Friday, August 27, 2010

Beware the Unrealistic Approach

Walid Shoebat is a name to remember. An ex-terrorist, he has a web site where he attempts to educate the world about Islam, his former religion. It is worth a look – you will keep returning as new developments in the Islamic world make you question what is happening. There is a good chance that www.shoebat.com will have the answer.

So it was with interest that I read, “Americans need to understand the level of deception and lies as well as the ends that Muslim clergy like Imam Rauf will go to advance their agenda of advancing Sharia law and Islamic domination in America” (I added the italics) . Imam Rauf is the one who is pushing for a mosque to be built at Ground Zero – a real slap in the face of those who died in the 9/11 attack and the safety personnel who died trying to rescue them.

I read President Obama’s greeting to the Muslim world at the start of Ramadan. I am grateful that the President has sent a greeting since it is a gesture of good will to about 1 billion people. I am not holding my breath however, to see if a Muslim leader sends out greetings to Christians on Christmas or to Jews on Yom Kippur. It will not likely happen. I was troubled by a few phrases in the President’s greeting.

“Muslims provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.” They do? A record of assistance provided by national governments to needy areas of the world shows that Muslim donors have long contributed toward other Muslims in need, almost exclusively. And when aid from these governments has been given to non-Muslim areas of the world, there is almost always an accompanying incentive to convert to Islam. It is, “There is more where that came from if you become Muslim.”

The President applauded Islam by saying, and I am paraphrasing, “Islam has had a role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” This is almost laughable, except for the Muslim women and girls kept in bondage and non-Muslims tortured and martyred. TIME magazine recently featured a story on Islamic torture of a young woman, using her mutilated photo on its cover. President Obama would do well to speak with both Muslim women and non-Muslims who have escaped from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere. He would soon learn that persecution is active.

In an exaggeration, President Obama shared “Islam has always been part of America” and “American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.” Not until immigration laws changed in the 1960s did Muslims begin coming to America in any noticeable numbers. Not that I mind their coming, but the absence of this religion has been helpful to the building of our republic; its presence has now, quite obviously, created tension. It has also generated pandering by our President to Muslim-majority nations. Christianity has provided a strong cohesion to American society. The American Muslims who have contributed are not those like Imam Rauf, but those who have reshaped their faith to fit a democratic, pluralistic mold – and who have decided that freedom of religion, speech and press are good things, not bad. The unfortunate aspect is that these Muslims, those attempting to adapt to American culture, are frequently considered poor Muslims overseas, in Muslim-majority countries.

While I appreciate the President’s Ramadan greeting and its attempt to create good will with Muslim-majority nations, I think it also serves to dumb down the American public to the danger that an unrealistic approach will bear.

Walid Shoebat has written a book that every American should read: Why We Want to Kill You. This former terrorist will share in the pages of this book what the world is realistically facing in Islam.

Beware the unrealistic approach.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Get Rid of It Now!


I do not have the statistics handy, but I read recently that Mao Tse-Tung has the dishonor of being the worst mass murderer in history, with Joseph Stalin in second spot. Both were Communist leaders, intent on burying the individual freedoms represented by The United States under the thumb of government-run tyranny.
It was shocking then, to read that a bust of Stalin has been erected at The National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia. That’s right – “National” meaning “taxpayer funded”. This bust is the fourth at the display, joining Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as opponents to Adolf Hitler. Never mind that the other three were champions of freedom and that Stalin had been an ally of Hitler’s until the German invasion of Russia in June, 1941. And please, American citizens, do not remember that no Soviet forces participated in the D-Day invasion. The Russian army was attacking on the German eastern front, D-Day occurred on the Western front.
Gosh, history can really be inconvenient, can’t it? That is why so much revisionism is now taking place. Like putting a bust of Stalin on display at The National D-Day Memorial – what a great ally! Yeah, right. Does anyone care?
One man who cares is Dr. Lee Edwards. Edwards is Chairman of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. This organization has a web site every American should visit and every school should require its students to explore: www.victimsofcommunism.org. This web site will link to www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org. The museum web site is thoroughly historical and objective, lacking propaganda. It attempts to teach the truth about Communism from Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto to the facts about present day Chinese suppression of liberties in Tibet. Dr. Edwards is leading a campaign to have Stalin’s bust removed from The National D-Day Memorial. Those who gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy did so in defense of liberty. Frankly, a bust of Stalin on display at The National D-Day Memorial is an offense to their memory.
The News and Advance of Lynchburg, Virginia reported in its August 2, 2009 issue on the sculptor of the Stalin bust, Richard Pumphrey. Pumphrey, a professor at Lynchburg College, is quoted as saying, “He was just a terrible person, so the challenge is to embody the terror he instilled.” Pumphrey continued, “I was angry every day I worked on him ( the bust of Stalin). Knowing how bad a guy he was, you’ve got to reveal it…you should feel the figures in addition to seeing them. You should sense their nature just by looking at them.”
Dr. Edwards’ web site http://stalinstatue.com is for those who want to see the Stalin bust removed from among the others. At this site you may leave comments and sign a petition. Many of those writing in are refugees or the children of refugees who fled the madness of Communism in Eastern Europe. They know from experience that “he was just a terrible person”, as Richard Pumphrey said. The Director of the D-Day National Memorial, William McIntosh, said that the intent of displaying a Stalin bust is that he was an ally. No mention is made of his earlier alignment with Hitler. Theirs was a treaty between two devils - broken only because Hitler knifed Stalin in the back first. Had the pact never been signed August 24, 1939 it is highly debatable that Hitler would have invaded Poland and launched the Second World War on September 1, 1939. At that particular moment in history, Stalin was the crutch upon which Hitler leaned.
Shame, shame on The National D-Day Memorial. Stalin was no lover of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (except his own). His bust represents everything America opposes and much that is wrong in the world today.
Perhaps you would like to visit http://stalinstatue.com and join Dr. Edwards’ campaign to have the bust removed from The National D-Day Memorial. It is worth a stop at this web site just to read the comments.
By all means write or call your congressman and tell him, “Get rid of Stalin’s bust at The National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia and …
get rid of it now!”

Friday, August 6, 2010

Marriage is Sacred

I heard the news reported on the car radio. I immediately thought of my sister and her family. Residents of California, they had been part of the majority of voters who had supported Proposition 8 – defining legal marriage as between a man and a woman. Now, the news report stated, a federal judge had declared the proposition to be unconstitutional (August 4, 2010). This ruling opens the path to marriage between homosexual partners.

Marriage is the central institution of any civilization. So, what is the nature of marriage? Even primitive societies recognize marriage. Centuries of moral understanding and social mores regarding the institution of marriage have always understood it as between members of the opposite gender. Can this accumulation of knowledge from previous generations spread over every civilization be wrong? The answer, of course, is no.

I am inclined to think that the centuries of moral understanding and social mores that declare marriage to be between a man and a woman will prove to be wise, correct and beneficial to society. This most recent ruling will prove to be foolish and detrimental.

Anyway, the definition of marriage has already been decided by the Highest Court of the Universe. Marriage is not for one mortal to decide. God Almighty has instituted marriage and He has established it as between a man (Adam) and a woman (Eve). Homosexual marriage is not normal, regardless of what a federal judge rules. This appears to be the actual intent of the ruling as the judge stated that Proposition 8 was “a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.” Everyone knows that an opposite sex couple may be obscenely immoral; but what has that to do with the nature of marriage? The judge shared his opinion on this by stating, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” This is what he considers the nature of marriage then: a union of equals without regard to gender.

“…marriage under law…” To what law is he making reference? Proposition 8 was an attempt by the electorate to establish a definitive law. Proposition 8 “violates equal protection under the law”, according to Judge Vaughn R. Walker. The equal protection clause is the law in reference. Really? This is an incredible ruling. The equal protection clause is the rationale behind this odd ruling? It is a ruling that is contrary to what every society, every where, in every period of time, has considered normal.

How refreshing to return to the scripture. The first miracle performed by Jesus in His public ministry was at a wedding. Christ honored the wedding with His presence. He later defined marriage by saying, “At the beginning God created man and woman, and a man should leave his father and mother, and be forever united to his wife. The two shall become one - no longer two, but one!” (Matthew 19:5-6 NLT).

Jesus here affirms three principles of marriage. First, it is between man and woman. Secondly, it is intended to be permanent. Thirdly, it is sacred. That is, defined and instituted by God. If sacred, then it is not to be messed with. The consequences of redefining marriage away from God’s design will be disappointing to those who engage in same-sex marriage. It will create chaos for society at large. God’s moral law will withstand all who attempt to undermine it. You don’t break God’s law – it breaks you.

Remember this when the topic arises. Mankind has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman. God instituted marriage. And…

Marriage is sacred.