1.) The attempt to bring the aircraft down was done on the day the West celebrates the birth of Christ. The attack was, thus not only an attack on the America, but it was an attack on the Christian faith as well. Now, America hates being thought of as a nation influenced by Christianity but clearly Muslims understand that this is a war between faiths and as difficult as it is for some of us to understand why Islam views America as “Christian” it is none the less the case that they do. The Muslim attack on America on Christmas day is proof that they were not only striking at the nation but also at what they perceive to be the nation’s faith.
2.) When the first news reports came out it was clear that the media was attempting to shield the Muslim connection. For the first 12 hours we kept hearing about the perpetrator being Nigerian but not a peep about how the Nigerian was a Muslim. This desire to tamp down the Muslim connection is consistent with the way the media covered the Muslim mass murderer who shot up the Army base in Texas. There is clearly an attempt by the media and the Obama administration to prejudice Americans against being prejudice against the faith system that is informing those who are seeking to kill them.
3.) Every time there is a terrorist attempt the consequence is to turn the screws on the American people with more and more invasive control procedures. Every time there is a terrorist attempt the consequence is that more power is ceded to the Federal Government to treat American citizens like criminals. However, at no time following a terrorist attempt does the State do anything to genuinely provide the common defense. As one obvious and glaring example, if the State was serious about catching bad guys and making air travel safe they would cease and desist with the silliness of treating a 85 year old white Caucasian grandmother as the same terror risk as a 25 year old Muslim Arab. If the State was serious about catching bad guys they would start profiling with the purpose of singling out flying Muslims for more rigorous shakedowns before boarding aircraft. It seems the only entity that ends up profiting from these failed attacks is the Leviathan State.
4.) Obama, in his nearly one year as President has seldom failed to get before a camera at every opportunity to speak his mind. On this incident though it took Barack Hussein Obama three days before he released a statement. What are we to make of this comparative silence on Barack Hussein Obama’s part? Remember this is the same guy who, after hearing about the Muslim shooting on the Texas Army base could only say, “we must not jump to conclusions.” Between that statement, and his comparative silence in this event, and the current administrations kiss butt attitude towards the Muslim world one can only conclude that our President with a Muslim name favors Muslims more than he does Americans.
5.) Janet “Butch” Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, initially insisted that in light of the Christmas attempted bombing it could be seen that the system worked. This is like saying that a high priced security system worked because someone who just happened to be passing by tackled a departing thief as he was leaving with the loot. It is difficult to imagine Napolitano saying anything more stupid then “this attempted bombing proves the system works.”
6.) The flying public are partly to fault for allowing the state to treat them like sheep. They are not so much concerned about stopping terrorism as they are concerned about “feeling safe.” If they were concerned about stopping terrorism they would begin to demand that their representative quit with the political correctness and would likewise demand legislation to start rolling that would forbid Islamic influence in America. If the flying public were concerned about having their privacy invaded when flying they would tell the Feds to drop all the dragoonish behavior at the airports and start concentrating on those who fit a criminal profile.
Interesting that the administration paraded a picture of the bomber’s underwear for the media. Didn’t Abu Ghraib teach us that Dems believe such public humiliation was “torture” in violation of the Geneva Convention?
Mark,
I’m wondering what they will parade when some Muslim woman with gel breast implants made of explosives tries to detonate herself on a plane.
If 1. is true, what was Geo. Washington doing crossing the Delaware and attacking the Brits on the same day?
The Lord’s Day is the Christian holyday under attack in the West.
Which just might be one reason why, in the providence of God, the eastern antichrist, Muhammad is attacking the West on the popish (western antichrist) holyday – the distinction between antichrists being that of the Protestant Reformers.
For John Calvin and the so called “War Against Christmas” see:
http://reformedpresbyterianveritasdocuments.blogspot.com/2009/01/war-against-christmas-on-thursday.html
Apples and oranges Bsuden. On #1 I’m writing as a Muslim thinks not as a Puritan “I hate Christmas” thinks. This would be no different from a Christian nation (if one existed) attacking Muslims on Ramadan.
If Christians attack Christians on Christmas then obviously it is not Christmas under attack because, loosely speaking, they are both Christian.
Bret,
on No.4: the US air force bombed alleged al-Qaeda camps in Yemen on December 17th. Obama is stepping up war efforts in Afghanistan. Do you believe that this is his secret plot to love Muslims at the expense of Americans?
Alex
Alex,
First of all … thank you for your Christmas Amazon!
Second, though Obama talks as if he is stepping up war efforts in Afghanistan I’m not convinced that will end up being the case. I think his plans will lead to quagmire and more American deaths.
Third, one thing I thought later that I should have included in this article is the idea that Americans have to realize that payback is a bitch. If we go peeing in other people’s pools, we should not be surprised if they want to pee in our pool.
Fourth, I would still submit that Obama loves Muslims more than Americans. His policy on abortion will insure more American deaths during his tenure then his policy on Muslims will insure Muslim deaths.
Thanks again for your kindness,
Bret,
I know how Muslims think about Christmas. The problem is the Christians who think just like them. And Calvin was a puritan?
Again the larger point is if God has a controversy with Christendom, then we better not get stuck on second causes and caught up with blaming it on the eastern or western antichrist.
The point on the Puritans is that there are different Reformed traditions regarding Christmas. The Continental Reformed had a much different view.
No doubt God has a controversy w/ Christendom and one of the controversial points is that Muslims esteem the Birth of Christ more than the West does. Why else would they attack on Christmas day and why else would we ignore that significance?
Cheers,
Bret,
related to your no. 3), an article by William Grigg on possible connections of US intelligence to this attempted bombing: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w123.html
BSuden is a Jehovah’s Witness, since he doesn’t like Christmas.
Seriously, though, the genetic fallacy is alive and well.
Since the “Popish” walk around on their feet, I’m going to start walking on my hands.
Of course the world wouldn’t call attention to Christmas in regard to the underwear bomber, but so what? Rather too much of the church still thinks of Christmas like the western antichrist and if the eastern antichrist comes in chastisement to a disobedient church like the Reformers believed, yes, the incident occurred on Christmas day.
The larger picture for the church in the West is arguably again Prov. 16:7.
Calvin didn’t like Christmas.
Ergo. Calvin is a JW.
That was simple.
“. . . Now I see here today more people than I am accustomed to having at the sermon. Why is that? It is Christmas day. And who told you this? You poor beasts. That is a fitting euphemism for all of you who have come here today to honor Noel. Did you think you would be honoring God? Consider what sort of obedience to God your coming displays. In your mind, you are celebrating a holiday for God, or turning today into one. But so much for that. In truth, as you have often been admonished, it is good to set aside one day out of the year in which we are reminded of all the good that has occurred because of Christ’s birth in the world, and in which we hear the story of his birth retold, which will be done Sunday. But if you think that Jesus Christ was born today, you are as crazed as wild beasts. For when you elevate one day alone for the purpose of worshiping God, you have just turned it into an idol. True, you insist that you have done so for the honor of God, but is more for the honor of the Devil. . . .”
Sermons on Micah, P&R, ’03, pp. 303,4
This is easy to rebut BSuden. Calvin was wrong just as he was wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Pastor Bret,
Neither you nor SouthronDoc have provided any Scriptural support for your position on the falsehood that Christ was physically incarnated on Dec. 25th. As a minister of the Word, the higher standard falls upon you regarding any teaching that you set forth (James 3:1). If this teaching about our LORD is true, then you need to be able to back it up from Scripture. I’ve seen you support your other teachings from Holy Writ. Sadly, all I have seen thus far from you and other respondents when either BSuden or myself ask you to support your claims are ad hominem argumentation and belittlement (metaphorically) that our position is heterodox. Neither BSuden or I have denied the incarnation. What Calvin, the Puritans, and a host of others throughout history have refuted as error is the claim that it took place on Dec. 25th.
As I said in my response to SouthronDoc on another thread, just because the early Church embraced a teaching makes it neither Biblical or Christ-honoring.
Since when did an assertion become a genuine rebuttal?
It’s called the regulative principle of worship or the good and necessary consequences of the Second Commandment as taught by the reformed confessions and catechisms, the HC Q&A 96 for one.
Reformed – in doctrine, worship and government.
Pro-Christmas Celebrations links
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/miscellaneous/the-menace-of-chinese-food/
http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/1071243331Defense_of_Xmas.htm
This is the end of this discussion gentleman. I’m convinced that arguments regarding celebrating vs. non-celebrating Christmas are non-productive. I fully respect you if you don’t want to celebrate Christmas. I just don’t find anything in Scripture that prohibits celebrating Christmas. Indeed, as I’ve already said the Continental Reformed Churches encouraged their churches to gather for worship on Christmas and other like days.
Take Care Bsuden and Jim.
I’ll let Bret decide whether to print this, given his closure of the subject, but I would like to apologize: it seems that my attempt to rebut a characterization as fallacious looked to some like an ad hominem attack. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear and I doubt the orthodoxy of NO ONE involved in this discussion.
The main point remains, Bret.
The Reformers believed the antichrist was visited on the church for its disobedience.
As she whored after the western, the eastern came visiting.
So too, w. Christianity today in the main – or in the minor examples, which I brought up, but NB, nobody really wanted to talk about in the main, they just took some cheap ad hominems toward the example of Christmas.
OK if people want to go there, we can do that, but notice where they also didn’t go.
cheers
I think that was just coincidence that the attack was planned on Christmas. Muslims don’t think that way they just do things when they hear a voice in their head.