CAIR Reacts To Dose Of KIMO

CAIR has filed a complaint which will likely get a school teacher disciplined, if not fired, for allowing Kamil International Ministries Organization (KIMO) to address some NC high school students on the potential dangers of Islam.

The AP defines KIMO as a Christian organization, which it is, but a little elaboration can't hurt. We wouldn't want people to think KIMO is a bunch of Southern rednecks, now would we?

Kamil Solomon, from Bany Ady town in Assiout Province, Egypt, became a Christian at the age of five in this intensely Islamic nation when his mother shared Jesus with him. Kamil became an apologist for the faith as he got older. Persecution in the Middle East became worse after Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. He preached in numerous churches in Cairo and throughout Egypt teaching the truth about Islam. The state police followed him, and after hearing his remarks about Islam, they arrested him in 1993. They confiscated all his belongings including his library and Ph.D. dissertation on "Church History in Arabia Prior to Islam." His dissertation was basically an argument against Islam and was later destroyed. He was tortured in numerous ways for Christ, which included being blindfolded, beaten, and enduring electric shock.

Kamil endured by God's power, and eventually, American Christian agencies worked together to get him released in 1994. His ministry was banned, and he was placed under house arrest. The American Embassy in Cairo granted him an asylum. In February 1996, he came to the United States and formed Kamil International Ministries Organization, through which he travels the country to teach the truth about Islam, including their desire for jihad on American soil. "Muslims are converting black men, white women, students and prisoners," says Kamil.

Kamil came to Providence because he was attracted to the college and international ministry here. "There are many Muslims coming to the area, and we should share Jesus with them while they are here as students." He also hopes to help plant desperately needed churches in Egypt.

Humbly, Kamil pleads for Providence members to put Jesus first and urges us to be ready to sacrifice what it may cost to evangelize. He encourages us to use money judiciously and spend it on people overseas or on the poor among us. Kamil's ministry also offers various tracts on Islam and Christianity. If you would like to receive this free literature, e-mail him at kamil@kimo4jesus.org

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- A high school teacher allowed a group whose declared mission is to "raise an awareness of the danger of Islam" to distribute literature in his class, including a handout titled "Do Not Marry a Muslim Man," according to an advocacy group.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations says a representative from the Kamil International Ministries Organization, based in Raleigh, spoke to a ninth-grade world history class at Enloe High School and distributed the literature, which also discussed Jesus.

The father of a Muslim student reported the incident, said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. The council wrote to Wake County schools Superintendent Del Burns asking that the incident be investigated and that the teacher be disciplined.

Burns had not received the letter, but an investigation is under way and officials will take appropriate disciplinary action, district spokeswoman Kristin Flenniken said.

Comments

[Legalize]

Well, let's subject the scenario to the Lemon Test:
1. Did the literature specifically single-out Islam for a secular purpose? Doesn't look like it; this is a Christain organization that specifically purported to espouse a Christain message.

2. Is the principal intent and effect to advance or inhibit religion? That seems to be a pretty obvious "yes."

3. Have we created an excessive entanglement with religion and the state vis a vis this action? Well, yeah, advancing an expressly Christian agenda via insturmentalities associated with a public school, while school is in session, as part of a manadatory curriculum, is pretty much the definition of "excessive entaglement."

You lose.

[seekeronos]

Well spoken, Legalize!!

How dare those "evil Christians" preach against (*gasp*) Islam!

And in a public school, no less! The sheer unmitigated gall of those Christ-O-Fascists!!!

What will the "Religion of Peace" ever do...? I know, they will blow someone up! Bully for them!

Why that teacher should be tortured and have her eyes put out for teaching against Allah(a false moon idol) and his Prophet(may dung and fleas be upon his corpse), right?

Bleah. You Liberals-in-Love-With-the-Moon-God are definitely a wicked bunch of vipers.

And it is because of wicked ideas like this "Lemon Test" that our nation shall surely fall beneath the Sword of Allah.

Assuming you live long enough to see the Caliphate bring America to her knees, do you think that your whinings for a "religion-free" public education will even be heard?

I think not. Your atheistic head will be happily separated from your neck, unless you've repented and accepted Jesus as you Lord.

Otherwise, it will be an unpleasant end for you, with an even less pleasant eternity in the Lake of Fire.

