Last week, RPC sent me a link to an article in the Canada Free Press that talked about how the U.S. could ban Islam, using the Constitution as a pretext. I wrote the following as an answer to that article:
Ron,
The premise of this article rests upon the presupposition that religion consists merely of internal opinion rather than the idea that one's religion constitutes the foundation of all one's external actions.
This error also leads the author to ignore the fact that every law passed and enforced upon the citizenry is an outworking of someone's inner beliefs and standards of morality. The idea that the realm of law & government can be neutral toward religion is a myth.
The myth of neutrality has served as a smokescreen for the religion of Secular Humanism as it has consolidated its control over the institutions of our society. As Secular Humanists have succeeded, they have enforced their beliefs upon the nation.
Murder of the unborn is one practical outworking of their religious beliefs. Treating public protest of that murder as terrorism is another such outward expression of someone's religion.
The fact that Islam is bent on world conquest is used as an argument for banning it. Well, Secular Humanism is likewise bent on conquest (see Humanist Manifesto I & II). Why is it not likewise banned from the public square?
Of course only a tiny minority of Christians recognize that the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) is also a call to world conquest. Pietists are actually more comfortable with this author's assertion that religion be confined to one's inner opinions.
While I agree that the practice of Islam should be outlawed, my reasons for doing so would be the antithesis of the author's. Every idolatrous religion that raises itself in rebellion to the Kingship of Christ is treasonous to Him.
It is the duty of civil government to submit to God's Anointed (Psalm 2). If this goes contrary to the Constitution, then so much the worse for the Constitution.(end of email)
To his credit, RPC wholeheartedly agreed with my evaluation of the article.
Today, an interesting article came to me from American Vision. It's by Bojidar Marinov, who has undertaken as his life mission the reform of the nation of Bulgaria.
In the article, he draws a parallel between the House of Elrond in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and the present-day nation of Switzerland. Here is how the article begins:
‘Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.’
The change in the wizard’s voice was astounding. Suddenly it became menacing, powerful, harsh as stone. A shadow seemed to pass over the high sun, and the porch for a moment grew dark. All trembled, and the Elves stopped their ears.
‘Never before has any voice dared to utter words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the Grey,’ said Elrond, as the shadow passed and the company breathed once more.
‘And let us hope that none will ever speak it here again,’ answered Gandalf...
The small nation of Switzerland taught the civilized world a lesson once again. In a time when Europe is disarming itself through political correctness and delivering its future in the hands of Islam, the small mountain nation told the most aggressive and savage of the world religions: “No to the minarets.” In a referendum, 57 percent of the voters and 22 out of 26 cantons voted in favor of a ban on building minarets to the mosques in the nation. As of the moment, Switzerland has only 4 minarets for its 350,000 Muslims, and the building of more minarets is declared unconstitutional and against the law. The Swiss people made that declaration in a remarkable display of peaceful exercise of popular democracy vote, against the will of their own government, against the disapproval of the other European nations, and against the wrath of the Muslim world.
Switzerland, the House of Elrond
No comments:
Post a Comment