Islam Rising in the West - A Prophetic Perspective

This article gravely misrepresents classical liberalism. You begin by emphasizing a need for limited government and antistatism, and then follow that pronouncement by arguing for a state which controls our culture and social policy. A classical liberal, which is different from a "conservative", would not support the state intruding into anyone's private personal life and dictating their actions to follow a certain group's morals. While a new liberal would support state sanctioned gay marriage, and a conservative would oppose state sanctioned gay marriage, a classical liberal would oppose the government sanctioning any marriages, as marriage is a private, social institution, and shouldn't be interfered with by the state. Traditional values should not be preserved through state laws, but rather the conscience of a free people. A classical liberal applies the same economic logic of laissez-faire to all aspects of the state.

I don’t argue for MORE state control or agree with everything Classically Liberal. I’m saying that "Classical Liberal," like so many expressions neo-Liberals have co-opted, is an example of the kind of dark deception today's Liberals use to control the lives of citizens. I'm also saying that if Islamism continues its rise to prominence in the West, societies blinded by a recalcitrant faith in multiculturalism, that throw off all moral restraint in the name of absolute ‘individual liberty,’ will one day find themselves, ironically, under Islamic law, which forbids each and every neo-Liberal article of faith. If you think I’ve lost it, read “America Alone” by Mark Steyn. Look up recent European demographic trends. You’ll be taking the ‘red pill.’

Study 'liberated' Amsterdam’s Islamic vs. native demography; if you’re young enough, I’ll bet you live to see homosexuals in the Netherlands beheaded by Islamists. If Classical Liberal means the freedom to practice sodomy, then yes, I'm against it. I’m one of those “stupid” enough to believe every story in the Bible guys. If I was advising the civil authorities in Sodom and Gomorrah, I’d have recommended putting a stop to sodomy. Well, they didn’t. That wasn't liberty; it was irresponsibility.

The role of magistrates is to punish evildoers. (Romans 13) If they don’t, then even God's patience has a limit and He will do the dirty work. The problem with so many westerners is they think the truth cares whether they believe it or not or that it will bow to a super majority. Very unwise. If we defined what is true and what is not, then truth is no longer objective and we become our own judges. Unfortunately for anyone who embraces untruths to justify bad behavior, we will all be judged by ‘objective’ truth; if that means everyone of us goes the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, then truth will send us there without a moment’s hesitation.

It appears that our disagreement is over the solution rather than the problem. I recognize the moral failings that are all to present in these times and the isms you describe which are weakening the moral strength of this country. I haven't read Steyn's book but I appreciate his work and have read many of his articles and seen footage of several of his speeches. I don't disagree with your argument about the rise of Islamic radicalism per se, and what that means for our country. I think you misrepresent that problem however, especially when you talk about birthrates of christian populations verses those of the Islamic faith. I highly doubt that God calls us to have more christian children than religion x or y can. Its not about populations, or territory, or authority, its about love. We should love our Muslim brothers and sisters, not fear their populations, nor should we fear and punish the immoral acts you describe. I agree that sodomy isn't a good thing, but I don't believe government is the solution. To steal a line from Reagan, the government is the problem. The state regulation of morals can only weaken the morals of a people. It is not unlike how government regulation weakens the economy. The FDIC insures bank accounts, so now potential account holders, instead of researching the safest banks and banks making every effort to attract these customers by safely investing money, banks advertise high interest rates and then bet on the markets, which inevitably leads to loss of assets. The same logic applies to morals. The government cannot dictate right and wrong, but rather legal and illegal, and uses the means of legal action to accomplish ethical ends, rather than the means of love of god and neighbor to reach those same ends. Forcing people to act ethical does not make them moral, but does the opposite and creates a resentment of those morals not because of the ethic itself but rather because it is being forced on them.

I believe that classical liberalism in our free democratic system is the best system which can allow us to follow god's word. Classical liberalism can best be summarized as saying we all the the right to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Some morals are then de facto regulated, such as murder, rape, ect. Enforcement of these laws is what i think is meant by Romans 13. But as long as our actions don't violate the rights of another, its legal. This doesn't mean that each action we have a right to do is righteous, and that's not the point. We can best combat immoralities by showing the immoral the love of God, not strength of the sword of government.

Forced morals are no morals at all. When Jesus spent 40 days in the desert he subjected himself to situations where unrighteousness would have been to so easy and was so tempting. That was the point. In the face of temptation he stayed true to God. That is the best moral, to be ethical when there are no consequences for immorality.

No, Government is not the ultimate solution but as I said, rulers are put in place by God to punish evil. And actually, God does tell us to multiply -- "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Nowhere does He tell us to put the brakes on having children (a relatively recent phenominon). He doesn't tell us to outpace other religions; He just says have children, which are a blessing. And, if a culture ceases to procreate, it will cease to exist. In the long run, the culture that procreates, dominates, both economically and politically. I'm all for love but loving someone doesn't mean assuming a passive stance about the future of this country, especially toward Islamist who, once in power, will persecute Christians. If you don't think that's likely, then you don't know much about the threat Islam poses to America. It is real, and it is happening now. You really should read Steyn's "America Alone" or Tony Blanklee's "The West's Last Chance." I'll send you a copy if you give me your address. Both are excellent books.

I also suggest Steyn's article "Its the Demography Stupid." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1519371/posts). Also, "The Problem with Not Having Kids: Saving the planet for the next generation by not having a next generation is a bad idea" (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1519371/posts).

Finally, on homosexuality: Every nation that has liberalized licentiousness, homosexuality, etc. has come to ruin. Clearly, God says, "The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17) and 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18) We disregard this at our own peril as a nation.

BTW ... I really appreciate Nate's comments and feedback. spincipher@comcast.net.