About Me

Name: InchDeep
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 
SiteMeter

Islam Runs Crying To The U.N., Or Freedom Of Relgiouos Speech Under Islam.

Posted by InchDeep on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:20:04 PM
cry baby
Another weapon the the world wide Jihad. A U.N. resolutions.

Muslim-led UN resolution draws attention: www.onenewsnow.com
A number of Muslim nations have taken a resolution to the United Nations that would prohibit defamation of a religion -- theirs.

Dozens of Muslim-dominated countries want protection. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice explains what that entails. "They've put forward what's called a '[Combating] Defamation of Religions' resolution which would amend the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights and would make it a criminal act and violation of international law to 'defame another religion,'" he explains.
 
Sekulow points out the resolution, put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, only mentions one religion by name: Islam. "[S]o there's nothing about preventing the defamation of Christianity," the attorney warns, "which means if you were spreading the gospel, it would be deemed defamatory towards Islam and would be [considered] a crime."
 
According to Sekulow, that is similar to the tactic used by homosexual activists in Canada and Europe to silence Christians. "Actually it's right out of the same playbook," he states. "They're using this 'Islamaphobia' issue to promote a reinterpretation of human rights law across the board."
 
"If you look at the resolution," he continues, "it would literally change the entire scope of human rights law on an international basis. They would encourage [all other nations] -- after the resolution is passed by the member states, which are all the countries in the U.N -- to pass laws that would mandate [that] you could not speak out against another religion. In this case, it's Islam."
 
An ACLJ team of lawyers will go to Europe in September to lobby against the proposal. A petition on the ACLJ website gives Americans a chance to sign onto the campaign against it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Caving To Gay Lobby.

Posted by InchDeep on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:51:56 PM
gay marriage
 TWO wrongs don't make a right. That would mean TWO people, wrong about their sexual orientation, don't a family unit make. Just add kids and we are the modern day Gay Brady Bunch. Gay people should not be allowed to adopt. No ifs, ands, or buts. I am tired of Gays dressing up their Homosexual life styles with Heterosexual behaviors to try to make it appear normal. And, not just normal but moral. It's  neither! They are only trying to assuage their guilt consciences with a little Hetero window dressing and McCain is trying to help them hang the curtains. Well' I am not buying it, and He s making it harder everyday to hold my nose and vote for him.

Here is the story from CitzenLink.

McCain Backs Off Support for Families Headed by Mom and Dad

Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, told The New York Times recently he does not support gay adoption.

“I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption," he said.

But today, he backed off that stance.

Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's director of communications, issued this statement:

"McCain expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible.  However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes."

Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said she was disappointed by the flip-flop.

"He almost got this one right," she said. "He’s ignoring both the success of his own family — giving his children a married mom and dad — and the social science evidence that indicates that’s where children do best.”

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, also supports gay adoption.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Islam Moves In.

Posted by InchDeep on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:37:10 AM
polygamy
www.latimes.com

Italy grapples with polygamy

Here is the pull quote.

Italy is one of several European nations faced with the issue of polygamy. In Britain and Spain, where large Muslim communities have also settled, some officials favor recognizing polygamous marriage as a way to ensure the wives' access to pensions, medical care and other state benefits.

Read the rest.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Have Learned A Trick Or Two. "It is increasingly hard to draw a line between the agendas of the violent and non-violent"

Posted by InchDeep on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:30:01 AM
www.timesonline.co.uk

The hidden face of political Islamism
It is increasingly hard to draw a line between the agendas of the violent and non-violent

Who says that Islamists can't learn a trick or two from the West when they have to? Take a glance at the glossy brochure of Islam Expo - billed as Europe's “biggest Islamic cultural festival” - which ended at Olympia yesterday. You could be forgiven for thinking that you were looking at the catalogue for the forthcoming Boden sale that comes to the venerable London exhibition centre in a few weeks' time.

Visitors to Islam Expo would have witnessed such innocent activities as an Islamic arts and crafts workshop for under 12s, live Islamic storytelling performances and lute-playing and poetry recitals in the pomegranate and date gardens.

The old Comintern would have instantly recognised the first rate tradecraft involved in organising all this. Just as Moscow and its allies knew how to organise a “popular front” to draw non-communist progressives and liberals into their orbit of influence, so some Islamists have honed a keen sense of how to present a non-threatening face to the West and to the many hundreds of decent, apolitical Muslims who turned up for a family day out.

