Which Side Really Inspires Violence, the Right or Left?

By Selwyn Duke

Is the right responsible for inspiring murder, such as that of late-term abortionist George Tiller by Kansas native Scott Roeder?  Some certainly seem to think so.  For instance, the Friday before last Bill O’Reilly had as a guest on his show Joan Walsh, the editor of leftist news site Salon.com.  She appeared because she had criticized O’Reilly for engaging in what she called a “jihad” against Tiller.  Her thesis is that O’Reilly and, presumably, the rest of us who are passionately pro-life are culpable Tiller’s death.

Of course, this isn’t a novel idea among the left.  If there is any kind of violent incident perpetrated by someone ostensibly a rightist, they blame their political opponents for stoking the fires of hatred.  You can just count on it every time, be it an attack on an abortion center, a Timothy McVeigh, or . . . or . . . well, actually, there aren’t really all that many, are there?  But don’t bother ideologues with the facts.

Now, Walsh, a woman of mediocre intellect and lacking moral fiber — she has lauded Tiller “the baby killer” as a hero — has been beating this drum hard.  In fact, on June 10 she published a piece titled “Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?” In it, she seems to draw a connection between James von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist who murdered security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns at the Holocaust Museum, and fairly benign commentary about the effects of political correctness.  She wrote:

In a debate with Buchanan [Pat Buchanan] a couple of weeks ago, he told me that what was happening to white men was exactly what happened to black men — he didn't give me any examples of lynching — and that it was open season on white men. Wealthy Sen. Lindsay Graham suggested an average white guy like himself wouldn't get a fair shake from Sotomayor, and now even the new face of the GOP, Michael Steele, has said the same thing. If I were a marginal, unemployed, angry, racist white man right now, I'd be hearing a lot of mainstream conservative support for my point of view. Can that help create a climate for more violence? I don't know. I hope not, but I don't know.

No, Walsh doesn’t know much.  First, von Brunn isn’t a rightist — he is a “whitist.”  In fact, he is quite the opposite of a rightist many ways, as Bob Unruh reports at WorldNetDaily:

The Moonbattery blog revealed von Brunn advocated the socialist policies espoused by Adolf Hitler and used Darwinian theory to support his anti-Semitism.

And in statements that later were stripped from an anti-religion website, he wrote, "The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION … CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES."

This probably would come as such a shock to someone as ill-informed as Walsh that she’d scarcely believe it; it’s just too contrary to her dogma.  Yet I could have guessed it.  Those who have actually studied the history of Nazism and the white supremacist movement know that, from Adolf Hitler in the 1930s to his fellow travelers today, its ranks have always harbored hostility toward Christianity.  The reasons are simple: Whether you view Christianity as merely an outgrowth of Judaism or the fulfillment of it, it is the second part of Judeo-Christian.  Second, like the ancient Romans, the Nazis viewed the faith of “turn the other cheek” (counsel which, mind you, is misunderstood) as an influence that militates against manly virtue.  Lastly, a lie doesn’t find much acquaintance with the Truth.

Instead, white supremacists much prefer ancient Germanic pagan religions and even Islam.  Just consider Hitler, for instance, and his dislike for the heroic Frankish (Germanic) warrior Charles Martel.  What was Martel’s sin?  He halted the Moslem advance into Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D.  Paul Belien addressed this misguided passion of Hitler’s in the Brussels Journal, writing,

“‘Had Charles Martel not been victorious,’ Hitler told his inner crowd in August 1942, ‘then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.’”

The Nazis’ dislike for Christianity was so great that, not surprisingly, they sought to destroy it.  Leftists may scoff at a notion so contrary to their prejudices, but the evidence of this fact is now overwhelming.  And of this evidence, perhaps the most compelling was uncovered by a Jewish attorney named Julie Seltzer Mandel, a woman whose grandmother was a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp.  I addressed her discovery in my piece “Hitler and Christianity,” writing:

While a law student and editor of the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Mandel gained access to 148 bound volumes of rare documents — some marked “Top Secret” — compiled by the Office of Strategic Services (or O.S.S., the WWII forerunner to the CIA).

After scouring the papers, she published the first installment of them in 2002, a 120-page O.S.S. report entitled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches.” Reporting on these O.S.S. findings in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Edward Colimore wrote: “The fragile, typewritten documents from the 1940s lay out the Nazi plan in grim detail: Take over the churches from within, using party sympathizers. Discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders. And re-indoctrinate the congregants. Give them a new faith — in Germany’s Third Reich.” He then quotes Mandel: “A lot of people will say, ‘I didn’t realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.’... They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity.”

To this day nothing has changed.  If you examine the writings of contemporary white supremacists, you will find much hatred for Christianity, affection for paganism and sympathy for Islam. 

Now, I ask you: Which is better characterized by this description, the right or left?  When answering, remember that those euphemistically-named censorship bureaucracies of the left, “human rights commissions,” consistently silence those who dare criticize Islam, most notably Christians.    

Getting back to von Brunn, we can ask a similar question: Given that he hated not only Jews but also George Bush and neocons in general, of whom is he more reminiscent, Newt Gingrich or, maybe, um, Barack Obama’s buddy Reverend Wright?  Bear in mind that Wright’s serpentine tongue won him the spotlight again with that recent explanation we’ve all heard for why he is persona non grata in the White House. To wit: “Them Jews ain’t going to let him [Obama] talk to me.”

Now let’s return to the matter of the impact of words. The Walshes of the world say that many of us rightists are responsible for inciting violence.  In response, many on our side will say that there is only one person responsible for an act of violence, the perpetrator, be he Scott Roeder, von Dunn, Timothy McVeigh or someone else.  As to these theses, the Walsh position is childish and contradictory; the rightist defense is incorrect and contradictory.  Let’s discuss the Truth.

In reality, virtually all of us understand that words can seduce, be they a lover’s syrupy overtures or a hater’s cynical appeals.  This is why Edward Bulwer-Lytton said that “The pen is mightier than the sword.”  We treasure freedom of speech not because words are meaningless, but precisely because they’re powerful.  And we allow it despite and because of words’ potential to inspire, for the pen of virtue remains eternally sharp, while the sword of vice’s edge is always dulled by time.

So while we’re right to deny responsibility for Roeder, it’s not because, as many imply, that such a thing is impossible in principle; it’s just that, in this case, we aren’t responsible in the particular (I’ll address the reason for this in a moment).  And Walsh is right to imply that such things are possible in principle; her childishness lies in her silly implication that only the right is responsible for them in the particular.

Of course, it’s quite reflexive for a person — even a good one — being tarnished by guilt by association to deny the reality of indirect culpability, but the reflexive is seldom beholden to reason  It’s also reflexive for dishonorable people such as Walsh to very cynically seize upon a violent event and use it to tarnish opponents, and, more ominously, to provide a specious justification for Fairness Doctrine-like legislation in the near future and hate-speech laws a bit further down the road.  But whether or not the Walsh set actually believes their rhetoric depends upon the completeness of their detachment from reality.

To understand more deeply the fallacies here, consider the innumerable instances of leftist violence we’ve seen over the years.  Would Moslem convert Carlos Bledsoe have murdered the army recruiter in Arkansas had he not been exposed to the anti-white, anti-Western and anti-Christian rhetoric that prevails in modern America?  Would Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, have perpetrated his acts had he not been weaned on the environmentalist radicalism so prevalent today?  Would all the domestic terrorists who firebombed fur stores and vandalized SUVs and research facilities have done so were it not for this ideological force?  Would Colin Ferguson have targeted whites in the 1993 Long Island Railroad massacre had he not been assailed with anti-white rhetoric from the Reverend Wrights, Jacksons and Sharptons of the world? 

Now, you can take issue with my examples; you can quibble about the particulars.  But many other incidents could be cited, and the details aren’t really the issue.  The point is, would we really deny that the indoctrination people are subjected to influences their thinking?  Are Palestinians born hating Jews?  Do madrassah schoolboys have a gene dictating hatred for the West?  As for Walsh, she may turn a blind eye to the violence authored by her ilk, but an affinity for relativism doesn’t change reality.

Now we come to the crux of the matter: If rightist rhetoric can inspire others to violence just like the leftist variety, what determines culpability?  Well, we must ask the only relevant question about that rhetoric:

Is it the Truth?

Sure, you may warn that a new resident in the neighborhood did time in prison for child molestation, and an angry mob may kill him.  But did you do wrong?  On the other hand, it’s a different matter entirely if harm befalls someone after you wrongly and maliciously label him a child molester. 

Thus, anytime you sound an alarm — whether it contains the ring of Truth or that of lies — it can serve as a call to violent action for some.  But what should we do?  Create a Fahrenheit 451 situation in which ideas are roundly suppressed and people are kept comfortably numb?  No one wants that, and it wouldn’t work anyway. 

At the end of the day, one who speaks the Truth may inspire violence against livers of lies just as one who speaks lies may inspire violence against the tellers of Truth.  But this isn’t the fault of the Truth; it simply means that society needs more of it.

So the moral of this story is that we all can inspire violence with words, but not all of us speak inspired words.  Evil may be done in the name of good or evil, but it is only those who speak the latter who have blood on their hands.  Paging Joan Walsh.

                           © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Shaun]

I cant help but think you are right when you say the people who moan and groan about inciting violence want speech control laws on the books. Freedom of speech allows the citizenship to show others their sinful ways and bring about a stinging rebuke. When people have their sins exposed in the open they generally do not like it and want to silence their critics. As this site and others have shown numerous times before, its never about stopping violence or protecting certian groups of people, its always about silencing the stinging rebuke of truth. As my dad has repeatedly told me: " Freedom of speech can only be freedom of speech when freedom of speech has the right to offend" Im sure he got that line from somewhere else ut it sounds pretty solid to me.

Shaun
UCA

[Walt]

This man being labeled as a "right wing extremist" is yet another attempt by the left to divide America into little stereotypical groups. They want to divide and conquer. We have Black, Whites, Asians, Gays, Hispanics (as they are labeled as to be inclusive of all Latino groups and inspire power within), the poor, the rich, the elderly and on and on. Are all blacks on welfare? Are all whites’ supremacists? Are all Asians near sighted? Are all gay’s pedophiles? Do all Hispanics have velvet Elvis in their living room? Are all poor people lazy? Are all rich people greedy? Do all elderly people wear hats and drive slow? Are all right wingers gonna walk into a museum and shoot people? I think everyone would say the answer to all is no, but the latter stereotype is the most extreme example of media driven perception based upon astronomically isolated incidents.

However, the media will run with this big-time. I wonder if this OLD guy of German dissent (anyone offended) listened to the Savage Nation? I am sure that will come out. I guarantee if it is found out the man suffers from dementia the media will not suggest locking up old folks or infringing upon their rights. Old folks are ACORNS biggest "honey hole." It is a terrible thing that happened. To get to the bottom of it we might interview Bill Ayers. We need to find out what makes a man commit an act of terror on his home soil; Bill has first hand experience with that. The bottom line is bad and crazy people do bad and crazy things. This incident and the blood of the victims will be viciously exploited to infringe on our First and Second amendments; after all he used a gun and was surely inspired by hate speakers. Keep a close eye out on anyone who tries to blame this on anyone but Von Psycho. They are the enemy of freedom.

I think it is about time we made Roe v. Wade a non-issue nationaly. In the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the powers of the Federal government are enumerated and its rights of power are spelled out clearly; ruling on abortion is not one of them. Based upon that guidance, the authority to rule on the legality of feticide belongs to the states alone. When laws are made that do not agree with the people there will always be unrest...especially when it comes to the murder of our dearest gift.

[Ray Hicks]

Selwyn…A word of advice here:
You’ve got to leave this Joan Walsh woman alone. Almost every time I click on your rag, there you are saying something about her. You’re like this kid on the playground trying to get the attention of the cute, freckled-girl in pigtails by punching her on the arm and running away. Look, it isn’t working. If you can’t just forget her…Man-Up….Send some flowers and a dinner invitation and get her out of your system. Personally, I don’t get what you see in her. But, on a different level, I’m both relieved and glad for you.

Your biggest fan…Ray

[Philip France]

Dear Selwyn,

This is to date the mot brilliant piece that you have written that I have read.

Sadly, the Left will percieve such brilliance, such clear-cut logic as sophistry and that is our problem.

Ms. Walsh is not stupid. She is disordered. She CANNOT see veritas. It is a foreign language to her and a concept that is so overwhelming to grasp as advanced chemistry might be to the rest of us.

Let us opine together how we might combat this disease and restore logic and truth to public debate.

[Ray Hicks]

Selwyn...

I won’t presume to get into a debate with you over Scriptures. But, for Pete’s sake; even Christ couldn’t answer the question “What is truth” when the chips were down with Pilate. And you’d think if someone was going to come up with an answer…that would be the time, right?

I know that Christ thought he was the truth. He said so. But, that answers the question “who is the truth” not “what is truth,” if you recognize the distinction. So, how are you able to imply that you know the “Truth” and can apply that to politics; where if there ever was a place that truth never existed it would be there?

I know you don’t buy into to relativism. But, why is your truth…truer than anybody else’s? And you’ve got to admit that plainly, some things are just relative. You feel hot relative to how comfortable you are in the cold. You are poor relative to how wealthy others are. Beauty, especially applied to Joan Walsh, is in the eye of the beholder. You are not the arbitrator of truth Selwyn, any more than anyone else. So, stop it.

Your buddy...Ray

[Ray Hicks]

Phillip,

A couple of questions please; One for real the other rhetorical.

1. Do you work for the State of California?
2. Are you from another century?

Please, don’t take that in a bad way. I like your commentary. Heck, I like Selwyn’s too. He’s a craftsman building a little prison for us, but he’s a good read. I’m surprised he still lets me post on his site, but that’s to his credit, isn’t it? But…both of you guys are too serious for your own good. Things just ain’t that bad. The sun’s gonna rise tomorrow and people are gonna be arguing over the same things; like “veritas” and the price of gasoline at the pump. The trick is realizing that it’s all B.S. and that “veritas” is a spitball that nobody can hit.

Regards…Ray

[Walt]

Mr. Hicks,

I am not speaking for Phil but I will say the answer to your question has a very simple answer to those who seek the answer, but impossible to grasp to those who preface their “journey” with prejudice. The prejudice I speak of is putting the Bible off limits in your quest for the Truth. To those who take the time to actually seek the Truth, the Bible is a great place to start.

The Bible is full of wisdom, handed to mankind far before his ability to comprehend the laws of nature. One particular example is the unlawfulness of eating pork. In that day, I am sure such a mandate from Moses was thought to be silly and legalistic, however through the Israelites fear of, and trust in God they followed the order and stayed away from the tastiest of all creatures. Since then, through mankind’s advancement in science (which was due to retained and passed knowledge) we have found that pork, if not handled very specifically can cause big health issues. Funny enough it was only recently that it was discovered that the human body does not efficiently digest and assimilate nutrition from pork. When it comes down to it even if you handle and cook pork just right it is just not real good for you. God could have simply handed mankind the scientific knowledge to make the reasonable choice on pork, but man was not ready for that knowledge; instead he made it a law. Was this Jew specific law a coincidence? Well I don’t think so; the Bible is choc full of such strange tidbits of wisdom and truth, some we only now see the brilliance of the plan; many more to come I expect.

If you seek the Truth you will find it. The Bible has proven itself to be archeologically accurate, has been verified by other sources historically, and many its Truths are self evident to a learned diligent man. The Christian faith is logical and reasonable (notice I did not say Christians in general). If you are a reader and are looking to find the Truth or even if you wish to prove it does not exist, may I recommend two books. “The Case for Christ” and the “Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel.

I have one guarantee for you Ray; if your life’s mission is to prove the Truth does not exist you will find neither truth nor peace on this earth. You will spend your life swimming in a sea of doubt and anti-logic.

[fairmack]

DAVID LETTERMAN'S HATE, ETC. !

David Letterman's hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
Speaking of anti-Semitism, it's Jerry Falwell and other fundy leaders who've gleefully predicted that in the future EVERY nation will be against Israel (an international first?) and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed, right?
Wrong! It's the ancient Hebrew prophet Zechariah who predicted all this in the 13th and 14th chapters of his book! The last prophet, Malachi, explains the reason for this future Holocaust that'll outdo even Hitler's by stating that "Judah hath dealt treacherously" and "the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this" and asks "Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?"
Haven't evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the recent filthy, hate-filled, back-stabbing tirades by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard and Kathy Griffin) against a leading evangelical named Sarah Palin, and explain why most Jewish leaders have seemingly condoned Palin's continuing "crucifixion"!
While David, Sandra, and Kathy are tragically turning comedy into tragedy, they are also helping to speed up and fulfill the Final Holocaust a la Zechariah and Malachi, thus helping to make the Bible even more believable!
(For even more stunning information, visit MSN and type in "Separation of Raunch and State" and "Bible Verses Obama Avoids.")

