The Challenge of Same-Sex Unions

by Albert Mohler

Orginially posted here: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-challenge-of-same-sex-unions/

In the world but not of the world? From the very beginning, the church has faced the challenge of responding to external events, trends, ideologies, and controversies. By definition, the church does not get to choose these challenges, but they have been thrust upon Christians by the world. The question always comes down to this: What now?

That question seems especially urgent in light of the emergence of same-sex unions and marriage in the United States and the world over. How must the church answer this challenge?

To answer that question, we need to think about the speed of the moral revolution that has pushed this question to the forefront of our culture. In less than a generation, homosexuality has gone from being almost universally condemned to being almost fully normalized in the larger society.

We are facing a true moral inversion — a system of moral understandings turned upside down. Where homosexuality was even recently condemned by the society, now it is considered a sin to believe that homosexuality is wrong in any way. A new sexual morality has replaced the old, and those who hold to the old morality are considered morally deficient. The new moral authorities have one central demand for the church: get with the new program.

This puts the true church, committed to the authority of God’s Word, in a very difficult cultural position. Put simply, we cannot join the larger culture in normalizing homosexuality and restructuring society to match this new morality. Recognizing same-sex unions and legalizing same-sex marriage is central to this project.

Liberal churches and denominations are joining the project, some more quickly and eagerly than others. The cultural pressure is formidable, and only churches that are truly committed to Scripture will withstand the pressure to accommodate themselves and their message to the new morality.

What, then, is the true church to do? First, we must stand without compromise on the authority of the Bible and the principles of sexual conduct and morality that God has revealed so clearly in His Word. The Bible’s sexual morality is grounded in the creation of humanity in God’s image; we are created as male and female and given the gift of sex within the marriage covenant — and only within the marriage covenant between one man and one woman for as long they both shall live.

The easiest way to summarize the Bible’s teaching on sexuality is to begin with God’s blessing of sex only within the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. Then, just remember that sex outside of that covenant relationship, whatever its form or expression, is explicitly forbidden. Christians know that these prohibitions are for our good and that rejecting them is tantamount to a moral rebellion against God Himself. We also know that the Bible forbids all same-sex sexual acts and behaviors. Thus, we know that homosexuality is a sin, that blessing it in any way is also sin, and that normalizing sin cannot lead to human happiness.

Second, we must realize what is at stake. Marriage is first and foremost a public institution. It has always been so. Throughout history, societies have granted special recognition and privileges to marriage because it is the central organizing institution of human culture. Marriage regulates relationships, sexuality, human reproduction, lineage, kinship, and family structure. But marriage has also performed another crucial function — it has regulated morality.

This is why the challenge of samesex unions is so urgent and important. Redefining marriage is never simply about marriage. It leads to the redefinition of reproduction and parenthood, produces a legal revolution with vast consequences, replaces an old social order with something completely new, and forces the adoption of a new morality. This last point is especially important. Marriage teaches morality by its very centrality to the culture. With a new concept of marriage comes a new morality, enforced by incredible social pressure and, eventually, legal threats.

Third, we must act quickly to teach Christians the truth about marriage and God’s plan for sexuality in all its fullness and beauty. We must develop pastoral approaches that are faithful to Scripture and arm this generation of believers to withstand the cultural pressure and respond in ways that are truly Christian.

Last, and most important, this challenge must drive us to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians must be the first to understand this challenge in light of the gospel. After all, we know spiritual rebellion when we see it, for we ourselves were rebels before God’s grace conquered us. We know what moral confusion means because without the light of God’s Word, we are just as confused.

There is no rescue from the self-deception of sin except for the salvation that is ours in Jesus Christ. While doing everything else required of us in this challenge, the faithful church must center its energies on the one thing that we know we must do above all else — preach, teach, and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Obama's America: why black grievance will never end

Obama's America: why black grievance will never end

By Selwyn Duke

When I was 12 years old, I played tennis at a certain public park in the Bronx. One day it got back to me that a black fellow at the courts, whose name I forget, said "Selwyn doesn't like black people." This raised my eyebrows. You see, I had never really thought about the man one way or the other. And what occupied my mind were forehands, backhands, topspin and volleys, not race. So the only thing I could figure was that I was probably in a funk one day and didn't hear and acknowledge a greeting he might have extended.