But behind the cultural soft power of Islam Expo, there is political hard power, and some of it comes in quite raw, unpalatable forms. The organisers gave floor space in the exhibition section to the genocidal regime in Sudan (festooned with pictures of happy-looking black Africans) and to the “Cultural Section” of the Iranian Embassy (representing an aspirant genocidal regime) and the Algerian junta (no spring picnic on human rights).

This perhaps becomes less surprising when one examines some of the directors of Islam Expo. All oppose al-Qaeda violence, but they are anything but moderate Muslims. They include Azzam Tamimi, a supporter of Hamas suicide bombings in Israel and an admirer of Ayatollah Khomeini; and Ismail Adam Patel, who believes that women in the West who are raped share responsibility with their attackers.

Consider also the views of one of the expo's speakers: “Prof Zaghloul al Naggar, professor of geology and director of the London-based Markfield Institute of Higher Education has rightly told IslamOnline that many Westerners - some of them homosexual - convert to Islam in order to appeal to Islamic communities and spread sinful behaviour among Muslims, thus shaking their belief,” according to the allaahuakbar.net website.

No wonder Hazel Blears, the feisty Secretary of State for Communities, decided last week that this was not a place where any minister should be seen. Most of her Muslim colleagues in the Labour Party backed her, including the MPs Sadiq Khan and Khalid Mahmood.

But another minister, Shahid Malik, MP for Dewsbury, had other ideas and sought to attend in a personal capacity. He was persuaded not to attend Islam Expo only with the greatest difficulty - after heavy pressure from his departmental chief at International Development, Douglas Alexander, the Chief Whip and the Cabinet Secretary, who invoked Cabinet Office guidelines on engagement with Islamic groups.

Ms Blears is probably the member of the Cabinet readiest to uphold a strict interpretation of those criteria. She has also dealt vigorously with senior officials whom she believes have been naive in their approach to Islamist-friendly groups.

But policing the boundaries of respectable discourse is hard work. While ministers were forbidden to go, the Foreign Office-funded British Satellite News was publicising an entirely positive image of Islam Expo for overseas consumption.

This time the Government has had a narrow escape from the political Islamists of Islam Expo.

Its relief must be compounded by what has happened over the past 48 hours to Alex Salmond. Scotland's First Minister has landed himself in serious trouble over a grant of £215,000 given to the Scottish Islamic Foundation, which is headed by one of his advisers, Osama Saeed. Other Muslim groups in Scotland are upset by what they see as favouritism to the best-known political Islamist in the Scottish National Party.

Mr Saeed, an SNP parliamentary candidate and also a speaker at Islam Expo, has described Hamas suicide attacks as “martyrdom operations” and has supported the creation of a modern caliphate, or pan-Islamic state. The row could cost the SNP victory in the Glasgow East by-election next week.

The fashionable take on deradicalising angry young Muslim men is that only political Islamists, such as Mr Saeed, have the credibility to stop them going over the deep end. This reasoning is doubtful. The opposition of political Islamists to al-Qaeda violence in the West does not mean that they are actually friends of the West. Rather, they know that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The boundaries between violent and non-violent Islamists deserve greater exploration. Are non-violent political Islamists part of the solution or, as figures such as Hazel Blears and David Cameron increasingly suspect, part of the problem?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Brain Break.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:24:09 PM
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Lennon called himself 'one of Christ's biggest fans"

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:04:58 PM
For what it's worth.

By Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- British radio has broadcast an interview with John Lennon in which the late singer-composer claimed the Beatles were a Christian band that wanted to bring people closer to God.

In the interview, aired for the first time in the U.K., Lennon described himself as "one of Christ's biggest fans."

He claimed he was misunderstood when he said in 1966 that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus," and he expressed disappointment that he could not marry his second wife, Yoko Ono, in a church.

The interview was conducted in Montreal by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in 1969 when Lennon, who was raised an Anglican, was at a peace protest. Three years ago, National Museums Liverpool bought the interview, which was broadcast on British Broadcasting Corp. Radio Four's Sunday program July 13.

The Liverpool-born musician was asked to clarify infamous remarks to the London Evening Standard newspaper in which he said that Christianity will "vanish and shrink" and might not outlast rock and roll.

Lennon said: "It's just an expression meaning the Beatles seem to me to have more influence over youth than Christ.

"Now I wasn't saying that was a good idea because I'm one of Christ's biggest fans," he said. "And if I can turn the focus of the Beatles on to Christ's message, then that's what we're here to do."

He said: "If the Beatles get on the side of Christ, which they always were, and let people know that, then maybe the churches won't be full, but there'll be a lot of Christians dancing in the dance halls."

He said the he thought "community praying was probably very powerful" but that he was against "the hypocrisy and the hat-wearing and the socializing and the tea parties."

He said he did not have a notion of a "physical heaven," adding that "the kingdom of heaven is within you, Christ said, and I believe that."

The interview was given the year Lennon quit the Beatles and embarked on a solo career that ended with his death in 1980 when he was shot by Mark Chapman in New York.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Article That Nails It. "a crisis in Islam"

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:17:54 PM
They just don't care. Why? Because terror is a means to an end, that they agree with. A world run by Sharia Law. Simple. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Article

off with their heads


When the non-Muslim world says with clear conviction that Islam propagates extremism, Muslims all around the world, even the terrorists, cry foul and declare that they are maligning Islam.

But is there a loophole some where in this faith that can make a follower an extremist? How can the so-called religion of peace be twisted in such a way that it becomes a weapon of murder? This everyday carnage in the name of Islam has not been taken seriously by the Muslims, thinking this is a kind of protest against oppression.

I went to many mosques to hear the sermons provided by the clerics but was totally disappointed to note that there is no pragmatic approach to this serious issue. They still spread fear in the name of Islam and criminally keep the worshippers in the dark.

The so-called modern educated Muslims play a more vicious role than these illiterate mullahs, because they never touch the real issue, but bring logic to such dastardly and senseless attacks on innocent human beings.

I am appalled to see that, in my opinion, the majority of Muslims are not concerned about this crisis in their faith which they follow with such strong conviction.

A faith that does not value human lives is a cult. The main problem with Islam is its reluctance to embrace reason and logic.

The entire paraphernalia of Islam is protected by the poisonous tentacles of immovable dogmas and ignorance. This dark side is supported by fear and the followers are innumerable. I don't see any escape route.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Under Attack From Foreign Courts..............Again.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:06:54 PM
How about a law protecting us from our own activist U.S. court???

Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech
By ARLEN SPECTER and JOE LIEBERMAN
July 14, 2008; Page A15

online.wsj.com

Our Constitution is one of our greatest assets in the fight against terrorism. A free-flowing marketplace of ideas, protected by the First Amendment, enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

That free marketplace faces a threat. Individuals with alleged connections to terrorist activity are filing libel suits and winning judgments in foreign courts against American researchers who publish on these matters. These suits intimidate and even silence writers and publishers.

Under American law, a libel plaintiff must prove that defamatory material is false. In England, the burden is reversed. Disputed statements are presumed to be false unless proven otherwise. And the loser in the case must pay the winner's legal fees.

Consequently, English courts have become a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. In 2003, U.S. scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld asserted in her book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," that Saudi banker Khalid Bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden. The book was published in the U.S. by a U.S. company. But 23 copies were bought online by English residents, so English courts permitted the Saudi to file a libel suit there.

Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court, so Mr. Bin Mahfouz won a $250,000 default judgment against her. He has filed or threatened to file at least 30 other suits in England.

Fear of a similar lawsuit forced Random House U.K. in 2004 to cancel publication of "House of Bush, House of Saud," a best seller in the U.S. that was written by an American author. In 2007, the threat of a lawsuit compelled Cambridge University Press to apologize and destroy all available copies of "Alms for Jihad," a book on terrorism funding by American authors. The publisher even sent letters to libraries demanding that they destroy their copies, though some refused to do so.

To counter this lawsuit trend, we have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, a Senate companion to a House bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.). This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," signed into law by Gov. David Paterson on May 1.

Our bill bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award treble damages.

First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams argues that "the values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each." We agree. But it is not in our interest to permit the balance struck in America to be upset or circumvented by foreign courts. Our legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards. No more. No less.

We have seen this type of libel suit before. The 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods. At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials' refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws.

