Friday, March 25, 2005

Why this Friday is Good

All around the world today Christians celebrate Good Friday, a remembrance of Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion at the hands of Roman and Jewish authorities. What is the meaning of His death for us today?

Three-and-one-half millennia past, the God of Israel, "I AM" (YHWH), appeared to a man named Moses, calling him to lead His people out of slavery in Egypt and to a land promised generations earlier to their ancestor Abraham.

The pharoah would not allow Israel to leave to worship as they wished, despite being at the receiving end of a number of destructive plagues. The last and most devastating judgment against Egypt would be the death of all firstborn males in the land.

In His providence, God directed the people of Israel to slaughter a male lamb and to place its blood around their doorposts. When the Angel of Death passed over, it would see the blood and harm no one inside. All those who did not have the lamb's blood over them lost their firstborn. There was a devastating (and unnecessary) loss of life.

Israel was commanded to remember God's Passover forever.

Fifteen hundred years later, God provided another Lamb Whose blood would save us from eternal death.

This Passover Lamb Who was slaughtered once-for-all is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah promised to Israel and foreshadowed by the lambs of the first Passover.

By His death we have life. It is His sacrifice for us we remember today.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

An American court orders the death of an innocent

All legal technicalities aside, the Schiavo case boils down to one issue: an American court has ordered the death of an innocent (and defenseless) woman.

The American Declaration of Independence argues that God gives all people the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The American Constitution guarantees to all its citizens that neither Life, Liberty, nor property can be taken from them without due process.

If Mrs. Schiavo were a pedophile, or a murderer, or an abortionist, those calling for her death by dehydration and starvation would be protesting for her to have all legal options explored in preserving her life. A convict on Death Row would have all legal avenues exhausted and still many "kind-hearted" liberals would be arguing for a stay of execution.

This act of injustice is indefensible.

A Dear John (and Ken) Letter

Two popular Southern California radio personalities, John and Ken have, over the course of the past week or so, unrestrainedly expressed their contempt for religion (and the religious) in connection with the Schiavo Right-to-Live case.

In particular, they've repeatedly equated religious faith with irrationality.

It is true that not all religions are morally or rationally sound. It is true that not all who are religious believe on the basis of empirical evidence.

It is irrational to assume, without any examination of a religion or its empirical foundation, that by definition a religion is mythological.

It is irrational to assume, without any investigation as to why a person believes, that he or she is deluded.

One of the great successes of the enemies of God over the last century-and-a-half is the idea in Western culture (among liberals in Academia and the Media) that religion is unscientific, irrational, and anti-intellectual.

This is due to the erosion of confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the Scriptures by lying liberal "theologians" (is that redundant?) and the Darwinists. Too many Christians (in the West) have abandoned this one sure foundation for religious faith.

Rather than arguing what is empirically true (that Darwinism is contrary to Reason and Science; that the Scriptures are historically-reliable documents, and in many cases, eyewitness accounts of actual events; and that America was founded on a thoroughly Christian worldview), Christians have become complacent, ignorant, and cowardly.

There is one religion that is founded on fact, one that is attested to by History, Archaeology, and Reason. That religion is the religion of Moses and the Prophets. It is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Deadly bias

ABC News deceptive in Terri Schiavo poll?

I thought it strange to see more than one broadcast today characterize the Schiavo case as involving "Terri's right-to-die."

According the information I've seen, these are the important facts:
-There is no legally-valid, written statement of Mrs. Schiavo's wishes, only her husband's assertion that Terri would have wanted to die in this kind of situation (on which point he contradicted himself when interviewed by Larry King).

-Mr. Schiavo has two children with his mistress.

-A financial settlement to provide for Terri's rehabilitation was won, but Terri has not received such rehabilitation.

-A lawyer for Terri's parents told Terri that her feeding tube would be removed and that she had to say she wanted to live, which Terri tried to do.

-Terri is not in a coma. She is not unresponsive. Neither is she on a life support system.
This is not a case of "Terri's right-to-die;" this is a case of a husband's right to kill his wife.

It is not for Man to decide whether a person's life is no longer worth living, whether a judge or a husband, and it is unconscionable that our nation gives individuals the right to kill the defenseless.

The one on whom Terri should have been able to depend to defend her is the one trying to end her life.

That one judge after another has ruled in favor of her murder should not be a surprise, since each one of these decisions is another in a decades-long tradition of American courts ruling in favor of death.

If millions of children can be murdered by their own mothers (and this defended as a "Constitutional right") what is one "damaged" adult?

That the Mainstream Media are portraying the facts of this case falsely (if not to influence public opinion, then why?) is another example of its leftist, immoral, pro-death agenda.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

BBC and IHT suffering from HITS Syndrome

BBC News: Anti-Muslim bias 'spreads' in EU

In what is (hopefully) a severe case of "Head-In-The-Sand" syndrome, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights claims that Muslims are unjustifiably "suffering" increased "prejudice" throughout Europe.

Apparently, close contact spreads this disease, since in reporting on it, the BBC fails to add any sort of context to IHT's inexcusable cluelessness (or is it overt propaganda?).

The following statements are symptoms of this potentially fatal disease, followed by my comments...
"In France, the debate over the French law forbidding religious clothing in schools had encouraged discrimination against Muslim women who wear headscarves, the report says.

