Interesting News and Comments!There is one thing we can learn from history is that men never learn from history!
International Press Association (1/17/06)
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
by Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
This is a must-read by all Americans. History will certify its correctness. (George Reppas)
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, and murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany. I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time."
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive."
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice
Submitted on 2006-01-09 11:05:32
Ronald Reagan - 40th President of the United States Of America 1981-1988
"Those who created our country -- the Founding Fathers and Mothers -- understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion."
Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas, August 23, 1984 (Drudge Report, June 7, 2004)
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much. And, Martha Weisend, thank you very much. And I could say that if the morning ended with the music we have just heard from that magnificent choir, it would indeed be a holy day for all of us.
It's wonderful to be here this morning. The past few days have been pretty busy for all of us, but I've wanted to be with you today to share some of my own thoughts.
These past few weeks it seems that we've all been hearing a lot of talk about religion and its role in politics, religion and its place in the political life of the Nation. And I think it's appropriate today, at a prayer breakfast for 17,000 citizens in the State of Texas during a great political convention, that this issue be addressed.
I don't speak as a theologian or a scholar, only as one who's lived a little more than his threescore ten -- which has been a source of annoyance to some -- [laughter] -- and as one who has been active in the political life of the Nation for roughly four decades and now who's served the past 3\1/2\ years in our highest office. I speak, I think I can say, as one who has seen much, who has loved his country, and who's seen it change in many ways.
I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation -- and always has -- and that the church -- and by that I mean all churches, all denominations -- has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.
Those who created our country -- the Founding Fathers and Mothers -- understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form of moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.
The Mayflower Compact began with the words, "In the name of God, amen.'' The Declaration of Independence appeals to "Nature's God'' and the "Creator'' and "the Supreme Judge of the world.'' Congress was given a chaplain, and the oaths of office are oaths before God.
James Madison in the Federalist Papers admitted that in the creation of our Republic he perceived the hand of the Almighty. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, warned that we must never forget the God from whom our blessings flowed.
George Washington referred to religion's profound and unsurpassed place in the heart of our nation quite directly in his Farewell Address in 1796. Seven years earlier, France had erected a government that was intended to be purely secular. This new government would be grounded on reason rather than the law of God. By 1796 the French Revolution had known the Reign of Terror.
And Washington voiced reservations about the idea that there could be a wise policy without a firm moral and religious foundation. He said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man (call himself a patriot) who (would) labour to subvert these . . . finest [firmest]\1\ (FOOTNOTE) props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere Politician . . . (and) the pious man ought to respect and to cherish (religion and morality).'' And he added, ". . . let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.''
(FOOTNOTE) \1\White House correction.
I believe that George Washington knew the City of Man cannot survive without the City of God, that the Visible City will perish without the Invisible City.
Religion played not only a strong role in our national life; it played a positive role. The abolitionist movement was at heart a moral and religious movement; so was the modern civil rights struggle. And throughout this time, the state was tolerant of religious belief, expression, and practice. Society, too, was tolerant.
But in the 1960's this began to change. We began to make great steps toward secularizing our nation and removing religion from its honored place.
In 1962 the Supreme Court in the New York prayer case banned the compulsory saying of prayers. In 1963 the Court banned the reading of the Bible in our public schools. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed voluntary prayer. We even had to pass a law -- we passed a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to schoolrooms after classes that a young Marxist society, for example, would already enjoy with no opposition.
The 1962 decision opened the way to a flood of similar suits.
Once religion had been made vulnerable, a series of assaults were made in one court after another, on one issue after another.
Cases were started to argue against tax-exempt status for churches.
Suits were brought to abolish the words "under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and to remove "In God We Trust'' from public documents and from our currency. And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? [Applause] They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.
If all the children of our country studied together all of the many religions in our country, wouldn't they learn greater tolerance of each other's beliefs? If children prayed together, would they not understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be tolerant at all.
When John Kennedy was running for President in 1960, he said that his church would not dictate his Presidency any more than he would speak for his church. Just so, and proper. But John Kennedy was speaking in an America in which the role of religion -- and by that I mean the role of all churches -- was secure. Abortion was not a political issue. Prayer was not a political issue. The right of church schools to operate was not a political issue. And it was broadly acknowledged that religious leaders had a right and a duty to speak out on the issues of the day. They held a place of respect, and a politician who spoke to or of them with a lack of respect would not long survive in the political arena.
It was acknowledged then that religion held a special place, occupied a special territory in the hearts of the citizenry. The climate has changed greatly since then. And since it has, it logically follows that religion needs defenders against those who care only for the interests of the state.
There are, these days, many questions on which religious leaders are obliged to offer their moral and theological guidance, and such guidance is a good and necessary thing. To know how a church and its members feel on a public issue expands the parameters of debate. It does not narrow the debate; it expands it.
The truth is, politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they're sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.
A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens; the more decent the citizens, the more decent the state. If you practice a religion, whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or guided by some other faith, then your private life will be influenced by a sense of moral obligation, and so, too, will your public life. One affects the other. The churches of America do not exist by the grace of the state; the churches of America are not mere citizens of the state. The churches of America exist apart; they have their own vantage point, their own authority. Religion is its own realm; it makes its own claims.
We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.
I submit to you that the tolerant society is open to and encouraging of all religions. And this does not weaken us; it strengthens us, it makes us strong. You know, if we look back through history to all those great civilizations, those great nations that rose up to even world dominance and then deteriorated, declined, and fell, we find they all had one thing in common. One of the significant forerunners of their fall was their turning away from their God or gods.
Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
If I could just make a personal statement of my own -- in these 3\1/2\ years I have understood and known better than ever before the words of Lincoln, when he said that he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all.
I thank you, thank you for inviting us here today. Thank you for your kindness and your patience. May God keep you, and may we, all of us, keep God.
Note: The President spoke at 9:26 a.m. at Reunion Arena. He was introduced by Martha Weisend, cochair of the Texas Reagan-Bush campaign.
"THE U.S. SUPREME Court's denial of a stay today (8/21/03) will not deter me from continuing to fight for the right of our state to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our law," state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore said in a statement read by his spokesman hours before the midnight Wednesday deadline to remove the monument. Moore's statement, read to reporters outside after the court building closed, said he would ask the U.S. high court "for an appeal on the merits" in the case. "I expect that the court will vindicate the rule of law regarding the acknowledgment of God in our state," it added.
Tom Parker, Moore's spokesman, said Alabama's top judge had "no intention" of removing the monument and that it would be guarded by security personnel.
Today there are those who are fighting to make sure voluntary prayer is not returned to the classrooms. Earlier Wednesday, the nation's highest court turned down Moore's request for a last-minute stay blocking a lower court order to remove the monument. It offered no comment or recorded dissent in its one-line order. Moore, the elected chief justice of Alabama's highest court, has fought since 2001 to keep the biblical display in the state judicial building in Montgomery, Alabama's capital, saying he regards the Commandments as a symbol of the Judeo-Christian foundation of U.S. law. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such indoor and outdoor government displays. In 1980, the court barred Ten Commandments from classroom walls in public schools.
- The following is taken from the book "Messages From The Messenger" which was written in 2001.
- The events concerning the removal the display of "The Ten Commandments" in Alabama's Supreme Court has spurred me to post the following material.
- The very first book to be printed in the United States was The New England Primer, and it was used in our public schools for 200 years thereafter.
- John Quincy Adams was our sixth President, who studied as a boy in the Primer, referred to the "insoluble bond" between Christianity and our form of government.
- The Supreme Court said we must "select and prefer" Christians for our elected rulers (or officials).
- Our forefathers believed that religion and morality could not be divorced from politics.
- The House Judiciary Committee Report (March 27,1854) said of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments that "the universal sentiment (of our founding fathers) was that Christianity should be encouraged."
- Two months later, the House Judiciary Committee Report said: "The great and conservative element in our system ... the thing that holds our system together is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Our forefathers wanted to keep Christian principles in our government.
- Blackstone's Commentaries On Law are Bible based and were used by our Supreme Court for guidance for over 150 years of our nation's history.
- The branches of Government: The Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches, have their roots in the Scripture. (Isaiah 33:2).
- In 1844, The Supreme Court, in Vidal Vs. Girard, affirmed that our public schools will teach that Christianity is our nation's foundation.
- In 1892, the Supreme Court decision in Church Of The Holy Trinity Vs. United States stated that, "We are emphatically a Christian nation."
- From our nation’s birth right up to 1947, our Supreme Court had steadfastly maintained that the intent of our "founding fathers" was for our nation to preserve its Christian principles in order to perpetuate its existence as a nation.
- In 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, totally pulled out of context Thomas Jefferson's reference to a "wall of separation between church and state" in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of January 1, 1802. The letter was to express to the Danbury Baptist Association that there was nothing to fear with respect to the federal government establishing a national church (or a national denomination). The 1947 decision, in essence, declared that we were no longer a Christian nation. Ever since then, the Supreme Court has over and over used this phrase "separation of church and state" to remove Jesus Christ out of our government and out of our public schools.
- The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, decided to strike out against school prayer (June 25,1962). The goal simply was to get God out of our public schools.
- On June 17, 1963, in Abington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, the Supreme Court outlawed Bible reading in the public schools (without regard to any historical or legal precedent). In this decision, "Bible reading" was considered psychologically damaging. Downward we go!
- With Dekalb v. DeSpain (1967) the decision was to not allow the "Ten Commandments" to be posted in the public schools of our land. Children would not get to see "The Ten Commandments" posted on the wall of the school telling them not to lie, cheat or steal! Those "wooly-headed, bleeding-heart, knee-jerking Liberals" saw to that!
- And if that was not enough, in 1980, with "Stone v. Graham", the Supreme Court decided that the word of God could not even be mentioned in a public school. This was a long, long way from our beginnings as a nation.
- The removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court building (in opposition to the wishes of its Chief Justice) makes our divorcement from GOD FINAL . Our laws stand today are in direct opposition to God's moral laws. America's Christian foundation is destroyed! The "insoluble bond" between Christianity and our form of government is now dissolved to our hurt and ruination.