(saw above message on the internet)

[Ray Hicks]

Walt...I know you mean well. But, I'm too old a dog for all that. And it would be kind of hypocritical to be reaching for a life preserver just before going over the falls. Beside, I believe in not believing. I mean that in a broad sense. As you, I have few doubts. Religion is not one of them.

Thanks...Ray

[Phiip France]

Dear Mr. Hicks,

May I respectfully request that you slow down and gather your thoughts and express them coherently? You appear to be all over the map and I am not sure which side of any debate you are on. In your most recent post, you say "I believe in not believing" and this is your prerogative by all means. I respect this position.

My dear friend Walt is very close in his assessments. Please permit me to attempt to simplify scripture for you:

John 17:17
Sanctify them with thy truth; thy word is truth.

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In the first quoted verse, Jesus of Nazareth declares that the Word of God is truth. He is correct. There is no other truth. There are facts and datum, which are germane to humanity, but truth is in the eternal sphere of the Almighty. Whether one disagrees is one's own prerogative but this does not change truth. Truth is unerring and eternal. It cannot be argued with nor disagreed with, it can only be rejected. It is indisputable.

In the second quoted verse, Jesus of Nazareth boldly and radically proclaims, "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me".

My friend, the entire Bible; from Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 through Revelation chapter 22, verse 21 is about Jesus of Nazareth. He is God the Creator and Author of Life's only begotten son. God gave him up to be a human sacrifice that fulfilled all Levitical and Old Testament law and sacrifice. He (Jesus) was a man, a human being (and not God in the flesh as many erroneously allege) who obeyed God's word and fulfilled His prophecy with the ultimate sacrifice.

In doing so, he obtained for us our ransom and we are freed from death's bonds and he has become our Lord and Saviour. He has become our access to the throne of God and made possible for us eternal life, rather than the temporal life that we now understand and perceive merely through our five senses.

Furthermore, through the death and subsequent resurrection of our Lord Christ Jesus, we are empowered. We have, through our faith in Jesus Christ and by his name, power over God's enemy: Satan.

Ignore this and ridicule this at your own peril. Embrace this and study this at your own enrichment and engracement.

Chapters 19-22 of the Book of Revelation informs us of how this will all end. In a nut-shell, the good guys win. God prevails and Jesus the Nazarne is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It is not difficult to comprehend. It is truth. Truth is not subjective and is invulnerable to debate. One may only choose to either accept it or reject it.

The difference is eternal life or eternal death. Now sir, which side would you like to be on?

[Dan]

Walt. True that. The bible is full of wisdom. Advises against being a drunkard. Cause lo and behold.....alcohol is bad for you, liver disease, etc. And look here "Thou shalt not commit adultery" If people followed that, STDS would be non existent.

Etc.

[Ray Hicks]

I gotta pick? What was that choice again…eternal life or eternal…Oh, what ever? You know Christianity only accounts for about a third of the world’s religious faithful. Just on that Phillip, you stand a seventy per-cent chance of being wrong.

Sorry it’s hard for you to figure out what side of things I’m on. I know it will come as a complete surprise to you, but it is possible to hold onto two opposing concepts at the same time. (I’ve got a piece on [email protected] that may better illustrate that for you.)

You took some time and a far amount of typing to try to forward your position and I’m grateful for that. But, let me tell you the “my way or the highway” argument doesn’t work on most people. The threat of eternal damnation for an adult is analogous to the “boogeyman’s gonna get ya,” scare tactic on a kid.

Christians, of whom you are plainly one, seem to spend a lot of energy on the after life and what’s going to happen to them after death. I experienced first hand a fair amount of death as a young man and I’m absolutely certain I can assure you what happens after death. It’s simple and easily recognizable…Decomposition.

...Ray

[Ray Hicks]

I am Ray Hicks and I approve of this message.

http://Rayhickslovestohearhimselftalk.com

[Ray Hicks]

Hey try this one you'll like it, I did:

http://RayHicksPorkedYourMother.com

You didn't say if you liked your picture sweetheart...

Ray

[Philip France]

Dear Mr. Hicks,

You have missed my point again(as you have missed several of Selwyn Duke's).

