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

Election Year Religion

Posted on Apr 03, 2000 by Cecil Maranville Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

God is "getting a lot of press" lately as the presidential candidates have brought religion into the campaign. Is the U.S. undergoing a significant change? Or are we witnessing politics as usual?

Religion is big news in the U.S. presidential primary! So, are more U.S. citizens thinking of God? Not exactly. But they are hearing fiery campaign rhetoric about specific religions, religious leaders and political issues that are framed in religious terms.

Religion moved from a backdrop issue to center stage when the delegate selection contest for the presidential nomination moved into South Carolina, Michigan and Virginia in February. Senator John McCain lashed out at men he identified as leaders of “the religious right.” Several sections of the country appeared poised to split into sectarian bickering in the primaries.

Last year, in a somewhat crass—albeit honest—declaration, senior policy adviser to Vice President Al Gore, Elaine Kamarck, told The Boston Globe, “The Democratic Party is going to take back God this time” (“Gore Includes Religion in Agenda,” 1999, AP, emphasis added throughout). She was referring to her candidate's “religious strategy” in the 2000 presidential race.

While Mr. Gore's principal spokesman attempted to distance himself and his boss from such a blatantly political approach to religion (“I don't think God is partisan”), campaign speeches from all candidates ring with a variety of uncharacteristic references to religion.

Mr. Gore regularly refers to his “faith tradition.” (Few people know that he actually studied at Vanderbilt's divinity school as a young man.) In stark contrast to typical Democratic Party tradition, Mr. Gore has called for “a new partnership between church and state.”

The vice president opposes organized prayer in public schools during the school day and also opposes using public dollars to send children to parochial schools. What, then, has changed? What he appears to promise is an open ear to the influence of the religious lobby. “If you elect me president,” he said before a Salvation Army audience, “the voices of faith-based organizations will be integral to the policy set forth in my administration.”

“The moment has come,” said Gore, “for Washington to catch up with a rest of America… Americans profoundly, rightly believe that politics and morality are deeply interrelated.”

He is certainly right about the popularity of religion in the United States. According to a recent survey of nearly 6,000 Americans, religion plays an important part in the lives of a majority. “Quite simply, God is back,” said Ira Matathia, CEO of the group that conducted the survey (“'Trendsetters' Turning to Religion” 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc.).

“Faith-based” is the phrase of choice

Throughout the primary season presidential candidates have openly referred to their personal faith and offered promises of support for “faith-based organizations”—the generic phrase most candidates as well as reporters seem to prefer.

From the beginning of his run for the presidency, Texas Governor George W. Bush has listed among his campaign goals: “Draw a moral line” and get “faith-based organizations” such as churches involved in easing social problems. Governor Bush has long been an advocate of school prayer and public funds for religious education. He makes no secret of his desire to garner the support of the so-called “religious right” in the presidential campaign. His success in securing this allegiance prompted Senator McCain to launch a sharp attack on the governor's character in order to secure the support of northern Catholics in what the media portrayed at the time as the beginning of a sectarian war. It appears that it was more of “a tug of war”—for delegates.

In the Democrats' nomination process, both former Senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Gore eagerly courted the endorsements of liberal ministers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

“Election year religion” has spilled from the presidential campaign into a high-profile senatorial election in New York.

In early February, New York senatorial candidates Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani scrapped over religion, trading accusations about the other making religion an issue in their race, at the same time as both claim to be “people of faith.” Mrs. Clinton is a former Sunday school teacher who was raised in a devout Methodist family. Mayor Giuliani supports Governor Bush's proposals to promote the work of faith-based charities [that phrase again] and says that teachers should be able to post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.

Another presidential candidate—in the Russian presidential election—recently proclaimed religious roots! Vladimir Putin said that he had been secretly baptized during the years of Communist domination. His declaration was met with skepticism, and is thought to be an attempt to soften his somewhat harsh image as the former head of the KGB.

Some fear talk is sincere—others fear it is not

Not to diminish or impugn the sincerity of any of the presidential candidates, but all of the sudden open talk about religion in the context of the upcoming election sounds more like politics as usual than a resurgence of genuine “in God we trust.” Does all this talk of “faith-based” things portend a significant change in the United States (or Russia)? Or will it live only as long as the campaign?

Associated Press writer Sandra Sobieraj offers a blunt analysis: “For Gore, the political benefit of religious talk is twofold: it sneaks some ground out from under Republicans who have long dominated the morals debate; and, less overtly, may serve to disassociate him from [President] Clinton's personal scandals” (“Gore Includes Religion in Agenda”).

Such overt embracing of religion by politicians has shocked organizations that are dedicated to the separation of church and state. It is indeed confusing in a country that bans religion from its classrooms. Last summer, a New Jersey first grader made national headlines when his teacher, citing First Amendment concerns, wouldn't let him read a story from the Bible to his classmates. A legal battle is currently underway in northern California where the Oroville Union High School barred the valedictorian of the class of 1999 from mentioning God in his valedictory.

It is a well-publicized conundrum that survivors of violence-victimized Columbine High School flocked to neighborhood churches for consolation and comfort—at the same time that federal law mandates that public schools maintains a sharp separation between religion and education.

Dropping God's name to get elected

Has the nation made a 180-degree turn to the things of God? Will U.S. leaders actually lead the nation's citizenry, by example and by policy, to return to God? Time will tell. For the present, what all have said thus far is a continuation of “politically-correct-speak” voicing support for concepts that are known to have wide appeal with the electorate. That's done, of course, for the sake of winning votes.

This article is not intended to be either anti or pro any political candidate or party, for the United Church of God, which sponsors this magazine, is nonpolitical. Our interest is much deeper than sampling the voter appeal of religion. Turning to God is profoundly more than providing support for the social programs of “faith-based organizations.” Quoting the God that many politicians seemingly want to publicly embrace, “What right have you to declare My statutes, or take My covenant in your mouth, seeing you hate instruction and cast My words behind you?” (Psalms 50:16-17 Psalms 50:16-17 16 But to the wicked God said, What have you to do to declare my statutes, or that you should take my covenant in your mouth? 17 Seeing you hate instruction, and casts my words behind you.
American King James Version×.) It is one thing to want to be photographed with God, so to speak, and quite another to actually do what God says.

Warning of the prevailing self-absorption of people of the last days of human history, the apostle Paul prophesied that societies would be dominated by men and women fettered by obvious indulgences. “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…” (2 Timothy 3:1-4 2 Timothy 3:1-4 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
American King James Version×).

Who could fail to see the shortcomings of such immoral character? How true are the cries of the candidates for a need to “reset America's moral compass,” for its present compass setting is leading the country to certain shipwreck! Where are the leaders who are genuinely guided and live by godly principles instead of by the hedonistic forces listed in the above paragraph?

True faith is not a political issue

The above list of potential causes of corruption goes on to mention religion. Or, in keeping with the trends, maybe we should call it “faith-based corruption.” Paul spoke of people motivated only by self-interest who have “…a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5 2 Timothy 3:5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
American King James Version×). The power of God is able to transform lives if people honestly learn what God expects of them, stop doing what God forbids and literally behave as He intends they should.

Unless or until leaders actually embrace the words of God, they only flirt with the illusion of morality. If talk of “faith-based” this or that is only politics as usual, it is cruel talk indeed—so much “faith-based baby kissing.” If the campaign rhetoric produces nothing of substance, the speeches will be clouds without water in a moral drought. Rather than follow those who voice such talk, Paul advises “…from such people turn away!”

Eugene McCarthy once observed that only two kinds of religion are tolerated in Washington: “vague beliefs strongly affirmed and strong beliefs vaguely expressed” (“Finding God” by Kenneth Woodward and Martha Brant, Newsweek, February 7, 2000, page 1).

How far beyond the Washington beltway might this philosophy apply? When it comes to soliciting votes, we suspect it applies the world around.

Calling upon the name of God is not a political ploy to be manipulated as merely another in an endless list of strategies to secure one's election to office. It's for men and women who believe God and will live by His words, regardless of the popularity of those words with the masses.

Sources: The Christian Science Monitor; Nando Media; News America Digital Publishing, Inc.; AP; Agence France-Presse; Reuters; Electronic Telegraph; Newsweek.

The Koran and Conquest A Look at Islamic Theology

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

The Koran and Conquest

A Look at Islamic Theology

  by Eric Snow 3 comments Estimated reading time: 15 minutes

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Why do we hear of so much terrorism originating in the Muslim world? Will an examination of Islam's history and its holy book, the Koran, help us to understand?

AFP PHOTO Romeo GACAD

The Koran and Conquest: A Look at Islamic Theology

Is Islam really a peaceful religion, as we are often told?
When the 9/11 hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 3,000 Americans and citizens of other countries, did they violate their own faith's teachings?
When Muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up, as hundreds have done in recent years, what motivates them? What reward do they expect now or in the afterlife?
The answers to these questions are crucial if we are to understand what is really going on in the world around us. Otherwise we risk burying our heads in the sand and remaining blind to danger.
Let's begin with a simple question: Could the actions of Muslim terrorist groups have developed logically from their faith's time-honored theology?
Do the traditional interpretations of the Islamic faith's sources of authority—its holy book the Koran (Qur'an), the Hadith (collections of the acts and sayings of Muhammad) and Sharia law—promote violence and war against non-Muslims (infidels)?
The “Arab Spring” has cleared from the world's stage several long-time secular nationalist Arab dictators, with Islamic religious groups lining up to grab a share of power. Further, many Muslims, not least among them Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believe in the imminent arrival of an Islamic messiah known as the Mahdi, or “Guided One,” who will establish Islam as the world's dominant religion.
So it's a good time to carefully examine the theological underpinnings of Islam that are behind so many of today's conflicts and that could lead to the biblically prophesied end-time clash between the Middle Eastern Arab countries and the West.

Why is Islam so different?

In the last century, political groups seeking independence from the Western colonial powers or wishing to impose communist ideology on their nations were the main sources of terrorism. But with almost all former colonies having gained independence, and with the fall of the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations discrediting communism, what is today's largest source of terrorism?
What do an overwhelming majority of terror attacks in recent years have in common? The perpetrators are Muslim. Why? Certainly many Muslims are peaceful. Not all advocate violence or terrorism. But there is evidently something about Islamic teachings or the conditions of Muslim lands and communities that provoke far more Muslims, proportionately, to resort to violence than equally poor, mistreated and uneducated people of other faiths.
So is it poverty, lack of education, lack of political freedom or lack of opportunity that explains Islamic terrorism? A desire for national independence or a history of suffering under imperialism hardly explains why Muslim terrorist groups presently kill far more people for political and religious reasons than non-Muslims who've suffered similarly.

Are poverty and lack of education the cause?

According to an article in the British newsmagazine The Economist, a conference in Ireland brought together dozens of former terrorists and political revolutionaries to try to uncover the roots of violent extremism.
Such factors as child abuse, alcoholism, “lonely teenage years,” the desire to belong, and personal identity crises were used to explain why the participants became terrorists. But as the article acknowledged, “For some, most notably those who had been involved in Islamist groups, ideology played an important and complex role” (“Violent Extremists: Of Skinheads and Jihadists,” July 2, 2011, p. 51).
Young people may become alienated for many reasons, but why do disaffected Muslims, including second-generation ones born in Europe in circumstances considerably more privileged than their parents, generally commit its worst recent terrorist attacks?
People's levels of poverty and education correlate poorly with people's choice to become terrorists, explain Alan Kreuger and Jitna Maleckova in their Journal of Economic Perspectives article “Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” (Fall 2003, pp. 119-144).
They found that no significant correlation appears between the amount of terrorism and the average levels of either education or national GDP per capita figures (adjusted for the level of civil liberties). Likewise, Claude Berrebi's 2007 study of 285 Palestinian terrorists discovered that they had better educations and came from less poor families.
For example, Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups blame America's interventions in the Middle East and/or Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for provoking the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. However, the United States has intervened in Latin America much more and over a longer time, yet has provoked very little terrorism from there compared to the Middle East.
Likewise, China's Communist rulers worry far less about Buddhist Tibetans attacking Beijing than Russia's leaders fear Muslim Chechens striking Moscow (as has happened repeatedly). A desire for national independence, political oppression and/or a history of imperialism hardly explains why Muslim terrorist groups have killed far more people than non-Muslims in similar circumstances.
Since such non-ideological, sociological factors can't account for grossly disproportionate Muslim terrorism, let's look for other explanations.
To understand the mindset behind such actions, secularly minded people need to overcome a skeptical tendency to believe religion never really influences anybody's actions. The fact is, it has and does. History shows that Islamic theology has and will stir up far more religious wars and terrorist actions proportionately than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or other religious belief systems.

Some Koranic verses abrogate other verses

Those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace commonly cite verses from the Koran such as Sura 2:256, “There shall be no compulsion in religion,” and Sura 4:90, “Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, [Allah] bids you not to harm them” (Dawood translation throughout).
However, few admit that, because many verses in the Koran contradict other verses, Islamist leaders long ago formulated the principle of naskh, or “abrogation,” which teaches that Allah's later revelations override His earlier ones.
This is even spelled out in Sura 2:106, which says, “If We [Allah] abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better verse or one similar. Do you not know that [Allah] has power over all things?”
Muslims believe Allah revealed the Koran to Muhammad over a span of 22 years. Interestingly, almost all of the peaceful, tolerant verses appear in the earlier “Meccan” suras (chapters) of the Koran, but the verses promoting violence and holy war emerge in the later “Medinan” suras.
Naskh isn't some esoteric theory with no practical consequences. Two years before killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Muslim U.S. Army Major Nidal Malak Hasan cited this principle in relation to jihad in a presentation explaining Islam that he gave at Walter Reed Hospital.
What are the historical origins of naskh? Muhammad began his religious career in Mecca as a preacher against considerable opposition. But after fleeing to Medina, he became a military commander leading his followers in battle against unbelieving Arabs.
Correspondingly, as his circumstances changed, so too did the supposed revelations of Allah. When he was in the distinct minority in Mecca and trying to establish his new religion, his revelations advocated peace and cooperation with others. But in Medina, as he gained a large following and military and political power, a very different message appeared in his revelations.

