Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
Keith Ellison is a congressman from Minnesota, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. He asked to used the Koran (the very copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson), i.e., the sovereignty of Allah as understood by Muslims, in taking his oath of allegiance, which happened just this week (January 2007). I had thought that the problem was resolved, but that turned out not to be so.
Sy Rogers, a former homosexual and leader in Exodus, remarked once, rather strongly, that God is in control, and that He has given the ascendancy to the homosexual agenda -- because His own people will not obey Him, that is, they will not reach out with truth and compassion to homosexual strugglers. The Church has almost universally failed to minister to homosexual persons.
The same thing is happening here with the Muslim oath in Congress. The Church will not obey God, will not listen to Jesus -- so that, if we do not acknowledge God in public, neither will He acknowledge us before the Father in heaven. Which means also that He will not fight our battles for us here on earth. We "Christians" are on our own. And we are losing the war. Armed with intellectual, moral, and spiritual incompetence, we are hardly even fighting the war -- even on those rare occasions when we recognize that there is a war.
What is the meaning and substance of an oath? The word 'oath' is defined in my dictionary:
a ritualistic declaration, typically based on an appeal to God or a god or to some revered person or object, that one will speak the truth, keep a promise, remain faithful, etc....
An old form of oath sometimes imitated in childhood ways, was "Cross my heart and hope to die" to emphasize that one meant business about such a promise. The full oath would have been "I cross my heart and hope to die if I do not keep my promise..." It was putting a curse on oneself if one defaulted on the promise. But for the curse to have substance, it required a deity who would exact the tribute or enforce the punishment.
Genesis 15 shows the covenant which God initiated with Abraham and tells of God (the fire) processing down the path between the animals which had been cut in half, a typical covenant ceremony of the time. If two kings made such a covenant, they both walked down the path, implying -- "If I do not keep my promise, may what happened to these animals happen to me." They were invoking a potential curse on themselves to enforce the covenant.
Jeremiah 34:18 refers to such a covenant:
And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant which they made before me, I will make like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts--
But such a covenant, again, has no substance unless there is a deity who enforces it. The curse one invokes on oneself must be a real one, not one enforced by oneself, which, of course, can be arbitrarily abrogated at one's own will. Any obligation I impose upon myself I can equally well unimpose.
The founding fathers recognized this principle. George Washington at one point raised the question as to whether an oath by an atheist would have any meaning since there could be no objective enforcement of the matter, no real consequences from his oath. He was not the only one to raise such doubts. The will of God was almost universally recognized, both in England and America, as the substance behind both moral and legal obligation. (See Defining 'Oughtness' & 'Love'.)
One might honor a promise made by an atheist if known to be an honest man. But that is not the same as an oath with a consequence attached and which is in effect regardless of the honesty of the maker of the oath. If there is no God, then, for all practical purposes, there are no oaths, only promises resting solely on the arbitrary good will of the promise maker.
The American Constitution is not, as some claim, its own source of authority, which is logical and legal nonsense. The Constitution has authority only to the extent that it rests on the authority of God. There is no authority, no legitimacy apart from the will of God. A non-created world has no moral structure and hence no authority structure. Life is run on power struggle, not on objective morality, so, "might makes right". Might does not really make right, but it is very good at pretending.
Judeo-Christians, of all people in the world, should understand these principles. We have no excuse in the matter. But we also seem to have no courage or intellectual credibility in the matter.
The historical and logical truth is that only a Biblically based culture could have written the American Constitution because, as per our Declaration of Independence, only God can supply inalienable freedoms and rights -- along with the inalienable responsibilities and obligations. They always go together.
So those of a non-Biblical persuasion, those who reject a Creator God, and who still want a government for a free people, want something they can have only at the cost of something they are unwilling to grant -- the sovereignty of God.
One has to ask, then, How does one decide between the various alleged deities abroad claiming to be the real divinity?
The simple answer to that would be:
Choose that divinity who has had the courtesy to reveal Himself with grace and truth, who holds Himself accountable to the same principles of grace and truth which He requires of His creatures, and who has revealed Himself in history, making His revelation testable.
No divinity but that of the Bible has even remotely offered to do such a thing, and most certainly, not the Islamic divinity of the Koran. As noted by the Pope, the revelation of the Islamic Allah is totally arbitrary, not subject to reason or moral consistency. That is because Allah Himself is pictured as being "above" such mundane things. He is not subject to our reasoning scrutiny.
That means that we are totally at sea in the business of discerning the true God from false gods. Allah has nothing to recommend Himself other than His arbitrary claim to be God. Questioning the claims of Allah or Mohammed is considered blasphemy. 'Islam' means 'I submit' in a manner requiring intellectual slavery. Allah does not call, "Come, let us reason together..." (Isaiah 1:18.)
The God of the Bible is quite clear about how to discern true from false claimants. The true God will be able to keep His promises, false gods will not. As with Elijah on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:19 ff.) God provides a logical and empirical up or down test. So, Biblical people would say that attributing to God the Islamic sort of arbitrary and unreasonable revelation is blasphemy.
Christians can rightly claim that we have a God who can prove His case, a God who has meaningful and substantial love for His creatures, which He is willing to prove at any cost to Himself, and that He alone can support rational ordered freedom for both our personal lives and for our public life, i.e., politics.
Atheists cannot do that, nor can any religion other than that of the Bible. Or, at least, no one has shown how they can. Christians must field that challenge.
What has this to do with Keith Ellison and oaths in Congress?
"Allah" is the generic name for "god" in Arabic. But like "God" in English, it is also the personal name for God. Our quarrel is thus not with Allah (the creator of heaven and earth), it is with the false notions attributed to the creator of, and thus sovereign over, all things. Our quarrel is not with Allah, but with Muslims. Christians believe that they have terribly and blasphemously misrepresented Allah.
Muslims and the Koran tell of a God who is morally bankrupt, who commands activities which in any reasonable conversation would be called criminal -- namely the conversion of infidels with force, including deliberate attack on innocent individuals.
To attribute criminal activities to God is blasphemy. This should be the Judeo-Christian response to Muslims. Why are you blaspheming God? Why are you attributing criminal intentions and activities to God? Why do you recommend a God who guarantees the continuation of war and strife among human beings, who can gain control only by coercion, not by reason, who raises up followers, like Himself, who are unreasonable and murderous? In what possible sense is such a God loving or merciful?
The insertion of the Islamic Allah into American politics creates a fundamental contradiction into our cultural and political structure. The Islamic notion of God is not compatible with the Biblical notion. The notions are so contrary and contradictory that it cannot be reasonably said that we worship the same God.
What possible meaning, then, could an Islamic oath mean which appeals to a deity who justifies criminal violence and deceit? The whole point of an oath is to guarantee trustworthiness. In what sense would an oath with the Muslim version of Allah behind it, be trustworthy? Trusting such an oath makes no rational sense.
The primary enemy of secular globalism is Judeo-Christian faith. In practical reality, that means a spiritual war between Jesus Christ and secular so-called liberal democracy. Our choice is between "Jesus is Lord" vs. "Civil government is lord". Islam, I believe, could not be doing what it is without the support of world globalism. Islam is an enemy of Judeo-Christendom, but not the worst enemy. It is too culturally and intellectually disabled to be an effective fighting force on its own against a mature, healthy, and well discipled Christendom.
There are noble persons in every religion, Islam included. But for persons in authority, such as George W. Bush, to claim that Islam is itself a noble religion is a different matter, and shows either impenetrable ignorance or deliberate deceit. It raises the suspicion that he and people behind the scenes want to create confusion for their own ends, that the true agenda is the continued reduction of Biblical civilization so that the new globalist program can go ahead. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological warfare strategy for creating confusion by presenting conflicting information and values as both valid -- such as a war on Islamic terrorism along with promotion of Islam.
People victimized by such a strategy tend to back off and ignore the problem -- i.e., they sideline themselves from the public debate and the spiritual conflict. That is precisely what most Jews and Christians are doing -- and what globalists want. We are not much help to the Kingdom of God, and not much threat to the kingdom of Satan.
Secularism is clearly not in favor of Islam or Sharia law. But, if secular globalists can raise up an anti-Biblical Islam as a club to beat Judeo-Christendom, they might well try. It would fit nicely with the Hegelian/Gramsci strategy of pitting two sides against each other so as to control the outcome. Our real enemy is not Islam, but secular globalism, though it may be that in helping to raise up Islam, globalists have got themselves a bear by the tail.
And it may be that God will turn the tide by pitting secular globalism against Islam -- with Christians, not globalists, picking up the pieces. But only if we Christians get back our intellectual, moral, and spiritual credibility, and honor Jesus as Lord in public.
The swearing in of Keith Ellison using a Koran means that the globalists want to use Islam as a wedge to further collapse the Biblical mindset in America. This could not have happened had not the "powers that be" wanted it. These powers, unasked by the American people, have kept Christianity out of schools, so they could certainly have kept Islam out. They want it in. Why? Because it fundamentally destroys the Biblical base of our Constitution by admitting into our political order the Islamic belief system which is inherently tyrannical. All this by globalists who are themselves inherently tyrannical. It creates a "cognitive dissonance" to further destroy resistance by creating confusion, apathy, and retreat.
The only possible answer to these issues is a return by Christians to public testimony for the lordship of Jesus Christ. We must learn to do that with grace and with intellectual credibility and conviction. Or we fail. Jesus is Lord over not only our personal lives, but our corporate lives as well. Only He can provide and sustain those freedoms with which America has been endowed, and only He can provide the peace which globalists think they alone can provide.
Judeo-Christendom has already had a couple century march stolen on it, and the cost of the struggle gets higher every day we fail to mount an offensive. We Christians are passing on to our children and grandchildren the cost of a much worse struggle than if we had taken it on ourselves. That is evasion and cowardice which neither God nor our posterity can appreciate.
What are you doing about it?
The following is an email response to my article above.
I must note that Minnesota seems a hotbed of Islamic efforts to move toward new status in America.
First we had a group of Imams staging an act in the Minneapolis airport that was apparently designed to create an incident allowing them to claim religious discrimination despite outrageous actions on their part.
Now Minnesota has elected an openly Islamic Congressman who rejects the real Bible and must swear on a Koran. (The fact it once belonged to Jefferson is a total non sequitur)
On top of this, we are now learning Islamic cab drivers in Minnesota are refusing to accept passengers who have a dog or any alcoholic beverages (even non opened) for reasons of their religion.
(Is the public accommodations act no longer enforced?)
There's something obviously rotten in the state of Minnesota.
See also What Thomas Jefferson Learned from the Muslim Book of Jihad
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *