Now to get the various other Christian denominations to make a reality check and espouse a tough stance; otherwise they are on the road to dhimmitude.

Posted by: epg at August 21, 2005 8:11 AM

the moderator is to be commended for the stance he has made. the more he talks about the lord the better, which is not to say he shouldnt be talking about debt cancellation and the other things mentioned as well.

sadly what he does not seem to have done, and should be doing, is to attack islam

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 21, 2005 8:34 AM

"Lacy also criticised civil liberties campaigners, whom he accused of stressing rights while underplaying the need for individual responsibility.

He added that those who believed it was Christian to "turn the other cheek" to such extremism were misunderstanding the Gospel message and claimed that believers had a duty to "confront evil".

While the interview is not published verbatim it is worth registering with The Scotsman to read the full report (which I quote from above), and not just this editorial comment.

I have posted this piece from the book Son of God by the Revd Angela Tilby (an Anglican priest and tutor) before but it is so pertinent here that I believe it will bear the repetition.

* * * * "Jesus’ teaching on non-violence is so well known that it has become part of everyday language. “Turning the other cheek “or “going the extra mile” (Matthew 5:39-42) have often been seen as examples of extraordinary Christian forbearance in response to others assertive behaviour. This interpretation has been useful to bullies and control freaks. ….
Playwright Dennis Potter, in his play about Jesus “Son of Man” had a scene in which Jesus was struck across the face. Jesus “turned the other cheek” by thrusting the other side of his face towards his assailant, defiance in his eyes, but without the slightest attempt to retaliate. The gesture startled the aggressor, displaying back to him the consequence of violence and making him look rather foolish.

Is this what Jesus meant? One of the scholars who has researched this aspect of the teaching of Jesus is Tom Wright formerly of Oxford University and now a Canon of Westminster Abbey in London. Putting the words of Jesus into context, he shows how Jesus introduces these teachings on retaliation by comparing what he is saying with what had been taught in the past. The law of Moses said an injustice should be avenged, but in proportion “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Deuteronomy 19:21) In it’s time this was sensible and humane teaching…… But Jesus is facing a situation where violence is not between equals. Ultimately the Romans were in charge and expected compliance. This meant that a different strategy was called for. Tom Wright explains that in the first-century world of Jesus a blow given to the right side of the face was given with the back of the hand. It was meant to humiliate as well as hurt. Turning the face was a kind of defiance, since the aggressor would either have to use the left hand to repeat the blow or strike with an open hand. Either way, turning the other cheek was an assertion of equality, a refusal to accept the intended humiliation. The instincts of the dramatist come together with scholarship to suggest a very different understanding of “turning the other cheek” from the traditional meek and mild one. It is not about those who are dominated accepting their punishment, but the exact opposite. It requires them to assert their dignity."

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at August 21, 2005 9:49 AM

Granny,

"Turn the other cheek and go the extra mile" are both positive injuctions for personal conduct. We should always, I believe, endeavor to "return good for evil" in all our personal dealings.

This has nothing to do with issues of war and peace.

Many Christians mistakenly condemn war as immoral on its face and thus they condemn anyone who engages in it as well. But war can also be viewed as a natural process more like an earthquake than a moral act. When tensions build between peoples, something's gotta give. Then, if that is the case, the only thing to do is to manage war to desired conclusion, without a lot of handwringing about morality.

Just a thought,
Rebecca

Posted by: Rebecca JW at August 21, 2005 10:52 AM

Time to put on a Jack Buchanan record and have a wee dram of The Macallan. And then later on, watch "Wee Geordie" or possibly "Tight Little Island." First we get George Gallawi, and then we get David Lacy. Which one do you prefer?

Posted by: Hugh at August 21, 2005 11:23 AM

Here's something to read and recite, in honor of Malcolm Hay, Patrick Geddes, and David Lacy:

http://www.nls.uk/resources/pdf/74414094.pdf

Posted by: Hugh at August 21, 2005 11:43 AM

Has anybody else found the text of Benedict XVI's speech about Muslim and Christian responsibilities for stopping terrorism and averting the new barbarism?

I've found plenty of articles about it, but not the text (in english or german).

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope21aug21,0,7510488.story?coll=la-tot-promo&track=morenews

Posted by: Pangloss at August 21, 2005 1:51 PM

you better watch out for that macallan hugh, otherwise youll be up on your table singing that wee song you posted

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 21, 2005 2:53 PM

Pangloss

you rang for some text, best I could muster.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504764.htm

Benedict XVI is going to defeat militant Islam.

Posted by: breadwinner at August 21, 2005 3:18 PM

Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled;
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led;
Welcome to your Glory Bed,
Or to Glorious Victorie.
Now's the day, and now's the hour;
See the front o' battle lour;
See approach cowardly Mohammed's pow'r.
Chains and slavery!

Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!
Wha for Scotland's King and Law
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand or freeman fa'
Caledonian! Let him on we' me!

By Opression's woes and pains!
By your sons in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the ley jihadis low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow!
Forward! Let us do or dee!
***
We practiced for this round in 1544. I think we got it down to a good system. I'm in anyway.

The Battle of Blar-nan-Leine

http://www.clan-cameron.org/battles/1544.html

Posted by: sonofwalker at August 21, 2005 7:55 PM

The Moderator of the Kirk of Scotland excorciates the radical Islamicists? Why, I almost could not believe my eyes! Sure it wasn't someone from the Wee Frees (Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland) or some other species of conservative dissent? Is the report is accurate, there may yet be hope for the mainstream Protestant churches of Europe.

Posted by: Kepha at August 22, 2005 4:20 PM

The post reminds me of something I heard last Christmas that was absolutely stunning.
A Muslim group somewhere in the Durham, North Carolina area, defining themselves ostentatiously as: "The Muslim Women of the Carolinas" brought suit against the local school board to stop the inclusion of "Christian-related carols" for the annual 'Winter Celebration'. Given the current politically correct, so-called 'multiculturalism' that has defined curricula and policy in public schools all over the nation, one wonders what could possibly be so offensive as to have prompted the suit.
Clearly, there was nothing remotely offensive in some elementary school children singing Christmas carols during the (formerly) Christmas pageant.
What it does belie is an astounding hostility and ingratitude toward a country that allowed these people to start new lives here within the last 20 yrs or less.
Now that they are here, they are simply fulfilling the requirements of their religion, namely, the continuous expression of utter and total contempt for the faiths, customs, and culture of their host country (i.e., infidels)
Americans everywhere, as they will inevitably encounter this dhimmitude, should fight this garbage 'by any means necessary'.

Posted by: sebjoeko at August 24, 2005 11:09 AM