( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate )
Herring (D), who is running for reelection, made an appearance Friday at Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church along with immigration attorneys
( Muslims do not ASSIMILATE, ,THEY INFILTRATE )
The jihadist attack on British Parliament is the latest in a twelve-year history of jihad attacks. It was not the worst in terms of casualties, but noteworthy for its location, in the backyard of the UK’s highest legislative authority and seat of its governing powers. The article below serves as a reminder of the jihadist […]
Jihad Watch
To read all articles go to https://www.jihadwatch.org/
The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM
Here is yet another Biblical story recast and retold in the Qur’an, and like the overwhelming majority of Biblical stories in the Qur’an, is employed to make the same point: Muhammad is a true prophet, he is being mistreated like all other prophets, and those who are ridiculing and rejecting him will be severely punished.
Sura 12, “Joseph,” is another late Meccan sura. It was revealed, says Maududi, “when the Quraish” — the pagan Arabs of Mecca, and the tribe of which Muhammad was a member — “were considering the question of killing or exiling or imprisoning him.” It tells the story of the patriarch Joseph, again — as we saw in sura 11 with the stories of other prophets — with a clear message relating to Muhammad and his opponents.
Allah begins in verses 1-3 with another panegyric to the Qur’an. Ibn Kathir expresses the mainstream Islamic view when he says: “The Arabic language is the most eloquent, plain, deep and expressive of the meanings that might arise in one’s mind. Therefore, the most honorable Book, was revealed in the most honorable language, to the most honorable Prophet and Messenger, delivered by the most honorable angel, in the most honorable land on earth, and its revelation started during the most honorable month of the year, Ramadan. Therefore, the Qur’an is perfect in every respect.”
This is not, of course, a perspective that tends to be welcoming of critical examination of the book — as was in the news in 2008 with the discovery of 450 rolls of film of ancient manuscripts of the Qur’an that had been concealed, apparently to avoid offending delicate Muslim sensibilities.
Then Allah tells the story of Joseph (vv. 4-101). According to Maududi, one of the principal purposes of this account was — yet again — to warn people not to reject Muhammad. Its aim, he said, was to apply the story of Joseph being rejected by his brothers to Muhammad’s tribe that rejected him, the Quraysh, “and warn them that ultimately the conflict between them and the Holy Prophet would end in his victory over them. As they were then persecuting their brother, the Holy Prophet, in the same way the brothers of Prophet Joseph had treated him…And just as the brothers of Prophet Joseph had to humble themselves before him, so one day the Quraish shall have to beg forgiveness from their brother whom they were then trying to crush down.” He points to verse 7, “Certainly were there in Joseph and his brothers signs for those who ask,” as referring to the Quraysh, who should heed the warning given them in this sura.
The Qur’anic tale of Joseph is an abbreviated version of the story in Genesis 37-50, with some notable differences from the Biblical account. Joseph has a dream that eleven stars and the sun and the moon prostrate themselves to him (v. 4) — that is, his parents and brothers. Dreams are to be taken seriously: according to Abdullah bin Abbas, “the dreams of Prophets are revelations from Allah.” Muhammad himself explained this as not applying just to the prophets, but as a general principle: “A good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan. So whoever has seen (in a dream) something he dislike, then he should spit without saliva, thrice on his left and seek refuge with Allah from Satan, for it will not harm him, and Satan cannot appear in my shape.” (Bukhari 9.87.124)
The brothers, jealous, want to kill him (v. 9), but finally decide to throw him down a well and tell their father, Jacob, that he is dead (vv. 15-18). In a departure from the Biblical account, Jacob doesn’t believe them (v. 18). The Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas says “he did not believe them because in another occasion they said that Joseph was killed by thieves.”
Anyway, then Joseph, sold into slavery in Egypt, is the target of an attempted seduction by the ruler’s wife (v. 30). Another detail not contained in the Biblical account is that Joseph “would have inclined to her had he not seen the proof of his Lord,” and Allah warded him off “from him evil and immorality. Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants” (v. 24). The sharp dualism in Islam appears as Maududi sees a lesson in this: “Contrast the former characters [Jacob and Joseph] molded by Islam on the bedrock of the worship of Allah and accountability in the Hereafter with the latter molded by kufr [unbelief] and ‘ignorance’ on the worship of the world and disregard of Allah and the Hereafter.” She accuses him of impropriety (v. 25), but Joseph’s innocence is established when it is found that his cloak is torn in the back, not in the front — he was, in other words, fleeing from her (vv. 27-28). Her husband laments: “Indeed, it is of the women’s plan. Indeed, your plan is great.” (v. 28)
The wife then holds a banquet for the women of the city, who are so awed by Joseph’s good looks that they begin cutting their hands (v. 31). Ibn Kathir explains: “They thought highly of him and were astonished at what they saw. They started cutting their hands in amazement at his beauty, while thinking that they were cutting the citron with their knives.” The ruler’s wife felt exonerated: “When they felt the pain, they started screaming and she said to them, ‘You did all this from one look at him, so how can I be blamed?'”
Joseph is ultimately imprisoned (v. 35). When two fellow prisoners ask him to interpret their dreams (v. 36), he first tells them that he is a good Muslim: “I have left the religion of a people who do not believe in Allah, and they, in the Hereafter, are disbelievers” (v. 37). He follows the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and “it was not for us to associate anything with Allah” (v. 38). He languishes in prison for awhile longer, but ultimately gets a chance to interpret the king’s dream (vv. 46-49). The ruler’s wife confesses her wrongdoing (v. 51) and so Joseph is freed and rewarded (vv. 54-56). Joseph’s brothers come to him for help during the famine, not recognizing him (v. 58); Joseph demands that they bring their youngest brother (v. 60).
Muhammad Asad explains how the story then unfolds: “Joseph had wanted to keep Benjamin with himself, but under the law of Egypt he could not do this without the consent of his half-brothers.” But when the goblet is discovered in his brother’s bag, “Benjamin appeared to be guilty of theft, and under the law of the land Joseph was entitled to claim him as his slave, and thus to keep him in his house.” The point of the Qur’anic story is that Allah orders all events, and none can thwart his will: “Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed” (v. 76). Joseph reveals his identity to his brothers (v. 90), who beg Allah’s forgiveness (v. 91) and receive it (v. 92, 98). Jacob and his brothers go live with Joseph in Egypt (vv. 99-100).
Allah emphasizes that all this is a warning (vv. 102-111). Allah tells Muhammad that he revealed the story of Joseph to him “by inspiration,” for Muhammad was not present when Joseph’s brothers plotted against him, so how could he know how it happened unless he is a true prophet (v. 102)? Still, most will not believe (vv. 103, 105, 106), although this is not an invented tale, but a confirmation of existing Scripture (v. 111) — which Scriptures, of course, to Muhammad’s great vexation, did not actually confirm his message.
(Revised July 2015)
Gorsuch Nearly Got Through His Hearings Unscathed —Then SCOTUS Stepped In
March 23, 2017/
by Kevin Daley
Senate Democrats put Judge Neil Gorsuch on the defensive during his third appearance before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Wednesday, grilling him over one of his holdings that was reversed by the Supreme Court and for his alleged ties to “dark money.” The exchanges marked the first time Democratic attacks on the judge seemed to gain traction, since GOP aides rushed spin to reporters for the first time in the hearings. Despite this, there was a tangible sense inside the Capitol Hill committee room that the main work of the hearings had more or less concluded. Empty seats filled the press gallery, before a dais that was nearly vacant for most of the day. In the early minutes of the hearing, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling which overturned one of Gorsuch’s own holdings. The case involved an autistic student seeking compensation for costs incurred pursuing private education. The student’s family argued they were owed compensation because a special education plan devised by the student’s public school was inadequate to meet his needs, forcing the family to seek a private alternative. A lower court found in the school’s favor, and anchored much of its analysis in an opinion Gorsuch wrote in 2008 as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the ruling, Gorsuch said schools are in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) — which requires public schools to provide disabled children with a “free appropriate public education” — so long as they provide some form of educational benefit to the student. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned this holding, finding public schools had to provide a greater level of benefit than Gorsuch asserted. Senate Democrats trumpeted the decision as further proof Gorsuch consistently aligns with the powerful, a theme on which they hit throughout the week. (Read more from “Gorsuch Nearly Got Through His Hearings Unscathed — Then SCOTUS Stepped In” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/gorsuch-nearly-got-hearings-unscathed-scotus-stepped/
 |
|
|---|
|
PS. Please use the "Share This Email" link below to pass this on to as many people as you can!
The FBI is investigating whether conservative news sites, including Breitbart and InfoWars, cooperated with the Russian government in an effort to influence the presidential election.
McClatchy reports the investigation is focused on the use of strategically-timed social media “bots” employed to blitz social media with pro-Donald Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton stories.
A bot is simply a program that gathers information based on defined specifications.
“The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News,” sources told McClatchy.
“This may be one of the most highly impactful information operations in the history of intelligence,” one former U.S. intelligence official stated on a condition of anonymity.
Federal investigators are seeking to discover if Breitbart and other sites cooperated in the efforts.
According to Alexa, Breitbart’s web traffic shot up dramatically in October, in relation to other similar websites, and has remained at a high level since. It currently is in the top 100 most viewed websites in the country, even outpacing FoxNews.com.
Breitbart reported on Nov. 19 that it experienced a record 300 million page views over the previous 31 days.
The news site did not respond for comment about the McClatchy story.
Breitbart’s former chairman, Steve Bannon, stepped down to become the CEO of the Trump campaign in August. He now serves as a top adviser on the president’s White House staff.
InfoWars’ Alex Jones responded to the story on his radio program on Monday.
“To be called a Russian asset by McClatchy and by the LA Times and by a bunch of other publications today is funny, if it wasn’t so serious,” he said.
“I don’t personally take this as a threat … I’m threatened for the country. I mean if the Russians want to secure our borders, cut our taxes, not have us go bankrupt, rebuild our military, block radical Islam — well then, hell, I’m a Russian agent! But I’m not,” Jones added, according to The Daily Caller.
As reported by Western Journalism, FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Monday in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that his agency is investigating “alleged links” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
Earlier this month, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated on Meet the Press there was “no evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., voiced the same conclusion on Fox News Sunday. (For more from the author of “The Ridiculous Reason the FBI Has Decided to Investigate Conservative Websites” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/fbi-investigating-conservative-sites-possible-russian-links/
Sheriff Joe Arpaio said that Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah’s fraudulent documents were a “national security issue” and that Obama was the “aggressor” in attacking America. However, one wonders just how much he understood the threat a timeline has now emerged via an Operation Dragnet Whistleblower that details how the National Security Agency was conducting illegal electronic surveillance on then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arizona judges involved in the immigration case at the time while then-Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice was prosecuting Arpaio between 2008 and 2010.
To read more http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/03/21/bombshell-obamas-nsa-illegally-spied-on-sheriff-joe-arp
Sean Spicer revealed during Wednesday’s press briefing that they were caught off guard by Congressman Devin Nunes’ Wednesday press conference, in which he stated President Trump’s personal communications may actually have been collected by the Obama administration during the 2016 election.
Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters that significant development in the committee’s investigation revealed “that on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”
Reporters asked Spicer if the White House was “concerned” about the optics of Nunes’ meeting with the president on the findings, a meeting which might be construed as White House interference in an ongoing investigation.
Spicer responded in the negative — clarifying that it was Nunes not President Trump who requested the meeting — before blasting a double standard in the media.
“Let me get this straight,” Spicer continued. “Number one, two weeks ago, we said this is the appropriate venue. Number two, you have asked over and over again why aren’t we meeting with certain individuals.” (Read more from “When Asked About Latest Wiretapping Claims, Spicer Drops a Big League Bombshell” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/asked-latest-wiretapping-claims-spicer-drops-big-league-bombshell/
Liberals are ecstatic that a judge in Hawaii is writing immigration policy for the entire country, and that policy is: We have no right to tell anyone that he can’t live in America. (Unless they’re Christians — those guys we can keep out.)
As subtly alluded to in the subtitle of Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, the goal of liberals is for the poor of the world to have a constitutional right to come here whenever they want . . .
