Matt 24 Watch, 131: On not throwing out the baby with the bath-water, or, refusing to be inimidated from resolute objection to IslamISM's agenda

One of the motivating issues for Mr Breivik is objection to IslamIST supremacy and Jihadism. Unfortunately, this has led to major media attacks on those who, in objecting to the same ideologies, are seen as contributing to this mad- bad- man's murderous rampage.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs, seem to be bearing the brunt of these assaults. So, while I find Ms Geller shrill, overly angry and overly sarcastic in some respects; in fairness, we need to listen to what she has to say about the media assault on those who object to IslamISM. Here, an audio interview posted on YouTube, will be helpful:

In addition, we should note that there is indeed documentation from law enforcement sources of an IslamIST -- notice, I am distinguishing radical ideologues from those who are peacefully seeking to serve God in the Islamic tradition they have chosen to accept based on what they know about God -- global subjugation agenda. 

Two key sources:

1] The 1982 Muslim Brotherhood global subjugation agenda recovered by Swiss Financial Police in 2001.


2] The 1991 Civilisation- settlement- Jihad plan recovered as a part of the HLF trial in Texas. (Cf. pp. 21 ff, English text begins at page 15.)

On the broader issue of understanding and responding to Islam as a religion that specifically challenges the gospel, from a Christian perspective, I suggest that we look at the Declaration and Call to Action here, the Nehls-Eric primer here, their response to debate issues here, and suggestions for debates etc here. Over the years, I have found Answering-Islam to be a useful site.

So, let us not throw out the baby with the bath-water. END

Matt 24 Watch, 130: Commentary on the moral equivalency smear tactic against Bible believing Christians

Fox News Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly has made a significant comment on the way the Breivik mass murder has been -- and in some quarters apparently still is being -- reported on in major media:

(This is of course not a general endorsement of the commentator or his station.)

Michael Brown, writing in a similar vein [and, again, this is not a general endorsement], observes:

In 2007, a New Jersey school came under criticism after staging a mock hostage drill in which the intruders were not radical Muslims or other, known terrorist groups. Instead, they were Christian fundamentalists dubbed the “New Crusaders.” As noted by JihadWatch in April, 2007, the intruders were described as “members of a right-wing fundamentalist group . . .  who don’t believe in the separation of church and state.” And these fake gunmen were driven to attack the school because they were “seeking justice because the daughter of one [member] had been expelled for praying before class.”

Conservative Christians who learned of this drill were rightly outraged. Where, they asked, had any of their people committed such acts? Where were the 9/11-type massacres carried out by American, fundamentalist Christians? Where were the barbaric killings, carried out in our country in Jesus’ name, similar to the slaughter of school children in Beslan, Russia that had been carried out by Islamic, Chechnyan sympathizers? Obviously, they did not exist.

“But,” we were warned, “they could be coming soon. After all, these Christian groups use violent, warfare language, and they talk about a ‘Jesus revolution.’”
In other words, singing old hymns like “Onward Christian Soldiers” might lead to bloodshed, and those conservative Christians who feel their rights are being violated by the government might just put down their hymn books, pick up their rifles, and lay siege to the school building across the street. Right. Just like those who believe in the “war on poverty” also believe in killing poor people (or perhaps rich people?) and those who engage in the “culture wars” believe in slaughtering the people with whom they differ. Yet there are many who truly believe that conservative Christians will somehow turn violent in the name of the Lord.

In the summer of 2009, in my current home city of Charlotte, North Carolina, a local gay journalist warned about religious leaders (which included me) who were allegedly “preaching and teaching with violent and militant theology and rhetoric, painting the social conflict over LGBT equality as a ‘battle’ and a ‘war.’” He asked, “How thin of a line exists between violent word and thought, and violent action and deed? That’s a question answered plenty of times before, from Christian Crusades and Inquisitions of ages past to the modern day of radical Islamic terrorism. But, it is a question yet to be answered in Charlotte, N.C., where I believe there is a potentially dangerous and violent threat ramping up its efforts to counter the annual LGBT event, Pride Charlotte.”