Whatever the perceived slight, race was a factor. After all, imagine the reaction if he had been white. At worst he might have thought, "Selwyn is a self-absorbed brat," which would have been closer to the truth. Or he might just have concluded that I was having a bad day (I was an aspiring player at the time, but, lamentably, had a lot of bad days). Instead, he saw bad intentions where none existed.


Of course, any time someone noticeably different from us appears to slight us, it's natural to wonder if it may be because of those differences. But when you consider what many black Americans believe, it's clear something else is afoot. Just consider, for instance, that when Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright accused white people of "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," he was not expressing a new belief in the black community. After Hurricane Katrina, Louis Farrakhan claimed that the breached levees had been blown-up by the government; Spike Lee said that his theory wasn't "far-fetched"; and even before Looney Louie had weighed in, black residents on the street stated that the flooding was part of a conspiracy to rid New Orleans of black people. On a more frivolous but equally ridiculous note, I've heard black golf fans claim that the late-1990s equipment revolution that enabled players to hit the ball further, and the subsequent lengthening of golf courses, were engineered for the purposes of undermining Tiger Woods, a black man dominating a white game. Of course, given what we now know about Woods' extra-curricular activities, targeting him with HIV might have been easier.


To illustrate the phenomenon causing people to believe such inanity, consider a woman in a bad marriage who hates her husband. She may see him through colored glasses, and then his trespasses are never just innocent mistakes, are they? Instead, much that he does will displease her — and all of it is part of an effort to upset her. "Why, that's just the kind of thing he woulddo!" thinks she. Now, don't get me wrong. He may be lacking or even a cad, and he may sometimes actually try to get her goat. But that isn't the point. It is, rather, that whatever he is or isn't, she won't perceive it clearly through those colored glasses. Hatred is like darkness: the more there is, the less you can see.


And this is precisely the issue in the black community. Black minister and head of the Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny Jesse Lee Peterson alluded to this when he said that the goal of racial hustlers such as Jesse Jackson is to keep black people angry so that they won't be able to think clearly. Yet this "Jacksonizing" of youth is now endemic in the black community. Too many black children are weaned on ideas such as "The white man is keeping you down," "The white man has oppressed you" and "A black man has no place in America." They may hear such sentiments from their parents, from Reverend Wrights in churches, from friends, from music and popular culture — and even in school (read here). The result is that they view whites through colored glasses, seeing bad intentions and Caucasian conspiracies where none exist. Hey, that's just the way white people are.


Of course, this phenomenon isn't unique to black/white relations. It's evident in Palestinian/Jewish ones, Hutu/Tutsi ones, Turkish/Armenian ones and many others as well; it's something that has ever plagued man. And because it has such a long history and can be easily understood, something can be said with confidence: black grievance will never end.


Oh, "never" is a long time?


I'll be more precise: the American republic will end before black grievance will.


To place this in further perspective, consider jihadist teaching. Would you expect the next generation of Muslims to relinquish their grievances against Jews when anti-Semitism is taught in tens of thousands of madrassahs worldwide and presented as part of Islamic religion? Well, consider that anti-white teaching is rife in the black community and has been molded into a religion; it's called Black Liberation Theology (BLT) and teaches that God must assist in eradicating "the white enemy." Then there is Critical Race Theory (CRT) — an offshoot of Marxist critical theory — which states that "the [American] system must be made unequal in order to compensate for the innate racism of the white majority," writes Ben Shapiro. And don't argue about it, either. Many BLT and CRT adherents will aver that white people are blind to their inherent bigotry and that "white privilege" renders them oblivious to their "undeserved" benefits. So, you see, only non-whites can grasp their dysfunction.