Now we are engaged in another great struggle -- this time against Islamist terror -- and again the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech. Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rube Goldberg Would Be Proud.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:27:02 AM
Man cuts off own head with chainsaw after losing eviction fight!

London, July 15 (ANI): A 58-year-old man in Hampshire, UK, severed his own head using a chainsaw, after losing an eviction fight.
 Police sources have revealed that David Phyall switched on the saw, and put a timer on the socket.
 He even had a cocktail of pills to knock himself out, and then rested the saw on his neck.
When the timer went off, the saw sliced through his neck in an instant.
 David committed suicide some 10 days ago, and it was his father John who first discovered his body.
 Policemen and paramedics who reached the site said that they found David's blood-soaked corpse.
 "What greeted them was a horrific sight. The head was severed and there was a considerable amount of blood. He seemed to have gone into a great amount of detail to end it all," British tabloid The Sun quoted a Hampshire police source as saying.
 The newspaper reported that David had fought for several years to prevent developers bulldozing the block of 72 flats he rented in, and replacing them. He was last to leave after all the other flats were boarded up in Bishopstoke, Southampton, added the report.
 The paper even said that an eviction notice from housing association Atlantic Housing Ltd might have been the last straw. "We had given him 11 other offers of accommodation but he rejected them, basically because he did not want a property owned by us," said a spokesman for Atlantic. Ron Turtle, residents' association chairman, said: "They offered him several places that were similar but he just didn't want to move. They had to go to court. It is a very sad situation." An inquest into the death was opened at Winchester Coroner's Court, and adjourned. Tests were being carried out to see whether the tablets killed him first. (ANI)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THe New, New Ten Commandments.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:11:33 AM

London, July 15 (ANI): British government has urged school kids to try oral sex in a bid to cut teen pregnancies.The advice is a part of Ten Commandments for young people released by chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson. 

No thanks the first set work just fine, every time it's tried.

He has suggested that teens should limit their sexual contact to touching, fondling and pleasuring each other. "Sexual behaviour is often unsafe in adolescence. Teenagers have more sexual partners and may use condoms inconsistently or unsuccessfully," the Sun quoted Donaldson, as saying. He suggests: "Think of all the lovely sexy things you can do without actually 'doing it'. "And if you do 'do it', be safe and use a condom," he added.

Does anyone believe this person did any of these things when He was young. I doubt it. Guilty conscience talking here.

His 'stop-short' guidance comes after an explosion in teen pregnancies.However, Donaldson was branded 'grossly irresponsible' by a parents' pressure group.Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern said: "He should stress the benefits of saving sex for marriage."Over 3,000 girls under 16 gave birth in England and Wales in 2006 and 4,700 had an abortion. (ANI)

Teenage girls have fallen for the "stop-short" lie since the beginning of time. A long with "if you really love me you will do it", "I promise to pull out", and "all the other kids are doing it." Abstinence, it works ever time it's tried.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What A Little Sharia Law In Briton Would Get You.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:23:58 AM
The Pull quote is this. "Abu Zahra, the Muslim preacher, belongs to hardline Islamic group Hizb Ut Tahrir which once faced a ban. In his sermon at London's Regent's Park mosque last evening, he slated British democracy as criminal, added the paper."  Yes Democracy is the enemy of Islam as this man sees it. And he is correct. I would mean real freedom for all not the fake kind they have under Islam.

www.newstrackindia.com
Hardline Muslim preacher in the UK calls for 'Islamic-amputation and lashings'

London, July 14 (ANI): An extremist Muslim preacher in the UK has reportedly called for 'Islamic-like' punishments in the country, suggesting amputation of hands of thieves and lashing those who indulged in unmarried sex.
 

His demand for 'Islamic-style' punishments was revealed as the row continues over the Lord Chief Justice's recent support for Sharia law, reported The Sun.

Abu Zahra, the Muslim preacher, belongs to hardline Islamic group Hizb Ut Tahrir which once faced a ban. In his sermon at London's Regent's Park mosque last evening, he slated British democracy as criminal, added the paper.
 

Zagra's remark has evoked a strong reaction from the British leaders, even as Tory MP Philip Davies said: "It's unacceptable."
 

According to the paper, in his speech Zahra declared: "Male and female thief - amputate their hands. Those who kill - their life is not secure."
 

And, he slammed unmarried sex, saying: "Lash them", added the paper.
 

