When a society rejects common sense, natural law, right reason, and Scripture — taking those worthy authorities in alphabetical order — that society has no way of resolving the internal contradictions that will inevitably arise, and no way of fighting off external assaults, however absurd.
The good news is found in Herbert Stein’s law, which is that “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” But there are times when the good news aspect is hard to comprehend because of the size of the smoking crater made by the thing that just “stopped.”
In our day, the rejection of an objective and external authority is the result of coupling ardent relativism with an equally ardent emotional commitment to “equality.”
So let us see where these tensions have landed us. In the wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, the president has called for a ban on purchasing guns for people who are on “no fly” lists. At the same time, it turns out that 72 people who are on terror watch lists are actually employed by the Department of Homeland Security. The Director of Being Asleep at the Switch would now appear to be a cabinet level position. And in the aftermath of the shooting, perpetrated by radical Islamists, the Attorney General gave notice that she would “take action” against anybody who was guilty of “anti-Muslim rhetoric.” It is one problem to lock the barn door after the horse is out, but it goes to higher levels when you lock the door of the wrong barn, three counties over. And then some Republicans running for president still emphasize our need to protect national security through data collection, while gross abusers of the rights of citizens in the federal government are walking around free. I don’t want these Republicans to assure us how trustworthy they would be with sensitive data. I want them to have to assure me how trustworthy Hillary Clinton would be with it. And then, to fill out the week, the Pentagon announced that all combat roles are now open to the women — which means there is no possible way that future conscription will not include women. A nation that defends itself by putting women in combat roles in this way is a nation that is not worthy of being defended. Welcome to the madhouse.
Going back to guns, there is one bright spot — because it indicates faith in the grand federal idol is starting to teeter. This bright spot is that the more politicians talk about gun control, the more Americans stock up.
I said above that we had an emotional commitment to equality. This is the driving force behind many (if not all) of the absurdities. Few things have been as demonized as “discrimination,” and the reason we can’t look for evil-doers in the obvious places is because this would make us guilty of “profiling.” But if we need to have a TSA at all, which we don’t, they ought to be posting signs that say something like: “Because of heightened security risks, people with a swarthy complexion, a Middle Eastern look, or with names like Abdul, will receive extra scrutiny. We apologize for any inconvenience.” But rather than do such a thing, we run millions of people through our security theater apparatus, patting down eighty-year-old Swedish grandmas. And thus we pay tribute to the great god equality.
A guy is walking to his car when he notices a drunk guy crawling around in the parking lot looking for something. “What are you looking for?” he asks. “My car keys,” the drunk says. The guy joins in the hunt, hoping for a chance to confiscate the car keys if he finds them first. After about ten minutes, with no luck, he asks the drunk if he was sure he dropped them here. “No, no,” came the reply. “It was over there, near the bar.” “Why are you looking here then?” came the exasperated question. “Oh, because the light’s better here.”
The joke is funny, but just barely, because we are a civilized nation of 300 million people doing exactly the same thing. We are looking for our answers in places where it would be most convenient to find them, and not in the places where they are most likely to be. It would be emotionally inconvenient for liberal stereotypes to turn out to be false.
Aaron Wolf put it this way:
POTUS: Terrorists are a tiny fraction of Muslims. Embrace Muslims. They are law-abiding Americans. [There are 5 to 8 million Muslims in the United States.]
Aaron Wolf: Whackjob Killers are a tiny fraction of AR-15 owners. Embrace AR-15 owners. They are law-abiding Americans. [There are between 8 and 9 million AR-15s in the United States.]
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad,” is spoken by Longfellow’s Prometheus, and it seems that Prometheus knew his gods, not to mention his onions. Equality is a cheat, just like the rest of them.
Now that ISIS has opened up its campaign against North American soft targets — and just how many soft targets are there in North America? — we need to see this for what it is. This is an assault, not on those soft targets, but on the god who is supposed to be protecting them. And the more that god fails to protect, the more our egalitarians will dance around the altar, cutting themselves with knives.
Allah is a false god, but he is a hard one. The gods of the West are just as false, and soft. In the realm of the gods, hard cuts through soft, just as in nature. The jihadists are flint-hearted, while the solons of the West are as fine a collection of butterhearts as you might find anywhere.
Faced with this scenario, the residents of the West have three options. We can retain our commitment to our soft gods, in which case we will go down like grass before the scythe. We can turn to a different kind of idol, hard Western idols, and then there will be a real war. I don’t know enough about French politics to say, but we might be seeing the beginning of this in the rapid rise of Le Pen.
The last option is to come to Jesus Christ, confess our sins, repenting of them, and to return, with chastened gladness, to common sense, natural law, right reason, and Scripture.
What do you mean by “Now that ISIS has opened up its campaign against North American soft targets …”?
Has ISIS taken responsibility for any actions here in the US?
San Bernardino…for one.
I haven’t seen any reports that ISIS has taken responsibility for SB. I would think that sort of thing would be all over the news if they had.
Then again, could be I’ve just missed it.
You’ve missed it. It’s been all over the news, but ISIS can hardly get a word in edgewise, what with all the attempts to apologize for them.
Could you perhaps share me a link to a story saying they’ve taken responsibility for it?
I’ve read plenty of stories saying Tashfeen Malik was a supporter of ISIS, and that ISIS was in favor of what they did, but that is not at all the same thing as ISIS taking responsibility for the attack.
“The Islamic State said the murderous couple — U.S.-born Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and his spouse, Tashfeen Malik, 29, a native of Pakistan — were followers of the Syria- and Iraq-based terror network.”
That’s just really bad reporting right there. Being inspired by ISIS != ISIS taking responsibility.
It’s the media, of course it’s bad reporting! Also, I don’t speak Arabic or Farsi or whatever, so I can’t vouch for what exactly is being said, however, “’Two followers of Islamic State attacked several days ago a center in San Bernadino in California,’ ISIS said in its daily online radio broadcast Saturday,” is also a part of the story. They were radicalized, they belonged to isis, they posted a declaration of loyalty on FB before the atrocity, and isis now claims them as followers. “Now that ISIS has opened up its campaign against North American soft targets …” I… Read more »
Yup, you missed it. On Bret Baier’s newscast this evening, they had a report on the House Homeland Security majority chair reporting that 16 different attacks against civilians were inspired, facilitated, and “claimed” by ISIS.
What’s happened to you is this: the media suppresses this news ’cause it’s bad news for King Obama, and King Obama’s ministers keep this information covered, finessed, nuanced, and otherwise fudged from the news media.
Of course, the more ISIS does this, the less King Obama’s efforts to deny all this will be effective.
Link to transcript?
“The last option is to come to Jesus Christ, confess our sins, repenting
of them, and to return, with chastened gladness, to common sense,
natural law, right reason, and Scripture.”
Well now, I vote for this option, by consensus, up twinkles and all that, as triggering as this option may be. It seems like the best choice and much preferable to my running around screaming, “ack, we’re all going to die!”
Remember there was the woman eyewitness that said it was three athletic men? What happened to the third? Something smells fishy. Gub’mint never lies after all.
If you preach this in church I am going to stand up and holler Amen! Fair warning..
“POTUS: Terrorists are a tiny fraction of Muslims. Embrace Muslims. They are law-abiding Americans. [There are 5 to 8 million Muslims in the United States.] Aaron Wolf: Whackjob Killers are a tiny fraction of AR-15 owners. Embrace AR-15 owners. They are law-abiding Americans. [There are between 8 and 9 million AR-15s in the United States.]” So follow your own logic here, Doug: This post argues that though a small percentage of Muslims commit terrorist acts, we know that these whackjobs come out of a larger pool of Muslims, so we should focus our security measures on Muslims, and/or marginalize Muslims,… Read more »
“We need ideological control.”
Sounds like ideological control comes from you spikie!
To borrow a phrase from ghost busters:
“Are you a god?” ????
It is not a new idea.
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our political opponents have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”
Ioseb Jughashvili 1930
Of course not. Did you read what I wrote? Would you disagree that we need to put an end to the ideology of groups like ISIS? I’m not advocating for a takeover of everyone’s thought patterns. By control I mean we need people in their respective faith communities to take action to curb ideologies that promote superiority and vilification of the opposition linked to a divine mandate. That is what ISIS is all about. It is also very similar to the rhetoric that comes from the far right in some Christian circles. Superiority, vilification of the opposition, and a divine… Read more »
Spikie, if your position was correct , it would naturally be superior to other positions. Faith leaders do not need to be in control , God is in control , right now, and on the day we die, when ever that may be. We are messengers, not the message.
So pastors, preachers, teachers of the Word have no responsibility to control or attempt to refute ideologies that promote hate? Muslim clerics have no responsibility to refute the ideologies that lead to jihad? Of course God is in control, but he’s always relied on his people to act in faith. My call for “ideological control” is a call for leaders to actively refute the ideologies that lead to hate. You are correct that we are messengers, but we need to make sure the message is correct. Your comment seems to imply that Doug’s hands are tied because all he’s doing… Read more »
Spikie, “Allah is a false god, but he is a hard one. The gods of the West are just as false, and soft. In the realm of the gods, hard cuts through soft, just as in nature. The jihadists are flint-hearted, while the solons of the West are as fine a collection of butterhearts as you might find anywhere.” DW Wilson is speaking against the false god of mohamed, and the false god of kooky liberalism. The KKK (white pseudo Christian whack-jobs) is not really part of the above equation, although they too have their own false god. Wilson’s whole… Read more »
The problem is that though Doug is not a KKK pseudo Christian whack-job, his general application of Scripture and his worldview has some real similarities. My point is that he is not doing enough in his own writing to refute such whackjob ideologies.
And our nation is made up of many races and cultures. If we are to all embrace the one true God, then there are only two options: everyone becomes a Christian or those that are not Christians need to leave.
People who like licorice should probably leave too!????
Spikie, you do manage to pack a bunch of false choices into a few lines! I guess that is moving closer to humor!????
What are the false choices? If we are to be a truly Christian nation, what do we do with those that don’t believe? Are there other options than the ones I mentioned?
The “Nation”, the USA is specifically secular as conceived by the Christians who founded it.
The govt. was a secular extension of a diverse Christian sub culture. One false choice you offer is the”be Christian or leave” idea. This idea belongs to the straw men you think are an issue when they are not!????
I’m talking about Doug’s assertion that the only way out of the mess we’re in is to have the nation embrace Christ. In that scenario, what would Doug like to see happen with people of other faiths? That they convert? What if they don’t? I’m not setting up a false choice, I’m saying it sounds like Doug is setting up a false choice. If the only solution to the state of our country is to have everyone turn to Christ, then what is recommended for those that don’t? I’m interested in how this would practically play out.
” the residents of the West have three options. We can retain our commitment to our soft gods, in which case we will go down like grass before the scythe. We can turn to a different kind of idol, hard Western idols, and then there will be a real war. I don’t know enough about French politics to say, but we might be seeing the beginning of this in the rapid rise of Le Pen. The last option is to come to Jesus Christ, confess our sins, repenting of them, and to return, with chastened gladness, to common sense, natural… Read more »
He says “the residents of the West” need to return to Scripture. You’re correct that he doesn’t say he wants to kick everyone out. But the “residents of the West” is more than a city on a hill. He’s talking about the entire West being Christian. So, if that is the goal, there are only two options: either everyone becomes a Christian or the non-Christians leave. Is there another way for this vision to come about?
Spikie, the whole planet can become a City on a Hill if enough folks submit to God. Again, you keep trying to say that the City on the Hill is a gated community when it is not.
You keep insisting “there are only two options”, when that is the lie and false choice you keep repeating, and keep insisting is not a false choice.
Again spikie, are you capable of any humor at all? Beyond the minor absurdity of your comments? ; – )
What other options are there? Help me out with this. If the way to solve the threat of terrorism is for us as a nation or as a world to embrace Christianity, then what does that mean for Muslims or people of other faiths? If we take Doug’s advice as a practical step to making the country safer, what do we do about those that don’t believe? Doug wants the nation to be Christian, or the world to be Christian. I get it. Tear down the gated community. But the entire world, the nation, your town, whatever, is not going… Read more »
We do what the godly have always done in a lost and fallen world, be Salt and Light, as best we can. What does that look like?
It looks like Lsrael under Soloman, or even the USA under Washington .
It looks like Poland under Walesa.
The above are never perfect, but they are better than China under Mao or Iran under an Ayatola.
The godly are salt and light, Christ is the food,
Matthew 5 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your… Read more »
Pittard wrote: And our nation is made up of many races and cultures. If we are to all embrace the one true God, then there are only two options: everyone becomes a Christian or those that are not Christians need to leave. Pittard seems to want to be the voice of pluralism, but he also understands the problem before us. What does Scripture indicate will be the direction and the outcome? Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those… Read more »
Given his previous statements on the blog, I suspect that Pittard holds certain portions of Scripture to be an “ideology that leads to hate”, particularly the passages that speak to the sinfulness of homosexual acts.