To make matters worse, in the way that Islam is on the march as radicalism imbues ever more mosques, black grievance only worsens, ironically, as we move further from the antebellum period. Why? Well, just as 18th-century Muslims knew nothing of the Crusades (which were a response to Islamic aggression) until taught about them in 19th-century English and French colonial schools, the teaching of black children is not what it was back when the three Rs weren't racism, radicalism and revenge. Note that BLT was only originated in 1966 and CRT in the late 1970s.


And this again speaks to the intractability of black grievance. "As the twig is bent, so grows the tree," the saying goes; it's hard to overcome what is instilled during formative years. And anger has its appeal. As a black woman caller emphatically stated on a radio talk show I listened to some years ago, "My hate keeps me going!" Yes, passion is energizing and can be born of hate as well as love. And in keeping with Ben Franklin's saying, "You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into," problems of misguided emotion cannot be remedied with intellectual appeals. Whatever whites are or are not, it won't be perceived clearly until the colored glasses come off.


And how are they removed? Whether you're black, white, a Palestinian or that hypothetical wife, the answer is always the same: forgiveness. When we forgive, the blinding anger dissipates and we finally see the object of our wrath clearly. Then we often learn that he isn't quite the monster we once imagined.


Unless this were to happen, we shouldn't expect anything but what we have already witnessed: Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute the Philadelphia Black Panthers, Barack Obama's stoking of racial anger, blacks' assumption that every Trayvon Martin is an innocent victim, and increasing "retaliatory" attacks on whites by the children of BLT and CRT. And we shouldn't be naïve enough to think that pandering helps. You're not going to prove your good will to Jackson, Holder, Al Sharpton and their fellow travelers by offering handouts, government programs and quotas. You won't prove it by voting for a (half) black president, which — especially when he is a BLT Marxist radical — is seen just as license to extract more pounds of flesh. You won't soothe their savage breasts by taking it on the chin and then saying, "Thank you, sir; may I have another?" For the Jeremiah Wrights of the world are much like the Independence Day alien who was asked by the American president, "What is it you want us to do?"


His answer: "die."


Only, because BLT babies can't yet access the firepower of Louis Farrakhan's earth-orbiting mother ship, "which will reign down destruction on white America," they're not quite so forthcoming.


As for whites, if our concessions won't help, what should we do? Well, while we shouldn't respond to hate with hate or think being on its receiving end absolves us of the obligation to act morally, we could be more forthcoming ourselves and let the Truth set us free. And we can start by following Eric Holder's words, as opposed to his deeds, and cease being cowards on race. This would mean telling black Americans the truth: their problems lie not in their stars — white or otherwise — but in themselves.

Just too funny not to post...

A young man wanted to purchase a new Christmas gift for his new sweetheart and as they had not been dating very long, after careful consideration, he decided a pair of gloves would strike just the right note, romantic but not too personal.


Accompanied by his sweetheart's sister, he went to Nordstrom's and bought a pair of fine leather gloves. The sister purchased a pair of panties for herself.


During the wrapping the clerk mixed up the items. The sister got the gloves and the sweetheart got the panties. Without checking the contents, the young man sealed the package and sent it to his sweetheart along with this note:


I chose these because I noticed you are not in the habit of wearing any when we go out in the evening. If it had not been for your sister, I would have chosen the long ones with buttons, but she wears short ones that are easier to remove. These are a delicate shade, but the lady I bought them from showed me a pair she had been wearing the past three weeks and they were hardly soiled. I had her try yours on for me and she looked really smart. I wish I were there to put them on you the first time, as no doubt other hands will come in contact with them before I have a chance to see you again. When you take them off, remember to blow in them before putting them away as they will naturally be a little damp from wearing. Just think how many times I will kiss them during the coming year. I hope you will wear them for me on Friday night.


All my love, Charles


P.S. The latest style is to wear them folded down with a little fur showing.


(Author unknown)

Leni Riefenstahl: Congratulations on the HHS Regulations

Leni Riefenstahl: Congratulations on the HHS Regulations

What Jesus said about homosexuality -- Part 1 & Part 2

By Dan Popp

It's another slogan that passes for thought among the thinking-averse: "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality...." The rest of the sentence remains unspoken for fear that laughter might break out. "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality; therefore He approves of it."

First of all, that's what's known as an "argument from silence;" a logical fallacy. By this rule Jesus would be made to endorse rape, cannibalism and lots of other nasty stuff. Secondly, we cannot know whether Jesus, in His brief earthly ministry, ever mentioned homosexual sin specifically (see John 21:25), so the claim can't be substantiated. But the slogan is not only unverifiable and non-rational; it reveals ignorance of what we know Jesus did say. Though His teachings recorded in the gospels don't directly address the issue of same-sex sex, the Scriptures leave no room for an honest reader to conclude that Christ condones any sin, including this one.

Before we look at what Jesus said about homosexuality, let me explain my purpose in writing this. It isn't to put anyone down, or to say, "Jesus hates fags." If the Lord hated homosexual sinners, He would have to hate heterosexual sinners (like King David), and certainly murderers (like David, Moses and Paul), thieves, and so on, right down to jaywalkers. And me. And all Christians. If the Son of God had hated us sinners, He certainly wouldn't have endured torture and death on the cross to rescue us. To rescue us from our sins. My one intention is to help other believers respond to the far-less-than-half-truth that "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality."

Jesus' affirmation: The morality of the Old Testament is still valid

Contrary to the popular misconception, Jesus is not the Second Moses. He didn't come to give us new laws, or to hand out free passes to break the old ones. Christ didn't have to stand on a mountain and repeat by name every sin mentioned in the Old Testament for all of those sins to remain sins. God, by definition, doesn't change; therefore He does not change His ideas about what's right and wrong. If sin is not sin, then God is not God. *

Jesus addressed all sins generally when He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17,18) Again in Luke 16:16,17 He said, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the Law to fail."

Far from smashing the moral code revealed to Israel, Jesus didn't even relax it — He tightened it.

"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder....' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court.... You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' but I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." (read Matt. 5:21ff)

In this less-loved portion of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord continues with four more laws — each time with that same formula: You have heard...but I say — each time showing not that the Law of God has been repealed; rather, that it reaches deeper than we ever knew.

Jesus' premise: The original pattern is God's will

In answering a question about divorce, Christ lays a foundation that has implications for our topic.

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way." (Matt. 19:3-8 NASB, emphasis mine — see also Mark 10:2-9)

His argument assumes that God created things a certain way because (duh) that's the way He wanted them. If we can get back to the original pattern, before sin marred the picture, we'll be able to see God's will for human sex and marriage. That heavenly will, restated here by the Lord, is one man and one woman united in marriage for life.

Christ taunts the Pharisees, faulting them for not deducing God's perfect will regarding marriage from the simple words, the two shall become one flesh. The implications of the fact that before God joined them, He made them male and female are even more elementary.

Homosexual behavior and "gay marriage" aren't going to fit into this primal pattern, which Jesus here places above the Law of Moses. If "serial monogamy" between man/woman couples isn't God's will, then neither is anything further outside the lines drawn in the opening chapters of Genesis. Jerry Falwell popularized this argument, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." He created them male and female for a reason. Creation involves design, and design reveals intent.

There are at least two other ways that Jesus spoke out against same-sex sex. I hope to examine those next time.

* Disbelievers have been known mock this truth, conflating universal laws with rules given to Israel to make it unique; failing to differentiate the ceremonial from the moral; and confusing changing punishments for sin, with the unchangeable sinfulness of sin. A digression for their sake is either unnecessary or unmerited.

© Dan Popp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my previous essay I tried to show how two of Jesus' teachings bear on the issue of whether He condones homosexual behavior. These were words directly from His mouth that deal with our question indirectly. In this article I plan to discuss an indirect way He addressed the direct issue, as well as a direct way He dealt with the matter directly. Yes, Jesus had a surprising amount to say about homosexuality.

Jesus' commission: The Apostles speak for Him

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time: to print the "Words of Christ in Red." But this marketing gimmick may help fuel the notion that the sayings of Jesus are somehow "more inspired" than the rest of the Bible. That isn't possible. Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16, NASB, emphasis mine) Peter classed Paul's writings among "the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15,16) The New Testament Apostles and the Old Testament prophets agree that every word of the Bible, as originally penned, is exactly as God wants it to be.

The Apostles had plenty to say about same-sex sex, and none of it positive — for example, in Romans 1:18-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:9-11, and 2 Peter 2:6-10. So when people say, "Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality..." they're insinuating that there's some kind of feud between Christ and His hand-picked spokesmen. Not only is there no evidence for that, it's ludicrous on its face. Virtually everything we know about Jesus comes from the Apostles. If they misrepresented His views in their letters, then we can't trust their reports of what He said in the gospels. On the other hand, if you accept "Blessed are the meek" as an authentic sentiment of Jesus, then Romans 1 and all the other scriptures against homosexual behavior are also accurate representations of His thoughts.

Jesus explained in advance how this would work. At the Last Supper, alone with His disciples, He said:

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. ... I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." (John 15:26, 27... 16:12,13)

Just as the Son spoke for the Father by the Spirit (John 8:26-29, John 12:49-50, John 14:10), the Apostles spoke for Jesus by the same Spirit. If you believe in Jesus, you have staked your eternal soul on the veracity of what the Apostles wrote. To believe in Christ is to believe the Apostles; or, to put it the other way around, to disbelieve them is to disbelieve in Him. There is no rift between Jesus and Paul, or Jesus and Peter, or Jesus and John. The black letters are just as much the thoughts and intentions of Christ as the red letters.

Jesus' pre-existence: The Word speaks for Himself

But the excuser of homosexual sin doesn't just have to invent a war between Jesus and His designated agents. He also must pretend that there's contention within the Godhead. The Son uproots the works of the Father.

In fact it was the Gnostics, not the Christians, who taught that Christ was sent to demolish the ways of the inferior Hebrew god (the "Demiurge") and establish the worship of a better, nicer god. Now, if you get your information about Christianity from the "History" channel, you may be under the impression that the Gnostics were a sect of Christians. You may also believe that the pyramids were built by space aliens. Gnostics were pagans. People who say that Jesus repealed the moral law given at Sinai, are ignorantly parroting the dogma of a long-dead cult.

Christians believe that the Son of God did not begin to exist when He "became flesh and dwelt among us." Rather, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:1-3 — See also Colossians 1:15-17) Though we can distinguish the Son from the Father as Persons, they aren't separate Gods, or separate parts of God. They are perfectly unified, along with the Spirit. Whatever God the Father said in the Old Testament — including what He said against same-sex sex — was said by the Son, and the Spirit as well. The holy prophets were moved by "the Spirit of Christ." (1 Peter 1:11) So the command in Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination," came from the Word, the Logos, the Christ — just as surely as the command, "Let there be light," and the command, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Conclusion

It's easy to see, in just the four quick points I've given, that Jesus did say something about homosexual behavior. He said it in the Old Testament, and in the New. He said it directly, by His own mouth; and indirectly, through others. He spoke about it generally, under the umbrella of all OT sins; and he talked about it very specifically, describing the activity. It just isn't honest to say that Christ was silent on this subject.

Or that He approves.

© Dan Popp

Political Islam // Articles // The Black Hole of History

Political Islam // Articles // The Black Hole of History

The Black Hole of History

Everybody knows that Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations (there are 57 in all) are nearly 100% Muslim. Those countries were Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Exactly how did this change to Muslim happen?

When you read history it seems that Islam came, and, magically, the countries are Islamic. But of course an event of this magnitude did not simply happen. But our schools insist that Islam “just happens.” In fact, the entire history of the rise of Islamic imperialism is denied in the curriculum of our private, state and religious schools. Our schools don’t teach how Islam transforms each and every nation it invades to pure Islam, how it happens and what the consequences are. This is the law of Islamic saturation.

Our history denies the truth of the Islamification of civilizations. Actually, our history denies that Islam is even involved. It was the Turks, the Arabs, the Moors and so on. There is no Islam, just some ethnic group.

Look even closer at the history and ask this question: how many Kafirs (non-Muslims) died in Islamic conquest? You may find a number of dead here and there at a particular battle, but the establishment answer of the number murdered by jihad is zero, zip, none. In fact, there was not even a category called “jihad deaths.” You see, Islam just happens.

After 9/11, there was an intellectual response to the establishment intellectual vacuum about how Islam actually functioned. A revolution of new scholarship on Islam was created by those amateur scholars who are outside the brain-dead establishment academy. The minds and labors of Bat Ye’or, Spencer, Trifkovic, Bostom, Warraq, Warner, Phares and many others tackled the problem of the true nature of Islam. The new scholarship gave answers to all of the questions about Islamic colonization of the world.

For the deaths caused by Sharia law, the Center for the Study of Political Islam coined the name, Tears of Jihad. There is no way to actually come up with a precise number of deaths, because Islam has written the history (after all, they were the winners) and, of course, the history is all beautiful. There is only one way to even get close to a precise answer and that is for the academy to take up this subject and treat it as a priority. Conferences would be held, papers given, journals published with peer reviews and the rest of the academic critical thought process would go on for decades and many papers.

If the answer to the total jihad deaths is not zero, then CSPI proposes that 270 million Kafirs have been murdered over the last 1400 years. This figure includes 60 million Christians and 80 million Hindus. What if only 30 million Christians had been killed? Does that mean that churches should continue to ignore the Coptic murders in Egypt today and deny the million Armenians killed in the 20th century? Would Hindus have more or less courage if only 50 million, instead of 80 million had been murdered?

This is a civilizational problem, not an accounting problem. It is not that we deny that 270 million have been killed by jihad; we deny that Islam is even at war with all Kafirs and Kafir civilization. A better kill number won’t erase the cowardice that blinds us today to an acknowledgment that Islam has a history of annihilating all civilization—the law of Islamic saturation.

It is interesting to see people’s reaction to the numbers. The vast majority ignore them. They don’t want to know. The most political figure is the number of Africans killed in jihad for the slave trade. The establishment tells us that all slaves were brought here from the West coast of Africa by Christians. It turns out that the slave trade was also on the Mediterranean and the east coast of Africa and each and everyone of the wholesalers in Africa were Muslims. This knowledge violates the establishment dogma of Christian evil.

One of the failures of the number 270 million is that it does not include the number of the Zoroastrians killed in Persia and other minorities such as the Sabians and Bahai. Who knows how many peasants died in some village without a name, simply because they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah?

So, if the number is not 270 million, then what is a better number? Use critical thought to answer this problem, and don’t tell us that the number is zero. Give us an improvement, not a denial. We have had denial for 1400 years.

Facts and numbers are important but the real tragedy here is that our schools don’t teach the history that is the source the world’s greatest suffering caused by Islamic jihad imperialism. Since establishment professors and historians refuse to touch the subject of the Tears of Jihad, we must depend upon other scholarship to address the question of how we get the exact numbers. To that end, if you can improve any of the death figures with factual data, go to /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/ and give us your information.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-black-hole-of-history/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

The OCCUPATION

Warning LOTS of foul language by the Occupiers.   Of course, what to expect?
The Occupation in DC
To me it's fascinating that name the "Occupy..." protestors chose for themselves--as an "occupation" has always been used in the past with a negative connotation...for groups which take over and control what is not rightfully, or lawfully theirs.   See the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia, or, the Nazi OCCUPATION of Holland, France, Belgium, etc.

Count me as a member of the resistance--standing up for liberty-in-law, opposing MOB RULE.