What’s worse than a Muslim terror attack?

As bad, as evil, as abhorrent, brutal and senseless as Muslim terror attacks are, there are several things that are worse, believe it or not.

What could possibly be worse?

Here are a few things that are worse than a terror attack by a Muslim motivated by Islamic doctrine in the manner practiced and encouraged by Muhammad and egged on by todays’ Islamic leadership:

1)  Claims that terror by Muslims is not Islamic: 

Media and others claiming that such attacks are not Islamic is abhorrent because it enables even more attacks by deflecting from the root cause.  There are many dozens of passages from Islamic texts that promote such acts.  Muslim doctrine encourages it and has for 1,400 years.  This is nothing new for Islam.

2) Claims that only a tiny minority of Muslims support violent jihad: 

When “experts” suggest it is a tiny minority of Muslims who practice “radical Islam” check your “crap detector.”  There is no “radical Islam.”  It is Islam.  Islam is radical.  There is no “non-radical” Islam.  Jihadists my be “devout” practitioners of Islam.  They may be practicing the “orthodox” or “fundamentalist” version of Islam.  But know this:  They are practicing Islam in the manner that Muhammad, whom they consider the most perfect human being, practiced and promoted Islam.  So whether you believe that a “mere” 5% of the 1.6 billion Muslim are devout enough to wage jihad, or some larger percentage, it is not a tiny minority.  And be aware that a significant portion of the other 80 or 95% of Muslims who are not currently observed as being violent terrorists likely support the 5 or 20% in some fashion:  politically, legally, financially, socially, or logistically – passively or actively.  That is why Muslim criticism of such attacks is so tepid and defensive.

3) Cries of concern of “backlash” or “Islamophobia” after an Islam-inspired attack:

When politicians and newscasters express as much or more concern about “Islamophobia” or anti-Muslim “backlash” than about the actual terror attack, a sanity check is required.  For some strange reason, such backlash seldom occurs.  Such concern panders to the Muslim attackers and promotes Dhimmitude among non-Muslims.  In fact outrage is way overdue.  Action to stem the teaching of Islamic hateful and violent doctrine that permeates that ideology is long overdue.  Backlash:  While it’s been non-existent, it, too, is way overdue.  The “backlash” needs to be undertaken by the media, the politicians, our government, our educational institutions and police and intelligence agencies and our military.

4) Media reliance on opinions of like-minded Muslims after a Muslim commits mayhem:

When the media interviews Muslim organizations like CAIR, neighbors, friends, mosque leaders of the jihadi be prepared to hear their taqiyya-inspired lies.   See something – say nothing.  That’s what Muslims do.  They lie.  They practice their well-honed skill set of deception and deflect any blame from Islam, Muslims, their mosque, neighbors or relatives.  It’s all a great deception and the media buys  into it and give it undue credibility.

5)  Claims that it was just a random act by an angry or crazy person:

When law enforcement claims that the jihadi was a lone wolf and was just angry or upset or crazy, understand that political correctness and avoiding offending Muslims is a higher priority than public safety and truth.  Or this:  “We have no idea what motivated him to do that” when the terrorist says Allahu Akbar, affirms he was Muslim, has ties to a local mosque, and carried out his attack to honor Allah.  That declaration of ignorance of the Muslim motive is political correctness in the extreme.

6) Claims that various types of non-Muslim actions provoked the attack:

Apologists for Islam often blame the infidel for provoking their violent jihadi behavior.  Muslims will say “We do what we do because you insulted Allah”.  Or “because you meddle in the Middle East.”  These are excuses to justify carrying out their 1,400 year mandate of hate of the infidel and Muhammad’s example to terrorize and conquer non-Islamic lands.

7)  Claims the attack was a “false flag”:

Conspiracy theorist claims that a terror attack by a Muslim in the name of Allah was a “false flag” or “inside job” for some “global world order” ignores reality.  The true source and motivation of the terror is ignored and makes it more difficult to confront the cause effectively.  This, like all the above misdirects, shows an unhelpful ignorance of Islam, its history, doctrine and present day motivation and objectives.

8) Claims that “Islam is a Religion of Peace”:

This is the mother lode of all disingenuous statements made in defense of Islam.  “Islam is a religion of peace” is a PR pitch to confuse the infidel and delay understanding of what is really going on.  And it works.  Such claims could not be further from reality - enough to make any sane man crazy.

*****

Why are each of the above common responses to a Muslim jihad attack worse than an actual attack?  Because they invite many more attacks of the same nature or worse.  They show our ignorance of Islam, its history and its doctrine.  They exhibit our lack of resolve to counter the vile and violent ideology that fosters this uncivilized, barbaric behavior.