Earlier this month, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips had declared that Islamic legal principles could be applied by courts to resolve certain family, marital, or contractual cases. In a speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips had said that Sharia law could be applied so long as it did not conflict with English law.
 

But, Philips' assertion has been criticized by many lawyers over concerns with the incorporation of religious values and a concern among women's groups that Sharia law was prejudicial to women and principles of equality. (ANI)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Will Probaly Win His Case.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:07:36 AM

www.adnkronos.com

Netherlands: Radical imam claims damages for anti-Koran film

Amsterdam, 14 July (AKI) The radical Muslim cleric Sheikh Imam Fawaz Jneid is claiming 55,000 euros in damages from far-right Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders for allegedly damaging his reputation in a controversial anti-Koran film.

The cleric was shown in Wilders' film 'Fitna'. The 17-minute film features verses of the Koran against images of terrorist attacks.

Wilders, quoted by Radio Netherlands says Jneid's claim "is the world upside down."

His film sparked protests in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia and has led to calls in some countries for a boycott of Dutch products.

Wilders says the imam "has cursed" Somali feminist and author, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and late Dutch filmmaker,Theo van Gogh.

Hirsi Ali received death threats after writing the script for van Gogh's short film 'Submission' criticising women's treatment in Muslim society.

A Muslim extremist murdered van Gogh in an Amsterdam street soon after the film aired on Dutch TV in 2004.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

For All You Christian Sheeple Who Want To Vote Obama.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:46:35 AM
You can't in all good conscience be a Christian, and vote for Obama, and here is a few reasons why. From Doug Giles at TownHall.com

Effervescent Evangelicals Ogle Obama

I’m blown away by how bubbly some supposed evangelicals have become over Barack Obama. Several major “evangelical” ministers, Christian entertainers (whatever that means), and lesser pundits have thrown their names and crowds behind BHO for POTUS.

I’d like to name their names, but that would somehow flatter them and then their posse would email/call me and I’d have to talk to them and act nice and stuff, which is about as appealing to me as watching Joan Rivers make out with Cher.

Before I’m labeled a hater by the Ichthus wing of the Obama camp, I’d like to clarify for all the whiners everywhere who are having a hissy over my opposition to Obama that I don’t hate him nor do I want to cut his nuts off like Jesse Jackson would like to. The only people I hate are the crappy drivers down here in Miami, al Qaeda and of course all dry cleaners.

In addition, I’m sure Obama’s a nice guy, for a politician—except, obviously, not to the baby he’s completely cool with aborting. And that’s what our pigmentally-enhanced junior state senator from Chicago is: a politician. Nothing more, nothing less (insert yawn here).

Heck, even his sensei for the last 20 years, the pastor of good tidings of great joy (plus bigotry, anti-American rhetoric and whacked conspiracy theories), the reverend Jeremiah Wright, has said the above about his famous disciple. Yep, Barack’s main holy man stated as he tumbled beneath the bus Obama flung him under a couple of months ago that BHO puts the Mac in Machiavelli.

But what does Reverend Wright know about Obama’s character? And what does BHO’s uber-liberal secular to le core voting record prove?

Apparently nothing to some of God’s easy-to-fleece sheep who have blown off the moral/cultural imperatives inherent within Scripture for their svelte savior’s savoir-faire. (Notice the French? We’d better speak French or BHO will get PO’ed.)

No, to some of the hip and groovy progressive Christians, it doesn’t matter that Obama’s worldview is not a Christian one but rather a secular point of view. (BTW, a worldview, for believers unfamiliar with the term, is not what you get when you have a window seat on Delta.)

You did know, Christian, that Scripture has a worldview inherent within its text that . . . uh . . . didn’t get there by accident, and you don’t get to vote on, and which you do not need an Ovaltine decoder ring or a Windtalker to unscramble. Yep, the Christian worldview ain’t foggy and is definitely not liberal. Matter of fact, on pretty much every issue it rubs up against it comes out conservative—and on some issues hard-edge conservative.

So, my lost liberal brethren, if you’re feeling frisky and you’re open and brave, I’ve got a book you’ve got to read after you finish reading The Audacity of Hype for the fourth time. It’s by David Klinghoffer and is titled How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative. Check it out, but don’t let your friends see you do it. It could cost you some buddies . . .


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »