In the past week, America has suffered numerous mass murders, but two of these tragedies have captured the bulk of the attention of the media. The November 27, Colorado Springs shooting has become a rally cry for supporters of abortion and progressives who assume the shooter is a Christian fanatic on a mission to stop the senseless killing of children. The media was quick to announce that the shooter, Robert Dear, is a white male. They were also quick to label the Colorado Springs shooting domestic terrorism. In the week since the shooting, investigative reporters have spoken with his ex-wives and have heard enough to label him a Christian as well. Planned Parenthood supporters began raising money for abortion as victims were still being admitted to the hospital.
Many progressives see law enforcement officers as little more than licensed executioners. These progressives were incredulous about the fact that Dear was actually taken alive.
Five days later, two shooters burst into a San Bernardino conference room and opened fire on a group of social workers who were gathered for a Christmas party. The shooters were wearing what appeared to be tactical gear, including “go pro” cameras and left behind a remote control bomb. Abortion supporters were nearly ecstatic over the possibility that an abortion clinic might be at the center of the violence.
Meanwhile, the news media strained to avoid mentioning any ethnicity of the shooters and kept all motives open to possibility. Hours later, when the Muslim names of one of the suspects became more and more unavoidable, the media began chanting that the shooter was an American citizen.
In the tolerant, inclusive and politically correct mind of news reporters, if we can’t blame Islamic terrorists, we can always blame the average American citizen. The fact that at least one of the shooters appears to have been communicating with known Islamic terrorists has to be terribly disappointing to the American news media, White House officials and supporters of abortion (who by the way are totally interchangeable).
Violence is a serious problem in our country. But we are aiding terrorism when we bend over backward to make sure we don’t say anything that could be construed as Islamophobic. Do we really think that treating Muslims as though none of them are dangerous, will help us protect innocent people from the ones who are? The fact is, there are violent followers of Islam who live right here in the good ol’ USA. Not all Muslims are evil, as a matter of fact, most of them are perfectly normal. But we cannot give 100% of Muslims the benefit of the doubt. This is a mental illness called Islamophilia and it will facilitate the objectives of the terrorists. Islamophilia demands that you remain silent, if you see behavior that makes you wonder if someone is a terrorist, especially if you believe the person or persons are of Middle Eastern descent . For someone suffering from Islamophilia, it is regretable that innocent people will die, but that is the price we pay to make sure a peaceful Muslim does not end up with hurt feelings.
The biased media (and social media) response to these two tragedies are quite clear.
I call for something between actual Islamophobia, which exists but is not as common as people would like you to believe and Islamophilia, which is rampant. What I call for is a very rare intellectual gift called: Common Sense.
- In August, 2001, actor James Woods was flying from Boston to Los Angeles when he noticed four passengers who were acting suspicious. There were only 5 passengers in first class on that flight and Woods was one of them, so he had plenty of opportunity to observe them, taking note of their apparent Middle Eastern descent. He alerted the flight crew after the plane landed, but the airline official shrugged it off. A few weeks later, on September 11, 2001, those same four passengers jijacked one of the four airplanes that started a new age in Islamic terrorism. It turns out, Woods had noticed the hijackers who were on a test run, brought it to the attention of the airline, but no action was taken.
- On November 9, 2009, Nidal Hasan, a Major in the U.S. Army, opened fire in a building on the Fort Hood Military Base in Texas, killing 13 and injuring 30. Prior to the massacre, the Fort Hood murderer had voiced dissatisfaction with America and had been communicating with a radical Imam named Anwar al-Awlaki. At the time of their communications, al-Awlaki resided in Yemen, but he had been an Imam at a Mosque in Virginia prior to that time. Hasan had apparently prayed at the Mosque and may have known al-Awlaki personally. U.S. intelligence agencies knew of the communications between the radical Imam and Hasan but chose to do nothing about it.
- On April 15, 2013, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev placed pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. As early as 2011, the FBI was aware that the Russians considered Tamerlan to be a radical Islamic extremist with interests in terrorism. However, U.S. officials did not take adequate steps to prohibit the Tsarnaevs from activity and interests that eventually led them to place the bombs and eventually kill a police officer. In the end, over 260 people were injured and at least three were killed by the Tsarnaevs. (Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have been involved in murders prior to the bombing of the marathon.)
- On September 26, 2014, Alton Nolan a/k/a Jah’Keem Yisrael, beheaded a female coworker at a food processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma. Nolan had recently converted to Islam and had been frequenting al Qaeda websites and trying to convert co-workers to Islam. Prior to the beheading, he had been fired by his employer, but before leaving the property, retrieved a knife and attacked two coworkers, beheading one of them. It is apparent that his employer did not have Nolan escorted off of the property after he was terminated.
