Sin or No Sin

Do you think about sin?  Probably not – I think very few people do.  In fact many people might be hard pressed to even define sin even in a biblical context.  Essentially within the Judeo-Christian context sin is simply the act of violating God’s will or anything that violates the relationship between an individual and God.  But what is God’s will and what – precisely is the relationship between a person and God?  These are rather vague terms when you examine them, yet the Bible is very specific in what constitutes a sin. 613 commandments.  But all of these sins are in reference to God and those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God.  What about Atheists and those who don’t believe in God – can they sin?  What about the Seven Deadly Sins?  Are they sins of the soul or of the body?  What about the Ten Commandments, these were given to Moses directly from God and are honored by the world’s three great religions do these apply to atheists?  Is the denial of God a sin in itself?

The first commandment “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” seems clear enough but does that apply to humankind or just to Jews, Christians, and Muslims?  A great many people in the world don’t fall into those categories and do not recognize this as God’s commandment.  Are they all sinners and condemned by a God they do not recognize?  This first of God’s commandments seems to assume that everyone believes in some god, but that they must honor the God described in the Bible and Koran first and above all other gods.  So perhaps it can be concluded that atheism is itself a sin and a violation of God’s commandment.  So the answer must be yes – Atheists can sin.

The second commandment is more interesting because it is rarely expressed in its entirety.  According the King James Bible the second amendment states”
 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  Thos shalt not  bow down thyself to them, nor serve them for I the Lord they God am  jealous God, visiting the inequity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments

 
Normally what you see is just the first phrase and not the entire commandment.  Both Islam and Judaism follow this commandment scrupulously but do Christians?  Is the ubiquitous Cross a graven image?  What of the icons, statues, and various images that abound in Christian Churches?  What about the Catholic Saints – are they gods and graven images?  Of course the claim is that these are not graven images or gods to be prayed to but simply symbols celebrating God and their faith in God – a fine line. But these commandments are from God and violating them would be a sin – if you believe in God and His commandments.  But what if you don’t?  What about the Seven Deadly Sins?
 
These may have their roots in the Bible and have evolved from that but they were first articulated in the fourth century by John Cassian.( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm).  How these are defined has evolved over the years so they may be rooted in religion but today they are more sins of the body than sins against God.   But the question remains – what is sin and can sin be defined outside of a religious reference?  Can a person sin if he does not believe in the existence of God?
 
Of course there is probably no real answer to any of these questions, but it is my opinion that all sins are sins against God’s mandate and those who do not believe in God can not only sin but their disbelief is their first sin and that sin is pride. 

Freedom, Virtue, and Morality

The march of militant atheism continues unabated with the newest attack on God and those ignorant enough to believe in Him, resting on the mistaken belief that it is religion and God that establish the morality of a people. Of course this, like so many positions held by the glitterati rests firmly on ignorance and the absence of critical thinking. It would seem self-evident that the morals of a culture are established by the individuals that make up that culture. For example, (and I am not making this up) it is considered bad form to kill and eat your neighbor in most Western Cultures, but to the Cannibals of New Guinea, this is acceptable and indeed – expected. In some cultures it is an accepted practice for a man to have multiple wives while in most Western Countries it is frowned upon – outside of Utah. The point is that the atheists have started with a false assumption and that is that the morality of a culture is based in religion. It seems more likely that it is the religion that reflects the morality of the culture not vice versa.

Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.

However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.

Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.

Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.

The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.

Egypt -- Libya -- Islam

The events in Egypt and Libya taking place today may determine the future of the Middle East for years to come. More importantly these events may affect Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine, and most certainly the radical Islamists. Will Islam and Sharia Law become the dominant force in the Middle East or will the more moderate Muslims prevail and turn toward modernism and the world at large? IRAN Perhaps Iran holds the key to any peace in the Middle East. It is a government dominated by a group of radical Shi’ite Clerics posing as a legitimate government. They are funding most of the violence endemic in the Arab World. They are working on the development of an atomic bomb and have already developed the means to deliver that bomb to Israel as well as Eastern Europe. The question is “will Iran use their nuclear capability to attack Israel?” I think this is unlikely because it would lead to the downfall of the current government and end the clerical dominance. Would Iran quietly provide the nuclear weapons to their Hezbollah alter ego? This also is unlikely because the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah is no secret. Would they offer nuclear weapons to Palestine in order to assist the Palestinians in their pathetic war against Israel? This might be a possibility if the radical Islamists truly want to destroy Israel. PALESTINE The first question is “Is Palestine a real nation or is it an imaginary country like Afghanistan? The Arab world pays a lot of lip service to the Palestinian “cause” but after more than 60 years of rhetoric no Arab country seems to provide the Palestinians any substantive support nor has the erstwhile government ever shown any control over the factions ruling and dividing them. True – someone is paying for the weapons used by the Palestinians but either the Palestinians don’t have enough men to use all of the weapons or there simply isn’t enough armament to effectively attack Israel. Either way it appears that the Palestinian problem is nothing more than a way for the Arab world to rally around a cause without getting too involved. As the events in Egypt, Libya, and Syria unfold the question becomes “will the emerging Arab governments opt for a peaceful co-existence with Israel and the world or will they intensify their attacks on Israel and the West? The answer to that question might lie with Saudi Arabia. SAUDI ARABIA This may be the most schizophrenic country in the world. It is a monarchy on the one hand but a theocracy on the other. There is the royal family who are westernized (ignore their traditional dress) and realize their fate may lie with the Western Powers because of their economic dependence. At the same time the Royal family is not totally confident in the support of the people and are afraid of Iran and it’s religious influence over the Saudi people. The Saudi’s are the guardians of the most sacred places in Islam, practice Sharia Law, and are expected to be the model of an Islamic state. So publicly the Saudi’s are opposed to Israel while it has been rumored for years that privately they don’t care about Israel, which raises the question of how will they react to the events in Egypt and Libya. EGYPT The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920’s as a semi-secret organization with the objective of establishing Islam as the governing authority in the Arab world. They have been opposed and outlawed ever since – at least until the recent elections in Egypt, where they received 51% of the vote. The Egyptian Military does not support the Muslim Brotherhood and has worked with the Egyptian Judicial arm to weaken the constitution and the power of the President. The military dissolved the Egyptian parliament but the new President Morsi in an act of defiance convened it and then adjourned it before the Military could act. This was clearly intended to challenge the Military. On the positive side Morsi has promised to include Christians and women in his government and has promised to govern for all Egyptians. As his first foreign visit he is visiting Saudi Arabia. This is an important visit because how the Saudi Arabian government receives him is important. They could influence him to establish a modus Vivendi with Israel, rein in the Palestinians (who rely on arms coming in from Egypt), lean toward the West and not Iran, or any combination of these. But Egypt and Saudi Arabia cannot ignore the events in Libya either and what happens there could influence what happens in Egypt. LIBYA The Libyans have over thrown Gaddafi whose government was at least nominally Islamic. The question now is will Libya become an Islamic government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood or will it lean toward the West and modernism? The recent elections in Libya have been indeterminate with the more secular National Forces Alliance headed my Mahmoud Jibril claiming victory while the Islamist Justice and Construction Party claims that it will ultimately prevail. This claim is based on the rather complicated political structure which prevents either party from gaining an absolute majority of the Parliament. Mohammed Sawan believes the independent votes in the Parliament will go to the Muslim Brotherhood giving them control of the government. At least some of the Independent parties fear the Muslim Brotherhood and see it as allied with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Other independents are opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood for fear that they would close off Libya from the West and install a conservative Islamic government. The Independent candidate stated that he had rebuffed offers from Justice and Construction Party (Muslim Brotherhood) because "Libyans are ready to experience democracy and only educated liberals with a world view can bring it." SYRIA Syria has yet to come into play due to the de facto civil war raging. The existing government is heavily supported by Iran, shelters Hezbollah, and tacitly opposes Israel. Precisely who the forces opposing the Syrian government are is uncertain. The Iraqi’s have warned that Al Qaeda troops are pouring into Syria from Iraq. If this is true it doesn’t bode well for Syria’s future. If the opposition prevails they could follow Libya and turn westward or they could establish an Islamic state with an anti-west position.

A Review of the Arab Spring

The Arab Spring continues apace as one Islamic Dictator after another falls to popular uprisings. The US has either quietly stayed on the sidelines as in Egypt and Iran or played an active role as in Iraq and Libya. Although US involvement in Libya was sort of a one off since it was conducted via NATO which is a military euphemism for the US. The US along with the western powers see these uprisings as an effort by the people to be free and struggling for democratic representative government. While these uprisings may establish new representative governments any resemblance to any western style democratic government is wishful thinking. The western powers seem incapable of grasping the realities of the Middle East and Islam. In spite of the politically correct position of the US government and the West, the reality is Christendom ( read the West) is engaged in religious war with Islam.

The Obama administration has declared that all American Troops will withdraw from Iraq. For the anti-war crowd this appears as a victory instead of the disaster it may be because to the Islamic community they won and have succeeded in driving American Forces out of Iraq. Iraq is not politically stable and that instability is being driven by Iran whose objective is to create another Islamic Nation dominated by Iran. It is almost a certainty the current government cannot remain in power once the US leaves and any new government will be Islamic, not secular, and certainly anti-American and anti-Christian.

Currently the West is celebrating the fall of the Gadhafi Government with the belief (read hope) that the new government will be democratic, pro-west, and secular. The first step of the new government was to declare Sharia Law. Of course this doesn’t mean that will stand because like most of the Arab nations, Libya is tribal and each of these tribes is now fully armed and struggling to gain power. It is probable that Libya will remain unstable for the foreseeable future but regardless of who finally emerges as the new dictator he will not be secular or democratic but Islamic and certainly not pro-west. Abdul Jalil – the head of the Libyan transitional government has already announced that he intends to establish Sharia Law in Libya – thus firmly returning Libya to the 8th Century.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia died recently and now who will be the new Crown Prince is undetermined but the probability is that the logical candidate Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz will be chosen. Saudi Arabia is strictly Islamic and rules with Sharia Law. World opinion has increasingly pressured Arabia to abandon or at least not enforce some of the more barbarous parts of Sharia. While Saudi Arabia has supported the US in some ways that support has largely been because the Royal family is not loved and needs international support. This is why the current Saudi government has been softening its enforcement of Sharia. If Aziz comes to power there is little doubt but he would return to the strict enforcement of Sharia law and reduce his support for the US. With Aziz in power Saudi Arabia could become very unstable and it is feasible that the Monarchy could fall and be replaced by an Islamic dictator.

As a further example of the failed US foreign policies we have Syria. The US was quick to step into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and to support the uprisings in Egypt but have done nothing to support the uprising in Syria. It is no secret that Syria has a well organized and capable military and Assad is supported by Iran. If the people of Syria by some miracle manage to overthrow Assad, can the US expect their support? Not very likely but if Assad manages to suppress his opposition which he is likely to do, he will be indebted to Iran and Hezbollah. He would then pose an even greater threat to Lebanon and Israel. What the US policy is toward Syria has never been very clear and the failure to support the rebels in Syria will strengthen the current government just as it did in Iran and America will once again appear to be an unreliable friend.

Iran is actually Persia and at various times in history Persia has been a mighty empire and it seems clear that the current government is intent on re-establishing that empire, if not directly certainly indirectly. As the Arab Spring progresses Iranian influence has spread from Iran across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. How Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia react to this is to be determined but the intransigence of America cannot make them overly comfortable in relying on America and that is before Iran gains nuclear power, which they are sure to do. And when they do gain nuclear capability there is no doubt they will use it as intimidation on all of the Islamic Middle East in their bid to re-establish the Caliphate and the Persian Empire. In the meantime the American public should not be so quick to celebrate the Arab Spring as an example of the rise of democracy because these governments are not going to resemble anything like western democracies and with a Nuclear Iran as the central power a major military confrontation may not be far off.

The Arab Spring and Islam

The entire Middle East is in turmoil as the people rise up in rebellion against the incumbent rulers. Unfortunately the western world sees this as a spontaneous effort by the people to achieve freedom and representative government. Actually this view rests on an appalling lack of historical knowledge as well as any insight into what Islam is all about. From the beginning Islam has swept all of the secular powers in the Middle East out of power and made great inroads into Europe and Asia but at no time did the Islamic rulers ever establish any semblance of a representative government or allow any of the freedoms so cherished by the West. Instead there has been just one repressive government after another and the Arab Spring is unlikely to produce anything close to a democratic government with all of the freedoms the west associates with democracy. In Iraq where American power overthrew a brutal dictator the new government is struggling to establish a representative government but is being challenged by Imam Al Sadr who wants an Islamic style government. In the meantime Christians are being persecuted along with any Jews that remain, so regardless of who emerges with the power it is unlikely to look anything like any western style democracy.

The people in the west, particularly those who subscribe to the pseudo-religion of multiculturalism and political correctness, watch these rebellions through western eyes and with virtually no understanding of what is actually happening. In the Arab world loyalties are very different than in the west and Libya is an excellent example to observe loyalties in the Arab world. In Islam loyalty is to the family – not just the nuclear family but all of the aunts, uncles, cousins, and nephews. The second loyalty is to the village and the third level of loyalty is to the tribe. Loyalty to a country if it exists at all is pretty thin and in spite of all of the flag waving in Libya this is essentially a tribal war and not a civil war in terms of the people versus the government. This is a group of western tribes who have held power for forty years being challenged by the eastern tribes who think it is time they held the power. Once the current regime in Libya is gone the new one is unlikely to establish anything resembling a truly democratic government. It will be an Islamic government with the only unknown being how extreme will it be.

Somehow the politically correct crowd in the west excuses the excesses of Islam on the basis that these are extremists and that at its core, Islam is a religion of peace. The naïveté of this position is astonishing given the 1500 years of evidence. The reality is the Muslim Moderates the politically correct cite as examples of Islam as peaceful simply don’t understand Islam. The true Muslims are those that are conducting the war against Christians, Jews, and Infidels. They are not “extremists who have perverted the teachings of the Koran – no -- in fact they are following Islam and the Koran to the letter. In reality it is the moderates are not adhering to the teachings of the Koran and it is unlikely they would be tolerated by Mohammed if he were alive today. Of course it is possible that as the Arab Spring progresses these moderate Muslims might come to power but it is highly unlikely given the history of Islam.

The mobs in the streets of Syria, Libya, and other Arab states are all male although in Egypt you might see a few women but even there the majority is male. Does anyone expect for the new regimes to suddenly give women equal rights? Will women be free to dress as they choose and go where they please? Will there be freedom of religion? Will Christian missionaries be permitted to proselytize in these countries under the new regimes? Will the new governments allow freedom of the press or will the government continue to control what the people hear? Will these new governments be friendly to the west or will they continue the jihad? Will Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the multiple jihadist groups stop attacking the west? The reality is that nothing has changed and it is unlikely anything will change. Islam has been at war with Christians, Jews, and the infidels since the 7th Century and their attacks will not cease until they have conquered the world, which is what they believe is the command of Allah.

