What an outstanding example of love and forgiveness we have seen in Charleston following the deaths of nine black church members, when a deranged 21-year-old white male killed nine of them at a weekly Bible Study.
Jesus Christ said: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35). Love is what sets us apart.
In Matthew 5:44 He told them: “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.” This was a truly revolutionary verse, especially at a time when the Romans ruled over them.
When the Apostle Peter asked how often we should forgive those who sin against us, note Christ’s response:
“Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:21-22) In other words, there is no limit to forgiveness.
All people professing to follow Jesus Christ will recognize these passages of scripture, but how many people actually put them into practice? Love and forgiveness are often sadly lacking in Christians and Christian churches.
Members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, must be commended for the way they handled this tragedy in their midst. Their attitude of love and forgiveness deserves to be noted and remembered in the years to come.
Williamston and Okemos are two cities that are a part of the Greater Lansing area, where we live. Whereas we live on the west side of Lansing, they are east and south-east respectively.
I’ve just finished reading a short book on a particularly gruesome murder that took place in Williamston in 1897. The book told the story of a man who came home for lunch (dinner as it was then), to find his mother’s head on his dinner plate. His wife had gone crazy and killed her mother-in-law.
The murder is not as interesting as the detailed descriptions of life in Lansing at the time, almost 120 years ago. In 1897 many people could still remember when the city of Lansing was chosen as the state capital. The city was served by a number of railway lines, none of which exist now.
What was particularly interesting to me was the fact that the murderer was charged, tried and sentenced within six days. Yes, six days! What a contrast to today, where a trial may take more than a year, sentencing months and punishment is often delayed for years. Will Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ever actually be put to death? His victims died instantly!
Reading the book, I was reminded of the scripture in Ecclesiastes 8:11 which says: “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”
It’s no wonder that we are seeing more crimes of violence when our legal system is a joke. The system has little to do with justice.
Another legal issue came up in the book. Again, the contrast with today is quite marked.
The murderer was sentenced to life in an asylum. She died about eighteen months later from tuberculosis.
Her husband, meanwhile, turns up again in the historical record, three years after the murder. He was found co-habiting with a woman in Okemos, a few miles away. They were both charged with “lewd and lascivious behavior.” He was sentenced to ten months and she got eight. That’s curious in itself. I’m sure they were both equally to blame, so, therefore, why were their sentences different? But they both went to jail.
America today, with less than 5% of the world’s population, has 25% of the world’s prisoners. Can you imagine what our prisons would be like if all those co-habiting were sentenced to a jail term? If biblical commands were upheld in our communities, we would need a lot more jails and prisons for long-term offenders.
I was reminded of this last Friday when the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all fifty states. Can you imagine what the village elders would have done in 1900 Okemos if they had found two men co-habiting?
It shows how far we have come as a country. And not just us, other western nations are the same.
Many Christians interpret the latest Supreme Court decision as a sign that the end of the age cannot be far off, that just as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah when they were beyond being saved, that the US and other nations must face the same. A number of conservatives said that the decision was a blow to marriage.
But the fact is that Friday’s decision is just the latest blow to marriage.
Marriage laws were progressively weakened throughout the twentieth century and churches said nothing. In 1971 no-fault divorce became the law across the country, a decision that, arguably, did more harm to traditional marriage than any decision before or since.
The lives of millions of innocent children have suffered needlessly because of this change to the law, which reflected increased selfishness in our society.
Just two years later, abortion became legal. This decision led to the murders of almost 60 million children in the United States alone.
Same-sex marriage is certainly not approved of in the scriptures. Nor are adultery and fornication, yet churches turn a blind eye to both, or punish them less severely.
The Apostle Paul treated them equally in I Corinthians 6:9.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (verses 9-11)
Clearly, Paul here condemns fornication, adultery and sodomy equally.
If churches had done the same in recent decades, they might not be in the mess they are in now with regard to same-sex relationships.
If churches are to have any credibility at all on moral issues, they need to condemn these sexual sins EQUALLY. That’s the only way they will be able to turn away same-sex couples who request a church wedding. Churches need a statement of belief that upholds a biblically sanctioned marriage and only a biblically sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman who have chosen chastity until marriage and are committed to fidelity afterwards. Divorced church members should be directed toward a civil marriage, not a church wedding.
If churches don’t do this, they are, in effect saying that one sin is worse than the other, just like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. In today’s western world that will open them up to charges of discrimination and intolerance.
One final thought before we leave this subject.
The book on the 1897 murder was titled: “To hell I must go.” The title came from the murderess herself. She kept saying that when the police came to arrest her.
When it comes to the morals of the last fifty years, it’s more a case of “to hell we must go.” Our society is falling apart as a result of our national sins. Lax laws have destroyed the family. The latest change to the law is just another nail in the coffin. Still to come, inevitably, are polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. In England, they have already stopped prosecuting the latter.
It won’t end until we suffer the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah. We will, but it may be some time yet and more changes are still to come.
(If you would like to help defray the costs involved in producing this blog, please note the Paypal donation box on the Home page.)
After the gruesome murders of over thirty British tourists on a Tunisian beach Friday, the British Prime Minister David Cameron was quick to condemn the atrocity. But he was also quick to remind those listening that Islam is a religion of peace and that terrorists have seized and perverted Islam.
He is now calling on the national media to stop referring to “Islamic State,” the name that ISIS calls itself.
“Methinks he protests too much!”
For years now, we’ve been hearing of terrorist acts committed by Muslims in many different countries. Yes, occasionally, we hear of a terrorist act committed by Hindus and individual acts of violence by supposed Christians, like the one in Charleston two weeks ago. But most terrorism is committed by Muslims, both Shia and Sunni.
Sometimes, it’s hard for politicians to come out and tell the truth, but one day somebody will have to, if we are to ever win “the Great War of our time,” as Michael Morell calls it. Mr. Morell was the former deputy director of the CIA.
Mr. Cameron’s call to end the use of the term “Islamic State” led to a discussion on the BBC World Service (radio) this morning. It amazes me with so much going on, with terrorist attacks threatening us all and with IS constantly expanding its territory, that we can indulge ourselves in discussions of semantics on worldwide radio.
At one point, the term “Islamic State” was being discussed. One contributor said we should not use it as ISIS is not Islamic and not a State. What is it then?
I googled a definition of “state.” The following definition came back: “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” Based on this definition, IS is certainly a state, or country. It’s not a “state” as in the US, which is a federation of 50 states. But it is as much a state as Germany, Italy, France, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
It has territory. In fact, it has more of it every week. It now controls most of Libya and has clearly expanded its influence into Tunisia, with two major terrorist attacks in three months.
It’s also an “organized political community under one government.” It’s certainly not organized like other countries, but in its own way it’s organized and has a central authority that lords it over the people, just like other governments.
So why can’t it call itself “Islamic State?”
The problem is that it gives Islam a bad name.
But, that’s nothing new. Islam has had a bad name for 1400 years, ever since its founder, the prophet Muhammed, told his followers to go out and kill all infidels, to conquer the world.
Our ancestors knew that this was reality. On a number of occasions during this long time period Europeans were in a state of armed conflict trying to stop Muslims from conquering Europe or the Middle East. Yes, President Obama was correct when he reminded listeners that Christians did some terrible things, but now is now. It’s not Christians that are threatening to shoot or behead us en masse, it’s Muslims in general, al-Qaeda, al-Shahaab and ISIS in particular.
And it doesn’t help when Messrs Cameron and Obama keep repeating that Islam is a religion of peace.
In fact, it shows them up as being ignorant of history.
It also shows that they haven’t read Graeme Wood’s groundbreaking article on ISIS in the March issue of The Atlantic, the most read article in the magazine’s long history. Wood’s long article showed that ISIS represents true Islam, that the organization’s roots can be found in the seventh century and that they see themselves fulfilling eschatological prophecies before the advent of the Messiah.
Refusing to recognize this is irresponsible. People cannot defend themselves if they cannot clearly identify the enemy. ISIS is the real Islam and it has territory, so it has every right to call itself “Islamic State.” In fact, it’s the perfect name for this political entity.
One of Mr. Cameron’s predecessors as prime minister, a fellow Conservative leader, Winston Churchill, did not come on the radio after every Nazi attack to remind the British people that it wasn’t the Germans who were doing this, it was only the Nazis who represented hardly anybody. If he had, it’s doubtful that victory would have been achieved.
Mr. Cameron’s England is more reminiscent of a book written shortly after World War II. In George Orwell’s “1984,” the Ministry of Truth told nothing but lies, even going so far as to rewrite history for the newspapers. It was almost impossible to think for yourself. If you did, it wouldn’t be long until the Thought Police caught up with you. Today’s “thought police”, employees of the Ministry of Truth, are the multiculturalists who keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and threaten us with prison if we say otherwise.
Meanwhile, the “proles,” the proletariat, the ordinary people of Orwell’s England, were fobbed off with endless entertainment, so they wouldn’t think too much. It’s a good thing he died in 1950 – an evening with cable television would have finished him off, anyway.
Mr. Cameron should remember Hans Christian Anderson’s tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the story of a gullible king who was sold a miracle new fabric that only his loyal subjects could see. Then, one day while riding in a parade, a little boy, who was not privy to the secret of the new fabric, shouted out before all, that the king had no clothes on. As Danny Kaye sang it in song: “Look at the king, the king, the king…..the king is in the all-together, the all-together, as naked as can be.”
One day, with increased acts of terrorism in our own countries, it will become impossible to keep repeating the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace.
“Today has seen three major terrorist attacks all by jihadists and spread across three continents.
“In Kuwait the attack was sectarian – Sunni extremists from Islamic State targeting a Shia mosque. They are hoping to turn these two sects of Islam against each other. It follows similar mosque bombings by IS across Saudi Arabia. In France assailants went for a double target. The chemical factory was owned by a US company but also targeted was the French state and an individual businessman. IS is at war with France and has often called for opportunist attacks by its followers there. And in Tunisia western tourists have once again been hit for the second time this year. Here, too, though, the jihadists are hoping to hurt the country itself, trying to stop Tunisia from becoming a peaceful secular democracy. But why now? Is there any reason why all three attacks are taking place during this month of Ramadan? “ – Frank Gardiner, Security Correspondent, BBC
There followed a brief interview with Maajid Nawaz, Chairman of the Quilliam Foundation: “For ISIS, Ramadan is a month of war. They believe it to be the month of jihad.”
“I’m afraid we’re in for more days like this . . . Ramadan should be a time of calamity for the infidels. They include the Shia as well.” James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence.
The killing of nine people in a Charleston church last week and the election result in Denmark seemingly have little in common. But at the root of both is fear.
The 21-year-old white male who shot dead nine African-Americans wore two badges on his jacket. They were the Rhodesian flag and the South African flag of the old apartheid regime. TV reporters were quick to say these flags represented racism and that Dylaan Roof identified with these countries because he, too, is racist.
As usual, there was very little depth shown by reporters. It’s just not as simple as they made it out to be.
Rhodesia and South Africa were the last two nations on the African continent to be ruled by whites, people of European descent who had colonized Africa in previous generations. During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the European powers were rapidly dismantling their colonial empires. The ruling whites of Southern Rhodesia, rather than have black majority rule forced upon them, declared themselves independent of Great Britain, something that had not happened since 1776.
Why did they do this? Out of fear, fear of what would happen if the whites handed over to the majority African population.
This fear was not unfounded. They had seen what happened when countries to the north of them got independence.
Tribalism, violent upheavals and economic collapse were quite normal in the years following independence. In 1961, the whites of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), at the time in a federation with Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, had been instrumental in saving thousands of people from the Congo who had fled the country after Belgium pulled out. Chaos and confusion were commonplace in Africa at the time. The whites at the southern end of the continent did not want the same fate to befall them.
In neighboring South Africa, apartheid also had fear at its root. The white minority imposed segregation to protect themselves from violent crime, murder, and rapes, all of which have increased dramatically since the end of apartheid and the introduction of majority rule. There was a great deal wrong with apartheid, but post-apartheid South Africa also has serious problems with little hope for improvement.
Which brings us to last week’s Danish election.
Scandinavia has been the last bastion of social democracy, with widely admired societies that have inspired leftist parties around the world.
But these days, social democracy in Nordic countries is in crisis. The defeat of Denmark’s ruling social democrat party, led by Helle Thorning-Schmidt, means that for the first time in seventy years, Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a social democrat government in power. Even there, it’s doubtful it will survive long.
Their decline has been accompanied by a surge in support for anti-immigration, eurosceptic parties. “Should the Danish People’s party — which came second, nearly doubling its support from the previous vote in 2011 — join a centre-right government, three of the four large Nordic countries would have such a group in power (Finland and Norway being the others),” the Financial Times reports on its website. After decades of rule by parties of the left, this is a dramatic change.
“There is a familiar progression in the way that the DPP, True Finns, Sweden Democrats and Norway’s Progress party have hollowed out the establishment parties. As with the DPP, they have started by stealing voters from the centre-left — the working class, the elderly — before taking them from the centre-right.
“It’s a worry and it’s a wake-up call,” says Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister.” (ft.com)
What’s behind the swing to the anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Fear. The same fear that motivated the whites of Rhodesia and South Africa. And the same fear that was behind the church shooting in Charleston. This is not to suggest that the Danes, the Rhodesians or the South Africans would have been in agreement with Dylaan Roof’s actions. It is simply that there is a commonality here – and that common denominator is fear.
The Danes are afraid of being overwhelmed by people of different cultures, especially Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. A significant percentage of people in every European country share the same fear. They do not want to see their way of life threatened. These fears are not taken seriously by mainstream political parties, so voters are looking elsewhere.
The same fear led to Rhodesians breaking away from Britain. Their “rebellion” lasted fourteen years, seven of which were spent at war with homegrown terrorists who wanted to take over the country. When the terrorists took over, white fears were realized when their land, jobs and money were all taken by the post-independence government of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power for over 35 years.
In South Africa, twenty years after apartheid, the country’s biggest problems are corruption, violence and life-threatening crime. The affluent society the whites created is under increasing threat, driven by African demands for more and more at the expense of the white taxpayer.
In America, too, many whites fear for the future as they head rapidly toward minority status. A recent announcement by the Obama Administration that instructs government agencies to enforce greater “diversity” in affluent neighborhoods will only make matters worse.
I’m writing this while we are headed back to our home on a train. We had to change trains in Chicago. While lining up for the second train, a young white lady next to me complained to her friends that “the Mexicans are pushing in ahead of us.” A minor incident like this can trigger off a racial confrontation. This time it was avoided.
The mad, multicultural mayhem created by the ruling intellectual elites is increasingly being found wanting throughout the western world.
We should expect more incidents like the one in Charleston and more election results similar to Denmark. It could be the start of a white backlash against enforced multiculturalism. Politicians should take note on both sides of the Atlantic.
A century ago, the world was dominated by Europeans and people of European descent. Since World War II this has changed dramatically. Today, only a handful of countries are still run by Caucasians; and, based on demographic trends, all of those will have a majority non-white population within the lifetimes of those now living.
When the dominant culture of a country changes, great upheaval can take place. Rhodesia is the best most recent example of this.
Dylaan Roof, at 21, was not even born when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. He may have worn the Rhodesian flag but was ignorant of Rhodesia’s realities. Race relations were generally quite good in Rhodesia. The “white” army was 82% black. If Dylaan Roof had shot nine black Africans in Rhodesia, he would have been tried, sentenced and hanged within a few months. I remember clearly a young white male who killed a black cab driver and was hanged, if I remember correctly, within 90 days of his sentencing.
The world’s media may have judged Rhodesia a racist society. In the same way, it now judges South Carolina as seriously wanting in this regard. But there has been an outpouring of love and support from different ethnic groups since the mass shooting in church. The Governor of the state, Nikki Haley, has called for the old confederate flag to be taken down from the Capitol building in Columbia, the state capital.
