There simply is no Christian analogue, in all of history, to today’s Islamic terrorism
The Great ‘Christian Terrorist’ Unicorn Hunt
Mar 29, 2016 by By Selwyn Duke
It’s amazing how stupid smart people can seem when intent on putting a square peg in a round hole. This is seen continually when certain apologists try to dig Islam out of its hole—the one dug deeper every time there’s another terrorist act.
Consider the recent London jihadist attack by Muslim convert Khalid Masood. Globe & Fail columnist Doug Saunders, proving he missed his calling as a contortionist, actually tweeted that Masood, like the “authors of UK’s other big Jihadi attacks, was not a Muslim. Born Adrian Elms.‚”
Question: if a godless child of atheists converted to Christianity and committed terrorism, would Saunders blame the act on atheism?
Then, I’m sure Saunders isn’t fond of Ronald Reagan and his policies. Does he blame Democrats for them because Reagan came from a Democrat family and was one well into adulthood?
Obviously, if Christianity were the issue in terrorism, we’d see actual professed Christians committing such acts—not just Muslims, a few of whom once were Christian.
Moreover, anyone with a lick of understanding knows that converts make the most zealous believers. Who is more passionate about chess? Someone born to chess-loving parents who is indifferent about the game or a person who decides as an adult to play it three hours a day?
But human pretzels abound. On the Friday edition of HBO’s Real Time, Heat Street columnist and former Conservative member of the U.K. Parliament Louise Mensch echoed Saunder’s rationalization. She then responded to host Bill Maher’s statement that Masood was motivated by his religion with, “It has nothing to do with Islam, the same way Timothy McVeigh had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.‚”
Aside from how telling it is that jihadi apologists must reach back 22 years for an example of significant non-Muslim domestic terrorism—McVeigh bombed a government building in 1995—we can be sure his act had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism: McVeigh was an atheist.
Another Real Time guest, MSNBC host Chris Hayes, responded to a Maher point about there being no Christian armies like ISIS with, “The IRA that blew up London for 15 years!‚” What’s tragic is that a media personality could say something so inane without blowing up his career.
The Irish Republican Army, as its name suggests, was defined by being Irish Republicans (not Christian), just as the Islamic State is defined by being Islamic. The IRA had three well-defined goals:
- It sought the end of British rule in Northern Ireland, not the end of other religions.
- It desired the reunification of Ireland, not the unification of the world under one faith.
- And it sought the establishment of a republic, not a theocracy. Its terrorists didn’t scream “Christ is King!‚” while committing violence; in fact, many of its early members were those atheist ideologues known as communists.
Moreover, the IRA was devoted to fighting one government in one place; it wasn’t a worldwide movement seeking to subdue all of humanity. Equating it with the Islamic State is, quite frankly, stupid.
While Maher deserves credit for standing up to this head-in-sand lunacy, his defense was lacking. His main response was to point out that the events cited by his pitiful panel were in the past; he also contributed to the problem by citing the “Inquisition‚” as also being analogous to Muslim terrorism. Yet this is like saying that today’s “Human Rights Tribunals‚” are also terrorist entities.
First, realize that it’s hard to find a civilization that didn’t have laws against heresy. Pre-Christian pagan civilizations such as the Romans and Greeks sure did; in fact, one of the crimes legendary philosopher Socrates was executed for was “mocking the gods.‚” There also were Protestant inquisitions along with the well-known Catholic ones.
But consider: the first inquisition wasn’t instituted until the 12th century. What happened to heretics for the first 1,100 years of Christian history?
Answer: they were judged by the government. They’d be brought before the local lord, who likely had little training in law or theology and who might want to dispose of the case before dinner. Consequently, his judgments were often arbitrary and capricious, and many people were unjustly convicted.
As a response, the Church instituted inquisitions—the first being in southern France in 1184—for the purposes of bringing order and justice to the process. People forget that “inquisition‚” means “inquiry,‚” and that was the tribunals’ job: to inquire into the validity of heresy charges.
The result? Most defendants were acquitted or received light punishments—and none were executed by the inquisitions. This is because heresy was not a capital crime under Church law, only under government law. In fact, the now notorious Spanish Inquisition was considered in its time the best run court in Europe, with jails so good that criminals in state custody were known to purposely blaspheme in order to be transferred to them.