What the Koran clearly states

According to the notorious “verse of the sword” (Sura 9:5), Muhammad was told, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them”—unless they convert.
Some argue that this is no different from the biblical command to the Israelites to kill the idolatrous Canaanites when they entered the Promised Land. But there are big differences. Whereas the command to Joshua was limited in time and circumstances, the Koran places no similar boundaries on Muslims to wage war against unbelievers.
According to Sura 9:29, Muslims are to “fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., the Bible] were given as they believe in neither [Allah] nor the Last Day… until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”
This, in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists, justifies permanent war against non-Muslims until the entire world is under Islamic rule.
They also cite Sura 8:39, in which, after winning a crucial battle, Muhammad received instruction that permanently authorizes holy wars to spread Islam: “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and [Allah's] religion [Islam] reigns supreme.”
According to the Koran, Allah gives Muslims a spiritual incentive for joining in jihad, or holy war: too: “Fight for the cause of [Allah]; whether they die or conquer, We shall richly reward them” (Sura 4:74). The reward of those who die in jihad, in Islamic teaching, is to immediately go to Paradise.
Elsewhere the Koran authorizes violent war against unbelievers (see “Does the Koran Promote Peace and Cooperation?”). No clear pacifist verses appear that temper or overrule its warlike teachings. By contrast, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ told His followers to turn the cheek to those who would strike them (Matthew 5:39 Matthew 5:39But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
American King James Version×) and to love and pray for their enemies (verse 44).
After Peter tried to defend Him by attacking someone in a group trying to arrest Him, Jesus responded, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52 Matthew 26:52Then said Jesus to him, Put up again your sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
American King James Version×).
While on trial for His life before the Roman governor, Jesus explained that His servants would fight only if His Kingdom were part of this present world (John 18:36 John 18:36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
American King James Version×). Since it wasn't, they didn't.
Even in the Old Testament, Israel's armies sometimes miraculously won battles without any physical violence. For example, in one night, an angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians besieging Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:8 2 Chronicles 32:8With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves on the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.
American King James Version×, 21; Isaiah 37:36 Isaiah 37:36Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.
American King James Version×) after righteous King Hezekiah prayed for deliverance.

Following Muhammad's example

Serious Muslims aspire to follow the personal example of Muhammad, whom they regard as the perfect example to emulate. According to his early biographer Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took part in 27 raids and battles. If he literally waged war to promote Islam, wouldn't that encourage his followers to do the same?
The most reliable reports among the Hadith and the early legal rulings that compose the core of Sharia law clearly endorse holy wars as well. For example, in one tradition, when asked what was the best good deed a person could do besides becoming a Muslim, Muhammad replied, “To participate in jihad”—holy war.
In another report Muhammad proclaimed, “Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
According to one particularly important Hadith story, Muhammad told Muslims to ask their enemies before starting hostilities to convert to Islam, to surrender to Islamic rule, or to go to war. Restated in one form or another, this standard three-way offer repeatedly reappears historically in Muslims' conflicts with nonbelievers.

Later Islamic rulings enshrined jihad

The teachings of the Koran and Hadith about jihad aren't ancient dead letters. They remain a live issue because they were codified and frozen into place centuries ago.
Why is it so hard to reform Islamic teachings about jihad? Sunni Muslims, who are in the great majority, uphold the legal theory that open inquiry into the Koran's interpretation ended in the ninth century. Thus, freely interpreting and inquiring into the meaning of the Koran and Hadith to form basic new legal rulings is no longer allowed. As a result, the early medieval jurists' rulings about Allah's will are not to be reconsidered and overturned, including those about jihad.
The four main Muslim legal schools clearly endorse literal jihad. For example, the jurist Al-Qayrawani (who died in A.D. 996) declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution … It is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before inviting the latter to embrace the religion of Allah … They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Because orthodox Islam is very legalistic, what these jurists wrote centuries ago still serves as living legal authority for mainstream Muslims. The teachings about jihad of Ibn Taymiyya, who died in 1328, still resonate today as Osama bin Laden and other jihadists fondly quoted him.

What about modern Koranic interpretations

To illustrate how traditional Muslim teachings are applied in today's world, consider the beliefs of Sayyid Qutb (1906-66). He was the chief ideologist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan Al-Banna, this Islamist organization is the world's most influential Muslim group.
Its power and political organization far surpasses any other non-governmental group in Egypt. It boasts chapters in more than 100 countries and an estimated 600,000 members. Since the Arab Spring and the revolution in Egypt has greatly increased the Brotherhood's influence, we should be sure we understand the beliefs of one of its most important past leaders.
According to Qutb in his seminal work Milestones, Islam has an affirmative duty to impose Sharia law on the whole world: “Other societies do not give [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems”(2005, p. 48, emphasis added).
He went on to explain that the Islamic community “has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the divine system on earth.”
According to Qutb, Muslims who teach that jihad should only be defensive wars mistakenly ignore the progressive revelation of Allah's will in the Koran: “This is because they regard every verse of the Qur'an as if it were the final principle of this religion” (ibid.). Thus for Qutb, the principle of naskh, or abrogation, for Koranic interpretation allows for aggressive jihads.

Could we see a return of the caliphate?

What about the Islamist teaching that Muslims should have a supranational spiritual leader, or caliph, to lead all Muslims worldwide? The father of modern secular Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, formally abolished the caliphate in 1924 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.
So is the idea obsolete? Dr. Douglas McLeod's political research and polling team found that majorities in Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia and Pakistan favor reestablishing the caliphate!
As the Arab Spring produces a power vacuum, with the old secular nationalist dictators pushed aside, the mosque emerges as the most important source of social organization in Arab Muslim countries.
Most importantly, their people's sense of national identity and patriotism is weak compared to their religious and tribal affiliations. Furthermore, even as a small but intensely committed political minority, radical Islamists could take over governments weakened by recent revolutions.
After all, few Russians were Bolsheviks in 1917, but the October Revolution ultimately gave them full control of their war-ravaged nation. Although the Muslim Brotherhood's 1982 Syrian revolt was ruthlessly suppressed, the group could use violence in the future again, and succeed.
For this reason and because Islamists can publicly intimidate the majority of sincere conservative Muslims as “bad Muslims” when they disagree with their policies, public opinion polls in Muslim countries that show Islamist parties lack popularity should not be reassuring.
Further, in the present unsettled conditions of Middle Eastern politics, Islamist parties could easily win elections, much as Hamas did in the Palestinian territories (2006) and the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) did in Algeria (1991).
Although the brief merger of Egypt and Syria as the United Arab Republic more than 50 years ago (1958-61) proved abortive, a future dynamic leader calling himself the caliph and/or the mahdi could succeed in doing what the Arab nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser failed to do.

Does this play into end-time events?

The biblical prophet Daniel tells us that “at the time of the end” a leader will arise, apparently from the heart of the Muslim world, called “the king of the South.” He will launch an attack of some sort against a new European-centered geopolitical superpower (Daniel 11:40 Daniel 11:40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
American King James Version×).
Given the historical background described above, it's not much of a stretch of imagination to think that either a new Muslim caliph or a new Muslim messiah would see it as his duty to expand Islam into Europe by force, or jihad. For decades now, much of the Muslim world, both Sunni and Shiite, has heard such preaching about imminent end-time events, including the coming of an Islamic messiah. And they've long desired to expand Islam into Europe—and indeed, this is a major factor in current Muslim immigration into Europe.
In the years to come, the Bible prophesies that this longtime clash of civilizations between a traditionally Christian Europe and the Islamic Arab world will reach an earth-shaking climax. After the king of the South (i.e., quite possibly a mahdi or caliph to come) attacks, the leader of the new European-centered superpower, called “the king of the North” (and in Revelation “the Beast”) will strike back “like a whirlwind … he shall enter the [Arab] countries [of North Africa], overwhelm them, and pass through” (Daniel 11:40 Daniel 11:40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
American King James Version×).
The future dictator of a united Europe will successfully invade both Israel and Egypt (verses 41-42; compare Revelation 11:1-2 Revelation 11:1-2 1 And there was given me a reed like to a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given to the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
American King James Version×; Luke 21:24 Luke 21:24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
American King James Version×).
Being now forewarned by this knowledge of how Islamic theology will likely impact the world's future, what should we do?
First, we must stay alert to world news reports as Europe and the Arab worlds both become more politically unified and increasingly authoritarian as well. The high hopes of the Arab Spring for creating Western-style democracy in the Middle East will ultimately be dashed.
Since the only source of spiritual and even physical protection in the times of deep trouble to come is our great God, we need to prepare ourselves spiritually by turning our lives over to Him through repentance and faith in His Son Jesus Christ, remembering His warning to us in Matthew 24:44 Matthew 24:44Therefore be you also ready: for in such an hour as you think not the Son of man comes.
American King James Version×: “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

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

The Madrid Bombings: A Wake-Up Call for Europe

A commentary by Scott Ashley

Posted March 18, 2004

The 10 bombs that shattered commuter-packed rail cars in Madrid last week, killing more than 200 and injuring another 1,600, should have shattered Europeans' illusions about the War on Terror.

Instead, as the terrorists apparently hoped, it shattered a close alliance between Spain and the United States as allies in that cause, ushering in an appeasement-minded government in national elections held only three days later. The incoming socialist leader promptly announced that he would withdraw the 1,300 Spanish soldiers stationed in Iraq , troops sent there earlier in spite of the fact that the war was hugely unpopular with the Spanish public.
What motivated the Spanish response-and what motivated the terrorist attack in the first place?
The evidence relating to the attack-a stolen van found near the bombings containing explosive detonators and recordings in Arabic of a voice reading from the Koran, plus a videotaped claim of responsibility from an al-Qaeda-related group-apparently convinced many Spaniards that the attack was in retaliation for Spanish support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Indeed, the claim of responsibility for the bombing stated expressly that. Thus the voters chose a new government leader who promised to end Spanish involvement in Iraq. Apparently voters hope this will protect them from future terror attacks by Islamic extremists.
Simply put, the Spanish appear to have been coerced by terrorist blackmail-give in to our demands, disassociate yourselves from the United States and we won't kill you. The strategy appears to be effective, as other European countries immediately began bracing themselves for the possibility of similar attacks.
What motivated the terrorists? Assuming the mass murderers of Madrid were Islamic extremists-and the recent bombing-related arrests of several Moroccan and Indian Muslims with ties to al-Qaeda surely indicates they were-this is where things get interesting.
A little lesson in Islamic theology and history is in order.
In Islamic theology, the world is divided into two great spheres of influence. One is Dar al-Salaam, meaning "Land of Peace," a term used to describe Muslim-controlled lands (sometimes also called Dar al-Islam, meaning "Land of Islam").
The other is Dar al-Harb, meaning "Land of Struggle" or "Land of War." This term is used to denote all other lands. By this very terminology, all non-Muslim lands are defined as areas where Islam must struggle or war so that these areas may be converted to Dar al-Islam, lands ruled by Islam.
It's important to understand that, in the thinking of millions of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, it is an abomination for land that was once Dar al-Islam, land controlled by Muslims, to become Dar al-Harb, "land of struggle" in which Muslims have lost control and seen it revert back to rule by non-Muslims (infidels).
Because these concepts are so foreign to Western thinking, these distinctions are lost on most Westerners-and, tragically, particularly on their governments and leaders. Yet it explains why, in more than a dozen areas across the globe, Muslims are waging war along the edges of the Islamic world to convert more lands to Dar al-Islam (think of Chechnya, Kashmir, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.).
It also explains why most Muslims in general, and Arabs in particular, are fundamentally opposed to the existence of the Jewish state of Israel . They don't want a two-state solution, unless it is only as a temporary measure. They want a single Palestinian state "from the sea to the sea" as they define it-from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, with no place for Israel at all.
Israel, you see, is an infidel country sitting on land that was once Dar al-Islam, the land of Islam, and thus its existence is an abomination. This is why Israel has had to fight five wars for survival in barely 50 years of existence. This is why Israel, taking into account its small population (just over 6 million), has experienced the equivalent of nine Sept. 11 attacks since 9/11/01 .
What does this have to do with Spain? In the first great wave of Islamic expansion from its birthplace in the Arabian Peninsula, Muslim warriors spread the new religion throughout the Middle East to Central Asia, India, North Africa and Spain .
Spain remained under Islamic control for several centuries until the Islamic Moors were driven out, a process completed in 1492. But remember that it is considered an abomination for land that was once Dar al-Islam, land controlled by Muslims, to become Dar al-Harb, land controlled by non-Muslims. An al-Qaeda spokesman, explaining why America deserved the 9/11 attacks, cited as one reason "the tragedy of al-Andalus"-the expulsion of the Islamic Moors from Andalusia, their name for their kingdom in southern Spain .
But what did America have to do with events in Spain more than five centuries ago? That's part of the point. In their thinking, America = Spain = Britain = France = Canada = Australia = Israel = Dar al-Harb, the land of struggle that must be converted to Dar al Islam. All are one and the same, part of one continuous, ongoing struggle of Islam against its foes.
Simply put, the Islamic terrorists want Spain back-and they're clearly saying so in their Arabic-language pronouncements.
The wave of Islamic expansion that took Spain also advanced into the heart of France, where the Muslim warriors were defeated in the Battle of Tours in 732. Had the Muslims won, all of Europe might be speaking Arabic today. Even with their defeat, a second wave of Islamic expansion in the 12th century spread Islam into Eastern Europe before its advance was halted at Vienna in 1683. They want that area back, too, which is why we have seen bloody wars in the Balkans in recent years.
The United States received a tragic wake-up call on 9/11/01 . Europe received its own bloody wake-up call on 3/11/04-exactly 911 days later. If the West doesn't learn from the lessons of the past, it's likely we'll hear many more.

• Land of Struggle
• Madrid
• Middle East
• terrorism
• World Regions
• News and Prophecy

Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

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

America's Culture War: Threat to Homeland Security?

article by Darris McNeely

While the U.S.-led war on terror continues worldwide, another war—of colliding cultures—heats up in the courts of America. Where will this lead the country? Could this war be a greater threat than terrorism?

Last month U.S. President George W. Bush traveled to Great Britain for a controversial state visit. His goal was to restate his case for the war against terror in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular. He spoke of the historic ties between America and Britain, particularly during the 20th century battles of aggression on the European continent. As expected, he was greeted with loud protests from those who do not share his vision of the mission he articulates for the United States and Britain in the world.
While he was abroad, the Massachusetts supreme court handed down a landmark ruling which stated that homosexual couples have the right to marry. By a 4-3 decision, the court not only bypassed federal courts, but also all other state and federal legislative bodies, to decree a new definition of marriage.
By this ruling the court declares that marriage is no longer defined as a union between a man and a woman. With one decision, likely to be followed by other states, the divine institution of marriage has been legally redefined by human beings. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has vowed to fight this ruling with an amendment to the state's constitution.
Not only is this decision undemocratic—having been made by judges rather than citizens' elected representatives—it is ungodly. It raises itself against and above the laws of God regarding the sacred marriage covenant between a man and a woman given by Him at creation.
The homosexual marriage debate is another battle in an ongoing war that weakens the moral fabric of society. This war, a clash of cultures, threatens the long-term survival of the United States as much as does the war on terror—indeed, more so.
It is vital that you understand the extent of this war and where it will lead. It may be too late to reverse the outcome, but we can be forewarned of its consequences and pray for our merciful God to stay His hand of judgment.

Battle lines being drawn

History chronicles the efforts to fashion the world according to various religious or political ideologies. Most of these ideologies center on creating a governmental structure that establishes universal peace and freedom. The yearning of individuals to live peacefully, free from oppression of any sort, is universal. People, and the nations they create, hunger for the freedom to live as they choose.
Yet we also see the field littered with the wreckage of countless failed designs to create or impose such a world. In America today the battle between those who desire to maintain a religious foundation to the laws of the nation and those who want a society free of religious influence is reaching a critical level. This is where the battle lines are drawn.
These issues are worthy of our examination in light of what the Bible says about the role of God in the public life of any nation. Both sides need to heed what the eternal Creator says about His law and truth. Neither side will escape the judgment God will bring on a world that has both ignored and forgotten the basis for true liberty and freedom.

Religious freedom under attack?

The recent controversy over the Ten Commandments in Alabama highlighted an ongoing battle, largely in the courts, over the separation of church and state in the public life of America. For refusing to obey a federal court order to remove a granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building, Judge Roy Moore was recently removed from his post as chief justice of the Alabama supreme court.
In refusing to remove this monument, Judge Moore defied a federal judge's order, a very dangerous precedent for any magistrate. However, his supporters remained outraged by the lack of respect for the religious roots of the U.S. legal system, which they saw symbolized in this drama. His action fed the flames of a hotly debated issue in American public life. Many people, of differing religious persuasions, are deeply concerned about the erosion of both the moral foundation of the nation and their freedom of religious expression.
America has now reached the bizarre point where judges have discerned in the U.S. Constitution prohibitions against public display of the TenCommandments while simultaneously finding constitutional rights to homosexual sex, gay marriage and dismemberment of unborn babies.
John Adams, second president of the United States, is famously quoted as saying the U.S. Constitution "was made only for a moral and religious people" and "is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (quoted by William Federer, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations , 1996, pp. 10-11).
Adams' friend Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence and later became the third American president, wrote: "The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as Chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example" (quoted by David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity , 2003, p. 320).
Judge Moore is not the only religious official to come under attack for publicly affirming his personal faith. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, an openly religious man, is the target of many who feel his deeply held religious convictions make him unsuitable for the nation's top legal post.
Mr. Ashcroft, a former U.S. senator and an evangelical Christian and political conservative, is constantly accused of overstepping civil liberties in enforcing the Homeland Security Act. This unwarranted criticism is not surprising given the complexity of today's political and social environment and the needs of fighting the war on terror. Libertarians are concerned that American civil liberties not be sacrificed as terrorists are hunted within American borders.
America in 2004 is a divided country when it comes to interpreting the laws of the land in light of changing morals.
The 2000 presidential election exposed a nation broadly divided into two cultures. One is generally rural, conservative and religious, while the other is mostly urban, liberal and secular. Those in the former tended to vote for Republican George W. Bush while the latter group leaned in favor of Democrat Al Gore. It appears that the 2004 election will continue to highlight the differences between these two Americas.

Supreme Court overturns longtime moral standards

In his recent book Persecution , best-selling author David Limbaugh highlighted the depth of this rift in the legal arena of courts and judges. Mr. Limbaugh tells the story of increasing discrimination against religion and religious expression in American society.
In presenting his case he chronicles numerous examples in the courts, mainstream media, Hollywood entertainment, public education and the private sector.
This process is especially clear in the courts, where great strides have been made in creating vast social change by striking down laws dealing with issues of religion, sex and gender. The effect is nothing short of a consistent and persistent attack on God and His laws.
Legalized abortion continues to be a major issue driving ever deeper into the rift of American society. In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark Roe v. Wade case, overruled many existing state laws by declaring that abortion was a constitutional right. This became the de facto law of the land in spite of the fact that the Constitution says nothing about abortion or the so-called "right to privacy" on which the justices made their decision.
Since then more than 40 million abortions have been carried out in spite of opposition, debate and many attempts by state legislatures to restrict this "legal" infanticide.
Former President Ronald Reagan was on record as opposing abortion and on this issue aligned himself with millions of Americans who feel abortion is murder and a blight on society. Abortion is legal in America only because of Roe v. Wade . Neither state legislatures nor the U.S. Congress have enacted a law that legalizes the procedure. It is "law" only because of the Supreme Court ruling.
In June 2003 the Supreme Court issued another landmark ruling involving a Texas law that forbade two persons of the same sex from engaging in intimate sexual conduct. In Lawrence v. Texas the court in effect declared any state law forbidding sex between homosexuals to be invalid and unconstitutional.
Speaking for the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said homosexuals "are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime" ( Los Angeles Times , "Bans on Gay Sex Ruled Unconstitutional," June 27, 2003).
Justice Antonin Scalia spoke for the minority, saying the court "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and that its ruling "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation" (ibid.). By court decree the United States, like Canada, is legalizing marriage between homosexual partners. Scalia's warning has come to pass in November's Massachusetts supreme court ruling regarding gay marriage.

Courts restrict religious freedom

Judicial activism in determining the moral law of the land is alarming many who see this as contrary to what the framers of the Constitution intended. It is also seen as a deliberate attack on religious values in American society.
In 2000 the Supreme Court decided a case involving public prayer in a school before a football game. A chaplain gave a prayer over the school's public-address system. Some students were upset and sued. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe , the court struck down a school district policy that allowed student prayer before activities. The court said students should not have to face "personally offensive religious ritual."
David Limbaugh writes in his book: "Chief Justice William Rehnquist got to the real nub of the problem when he commented on the majority's overt antipathy toward religion in public life, an antipathy—as this case alone shows—that has permeated the highest reaches of our judicial system.
"Rehnquist wrote: 'But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God."'"
Limbaugh comments, "This case dealt a significant blow to religious freedom by holding that a public school ... violated the Establishment Clause" ( Persecution , pp. 23-24).
The Establishment Clause is the section of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the area of public education, this statement against federal support of religion has been interpreted to some extreme ends.
Doing so has systematically removed much of the Judeo-Christian teaching on which the educational structure was founded. Mr. Limbaugh goes on to say that the void left by removal of religious influences has been filled with other values. "While the education establishment vigorously opposes the dissemination in schools of any value or belief that can be remotely traced to the Bible, it affirmatively endorses other values that many Christians find repugnant. Public schools are replete with values-laden curricula, from sex education and sexual orientation instruction to notions of self-esteem and death education" (p. 4).
In their effort to remove school prayer and other religious values and expressions from the school environment, the courts engage in lofty and erudite language to defend the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The same reasoning is used to order removal of a monument containing the Ten Commandments from a public building.

A sound foundation undermined by evil

The U.S. Constitution is a noble document, forged by wise and understanding men who searched centuries of law codes to write the visionary legal foundation for a new nation. It can even be demonstrated that in the political writings of the Founding Era (1760-1800), that generation cited the Bible more often than any other source (Limbaugh, p. 312).
Yet the First Amendment, however understood, is only the writing of men and does not carry the same weight as the Word of God. When the judges of a nation hold their opinions and reasoning in higher regard than the Bible, in time there will come a divine judgment of terrifying proportions. God says, "But on this one will I look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word" (Isaiah:66:2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.).
The apostle Paul said men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge," becoming "haters of God." Those with that attitude deserve the "righteous judgment of God" (Romans:1:28-32 [28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.). If America is to retain its lofty status as the world's most powerful nation, it would do well to heed this warning.
It is plain that the governmental mechanisms established to ensure liberty are now being used to undermine the remaining values of faith and virtue in the nation's legal codes. The framers of the Constitution understood the need for a system of checks and balances to restrain human nature in government.
James Madison, known as "the father of the Constitution" and the fourth president of the United States, wrote in The Federalist 51 : "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" (quoted by Limbaugh, p. 319).
This ideal state has never been achieved.
It could be argued that representative democracy has come closest. Yet even there, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill observed, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
In 1 Samuel 8 we find the story of the ancient nation of Israel rejecting God as their ruler and demanding a king like all the other nations. Samuel the prophet warned them of the problems that would eventually arise.
He foretold the ultimate downfall of every human form of government when he pointed out that the people inevitably would "be his [the king's] servants" (verse 17). In other words, human government inevitably regresses from serving the people who establish it. And when any government fails to serve the good of its people and places itself above the will of God, it is on the slippery slope of decay and decline.

Has popular culture defeated religion?

The French historian Alexis de Tocqueville toured America during the 19th century. He observed the unique religious nature of the people. He wrote: "For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other ... Religion ... must be regarded as the first of their political institutions ... I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion—for who can search the human heart?—but I am certain that they hold it indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions" ( Democracy in America , Vol. 1, p. 316).
If America is a religious nation, why has its society seen such overwhelming transformation of its foundational institutions? For years observers have chronicled the decline of morality in the popular culture. Politicians, clergy and business executives, to name only a few, have come under the withering satire and denigration of movies, music and television. Marriage and traditional family and gender roles have been redefined before the catatonic eyes of a public amused into a near-comatose state.
The past 40 years have seen great social changes take place in the United States.
But where were the churches in all of this? Why hasn't religion, with all its megachurches and modern marketing techniques, stirred the country to another "great awakening"? Could it be that they have been asleep and that they lack the true power of the Holy Spirit?
In the wake of the impeachment and sex scandals of former President Bill Clinton in 1998, Paul Weyrich, a leader of the Christian political movement Moral Majority, wrote in the Washington Post that conservative Christians had "lost the culture wars." His words implied that religion does not exert a strong or life-changing influence on the national scene. This may seem contradictory in light of the public's perception of the influence of churches and religion.
Polls indicate 80 percent of Americans believe in God. Yet Gallup polling shows church attendance has actually declined since the 1960s and has remained level since 1980 with no appreciable growth. Two thirds of the population may claim membership in a church but that does not always translate into attendance, much less actually living in accordance with church teachings.
Some evidence suggests that Americans tell pollsters they attend church when they really don't. A recent article in The Atlantic Monthly quoted John Stackhouse Jr., a teacher of theology and culture: "Beginning in the 1990s a series of sociological studies has shown that many more Americans tell pollsters that they attend church regularly than can be found in church when teams actually count" (May 2003, p. 34).
For those who do attend, what do they believe and how does that translate into a living faith? Sociologist Alan Wolfe has written a book titled The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith. His conclusions, after traveling the country interviewing and observing churches and members, are enlightening and sobering. He says that American religion has become mainstream enough to look like the popular culture of the land. He concludes that American culture has triumphed over religion.
If so, then the power to halt societal decline does not rest in religion. It has lost its power. Wolfe says: "In the United States, culture has transformed Christ, as well as other religions found within these shores. In every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture—and American culture has triumphed."
On matters of fundamental biblical doctrine, things have dramatically changed. "Talk of hell, damnation, and even sin has been replaced by a nonjudgmental language of understanding and empathy. More Americans than ever proclaim themselves born again in Christ, but the lord to whom they turn rarely gets angry and frequently strengthens self-esteem ... Far from living in a world elsewhere, the faithful in the United States are remarkably like everyone else" (pp. 2-3).
Many large popular evangelical churches do not systematically teach or clearly define their doctrines, because they want to attract the unchurched, the large mass of middle America who claims no attendance or affiliation. In a theological "catch 22," Wolfe states, "Evangelical churches lack doctrine because they want to attract new members. Mainline churches lack doctrine because they want to hold on to those declining numbers of members they have" (p. 87).

Are you willing to pay the price?

To benefit from faith, we must be willing to pay the price of repentance, commitment and conversion. If one wants inner peace, God's blessing and a strong, resilient, free country, there must be a turn to God and a true faith unlike any experienced before.
For the United States to experience a turnaround that will reverse its cultural and moral slide, there must be a recognition that change cannot take place without a transformation from the values of the society to the values of the Kingdom of God.
With God's help we can change ourselves, but we cannot change the world. Only God can do that, and the Bible shows us this will not happen until the return of Jesus Christ. Until then the message of the Kingdom is preached and those who seek it must strive to live by its values. That is a daunting task in today's world. The teachings of Christ shed an embarrassing light on those whose work mirrors the kingdom of darkness. And make no mistake about it: Darkness fights back to extinguish that uncomfortable light.
It is time for Americans to recognize the grave danger gathering on the horizon. In the immediate aftermath of the deadly Sept. 11 attacks, America experienced a brief revival in religious interest and church attendance—yet it quickly faded.
It may be too late to change the course of the nation and its drift from its longtime moral foundations. But it is not too late for you, the individual citizen, to turn to God in heartfelt repentance.
In Ezekiel:18:27Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. and verses 30-31, God through His prophet says: "... When a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive." To our nations today, the Almighty still speaks: "Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin ... Get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die ...?" GN

• religion
• World Regions
• Good News Magazine
• North America
• United States
• News and Prophecy

Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

Login/Register to post comments

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

Islam in Europe: A Return to Religious Intolerance?

1 comments

article by Melvin Rhodes

For centuries Europeans fought wars over religion. Eventually, the proliferation of Protestant denominations led to greater tolerance. But now religious intolerance is back due to demographic changes that are changing the face of the continent. 

In London, Muslims protest the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad in a Danish paper.

Source: David Wimsett/UPPA

Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical magazine that holds nothing sacred. But it may now have to do a rethink. After humorously listing Muhammad, the founder of Islam, as a guest editor for a recent issue, its offices were firebombed. So much for free speech!
This isn't the first time Europeans have been attacked for poking fun at Islam as they have long done with Christianity. Two years ago a Danish cartoonist had to receive constant police protection after drawing cartoons that poked fun at the Islamic religion and its founding prophet. Incensed Muslims burned embassies and churches, and more than 200 people were killed in riots around the world.
More than 20 years ago, Indian author Salman Rushdie famously had a fatwa (religious ruling) issued against him authorizing his execution for writing a novel that parodied Islam. Protecting him around the clock for years cost British taxpayers a small fortune!
In the Netherlands, Theo van Gogh was not so fortunate. A Dutch filmmaker responsible for producing a short documentary about the severe mistreatment of Muslim women, Van Gogh was assassinated seven years ago—being shot eight times and stabbed, with his body nearly beheaded on the streets of Amsterdam.
His female associate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a native Somalian who had sought asylum in Holland and been elected to the Dutch parliament, fled again, this time to the United States. Prior to Van Gogh, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, head of an anti-Muslim-immigrant party, was also murdered for comments he had made about Islam.
The title of Van Gogh's film was Submission, the word here carrying a double meaning since that's what the word Islam itself means.
The word should make people think. How is "submission" reconcilable with Western values, freedom and individual rights, including the right to be openly critical of or make fun of another religion?
Such long-cherished freedoms are clearly at stake. The producer of Submission cancelled a February 2005 screening of the film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival. "'Does this mean I'm yielding to terror?' he said. 'Yes. But I'm not a politician or an antiterrorist police officer; I'm a film producer'" (quoted by Bruce Bawer , While Europe Sleeps, 2006, p. 216).
Ironically, the theme of the festival was "censored film." And replacing Submission on the schedule were two movies that portrayed suicide bombers sympathetically!
Obviously, Islam now wields great influence in Europe. But this is a recent development. Such influence was not even an issue 50 years ago, prior to massive immigration from Third World countries into Western European nations. Immigration has fundamentally altered the status quo in every corner of the West. High birthrates among Muslim immigrants (and low birthrates among native Europeans) have exacerbated the problem.
European governments over the years have given little thought to the growing numbers of Muslims and the dangers this poses to social cohesion. Thinking only as far ahead as the next election, politicians have largely ignored the growing threat to traditional

liberties posed by Islamic intolerance.
Ignorance of history and of other cultures contributes to this. Additionally, at a time in history where few in Europe take religion seriously, it's hard for many there to conceive that others do. Such a lack of awareness is perilous.
With Islam's growing influence, it's important to recognize that its adherents have long displayed intolerance toward other religions. European multiculturalism has allowed this

to grow in Europe despite its intent to promote tolerance. Could Muslim intolerance create a European backlash against multiculturalism, sending Europe back to its own former tradition of authoritarianism and religious intolerance? What do history and the Bible reveal?

Islamic intolerance on the rise today

The roots of Islamic intolerance lie in the religion itself and in the countries of origin of the immigrants. Surprisingly, most of the intolerance seems to come from the second and third generations of immigrants, who are more radical.
In an effort to reconcile their traditional religion with their Western upbringing, many second-generation Muslims are increasingly militant. The 2005 suicide bombings on the London subway and bus system that killed 52 and injured more than 700 were perpetrated by second-generation Muslims, born in Britain, who came from wealthy backgrounds. Poverty has nothing to do with this.
In October, the BBC's World News America covered the Tunisian elections made possible by the so-called Arab Spring, the series of revolutions that led to the fall of Arab dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in 2011. Tunisia was described as the most liberal nation in North Africa. It was clear that many young people were Westernized.
Those asked by a BBC interviewer what they wanted all replied "democracy." Further questioning revealed that they thought people should be allowed to decide things for themselves, including religion. But when asked if people should be free to change religion, converting from Islam to Christianity, not one was supportive.
Clearly, there's a limit to freedom!
In nearby Egypt the Coptic Christians now make up just 10 percent of the country's population, down from 25 percent just a few decades ago. (When Egypt was part of the Byzantine Empire, they made up closer to 100 percent.) Again, this reflects increasing intolerance in the region. Since the overthrow of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's Coptic Christians have been the target of riots, murders and church burnings.
On Nov. 11, 2011, Armistice Day in the United Kingdom (marking the anniversary of the end of World War I), Muslim demonstrators protested against the British military in the town of Barking, just outside London, even breaking the two-minute silence observed each year in memory of those Britons who gave their lives in wars for Britain's freedom.
This disrespectful act had never happened before. Many were rightly shocked. It shows at the very least that Muslims do not identify with Britain or its past, clearly a failure of assimilation. The group responsible is called "Muslims Against Crusaders" (MAC), a reference to the Western troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, whom they liken to the Crusaders who fought to regain lands from the Muslims almost 1,000 years ago.
A counterdemonstration by the right-wing English Defense League (EDL) led to clashes. Increasing intolerance among Muslims is likely to lead to greater intolerance among other Britons who feel betrayed by the ruling intellectual elites who have imposed multiculturalism on them, against the will of the majority.

A brief history of Europe's religious intolerance

This is not the first time that Europeans have experienced religious intolerance. Since Roman Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century A.D., a rather intolerant system was perpetuated. There were challenges to the Roman church over the centuries, but it maintained a powerful grip on the European continent through the Middle Ages. The grip was not significantly broken over parts of Europe until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Yet that was not the end of intolerance—even in Protestant countries.
In November 2011, Queen Elizabeth II attended a church service to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. This version of the Bible has been described as the most influential book in world (not just British) history. It remains a best seller to this day. What few understand is the sacrifices that were made to give mankind a Bible in the English language. People gave their lives in horrible deaths, some burned at the stake by the church, before we could read the Bible—a book increasingly ignored in the Western world.
After the Protestant Reformation, a new religious intolerance swept Europe. The Thirty Years' War (1618-48) began as a conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The result of this religious intolerance on both sides was one of the highest death tolls, proportionate to population, of any conflict in history.
Up to a third of Germany's population died, with some regions affected more than others. Wurttemberg lost three-quarters of its people during the war. Brandenburg saw half its population perish, while in other areas the death toll was two thirds. The male population declined by half. The areas occupied by Czechs saw a one-third decrease in population due to war, disease, famine and expulsion of thousands of Protestants.
The root of the English Civil War in the 1640s was religious—between Puritans and Anglicans, respectively supporters of Parliament and the Crown. The Crown was upholding the traditional Catholic teaching of the divine right of kings, even though the country had broken with Rome a century earlier. Ironically, King James' call for a new translation of the Bible a generation earlier had been an attempt to reconcile these differences.
It wasn't until the proliferation of Protestant denominations that religious tolerance became the norm, at least in the Protestant countries of northwestern Europe. "If there were only one religion in England," wrote Voltaire in his Philosophical Letters, "we should have to fear despotism; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness" (quoted by Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 1991, p 14).

Muslim intolerance in past centuries

Now religious tolerance is once again strained, this time because of Islam. The immigrants who have come to Europe from North Africa originate from countries that have little history of tolerance. This is also true of Muslim immigrants in the United Kingdom who have come from India and Pakistan, where conflict between Hindus and Muslims has been a major problem for centuries.
This is not to say that Islam cannot show tolerance. The Moors, who ruled Spain for more than six centuries following its conquest in the eighth century, were somewhat tolerant toward Jews and Christians. More recently, the Ottoman Empire in its later years also allowed followers of the other two religions to practice their faith. However, historically Muslim rule has generally led to the oppression of non-Muslims aimed at converting them to Islam.
Few Europeans today will have any knowledge of what happened to the greatest power in Christendom a thousand years ago, the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Constantinople—formerly known as Byzantium and now Istanbul, Turkey. A thousand years ago, the population of what is now Turkey was 99 percent Christian—the Byzantines professing Eastern Orthodoxy (which split from Catholicism in the 11th century). Today Turkey is officially 99 percent Muslim.
On a recent tour of Turkey, I asked our Turkish tour guide on three occasions what happened to the Christians following the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I never did get an answer. One of the museums we visited emphasized the tolerance shown by Mehmed II, the sultan of the victorious Ottoman Empire. According to the museum display, he allowed the Christians to continue in their faith. However, the record of history says something quite different.
"By the time Mehmed left Contantinople, most of its Christian inhabitants had departed too. Many were marched to Adrianople (Edirne in modern Turkey, near the border with Greece and Bulgaria) where there was a flourishing slave market and where lines of captives in chains, begging in the streets, were a familiar sight . . .
"Others were taken out by ship bound for slave markets in Cairo and other great cities of the Islamic world. Mehmed himself dispatched some four hundred young men as gifts to the Muslim rulers of Egypt, Tunisia and Grenada. The vast majority of these captives would have spent the rest of their lives in servitude with no hope of seeing their families, homes or countries ever again" (Jonathan Harris, The End of Byzantium, 2010, p. 220.)
One of the little-understood legacies of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires was the Balkan wars of the 1990s in southeastern Europe. Who were the combatants in these recent wars? Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croatians and Muslim Bosnians, Albanians and Kosovars. The conflicts there should effectively illustrate the foolhardiness of trying to mix different religions in the same area. Historically, it hasn't worked—except, as Voltaire showed, in recent history in Protestant countries, among a multitude of Protestant denominations.

Duty to spread Islam and past clashes

When I was a student 45 years ago in England, where I grew up, one of my closest friends at the time was a Muslim immigrant from India. I remember asking him once what he could do as a lone Muslim in the community in which we lived. His reply was that it is the responsibility of each and every Muslim to spread Islam wherever he goes.
I was reminded of this a few years ago when I watched a lecture on C-Span given by Salman Rushdie in New York. He said (paraphrased): "When a Muslim moves from the Middle East to Detroit, he is not looking to take advantage of the American way of life to better himself. Rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard to spread Islam to his new country."
A radical cleric in London put it more bluntly in stating that he looked forward to the day when the Islamic symbol, a crescent moon flag, will fly over Buckingham Palace and the White House!
When we look back at history, we see that Islam has often threatened Europe. In 711 the Moors landed at Gibraltar. By 732 they had reached Paris. They were defeated at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) by Charles Martel. If they hadn't been turned back, Islamic troops might have conquered the entire continent of Europe.
Martel's grandson, Charlemagne, was crowned by the pope as Holy Roman Emperor, the emperor of the West to rival the emperor of the East in Constantinople. The pope wanted a Catholic emperor loyal to him and one who could unite Europe against the threat of Islam.
In 1095, it was the pope again who rallied Europeans to a Crusade to regain control of Christian sites in the Holy Land, which had been captured by Muslim invaders who had aggressively spread their new faith and driven out the Christian Byzantines. (The Crusades lasted two centuries before Muslims again gained the upper hand, taking control of the Holy Land until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I.)
In the 1500s and 1600s, it was again the church that rallied Christian forces in defense of Vienna against invading Islamic forces of the Ottoman Empire. As with the Islamic invasion through Spain into France eight centuries earlier, had the Christian forces not prevailed, all of Europe might have been Muslim to this day.

A coming clash between Europe and Islam

The Bible shows us that, prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ, the world will see a revived Roman Empire rise once again in Europe. Revelation:17:3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. shows church involvement: "And I saw a woman [symbolic of a church] sitting on a scarlet beast [the revived Roman Empire], which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns"—a reference to attempts to revive the empire throughout history.
Daniel 11 foretells a coming clash between this resurrected Roman Empire and an evidently Islamic power in the Middle East. "At the time of the end the king of the South [i.e., land south of Israel—historically Egypt and a region now dominated by Islam] shall attack him [the European power to the north]; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through" (verse 40).
Could it be that the Church of Rome will once again rally Europeans to the defense of Christendom against the threats posed by Islam?
Interestingly, after the firebombs that destroyed the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Europeans rallied to defend the satirical magazine, whose supporters included politicians who had been targets of the publication's humor.
An article in The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Time magazine and National Public Radio (NPR) in the United States took a different approach—blaming the publication itself for its lack of sensitivity toward Islam!
"Writing about the attack on Charlie 's offices, Bruce Crumley, Paris bureau chief for Time magazine, did nothing to hide his contempt—not for the attackers, but for the magazine itself. 'Not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish,' he wrote, 'but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good" (Anne Jolis, "A French Lesson in Free Speech," Nov. 10, 2011).
Clearly, some are quite willing to appease radical Islam and are blind to its true nature.
But many Europeans seem to finally be waking up to the threats posed by Islamic intolerance. Will they remember their own history of religious intolerance and avoid repeating the errors of the past? Or will Islamic encroachment provoke them to revert to their past intolerance?
Disillusionment with the multicultural ideal that all faiths are equally valid emerged in Assisi, Italy, just a few weeks ago. The historical town was the center of world attention in 1986 when Pope John Paul II met there with religious leaders of many faiths, with the intent of all praying together for peace. But, under a new pope, things have changed.
"The 1986 meeting at Assisi, for all its appeal to those of other persuasions, was far from universally popular among Catholics. Among its critics was then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal office, who told an interviewer that Assisi 'cannot be the model' for such encounters.
"The cardinal later wrote that 'multireligious prayer' of the kind offered there 'almost inevitably leads to false interpretations, to indifference as to the content of what is believed or not believed, and thus to the dissolution of real faith'" (Francis Rocca, "Pope Benedict's Interfaith Outreach," The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 31, 2011). Clearly, there is only one path to God in the pope's mind, reaffirming the traditional Catholic view of opposing other religious beliefs.
As tensions rise, it increasingly looks like Europe is set for another historical clash between radical Islam and traditional Christianity—fitting what's foretold in Bible prophecy.

• Europe
• Islam
• Muslim
• World News and Prophecy
• Good News Magazine
• News and Prophecy

1 comments