When is a mosque not a mosque?

Or, when does a place of worship relinquish it’s Constitutional protections of “free exercise” of religion? The recent revelations concerning the Fort Hood terrorist, Nidal Hasan, and his association with a Virginia mosque that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour–two of the 9/11 terrorists–also frequented, has gotten me to thinking along these lines…

A bank forfeits its legitimacy as a lawful financial institution when behind the scenes it serves as the means of laundering money gained from criminal activity. That bank no longer is serving its legal business function and therefore should be brought to justice in order that the illegal financial operations be ended and the underlying criminal activity exposed and prosecuted.

In the same way, doesn’t a mosque (or any other religious institution) cede its legitimacy as a place of religious worship, protected under the First Amendment, when it functions as a vehicle for the laundering of terrorists bent on carrying out their murderous vision of religion in the United States?

In the example of the bank, the bad money is given a cover of legitimacy through deceptive financial accounting. This allows the illicit money to have the cover of honest gain in order that it can be used to further illegal activities without exposure.

So too with the laundering mosque cited above, bad actors or otherwise jihadists (those waging a holy war on behalf of Islam as a religious duty) are afforded a veneer of peaceful, legitimate religious beliefs (in this case a misguided application of cultural diversity one might say) by the deceptive “house of worship” in order that those individuals can plan and carry out their terrorist intentions. When this occurs then that religious institution is likewise a criminal accesory and, I dare say, a treasonous enterprise. Such organizations should be broken up with the same or even more conviction exercised in law enforcement toward money laundering banks; exposed for what they are and those responsible brought to justice.

I am aware of, and sympathetic to, the objections of our government sticking its nose into private religious affairs. But when evidence of the above surfaces, then that evidence should be followed by investigation and, if warranted, indictments and the cessation of the bogus religious operation. The terrorist considers his mosque related activity as obligatory religious warfare. How are we to view it?

My gut tells me that we entertain squeamishness in this matter at our own peril.

The art of debate coninued...

More of my thoughts on the matter...

Frequently finding insult and impugning motive in others when in debate reveals the paucity of one's argument.

Corollary: Lacking the persuasiveness of fact, he moralizes.

The Art of Self-Righteous Debate

My verse written for today,

Umbrage...

It seems righteous umbrage is on the rise,
In those who ironically patronize.
Through pc contrivance they demonize,
Eschewing debate to marginalize.


... I take some solace in having diagnosed my frustration with debate in today's open square.

Cranmer, martyred for Justification by faith...

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles, burned at the stake on March 21, 1556 in England by the Roman Catholic Church under Bloody (Queen) Mary... from his sermon on the salvation of man:

"Three things must go together in our justification. In these aforesaid places, the Apostle touches specially three things, which must go together in our justification. Upon GOD'S part, his great mercy and grace: upon Christ's part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of GOD'S justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly & throughly; and upon our part true & lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by GOD'S working in us: so that in our justification, is not only God's mercy & grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calls the justice of GOD, & it consists in paying our ransom, & fulfilling of the law: & so the grace of God doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shuts out the justice of, that is to say, the justice of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. And therefore S. Paul declares here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his justification, but only a true & lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of GOD, and not mans only work, without GOD: And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, & the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified, but it shuts them out from the office of justifying...

"... But this saying, That we be justified by faith only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GODS hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of our selves, and the might and power of GOD, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our Savior Christ, and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood shedding."

Nothing like Obama to cause one to long for...

the Clinton years...



those were the days...

Romans...

I'll be teaching a study on Paul's epistle to the Romans in a couple weeks. In the meantime I am so enjoying reading commentaries by John Stott, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

Luther writes:
This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian's while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well. The more one deals with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes. Therefore I want to carry out my service and, with this preface, provide an introduction to the letter, insofar as God gives me the ability, so that every one can gain the fullest possible understanding of it. Up to now it has been darkened by glosses and by many a useless comment, but it is in itself a bright light, almost bright enough to illumine the entire Scripture.

Also John Calvin opines:
If we gained the true understanding of this Epistle, we have an open door to all the most profound treasures of Scripture.

Me:
What a comfort we have - Justified through faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone....

Thomas Friedman, a Liberal Fascist?

(so says Jonah Goldberg, and I happen to agree)

If ever there was a present day example of the the historical truth that fascism has its roots in the political thinking of the left it is in the person of Thomas Friedman, liberal columnist for the New York Times.

For those who are reacting in shock at the last sentence... breathe in and breathe out, and then go to Jonah Goldberg's explanation at The Corner. And then, better still, get a copy of his book via the link on the right.

Here's just one small bit from Friedman's column:
"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century."

How convenient and efficient... so not messy like those backward liberal democracies with their all too many different opinions and voices mucking up things.

Jonah sums up his take on Friedman's column (and thinking) with this:
"I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. It is exactly the argument that was made in defense of Stalin and Lenin before him (it's the argument that idiotic, dictator-envying leftists make in defense of Castro and Chavez today). It was the argument made by George Bernard Shaw who yearend for a strong progressive autocracy under a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin (he wasn't picky in this regard). This is the argument for an "economic dictatorship" pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It's the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives."