However I may object to Putin's seemingly indiscriminate handling of the Russian republic's problems with the Islamic-Chechnya terrorists, I can't help but find it refreshing that he sees the danger of radical (i.e., root) Islam and its inherent threat to any and all nations and human beings.
Of course, we secularized Americans who claim to believe in freedom of religion are so clouded with our tolerant politically correct thinking that we can't make ourselves believe something so obvious even it were to make a gesture to destroy our country's three most symbolic public structures. We can't believe that the teeming hordes of Muslims gathered around to burn our flag and shout "Death to America" can really mean what they say. We are in love with our own guilt. We love blaming our civic leaders, our foreign policy, our greed for oil. And no doubt we are partly culpable for the seething hatred towards us in Muslim countries. But that's where we stop short. We are so enamored with the Enlightenment ideals of human progress that we can't believe the tragedies of history could repeat themselves. Puttering along in our Ford automobiles, we really do believe history is bunk. But even a cursory glance at an honest history book demonstrates the consistent geo-political nature of Islam and, worse, it's cruel methodology for conquest.
So, Putin's right. His nation is certainly in danger from radical Islam. Every nation is. Every nation and every religion and every individual has always been in danger - even from Islam's inception. One might even suggest that Islam is not only the greatest national threat we encounter (even greater than the oil crisis - though the two are closely related), but the greatest visible threat to Christendom and Christianity itself.
What is our responsibility, then? What can be done about the threat? From a Christian standpoint, we know that we cannot take up a sword (unlike Islam) to spread our religion or to defend our religion.
However, every individual man has a responsibility to defend his family from danger. Thus, it would be right, were there an imminent and personal threat to one's family, to defend it by violent means, if necessary. But there is no imminent threat here - at least, that you can see coming.
What about a nation's responsibility? It's the government's duty to protect its people from danger. This is one of the functions of the ministry of the sword, which God has given into the hands of the civil magistrate (Rom. 13:4). Therefore, if a nation's leaders see a clear threat to the lives of its citizens, it has the right and the duty to take up the sword for its national defense. This is one of the tenets of Just War Theory. And its use may not be merely destructive, but may include legislated preventative measures. There's a law against murder. There's a law against the publicly-stated intent to murder. There's a law against inciting to murder. All these are perfectly legitimate. And if our nation's leaders knew history and understood the glaringly obvious, they'd be in perfect harmony with God's ministry of the sword to institute preventative measures within our nation's borders against the threat of Islam. As far as I understand it, this would (at least) mean forbidding mosques on the public square. I'm not talking about the right to believe one thing or another, or even to teach your children, but rather the right to own public property as a religious institution.
But what about freedom of religion? I think we all know that freedom only belongs to the righteous. Freedom is not the murderer's right. For there are other questions, like, what about your child's safety? what about your national identity? Does a nation have a right to preserve its own historically distinct traditions and values? With all our touted allegiance to the flag and to the Constitution - even to the point of idolatrous patriotism - you'd think we could see the answer. Why should there be freedom for a religion that expressly desires a national coup as its modus operandi? ... which said coup demands a change in our national identity and the institution of sharia law in place of our Constitution?
Just look at the Muslim nations presently - which were once the heart of Christendom. See any churches? Some, but go ask them about the "dhimmi" tax they have to pay for not being Muslim. Go ask them whether or not they can build a new church building or repair their old one. Go ask them who's got the key to the Holy Sepulchre where Christian pilgrims go each year to celebrate Easter (it's a Muslim). So, if we're really concerned about freedom of religion in this country, we would court a religion that evidently intends to change what has become one of the basic (although, misunderstood) principles of our nation's identity.
Notice what Putin says. He's not talking about what has come to be understood as "traditional" Islam, or perhaps even mainstream Islam (in our nation anyway). But what he does see clearly is the very essence of Islam. No one can sustain the argument that Islam, in its pure (and "traditional") form, does not teach world domination via the instrumentation of the sword (unless its opponents submit to a state of dhimmitude). And so, I'm not suggesting that every Muslim, or even the majority of Muslims are in agreement with what terrorists are attempting. But just like most (perhaps) Christians don't understand the basic tenets of their own religion, the same can be said of most Muslims.
And so, I believe God permits a nation to engage in the ministry of the sword against any corporate entity - whether it touts itself a religion or otherwise - which threatens that nation's people. Putin sees the threat. And he's using the sword. That's his God-given right and duty, regardless of whether the EU thinks it appropriate. Mind you, he should use the sword carefully, for God forbids the unjust slaying of innocents or non-combatants. But whether he should use it is not in question.
Holland, of all places, with its "live and let live policies" is finally getting the picture. But it's too late, the tiny country already being littered with over 450 mosques. Still, the example of their demise and their too-late-realization, but rightly attempted actions, should be a flashing sign for all nations - especially ours.
1 comments: