Skip to comments.‘Extremist’ Jews and Christians Are Like Islamists?
Posted on 04/12/2012 4:51:38 AM PDT by SJackson
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -
‘Extremist’ Jews and Christians Are Like Islamists?
Posted By Joseph Puder On April 12, 2012 @ 12:03 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments
During a recent presentation made by this writer at a meeting attended by religious leaders and held in a Universalist Unitarian Church in New Jersey, the minister/host, in response to hearing the results of a survey addressing the rise of extremist Islamism in the Middle East and elsewhere exclaimed, There are extremist Jews and Christians too, and since we dont have a Muslim present, you should refrain from speaking negatively about Muslims.
The focus of the presentation was the Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East and the rise to dominance of Islamism in the Arab world. My colleague, Dr. Mikhail, a native Egyptian, related his personal experiences living as a Christian in Egypt. He described the teaching of hate against non-Muslims, and the resultant killings and raping rampages against Christians in Egypt by Muslims. (In the most recent elections held in Egypt, since the fall of the Mubarak regime, the Salafist Nour party, members of which are extremist Islamists won 27.8% of the seats in the Egyptian Parliament and the more moderateMuslim Brotherhood won 37.5% of the vote.
Progressive thinking members of the clergy seem to have their minds made up and cannot and will not allow facts to alter their beliefs. And, while our presentation focused on reported, factual events in the Middle East, these facts seemed irrelevant to our progressive Unitarian Minister host. While it is true that there are extremist Christians and Jews, not since the dawn of the 21st century has one heard cries from either Christians or Jews advocating the killing of an infidel Muslim as we have seen when a Muslim cries out Allahu Akbar while stabbing or shooting a Jew or a Christian. There have been no reported killings of Muslims in the name of Jesus or Moses
The exercising of moral equivalency by the Progressive Left negates the teachings of all monotheistic faiths. If one cannot distinguish between right and wrong, one invites chaos and confusion into society. Moreover, our legal system will collapse under such a practice. A murderers guilt will become relative not complete, and under such relativist conditions, it would be impossible to convict anyone, without having extenuating circumstances.
What holds true for individual offenders applies to communities of faiths as well. In todays Europe (most recently exhibited in Toulouse), as in Gaza and Cairo, Islamist incitement to murder infidels is excused by European elites who react to such heinous acts with moral relativism and political correctness. Relativism and political correctness found in academia, media, churches, or government, regard the probing into aberrant Islamist behavior as Islamophobia or racism.
Similar complaints as that made by the Unitarian minister, regarding the call to restraint in the absence of Muslim representatives, reveals an endemic hypocrisy that exists not just in this particular church, but in the United Methodist and the Presbyterian USA churches, where anti-Israel and at times anti-Semitic resolutions are being discussed without consideration of the Jewish/Israeli point of view or, not including input from one of the parties the Jewish/Israeli party as part of the discussion.
At the upcoming United Methodist Church (UMC) General Conference taking place this April 2012, and the Presbyterian Church USA General Assembly to be held in July 2012, leaders will be calling for divestment from companies doing business with Israel, and statements will be made labeling Israel an Apartheid State and equating Israel with South Africa.
The church leaders pushing these anti-Israel resolutions believe they are doing so in the name of justice for the Palestinians. They refuse, however, to consider the anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic nature of the Arab-Muslim Palestinian leadership, and its refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State and to live in true peace and security. All the buzz words: occupation, right of return and settlements, obfuscate the real issue that of Islamic intolerance towards any non-Muslim/non-Arab sovereign entities in the Middle East. Had the Arab-Palestinians wished to live in peace and security with the Jews and recognize the Jewish historical rights in their ancestral home, an Arab-Palestinian State would have been established in 1937 under the Peel Commission or in 1947, under the UN Partition Plan. Had the Arabs accepted the division of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, there would have been no issues such as occupation, settlements, or refugees. Lest we forget there were 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries – a number far greater than the oft-quoted Palestinian-Arab refugees. While Israel absorbed and re-settled the Jewish refugees at great cost when the nascent state had barely recovered a five-pronged attempt by Arab armies to obliterate it, the Arab countries turned their backs on their people and have perpetuated the homelessness of Palestinian refugees.
The unfettered malice towards the Jewish State, and the outrageous comparison to Apartheid South Africa, is strangely absent when one notes the violence and persecution of non-Muslims in the Middle East and beyond, by both Muslim states and by the Palestinians in Gaza and Ramallah. Although not all Muslims are terrorists, most terrorists in the 21st Century have been Muslims, who have killed in name of Allah.
Taking issue with the Clinton administration for pressuring Israel and not the Arabs, U.S. Representative and Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-GA) had this to say on April 9, 1997, There is extraordinary danger in treating terror and democracy equivalently. There is extraordinary danger in placing the burden on friends, because you are scared to tell the enemy the truth.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. during the Reagan Administration and author of the book The Myth of Moral Equivalency pointed out the following: Marxism incorporates, at the verbal level and the intellectual level, the values of liberal democracy in its assault on liberal democracy, and this is precisely why it entraps so many Western intellectuals who are themselves serious liberal democrats. Thus the slightest restriction on, lets say, the presumption of innocence of the accused is said to demonstrate the absence of the rule of law. The slightest failure of an electoral system demonstrates contempt for political equality. Any use of force in international affairs establishes the lawless character of the society. Now, it is a short step from having demonstrated that a country like the U.S. is not law-abiding society to demonstrating that it is lost and that it is like any other lawless society (morally equivalent-JP). The Soviets can always claim We are no worse than you. Even if we are a lawless society, you too are a lawless society, we are no worse than you. This is the logic of the doctrine of moral equivalence.
What is true in reference to America in its confrontation with the Soviets as described by Jeane Kirkpatrick is also true about Israel in its struggle with the Palestinian Arabs, and it is just as true in distinguishing the Judeo-Christian values from that of Islamism.
It is unfortunate therefore that the mainline Protestant churches and the Unitarian churches in particular have adopted the Marxist notion of moral equivalency while abandoning the truth of a universal right and wrong as enshrined in the holy books of Jews and Christians and manifested in the Judeo-Christian ethos.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/12/extremist-jews-and-christians-are-like-islamists/
Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.
Great article. Thanks SJackson.
And locally, there are the Mormonophobes mimicking the the Shia-Sunni theology conflict with strident voices
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
> And locally, there are the Mormonophobes mimicking the the
> Shia-Sunni theology conflict with strident voices
Are “Mormonophobes” bombing Mormon temples?
Are “Mormonophobes” beheading Mormons?
Are “Mormonophobes” ethnically cleansing neighborhoods of Mormons?
Are “Mormonophobes” calling for the genocide of Mormons?
Then stop being a drama queen.
Mormonism is a cult, and we do not fight it with swords and bombs, but with the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and prayer for those trapped in the throes of the Joseph Smith cult.
You gloss over the fact that Joseph Smith was murdered.
There are extremist Jews and Christians too, and since we dont have a Muslim present, you should refrain from speaking negatively about Muslims.
Satan is present and will represent them just fine. So, we will proceed to warn of their threat, as planned.
I guess 'cause they probably didn't have any Nazis around they couldn't speak negatively about the crematoriums either.
> You gloss over the fact that Joseph Smith was murdered.
Yes, over 150 years ago. He was shot to death while trying to escape from a mob that broke into the jail in which he was being held for treason against the State of Illinois and for Polygamy, charges brought against him by former mormons.
Have any Mormons leaders been murdered by Christians or Jews recently?
Are any Christians or Jews you know calling for the murder of Mormons?
Any mormon temples being blown up or burned?
Then stop being a drama queen.
No you don’t.
You fight it by pretending Romney is the Mormon Pope and will impose their will on America.
> You fight it by pretending Romney is the Mormon Pope and
> will impose their will on America.
Please show us all where I posted any such drivel.
Sjackson --> Unitarians are not Christians. they're marijuana-smoking la-di-dahs who worship liberalism.
Goody. Will we get the same intellectuals bending over backwards to justify even the most heinous acts? OK, folks. Start your chain saws and go a-huntin’!
Who says Romney is the real power-player here? (I guess this shows your Mormonism ignorance slip is showing)
The real power player in Mormonism is the one wielding MORE power than the Pope is to RC: Its "prophet."
Since you've introduced the Pope here as some sort of false parallel, please show us where the Pope has made similar spiritual-political imposing statements such as what you find from Lds leaders below...except for the first three statements, ALL of them were made by Lds leaders between the 1960s and 1980s...
|Lds Leader||Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)||Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)|
|Orson Hyde||President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)||What the world calls Mormonism will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)|
|Heber J. Grant||Lds 'Prophet' #7||"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)|
|Harold B. Lee||Lds 'Prophet' #11||...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)|
|Spencer Kimball||Lds 'Prophet' #12||"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)|
|What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?||Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')||"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)|
|Ezra Taft Benson||Lds 'Prophet' #13||Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #5||5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #9||9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #10||10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)|
|B.H. Roberts||LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!||[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED. The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180|
|Mitt Romney as POTUS???||Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?||The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]|
So, G Larry...you going to become a Mormon apologist now re: statements like the above?
(Talk about "converts"...we knew Romney would have this effect upon so-called "conservatives")
Are you going to project these kind of positions on Romney, should he become President?
I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard news about someone shouting “Jesus is Lord!” before blowing themselves up on a bus.
Really, I can’t.
In order to have an honest discussion about moslems it’s best if there are none present.
You still don't understand!
It doesn't matter what Romney initiates on his own or doesn't initiate on his own in a would-be Romney White House.