Of course, Americans generally don’t appreciate thought-police bodies, but that’s not the point. The aforementioned Human Rights Tribunals—which render “hate speech‚” judgments—are inquisitions. Yet I don’t think Bill Maher would equate them with the Islamic State.
It’s only surprising that Maher’s panel didn’t also mention the Crusades, defensive wars that were designed to stave off Muslim aggression and which, quite possibly, saved Western civilization. It’s usually thrown in there when people are making up anti-Christian history.
Of course, it goes without saying that Christians did at times use violence, yet when done unjustly this violates the faith itself. And is sin surprising? Christians are just imperfect people trying to live up to a perfect standard. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.‚”
It’s also true that, on occasion, Christianity has been enforced with an iron fist. Charlemagne certainly did this. But what hasn’t been? Why, we spread democracy at a bayonet’s tip when invading Arab lands and engaging in “nation building.‚”
The reality, though, is that the Christian norm has been to spread the faith by the word; the Muslim norm has been conversion by the sword.
And perhaps this was reflected in a very interesting German study involving 45,000 young people. Released in 2010, it found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, it made Muslim youth more violent.
There simply is no Christian analogue, in all of history, to today’s Islamic terrorism. It only exists in the minds of quislings who, wittingly or not, have become the propaganda arm of global jihad.
(Hat tip: American Thinker’s Rick Moran.)
Sweden Forced to Build Heavily Fortified Police Station in Notorious Migrant No-Go Zone
Mar 28, 2017 by Daniel Lang
Rinkeby has become one of the most notorious no-go zones in Sweden, if not all of Europe. The tiny urban community, which now has a population that consists almost entirely of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, has been the site of multiple riots and countless acts of violence in recent years. It’s the place where a 60 minutes crew was attacked, and it was where a riot occurred last month after Trump commented on the dire immigration situation in Sweden. For all intents and purposes, Rinkeby, Sweden isn’t really a part of Sweden anymore.
However, the government still needs a presence in the city. Unfortunately the police station that currently resides in Rinkeby (which was closed in 2014) was designed for a much more peaceful community that no longer exists. That’s why the government has ordered the construction of a new police station with a design that has been compared to that of a fortress or military installation. According to ZeroHedge:
The new police station, which is being built under heavy security and is scheduled to open in 2019, will cost over $40 million construction costs in addition to an annual rental cost of $1.6 million. The security cost for the actual construction is unknown. It is planned that 250 personnel will work there in the community of around 15,000 people. This is a ratio of one cop to 60 residents (for comparison Chicagohas one cop to 270 residents).
The police station will feature bullet proof windows, walls reinforced with sheet metal, and fencing around it, possibly with electrified barbed wire. So it will look more like a military installation than anything. Also it will be designated as “specially protected,” which means a year in prison for anyone even throwing a stone at it.
So far the government has struggled to find contractors who are willing to build the facility. They’re all too afraid to enter Rinkeby. It would also be a real struggle to find cops who are willing to work at the station. The police are afraid to drive their personal vehicles there for fear that they would be vandalized, and public transportation is too dangerous for the officers. It’s been suggested that in addition to the cost of building the police station, the government may need to provide separate transportation for the police. And it should go without saying, no police officer could safely live in Rinkeby.
The construction of this facility provides the best evidence for why Europe’s immigration policies, as well multiculturalism in general, aren’t working. More importantly, it shows why these policies are unsustainable from a purely financial perspective. Immigrants who refuse to assimilate create a massive drain on public coffers. Not only are they a drain on Sweden’s welfare state, but Sweden has to spend millions of dollars hiring extra cops and building massive fortresses to protect the rest of their citizens.
Perhaps that’s why the people of Sweden are finally waking up to the reality of their situation.
The eurosceptic, anti-mass immigration Sweden Democrats have surged to first place in the polls, as the Swedish voting public apparently become increasingly concerned by the growth of ethnic ghettoisation, rising crime rates and Islamic radicalisation.
According to the latest YouGov poll to come out of the Scandinavian country, the party could expect to secure almost a quarter of the vote if elections were held tomorrow – almost double its level of support in 2014 – making it the single largest political force in the country.
It appears that in the next election, the politically correct leftists that ran this country into the ground are in for a rude awakening by a population that can finally see through their lies and wishful thinking. The event can’t arrive too soon. If Sweden had waited much longer to push back against these globalists and their insane immigration policies, I don’t think Sweden would have survived.