Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Leave No Man Behind

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

MP3 Audio (7.73 MB)
The Marine Corps’ motto to leave no man behind on the battlefield packs a powerful lesson in brotherhood, loyalty and courage. For a Christian this thought was first laid down in the question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer is yes, we are. We do have an obligation toward each other. That obligation presents challenges that will test our character and can determine a lot about who we are.
Two recent movies treat this theme with two different outcomes. I recently had opportunity to watch both. I can highly recommend them.
We are our brother’s keeper. We cannot, under any circumstances, leave anyone behind.
The first was the movie  The Martian.  This is a science fiction story set in the year 2035. A manned mission to Mars is interrupted by a severe dust storm forcing the crew to an emergency evacuation on the planet. One astronaut is downed by flying debris, knocked unconscious and presumed to be dead when no life signs can be monitored, as telemetry for his life signs was knocked out. The remaining crew enter their ship and leave him behind and depart for earth. But he is not dead, only wounded and knocked unconscious. He recovers and returns to the base station and determines through several ingenious methods how he can stay alive until the next planned mission to Mars occurs—at least two years. Meanwhile his fellow astronauts are on their home ship returning to earth and unaware that he lives. NASA has made contact but decides not to tell the returning crew they left behind a live comrade. [If you haven’t seen the movie, skip the next paragraph as it contains some plot spoilers.]
The story turns into a rescue mission when the crew learns that their mate lives and they are faced with the decision of whether they will return to Mars and attempt to save the abandoned astronaut’s life. This moment is really the best in the movie. The group of four, safe and on their way home after a long stay in space, unanimously decide to return and make the effort to save their friend. They decide to “leave no man behind.” Here the movie speaks to perhaps the highest and noblest qualities of courage and loyalty. To turn from safety and risk one’s life for another comes the closest on our level to what Christ did when He came in the flesh to rescue man from sin and give the opportunity for eternal life.
The second movie I saw is more controversial. It, too, tells a real life story of courage. But since it deals with real events in the real world, the lines of truth are not as clearly defined. It is also a story still debated in the headlines as Congressional committees, journalists and victims of the dead still seek to understand what happened and who is responsible. It is the story of the September 2012 massacre of United Sates Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three CIA operatives in Benghazi, Libya. The tragedy has now been made into a movie just released a few days ago called 13 Hours.  The film’s director claims to have made careful effort to tell the truth of what happened when Islamic terrorists stormed the ambassador’s compound on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. The screenplay is based on a book written by surviving CIA soldiers who were members of the Global Response Staff (GRS) working at a secret CIA installation one mile from the Ambassador’s poorly secured compound.
This story was investigated and gone over in countless news reports and Congressional inquiries. Hillary Clinton, who was then Secretary of State and now a contender for the presidency, was called to answer questions about what she knew and did or did not do during the attack. The movie makes clear that officials at the highest level, including the president, were briefed and made aware of the unfolding events that fateful night in Libya. It also makes clear that additional backup support from the GRS soldiers a mile away was delayed in arriving to help the ambassador’s ill-prepared team. The CIA station chief would not give the order for backup. The additional soldiers had to defy orders to make a run to the compound to save two State Department staff. The ambassador and one staff member were killed in the attack. The CIA soldiers would not leave anyone behind. They went toward the danger, seeking to save their fellow Americans.
The courage of those real life soldiers who ran toward the fire in Benghazi and the science fiction tale of rescue in space are two standout stories. We live in a sterile world where risk is minimized, failure is insured and accountability and responsibility are not always taught in the public arena. We need to be reminded that when things go wrong, when danger rises and when our brother is in trouble, something has to be done. Someone has to step up.
We are our brother’s keeper. We cannot, under any circumstances, leave anyone behind.

You might also be interested in...

Friday, June 24, 2016

Self-Evident Truths & the Supreme Court

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

MP4 Video - 1080p (175.47 MB)
MP4 Video - 720p (38.98 MB)
MP3 Audio (1.83 MB)
Video of BT Daily: Self Evident Truths

The Declaration of Independence gives us a thought about the same-sex marriage issue.

Transcript

[Darris McNeely] It’s the Fourth of July. Every year on the Fourth of July I like to read the Declaration of Independence - originally penned by Thomas Jefferson with a few edits by some of his friends. One of the key phrases in the Declaration of Independence - Jefferson wrote from a political point of view he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” Now when Jefferson wrote that, he was thinking from a purely political point of view - in terms of the situation with the beginnings of the American Revolution and desire for the colonies to separate from Great Britain. Self-evident he said. He was writing from a political point of view - a great document that has lived in American history. As I said, I like to read it every year on the Fourth of July. And, this year I think I will read it with a little bit different meaning; because, the Supreme Court of the United States just a few days ago made a ruling in regard to same-sex marriage - as we all know. And in that ruling they basically said that the United States Constitution does provide for and guarantee the right of same-sex marriage for Americans across all fifty states. Now that’s going to be debated and discussed in many, many different ways. But this thought struck me as I was thinking about the Fourth of July and that Declaration of Independence and what has happened here. There are certain truths that we have that are found in the Bible, God’s word, that are self-evident.
You know Pilot asked Christ when He was standing before him at the point of His trial, he said “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And that question continues to echo down to our day. “What is truth”? Men look for truth. Well the truth is anchored firmly in the revealed word of God the Holy Bible. And there is one truth there that is very, very clear. That is God created man and woman - male and female - created He them. And He brought them together to form one flesh, in what is the biblical definition of marriage. And He said be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2:21-25). That is the beginning, that is the origin, that is the teaching about marriage at the human level between a man and a woman. That is the biblical definition of marriage. That is a self-evident truth - that the Bible, that nature and that biology teach us.
Now the Supreme Court has entered into this realm, this political body of judges and lawyers, and have made a ruling based on a political document - the document of the United States Constitution and to rule in this area of larger spiritual truths and to impose its idea and its will. It’s a very dangerous step for many different reasons far beyond what I can talk about here today.
But on this Fourth of July in America, the United States of America, as we think about what the day pictures and means in the political beginnings that surround this day and that document called the Declaration of Independence that said “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. I think about that as we kind of get our minds wrapped around what has happened in our culture in recent days. What’s taking place in these cultural wars and battles that are ranging around us - with the same-sex marriage in particular and the Supreme Court ruling. They have stepped into an area that has very interesting consequences. It is a very important matter to think about. What is most important is that we hold ourselves fast to the truth of God as revealed in His word.
That’s BT Daily , join us next time.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

First the End of an Empire - Now, the End of Britain?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

I can still remember when the news came over the radio. It was a Sunday morning in late January 1965. Sir Winston Churchill had died.

His funeral was the following Saturday. He was only the second commoner in the history of Great Britain to be given a state funeral, normally reserved for royalty. The first had been for the duke of Wellington, the military genius who thwarted Napoleon’s plans for world conquest at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, thereby ushering in a century of Pax Britannica. Sir Winston had defeated an even greater evil, Hitler’s Third Reich. He didn’t do it single-handedly, of course, but without him the outcome could have been entirely different.

I also well remember the silence after the funeral. It was the only time I can remember all the television and radio stations closing down for a period of silence in honor of the great old man to whom Britons owed so much.

People were truly thankful that Winston Churchill had led them to victory in World War II—at a time when everybody else seemed inclined to compromise with Nazi Germany.

Churchill rejected the honor of a dukedom and turned down the opportunity to be buried in Westminster Abbey along with many other famous Britons.

Churchill’s funeral was, for Britain, the end of an age.

Ironically, his death came at the end of a 20-year period that had seen the nation reject just about everything he stood for.

Postwar Britain

It had started 20 years earlier, shortly after VE Day. With the European war ended, Churchill called an election. Almost everyone thought his Conservative Party would win. People the world over were shocked when the results came in: The Labour (socialist) Party won by a landslide. Although grateful for Churchill’s role as a wartime leader, people had decided they wanted change; they longed for a different world. They didn’t want their young men fighting wars in far-off places they had never heard of, nor did they want them coming home to low-paying jobs or unemployment.

After being universally acclaimed as the British lion that roared in defiance of Hitler and the man who had led Great Britain to victory, Churchill appeared to be headed for victory. But, seemingly, it was time for Britain’s rapid decline to begin. The prophet Daniel reminds us that it is God who “removes kings and raises up kings” (Daniel 2:21). The same God who had given Britain its victory took away the empire He had given to them, the multitude of nations promised to Joseph’s son Ephraim (Genesis 48:19).
The next few years saw massive changes, including the nationalization of key industries (steel, railways, coal mines) and the institution of a government-run medical system. To concentrate on these radical reforms, the country turned its back on an empire that had been built up over the course of 400 years. Britain granted India and Pakistan independence in 1947. By the time of Churchill’s death, all the major colonies were gone. Britain had, to quote American statesman Adlai Stevenson, “lost an empire and not yet found a role.”

It might have been different if Churchill had won that pivotal election. He was an empire loyalist. His love of history taught him that Britain’s security lay with the multitude of nations it had built up gradually since the time of Queen Elizabeth I. Later, after he won the 1951 election as prime minister at the time of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, he talked of a “new Elizabethan age” that might surpass the first in greatness. But it was not to be.

Britain had embarked on a new course that continues to this day. With the British Empire gone, it was Britain’s turn to be dismantled.

The abolition of Britain

A thought-provoking book on this subject by British writer Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Britain, contrasts the country at the time of Churchill’s funeral with the nation 32 years later at the funeral of Princess Diana. By his own account, it is as if he is looking at two different countries.

Outside the British Isles many people get confused at exactly what constitutes Great Britain and where England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland fit into the equation. At one time all four nations were separate entities. Their eventual union came about over a long period.

England conquered Wales during the time of Edward I in the 13th century. Edward proclaimed his son the prince of Wales, emphasizing that Wales is a separate principality, but was to be administered as a part of England. For 700 years, the heirs to the British throne have been given the title “prince of Wales.”
Scotland and England (with Wales) united later. When Elizabeth I died in 1603, she left no heirs. Historically, Scotland had often allied itself with France against England. It was time for the two countries to unite so this would not happen again. Upon her death her cousin’s son, James VI of Scotland, became King James I of England. James gave the country its new name, Great Britain (and was instrumental in giving the world the King James Version of the Bible). The new flag was nicknamed the Union Jack after him.

The two kingdoms were still administered separately, but they had the same monarch. A century later (1707) they fully united under one parliament, giving Scots a share in the benefits of the growing empire. Another century later the Irish parliament was abolished, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland formed (1801).

Reversal of direction

The dismantling of the kingdom actually began 80 years ago when most of Ireland was given its independence as the Irish Free State, theoretically still subject to the crown. In 1949 the Free State became the Irish Republic, severing its tie with the United Kingdom.

The six counties of Northern Ireland that have remained within the United Kingdom have been strife-torn for more than three decades. Although in recent years strenuous efforts have been made to negotiate a permanent peace, the problem remains virtually insoluble. At some point it is likely that another “reform” government in London will force a change on the province, as British governments since Churchill’s time have eventually given in to terrorists in every disputed territory.
With increasing support for Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the present British government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, came to power in 1997 promising “devolution.” The two ancient Celtic peoples would acquire their own parliaments and be responsible for their own internal affairs. London would still conduct foreign policy. Both Scotland and Wales now have their own assemblies with increased calls for full independence.

Some of the English, meanwhile, are resentful of the fact that they do not have their own parliament. Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish members still sit in the House of Commons in London and can vote on legislation that affects the English people, while the English people do not have a say in the internal affairs of the Celtic nations around them.
Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) has been fulfilling its dream of an ever-closer union. The Irish Republic has benefited from its membership in the EU, ironically partly subsidized through Brussels by U.K. taxpayers. This has reduced some fears of Irish unity in the North. The South had always been poor, the North far wealthier, so even Catholics had been somewhat apprehensive of unity with the South. Not any more.

Polls show the English to be increasingly weary of the EU. Scottish nationalists, however, see the EU as increasing the likelihood of Scottish independence. No longer would the five million people of an independent Scotland be unable to make it economically on their own. Within the EU they would prosper, just like Ireland and other small countries. Similar feelings are evident in Wales.

In coming years the English could find themselves outside of a politically unified EU, with the Scots, Welsh and Irish inside. Queen Elizabeth I’s worst nightmare would have come true, four centuries later, of an England surrounded by hostile nations in alliance with the continental powers.

Historians such as Norman Davies think that none of this matters. In his recent book The Isles he reminds readers that England at one time was physically a part of the European landmass. At other times it was a part of Europe. It was the westernmost province of the Roman Empire from A.D. 43 to 410, a span of almost four centuries. The English church was a part of the Roman church for almost 1,000 years. The Plantagenets in the Middle Ages ruled England as well as parts of France, spending most of their time in the bigger and warmer part of their territories.

But Paul Johnson, another British historian, sounded a warning in the pivotal year 1972 (between the British Parliament’s vote to join Europe and Britain’s accession the next January): “Disunity has always proved fatal to the offshore islanders.” (The Offshore Islanders was the title of his book dealing with Britain’s relationship with Europe throughout history.) In other words, the disuniting of the United Kingdom has always proved fatal, enabling hostile powers to invade the country. Why should it be different this time?

Biblical wisdom holds true: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25).

New generation, new outlook

A new generation is in power now.

Mr. Blair, British prime minister, prefers to identify with a new age. He is the first British prime minister who does not remember Winston Churchill. In a speech just before the election that brought him to power, he described himself this way: “I am a modern man. I am a part of the rock and roll generation—the Beatles, colour TV, that’s the generation I come from” (The Abolition of Britain, paperback edition, p. xix).
The current generation is a victim of revisionist history. It’s a history with an emphasis on multiculturalism, which downplays Britain’s role in frequently leading its empire into conflict against despotic European powers that wanted to conquer the world. At the same time, the revised version of history emphasizes the mistakes Britain made, negatively presenting the empire as a shameful era.

It’s also a generation that, as in the United States and other Western countries, has grown up with an emphasis on material values, with little concept of morality and often lacking any knowledge of God.

Writing of “the end of Britain” in Newsweek magazine (July 10, 2000), columnist George Will reminded readers of the late English writer George Orwell’s dismissive comment on English intellectuals: “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their nationality.” (Orwell died in 1950 before this disease spread to the United States.)

Mr. Will added, “Many Europhiles are English intellectuals of the sort George Orwell despised because they despised their nation.” It’s hard to understand the hatred so many people have for the old values Sir Winston Churchill symbolized. “God, king and country” have no place in the minds of many, including many English intellectuals.

Does this matter to Americans and the rest of the world?

Let George Will have the final say: “What is vanishing, and not slowly, is the nation to which the United States traces much of its political and cultural DNA. Unless this disappearance is resisted, and reversed, soon all that will linger… will be a mocking memory of the nationhood that was the political incarnation of a people who (as has been said), relative to their numbers, contributed more to civilization than any other people since the ancient Greeks and Romans” (ibid.).

Recommended reading

What’s behind the remarkably rapid dissolution of the British Empire? How—and why—did the world’s greatest empire disappear in only a few short decades? Does Bible prophecy give us any indication?

Strange as it may sound, this remarkable turnaround was written well before it happened—in the pages of the Bible almost 3,500 years ago.

The publishers of Virtual Christian Magazine have produced an astounding, eye-opening booklet, The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. You’ll be amazed to learn the truth about where these nations appear in Bible prophecy—and what Scripture says will happen to them in the end time.
 

You might also be interested in...

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

LONDON: Appeasement in the Face of Danger Deadly Parallels

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

After the July 7 terror bombings on three London Underground (subway) trains and one of the city’s famous double-decker buses, Western leaders were quick to recount memories of the resolve of Londoners during the World War II blitz on the city by the German Luftwaffe. The blitz isn’t the only comparison one can draw with the Second World War. Another is the matter of appeasement. For much of the decade preceding the September 1939 German invasion of Poland that precipitated World War II, Winston Churchill was warning of impending calamity. He was largely ignored, criticized as a warmonger and kept out of government. This period came to be known as the famous statesman’s “wilderness years.” But he was right. Just one year before the outbreak of war, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sat down and talked with Adolf Hitler in Munich, purportedly receiving his assurances that he would stop his aggression. Returning to Britain, waving a piece of paper in his hand as he came down the steps of his airplane, Chamberlain proclaimed “peace in our time.” He had appeased Hitler by giving in to Germany’s annexation of Czechoslovakia, trusting things would end there. But all he did was buy time while Hitler grew stronger. The apostle Paul warned of such delusion: “For when they say, ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them …” (1 Thessalonians 5:3). While this prophecy specifically applies to the global state of deception just preceding the coming Day of the Lord, the principle is always at work: The subtle spirit of appeasement blinds people to the truth, leading to serious, often fatal, misjudgments. For some time now too many Western leaders today have been making similar mistakes in the war on terrorism. As the threat to Western civilization has mounted, they have often been in the dark, blinded by political correctness, unable to see the stark threat that faces us all. Occasionally there’s a voice like Churchill’s crying in the wilderness, but too often it’s been quickly smothered by the politically correct mantra that all religions and cultures are essentially equal and can live peaceably side by side. Attitudes leading up to and in the immediate aftermath of the London bombings are a case in point. “Islam and terrorism don’t go together” Two days after the London bombings, Charles Moore, former editor of London’s Daily Telegraph, wrote an article for the paper July 9 in which he asked the question: “Where is the Gandhi of Islam?” He commended Londoners for their stoicism and the emergency services for their magnificent work, but then wrote the following astute paragraph: “Yet there seems to me to be a radical disjunction between our heroic capacity to deal with the immediate effects of terrorism and our collective refusal to confront what lies behind it. The effects of this disjunction are, literally, fatal.” Mr. Moore quoted the deputy assistant commissioner of the London metropolitan police, Brian Paddick, who, when asked about the nature of the terrorists, said: “Islam and terrorism don’t go together.” Mr. Moore comments on this statement: “It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, or involved in terrorism, and this needs to be said strongly if people assert otherwise. But if the Metropolitan Police really believe what Brian Paddick says, if they really, truly think that the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ must not be linked, then we have little hope of catching the killers, of understanding how the terrorism works, or of preventing new atrocities.” Mr. Moore adds a very perceptive thought: “What strikes one again and again about the reaction of the public authorities, of commentators, of the media, is the terrible lethargy about studying what it is we are up against. We are dealing with an extreme interpretation of one of the great religions of the world. “We flap around, looking for moderates and giving them knighthoods, making placatory noises, putting bits of Islam on to the multi-faith menu in schools, banishing Bibles from hospital beds, trying to criminalise the expression of ‘religious hatred,’ blaming George Bush and Tony Blair.” In other words, we have practiced appeasement as a previous generation did in the years leading up to World War II. He continues: “But if we do not know the way the faith in question works, its history, its quarrels, its laws and demands, we will not have the faintest chance of distinguishing the true moderate from the fellow-traveller or of bearing down on the fanaticism.” Dangerous ignorance of religion and history It’s not surprising that the British people are ignorant of Islam. The average citizen today is almost as ignorant about Christianity. After two devastating world wars, Britons abandoned practicing Christianity in droves, holding onto it in name only. Church attendance plummeted. Having rejected the Bible as the standard for religious and moral absolutes, people rapidly accepted a new standard—that of multi-culturalism and political correctness. According to this standard, all religions, cultures, creeds and ideas are morally equal and not to be criticized. There is no absolute right or wrong; no one can judge another’s beliefs and actions. After decades of swimming in this sea of political correctness and multiculturalism, most people today genuinely believe that there is little or no difference between various religions. They have become spiritual appeasers, no longer able to discern right from wrong, truth from error, safety from danger. They know little or nothing about the Bible or the Koran. This was not the case with previous generations of Englishmen. American historian Benson Bobrick wrote about the incredible enthusiasm the English people had for the Word of God in past centuries. “Englishmen carried their Bible with them—as the rock and foundation of their lives—overseas,” wherever they went (Wide as the Waters, 2001, p. 12). Canadian historian Jacques Barzun wrote that this enthusiasm for the Bible “did not cease for 350 years. 1900 was the first year in which religious works (at least in England) did not outnumber all other publications” (From Dawn to Decadence, 2000, p. 10). The same enthusiasm could be found in the United States at the time. The July 10 Lansing State Journal noted that at the Michigan State University campus in East Lansing, excavations are taking place at the site of one of the first student dormitories, called “Saints Rest,” which was “named by students after a popular Christian devotional of the time” in 1856. Less than 150 years later our most prestigious universities reject the Word of God and teach secular values to our young people. They have lost their spiritual moorings in a world floundering spiritually because it has discarded biblical standards. The Old Testament prophet Hosea wrote to modern-day Ephraim, the British people who formed the “multitude of nations” foretold in Genesis 48:19. Through Hosea, God tells us, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6, emphasis added throughout). This is not knowledge of the physical universe, but knowledge of who we are, why we are here, and God’s eternal standards that show us how to succeed in relationships, both individually and at the national level. How well that describes so much of the Western world today. Rejecting the timeless truths and standards of the Bible has set our peoples up for destruction. Not understanding the truths of God only causes spiritual confusion and leads to acceptance of false religions and philosophies which, in turn, lead to ever-increasing problems, conflicts and dangers. Hosea 7:8-9 adds: “Ephraim has mixed himself among the peoples [embraced other cultures and religions as equally valid with the true faith of the Word of God] … Aliens [people who worship other gods] have devoured his strength, but he does not know it.” Ancient Ephraim had the same problem modern Britain and other Western countries have today without knowing it. They have been blinded, thinking that accepting all religions and cultures as equal is a strength when too often it sows the seeds of social and cultural disintegration. The enemy within Imagine if, in World War II, one in eight Londoners was a German. This would have complicated the situation alarmingly. Today, one in eight Londoners is Muslim, many of whom are second-generation British residents. It is becoming increasingly evident that some have been recruited for terrorism from their number, especially from militant mosque congregations. Three of the four London suicide bombers were second-generation Britons born to Pakistani parents (the fourth was a Jamaican-born immigrant to Britain and a Muslim convert). The first of the men arrested for the unsuccessful July 21 bombings had immigrated to Britain from Eritrea with his parents at age 14. In spite of a prison sentence for knifepoint muggings as a teenager, he had been granted British citizenship and given some $60,000 in welfare payments over recent years. Another of the suspects arrested for the failed bombings had also been on welfare and lived in government housing. All four suspects had moved to Britain as children or teenagers and apparently were radicalized and moved to terrorist acts after moving there. Richard Reid, who in December 2001 attempted to blow up a transatlantic American Airlines flight with explosives hidden in his shoe, was born in a London suburb to an English mother and a Jamaican father. He had converted to Islam while in prison. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, sentenced to death in Pakistan for the 2002 kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl there, was a London native and former student at the London School of Economics, born in Britain to Pakistani immigrant parents. In April 2003, two British citizens, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, carried out a suicide-bomb attack in Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv nightspot frequented by many Americans. Sons of Muslim immigrants, the bombers had been recruited by the terror group Hamas in Britain and entered Israel using their British passports. Recent articles on terrorism in Iraq highlight that many of the insurgents are second-generation Muslims recruited from Western Europe—their parents were immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, but they were born in Europe. Iraq and Britain aren’t the only places where Western-born converts to violence have emerged. Mohammed Bouyeri, convicted of shooting Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street before nearly beheading him, had lived all his life in Holland since his birth there to Moroccan-immigrant parents. “What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith,” Bouyeri explained in confessing the killing. “… I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.” Some Muslim leaders have spoken out and strongly condemned such acts, particularly in the wake of the London bombings. Yet these realities raise serious questions about the ideals of multiculturalism, including the widely held conviction that second-generation immigrants are fully assimilated and identify with their new country. Two days after the second round of London bombings failed, London’s Telegraph published results of a survey of attitudes among Britain’s Muslims illustrating the magnitude of the problem. “The sheer scale of Muslim alienation from British society that the survey reveals is remarkable,” stated the article’s author, Anthony King, professor of government at Essex University. “Although a large majority of British Muslims are more than content to make their home in this country, a significant minority are not,” he continued. He explained that almost of third of those surveyed believe that “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end.” He further found that “nearly one British Muslim in five, 18 per cent, feels little loyalty towards this country or none at all.” In terms of numbers, this means that “well over 100,000 British Muslims feel no loyalty whatsoever” toward Britain. Perhaps most ominously, he reported that “one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence” (“One in Four Muslims Sympathises With Motives of Terrorists,” July 23). Western leaders in denial While Prime Minister Blair and President Bush express their commitment to advance democracy in the Middle East, they should take note of the threat at home to Western ideals of democracy. Charles Moore, the former Daily Telegraph editor cited earlier, continued in his piece: “I have beside me an article that appeared during our recent [May] election campaign in Muslim Weekly [London]. By Sheikh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi, it calls for the replacement of British parliamentary democracy with ‘a new civilization based on the worship of Allah,’ attacks the Conservatives for being ‘in the hands of an illegal Jewish immigrant from Romania’ and speaks of the ‘near-demented judaic banking elite.’ “… Last year, [London mayor Ken] Livingstone extended a warm welcome in London to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mainstream, world-famous spiritual leader based in Qatar. Qaradawi has supported suicide bombing against Israelis, the treatment of all Jews as legitimate targets, the whipping of homosexuals and the killing of all Americans—civilian and military—in Iraq.” There’s little wonder that the same mayor was in denial over the perpetrators of the London bombings. “This isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith, it’s mass murder,” Mr. Livingstone was quoted as saying in London’s Financial Times July 8. The bombings were unquestionably mass murder, but the perpetrators certainly appear to have been motivated by both religious ideology and perverted faith. When a terrorist isn’t a terrorist Even the word “terrorist” became controversial in Britain, when it became clear that the BBC would not use the word to describe the bombers, apparently because the broadcaster might lose some of its international audience. According to the organization’s editorial guidelines, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding” (Tom Leonard, “BBC Language That Labour Loves to Hear,” Daily Telegraph, July 13). The BBC also canceled a dramatization of a patriotic British classic from World War I, Greenmantle by John Buchan, a follow-up to the classic 39 Steps. The novel’s heroes thwart a German plan to unite Islamic peoples against the British, a very real threat at the time. The BBC’s decision to cancel was in stark contrast to their refusal to be pressured last year when Christians protested over the showing of the blasphemous London stage play Jerry Springer—the Opera. There’s clearly a double standard of continuing contempt for Christianity and its values, coupled with fear of Islam and a growing inability to say anything critical of this religion, its history or its followers. In the United States, the Public Broad-casting Service (PBS) follows the same philosophy, fearful of critiquing Islam in a documentary special made for the Empires series while being dismissive of Christian beliefs in other documentaries. Failing to see the danger Those of us who are older know that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on New York and Washington, D.C., of March 11, 2004, in Madrid and of July 7 and 21 in London this year would not have happened 50 years ago. Massive immigration from the Third World, prompted by politically correct government policies, has significantly changed the demographics of Western nations in the last four decades. Britain has long welcomed many immigrants from the Third World, as have many other European countries. Likewise the United States, once a haven for white European immigrants, in recent decades changed its policies to bring in more poor, culturally alien peoples from Asia, Africa and the Middle East who are far less likely to successfully assimilate. Many observers are now—too late—questioning the wisdom of those moves. After the London bombings, a cry immediately arose to change Britain’s practice of granting asylum even to some convicted of or wanted by authorities for religious extremism in their own countries and to expel those who, taking advantage of Britain’s free-speech protections, have argued for the overthrow of Britain’s democracy and the establishment of an Islamic state. For four decades politicians, intellectuals and academic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic have espoused political correctness and multiculturalism, reversing the biblically based beliefs and ideals held by our ancestors since the Reformation. Instead of being thankful for the blessings Almighty God bestowed on the British and American peoples, they blame Western leaders for virtually all the world’s problems. Continually heard on the BBC following the London bombings were questions about how four young men born and brought up in Britain could take the lives of so many, about what made them feel so “alienated” and asking how can Britain and other countries do better in assimilating Muslims. Nobody even considered the possibility that perhaps Islamic and Western values are inherently incompatible, a fact that Islamic nations themselves acknowledge by their refusal to allow non-Muslims to immigrate into their countries. The Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn was one of the first to realize this, pointing out that Islamic values threaten liberal Dutch society. Assassinated in 2002, he paid with his life for the comment. So did Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, mentioned earlier. Perhaps it’s not surprising that BBC employees are careful about criticizing Islam! Do we have the will and wisdom? Clearly the London suicide bombings have caused some Western leaders to awaken to the serious threat that confronts their nations. Hopefully it’s not too late. Rejection of biblical standards and absolutes has had many unforeseen consequences. Lack of discernment—characterized by appeasement in the face of growing danger—has been only one sad result of trying to live apart from the Word of God. In an age of religious confusion, exacerbated by the new ideology of multiculturalism, does the Western world have the will and the wisdom to face up to the real threat that ideological terrorism poses? If not, we can only expect more attacks in the future. While many Western leaders and intellectuals flounder about spiritually, unable to discern the danger, terrorists remain single-minded in their deadly purpose. The prophet Isaiah’s words from more than 2,500 years ago seem so relevant today: “Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. So truth fails, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey [or, as some references render it, ‘he who departs from evil is accounted mad’]” (Isaiah 59:14-15). Christians, meanwhile, must seek the discernment that can only come from God’s Word and continue to pray fervently for God’s Kingdom to come. Only then will the suffering and violence that plagues our world finally come to an end. GN

You might also be interested in...

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Koran contest kids get guns, grenades

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

The prizes in this year's contest? Assault rifles and live grenades!
The station, based near the capital, Mogadishu, awarded an AK-47 assault rifle and the equivalent of $700 to the first-place group. The second-place group received an AK-47 and the equivalent of $500, while those who placed third received two live hand grenades and $400.
The al-Shabab group is linked to al-Qaeda and was recently forced out of Mogadishu, though it still controls much of central and southern Somalia.
“Youths should use one hand for education and the other for a gun to defend Islam,” said al-Shabab official Mukhtar Robow at the prize awards ceremony, held not far from Mogadishu. Pictures of the awards ceremony appeared on a website affiliated with the group.
Winners also received Islamic religious books. Prizes in previous years included a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and anti-tank mines. Somalia has been in the news in recent years due to the twin plagues of drought and piracy, with Muslim pirates preying on shipping and pleasure boats in the Indian Ocean. (Sources: BBC News, The Guardian  [London].)

You might also be interested in...

Friday, June 17, 2016

The European Constitution Sneaks in by the Back Door

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Longtime British feature writer Simon Jenkins expressed the United Kingdom’s growing frustration with the EU. He wrote: “The European Union is ghastly. It poisons all it touches. Europe sabotaged Margaret Thatcher’s last government. Europe mugged [former Prime Minister] John Major to death. Now Europe has driven Tony Blair [to act unwisely] in Europe. The protectionist cartel is internally corrupt and externally a menace to global trade and peace. Britain’s leaders are humiliated whenever they try to reform it” ( The Sunday Times, emphasis added throughout). That’s calling a spade a spade. The latest British humiliation consists, over a period of seven years, of losing £7 billion (approximately $12 billion) of the rebate that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had so skillfully negotiated with the EU. Newspapers (right and left) agreed that the United Kingdom got almost nothing in return for this controversial, “last-minute” concession. At the end of the day, France gave no real ground on the enormous agricultural subsidy payments French farmers regularly receive from the EU. An unexpected development No EU budget deal was expected at the end of Britain’s six-month’s presidency of the European Union. It appeared effectively blocked. But due to the last-minute U.K. rebate “surrender” (apparently without the knowledge of British Chancellor Gordon Brown, who was in Washington, D.C., at the time), a surprise agreement was produced. However, the biggest surprise of the recent summit among all the leaders of EU member nations was Angela Merkel, the new German chancellor. Some EU politicians hailed her as “Europe’s new power broker” as she got the lion’s share of the credit for breaking the budget deadlock. Angela Merkel’s first month at the seat of German power has generally been judged a very good one in both foreign and domestic affairs. The German upper house of parliament just approved a number of tax reforms that will help reduce the budget deficit. Interestingly enough, “She talks passionately about how a coherent and integrated EU is an essential part of making Europe more competitive with the rising economies of Asia” ( Financial Times ). However, this is not the way in which many Britons view the activities of the EU. Progress by stealth Christopher Booker continued his article on the steady loss of British sovereignty to the European Union. “In recent months … the EU has continued stealthily to take over so many of the powers of our government and Parliament from behind the scenes—with full permission and even encouragement from our ministers … “Far from being some kind of setback, the rejection of the new constitution has turned out to be a trigger for one of the EU’s biggest power grabs for decades, across a whole range of policy areas, from defence, immigration and taxation, to the way we run our police, our courts and our judicial system” ( Daily Mail ). For instance, the EU is rapidly forming its own police force. The newly constructed “Europe Police College” is now in position to train senior officers all over Europe—with an outpost already pretty much in place in Hampshire County, England. As well, according to The Daily Express, the European Union is apparently planning a direct tax of 3.5 pence on the pound proposed by current European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso. That eventuality will set “the cat among the pigeons.” Also, according to a report in The Sunday Telegraph, the European Commission “effectively insists that the provisions of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights] be enshrined in all new EU legislation.” Reacting swiftly to this turn of events, Chris Heaton-Harris (Conservative member of the European Parliament from Britain) stated: “This shows that the Commission has no intention of taking any notice of the voters in France and the Netherlands, who decisively rejected their blueprint for a federal superstate.” Brussels bureaucrats were further accused of cherry-picking certain parts of the proposed constitution and sending them through the back door. Liam Fox, Conservative British shadow foreign secretary, firmly stated: “I have repeatedly made clear my fear that the EU is determined to ignore the results of the two referenda and instead press ahead with the implementation of many elements of the constitution treaty.” This is not how true democracies (or a genuine democratic union) are supposed to function. But it is exactly how some bureaucracies tend to further their agendas. The Bible and the European Union World News and Prophecy has focused a great deal on the political affairs of Western and Central Europe. The reason is that there exists a prophetic connection between the politics of today’s Europe and catastrophic future occurrences surrounding the existence of what the Bible defines as a “beast” power at the end of this age (Revelation 13). We are apparently in a transition period that will ultimately end with the glorious presence of the Kingdom of God on this earth. So an integral part of biblical prophecy deals with a latter-day revival of the Holy Roman Empire, predicted extensively in the Old Testament book of Daniel and the New Testament book of Revelation. The Hebrew prophet Daniel spoke of a series of “kingdoms” to arise on the world scene (Daniel 2). Comparing the Bible with secular history, the first of these was the Babylonian Empire (Daniel 2:38). It was followed by three others clearly identified as the Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian and Roman empires (verses 39-40). The Roman Empire at the time of the end The fourth and final kingdom, the Roman Empire, was to be stronger than all the others (verse 40). Its reign would last for centuries. Then in connection with this final world empire, the Bible predicts that a group of 10 kings or leaders of nations, through alliances or other political arrangements, will ultimately give rise to a final union that will astound and astonish the whole world (see Revelation 17:12-14). It is on record that the idea of beginning a new Roman Empire was on the minds of the founders of the organization (the European Economic Community or EEC) that eventually gave rise to the present European Union. In spite of some setbacks over the decades, Europe has continued to prosper as barriers to integration (such as national sovereignty) continue to tumble and considerable progress is made in economic and, to some degree, political unity. It is interesting to note that one secular writer recently referred to the general geographical region as “a Holy Roman Empire of Franco-German bureaucracy.” What eventually became the expanded European Union began as the EEC (or Common Market) of six nations on March 25, 1957. The 50-year anniversary is only a little over a year from now. Where will we be by then in the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in Europe? Will some astonishing push forward occur at this anniversary time? To understand the essential biblical and historical background of events in Central and Western Europe, please request our two free booklets The Book of Revelation Unveiled and You Can Understand Bible Prophecy. WNP

You might also be interested in...