TexasCHLforum.com

I've just downloaded Caner's book and am reading it now.

ShootDontTalk wrote:Of course one may interpret Scripture for themselves, but might I suggest that anyone who uses a firearm to defend himself or his family may run into a terrible dilemma with the inviolate admonition to turn the other cheek and surrender the cloak. Why? Because there is no Scripture that adds the words "but in this situation...."

The way I resolve that is to unwilling to shoot to protect property, UNLESS, I am personally be endangered by the taking of that property. I come home and catch you coming out my front door with a TV, I'm not going to gun you down......although I might draw the gun to try and make you put the TV down. If you run off with the TV, I'm not going to back-shoot you over it. If you set down the TV and prone out, I'm not going to shoot you. But if you put down the TV and attack me, then I'm going to defend myself. So that is one way of looking at it........the willingness (or not) to use violence to protect property.

But there is a deeper thing here. "And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." Here's we're not talking about a thief stealing unimportant stuff (yes, even an expensive TV is unimportant.....it's JUST a TV), we're talking about the result of a lawsuit......to which you surrender. The other person has a case against you. Instead of fighting him, you are urged to bring the suit quickly to a close, and smooth over the bad feelings by being more generous than he is asking for. Jesus uses the example of someone taking an item of clothing through legal means. Clothing comes under the heading of "need", not "want". And in Jesus's day, a man's cloak was one of his most prized possessions. He might only own one or two during his entire adult life. His cloak did far more than just act as an outer garment. It was a blanket, a cushion to sit on, a sleeping pad, protection from the cold, an indicator of his station in life. So Jesus is maybe saying, "if someone takes your shirt (because you have done him an injustice), give him your jacket too (so he will be warm)".

OTH, we have the implications of Luke 22:35-38 (I won't reproduce it all here, but I wrote a long blog post about it a while back HERE) in which Jesus instructs his disciples to get a sword, and if they don't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one.......the sword type being more of a large knife similar to a Roman Pugio, or a large Bowie Knife, rather than to what we would think of as a broadsword or saber.

So, I don't think that Jesus expects to not defend ourselves, or to not defend loved ones. But "defend" is different from "attack". One entirely permits the idea of living in peace alongside one another. The other does not. The person who initiates an attack is not living in peace. The person who defends from an attack is not the one who disturbs the peace.

Was Jesus living in peace when he drove the money-changers out of the temple with a knotted rope? Yes. He was defending his Father's House. So "living" in peace doesn't necessarily mean that you lay down and let people run over you.

ShootDontTalk wrote:Apathy? It is difficult to convince Christians to stand up for themselves. As long as it doesn't happen to them personally, no one even notices.

I wouldn't call it apathy, per se. There are complex reasons for why this is so.

One reason is that no less a person than Jesus tells us to respond charitably to injustice: Matthew 5:38-41 - "38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."

Also, the apostle Paul writes in Romans 12:18, 19 - "18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”"

These things do not mean that we should not protect ourselves, but they do mean that we are not to seek revenge for insults - whether they be religious, cultural, or physical insults. No revenge doesn't mean that you don't fight back in self-defense, but it does mean that you forego the right to exact punishment. So on one hand, you have the central character of the faith telling us to accept the insults (because we will be persecuted for our faith), but his most prolific prophet telling us that A) we are to live in peace with everybody in so far as it is possible, B) that we are to leave revenge up to God, and C) that God's justice will happen according to his plan, not ours.

So right there, just in those two passages (and there are others), you've got scriptural instruction not to seek payback.

Then, Christian scripture also tells us that we will be persecuted for the faith, and to understand that when it happens, God's prophecies are being fulfilled, and to rejoice in that fulfillment. So what you end up with is a believer who is not passive (we are free to pray all we want), but who is enjoined to be nonviolent in so far as it depends upon that believer, and to not seek revenge for insults. The product is a person who will perhaps act quickly to defend someone else from these kinds of depredations, but may seem more resigned to it when it happens to directly themselves.

I am unaware if Islam teaches anything similar. If it does, then modern Islamicists are failing radically to uphold their religion.

FWIW, Pam Geller came to fame because she helped to lead the protests against the construction of a mosque on the site of the WTT attack. Now THAT is obscene: Islamists take down the two largest buildings in the country, killing 2,606 people (give or take....kind of hard to tell from the obliterated remains) in cold blood, dedicating their attack to Allah; in nearby communities, Muslims dance in the streets at the news; and then local Muslim residents of NYC try to lay claim to that holy ground on which to build a mosque.......in the face of American outrage, and while accusing those outraged as intolerant and bigoted. The last time Muslims did something like that, they built a mosque on top of Temple Mount in Jerusalem. THAT is obnoxious. THAT is socially toxic. THAT is expansionist. THAT is extraordinarily disrespectful. And, THAT is intolerant, and it is intolerable. THAT is evil. THAT is exactly the kind of crap Westboro "Baptist" would pull off.

THAT evil is also one of the motivations that drives Pamela Geller's mission to call out and confront those enemies of liberty found from within the Muslim community.

Are all Muslims like that? NO. They are NOT. It would be grossly unfair to say that. Many, including those who are members of this forum, are not that kind of people. But, those good people notwithstanding, Islam as a larger institution has a HUGE image problem—a problem that began with the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 (some of them Muslims)—and that problem is directly traceable to its loudest and most violently intolerant voices.

Here is an interesting related phenomenon......

Christians and Muslims taking up arms together to fight ISIS: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Christians+and+Mus ... fight+ISIS.

If they can do that in a war zone, why can't they do it here? If they could, Pamela Geller would probably take a chill pill, and American kafirs would see them as allies instead of the enemy. I do realize that some, but not enough, Islamic religious leaders condemn the actions of the crazies, but for whatever reason, their message isn't getting told here in the U.S. Whose fault is that? Lemme see....... could it be the national media which is controlled almost exclusively by lefties?

ScooterSissy wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Pam Geller is very easy to avoid. Don't attend her event.
The Westboro miscreants come find you and exploit your suffering when you're most vulnerable.

Huge, huge difference.
Sad that it had to be explained here.

Agreed. I think that's the first valid "there is a difference" that I've seen. Thank you.
Sorry to the other folks - the intended target of the protests does not suddenly make the tactics appropriate. That falls under "the ends justify the means".

As far as the cartoon contest being targeted at those who would promote violence, or even simply Sharia law - the problem is that may have been who it was aimed at, but there were millions of Muslim believers who also had their religion besmirched who have not done anything wrong.

Understood......... just as I understand that millions of those same peaceful Muslims hate Pam Geller for no more reason than the fact that she's a Jew, and they will always take the side of any Muslim over any Jew, no matter how repugnant the Muslim's behavior, or innocent the Jew's behavior.

Pam Geller makes no bones about it. She believes, as a Jew, that radical Islam is an existential threat to people such as herself. She says that, like it or not, she is in a war with radicalized Islam. She believes - and given the history it is hard to refute - that radical Muslims are going to try to kill her, and that moderate Muslims will be glad when they succeed. So, she is availing herself of the one thing our Constitution permits her to do: Speak Out.

I appreciate that most Muslims would view the cartoons as insulting, but if they want the insults to stop, maybe THEY should start killing off the radicals and cleaning up their own mess, so that the rest of the world doesn't have to deal with it. If they would just do that ONE thing, the rest of the world would come to accept that moderate Muslims are not a threat to them, and they would stop hating them.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that the radicals are the fault of the moderates - although, in some places they are - and I'm not suggesting that taunting your enemies is necessarily a good idea. But, until all Muslim nations declare that they recognize Israel's right to exist and stop teaching their children that Jews drink the blood of Muslim children, there will never be peace between the two, and that is not the fault of the Jews. Like Dennis Prager says, Israel has had nukes since the mid-1950s, and despite several wars with her Arab neighbors, Israel has steadfastly kept her nuclear arsenal in check. Does anybody think that once Iran succeeds in miniaturizing their nukes down to man-portable size, that they won't arm Hamas with one, and that Hamas won't use it against an Israeli target? That's not a bet for a thinking man to take. Why? Because both Hamas and the PLO have made it a matter of policy that their goal is to eradicate Israel.........NOT live alongside of........Eradicate.

As a Jew, Pam Geller feels that this disparity in hatred needs to be called out for the evil that it is. If it insults some people to see their sin called out.......well, that's too bad.....sin flees from the light. As Scripture says (John 3:20) "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."

As an extremely religious person myself, I question the wisdom of insulting anybody's religion. But you know what? When (so-called) "artists" created pieces like a crucifix soaking in a jar of urine, or a feces-smeared Madonna, neither I nor ANY of my brothers and sisters in Christ took a gun and tried to shoot up the gallery or assassinate the "artist". WHY did none of us do this? BECAUSE WE ARE ADULTS AND WE KNOW IT IS WRONG!!! When an allegedly Christian (I say "alleged" because the MSM reported he was Christian, and I take all they say with a hunk of rock-salt) man with a gun started assassinating abortion doctors, I and millions of my fellow believers did not cheer him on. We roundly condemned him as the murderer he was. WHY? BECAUSE ARE ADULTS AND WE KNOW IT IS WRONG!!! Just once, I'd like to see as universal a condemnation as that from the rest of moderate Islam. Instead, we get either silence (which equals assent), or we get CAIR on the networks, telling us why it was justified.

THAT is the realm of Islam alone. As a believer in a different religion, I want religion generally to have a place of respect in society - EVEN IF people belong to other religions than my own, including Islam. I want to be able to coexist with people who believe differently than I do—including those who have no religious faith at all. But until a religion recognizes that murder as retaliation against free speech is not only NOT acceptable, but that it DEMANDS CONDEMNATION, it will be the fate of a large part of the Muslim population to walk around with a chip on their shoulders.........and THAT is as insulting to non-Muslims as any cartoon image of Mohammed might be to a Muslim. The proper response should be, grow the heck up. The problem is not that I can't coexist alongside Muslims, but that many of them (not all, by any means) cannot coexist alongside me. When American Muslims react to these simple cartoons the exact same way that Christians reacted to blasphemous art involving soaking objects of Christian reverence in urine and feces, only then will they have learned to live in peace alongside the rest of us.

If we can put up with that, surely they can put up with a cartoon. If they can't, then there is something psychologically wrong with them.

Pam Geller's approach may be obnoxious, but it is startlingly effective in clarifying the differences between a large segment of Islam and the rest of the world. We may disapprove of something, but they will kill you for it.........except here in Texas, where it doesn't pay.

Sounds like those Garlan boys are not to be trifled with.

Abraham wrote:TAM noted: Not only that, but I just saw an Garland PD presser about an hour ago, and the officer said that they were going to rethink allowing these kinds of events in the future.

Rethink = Cave In to the their non-American demands for what they might do?

Oh yeah, cave in while the radicals chortle at our weak kneed response to their evil.

Appeasement doesn't work...

Their latest attempt at squelching free speech got two of them smoked!

As to the Garland PD presser (I'm unfamiliar with the word "presser, I guess it's the same as a PR type/spokesman) stating they may rethink allowing these kinds of events. (I'd love to read a definition of "these kind of events"

As I don't know Garland city ordinances, I guess they have that power, but they may also simply assume it if no one complains.

Anyone know if they can legally disallow "these kinds of events"?

Abraham, for the record, I agree with you. I was just the messenger.

Can they legally disallow certain kinds of events? Sure they can. It's not the cops who will disallow it, it will be the owner of the venue, acting on suggestions from the police and other authorities, who will disallow it. They can pretty much decide to refuse any more rentals for events that have anything to do for or against any religious or spiritual matters, for any purpose whatsoever. As long as they exclude all religions including atheism equally, I don't see that the Constitution OR the law would prevent it.

n5wd wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Free speech

Garland PD

The "security officer" was an unarmed security officer. Hit in leg, discharged from hospital in less than four hours. Everyone's hopeful for a speedy recovery!

"Free speech"? Yes, but like yelling " Fire" in a crowded theatre, it shoulda been obvious that some sort of negative reaction was going to happen. SWAT was already on scene due to that possibility.

There were apparently no Muslim demonstrators there at the Center - wonder if someone knew something was afoot?

Not only that, but I just saw an Garland PD presser about an hour ago, and the officer said that they were going to rethink allowing these kinds of events in the future.

I agree that there was the potential for trouble in this, but the trouble makers were on the outside, not the inside. And I note that when there was a big Muslim rally a few months ago in Dallas, they wouldn't even allow the media in. Just as the Anglican church in Africa considers a "godless" United States to be a mission field, so does Islam in the rest of the world. The difference is that the Anglicans want neither to convert through violence, nor to suppress free speech, nor to institute a set of laws which curtail human rights and justify execution and maiming for all kinds of crimes against their religious standards.

I have absolutely no problem with Muslims who desire to live here among us and enjoy the benefits of liberty and a free society alongside the rest of us. George W Bush's doctrine was to fight islamic extremism overseas, and that worked after a fashion........we killed a lot of them......but we also probably drove some further into extremist arms in the process. In the end, I honestly think we are going to have to fight and kill them here at home. We have a government that treats border security like it is a joke, using people who invade us illegally as pawns in a larger process to subvert the Constitution. Under the guise of free speech, we allow feloniously-minded Imams to preach a version of Islam that foments violence and hatred. Between terrorists who sneak across the borders, and terrorists home-grown, we are kidding ourselves if we think we're not going to see more and more of this.

The problems are twofold:

One is that our justice system is not really setup to deal with terrorists. Sure, we SAY it is a crime, but what do we DO about it? HOW LONG did it take for the Pentagon to finally agree that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror and not "workplace violence", and that (ex)Major Nidal Hasan was a terrorist, and not a "disgruntled employee"? How can we take a government's word seriously that it intends to protect our rights, when it allows one religious variant to preach murder, while it punishes another for preaching the value of life? The reason we have this situation is that we have a government that cowers in abject fear of calling a spade a spade, and appearing to be "insensitive" to the "needs" of bullies.

The other problem is that, because police are hamstrung by the law, and government is unwilling to do its dang job, the protection of individual citizens from terrorists is going to devolve into the hands of those citizens who own firearms and are inclined to keep them handy. When this happens, what are they going to be charged with? Racism and murder? Or will they be recognized for public service?

And a greatest tragedy out of all of this is that there are a LOT of muslim people in the U.S. who are here for exactly the reasons I stated in my 3rd paragraph. Exactly as some early Christian colonists first arrived on our shores to escape a religious persecution from other Christians in Europe, we have a significant population of Muslims who fled sectarian violence between Muslims in other countries like Lebanon (our member here, Beiruty comes to mind), Iraq, Iran, etc. So long as they absolutely respect the Constitution in ALL of its particulars - which means learning to live in peace alongside Christians, Jews, Atheists, or other religious people; as well as respecting and obeying secular laws, so long as they are Constitutional. These Muslims are going to pay the price in suspicion and public ill-will because of the general fear that regular people will come to have for anything Islam as a result of radicalized Islamic violence. They will have no more understanding of the difference between a peaceful Sufi and a terrorist Wahhabi, than they might have of the difference between a Baptist and a Methodist. And yet, many of these peaceful people are good citizens, they enlist and serve in our military, they are doctors and lawyers, and contributing members of society, and the blowback is going to hurt them unfairly.

CITY: 2 GUNMEN KILLED OUTSIDE MUHAMMAD CARTOON CONTEST
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 3-22-31-03

GARLAND, Texas (AP) -- Two armed men who opened fire on a security officer outside of a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad have been killed, authorities in the Dallas suburb of Garland said Sunday night.

The City of Garland said in a statement posted on its Facebook page Sunday night that two men drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center and began shooting at a security officer.

Garland Police Department officers engaged the gunmen, who were both shot and killed, the statement said.