Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world’s most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna (“strife” in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur’an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders’ right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of “religious sensitivity.”
… Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for “seeking to inflame” the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.”
… The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It’s not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology…. All of their talk about how benign Islam “really” is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world’s Muslims, is antithetical to civil society….
Yesterday in France Islamic terrorists struck a cowardly blow to freedom when they massacred 12 unarmed and innocent people, mostly journalists at a French newspaper. Their supposed justification? Because these journalists had used cartoons to lampoon terrorists and to “blaspheme” the so-called prophet Muhammad.
I don’t care if the journalists mocked Muhammad, Allah himself, or the terrorists’ own mothers. Violence against another is never justified by any verbal, printed or caricatured provocation, regardless of how insensitive, crass or supposedly “blasphemous.”
What if Barack Obama had been president during World War II? Could we have beaten the Nazis? I think it’s clear we would be all be speaking German right about now.
There is no way anyone can make the case that Obama would have gone after both Germany and Japan with the tenacity of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I may not have agreed with Roosevelt’s economic policies, but when it came to war, the man in the wheelchair was a lion, not a shrinking violet, or peacenik. He understood how to win a war- there were no rules for Roosevelt (or Harry Truman).
… Obama plays golf while Islamic State kills thousands per day. He plays golf after announcing beheadings of Americans. He was absent without leave while our embassy in Libya was under a vicious terrorist attack. He webt to fundraisers in Vegas hours after a national tragedy, where four heroes were killed in Benghaz). He went to film festivals while Russia attacks Ukraine. He goes on vacations while the world…the Middle East…and Ferguson, Missouri burns.
Our commander in chief even tries to order our great ally Israel to stand down while Hamas fires missiles at her citizens. He does nothing to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. He laughed when Mitt Romney called Russia our biggest threat and said “the 80’s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
Now Vladimir Putin is laughing and mocking Obama as he restarts the Cold War and threatens to retake all of Eastern Europe. Obama is like a fly on the tail of Russia. No enemy of America cares about anything Obama says. No one fears America under Obama. We’ve become neutered….
Read More atThe Blaze
If there was reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God’s image and yet we are a fallen race – and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.
But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay.
As stated by gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio, “‘Born gay’ is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”
In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It’s an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies….
Read More at OneNewsNow
“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten,” He said. “Be zealous therefore, and repent” [Revelation 3:19].
What was to be repented of? What was considered sin? Many behaviors, among them lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, and yes, homosexual relations.
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
Of course Paul is referring to faith in God, and in His Son Jesus Christ. To believe in Them, and in Their promises, requires a measure of faith.
To not believe in God, and to go so far as to deny His existence, that too requires a measure of faith — indeed, a tremendous measure of faith in nothing.
For that is what atheism is: Faith in nothing.