Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

If you don’t want to own a gun, don’t own a gun.  No one should force you to own one.  But if you are a law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun, no one should be able to prevent you from doing so.  This applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. 

The author of this article does a good job of debunking poor theology, and explaining why it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to arm and DEFEND themselves.  The gun in the hands of the righteous is NOT a tool of vengeance, but rather a tool of defense.

+



A Response to John Piper: Why Gun Ownership is Biblical and Good

I named my daughter Piper, after John Piper. I regretted that terribly the moment John Piper invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2011 Desiring God conference, lending him his credibility and, I believe, metaphorically kissing his ring. That was too much for me. Since then, Piper has repeatedly partnered with the Mystichicks, Ann Voskamp, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, and others. With Piper, enough has to be enough. Perhaps it’s the “charismatic” in him, but for all his commendably deep theology, Piper seems to lack virtually any and all discernment.

It seems that the growingly obvious lack of discernment in Piper’s life and ministry is evident in his latest article at Desiring God, Should Christians Be Encourged to Arm Themselves. With that title, you can bet that there would be plenty of Evangelical Intelligentsia nuance within the article. Pulpit & Pen will cut through that for you.

Piper begins his article, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves, by providing a stark contrast to Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr, who recently encouraged his students to carry a weapon in case any terrorists came there.

My main concern in the [Liberty University] article is which appeal to students that stirs them up to have a mindset to “Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson of they come here. The concern is the forging of the disposition in Christians to use lethal force, no as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries. 

Piper’s concern is the disposition that ordinary Christian citizens use lethal force against harmful adversaries and not just as policemen or soldiers. This is an odd argument for Piper to make. First, he seems too reluctant to acknowledge himself a pacifist, per se, appealing to civil authority to use necessary force. Certainly, Piper would affirm Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 as the texts giving the civil magistrate the right of the sword for punitive punishment of the wicked. And in 1 Peter 2, Christians are to submit ourselves to “every human ordinance.” Among those human ordinances we are bound to obey in our Christian duty are the concealed carry and firearm laws in our states or local municipalities. If the civil magistrate has given its citizens the right duty to use firearms for the purpose of self-reliance, then certainly carrying a firearm wouldn’t be sinful. One could more easily argue not having a firearm, in this case, would be sinful. Piper continues,

The issue is not primarily about when and if the Christian may ever use the use of force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are serious situational ambiguities to answer that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage that attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket so don’t mess with me?” My answer is, No.

I’m not sure where these “serious situational ambiguities” lie in relation to defending the lives of our family and friends. In Why Some People Need a Good Killing, I laid out the case from Christian ethics as to why a violent response to unprovoked violence is godly and necessary. It’s really not that complicated. If someone breaks into a home, God’s law states that killing the intruder is justified and necessary, and the defender would be free from legal retribution (Exodus 22:2). Where are these “serious situational ambiguities” regarding the legal use of deadly weapons in the defense of the lives of family and friends? Piper seems to be (A) unwilling to answer the question as to whether we can kill to protect innocent loved ones and (B) deflecting to subjective, feeling-based, tone and “tenor” poppycock rather than providing clear, non-ambiguous answers from the Scriptures.

Next, Piper questions whether the New Testament encourages a particular “attitude” of  self-defense. This demonstrates a theological failure in understanding the abiding nature of the general equity within the Old Testament civil code. The foundation for Christian ethics rests in the Old Testament civil code. We apply the “general equity” (what is eternal and moral) of those laws to our own circumstances today. There’s absolutely no indication that the right (and duty) of Biblical self-defense has been abrogated or that somehow men are no longer required to protect their wives and children because you can call 911 and hope for the best.

Piper then presents nine considerations as to why he believes Christians should not have a self-defense mindset:

The Apostle Paul called Christians not to avenge ourselves, but to leave it to the wrath of God, and to instead return good for evil. And, he said to return the sword (the gun) into the hand of governmental rulers to express that wrath in the pursuit of justice in this world. 