- Zale Thompson, a 32 year old convert to Islam, attacked NYC police officers with a hatchet on October 22, 2014. He had been surfing ISIS and al Qaeda websites for weeks before setting out to behead a police officer. His acquaintances knew he had become more and more radical in his thoughts over the course of severa months before the attack, but nobody thought to contact the police.
- On October 23, 2014, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, shot a Canadian soldier in the back, killing him, then entered the Canadian capital building where a security guard shot and killed Zehaf-Bibeau. Zehaf-Biveau was a convert to Islam. The Canadian government had denied his request to emigrate to Libya at some point in time prior to the shooting. Although acquaintances and co-workers knew of his admiration for Jihadists in the Middle East, nobody thought to report him to the authorities.
I dont know about you, but I think I see a recurring pattern here. In the most famous (therefore the most effective) terrorist attacks on American soil, acquiantances, coworkers, officials, local law enforcement and sometimes federal law enforcement, knew of the eventual attackers before they carried out their deadly plans. But in each case, very little, if anything, was done to investigate the suspicions. In some cases, people refrained from reporting the suspicions to anyone and in others, the investigation was clearly half-hearted at best.
I’m a middle-aged white guy (I’m even a Christian). I truly believe that if I had been reported by James Woods in August, 2011, someone from the airline or airport security would have had a chat with me.
Why the blindness? Fear of being labeled intolerant, hateful, an Islamophobe… The official government line is “See Something, Say Something”, but it didn’t work in the above examples and those who have said something have been criticized for not embracing Islamophilia.
Some claim that the white, Christian, male is the greatest threat to the average American. Who is saying this? The big media outlets, people who vote Democrat (and nothing but Democrat) and the misinformed.
Of course this is a lie and Mr. el-mallakh is either a moron or evil.
Do Christians commit crimes, even horrific crimes such as murder? Yes. But nobody can point to the Bible and justify the crime as consistent with Christian doctrine. To the absolute contrary, the Islamic terrorists can point directly to the Quran and justify the San Bernardino attack, 9-11, Benghazi and any other attack carried out under the holy banner of Jihad.
Anyone who hesitates to reject Mr. el-mallakh’s Islamophilia needs to learn about Islam. Anyone who spreads Mr. el-mallakh’s is doing so with wreckless disregard for human life. And as we have seen both before and now on December 2, 2015, in San Bernardino, California, such progressive rhetoric can mean the difference between the life and death of innocent people.
Aaron Elswick — a neighbor of Farook’s mother in Redland — said that another neighbor told him “they had I guess been receiving packages — quite a few packages within a short amount of time, and they were actually doing a lot of work out in the garage.”
“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” Elswick explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”
And from another citizen:
A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.
People saw something but said nothing out of fear of being “Islamophobic”. In other words, they wanted to be tolerant and accepting, not prejudiced or bigotted. These people are not Islamophiles, but they were evidently taught to be quiet by Islamophiles.
If you look at the examples mentioned in this blog alone, you see that thousands of lives have been lost. Think of the families of the victims. Think of the people who were wounded and survived. We are talking about thousands of people who have been directly and profoundly impacted by Islamic terrorism on American soil.
Yet we are continually informed that Islam is a peaceful religion. This is an enormous lie that is repeated and repeated in an effort to quiet all who disagree with the lie.
We all need to speak up and those in positions of authority need to wake up. Until we get radical Islam under control, people are going to have to be willing to suffer the uncomfortable experience of being called names by fools who are blind to the truth. If good people are courageous and willing to speak up, a future terrorist attack like the San Bernardino attack might be avoided. Are liberals responsible for the deaths at the hands of the terrorists in this blog? No. Just like conservatives are not responsible for the mentally deranged gunman who shot people outside the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs on November 27th.
But the misguided progressives continue to slather on the propaganda…
Free speech does come with serious responsibility. Our news media, political leaders and Islamophiles are trying to impose silence in the face of pure evil. This allows them to fill the empty space with propaganda.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. – Edmund Burke
Right now, the progressives believe that the only speech that is “free” is the speech that supports their desired narrative. All I can say is that more of us need to challenge that narrative with very thoughtful and fact-based speech. When someone cautions us that our speech is hateful, bigotted, etc… consider all the facts and humbly assess whether your speech was based in fact or not. If you overstepped the truth, correct it. If you spoke the truth, don’t back down.
4 thoughts on “Consequences”
“Do Christians commit crimes, even horrific crimes such as murder? Yes. But nobody can point to the Bible and justify the crime as consistent with Christian doctrine.”
1. Anyone who acts presumptuously and does not obey the priest who officiates there in the ministry of the LORD, your God, or the judge, shall die. Thus shall you purge the evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NAB)
2. If a man lies with a male as with a woman,k they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
3. Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
4. All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
5. They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
6. Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
These are a few of the examples where, at face value, God is commanding his people to murder. Most of these verses are from the Old Testament, but the majority of Christians still follow both the Old and New Testaments as the word of God.
The point is not to show that Christians are as bad as Muslims. The point is to show that any book, especially religious text, can be interpreted in multiple ways. Radicalism in general is the enemy, wherever it may be found.
Hi Josh. Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous post.
You said that “most” of the verses you cited are from the Old Testament, but actually, all of them are. If you know of any New Testament verses that seem to teach Christians to murder people, let me know.
To begin, it is necessary to draw a distinction between recognizing God’s word as inerrant and the requirement to actually follow a specific verse today. Christians do believe both the Old and New Testaments to be the inerrant and inspired word of God, but there are many things which do not apply to Christianity because Christians are not Jewish.
Everything in the Bible needs to be taken in context. And while some Scripture is to be taken literally, not every verse of the Bible is to be taken literally (maybe this is what you mean by “face value”). Consequently, in light of the New Testament, there are many verses in the Old Testament to which Christians are not bound. Let me explain:
A lot of the OT law was instituted to set the stage for the new law that Christ would usher in. Christ perfected the old law by calling Christians to love God with all we have and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Mt 22:34-40) Christ tells us that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. (Mt 5:17) He also said that he desires mercy, not sacrifice. (Mt 9:13)
The parts of the OT law that we see in the Christian faith today are not there because they appear in the Bible, but because they transcend written words and do not need to be revealed in Scripture. Natural law is true whether it is in the Bible or not. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us it is improper to cut in line. Even if I unknowingly step in front of someone who has been standing in line already, someone is going to tap me on the shoulder or worse. There is a lot of natural law in the Bible, but anything omitted is not false simply because it isn’t in the Bible, nor is it mandatory because it is in the Bible.
Some non-Christians and many people who are hostile to Christianity, use parts of the OT such as Leviticus 20:13, to argue that true Christians would kill adulterers, or other OT verses to argue that if we were really Christian we would refuse to each shellfish, refuse to wear clothing with more than one kind of material or that we would never plant a field with more than one kind of seed. Again, Christians are not Jewish. These and other laws in the OT were merely customs that had no relevance to Christianity (dietary laws, rituals in Jewish worship, cultural matters).
All this being said, your 2nd to last sentence is absolutely correct. There are people who interpret the Bible in absolutely horrible ways. They may call themselves Christian, but we all know they are crazy. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jr., Matthew Vines and Fred Phelps all fit into this category. But we know these people are nuts because their beliefs and behaviors are so incredibly distant from Scripture or they take specific verses of the Bible completely out of context in order to justify their choices and behavior. To the contrary, if you were to fly to Syria and have a short meeting with one of the ISIS leaders today, you would find that he can point you to multiple verses of the Quran which support beheading, rape, slavery, etc… You would never make it out of that meeting alive, but if you had the chance to show those verses to an honest moderate Muslim, he would nod his head and agree that those verses do support these horrible things and there is no newer part of the Quran or any different context for these verses that qualifies the violence as inappropriate at any time. The Quran clearly authorizes the behaviors of ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc… In other words, the terrorists are observing the entire Quran and the rest of the Muslim world are not even true Islam because they are only observing some of it. This helps explain why the moderate Muslims are not rising up to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth and it explains why ISIS and other radical terrorists have no problem killing Muslims as quickly as they would kill you and me.
The purpose of my blog is to help people see that the true threat to America is Fundamental Islam, Islamic terrorism and anyone who tries to draw our attention from the violent teachings in the Quran that fuel radical Islamic terrorists because Islam is not a peaceful religion.
My memory of the Bible books is a bit rusty.
Because all of the above verses are from the OT (as well as other verses commanding the same), wouldn’t you agree that fundamental Judaism is not a peaceful religion? My interpretation is that ISIS and like-minded groups believe whole heartedly in the old conversion-by-the-sword, much like the Jews were when they retook Israel.
As for NT verses:
Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me. Luke 19:27
Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. Matthew 10:34
My knowledge about fundamental Judaism is even less reliable than your memory about the books of the Bible. What I can say is that retaking a city or a country is a lot different than setting out to conquer something that has never been yours. This is a distinction that is commonly overlooked by people who wish to criticize the Christian Crusades. So in the sense of the Israelites who escaped captivity in Egypt and returned to the promise land, that would be retaking and natural law as well as civil law recognizes the right to do that.
As for the two verses you quote from the NT, context is very important. In neither of those verses is Christ advocating for murder. In Luke, he’s telling a story about a ruler who was a “harsh man”. Christ was merely telling a story that included the man’s harsh behavior, but the story was not telling Christians to kill people. As for the verse from Matthew, Christ is not saying anyone should use a sword to force people to believe in him, he is saying that those who believe in him should be prepared to suffer. He’s warning his followers that even their own family members may reject them.