Straining Out Christian Gnats & Swallowing Islamic Camels

The frightening news about the San Bernardino jihadists continues to pour in. In addition to the early news about their contact with known terrorists, and their online viewing of ISIS propaganda, various news outlets today are reporting that Tashfeen Malik, the wife and murderous partner of Syed Rizwan Farook, had pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdad.

Fox News is reporting that federal investigators are saying that there is a "very serious" possibility that Malik "radicalized" her husband. Also, disturbingly, but not surprisingly, CBS News is reporting that one of the San Bernardino terrorists passed the Department of Homeland Security’s "counterterrorism screening as part of her vetting" for a visa.

Given the perverse worldview of the current U.S. administration, no one should be surprised that Islamic terrorists are making their way through our borders and "security" checks. Just yesterday, no less than Loretta Lynch, President Obama's current Attorney General, vowed to prosecute those who use "anti-Muslim" rhetoric that "edges towards violence."

Obama himself has yet to call the San Bernardino massacre "terrorism." And when he does finally get around to uttering the word "terrorism," he almost certainly will not use the phrase "Islamic terrorism," or even "radical Islamic terrorism." His cohorts and enablers in the mainstream media will continue to parrot his silence on the role of Islam in terrorism. Contrast this with how quickly and lustfully many on the left rushed to label Robert Dear, who stormed a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility last Friday, shooting and killing three, a "white Christian terrorist."

Because they are so difficult (actually impossible) to find, the notion of "White Christian terrorists" keeps liberals across America busy. As I noted well over two years ago, there is a great deal of difference in "radical Christianity" and "radical Islam." Radical Christians build hospitals. Radical Muslims seek to fill them up. Radical Christians build schools. Radical Muslims hurl acid at the faces of young girls who merely want an education.

Radical Christians tell the truth about homosexuality so that those deceived might come to repentance. Radical Muslims execute homosexuals by throwing them from the rooftops of buildings (and leading Muslim clerics explain the justification). Radical Christians are the most generous people in the world. Nations where Islam dominate are some of the most impoverished in the world. In fact, much of the most desperate financial aid given out by the U.S. (private and government) is to counter the poverty produced by Islam.

These truths about Islam are clear and quantifiable. In spite of this, liberals--even (so-called) liberal Christians--are eager to equate Christian conservatives with violent radical Islamists. On Patheos, liberal Christian blogger Benjamin L. Corey declared that,

"Most of the anti-Sharia Christians are gross hypocrites….Conservative Christians often aren’t really anti-Sharia, they’re just anti-Islamic Sharia. They’re actually very pro-Sharia, highly engaged in trying to establish more Sharia, but instead are trying to establish Christian Sharia." (Emphasis mine.) 

To earn such slander, of course, Corey sites the "jihad" conservative Christians are waging against the homosexual agenda:

"We’ve seen this most notably in recent history with conservative Christians fighting against LGBTQ equality….Most recently, they went to the polls in Houston to vote down a bill that would have given transgender individuals the legal right to use the correct bathroom in public, instead of being forced into the humiliation of using the opposite gender bathroom. And, they won’t stop there. Between now and election day, Franklin Graham will be touring the country encouraging Christians to run for government office so they can 'turn America back to God.' Which, I can translate for you: he wants more Christians to run for office so we can make laws that reflect a very particular conservative Christian viewpoint. AKA, he wants more people to run for office so they’ll have the numbers to overturn their losses and expand Sharia law when it comes to LGBTQ individuals (and a host of other issues)….[T]hose who systematically fight agains [sic] the rights of LGBTQ citizens on the basis of their individual religious conviction, already support Sharia law. Just not that Sharia law, cause, you know, Muslims." (Emphasis mine.)

It should go without saying that, if Corey is so glaringly ignorant of his own faith, he would be ignorant of Islam as well. I wonder if he is willing to lecture Islamists so sternly on matters of "LGBTQ equality." Maybe he should plan a mission trip to the Middle East for just such a lecture.

And to top off their dangerous Islamic ignorance and Christian bias, after the San Bernardino attack, liberals mocked prayer and Christians calling for prayer, while foolishly declaring that "God's Not Fixing This." So while enabling a false religion that contains a significant number who would kill us all, liberals deride communication with the Author of truth, who, better than anyone else in the universe understands the only way to true peace.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Hillary Clinton (again) Disqualifies Herself as Commander-in-Chief

(And for that matter, any elected office whatsoever.)

As if we need even more evidence, yesterday Hillary again proved herself incompetent when it comes to dealing with issues of national security, radical Islam, or even Islam in general. In a campaign speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City yesterday, Clinton went to near comical lengths (of course, nothing about liberalism and our nation's security is very funny) to avoid mentioning "Islam" with "terror" or "terrorism."

"Let’s be clear," Clinton said, "Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." Saying Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism is like saying the Clinton's have nothing to do with corrupt political fundraising.

According to the UK Daily Mail, she even mocked Republicans over the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism." To avoid the use of "Islam," Clinton repeatedly used the phrase "‘radical jihadism." Take note of the fact that she assumes that many of us are too stupid to link "jihadism" with Islam. What she's really doing, evidently being blind to how foolish it makes her appear (liberals can't seem to help themselves), is saying, "Look at me! I refuse to say 'Islam' when I talk about terrorism! See how tolerant I am!" And, of course, "Vote for me!"

A summary of the rest of her remarks:

Blaming ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ for vicious attacks of the sort that killed 129 people last Friday in Paris, she said, ‘isn’t just a distraction.’ Affiliating them with a religion ‘gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve.’

In the end, Clinton insisted, the Obama administration enjoyed some success by decoupling its strategy to defeat al-Qaeda from its religious underpinnings.

‘Our priority should be how to fight the enemy,’ she said. ‘In the end it didn’t matter what kind of terrorist we called [Osama] bin Laden. It mattered that we killed bin Laden.’

She also backed the president’s call for an America open to Syrian refugees, saying that the United States can’t ‘turn our backs on those in need.’

Clinton particularly warned against ‘discriminating against Muslims,’ saying that ‘many of these refugees are fleeing the same terrorists who threaten us.’

I wonder if she would say the same of Christians and Christianity. Of course, one doesn't need to wonder long. Earlier this year, to support her "radical" views on the "right" men and women have to kill children in the womb, she did not hesitate to compare pro-life republicans to terrorist groups.

Recently, Ravi Zacharias nicely summed up the propaganda offered up by Clinton and her liberal ilk when it comes to Islam and terror:

"The masquerade is on and it is deadly. We watch hundreds die. We hear speeches full of distortions; we tolerate deceit and even reward it. Some in power and in the public eye whitewash the reality while the blood of the murdered cries out from the ground. Our children and grandchildren will inherit the whirlwind because our media pundits and misguided speech-makers have sown to the wind by trading in lives for their power."

As I summarized earlier this year, there is not a greater threat to life, liberty, and happiness in the world today than liberalism and Islam. Clinton again reminds us why.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Islam, Christianity, and Electoral “Discrimination”

Ben Carson’s recent statements about Islam and the U.S. presidency have garnered a wide array of commentary. Most of the remarks have been quite critical, with even some conservatives taking Carson to task. Predictably, many of those critical of Carson point to the Constitution’s “no religious test” clause. Also predictably, many who are making this argument completely ignore that Carson was not advocating for such a “religious test.”

Interestingly, every one of the American Colonies did have such a “religious test.” What’s more, these tests continued long after the United States was formed. The U.S. Constitution went into effect on June 21, 1788. An excerpt (Article 7, Section 2) from the 1796 Tennessee constitution reads, “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”

Article 11, Section 4 of the very same constitution says, “That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.” Thus, within the same state constitution there resides a religious requirement for holding public office, along with a prohibition against a “religious test.” Therefore, we can conclude that, in the era of our founding, many believed that requiring a belief in God for elected officials did not constitute a “religious test.”

Likewise, the Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas (who didn’t enter the Union until 1845) constitution said, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

The constitution of the state of Mississippi (1817, Article 14, Section 265) states, “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of the State.” More tamely, Article 37 of the Maryland constitution says, “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”

It wasn’t until 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins that the Supreme Court rendered such clauses unenforceable. Again, interestingly the Court did not base its ruling on the “no religious test” clause. Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that ‘no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.”

Instead, the Court ruled that requiring a belief in God to hold public office violated the First and Fourteenth amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that such requirements were a violation of the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment.

However, as I noted, Mr. Carson was not advocating for a government “religious test.” Rather, he was implying that voters exercise a personal religious test as they enter the ballot booth. Of course, this still offends today’s liberals (which is a great indication that one has simply told the truth). Also, what Ben Carson declared is little different than what John Jay—Founding Father, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—said in an 1816 letter to John Murray. In fact, Jay was much more exclusive than Carson when he wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Imagine that! Not only did John Jay proclaim that Americans should prefer Christians for their leaders, approximately four decades after the creation of the United States, one of the most significant U.S. founders considered this a “Christian nation.” If such a conclusion is even hinted at today, the (often godless) secularists that dominate the modern left and the mainstream media howl like Highball the hound.

In spite of the meme perpetuated by today’s left, John Jay was far from alone in his conclusion on America’s founding. (However, many on both sides of the argument frequently misunderstand what is meant by a “Christian nation.”) In fact, it is not only American Christians who make such claims.

After the victory over Great Britain, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both served the freshly birthed United States of America as ministers in Europe. Quoting from David McCullough’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, John Adams:

“Of the multiple issues in contention between Britain and the new United States of America, and that John Adams had to address as minister, nearly all were holdovers from the Treaty of Paris, agreements made but not resolved, concerning debts, the treatment of Loyalists, compensation for slaves and property confiscated by the British, and the continued presence of British troops in America. All seemed insoluble. With its paper money nearly worthless, its economy in shambles, the United States was desperate for trade…To Adams the first priority must be to open British ports to American ships.”

During this time Adams and Jefferson corresponded regularly. According to McCullough:

“In eight months’ time, from late May 1785, when Adams first assumed his post in London, until February 1786, he wrote 28 letters to Jefferson, and Jefferson wrote a nearly equal number in return…Increasingly their time and correspondence was taken up by concerns over American shipping in the Mediterranean and demands for tribute made by the Barbary States of North Africa—Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco. To insure their Mediterranean trade against attacks by the ‘Barbary pirates,’ the nations of Europe customarily made huge cash payments…On a chill evening in February came what Adams took to be an opening. At the end of a round of ambassadorial ‘visits,’ he stopped to pay his respects to a new member of the diplomatic corps in London, His Excellency Abdrahaman, envoy of the sultan of Tripoli…The conversation turned to business. America was a great nation, declared His Excellency, but unfortunately a state of war existed between America and Tripoli. Adams questioned how that could be…[Adams was told that], without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tripoli and America. His Excellency was prepared to arrange such a treaty…Were a treaty delayed, it would be more difficult to make. A war between Christian and Christian was mild, prisoners were treated with humanity; but, warned His Excellency, a war between Muslim and Christian could be horrible. [emphasis mine]”

Thus, here we have a foreign diplomat—a Muslim diplomat—during the infancy of the United States, recognizing that the U.S. was indeed a “Christian” nation.