And what was this “potentially dangerous and violent threat”? It was a group of 500 Christians who gathered to pray, worship, and share the gospel with attendees of the gay pride event, declaring that “God has a better way.” After the event (which I helped organize and which was as peaceful as could be imagined), a local lesbian activist told me that what we were doing was an act of “radical love.”

Yet the murderous acts of Anders Breivik in Norway will be seen as proof that conservative Christians in America might just turn violent too, as if the demented actions of an anti-Muslim, anti-multiculturalist Norwegian have anything to do with the spiritual, moral, and cultural aspirations of American Christ-followers who espouse the non-violent teachings and example of the Master himself.

Sadly, the atmosphere in our country has become so toxic that venerable ministries like Focus on the Family and the American Family Association have been branded as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while People for the American Way sends out regular warnings about evangelical Christian leaders on its RightWingWatch website. And this will surely intensify in the days to come in the wake of the tragedy in Norway.

Let us, then, who call ourselves conservative Christians, redouble our efforts to expose the folly of these false charges, overcoming evil with good and hatred with love, thereby proving ourselves to be genuine followers of Jesus.

 Now, in recent weeks, I have become aware of a toxic talking point on the "bronze age god" that Bible-believing Christians are now commonly accused of believing in, i.e. there is a willful attempt to assert on some of the more militant passages and troubling incidents in the Old Testament [cf discussions here and here as well as this Unbelievable programme discussion on this issue, for a start . . . ] that Christians are followers of a fictional moral monster and are themselves liable to become violent moral monsters.

This is outright slander, and willful twisting of the whole counsel of God in the scriptures.

For, such commenters can easily, do or -- most of all, should -- know that the heart of Christian ethics is precisely the repudiation of hate, evil, violence, rapine and murder, in the name of God or anything else. Indeed, the real problem of Christian ethics in this regard is that (in our haste to try to broadly apply the principle of turning the other cheek when personally insulted or attacked . . . ) we tend to forget that there is also a legitimate role for the civil authority as God's servant to bear the sword in defense of the civil peace of justice.

So, a balanced ethic would recognise the duty to love one's neighbours and do them no harm, whilst also seeing that God has called the civil authority to act in governmental roles to do the community good, especially and specifically through restraining the evil doers by bearing the sword. We may see this from Rom 13:1 - 10:

Amplified Bible (AMP)

Romans 13

 ¹LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God's appointment.    ²Therefore he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them].
    ³For civil authorities are not a terror to [people of] good conduct, but to [those of] bad behavior. Would you have no dread of him who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation.
    ⁴For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, [you should dread him and] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant to execute His wrath (punishment, vengeance) on the wrongdoer.
    ⁵Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath and escape punishment, but also as a matter of principle and for the sake of conscience.
    ⁶For this same reason you pay taxes, for [the civil authorities] are official servants under God, devoting themselves to attending to this very service.
    ⁷Render to all men their dues. [Pay] taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, and honor to whom honor is due.
    ⁸Keep out of debt and owe no man anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor [who practices loving others] has fulfilled the Law [relating to one's fellowmen, meeting all its requirements].
    ⁹The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet (have an evil desire), and any other commandment, are summed up in the single command, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.
    ¹⁰Love does no wrong to one's neighbor [it never hurts anybody]. Therefore love meets all the requirements and is the fulfilling of the Law.

 Similarly, Peter counsels us:

1 Pet 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,

“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from deceitful speech.
11 He must turn from evil and do good;
he must seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[a]

13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear[b]; do not be frightened.”[c] 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil . . . .

4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? . . . 19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

 Unfortunately, this is not necessarily remote from us in the Caribbean. For, within a few weeks of the 9/11 attacks in the USA, Rev'd Rod Hewitt of the United Church of Jamaica and Grand Cayman (a later Moderator of that church) asserted in the Gleaner:

The human tragedy in USA has also served to bring into sharp focus the use of terror by religious fanatics/fundamentalists. Fundamentalism or fundamentalists are terms that are applicable to every extreme conservative in every religious system . . . . During the twentieth century in particular we have seen the rise of militant expression of these faiths by extreme conservatives who have sought to respond to what they identify as 'liberal' revisions that have weakened the fundamentals of their faith . . . They opt for a belligerent, militant and separatist posture in their public discourse that can easily employ violence to achieve their goals.  [Gleaner, Sept. 26, 2001, italics added. Cf. discussion of the Fundamentalism debate in Jamaica, here.]

This is unjust, and Rev'd Hewitt should have realised this when he said it. 

Bible-Believing Christians in the Caribbean -- despite the manipulations of the word "Fundamentalism" in recent years that have turned it into little more than a poisonous smear -- are simply not comparable to IslamIST radicals hijacking planes and crashing them into major symbolic buildings full of ordinary people going about the ordinary business of life.

It is high time we did better than this. END

Matt 24 Watch, 129: Media feeding frenzy and distortions over the Norway mass murder

=======
H/N: I guess we need a header note, for those who have so sadly revealingly missed the point of the below, at Anti Evo. I suggest you cf. here, and here. (And here, here and here (as well, here and here) will also help.)
 ========

It is now almost sadly predictable that the major international and regional media will misunderstand, fail to do due diligence and will use incidents in the remotest way connected to the Christian faith or its cultural expression to smear Christians.

Which, equally predictably, will be picked up by those loaded up on hostility to the Christian faith here in our region, and used to spread polarising slanders.

So, while we must first pause to express condolences to the people of Norway, and call for common sense corrective actions, let us also set record straight on the relation of this murderer to Christianity; in the teeth of the failure of major media houses up to and including the BBC.

I do so by clipping a comment I have just made at the UD blog (where I am now a contributor, cf my most recent post on Alfred Russel Wallace -- the co-founder of modern evolutionary theory -- and design thought in evolutionary theory from its beginnings, here). 

Kindly, see from here on:

__________________

>> I think we need to take a breath and calm down. 

Media whipped up hysteria — e.g. the BBC was drumming out the same talking points being complained of at a rate of speed not seen in recent years — is hardly the best mood to think straight in. 

(And BBC’s failure to do due diligence is a far more serious offence to me than a headline such as the above, Dr Liddle. I do not agree with the headline, but it can be seen as pointing out how the attempt to twist the case from the patent case of the mad man it is, into yet another poisonously laced caricaturing attack on Christians — remember the fulminations of TWT et al and their thereat made against my family only a few weeks back? — is ill founded,a s one can find references enough to say St Darwin and his ideas to make much the same inference on clips taken out of context.)

Next we need to put on our common sense, non-politically correct thinking caps, updating what my old grade school teachers used to say.

Let’s knock the chief poisonous talking point on the head right away. 

Oh how handy it has been [cf WND article here] for the spin-meisters to find this man referring to Europe’s historic — and now largely dead — Christian culture as a counterweight to Islamist aggression, and talking in one breath about a hudna [temporary truce agreement with an Islamist state . . . usually up to 10 years] with the Islamists in parallel with an expulsion of Muslims and a “crusade” to reconquer some historic lands of Christendom now under Islamic control. Clipping the just linked:

Piecing together Breivik’s various posts on the Internet, many media reports have characterized the terrorist – who says he was upset over the multiculturalist policies stemming from Norway’s Labour Party – as a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist.”

Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God’s existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe’s “Christian culture” as well as his own pagan Nordic culture.

Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural [note the cultural reference] Christian Europe.” . . . .

“I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed,” he writes. “We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once, but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead [sic] by a just and non-suicidal pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.” . . . .

Breivik adds, “I went from moderately agnostic to moderately religious.”
In a question-and-answer section of his manifesto, Breivik asks himself, “What should be our civilisational [sic] objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?”

His answer is hardly the response of a “Christian utopian”: “‘Logic’ and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament [sic] of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level.” . . . .

Breivik also points out that his association with Christian cultural values is one of political expedience rather than religious commitment or faith
“My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage,” he explains. “My choice was based purely pragmatism. All Europeans are in this boat together, so we must choose a more moderate platform that can appeal to a great number of Europeans – preferably up to 50 percent (realistically up to 35 percent).” . . . .

“As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian ‘culturalist’ military order.” . . .

A perfect illustration of those nasty right wing theocratic fundies, isn’t it?

NOT — and, plainly, explicitly not. How much more explicit did this man have to be than:

“As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus,” he writes. “Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).

And yet, global media, up to and including the once great BBC could not pick that up and strike a reasonable balance on the merits?

That makes me sick.

Heart-sick.

Beware when something in the mass media fits your favourite stereotypes just a bit too well!!!

Such is functionally specific and complex, so it is likely to be an artifact of design, not a mere natural happenstance.

That is, yes, I am applying the explanatory filter, common sense version, to media information to detect propagandistic designs.

 

(And you thought the ID EF was useless?)

Now, let us clip some pretty explicit core ethical instructions from the Christian rule-book [specifically the New Testament], which would immediately identify whether this man’s ideas and behaviour are legitimately Christian:

Rom 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 Pet 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,

“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from deceitful speech.
11 He must turn from evil and do good;
he must seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[a]

13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear what they fear[b]; do not be frightened.”[c] 15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil . . . .

4:14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? . . . 19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

Why is it that we find nowhere in the major media coverage any serious reflection of the sort of ethical teachings that I have just excerpted?

No-one in even the most basic degree shaped by the teachings of Christ,the Apostles and Prophets, would condone, contemplate or worse actually carry out the sort of attack we have just seen in Norway.

And contrary to the criminologist trotted out by BBC, this man is clearly demoniaclally, coldly mad. 

It seems he murdered about 100 people simply to grab global headlines for his demented cause, after he laid out his foul, Hell-scented fulminations at 1,500 pp length.

If that is not demoniacally, criminally insane — and yes you can be both mad and bad once you have a measure of rationality to think about moral issues — and “thou shalt not kill” is not that hard to grasp — I do not know what “madness” means.

Then, that settled, let us now strike a nuanced balance, first expressing sympathies and condolences, and calling for common-sense correctives. 

For instance, in an era of Jihadi attacks how is it that a nation at war with Jihadism would allow a large scale retreat centre to operate without a fast security call-up and/or onsite people knowledgeable in how to — and equipped with the tools to — respond to a bombing or shooting attack?

It is decades ago that Israel had to deal with waves of mass murders by shootings, and their common sense conclusion was that the attacks stop shortly after the first armed responders turn up and reply to the shooter in kind, as recently happened in the US in an attack on a church. 

So, teachers in schools etc were armed, and the number of successful incidents went way down. 

Of course, that does not eliminate the phenomenon, e.g. there was a sleeping family massacred recently.

Similarly, right after the 9/11 attacks, I took the view that the best solution was that sound frequent travellers should be recruited into a voluntary corps of sky marshals, given training and licenses. And should be armed with appropriate weapons, non-lethal and lethal.

What was truly inexcusable in this case is something also reported by WND through linking an external story:

Norway police arrived 90 minutes after gunman fired at youth on island
Published On Sat Jul 23 2011

OSLO, NORWAY — Police arrived at an island massacre about an hour and a half after a gunman first opened fire, slowed because they didn’t have quick access to a helicopter and then couldn’t find a boat to make their way to the scene just several hundred meters offshore. The assailant surrendered when police finally reached him.

Survivors of the shooting spree have described hiding and fleeing into the water to escape the gunman, but a police briefing Saturday detailed for the first time how long the terror lasted — and how long victims waited for help.

The shooting came on the heels of what police told the Associated Press was an “Oklahoma City-type” bombing in Oslo’s downtown: It targeted a government building, was allegedly perpetrated by a homegrown assailant and used the same mix of fertilizer and fuel that blew up a federal building in the U.S. in 1995 . . . .
A SWAT team was dispatched to the island more than 50 minutes after people vacationing at a campground said they heard shooting across the lake, according to Police Chief Sveinung Sponheim. The drive to the lake took about 20 minutes, and once there, the team took another 20 minutes to find a boat.

Footage filmed from a helicopter that showed the gunman firing into the water added to the impression that police were slow to the scene. They chose to drive, Sponheim said, because their helicopter wasn’t on standby.

“There were problems with transport to Utoya,” where the youth-wing of Norway’s left-leaning Labor Party was holding a retreat, Sponheim said. “It was difficult to get a hold of boats.”

At least 85 people were killed on the island, but police said four or five people were still missing.

Another report linked through WND adds:

Suspect in Norway attacks bought six tons of fertilizer

Published On Sat Jul 23 2011

SUNDVOLLEN, NORWAY—The Norwegian man suspected in a bombing and shooting spree that killed at least 92 people bought six tons of fertilizer before the massacre, the supplier said Saturday as police investigated witness accounts of a second shooter . . .

Something was seriously wrong with the first responder system, and it is clear that we now need a system of armed volunteer marshals for public events in remote places or other places where large numbers of people could be harmed in the time it takes for SWAT teams to arrive.

For instance, why was not the Norwegian Navy equivalent to the Seals on-call?

Similarly, we need something to deal with security checks on those who buy large quantities of Ammonium Nitrate fertiliser, a known high explosive. A law on nitrate compounds would do.

Prof Gumby has a solid point on the Norway terrorist/mass murderer:

Breivik was first and foremost a nut. Attempts by any side to shoehorn him into their opponents’ camp are simply shamefully cheap debating tactics and blatantly ridiculous. The same goes for any mass murdering nutcase . . .

If the mass media would do due diligence (as WND, headline aside, seems to have done), that would be a foregone conclusion.

But unfortunately, JDNA also has a sobering point, given the poisonously polarised atmosphere currently spreading like a disease across our civilisation:

Prof. FX Gumby, yes from your rundown of his books you list he looks like a mixed bag of crazy. However, what we are dealing with here (at least in the US) is two day 24 news cycle blast from the legacy media beating the “right-wing Christian fundamentalist” drum. The manifesto is out sure, but the populace is fully submerged and marinating in the original slime smear. This is how it works. Smear slime on page one, retraction or correction a week later buried on page 37 next to a Sears lawnmower ad.

So a little balance is in order.

It is high time that we called the media to account for such smear tactics.

And it is high time that we made up our minds that we are in an era of mass murder by terrorists and madmen of all stripes, so we need to take reasonable common-sense measures to protect ourselves, at a youth camp, in church, at a sports event, in a pizza restaurant, on a crowded street, in a bus, in an airliner, on a cruise ship.

It is time for us to get rid of our knee-jerk, cleverly cultivated aversion to an armed citizenry. I vote for an internationally recognised volunteer corps of armed marshals, equipped with appropriate weaponry up to and including automatic weaponry where appropriate.

And for the rest of us, I think we need to resurrect an old form of sport and martial arts, the quarterstaff. This should now become a part of the regular school curriculum, right next to supervised firearms training and associated safety training.

Is our civilisation serious?

That is the real question.>>

__________________ 

I trust that his will provide a context for responding appropriately to the now all too usual poisonous talking points in coming days, then bridging to the real message of hope: transformation through repentance, trusting in the God who so loved he gave his Son who died in our place and will put his transforming Spirit of love, power and soundness of mind in our hearts if we will only let him. END

Matt 24 Watch, 128: 250 Billion BBL Oil shale deposit in Israel . . . ?

For some years now, natural gas has been found, especially offshore of Israel's Mediterranean coast. 

Now, it seems that Israel Energy Initiatives has found shale oil, not too far from the same Adullam's Cave where David fled from Saul. According to Judith Levy, who reports on:

 . . . a chunk of oil shale that had been dug up moments before from 400 meters below ground (1,300 feet, or a bit deeper than the height of the Empire State Building) at a drilling site in the Shfela Basin, southwest of Jerusalem . . . .  a deposit with the potential to yield about 250 billion barrels, well beyond Israel’s domestic needs and amply sufficient to transform Israel into an oil exporter.

This has set off an internal debate and a contention with Israel's Greens, but if a deposit on this scale has been found, it also transforms Israel's geostrategic position, and provides a key buffer against oil strangulation. Which was a material factor in Israel's going to war in 1967.

So, if this report is confirmed in upcoming days, it has a transformative potential impact on the Middle East situation, especially if Israel is now able to join the circle of oil exporting countries.

 

So, let us keep an eye out. END

Presenting -- Dr Tommyrot on the Dawkins Delusion

Some years ago, someone prepared a spoof on some of the key arguments in Dr Richasrd Dawkins' The God Delusion and other works.

It is well worth a pause to watch/listen to:

[HT: UD]

The spoof is of course humorous, but makes a few serious points about the need for reasonable and consistent standards of warrant in assessing evidence of design in our world.

It will also serve as a useful introduction to some of the issues being addressed by design theory:

a: are there reliable empirically tested signs that credibly point to something being a product of choice and design, not


b: a spontaneous result of blind chance like what happens when we toss a die, and/or


c: the sort of mechanically necessary forces that make a dropped heavy ceramic vase fall to the floor, then


d: smash into ever so many pieces that then scatter across the floor at seeming random?

I think it will be helpful, especially for those who will find the more technical style presentations difficult to follow.

Take it as a pre-101, where one can go elsewhere for more. END

Going Nuclear: Cyberstalking design advocates and their families – re: “Say hi to XXXXXXXXXX and the kids for me, you demented child abuser”

This attempt as headlined to implicitly “out” and threaten my wife and our children – not to mention (per the outrageous rhetoric of Mr Dawkins and fellow New Atheists) to try to falsely smear me as a child abuser for trying to raise my children in a Christian home – moves matters at and around UD beyond the context of debate to something far more poisonously menacing and destructive.

So, let's do a little equation:

Threatening, obsessive hostile anti-Christian commentary x repeated unhealthy references to sexual matters in same x Mafioso thug style “outing” attempt on wife and children = cyberstalking

Cyberstalking, FYI, Mr “The Whole Truth,” and co, is a crime; freedom of speech does not entail freedom to menace, threaten or harm. And, in this context, anti-Christian bigotry, repeated unwholesome sexual references and slander as headlined are aggravating factors.

By right of fair comment, I also note that the resort to menacing me by an “outing”-attempt, via otherwise irrelevant reference to my wife and our children as above is also an illustration of the thuggish consequences of the Alinskyite poisonously polarised atmosphere being cultivated by uncivil Darwinist and Neo-Atheist objectors to Design Theory and wider design thought, such as by P Z Myers and co. As, I warned against in a recent post here at UD.

Let us now cut to the chase:

Cyberstalking and Internet harassment (including when such pass through the Internet and so across international borders) are considered criminal offenses in the UK and the USA, as well as other possibly relevant jurisdictions. Because of the obsessive, hostile, personal, and threatening nature of the correspondence I have received, including repeated, patently unwholesome sexual references and the “outing” attempt against my family, I will be contacting an attorney from my local public prosecutor’s office on this matter and also the police, which will set record of prior complaint if matters go worse than this; and, given my domicile in a UK Overseas Territory, may have the effect of further activating UK and international action. Further to this I must note the vulgar language, obsessive behaviour and repeated unwholesome sexual references in the context of an attempt to name my wife and allude to my children in a patently threatening manner; in a situation which they have no material relevance to or involvement in. It is thus specifically credible that the behaviour fits the profile of an Internet predator, and so this will be my one and only warning to the anonymous Cyberstalker falsely known as “The Whole Truth” and ilk, to stop the harassment IMMEDIATELY.

For more detailed record – this is no invitation to foolish talking point debates and disputes, as innocent children are now held hostage by patently implied threat in an unwholesome, poisonously hostile context; it is a watershed moment where the civil and the uncivil will now reveal themselves and their heart-motives by their actions – let us next notice the underlying deep context. Namely, Mr Alinsky's uncivil, ruthless and polarising counsel from his infamous list of Rules for Radicals, which has spread far and wide in our time, wreaking havoc as it goes:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (cf. pp. 127 – 134.)

(And, in the context of the threats implicit in the above, the well-known Mr Dawkins and his fellow “New Atheists” are also directly implied as contributing to a hostile atmosphere of anti-Christian bigotry. This is particularly relevant, as the “child abuse” in question is plainly the inference that as a Christian I would have instructed my children in the teachings of the Bible and the Christian faith. Ironically, but ever so tellingly, one who falsely accuses me of “child abuse” is now stalking my children. Let us not forget as well, that in the recent Johns Foster-Parenting case in the UK [cf. video by Christian Concern of the UK], the UK's Office for Equality and Human Rights submitted to the High Court, a claim that included the notion that Biblical Christianity was an “infection” that children should be protected from. Not only were they not rebuked by the Court for this offensive abuse of taxpayers' money but – in an extremely troubling ruling that is a revelation of the intent of radical homosexualists to stigmatise or even onward criminalise conscience-based objection to their behaviour – the Court went on to rule that such Christians are unfit to be foster parents. So, onlookers, consider: who are fit parents? Those who seek to raise them up in a God-fearing, civil, well-mannered fashion, or those who wish to hold them hostage through cyberstalking and outing tactics?)

The headlined snippet is also the direct answer to those who imagine that the “outing” tactics now being routinely used by Darwinist advocates in an attempt to counter reasoned criticism and to intimidate critics are harmless or within norms of civilised, free-speech behaviour. Plainly, since they cannot cause me to be “expelled” by “outing” me, and since I am willing to put up with spam waves, there is now an attempt to “out” and implicitly threaten my family in a context of several spam posts to a personal blog.

The particular person who has attempted to threaten my wife and children – yes, we have seen all the old Mafia movies where the enforcer expresses menacing, saccharine-toned false solicitude for the family of a victim of intimidation – may be obsessed and even unhinged; but Darwinist objectors to Design Theory must now recognise that when they routinely follow Alinsky's evil counsel to stoke the flames of contempt, abuse, personal attack dehumanisation and demonisation, they are implicitly giving the cultural permission that the unhinged extremists “need” to legitimise their threats and deeds in their warped minds.

And, no, my pointing out the vicious nature of this personal attack is a corrective, so don't even THINK to now try to twist this into a blame the victim, he- hit- back- first turnabout false accusation.

This has gone too far for such clever rhetorical stunts to now be taken as anything less than willfully complicit, enabling behaviour.

Darwinist objectors to design thought, your side has crossed the nuclear threshold here, to outright criminality, and your side has now underscored the nihilistic amoral bankruptcy of what all too many on your side have been doing and the implications of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic factionalism, as Plato warned against in The Laws, Bk X, 2,350 years ago.

It is further worth noting that the above clip comes from a comment submitted to one of my personal blogs in reply to a recent comment here at UD (cf. Point 12) where I summarised my moderate, Rom 2:6 – 8 and 14 – 16 based “God judges by the light one has or should have” inclusivist theology (in response to an issue raised by/about IslamISTS). That is, the underlying motivation is anti-Christian bigotry.

I cite counsel on the relevant UK law:

Under Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1998 it is an offence to send an indecent, offensive or threatening letter, electronic communication or other article to another person and under Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a similar offence to send a telephone message which is indecent offensive or threatening. In both cases the offence is punishable with up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5000 . . . .

In most cases involving malicious communications or cyberstalking however there will be more than one offensive or threatening letter or telephone call and therefore the police will often choose to charge the offender with an offence contrary to either Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also punishable with up to six months imprisonment. Part of the reason for using this charge is that when someone is convicted of an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 the court can make a Restraining Order preventing them from contacting their victim again. Breach of a Restraining Order is punishable with up to Five years imprisonment . . . . If the e-mails, cyberstalking etc. causes the victim to fear that violence will be used against them then the police can choose to charge the offender with an offence contrary to Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which is punishable with up to five years imprisonment and also allows the court to make a Restraining Order.

If the e-mails, cyberstalking etc. is racialist in nature or motivated by religious hostility then charges could be brought of Racially or Religiously Aggravated Harassment contrary to sections 32(1)(a) or 32(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 . If convicted offenders could face up to 7 years imprisonment.

Given the ostensibly anonymous nature of the commenter hiding under the lying Internet moniker “The Whole Truth,” the only reasonable means of fulfilling a requirement of certain jurisdictions is this public notice. 

Let me be specific:

a:You, sir are to cease and desist in your attempted “outing” behaviour, and your attempts to implicitly threaten myself and my family including minor children (including the implications of repeated unwholesome sexual references you have made). 

b: In particular, given the otherwise irrelevant attempt to identify my wife and refer to our children, you are to forthwith cease from harassing, threatening, vulgar, suggestive, abusive, indecent and/or obscene, religiously hostile and similar communications in any form or forum to myself or to third parties or in public, and 

c: you are therefore also to immediately remove from your blog or other relevant contexts any and all references you have made that contribute to such harassment, intimidation, indecency, bigotry or threats.

 

d: This notice of and demand for removal also holds for any third parties who set about propagating your misconduct across the Internet, or who harbour your misbehaviour under mistaken notions of freedom of expression, whether they are domiciled in the US, the UK or anywhere else in the world. 

For, freedom to express views and propagate ideas does not include “freedom” to threaten, intimidate or harm people, especially minors and women. Nor, “freedom” to abuse local and global telecommunication services in so doing.

(I have already had to caution my children to beware of physical stalking, as I do not know whether you have or may acquire confederates, associates or like-minded fellow-travellers in my immediate vicinity. In case you do not understand my point, this constitutes notice that you, though your unhinged, obsessive and threatening behaviour, have given me credible reason to fear for the safety of my wife and our children. Thus, having hereby given you a public notice to cease and desist, I will shortly notify my local police and Public Prosecutor's Office; which per provisions of local law as a UK Overseas Territory may then activate the relevant UK statutes.)

And, in light of the provisions of relevant jurisdictions, do not imagine that you will be protected by Google's cleverly worded tort-evasion policies for Blogger Blogs or Wordpress' similar policies. END

___________

F/N: A predictable rebuttal attempt talking point will be to try to pretend that I am exaggerating the threat in the above and am trying to stifle "free speech." So, I ask you onlookers, to reflect on what relevance my wife, her name [as incorrectly reported] or our children have to do with any discussion whatsoever over intelligent design, or the more specific matter that I happen to hold a moderate inclusivist theology, i.e. that God judges us by the light we have or should have? The correct answer is: NIL, save that they can be used as implicit hostages to threaten or harass, or even intimidate. What I have had to reply to above is therefore patently shameful -- nay, shameless and inexcusable -- cyberstalking misconduct.