|
I know very little about Comedy Central, a network
found on cable and satellite TV. I know even less about South Park, a
cartoon aired on Comedy Central. What little I do know about the two keeps me from
wanting to learn more. Both spew vulgar language and that is enough for me to know to steer clear of them.
Last week, Comedy Central refused to air an offensive scene from
South Park. Normally, that would probably be a good thing. However, the censored scene was a depiction of the
most holy, loving, tolerant, fair and balanced prophet Mohammed. You know, that head guy of Islam that everyone is just
"dying" to show pictures of in newspapers and magazines. I'm sure Comedy Central is not this caring and sensitive
when it comes to Jesus and Christianity.
At least their reason for censoring was a real eye opener.
Their stated reason was: "This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events."
In other words, they did not want irate Muslims bombing and burning down Comedy Central headquarters. Imagine if Christians
acted this way every time Christianity was mocked. Every major news media outlet and Hollywood would be a pile of ashes,
100 times over. War is not a feature of Christianity, except in a Baptist business meeting.
TRUE Christianity has always demonstrated longsuffering
and forgiveness when persecuted. Retaliation is not an option for true Christians. The Bible does, however give
a recourse of action for believers. It's called love and prayer. Jesus said, "But I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute
you;" Matthew 5:44. And when dying on the cross, Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of his murderers.
Compare the philosophy of Jesus with the wisdom of Mohammed
as found in actual qoutes from Mohammed himself:
Qur’an:9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”
Tabari IX:69 “We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger
has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah.
Killing him is a small matter to us.”
Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive,
harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Ishaq:587 “We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command
of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with
determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for
the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Anyone with only an ounce of objectivity can see these are not
the words of a man of peace and compassion. Muslims and their apologists cannot explain away these qoutes. Is
it any wonder that violence and death are expected when "blasphemy" against Mohammed is committed? Don't expect
anything else. 1500 years of religious tradition cannot be wiped away. But what do you expect? The
apple never falls far from the tree. You can crucify Jesus, but don't touch Mohammed.
Joseph Harris is the Vice President of Southeastern Baptist College
in Laurel, MS.(This article may be reprinted in whole, as long as
the name Joseph Harris and www.miniedition.net also appear)
And In Hell......
Something has happened to
the traditional and orthodox interpretation of the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. It has taken on a new
and deeper meaning. Whereas all these years I thought Jesus was teaching about the reality of Heaven and Hell, now my
eyes have been opened. The real teaching is "...perpetrating economic injustice is among the gravest of sins" according
to some Mainline Protestant church leaders, as found on Worldnetdaily.com. According to them, the worst thing that happened
in the story was not that the rich man died and went to Hell, but that he refused to share his wealth with Lazarus
the beggar.
The top leaders of the Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America, The Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church have arrived
at this interpretation. They have a bone to pick with President Bush over the new federal budget. They claim the
budget has much for the rich man and little for the poor. Not only are these leaders inept at Bible interpretation,
they share a socialist view of the government.
One of the leaders said that since the USA is the
richest nation in the world, it should evaluate how it cares for its children. Here is a newsflash rarely
heard today: CHILDREN ARE NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT. These theological liberals called the federal
budget the "gravest of sins" and also said there is "no more important moral value" than helping the poor. I
can think of a greater moral cause. How about saving the lives of the unborn? Or rooting pornography
from your city? When it comes to real moral causes, these denominations are often as silent as a tomb. I
am not against helping the poor and down trodden, but more money for the poor usually fosters dependance
for more money, when personal responsibility is not stressed.
These leaders also claim to represent 20 million
people, but let the people from these churches speak for themselves. I'm certain no poll was taken among the individual
local congregations, meaning no mandate came from the pew to the leaders to speak for the people. Ask the people
themselves. Liberalism usually begins in the pulpit, then moves on out to the pew. Though these denominations
mentioned have tended in the past to lean to the left politically, there are some individuals in these churches the leaders do
not speak for. I am personally acqainted some United Methodist people who strongly disagree with these leanings
and I am sure Donald Wildmon from the American Family Assocation is embarrased by his leader's declaration.