The western powers can help overthrow these repressive regimes and hope things will change but it is very unlikely. It is more probable that the former repressive regimes will be replaced by new repressive Islamic regimes perhaps not as extreme as the Taliban but certainly not resembling anything like a true democratic government with all of the freedoms associated with a free and open society.

Rome & The Republic

The study of history has largely been abandoned in the American education system, particularly any study of ancient history but there are many lessons to be learned by simply examining the mistakes of the past. The parallels between ancient Rome and modern America should give pause to our political leaders today. Rome was a Republic that lasted for 482 years. It had an elected body—the Senate led by two Consuls. This was a very successful government until overthrown by Caesar in his drive for total power, but Rome itself lasted for over a thousand years and during that period experienced many problems and situations America faces today.

Rome was expansionist in that it conquered and incorporated territories into the Empire. But Rome was careful to preserve the cultures and leadership of those territories. Kings were left in place but most importantly Rome was careful not to tamper with the local customs and religions, that is until they ran up against the monotheistic Jews and Christians. This religious tolerance was not again experienced until the founding of America who incorporated religious tolerance into the Constitution. The Romans tolerated the Christians at first but the Christians simply would not accept the polytheistic views of the Romans. Eventually the Christians prevailed and the Roman Empire became Christian. Today America tolerates all religions including Atheism and Islam. However, just as the early Christians refused to accept the religious tolerance of the Roman Government so does Islam refuse to accept any religion except Islam. The Muslim community pleads for peace and understanding just as the early Christians did, but it should be noted that the Christians did not Christianize Rome through violence but through creeping influence and conversion until Rome was Christian. How will Islam impact America and America’s religious tolerance?

Rome accepted other people and cultures and the city itself was overflowing with people from all parts of the Empire. The Goths, Gauls, Visigoths, Britons, and others were not trying to overthrow Rome, they wanted to be part of the Roman Empire. They wanted to share the wealth and standard of living that characterized Rome. But in the simplest view, Rome simply could not accept this influx of people and cultures. Today America is under assault from thousands of people crossing our borders not to conquer us but to share the wealth and enjoy the stability of the government. This was a problem the Romans could not resolve for many reasons. They were preoccupied with foreign affairs, various wars, corruption in the government, failure in communications, unemployment, and a weakening economy. All of these issues exist in America today and it doesn’t appear that our government is any closer to solving them than the Romans but perhaps it might be worthwhile examining what the Romans did and try to not do those things.

Initially the Roman Senate was elected by the citizens of Rome and it represented their interests but gradually the Roman Senate became a self-serving group filled with corruption. Posts were bought and sold with the understanding that the person filling the post would enrich himself through corruption. The American Senate isn’t quite that bad – yet, but does the American Congress represent the people who vote them into office or do they represent the special interests and wealthy contributors who pay for their elections? The Romans never resolved this problem and whether America can is yet to be seen.

At one time Rome had over a million men in the Army spread across the Empire. This military presence was very expensive to maintain and it required a huge tax base just to maintain it. Nevertheless this huge Army was simply not enough to protect the borders or to maintain the integrity of the Empire. Today American has a huge military spread around the globe protecting America’s and in most cases international interests. This is being done with American money with only token amounts from other countries in the form of soldiers and money. Can America continue to support NATO? Can America continue to pretend the UN has any relevance and authority? Can America continue to play world policeman? The Romans couldn’t can America?

The lessons are there – is any one listening?

Political Correctness -- A Threat to Civilization

I did not write this, it is a sermon delivered by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of Atlanta Georgia. I urge you to read this very powerful sermon because it truly describes how our apathy toward terrorism and our determination to be politically correct is endangering not just society but civilization itself.


EHR KUMT First Day of Rosh Hashanah 2010 Sermon delivered by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of Atlanta


"I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share. We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel. We want to be shaken and stirred – but not too much. We want to be guilt-schlepped – but not too much. We want to be provoked but not too much. We want to be transformed but not too much.

I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants. We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people. We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.

Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna, not just Casablanca. It was the entire planet. Read history and be shocked at how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germana on every continent.


Not all Germans were Nazis – most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night. But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense – I didn’t know.” Too many were silent. Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well. Fault was not just with the goose steppers but with those who pulled the curtains shut, said and did nothing.

In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win….. to rid the world of malevolence.

We are at war… yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don’t put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers. We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.

Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.

A few years ago I visited Lithuania on a Jewish genealogical tour. It was a stunning journey and a very personal, spiritual pilgrimage. When we visited Kovno we davened Maariv at the only remaining shul in the city. Before the war there were thirty-seven shuls for 38,000 Jews. Now only one, a shrinking, gray congregation. We made minyon for the handful of aged worshippers in the Choral Synagogue, a once majestic, jewel in Kovno.

After my return home I visited Cherry Hill for Shabbos. At the oneg an elderly family friend, Joe Magun, came over to me.

“Shalom,” he said. “Your abba told me you just came back from Lithuania.” “Yes,” I replied. “It was quite a powerful experience.” “Did you visit the Choral Synagogue in Kovno? The one with the big arch in the courtyard?” “Yes, I did. In fact, we helped them make minyon.” His eyes opened wide in joy at our shared memory. For a moment he gazed into the distance and then, he returned. “Shalom, I grew up only a few feet away from the arch. The Choral Synagogue was where I davened as a child.”

He paused for a moment and once again was lost in the past. His smile faded. Pain filled his wrinkled face. “I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul” (Jabotinsky was Menachim Begin’s mentor – he was a fiery orator, an unflinching Zionist radical, whose politics were to the far right.) Joe continued “When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming. Jews abandon your city.’ ”

We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right -- his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not.”

We are not in Lithuania. It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island. No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

Now before some folks roll their eyes and glance at their watches let me state emphatically, unmistakably – I have no pathology of hate, nor am I a manic Paul Revere, galloping through the countryside. I am not a pessimist, nor prone to panic attacks. I am a lover of humanity, all humanity. Whether they worship in a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or don’t worship at all. I have no bone of bigotry in my body, but what I do have is hatred for those who hate, intolerance for those who are intolerant, and a guiltless, unstoppable obsession to see evil eradicated.

Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided. The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well. The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square, in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeena condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.

Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.

I recall a conversation with my father shortly before he died that helped me understand how perilous and how broken is our world; that we are living on the narrow seam of civilization and moral oblivion. Knowing he had little time left he shared the following – “Shal. I am ready to leave this earth. Sure I’d like to live a little longer, see a few more sunrises, but truthfully, I’ve had it. I’m done. Finished. I hope the Good Lord takes me soon because I am unable to live in this world knowing what it has become.”

This startling admission of moral exhaustion from a man who witnessed and lived through the Depression, the Holocaust, WWII, Communist Triumphalism, McCarthyism, Strontium 90 and polio. – Yet his twilight observation was – “The worst is yet to come.” And he wanted out.

I share my father’s angst and fear that too many do not see the authentic, existential threat we face nor confront the source of our peril. We must wake up and smell the hookah.

“Lighten up, Lewis. Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. You’re sounding like Glen Beck. It’s not that bad. It’s not that real.” But I am here to tell you – “It is.” Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not. Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris, fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration. Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target – pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.

Ask them, ask all of them – ask the American GI’s we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package. Ask them if it’s bad. Ask them if it’s real.

Did anyone imagine in the 1920’s what Europe would look like in the 1940’s. Did anyone presume to know in the coffee houses of Berlin or in the opera halls of Vienna that genocide would soon become the celebrated culture? Did anyone think that a goofy-looking painter named Shickelgruber would go from the beer halls of Munich and jail, to the Reichstag as Feuhrer in less than a decade? Did Jews pack their bags and leave Warsaw, Vilna, Athens, Paris, Bialystok, Minsk, knowing that soon their new address would be Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau and Auschwitz?

The sages teach – “Aizehu chacham – haroeh et hanolad – Who is a wise person – he who sees into the future.” We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.

We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping. We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul. We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders. Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top. From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness.

The mystifying litany of our foolishness continues. Should there be a shul in Hebron on the site where Baruch Goldstein gunned down twenty-seven Arabs at noonday prayers? Should there be a museum praising the U.S. Calvary on the site of Wounded Knee? Should there be a German cultural center in Auschwitz? Should a church be built in the Syrian town of Ma’arra where Crusaders slaughtered over 100,000 Muslims? Should there be a thirteen story mosque and Islamic Center only a few steps from Ground Zero?

Despite all the rhetoric, the essence of the matter can be distilled quite easily. The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish. I don’t buy the argument – “When we can build a church or a synagogue in Mecca they can build a mosque here.” America is greater than Saudi Arabia. And New York is greater than Mecca. Democracy and freedom must prevail.

Can they build? Certainly. May they build? Certainly. But should they build at that site? No -- but that decision must come from them, not from us. Sensitivity, compassion cannot be measured in feet or yards or in blocks. One either feels the pain of others and cares, or does not.

If those behind this project are good, peace-loving, sincere, tolerant Muslims, as they claim, then they should know better, rip up the zoning permits and build elsewhere.

Believe it or not, I am a dues-paying, card carrying member of the ACLU, yet from start of finish, I find this sorry episode disturbing to say the least.

William Burroughs, the novelist and poet, in a wry moment wrote – “After one look at this planet, any visitor from outer space would say – “I want to see the manager.”

Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys. Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U’Magog. The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel. It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank. It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobblestoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street. It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses. It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater – in every place of innocence and purity.

Israel is the laboratory – the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.

In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy. Today too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathesome evil.

As Israel, imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel’s galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel’s galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. We are the trial balloon. The canary in the coal mine. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from “good guys” then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda.

Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is a message sent and consequences when our president visits Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and not Israel.

There is a message sent and consequences when free speech on campus is only for those championing Palestinian rights.

There is a message sent and consequences when the media deliberately doctors and edits film clips to demonize Israel.

There is a message sent and consequences when the UN blasts Israel relentlessly, effectively ignoring Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea, China and other noxious states.

There is a message sent and consequences when liberal churches are motivated by Liberation Theology, not historical accuracy.

There is a message sent and consequences when murderers and terrorists are defended by the obscenely transparent “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

John Milton warned, “Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible.”

A few days after the Gaza blockade incident in the spring, a congregant happened past my office, glanced in and asked in a friendly tone –

“Rabbi. How’re y’ doing?”

I looked up, sort of smiled and replied – “I’ve had better days.”

“What’s the matter? Is there anything I can do to cheer you up?” he inquired.

“Thank you for the offer but I’m just bummed out today and I showed him a newspaper article I was reading.

“Madrid gay pride parade bans Israeli group over Gaza Ship Raid.” I explained to my visitor – “The Israeli gay pride contingent from Tel Aviv was not allowed to participate in the Spanish gay pride parade because the mayor of Tel Aviv did not apologize for the raid by the Israeli military.”

The only country in the entire Middle East where gay rights exist, is Israel. The only country in the entire Middle East where there is a gay pride parade, is Israel. The only country in the Middle East that has gay neighborhoods and gay bars, is Israel.

Gays in the Gaza would be strung up, executed by Hamas if they came out and yet Israel is vilified and ostracized. Disinvited to the parade.

Looking for logic?

Looking for reason?

Looking for sanity?

Kafka on his darkest, gloomiest day could not keep up with this bizarre spectacle and we “useful idiots” pander and fawn over cutthroats, sinking deeper and deeper into moral decay, as the enemy laughs all the way to the West Bank and beyond.

It is exhausting and dispiriting. We live in an age that is redefining righteousness where those with moral clarity are an endangered, beleaguered specie.

Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago – “Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v’Laila, yome – Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day.” We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom. It is a frightening and maddening place to be.

How do we convince the world and many of our own, that this is not just anti-Semitism, that this is not just anti-Zionism but a full throttled attack by unholy, radical Islamists on everything that is morally precious to us?

How do we convince the world and many of our own that conciliation is not an option, that compromise is not a choice?

Everything we are. Everything we believe. Everything we treasure, is at risk.

The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn’t get it is baffling. Let’s try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading

Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death.

I was no great fan of George Bush – didn’t vote for him. (By the way, I’m still a registered Democrat.) I disagreed with many of his policies but one thing he had right. His moral clarity was flawless when it came to the War on Terror, the War on Radical Islamist Terror. There was no middle ground – either you were friend or foe. There was no place in Bush’s world for a Switzerland. He knew that this competition was not Toyota against G.M., not the Iphone against the Droid, not the Braves against the Phillies, but a deadly serious war, winner take all. Blink and you lose. Underestimate, and you get crushed.

I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off. But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw, Riga, Berlin, Amsterdam, Cracow, Vilna. I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun.

Enough rhetoric – how about a little “show and tell?” A few weeks ago on the cover of Time magazine was a horrific picture with a horrific story. The photo was of an eighteen year old Afghani woman, Bibi Aisha, who fled her abusive husband and his abusive family. Days later the Taliban found her and dragged her to a mountain clearing where she was found guilty of violating Sharia Law. Her punishment was immediate. She was pinned to the ground by four men while her husband sliced off her ears, and then he cut off her nose.

That is the enemy (show enlarged copy of magazine cover.)

If nothing else stirs us. If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha’s mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism. Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naïve among us. In the holy crusade against this ultimate evil, pictures of Bibi Aisha’s disfigurement should be displayed on billboards, along every highway from Route 66 to the Autobahn, to the Transarabian Highway. Her picture should be posted on every lobby wall from Tokyo to Stockholm to Rio. On every network, at every commercial break, Bibi Aisha’s face should appear with the caption – “Radical Islamic savages did this.” And underneath – “This ad was approved by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by Taliban, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, by Islamic Jihad, by Fatah al Islam, by Magar Nodal Hassan, by Richard Reid, by Ahmanijad, by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, by Osama bin Laden, by Edward Said, by The Muslim Brotherhood, by Al Queda, by CAIR.”

“The moral sentiment is the drop that balances the sea” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Today, my friends, the sea is woefully out of balance and we could easily drown in our moral myopia and worship of political correctness.

We peer up into the heavens sending probes to distant galaxies. We peer down into quarks discovering particles that would astonish Einstein. We create computers that rival the mind, technologies that surpass science fiction. What we imagine, with astounding rapidity, becomes real. If we dream it, it does, indeed, come. And yet, we are at a critical point in the history of this planet that could send us back into the cave, to a culture that would make the Neanderthal blush with shame.

Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis. We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.

A rabbi was once asked by his students…. “Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?” Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”

During WWII and the Holocaust was it business as usual for priests, ministers, rabbis? Did they deliver benign homilies and lovely sermons as Europe fell, as the Pacific fell, as North Africa fell, as the Mideast and South America tottered, as England bled? Did they ignore the demonic juggernaut and the foul breath of evil? They did not. There was clarity, courage, vision, determination, sacrifice, and we were victorious. Today it must be our finest hour as well. We dare not retreat into the banality of our routines, glance at headlines and presume that the good guys will prevail.

Democracies don’t always win. Tyrannies don’t always lose.

My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. “EHR KUMT.”

Christianity and the Constitution

There are five great religions Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. Buddhism doesn’t believe in God, Hinduism believes in many gods, and the remaining three believe in one God and share some common beliefs. Of course Judaism and Islam are dedicated to the “law” primarily on diet and circumcision but they diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, and even on the law. Christians share many of the ethical principles of Judaism and Islam but are very divergent on doctrine and ritual as well as the law. Christians do not ritually circumcise, do not follow the dietary laws, and they practice baptism. While it is politically correct to lump these religions together, Islam stands alone. It is intolerant, its ethical principles are oriented to Muslims , while the Koran is filled with exhortations to violence against infidels and reduces women to little more than chattel. Therefore, any moral or ethical influence on the founding of America is from Christianity or to be precise Judeo-Christian principles and not Islam.

Is America a country founded on Christian Principles? What is it that sets the United States apart from other countries? It is argued that the founding fathers were not Christians but Humanists and Deists and therefore the country was founded on Humanists ideals and not Christian Principles. Of course this argument rests on the assumption that those principles differ from each other, but I don’t think so. In fact I argue they are the same at the philosophical level because Humanism is rooted in Greek and Roman philosophy as well as literature and that literature was written by men who were influenced by Christianity. Therefore, to argue that the founding fathers were humanists doesn’t remove the Christian influence on them and their thinking, but what is “Humanism”?

Humanism
There are many definitions of Humanism but of these the two that seem apropos are “Christian Humanism” and “Modern Humanism.” Modern Humanism rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily on science, democracy, and human compassion. Modern Humanism is both secular and religious in origin. Christian Humanism is a philosophy advocating self-fulfillment within the framework of Christian principles, but devoid of the supernatural elements found in Christian doctrine. Therefore, Humanism and Christian principles are intertwined and to reject one in favor of the other is not possible since they are two sides of the same coin.

Christian Principles
Separating Christian Principles from Christian Doctrine is very difficult, especially in terms of governance, but these appear to apply.

1. Political leaders should make peace and justice a top priority but recognize that force may be necessary as a last resort – “blessed are the peacemakers”.
2. All are equal under the law – “love thy neighbor as thy self”.
3. Freedom of Speech – “the truth shall make you free”
4 Freedom of Religion –“… that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone…”
5. Political leaders should come from the people – “But select capable men from all the people …”
6. Separation of powers – “For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure”

Many Christians argue that the very foundation of America is based on Christianity and therefore America is a “Christian Nation” while the secularists argue that America is based on Humanist principles and there is no evidence of any religious influence in the Constitution. The Humanists base their argument on the lack of any direct reference to the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or any religious reference. Those who believe the Constitution reflects Christian Theology cite the reference to a “Creator” exception for Sunday and the overall tenor of the document and background of the framers. Thus the conflict is born. From the decades following the signing of the Constitution we find this conflict unresolved and unresolvable because no one knows what drove the framers to write what they did or what they believed. The mountain of documents following the framing is irrelevant because they are after the fact. Being a “Deist” does not mean the person is an atheist and the failure to include specific Christian references in the Constitution does not mean they were not a driving force or that they were not incorporated indirectly.

Christian Principles and the Constitution

If there is any core principle that influenced the founding fathers it is the people in power are the servants of all. Governments from the time of tribal leaders to the time of Kings rested on power and the exercise of that power by individuals. Power once given or seized elevated those in power over those whom they governed and thus you had the divine right of kings – even in those Christian Countries called Christendom– but it was the founding fathers of America who realized the flaw in vesting individuals with power over others. It was the founding fathers who realized that vesting power in fallible human beings was something that had to be done but had to be controlled.

These were people who believers or not were very familiar with the Bible and in Mark 10:43 they found Christ saying “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant -- for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve”. This idea that the powerful are servants was further elaborated in Luke 22:27 “Who is greater, the one at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table ? But I am among you as one who serves”. On this basis – a Christian Principle – those in whom power is vested are servants to those who gave them power and to insure the leaders served the people the founding fathers incorporated into the Constitution the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. This was to ensure those in power remained as servants to the people and did not oppress those who put them into power.

But perhaps the first example of the Christian influence on the founding fathers is in the opening of the Declaration of Independence which declares that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal …” But when Jefferson wrote these words equality was not self evident at all and in fact the exact opposite was true. Inequality was all about but Jefferson was declaring that all people are “moral” equals and that one life and one person is no greater or less than that of any other. This principle is stated in Matthew 19:19 where we find “love thy neighbor as thy self” or in Galatians 3:28 where we find “There is neither Jew nor Greek , there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”. Jefferson was acknowledging that his life had no greater value than that of a laborer in the streets. Because all men are equal in the eyes of God, then no man has the right to rule over another without his consent. Among the rights was the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that to secure these rights Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

While it may be true that the founding fathers were more deists and humanists than Christian they were nevertheless familiar with the Bible and with Judeo- Christian teachings and believed that legitimacy is derived from God and not from man. Thus our rights became “unalienable” because they come from God (the Creator) and not from the people who govern.

The situation is a little murkier when we come to religious freedom. In Ezra 7:24 we find that the government is forbidden to interfere with the worship of God or at least with any organization or group that worships God. But in typical fashion we find further on in Ezra 7:26 that those who do not follow the law of God or the land shall be punished by death, banishment, or prison. While the Bible does offer the Ten Commandments as a basis for conduct and these commandments are honored by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they also direct that you cannot worship idols, other gods, and that “you shall have no other God before Me” Certainly the founding fathers were familiar with the Bible but they were also familiar with history. The very first settlers in America were Christians escaping persecution from other Christians but once established in the New World they immediately set about setting up their own form of religious persecution. Therefore, I believe that while the guarantee of religious freedom was based on the Bible it also reflected the sad history of religious persecution rooted in the Bible. Thus the founding fathers intended to keep religion out of the government and used the Bible’s demands for worship as the basis for incorporating that restriction. At a stroke the founding fathers eliminated apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy from government involvement, thus allowing atheism, paganism, and all other religions to exist under the Constitution. In this instance I think the Bible and the Ten Commandments was seen as a threat to the future of the Republic because history reflected that government mandated religious practice had a bloody past. Therefore, government and religion were separated even though Christianity was the prevalent religion. This is certainly an example of how the Bible and Judeo-Christian beliefs influenced the framing of the Constitution.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our freedom because it permits us to speak out against the government as well as any idea, law, group, or person within the confines of libel. In John 8:32 we find “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. Of course truth is one of those terms that can be perceived but if that perception is false or harms the individual that person is protected by libel laws which are addressed in Exodus 2:1-7 where we find commandment nine “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. But there are other parts of the Constitution that reflect Christian thinking and morality. In Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution we find the following “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him…” This clearly reflects a theistic view of the authors. This theistic view has been reflected in various court cases regarding Sunday laws and is another example of religious (Christian) influence on the Constitution.

Christianity and America

While the Constitution clearly reflects the Judeo- Christian ideas and principles which were known by the founding fathers, the American Spirit – that which sets America apart from other nations is also reflected in the Bible. Perhaps the greatest thing that sets America apart is the “melting pot”. Anyone from anywhere can come to America and become an American and be seen by other Americans as being an American – one of us. This concept is rare and is the root of many problems in the world today, but this view of the universality of people is shown in Acts 10:34-35 where we find “At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” This attitude is reflective of the American spirit of equality and is reflected in our foreign policy.

America has fought two world wars and has fought in many foreign lands but has rebuilt these lands. Unlike other major powers like Rome, Egypt, and the European colonial powers America has rebuilt these war torn lands and withdrawn usually leaving the defeated in better condition than they were previously. This attitude and approach is very unique but reflects the Christian teachings of Jesus (Matthew 22:39) where we find the following “…Thou shalt love they neighbor as thy self”. But this idea is also found in Luke 2:27-31 "But, I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” These ideas and principles form the very foundation of the American Spirit.

Influence of Islam
Because Islam acknowledges the Ten Commandments, Moses, Jesus, and Mary there is a feeling among some that these three religions share morality and ethics and are thus alike. This is totally false relative to Islam. The Koran is filled with hate and exhortations to violence. Even a quick review of the Koran shows that a Muslim cannot continue to call himself Muslim if they tolerate anyone who is not Muslim. In fact they are instructed to kill all infidels. Sura 9:5 says “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and see them, belittle them and lie and wait for them in every strategy of war”. For the people who resist Islam – meaning all non-Muslims—the Koran instructs Muslims in Sura 5:33 “Their punishment is execution or crucifixion or cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides or to be exiled from the land”. This is merely a small sample of the violence that permeates the Koran. This “Holy” text is filled with exhortations to kill all infidels. Based on the Koran itself a person cannot be “moderate” and still be Muslim because anyone who even considers a non-Muslim as a friend or ally is not Muslim but has become heretic and apostate. Therefore, to view Islam as even remotely similar to Judaism or Christianity is to not understand the Koran or the morality of Islam.
Conclusion

Some reject the idea that the Constitution is based on (Judeo) Christian Principles because the founding fathers were Humanists and Deists and well that might be but some were Christian and it seems clear that whether they were actual Christians without doubt they were familiar with Christian Principles, the Bible, and most of all history. What we find is that many concepts found in the Bible have been incorporated into the Constitution. But the founding fathers knowing the abuses and evil that had been practiced in the past in the name of Christ were careful to separate these religious laws and directives from the government of the United States. It is my opinion that the Constitution is based on Christian Principles with some being incorporated while others were deliberately rejected. It also seems clear that from the very outset there was a conflict between those who felt America was a Christian Nation built on the Bible and those who felt America was a Humanist and secular country independent of any religion or religious influence. This battle rages on and will probably never be resolved because it seems to be based entirely on interpretation and opinion. But in the book “God is Not One” we find “The case for Christianity’s preeminence is compelling. The number one best seller is the Bible, is the scripture of American politics, widely quoted in inaugural addresses and on the floor of the House and Senate. And the overwhelming majority of US Citizens call themselves Christians as has every President since Washington”. I conclude and it is my opinion that America is a Christian Nation built on Christian ideals and principles.

Royce Callaway


Sources:
King James Bible
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis
What’s So Great About America – Dinesh D’Souza
What’s So Great About Christianity – Dinesh D’Souza
What is Humanism – Frederick Edwords
God Is Not One – Stephen Prothero
The Holy Koran
Various Internet Queries

Dhimmitude and You

Our fearless leader aided and abetted by a spineless congress and an adoring media is gradually undoing America or at least what most Americans think of as America. He has declared that we are NOT a Christian Nation without ever saying what we ARE as a nation. For some the issue has been his socialist (nee communist) philosophies, for others it has been seizure of businesses, and still others the issue has been his arrogance and obvious lack of control over any situation. His administration is totally out of control and he seems unable to act without reading his instructions from the ubiquitous teleprompter. His administration and the media have dismissed his birth certificate as a non-issue, they have dismissed his Islamic roots as untrue or at least irrelevant, and they have ignored his lack of any past record on anything – the man is a total blank who increasingly seems like a ventriloquist’s puppet rather than a real boy. You expect any day to see his nose grow. However, as bad as these things may be there are more insidious things going on in the background – hidden in these multi-thousand page bills being pushed through congress are some very interesting things – things never discussed in detail and when discussed never examined critically and that brings me to Dhimmitude. Of course this word never appeared in any legislation but it is there although disguised – so what does this interesting word mean?

The word itself stems from the Arabic where it is an adjective which means “protected” and refers to a non-Muslim who is subject to Sharia Law, but this neologism springs from the French where it denotes concession, surrender, and appeasement towards Islamic demands. The Islamic community is sworn to kill infidels, to support the (Islamic) poor, etc. but Islam has been at war with the Infidels since its inception in the seventh century. In fact the Prophet Mohammed – before he got religion was a warlord who funded his activities by robbing caravans and then robbing and murdering Jews (do you see a pattern there?). But as we know and as history shows -- wars cost money so in an environment where the majority is protected by Sharia Law from any of the usual revenue raising schemes, the money has to come from somewhere and where would that be – the infidels – who are Dhimmi!! In exchange for not being murdered as demanded by the Koran the infidels (read Jews and Christians) pay a tax. This tax has historically been used by the Ottomans to fund their military and wars.

So how does this affect Americans and what has Dhimmitude have to do with it. Well it seems that the new healthcare legislation created by our non-Muslim President governing a non-Christian nation contains some interesting exclusions. The new healthcare bill – which doesn’t go into effect until 2014 – requires all Americans to buy healthcare insurance or go to jail EXCEPT those people who can demonstrate a religious basis for their refusal. This includes people like the Amish, Scientologists, and --- are you ready -- Muslims!! Muslims are forbidden to do a lot of things including buy insurance which they view as a form of gambling. They are Dhimmi, which means that all you folks out there will be paying for the healthcare of the entire Islamic community while they pay nothing while funding organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Yes it is true this legislation only pertains to “American” Muslims but Americans are generally unaware that Muslims do not view any nation state as superior to Islam so their first loyalty is to Islam not America or any other nation.

Now the Snopes bastion of truth acknowledges that this is indeed in the legislation but they don’t give it a “true” ranking because the legislation hasn’t gone into effect and may be challenged in court – long after our non-Muslim President has ridden into the sunset. Our country and our values are under attack and are being undermined by a complaisant congress, a somnambulant media, and a President clearly controlled and scripted via teleprompter. Vote wisely and remember who voted for these bills without ever reading them.

The Nation of Islam

The recent attempt by yet another Arab terror group to break the Israeli embargo has served to highlight the problems that Israel faces but more importantly it acts as a reminder of how fragmented Islam is. This issue of Islamic infighting was covered in great detail in a strategic report which I have digested in the following comments and added my own editorial observations.

There is little doubt but Israel is once again losing the battle for public opinion but that was the objective of the entire flotilla exercise from the outset, even the selection of the contraband was intended to further the case for public outrage. But when you look behind the blather what do you see? What you see is very little action, lots of talk, and interestingly enough no calls for military action against Israel other than the usual Hamas terrorism.

The reality of the situation is the powers outside of the Middle East will continue to blather away against Israel but any significant action by the Islamic nations in the area is unlikely because they are so divided among themselves and have such divergent relations with Israel and each other that any effective coalition against Israel doesn’t exist and is unlikely to exist in the near future. Of course the nuclear threat from Iran exists but that threat is mitigated somewhat by the world at large. Consequently while the tide of public opinion rises against Israel it is unlikely that little action will be taken and the Israeli’s will continue their policies unchanged.

Since it was the “humanitarian” effort to bring aid to the Palestinians it is probably best to examine the relations between the factions within the Palestinian community. There is of course the Palestinians themselves who can be classified as victims – not of the Israeli’s but of their own political groups, Fatah and Hamas, neither of which seem to care about the plight of the people. These two groups are at war with each other and with Israel. Fatah dominates the West Bank while Hamas dominates the Gaza Strip and Israel occupies the middle ground. The result is that these two Palestinian groups operate as if they were separate and hostile countries – countries with distinctly different ideologies.

Fatah is secular and springs from the socialist movement started by Nasser in Egypt and aligned with the old Soviet Union. Fatah was the dominant faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was an umbrella group headed by Yasser Arafat until his death. But upon his death the PLO was left with a corrupt bureaucracy but no leader, no coherent strategy, and worst of all – no agreed upon ideology. The result was the PLO ceased to exist and fragmented into the Hamas and Fatah factions. Hamas is an Islamist (Shia) organization supported and subsidized by Iran. Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist but the “liberation” of Palestine is not the paramount objective – the objective of Hamas is to establish an Islamic state, which makes it hostile to Fatah.

Fatah is Islamic but secular at its base. While it preaches the destruction of Israel it is much more pragmatic and seeks a true country of Palestine and is much more willing to negotiate with Israel. But Hamas and Fatah are irreconcilable in their ideologies and Hamas views Fatah as corrupt making both groups easily manipulated by Israel as well as other outside forces. Hamas sees any set back to Fatah as a victory just as Fatah views any failure of Hamas as a win for their side. Currently the world focus is on Hamas and their clear public relations victory so it is only a matter of time before Fatah will find some way to undo these gains by Hamas. It is this deep division between the Palestinians that makes Israeli efforts to pit one against the other as almost unnecessary since they are at war with each other.
But the Palestinian situation is actually a microcosm of the Arab states surrounding Israel which have issues of their own. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt surround Israel and publicly condemn Israel, the Israeli Embargo, and support the Islamic cause – at least publicly but underneath things are much less clear.
Egypt may be the oldest country in the world and while essentially an Islamic state it is a secular country and totally hostile to Hamas. Hamas is an intensely religious organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a semi-secret organization responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat among others. The Muslim Brotherhood is considered by the Egyptian government to be its greatest domestic threat and President Mubarak has moved against Islamic extremists and sees Hamas and their ideology as a threat since it could spread to Egypt. Thus Egypt has maintained its own blockade of Gaza and remains much closer to the Fatah whose secularism derives from the Egyptian secularism. Consequently Hamas (supported by Iran) distrusts Cairo which is secular and Sunni.
Jordan on the other hand doesn’t trust Fatah since Arafat attempted to overthrow the monarchy. This effort by Fatah cost 10,000 Palestinian lives and Fatah has never forgot this massacre – initiated by them but in typical fashion blamed on Jordan. The idea of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank is not popular with the Jordanians, especially since so much of their population is Palestinian. But the Jordanians are not enthusiastic about Hamas either since they have such close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood which has caused problems in Jordan. So while Jordan acts as an Islamic state and gives lip service to the condemnation of Israel the reality is both Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel which remain in place and apparently unthreatened.
And that brings us to the more interesting and complicated issue which is Syria. Syria supports the Palestinians but that seems to be more rhetorical than real. Syria is focused on Lebanon and along with Iran a sponsor of Hezbollah, which is anti-Israeli rather than pro-Palestinian. Hezbollah is a Shiite Organization supported by Iran that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel not to the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians are little more than a casus belli for Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. The Syrian government is focused on Lebanon and when Hezbollah becomes aggressive against Israel the Syrians become upset with Iran whom they see as responsible. But there are other issues here because Hezbollah is a Shiite organization but the Palestinians are generally Sunni so it isn’t clear that the Palestinians would want Hezbollah to establish a regime in Palestine. So Syria is playing a complicated game as it tries to balance all of these conflicting goals that only have one common one which is the destruction of Israel, when their goal is the domination of Lebanon. But these aren’t the only countries that make up Islam
Turkey is a secular Islamic country with aspirations to join the EU but it is also dealing with an insurgent Kurdish issue and a rising Islamic fundamentalism fueled by radical clerics. The Turkish government is condemning Israel at the moment but that is probably the government’s attempt to mollify the radicals. Then you have the threats the PLO gave to the Arabian states. Like all Arabs the Saudi’s and other Arabian peninsula states are long on memory and short on forgiveness so it is unlikely they will rush to the aid and support of the Palestinians in any meaningful way. Of course Iran would like to influence if not dominate the Palestinians as they pursue their objective of the destruction of Israel but Fatah doesn’t trust the Iranians and Hamas is Sunni while Iran is Shiite so there is not a lot of trust there either. So all of these convoluted relationships are fragile and not built on trust.
Given these conflicts in policy, religion, and political goals among the Islamic states, it renders the anti-Semitism of Europe and hostility to Israel as more of a diplomatic issue than any significant threat to Israel. To the Israeli’s Gaza represents a dagger at their throat and it is unlikely they will loosen their grip and from their perspective Fatah ultimately supports their suppression of Gaza and Hamas. More importantly Egypt participates with Israel in this suppression of Hamas through their own embargo, Jordan is relieved by the Israeli policy, and Syria is indifferent to it but may continue their blather. In effect these divisions among the Islamic states render them ineffective and thus Israel has no reason to reduce their pressure on Gaza and Hamas.
To confirm this assessment it is worth noting that as the Israeli Navy intercepted this Turkish Flotilla, not one Egyptian aircraft threaten the Israeli’s nor did any Syrian or Turkish warship approach or make any effort to intervene with the Israeli’s. The threat of rocket attacks and suicide bombers from Gaza remains but any significant deterrent threat from the other Islamic states is unlikely to go beyond rhetorical condemnations.

Obama Strategy?

As the decision relative to Afghanistan continues to wait on President Obama, perhaps it is time to ask precisely what his strategy is relative to America and American foreign policy. During one of his overseas trips, President Obama was asked about the exceptionalism of America. Specifically Ronald Reagan viewed America as “A shining city on a hill” and how did President Obama see America? He was very clear in that he did not see America as unique or with any interests above or different from those of – say – Cuba, Greece, or Venezuela. This startling view was reflected in the mainstream media as a refreshing change from the jingoism that has characterized America. Newsweek almost got the vapors in their fawning over President Obama’s stance that America is no longer chauvinistic and parochial, but we stand as equals with the world and that Obama stands above the country – even above the world – “he is sort of God”. I think even with his overweening ego, President Obama might be a little embarrassed by that quote. But it does raise the question of exactly how does President Obama see the US and where does he think our interests lie?

The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.

If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?

So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.

To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.

So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.

Iran and American Foreign Policy

There has been growing concern over Iran and the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear power. These concerns are well founded, especially since the UN has proven time and again to be totally ineffective in every endeavor but especially in its peace keeping efforts. It is worth pointing out that the USSR developed nuclear capability because of the traitorous activity of some liberal scientists who felt America couldn’t be trusted with such power. Since that time America has continued employing immigrants in sensitive positions because these people have become American citizens. The result has been the spread of nuclear weapons including India and Pakistan. The real threat really isn’t whether or not the Iranians develop nuclear weapons the issue is will the terrorists supported by Iran gain control of them? It is highly unlikely that any nation state will employ nuclear weapons even under attack, but it is an almost certainty that the various Islamic terrorists organizations would use them at the first opportunity, because they would have no fear of reprisal. After all who would you attack?

Recently the fear has been that the Israeli’s will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites using American bunker busters and this threat is now increased with the recent election of President Obama who has made it clear his policies will not favor Israel. Therefore the threat of an attack on Iran prior to Obama taking office is greatly increased, but is the Iranian militancy just saber rattling or does it pose a real threat? Deception and posturing is endemic to Islamic culture but generally misunderstood by the West. It was Saddam Hussein who made a big show out of working on nuclear weaponry and developing weapons of mass destruction when as it turned out, most of this was just to impress his Islamic neighbors and to threaten the US. Now Iran is trying the same tactic by leading the West to believe that they are actually developing nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver those weapons. This was evidenced by their release of the test firing of four long range missiles, which turned out later to be three missiles and on even further analysis only one missile and it was not an intermediate range missile. So Iran’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons or any weapon at all is highly suspect and probably non-existent at least in the near term. So the question remains – why is Iran acting is such a provocative manner knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein?

The answer to the question cannot be known outside of Iran but an examination of the current situation in Iran is certainly warranted and may give some insight into why they are provoking the US. The Ayatollah Khomeini was not so much of a religious leader as he was a revolutionary and he was convinced that when the US allowed the Shah to fall that the Islamic world was ripe for revolution and that his revolution would sweep all before it. Of course this isn’t what happened. Instead he found that while Iran was ready for a change it wasn’t ready for his extreme ideas. Nevertheless, much like Lenin, Robespierre and Hitler the people realized too late that they had changed one tyranny for another. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein wasn’t in any mood to allow the Ayatollah’s to take over his country. The result was a war instigated by Hussein on the mistaken assumption that the people of Iran wouldn’t tolerate the religious fanaticism installed by Khomeini. He was wrong, but there is a lesson there should be heeded. Hitler was convinced the Russians would rise up against Stalin when he invaded Russia but instead he ignited a battle that ultimately brought him down. The same occurred with Iran because the Iranians did not rise up against Iraq but instead rallied together to fight the invader.

The situation in Iran today is very unstable and the Ayatollah’s retain only a very tenuous hold on the government. They try to maintain the facade of a democratic government but they arrest opposition leaders or simply disqualify them from running for office, a process historically used by dictators. The result is a highly unstable government which has grown even more unstable in recent weeks as the demand for oil declines along with oil revenues. The current President of Iran – Ahmadinejad has squandered the oil revenues on the assumption that these would continue indefinitely. As the world demand for oil declines and the dollar strengthens the Iranian government finds itself under pressure internally because it can no longer meet the demands of their infrastructure. They have succeeded in suppressing internal dissent but that can only be a short term strategy. Thus is seems that the best strategy would be to provoke the Israeli’s or the US into attacking them and the best way to accomplish that would be to create the belief that they have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at Israel. This would provoke Israel into attacking them which would entangle the US and rally the people to resist the invaders. At this juncture it seems the best strategy for the west is to do precisely nothing other than to continue economic sanctions as long as Iran continues their provocative behavior, but to do nothing else. The USSR collapsed due to internal economic pressures and it is very possible that the current Iranian regime could collapse for the same reasons.

Christendom and Islam

Western governments simply do not understand Islam or the Muslim countries. These Islamic countries were created by the West in what they thought was the best interest of the people and certainly in the best interest of the West but these are fragile creations that have only the most tenuous hold on reality. Christendom is essentially composed of all of the Westernized and Christian nation states but there is no centralized authority or unifying force. Any unifying Christian force ceased with Martin Luther and certainly ended altogether with Henry VIII who split from the Pope altogether. While loyalties to family, church, ethnic group or other organizations exist in Christendom, these loyalties are always subservient to the nation state. This is not true in Islam. In Islam loyalties are to the family, the clan, the tribe, and Islam in that order with any loyalty to such a thing as a nation state being of secondary importance if it exists at all. In fact the internal politics of these Islamic states tends to be tribal in nature and this can be seen in the internal conflicts that plague all of the Islamic states. These Islamic states are really tribal organizations – essentially “tribes with flags” with a seventh century ethos, where blood feuds are common and personal honor paramount. But whatever they are these Islamic states are not nation states in the Western model and to continue to view their governments as having the same level of authority and respect as Western governments is a major error in judgment.

From a Western perspective these Islamic states are truly barbarous where they stone adulterers and homosexuals to death, lash miscreants for minor offenses, maim others for things such as theft, deny equal rights to women, and see it as their duty to kill all infidels. Recently there was an explosion in an Iranian Mosque and the authorities initially thought that the arms and ammunition stored in the Mosque were not handled properly and exploded. As it turned out this was not the situation but the fact that it was the initial reaction is very telling, when you consider their reaction to any damage to a Mosque by the American Military. Furthermore, Muslims consider it their duty to destroy all Christian Churches and to kill all Christians and this is currently going on in many if not most Islamic countries. For most Christians it would be unthinkable to use a church as an ammunition dump, but to Muslims it is routine practice, particularly due to the fact that the morally superior western democracies would never attack a Mosque. The whole moral structure of Islam is almost totally opposite of that in Christendom. In Saudi Arabia the mere possession of a Bible is a capital offense. All of this moral ambiguity is well known in the West but Westerners continue to see Islam as having equivalent morality and the Islamic countries as nation states with authority. In fact they have only limited authority and are heavily influenced by various religious leaders who may not even be citizens in their countries.

What is not recognized in the West is that since the fall of the Ottomans there has been a power struggle going on throughout the Muslim world as various groups and individuals compete to unify Islam under one central authority—the Caliphate. The Islamic concept of ummah ( cultural unification) actually presupposes the illegitimacy of the nation state but this ummah or unification can only be accomplished through the actions of a strong core state or group, which does not currently exist. However, shortly after the death of Mohammed Islam spread across all of North Africa and culminated in the first central authority in the form of the Umayyad Caliphate whose capital was Damascus (Syria did not exist). This was followed by the Abbasid Caliphate with a capital in Baghdad. This was followed by other Caliphates beginning in the tenth century, but by the thirteenth century the Ottoman Turks rose in the Middle East, conquered Constantinople and established a new Caliphate that stood until the end of WW I. With the fall of the Ottomans the Western Powers created these arbitrary states in the Western model without regard to tribe, clan, or religious grouping and since that time Islam has been without a core state and unstable as the various factions vie for supremacy while some, such as the Kurds, vie for autonomy.

This power struggle is obscured by the American presence in Iraq, but it is being played out in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Shiite’s represent only a small percentage of Muslims, but they currently dominate Iran and Iraq and are easily the most organized and heavily armed. But the Sunni majority will not tolerate Shiite control or a Shia Caliphate so it is unlikely that any religious leader in either of these Shiite dominated countries can muster enough support to unify Islam and restore the Caliphate. However, the power struggle is increasingly violent with each group blaming the US in order to disguise their violation of Islamic law in their fight for supremacy. This is apparent in the recent battles between the Iraqi government and the Iranian backed Militia’s, which are actually power struggles between two Shiite groups, with the US backing one side and the Iranians the other. Because these are both Shiite groups the Sunni majority isn’t happy with the US support of the Shiites so Iraq remains unstable. The problem actually stems from the failure of the US to recognize that a democratic government is totally alien to the Islamic World and supporting the government is actually viewed as supporting a specific Shiite group. It would have been better to have established an authoritarian government but since that didn’t happen, it might be better to allow a military dictatorship to evolve that would be pro-American. A failure to resolve this problem can only allow time for a strong Islamic leader to emerge and that could be in Turkey.

There is growing unrest in Turkey as the Western Powers continue to treat Turkey as a second class country. The Ottomans joined the Germans because they were poorly treated by the British and it seems we are making the same mistake again. If Turkey rejects the secular government established by Ataturk, then they could easily become the stable government that could form the foundation for another Islamic Empire equivalent to the Ottoman Empire, but richer, more stable, and more heavily armed. This would be a disaster for the West and would certainly pit Islam against Christendom once again.