Just as the world’s media stirred up feelings against Rhodesia and South Africa, it will do so against South Carolina.
Watching CNN on Monday morning, I was shocked at how much time was devoted to a one-sided discussion on the future of the “Stars and Bars,” the old Confederate flag.
What Dylaan Roof did was inexcusable and should be roundly condemned. But he was just one man and a young man, at that. His actions will not inspire the majority to replicate his act. But the fears he expressed about the direction America is headed should be openly discussed. The flag is not the issue.
Two hundred years ago, on June 18th, 1815, the British won the war against Napoleon.
Or so you thought. As is generally the case with Europe, it’s not quite that simple.
British troops were only 36% of the allied troops that gained the victory. Take away the Irishmen fighting in the British army, and the percentage of British troops was well below a third of those on the victorious side.
Other troops that fought in this allied cause, all wanting to end Napoleon’s domination of Europe, came from Prussia (eastern Germany) and what are today Belgium and the Netherlands. The battle took place on Belgian soil.
This is not to diminish the British contribution. One result of the battle was that the United Kingdom became a global superpower and was unrivaled in Europe for almost one hundred years.
But it’s a classic example of how British relations with Europe are never that simple. Also, of how the Brits can misread Europe, seeing their country as far more important than it really is.
Which brings us to the promised referendum on British relations with the EU, to take place in 2017.
There are 28 countries in the European Union, with more on the sidelines wanting to join the club. Britain is the third biggest economy in the Union. It is, right now, the most successful economy, attracting hundreds of thousands of people to its shores every year. These are mostly from Europe and, it is thought, attracted primarily by Britain’s generous social support system. People from Eastern Europe can work in the UK and receive benefits for their progeny back home in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. These benefits enable them to provide quite comfortably for their families, even if they earn a very small income in London or whatever other city they reside in.
British people get angry at this as they are the ones paying for it in their taxes. But, as a member of the EU, the British government can do nothing about it. The EU guarantees the free movement of people within member nations.
London wants to change this. Most of the other members do not. The Polish leader made it clear to British Prime Minister David Cameron this is something he cannot change. And that is correct. If the UK stays in Europe, it won’t change. Mr. Cameron may hope it does, but it won’t – unless Germany is willing to change it, and that’s not likely.
Many (maybe most) British people are fed up with the EU, which they also heavily subsidize in other ways. They want to withdraw from the organization and go back to the way they were 50 years ago.
What they don’t realize is that they cannot go back to the 1960’s, to the pre-EU days.
It’s not an option.
Prior to entering the European Common Market (as the EU was then called), Britain had an extensive system of trade with nations farther afield. “Imperial preferences” left over from the days of the Empire, ensured close trade ties with the dominions of the Commonwealth: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These trade agreements were torn up by Britain when they joined Europe. It is unlikely that they can restore them more than 40 years later.
At the same time, in the 60’s, the British still had close trade ties with all their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific, the ACP countries. These gave Britain cheap food, while the British were able to sell manufactured products to these countries without the hindrance of tariffs.
After Britain joined the European Community, it was a matter of urgency to help these less developed nations. The Lome Convention was signed in 1975, taking effect in April 1976. It gave preferential access to Europe for member countries’ food and mineral exports. This treaty, agreed to in the capital of the former French colony of Togo, effectively embraced all former British, French and Dutch colonies. As this agreement was to help less developed countries, it did not extend to the British dominions, who were on their own.
Effectively, Great Britain, thirty years after World War II, handed over its former Empire to the European Union, now dominated by Germany. What a supreme irony of history!
There is no turning back.
This is not to say that Britain will be entirely on its own if it separates from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are two European countries that are not members of the EU. Both have a per capita income that is higher than the EU average.
But it won’t be easy for Britain, certainly not as easy as the anti-Europeans are making it out to be.
The Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957 by the original six members of the European Community, pledged member countries to form “an ever closer union.” The EU today is very different from the old European Common Market. It is far more intrusive and controlling than it was at the beginning. And it is already talking about greater cooperation, with an EU Army not too far ahead.
Bible prophecy shows that another superpower is set to arise, a European power that will be a revival of the Roman Empire. You can read about this new power in Revelation chapters 13 and 17. Note the following words from chapter 17:
12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.” (Rev 17:12-14) Clearly, this is not talking about the Roman Empire of two thousand years ago, as this superpower will be in existence when Christ returns. The good news is that this “beast” power will not last long and will lead directly into the prophesied Kingdom of God.
Is Britain prepared for isolation, facing a German dominated European super-power on its doorstep, without any say in its composition and its purpose?
Interestingly, just four days ago, British defense chiefs warned that the country’s defenses had been so greatly diminished that the nation was now “feeble” on the world stage. As Britain no longer has a deployable aircraft carrier, only one ship, HMS Ocean, is equipped to host US Marines and their MV 22 Osprey vertical take off aircraft, in the event of military action by Russia. As Russia is rapidly increasing its military potential, warnings of a coming conflict between the West and Moscow are growing. The UK’s response is to go down the road of disarmament. The similarities with the 1930’s are quite blatant – Britain is once again disarming while Germany is rearming.
Berlin is spending an additional 8 billion euros (US 9 billion) on the new MEADS air defense system and the multi role combat ship 180. 3.9 billion euros ($4.37 billion) has also been set aside for four new battleships.
Germany is also working toward an EU Army, which will add to its military capacity.
Outside of the EU, Britain will have to fend for itself, something it seems ill-prepared for at this time. Even a Conservative government is clearly more inclined to cut defense over higher health care costs, at a time of growing international tensions.
Individual Britons need to think carefully before the vote in the referendum. There may be sound reasons to reject the EU, but there could also be serious consequences. Britain’s relationship with Europe can be compared to a marriage. It was certainly a mistake to marry in the first place, but divorce is not an easy option and needs to be considered carefully.
Christians are meant to be “ambassadors for Christ” (II Cor 5:20). Sadly, many Christians do a bad job and this makes Jesus Christ and Christianity look bad to non-Christians.
In a similar way, when we travel to other countries, we represent our own country. We are unpaid, unofficial ambassadors for the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia or wherever else we may come from.
Many people do not take this seriously, either.
An example of this took place a few days ago in Malaysia when a handful of western tourists (one person from the UK, one from the United States, an Australian, and two Canadian siblings), stripped on top of a mountain, exposing themselves and even having photos taken with nothing on.
They were just goofing off as many young people do. At home, they might have gotten away with it, or perhaps received a citation.
But, in Malaysia, a strict conservative mostly Muslim country, their juvenile display was deeply offensive. Even more so in the area around the mountain where the local people consider the mountain sacred, home to their ancestral spirits.
Shortly after their stupid act, there was an earthquake, which many locals attributed to the visitors’ misbehavior.
The perpetrators of this stupidity were given three days in prison and have had to pay a $1330 fine. They also have to apologize and are being deported.
They are fortunate. In some Muslim countries, they might have been stoned to death.
It’s not just that they did something wrong, an act that would be condemned anywhere in the world, their ignorance is also mind-boggling. Here they were in a Muslim nation doing something deeply offensive. They didn’t even realize how serious their misbehavior would be. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But their act also adds to a growing perception in the world, that westerners are degenerate. Whereas Victorian tourists knew how to dress and how to act in public, the last few decades has seen a drastic change in the people of the United States, Canada and Britain. Freedom has become license. Licentious behavior, once condemned every week in church, is now accepted. But our national reputation is tarnished by it.
An article I saw a few days ago told of a holiday resort in Spain that doesn’t want any more British tourists. They only go there to get drunk and fornicate, even on the beach in front of local families passing by. When people see this, it can’t help but affect their view of Britain, even though many British people would also be offended.
We are told that: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
Each one of us has a responsibility when we go overseas to set a good example, of proper and righteous behavior. For Christians, this is doubly important, as we not only represent our own nation but also Jesus Christ.
"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened." — Sir Winston Churchill