Lastly, along with claiming that Ben Carson is afoul of the Constitution with his conclusion about Muslims and the U.S. presidency, he has—of course—been labeled a “bigot,” accused of discrimination, and branded an Islamophobe. This is nothing more than the perverse and foolish liberal notion of “tolerance” at work.

As we do in practically every other area of our lives (marriage, etc.), we ALL “discriminate” when we vote. As a good “John Jay conservative,” there’s almost no situation where I would ever vote for a Muslim, a homosexual, an atheist, or anyone else who is so clearly outside of the Christian faith. Additionally, whether they claim to be a Christian or not, there is virtually no electoral scenario where I would vote for a liberal. (See: Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam.)

It’s another sad indictment on our media and our culture that Barack Obama advocates for infanticide, declares that he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby,” and offers a “God bless you” to those responsible for the death of millions of the most innocent among us, is elected and re-elected leader of the free world. Yet, when Ben Carson casts a suspicious eye towards those who dominate the most dangerous, oppressive, violent and backwards parts of the world, he is unfit for office.

(See a version of this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam

In opposing the godless and bloody French Revolution, Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, concluded that, “I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies;…with morality and religion;…with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”

“The French Revolution was,” as Ann Coulter put it a few years ago, “a revolt of the mob…the godless antithesis to the founding of America.” Writing for Crisis Magazine, Joseph Pearce described the French Revolution as “an earlier incarnation of atheistic progressivism and the progenitor (forerunner) of communism.” In other words, the French Revolution was a tragic attempt at building a culture bereft of the “moral chains” described by Burke, and thus, in France, liberty was lost.

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetite,” said Burke. He added, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters (chains).”

As it was with the French Revolution, the communist revolution, and the Third Reich, nowhere today are the chains of Burke’s axiom more clearly demonstrated than with the bondage that exists under modern liberalism and Islam.

Today’s liberalism stands upon two duplicitous notions: 1.) the godless pagan principle of “Do What Thou Wilt,” and 2.) the presence of an “omnicompetent” Government that is all too eager to mother us. In spite of the claims of modern liberals, such a political philosophy does not bring justice, nor does it promote liberty. On the contrary, as C.S. Lewis put it, such a modern State exists “not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something.” Something indeed. Lewis depressingly concludes that under such a regime, “There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

The cleverly cloaked language of liberal-speak has deceived hundreds of millions the world over into surrendering our “business” to big government. For example, in the U.S., by far the largest employer is government. Local, state, and federal government (including uniformed military personnel) employs well over 23 million Americans. This is about 10 million more than the top 50 private employers in the U.S. combined.

The largest educator in the U.S. is government. About 90% of all U.S. children attend a k-12 godless government school. Over 70% of American students who attend college do so at a state school. Education accounts for nearly half (about 11 million) of the total federal, state, and local government workforce.

The largest “charity” in the U.S. is government (which, of course, brags about it!). Americans gave a total of approximately $3.4 billion (about $2.4 billion from individuals) to private charities in 2013. In the same year, Americans received over $600 billion from means-tested (recipients required to be below a certain income level) government programs (housing, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and the like). When non means-tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and so on) are included, the total is a shocking and staggering $2 trillion dollars.

Included in the cost of Social Security is over $144 billion spent for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The number of SSDI beneficiaries jumped from 4.3 million in 1990 to 10.9 million in 2012, a 153% increase. Speaking of “mothering,” that is an amazing number of Americans who are unable, or (in many cases) unwilling, to work and thus wean themselves from the withering bosoms of big government.

And of course, unless dismantled by the Supreme Court, Americans now have made health care the business of big government. Thus, instead of liberating, liberalism has simply made tens of millions of Americans comfortable in, or at least comfortably accustomed to, their government made chains.

A man cannot be free unless he has economic independence. As C.S. Lewis pointedly put it, “For economic independence allows an education not controlled by Government; and in adult life it is the man who needs, and asks, nothing of Government who can criticise its acts and snap his fingers at its ideology. Read Montaigne; that's the voice of a man with his legs under his own table, eating the mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will talk like that when the State is everyone's schoolmaster and employer?”

In addition, guided by the false belief that “Do What Thou Wilt” (especially in the sexual realm) frees us from the shackles of the “antiquated” ideas on morality and personal ethical behavior, liberalism has set about to discredit and abandon many of the eternal and inescapable absolute truths set down by our Creator that should be the cornerstones of all good government. Thus, almost any sexual perversion imaginable is, in the U.S. today, a “right.” And instead of being free, tens of millions of Americans are now slaves to their sexual desires.

Pornography, abortion, homosexual behavior, adultery, and the like now have the protection provided by American big government. (Of course, same-sex “marriage” is also seeking—and winning—the same.) As a consequence, in the name of being “set free” from the shackles of parenting, over 50 million of the most defenseless among us have been slaughtered in the womb. Additionally, in the name of being “set free” from the shackles of marriage and monogamy, aided and abetted by the massive welfare state created by big government, tens of millions of children who graciously survived their mothers’ wombs are by being raised in single-parent homes, usually without a father.

Children born into these broken families are not only drastically more likely to be born poor, but to remain so. Of course, this means for years on end such children will “need” the care and provision of big government. America now has multiple generations raised in the mothering nanny state that liberals are almost always looking to expand (see: “free” cell phones, school lunches, community college, pre-k, day-care, and on, and on, and on).

Absent from their fathers, these children are also much more likely to grow up undisciplined, unruly, and immoral (even by liberal standards) and need the services provided by the American penal system. Thus, with his birth covered by Medicaid or Obamacare, his early nourishment provided by WIC and food stamps, his “free” government education (pre-k through community college)—which includes school lunches and an Obama phone—American taxpayers get to mother millions from birth well into adulthood. And after our hypothetical young leech (see: Julia, or Pajama Boy) takes his entitlement lifestyle to its logical conclusion and robs a liquor store, leading to his eventual incarceration, we see that the American taxpayers are getting to mother millions of their fellow citizens from cradle to grave. How liberating!

Just as tragic and devastating to the concept of true liberty the world over is the plague of Islam. And no, I’m not simply talking about the butchers of ISIS, or Boko Haram, or the other “radical Islamists.” Though most Muslims in the world aren’t strapping explosives to themselves or cutting off the heads of apostates, a broad examination of Islam is dreadfully revealing.

The 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) represent about 22% of the world’s population but generate barely 9% of the world’s GDP. The U.S. alone produces 23% of the world’s GDP. A shocking 40% of the Arab world lives in poverty.

In the 57 nations of the OIC, there are a total of about 500 universities. There are over 5,700 in the U.S. alone. In just over 100 years, the Muslim world—about 23% of the world’s population (1.6 billion)—has produced 11 Nobel Laureates, while a mere 14 million Jews (0.2% of world population) have produced around 190 (counts vary slightly). The U.S. has produced 353 of the 860 (41%) Nobel winners. Those identifying as Christian have earned just over 65% of the total number of Nobel Prizes awarded. If only Alfred Nobel’s organization awarded prizes for strapping on dynamite!

Particularly disturbing for lovers of true liberty is the role of women in Islamic society. Islamic law (Shariۥa) prohibits women from looking men in the eye, forbids them from wearing shoes that make noise, and forbids them from becoming educated. As Ergun and Emir Caner note in Unveiling Islam, “women are considered possessions in any orthodox Islamic regime…The wife is considered the husband’s sex object.” Also, one of the most alarming admonitions in the Koran allows the husband to punish his wife physically.

According to Pew polling, 99% of Afghan Muslims favor making Shariۥa the law of the land—as do 91% of Iraqi Muslims, 86% of Malaysian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 83% of Moroccan Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and so on.

As I’ve previously noted, religious freedom in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia is virtually non-existent. Like many other Muslim countries, Saudi law states that Islamic apostasy—denying the faith or converting to another religion—is a crime punishable by death. In 2006, Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was arrested (after it was discovered that he possessed a Bible) and faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Intervention by then Afghan president Hamid Karzai resulted in the charges against Rahman being dismissed.

Leading Afghan clerics were highly critical of Karzai, noting that “The Qur'an is very clear and the words of our prophet are very clear. There can only be one outcome: death.” This attitude is prevalent across the Arab world. In 2007, Mohammed Hegazy became the first Egyptian Muslim officially to seek to convert to Christianity. An Egyptian judge (sounding much like American liberals today on the issue of homosexuality and marriage) ruled that, “He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert.” Muslim clerics issued fatwas calling for his death. In 2008, in an interview with a local Egyptian newspaper, Hegazy's father said, “I am going to try to talk to my son and convince him to return to Islam. If he refuses, I am going to kill him with my own hands.” Hegazy’s wife’s family also swore to kill her because she married a non-Muslim.

Again, according to Pew, of those Muslims who favor Shariۥa as the law of the land, 86% of Egyptians favor the death penalty for those who convert to another religion—as do 82% of Jordanians, 79% of Afghans, 76% of Pakistanis, and so on.

Millions of Christians and other such “apostates” (tens of millions by some estimates) have died at the hands of Islamists. According to Africa: The Holocausts of Rwanda and Sudan, “Well over two million southern black Christians, Muslims, and animists in the Sudan have died, the great majority civilians, in a genocide that few in the world have heard about. Since 1983, ethnic cleansing and a religious holy jihad (since 1992) have created a holocaust that rival the two great genocides in Europe (the Holocaust and Stalin’s Gulag)…In the Nuba Mountains the Arab Muslim fundamentalists practiced an age-old custom of taking blacks into slavery, forcing conversion of many to Islam, and then decided to wipe out the fifty tribes by genocide, similar to the situation in Darfur in the west.”

In spite of initially being labeled as a “democratic” movement, the “Arab Spring” that spread throughout parts of the Middle East and Africa did nothing to further the cause of liberty. On the contrary, the Arab Spring further spread jihad and Shariۥa, again, especially in Africa.

Quite telling when it comes to Islam and liberty is an examination of the freedom indices produced by various organizations that measure democracy (or freedom) the world over. Freedom House has produced Freedom in the World, “the oldest, most authoritative report of democracy and human rights,” since 1972.

Freedom House uses a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being “most free” and 7 the “least free,” in two categories: political rights and civil liberties. If nations rate a 1 or 2 in both categories, they are considered “free.” For example, the U.S., UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the like, rate 1 in both categories. If a nation rates 6 or 7 in both categories they are considered “not free.” For example, North Korea, China, Cuba, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, and the like are “not free.” Other rating combinations usually result in a “partly free” result. 

