THE SPANISH MILITARY ORDERS

©Guy Stair Sainty

 

 

The crusade to drive the Moors from Spain, four hundred years of almost constant warfare interspersed with skirmishes and short periods of armed peace, was not only the longest of all European wars but was the only crusade to achieve its objective. The role played by the knights of the Military Orders was a crucial one; their monastic structure, the harsh discipline and the devotion of the knights to the cause of liberating their nation from the invader, gave them an unmatched strength of purpose. By granting key strategic fortresses to the knights, the Iberian Kings of Castille, Aragón, León and Portugal were able to establish border outposts in newly conquered territories whose boundaries were continually pushing back the areas controlled by the Moors. With the success of the Reconquista and the expulion of the Moors, the four Orders lost their independence from secular authorities when they were put under the "perpetual administration" of the Spanish Crown. They then found a new role as an elite corps of the nobility, maintaining their castles and estates as commanderies to provide incomes for those who had distinguished themselves in the service of the Monarch. With the loss of their estates in the nineteenth century their role became purely honorary and the Republic attempted to suppress them entirely, although this was contrary to Canon Law under which they were regulated as Religious-Military Orders founded by Papal Bull. Restored under the present Monarchy, they have been maintained as exclusively Catholic, Noble Orders dependent on the Crown.

They had their origin in the small, local military confraternities founded for self-protection by members of the knightly class. The Moors had conquered almost all of the Iberian peninsular within five years of invading in the year 711 a.d. The Christians, however, advancing gradually southwards, fortifying the small towns in which they settled, steadily regained their lost territories. By the end of the eleventh century northern Spain was divided into a number of small states, León, Castille, Navarre, Aragón, Galicia and Portugal, frequently at odds with each other but united by their religion and the continual concern over a revived threat from the Moorish states to the south.

Although the Moors were relatively tolerant of religious minorities living within their dominions, indeed there was considerable intermarriage between the different communities, Christian, Jewish and Moor, they saw the expanding Christian communities on their borders as ready victims for plunder. The Moorish Kingdom based at Córdoba was itself divided by factionalism and its break-up into smaller taifas (city states) gave the Christian confraternities their chance to consolidate their power and firmly establish themselves in the territories they had captured during two centuries of protracted struggle. [1] By the end of the eleventh century the Christian Kingdoms enjoyed an uneasy truce with the Moors, interspersed with occasional hostilities, but this was disrupted by the appearance of a fanatic Berber sect, the Almohads, in the early twelfth century.

The Almohads, led by Abd al-Moumin, invaded Andalucia in 1147, uniting the Moorish principalities under their rule and menacing the Christian states. The Spanish Christians were forced to put aside their internal conflicts and, with the help of the Templars, who had established themselves in a number of border fortresses, united to defeat this new threat to their security. The example of the Templars, a highly disciplined military confraternity dedicated exclusively to the defense of the Church, proved to be the model which would be followed by the native Spanish Orders. Some of the original defensive fraternities formed in the outlying towns provided the nucleus for the Orders of Chivalry, while others, more modest, later became Maestranzas or Noble Associations, some of which have survived to the present day. The Templars themselves were in gradual retreat in Spain as the local magnates preferred to endow the newly former military Orders rather than further add to the strength of the threateningly powerful Templar Order.

The first Order to be founded, but the second to receive Papal approval, was the Order of Calatrava. The earlier recognition, however, granted to the Order of Santiago by the Holy See, gave the latter precedence before the other three. Santiago was also far more extensively endowed than the other Orders (in the eighteenth century the value of its benefices totaled 40% of the combined value of those of all four Orders together). Once the mission of driving the Moors from Spain was accomplished, the four Orders, like the great crusader Orders elsewhere in Europe, were perceived as over-mighty subjects and it became a priority for the Crown to gain control over them - particularly as the not infrequent quarrels between the rival bodies was a source of dissension at a time when the Crown was struggling to establish its central authority.

The Spanish Kings had frequently obtained the election of close connections of their families as Masters of the Orders and at Calatrava in 1489, Santiago in 1494 and Alcántara in 1495 the administration of the three Magisteries were ultimately granted to King Ferdinand of Aragón, as Sovereign of Aragón and King-Consort of Castille. Finally, by the Bull Dum intra of Pope Adrian VI dated 4 May 1523, the `perpetual administration' of the three Orders was transferred to Charles I (the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V), King of Spain, and his heirs and successors, with the provision that this dignity could be exercised by a future female Sovereign.

The much smaller Order of Montesa was not perceived as such a threat as the other three and it was not until a Bull of Sixtus V, of 15 March 1587, that its perpetual administration was eventually transferred to the Crown of Aragón. By a further Bull of 22 May 1739 (at the request of Philip V) its council was united with that of the other three Orders. The Orders were administered by a `Council and Tribunal' appointed in 1523, but each of the four retained their independent structure, their own statutes, and requirements for noble proofs and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The exemption from the control of local ordinaries was preserved in the Bull of 1523 and in subsequent Papal dispositions concerning the four Orders, until the first Spanish Republic. By the mid-sixteenth century the Tribunal had authority over two cities, two hundred and twenty small towns and seventy-five villages. Membership of the Council included the Secretary of the Orders, the Treasurer of the Orders (Contador Mayor), the Grand-Usher, three (later four with Montesa) Procurator-Generals, three (later four) fiscals (who inspected noble proofs) and a Treasurer of the Council. The lesser officers of each of the Orders, lawyers, etc were not members of the Council. [2]

Without a military function, the four Orders became a valued means of honoring the nobility and rewarding servants of the Crown who had distinguished themselves. Thus, in the eighteenth century, a number of Jacobite exiles, who had served in the armies of Philip V, were received into the four Orders and rewarded with the grant of valuable commanderies. Several gentlemen of Irish, English, Scots and Welsh descent settled permanently in Spain and between 1702 and 1780 there were forty knights of Santiago of British birth or origin admitted, [3] and a handful to the other four Orders (Santiago attracted more postulants because of the larger number of benefices available). The admission into the four Orders of foreigners who were not in the service of the Spanish crown was almost unknown, and although there is no prohibition against non-Spanish members of the four Orders today, only one - the Duke of Braganza, Head of the Royal House of Portugal - has been admitted. [4] Membership of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which was regarded as having greater prestige both by the Borbón Kings and non-Spaniards, was considered incompatible with membership in any of the four military Orders until a reform of 1773 (before which a Papal Bull was required to leave one to receive the other). The Fleece was therefore the preferred award of the Spanish Kings for foreigners and the greatest nobles, while the four Orders were used to honor service to the Crown, until the establishment of the Order of Charles III, whose lowest rank also could be granted to less illustrious individuals.

The downfall of the Borbón Kingdom in 1808 and the establishment of a Bonapartist Monarchy under Joseph NapoLeón, led to the suppression of the four Orders by the secular authorities (canonically invalid) and the seizure of their benefices. [5] Ferdinand VII re-established them and restored their properties upon recovering his Crown in 1814. Between 1814 and their suspension by the revolutionary government in 1869, there were some three hundred and forty-admissions into the Order of Santiago, one hundred and fifty into Alcántara and eighty-five into Montesa.

The liberal government of the regency of María-Christina attempted to suppress the Orders in 1836, confiscating their benefices, but re-established them shortly afterwards (without restoring their estates). Their exempt ecclesiastical jurisdiction was preserved under the terms of the 1851 Concordat, by which certain of the confiscated properties were restored and concentrated together near Ciudad Real, which was established as a Prelature nullius dioeceseos, under the title Priory of the four reunited Military Orders of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara and Montesa [6]. In 1873 the Holy See, acting in disregard of this earlier agreement, suppressed the exempt jurisdiction - to accord with the wishes of the new republican government - but following the restoration of the Borbón Monarchy once again, with Alfonso XII as King, the four Orders regained their independence in 1876. Their ancient prerogatives restored, but with only those benefices situated at Ciudad Real, the status of the four military Orders was primarily honorific - since the Order of Saint John had ceased to require proof of nobility from the mid-nineteenth century they were the only surviving Spanish Orders for which proof of nobility was required. [7]

Once Alfonso XIII attained his majority, he began to take interest in the Orders and their well-being, and attached to his other titles that of "Grand Master" - obtaining de facto Papal approval of his new title of Grand Master and Perpetual Administrator when the Holy See confirmed certain regulations in 1916. The King was accustomed to wear the crosses of the four Orders on all official occasions and actively participated in their ceremonies. Indeed, the white mantle with the four Crosses was taken with him into exile in 1931 and, on his death ten years later, his body was dressed in this mantle when it lay in state. After his exile in 1931, a handful of new knights were admitted whose nominations had been under way before the downfall of the Monarchy - including several knights of Santiago and Calatrava. [8] The Count of Barcelona, who succeeded him as claimant to the Spanish Throne, made only two admissions during the years from 1941 until the restoration of the Monarchy, the Infants Luis-Alfonso and José-Eugenio, Princes of Bavaria, who were received as novices on 23 April 1941. The Republic had declared the four Orders abolished by an act of 29 April 1934 but, although this action was canonically invalid, the nationalist government did not accede to the four Orders request for reestablishment. [9]

The restoration of the Spanish Monarchy in 1975 led to new moves to restore the four Orders. In 1978 the Count of Barcelona, who had abdicated in favor of his son, King Juan Carlos I, as Head of the Royal House of Spain and Chief and Sovereign of the Order of the Golden Fleece in the previous year, was nominated Dean President of the Council and Tribunal of the Orders of Chivalry of Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara and Montesa. On May 29 of that year, Don José Fernández-Villaverde y Roca de Togores, Marquess of Pozo Rubio and Grandee of Spain (a novice knight of Calatrava since 1921), was appointed to be "Councilor-Minister" of the four Orders. Three years later on 14 October 1981, in a decree signed by the Count of Barcelona in the name of the King, the Marquess of Pozo Rubio was nominated "Grand Commander" of Calatrava - an appointment which was followed by that of D. Gonzalo García de Blanes as "Grand Commander" of Alcántara on 15 March 1982 (succeeded by the Duke of Calabria on 13 October 1986). On 7 December 1982 the first admissions of novices to the four Orders begun - eight to Santiago, twelve to Calatrava, six to Alcántara and two to Montesa. The first professions were permitted from January 1983 - some of those making profession having been novices for sixty years or more.

Today the four Orders have a total membership of more than two hundred and thirty - the majority in Calatrava - re-establishing themselves rapidly and adopting various humanitarian duties. His Majesty the King retains the title of Grand Master, Perpetual Administrator by Apostolic Authority, the late Count of Barcelona was "Dean President" until the nomination by His Majesty of His Royal Highness the Infante Duke of Calabria as his successor on July 5th, 1993. There is also a Minister Councilor (previously the Duke of Calabria) and two Councilors. The post of Prelate of Ciudad Real, to which the titular Episcopal see of Dora had been attached, has, since 1984, been elevated to the status of Bishop of Ciudad Real (within the Archdiocese of Toledo), and the Priory of the four Military Orders is still attached thereto. The Holy See has not intervened in the re-establishment of the Orders and when a request was made as to the attitude of the Vatican, an informal reply was given that their abolition in 1934 had been unrecognized by the Holy See and that previous privileges (excepting the exempt ecclesiastical jurisdiction) had not been revoked. Each of the four Orders have initiated ceremonies at their ancient seats but the principal ecclesiastical seat is the Church of the four Orders in Madrid.

---

Footnotes

[1]The most recent study in English of the Military Orders can be found in Desmond Seward, The Monks of War, Eyre Methuen 1972, pp.135-193.

[2]For a general historical survey of the four Orders see Count Carlos Zeininger de Borja, Les Quatre Ordres Militaires d'Espagne, in Rivista Araldica, 1949, pp. 113-115, pp.208-214. For a more detailed study, see Helyot, op.cit..

[3]Including Daniel, 1st Count O'Mahony in 1711, while in 1789 John and Sebastian O'Kindeland, the latter the ancestor of the famous General in Franco's Nationalist Army, were admitted.

