Why Are There No Christian Suicide Bombers?

The Muslim suicide bomber who struck an Iraqi elementary school this week reminded me of the Muslim bomber who literally crashed the wedding party at the Amman, Jordan Radisson Hotel last year.

Both instances struck fear in every person with hope of life and love of children. Weddings are, after all, a celebration of life; a time when grandparents, immediate and extended family, and friends witness a man and woman exchanging pledges of support and fidelity. These pledges, which form a new entity, a new family, also provide the foundation upon which to build a new home for future children. Choosing to destroy a wedding party rather than a business meeting is, therefore, a particularly heinous act.

Car bombings and suicidal attacks are now a daily staple of our news. Rarely will a news cycle end without reference to another attack on civilians in Baghdad. Yet we never hear of a Christian suicide bomber, either here or abroad. Do Christians not love the Lord God Jehovah as much as the Muslim suicide bombers love Allah? Do Christians lack the devotion or courage necessary to take their lives in pursuit of a greater cause? To the secularists who think Christian crusaders and Muslim jihadists are cut from the same cloth, is there a material difference between the two?

The answer, of course, is yes. A Christian kamikaze would truly be a “man bites dog” story. One reason for this truly remarkable difference in religions is their differing concepts of God. To the Muslims, Allah is one, and is powerful, just, and righteous. Although God to Christians has similar attributes, Christians believe there are three Persons in the Godhead – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This difference is significant because Christians believe that even before Creation, God was relational. God the Father loved His Son, who in turn loved His Father and the Holy Spirit. The Three Persons in the Godhead similarly communicated, empathized and were self-giving before Creation. All of these attributes of personality can only be expressed within a relationship, and to Allah, there is no relationship.

Nancy Pearcey, in her book "Total Truth" notes that Christians pray to God as a personal being: They pour their hearts out to Him, as David did, and argue with Him, as Job did. Young Christians learn to sing “What a Friend We Have in Jesus,” and learn how God walked on earth in the form of a human 2000 years ago. Christians believe that a personal Being will respond in a personal way through impromptu supplication and spontaneous prayer.

Muslim worship, in contrast, is very ritualistic. Five times each day, wherever they may be, practicing Muslims turn toward Mecca in worship. Moving through the postures of standing, kneeling, prostrating, sitting, and reciting from the Qur’an, they passionately demonstrate their total submission to the will of Allah. Allah demands obedience from Muslims. Singing “What a Friend We Have in Allah” would be blasphemy.

The difference between Allah, who demands obedience, and God, who gives love, is stark. To some Muslims, Allah demands the sacrifice of their sons. To Christians, God gave His Son as a sacrifice for us. That’s a world of difference.

It's not a Sin to Talk about Sin

Politically incorrect speech apparently does not repulse Florida’s Republican voters. Katherine Harris was chosen as the party’s candidate in spite of (or perhaps because of) her use of a word many (if not most) Americans understand, but one that is particularly offensive to some — the “s - -“ word.

In an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness, U.S. Rep. Harris described herself as a Christian and a supporter of mainstream Republican issues such as protecting marriage (she supports both the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment) and the unborn (since “life begins at conception”). Neither of these positions drew comments from either her primary opponents or the press.

What drew attention were Harris’ comments to the Witness that “if you are not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.”

In reaction to this statement, one of Harris’ now defeated primary opponents urged Harris to drop out of the race and Congress because her comments were “warped, twisted, and disgraceful.” The press cited Jews, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and other Christians who claimed that Harris’ statement sought to exclude holders of other faiths from office, since Harris’ statement implied that non-Christians were less suited to govern than Christians.

Harris’ comments were, of course, directed to a Christian audience (the Florida State Baptist Convention), and she used culturally sensitive language during the interview (few apart from evangelicals would understand the importance of Harris studying in L’Abri under Francis Schaeffer). Moreover, the overriding purpose in the interview was to encourage Christians to participate in the electoral process and vote for candidates who shared their worldview.

The worldview of a politician is vital for a voter to understand. Worldview consists of the principles upon which the aspiring public official guides his or her actions and reactions. Worldview, in other words, is the philosophy that underlies the office seeker’s thought and guides his or her opinions, and therefore decisions, on public policy issues. It is the essence, the bedrock layer, of a person’s views on the major issues of life, and therefore of the world. It is an honest predictor of future decisions, assuming the politician holds firmly to his or her worldview.

The strength or weakness of a voter’s support for the candidate will depend in large part on the candidate’s worldview. In my home state of Illinois, the Republican gubernatorial candidate does not follow Harris’ position on when life begins, and the candidate advocates expansion of gambling into Chicago. These positions signal to me that the Republican candidate disagrees with my view that God made humans in God’s image, and that money is best made by work or return on invested capital rather than by chance. Because my worldview differs from the Republican candidate’s, my enthusiasm for the candidate is soft (I would not campaign door-to-door for her as I have for most Illinois Republican candidates). In fact, I might not vote for any Illinois gubernatorial candidate on Nov. 7.

Katherine Harris’s call for Florida Baptists to elect “tried and true” Christians is a plea for Baptists to discern the worldview of the candidates, and then vote accordingly. Her urging of Baptists to refrain from voting for candidates who will “legislate sin” is a call for orthodox Christians to elect people with a biblical worldview who will adhere to the biblical precepts of dignity for all humans, ordered liberty, individual responsibility, and limited government with dispersed powers.

Not being part of the Christian evangelical culture, Harris’ opponents (both in the primary and the media) missed these meanings. The evangelical Christian voters apparently did not.

As for me, maybe I will be going door-to-door in a warmer climate this November.

Misinterpreting Kelo

"The takeover of one person's property to give it to another person for [economic purposes] is just plain wrong. Economic development should never be considered a public use." (Rep. Thelma Drake, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, July 1, 2005, p. B11.)

Mrs. Drake penned these words when commenting on the case of Kelo v. New London, in which the Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut town's power to condemn private property for economic development. Mrs. Drake forcefully drew the line between a city's proper use of condemnation power (for a school, road, or other "public use"), and a city's improper use of this power (for economic development or another "public purpose," which the Supreme Court has now permitted).

Mrs. Drake claimed to oppose developers who wanted cities to condemn private property for economic development, and warned that "no homeowner is safe from local government seeking to boost revenues in city coffers." It is, therefore, more than a little ironic that the biggest land developer in our nation -- the federal government -- is forcing our local government to condemn private property for solely economic purposes.

Readers of our local newspapers have no doubt as to the motivation of Virginia Beach's city council in considering a request for authority to condemn local private property. The Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission has demanded that Virginia Beach condemn and buy all incompatible buildings in the riskiest accident-potential zones around Oceana. Failure to comply with these demands could result in the Navy moving its jet squadrons to another base. To prevent this departure, the council on December 20 will vote on a plan which would use condemnation as a last resort to buy land zoned for residential use in the accident?potential zone.

The justification for this condemnation authority is solely economic. Virginia Beach will not use the condemned land for schools or roads ("public use"). Rather, this land will simply lie fallow, and will only be used to slow down a crashing pilot. The real reason for the condemnation authority is to keep Virginia Beach's largest employer from relocating.

One could argue that the condemned land would be put to a public use, this being national defense. One could argue that the Navy needs skilled pilots, and these skills can only be retained or enhanced by training, which requires flying, which may lead to crashes. I agree, which leads to my proposed solution.

Although Virginia Beach would condemn the property for a public purpose (continued revenues, something denounced by Mrs. Drake), the federal government would condemn the property for a public use (training of its Navy fighters). Since national defense is a legitimate reason to condemn property, the federal government, and not Virginia Beach, should condemn the property it deems necessary for national defense. Although this will shift the financial burden from Virginia Beach to Washington, where it belongs, I can assure you that the federal government spends money on far less essential matters. Besides, a projected $268 million is "pocket change" for a government that has increased federal spending by 30 percent in the last four years.

How does a Conservative Judge Look?

What distinguishes a conservative judge from a liberal judge? What positions on the law are conservatives looking for in judges nominated by the president? Here are some of them:

Respect for separation of powers. The Founding Fathers made Congress by far the most powerful branch of government, and intended the Supreme Court to be weak in comparison. Members of Congress, of course, are elected by the people, and directly accountable to them. Federal judges, by contrast, are given life-time appointments, are very rarely removed from office, and therefore are not accountable to the people. When Congress makes laws we do not like, we can remove the objectionable members at the next election; we cannot do so to renegade Supreme Court justices who legislate from the bench. A conservative judge does not impose his will over the will of a popularly elected official.

Respect for community vs. rights. We live in a community called the United States, and our laws reflect how we should live in this community. A focus on rights divides the community into separate individuals. Although rights (like the due process rights of criminals) must be respected, they must also be balanced against the needs of the community.

Respect for tradition. Conservatives generally respect history and tradition, the unique elements of our past that set us Americans apart as a people. Conservative judges, similarly, respect the rule of law and the traditions of the American people. A conservative judge, therefore, will differ from a liberal judge on the merits of a case decided last month by the U.S. Supreme Court which found unconstitutional a display of the Ten Commandments, which was one of 11 equally framed displays (the Bill of Rights, the Magna Charta, and the Declaration of Independence were others).

Respect for the U.S. Constitution as written and originally interpreted. Coupled with a respect for tradition, history, and separation of powers, conservative judges respect the intent of the Founding Fathers, who set up a national government with limited powers and a procedure to expand those powers as society changed. Conservatives believe that if the Constitution must be changed to reflect societal change, the proper way to do it is not by an "edict" issued by five members of a Supreme Court unaccountable to the people, but by a supermajority of Congress and then ratification by the supermajority of state legislatures, all of whom are accountable to the people. The Founders wanted a near consensus from both state and federal elected officials before the Constitution could be changed, not a 5-4 decision by judges unaccountable to the people.

Respect for federalism. Conservatives prefer state and local government over the national government, on the premise that different communities have different problems (roads in one community, and crime in another, for example). Similarly, conservative judges are more deferential to state legislators, and more willing to rule unconstitutional federal legislation which imposes additional restrictions on the states.

Respect for national vs. international law. Consistent with a respect for community and tradition, conservatives have greater respect for the precedents of the United States than of foreign lands, since foreigners have different perspectives and traditions than we do.

Respect for ordered liberty vs. equality. Conservatives recognize that individuals have different talents and ambitions, and that the greatest engine for a successful nation is liberty. Conservatives also recognize that to achieve equality, force of some kind is necessary (typically government redistributing wealth). Equality is achieved, in part, through a loss of liberty. Conservatives, however, do not value liberty which permits licentiousness, but rather an ordered liberty which permits freedom in the context of community values. Conservative judges respect these values founded on tradition and history, and will respect them when challenged by claims of individual rights.

For conservatives, the penultimate question to ask every candidate for judicial office is what the candidate will do to protect the ordered liberty for future generations.