Category Archives: religion

From Weeping to Laughing : Sermon on the Mount

In the two versions of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught his disciples about grief and sorrow. In the version recorded in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (5:4). Luke’s gospel interprets Jesus as saying, “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh” (6:21b). Matthew’s gospel interprets Jesus saying from the internal process of grieving while the gospel of Luke depicts the same as an outward expression.

The question is this: what the heck is Jesus talking about? Is he speaking about grief due to sin? Or is he referring to the loss of a loved through death? Or is he alluding to something else?

The context of both versions seems to point to grief over sin. In both gospels, what Jesus says after the beatitudes contradicts the status quo view of right and wrong. In effect, the practical requirements of righteousness as expressed in the Sermon reveals how most people then and now fail to measure up. It is what Paul meant when he said, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Here are a few examples from the gospel of Matthew: Jesus said, “Don’t worry about your life-food, shelter, clothing, transportation, money” (6:25-34). How about “do not have a savings account, an IRA, or 401K, or the like” (6:19-21). Here is another commandment: “Love your enemies; pray not for their destruction but rather pray for God to bless them”. (6:43-47). Here the easy one: “Be perfect as God is perfect” (6:48). How are you measuring up?

Another contextual clue precedes Jesus’ saying about mourning and weeping. Blessed are the poor both in spirit and otherwise refers to the lack of a right relationship with God. What does being poor in spirit mean? It means not being full of the Spirit. If a person is not full of the Spirit of God it usually means that person is full of something else. In writings of the Apostle Paul, the Greek word used for the something else is sarkikos. It is usually translated as carnal, natural, fleshly, or worldly. It actually means ungodly or behavior uncharacteristic of Christ. The essence of sin then is living contrary to God’s way, which the way Jesus teaches in the Sermon..

One of the best examples of a person grieving over sin is found in Luke’s gospel. Jesus presents a parable of two different types of people praying in the Temple. One is a Pharisee and the other a wretched tax collector. The Pharisee tells God about his righteous deeds while the tax collector cries out to God for mercy. Ashamed by the realization of his evil ways, “the tax collector was unwilling to lift up his head toward heaven. Instead, he pounds his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner'” (18:9-14).

Another good example is the woman who repented of her sins by washing Jesus feet with tears and wiping his feet with her hair, which took place in the house of a Pharisee who had invited Jesus to his home for dinner. Entering the house of a Pharisee uninvited was pretty risky. Sinners were not allowed but to allow a immoral woman to touch you even more grievous. But, as Jesus pointed out, his host failed to perform the customary purity ritual of feet washing, but the sinful woman did. She washed his feet with tears of sorrow over her own sins. She demonstrated unusually humility when she wiped his feet with her hair. A woman’s hair represented the glory of her beauty. This unnamed woman did all of it as a silent cry for God’s forgiveness. She was not disappointed. (Luke 7:36-50).

The term mourning usually depicts loss of some sort. The loss of wealth or possession certainly is something about which people mourn. From the viewpoint of political economy, poverty more often than not is the result of sin. Often it is the result of an abuse of power and a result of greed. Communist Russia (USSR) impoverished a majority of its people by its empire building efforts around the world. I have heard of people being impoverished in China and Muslim countries only because of their Christian beliefs. United States government is also impoverishing many citizens by means of its ever-increasing debt spending and, to a lesser extent, its sanctioning of corporate globalism. American empire building is the reason for much of the enormous national debt. Poverty may also be the result of an impoverished mentality. The story of the ancient post-Exodus Jews present one example. Many second and third generation Americans who lived by government welfare is another. Sometimes poverty is the result of illness or similar tragedy. That is why the American founders agreed to the idea of a right “to the pursuit of happiness” rather than a guaranteed right to prosperity.

Because the blessed poor have access to the kingdom of God, their wealth in material things and in spirit is supplied by God. And God delights in the prosperity of His people. (1 Corinthians 8:9; 9:6-11; Ex. 30:5-10)

The vagueness of Jesus’ saying about mourning and weeping most likely was meant to encompass all human grief and sorrow. As the prophet Isaiah foresaw it, Jesus bore all our grief, sorrows, and infirmities (Isaiah 53). Not just for our sins, but for our loss of loved one simply through death, the loss of jobs and wealth, the loss of homes due to some disaster, the loss of health resulting in other losses as well. Therefore, God comforts those whose mourning is directed toward Him. Relatives and friends simply being present while grieving the loss of a spouse, parent, or child is a comfort. Being there proves that not all is lost–not all life is lost. In the kingdom of God, the expectant hope is that one day the grieving will one day be together with their loved one who died. That hope is reinforced when God is manifestedly presence during such a time.

Some biblical examples include a Shunammite’s women’s grief over the death of her son and God raising her son from the dead through the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37); Jesus raises the dead son of widow in Nain because he saw her weeping and empathized with her loss (Luke 7:11-15); a woman who had suffered a hemorrhage 12 year and spent all her wealth attempting to get healed was instantly healed of her terrible affliction (Mark 5:25-34); and ten men who suffered the extremely painful and crippling disease leprosy cried out for Jesus to have mercy on them and Jesus healed them (Luke 17:11-19).

When people in the kingdom lose jobs, health, or wealth, God makes them laugh. Those taught by God learn to laugh at adversity. When God heals through whatever process, God gives people a reason to laugh. When couples who were unable have children give birth to their first child because of answered prayer, they laugh. (Genesis 17:17; 18:13; 21:1-8) When God provides resources during times of loss, God gives people a reason to laugh. When loss happens, people who seek God find a reprieve from the anxiety of uncertainty. A joyful heart (internal) is like medicine (Proverbs 17:22). Laughter (external) proceeds out of such a heart (Matthew 15:18). Because Jesus is the Great Physician, those who weep now will laugh. (Luke 4:23; 5:31; 6:2b).

By Daniel Downs

Christians Preach to Muslims & Get Arrested

By David J. Rusin

Does the First Amendment protect Christians who bring their message to Muslims at public events or in front of mosques? This is a good question, given the trend of missionaries being placed under arrest while proselytizing to followers of Islam — right here in the United States:

• On June 18, four Christians were arrested for breach of peace at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. The group’s videos show them engaging in reasoned debate with Muslims or merely roaming around, but one festival volunteer accused them of harassment, making him feel “nervous.” According to the Detroit Free Press, “Police said the missionaries were arrested because they failed to obey police commands. Officers maintain the group’s actions were a public safety issue because they caused a large number of people to gather in a small place.” The trial is now in progress.

• On July 3, two evangelicals in front of Philadelphia’s Masjid al-Jamia were arrested by University of Pennsylvania police officers for disorderly conduct and obstruction of a highway. Michael Marcavage says that a bicycle cop demanded that they cease preaching there. When backup arrived, Marcavage started to film. The Daily Pennsylvanian recounts: “He claimed that Officer Nicole Michel assaulted him and forcibly shut off his camera. Marcavage called 911 because ‘the officer was out of control,’ and began filming once more, at which point the police confiscated the device.” He insists that they intentionally destroyed his footage. The trial is scheduled for November.

• On August 30, Mark Holick was outside the Islamic Society of Wichita, Kansas, distributing “packets that included the Gospel of John and the Book of Romans in English and Arabic, [and] a DVD with testimonies of former Islamists who have come to the Lord,” when police allegedly ordered him and a dozen others to move away from the building. He was then arrested for “loitering and failing to disperse.” Holick wants the charges dropped.

At the core of all three cases is the principle that government or entities acting on its behalf cannot muzzle unpopular speech. Newt Gingrich sounds a more specific alarm: freedom is being sacrificed to Shari’a law’s “intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.”

No American city epitomizes this concern as much as heavily Muslim Dearborn. Members of the same Christian group, Acts 17 Apologetics, were tossed from last year’s Arab fest by abusive security personnel. Dearborn authorities attempted to curb the rights of a separate Christian organization to disseminate material at the 2009 event, restrictions later overturned by a federal appeals court. To add insult to injury, Mayor John B. O’Reilly Jr. recently declared that his city is “under attack” by Acts 17.

To learn more, go to the Islamist Watch blog. This article was originally posted there on September 24, 2010.

Who Is God For?

Listening to another great sermon this morning, this question came to mind: who is God for? The pastor’s message was God is for you. A whole lot of issues would be resolved if you settled that in your thoughts. What I do not remember the pastor explaining is why God was for his listeners. That is the pastor did not state or explaining the premise of his argument. His assumptions were not expressed.

What were his assumptions?

The pastor’s premise informing his argument for God being FOR his listeners is comprised of at least the following assumptions:

God loves humanity.

Because the Creator does, he seeks to redeem humanity from the consequences of sin. Those consequences include alienation, sickness, impoverishment, corruption, violence, war, injustice, and the like.

Because sin is a moral crime against the laws of God in human nature, justice is demanded.

For God to forgive humanity’s crimes, means to satisfy divine justice fully must be enacted.

Because the consequence of sin is death, the penalty of death is required.

Good works and moral behavior cannot be the basis of satisfying justice. That is true for all systems of justice of all peoples as well as God’s.

Although the appeasement of divine judgment for sin through sacrificial death of animals has been a universal practice throughout most of human history, and although mammals and human share similar biological nature, animals are not culpable for intentional moral crimes.

Therefore, only the death of a human could possibly fully satisfy divine justice.

Because all humans commit sin, only a human who has never committed sin could be qualified to satisfy the divine demand of justice.

The only human claimed to have fulfilled these qualifications is Jesus of Nazareth. His death has fully satisfied God system of justice thus enabling God to acquit human of their moral crimes and to empower to begin to live sinless lives.

Because the sinless Jew and only-begotten son of God, Jesus, has fulfilled the demands of God’s justice fully, God unmerited love can be forever expressed to those who submit to God by faith with Jesus. This is also called mercy and grace.

Therefore, God is unwavering for and never against those who live under the rule of God’s redemptive justice. All of God’s promises are forever yes. Because temporary lapses in sin cause temporary hindrances to the realization of promises, the hindrance is internal not external. God’s “yes” has not changed because Jesus has already suffered the penalty for all moral crimes and thus completely and forever satisfied all demands of divine justice.

The one contingency to the above is this: Faithfulness to God. That is the underlying problem throughout all of human history. It is why moral reformations resulting in the major religions of the world have occurred. It is why moral reformation will continue to occur, which often called revivals. However, unlike in the past, such reformations without the incorporation of Jesus’ accomplishments on humanity’s behalf as planned by God will not result in the desired future, which is the perpetuation of true justice and eternal life with God.

For those who already are faithful in their practice of righteousness as defined above, implementing the principles of Isaiah 58 can help with the internal resistance.

By Daniel Downs

Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Ground Zero Mosque

The NY Daily News/Marist Poll reports 51% to 41% of New Yorkers oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

The poll “showed 48% of city residents against the planned $100 million community center don’t want it downtown at all, let alone two blocks from where the twin towers came down.”

“The poll of anti-mosque New Yorkers also found that 23% believed one mile from Ground Zero would be far enough for the mosque to be built. Ten blocks was sufficient for 17%, while 7% could accept a five-block buffer and 5% were unsure.”

“There was a gender split. Women outnumber men as opponents of a mosque near Ground Zero, and among those, 52% want to keep it out of lower Manhattan, compared with 41% of men.”

New Yorkers are not the only opponents of mosque/community center. Other polls show most Americans are opposed to it. Muslims have voiced opposition as well. The main issue is not whether an Islamic community or another mosque should be built in New York; the issue is most are opposed to either being built near the site where Islamic zealots achieve a partial victory against America.

Source: NYDailyNews.com, September 13, 2010.

Can America Restore Its Judeo-Christian Heritage?

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Do you know that the American Declaration of Independence is a theocratic as well as a political document? Do you know, as Lincoln knew, that the Declaration contains the philosophy of the American Constitution?

The signers of that revolutionary document justified their rebellion against the laws of Great Britain by appealing to a Higher Law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Judging, however, from the Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan, neither of these new Supreme Court justices understands or agrees that only God can endow the American people with the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and make them “inalienable.” Mr. Obama and his appointees do not understand that without this Higher Law doctrine, the Declaration’s long list of grievances against the British Crown would be nothing more than arbitrary expressions of discontent having no moral justification.

In the absence of that Higher Law, however, the Court can rule that “everything is justiciable,” including those inalienable God-given rights. These smug, know-nothing individuals would strip the Constitution of any moral foundation and open the door to unlimited government or tyranny.

Americans needs reminding that the laws and institutions prescribed in their Constitution were designed to preclude the evils enumerated in the Declaration. The Framers of the Constitution effectively translated into political and institutional terms the theological manifesto of that document.[i] Yet, no one deemed the Government established under the Constitution a theocracy—quite apart from the First Amendment’s clause regarding religion. That Amendment, as initially understood, simply prohibited Congress from establishing a State religion. Revolted by the example of England, the American Founding Fathers refused to sacralize the modern nation-state, which they deemed powerful enough without investing it with religious authority. America’s monotheistic culture was opposed to a state religion.

That culture was rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage, in which not the State but the People are sovereign under God.[ii] If we think within the context of such a culture and maintain intellectual detachment from our present culture of Triumphant Secularism, it will be obvious that the First Amendment does not prevent Congress from passing laws supportive of the ethical monotheism or universal moral principles of the Declaration.

The ethical monotheism of early America was of paramount significance. Many early American statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization. The second President of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate and signer of the Declaration, had this to say of the Jewish people:

The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other nation…. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.[iii]

The curriculum at Harvard, like those of other early American colleges and universities, was designed by learned and liberal men of “Old Testament” persuasion. Harvard president Increase Mather (1685-1701) was an ardent Hebraist. His writings contain numerous quotations from the Talmud as well as from the works of Sa’adia Gaon, Rashi, Maimonides and other classic Jewish commentators.

Yale University president Ezra Stiles readily discoursed on the Mishna and Talmud with visiting rabbinical authorities. Hebrew and the study of Hebraic laws and institutions were an integral part of Yale’s as well as of Harvard’s curriculum. Much the same may be said of King’s College (later Columbia University), William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown University. Hebrew learning was then deemed a basic element of liberal education.

This attitude was not merely academic. On May 31, 1775, almost on the eve of the American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon, addressing the Congress of Massachusetts Bay, declared: “Every nation … has a right to set up over itself any form of government which to it may appear most conducive to its common welfare. The civil polity of Israel is doubtless an excellent general model.” (Emphasis added.)

Although Jefferson was no admirer of the Hebrew Bible, he framed the Declaration with a view to galvanizing the Bible-reading public in support of the Revolution. When he became President he supported Baptist churches.

During the colonial and constitution-making period, the Americans, especially the Puritans, adapted various Hebraic laws for their own governance. The legislation of New Haven, for example, was based on the premise that “the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses … being neither … ceremonial, nor ha[ving] any reference to Canaan, shall … generally bind all offenders, till they be branched out into particulars hereafter.”

Of course, the Jewish roots of the American Constitution should not obscure the fact that America is first and foremost a Christian nation (Barack Obama to the contrary notwithstanding). This was confirmed in a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court as late as 1892! In the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, Justice Brewer wrote:

? If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the … states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.

? Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”… [and yet] also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. There is no dissonance in these declarations. … They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation…. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

? In People v. Ruggles (1811), Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said [in a case involving blasphemous publications]: “The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

? Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution … either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case [before us] assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.

Chancellor Kent’s denigration of Muhammad and the Grand Lama is of course shocking. But we were speaking of the Judeo-Christian heritage underlying the Declaration and the Constitution.

This heritage of “natural rights” or of “natural law” has been eviscerated by the academic doctrine of moral relativism and its political counterpart the Progressive Movement. Although the institutional structure of the Constitution remains largely intact, the Supreme Court’s amoral and government-expanding interpretation of various constitutional amendments has spawned unfettered freedom of expression and indiscriminate equality, which have vulgarized and secularized America and buried the meritocracy that was to coexist with democracy. America now has a leveling and meaningless or “evolutionary constitution.” The immutable “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” have been replaced by historical relativism. Evolution has produced a leviathan, a “nanny state,” dispensing “entitlements” which not only stifles entrepreneurship. Rewards without effort undermine the sense of shame.

This is the smug, know-nothing agenda of America’s first anti-American president. Can America overcome this degradation and restore its Judeo-Christian heritage?

Notes

[i] I do not ignore the influence of Locke and Montesquieu, whose mentality, however, is hardly conceivable apart from the Biblical tradition.

[ii] This paragraph (except for references to the Torah) is indebted to Professor Will Morrisey in an email to the author. I am especially grateful for his reference to the cultural aspect of the First Amendment.

[iii] Cited in Pathways to the Torah (Jerusalem: Aish HaTorah Publications, 1988), p. A6.2. See Paul Eidelberg, The Philosophy of the American Constitution: A Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (New York: Free Press, 1968; University Press of America, 1988, Appendix 2.

Source: Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 6, 2010.

9/11, Meaning of Its Message

Some claim 9/11 has been politicized by the controversies about Pastor Terry Jones’s radical attention getting “Burn a Koran Day” and the Ground Zero mosque plans. Yet, 9/11 would be meaningless without being political. The message of those Middle East Jihadists endures through the images, protests, and commemorations of 9/11.

Yes, America honors their heroes who sacrificed their lives to save others. We remember the innocent victims who died at Ground Zero. It is part of the message produced by those Islamic radicals who attacked America.

Since that terrible day, September 11, 2001, American officials have obscured that message. At first, those so-called terrorists were accused to attempting to destroy our way of life. They presumably hated the freedoms of our open society. We also were told that those terrorists attempted to destroy important American landmarks. Apparently, public officials wanted to deflect our attention from the fact that those landmarks were all political institutions with global influence on Middle East governance and culture. Housed in the Twin Towers was government or quasi-governmental and international economic organizations. Surely, the Pentagon is more than an historical landmark. Yet, Al-Qaeda’s stated goal was to severely impede the U.S. government’s controlling influence in the Middle East. They came close to succeeding.

Consequently, Congress declared war on all terrorism. Being fair-minded egalitarians, most abhored the idea of only fighting against Islamic terrorists. That would be profiling. Therefore, all potential terrorists or radicals must be opposed even right wing Christian groups.

Whether America’s war on terror actually is comparable to the cold war with Russia, or the war on drugs, poverty, obesity, middle class lack, or the like is still uncertain. What is certain, like the cold war, America’s war on terror will be waged until politicians and bureaucrats discover Islamic radicalism can no longer justify their policy agendas like the New World Order many hoped Obama could achieve.

Many Americans have missed another very important part of the message sent by those Muslims who piloted their hijacked Boeing 747s into Twin Towers and the Pentagon. We have been told by politicians, government officials, Muslim leaders, other religious leaders, and the media that Islam is a religion of peace. Those radical terrorists do not represent true Islam, and many Americans believe them except those who have studied the Islam.

In the excellent article titled What is radical Islam?, the author, who has studied Islam for 8 years, persuasively argues that “radical Islam” does not exist. The words and acts of so-called terrorists, like members of Al Qaeda, demonstrate their strict adherence to the Quran, Hadith, and Shariah. Islamic moderates are those who are not faithful to Islam. It is no different from saying liberal Christians who defy certain parts of the Bible and doctrines are moderates while those who are truly faithful are radical fundamentalists.

As pointed out by the author of What is radical Islam, there is no such thing as moderate Islam and radical Islam.

“[T]he problem is that Islam is radical. It is not that there is a separate religion called ‘radical Islam’, but that the religion of Islam has many components that are considered radical/unacceptable/violent by modern societies…. To make Islam moderate, we would have to expurgate many verses (and entire chapters, such as that on raping female captives without impregnating them, so that their slave price does not fall) from the Kuran and Hadith.”

The author also wrote that those who claim radicals like Bin Laden are hijacking Islam are obscuring the facts. They are in fact seeking to hide from the scrutiny of Americans and others in western cultures.

“Every single action [Bin Laden] has done is justified by the Kuran and Hadith, and he has taken great pains to provide the verses that justify his actions. Not only that, for centuries, people like that were hailed as Ghazis (holy warriors) within Islam. It is not for nothing that in the muslim world, a majority of people hail him as a hero. It is only when you are trying to hide from the scrutiny of the west that you say he has “hijacked Islam.” He is merely a person who follows Islam to the word. He is, in many ways, a true muslim. In numerous Hadith, Muhammed says that the best muslim is not one who fasts and prays, but who gets on his horse and fights against infidels (especially polytheists) for the spread of Islam. That is what Bin Laden is doing. What about the innocent women and children he kills? Guess what – the Hadith emphatically state that it is perfectly alright to kill the women and children of polytheists. Nothing Bin Laden does is outside the Kuran and Hadith. He is not a “radical” muslim, he is merely a practising muslim!”

The meaning of 9/11 is that Islam’s true believers will fight the perceived oppression and corruption of the American empire and its leaders. Of course, it is the influence of secularism assisted by American business on their cultures; our government’s hindrance to their eliminating Israeli governance in Palestine; and America’s not-so-righteous military launching attacks on fellow Muslim countries from their homelands that forms their perceptions. That is why they attacked our national landmarks. That is why some respond to our political and military victories by retorting, “Kill Americans (read, infidels) anywhere you find them.”

The message that Islam is a religion of peace reveals a serious internal conflict within both America and Islam. It is a pervasive type cognitive dissonance about truth and its public expression. The culture war between conservatives and progressives, moderates and fundamentalists, religious fanatics and secularists is one by-product and the so-called war against terrorism is another.

Although denied by secularists, America was founded by Christians whose religious text does not justify violence and injustice. Judaism influenced the formation of America ideas as well. Although some Torah laws and punishments seem abusive to moderns, only in the Promised Land–Israel–is violence permitted in the due process of upholding law. Because the vision of Islam encompasses the conversion of the world, its justifications of violence and abuse make it dangerous. Nevertheless, as long as criminal laws exist and are strictly enforced, Americans can expect moderation from adherents of American Islam and all others.

But, watch out for those who would make American law conform to Islam’s Sharia.

A postscript to “9/11, Meaning of Its Message”

In the above post, I wrote the following:

America was founded by Christians whose religious text does not justify violence and injustice. Judaism influenced the formation of America’s ideals as well. Although some Torah laws and punishments seem abusive to moderns, only in the Promised Land–Israel–is violence permitted in the due process of upholding law. Because the vision of Islam encompasses the conversion of the world, its justifications of violence and abuse make it dangerous. Nevertheless, as long as criminal laws exist and are strictly enforced, Americans can expect moderation from adherents of American Islam and all others.

It should have been noted that even though the New Testament does not justify violence and injustice the Christianity has condoned similar atrocities as Muslim have been accused. The Church inherited the Roman Empire from the successors of Constatine, who made Christianity the religion of the empire. It would not be difficult to find in Canon law abhorent commands similar to those found in the sacred texts of Islam. The same can be said of the oral Torah if the Talmud is regarded as its recorded form. Many do. Yet, researchers have found some pretty terrible laws or interpretations of laws in that oral law.

All of which should remind Americans of the founders’ wisdom of found in the principles and text of their legal documents like the Declaration of Independence. Their history as citizens under the rule of the British Empire made them conclude that the separation of institutional powers of church and its governance and of civil governance was the only way for liberty and faith to prosper. They were of the view that all institutional authority tends to moral corruption and depotism. The religious Romans proved it. The Israelite kings proved it. The Catholic Church proved it. The British monarchs and Parliment proved it. The Anglican Church proved it. Islam has also proved it.

I recently read an article by a “liberal” Saudi Arabian author. He came to the conclusion that the problem with religion is that all believers regard their religion as superior to all others. Becauser of this, all conflicts are the result of this sense of superiority. His remedy is the elimination of all religion. However, some scholars writing about the history of the Separation of Church and State have shown that secularists are as religious as others regarding their secular beliefs. Moreover, the socialist version of secularism is just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism. Its destructiveness was proved by the millions of citizens killed by the USSR, China, Cuba, and other secular governments. The millions of aborted children proves secular America is not really different. The only difference is that America’s violence is justified as a private property right for convenience sake. Violence perpetrated by the above was to silence critical political dissent and disobedience.

The problem will never resolve until humanity’s behavior conforms the one who created them in His image. Tolerance will cease to exist from our vocabulary because the law of justice, morality, peace, and love will have become the unshakeable lifestyle of all. Only God could possibly accomplish such a miracle. Because the human condiition is one of self interest seeking, the end of human peace efforts always ends up resembling the peace won by the Caesars. That is what the end time scenarios of prophecy techers seem to be about. That is the expressed experience of Israelis under Oslo. I don’t know, but maybe Iraqis and Afghanistanis regard American peace the same way.

Nevertheless, Jesus said, “Blessed are those who keep trying.” (Mt. 5:3-20)

Why Ground Zero Mosque is Not Good for Islam or America

No wonder Muslims around the world claim the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center project is bad for Islam. First, the original name proposed by Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf for the mosque, Cordoba House, is a throw-back to its Middle Aged namesake famous as a launch pad for Islam’s militant efforts of global domination. The term used for it is Jihad, which is more than just a religious concept of self-rule. It also is a term depicting militant religious conversion of all infidels or non-Muslims.

If peace with the Western world were actually the Rauf’s goal, why then has he developed a Shariah Index? Not to be confused with some of financial indexes, the purpose of his index is to measure how well nations conform to the Sharia law. It is a Western tool to make governments and cultures compliant to policy goals. The Koran provides the principles and Sharia law provides enforceable sanctions. After Muslims conquered Spain over 1,300 years ago, they launched their camapign to conquer the Western world from Cordoba. The Shariah Index shows Rauf’s intention is to launch a similar campaign to again conquer the West. However, this time Jihad comes in the deceptive form of tolernace, education, and peace.

The ultimate aim of Muslim clerics like Rauf is to convert the world to Islam. At Cordoba Spain, the victory was secured by militant Jihad. Peaceful co-existence came at the point of swords of Muslim rulers. Peaceful co-existence was the result of enforcing Shariah law upon predominately Christian Spain.

Amerincans and the West becoming aware of such relations between Muslim and Christians at Cordoba indeed would not be good for the Islamic cause.

Second, one of the primary financial backers of the Ground Zero mosque is Hisham Elzanaty, who has been a financial supporter of Hamas. Elzanty, an Egypian born New York medical supply dealer, also has gained noteriety for attempting to scam Medicaire. Don’t ask–don’t tell policy in Islamic circles may make it difficullt for fellow Muslims to distinguish between those who are committing “terrorism” and who are doing good social works, but to many Western onlookers their seems to be little difference. This is more than Islamaphobia or racism; it is just the proper kind of skepticism or maybe fear. (NY Post, September 3, 2010)

Third, and last, is the recent discovery that the U.S. government is funding the construction and renovation of mosques around the globe. Ancient Rome under Caesar did the same thing. Nicole Thompson, spokeswoman for the State Department’s U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP), stated the purpose of these projects:

“It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures. It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.” (Newsmax, September 6, 2010)

Notice, the Obama administration justifies spending millions of taxpayer money to fund foreign “cultural preservation” projects as somehow preservering our cultural heritage. Islamic cultural is not our culture. It may be Obama’s and Hilary may have adopted her assistants religious culture, but is not America’s culture. Christian culture and law our heritage. The U.S. is not the United Nations, but apparently, globalists like Obama think otherwise.

Obama’s official support of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center is a tell-tale sign of why it is not good for Americans either. Not only is federal tax dollars financing Imam Abdul-Rauf’s fundraising trips but state taxpayer money may also be given to underwrite the mosque. Obama’s diplomatic along with financial backing of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center gives legitimacy to the ancient dream of a global and triumphant Islam. (NY Post, August 10, 2010 and Reuters, August 27, 2010)

Freedom’s God

By Daniel Downs

Last Friday, August 28, America commemorated the famous I Have a Dream speech of Martin Luther King, Jr. Throughout his pivotal protest speech, King alluded his religious faith, hope, and expectation of the freedom from oppression and the mundane challenges of realizing justice. He repeatedly referred to all people as God’s children. This expectant faith for freedom climaxed in the last three paragraphs in which King proclaimed:

… when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,

… “Free at last, free at last.

… Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.”

The negro spiritual directs us back to the source and beginning of social, economic, and political freedom. The God of the Bible. This God liberated the Jews from Egyptian slavery. He is the God of Jesus who was sent to set free those enslaved by addictions, poverty, immorality, despair, as well as effects of oppression. Yet, the liberated are not free from a life without God. That would to return to Egypt or to some other source of bondage.

Is that not exactly what America has done?

The struggle for freedom that Americans enjoy began long ago in halls of Western Christendom. The legal and theological struggle for justice resulted in a long history of natural law rights that included life, liberty, property, and happiness. They were not vague principles as some seem to believe. Legal battles, social conflicts, and wars were fought against those authorities intending to deprive the descents of Anglo-Saxons and others of their inherent and inherited rights. America is an inheritor and promulgator of that long fought heritage of rights law that was firmly rooted and legitimated by biblical principles and right reason, none of which was outside the social or political geography of Christianity.

That is why the Continental Congress established the United States of America by a two-fold covenant: a covenant with God and a social compact with all citizens. That also is why America was established by a two-fold legal compact: a document defining the nation under natural law, the Declaration of Independence, and a document defining the type of government to fulfill the objectives of the national definition including the protection of those rights and perpetuate the right so defined, the Constitution.

King’s promissory note analogy of rights based on the equality of human nature is part of America’s national definition. Thomas Jefferson knew America was already in trouble with God because Negro slavery was made an exception to that equality and the enjoyment of those rights. It was made an exception by removing the clause from the national definition that would have ended slavery forever. Jefferson apprehension of divine judgment for this came to pass. Both the Civil War and the violence during the Civil Rights movement were proof. War, natural disasters, and similar tragedy represented to divine judgment to nearly all early Americans. That was the consensus view of the citizenry and leaders of Christian America until at least the beginning of the twentieth century.

The language of Abraham Lincoln’s speech the Emancipation Proclamation parallels the Declaration of Independence invoking God’s favor for an act of justice rooted in the Constitution. However, that justice was defined in the Declaration not the U.S. Constitution. The 13th Amendment did not become law until 1865. The Emancipation Proclamation was given on January 1, 1863. The language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (1868) references the Declaration as well.

Freedom’s God is nature’s God. Nature’s God is humanity’s God who created them. God created humans with an equality of worth and dignity because human nature is a reflection of himself. God created them in his image and capable of his likeness. Natural rights are constituted in socialibility of human nature. Jefferson saw them as gifts of God. They are the goods of the promise land that had to be fought for and must be maintained by a strong defense.

Unfortunately, it seems that that defense has been weakening because the Supreme Judge of the world has been ignored. Maybe God had been ignored for such a long time because America’s intentions has not been rectifiable before the divine bar of justice and truth. Consequently, the Protection of divine Providence cannot be expected. In fact, America officially seems to disregard divine Providence even after disasters like 9/11, Katrina, the great economic recessions, and the like.

Nevertheless, freedom has always been and will always be a divine gift based on moral law and human conformity to it. Without God, freedom progresses to various forms of slavery.

Is Jesus the only way to God?

In the post titled “Jesus & Co,” I explained (albeit, inadequately) what Jesus meant by the following passage found in the 14th chapter of John’s gospel:

“If you guys really knew me you would have known my Father also. So look here guys. You now know Him, and have seen Him.” (v.7)

I interpreted that verse to mean Jesus’ appearance, his behavior, and his work perfectly revealed God’s presence, character, and will toward humanity. Jesus assured his followers they would do likewise. Jesus based his expectations on their abiding love of God, which would perpetually motivate them to live a kingdom lifestyle. This lifestyle is characterized by behavior exemplifying the commandments of God.

In this final post on John subject, I will attempt to explain what Jesus meant by the verse prior to the one above, which is:

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.”

Jesus’ bold statement has been a point of contention between theologians generally and between other religious faiths in particular. Most interpret it to mean Jesus is the one and only way to an afterlife in heaven with God. As such, most seem to regard it as both exclusivist and arrogant. This position of the offended seems to originate with the idea that Christianity claims that only believers in the gospel of Jesus can know God, can be accepted by God, and thus have eternal life with God.

The Christian view affirms the exclusiveness of Jesus’ statement. They have been guilty of implying that only believers in Jesus could possibly have any relationship whatsoever with God, and consequently, non-believers can not know God. This can not be true because the founders of most of the major world religions were visited by God, and the founders obviously responded positively to God. However, this does not necessarily mean those founders or their followers were or are redeemed by God. I will deal with this more later. Based on the exclusive claim of Christ, Christianity rightly claims that only those who put their faith in Jesus Christ can be assured of a place in heaven hereafter.

The basis of this audacious claim of Jesus, his apostles, and Christianity is that good works cannot and does not negate the dessert of justice for crimes (sins) committed against the laws of God.

In previous posts, it was shown that the human form resembles God’s appearance. Beyond physical appearance, we also have the capacity to imitate the moral, intellectual and creative characteristics of God. God’s issue with humanity is not appearances but with behavior. It is the our tendency practice behaviors unlike God. It is human immorality that offends God. More specifically, it is our moral crimes against the laws that is the problem.

Just as our legal system of justice–an imperfect reflection of divine justice–does not forgive people for murder, rape, abuse, oppress, steal, lie under oath, and similar criminal behaviors, neither does God. Our courts are supposed to punish crimes. That is because the rest of society must be protected from the potential harm of same criminals. So it is with the justice of God.

God is neither tolerant nor forgiving towards moral crime. The punishment for moral crime is death. As the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel wrote, “The soul that sins shall die” (Eze. 18:4). Writing to believers in Rome, Jesus’ apostle reaffirmed this truth when he stated, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). From Adam to moderns, moral crimes results in separation of mutually beneficial and productive relationships. The ultimate alienation and divorce is our separation from our Creator and benefactor, God. Therefore, no one in any religion or in no religion can be acquitted of that sentence against their sins no matter how many good works they may practice. Because committing one sin is the same as violating all moral laws, any sin results in the same way–death.

Here is a clarifying example: Joe Smoozolli brutally murders John Gonn. It was a momentary act of rage brought on my John’s harassment. Joe moves out of state and changed his to Mark de Seet. Yes, Joe was ethnically French. All of this took place twenty years ago. Since then, Joe (aka Mark) has lived a exemplary life of good charitable citizenship and business success. However, Jane Austom and her husband Eddy runs into Joe while on vacation. They remember that the police believed Joe had killed John Gonn; so they call the police. Joe is arrested the next day. A month later, he stands trial for John’s murder. The evidence against Joe is overwhelming. No jury could possibly find him not guilty. Nevertheless, a number people believe Joe should be forgiven because of his good behavior, good deeds, charitable giving, and business success. Still, Joe is guilty of murdering John. The judge cannot forgive Joe, and the jury cannot be merciful towards him because of his exemplary life. All evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe murdered John. The only possible verdict is guilty. Because the crime took place in Texas, the penalty is death.

Something very usual occurs during Joe’s sentencing. A business associate who also has a reputation for an exemplary life of kindness and charity and for good social works asks the court to allow himself to be executed instead of Joe. This man justifies his request on grounds that Joe has lived a humble and repentant live and because of his 4 children and wife need him. On the other hand, this man has no family needing his care and provision. His business will be sold to another. He is ready to face eternity because he is certain that he is in good standing with God. Joe, however, is not.

The only way God will accept Joe’s repentance; the only reason Joe will make it to heaven is if Joe finds out how his business associate stands accepted before God.

The answer is the sinless man Jesus was punish for the moral crimes committed by Joe, and Joe represents every human that has lived or will ever live. Because neither good works nor the death of animals in place of guilty humans are sufficient to fully satisfy divine justice, only a sinless man willing to suffer the penalty for the moral crimes of others could possibly do so. Jesus is the only person to have accomplish it. That is the claim of Jesus above: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.”

By Daniel Downs