[4]To the Order of Calatrava, as a Novice knight, in 1985.

[5]Although four knights of Santiago were admitted (between 1811 and 1813) and two knights of Alcántara (in 1810 and 1813).

[6]The Priorato dei Riuniti Ordini Militari Spagnoli di Santiago, Calatrava, Alcántara, Montesa (Annuario Pontificio, 1994).

[7]Noble proofs were later restored in the Spanish Priory of the Order of Saint John after it was reunited with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but were generally less rigorously applied. Today, because of internecine squabbling among the members of the Spanish Assembly of the S.M.O.M. and a cooling of the relationship between that Order and the Royal Family, many of the most eminent candidates who might hitherto have been expected to join Malta have instead joined the four Orders.

[8]Among the latter were the Conde de Barajas and D. Diego de León y Núñez-Robles, on 7 April 1932, the Marqués de Herrera and his brothers D. Luis and D. Ramón Díaz de Bustamente y Quijano on 23 February 1935. Certain of the titular offices of the Order were filled by a process of seniority - for example in 1960 the Baron de Llauri was appointed to the post of Clavero Mayor of the Order of Montesa.

[9]This decision of the Franco government, which ultimately re-established every other Monarchical institution, was never explained and it has been presumed that it was related to their decision not to prohibit the actions of the "Order of Saint Lazarus" which established itself in Spain in the 1930's.

ORDER OF SANTIAGO

ORDER OF CALATRAVA

ORDER OF ALCANTARA

ORDER OF MONTESA



Is the U.S. Military Really Planning to Court-Martial Christian Soldiers Who Proselytize? TheBlaze Explores the Stunning Allegations

May. 8, 2013 2:20pm

Billy Hallowell

Conservative media have claimed that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is urging the Pentagon to court-martial military members who proselytize

MRFF leader Mikey Weinstein, a controversial figure who some allege is anti-evangelical, is rebutting conservatives’ claims

Weinstein targets “dominionists” and fundamentalists who he believes are detrimental to the armed forces; he wants military leaders who push faith on subordinates court-martialed

Military spokesperson denies claims that merely sharing one’s faith will lead to legal ramifications

Over the past two weeks, the allegation that the Pentagon is consulting with a controversial church-state separatist group about religious tolerance guidelines has gone viral. The main claim coming from some conservative outlets and Christian advocates is that the organization in question, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), is advocating for military personnel to be court-martialed for proselytizing.

Conservative critics have long alleged that the MRFF and its president, Mikey Weinsten, have taken virulent stances against evangelical Christians. Past statements coming from the organization’s leader may certainly be viewed as eyebrow-raising and offensive, particularly for those with traditional evangelical views.

As for the issue of proselytizing, Weinstein’s opponents have also charged that the Department of Defense has agreed to comply with his — and the MRFF’s — alleged recommendations. But is this really the case? Are Christians truly being targeted by the Pentagon? TheBlaze investigated these allegations in-depth, consulting with those familiar with the startling accusations.

HOW THE DEBATE UNFOLDED

The most recent debate started when media reports claimed that Weinstein (a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy) and other representatives from his organization held a private meeting with Pentagon officials on April 23. During this closed-door discussion, it was alleged that Weinstein said that U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of both sedition and treason.

 

The MRFF leader was charged by various journalists and bloggers with calling for the military to punish (court-martial) those who overtly pushed their faith on others in the ranks.

“Someone needs to be punished for this. Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior,” Weinstein was quoted as telling one reporter.

 

But when TheBlaze spoke with the MRFF leader, he made some clarifications about his stance that are worth noting. Rather than going after any and all military members who share their faith or proselytize, Weinstein said that he and his group are only concerned with higher-rank officers using their power and position to force personal religious views on subordinates.

There’s an important distinction here. Rather than punishing all members of the military who engage in the act of trying to convert others to Christianity, the organization is urging the military to combat higher-rank officers from exerting pressures on those they command.

Also, the regulation would not only apply to Christians, as any commanding officer inappropriately advocating for any faith or religious perspective would be held to the same standard. Whether it was a Jew, Muslim, Scientologist — the list goes on — Weinstein said that his group’s policy on the separation of church and state is the same.

CLARIFYING WEINSTEIN’S VIEWS ON FAITH IN THE MILITARY

“When you are on duty in uniform in the workplace, a superior should never be trying to push religion on a subordinate,” Weinstein told TheBlaze.

The church-state separatist leader went on to explain that it isn’t an option for officers to tell superiors to “get the hell out” of their faces when they feel uncomfortable. And because these individuals cannot adequately defend themselves when commanding officers exert force on the religious front, Weinstein said that the MRFF does the job for them by getting involved and defending their interests.

A description on the group’s web site reads, “The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Weinstein believes that infractions continue to show that these protections simply are not in place in the military.

“They are being dehumanized, they are being kicked to the curb humiliated, they are being told they have no dignity or worth because they are not quote ‘Christian enough,’” Weinstein said of the alleged religious abuses against members of the armed forces whom he represents.

In addition to expressing his disdain for seemingly inaccurate news coverage surrounding his group’s policy on proselyting (PolitiFact has ruled the claim that the Pentagon will court-martial Christian soldiers “mostly false”), he decried labels that have been applied to him and the MRFF — mainly that he is a leftist and an extremist and that the organization is atheistic in nature.

Of his own faith views, Weinstein described himself as an agnostic, but noted that the vast majority of his group’s members and clients (more than 33,000) are Protestant or Roman Catholic. Additionally, he described himself as a Republican and said that the MRFF’s “biggest donors are very conservative Republicans.”

(What do you think about faith in the military? Take the poll at the bottom of this article)

“I don’t care if you believe in Spiderman. What we care about is that you have the right to … celebrate gloriously and comprehensively any religious faith that you want, including no faith,” he said of his views on faith in the U.S. military. “But not one particular faith can become an alloy with inextricably intertwined to engage the machinery of the state the — awesome financial power house and prestige of the United States of America, particularly the Department of Defense.”

The MRFF leader maintains that he and his group have been misrepresented in media and he told TheBlaze that the outlets that are purportedly guilty may be taken to court.

“My response to them is simply: Tell it to the judge. I’m going to see you in court,” he said, noting that he is reviewing legal options to determine the best path forward.

CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING WEINSTEIN AND THE MRFF

Despite potentially being partially misrepresented in this particular instance, there’s no doubt that Weinstein is controversial. His tactics are seen by many advocates as abrasive and some charge that he and the MRFF have a particular bias against faith — and Christianity more specifically.

Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative group devoted to freedom and liberty, provided comments to TheBlaze about his perspective on Weinstein and the MRFF.

“He and his organization have a troubling track record of bringing baseless lawsuits that embrace the kind of intolerance that our U.S. military should reject,” Sekulow said. “Mikey Weinstein has a long track record of using pejorative language to describe Christians – including words and phrases like ‘monsters,’ ‘pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers,’ ‘bigots,’ ‘stuck pigs,” “evil,” “hate groups,” and “die-hard enemies of the Constitution.”

Sekulow went on to say that he believes Weinstein is on a smear campaign that is aimed at both Christians and other religions, alike. These statements are very clearly the exact opposite of what the MFRR leader has said about his views and aim. Weinstein’s perception is that he is protecting free speech and the religious rights of those in the ranks. But Sekulow obviously disagrees.

“While he claims to be in pursuit of religious tolerance, he readily defames those who disagree with him and accuses them of all manner of evil activities,” the ACLJ executive director said. “In truth, Mr. Weinstein’s disagreement is with the beliefs held by those he targets, beliefs that he frequently misunderstands and misstates and beliefs he periodically mocks.”

There’s no doubt that Weinstein has made some contentious statements. Just consider his HuffPo blog entry last month that took aim at “fundamentalist Christian monsters.” Here’s just a sample from that article, showcasing the heavy-handedness Weinstein sometimes uses in addressing his grievances with subsets of the Religious Right:

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how “Papa’s got a brand new bag.”

What’s Papa’s new tactic? You’re gonna just love this! These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C’mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? It would be like the utter folly of 1960′s-era southern bigots howling like stuck pigs in protest that Rosa Parks’ civil rights activism is “abusing” them by destroying and disenfranchising their rights to sit in the front seat of buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.

In his interview with TheBlaze, Weinstein, somewhat more subdued than the tone present in the aforementioned text, took aim at evangelicals who embrace what he calls “dominionism.” He made some distinctions that he claims have not been adequately reported in media.

“I thought that every fundamentalist or dominionist by necessity is an evangelical but … not the other way around. Not every evangelical is a fundamentalist or dominionist,” Weinstein said, noting that these latter groups don’t see the need to comply with church-state separatist rules, as they seek to share their faith regardless of appropriateness. “The only Christians that we fight are the fundamentalists or dominionists.”

In 2011, TheBlaze covered this issue of purported fundamentalism in detail, highlighting an article that the Daily Beast’s Michelle Goldberg wrote at the time, tying both Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry to the supposedly “fringe” Evangelical movement seeking world domination. In describing “dominionism,” Goldberg wrote:

Put simply, Dominionism means that Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions. Originating among some of America’s most radical theocrats, it’s long had an influence on religious-right education and political organizing. But because it seems so outré, getting ordinary people to take it seriously can be difficult. Most writers, myself included, who explore it have been called paranoid.

Clearly, Weinstein believes that not every Christian is a dominionist, as he told TheBlaze. But the issue of dominionism, itself, is considered to be over-the-top even by the most fervent of Christians. And even individuals who would potentially qualify under this designation wouldn’t define themselves in this manner. With world domination far from the central goals in the minds of most believers, the concept — especially as highlighted by Goldberg — seems a bit inflated.

In Weinstein’s case, it appears that the issue, when boiled down, is more simply about the scenarios in which faith-sharing may be appropriate and inappropriate, for that matter. Thus, the MRFF head attempted to affirm the difference between evangelicals who believe in proselytizing, but who acknowledge that there is a time and a place — and those who share their faith in a no-holds-barred fashion.

“Evangelicals are our friends,” he said, noting that he regrets the title of his 2008 book, “With God on Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military.” Rather than targeting all Christians, Weinstein seems to want to bring non-fundamentalists into his camp (although there is obvious debate surrounding what this means, exactly).

EXAMPLES THAT WARRANT COURT-MARTIALING

Now, let’s circle back to the issue of court-martialing. What, exactly, would count as an infraction in the MRFF’s eyes? To illustrate his point, Weinstein shared a few examples. First, he described a scenario in which troops go to Iraq and their platoon sergeant tells everyone to get down on their knees and to pray to Jesus Christ. In this case, he said he would want the platoon leader court-martialed, as he is overtly telling those beneath him to pray in a specific way, to a specific God.

But on the flip side, if the sergeant told troops that they were heading into a dangerous area and that they can take a moment to themselves if they want, such sentiment would be permissible. In this latter example, the platoon leader would tell them, “I’m going to kneel over here and anybody who wants to be with me — that’s fine. Whatever else you want to do is also fine.”

 

In this case, Weinstein said that he wouldn’t have an issue with the leader’s actions, as officers were given a choice and were not told by a commander to get down on their knees and pray to a specific deity. All too often, though, MRFF claims to find itself fighting battles that follow the blueprint of the former scenario, Weinstein contends.

Last month, the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn shared some of the recent battles that the MRFF has engaged in:

The most recent outrage, he said, was reported by a West Point cadet who wrote to Weinstein to say that after the Boston bombings, an active-duty instructor said in class that he would “bet his life on the Muslims having been behind it like they always are. It’s always the Muslims and everyone knows it, and everybody is afraid to say it. Well, I am not.”

That’s just one or many complaints.

- Recently, an Army commander in Europe overturned a jury’s conviction of an officer for sexual assault, despite the fact that the decision was unanimous.

- So called “Jesus rifles,” with gun sights inscribed with Bible quotations, were used in battle by troops. The MRFF fought successfully to have the New Testament passages removed.

- Last year, Marine officers at a U.S. base changed the name of their fighter attack squadron from “Werewolves” to “Crusaders,” with a cross and shield as an insignia. MRFF fought the change after receiving many complaints from Marines. MRFF won, and the squadron is back to Werewolves.

- A chaplain in Afghanistan recently was the target of complaint for sermonizing to troops, including Afghan soldiers, that they had approximately 2,000 days to live and needed to “get right with Jesus.”

- Weinstein even got the military to force an officer to remove an atheist bumper sticker from his car. An evangelical Christian complained about the sticker, which bore a drawing of Satan and a Christian fish.

While some may agree that these are egregious violations, others will likely see these grievances as over-the-top. A car, for instance, is a personal item and, thus, the notion that a commanding officer would need to censor himself may seem overboard to some religious freedom advocates. Needless to say, there is legitimate debate surrounding how various infractions should be handled — and where MFRR stands on these scenarios.

IS THE MILITARY REALLY PLANNING TO COURT-MARTIAL CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS?

As stated, debate surrounding proselytizing began after news reports starting making the claim that the military is on the prowl to crackdown on religious freedom. Grove City psychology professor Warren Throckmorton, a conservative, has accused right-of-center reporters of leaving out some key portions of Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen’s response to recent questions about faith in the military — curiosities that emerged in the wake of reports that Weinstein met with the Pentagon.

While Christensen was quoted in outlets as saying that “religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense,” Throckmorton claims that these comments were taken out of context or, at the least, not provided in a clear manner. In a blog post highlighting what he believes to be some key pieces of information that were left out of coverage, the professor shared the Pentagon spokesperson’s entire statement on proselytizing in the military:

“The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. The Department does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services.

Court martials and non-judicial punishment are decided on case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases.

However, religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.”

There’s quite a bit to unpack here. It is true that the statement does not explicitly identify what “proselytization” means, as its precise meaning and the ramifications for engaging in the act are not outlined in the brief release. That said, there is no indication that, based on the available information, military officers would be court-martialed simply for sharing their Christian beliefs.

It’s clear that additional questions need to be asked to clarify these details, but select outlets’ contention that officers would be punished so harshly simply do not seem to be embedded in this particular statement on the matter. But, again, there may be a few pieces of information that are important to consider on the part of religious liberty critics.

As PolitiFact notes, regulations cracking down on proselytizing are potentially problematic from a theological point of view. The fact-checking outfit writes, “Still, there’s a sliver of truth — if you believe your Christian faith compels you to try to convert others in a way people find harassing, it’s possible you could face court-martial, though such a thing has yet to happen.”

In an e-mail exchange, Throckmorton was able to obtain additional information from Christensen about the parameters surrounding faith in the military. Aside from claiming that the Department of Defense would never single out a particular faith, the spokesperson said that diversity is a respected element in the armed forces. As for the proselytizing, he attempted to clarify.

“Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” he explained. “If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.”

Here, again, Christensen did not say that officers would be court-martialed simply for sharing their faith and he noted that the ramifications for religious harassment would be explored based on the level of the offense. He concluded his release by affirming that service members are free to express their beliefs and practice their religion.

“We work to ensure that all service members are free to exercise their Constitutional right to practice their religion — in a manner that is respectful of other individuals’ rights to follow their own belief systems,” he said. “And in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission.”

DID WEINSTEIN GO ON A QUEST TO STOP ANY AND ALL PROSELYTIZING?

Now, let’s circle back. Weinstein claims that his organization isn’t concerned with proselytizing between officers of the same rank. In his interview with TheBlaze, he made it clear that his contention was the use of power to hamper individuals’ religious beliefs and to belittle those subordinates with whom commanders theologically disagree.

One of the other claims, though, that has circulated in media is that the church-state separatist leader has a special role at the Pentagon — one in which he consults the government on matters of faith. In another statement shared with Throckmorton, Christensen flatly denied these claims; in an interview with TheBlaze, Weinstein simply said he had a meeting at the Pentagon about religious liberty.

“Mr. Weinstein is not part of any DoD Advisory Group or Committee, nor is he a consultant to the Defense Department regarding religious matters,” the spokesperson said. “Mr. Weinstein requested, and was granted, a meeting at the Pentagon April 23, with the Air Force Judge Advocate General and others, to include the Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to express his concerns of religious issues in the military.”

 

Another element that has driven debate is a director that the Air Force put out last year. Dated Aug. 7, 2012, Air Force Instruction 1-1 is a cultural document that highlights the handling of faith and religion in this particular branch of the military. As Throckmorton notes, it reads, in part (these policies are more specific and are reflective of Weinstin’s views):

2.11. Government Neutrality Regarding Religion. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion. Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartiality and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Airmen, especially commanders and supervisors, must ensure that in exercising their right of religious free expression, they do not degrade morale, good order, and discipline in the Air Force or degrade the trust and confidence that the public has in the United States Air Force.

2.12. Free Exercise of Religion and Religious Accommodation. Supporting the right of free exercise of religion relates directly to the Air Force core values and the ability to maintain an effective team.

2.12.1. All Airmen are able to choose to practice their particular religion, or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own.

2.12.2. Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not excuse you from complying with directives, instructions, and lawful orders; however, you may request religious accommodation. Requests can be denied based on military necessity. Commanders and supervisors at all levels are expected to ensure that requests for religious accommodation are dealt with fairly.

Again, these regulations are only pertinent for the Air Force and they can be read in their entirety here. Throckmorton also points to Department of Defense provisions and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) directive that discuss proselytizing — regulations that were put on the record well before the latest debate was sparked over Weinstein and his alleged involvement in faith and the military.

It’s clear that the government had regulations against forceful proselytizing well before President Barack Obama came into office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) directive 915.003 provides these parameters — regulations that the military adopted for soldiers as well. Dated July 22, 2008 (President George W. Bush was still in office), the EEOC provisions provide intriguing statements on faith-sharing:

Some employees may seek to display religious icons or messages at their work stations. Others may seek to proselytize by engaging in one-on-one discussions regarding religious beliefs, distributing literature, or using a particular religious phrase when greeting others. Still others may seek to engage in prayer at their work stations or to use other areas of the workplace for either individual or group prayer or study. In some of these situations, an employee might request accommodation in advance to permit such religious expression. In other situations, the employer will not learn of the situation or be called upon to consider any action unless it receives complaints about the religious expression from either other employees or customers. As noted in §§ II-A-3 and III-C of this document, prayer, proselytizing, and other forms of religious expression do not solely raise the issue of religious accommodation, but may also raise disparate treatment or harassment issues.

To determine whether allowing or continuing to permit an employee to pray, proselytize, or engage in other forms of religiously oriented expression in the workplace would pose an undue hardship, employers should consider the potential disruption, if any, that will be posed by permitting this expression of religious belief. As explained below, relevant considerations may include the effect such expression has had, or can reasonably be expected to have, if permitted to continue, on co-workers, customers, or business operations.

These can be read in their entirety here. As stated, a directive put into place by the Department of Defense in Feb. 2009 affords military officers the same protections and regulations on the religious front as civilians have enjoyed under EEOC regulations.

THE VERDICT

While it is important for the faith community to continue fighting to ensure that soldiers’ religious rights are kept in tact, it seems some stories, as reported in numerous conservative outlets of late, did not portray all of the elements involved in this complicated case.

Weinstein was not the catalyst, it seems, for the proselytizing regulations embraced by the military (although some might argue that he did play a role in solidifying the Air Force language shared in this article; he would likely maintain, though, that the wording simply reinforces the sentiment that the Department of Defense already embraces). That said, there are legitimate questions surrounding both his tactics and handling of religious themes.

As far as the U.S. military goes, it is not explicitly targeting Christians with its policies, as regulations apply to all faiths equally. That said, the Christian population in the armed forces is massive in size and scope and, as a result, because they are part of the majority religious culture, it is likely that believers will encounter the most push-back if and when complaints surrounding proselytizing are waged.

In an interview with TheBlaze, Throckmorton, who did a plethora of research on these issues in recent weeks, explained that there is a real danger in misreporting on the Pentagon’s handling of religious freedom. While he said that it is entirely possible that there are problematic issues in the military concerning religion being stripped out of the ranks, the most recent reports — which he called inaccurate — “obscure” potentially important issues.

“When you report something and spread it out to your audience — which is fairly substantial — what you’ve done is you’ve made your audience ill-prepared to defend their liberties,” the professor charged. “They’re spreading incorrect information, which gives an advantage to those who would be perhaps more zealous to restrict religious liberty. It never helps your cause when you go too far with the tendentious reporting.”

Downfall coming through coalition of Islamists and Marxists?

'If we're going to get a grip on this, we have to know their narrative and understand it'

byAnita Crane

A noted specialist on Islamic law and ideology from the Center for Security Policy, who has been cited as an expert for the Pentagon, says a coalition of Islamists and Marxists is working to destroy the United States.
The comments come from Stephen Coughlin, a lecturer for leading Department of Defense institutions such as the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico and for the FBI. Coughlin is a retired major in the U.S. Army reserves and was assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty
His assignments included the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel and the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so he has the credentials required for such assessments.
He recently addressed the Northern Virginia Chapter of ACT! for America, where he quoted terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who said, “Only a coalition of Islamists and Marxists can destroy the United States.” Thus, Coughlin said, “If we’re going to get a grip on this, we have to know their narrative and understand it. We know that when the other side has language that’s locked into doctrine, we need to hold them to it.”
He said, too, that the “lone wolf” jihadists can inflict damage.
He cited the case of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, killed during a confrontation with police.
Tsarnaev reportedly sent a text message to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaev, saying he was “ready to die for Islam.” ABC News Radio reported that his surviving brother and fellow suspect told investigators both “were ready to die.” According to The Christian Post, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicated that his older brother hated America and Christianity, especially for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Al-Qaida is one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s many branches and it preaches that individual Muslims should act as lone jihadists, lone terrorists. Therefore, after the bombings in Boston, after the two Muslim Tsarnaev brothers were named as the primary suspects, Coughlin made in-depth video on the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative on this subject.
In it, he says, “A couple years ago, in June 2010, I was asked to brief a couple members of Congress about what this concept of the ‘lone wolf’ was. It’s the first time I brought the fact that what the FBI and DHS call ‘lone wolf’ is actually a formal part of jihad.”
In the video, Coughlin also highlights the cold calculation of al-Qaida’s leaders telling their followers who to murder and where to murder them.
And there are some surprising details. For example, he said, al-Qaida urges against killing Jews in their synagogues. Coughlin believes that’s because it’s bad publicity that damages the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive “interfaith” dialogues with Christians and Jews.
He quotes an article from the al-Qaida magazine “Inspire,” which says: “The confrontation with America is fundamental, while the confrontation with Europe is secondary, aimed at making Europe lead the alliance by putting pressure on her.”
His presentation follows:

The U.S. government has known of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of defeating the U.S. since 2004, when federal investigators raided a terrorist’s home in Virginia and found, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”
That was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council.
The FBI’s discovery of the memo led to the 2008 federal trial entitled the United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation, through which the federal government shut down HLF for sending millions of dollars to the terrorist group HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
In the memo, Akram addresses his fellow Muslim Brotherhood members with various titles, including the organization’s official name: the Islamic Movement, the Movement and Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Arabic.
Akram wrote: “In order for Islam and its Movement to become ‘a part of the homeland’ in which it lives, ‘stable’ in its land, ‘rooted’ in the spirits and minds of its people, ‘enabled’ in the [life] of its society and [have] firmly-established ‘organizations’ on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain ‘the keys’ and the tools of this process [to] carry out this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country. …
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes…”
The 1991 memo lists 29 of the Muslim Brotherhood’s public organizations working to conquer the U.S. and North America. Subsequently, other front groups were established, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Coughlin pointed to Tariq Ramadan as a protégé of “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky. He is the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Sheikh Hassan Ahmed Abdel Rahman Muhammed al-Banna.
Among his many occupations, Ramadan is a professor at Oxford University, where he concentrates on “Islamic revival in the world and Muslims of the West.” He’s president of the European Muslim Network, and Ramadan is widely published and widely received as a charismatic speaker of English, French and Arabic.

Coughlin said Ramadan wasn’t allowed in the United States because he was on the terrorist watch list, but last July 27 he went to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Circle of North America fundraiser in Dallas, Texas, and said, “We should all be very careful not to be colonized by something which is coming from the consumerist society. It should be us with our understanding of Islam, colonizing positively the United States of America.”
“It’s very important to hear the Alinskyist narrative,” said Coughlin. “What do they do? How many times do you hear them talk about core values? Part of Alinskyism is to take core, hallowed terms, both in the sacred governmental space of our Constitution and religiously because they are just as virulent and powerful in the interfaith community. Take core ideas, use them but redefine them.”
Apart from Coughlin’s lectures, WND columnists have written about Alinsky developing the strategy of infiltrating government through “community organizers,” and the fact that some of his most successful students are former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama.
WND also covers the Islamist infiltration of our government and school systems.
Ironically, some 10 hours before the bombings in Boston, Coughlin’s CSP colleague Clare Lopez, a former CIA staffer, released, “History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government.”
In the report, Lopez shows how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated presidential administrations from Bill Clinton to Obama. For example, Bill and Hillary Clinton welcomed Muslim Brotherhood operatives, including Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was convicted during the Bush administration in 2004 for financing terrorism.
Lopez also reveals that Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide Huma Abedin, wife of the leftist philandering former Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., also is rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez further shows how Muslim Brotherhood officials infiltrated President George W. Bush’s administration, and how they influenced his speeches on Islam as a religion of peace, plus his policies.
Both Lopez and Coughlin point to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is the Islamist version of the United Nations. Lopez says: “Another senior affiliate, Rashad Hussain, is the Obama administration’s envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Hussain’s background is replete with Muslim Brotherhood associations… In his official capacity, Hussain is responsible for providing advice on national security and Muslim outreach. He assisted in writing the president’s June 2009 Cairo speech, in which Obama announced a new approach to the Muslim world and essentially declared war on his host, then-President Hosni Mubarak, by publicly signaling his recognition of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Hussain also acts as point man for the Obama administration’s cooperation with the Istanbul Process, the OIC effort to criminalize internationally any criticism of Islam. The current administration’s weeks-long duplicity in the aftermath of the 11 September 2012 terror attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, when it repeatedly and mendaciously claimed that an internet video trailer sparked a protest there that got out of hand, appears to have been carefully scripted not just with the OIC but Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S., as well.”
As one FBI official anonymously told WND, he saw the “scrub” of Muslim words from his agency’s lexicon take place in 2007.
The most obvious victory for the Islamist/Marxist coalition is Clinton’s and Obama’s reaction to the murders of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans by Islamists at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
Months prior to the 9/11 anniversary, Stevens expected terrorism on that anniversary and he asked for help. Stevens alerted State Department officials when he was under attack but no military assistance was sent.
After the murders in Libya and more Islamist attacks on other American embassies on 9/11, Obama and Clinton apologized to Muslims for an obscure video on YouTube that portrays Mohammad in unflattering terms, even though the video had nothing to do with the reasons for the attacks.
Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, allowed protesters to mob, threaten and vandalize the embassy there. And, according to Islam expert Robert R. Reilly,Morsi was recruited to the Muslim Brotherhood while he was a doctoral engineering student at the University of Southern California.
The Islamists and Marxists built their coalition with the common agenda of killing both Christianity and Judiaism. It’s an odd coalition because Marxists despise God and religion, while Islamists intend to impose their religion on everyone.
But the evidence is mounting. On April 4, the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services USA and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty together announced they had uncovered a U.S. Army Reserve “Equal Opportunity” training brief that identifies “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” as examples of “religious extremism” along with al-Qaida, HAMAS and the Ku Klux Klan.
A slide from that training brief and its corresponding script reveals that in addition to grouping Catholics and Evangelical Christians with real terrorists, the Army Reserve added Islamist/Marxist propaganda by classifying “Islamophobia” as extremism.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Organizing Your Community for Disaster Preparedness

Many people work on emergency preparedness in their own homes—having freeze-dried food, water storage, and emergency supplies. Some people put together entire disaster preparedness kits and plans, which is all fine and well. Nevertheless, suppose a person is well prepared in their own home, but their neighbors aren’t. On whose door will those unprepared neighbors be knocking for help? Hmm… let’s guess.
When that disaster does strike, whether it’s a tornado, flood, earthquake, or fire, this is the time to come together as a community. The word needs to be spread that a storm is coming, streets need to be sandbagged, a fire needs to be put out, or debris needs to be cleaned up – this is when we need each other as a neighborhood, especially when communication is down.
So, how do we get our community involved in disaster preparedness?

• Spread the word- Organize your own home for a disaster, have a family emergency plan, and then spread the word to neighbors, friends, and family. County/city meetings, community events, church gatherings, and recreational activities are great opportunities to educate others on disaster awareness. Community organizations, like Citizen Corps Councils, are available nationwide and help develop community emergency plans that include outreach, education, and emergency training. Like many other community groups, Citizen Corps Councils encourages volunteerism and offers aid during an actual disaster.
• Practice the plan- Have mock disaster drills to ensure that each community member knows where to go, who to look for, and what to do when a natural disaster strikes.
• Set goals- Once part of a community group, be sure to set preparedness goals. Our communities should be able to survive for three days on their own and have the necessary evacuation and shelter plans to do so. Set goals for each time you meet. For example, set a goal that everyone will bring five food storage recipes to the next meeting. Then next week, exchange information and set a new goal like assembling a 72-hour kit. You could even assemble the kits at your meeting or try out some of the recipes that were suggested.

In addition to our neighborhood, our workplaces should also be prepared, trained, and ready. We can encourage our employers to take steps toward preparing emergency essentials the same way we do with our community. The more our neighbors are prepared, the more we are prepared.

Radical Cleric Swears to 'Pop America's Eye' if Moderate Morsi Threatened

by Raymond Ibrahim
Special to IPT NewsMay 7, 2013

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4008/radical-cleric-swears-to-pop-america-eye-if

American Middle East analysts often claim that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate organization, nothing like the more radical Salafis. If true, what do we make of the fact that the most intolerant, anti-American, hate-filled Salafis and jihadis also happen to be the greatest and staunchest supporters of Morsi? Doesn't such unequivocal support indicate shared ideologies and goals?
Consider: A few weeks ago, while discussing the ongoing protests against Egypt's President Muhammad Morsi—himself a leader of the Brotherhood—Sheikh Abdullah Badr, an Al Azhar trained scholar and professor of Islamic exegesis, made the following assertion on live TV:

I swear to Allah, the day those who went out [to protest], and at their head, the [Coptic] Christians—I say this at the top of my voice—the day they think to come near Dr. Morsi, I—we—will pop their eyes out, and the eyes of all those who support them, even America; and America will burn, and all its inhabitants. Be assured, the day Dr. Morsi is touched by any hand whichever, and connected to whomever, by Allah it will be the last day for us. We will neither leave them, nor show them any mercy.

Badr's "radicalism" is well documented. On various occasions he has openly declared on live TV that he hates and is disgusted by Christians, that he will "cut the tongue" of anyone who offends Islam (adding "Let the whole world burn, but Islam not be mocked"), and that those Egyptians protesting against Morsi are "mischief makers" who should be "hung on trees" (a distinct allusion to Islamic crucifixion as prescribed in Koran 5:33). Interestingly, he was recently arrested again, but not for the aforementioned hate-mongering and incitements to kill those against Morsi, but rather for insulting an Egyptian actress on live TV, calling her among other things, a "whore."
At any rate, under Hosni Mubarak, Badr and other intolerant Islamic supremacists were imprisoned. Under Muhammad Morsi, Badr—as well as numerous jihadis who were on death-row for their acts of terror—have been freed.
This, too, speaks volumes concerning the behind-the-scenes relationship between the Brotherhood and jihadis.
Then there is radical cleric Wagdi Ghoneim, who was sentenced to five years under Mubarak and banished from Egypt for his anti-infidel hate-mongering—again, only reportedly to return under Morsi. He too is as radical as they come. For example, after cursing the late Coptic pope to hell and damnation during his funeral, he openly threatened Egypt's Christian minority with genocide. Among other "pledges of loyalty" to Morsi, he has incited Muslims to wage jihad on and even kill anyone protesting against the Muslim Brotherhood president, portraying such Muslims as apostates who want to see Islam wiped out of Egypt.
Salafi sheikhs Badr and Ghoneim are in good company. Months back, any number of radical clerics went out of their way to show their support for Morsi—including by issuing fatwas calling for the deaths of any and all Egyptians who protest against his rule.
Thus Islam's most radical Salafis and jihadis see themselves as defenders of the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood, even as Western analysts and policy makers insist there is a deep divide between the "moderate" Brotherhood on the one hand, and the "radical" Salafis on the other.
Yet the question remains: If Morsi and the Brotherhood are "moderates"—or, as U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper once described them, "largely secular"—why do the most vile "radicals" fully support them? Could it be that the dividing line between them—a line which hopeful or naïve Western policymakers are heavily banking on—is not so stark after all, is not so black and white?
In fact, radical Salafi support for "moderate" Morsi is simply a reflection of the fact that the radicals, the Salafis and jihadis—as opposed to many Western leaders and analysts—understand and fully support the Muslim Brotherhood president's agenda: the establishment of full Sharia law in Egypt.
And, once empowered, Sharia has no black and whites—this they all know.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of the forthcoming book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians. He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.

10 Reasons to Learn Church History (Part 3 of 10)

“Why would twenty-first century Christians—who can read the Bible for themselves and attend Bible-believing churches—need to study Church History?”

3. Learning church history will conserve the faith for the future.
The Lord’s brother, Jude, urged Christians “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Greek verb translated “delivered” refers to a sacred trust or tradition. Paul described this tradition as he handed it down to the Corinthians: “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand. . . . For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:1, 3). Jude used the same language as Paul did for receiving the tradition and sending it forward to the future. In this case the things “received” and “handed down” were the central truths of the Christian faith.
Paul also wrote letters to his younger disciple, Timothy, for the purpose of encouraging the next generation to faithfully convey the core Christian tradition into the future. Paul wrote, “Continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Tim. 3:14). He also said, “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). By observing what our spiritual forefathers fought to preserve and pass on, we come to understand and appreciate the need to continue the pattern established by 2 Timothy 2:2. By looking back, Christians today can learn how to conserve and convey the timeless message through time-tested methods.
Today the Christian church is facing numerous serious crises directly related to their inability to make disciples who are passing the faith on to the next generation. To put it bluntly: Christians today are dropping the baton but still running the race! According to a 2006 Barna Group study, 40 to 50 percent of kids who were “equipped” in church youth groups walk away from the faith or the church in their college years. Study after study shows that evangelicalism itself is shrinking in America. Mega church and multi-site ministries mask the problem, as far too many of those big box churches grow in number by primarily by syphoning believers from elsewhere and systematically weakening smaller churches . . . not by converting the lost or restoring the un-churched. This kind of model of ministry is simply unsustainable. In many respects, American Christians are simply failing to pass the faith on to the next generation. Unless this trend is halted, the disaster could be epic.
The incredible challenges we’re facing today aren’t new. Pluralism, cynicism, paganism, immorality, political corruption, war, persecution, social unrest, atheism, skepticism, and me-theism—the early church thrived in that kind of culture. But today we’re doing all we can to simply survive. As we look back at the history of the church, the pre-modern models and methods of evangelism, catechetical instruction, initiation, and life-long discipleship can help us re-think how we face the current challenges in our increasingly post-modern, post-Christian world. It’s not too late. By learning church history we can rediscover and restore wise and effective ways to conserve the faith for the future.

Stand to for May 6, 2013

Push Back with Prayer

0700 at BJ’s Restaurant

1. Opening Prayer

2. Round the Table Individual Prayers

3. Morning Psalm: 133

4. Breakfast Reading: Ephesians 4:1-16

5. Breakfast is served

6. After Breakfast Voluntary Testimonies

7. Round the Table Individual Prayers

8. Closing Prayer