We are concerned that these developments threaten to undermine positive efforts at integration and further increase the vulnerability of Muslims to human rights violations and marginalisation...."
So, wearing highly-visible garments intended to demonstrate one's separation from the mainstream will help integration?
"In the UK, the report says the media have created the impression that justice officials are successfully prosecuting Muslim terrorists, although only a few people have been convicted and the vast majority of those who are arrested on allegations of terrorism are released without charge."
Isn't any conviction of Islamists a "successful prosecution"? It only took a few individuals to bring down The Towers.
"In Germany meanwhile, more than 80% of those surveyed last year associated the world 'Islam' with 'terrorism' and 'oppression of women'..."
Could that be because the Qur'an commands the faithful to "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"? Could that be because Islam allows the beating of one's wife, the treatment of women as chattel, the debasement and subjugation of women, and polygamy?
"...although it was unclear to what extent this resulted in discriminatory behaviour."
That discrimination cannot be determined is a testament to the German people's patience and decency (or their widespread consumption of the BBC).
"It also says that Muslim schools in the Netherlands are widely believed to 'undermine integration efforts" although it says such claims are "poorly supported by facts'."
You wouldn't want facts to get in the way of understanding something affecting the fate of Western Civilization.
"A number of European countries have been engaged in a debate about whether long standing policies of multi-culturalism best serve the minorities involved."
Then the Islamists are winning. The debate should be about whether the integration of those whose god commands them to slaughter the native population best serves the majority.
"Assimilation has been put forward as a means of stopping minorities - and particularly Muslims - from occupying a parallel society that could exclude them from mainstream benefits."
The only assimilation Qur'anic Islam desires is that which will result in the establishment of Shari'a (or that facilitates the killing of infidels), and by then the only option for non-Muslims will be the occupation of "a parallel society that will exclude them from mainstream benefits."

Here's an example of the kind of assimilation in which Islamists are interested, courtesy of an American plotting to assassinate the PotUS: " leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would 'marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives.'"
"The IHF warns that "growing distrust and hostility" experienced by Muslims and a possible erosion of their confidence in the rule of law could also fuel support for extremist organisations."
Something ought to be done about that which fuels "support for extremist organizations"--how 'bout starting with the Qur'an?
"It also advocates actively promoting tolerance among EU citizens by encouraging debate in the media over how to cover minorities and avoid "perpetuating prejudice", and also recommends the setting up of elected Muslim representative bodies."
Just another step toward the establishment of Shari'a.

Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, by the time it realizes it's in trouble, it's too late.
"The IHF has a consultative status with the UN and the Council of Europe."
Let's hope they don't listen.

Friday, March 04, 2005

CAIR doesn't

...about the truth, that is.

A revealing post at DhimmiWatch lists a number of members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who have either committed or plotted acts of Jihad, or have expressed sympathy or solidarity with those who do.

Read it here: Dhimmi Watch: DC Watson: CAIR's Perpetual Twists & Turns

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

More on taqiyya and kitman

In doing a little more reading on taqiyya, or the Islamic practice of deception, I found the following information. This is again an especially difficult doctrine for people of good will, for how are we to distinguish between those Muslims who are truly peaceful and those who only appear peaceful?

From history:
"During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’."
"Al Taqiyya is with tongue only; not the heart. A believer can make any statement as long as the ‘heart is comfortable'. The 9/11 terrorists lived and visited in the United States for two years before the 9/11 attacks. How did they acculturate? By the use of taqiyya. Meaning: I hate you but I smile at you-in public."
A Christian should know better than to try to justify any lie. Jesus said that the devil "was a liar and a murderer from the beginning and there is no truth in him."

Learn some more here.
Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

Taqiyya and kitman or ‘holy hypocrisy’ has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years since it was developed by Shiites as a means of defence and concealment of beliefs against Sunni unbelievers. As the Prophet said: 'he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’

The skilful use of taqiyya and kitman was often a matter of life and death against enemies; it is also a matter of life and death to many contemporary Islamic terrorists. As so often in the history of Islam, a theological doctrine became operational.

During the Spanish inquisition, Sunni Moriscos attended mass and returned home to wash their hands of the ‘holy water’. In operational terms, taqiyya and kitman allowed the ‘mujahadeen ’ to assume whatever identity was necessary to fulfill their mission; they had doctrinal and theological and later jurisprudential sanction to pretend to be Jews or Christians to gain access to Christian and Jewish targets: ‘the mujahadeen can take the shape of the enemy’.

Taqiyya is common to both Shiite and Sunni Muslim discourse and has significant implications for understanding Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist operations. The theory and practice of counter terrorism would be counter productive, indeed pointless, and even harmful, without reference to taqiyya and kitman and the crucial role of deception ranging from Islamic jurisprudence to Al Qaeda training manuals, which carry detailed instructions on the use of deception by terrorists in Western target countries.

According to Christian ethics lying is a sin; In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.

Taqiyya, American-style

Suspect Said to Admit Plan to Kill Bush

If it weren't disturbing enough that an American citizen is also an Islamist, note the choice this traitor was given by his superiors:
" leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would 'marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives.'"
It is worth repeating: an American citizen (and high school valedictorian) whose goal it was to marry a Christian woman and assimilate into the community so that he could kill Americans.

I hope President Bush realizes this threat against his life is coming at the command of a god he wants to equate with the God of the Bible.

The implications for whom we can trust is quite troubling.