Each one of these responses to jihad attacks need to be considered as an attack on reason and truth and as detrimental to overcoming the violent nature of Islam as the attacks themselves.  They each invite more attacks and increased boldness of Islam-inspired terror.

Observations of a conservative pastor’s view of immigration in the US…

Dr. David Jeremiah, the lead pastor of a mega-church near San Diego, CA,  published a book titled “Is This the End – Signs of God’s Providence in a Disturbing New World”.

My observations for the purpose of this blog are focused on Chapter 2 of this book on the topic of immigration.

To Dr. Jeremiah’s credit, he revealed his mission and biases.  His mission is to represent the Christian Church, and more specifically, the teachings of the Bible.  His biases include the promotion of his many ministries to immigrants, both legal and illegal, in the greater San Diego area.  Some might call his teachings concerning immigration based either on a conflict of interest or well-informed because of these ministries.

Nonetheless, he strives to give a balanced view of the current pros and cons of immigration in the US, both from a practical economic and social perspective as well as from a Biblical perspective.  Whether he succeeds with that “balance” greatly depends on two things:  1)  The experiences, knowledge and perspective of the reader concerning immigration and immigrants; and 2)  The portions of Scripture and Christian doctrine one wishes to emphasize or minimize.

For example, he suggests “openness to outsiders” as a great Christian quality which indeed it is.  But he fails to distinguish this quality applied to national immigration policy as distinct from personal relationships. It is one thing for an individual Christian be open and kind to everyone he meets.  It is quite another thing for our national government to roll out the red carpet and accommodate anyone who crosses our borders.

There are a couple of trite examples he used as advantages of immigration:  One was our love of Mexican and Italian food.  This is a great hook for those who think with their stomachs instead of the brain or heart.

Another was of an immigrant (he didn’t say “legal” or “illegal” because that distinction does not matter to him as he stated) in his church who worshipped the Lord enthusiastically, who gave his whole “body, soul, and spirit” in his worship.  Well, many Muslims do the same thing, even to the point of their suicide bombings – Christians don’t match THAT level of enthusiasm.  So I didn't quite understand the relevance of that example to the current topic.

Dr. Jeremiah did lay out his presentation in a good, logical order, discussing both the benefits and the problems of immigration.

Regarding the problems, he thoughtfully considered the problems of both legal and illegal immigration -  all standard stuff most of us understand.

One of the problems he noted for both legal and illegal immigration was the failure of various groups to assimilate.  At the same time, in giving an example of the great numbers of immigrants he ministers to he pointed out that all the street signs in a number of neighborhoods in the region of his church are in Arabic.  Assimilation, anyone?  Apparently not.  That is the fault of government being hell-bent on accommodation rather than assimilation.

The meat of the subject was titled “The Past of Immigration” based on verses he selected from Bible texts.

There were two primary focus points:

1)  From Genesis 11, he pointed out that it is God’s will that there not be a one-world government with everyone communicating in one language to effectively compete with God.  He reminded us that God dispersed the people, confused their ability to effectively communicate, and created numerous nations complete with borders to defend.  From that, the essence is God is not a Globalist; God set the boundaries of every nation.  We need to maintain these boundaries because they are of God.

2) We, as Christians, must assist the “strangers” and the “sojourners.”  But he does explain, “not unconditionally.”  Strangers and sojourners have a responsibility to obey the culture and laws of the land.  They should not believe they have a right to cling to the old laws, beliefs and customs of their homeland, its religion or political ideology.

This is all good stuff up to this point.

Two significant points are mostly ignored:

1)  Which portions of Scripture are interpreted in a manner that give one portion precedence over another in the context of the national/political/religious environment of the day?  Does the personal one on one example of Jesus befriending the harlot supersede Paul’s admonition to obey the laws of the land?  These are two entirely different circumstances:  one personal, the other political/national. 

2)  This brings up the bigger problem concerning immigration:  The role of government compared to the role of the individual Christian.  The individual Christian can and should maintain the Biblical standard of how we treat immigrants, legal and illegal.  But we have to ask:  Is the Biblical standard the same for both the legal and illegal immigrant?  The Bible DOES make the distinction if we don’t ignore Romans and other sections.

Here are two significant Biblical concepts that were not mentioned:

• Immigration of foreigners was used as a curse or punishment upon Israel. II Chronicles 36 describes the use of foreigners to exact judgment upon a disobedient Israel.
• The rising status of immigrants to a superior status was a curse upon Israel according to Deuteronomy 28: 43-44; ⁴³ The foreign resident among you will rise higher and higher above you, while you sink lower and lower. ⁴⁴ He will lend to you, but you won't lend to him. He will be the head, and you will be the tail.

Is it possible the same is happening in the US?  I and many others think so.  This is what happens when we jettison and ignore our religion and values.

Dr. Jeremiah chooses to ignore Romans in agreeing with Samuel Rodriguez that “a human being cannot be illegal.”  Really?

His justification?  The possibility of conversion of an (illegal) immigrant to Christianity.  The hope of conversion justifies the the continuing offense by the illegal immigrant.  But without repentance how can there be conversion?  This smacks of Democrats desiring to ignore our immigration laws so there can be more Democrat voters keeping them in power.

What about all the hundreds of sermons we’ve heard that talk about repentance – turning away from sin turning away from lawbreaking?  Are those of us who point out the importance of obeying laws guilty of being a “Pharisee?” (Accuse a cop of being a Pharisee the next time you’re pulled over.)   Becoming a Christian does not eliminate the fact he continue to violate our laws.  Are we to ignore the lack of repentance of the illegal immigrant who chooses to remain “illegal?”  Dr. Jeremiah believes there is no such thing as an “illegal” human.  Are we to ignore the Biblical concept of repentance?  How can an ongoing transgression be ignored?  Or are we to ignore the Biblical principle of obeying the laws of the land.  Apparently Dr. Jeremiah has.

And finally concerning the role of government, our nation has become so diverse, so tolerant of everything (except Christianity) that it is not possible anymore to have a Biblical standard applied to government policy, even if there was a “meeting of the minds” of the correct Biblical interpretation.  We might continue to blow in the wind and pretend to influence government policy.  But it all boils down to what we do have control over:  How we treat individuals we meet, and the standards we apply in condoning or admonishing their behavior.

Modern Church doctrine appears to be progressing toward ignoring all sin, whether sexual behavior or breaking the laws of the land.  It is now in vogue to ignore violations of God’s word.  Tolerate everything.  The mainline churches already accept, condone, and defend same sex marriage and gay clergy.  Scratch that rather large chunk of orthodox Biblical doctrine.  Now Dr. Jeremiah wishes to erase a chunk of Paul’s teaching.  Sweet.  One begins to wonder what’s next – Jesus didn’t really resurrect?  No one is really saved?  It’s all a myth?  This is not faith-building stuff.

Trumps’ speech to Muslims: A schmoozfest full of false moral equivalence…

OK, so most critiques of Trumps’ speech to the House of Saud were favorable.  He is cited for being firmly against terror and the Islamic doctrines that are interpreted and used to promote terror.

That is fine.  But here are his speech’s glaring shortcomings.

1)  He appears to ignore and excuse Islam’s and Saudi Arabia’s human rights shortcomings:  All things Islamic, including intolerance of other faiths, an apartheid nation – both gender and religious, Saudi funding of Middle East Studies in US Universities that promote Sharia and Islamic supremacism, and Saudi support of Wahhabi Islam – or should I just say “orthodox Islam” with all its inherent violent history and doctrine.

2)  His assumption that Saudi/Islamic morality is similar to the Judeo-Christian morality of the West.  He hopes that Muslim nations will condemn the doctrines of Islam that promote violence and terror because “with God’s help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed.”  He’s talking about an integral part of Islamic doctrine, folks.  The violent parts of Islam, of which there are many, are an integral part of Islam and will not change.  The “vile creed” he speaks of is as much a part of Islam as “grace” and “forgiveness” are a part of Christianity.  Trump and/or his ill-informed advisors are applying Western/Christianized morality to Islamic nations who do not share our values.

Doing these things, Trump is doing very little differently than Obama did.  He ignores the endemic nature of Islam in favor of the great schmooze – offering up platitudes toward Saudi Arabia’s and Islam’s glaring shortcomings while pretending a moral equivalency of both with Christian values.

All of this is being done while the leaders of Saudi Arabia lie about their tolerance and their role is spreading the radicalism of Islam though our universities and other nations.

Let us only hope that this is just a royal schmooze to facilitate the role of Saudi Arabia as being a “friend” in the sense of “an enemy of my enemy is my friend”.  Saudi Arabia is no “friend.”  Islam is not a religion to be viewed as a means of solving world problems.  Islam is a world problem.  And Saudi Arabia is at the heart of this Islamic world problem.

Much more could be said about this speech.  An excellent dissection of it from the perspective of those well-informed about Islam is found HERE, at Pam Geller’s website.