Proving Canada is not a lost cause

Labour Board rules vaccine mandates violated Christian rights. It's about time someone official in Canada recognizes the leftist fascism, even if it is several years too late to matter.

Dictator Watch - Afghanistan Edition

The Taliban is likely going to eliminate Christians in the country.  Oh, and slavery for women too, so there's that.

Saturday Learning Series - Atlantic Jihad documentary

Via the Youtube channel of Krsto Zrnov Popović;

Whilst the Arabs have been acknowledged as a prime force in the early usage of slaves from Africa, very little has been written about their usage of White slaves, whether they were part of the Russian slave trade or those kidnapped by Arab pirates. However, in recent years, the research of some authors has been bringing this issue to light.

The origins of African slavery in the New World cannot be understood without some knowledge of the millennium of warfare between Christians and Muslims that took place in the Mediterranean and Atlantic and the piracy and kidnapping that went along with it. In 1627 pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa raided distant Iceland and enslaved nearly four hundred astonished residents. In 1617 Muslim pirates, having long enslaved Christians along the coasts of Spain, France, Italy, and even Ireland, captured 1,200 men and women in Portuguese Madeira. Down to the 1640s, there were many more English slaves in Muslim North Africa than African slaves under English control in the Caribbean. Indeed, a 1624 parliamentary proclamation estimated that the Barbary states held at least 1,500 English slaves, mostly sailors captured in the Mediterranean or Atlantic. Millions European Christians were kidnapped and enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 -- a far greater number than had ever been estimated before. Professor Robert Davis, in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, estimated that 1 million to 1.25 million White people were enslaved by North African pirates between 1530 and 1780.

One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature -- that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true, We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people. Slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one's agenda to discuss what happened. The enslavement of Europeans doesn't fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as "evil colonialists" and not as the victims they sometimes were. Between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.

The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast. Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas,Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa -- cities such as Tunis and Algiers -- would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children.

The impact of these attacks were devastating -- France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior. We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under," he said. "Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.

The hole in Christianity...is us

The Texas shooters included a convert to Islam that everyone should have seen coming, and it speaks volumes to the hole in Christianity, which is us. Not America, not the West, but Christians.

The attorney who once defended one of two men who opened fire at a “Draw Muhammad” event in Texas on Sunday says she was “shocked” to learn that he was involved in the attack.

According to Sitton, Simpson didn’t come from a Muslim family and didn’t convert to Islam until he was in high school. “He said he was running with a bad crowd in high school—smoking, drinking and stuff,” she said. “He said Islam got him away from that stuff.”

Have we become too insular and busy preaching to the choir to reach out where need to do so?  Have we abandon the cultural war for the souls of humanity?  It sure feels that way, at least in this case.  But I do believe this case is symptomatic of a broader problem.

What Elton Simpson says Islam did for him, Christianity should have done. The opportunity was there.  And subsequently, it would almost certainly not have led to Jihad.  A vulnerable youth - first with drugs, then with Jihad, could have been saved.  We should not have let that happen.

As an aside - a liberal judiciary did nothing to help the situation either. After a considerable amount of evidence, he was given probation, despite being flagged as a threat:

Judge Murguia—an Obama appointee on what is often considered to be the most left-leaning appeals court in the country—found that there was insufficient evidence that Simpson’s false statement to authorities involved international terrorism.

Friday Musical Interlude - Newsboys

Newsboys' Christian anthem, We Believe.

Sunday Service

A few Christian themed news items to ponder on Sunday.

Christians being purged.  And ignored.

Christians are being persecuted.

Bibles are back in Navy rooms.

The Pope is in Korea, and urges military action against ISIS.

While Aramaic, the language of Jesus,  is also being decimated.

Related to the Pope's Asian visit, Christianity is booming there.

Faith.

Happy Thanksgiving America.

Thanksgiving is a time when the world gets to see just how blessed and how workable the Christian system is. The emphasis is not on giving or buying, but on being thankful and expressing that appreciation to God and to one another. 

~John Clayton

Droning On

While Kenya is the hotbed of the day with respect militant Islamic jihad, Pakistan is still a bigger deal, where Christians are being murdered because, they are Christian.  Suicide bombers have declared war on Christianity. 

The president doesn't care.  The drone attacks continue and the details of Christian deaths in Pakistan are startlingly underplayed, as Christians don't seem to matter if they aren't American.

The Guardian however, has taken note of it.

...Some of the congregation were in bare feet as they filed out of the Anglican church on Sunday morning straight into the blast zone of one of two suicide bombers from a Taliban faction that has vowed to kill non-Muslims until the US cancels its lethal drone strikes in the country.

A day later and a blood-soaked jumble of shoes still lies in a pile on the right-hand side of the tall wooden doors where female worshippers usually congregate.

According to a tally based on information from local officials, 85 people were killed and more than 100 injured, although one doctor who arrived at the scene moments after the blast believes that even more died but their bodies were recovered by relatives before they could be accounted for.

Whatever the number, it was Pakistan's worst attack on Christians, sparking impassioned, country-wide protests.

Christians are a tiny and politically weak minority in Muslim-majority Pakistan who suffer from prejudice and sporadic bouts of mob violence. But Sunday was the first time that bombs had been used to such deadly effect on worshippers.

This is genocide, just like in Syria, but the victims are a persecuted minority and they feel the root cause of the actions of their attackers are American drone attacks. They also have some harsh words for the West in general and the sentiment is not unjust.

"It's not safe for Christians in this country," said Mano Rumalshah, the bishop emeritus of Peshawar, who was standing in the courtyard, comforting sobbing parishioners who clasped his white robes.

"Everyone is ignoring the growing danger to Christians in Muslim-majority countries. The European countries don't give a damn about us."

Charlie Hebdo has angered Muslims

Charlie Hebdo is not a person.  Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine in France and it has angered Muslims with an editorial cartoon.  The magazine follows the French tradition of skewering religion.  Free speech in France, is under a microscope as a result.

Conservative Christians might find themselves in an awkward position of having to defend those who would attack religion, or else those who would attack religious disrespect.  French Christians no doubt have felt Charlie Hebdo's sting in the past.

Many French newspapers have rushed to the defence of Charlie Hebdo after the weekly satirical paper published cartoons showing the Prophet Muhammad.

Others, however, accuse the paper of acting irresponsibly in the current context and run front-page headlines warning of the consequences.

A front-page editorial in the centre-left daily Le Monde says the "fundamental" principle of freedom of expression outweighs any other concerns, including religious ones.

The fact that religions may be subjected not just to criticism but also to ridicule has been "clear since Voltaire", it says.

"Whatever people may think of Charlie Hebdo's editorial choices... the only conceivable limit to its freedom is that which the courts might judge to be justified," the paper concludes...

Other papers emphasise the need to act responsibly.

A front-page editorial by Yves Threard published by the centre-right daily Le Figaro says publishing such cartoons is "as easy as it is irresponsible". Resorting to "silly provocations" to respond to Islamists' attempts at intimidation means "falling into their trap", the paper judges.

A commentary by the writer Jean-François Bouthors in the best-selling regional daily Ouest France warns that "claiming to defend the freedom of expression by in turn engaging in a game of contempt, sarcasm and stigmatisation is very wrong".

The Christian Post says Fox takes it easy on Palin.

I guess The Christian Post  would prefer Fox act like MSNBC.

It’s probably not shocking news to learn that Fox News’ personalities go easier on their colleague Sarah Palin than other networks do. However, what has created a media stir up this week was just how honest two personalities, Greg Gutfeld and Bob Beckel, were when talking about their coverage of Palin on Wednesday. Gutfeld and Beckel, co-host of the Fox News program, The Five, were discussing Palin’s defense of the Tea Party this week. Gutfield announced that he felt awkward when talking about the possible GOP candidate because to him she is “like a coworker.”

But the real question is, as a Christian shouldn't they be doing something other than looking for dirt that they can't even confirm?

This brings up an ethical question, if not problem, that surrounds Fox News. Many commentators on Fox News are not just viewers sitting on the political sideline but active participants as well. Does this pose a conflict of interest in Fox’s coverage of politics? Many on the left have often said “yes.” After all, it is reasonable to see how colleagues would not want to beat up on each other; if for nothing more in order to maintain workplace civility. 

There has been no proof or record that Fox withholds financial assets from employees who “beat up on” Palin.

Who are these people, and are they really a Christian organization and not a communist front?  I mean, I can't prove it, but you know it right?

Sarcasm note for the hard of interpreting:  See what I did there?  I accused them of something I couldn't prove, just like they did.

Evangelicals versus Glenn Beck

CNN is hyping up the Evangelical leader who is taking on Glenn Beck over Jesus' teachings about social justice.  CNN is doing it because it casts the competition in a bad light (andno doubt casts aspersions on the conservative views of Christianity and by extension, conservatism in general).  The Reverend Jim Wallis is no doubt benefitting from the exposure, although that's not likely the motivation for the combative retort.

Christianity In China: Dead or Alive?

According to official Chinese government sources, there are approximately 14 million Christians in China. Unofficial sources put it as high as 130 million, and the most realistic efforts at enumeration put it at about 54 million Christians in China. That number represents approximately 4% of China's population, and it is growing significantly. That's despite official efforts to restrict it.

This CBS clip from 2007 doesn't do the situation complete justice.



But does it matter what religion Chinese choose? Yes and no. It doesn't matter in the sense that the issue is really that the freedom to choose a religion in China is stifled. While they allow Christianity now, it's only through the government approved version of the Catholic Church, which the Catholic Church itself sees as subverting the role of the Vatican with respect to appointing priests. Other versions of Christianity are all underground still.

In some sense it does matter if Chinese people follow Christianity. Many Muslims claim that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, while Christians claim that Christianity is. Converting Chinese to Christianity does a couple of things for the West. It provides us some cultural common ground, which is important in a world where China is emerging as a great power. China as an ally would be better than China as the alternative. It also lowers the risk of radical Islam finding a foothold there. Islam is a religion whose sensibilities are somewhat different than our own;

Founded in 622 A.D., Islam is among the newer major religions. But to the non-Muslim world, it sometimes appears inflexible. Clashes between Islamic tradition and Western influence are sweeping the globe.

In Islam, contrary to Western beliefs, the rights of the community are considered more important than the rights of the individual. Women are seen primarily as caretakers of the home, and religion strongly influences schools, government and courts.

You could argue that radical Christianity is a risk too, but unlike Islam, there is a clear and unequivocal denunciation of radicals within the community. Furthermore, Christianity has as a fundamental tenet freedom of choice. It's the key to the Western world. Free markets, and freedom of religion flow from that fundamental concept.

In any case, China is likely more prone to adopt Christianity as a foreign influence than Islam. It ties into the fact that the Chinese people are interested in owning GM cars, getting jobs in Europe and America and China is producing a growing number of English speaking citizens. It will soon have more than the United States.

Christianity is poised to fare well in China, provided liberalization of freedoms is not halted as per Tianamenn Square or a la the situation in Iran. For the United States and Western Europe that's a good thing. It doesn't solve every problem that exists with China, nor should it. The growth of Christianity represents a symptom of change in that country, not a cause. But at some point it may become part of a snowball effect with the religion leading to a demand for more freedom, and more freedom creating more interest in religion(s).

The Chinese people have started the move from a command economy to a semi-market-based economy, and from a cultural oppression to very limited cultural freedom. That process should be encouraged to continue until the process will push itself along without any help. Christianity will serve as the canary in the coal mine for much of it.

Merry Christmas - That's right, I said it.

Merry Christmas everyone. I mean that. And I am unapologetic. The fact that some Governor finds it desirable, or politically expedient to elevate any non-Christian religion or anti-religion to an equal status, does not bother me, personally. I am thick-skinned enough to know that it does not affect my personal beliefs.






But it does bother me in a broader way. The US was founded and ruled as a Christian nation. Not as a theocracy, but following guiding Christian principles;

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison,
once declared, "One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is
that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. ...There never has been a period
in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as laying at its
foundations."

Look on the money. "In God We Trust." Seems pretty clear to me.



Would the Soviet Union have allowed the posting of free market principles in Red Square? Or China in Tiannamen Square. Or the Taliban allow Christian teachings at all? No. The United States is not any of those nations. In the Constitution there are provisions for freedom of religion. There is no issue with someone practicing or following their own faith (or non-faith). That's part of Christian philosophy. But when that faith takes the step towards imposing it's dogma on practicing Christians in a Christian founded, and predominantly Christian practicing nation, the nation has gone from protecting against majority tyranny to tolerating minority tyranny. Up has become down.



Tolerance does not equate to equal status. Freedom from prosecution for differing beliefs does not equate to enshrining moral equivalence, political correctness or changing the money to reflect every denomination or belief on the quarter. That's just crazy. Legally, if someone wants to hate Christians, they are allowed to feel that way. They are allowed to spew their beliefs too. What they are not or should not be allowed to do is use that hatred to trample on the beliefs of others whose forefathers happened to play a pivotal role in the founding of a nation that gives haters the freedom to act so brazenly. If we can tolerate the practices of other faiths or non-believers, then they owe us the courtesy of tolerating ours. The United States has Christian roots, they aren't imposed on anyone. I'm just saying to those who would denigrate Christian observances or attempt to tear apart the notion that the nation was founded on Christian principles and some level of unobtrusive form of state observance hurts no one, should just relax and let things be.



I know that may not be the strongest argument in the face of the ever-present separation of church and state fight. It smacks of 'just leave us alone.' But I think there's a difference between separation of church and state and distancing of church and state. The former can be done intelligently, the latter is dangerous and foolhardy. Even an atheist can see the wisdom in the words "Thou shalt not kill." Except that it seems like that's what they want to do to our beliefs.



Just to end on a positive note, Christianity isn't going anywhere, so I'm not worried. Vitriolic intolerance towards us may not go away any time soon, but I'm sure that in 3008, Christians will still be around and in strong, strong numbers.