One wonders what Piper’s malfunction is that he doesn’t understand the difference between self-defense (or keeping your child from being sodomized and your wife kidnapped) and vengeance. Vengeance is expo facto while self-defense is in the moment. No one in their right mind would accuse someone who was stopping a rapist in the act, dead in his tracks, of enacting vengeance. No, he was stopping a crime in progress. That is more than just the job of the magistrate. That’s what anyone who truly loves their neighbor would do. If one would not stop a rape-in-progress using deadly force (if necessary), they do not love their neighbor as their own self.

Piper also overlooks the reality that our emperor (which in our case is the Constitution) has specifically entrusted his citizens with the privilege and duty of the ownership and use of firearms. But of this, Piper writes…

For example, any claim that in a democracy the citizens are the government, and therefore may assume the role of the sword-bearing ruler in Romans 13, is elevating political extrapolation over biblical revelation. When Paul says, “The ruler does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4), he does not mean that Christians citizens should all carry swords so the enemy doesn’t get any bright ideas.

First, Piper needs to understand that stopping a crime in progress is not bearing the sword in a Romans 13 fashion. Romans 13 deals with trial and penology. The man stopping his wife from being kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in a gas station restroom (like what happened in North Dakota a few weeks ago) is not “bearing the sword” Romans 13 style. He’s not enacting vengeance. He’s stopping a crime in progress. Throughout this article, Piper repeatedly cites verses that speak against vengeance, misapplying them to his position on self-defense. Any serious Bible student or teacher should know better than this simple but subtle difference-turned-distraction.

2. The Apostle Peter teaches us that as Christians we will often find ourselves in societies where we should expect and accept unjust mistreatment without retaliation.

Piper then cites 1 Peter 2:19, 2:20, 3:19, 4:13, 4:16, 4:19 and so on, all stating in one way or another that we are blessed if we are persecuted, that we should rejoice if we suffer with Christ, and if we suffer according to God’s will we are doing well.

A plethora of verses aside, none – and I’ll write it again for the affect, none – of  Piper’s proof-texts disavow the right to self-preservation nor do they abrogate the Bible’s clear teaching on self-defense. What they do, however, is point out that we’re blessed if we’re persecuted. Amen and amen. And I point out in Why Some People Need a Good Killing that being killed for Christ, even if you’re defending yourself, still earns you the honorary title of martyr. At no point does “martyrdom” equate to “surrendered victim.”

If Christian refugees in Syria pick up rocks to fight back at their attackers in a desperate attempt to save their children and are captured and subsequently beheaded, they are still martyrs, thank you very much. And if, for whatever reason, in whatever dystopic future you contrive that allows Christians in this country to be rounded up like Jews in 1939 Germany and the 3% fought back, we would still be Christian martyrs.

3. Jesus taught that violent hostility would come; and the whole tenor of his council was how to handle it with suffering and testimony, not armed defense.

Piper then cites Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, and Matthew 10:16-20. All of these passages deal with Jesus’ End Time prophecy (unless you’re of a different eschatological persuasion and they’ve already been fulfilled) concerning the state of the world prior to the return of Christ. In short, it’s going to be brutal. Being brought before governors, taken before kings, delivered up by mothers and brothers–rough stuff. So then, Piper’s logic deduces that if we are to “die for Jesus” then we need not carry a weapon or practice self-defense.

Here’s where Piper’s theology fails, and why I implore him to get outside of his academic bubble once in a while. George Zimmerman wasn’t almost killed by thug, Trayvon Martin, because of Jesus. Zimmerman almost died because Martin was using the pavement as a deadly weapon against Zimmerman’s head. It had nothing to do with Jesus. It was senseless violence. When the pastor’s wife, Amanda Blackburn, was raped and died along with her unborn child, it had nothing to do with Jesus. She didn’t give her life for Jesus (perhaps I should say she didn’t give her death for Jesus). Although Piper references Jim Elliot getting stabbed with a spear, George Zimmerman and Amanda Blackburn and 99.99999% of the murder victims in this country aren’t dying for Jesus. They’re dying for the clothes they’re wearing, the money in their pocket, or their flesh to be abused. This render’s Piper’s point completely null and void.

4. Jesus sat the stage for a life of sojourning in this world where we bear witness that this world is not our home, and is not our kingdom, by renouncing the establishment or the advancement of our Christian Cause with the sword. 

This is the most absurd and disappointing of any of Piper’s points. Who on earth – WHO, I ASK YOU – is suggesting we advance our Christian cause with the sword? This is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. I’ve literally never met a Christian, not even a theonomist, who would make the argument that we should be advancing Christianity at gun point. Does Piper not know this? Is he just trying to score cheap points with the HuffPo crowd? Or is Piper so insulated in his little glass bubble in the inner city, and knows so few firearm owners, that he’s somehow under the impression that there are Christians trying to advance the kingdom by force. Seeing this section of Piper’s diatribe is surreal, just on account of how out-of-place it is in reality.

[Editor’s Note: This is Part A in addressing Piper’s errors. Part B will come shortly after Christmas. This post was contributed by JD Hall]

*Update: JD was intending to write Part B to address Piper’s errors. Because of his holiday schedule, he will instead be on the Bible Thumping Wingnut Program to discuss the rest of his concerns, this Christmas evening. You can listen here.

Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/12/23/a-response-to-john-piper-why-gun-ownership-is-biblical-and-good-part-a/
+


Soldiers Donating To Tea Party Now Face Punishment Under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice?

Military, REMEMBER YOUR OATH. Now is the time to act on it. If you are a Christian or support that faith (which doesn’t advocate the harm of others), and/or you support an organization whose mission is the support of very same Constitution which our military swore an oath to protect and defend, you are now being classified as an enemy of America. The actual enemy of America is anyone who would have you believe this drivel. It is time to clean this mess up. Military, do your duty.

As a reminder, here’s what you swore:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” 

+


TERRIFYING! Soldiers Donating To Tea Party Now Face Punishment Under The Uniform Code Of Military Justice?

AP

 AP

(by TODD STARNES, Fox News Radio) — Soldiers attending a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood say they were told that evangelical Christians and members of the Tea Party were a threat to the nation and that any soldier donating to those groups would be subjected to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Continue reading

VA Fires Chaplains for QUOTING SCRIPTURE and Praying the Name of Jesus

Forget openly ridiculing homosexuals. In the military you can’t even say you disagree with homosexuality. Say anything negative about the satanic death cult of islam, and you’re in even MORE hot water. But so much as MENTION the name of Jesus, except to take His name in vain, and you get put in hack. Remember all those promises that chaplains and service members wouldn’t be impeded from practicing their faith when don’t-ask-don’t-tell was repealed? Just like Obama’s Obamacare promises, complete lies.
+



Veterans Affairs forced chaplains from program for quoting Scripture, praying in the name of Jesus, suit alleges

By

Published November 11, 2013

| FoxNews.com

Two Baptist chaplains said they were forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program after they refused orders to stop quoting the Bible and to stop praying in the name of Jesus.

When the men objected to those demands, they were subjected to ridicule and harassment that led to one of the chaplains leaving the program and the other being ejected, according to a federal lawsuit filed Friday.

The Conservative Baptist Association of America is suing Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki; the group’s suit alleges two of its chaplains were openly ridiculed by the leader of the San Diego-based VA-DOD Clinical Pastoral Education Center program.

“Not only was the treatment these men received inappropriate, it was also a violation of federal law and the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment,” said John Wells, an attorney representing the Colorado-based denomination.

“No American choosing to serve in the armed forces should be openly ridiculed for his Christian faith,” he said, calling it one of the most blatant cases of religious discrimination he has ever seen.

Lt. Commander Dan Klender, a Navy chaplain, and Maj. Steven Firtko, a retired Army chaplain, had enrolled in the VA’s Clinical Pastoral Education Center program in San Diego last year.

The one-year training program is required for anyone wanting to work as a chaplain in a VA hospital. VA chaplains differ from other military chaplains in that they are limited to working in VA hospitals.

The program, which has affiliates around the nation, is open to chaplains of all religious faiths. However, applicants must have completed master-level seminary work.

There were seven chaplains enrolled in the San Diego program led by Nancy Dietsch, a Department of Veterans Affairs employee with a history of antagonistic behavior toward evangelicals, Wells said.

“She’s been very, very critical of Christians,” Wells said in a telephone interview. “Instead of teaching anything dealing with faith issues, she’s dealing with a holistic, humanistic approach. It’s the idea that the spirit comes from within.”

The VA did not return telephone calls, but they did release a statement to NBC San Diego. The VA said the two men were “bullying other classmates and refusing to honor other faith groups.”

Wells said the chaplains were subjected to anti-Christian bigotry.

“And that would be putting it mildly,” he said. “A lot of these so-called liberals are very liberal with their own ideas, but when it comes to somebody else’s ideas, they don’t want to hear it.

Among the allegations listed in the lawsuit:

1.       Dietsch told the chaplains that it was the policy of the VA in general and her in particular that chaplains should not pray in the name of Jesus.

2.       During a classroom discussion on faith, Firtko said “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Dietsch told the chaplain he was not allowed to quote from the Bible in her classroom.

3.       In October 2012, Dietsch told the class she believes God could be either man or woman. When Firtko referred to “The Lord’s Prayer,” she “angrily pounded her fist on the table and shouted, ‘Do not quote Scripture in this class.’”

4.       In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, Klender mentioned during a group discussion on counseling that he would tell a parent that “there is evil in the world.” Dietsch retorted, “You don’t actually believe that do you?”

5.       In January 2013, she told the chaplains “there is no room in the program for those who believe they are right and everybody else is wrong.”

6.       Later that month she told students that there are many ways to heaven and that one religion cannot be right, while others are wrong. Firtko objected to that statement by quoting Jesus who said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” Dietsch told him to stop quoting from the Bible, then stated, “If you believe your beliefs are right, and everyone else’s is wrong, you do not belong in this program.”

The harassment had become so bad by February that Klender withdrew from the program. A week later, Firtko received a letter notifying him that he’d been dismissed from the program.

In July, the pair filed a formal complaint against Dietsch for religious discrimination and violating the Association of Pastoral Continuing Education Standards.

Attorney Wells said it appears the government is trying to establish “a secular humanist-based religion free from any influence of Christian dogma.”

“The most egregious part is the VA supervisor told two chaplains that they were not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus and they could not quote Scripture,” he said.

Wells feared that unless changes are made, Christian chaplains are going to be discouraged from serving in the military.

“Christian chaplains are under a lot of pressure right now and facing a lot of challenges,” he said.
+
+


NBC’s Ann Curry Attacks Kirk Cameron’s Religious Beliefs

Pay CLOSE attention to this. Look at history and see where similar things have been done as totalitarian regimes and brutal dictators came to power. If you are still in the “it can’t happen here” camp, you’re in for a rude awakening.



The obvious next step will be to attempt an end-run around the First Amendment by declaring as bigoted the Church’s refusal to marry same-sex couples. They will also attempt to declare as hate speech any belief held by the church that in any way angers GLAAD.

What Ann Curry did to Kirk Cameron this morning is the first phase of that war: The shaming campaign. On national television she brought the actor on to declare his religious beliefs hate speech that will encourage others to “mistreat gay people.”

We all know what the next step is, and that’s the outlawing of these opinions under the principle that the speaking of such things will cause harm to others.



+

‘Hate Speech’: NBC’s Ann Curry Attacks Kirk Cameron’s Religious Beliefs

Shorter Ann Curry: Your religious beliefs represent hate speech!

by John Nolte 20 Mar 2012

Make no mistake about it, this is all about going after the Christian Church. Same-sex marriage, GLAAD’s fascist rampages, and all of this Orwellian political correctness is part of long-term goal — and that’s to make Christian beliefs a form of bigotry and to force a left-wing agenda on the church all under a Trojan horse labelled “discrimination.”

In many respects, Obama forcing the Catholic Church to violate its conscience with respect to providing birth control and abortion drugs through their social service institutions, is a dry run for this. The left wants to know if they can persuade the American people that a non-existent right (in this case, free birth control) trumps a First Amendment that declaratively restricts the government from impeding on the free exercise of religion.

The obvious next step will be to attempt an end-run around the First Amendment by declaring as bigoted the Church’s refusal to marry same-sex couples. They will also attempt to declare as hate speech any belief held by the church that in any way angers GLAAD.

What Ann Curry did to Kirk Cameron this morning is the first phase of that war: The shaming campaign. On national television she brought the actor on to declare his religious beliefs hate speech that will encourage others to “mistreat gay people.”

We all know what the next step is, and that’s the outlawing of these opinions under the principle that the speaking of such things will cause harm to others.

This, of course, would mean the end to the church — which is the whole idea.

Newsbusters:

Leading off an interview with conservative Christian actor Kirk Cameron on Tuesday’s NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry immediately attacked him for recent comments he made to CNN’s Piers Morgan: “I’m going to ask you about this firestorm that you set off…on the topic of gay marriage….Many people are suggesting that this is hate speech. Are you encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people?” [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Curry plucked out a single sentence from Cameron’s CNN interview: “…you said, quote, ‘I think that it’s unnatural. I think that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.'” Cameron called out her selective framing of the topic: “I love all people. I hate no one. And, you know, when you take a subject and you reduce it to something like a four-second sound bite, and a check mark on a ballot, I think that that’s inappropriate and insensitive.”

Even after Cameron explained that the “edited down” quote “certainly didn’t reflect my full heart on the matter,” Curry still asserted he was encouraging hate: “Do you feel any responsibility saying words like that, that might encourage people to feel that it’s okay to treat – mistreat gay people?”

Cameron pushed back and cited Morgan’s blatant bias on the issue: “Nobody should mistreat anybody….what I think this reveals is that – the interviewer that asked me these questions even used the words with me, “I think your views are destructive” – so what that shows me is that all of us who really think deeply about social issues, like gay marriage, and abortion, and homosexuality, have convictions on issues.”

Ann Curry and Leftists like her don’t give a damn about gays. If they did, you would see the same amount of hostility directed towards Muslims.

Link to article:  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/20/Ann-Curry-Ambush-Kirk-Cameron


Biden has NO IDEA what the ‘Christian thing to do’ would be

Gaffe-a-Minute Biden dares to call ANYONE a hypocrite?  Having people like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama DARE to lecture ANYONE on what’s the “Christian” thing to do is absolutely laughable and ridiculous.

Is it the “Christian” thing to do to support the slaughter of MILLIONS of children?

Biden, Pelosi, and Obama seem to think so.  Biden and Pelosi, please go talk to the bishops of the Catholic Church you claim to be a part of.

Is it the “Christian” thing to do to reward millions of people for illegal behavior by punishing those who have NOT broken the law?

Biden, Pelosi, and Obama seem to think so.

Is it the “Christian” thing to do to FORCIBLY take from one person to give to another?

Biden, Pelosi, and Obama seem to think so.

For these colossal hypocrites to open their mouths to address ANYONE with ANY words other than “I’m sorry” is at best infuriating.

(Updated to include link to article)


Biden: Immigration Reform ‘The Christian Thing to Do’

by Debra Heine 20 Jun 2013

Speaking at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast Thursday, Vice President and self styled theologian Joe Biden suggested that Republicans who profess to be Christians are hypocrites because they oppose comprehensive immigration reform that does not secure the border.

Biden (a pro-abortion Catholic) said, “Many of these same [GOP] representatives talk about their Christianity and their fidelity to the Bible, but they forget Matthew Chapter 25, Verse 34, where scripture teaches us: ‘I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty — you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.’”

Biden later added, “It’s the right thing to do; it’s the Christian thing to do. But it’s also an incredibly practical thing to do.”

Since Biden considers himself somewhat of an arbiter of what Christians should and shouldn’t do, I wonder what he would say about Nancy Pelosi’s comments characterizing late-term abortions as “sacred ground”, which has  has drawn fire from a national organization of Catholic priests active in pro-life work. Continue reading

Orwell Was Right. Or in Newspeak, was he wrong? Or incorrectly correct?

Those who we today refer to as liberals have been deceptively changing our language to hide their agenda for decades. And we, the sheeple have been letting them get away with it.

Once upon a time, the label “liberal” used to mean “one who cherished and supported LIBERTY.” With all of the things they have done over the years to chip away at the REAL liberty guaranteed to us in the Constitution, “lover of liberty” is DEFINITELY NOT a label that can be ascribed to a modern liberal.

Liberals share this morphing trait with Marxists, communists and socialists. Several decades ago, communists realized that being identified as a communist was not very popular. Any guess as to what they began calling themselves? Time’s up. They began calling themselves “progressives.” Well, that’s funny. Many people that used to identify themselves as “liberals” now call themselves “progressives.” Since we have pulled back the curtain on what “progressives” are, that clears things up a bit.

Here are a few example of “newspeak” by liberal/progressive/Marxist/communist/socialists that we have allowed to seek refuge in our government:

WORD/TERM

OLD MEANING

“NEW” MEANING

Liberal Someone who believed in liberty Someone who thinks you have too much liberty
Communist Someone who believes in the use of force for gaining state control of the means of production, and all aspects of your life. Still means the same thing, but even though “liberals” believe this, they run from the term and claim they are being slandered.
Progressive Someone who believed in “progress” Communist/Socialist/Marxist
Entitlement Something you EARNED (furnished proper grounds for claiming something) Belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges (you no longer have to EARN anything, you only have to BELIEVE you are “entitled” to what I have earned)
Freedom of Speech Freedom to express thoughts and opinions as long as they were true Freedom to agree with a liberal
Tax Money taken from those who earn it to fund necessary and constitutional functions of government The portion of the government’s money that they are not allowing you to borrow.
Tax Cut Allowing those who earn money to keep more of what they earn Loss of government revenue

(see: “Can’t “afford” a tax cut)

Can’t “afford” a tax cut Government is spending more of your money than it’s supposed to, and doesn’t want to stop spending. You’re keeping too much of the government’s money which is keeping them from spending it for you.
Christmas Holiday celebrated by the majority of Americans, based on the religion that is woven into the founding fabric of our nation. A hateful, discriminatory, racist expression of religion being forced down people’s throats.
Christian Someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and wants to share the good news with others. Hateful, racist, bigot who hates gays.
Israel Historical home of the Jewish people for thousands of years. Place that Palestinians now are somehow “entitled” to.
Israelis People who get thousands of rockets and mortars lobbed at them by Palestinians, who get them from hammas and the Iranians, before they are forced to defend themselves, and people who are attack by suicide bombers and other terrorist acts on a regular basis Terrorists who aren’t allowed to defend themselves.

+


KNIGHT: Free speech vs. sound of silence

Secularists wish us a merry non-Christmas

By Robert Knight   |  The Washington Times  |  Friday, December 7, 2012

In George Orwell’s futuristic novel “1984,” a tyrannical government masks its activities through the use of Newspeak — saying or doing something opposite of a word’s meaning.

The Ministry of Plenty oversees rationing and starvation; the Ministry of Peace wages war; the Ministry of Truth dispenses propaganda; and the Ministry of Love conducts torture. The operative slogans are: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Continue reading

Hand It Over…

For those of you sitting idly by watching islam spread, saying “that will never happen here,” take heed. Islam already has a foothold in this country, and in the communities muslims have already taken over such as Dearbornistan, Michigan they are already using Sharia law within their own community, and radical seeds are being sown.

I don’t begrudge anyone the practice of their religion as long as the practice of that religion does not infringe upon the right of another to practice their religion of choice, or no religion at all.  I hope stories such as these are rare examples of those trying to hijack a religion.  However, until we know who we can and can’t trust we must guard against radicals undermining our Constitution and way of life.

Wake up, America.


http://networkedblogs.com/5tXer

India: Muslims chop off hands of Christian professor who put “defamatory” question on exam

THODUPUZHA: Christians in Kerala now started getting the true taste of Jihad . Five Jihadi fanatics today chopped of the hands of Malayalam Professor.

A Malayalam professor T J Joseph of the Newman College, who is under suspension for preparing a defamatory question for an exam paper, was attacked by a gang of five men at Muvatupuzha when he was coming back from church.

His crime – A question prepared by the professor for a Exam was offensive to Jihadis.

(Read complete article HERE)


%d bloggers like this: