Taliban and Al Qaeda Baffled by US Elections

Taliban and Al Qaeda Baffled by US Elections

Both Taliban and Al Qaeda are very confused whether they should be working towards the defeat of the present US President, Barack Obama by increasing terrorist activities. These radical groups are not sure if their acts of terror will work in their interest. Various radical groups like AQAP, Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, NeoTaliban from Afghanistan and Tehrik-e-Taliban of Pakistan have all been very closely watching the activities and processes of the ongoing election campaigns in America.

While they still continue to be against the President, they are very confused if stepping up acts of terrorisms in regions of Iraq-Syria-Libya and Af-Pak will work in their interest. There is a very high degree of anger against the US President amongst these organizations.

This anger is certainly not baseless as after coming to the office, President Obama drastically intensified the drone strikes that were directed against Taliban and Al Qaeda in the areas of Waziristan; not to mention the covert operation on May 1st and 2nd 2011 at Abbottabad, which led to the killing of the most wanted, Osama Bin Laden.

The list just starts here as Obama also orchestrated the encounter of Abu Yahya al-Libi who was the leading religious preacher of Al Qaeda and was a religious cleric from Libya. He was killed on 4th June during one of the drone strikes in Waziristan. In September 2011, Obama administered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was originally from Yemeni but was an American citizen. Awlaki was also Amir of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula and was killed in one of the drone strikes in Yemen.

The latest reason of the growing hatred was US not taking any step against the makers of a film, which was anti-Islamic. This also resulted in a series of demonstrations across different Muslim nations around the world, some of which also turned violent eventually.

Two of the recent messages from Al Qaeda clearly showed the intensity of hatred the radical group has against Obama. A message by Ayman al-Zawahiri, which was in the form of a video clip, was released on 10th Sep 2012. Zawahiri is also the Amir of the terrorist organization. The video described the President as a liar who was only elected so that he could “trick” Muslims through out the world. The video also says that Obama might have done so much against Muslims but he is eventually getting cornered in Afghanistan.

Above all these hatreds, these organizations are most careful right now to not change the minds of anti-Obama voters in US as that could in turn work in Obama’s favour.

Did U.S.A Have a Christian Founding?

Did U.S.A Have a Christian Founding?

Did America have a Christian Founding? Two popular answers to this query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both distort the Founders’ views. There is in fact a great deal of evidence that America’s Founders were influenced by Christian ideas, and there are many ways in which the Founders’ views might inform contemporary political and legal controversies.

Two Common but Mistaken Answers

According to those who answer “Of course not!” America’s Founders were guided by secular ideas and self, class, or state interests. These scholars do not deny that the Founders were religious, but they contend that they were mostly deists—i.e., persons who reject many Christian doctrines and who think God does not interfere in the affairs of men and nations.

For instance, historian Frank Lambert writes that “[the] significance of the Enlightenment and Deism for the birth of the American republic, and especially the relationship between church and state within it, can hardly be overstated.” Similarly, University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone avers that “deistic beliefs played a central role in the framing of the American republic” and that the “Founding generation viewed religion, and particularly religion’s relation to government, through an Enlightenment lens that was deeply skeptical of orthodox Christianity.” Virtually identical claims are made by Edwin Gaustad, Steven Waldman, Richard Hughes, Steven Keillor, David Holmes, Brooke Allen, and many others.

In addition to asserting that the Founders were deists, these authors regularly contend that they abandoned their ancestors’ intolerant approach to church–state relations and embraced religious liberty. They often concede that some Founders thought civic authorities should support religion but argue that this is irrelevant as Jefferson’s and Madison’s conviction that there should be a high wall of separation between church and state was written into the Constitution and reinforced by the First Amendment. As we shall see, there are significant problems with this story.

The second answer to this question is offered by popular Christian writers such as Peter Marshall, David Manuel, John Eidsmoe, Tim LaHaye, William J. Federer, David Barton, and Gary DeMar. They contend that not only did America have a Christian Founding, but virtually all of the Founders were devout, orthodox Christians who consciously drew from their religious convictions to answer most political questions.

To support their case, these writers are fond of finding religious quotations from the Founders. The rule seems to be that if a Founder utters anything religious, at any time in his life, he counts as an orthodox or even evangelical Christian Founder. Using this methodology, Tim LaHaye concludes, for instance, that John Adams was “deeply committed to Jesus Christ and the use of Biblical principles in governing the nation,” and George Washington, if he was alive today, “would freely associate with the Bible-believing branch of evangelical Christianity that is having such a positive influence upon our nation.”[2] This approach leads to similarly bad history.

Proof Christianity is True

Proof Christianity is True

Here is the basic argument:

“Truth about reality is knowable”

(1) Truth about reality is knowable.

It will be argued here that (1) the correspondence view of truth is the only correct view of truth, (2) that truth is absolute, and that all other views are self-defeating, and therefore cannot be correct, and (3) that truth about reality is knowable.

The Correspondence View of Truth

Truth is what corresponds to its referent. Truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are. All non-correspondence views of truth imply correspondence, even as they attempt to deny it. The claim: “Truth does not correspond with what is” implies that this view corresponds to reality. Then the non-correspondence view cannot express itself without using a correspondence frame of reference.

The Absolute Nature of Truth

All truth is absolute. There are no relative truths. For if something is really true, it is really true for everyone everywhere, and for all time. The statement 7 + 3 = 10 is not just true for mathematics majors, nor is it true only in a mathematics classroom. It is true for everyone, everywhere.

Relativism is Self-Defeating

The claim that truth is relative is an absolute claim. People who say truth is not absolute but relative are saying that the only absolute truth is the statement, “There is no absolute truth.” Or, if somebody says, “It is only relatively true that relativism is true” they suggest that statement might be false for some people (that it might be absolute).

The denial of absolute truth is self-defeating. It claims that relativism is true for everyone, everywhere, and always. But what is true for everyone, everywhere, and always is an absolute truth.

If relativism were true, the world would be full of contradictions. If one person says, “There is milk in the refrigerator”, and the other insists, “there is no milk in the refrigerator”—and they are both right—then there must both be and not be milk in the refrigerator. If relativism were true, I would be right even when I am wrong. It would mean that I could never actually learn anything, either, because learning is moving from a false belief to a true one—that is, from an absolutely false belief to an absolutely true one.