It seems that Pittard is trying to say that Jesus’ ideology contains nothing dangerous. Yet somehow many Christians have been imprisoned and have died for it.
Pittard apparently feels threatened by something he thinks Wilson said, but he is woefully short on specifics.
Katecho is misreading what Pittard said. In Pittard’s original post, he quoted from Wilson’s article and referenced some specific parts of it. Jesus’ ideology certainly is dangerous for believers, because our decision to follow Christ may call us to take a beating or to end up in jail or to be murdered. But there is nothing “dangerous” in his teachings in terms of needing to fear that someone might read the Sermon on the Mount and then decide it’s high time to blow up a Planned Parenthood clinic. But Doug Wilson’s ideology, while not calling for violence or condoning it,… Read more »
I do believe the difference is that the larger pool of AR-15 owners condemn the whackjobs and would themselves have shot the whackjobs with their ARs, had they been anywhere with firing range.
Can you say the same for the larger pool of Muslims?
Yes. Far more Muslims have died at the hands of ISIS than anyone else. Muslims in the West that do not join with ISIS are seen as just as bad as Christians or Jews or anyone else. Muslims died in the Paris attacks. ISIS could care less. The majority of Muslims condemn the acts of ISIS, and if they had AR-15s would have fought back because they would have been fighting for their own lives as well. Don’t get me wrong. I am not against gun ownership. My point in mentioning Doug’s use of the Aaron Wolf quote was to… Read more »
Of course you can. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are as horrified by this as anyone else, and _more_ likely to be a victim of it than we are.
There are almost constant condemnations of ISIS and other terrorist groups by Muslims across the globe. ISIS hates non-ISIS Muslism even more than it hates Christians, and the vast majority of global Muslims hate ISIS. “To date, we’ve identified condemnations from more than 80 religious, civil, and political organizations, from 92 countries on six continents. From Argentina to Canada, from Alaska to Australia, Muslims have denounced ISIS. There are dozens of local student groups, tens of dozens of online campaigns and joint statements, and scores of public demonstrations and protests. Government leaders from the top 10 countries with the largest… Read more »
I don’t care.
We where told after 9/11 that Islam is a religion of peace, it is not.
We where told that creating monstrous bureaucracies and giving up our freedoms would make us safe. it did not.
We where not told that the government would spy on us, it does.
We where told to “fight them over there, instead of fighting them here” we are fighting them here.
Now we are being told that bringing them here will make them like us.
no. You go there. We will stay here. Send us a postcard .
I’m confused by that list. Many of the people who were at the forefront of telling us those things….are the exact same ones telling you to deny refugees now.
Of the first four things you say which you now believe are lies, none of them have any support in the Scriptures.
Forget what they tell you. What does the God of Jesus Christ tell you?
Jesus is silent on global, demographic card-shuffling, although it’s possible that Muslims are a judgment on the West in the same way the Chaldeans were on Israel.
There is no global demographic card-shuffling. If we imported the entire refugee population into the West, it wouldn’t change our demographics by a single % point.
Not that giving a situation a political name means that you can just skip away from the Scriptures and relationship with God and start going with modern political positions in the name of “reason” instead.
It is interesting to me how Scriptures are to be applied and ignored based on the public policy field under question. Nearly always, the answer is “whatever the left says”.
I disagree with that entirely, but of course, it’s the sort of contentless argument where nothing I say will count as a defense.
I am supremely interested with obeying God myself, helping others to know God and experience His blessings, and expanding the Kingdom of God. Whether you believe me or not, that is my basis. We can discuss from there or we can continue with name-calling and empty accusations.
“I’m confused by that list. Many of the people who were at the forefront of telling us those things….are the exact same ones telling you to deny refugees now.”
Which “people who were at the forefront” would they be? Neo-cons and liberal interventionists were wrong then, and they’re the ones telling us to invite in the refugees. While opening up another war in the Middle East, of course.
What does the God of Jesus Christ tell you?
Kill the bastards.
Then I, personally, think that there are voices that are drowning out the voice of God in your life. That’s only my opinion based on my relationship with God and my study of Scripture and guidence of the people of God – I can’t truly judge your own expression of what you feel God is telling you. But that is not God, nor Jesus in his human or divine natures, as I know Him.
I pray for you as a I pray for them, as I pray for myself.
The important question about the refugees is: what are you going to personaly do for them?
Jonathan, you set up a false dichotomy–an anti-Christian dichotomy–between compassion and justice. Your links supporting Islamic Jihad–which is what muslim immigration is–are not convincing. We see first hand in Europe what happens when a place becomes majority muslim–it submits to sharia law. Since I recognize the invasion for what it is, I am bellicose and rightly so. We are to defend–by lethal force if necessary, and it is a sin not to oppose by lethal force if necessary–the innocent. I am not going to let my people be slaughtered because you want to feel good about yourself. Now I pray… Read more »
Many of the people who were at the forefront of telling us those
things….are the exact same ones telling you to deny refugees now.
Wow, you’re right. Rumsfield has all said that war in Syria is a bad idea, and Bush and Cheney have said that we should open our homes to refugees. I don’t think you can be wrong simply because people who were wrong before agree with you….but I am certainly really surprised by that. I could spend longer checking the architects of the Patriot Act or the 31 governors who want to deny refugees, because I’ve be really surprised if most of the former aren’t desirous to deny refugees and most of the later weren’t supporters of the Iraq War…but I’ll… Read more »
Thank you. Your integrity is refreshing and a blessing.
Johnathan, one more data-point so you have a sense of the context from which I argue. The late Christopher Hitchens is on record saying that a primary goal–which he later came to regret given the harm it caused–of the “elite” in England was to dilute the culture of the England and replace it with ‘multi-culturalism’. The invasion of England was planned, enacted and enabled by its ‘ruling class’. I think that goal remains throughout Christendom–including America. Now, I do not want to argue this point with you. I will leave that to others better informed than I. I offer it… Read more »
Pittard wrote: This post argues that though a small percentage of Muslims commit terrorist acts, we know that these whackjobs come out of a larger pool of Muslims, so we should focus our security measures on Muslims, Meanwhile, Wilson had written: But if we need to have a TSA at all, which we don’t, Ignoring that violent crime rates have gone down in the U.S. while gun ownership has risen, Pittard wrote: Any ideology that asserts superiority of one group over another, vilifies the “enemy” as being depraved and thoroughly evil, and attaches these beliefs to a divine mandate is… Read more »
What about all others?????
That is why he is against “ideological control”, except his own.
Yes, Doug says we don’t need the TSA. In the logic of his post, however, he is indicating that our efforts to secure ourselves would be better placed looking where we dropped our keys, so to speak. He is not advocating for more security measures, which is why after the part of my response that you quoted, I added “or marginalize them or push them out altogether”. Am I misreading Doug to imply that he would rather we didn’t have any Muslims in this country? If so, I stand corrected. And my post is not arguing for gun control, so… Read more »
Pittard wrote: Am I misreading Doug to imply that he would rather we didn’t have any Muslims in this country? If so, I stand corrected. Pittard stands corrected for thinking that Doug was prescribing any need for Muslim profiling, or that the TSA is an effective security measure to aim at Muslims. Rather Doug was simply observing that a bizarre pluralistic egalitarian ideology has made a laughing stock of national security. We are the drunk who prefers to look for his keys where the light is good. On the question of whether Doug would rather we didn’t have any Muslims… Read more »
Once again, Katecho pulls out snippets from my post and misreads them. I did not say I “stand corrected” for thinking Doug was advocating for Muslim profiling. He is obviously against government profiling and the TSA. But the fact that he’s mocking the efforts of the government by pointing out that Muslims (or people named Abdul) are “where the keys dropped” so there’s no point in an egalitarian approach that also looks suspiciously at old women, is ultimately making a point: Muslims are a problem. He calls their god “false and hard” and concludes at the end of the post… Read more »
From whence come now Horatio? Methinks the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze here.
Ah! The mask slips and the totalitarian reveals his intent.
Molon Labe Spikey.
Spike gets beat down hard! Thanks for playing.
What’s totalitarian about this post? The fact that I said “we don’t need gun control”? Is it the fact that I said we need to find a way to control harmful ideologies and that my suggestion for controlling these ideologies is for leaders in faith communities to speak against warped, variant ideologies? I didn’t call of the government to ban hateful ideologies. I called for people like Doug to use their platforms to provide some means of weakening the kind of narratives that lead to violence. We need this on both sides of the spectrum, from Christians as well as… Read more »
Confident, free men do not “control” ideas they advocate for them and/or refute them .
I am tired of arguing ‘definitions’ with you. You are like Clinton asking what the definition of is is.
Is that why Wilson’s NSA won’t allow students to hold beliefs that are heresies? It is not simply refuting them, it is controlling belief. Arguing definitions is actually important, as what people mean when they say things matters. If you are saying that my use of “control” is totalitarian and I am saying that my use of “control” is line with the “refuting them” notion that you mention, then we need to be clear about definitions. If you would prefer, I’ll change “control” to “refute” and make the same point: people like Doug, leaders in their faith communities need to… Read more »
There’s a wide gulf between suffering injury from someone who belongs here and from an invited guest, or an invader. Different situations call for different responses.
To put it another way: as you say we already have enough violent criminals among our own; why should we risk importing any more?
I understand the concern about bringing in more people to this country. I suppose the reason we should risk bringing refugees into this country is because we read in James 1:27 that true religion is to look after orphans and widows in their distress. And also because we don’t want to come before Jesus and ask “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?” Isn’t caring for refugees the job of Christians? Would Jesus turn them away?
“Isn’t caring for refugees the job of Christians?” Well, maybe if they are orphans and widows. Is that what they all are? Leaving aside the question of who Jesus meant, were the refugees hungry, thirsty, needing clothes, etc. and that is why they need to come to America? In any case, the U.S. government will decide, for America at large, if, how many, and which, refugees are brought to the U.S. If we are talking about the job of Christians do you then hold that America is obliged because America is a Christian nation and the U.S. government is or… Read more »
Well, Jesus doesn’t mention “in danger of being killed by extremists”, but I’m assuming that would fit with the general message of what he was saying. If your family was in danger of being wiped out, wouldn’t you want to get out of the country? Wouldn’t you hope another nation would welcome you?
“in danger of being killed by extremists” – Are we selecting for people who are that in particular? If you are talking about offering asylum I think that is a whole other category than the case at hand. But since you quoted Christian scripture as the driving imperative let me repeat my question that you did not answer: If we are talking about the job of Christians do you then hold that America is obliged because America is a Christian nation and the U.S. government is or ought to be a Christian government?
No, America is not obliged to help the needy because they are a Christian nation, or because the government ought to be Christian. The country should welcome refugees because it is the right thing to do. And that is based not only on Christian teaching but on teachings found in Buddhism, Hinduism and elsewhere. Christianity doesn’t have a corner on the “have compassion on those in need” concept.
Then what do admonitions in Christian scripture have to do with it if they do not oblige the government?
That’s what I’m asking you.
You are the one who said: “I suppose the reason we should risk bringing refugees into this country is because we read in James 1:27…….”. I then pointed out in so many words that “we” won’t be the ones doing the bringing. To do that or not is a governmental policy decision . Do you think government policy should be made with reference to the Christian Bible?
True. “We” won’t be doing this. But in the broader discussion on Doug’s post, the issue of accepting refugees came up. I was simply saying that the Christian thing to do would be to provide assistance. Government policy should not be made expressly by referencing the Bible. But the teachings of Christianity, as well as the teachings of other faiths, influence decisions made by people in government all the time.
Well then, you’re not advocating a sort of progressive version of Dominionism after all. I didn’t really think you were. ;) I don’t know about teachings of religions other than the Christian faith influencing anyone in the U.S. government. I won’t say never, but I doubt the tenets of Buddhism or Hinduism are even in the back of very many governmental minds. The things you want to remember about that influence of the teachings of Christianity are 1) If it suits you to advocate for it in certain instances you can’t have it both ways – you can disagree with… Read more »
Question for you and others championing “radical hospitality”: what responsibility does a host have when his guest commits a crime against his neighbour?
Bring the guest to justice and ensure that the guest makes amends for the crime.
So, no responsibility, in other words. About what I thought.
Elaborate, por favor. What do you mean by “no responsibility”? And how does this relate to the broader conversation?
If a man keeps wolves in his backyard, and one kills and eats a neighbour’s child, is justice served merely by killing the wolf?
If refugees are more likely than native-born citizens to be peaceful, less-likely than native-born citizens to comitt mass murder/violent crime/terrorist attacks…. Then importing refugees actually makes the average person safer. Also, the different practical argument (totally outside the theologcal argument, which is also strong) is that impoting refugees and loving them well is one of the best things to combat ISIS’s claim that the West hates Musilms, that the West is at war with Muslims, and that warring back at them is the only possible response for a true Muslim. Because of that, loving Muslim refugees well and integrating them… Read more »
Another question we could ask ourselves, is it truly loving? Is taking in refugees all about us and our desires to be perceived as white knights or is it about what is in the best interests of the refugees? Because it’s not necessarily kind to ship them halfway around the world and thrust them into a foreign culture, different language, different values, away from their friends and family, to partake in what are fast becoming limited resources, few jobs, and an impending economic collapse. You’re talking about loving them well and integrating them into our society, with little or no… Read more »
ME – have you met refugees who were waiting to get refugee status and trying to get themselves shipped halfway around the world? Have you met refugees who had successfully done so and were now living in the West? I’ve worked with refugees on both ends of the story. I’ve lived with people as they were in the middle of the process. I’ve had close friends who were applying for refugee status, and close friends who had lived productive lives as refugees. I can say strongly that, yes, being accepted with love as a refugee was a loving thing. For… Read more »
One of the women recently shot and killed in the San Bernardino atrocity was an amazing woman of God who fled Iran to escape persecution. Many of those killed in these acts of violence are refugees who have come here seeking safety. The problem is that what comes with them is often what they are fleeing in the first place. To act as if all refugees just need to be loved and welcomed with open arms is naive at best.
We can never control how people will respond to love and the welcome of Christ.
But it is what we are told to give to all, and the most likely thing for them to respond to.
Something basic in the refugee process is an attempt to seperate those with reason to flee from their persecutors. There’s no assumption that the process can be perfect, but there’s no reason to pretend that it is random either. It has worked extremely well to this point.
Matthew 10 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c] 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow… Read more »
Is your argument that this passage speaks to a radical ideology? Jesus is certainly saying that following him will pit one person against another, but there is no implication in this passage that he is espousing a radical ideology in the same sense as a radical Muslim or a radical Christian. The way of peace cuts like a sword as those that do not understand it will always react negatively to it. Jesus was a radical, to be sure, but not the way you make him out to be by using this quote to try and refute my post.
“Any ideology that asserts superiority of one group over another, vilifies the “enemy” as being depraved and thoroughly evil, and attaches these beliefs to a divine mandate is dangerous–” You and me, my dear Spikie, are or were thoroughly evil. Jesus is superior to us, when we are in sin, we are His enemies. You may want to control your own use of language more carefully, and speak less broadly, before you concern yourself with “controling” the ideology of others. For my self, I try to speak God’s truth, rather than my own. That way His truth does the work… Read more »
“I try to speak God’s truth, rather than my own.”
That’s what I’m trying to do, too.
Then sprinkle some of God’s Word in with your own. ; – )
Also, you would benefit from a more evident sense of humor! ; – )
(Please respond with a joke!)
This entire comment collapses under the weight of the significant mischaracterization of a temporary halt in immigration as “marginalizing or pushing them out of the country altogether.”
Since the former is a perfectly reasonable thing for any sovereign nation to do, as well as Constitutional, and the latter is highly debatable and probably unlawful, I can see why the need for dishonesty.
My comment wasn’t about halting immigration temporarily, it was a response to Doug’s entire post, which was not calling for a temporary halt. It was calling for embracing Scripture, but the subtext of the post, with the discussion of Muslims and security and the use of the paraphrase of Obama and the quote from Aaron Wolf was implying that we’d be a better nation if we were all Christians. So the obvious point is that we don’t need or want Muslims in this country. Doug is not calling for a halt in immigration. He doesn’t want Muslims here at all.… Read more »
1) Would you assert your ideological superiority over any ideology that asserts superiority of one group over another, vilifies the “enemy” as being depraved and thoroughly evil, and attaches these beliefs to a divine mandate, assert that such is the “enemy” since it is depraved and thoroughly evil, and attach a divine mandate to the need to root out such ideologies?
2) Could we reinstate the Inquisition to accomplish your goals? If not, I suggest that you back away from the red robes, since you suggest that Doug back away from the white robes.
Not sure what you’re asking in point one. As for point two, I’m not advocating for an inquisition. This is what I say at the end of the post: “Where does ideological control come from? It comes from leaders in faith communities that challenge the toxic ideologies that lead to violence.” No inquisition necessary.
Point 1 – You propose doing that which you propose shouldn’t be done.
Ideologies that assert superiority, vilify others for holding different ideologies, and attach a divine mandate to themselves are in fact inferior, the enemy, and ought to be opposed on the basis of Godliness.
Point 2 – What do you think the Inquisition was?
I don’t propose doing what I propose shouldn’t be done. I propose that leaders of faith, like Doug Wilson and others should actively try to refute ideologies that lead to violence. Muslim clerics need to engage the radical ideas that are deviant. Christians should do the same. I’m not talking about heresy, which is what the inquisition was attempting to do away with. That is more in line with Doug’s ideology than mine. Doug does away with heresy at NSA. I’m not talking about controlling heresy, but rather controlling (i.e. tempering) the intolerant, vilifying rhetoric based on particular cultural and… Read more »
So, Wilson wars against ideologies that are bad for the soul but you hate that and only want him focusing on those that are bad for the body (which he does war against those–abortion, homosexuality, unjust war, terrorism–you just pretend that he doesn’t because he doesn’t line up with you. But bringing in the concept of the Inquisition is important because suppose we have a widespread “war on dangerous ideology”–which I cannot fathom how secular societies could EVER justify such a thing and still pretend to be secular (they can’t)–but the problem of “dangerous ideologies” just won’t die out, they… Read more »
You keep missing the point. I’m not advocating a war on dangerous ideologies. My point is that just as we would hope Muslim clerics would take action to challenge the radical views of those that interpret Islam a certain way, Christian leaders should do the same. My assertion in my post is that Wilson’s ideology is very close to the radical Christian ideologies that lead to violence. I’m not asking for the King or the Pope or the President to instigate a war on ideology. The inquisition is not remotely connected to what I’m suggesting. But carry on if you… Read more »
Do you think Tours, Vienna and Lepanto were about “ideology”?
I hate to change the subject here, but I’d like to address this matter: … the Pentagon announced that all combat roles are now open to the women — which means there is no possible way that future conscription will not include women. A nation that defends itself by putting women in combat roles in this way is a nation that is not worthy of being defended. Shortly after 9/11, I became convinced that US-style conscription (1. by lottery; and 2. for the purposes of manning unjust, non-defensive wars such as WW I, Korea and Vietnam) is unbiblical. (Thank you,… Read more »
Not directly related to this post, but has anyone else had trouble subscribing to this blog, so that posts come into their email automatically? I have been trying for a few months now and I am not getting any feeds. Jason Bailey
“At the same time, it turns out that 72 people who are on terror watch lists are actually employed by the Department of Homeland Security.” Actually, it turns out that this was misreported. That’s actually the total number of aviation workers that have not been properly vetted against the watch lists, not a number of homeland security employees actually on the watch lists. Some of those in question likely did work in low level roles for Homeland Security, but the number mostly consists of under vetted employees of airlines and airport vendors. So, while this is still a very big… Read more »
Oh, that Whopper problem.
Luke, over 10 years ago, Dulles had a large number of individuals working there who could not pass the required background tests or pass the TSA screening. Some of them are still there and are still unable to pass the security screening. This is reported on local DC news not national news. I was inside Dulles security at a fast food joint waiting to place my order. The manager, from Pakistan, passed me to work on a toy display in the cattle chute. He pulled out a 6 inch, serrated edge, fast opening folder and started to work the display.… Read more »
“So let us see where these tensions have landed us. In the wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, the president has called for a ban on purchasing guns for people who are on “no fly” lists. At the same time, it turns out that 72 people who are on terror watch lists are actually employed by the Department of Homeland Security. ” I’m not completely certain what Pastor Wilson is referring to, but this seems to be a bait-and-switch. A “no fly” list and a “terror watch” list are different things, right? Some terror watch lists may simply… Read more »
s. So, while this is still a very big issue, it just doesn’t QUITE pack
the same punch when you realize that we are talking about cashiers at
airport Burger Kings rather than Homeland Security Officers.”
Or the muslim who smuggled the box-cutters onto the airplaines on 9/11.
But this is all moot now. Trump has called for a total ban on all muslim integration. The overton window has shifted.
Egalitarianism is the original sin: I will be like the Most High…ye shall be as gods. And the original folly, considering who who claiming equality with Who. And in politics, an ideal whose pursuit makes itself worse rather than better, for eqaulity must be enforced by a non-equal Equalizer. (And re Islam, since I was just commenting on liberal cartoonist Clay Bennett’s cartoon of the Koran and the Bible in today’s Chattanooga Times-Free Press): Uh, Clay, have you read both books? Jesus endorsed the Bible, so I’ve read it maybe around two dozen times and counting; He died for me… Read more »
Plagairism is a sure sign of being a butterheart.