Non-Free/Authoritarian Regimes:

Nation	Dominant Religion	Democracy Index (2012)	Member of OIC
Afghanistan	Islam	2.48 (#152)	Yes
Algeria	Islam	3.83 (#118)	Yes
Angola	Mix	3.35 (#133)
Azerbaijan	Islam	3.15 (#139)	Yes
Bahrain	Islam	2.53 (#150)	Yes
Belarus	Mix	3.04 (#141)
Brunei	Islam	NA	Yes
Burkina Faso	Islam	3.52 (#127)	Yes
Burma (Myanmar)	Buddhism	2.35 (#155)
Burundi	Christian	3.60 (#125)
Cambodia	Buddhism	4.96 (#100)
Cameroon	Christianity	3.44 (#131)	Yes
Central African Republic	Christianity and Islam	1.99 (#157)
Chad	Islam	1.62 (#165)	Yes
China	Mix	3.00 (#142)
Comoros	Islam	3.52 (#127)	Yes
Congo	Christianity	1.92 (#159)
Côte d'Ivoire	Mix	3.25 (#136)	Yes
Cuba	Mix	3.52 (#127)
Djibouti	Islam	2.74 (#147)	Yes
Egypt	Islam	4.56 (#109)	Yes
Equatorial Guinea	Christianity	1.83 (#160)
Eritrea	Mix	2.40 (#153)
Ethiopia	Mix	3.72 (#123)
Fiji	Mix	3.67 (#124)
Gabon	Christianity	3.56 (#126)	Yes
Gambia	Islam	3.31 (#134)	Yes
Guinea-Bissau	Islam	1.43 (#166)	Yes
Iran	Islam	1.98 (#158)	Yes
Jordan	Islam	3.76 (#121)	Yes
Kazakhstan	Islam	2.95 (#143)	Yes
Kuwait	Islam	3.78 (#119)	Yes
Laos	Buddhism	2.32 (#156)
Madagascar	Mix	3.93 (#117)
Mauritania	Islam	4.17 (#110)	Yes
Nigeria	Mix	3.77 (#120)	Yes
North Korea	Irreligious	1.08 (#167)
Oman	Islam	3.26 (#135)	Yes
Qatar	Islam	3.18 (#138)	Yes
Russia	Mix	3.74 (#122)
Rwanda	Christianity	3.36 (#132)
Saudi Arabia	Islam	1.71 (#163)	Yes
Somalia	Islam	NA	Yes
South Sudan	Christianity	NA
Sudan	Islam	2.38 (#154)	Yes
Swaziland	Christianity	3.20 (#137)
Syria	Islam	1.63 (#164)	Yes
Tajikistan	Islam	2.51 (#151)	Yes
Togo	Mix	3.45 (#130)	Yes
Turkmenistan	Islam	1.72 (#161)	Yes
Uganda	Christianity	5.16 (#94)	Yes
United Arab Emirates	Islam	2.58 (#149)	Yes
Uzbekistan	Islam	1.72 (#161)	Yes
Vietnam	Buddhism	2.89 (#144)
Yemen	Islam	3.12 (#140)	Yes

In Freedom in the World 2014, of the “Worst of the Worst”—the 10 countries with the lowest possible ratings for both political rights and civil liberties—six are Islamic, with two others having significant Islamic influence. 

The Economist Intelligence Unit publishes its Index of Democracy that “provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide.” As the Economist Intelligence Unit puts it, “The Democracy index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Countries are placed within one of four types of regimes: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; and authoritarian regimes.” The index is a weighted average based on answers to 60 questions. Nations are rated on a scale of 0 to 10. Full democracies rate 8.00-9.99; flawed democracies: 6.00-7.99; hybrid regimes: 4.00-5.99; and authoritarian regimes 1.00-3.99. 

In the Index of Democracy for 2012, of the 10 most authoritarian regimes, seven of them are Islamic. In addition, not one member of the OIC, or any other nation that would be considered “Islamic,” is a “full democracy.” Of the 55 nations rated “not free” or “authoritarian regimes,” more than half (28 out of 55) are Islamic. (Note: I organized the tables here according to both Freedom in the World 2014 and the Index of Democracy from 2012. Since a “free” rating according to Freedom House sometimes included nations considered “flawed democracies” by the Index of Democracy, I included all “flawed democracies” in the “free” table. Likewise, all “authoritarian regimes,” though a few were rated as “partly free,” were included in the “not free” table.)

Free Nations/Full or Flawed Democracies:

Nation	Dominant Religion	Democracy Index
Andorra	Christian, Catholic	NA
Antigua and Barbuda	Christian	NA
Argentina	Christian, Catholic	6.84 (#52)
Australia	Christian	9.22 (#6)
Austria	Christian, Catholic	8.62 (#12)
Bahamas	Christian	NA
Barbados	Christian, Catholic	NA
Belgium	Christian, Catholic	8.05 (#24)
Belize	Christian	NA
Benin	Christian, Catholic	6.00 (#79)
Botswana	Christian	7.85 (#30)
Brazil	Christian, Catholic	7.12 (#44)
Bulgaria	Christian	6.72 (#54)
Canada	Christian	9.08 (#8)
Cape Verde	Christian, Catholic	7.92 (#26)
Chile	Christian, Catholic	7.54 (#36)
Columbia	Christian, Catholic	6.63 (#57)
Costa Rica	Christian, Catholic	8.10 (#22)
Croatia	Christian, Catholic	6.93 (#50)
Cyprus	Christian	7.29 (41)
Czech Republic	Irreligious	8.19 (#17)
Denmark	Christian	9.52 (#4)
Dominica	Christian, Catholic	NA
Dominican Republic	Christian, Catholic	6.49 (#60)
East Timor	Christian, Catholic	7.16 (#43)
El Salvador	Christian	6.47 (#61)
Estonia	Irreligious	7.61 (#34)
Finland	Christian	9.06 (#9)
France	Christian, Irreligious	7.88 (#28)
Germany	Christian	8.34 (#14)
Ghana	Christian	6.02 (#78)
Greece	Christian	7.65 (#33)
Grenada	Christian, Catholic	NA
Guyana	Christian	6.05 (#76)
Hungary	Christian, Irreligious	6.96 (#49)
Iceland	Christian	9.65 (#3)
India	Hindu	7.53 (#38)
Indonesia	Islam	6.76 (#53)
Ireland	Christian, Catholic	8.56 (#13)
Israel	Jewish	7.53 (#37)
Italy	Christian, Catholic	7.74 (#32)
Jamaica	Christian	7.39 (#39)
Japan	Mix, Shinto	8.08 (#23)
Kiribati	Christian	NA
Latvia	Christian	7.05 (#47)
Lesotho	Christian	6.66 (#55)
Liechtenstein	Christian, Catholic	NA
Lithuania	Christian	7.24 (#42)
Luxembourg	Christian, Catholic	8.88 (#11)
Macedonia	Christian	6.16 (#73)
Malawi	Christian	6.08 (#75)
Malaysia	Islam	6.41 (#64)
Malta	Christian, Catholic	8.28 (#15)
Marshall Islands	Christian	NA
Mauritius	Mix	8.17 (#18)
Mexico	Christian, Catholic	6.90 (#51)
Micronesia	Christian	NA
Moldova	Christian	6.32 (#67)
Monaco	Christian, Catholic	NA
Mongolia	Buddhism	6.35 (#65)
Montenegro	Christian	6.05 (#76)
Namibia	Christian	6.24 (#72)
Nauru	Christian	NA
Netherlands	Christian, Irreligious	8.99 (#10)
New Zealand	Christian, Irreligious	9.26 (#5)
Norway	Christian	9.93 (#1)
Palau	Christian, Catholic	NA
Panama	Christian, Catholic	7.08 (#46)
Papua New Guinea	Christian	6.32 (#67)
Paraguay	Christian, Catholic	6.26 (#70)
Peru	Christian, Catholic	6.47 (#61)
Philippines	Christian, Catholic	6.30 (#69)
Poland	Christian, Catholic	7.12 (#44)
Portugal	Christian, Catholic	7.92 (#26)
Romania	Christian	6.54 (#59)
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Christian	NA
Saint Lucia	Christian, Catholic	NA
Samoa	Christian	NA
San Marino	Christian, Catholic	NA
São Tomé and Príncipe	Christian	NA
Senegal	Islam	6.09 (#74)
Serbia	Christian	6.33 (#66)
Slovakia	Christian, Catholic	7.35 (#40)
Slovenia	Christian, Catholic	7.88 (#28)
South Africa	Christian	7.79 (#31)
South Korea	Mix	8.13 (#20)
Spain	Christian, Catholic	8.02 (#25)
Suriname	Mix, Christian plurality	6.65 (#56)
Sweden	Christian	9.73 (#2)
Switzerland	Christian	9.09 (#7)
Thailand	Buddhism	6.55 (#58)
Taiwan	Mix: Buddhism, Taoism	7.57 (#35)
Tonga	Christian	NA
Trinidad and Tobago	Christian	6.99 (#48)
Tuvalu	Christian	NA
United Kingdom	Christian	8.21 (#16)
United States	Christian	8.11 (#21)
Uruguay	Christian	8.17 (#18)
Vanuatu	Christian	NA
Zambia	Christian	6.26 (#70)

Also, take note of the 100 nations rated as “free” or as a “full/flawed democracy.” By any type of religious measure, 86 of these 100 nations would be considered “Christian.” (In some cases, if such nations are now considered secular or “irreligious,” they most recently—just a couple of decades ago in most of these cases—were considered Christian.) Other nations, such as Japan and Israel, were at their founding in the 20th century, greatly influenced by Christian democracies. What’s more, of the 100 free nations, only three would be considered Islamic.

Of course, a “Christian nation” does not simply imply that most of the citizens are passionate followers of Christ. Sadly, thanks in great part to the prevalence of liberalism in the Western world, this is far from the case—even in the U.S. (See above.) In spite of this, no nation in the history of the world is more responsible for the spread of liberty throughout the earth than is the United States of America. And nothing is more responsible for the yearning for liberty and independence that led to the founding of America than is Christianity. 

It was in the pulpits of American churches that the seeds of Revolution were sewn. The British certainly thought so, as they blamed what they derisively described as the “Black Robed Regiment” for the thirst in the Colonies for American Independence. Modern historians have noted, “There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.”

Samuel Langdon was one of those New England clergy. Langdon was a distinguished theologian and scholar. He graduated from Harvard in 1740, went on to become a prominent Congregational minister, and was president of Harvard University from 1774 to 1780. He was also a delegate to the New Hampshire convention that ratified (by the slim margin of 57 to 46) the U.S. Constitution in 1788. New Hampshire was the last of the necessary nine states needed to ratify the Constitution. In order to persuade his fellow delegates to vote in favor of the U.S. Constitution, Langdon delivered an “election sermon” entitled, The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States. 

After beginning by quoting Deuteronomy 4:5-8, in his sermon, Langdon noted, “[T]he Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin. Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion.”

Langdon then gave an account of how Moses, upon the wise counsel of his father-in-law Jethro (“the priest of Midian”), set up a republican form of government, with representatives (“leaders,” “rulers,” “judges,” depending on the biblical translation) from groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. In addition, 70 elders, or wise-men—a type of national Senate as described by biblical and Jewish scholars—were selected by Moses and approved by the consent of the people. 

Langdon added, “A government thus settled on republican principles, required laws; without which it must have degenerated immediately into aristocracy, or absolute monarchy. But God did not leave a people, wholly unskilled in legislation, to make laws for themselves: he took this important matter wholly into His own hands, and beside the moral laws of the two tables, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them by Moses a complete code of judicial laws.”

Langdon goes on to describe how this republican form of government helped the nation of Israel grow from a “mere mob” (if only the 18th century French had taken notice) to a “well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast!” After detailing Israel’s later struggles—they would eventually “[neglect] their government, [corrupt] their religion, and [grow] dissolute in their morals”—Langston exhorted his fellow citizens to learn from the nation of Israel. 

“That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government,” said Langdon, “founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue. By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations: whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed, and contemptible.”

Samuel Langdon was far from alone in these assertions. John Adams noted that, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.” America’s “Schoolmaster” Noah Webster in his 1832 History of the United States wrote that “our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.” Webster added, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles…to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.” 

Not only are the American founding documents and republican form of government the oldest actively in force in the world today, but for well over two centuries they have been profoundly influential across the globe. In writing their own constitutions, and forming their own government, literally hundreds of nations have looked to the U.S. model. However, the fire of liberty lit in America most effectively spread throughout the world where Christianity was already entrenched, influential, or—thanks to the great efforts of American and European missionaries—inevitable. Of course, as we can see, that is still the case. 

In her early forties, childless, married 17 years to a husband who didn’t want children—and had a vasectomy to prove it—Robin Rinaldi wanted to change things. Bored with monogamy, and fearing that she was going to end up alone, Rinaldi defiantly declared, “I refuse to go to my grave with no children and only four lovers. If I can’t have one, I must have the other.” 

Rinaldi, a former San Francisco magazine editor steeped in liberal Bay area values, negotiates with her agreeing husband to take a “year off” from their marriage so that she can “explore [her] sexuality.” Over the year, Rinaldi becomes sexually involved with about a dozen men, one woman, and along the way, joins a sex commune. (She also wrote a book about the tragedy.) 

“Sleeping with a lot of guys is going to make me feel better on my deathbed,” Rinaldi foolishly concluded to a friend. She added, “I’m going to feel like I lived, like I didn’t spend my life in a box.” Pondering those women trapped in a “box,” Rinaldi laments the poor Islamic women who don’t have the freedom she does. “[T]hose Afghan women hidden under their burqas,” Rinaldi notes, could be “beaten or even killed right now for doing what I was so casually doing.” Of course, she’s right, but little does she realize, the bondage she so easily sees in the life of the Afghan woman, has ensnared her as well. 

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Arabs Spring While Freedom Falls

As the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt spread across the Middle East, for months now we have heard the triumphant cries celebrating this “democratic” movement dubbed the “Arab Spring.” “We did our part,” declared the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman. “We killed Bin Laden with a bullet. Now the Arab and Muslim people have a chance to do their part — kill Bin Ladenism with a ballot — that is, with real elections, with real constitutions, real political parties and real progressive politics.”

However, as the “Arab Spring” burns across the Middle East—to Libya, Yemen, Syria, et al—it now seems that far too many Arabs are ready to trade one kind of tyranny for another. For example, in the first vote after Egypt’s Mubarak stepped down, the Egyptian people—by a whopping 78% to 22% margin—voted to give the Muslim Brotherhood dominant political power in the new parliament.

This should come as little surprise. Last June's Pew survey of Egyptians showed 59 percent backed Islamists, and, even more discouraging, 84 percent supported executing Muslims who change their religion. Thus, it seems that many Muslims have yet to understand the basic, most foundational tenet of liberty: there is no freedom without religious freedom.

Therefore, with religious freedom virtually nonexistent in nations where Islam dominates, it should also come as little surprise that of the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as rated by the Economists Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy, none are full democracies, while 35 are authoritarian regimes (dictatorships). Of the Index’s 10 most authoritarian regimes, 7 of them are members of the OIC.

Clearly, by and large, Islam is an enforced religion. This begs the question, why do these Muslims fear religious freedom?

Renowned Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias (www.rzim.org) recalls a tense interview with the “number three man in the Islamic world, the chief Mullah in Jerusalem,” where Zacharias pointed out that the Koran actually says that there is no compulsion in religion. The Mullah agreed. Zacharias then said, “Are you telling me that a Muslim under you should be free to convert from Islam to Christianity?” The Mullah angrily disagreed.

“You are fooling with words,” Zacharias noted. “If there is no compulsion in religion, then there should be freedom to disbelieve it as well as believe it.” In other words, there is compulsion under Islam. Zacharias concluded, “Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the world. It is the fastest growing enforced religion in the world. If you take the foot off of the necks of the people in Iran, and some of these other countries, tens of thousands of young, so-called Muslim men and women, will make their turn to Christ.”

Thus, we see practically no religious freedom under Islam, and nearly no desire for it. Before applauding the “Arab Spring,” pundits on both sides would have done well to take note of this.

In opposing the bloody French Revolution, Edmund Burke (considered by many the father of modern conservatism) noted that, “When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work…but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided…until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface…

“I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies;…with morality and religion;…with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”

In other words, as George Will recently put it, “Before we congratulate people on their freedom, we should see what use they make of it.” There should be zero congratulations of democracy in the Middle East until religious freedom is received.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Fruit of Islam

(See also: Two Shades of Dismay: The Perverse Bondage Wrought by Liberalism and Islam)

The 9th anniversary of 9/11, continued hostilities abroad, a Ground Zero mosque, Koran burnings—tensions between Americans and Muslims have never been higher. We should not be surprised. As the renowned and pioneering historian Bernard Lewis noted 20 years ago in The Roots of Muslim Rage, “the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, [is that] the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam.”

After the events of 9/11, Professor Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, also noted that much of the animosity directed toward the West, particularly the United States, is due to old-fashioned envy—stemming from Western progress and Islamic decline. As one reviewer put it, the crux of Lewis's argument is “the sources of rage among Muslims stem from the deep frustration over the loss of a cultural primacy that was once theirs and has now been lost to the forces of modernity, especially as represented by the United States.”

It is rather telling to examine “the loss of cultural primacy” within Islam, along with the overall effect Islam is having on nations and individuals the world over. Of the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as rated by the Economists Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy, none are full democracies, while 35 are authoritarian regimes (dictatorships). Of the Index’s 10 most authoritarian regimes, 7 of them are members of the OIC.

Muslims are 23 percent of the world population and produce barely seven percent of global GDP. The median GDP rank for the members of the OIC is 124 (out of 181 nations). The total GDP of the 57 member OIC is approximately $4.2 trillion. That is less than one-third of the GDP of the U.S. alone ($14.3 trillion).

According to the United Nations’ Arab Development Report: More than half of Arab women cannot read; One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per day; There are less than 18 computers per 1,000 persons in the Arab world, compared to the global average of 78.3; and only 1.6 percent of Arabs use the Internet.

In the 57 nations in the OIC there are a total of about 500 universities. There are over 5,700 in the U.S. In just over 100 years, the Muslim world has produced eight Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167. There are about 400 scientists and engineers per 1 million people in research and development in Arab countries, compared to about 4,000 per million people in North America.

Particularly disturbing, and most telling, as one examines Islam, is the role of women in Islamic society. Islamic law (Shariۥa) prohibits women from looking men in the eye, forbids them from wearing shoes that make noise, and forbids them from becoming educated. As Ergun and Emir Caner note in Unveiling Islam, “women are considered possessions in any orthodox Islamic regime…The wife is considered the husband’s sex object.” Also, one of the most alarming admonitions in the Koran allows the husband to punish his wife physically.

Of the 8 nations that the U.S. has placed on its State Sponsors of Terrorism list, 6 of them are Islamic regimes. Of the 20 nations the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has under its Country of Particular Concern designation, or on its watch list, half are Islamic regimes (all of the others are differing authoritarian regimes, along with India, Russia, and Venezuela). Nice company, huh?

Religious freedom in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia is virtually non-existent. Like many other Muslim countries, Saudi law states that Islamic apostasy—denying the faith or converting to another religion—is a crime punishable by death. In 2006, Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was arrested (after it was discovered that he possessed a Bible) and faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Intervention by Afghan president Hamid Karzai resulted in the charges against Rahman being dismissed.

Leading Afghan clerics were highly critical of Karzai, noting that “The Qur'an is very clear and the words of our prophet are very clear. There can only be one outcome: death.” This attitude is very prevalent across the Arab world, validating Professor Lewis’s notion that “many Muslims are beginning to return” to the “classical [violent and repressive] Islamic view.”

In Turkey in 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity were killed in the Malatya Bible Publishing Firm murders. Also in 2007, Mohammed Hegazy became the first Egyptian Muslim officially to seek to convert to Christianity. An Egyptian judge ruled that, “He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert.” Muslim clerics issued fatwas calling for his death. His wife’s family has sworn to kill her because she married a non-Muslim. They are both currently in hiding.

All of this pales to the slaughter in Sudan. The Institute on Religion and Democracy reports that “since 1983 Sudan has been devastated by a jihad or holy war led by the militant National Islamic Front, the ruling regime in Khartoum, against all in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains who opposed the imposition of Shariۥa, or Islamic law. The government-sponsored terror has resulted in the deaths of at least two million moderate Muslims, animists, and Christians.”

Of course, as the Caners point out, “Any major religion must first be seen through the eyes of its founder…Muhammad commanded in the Qurۥan, ‘Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them’ (surah 9:5)…in a world searching for peace, following the life of this warrior brings about bloodshed.” Moments before Abu Mus'ad Al Zarqawi cut off the head of American Nicholas Berg, he said these words in Arabic: “The Prophet, the master of the merciful has ordered to cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr in patience. He is our example and a good role model.”

Zarqawi knew that Muhammad had often used beheading as the means of executing his enemies. Thus, Zarqawi was unmistakably choosing to emulate his “good role model” and spiritual leader.

Clearly, by and large, Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent founding, and a very violent past and present. Islam is generally repressive to women and to those of other faiths. Islam is typically financially devastating and technologically backwards. Jesus Christ said, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart (Luke 6:43-45a).” The fruit of Islam is bitter, indeed.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com