After nearly 1 million Rwandans were murdered by other Rwandans in 1994, our government asked itself: Why not bring more of this fascinating Rwandan culture to America? Ten thousand of them poured in. So far, nearly 400 have been convicted in the United States of lying on visa applications about their role in the genocide.
And that’s why we have to tighten our belt, America! Massive international investigations don’t come cheap.
Almost every immigration case is a con, something we find out every time there’s a San Bernardino shooting and half the familyturns out to have scammed our immigration officials. One hundred percent of the “humanitarian” cases are frauds. (Read more from “Ann Coulter: We Have Now Hit Full-On Crazy” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/ann-coulter-now-hit-full-crazy/
( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate! )
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diq8jxcDvWQ
Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More…
Leo Hohmann follows up on the special accommodations for Muslims that we posted about last week in Islamic call to prayer in public high school (video).
The prayer room at Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, has been provided to meet the special needs of Muslim students since 2009.
Source: High school ‘Muslim prayer room’ challenged
For at least 30 minutes every weekday for the past seven years, a classroom at Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, gets transformed into an on-campus mosque.
At least a dozen students use the “Muslim prayer room” between 2:05 and 2:35 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Controversy over the prayer room was sparked by an article in the student newspaper, the Wingspan, which clearly laid out how the room is used and by whom.
That prompted State Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, to instruct one of his deputies to send a letter to the school district warning that special accommodations for one religion over another are unconstitutional.
“Liberty High School’s policy should be neutral toward religion,” read the letter sent to Frisco’s superintendent by Deputy Attorney General Andrew Leonie. “However, it appears that students are being treated different based on their religious beliefs. Such a practice, of course, is irreconcilable with our nation’s enduring commitment to religious liberty.”
Principal Scott Warstler said students of other faiths are allowed to meet on campus as well, but he told the student newspaper, Wingspan, that these other meetings are held “before or after school.”
School-district officials told the local CBS affiliate the room is not exclusively for Muslims and any student can go there to pray or meditate.
The Conservative Tribune noted the conspicuous absence of watchdog groups, such as the ACLU, which typically raise concerns whenever Christian students are allowed to pray on school property. They are nowhere to be heard in this case.
But one First Amendment advocate, attorney David Coale, did tell CBS that the school district appears to be on shaky ground constitutionally. Setting aside a special room for Muslims to pray during school hours is fraught with questions.
The following are just a few:
Other questions remain unanswered as well:
It’s just the latest example of special accommodations being made for Muslims in the education establishment.
The Trump administration has invited 68 countries and international organizations to attend a summit in Washington on Wednesday to coordinate policies to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will lead the two-day gathering of foreign ministers in synchronizing coalition efforts to destroy ISIS on the battlefield, prevent it from staging a comeback, and deprive it of money, arms, and recruits.
The military campaign launched by the anti-ISIS coalition has made considerable progress in recent months. The ongoing offensives to push ISIS out of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and seize Raqqa, the de facto ISIS capital city in Syria, will be key topics at the summit.
The Iraqi army, in coordination with Iraqi Kurdish and Shiite militias, launched the offensive against Mosul in October, and has surrounded and retaken most of the city. They have been aided by a U.S.-led air campaign and supported by U.S. advisers, trainers, artillery batteries, and special operations forces.
Defeating ISIS in Syria is likely to be much more difficult than in Iraq because of the lack of reliable partners on the ground.
Syria’s brutal dictatorship has long been hostile to the United States. Backed by Russia and Iran, President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has focused its military attacks not on ISIS, but against more moderate rebel groups, including some supported by the United States.
Washington has been working with Syrian Kurdish militias, which have been effective military forces, but they are handicapped by the fact that they are feared and resented in the predominantly Arab areas that ISIS controls.
Moreover, Turkey considers them to be terrorists due to their affiliation with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a terrorist group that Turkey has been fighting on and off since 1984.
The Pentagon in recent weeks has deployed several hundred Army rangers and Marines to Syria to bolster Syrian rebel groups and provide artillery support to help them defeat ISIS. This is in addition to an estimated 500 American special operations personnel already in Syria.
The Trump administration’s revised plans for seizing Raqqa reportedly call for an enhanced U.S. military role, including the deployment of additional U.S. special operations forces, artillery, and attack helicopters.
More Help Needed
Washington also should press its NATO allies and Arab coalition members to provide more military forces and support for the impending offensive against Raqqa.
The anti-ISIS summit also is an opportunity to develop a supportive international framework for transforming the military defeat of ISIS into a sustainable long-term political defeat.
The summit meeting should focus on how to restore law and order and enable self-government in areas of Syria liberated from ISIS. This means recruiting as many local Sunni Arabs as possible to root out ISIS and preclude it from resurging.
Washington also should press coalition members to take more effective steps to choke off fundraising for ISIS, combat its internet recruitment efforts, and discredit its propaganda.
The summit meeting also should focus on enlisting coalition members–particularly the rich Sunni Arab oil kingdoms—to provide adequate financial support for humanitarian aid for Syria’s huge refugee population and help Syrians to eventually rebuild cities shattered by the war.
But as long as Syria’s ferocious civil war rages on, international efforts to ease the humanitarian catastrophe, stabilize the country, and permanently bury ISIS will remain precarious exercises.
Washington should lead international diplomatic efforts to pressure the Assad regime to accept a political settlement to end the conflict, including the full autonomy of regions that have expelled the regime’s repressive presence.
To nail the ISIS coffin shut, Washington must use the summit meeting to coordinate coalition efforts not only on the military front, but on the diplomatic, counterterrorism, humanitarian, and self-government fronts as well. (For more from the author of “Where the Fight Against ISIS Stands, and How the US Can Win” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/fight-isis-stands-us-can-win/
( Read find out the Qur'an really teaches )
After reading sura 11, you might need to hit the hair dye aisle down at the Wal-Mart.
Sura 11, “Hud,” dates (like sura 10) from late in the Meccan period, the first part of Muhammad’s prophetic career. Its name comes from verses 50-60, which tell the story of the prophet Hud, who was according to Islamic tradition sent to the Ad people of Arabia around 2400 BC. Sura 11 repeats in stronger terms the warnings of sura 10 concerning Allah’s judgment. That, according to a hadith, caused Muhammad anxiety. Once one of his leading followers, Abu Bakr, said to him, “O Messenger of Allah, verily your hair has turned gray.” Muhammad replied that Sura 11, along with suras 56, 77, 78, and 81, all of which deal with judgment day, “have turned my hair gray.”
Allah begins this hair-graying sura begins (verses 1-24) with a recapitulation of many themes touched on in sura 10, including the wisdom of the Qur’an itself (v. 1). Mujahid, Qatadah, and Ibn Jarir, among others, explained this verse as meaning that the Qur’an is “perfect in its wording, detailed in its meaning. Thus, it is complete in its form and its meaning.” For, says Ibn Kathir, “this Qur’an descended, perfect and detailed, with the purpose of Allah’s worship alone, without any partners.” The Qur’an is also inimitable: Allah repeats his challenge to produce a sura like it in v. 13. He stresses some familiar themes: the necessity to worship only Allah (v. 2) and the dependence of all creatures upon him (v. 6); the worthlessness of idols (v. 14); the deceptive glamour of this life (v. 15); the dreadful punishment (vv. 16, 22) that awaits those who “invent a lie against Allah” (v. 18), and the delightful gardens that await the blessed (v. 23).
Allah makes a strange statement in v. 5: “ Unquestionably, when they cover themselves in their clothing, Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare.” What would covering themselves with clothing have to do with Allah knowing them? Well, it appears that some people wore clothes to conceal themselves from Allah, particularly during intimate moments: Ibn Abbas explains that “there were people who used to be shy to remove their clothes while answering the call of nature in an open space and thus be naked exposed to the sky. They were also ashamed of having sexual relations with their women due to fear of being exposed towards the sky. Thus, this was revealed concerning them.”
Oh.
Then follow the stories of various prophets, all revolving around their rejection by perverse and obstinate unbelievers. Allah tells the story of Noah and the ark, with a significant difference from the Biblical story (vv. 25-49). In Genesis 6-9, Noah has nothing to do with the unbelievers at all; God tells him, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Genesis 6:13), and tells him to build the ark, but he doesn’t tell him to go warn the people about the flood. But in the Qur’an, Noah comes to his people with a “clear warning” (v. 25) that they should “serve none but Allah” (v. 26). So the corruption and violence of which the people are guilty in the Biblical account in the Qur’an become simply idolatry, or more precisely, shirk, the association of partners with Allah.
Of course, Muhammad came to his people with a clear warning (14:52) that they should serve none but Allah (3:64), and so in this account Noah is kind of a proto-Muhammad, preaching a message identical to his. And that is, indeed, how Islam views all the Biblical prophets. They, like Muhammad, taught Islam — it was their followers who corrupted their teachings to create modern Judaism and Christianity. Even the reception Noah receives resembles how the pagan Quraysh received Muhammad. The unbelievers tell him he is just a man and charge him and his followers with lying (v. 27), and even claim he is forging the messages he claims are from Allah (v. 35). Noah counters by saying that it won’t matter what he says to them if Allah has determined to lead them astray (v. 34). This, of course, almost exactly replicates Muhammad’s experience: Allah tells him to tell the unbelievers that he is just a man (18:110); they charge him with lying (42:24) and with forging the Qur’an (v. 13); and of course Muhammad also teaches that if Allah wills to lead someone astray, no one can guide him (7:186).
Noah is, then, essentially a stand-in for Muhammad. Indirectly emphasized is the identity of the messages of all the prophets, and the obstinacy of the unbelievers before the manifest truth of Allah. One of those unbelievers is Noah’s son, who declines to enter the ark and instead says, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water” (v. 43). His son dies in flood, and Noah reminds Allah of his promise to save his family (which came in v. 40): “My Lord, indeed my son is of my family” (v. 45). But Allah tells him, “O Noah, indeed he is not of your family; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous” (v. 46). Belief and unbelief in Islam supersede even family ties. Ibn Kathir explains: “Thus, for his son, it had already been decreed that he would be drowned due to his disbelief and his opposition to his father.”
The story of Hud (verses 50-60) follows a roughly similar pattern. He tells the people of Ad to repent (v. 52), but they complain that he has brought them no clear sign (v. 53), and are destroyed — although Hud and his people are saved (v. 58). Allah repeats the same pattern in telling the story of Salih (vv. 61-68), who was sent sometime after Noah’s time to the Thamud people, who lived in northern Arabia. Allah gives them a sign of his power: the “she-camel of Allah is a symbol to you” (v. 64) — which according to some traditions emerged miraculously from a mountain. The Thamud are told not to harm it, but they do anyway (v. 65) and are destroyed (v. 67), except for Salih and the believers (v. 66).
Allah then retells the Biblical story of Abraham, Sarah and Lot (vv. 69-83), culminating in the destruction of an unnamed Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 82) with a strong hint of an unnamed crime of sodomy (v. 79). Then he tells the story of Shu’aib, prophet to the Midianites, in language very similar, and with an identical outcome, to the story of Hud (vv. 84-95).
Then in verses 96-123, Allah recapitulates many themes of the entire sura, with passing reference to Moses and Pharaoh (vv. 96-98). Both those who reject Allah and those who accept him will face a fearsome judgment, leading to hellfire for the unbelievers and Paradise for the believers (vv. 103-108). Allah gave Moses the Torah, but there are disputes about it (v. 110), which Allah would have already settled except that he has decided to “delay His chastisement from your nation,” according to the Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas. The believers should pray and be steadfast (vv. 114-115), for all this is Allah’s will: “And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ.” (v. 118). Yet believers must trust in him (v. 123) — or else.
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s performance before the Senate has been very encouraging. His knowledge, training and intellectual rigor put the demagogic Democrats to shame. So far he seems like a worthy heir to Antonin Scalia. Let’s hope that America watches these hearings and learns that there is a strong and substantive intellectual case for respecting the Constitution as it was written.
And let’s be thankful for a moment for the existence of Christian or pro-Christian elites. It’s a gravely endangered species, as ruthlessly hunted and rare as white rhinos or tigers, and arguably even more important.
Populism Is Great, But It’s Not Enough
I have written quite a bit in defense of the impulse behind today’s populism, both in Europe and America. Donald Trump’s victory in the primaries over “made man” Jeb Bush, wunderkind Marco Rubio, and self-made legal genius Ted Cruz (among others) was stunning. His defeat of Hillary Clinton was nothing less, I think, than divine intervention. It gave our country what might be its last chance to step back from the brink.
Both victories were possible because Trump saw that our country’s anointed elites — and even the elites within the GOP — are profoundly out of touch with the views, worries, and day-to-day experience of ordinary Americans. That’s true on issues from culture and foreign policy to mass, low-skill immigration.
Europe’s dominant classes are even more disconnected. They shrug at the Continent’s plummeting birth rate, tell their drivers to avoid the “no-go” areas now dotting their countries’ major cities, and count on millions of sullen, barely employable radical Muslims to fund their collapsing pension plans. Yeah, that will work out just fine.
We Need Faithful Elites
As someone who backed Pat Buchanan in 1992, 1996, and 2000, I think have the populist street cred to say this: We also need elites.
We need the right people, with top talent and the best training, to take on the worst that our enemies have to throw at us, and give as good as they get.
We need Christians and conservatives who can argue with icy logic before the Supreme Court, and lovingly stroke the heart strings when speaking to the public.
We need academics rigorously trained in the humanities to pass on the glorious culture that is Christian humanism.
We also need research scientists who can analyze and debunk the grandiose claims of techno-utopians. When some guy in a white lab coat from MIT promises us that mixing the DNA of humans and pigs will allow us to upload our souls onto the Internet and live forever as gods (or something), we need another guy in an even whiter coat who can dismantle those ideas in detail. Just waving the Bible or the Summa Theologica isn’t enough. That’s how we lose.
Learn from the Scopes Monkey Trial
Watch that great piece of anti-Christian (and largely fictional) propaganda, Inherit the Wind. The film shows how in the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” atheist Clarence Darrow used his very slight advantage in scientific knowledge to paint the great William Jennings Bryan as a scripture-blinkered rube.
In fact, historians have pointed out that Bryan’s deepest concern was not for the inerrancy of scripture, but the wicked uses that eugenicists were already making of Darwin. Even as that trial unfolded, Margaret Sanger was conspiring with misanthropic elitists to impose forced sterilization laws in a dozen American states. Their “scientific” basis? Appropriated Darwinism. This toxic pseudo-science even made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in defense of such forced sterilization laws that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.”
It’s too bad that Bryan didn’t have the science background to put the pseudo-science of eugenics itself on trial.
Where Will the Next Neil Gorsuch Go to Law School?
Imagine if Neil Gorsuch had not been trained in legal and moral thinking at (among other places) Oxford University, by a brilliant scholar and consistent thinker like John Finnis. How would he be doing under hostile questioning by ax-grinding Democrats armed with carefully crafted talking points by dozens of left-wing judicial activists?
Actually, you don’t need to make the imaginative experiment. Just read up on the performance of the poorly prepared attorney picked by the Trump team to defend its first Executive Order on immigration. It was embarrassing. When a conservative administration’s representative can’t out-perform the clowns on the Ninth Circus Court, you know you have a personnel problem.
That problem’s about to get much, much worse. We need to figure out what to do about it. I worked for ten years with Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a nexus for conservative faculty in a dozen different fields. We had members with brilliant records in history, English, law, political science, you name it. One thing those people have in common: Most of them are over 50. A lot are over 60. Some of the best have already retired, or gone to God.
As graduate schools in such fields become more radicalized, as tenure committees use both affirmative action and blatantly political standards in picking future faculty, they are strangling the next generation of conservative elites in the cradle.
Would the next Neil Gorsuch, or Ted Cruz, even get into a top-tier law school? (Harvard Law just eliminated the requirement for the LSATs, freeing its admissions staff to be more arbitrary.)
Would they get recommendations to work at a top law firm? Would such a law firm hire them, given that it was almost impossible to find attorneys willing to oppose the LGBT lobby in Obergefell v. Hodges, for fear of boycotts and harassment? How long will it before membership in the Federalist Society, the lawyers group that drew up President Trump’s “short list” of potential SCOTUS nominees, is a crippling career impediment? Where will find the people with credentials in the humanities to train future mainstream scholars in social sciences and the humanities?
We Need Graduate Schools and Law Schools of Our Own
Conservatives and Christians have made attempts to work around the legal bottleneck, with mixed success. A faithfully Christian law school in Canada, Trinity Western, lost its accreditation because of its commitment to biblical values. While American “alternative” law schools such as Ave Maria and Regent University law schools turn out very competent lawyers, I doubt very much that we’ll be seeing Supreme Court nominees who graduated from either one anytime soon.
We’re about to enter a cultural, political, and legal desert, as the left’s stranglehold over elite institutions exerts its long-term intended effect. Christians and conservatives need to wake up and start pouring money and thought into how we can smuggle our future leaders past the left’s starvation blockade. (For more from the author of “Neil Gorsuch Shows Christians Why We Need to Build up Our Own Elites” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-shows-christians-need-build-elites/
The “stolen seat”????
As in the Republican Senate “stole” a seat on the Supreme Court because it refused to confirm President Obama’s election year nomination of Merrick Garland? Something none other than then-Senator Joe Biden vowed when he thought then President George H.W. Bush might get a court nomination in the election year of 1992.
How about this? How about the Democrats stole — make that deliberately destroyed — the U.S. Senate’s judicial confirmation process — something they started years ago.
With the nomination and now ongoing Senate confirmation hearings of Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, conservatives are well within their rights to roll their eyes at the disingenuous lies that are coming Judge Gorsuch’s way. Whether the topic is Obamacare, birth control, the role of federal agencies, or all manner of rights ranging alphabetically from abortion to workers, the liberal attack machine is at work. And alas, there is sadly not a thing new about this.
As it happens, I had the opportunity to work on the confirmations of five Reagan Supreme Court nominations as a member of the White House Office of Political Affairs. One of those nominees was Judge Robert Bork — the nomination where the verb “to bork” emerged. Later, in the Bush 43 era, as a private citizen, I was heavily involved in President Bush’s nomination of a best friend from college for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I went into this 2001-2002 episode with eyes open and taking notes, and the experience — which ended with the successful confirmation of Judge D.Brooks Smith — became a small book: “The Borking Rebellion: The Never-Before-Told Story of How a Group of Pennsylvania Women Attorneys took on the Entire U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee–And Won”
The bottom line? There is no limit — none — to what liberals will do to defeat a GOP president’s judicial nominations. And what once was limited to Supreme Court nominees has now long-since spread to confirmation fights for the lower courts. Note well that in his recent confirmation battle to become attorney general, former-Senator Jeff Session’s history as a defeated — make that borked — Reagan judicial nominee for a lower court was dredged up all over again.
The grim fact of what has become routine at these events is that they have become the very antithesis of what they were originally conceived to be: a serious forum to discuss the legal issues of the day.
Instead they have become political snake pits, with one far-left wing special interest after another lined up to assail any and everything about a GOP president’s nominee of the moment. How does this work? Let me provide but one example from the confirmation of Judge Smith.
I write to request your opinion concerning certain ethical questions that have arisen with the nomination of Judge D. Brooks Smith in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
So began a 2002 letter from then Wisconsin Senator and liberal Democrat Russell Feingold to NYU Law School Vice Dean Stephen Gillers. On the surface, the letter seems routine to the point of innocuous. A letter from a sitting U.S. senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee to a then-vice dean of a prominent American law school on the subject of judicial ethics. It sounds and appears as something totally normal, well within the bounds of senatorial inquiry when considering a judicial nomination.
Not so fast.
After working on those five Supreme Court nominations I mentioned above, I had learned something about how liberals played the game. The obvious question to me was: Who is Stephen Gillers — really? The answer did not require much digging, although characteristically it was the kind of digging the liberal media of the day never got around to doing when they would quote Gillers on the subject of judicial ethics. Not in the habit of quoting myself, let me break that rule here to quote from “The Borking Rebellion.” For the sake of reference, note that the group referred to here — the Community Rights Counsel — was a far-left, hyper-partisan special interest group whose mission had become, among other things, attacking GOP judicial nominees. Note as well that Professor Gillers was cited repeatedly in the liberal media as simply an ethics expert. I wrote this:
‘Nothing for Free’ was the title of a report issued by the Community Rights Counsel in July of 2000. A report attacking judicial seminars…I found this reference in its very first sentence:
“The authors are indebted to…Steven Gillers (sic)…(who) reviewed earlier drafts and provided unique and unfailingly helpful advice on improving the final product.”
Wow. The article in The Washington Post on Brooks Smith and John Gardner Black (a central figure in a fraud case heard by Smith) had been produced by research from Kendall. In writing the story that challenged Brooks’ ethics, Post reporter Ed Walsh then went to Stephen Gillers, presenting him in the story simply as a ‘professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School.’ Gillers was then quoted in the story casting doubt on Brooks (‘a serious argument for recusal is present…Judge Smith should have revealed the information’etc.)
In other words, the Post used Kendall’s CRC research to criticize Brooks, then used Kendall’s CRC consultant Gillers to verify that an ethics breach is potentially ‘present.’ Gillers was never identified as a CRC consultant, presented instead as a disinterested third party expert on legal ethics.
This was but one small piece of the Smith nomination, but standard procedure when it came to dealing with liberals on Supreme Court nominations. Not to wax Trumpian, but the confirmation system had been rigged. In that case, a sitting Democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to a supposed legal ethicist whom he knew to be an ideological ally and on whom he could count for an opinion to the senator’s liking. Likewise the Post, either not bothering to check the “ethics expert” for any ties that would rule him out as an uninterested observer — or knowing full well and deliberately omitting the fact — blithely used him as a source to condemn the nominee. The paper, of course, never mentioned the “ethics expert” as someone who was in fact tied to the interest group that was attacking the nominee.
This is the game that the confirmation process has become. And that cited incident in the Smith case doesn’t even touch the surface of the well of deceit and dirty tricks used against one nominee for an appeals court opening.
Why does this mean anything now? Because as the Gorsuch nomination is played out it appears more than likely that at this exact moment in political time the nominee will be confirmed. A superb, well-thought of nominee has been nominated by a GOP president with a GOP Senate at hand to get him confirmed. But make no mistake. The Gorsuch nomination is merely a moment where the liberal interest groups who have so corrupted this process — stolen it — are shaking off the doldrums resulting in a breather from nomination fights. But the moment the news hits that the next justice has decided to hang up his or her judicial robe — or as lower court nominations proceed with a roster of conservatives — you can bet that the forces who have spent years — say again years — corrupting this process will be out in force.
The question then will be a simple one. Are conservatives ready? Are they, to use a baseball metaphor, finished with the spring training of the Gorsuch nomination and ready for World Series judicial confirmation hard ball?
Time will tell. But, to mix metaphors, forewarned is forearmed. (For more from the author of “How Democrats Stole the Judicial Confirmation Process” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/democrats-stole-judicial-confirmation-process/
President Donald Trump has tapped a federal district judge from his list of potential Supreme Court picks to be his first nominee to a federal appellate court—putting Trump slightly behind President Barack Obama, but ahead of President George W. Bush in shaping the judiciary.
The White House announced Tuesday that Trump intended to nominate U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Thapar, son of Indian-American immigrants and a former federal prosecutor, now serves as a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Bush appointed him in 2008.
The announcement for a nomination comes as Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, is going through his confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Appeals court judges can be nearly as important as Supreme Court judges since the high court is limited in the number of cases it accepts.
There are 19 appellate court vacancies across the United States that Trump could fill, and 96 on federal district courts, according to Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
There are also two vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade and six on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. There are a total of 677 authorized district judgeships and 179 total court of appeals judgeships.
“This is a great sign that President Trump takes lower courts seriously,” Slattery told The Daily Signal. “The last administration did not make lower court judges a priority, and that ended up being good for conservatives because it has left Trump with a lot of opportunities. There was a lot of thought that the president would wait until the Gorsuch nomination reached its conclusion.”
