The Arab Spring: A Cautionary Tale for Evangelicals

[The Rabbi]

And the REALLY funny part? Those who bemoan the coming Dominion give radical Islam a free pass for actually doing what they're afraid Christians are going to do.

And by "funny", I mean "pathetically hypocritical and historically ignorant".

Firstly, I have never seen anyone give radical Islam a "free pass" for terrorism - have you?

For instance, can you tell us who gave terrorists a "free pass" for 9/11 or Boston?

Secondly, the difference for Americans between what a government might do in Egypt is a very different issue to what a government might do in the US, isn't it?

Does it really surprise you that Americans are more concerned about their own rights?

I hadn't realised that you were an expert on Middle Eastern history - where did you study?

Do you understand the term "strawman argument" and its applicability to your post?

 

[Darkwind]

THE ARAB SPRING: A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR EVANGELICALS

The Arab Spring movement began in Tunisia about 3 years ago. Beginning as a popular uprising against dictatorial governments, it first toppled the regime in Tunisia, then spread across the region to Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and other places with mixed results. In some places, such as Libya and Egypt, the rebellious masses were successful in overthrowing the entrenched powers. In others, like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the ruling powers either crushed the rebellion or negotiated some superficial concessions which have quieted the turmoil, for now. In Syria, the movement began a full-fledged civil war which is not yet ended.

Starting out with high hopes of transforming their societies into functioning democracies, the movement quickly fell into disarray, even in those countries where it was most successful. Egypt, for instance, is on the verge to total war among its citizens, Libya is beset by internal turmoil and Tunisia teeters on the brink of collapse. Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey risk being sucked into the morass of Syria.

Why? That's an easy answer: Religion. Some form of Islam won the open elections in all those places. Just as with previous efforts to democratize the Arab world, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine, when given the choice, The People opted to vote their religious convictions. In America, they would be called "values voters" who cast their ballot based upon their faith, not necessarily what's best for the country as a whole.

Sadly, the losing factions in all those places have not shown a willingness to accept the Will of The People and have risen up against whatever brand of Islam won the elections. The current violence pits Sunni against Shia, Christian against Islamic, Wahabbi against just about everybody, religious against secularist. As the violence and killing grows, adherents of the differing positions travel from other countries to take part, to "defend" their faith, whatever it is. That's conveniently written off by the west as "terrorists" and "Islamic radicals" taking advantage of the fluid situation. There's some truth to that, of course, but the motivation for becoming involved is still their faith. That's still what drives them to take the risk. You may not like what they believe in, but you have to admire their dedication.

Why is this all a cautionary tale for Evangelical's, you ask?

Simply this: What if the Evangelical, "values" voters succeed in packing state, local and the federal government with Christian's? What if their ideas about imposing Christian order on society by the power of law actually comes to fruition? There aren't many true Re-Constructionist's or Theonomist's out there, but there are millions who subscribe to the idea without truly understanding what it is they support.

They haven't thought it through to its ultimate conclusion. Fed a steady diet of promised reforms based upon "Christian" values, such as abortion reform for instance, they vote for candidates who promise the most "Christian" laws and rules. It's considered an act of Faith to support "Christian" candidates in many places and by many people. In an unhealthy blend of Christian faith and partisan politics, they fall victim to the worst kind of religious jingoism and believe they are actually supporting Jesus Christ by their vote.

But, what if they succeed? Could such a revolution result in peace and harmony, or would we descend into the kind of religious madness we see going on in the Arab world? Would Christian sectarianism divide us to the point of violence?

Consider this: In a truly functioning democracy, the majority gets to make the rules. Oh, sure there are protections for minorities positions, but how long would that last when the majority can claim the Will of God? I submit the answer is…not long. How could a true Believer resist His Will and still be considered a Believer and not an enemy of the state or people? Or, worse, an enemy of God?

Current demographics show us that the birth rate is still declining among Protestant Christians, but the nation is being flooded by mostly Catholic Hispanic immigrants. What happens when those Catholics achieve critical mass and are able to win elections? Will you, Mr. and Mrs. Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran, accept God's Will as expressed through laws based upon the edicts of Rome? Will you Catholics accept laws based upon the ideas found in the Reformation? Worse, once the idea of religion-dominated government takes root, what happens if some non-Christian, or even atheist, majority arises in the future? Will you obey the law, or will you resist?

Even if none of those things happen, what transpires when some brand of Christianity other than yours takes hold of the reins of power? Will Pentecostals or Catholics or "emerging" Christians peacefully submit to laws based upon, say, the Southern Baptist's interpretation of scripture? Will Southern Baptist's submit to laws based upon the teachings of the channeled spirit of "Jesus?" If there is no recourse via the ballot box, what will disaffected Christians do?

I have no trouble imagining that America would turn out just like Syria today, with every conceivable brand of Christianity fighting to defend its own version the the "truth." Do you? Why not?

If we want to avoid ending up just like those countries which have gone through the Arab Spring, I'd suggest we leave our religion at home when we vote. Vote your faith, of course, but don't be sucked in by politicians or parties promising a religious utopia based upon Jesus Christ. Their image of Christ most likely isn't like yours.

Don't be fooled. That road leads to madness, bloodshed, violence and horror, just as we're seeing in the Arab world today. And, all if it done in the name of "God." Oh, I know…we're not like that anymore. Really? Show me where human nature has changed since the Garden, and especially in the area of faith.

The day we leave our religious beliefs at home when we participate in our country, is the day we truly will perish.

 

[Plasmaball]

You're really kind of stupid and ill-informed, aren't you?

Like you should talk..

 

[The Rabbi]

You're really kind of stupid and ill-informed, aren't you?

Like you should talk..

Whup! Send in the clowns!

 

[Saigon]

The day we leave our religious beliefs at home when we participate in our country, is the day we truly will perish.

I don't think anyone need to leave their beliefs at home - they just need to resist imposing them on others.

As I mentioned earlier - would an Evangelical President allow abortion? Contraception?

If religion and state are seperated, then they should do.

Rabbi -

Please try not to spam threads. Either debate topics, or leave them for those who capable of debating.

 

[The Rabbi]

The day we leave our religious beliefs at home when we participate in our country, is the day we truly will perish.

I don't think anyone need to leave their beliefs at home - they just need to resist imposing them on others.

As I mentioned earlier - would an Evangelical President allow abortion? Contraception?

If religion and state are seperated, then they should do.

Rabbi -

Please try not to spam threads. Either debate topics, or leave them for those who capable of debating.

That's clearly not you, as you threw a strawman fallacy into your last post.
How would an "evangelical president" (and remember George Bush was an evangelical president) prevent contraception or abortion?

 

[Darkwind]

The day we leave our religious beliefs at home when we participate in our country, is the day we truly will perish.

I don't think anyone need to leave their beliefs at home - they just need to resist imposing them on others.

As I mentioned earlier - would an Evangelical President allow abortion? Contraception?

If religion and state are seperated, then they should do.

Rabbi -

Please try not to spam threads. Either debate topics, or leave them for those who capable of debating.

Each and every aspect of voting, supporting and pursuing politics is forcing a belief on someone else. To say that you should not impose your religious belief on Me, is in fact, you forcing your belief on Me.

The only recourse the anti's have is to make up lies about people who hold moral convictions based upon religious belief. They say things like, "The GOP is wanting to impose a Christian theocracy upon us all!" When in truth, no one wants that in any way, shape or form.

When Christians go to the polls, they make their choice and decisions on the basis of who they think is the better person for the job, and they use the morality and upbringing of their religion to make those choices. It is intertwined and woven into their very being.

I think that the OP has made a very poor conclusion in the little diatribe. It is not the winds of revolution by religion that should be feared.

It is the complacency and obedience to authority bent on solidifying power that is the threat.

 

[Saigon]

Darkwind -

I do take your point, and respect your opinion, but to my mind having contraception and abortion available does not force Christians to use them.

It's about allowing people the right to choose.

Ditto gay marriage - I don't want to force people to marry if they don't want to. I just think people should have a right to decide for themselves, rather than have government decide.

 

[The Rabbi]

Darkwind -

I do take your point, and respect your opinion, but to my mind having contraception and abortion available does not force Christians to use them.

It's about allowing people the right to choose.

Ditto gay marriage - I don't want to force people to marry if they don't want to. I just think people should have a right to decide for themselves, rather than have government decide.

Do you support Muslim honor killings? After all, that is their right to choose.

 

[blackhawk]

I find the Op and the lefts worry over what Christians might or might not do more than a bit silly given how much time the left spends trying trivialize, marginalize, and some cases even vilify them. In fact the way the left talks about Christians and religious people reminds me somewhat of how a certain sect of another religion talks about them.

 

[Darkwind]

I find the Op and the lefts worry over what Christians might or might not do more than a bit silly given how much time the left spends trying trivialize, marginalize, and some cases even vilify them. In fact the way the left talks about Christians and religious people reminds me somewhat of how a certain sect of another religion talks about them.

I find it interesting that a few radicals does not make up a religion when discussing Islam, but all evangelicals are radicals when it comes to exercising the peaceful vote.

 

[Saigon]

I find it interesting that a few radicals does not make up a religion when discussing Islam, but all evangelicals are radicals when it comes to exercising the peaceful vote.

Evangelism is a fairly radical form of Christianity.

It's not like we're discussing Lutheranism.

 

[Darkwind]

Darkwind -

I do take your point, and respect your opinion, but to my mind having contraception and abortion available does not force Christians to use them.

It's about allowing people the right to choose.

Ditto gay marriage - I don't want to force people to marry if they don't want to. I just think people should have a right to decide for themselves, rather than have government decide.

No Christian I know wishes to deny anyone the right to contraception if that is what they chose. They simply refuse to pay for that contraception. There is a big difference.

I have no problem with gays or marriage. I simply have a problem with government and marriage.

What people do in their own homes is not the concern of anyone else, especially government. Until crimes and be shown, no one has the right to invade another's privacy.

 

[Darkwind]

I find it interesting that a few radicals does not make up a religion when discussing Islam, but all evangelicals are radicals when it comes to exercising the peaceful vote.

Evangelism is a fairly radical form of Christianity.

It's not like we're discussing Lutheranism.

In fact, it is not.

I am not a member of any religion, but evangelical is just a branch of Christianity. No more radical than Catholics...

Well, maybe a little less.......

I jest..don't send the Pope after Me!

 

[blackhawk]

It seems I remember being a Mormon was considered radical about year ago I wonder why that was? Now as far as this country becoming a theocracy of some type the last I checked we still have a separation of church and state and I see no signs of that changing which makes this whole debate again pretty silly.

 

[koshergrl]

I do not believe the original post is correct to use the Arab Spring to predict Catholic-Protestant strife.

Catholics and Protestants in the United States have lived in complete peace because of a concept called Separation of Church and State...thanks Mr. Jefferson. Neither side has ANY HOPE OF using the State to oppress the other...and peace is the result.

Not so with Islam....not so by a long shot. Muslims are decades, if not centuries, away from getting their Jefferson.

When their Jefferson shows up, he will be beheaded in the street with a rusty knife.

Or crucified.

 

[koshergrl]

I find it interesting that a few radicals does not make up a religion when discussing Islam, but all evangelicals are radicals when it comes to exercising the peaceful vote.

Evangelism is a fairly radical form of Christianity.

It's not like we're discussing Lutheranism.

Evangelicals are not "radical" and represent a much larger portion of Christians than you think they do.

 

[Toro]

No.

No.

Evangelicals are not like extremist Islamists.

Saudi Court Condemns Editor to 600 Lashes With Breaks

A Jeddah criminal court judge has sentenced Saudi Arabian journalist Raif Badawi to seven years in prison and 600 lashes for the crime of “insulting Islam.”

It could have gone worse for Badawi: Had the judge not thrown out the charge of apostasy, he would have received a death sentence. ...

Badawi, 30, is the co-founder and editor of the website saudiliberalnetwork.com, which encouraged people to post their thoughts about the role of religion and politics, among other things, in their lives. (No longer, however: The site has been shut down.) ...

Badawi was given five years for “insulting Islam.” Two more are for insulting both Islam and Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

According to the global watchdog group Human Rights Watch, a popular cleric, Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Barrak, called for Badawi to be charged with apostasy for allegedly saying that “Muslims, Jews, Christians and atheists are all equal.”

Parental Disobedience

The judge, Faris al-Harbi, tacked an additional three months onto the sentence, al-Khair told me, for “parental disobedience.” Badawi’s father, he says, went on TV to condemn his son’s statements and the website. ...

His wife ... spent seven months in a Saudi prison. Her crime: “Parental disobedience” that included advocating for the right of women to drive. ...

Saudi Court Condemns Editor to 600 Lashes With Breaks - Bloomberg

 

[daveman]

And the REALLY funny part? Those who bemoan the coming Dominion give radical Islam a free pass for actually doing what they're afraid Christians are going to do.

And by "funny", I mean "pathetically hypocritical and historically ignorant".

Firstly, I have never seen anyone give radical Islam a "free pass" for terrorism - have you?

For instance, can you tell us who gave terrorists a "free pass" for 9/11 or Boston?

Sure!

Ward Churchill blamed America.

A 5th grade history video blamed America, too.

So did Ron Paul.

In 2006, lots of Canadians blamed America.

And of course, we can't fail to mention the nutcases who believe the American government itself conducted the attacks.

Anyone who blames America is giving Islam a free pass for terrorism. And that's just 9/11 -- look at all the people who blame Israel for her citizens being blown up by Palestinian splodeydopes.

The Obama Administration refuses to call the Fort Hood shooter an Islamic terrorist, when he is, by his own admission, Muslim -- and he confessed to the shootings.

Free pass to Islam.

The Obama Administration refuses to call the Boston Marathon bombing an act of Islamic terrorism, when it quite clearly is.

Free pass to Islam.

I'd say I've proven my point. You are free to screech "Nuh-UH!!" if you like.

Secondly, the difference for Americans between what a government might do in Egypt is a very different issue to what a government might do in the US, isn't it?

Indeed. I'm not familiar with Egypt's constitution, if any, but America's prevents the declaration of an official state religion. There is absolutely NO chance of it happening. Any claims that Dominionists pose a real threat are baseless, and driven by the claimants' bigotry against Christians.

Does it really surprise you that Americans are more concerned about their own rights?

Not at all -- they should be. Progressives seek to erode our rights every day.

I hadn't realised that you were an expert on Middle Eastern history - where did you study?

The Middle East. Lived there off and on for about two years. Plus, I can read. Amazing the things you can learn reading. Try it!

 

[daveman]

Darkwind -

I do take your point, and respect your opinion, but to my mind having contraception and abortion available does not force Christians to use them.

It's about allowing people the right to choose.

Ditto gay marriage - I don't want to force people to marry if they don't want to. I just think people should have a right to decide for themselves, rather than have government decide.

I'd like to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance.

That one's gone.

I'd like to choose whether or not to buy large-capacity magazines for a semi-automatic rifle.

So far, I still can. For the moment.

The right to choose seems to be a good thing only if you choose what the left dictates you should.