Tag Archives: Isaiah

HUBRIS WILL NOT DEFEAT THE ENEMY

Bill de Blasio                             Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio

Yesterday (Monday) I read an article, which stated with great certainty that the US has been better at assimilating Muslims than European countries.   I also read a separate article in USA Today, which quoted the Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, claiming that “New York City has the strongest, most agile, best-trained first responders in the world.   They’re ready to protect us.”

These are just the latest examples of hubris, which is defined as “excessive pride, or self-confidence, arrogance.”

When it comes to assimilation, I am reminded of a conversation I witnessed on British television one Sunday morning a few years ago. People of African descent who had lived in both the United Kingdom and the United States were discussing this very issue.   All the participants said they felt more comfortable and more assimilated in the UK than the US.

This may or may not be true of Muslims.   My concern here is that Americans should be very careful in making such assumptions, that we cannot say for sure and that, really, it doesn’t make any difference.   We are just as threatened by Islamic terrorism as the Europeans.   Whether the US responders do a better job remains to be seen.   FWIW, France (and Canada) are the two countries that top the World Health Organization’s list of best medical systems.   The US ranks at #37.   When it comes to saving lives, Paris is one of the best places to be.

When it comes to fighting ISIS, there’s a great deal of hubris right now.   Once again, the entertainment industry is partly to blame – it’s not just James Bond that defeats the world’s greatest evils; Americans have been doing it for decades.

Or, have we?

More than fourteen years after 9-11, Al-Qaeda is still killing people.   The hotel attack in Bamako was perpetrated by an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The US has been in Afghanistan for the same length of time (longer than the Russians were there) and there is no end in sight.   In fact, the situation is worse in that ISIS now operates there, along with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Iraq continues with daily conflict.   The immediate goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein  was achieved by the western coalition, but the resultant mess just goes on and on.   The Iraqi conflict gave birth to ISIS, another problem that seems likely to go on and on.   And, if they are ever defeated, there will be other Islamic extremists to replace them.

Proverbs 16:18 says that:   “Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall.”

I quoted Niall Ferguson a few days ago.   He showed the similarities between what is happening now and what happened to the Roman Empire in its last days – the barbarians are at the gates.   Indeed, they are within the gates thanks to the West having the most myopic immigration policies in the history of mankind.

The West has lived through a period that might be called the Pax Americana, a peace guaranteed by the United States since the end of World War II.

But the US has not had a decisive victory since World War II, when the global conflict was won by the three great powers, the British Empire (which fought the war from 1939-1945), the Soviet Union (which was forced into war six months before the US) and the United States.   The US could not have done it alone.

Korea ended up a stalemate, a burden still carried on the backs of the US tax-payer.   Vietnam was lost.   At the time, there was plenty of hubris.   Who would have thought, in 1965, that the US could lose to North Vietnam?

The next major conflict was the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91.   The immediate goal of driving Iraq out of Kuwait was achieved, but Saddam lived to fight another day, literally.   And, as I said, the mess goes on and on.

Americans are fond of saying that the US military is the best in the world and that the country spends ten times as much on its military as the next biggest spender.   That may be true, but it’s misleading.   In World War II, for every US soldier actually fighting, there were 60 people employed in support roles; for the British it was 45 to 1; for the Germans, 20 to 1.   Efficiency varies.

Additionally, US military personnel are paid more than those of other countries, so the dollar amount spent is not saying much.

Besides, the greatest threat now is Islamic terrorism, not a professional national army.   The “armies” that brought down Rome were barbaric, wild tribes, the Huns, the Vandals and, ultimately, the Arabs.   We’re faced with a similar enemy, but making it worse, our enemy is also “within.”   Let’s remember, the Babylonian Empire fell because two men betrayed it!   It only took two men to bring down the greatest empire in the world at that time.

The analogy with Babylon is apt in another way, too.   Babylon’s period of ascendancy lasted a little over seventy years, from the defeat of Assyria in 612 BC to its own defeat at the hands of the Persians in 539.   Super powers have great difficulty maintaining dominance over a longer period.   The Romans and the British were two exceptions, but countries simply burn out after 70 years.   The US is burning out, showing great reluctance to take on the growing threats to its own dominance.

It’s predecessor as global superpower number one was Great Britain.   Britain simply went broke.   The US is similarly broke, with a national debt of roughly 20 trillion dollars.   How much longer can the country lead the fight against anything?  ISIS is the wealthiest terror group ever, while the US is now penny pinching.

There’s a third lesson, too, from ancient Assyria and Babylon.   The former invaded the ten tribes of Israel, taking the people away as slaves.   The latter, Babylon, more than a century later, conquered the Jews and took them as slaves to Babylon.   The Old Testament prophets show that these nations were conquered because of their sins.

In a statement after the Paris terror attacks, ISIS said it attacked Paris because it’s a “sinful city, full of perversions.”   This does not mean that ISIS is made up of righteous people, any more than ancient Assyria or Babylon were.   But it does mean that many Muslims, appalled at the liberal values of the West, will naturally flock to ISIS.

In this sense, our own permissiveness works against us and is contributing to the violent acts being perpetrated by the terrorists.

But people in the West have hardened their hearts when it comes to God.   When the Church of England prepared a cinema ad promoting the Lord’s prayer, cinemas refused to show it; when the hashtag “#pray for Paris” appeared on Twitter following the Paris attacks, one French publication told people supporting the sentiment that their prayers were not welcome; that France doesn’t want religion!

Some asked where was God when Paris was attacked?   The answer can be found in Isaiah 59:2.   “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”  Isaiah was preaching to a nation that had known God, but rejected Him.

There are similarities with the western world of today.   We should avoid hubris, clean up our act, and turn to the true God if we are to have any hope of defeating Islamic extremism.

 

SERIOUS THREATS TO OUR ANCIENT LEGAL SYSTEM

Ted Stevens

The 12-man jury system goes back to the twelfth century under King Henry II and was confirmed in the Magna Carta (1215).   It’s even possible it goes back further to Anglo-Saxon England, prior to the Norman invasion of 1066.

Nobody has ever suggested that it is a perfect system but it beats every alternative known to man. It must have been quite reassuring to hundreds of thousands of people down through the centuries to know that, when falsely accused, they had to be judged by “twelve of their peers.”

So we should all be concerned that the jury system is seriously threatened.

I first noticed this forty years ago in a former British colony in Africa.   The English Common Law was exported to British colonies, including the thirteen American colonies that eventually became the United States.

But the system, like democracy itself, may not be culturally exportable. The problem I noticed in Africa was that juries were greatly influenced by ethnicity. Put another way, if a member of a certain tribe was on trial, members of other tribes would automatically find him guilty without due consideration of the evidence.

This obvious prejudice kept us out of court in 1982 following a serious collision between our Land Rover and a bus. Passengers on the bus testified that the driver was drunk and dancing at the wheel at the time of the crash. But, we were advised that going to trial would be pointless as he was from the area where the accident took place. No jury from that area would convict him.

I don’t remember when it was but I do remember the time in England when it was decided that a jury could convict a murderer with a 10-2 vote, instead of the former 12. My immediate thought was why change a system that has served the country well for over eight centuries?

Grand juries go back to 1166. Again, Henry II was the monarch behind the idea.   A Grand Jury was not limited to 12 men. It could be as many as 23 men, hence the term “grand” as against a regular trial jury. Today, the US is one of the few countries that retain the grand jury system. It is used to determine whether or not a person should be sent for a trial, in effect to determine if anything criminal has taken place.

The grand jury that sat in Ferguson, Missouri, was composed of twelve people, three of them black. They sat for months hearing testimony from a number of people, including the accused police officer, Darren Wilson. Their determination was that there was no case to send Wilson to trial. Rioting erupted immediately and has continued sporadically since.   As in Africa, ethnicity could make it impossible to hold a trial.

Different people reading this will have differing views on the decision of the grand jury.   The concern I want to express is about the system itself.

If a grand jury or a trial jury cannot meet without taking into account the mob outside, then the jury system will fall apart. For centuries, respect for the jury system was such that when a decision was made, the public supported that decision, even if they did not agree with it. The system itself was highly respected.

If mob rule threatens the jury system, what will replace it?   Juries are composed of regular people selected at random.   Those countries that do not have a jury system use judges appointed by government with no jury. Is that what we want?

The prophet Isaiah wrote of a time in ancient Judah when there was no justice and seemingly no concept of it. We are in a similar time today. “No one calls for justice, Nor does any plead for truth.” (Isa 59:4) “The way of peace they have not known, And there is no justice in their ways. (v.8)”

I should add that Ferguson is not the only threat to our legal system.

Bill Cosby illustrates another problem. He has been accused of sexual assault by a number of different women. Without a trial, the media and the population at large seem to have found the man guilty, thereby effectively ending his career.

Both situations threaten our legal system. Is this really what we want?

THE STELLA COULSON APPROACH

 

English tea in a bone china cup

I can still remember Stella Coulson, even though it’s been almost 40 years.

She was a widowed farmer in the delightful farming community we lived in, thirty miles SE of Bulawayo, on the road to Beitbridge, the main crossing point into South Africa. At the time, we lived in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

There was a prolonged terrorist war going on at the time, which affected rural areas more than cities. Today, the war is depicted as a racial conflict between the majority black population and the ruling minority whites. It was not as simple as that. 78% of the “white” army was black, rising to 82% by the end of the seven-year conflict. There was also a great deal of tension between the two main tribes, which complicated everything.

Stella Coulson thought that everything could be resolved “if only we could sit down with the terrorists over a cup of tea and discuss our differences”!

I’ve heard similar comments on both sides of the Atlantic about ISIS.

Compromise is very much a part of the Anglo-Saxon mindset and heritage. It’s deeply ingrained in our culture and our national psyche.

Another term for it is “appeasement.”

In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich for discussions with Hitler and returned promising “peace in our time.” A year later, Britain and Germany were at war. All Chamberlain had achieved was a few months of peace by throwing Czechoslovakia to the German wolves.   I do not know whether tea was on the table during his discussions with Hitler but the outcome showed clearly the pointlessness of discussions with people who are clearly unreasonable. They want what they want and won’t stop until they get it!

To a certain extent, I can understand Chamberlain’s thinking.   And even Stella Coulson’s.   When you want peace, it’s hard to imagine that others don’t. But they really don’t! There are plenty of lessons from history that illustrate this.

Although Anglo-Saxons may always be ready to compromise, terrorists will not stop until they get everything they want. They are driven by a desire for power and money. Religious extremism may be the driving force, or rather an excuse. Power and wealth are the main objectives.

And that’s what ISIS is all about – religious extremism, power and wealth.   They established a Caliphate a few weeks ago, an area as big as Great Britain, and now want to see it expand until it encompasses the entire Muslim world. Long before that goal is realized, they will pose a serious threat to the West.   It can be argued they already do.

When Stella Coulson’s dream was realized and the Rhodesian government did sit down with the terrorist leaders, it led to the end of Rhodesia and an almost total white flight.

Meanwhile, appeasement is alive and going strong in western countries, where there are plenty of Stella Coulsons.

Last Saturday, the National Cathedral in Washington DC, the closest equivalent to England’s Westminster Abbey, hosted a Muslim service.   One female member of the church protested, pointing to a statue of Christ on the cross, reminding everybody that salvation is only possible through Him (Acts 4:12) and that a Muslim worship service in the cathedral desecrated the historic church. She was promptly removed.

Sadly, the parents of Peter Kassig, the latest hostage beheaded by ISIS, will be holding a combined Christian-Jewish-Muslim funeral service.

We are likely to see a bad case of appeasement when discussions with Iran end this month. Meanwhile, Washington is pressuring Israel to appease the Palestinians over their demands, which will seriously weaken the Jewish nation. President Obama’s executive order on immigration also shows an attitude of appeasement There’s an estimated 11 million illegal aliens. Every single one has broken the law. The solution? Give half of them the right to stay here legally.   This will only mean more people entering the country illegally, hoping for a similar future amnesty. Why have laws at all?

When a future Edward Gibbon writes a monumental definitive tome on the “Decline and Fall of the Anglo-Saxon Empire,” he or she will marvel at how quickly Islam gained a foothold in our countries, following September 11th.   You would think 9/11 would have been a wake-up call. Instead, we’ve seen tens of thousands convert to Islam and hundreds enthusiastically volunteer to fight with ISIS.   It is also remarkable that the first newly elected president after 9-11 had definite Muslim connections, through his father and the school he attended in Indonesia.

This is a classic example of what the Prophet Isaiah was talking about in Isaiah 30:10 “And (say) to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things; Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.”

Appeasement anyone?