My position and my preaching of the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT, as you allege, "my way or the highway". It is not my way at all.

It is HIS way.

Now, based on your 70% analogy, I am subscribing to the teachings and advice of the world's most ancient text. One that has stood the test of time and, year-after-year (perhaps since its existence), is the world's most overwhelming bestseller.

I will flatter you by mimicking your hayseed-like eptithets: How d'ya like them odds?

[Ray Hicks]

Phillip,

Just because I don’t recognize your “points,” doesn’t really mean I missed em. And you don’t expect me to get all fired up about that “hayseed” quip do you? Anyway, I’m thinking of ending my association with Selwyn Duke for now…Not that this hasn’t been fun. You guys take the bait like a Mississippi catfish. That is, except for that guy who pretends to be me. He takes it…Well, I’m sure you can only imagine.

Your Brother…Ray

[Walt]

Ray,

Don't flatter yourself too much; no bait has been taken here. If you are here as a troll, to waste time of others than so be it. As for myself I guess I just don't like to admit there are lost causes. When you and your "fellow travelers" stop by and spew illogical nonsense I still pause and put in my two cents not because your argument is worthy of debate, to the contrary, because they are so lacking of reason that I hope with my few words perhaps a light may come on. Alas if a man does not know the meaning of numbers how can you expect him to understand math.

If your goal here was to insight anger...you failed. I am not maddened by your drive bys, I am saddened. One last parting note-the guilt you carry living in a country of wealth and order (the US) is not your fault. The US is not the most powerful country in the world because we have taken from others, or because we are oppressive. The other countries that are below our level are there because they do. All men are created equal but all cultures are not. You also mentioned in your last post to me that you were too old too seek the Truth and it would be hypocritical for you to do so the way you have lived your life. I ask you to reconsider...it is never too late and eternity is a long time. If you look at this great big world and have a bit of curiosity towards its origin, please spend a bit of time with an open mind the Biblical perspective. The Biblical order of the world makes perfect sense.

TTFN

[Ray Hicks]

Walt,
You seem to be such a decent guy. It’s hard for me to come at you. (Not that I ever intent to offend.) But, I am a “lost cause.” If you don’t think so now, take a look at the latest postings on my blog…You will. In any case, none of that is directed to you personally. Maybe you shouldn’t look.

…Ray
http://rayhickslovesyou.blogspot.com/

[Missing Ray already]

IT was fun Ray, see ya....

[Philip France]

An interesting read is the story of Saul of Tarsus and his conversion to Christianity in The Acts of the Apostles in The Holy Bible.

Saul (this was his Hebrew name) is Paul the Apostle. Prior to his conversion on the road to Demascus, Saul was a jihadi, a terrorist who murdered those of "that way" (meaning Christians of the 1st Century Church). While reading this acount, you will see that Saul sought "letters" from the religious rulers seeking permission to enter into houses and arrest these heretics. In modern day parlance, these letters are now known as "fatwahs".

I make two points:

1. Reading these accounts in the Book of Acts has as much relevence today as it had in the first century if you read it objectively.

2. Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) was a murderer of Christians who, very late in life, converted to Christianity and subsequently became the recipient of the greatest of God's prophecy and of the wisdom of the mystery, which God hid from all of his prophets (including his own Son). To our beloved Mr. Hicks: it is NEVER to late to get right with God.

I have composed an unpublished but scholarly study of the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. My study has earned the praise of my Biblically-estudious peers. If one might like to examine this study, please contact me via Selwyn Duke and I will oblige. No kooks, please. I welcome genuine inquisitors who might wish to know the fruits of my ardent studies but I wish to maintain my privacy.

I beg Selwyn Duke's forgiveness in advance for implicating him and his webmasters in my invitation. Perhaps Selwyn might consider posting my study here as a guest piece?

[Walt]

Philip,

Starting a blog page is easy and you can retain your privacy if you wish. I use Blogspot. My blog doesen't get read too much but it is a kind of tension release. If somethiong is bothering me I get it on paper (or in the computer) and get it out of my head so I can move on to new things...I am almost obsessive compulsive in that regard. I also post letters to congressmen and such from freinds (as I see fit...I have the POWER). If you choose to start a blog page and post your Paul paper I would love to read it.

http://waltswisdom.blogspot.com/

Walt