that repents and changes their life. When you read the story, if you did, what did you focus on, the forgiveness of God or the sin?

The most notable rape story in the Bible is one that most people don’t associate with rape: David and Bathsheba. The story is familiar. David is at home in Jerusalem when he should have been off at war with his men and the army of Israel. Walking around on his roof one evening, David noticed an attractive woman, Bathsheba, bathing. He summons her, they have sex, and she conceives. When David’s plan to cover up the scandal fails, he has her husband, Uriah, killed in battle. We ministers sometimes try to pretend that Bathsheba had the freedom to say NO to the king. That way we can make it appear it was not rape and Bathsheba was as guilty as David.

I even heard a minister say Bathsheba was used by the devil to tempt David. She paraded around on her roof top naked and bathed on the roof. That was the custom of the day. They wrapped a large piece of cloth around them and bathed on the roof. They bathed underneath the material. The Bible does not say Bathsheba was naked. David just had a wild imagination and a large sex drive and he let it get the best of him.  It is also interesting that in many countries today when people do not have indoor showers they bathe the same way Tamar did outside and I do not think any of them are inviting someone to rape them.

God blamed David. Nathan blamed David. David blamed David. So why do we have a difficult time admitting David was a rapist. Sexual violence was rampant in the ancient world, as it is today. The authors of the Bible did not try to hide these stories they told them so thousands of years later we could understand that we Christians and really society as a whole are called of God to a greater standard. We are made aware of sexual temptations that are in the world.

Ruth, Rahab and Tamar are even mentioned in the New Testament as part of Jesus’ genealogy. They all had questionable backgrounds. We should not be judgmental of others. We should not be hypocritical. God used people with shady backgrounds then and can do the same today.

In some way’s Jewish Law was more just than our laws today. There had to be proof of a woman’s infidelity and immorality before she was found guilty. A woman’s accusation of rape was listened to then. Today our court system still leans towards punishing the women more than the men involved in rape or sexual misconduct.  God instituted laws to protect women. Unfortunately men of power ignored those laws as many do today. We still read of cases like Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby who use their position to sexually abuse women. There are many members of government and church leaders around the world that have raped women, young boys and girls.

You may have wondered why God does not act quicker or intervene more when women are abused and rape – I do not know! Perhaps God expects us to protect those that are being treated unjustly. I am a firm believer that God does not do for us what He has equipped us to do for ourselves.  I have learned not to question God’s justice.

It is important to note David did not escape punishment. His later years were filled with trouble and bloodshed. God’s punishment can be severe, but His forgiveness is even greater. No sin is beyond God’s redemption. This is not to say there should not be or there is not consequences for sin, there is. But, we must always be willing to forgive a repentant sinner as God does. God disciplines sinners because He loves us and there will be times when we must discipline members of society not out of hatred or revenge, but out of love. 

The Bible presents the reality of life so we can learn from it. People can mock the Bible or learn from it and I choose to learn from it. These stories if read with an open mind teach us that God can and does use imperfect people, God has a heart to love and forgive, there are consequences to sin and we should be very careful when passing judgment on others.

 

 

Is artificial birth control a sin?

‘Responsible breeding or rabbit breeding’

Classic church doctrine since the time of Saint Augustine and before has condemned contraceptive practices as sinful.  Is contraception really a sin, and if not, what types of birth control are acceptable for the Christian?  This debate has taken on even greater significance with the recent controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic denunciation of contraceptives in poverty-stricken Africa and Philippine, which some fear contributes to overpopulation, sexually transmitted disease, and perennially poor families. 

By far the most common Biblical story used to support the anti-contraceptive mantra is the account of Onan in the book of Genesis.  According to the account: Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your dead brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing an offspring for his brother.  What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.” [Genesis 38:1-10]. 

Does this verse really demonstrate that contraceptives are wrong and sinful?  It seems to me Onan’s sin was deliberately refusing to birth a son for his dead brother and his brother’s wife.  It is important to realize the cultural context in which this story took place.  This story may seem strange to us in modern society, we would be shocked at the idea that we should have sex with our brother’s wife if she was without a child.  But in ancient times, maintaining a family line was essential for survival; children took care of their parents in old age.  It is quite clear to me that Onan’s sin was refusing to birth a son for his deceased brother.  It remains possible that contraceptive practices are sinful, but the story of Onan certainly doesn’t prove it. 

The act that Jewish law required Onan to perform would nowadays be regarded as rape, since the widow's consent was not required and this makes the story a very flimsy foundation for moral argument on birth control.

Some will argue that the command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ found in Genesis 1:28 argues against the use of contraceptives.  However, at best I believe these scriptures demonstrate that we have an obligation to have children; it does not prove that we should have as many kids as possible or that we should never use contraceptives.  This verse proves nothing regarding the use of contraceptives to me.  I remain skeptical that the Bible clearly states contraceptive are wrong and I definitely am skeptical that using contraceptives are a sin. 

Some people say that contraceptive use means a couple does not believe children are blessing from God.  Not so!  Some parents decide to use birth control to stop from having more kids for the time being due to a financial situation or some other factors.  I believe the parents that make decisions like this are being responsible and wanting to protect the children they have.  Wanting to protect the children they have tells me they are inclined to believe their children are a blessing. 

One of the most common arguments against birth control is that the Church has almost unanimously condemned it throughout history.  However, this point is only valid for Catholics who believe that church tradition is authoritative.  Without such a prior commitment to church tradition, the opposition to contraceptives is not valid.

There are claims that birth control is bad for society.  They will say, it increases abortion frequency, encourages premarital sex, leads to the spread of STDs, etc.  I believe the effect of using contraceptives would do just the opposite.   I believe birth control is acceptable if it does not involve abortion. The fact that contraceptives have been misused does not prove that contraceptives are wrong.

Many claim that we should not use birth control because we should let God decide when and how many children we should have.  Sounds good for a Christians to say, but look around you and you and you will see that does not work.  Maybe God is looking down from Heaven and saying I gave them a brain and instead of using it they breed like rabbits, let them suffer the consequences.  Some actually believe God will provide for their financial and emotional needs even when they do not act responsibly.  Responsible people do not  wait around at home believing that God will provide them with the amount of food they need- they go to work, get a pay check, and buy enough food to survive.   God gives us the ability to make responsible choices for ourselves. 

I fine no evidence in the Bible that gives direct support for birth control.  I find no support in the Bible that states sexual pleasure and reproduction should be separated.  I believe God intended sex to be enjoyed.   I do find that the Bible supports some acts of sex as being wrong. 

The Bible never explicitly approves of contraception.  However, there are a number of passages where the Bible appears to accept that sex should be enjoyed for other reasons than the production of children, and some people argue that this implies that no wrong is done if a married couple has sex with the intention of not having children.

“The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife’s body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband.  In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife.  Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer,” [1 Corinthians 7:3-5].

This verse clearly demonstrates that the purpose of marriage is not only for procreation.  Paul tells us that we should not withhold sex from our spouses.  It is not merely ok to have sex within marriage for pleasure, it is actually mandatory.

The Song of Solomon argues against the idea that procreation is the only purpose of sex.  I don’t think one could read the book and conclude that God only gave us the gift of sex so that we can produce children. 

There is another major problem with claiming that it is sinful to separate procreation from marital sex- what about couples who are infertile, either by old age or physical limitations?  Is it wrong for people who are infertile to have sex?  Is it wrong for old people to have sex?  Almost everyone would admit that there is nothing morally wrong with infertile sex; in fact, most would think it morally repulsive to claim that such people should never have sex.  This would also conflict with Paul’s teaching about fulfilling marital duties.

Sometimes there are very good moral reasons for using birth control.  A couple may want to limit the number of children they have because they can’t support more, either for financial reasons or because they want to be able to spend enough individual time with each child they already have . Doing otherwise could harm the family.  For those couples who can’t support more children, contraceptive use may be morally justified and even morally good.

I believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, any birth control methods which involves abortion of any kind is immoral.  Yet, there are several responsible forms of birth control that can be reasonably used. Couples should feel free to decide for themselves whether, and when, use of contraceptives is appropriate and desirable. 

Christian ideas about contraception come from church teachings rather than scripture, the Bible has little to say about the subject.  Their teachings on birth control are often based on different Christian interpretations, traditions and culture regarding the meaning of marriage, sex and the family.  

Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th century.  I think it is wrong for us Catholics to say the denominations that adopted and approved contraception or definitely wrong – maybe they found the error in the teaching and allowed the Holy Spirit to enlighten them. 

The Roman Catholic Church allows only ‘natural birth control’, which means only having sex during the infertile period of a woman's monthly cycle. Artificial methods of contraception are banned.  When Catholics practice natural birth control are their goals not the same as those who practice artificial birth control?   They all wish to control the birth of a child.  

Many Catholics have decided to disobey church teaching on birth control creating a breach between laity and the Church establishment.  I cannot help but thing birth control often leads to stronger families and better marriages, churches should let believers decide birth control on their own.  Married couples know best what they can and cannot afford and it is a known fact finances is the biggest cause of divorce. 

The Catholic Church teaches that using artificial contraception is wrong because:

•it is against 'natural law'

•it breaks the natural connection between the procreative and the purposes of sex

•it turns sex into a non-marital act

•it gives human beings the power to decide when a new life should begin and that power belongs only to God

•it leads to widespread immorality

•it damages the institution of marriage

•it reduces male respect for women

•it gives human beings the idea that they can have complete power over the body

•it allows the implementation of eugenic programs

The Catholic Church also says the Church does not condemn things like the pill or condoms in themselves.  What is morally wrong is using such things with the intention of preventing conception.  Using them for other purposes is fine - for example, using the pill to regulate the periods of a woman who is not in a sexual relationship is not wrong.  It is not the product used that is wrong it is the purpose for the product being used.  Makes sense I guess.

I believe the real problem for the Catholic Church is the leaders cannot accept that the physical expression of love between husband and wife in sexual intercourse can be separated from the reproductive act.  The Catholic Church says nothing evil can be done even if in the end good comes from it – I would agree with that.  I just do not see the evil in using artificial contraception if it is in no way connected to abortion.

I Timothy 5:8 tells us that parents must provide for their children.  This includes properly caring for and supporting their children until they reach maturity.  Couples should not have children unless and until they are able to do this.  If they are unable to properly care for them, they should consider some form of controlling pregnancies.  I do not think God prefers homeless hungry children over artificial birth control. 

The issue of birth control is now becoming an issue in Islam.  One Muslim doctor that I know of is working to dispel the myths that fuel the resistance to family planning.  For over ten years he has been presenting evidence to persuade clerics that Islam supports family planning methods, contrary to the views of many clerics. 

Some of the clerics, especially in northern Nigeria use the same arguments that the Catholic leadership uses to denounce artificial birth control.