It's all up to the Lds "prophet" -- who could change once, twice, three x or more during a Romney would-be White House...[Mormons pick their "prophets" -- once they reach a certain level -- by the calendar...= oldest...You want some potential alzheimers' "prophet" dictating to the POTUS what he's to do? Romney has ALREADY sworn to do it...see chart for that]
Based upon Mormon leadership quotes -- they [Lds generala authorities] are prepared to carry out whatever they want to carry out politically.
We’ve been through this “Orders from the Vatican” nonsense, before.
You deserve the America you get, if this anti-Mormon bigotry results in Obama’s re-election.
By rules of the secular religion of Political Corrrectness, you are so right. Unfortunately, people here can observe and think and say whatever they want without the monitoring of Muslims.
You, however, must wait to speak until the Muslim monitors show up and tell you what to think and say.
Confusing Church with state is never productive. Forcing religious thought was why so many fled from Europe. Now it seems we have it here
Religious intolerance knows no historical bounds. It is alive and well here
There's been at least four threads -- one yesterday -- three on Easter Sunday -- all attacking Obama's religious expressions & alleged ties.
I haven't noticed YOU on there labeling all of the anti-Obama religious commentators "bigots?" Why not?
Is it really because you have some inner compulsion to speak out vs. what you deem religious "bigotry?" Or is it that you're an ex-pro-life turned liberal RINO in sheep's clothing who not only supports a socialist pro-abortionist, but can't even show any consistency re: your apparent convictions re: speaking out vs. those commenting negatively re: religion of POTUS candidates.
If you're so knee-jerky about people commenting upon POTUS candidate religious beliefs, you'd be heading into those four Obama threads to defend Obama. But, no. The entire FR self-appointed "bigot patrol" has yet the dawn a single such thread over these past four years...all of those jeremiah wright threads in abundance, etc. All of those comments labeling Obama as "Muslim."
Where is the "bigot patrol" when their fire alarm goes off? Why are they AWOL on those threads? You haven't been there with your "bigot patrol." Why not?
There is still time to go to these recent 4 threads...the last two such threads included the phrase "A" Son of god? (If you can't find them, I've got the links for you...just ask)
If you don't show up to label those POTUS candidates' religious commentators "bigots" as well, I'll write you off as an outright double-faced hypocrite...and encourage you to Repent!!!
Your "convictions" will be shown for they seemingly are: As shallow as a Texas wind blowin' on dry partched dust...all per the latest gust...
You gloss over the fact that Smith died in a gun battle, having totally expended one weapon while he had another.
You don't go around operating as a similar apologist for other prisoners who die in gun battles, do you?
Ping me when the koranimals show up, please.
Who's doin' the "forcing" and what "force" is being used?
Define your words. You have incomplete sentences...there's no subject, no object, no nouns...who are we talking about here?
Generic gobblygook can't pass for true intelligence these days, can it?
And you think only the PR & ad-nauseum people on TV, radio, the Internet, billboards have a right to expose their viewpoints? Anybody speaking religiously gets some automatic kneejerk response from you as "forcing?"
Why does your First Amendment apparently end @ religious expression that includes critiques of other religious expression? How "american" is that?
Religious intolerance knows no historical bounds. It is alive and well here
Well, your post here shows that you're pretty intolerant of whatever Sara Johnson -- and others -- have said on this thread.
If you preach tolerance, where's its practice?
If tolerance is one of your bottom-line golden rules, then you should be bending over backward & avoid calling people "confused," enforcers of religious beliefs, & implied persecutors & oppressors (oft' why many left Europe).
The self-refuters around here ne'er seem to realize the message they preach means they are included in its "boundaries."
Forcing free citizens into Romneycare to please Ted Kennedy and his pals was hell on wheels.
Because I’ve been over here maximizing the case against Obama, in about as strong terms as Jim will allow.
The anti-Obama threads don’t need my attention.
It’s the jokers on these threads, bound to re-elect him that need the attention.
I guess the Romneybots are going to try and guilt everyone into voting for Mittens. “If you don’t vote for Mittens, you are a bigot.” Then the Obamabots say, “if you don’t vote for Obammy, you are a bigot!”
Yes...that guilt approach + "a vote for a third-party is a vote for Obama..."
(as if the GoP-e is beyond culpability for giving us Romney to begin with...It's kind of like a relative coming to you and asking if you approve of the guy she's chosen for marriage...and then when you say "no" right @ that juncture...and the "marriage" never lasts long...guess who they blame for the "marriage" not working out??? Yup...'twas your fault...tho you tried & tried & tried to warn 'em it wasn't goin to go very far)
My arguments have nothing to do with Romney. My arguments have to do with the trashing of good Americans by zealots who force their own religion into a political world.
It is fairly obvious that many want their own religious freedom but in zealous righteousness are more than willing to deny it to other Americans.
Voting for this candidate or another is not the issue. Intolerance is the issue. To hide behind the political when religious zealotry is the cause is in my view cowardice.
Free Republic should be better than that
Disclaimer: I am a Cain/Newt Supporting nonMormon Presbyterian with no Mitt nor Mormon ax to grind