[Dan Riehl]

"You lose."

Um, no - I never said I thought it was legal, let alone acceptable. What I called attention to was the group's founder.

[Jeff]

I find it weird that you say that schools are Christian. Are the Christians saying that abortions are fine and empowering? Are we the ones saying that we have to accept and embrace gays? Do we hand out condoms to sixth graders? No, more likely that would be the liberal half.

I have a problem with religion be taught in school mandatoraly, so I have a problem if this group was really forcing their flyers down the students throat. But if they were handing them out, saying, "Please take one if you want." And the paper was properly cited, and used really facts (like in the Qu'ran were it says that Muslims should kill the Jews.)

'The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him'; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.' (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985).

I thinks that our children at least need the opportunity to be educated about the hateful, decieving, murderous religion called Islam. Or the Religion of peace.

[Phoenix]

Oh well..Dan, you took the words out of my mouth.

The teacher should be fired. End of story. CAIR is correct on this one.

[Legalize]

Seekeronos, that was a lot of words utilized to say nothing at all, as per usual. I know you prefer the tenats of Biblio-law, but here in the U.S., we tend to practice secular law. Sorry 'bout that; cooler heads prevailed in the late 1700s. Hell, it's in the first amendment to the constitution - the embodiement of the American way of life; you do love the constitution and the American way of life ... don't you? So, if you have an argument that doesn't involve your unhinged foaming at the mouth while screaming "[y]our atheistic head will be happily separated from your neck, unless you've repented and accepted Jesus as you [sic] Lord," I'd love to hear it.

Absent that your foul-mouthed and uncivil rhetoric is unmoving, to say the least.

[seekeronos]

It depends on how the information was passed along, I agree with Jeff.

If the information is passed along as an "offer" and not by way of compulsion, there should be little issue.

Unfortunately, I concede that our public schools MUST be free of religion, and CAIR wins on this only if on a technical basis.

Neverthless, the anti-religious efforts and "enforcement of Secularity" is almost entirely directed at anything which speaks in favour of Christianity.

As well maybe it should; religion has little place in the operations of the Federal Government. Yet, I'd be happy to see the Dept. of Education dissolved, and allow school boards to determine locally how or if religion should be engaged in the classroom.

If we cannot have this, then it is only right that CAIR keep its influence out of the classroom as well, to bar readings of the Koran, wearing of distinctive headgear, and certainly no nonsense with niqabs, hijabs and burkhas.

If we must enforce our public classrooms as havens of secular humanism and/or atheism, then the ban must be total and complete, without an inch given for religious expression from anyone.

How's that, ambulance-chaser? Good enough for ya?

[Legalize]

Well, redneck, it's not really much of an "argument" or in any way a response to what I said, but I do agree that ALL religious instruction should be kept out of the public class-room, unless the course is comparative religion, or philosophy or something like that, where it is clear that the manner of instruction is objective and devoid of value judgments.

I also have no problem with matter of fact statements like, "the founding fathers were mostly Christians," or general statements that the U.S., historically speaking, is a Judeo/Christian-based society, because those are objectively "accurate" statements. On the other hand, if "God" or "Christianity," or "Jesus" was meant to be the basis of our social contract, the founding fathers certainly could have included those words in the document. This didn't just slip their minds; they conciously chose not to, as history reflects.

I also agree that anti-religious action is as harmful as ro-religious action, and the 1st amendment contemplates both problems. In terms of religion, the state should be utterly dis-interested. That is not to say that elected officials and public servants can not be people of faith, of course.

[Phoenix]

"I also agree that anti-religious action is as harmful as ro-religious action, and the 1st amendment contemplates both problems."

Absolutely.

Our founding fathers were atheists, and if not declared atheists, agnostic deists detached fully from religion. Jefferson and Madison worked long and hard over this and came up with the word 'providence' to supplant 'god'.

[Jeff]

"If we cannot have this, then it is only right that CAIR keep its influence out of the classroom as well, to bar readings of the Koran, wearing of distinctive headgear, and certainly no nonsense with niqabs, hijabs and burkhas."

Yes. Absolutely.

In Canada it has gotten crazy (I grew up in Canada). The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or mounties) which have traditionally worn cowboy hats and are often depicted riding horses has adopted a new policy where Muslims can wear their haeadgear, same for other police departments. I remember my last of school in Canada (11th grade) all these Muslim kids started showing up with these huge knives (about 1.5 feet long). They were strapped to their belts. I later learned that these were cerimonial daggers, they were sharp and frankly, scary.

Now Canada is not known for being conservative, but pretty much every kid in my school hated it. People would throw snowballs at their faces because they hated them so much. I even saw 3 kids jump a group of about 10 Muslims from Sri Lanka, and everyone just joined in and beat the crap out of the Sri Lankans.

Then I thought, why is this? It is sick, and these kids who are fighting aren't racist. Then I figured it out, one culture decided that theirs was more important and trumped any other.

The moral of the story: Wear what you want at home, but as soon as you attempt to impose your religion and lifestyle over any other, and laws need to be rewritten for you, there is a problem, and life is about to get tough. We have seen in Spain, England, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, and many other countries where one ethnic group has been removed. And why did this happen? Because the controling, usually majority group decided that a minority group had overstepped its bounds.

We know that in America this would never happen, but imagine if laws got rewritten for Muslims, and they could bring knives to school. Where you could not see a police officer's eyes because of their hijaab. Imagine if you could not walk by a Mosque with alcohol, or if a female police officer would not be allowed to arrest a male.

The people would inevitably rise up and challenge these laws. Even though it would be terribly wrong, acts of violence would occur.

I am all for freedom of religion... But I don't believe in cultural tropism, and I think that CAIR and other Muslim groups should be careful to not overstep the law.

[seekeronos]

I am not so sure that the Founding Fathers were atheists, and certainly not atheists of the Richard Dawkins stripe. Many were Deists, and I'd disagree with "agnostic".

The Deists (I had embraced a similar philosophy in my youth) were privately religious to the point of seeing God present in nature. Most rejected any formal religion (as was promoted by the state churches like the Church of England, the RC Church, etc).

They were mortal men subject to the popular political thoughts of thier time - which was the "Enlightenment" of the late 18th Century.

The framework they knew or acknowledged God was derived from a (Judaeo) Christian framework; when they sought to make a "godless" Constitution, I believe the idea was not to make it devoid of religion, but rather, to avoid any tampering of it by the local religious entities of thier time (the state/colonial/Anglican churches).

At the same time, I do not think that they necessarily envisioned a plurality of religions, much less radical Islam (which at that time, existed within the confines of the old Ottoman Caliphate).

That said, it was only logical that our founding fathers and the generations immediately following them had an "understood" view of things that we were innately a Christian nation, even if it was "Christian" in only a very loose sense (of the Enlightened Deists).

[Jeff]

It's weird we know everything about the Egyptian Pharoahs, but there is so much debate over what religion our founding fathers were...

It goes down to semantics so much, to the point where when reading old documents we need to define what the word 'is' is.

The problem is, much like in religion, conservatives see the literal meaning, liberals dig deeper and over analyze....

[Zifnab]

"It's weird we know everything about the Egyptian Pharoahs, but there is so much debate over what religion our founding fathers were..."

Yes, that's why no one digs in the deserts in search of hints to their past. Also why we have an entire branch of study - Egyptology - dedicated to learning more about the lifestyle and history of the ancient Egyptian people.

No offense, but the premise of that statement couldn't possibly be farther off. And conservatives do love to project. That's why Bush is the spitting image of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagen, and Abraham Lincoln all at the same time when seen through Republi-view.

Perhaps the complete lack of education on both American and Egyptian history stems from the Republican-American minority having no respect for their college professors. Certainly, their representatives in Congress have a shakey grip on the basic ability to accurately quote "The Greatest President Evar!"

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/15/gop_rep_recycles_phony_lincoln_quote_during_escalation_debate
"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ Not Abraham Lincoln

Oops!

[seekeronos]

Heh. Bush is far from being "the greatest President evar", but he is a fair shake better than some POTUS's we have had.

My vote for the best POTUS would be none other than the Gipper himself.

[templar knight]

Well, I have to say I'm with the...liberals.....for the most part on this one. This teacher crossed the line, and shouldn't have had any presentation of the kind. If she is disciplined, she deserves to be.

My only concern here is that the Muslims aren't allowed to violate the Establishment Clause. Wasn't it just this past year where students in California and Washington were required to adopt Muslim names, dress as Muslims, and even profess to be Muslim? And the 9th Circuit(imagine that) said it was within the perview of the teacher to do this. I might be wrong on this, I vaguely remember it. If someone knows for sure, I will stand corrected.

[seekeronos]

@ Jeff:

I am inclined to think that Islam is dangerously close to becoming the first casualty of an American removal of a minority that has overstepped its bounds by virtue of insisting that it be given primacy in the public square.

It would not be that much of a big deal, if not for the fact that its central dogma is the death and destruction of anything that does not submit to Allah.

Some may argue that this is the case with Christianity, but then again, Christianity, or at least our majority cultural affinity towards Christian values, keeps it in a special place of honour relative to other faiths.

[Jeff]

But seekeronos, CAIR has even been caught lying about how many "practicing Muslims" there are in the USA. I think they say around 9,000,000, and the biggest mosque (they claim) has 50,000 regular attenders. The actual numbers are about 3,000 "worshipers" (at a mosque in DC, and 3,000 is according to the leader there), and about 800,000-2,200,000.

What does this mean? CAIR is trying to say, "we are a large minority, we need the majority to change their ways for us."

Unless you can think of another reason for them lying?

[Wanda]

Guess who the main supporters of President Bush and his Iraq war are? Fundamentalist Christians, the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Modern day Christianity is a filthy life philosophy. It is a complete perversion of the teachings of Christ. Look at how the USA behaves, governed by hypocritical “Christian” principles. Christianity teaches Americans to feel superior to Muslims, Buddhists, homosexuals, abortionists, … so they feel justified in maltreating and bullying everyone else. Christians, with their erroneous beliefs about God, behave far worse than atheists or the adherents of most other world religions. I call on Christians to give up their lies, viciousness and hypocrisy, something Jesus himself would do were he alive today. Better for you if you followed the Sermon on the Mound ..something it seems you have all forgotten in your lust for hatred.

[Jeff]

You forgot to tell me to kiss Allah's feet.

Ummm, well I shouldn't take the time to respond, but I have a compulsion to. You made a lot of accusations, but you never backed it up with any fact whatsoever. Sooo... Before you lambaste the whole Christian faith make sure you give examples and facts.

I love how you say that we misrepresent Christianity, and then you say the "Christianity teaches Americans to feel superior to Muslims, Buddhists, homosexuals, abortionists, … " Not the misrepresentation thereof.

PS- The its called the Sermon on the Mount not on the mound However the Qu'ran refers to it as the latter... making you a Muslim a apologist and a Christian hater.

[seekeronos]

The Quran is all about lying and deceiving us naughty kuffaars.

Wanda: where did you get your twisted notions about Christianity? Richard Dawkins?

There are probably more tan a few Americans who call themselves "Christians"
but who also act most unchristian.

If they are reading and obeying the Word of God, they would see that thinking of ourselves as superior (in any regard, to be honest) is not Christ-like.

We are only sinners saved by the grace given through Jesus's sacrafice on the Cross.

We do beleive in preaching the Gospel of the Saviour to all souls though - Jesus died once for all men and women to put sin to death, and rose again to have total victory over Death. In that regard, we consider Him to be the God the Son, and our Lord and Redeemer.

If you consider that we believe in salvation only through the Lord Jesus Christ, and none other, to be "superior", then so be it.

But at that point, your quarrel is not with Christ's followers, but with Christ Himself.

[Phoenix]

TK,

I think that dressing as Muslims day happened in California. A lot was made of it, but in the end, I think the teacher was exonerated because she was not trying to 'change' anyone but rather to help her students understand the second largest religion on the planet. I think she/he was as shocked as anyone at the uproar it caused. I remember dressing as Indians and Pilgrims. I wonder how that would go over these days.

[Phoenix]

Seek,

I won't debate this, but I have taken courses and studied the founding fathers. They were non-believers, and for sure, they knew the wickedness and destruction religion could bring about. Our country is founded on Christian/Judeo values and would not, as Jeff noted, put up with granting anything to Islam....and rightly so. But it was this sort of wickedness the founding fathers sought to stop. Here is a list of a few famous atheists. You can debate all you want, but the bottom line for each, if not self-referenced as 'atheist', they were not believers. You can play the agnostic, deist, Pascal's Wager card all night, but it ends up in the same place. It does one no good to admit to atheism. Have you noticed? Christians hate it.

Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Andrew Carnegie
Isaac Asimov, Charles Darwin, Ben Franklin, Carl Sagan, Clarence Darrow
Ayn Rand, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Arthur Rubenstein, Helen Keller
Gene Roddenberry (Creator of Star Trek), Richard Dawkins, John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, Edward Gibbon, Emma Goldman, Thomas Huxley, H.L. Mencken, Thomas Paine, Margaret Sanger, Thomas Edison, Thomas Paine, Ambrose Bierce, Robert A. Heinlein, Charles Schultz, Mark Twain, Robert Frost, Susan B. Anthony, Vincent Van Gogh, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Arthur Schopenhauer, Frank Zappa, Robert G. Ingersoll, Karl Popper, George Orwell, Irving Berlin, Alfred Hitchcock, Walt Disney,
Napoleon, James Joyce, Nehru, Dr. James Watson (DNA), Leo Tolstoy,
John Stuart Mill, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson.

[seekeronos]

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you Pheonix -

- in fact, I would venture to guess that a much larger percentage of people do not "believe" in Christ or a notion of a personal God who is interested in our/thier lives and spiritual well being.

And in the strictest sense of a Christian being defined as one who accepts Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and believes completely on Him, then perhaps the majority of the world are unbelivers (but not necessarily "atheists" of the Dawkins or Murray-O'Hare stripe).

For a very large chunk of my life, I was one of those persons (an agnostic who acknowledged a "higher power", but was otherwise disconnected from whatever that higher power was.

My studies and research on the Founding Fathers indicates that they were largely of this stripe. Some were more vocal about thier suspension of belief in God than others, but most were willing to concede that Christ was a real person, and had a vague connection to God. If I recall, most would consider Him as a "great teacher", others as the Son of God, minus a lot of the prophetic and "mystical" attributes accorded Him by tradition as well as the Gospels.

But all of this is neither here nor there; if this nation is founded as a Christian nation, it is only implicitly so, and vaguely at best. The trouble of the Founding Fathers' time was allowing the Christian sectarianism of the day to weigh into the affairs of the young nation - entities such as the Anglican Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or any of the various synods, conventions, denominations, or sects like the Puritans.

The Puritans meant well, but unsaved man cannot accept a God-centered government; trying to impose Christian standards and morality on the unsaved for its own sake is often an excercise in failure.

As for the Holy See, it still at that time excercised a waning, but still considerable influence in the affairs of Europe, especailly for Spain, France, and the nations that eventually formed Italy.

The Church of England had considerable influence in the colonies since a great many folks had owed allegiance to the Crown a few short years previously; local colonial/state churches had formed in some states, and only permited saved, land-owning male Christians to the franchise.

What the Founding Fathers did in creating a secular constitution (but with the thinnest veneer of acknowledging God (with weakened nouns like "Providence" and "Nature's God") to keep the common folk happy. How could they reasonable expect to foresee 250 years into the future to know our condition today?

At that time, Islam and Hinduism and eastern religions in general were regarded as heathen cults (even by the Enlightened Founding Fathers) and were comfortably distant accross a great ocean that the Muslims were less likely, if interested at all, to cross Christendom to get to the Americas. Hence, the lack of specific language including Allah or other dieties.

This has lead to the "official" modern view of disestablishing _all_ religion in government (although this seems to be enforced almost unilaterally against Christianity while letting other religions flourish at the expense of public tax dollars).

Hence also the irritation by Christians when our cultural icons and symbols are torn down, but other religions are given special place.

[Phoenix]

I'm proud to know you, Seek. I imagine Jefferson and Madison saying very much the same as you have just said. Of course they did.

Personally, I think more people 'believe' as Thomas did - that the spirit of God is in them. It is religion and religious dogma that is the problem. I don't know anyone who does not believe Jesus was a real historic figure.

What do you think of this: " God is not a personal savior or a superhuman force, but is the abstract principle of truth."

[seekeronos]

Short version:

Personally, I could only agree with a small part of it. God is "truth", but more than just in an abstract way.

And He has proven Himself (to me at the very least, and no small number of witnesses and other believers) to be very, very real, as well as being the Saviour.

My faith is based on what God says of Himself in His word (the Bible). Jesus, who exists as one in being with the Father (as part of the Nicene/Apostle's Creed) - sharing all of the powers and attributes of the Triune God.

In Jesus's personification as the Word (of God) He is Himself true, and proclaims of Himself that His word is "faithful" (trustworthy) and "true"; (Revelation 19:11-13)and that He is "the way, and the truth, and the light", (John 14:5-12) also, that He is "the light which is come into the world, which drives away darkness". (John 1:1-10, 1 John 1:5)

I'd most closely identify myself as a "fundamentalist" Christian, with the word "fundamental" referencing the five key points (fundament = foundations) of our faith:

1. Biblical inerrancy: All scripture is inspired by God, is infallible, and written by holy men of God.

2. Sola Scriptura: All authority derives from God's revealed will, which is contained in the 66 Books of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. It supersedes any council or traditions held by men.

3. The virgin birth of Christ (more or less self explanatory)

4. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement (Death/Sacrifice of Christ) All men (and women, too) are sinners (Romans 3:23) falling short of God's perfect glory, and needed an atoning sacrifce to die bearing the guilt of all of humanity's sin, once, for all time.

5. The Resurrection and imminent return of Christ. Christ's resurrection gave Him the power over Death, and brought Part 1 of the Devil's defeat. Part 2 is in the future, when He comes again in great power and glory to render judgment as the King of Kings.

The Verbose Version: (and I am doing so not just for your sake, but for anyone else who reads this)...

I could go on a great length about how real God has made Himself in my life, but to a great number of people, it is a hard thing to accept the workings of a God who functions outside the realm of our everyday existence.

Most folk will easily accept the "impersonal clockmaker" God of the classical Enlightened Deist's view; He need not work any miracles nor intervene dramatically in the affairs of mortal man.

That kind of God is essentially a "harmless, otherwise disinterested old geezer in the sky", the kind envisioned by the Far Side's Gary Larson as a geriatric deity plugging away at a divine computer - occasionally dropping a 16-ton weight on top of some unsuspecting mortal.

Even a relatively "wild haired Dawkinsian atheist" could see little problem with a nod to such a harmless fellow (other than the occasional hundredweight dropping atop some poor slob).

This was probably the God of Founding Fathers' view, at a time when the land was freshly recovering from a devastating war and sufferings; not too far in thier past was the living memory of the Puritans, who like thier Calvinist cousins in Geneva, had sought to make a "theocratic" government, but saw it fall apart when unsaved, unregenerated men took offense at all the "thou shalt nots" heaped upon them with hardly a modicum of the mercy Jesus held as both a command, and an example, for His disciples.

Add to the mix, the wave of Enlightenment, Rousseau, Locke, and many other thinkers from Europe who saw what harm was wrought by the over-interference by politicized (and arguably very powerful) ecclesiastic bodies in the affairs of government.

Yet, for all the humanism and secularism flying about those days, the mass of people still largely sought God, in one Christian denomination or another. As for the Elites, it s not terribly surprising that they sought to impose limits on how the Church influenced the state, especially given the ease with which the Church (as run by mortal men, who are also subject to the flesh and devilish temptations of power) could sway the masses this way or that.

Keeping this in mind, I can see that the Fathers framed the _basis_ of our government as a largely secular government which derived authority from a sovereignty of the people, as it was derived from the Absolute Sovereignty of God (however one wished to view Him).

And for all but a rare soul back then, that meant the Triune God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I think I could really say that nobody in a position of authority at that time would have meant that carefully and neutrally worded references to "Providence" and "Nature's God" had alluded to anything but the Christian understanding of who God is.

Certainly not Allah (regarded then as a pagan diety of the Mohammedans) or Buddha, Krishna, or the personification of Artemis/Diana as the "Mother Goddess" along with her satyr-like "Horned Consort" of Wicca, much less the ancient mythologies of Titans, Aesir, and the other dusty remains of ancient polytheistic idol worship.

So, nearly two and a half centuries later, with drastically shortened distances between lands that were once far off and devoid of the light of Christ's Good News... we have a profusion of (non-Christian) religions battling for political space and/or recognition in a framework originally intended, but not necessarily limited to, discourse between various shades and stripes of Christianity.

Among the newcomers are other relatively harmless (not speaking in terms of eternal salvation, but personal safety to non-adherents) faiths like Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and the revival of various shamanic and materialistic schools of thought not entirely unlinked to the worship of a higher power.

And then, there are the dangerous, militant cults, along with one particularly dangerous one that arose out of the blood feuds of a particular Arabian tribe. Regardless of one's particular stand with Christianity... at face value, if you look at what Islam teaches and preaches, it is becoming evident rather quickly that its "theology" is dangerous to anybody who thinks differently from its adherents, and its own scriptures give ready support to those wishing to do violence upon its non-believers.

This is a _crucial_ difference:

If I attempt to win someone to the Gospel of Christ, and they refuse... then I've done my part to warn them of the danger they are in, and God's gift to escape it... (hopefully I am doing this in the power of God's Holy Spirit, which will be done in love) ... then I'll part company with them peacably, and pray for them.

The fundamentalist (Islamist) Muslim on the other hand -- if he is asking you or inviting you to become a Muslim ... then be warned: if you refuse, he is then entitled by the Koran to wage war/do violence against you, until you either convert, or assume a second-class status as a "dhimmi".

In my view though, where Christianity seeks the greater good for the most people, it would not seem unreasonably to enshrine it - at the very least - as "the first among equals" of faiths in America. And certainly one which has - like it or not - played a very significant part in defining our national existence.

Other "faiths" which tend toward destructive cults (Islam) would do better to be complete disincluded from relevance politically, if not outright banned as being inherently anti-human and generally evil. And I arrive at this conclusion with no small amount of discomfort - but I have little cause to see how Islam can be "reformed" short of re-writing the Koran and the Hadiths to a completely different character.

However, as was likely the thought of most of the Founding Fathers, I do not necessarily wish to see a "Christian Republic of America" as some so-called "Christian Reconstructionists" would have... it too, would be as doomed to failure as the Calvinist State in Geneva, and the Plymouth Plantations were. Many of the Gary North/John Rousas Rushdoony stripe would have us become as harsh a place as any emirate is now under Sharia law.

But I do think that Christians should certainly pray and influence their elected rulers to do good for Nation, and not to forget that God is as much a Judge of Nations as He is of individual men.

[Wanda]

JEFF.. If you accuse me of being a Christian hater then you must be a Muslim hater. I am not a Muslim and your tongue shows that you are not a Christian. I live in the United States of America, and may express whatever opinion I have in a lawful manner, as I am doing here. That said, please show some respect for the rights of others and don't harass me. Oh, and by the way, Mary Magdelene kissed and washed Jesus feet with her tears and hair. It was an act of love and respect. I would not tell you to kiss the feet of Allah or Jesus.

[Phoenix]

Seek,

Thank you for that. You are certainly very thorough, and as I said once before, you have a fine logic about you that separates you from many of the 'arrogant' fundamentalists I have dealt with. I have tremendous respect for you for that. My neighbor is a CEO in a large company and he is a Baptist minister, as well. What a riot he is. He is fundamentalist but he's a realist and we have many fine hours and hours of conversation. During all our talks, his wife pops up with whatever directly quoted Bible verse she thinks might be applicable. :) I love it.

That quotation I gave you to ponder is the Sikh's definition of God. I like it. I love it for its simplicity and its profundity. Because truth matters...

[USpace]

Interesting, it's in, thanks! I say score one for the good guys. Islam must be exposed.

I imagine the teacher wasn't certain about what exactly would be said by the representative of the Coptic Christian group, although I bet he had a pretty good idea. Very brave of him to possibly risk his career just to save a dozen girls or so (and maybe their friends) from possible virtual slavery.

CAIR doesn't want to go after Kamil International Ministries Organization because he knows that KIMO would be more than HAPPY to debate the Bible and the Quran with CAIR. CAIR wants no such debate, it is simply not allowed for Muslims to question the Quran.

Despite what CAIR says, being against rape and slavery is NOT racism!

Read these everybody:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/ 015407.php

absurd thought-
God of the Universe says
teach the children lies

white-wash religion of peace
denigrate the kids' culture
.