I am not against religious activism. There
should be more of it. Christians should speak out on issues with which they disagree as well as the issues
on which they agree. However, when anyone claiming to speak for any church or religious group pontificates, they
should at least use sound Hermeneutics in interpreting Scripture and not let their interpretation become clouded by
liberal bias and socialistic philosophy.
Joseph Harris is
the Chairman of Biblical Studies at Southeastern Baptist College in Laurel, MS.(This article may be reprinted in whole,
as long as the name Joseph Harris and www.miniedition.net also appear)
"And in Hell he lift up his
eyes being in torment..." is a literal statement about a historical event.
The ACLU and Christmas
It's that time of year again, with caroling, nativity scenes, bell ringers and all the trappings that have come
to symbolize Christmas. There are also numerous stories about complaints of Christmas displays and phrases in, on or
around government property and institutions, which as we all know, is a violation of the "constitutional separation" of church
and state. Even though there are pagan connections, mixed in with Christian characteristics in many of
the Christmas traditions, the ACLU perceives Christmas as a Christian holiday(by the way, ACLU stands for Atheistic Communists
Liberating Ungodliness, if there was any question in your mind). For the record, the incarnation of Christ is not the
central point at this time of year. Buying and selling is the emphasis.
A good rule of thumb to use in describing the ACLU is this: if whatever issue
at stake is Godly, Christian, moral, pure and virtuous, then they are "a'gin" it. They are all for yanking God
out of the public square and confining Him to one hour inside four walls every Sunday, since He has no place in daily
life. Their claim to be concerned about civil liberties is at the expense of religious liberties. Why does
the ACLU even exist? There has never been a concerted attack against the civil liberties of Americans.
Assaults against the civil liberties of civilians are few, but numerous are the planned, strategic attacks against the religious
liberties of Christian Americans.
The ACLU did not start out as a good organization that went bad. It
did not evolve(one of their favorite words) into a monster: it was created as a frankenstein from the beginning. For
over 75 years, this group has sought to prohibit decency and morality, while denying the great Christian heritage of this
country. This anti-Christ organization was founded by Roger Baldwin, whose philosophy was influenced by his grandfather
and aunt. His grandfather was anti-Christian and held unorthodox views on morality while his aunt, a
certified socialist, was an activist in socialist causes. The ACLU has had an agenda from the beginning with the hypocritical
pretense of being unbiased and protective of the First Amendment rights. If they were really concerned about the first
amendment, they would have as many cases championing religious freedom as they do cases of civil rights.
A verse in Romans chapter 1 is illustrative of the ACLU. Verse 28: ".....they
did not like to retain God in their knowledge....."
This verse is speaking of idolatrous Gentiles. To "retain" implies a current possession or existence.
The Gentiles had a knowledge of God but tried to erase it from their minds and replace it with gods patterned after the image
of animals. The presence and fingerprint of God is undeniable in the culture, society, history and lives of
many(remember the red states) Americans today. The ACLU would like to erase, not retain God in the minds of all today. Herein
is the fallacy of atheism; the act of denying God is an admission of His existence, for how can you deny that which is non-existent
anyway? The ACLU does not want to retain God in the home, school, government, even public life. Maybe they should
change their name to the American Secular Liberties Union. Or maybe their counterpart, the American Religious Liberties
Union could be conceived, which would in reality, actually have the backing of the First Amendment.
Joseph Harris is the Chairman of Biblical Studies
at Southeastern Baptist College in Laurel, MS.(This article may be reprinted in whole, as long
as the name Joseph Harris and www.miniedition.net also appear)
Religion and Politics, Part 1- A Clear Conscience
Every time an election date draws near, citizens should be reminded of the responsibility to
voice their opinion through the privilege and freedom of the vote. Voting is more than just placing an individual in office.
A vote is an expression of thought, opinion, conviction and morals(or lack thereof). Liberals
will continue to exercise their right to use scare tactics, trying to frighten preachers and other Christians away from voicing
their opinion based on the mythological, misunderstood-and-applied, so-called "separation of church and state"(whatever that
is). Political opinions are not supposed to stop at the church door. They never do when liberals decide to talk politics in
the pulpit. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander.
I am continually amazed at otherwise conservative Christians who will cast a vote based upon
party instead of principle. I have never been a strong party man. I usually end up voting for a Republican because the politician
as a Republican is usually more in line with my beliefs, convictions and moral philosophy. If the liberal Democratic party
somehow by a miracle of God, moved from their pro abortion, pro homosexual, etc., etc., agenda, I could in good conscience
vote for someone aligned with this party.
How can any Christian, in good conscience, support a group or philosophy, committed to destroying
that which is Godly? The answer is beyond me, but here are some possible reasons:
(1) "My family has always been Democrat"- Loyalty is great, but what if everyone in your
family has always been a drunkard? The old Baptist philosophy "We've always done it this way" just won't fly.
(2) "Party doesn't matter. Vote for the person"- Technically, the party label should
mean nothing, but labels tell you what's inside the can. That's the purpose of a label. I never buy unlabeled canned goods
because I want to know what I'm getting. Party labels identify what's inside. People join a Baptist church, or Methodist church
or Presbyterian church because they agree with what is being taught on the inside. Alignment with any party, church, group
or club is a statement of endorsement.
Period.
(3) "It doesn't matter who you vote for. You can't change politics, and anyway, God is in
control"- This is existential fatalism to the core. We could then conclude the following: "Then why do anything, anywhere,
anytime? Why are you living? What is the purpose of life? Why have a police force? Why prosecute and incarcerate criminals?
You can't change anything anyway. When your house is on fire, don't call the fire department, just let it burn."
God has not called us to moral and Christian activism as a first priority,
but to preach and live the Gospel. However, taking a stand for righteousness and providing the preservative of salt in a sin
corrupted society, is the responsibility of all Christians as we occupy until He comes. Plus, a clear conscience produces
sound sleep at night. Joseph Harris www.miniedition.net
Religion and Politics, Part 2- Why I am Not A Donkey
Let's just go ahead and get it out in the open. I am not a donkey....I am an elephant. I know
neither one sounds very flattering, but I am speaking in terms of political symbolism. Now before you turn me off, just because
you may be a Democrat, just hear me out. I'm not bashing you personally.
I am conservative! I am conservative in my suits, ties, manners, religion, music, politics.....etc.,etc.
I am not conservative because I am a Republican. I choose to be a Republican BECAUSE I am conservative FIRST. I could be Independent,
Libertarian, or Populist(though they have their problems), but let's face it; they can't usually get a major player in any
running, so out of the two major "big boys", I go with Republican because I am conservative FIRST.
I am not pro-homo, neither am I for murdering innocent babies. I am not for legalizing drugs
or for Big Brother government. I am for the little guy, who happens to be the average, hard working American of any color
or ethnic background, who breaks his back supporting this country. I believe I know better how to spend the money I earn better
than dis-attached, out of touch politicians who are more concerned with pleasing wacko fringe groups and influencing their
constituents, rather than representing their constituents.
May I continue in honesty? Thank you. The Democrats started giving away the store under Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, then mainstreamed it with Lyndon Baines Johnson's "Great Society" and finally perfected it through the conniving
of William Jefferson Clinton. Though the Republican party has vigorously opposed this type of liberalism and socialism repeatedly,
I am not always deliriously happy with the GOP. They have not stood where they should have concerning such things as illegal
immigration with tight borders, and NAFTA and its responsibility in loss of jobs, to name a few.
Now here is the shocker. I am not really a party man. I swear allegiance to principle, not party,
and those principles are merely reflected in which party I support. For instance, if by some divine miracle of God, the Democratic
party became more conservative than the GOP, I would have no problem becoming a donkey. I'll be holding my breath.
I do not personally campaign for anyone nor spend a lot of time listening to all the pundits
express their political views. I do however, firmly believe every Christian should vote for and support those who come closer
in line to Godly principles and philosophy. Otherwise, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Joseph Harris www.miniedition.net
Bill Clinton has written his life story
called My Life. If his past means anything, then it will not be hard to predict what may be
in the book. I have already heard and read some reviews on the book and the reviews are not positive.
The New York Times review was scathing, and probably factual. If you have read Mini Edition for the past few years,
then you know I am no Bill Clinton fan. The man was the worst disaster-of-a-President in the history of this country.
He brought the office to an all time low. I respect his position as an ex-president but have never respected
him as a man. Respect is something to be earned, not freely given.
Someone has suggested the title of his book should
be My Lie and someone else suggested My Lies. Maybe, but considering
his egomania and obsession with self and a legacy, I think his autobiography should be entitiled Me, Myself and
I, since it is all about him and what he did to further his agenda and gratify himself and not this country. I
propose the following outline of I's for Bill Clinton's life story.
He was INCOMPETENT.
As Commander in Chief, he demoralized our troops and cut the military. He did not make the nation safer from terrorism.
When given the chance to snare Bin Laden, he was instead allowed to go from Sudan to Afghanistan for a safe haven. He
furthered the cause of abortion and advanced the homosexual agenda. We are left searching for something he did of magnitude
that furthered the cause of liberty and honored the great heritage of this nation. And don't give me the old "It's the
economy, stupid" story either. Bill Clinton rode the crest of the Reagan economic boom until it played out in his last
year in office. He then conveniently dumped the fault of a sagging economy on President George W. Bush in his first
year in office. No President is superhuman enough to boost or destroy the economy of this country in one year(with
the exception of Alan Greenspan).
He was IMMORAL.
Several key women have come forward with stories ranging from their willing participation in affairs with Clinton, to
unwanted sexual advances from Clinton. All these women still stick to their sordid stories which happened years
ago. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire and where there is billowing smoke, there is a raging forest fire.
Concerning Monica Lewinsky(remember, "I did not have sex with that woman!"), he has now freely admitted he did have sex
with her, but worst of all was his cavalier attitude about why he did it. His reason: "Because I could" he said in his
book. This leads to the next "I".
He was IRRESPONSIBLE. There
are numerous stories which document his irresponsible use of the highest office of the land for personal, sexual, and
political gain. It all began in Arkansas where he used state troopers as watchdogs for his nightly sexcapades. His irresponsibility
escalated in the White House where he used the buildings and grounds as his playhouse. He repeatedly
lied and created his own truth for the moment, based on expediency, in and out of the witness stand.
He was INCONSISTENT. He
began his journey to the White House as a moderate centrist while holding to liberal philosophies and ideas. He flipped
and flopped on issues throughout his tenure, running a close second only to John Kerry. He was a new Democrat,
which turned out to be nothing more than old liberalism in disguise. And does anyone remember his promise to deliver
the most ethical administration in history, only to produce the worst administration, with numerous criminal investigations,
imprisoned associates and mysterious deaths of co-workers? He was anti-tobacco, yet who was responsible for the
half smoked cigar in the Monica episode? Monica didn't smoke it.
He was IRRELEVANT. For
eight years, he was as relevant to America as the Koran is to a Baptist. His vision for America was off track.
His philosophy for government was built on a foundation of sand. And he was morally bankrupt. He offered
no solutions and fixed no real problems. His "quick fix" mentality of big brother government solutions was
comparable to placing a band aid on cancer. America lost her soul and morality during the eight years of Bill Clinton.
And though I am not ecstatic over President Bush and his global world view, illegal alien amnesty program, etc., let's
not make the unforgivable mistake of extending and magnifying the Clinton years by electing John Kerry. It would
be a multiplied harvest of lies, corruption, sorrow, and loss of liberties that will never be reclaimed. Joseph
Harris www.miniedition.net
|