Given his position on the Trump campaign’s Supreme Court list of 21 names, this could be grooming Thapar for the Supreme Court, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a conservative legal group, and a senior legal fellow for FreedomWorks.
“Everyone on that list was ranked somewhere from good to great as far as being a constitutionalist,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “Certainly if he is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, he is qualified to be on an appeals court. He would be the first Indian-American on the Supreme Court. There is no better way to give him credentials.”
Obama’s first appeals court nomination was on March 17, 2009, naming David Hamilton to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Obama had 49 appeals court judges confirmed to the bench during his two terms. Obama made his first district court nomination on June 25, 2009, naming Jeffrey Viken to the U.S. District of South Dakota. A total of 270 Obama district court nominees were confirmed.
Bush’s first appeals court nomination did not happen until May 9, 2001, when he named Roger Gregory to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That same month, Bush nominated Richard F. Cebull to serve as the judge for the U.S. District of Montana. Bush named a total of 61 appeals court judges that the Senate confirmed and filled a total of 263 vacancies on district courts.
President Bill Clinton outdid both Bush and Obama, naming 62 appeals court judges and 306 district judges.
As for Thapar, before serving on the bench, he was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He was previously an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Ohio and in the District of Columbia.
Thapar began his legal career in private practice. He clerked for Judge S. Arthur Spiegel on the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and then with Judge Nathaniel R. Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, to which Trump has selected Thapar to serve on. Thapar received his bachelor’s degree from Boston College in 1991 and his Juris Doctor from the University of California, Berkeley. (For more from the author of “Trump Makes Next Move to Shape Federal Judiciary” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/trump-makes-next-move-shape-federal-judiciary/
The FBI investigation into potential connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government began just weeks after a former British spy doing opposition research for Hillary Clinton supporters briefed bureau agents on evidence he had collected on such ties, Yahoo News reported Monday.
According to Chief Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff, Christopher Steele, a former British MI-6 intelligence officer specializing in Russian operations, had been hired as an investigator by Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm working on behalf of Clinton. On July 5, 2016, Steele went to the FBI with what he’d compiled on contact between Trump advisers and Kremlin officials.
The early contact between Steele and the bureau now appears to have set in motion a chain of events that led to Monday’s extraordinary testimony by Comey that the bureau has been actively investigating possible links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin since “late July” — or more than three months before Election Day.
If true, this would put the match of the fuse for this Russian business in the hand of someone with a vested interest in helping Hillary Clinton take down Trump. Further, the calendar raises an intriguing possibility.
The Curious Timing of the Plane on the Tarmac
Why is the July 5th date significant? For starters, it is the day FBI Director James Comey stood in front of the nation, explained all the egregious ways Hillary Clinton had violated and flouted the law in the handling of classified information, then said he was recommending against prosecuting her.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch quickly accepted the recommendation.
Days earlier, on June 27, Lynch had secretly met on a tarmac in Phoenix with Bill Clinton. In the dust-up after the rendezvous was revealed, Lynch recused herself from the Hillary email investigation.
But perhaps all eyes were on the wrong prize. Perhaps emails had as much to do with the meeting as photos of grandchildren. Let’s add Steele into the mix.
Would Steele have taken his bag of goodies to the FBI first? No. He would go to his client, Fusion GPS. The opposition research firm then goes to their client, and soon the Clinton campaign has their hands on explosive allegations that Donald Trump is in cahoots with the Russians. What are the Clinton’s going to do with the information?
Naturally, bring the goodies to someone who can do the most damage with it. Namely, their old friend, the Attorney General of the United States.
Bill’s pitch would be pretty simple: “We have information to share about potential criminal wrongdoing and interference in the election by a foreign power, and I have to deliver it to you personally.” (This would also explain the still-simmering mystery over why Lynch would agree to meet with Clinton, knowing that, given the on-going Hillary investigation, such a meeting was a gross breach of ethics.)
If Lynch Bites
Here’s the beauty. If Lynch bites, you have Donald Trump under investigation during the final months of the campaign. You have justification to have friendly electronic ears and eyes trained on his operations, and who knows what will emerge? Even if she doesn’t bite, you and your billion dollar campaign war chest still have Steele’s information to use politically.
Or maybe Lynch just says, “Bill, don’t get me involved. If you really have something, have your guy take it to the FBI.”
Is that what happened? We do know that within days of that prearranged secret meeting, the Clinton opposition researcher was knocking on Comey’s door and an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia was set in motion with all the snooping and surveilling that would entail. We also know the fruit of that intelligence was spread around the administration and friendly media outlets like orange slices at a youth soccer tournament.
Questions for the Attorney General-Turned #Resistance Champion
If Lynn has a few moments between her calls of support for the anti-Trump resistance, perhaps she can answer a few questions:
“When did you first hear of any Trump-Russian connections?”
“From whom?”
“What action did you take with that information?”
“When did the White House get wind of it?”
“Did you discuss in any way shape or form Donald Trump, his associates and/or the Russians during your secret meeting with Bill Clinton?”
“Would you care to say that under oath?”
“Given you met with the husband of Donald Trump’s opponent right around the time the FBI got involved in investigating Trump, did you recuse yourself from that investigation?”
“Do you consider yourself a political opponent of Donald Trump?”
And finally, “Do you agree with The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway that ‘we really should be having a conversation about the surveillance of a political opponent during a campaign and what that means’?”
Perhaps Lynch already did have a conversation about the surveillance of a political opponent during a campaign.
“A Big Gray Cloud”
House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif) says the FBI bombshell announcement of the on-going investigation — presented by Comey with the permission of an Obama hold-over at the Department of Justice — has left a “big gray cloud” over Trump’s White House.
So let a full investigation continue. And as more sunlight enters into the situation it’ll be curious to see who, despite the clouds, ends up burned. (For more from the author of “Report: FBI Investigation Into Trump-Russian Connects Instigated by Clinton Opposition Researcher” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/report-fbi-investigation-trump-russian-connects-instigated-clinton-opp
Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do THIS for Trump
March 22, 2017/
by Susan Crabtree
The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take “a bullet” for him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job. About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent’s prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources. Kerry O’Grady, the agent in question, is on administrative leave amid an internal Secret Service investigation into her Facebook comments about Trump. Current and former Secret Service agents and officers are worried that top officials at the agency are working to shield O’Grady from being fired. They are worried that she will be transferred to another division of the Homeland Security Department and allowed to serve out her time until she can retire with a pension as the agency has done with other officials in the public crosshairs. (For more from the author of “Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do Something Major for Trump” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/secret-service-removes-agent-didnt-want-something-major-trump/
|
|
|---|
|
PS. Please use the "Share This Email" link below to pass this on to as many people as you can!
Whenever I hear Christian leaders talk about the inevitable collapse of the church of America (or elsewhere) I ask myself, “But hasn’t Jesus risen from the dead? Didn’t He ascend to the right hand of the Father? Hasn’t all authority in heaven and earth been given to Him? And aren’t we commanded to go and make disciples in His name and by His authority?”
If so, how then we can speak of any inevitable collapse of the church (or, specifically, of Christian society), regardless of how inevitable that collapse appears to human eyes?
I therefore differ strongly with conservative journalist Rod Dreher who has written, “The culture war that began with the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s has now ended in defeat for Christian conservatives. … Don’t be fooled: the upset presidential victory of Donald Trump has at best given us a bit more time to prepare for the inevitable” (my emphasis; from his new book The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation).
The culture war has hardly “ended” and there is nothing “inevitable” about the collapse of Christian society in America, although, without question, the patient is mortally ill and in need of radical surgery and rehabilitation. But the heart is still beating, there are millions of committed believers throughout the land, prayers are ascending to heaven 24/7 for another great awakening, and it’s actually possible that America’s best days are still ahead, regardless of how bleak things look right now (and without a doubt, they look very, very bleak). Are not all things possible to him or her who believes?
A Backsliding Church
What makes today’s spiritual pessimism all the more galling is that, in my view, the biggest reason for America’s current moral and spiritual decline is the backslidden, unengaged, carnal state of the much of the church. In other words, America is messed up because the church has been messed up, because we who profess faith in Jesus have all too often been superficial in our commitment, as a result of which the world has changed us rather than us changing the world.
When it comes to the mainline denominations, in many instances there has been a wholesale departure from the authority of Scripture and the lordship of Jesus, leading to the abandonment of our moral compass.
When it comes to evangelical Christians, we have often preached a narcissistic, “what’s in it for me” gospel, a self-centered message that bypasses the cross and calls for virtually no sacrifice or service, a message that empowers the sinner rather than transforms the sinner, leading to “Christian” rappers who talk about Jesus in the midst of profanity-laced rants (all while still getting high, going to strip clubs, and partying), and to “Christian” models and actresses who strip down in the most seductive poses, simply because it’s part of their job — and I assure you they can find big churches in America who will welcome them with open arms and celebrate their “liberty” in Jesus. (It’s one thing to welcome the worst of sinners into our midst with open arms and without condemnation; it’s another thing to celebrate carnality and compromise.)
Little wonder that the rest of the public is so confused. After all, the church is supposed to function as the conscience of the nation.
Fulfilling Our Mission in the World
When it comes to social issues like abortion and homosexuality, the vast majority of Christian conservatives in our country have no almost regular engagement with women having abortions and engage in very little compassionate outreach to those who identify as LGBT. As for those of us who do get involved in social issues, we tend to do it politically, looking to the government (especially the Republican Party) to fix things, as if passing a law alone would “fix” the desecration of life or reverse the breakdown of the family.
In that regard, Dreher is quite right in urging us not to put our trust in the political system, and I wholeheartedly affirm his conclusion: “We are going to have to change our lives, and our approach to life, in radical ways. In short, we are going to have to be the church, without compromise, no matter what it costs” (his emphasis).
But being the church means heeding the words of Jesus, who calls us out of the world when it comes to participating in sin but into the world when it comes to fulfilling our mission, which is to shine like lights in dark places, to boldly proclaim the message of redemption, to reach out to hurting and suffering sinners, to make a difference in the communities in which we are planted, and to stand for truth and righteousness “without compromise, no matter what it costs.”
After all, we’re here as the Lord’s ambassadors, declaring the gospel to a dying world, and if we back down and retreat, who will reach this generation with the good news?
But to say, “We’ve failed so far so let’s concede the war” is like a coach saying to his team at halftime, “We hardly played at all in that first half, which is why we’re way behind, so let’s quit now before it gets worse.” To the contrary, he sounds a loud wakeup call, urging his team to play like never before, since the rest of the game is still ahead.
As theologian Douglas Wilson said, “I am against surrendering in any case, but I am really against surrendering before the battle is really joined.”
The solution, then, is not to retreat into some kind of monastic refuge but rather to repent of our sins, to give ourselves afresh to the Lord, and to let our light shine before an onlooking, skeptical, and mocking world. That is the gospel way.
In the words of Jesus, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14-16; for further scriptural exhortations, see here).
The Light the World Needs
I’m all for separating ourselves from the pollution of the world as much as possible. At one point, 95 percent of the families in my home congregation homeschooled their children. And for many years of our marriage, Nancy and I chose not to have a TV in our house. I have other friends who live in shared community, while still others have left business and careers to serve and live among the poorest of the poor. At the same time, I am not for withdrawing from our calling to go into the world and touch the lost.
By all means, then, let us live with a sense of holy urgency. After all, we’re here for a moment and then gone, with eternity ahead of us. And let us make a fresh, complete, and uncompromising commitment to our Lord. But let us stand up, not shrink back, raising our voices for the world to hear and living our lives for the world to see. And if America is determined to go to hell, then let it go to hell over our dead bodies.
As Charles H. Spurgeon famously said, “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for.”
To our knees, then, in holistic repentance, and to our feet, in wholehearted obedience. This generation desperately needs the message of new life in Jesus — the message you and I have. Don’t hide it under a basket! (For more from the author of “Christians Should Not Surrender the Fight for Our Culture” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/03/christians-not-surrender-fight-culture/
