Five weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Perry bowed his head and said “amen” as a Baptist pastor led a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. The prayer was noteworthy not for what it said, but for where it was said: at a student assembly in a public middle school in East Texas. Afterward, Mr. Perry said he had no problem ignoring the Supreme Court’s landmark 1962 ruling that barred organized prayer in public schools.

On Saturday in Houston, thousands of people are expected to gather at Reliant Stadium for a Christian-themed prayer service that Mr. Perry created and promoted. Though Mr. Perry has been criticized for spearheading an event that burnishes his conservative Christian credentials as he considers running for president, the prayer rally is only the latest instance — albeit the highest profile one — of the governor of the nation’s second-largest state emphasizing his Christian beliefs and muddying the line between church and state.

Should this concern us or is this what America needs?

More here: Prayer Rally Raises Anew Question of the Boundaries of Rick Perry’s Faith – NYTimes.com.

We live in a unique season.  When viewed through the lens of its public statements, Islam has become politically self-confident in the Western world.  At the same time, whether deliberately or pathologically, Islam’s public actions and program display extreme sensitivity even to the point of a persecution complex.  This has made it nearly impossible for Christians and others of good will to discuss the Islamic political program at all without their remarks being interpreted as bigotry.

Now, this should give us no pause; a Christian must speak the truth of the Word of God regardless of the winds of political or cultural fashion.  For example, I hold that no serious believer can possibly be “pro-choice” and maintain a clear Christian conscience on the matter.  We are taught by our faith that we can do nothing against the truth.  We must declare publicly that abortion is a heinous moral evil in spite of the fact that such a statement is not viewed in our society as a religious statement but as a political statement.

We should be able to express, whether as Christians or simply as civic-minded Americans, our concerns over the growth of radical Islam and the dangers of accommodating Islamic Sharia law.  If we are unable to do so, whether because of intimidation or because we are not permitted, then freedom as we have understood it since the Reformation (or even since the Magna Carta) has been completely lost.

Now, about the previous post, I was gently chided by some Christian commenters over my characterization of Operation Save America.  It was suggested that I am swallowing the media’s portrayal of the group.  I may indeed have been mistaken about their work and their motives.  At the very least, I was probably sloppy in my approach to their role in the events and for that I apologize.  I am not opposed to evangelizing Muslims nor to seeking to show them the Christ of Christian Scripture.

Having said that, I remain unconvinced that the way to go about this is to go to mosques and create the appearance (if not the reality) of a protest.

I would ask if OSA preaches outside all houses of worship it deems to be in error?  Given that I haven’t heard anything about it in the news, I assume that OSA supporters are not in the habit of preaching outside of synagogues or Catholic churches in Connecticut.  Yet I presume they hold those theological systems to be erroneous.  I think it’s a fair question.

A Muslim gentleman whom I will leave unnamed thinks I am deeply misinformed and that I believe what I believe about Muslims because of what I see about radical Muslims in the news.

This is a red herring.  I never said whether I had any opinion about Muslim people per se – and indeed I do not other than to say that there are Muslims who are good citizens and there are Muslims who are not good citizens.  However, I do have an opinion about the teachings of Islam.  This is an entirely different matter.  Radical Muslims act as they do because they are enjoined by Islamic teachings and teachers to do so. They are taking the teachings of the Koran at face value.  So, with respect to the gentleman, the only way to allay such concerns is for Muslims to repudiate problematic Koranic teachings such as the one that says that Jews are the sons of apes and pigs.

Again, while not wishing to be unkind in any way to the polite Muslim man who wrote me, we as Christians have no real agreement with Islam.  Despite all the platitudes about worshiping the same God, the nature of the God of Islam is not in any way the same as the nature of the God of Christianity.  In Islam, such cardinal Christian beliefs as the Incarnation of Christ or the Trinity constitute the sin of shirk, an unforgivable sin to them in which the attributes of Allah are shared or given to others.

In Christianity, Christ is preeminent; indeed, He is God in the flesh.  In Islam, Christ is another Muslim prophet, subservient to Muhammad and to the expected Mahdi.  In Muslim belief, Christ will abolish Christianity and bring the world under the sway of Islam.  So how can we be in agreement?

Muslims who have studied their religion surely know this.  They also know that Christians are not afforded equal civil rights in Muslim societies.  The reason for this is Islamic law itself.  By Sharia law, the Muslim’s place in society is given preference over all others.  This has a number of punishing, practical real world effects.  It is better to be a dog in America than a Christian in Pakistan.  Until such things change, please make me no fair speeches about the tolerance of Islam.  All historians and political scientists of East and West know this; it has only been obscured in our time because the Left in the Western world will make common cause with anyone who holds a banner against traditional Christianity.

American democracy, by contrast, gives equal rights to Muslims because of the Christian belief that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  Western-type societies can only exist when this Christian consensus informs the culture.  Traditionally, there was no opposition to framing the society in those terms, even openly.  So, for example, Mormon Utah was admitted to the Union in 1896 on the condition of banning polygamy and writing that ban into its State Constitution.  This was done because the institutions of the American Republic were Christian in their foundation and polygamy formed no part of the Christian viewpoint.

The American people are not opposed to Muslims; they are opposed to Sharia.  Our ancestors, wiser than we, adopted a Constitution which provides that the Federal Government shall guarantee to each State a republican form of government.  Therefore no form of monarchy or theocratic system such as Islamic Sharia law can be considered properly “American.”

The issue then is not whether Muslims, Buddhists, or Christians are peaceful or whether there are Muslims who are not radical.  The issue is who shall define what constitutes a peaceable life.  American Muslims can go a long way toward helping their own cause by renouncing the application of Sharia law.  Their doing so will speak volumes – as will their failure to do so.  This is not a matter of culture, but a matter of law, equality and humanity.

Christian History at the CT State Capitol from Brian Montanari on Vimeo.

Hat tip to commenter William Brown for making us aware of this video.

Since we are now allergic to Christianity in its more robust forms, it may not be long before we do indeed remove Mr. Edwards from his head.

What?

Just a quick reminder to the readership that although I try to be responsible about what ads show on the site, occasionally something may show that I wouldn’t have personally chosen myself. When this happens we do try to deal with it but it can take a few hours for a given ad to be taken off. Thanks for your understanding.

What were some of the warning signs my team saw? Though the list is not exhaustive, these five issues were common. Some of the churches had a one or two on the list; some had all five.

1. The church has few outwardly focused ministries. Most of the budget dollars in the church are spent on the desires and comforts of church members. The ministry staff spends most of its time taking care of members, with little time to reach out and minister to the community the church is supposed to serve.

2. The dropout rate is increasing. Members are leaving for other churches in the community, or they are leaving the local church completely. A common exit interview theme we heard was a lack of deep biblical teaching and preaching in the church….

Interesting stuff, and useful. Read the rest here at the Christian Post.

Governor Rell has signed an Executive Order (read here as a PDF) which keeps the State running. Quoted in the Courant, Mrs. Rell said,

Rell said Tuesday that while the negotiations continue, “first and foremost, people should rest assured that state government will continue to operate — services will be delivered; we will care for the vulnerable and the sick; public safety and public health will be protected.”

“I remain hopeful that we will resolve the budget issues that divide us and bring an affordable, responsible budget proposal to the General Assembly for a vote in the very near future,” Rell said. “In the interim, I am taking all of the steps necessary to ensure that state government functions smoothly.”

Budget woes continue elsewhere. In East Haven, teachers are being laid off. Positions are being trimmed in Torrington.  We’re sure more examples could be put forward. Please keep on praying for our State!

Israel needs to find a new ally for its own good.

So says Dutch writer Leon de Winter in the Jerusalem Post. Has Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech forced the Israelis to rethink their relationship with America? While the President’s speech was lauded by many, Israelis who listened closely might have felt a chill wind coming out of Washington.

Within this historic speech, Obama couldn’t find words to describe the attack by various Arab armies on Israel the day it was created. He couldn’t describe the terrorist attacks that followed the 1949 armistice. He omitted the growing anti-Semitism in the Arab media, the Arab schoolbooks, Arab radio and TV, in the preaching in the mosques. Twice Obama mentioned the anti-Semitic and anti-Christian Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas: “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

Obama didn’t mention the core message of Hamas: the worldwide destruction of the Jews. Ayatollah Khomeini, the instigator of the present Islamist revolution, defined world history, the course of human events, as follows: “From the beginning, the Islamic movement has been obstructed by the Jews. They were the first who developed anti-Islamic propaganda and conspiracies. And this is still the case.”

In other words, opposing Israel, the nation of the Jews, is the driving force of the Islamist revolution, both Sunni and Shi’ite. It is its core. It cannot exist if it would give up its ambition to erase Israel. The destruction of Israel is its ultimate goal, its fuel, its body, its nature, its direction and its destination. Only through the destruction of the cunning, conspiring, obstructing Jews the Islamist revolution can reach its goal: the resurrection of the caliphate.

Mr. de Winter lays out uncomfortable realities which the media do not even mention – much less attempt to explain to an American audience. Who in America even knows, anymore, what the Calpihate was? Or the intention of those who may be working, openly or covertly, to resuscitate it? It is far easier, much less messy to pave over the words of the Islamists. Time, demography, and money are on their side anyway, so why not accomodate them?  De Winter continues:

A SMALL NATION like Israel, a single and lonely modern democracy in a part of the world in which autocracies and tyrannies are the norm, cannot survive without a strategic partnership with a major international power that is forced, by the sheer size of its interests, to play the complex fields of the Middle East. It is too soon to create a lasting bond with India, a natural ally for Israel. India will emerge during this century as a major international power, both militarily as economically and scientifically, but it cannot give Israel yet the diplomatic and military backup it needs.

But there is another strategic player in the field who would welcome a partnership with Israel, especially with its cutting-edge electronic industries. Of Israel’s 5.7 million Jews, more than 1 million have Russian roots. Despite the old anti-Semitism in Russia, there has been a strong melancholic bond between the two populations. In Russia, Jews have excelled in sciences and the arts.

Because of its continuous counterbalancing act with America, Russia has been maintaining ties to Iran and Syria, but it needs to diversify and update its economy and reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas income. It could use scientific and commercial ingenuity, qualities Iran and Syria are not able to deliver – Israel is. And Israel could use Russia’s vast resources and the determination of its leader Vladimir Putin, a smart and ruthless leader who understands the cruel rules of the international power game.

Obama’s loyalties, and those of the majority of liberal American Jewry, don’t lie with Israel. So Israel needs to shop for another ally. In his offices in the Kremlin, Putin will receive its leaders with open arms, dark bread, marinated herring and some bottles of Stoli.

Desperation may indeed drive the Israelis into embraces which they earlier might have shunned.

Let’s continue to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and that our leaders will follow the guidance of God.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

Republicans are out of power in Washington and many other places around the country. They’re out of power here in Minnesota, too, except for Governor Tim Pawlenty. But in this case, one man has been enough–Pawlenty has faced down the Democrats and beaten them.

The Democrats tried to ramp up Minnesota’s already out of control spending and pay for it with a $1 billion tax increase. But Governor Pawlenty, who recognizes that Minnesota’s booming public sector can only come at the expense of private sector growth, vetoed the tax increase. His veto was upheld in the Minnesota House, with all Republicans and two Democrats voting to sustain it. The Democrats in the legislature then refused to pass a responsible, balanced budget as required by state law.

That left Pawlenty, like Horatius at the bridge, standing alone but victorious. He announced that he would use his power of “unallotment” to decide where the state’s revenues will be spent over the next two years.

Pawlenty will cut over $700 million, according to the Star Tribune. I don’t think Governor Rell has any such powers but our own battles proceed and it seems the knives are coming out of the drawers: