Jihad is Knocking
The slaughter in London is another grisly wake-up call that likely will go as unheeded as earlier ones. Already the standard narrative is being trotted out: evildoers created by what the New York Times predictably called the “root causes of terrorism”: autocracy, or economic stagnation, or Palestinian suffering, or globalization’s dislocations, or Western historical sins, or the war in Iraq (the cause will depend on the political prejudices of the pundit) have “hijacked” Islam and distorted its peaceful message. And now they are using Islam to justify murder in order to further their own ambitions or dysfunctional psychic needs. Given this explanation, so the story goes, we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture. The tale is then wrapped up with fierce threats against the terrorists and protestations of admiration for Islam.
Believing this delusion requires that one ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against the West, a war of conquest and colonization ratified by centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called “moderates” Ã¢â‚¬” those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights Ã¢â‚¬” who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam…–excerpted from an article by Bruce Thornton, “Jihad is Knocking, Another Episode in the War between Christendom and Islam,” at Victor Davis Hansons Private Papers, www.victordavishanson.com 07.09.05
United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage
Atlanta, July 4 – The United Church of Christ became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution on Monday affirming “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender.”
The resolution was adopted in the face of efforts to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. It was both a theological statement and a protest against discrimination, said the Rev. John H. Thomas, the president and general minister of the denomination, which has 6,000 congregations and 1.3 million members. –Shaila Dewan, from an article in The New York Times, 07.05.05
An editorial on interpretations
We have as much trouble reading, understanding and interpreting the Constitution as we do the New Testament. Two weeks ago in this column we printed the text of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights. Since that has had a week to “heat soak” dare we ask why there is so much difficulty understanding this from either a legal view or any other point of reference? The complete text states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Doesnt that mean that Congress has no legal right to make any law concerning establishing – the mandating or sanctioning of some form a religion, in preference or by deference over some other religion, or further to make any law that would prohibit religious expression? That is after all, exactly what is stated. The same would be also true of the remaining items (freedom of speech, press and on). The simple and correct view is that Congress has not been granted any constitutional right to make laws concerning these things. Legislating concerning these would be outside the realm of its jurisprudence.
For enforcement purposes, wouldnt that mean that any existing laws made by Congress that have any bearing on these rights or anything to do with regulation or restriction of these things, whether for or against, would thereby be illegal and properly should be struck from the roles (surely as a duty of the Supreme Court)? With that understanding, it would be usurpation when Congress seeks to mandate either for or against any of the rights listed in this part of the Constitution. It is simply not its business to do so; and by this they were and should be prohibited from making any such laws against such fundamental rights. There is no mystery here, no obscurity of language – only 46 simple words, three commas, and three semi-colons all in just one sentence. What has been interpreted has been interpreted into obscurity. Now what is difficult about that? A child could figure it out. The precepts Christ gave on baptism or on marriage and divorce are equally simple and yet equally misinterpreted and wrestled with. So I note that what God gave, man has made complicated, and likewise what man has given, man also has made equally complicated. –Richard Vandagriff 07.10.05
Something else on interpretation (of far greater importance than the last item)
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
We also have the prophetic word made more sure, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. –2 Peter 1:16-21
Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited
Some people are attracted to women; some are attracted to men. And some, if Sigmund Freud, Dr. Alfred Kinsey and millions of self-described bisexuals are to be believed, are drawn to both sexes.
But a new study casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men. The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation. People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. “You’re either gay, straight or lying,” as some gay men have put it.
In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured Ã¢â‚¬Â¦arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men. –Benedict Carey from his article in The New York Times 07.05.05
What is being taught in US schools and colleges?
The column Ive written over the past year that attracted the most reader response was one last December about Peter Singer, the Princeton professor of ethics who sees no ethical problem with polyamory, bestiality, necrophilia or some kinds of infanticideÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
For example, Singer favors euthanasia of the old whose minds have declined, but its not hard to see that if “voluntary euthanasia” became common, bullies would take what he had wrought and apply pressure on the elderly or the disabled to get out of the way rather than use up resources.
Similarly, Singer says that parents up to a year or two should be able to kill children with physical or mental problems, with the OK of a group of Singerists on hospital ethics boards. Thats gruesome enough, but if infanticide under “strict” conditions were legalized, the conditions would soon be loosened, reporters would discover inequities where it was allowed in some circumstances and not others, and infanticide on parental demand would become standard. Thats what happened with abortion. –excerpted from an article – Understanding Singer and combating Singerism, by Marvin Olasky, posted at www.townhall.com 06.25.05
Another corporate endorsement of inappropriate behaviorÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
According to USA Today, Nike has become the first major corporation in America to publicly endorse homosexual “civil unions,” a back door move to legalize homosexual marriage.
Nike endorsed a bill in their home state of Oregon which would legalize “civil unions.” Homosexual activists are using the “civil union” approach as a back door approach to the legalization of homosexual marriage. Once they get their “civil union” approved, they will then go to court to secure the right to marry.
While Vermont and Connecticut have adopted “civil unions” at the state level, Nike is the first major corporation in America to publicly approve this approach to secure homosexual marriage. —from The American Family Association at www.afa.net 07.09.05
Article contributed by Richard Vandagriff and Mark Zaveson