I therefore, presently still filled with energy from my patrolling from work wish to complete my now weekly post on this blog.
With your kind permission...
I mentioned the 'Australia ISIS' story to a manager at work Friday at shift change this afternoon. I am one of his shift replacements, although he works directly for the corporation. I opined that even though terrorism is not directly related to our work it is a concern, due to the sheer size of the corporation we work for and its worldwide reach. We also had a few minor security issues Thursday-Friday, one of which I managed to discover and it is always possible a minor issue could lead to something major. The manager agreed that corporate targets could be legitimate terrorist targets and basically (paraphrased) stating that for those in law enforcement and security, having a security issue covered and actually having it covered, are two different things. In other words, I took his statement as meaning, no one is really completely secure from a radical Islamic attack.
The news story...
BBC News September 18, 2014
Cited
'Australia raids over 'Islamic State plot to behead'
Cited
'Police have carried out anti-terrorism raids in Sydney sparked by intelligence reports that Islamist extremists were planning random killings in Australia. PM Tony Abbott said a senior Australian Islamic State militant had called for "demonstration killings", reportedly including a public beheading. The raids, with at least 800 heavily armed officers, led to 15 arrests.'
''Imperative danger'
'Australian media reports said they had discussed abducting members of the public and beheading them on camera, draped in a black IS flag. In recent weeks, IS has released video footage showing the beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker seized in Syria.'
'The news of an alleged plot to publicly behead a random Australian will shock many people here, including the vast majority of this country's long-established moderate Muslim community. Many Muslims are unhappy with what's going on in Iraq and Syria but would never resort to violence. These raids risk antagonising the broader Islamic community. But Australia, like many countries including Britain, is worried about the threat from Islamic State, not just abroad but at home. More than a decade on from Australia's support for the US-led war in Iraq, the country finds itself embroiled in a conflict that is far from over. Tony Abbott this week announced he is sending 600 troops to the Middle East to assist in the fight against Islamic State. Security forces clearly face a battle at home too.'
'About 200 people from Sydney's Muslim community held a protest against the raids on Thursday night. Speakers reportedly made claims of police brutality and political hysteria.'
Cited again
'But Australia, like many countries including Britain, is worried about the threat from Islamic State, not just abroad but at home.'
Two articles ago on September 6, 2014 I posted A Radical Problem In Brief
Please see recent archives
I noted...
It is mainly it seems, the radical, militant Islamists that are very much opposed to toleration of others and democracy and have the theological concept of convert to Islam or die in regard to all other groups, including other Muslims that they find objectionable. Other notable exceptions that would be opposed to toleration and democracy, not stating this is an exhaustive list, but these philosophical views are not prevalent in the West presently, would be those supporting Communism, certainly as in anything resembling that of the Marxist-Leninist, Soviet Union and those supporting Fascism as in anything resembling Nazism.
Lewis M. Hopfe admits that one of the most controversial aspects of Islam is 'Jihad' (Holy War). Hopfe (1987: 419). Pagans he writes may have been forced to convert but Jews and Christians and others were free to worship and they chose. Hopfe (1987: 419). It is admitted by Hopfe that there is a Muslim doctrine that one must do battle for God. Hopfe (1987: 419).
S.A. Nigosian states the goal of Jihad is not so much conversion but for Islam to gain 'political control over societies'. Nigosian (1994: 448). This is done in order to rule them under Islam. Nigosian (1994: 448).
Therefore
It seems reasonable that anyone holding to such radical views should be barred entrance into a Western nation. I am not stating that all Muslims should be barred from the West, but that radical Islamists that demonstrate in their public or discovered views opposition to toleration and democracy should not be allowed into Western nations. Anyone that prefers Sharia (Islamic law) to Western democracy should be barred entrance. On a practical level I suppose a burqa ban would be a deterrent for entrance for many Islamists considering entrance into a Western nation. Yes, this could be considered a decrease in liberty, but would such people if provided entry really desire to uphold Western liberty and democracy if there was a Muslim majority? Doubtful if they prefer Sharia (Islamic law).
Therefore in regard to this story from Australia, IS, ISIS, ISIL seeking to behead random Australian citizens, without scaremongering it is certainly philosophically reasonable and legally reasonable to bar radical Islamists/Muslims and I reason those that would support Sharia (Islamic law) from entrance into a Western nation.
Again, I am not seeking to eliminate within a democracy and Western nation, Islam, but any view which is by definition violently intolerant of the other views and is against the very democratic system by which a Western nation stands must be legally opposed in order to protect the security of that nation. To protect law and order, which is also a Biblical mandate (Romans 13).
I would state the same for any so called religious sect, Christian sect, or as noted political movements such as radical Communism or Fascism.
As I noted in the first related article, Biblical Christianity does not promote a Kingdom of God created by the conquest of human beings claiming to be Christian (John 18:36), but it is culminated through God and Christ, who is God and man (Revelation 21-22, 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Thessalonians 2).
Theocracy and theonomy are not legitimate goals for the Church within a sinful, fallen realm because humanity will corrupt and politicize any such rule.
Theocracy defined:
N.H.G Robinson states that just as democracy signifies a type of government ruled by the people by elected representatives, theocracy represents government rule by God and his representatives. Ancient Israel is a primary example. Robinson (1999: 564).
M.J. Wyngaarden explains that word is derived from the Greek words for God, theos, and from kratein to rule. This represents the rule of God. and is traced back to the Old Testament concept and may have been coined by Josephus. Wyngaarden (1996: 1083).
N.H.G. Robinson and D.W.D. Shaw note that theonomy is an interpretation of a person’s life when ultimate ethical authority is found in the divine will. Autonomy would be self-imposed authority. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). They reference Paul Tillich and note that he states that theonomy is a law or principle which brings together the law of people with the ground and source of all being. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567). For some autonomy and theonomy may be understood as the immanent and transcendent aspects of the ethics of theism. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).
HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.
NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.
ROBINSON, N.H.G (1999) 'Theocracy' in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
WYNGAARDEN, M.J. (1996) ‘Theocracy’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
