CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST

[Strat9mm]

I would also argue that stopping an event from being held just because it might anger some people is a direct assault of our very Constitution and a very slippery slope of state censorship. Once that starts, you're not far from NK, China, Etc.

I heard Trump on Fox this morning (I was too far from the controller to change the station) talk about how dumb it was to provoke (paraphrasing) Muslims by holding that event. I didn't like Trump before, but now I like him even less than I like Christie.

Bottom line..... Nobody in this country should live in fear of their speech being sufficient justification for murder. Ever.
Did anyone listen to the event organizer, Pam Geller, on the news last night and this morning? Her NY accent was like nails on a blackboard, but her words were spot on.

Do I have any interest in attending here event? No. None.
Would I stand with her to protect her right to have that event? You bet.

ETA: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-why-u-c ... ector.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quote: "... “Blaming Pamela Geller for inciting violence is like blaming a victim of rape for wearing high heels,” ..."

From the article, the person being quoted in a telephone interview was "Robert Shillman heads a publicly traded American technology company called Cognex Corp with a market value of $4 billion. He also says he is a big supporter of last Sunday’s Prophet Mohammad cartoon contest in Texas that was attacked by two gunmen who opened fire before being shot dead by police."
...
"Shillman, who grew up in Boston, says he is an admirer of Geller for her defense of free speech and American democracy. he said."

Trump and many others need to realize that when dealing islam, especially 'radicalized' muslims, you are NOT dealing with rational people. We are dealing with human beings who have a form of insanity, and any agreements with them are a guaranteed lose-lose situation. There is no appeasement, no agreement, no 'understanding', and no winning of any hearts and minds that will occur with these 'people'. The only things they understand are violence and death if their demands are not met. Truth be told, ultimately, their demands are either conversion to Islam, slavery, or death. There is a reason they spit out threats of death to AMERICA and the Israeli's. They abhor Americans, Christians and Jews, as well as our way of life and wish to destroy it, along with us. Recent events all around the world should have proven to all that islam has similar feelings to towards Western Europeans, Budhists, Hindu's, and even their own people and fellow muslims who do not live up to their teachings. We're all infidels to them, and do NOT deserve to live. Period.

If people actually bothered to do a little research into the subject, they would find that it's the 'radicalized' muslims who are doing it the way the koran requires. All the other 'peaceful' muslims, are actually traitors to their own religion and it's teachings and requirements, oral, as well as written.

Axe murders and other mass murderers hide in plain sight, until they take action. They all look, act and talk normally, until they do not, just like 'radicalized' muslims in this situation did, and as they continue to do.

That should give people a clue (who currently don't have one), as to how to spot potential murderers and homicide bombers in any country so that they can be stopped.

Someone please inform Mr. Trump that his views on our right to free speech and islam are in grave error.

A leopard will never be your friend, and it will never change it's spots. Sooner or later, it will rip your throat out.

[The Annoyed Man]

Of course one may interpret Scripture for themselves, but might I suggest that anyone who uses a firearm to defend himself or his family may run into a terrible dilemma with the inviolate admonition to turn the other cheek and surrender the cloak. Why? Because there is no Scripture that adds the words "but in this situation...."

The way I resolve that is to unwilling to shoot to protect property, UNLESS, I am personally be endangered by the taking of that property. I come home and catch you coming out my front door with a TV, I'm not going to gun you down......although I might draw the gun to try and make you put the TV down. If you run off with the TV, I'm not going to back-shoot you over it. If you set down the TV and prone out, I'm not going to shoot you. But if you put down the TV and attack me, then I'm going to defend myself. So that is one way of looking at it........the willingness (or not) to use violence to protect property.

But there is a deeper thing here. "And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." Here's we're not talking about a thief stealing unimportant stuff (yes, even an expensive TV is unimportant.....it's JUST a TV), we're talking about the result of a lawsuit......to which you surrender. The other person has a case against you. Instead of fighting him, you are urged to bring the suit quickly to a close, and smooth over the bad feelings by being more generous than he is asking for. Jesus uses the example of someone taking an item of clothing through legal means. Clothing comes under the heading of "need", not "want". And in Jesus's day, a man's cloak was one of his most prized possessions. He might only own one or two during his entire adult life. His cloak did far more than just act as an outer garment. It was a blanket, a cushion to sit on, a sleeping pad, protection from the cold, an indicator of his station in life. So Jesus is maybe saying, "if someone takes your shirt (because you have done him an injustice), give him your jacket too (so he will be warm)".

OTH, we have the implications of Luke 22:35-38 (I won't reproduce it all here, but I wrote a long blog post about it a while back HERE) in which Jesus instructs his disciples to get a sword, and if they don't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one.......the sword type being more of a large knife similar to a Roman Pugio, or a large Bowie Knife, rather than to what we would think of as a broadsword or saber.

So, I don't think that Jesus expects to not defend ourselves, or to not defend loved ones. But "defend" is different from "attack". One entirely permits the idea of living in peace alongside one another. The other does not. The person who initiates an attack is not living in peace. The person who defends from an attack is not the one who disturbs the peace.

Was Jesus living in peace when he drove the money-changers out of the temple with a knotted rope? Yes. He was defending his Father's House. So "living" in peace doesn't necessarily mean that you lay down and let people run over you.

[ShootDontTalk]

And thank you for your service.

I have known Dr. Caner for a long time. He grew up a Muslim in Turkey. After his conversion to Christianity, he often spoke of a game he used to play with airport security to keep them on their toes. (Pre TSA days) When the security people would not search him very thoroughly before boarding a flight, he would say "Allahu Akbar" and start speaking in Arabic. (This was way prior to 9/11) It always startled the security people. He then spoke to the gathered crowd about his conversion and why he was no longer a threat.

strat9mm.....YES.

[Strat9mm]

Apathy? It is difficult to convince Christians to stand up for themselves. As long as it doesn't happen to them personally, no one even notices.

I wouldn't call it apathy, per se. There are complex reasons for why this is so.

One reason is that no less a person than Jesus tells us to respond charitably to injustice: Matthew 5:38-41 - "38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

Also, the apostle Paul writes in Romans 12:18, 19 - "18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”"

These things do not mean that we should not protect ourselves, but they do mean that we are not to seek revenge for insults - whether they be religious, cultural, or physical insults. No revenge doesn't mean that you don't fight back in self-defense, but it does mean that you forego the right to exact punishment. So on one hand, you have the central character of the faith telling us to accept the insults (because we will be persecuted for our faith), but his most prolific prophet telling us that A) we are to live in peace with everybody in so far as it is possible, B) that we are to leave revenge up to God, and C) that God's justice will happen according to his plan, not ours.

So right there, just in those two passages (and there are others), you've got scriptural instruction not to seek payback.

Then, Christian scripture also tells us that we will be persecuted for the faith, and to understand that when it happens, God's prophecies are being fulfilled, and to rejoice in that fulfillment. So what you end up with is a believer who is not passive (we are free to pray all we want), but who is enjoined to be nonviolent in so far as it depends upon that believer, and to not seek revenge for insults. The product is a person who will perhaps act quickly to defend someone else from these kinds of depredations, but may seem more resigned to it when it happens to directly themselves.

I am unaware if Islam teaches anything similar. If it does, then modern Islamicists are failing radically to uphold their religion.

There seems to have been some confusion among Christian nations with the teachings and examples in the Bible which require God's people to literally destroy the armies and nations that come against us, even at times, including the women, children and animals, while other Scriptures command us to love our enemies and pray for them, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give our cloak as well as our tunic, bless those who curse us and spitefully use us and love our neighbor as ourselves.

If God does not change, according to the Scripture, and He and His Command(ment)s are the same yesterday, today and forever, then we seem to have a problem. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Gideon, Samson, and many others DESTROYED and killed the enemies of God, AND HIS PEOPLE, without mercy, as God required. These same men were commended by God in the Bible. After all, the stakes were high. The lives of innocent human beings, namely Israelites, were at stake. Their (our) enemies had no problems picking of straggling families and raping and killing innocent men women and children, even ripping out babies from the wombs of their mothers ALIVE. These enemies of God's people deserved nothing less than the death which God COMMANDED. While these faithful and courageous leaders of God's people were alive, NO ONE was allowed to get away with attacking or killing God's people. And we should remember that God has PROMISED these specific men, as well as other men and women like these, WILL BE RAISED FROM THE DEAD to immortal life. So there we have the requirements, and some examples and what God does for those who keep them, according to the Bible.

One would wish we had leaders alive today in the government as well as the military, who felt the same way. Too bad we don't. The warriors who actually fight for us feel the same as Israel's leaders of old. OUR 'leaders', even in the military, generally do not. These 'leaders' usually betray any of our warriors who go counter to any traitorous rules of engagement set by the civilian leadership. By our 'leaders', even in the military, siding and giving preferential treatment to the ENEMY who MAIM and KILL our warriors and our people, they show themselves as the cowardly TRAITORS they are. These types would rather suck up to evil and keep their jobs, then do the right thing. Continuing...

On the other hand, we have all the commandments as taught by Christ and enumerated above, which requires us to show great mercy and tolerance for our NEIGHBOR who mistreats us.

And that is the distinction. God COMMANDS us to completely destroy enemy ARMIES and NATIONS who attack us.

God COMMANDS us to extend MERCY to our LITERAL 'next door' NEIGHBORS, our 'brothers' so to speak, who are of the same NATION who MISTREAT us.

There are laws of course then, and now, which should encourage people from stealing from, harming, slandering or libeling, and murdering OUR neighbor. Those laws give rights and SHOULD give justice to the victims as they penalize the CRIMINALS among OUR people.

On another level, it's clear that the Biblical enemies of God consist of enemy NATIONS. Those same enemies of God, are in fact also OUR ENEMIES, because those nations hate us and attack us, HIS PEOPLE.

We don't (or shouldn't) kill or mistreat fellow Americans as a people, they are OUR neighbors and if the Bible is to be believed, of the same blood. And even when not, it's clear from Old and New Testament that those who live like Israelites who keep the laws, are to be treated AS Israelites. Though primarily the laws being referred to in both Testaments, are God's Laws as given and kept by Moses, as well as Christ, the Apostles and New Testament Christians, even for decades AFTER Christ died.

Bottom line, we should not tolerate any attacks on OUR people, not by foreign nations, nor from ANY from them. Any attack from anyone aligned or from them, is a defacto attack BY that ENEMY nation.

So much for our 'ally' Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were from the country anciently known as Esau, or Edom. If the Bible is to be believed, God HATES EDOM, and all it's people (Mal 1:3), and LOVED Jacob, later known as Israel. The father of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

It's obvious that if Abraham, Moses, David, Joshua or Gideon (and many others) were alive and leading this people, things would be done MUCH differently than they are today. Our war fighters would have all current constraints removed as they fulfill their missions to SAVE our people when required, and DESTROY the enemy COMPLETELY, when THAT is required.

Obviously, we are NOT living in the New Testament, because God's Laws are NOT in our hearts and minds as we KEEP and OBEY them.

Not yet anyway.

We are indeed required to live in peace with all men, unless those men are NOT of our country, and attack and kill our citizens.

It should be obvious even to those most casual observer that certain middle eastern countries have next to no 'relation' to countries of the West and the Israelis, which are comprised mostly of Christians and Jews. There is a reason for this. We are all descendants of the 12 Tribes of Israel, the same Tribes which Moses rescued from slavery, and which we were warned would happen again.

Too bad scientists who think they can trace mankind back to pond slime, can't find enough functioning brain-cells to trace back and find the origins of the average American citizen.

It should be said though, as a poster below reminded me, that God did set Laws for His people and those Laws enumerated penalties, including death, for any FELLOW CITIZENS who broke those Laws.

The responsibility to protect the people from attack for foreign nations, as well as from those within who break the law, was on the GOVERNMENT.

In our case, WE are responsible for those we put in civilian leadership. And THEY are responsible for breaking the promises they make to US, the public, including their oath's of office.

If Abraham was NOT deemed guilty by God as he and his 318 men chased and ran down and slaughtered the armies of four enemy kings who took his nephew Lot and his family captive, WE are not guilty when defending our loved ones by CRIMINALS who attack us and our loved ones.

When caught, these criminals should NEVER have MORE rights than their victims. Criminals by definition, have been CONVICTED of breaking the law and the government has a responsibility to PUNISH these, even when required, with death.

Showing mercy to criminals only breeds more crime.

[ShootDontTalk]

TAM....I appreciate your viewpoint. About the TV though. The admonition to turn the other cheek is not to someone stealing, but to a deliberate assault which could be life threatening. A modern literal translation might be: "if someone assaults you, turn the other cheek so they may assault you again." I don't really believe that is the core issue for people living according to Jewish law and the OT as interpreted by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Albert Barnes, in commenting on these passages says it well:
"The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.

A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh 18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life."

I believe that, and the totality of Scripture gives me reasonable assurance that God doesn't intend me to be a doormat for criminals - as you said. I believe we agree on the principle.

Wow! Enough theology for me today.

[mojo84]

This guy is a former Muslim brotherhood member that has become a Christian. He is somewhat controversial and there are those that try to discredit him. However, I think he gives some good insight. He spoke at our church a few years ago and I had the opportunity to visit with him. What he had to say about the Muslim religion and the extremist is very eye opening.

Walid Shobat
http://shoebat.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek is for two reasons. Most perceive that it is used in a pacifist, non-agressively response to violence.

The other reason is to stand up to violence by offering the other cheek in defiance. Standing up to a bully is a prime example. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus instruct us to be passive towards violence and oppression. To not defend oneself and others is a grave sin. We are not to hate, but we are supposed to fight evil and destroy it. When we present ourselves as Christians to our persecutors it is to be in an act of love and paternal correction, as the Father corrects us, then show mercy to those she need forgiveness as Jesus shows mercy.

MEEK IS NOT WEAK.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've just downloaded Caner's book and am reading it now.

[ShootDontTalk]

TAM...I hope you enjoy it - even though some parts are disturbing.

[RoyGBiv]

Bill Whittle has something to say about freedom of speech:

[youtube][/youtube]

The second half of that cut pretty sharp. The razors edge of truth.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Bill Whittle has something to say about freedom of speech:

[youtube][/youtube]

Excellent!
Chas.

[joe817]

Andy, ANOTHER great video you posted! Thank you. I had to watch it 2 times to catch the full impact. And how true it is!

[n5wd]

TAM,
I do not know exactly what the Quran says (I cannot read Arabic),...

There are English translations of the Quran, if you're really interested.

Amazon has "A Simple English Translation (Goodword ! Koran) for free right now, in their Kindle e-reader format: http://www.amazon.com/Quran-Simple-Engl ... ords=quran

[teraph]

Thanks n5wd. My search is complete! Now comes the hard part...