Some great points made here

[Kapitan_Phillips]

No doubt most of you will have seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgdtODfDO3A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgdtODfDO3A)



Some damn good points, in my opinion.

[STEED]

Now you have done it a red hot scorching slam bang of a thread, batten down the hatches people this is going to get rough.



PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.


PPS: More latter

[waste gate]

Glenn Beck. Good on him!!! If only more folks would get mad as hell.

[TteFAboB]

On a similar line: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4227

I'd add to the list above the decadence of Christianity. When everybody believes to be living in a post-Christian world where religion is a thing of the past, Islam is absorbed by osmoses and sucked in by vacuum as a return to the old principles. Plus, as a Muslim you are useful to the ruling and power-hungry classes, tolerated by the population zombified by PC which combined grants you a bunch of priviledges.

The gravest mistake of the projections of a possible Muslim majority in Europe, like that of SUBMAN for example, is to consider that Islam only expands by breeding. This is a most elementary error. If that was the case Islam would've never surpassed Judaism and it would've never left the Middle East. That's not the case and the amount of Muslims that exist today was achieved by conversion. Islam would grow in Europe not only out of demographic expansion but out of the conversion of the Europeans who sought the fundaments that were abandoned by the Christian Churches. Ask Konovalov.

[The Avon Lady]

PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.
You Brits have gone seriously potty (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24220_UK_Prison_Toilets_Now_Sharia-Compliant).

[Konovalov]

No doubt most of you will have seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgdtODfDO3A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgdtODfDO3A)



Some damn good points, in my opinion.

The same guy 3 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7sQsYGkA64&NR

What a jerk he is. :down:

[Skybird]

For AL, with love :oops:

This is an excerpt from a book I have red this autumn, "Hurra wir kapitulieren!", I think I made a short note on it back then here on the board. This chapter now was translated into English and published by Der Spiegel. Enjoy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-462149,00.html


In 1972, more than three decades ago, Danish lawyer and part-time politician Mogens Glistrup had an idea that brought him instant fame. To save taxes, he proposed that the Danish army be disbanded and an answering machine be set up in the defense ministry that would play the following message: "We capitulate!" Not only would it save money, Glistrup argued, but it would also save lives in an emergency. On the strength of this "program," Glistrup's Progress Party managed to become the second-most powerful political party in the Danish parliament in the 1973 elections.

Glistrup had the right idea, but he was a number of years premature. Now would be the right time to set up his answering machine.

The author is an independent author and political observer, known for his sharp tongue and bad habit to mercilessly point finger on political flaws and deceptions. His bitter-black humour only hides the desperate love for Western culture that he sees going down the drain. Surprisingly he often is said to be a left. I always thought that he is beyond such categories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Broder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henryk_Broder)

[STEED]

PS: I agree 100% on his remarks on PC Madness.
You Brits have gone seriously potty (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24220_UK_Prison_Toilets_Now_Sharia-Compliant).

Last years news that.

[waste gate]

There is a great gathering storm here. Not since Adolf Hitler's rise to power have we seen it. Unfortunately many have forgotten the lessons learned by his rise.

Many are concerned about lives being lost for what they deem an unnessasary war.
What they really mean is they do not want western lives lost. I don't hear much by way of the lives lost in Darfur or Ruwanda before that.

Many will agree that I am not a great thinker. How ever here are my thoughts.

If we wait and talk to pre-nuclear nations we allow them the time to construct nuclear weapons. Those nations then become an existencial threat. All current nuclear powers have, if not explicitally, telegraphed plans to retaliate or pre-empt if they feel their existance is at risk.

From my point of view it is better to stop these pre-nuclear nations, the leaders of which are openly hostile to the 'west', from aquiring the weapons than to wait and have only one solution, the nuclear non-option.

[The Avon Lady]

No doubt most of you will have seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgdtODfDO3A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgdtODfDO3A)



Some damn good points, in my opinion.

The same guy 3 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7sQsYGkA64&NR

What a jerk he is. :down:
I'm not so sure who's the jerk here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014712.php).

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:

[Letum]

He does make some good points.
All religions should be open to criticism and the laws of state should always be higher then the laws of religion. :up:

However, it is important to make a distinction between offending people and causing hatred.


Offending People:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of the baby Jesus being raped then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of Mohamed dressed as a woman then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

Offending people can make you a tactless git, but it needs to be allowed so that peoples views can be challenged. What ever you say will offend someone in some way anyway!
You can't ban people from being offended either. People should be allowed to be offended as long as they are peacefully offended.

If you just offend a group people then no one will hate the people you are offending because of it.

Causing hatred:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a picture of Jesus killing some Iraqi children alongside some American forces, then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Christians. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If I drew a picture of Mohamed as a terrorist (as in a Danish magazine), then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Muslims. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If you use slander to cause hatred against a group of people then that hatred can lead to acts of violence against them.

[Letum]

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014712.php).

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:
Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014712.php).

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:
Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering.
Agreed.

Now read the Quran and read the New Testament. Spot the differences.

No hurry. Take your time.

[Letum]

I'm not so sure who's the jerk here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014712.php).

No room for concern, Konovalev? :hmm:
Whats wrong with that?
He seams to treat his religion as a guide to political decisions in the same way that most christian American politicians use their religion as a guide to decision making. If you asked some Christian politicians which came first, political loyalties or the bible, they would also have a hard time answering. Agreed.

Now read the Quran and read the New Testament. Spot the differences.

No hurry. Take your time.
I don't have the time or motivation to read either, however, through reading brief abridgements and selected extracts, from various sources, I find that I both agree and disagree with different parts of both, however, I seam to disagree with more of the Qur'an.

I would rather have a totally secular government, however, as it is the democratic majority that chooses and not me, government should be open to all faiths, even those that I, personally, have criticisms of.
To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice.

[The Avon Lady]

To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice.
For discussion's sake, let's switch the word "faiths" with "beliefs".

Would you therefore agree to the rise of Nazi or Klu Klux Klan parties in the US, as to do otherwise would be to "censor democratic choice"?

[The Avon Lady]

Meanwhile, another day in the life of the United Kingdom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/wl_nm/britain_arrests_dc;_ylt=Atvvq_6NYXtyZzHPyrLuczqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--).

[Letum]

To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice. For discussion's sake, let's switch the word "faiths" with "beliefs".

Would you therefore agree to the rise of Nazi or Klu Klux Klan parties in the US, as to do otherwise would be to "censor democratic choice"?
If the democratic majority vote for them, they get power.
That's the way it works right now* and I think that is correct.

It would be impossible to ban people from voting for "ethically bad" candidates, because ultimately ethics are subjective. It's impossible to prove an ethical point.
How would the democratic framework decide who can be voted for and who can't?

Democracy puts faith in the democratic majority to make ethical decisions.

If 70% of people voted for the KKK, but the KKK wasn't allowed in government, then it would be the minority making the decision as to weather the KKK can get into government. I hope I don't need to point out the problems of rule by minority!


*In the UK


*edit*
Meanwhile, another day in the life of the United Kingdom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/wl_nm/britain_arrests_dc;_ylt=Atvvq_6NYXtyZzHPyrLuczqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--).
Are you just informing us of news items or are you trying to make/prove a point?
If you are trying to make/prove a point, what point does this news item make/prove?

[The Avon Lady]

To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice. For discussion's sake, let's switch the word "faiths" with "beliefs".

Would you therefore agree to the rise of Nazi or Klu Klux Klan parties in the US, as to do otherwise would be to "censor democratic choice"?
If the democratic majority vote for them, they get power.
That's the way it works right now* and I think that is correct.

It would be impossible to ban people from voting for "ethically bad" candidates, because ultimately ethics are subjective. It's impossible to prove an ethical point.
How would the democratic framework decide who can be voted for and who can't?

Democracy puts faith in the democratic majority to make ethical decisions.

If 70% of people voted for the KKK, but the KKK wasn't allowed in government, then it would be the minority making the decision as to weather the KKK can get into government. I hope I don't need to point out the problems of rule by minority!


*In the UK
So is it your opinion that democracies do not have the right to outlaw or abolish what the majority consider morally reprehensible, such as racism, slavery, supremism, aid and abetment for those that would otherwise attempt to overthrow such democratic governments?
*edit*
Meanwhile, another day in the life of the United Kingdom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/wl_nm/britain_arrests_dc;_ylt=Atvvq_6NYXtyZzHPyrLuczqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--).
Are you just informing us of news items or are you trying to make/prove a point?
If you are trying to make/prove a point, what point does this news item make/prove?
That if you haven't yet, you will be tasting your own bitter medicine in the not too distant future. Some here have more sensitive taste buds than others.

[Letum]

To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice. For discussion's sake, let's switch the word "faiths" with "beliefs".

Would you therefore agree to the rise of Nazi or Klu Klux Klan parties in the US, as to do otherwise would be to "censor democratic choice"?
If the democratic majority vote for them, they get power.
That's the way it works right now* and I think that is correct.

It would be impossible to ban people from voting for "ethically bad" candidates, because ultimately ethics are subjective. It's impossible to prove an ethical point.
How would the democratic framework decide who can be voted for and who can't?

Democracy puts faith in the democratic majority to make ethical decisions.

If 70% of people voted for the KKK, but the KKK wasn't allowed in government, then it would be the minority making the decision as to weather the KKK can get into government. I hope I don't need to point out the problems of rule by minority!


*In the UK So is it your opinion that democracies do not have the right to outlaw or abolish what the majority consider morally reprehensible, such as racism, slavery, supremism, aid and abatement for those that would otherwise attempt to overthrow such democratic governments?

Racism, slavery, supremism, attempts to overthrow governments etc. should be things that can be outlawed if the majority so chooses.
Political parties should not be outlawed.


*edit*
Meanwhile, another day in the life of the United Kingdom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/wl_nm/britain_arrests_dc;_ylt=Atvvq_6NYXtyZzHPyrLuczqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--). Are you just informing us of news items or are you trying to make/prove a point?
If you are trying to make/prove a point, what point does this news item make/prove? That if you haven't yet, you will be tasting your own bitter medicine in the not too distant future. Some here have more sensitive taste buds than others.
?? you think terrorism is my "own bitter medicine"?
I have never administered that kind of medicine in my life! It's certainly not my own bitter medicine!

[The Avon Lady]

To say that some, but not all faiths should be banned from government it to censor democratic choice. For discussion's sake, let's switch the word "faiths" with "beliefs".

Would you therefore agree to the rise of Nazi or Klu Klux Klan parties in the US, as to do otherwise would be to "censor democratic choice"?
If the democratic majority vote for them, they get power.
That's the way it works right now* and I think that is correct.

It would be impossible to ban people from voting for "ethically bad" candidates, because ultimately ethics are subjective. It's impossible to prove an ethical point.
How would the democratic framework decide who can be voted for and who can't?

Democracy puts faith in the democratic majority to make ethical decisions.

If 70% of people voted for the KKK, but the KKK wasn't allowed in government, then it would be the minority making the decision as to weather the KKK can get into government. I hope I don't need to point out the problems of rule by minority!


*In the UK So is it your opinion that democracies do not have the right to outlaw or abolish what the majority consider morally reprehensible, such as racism, slavery, supremism, aid and abatement for those that would otherwise attempt to overthrow such democratic governments?

Racism, slavery, supremism, attempts to overthrow governments etc. should be things that can be outlawed if the majority so chooses.
Political parties should not be outlawed.
What if a political party or candidate bases their platform on a mantra of any of those things that may have been outlawed?

*edit*
Meanwhile, another day in the life of the United Kingdom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/wl_nm/britain_arrests_dc;_ylt=Atvvq_6NYXtyZzHPyrLuczqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--). Are you just informing us of news items or are you trying to make/prove a point?
If you are trying to make/prove a point, what point does this news item make/prove? That if you haven't yet, you will be tasting your own bitter medicine in the not too distant future. Some here have more sensitive taste buds than others.
?? you think terrorism is my "own bitter medicine"?
I have never administered that kind of medicine in my life! It's certainly not my own bitter medicine!
No. I was referring to open-ended worship of undistilled democracy.

[Letum]

Lets try and keep the quotes a bit tidy. Iv'e deleated a few inside the boxes. Hope you don't mind.
So is it your opinion that democracies do not have the right to outlaw or abolish what the majority consider morally reprehensible, such as racism, slavery, supremism, aid and abatement for those that would otherwise attempt to overthrow such democratic governments?

Racism, slavery, supremism, attempts to overthrow governments etc. should be things that can be outlawed if the majority so chooses.
Political parties should not be outlawed. What if a political party or candidate bases their platform on a mantra of any of those things that may have been outlawed?
Well, wanting things that are outlawed and basing policy plans on implementing these things is not illegal. That is normal, for example, the "Green Party" in the UK want cannabis legalised.
In the case of things like racism, slavery, supremism, etc. I trust the democratic majority not to vote these things in, but if the majority wanted these things then the minority should not be able stop them just because the minority thinks it is in someway more morally or intellectually enlightened then the majority. That would mean that the minority would have power over the majority.



*edit*
Meanwhile, another day in the life of the United Kingdom (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/wl_nm/britain_arrests_dc;_ylt=Atvvq_6NYXtyZzHPyrLuczqs0N UE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--). Are you just informing us of news items or are you trying to make/prove a point?
If you are trying to make/prove a point, what point does this news item make/prove? That if you haven't yet, you will be tasting your own bitter medicine in the not too distant future. Some here have more sensitive taste buds than others.
?? you think terrorism is my "own bitter medicine"?
I have never administered that kind of medicine in my life! It's certainly not my own bitter medicine! No. I was referring to open-ended worship of undistilled democracy.

hehe, nah, I don't "worship" democracy at all.
It's full of faults, but compared to rule by minority, I think it is better.
I'm still looking for a system of power that would make a good alternative to democracies, but am yet to find one.

What do you mean by "undistilled" ?
Do you think terrorism is a by-product of democracy?

[Skybird]

He does make some good points.
All religions should be open to criticism and the laws of state should always be higher then the laws of religion. :up:

However, it is important to make a distinction between offending people and causing hatred.


Offending People:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of the baby Jesus being raped then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

If I drew a 1000m wide picture of Mohamed dressed as a woman then a lot of people would be offended. That would make me tactless and a git, but I should be allowed to do it and not be scared of people seeking revenge!

Offending people can make you a tactless git, but it needs to be allowed so that peoples views can be challenged. What ever you say will offend someone in some way anyway!
You can't ban people from being offended either. People should be allowed to be offended as long as they are peacefully offended.

If you just offend a group people then no one will hate the people you are offending because of it.

Causing hatred:
*note* All of the below is purely hypothetical.

If I drew a picture of Jesus killing some Iraqi children alongside some American forces, then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Christians. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If I drew a picture of Mohamed as a terrorist (as in a Danish magazine), then a lot of people would be offended. At the same time, some other people might agree with the messages in the image and this might cause them to hate Muslims. No one should be allowed to create something that causes hatred in this way.

If you use slander to cause hatred against a group of people then that hatred can lead to acts of violence against them.

If that criticism is deserved - so be it.

As usual, it escapes my understanding how one can make a comparison between Muhammad on the one hand, and others like Jesus on the other - the first having caused violance, call for murder, supression, robbery and war for the better part of his lifetime, the other having argued that one shall not practice violance, and demonstrating by his own's life's example that he meant that seriously.

Painting Muhammad with a head like a bomb is not so much a cartoon for me, but a parable, or a graphical metaphor with a lot of truth in it. And seeing how vicious Muhammedans around the globe reacted, while other Muhammedans did not criticise that kind of behavior, and did not question their own community about where the additional cartoons - the really critical ones - emerged from that never had been printed in Denmark (but were added by those who carried them enthusiastically to the Middle East in order to spark some furious hysteria), gave a lot of justification to paint a Muhammedan idol with a destructive device as his head. That is no offending, that is simply the truth.

Should we stop criticising Hitler and the Nazis, because some Neonazis today may feel offended by that, my find it disguisting, and may react angry and with violance and intimidation to that? Should we stop criticising Tamerlan, or Stalin, or whomever slaughterer in history you may think of, because we also do not want to see the Dalai Lama being critised? This is no one-for-one issue, and moral judgements shall not bee conducted on a quantitative basis, but on a qualitative basis only: if you be a nice guys ten times a week, you do not have one criminal deed for free.

Tolerance needs limits, values need hierarchies, not every ethical system is as much of worth as every other ethical system just because it exists. Not everything can be tolerated without giving up oneself's moral values. Islam has understood that from mthe very beginning and thus, never gives ground. The West has forgotten that most essential ingredient of cultural survival - in an infantile attempt to well-mean things for the better. And that's dumb, and that's all it is.

[Iceman]

The West has forgotten that most essential ingredient of cultural survival - in an infantile attempt to well-mean things for the better. And that's dumb, and that's all it is.

hum...I agree...

It is amazing to me how my countrys politicians and law makers can ignore blatant and clear statements from radical muslims and radical "interpretations" of the koran and think that the "it will all be ok" attitude will suffice...

I see exactly where Glenn Beck comes from as I also see exactly where the comment from Konovalov comes from...I think I would have to re-examine my faith if my faith was instructing me to wipe jews or any race off the planet...hate to say it Konovalov but your muslim faith seems crazy and I don't see how anyone can mis-intrepret it when all it's leaders cry for blood and few, if any of it's followers ever denounce the actions of these animals...

If a dog is rabid ya gotta deal with it or your gonna get bit and then it's your own fault...just as America is paying the price now..for our lack of vision.

Im not going to dance around the facts.

[The Avon Lady]

As usual, it escapes my understanding how one can make a comparison between Muhammad on the one hand, and others like Jesus on the other - the first having caused violance, call for murder, supression, robbery and war for the better part of his lifetime, the other having argued that one shall not practice violance, and demonstrating by his own's life's example that he meant that seriously.
How deep is your love (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21151564-2,00.html)? :roll:

[Skybird]

We are the cause of our own future fate. That's true for Bin Laden. And for the Baptist church as well.

[Letum]

We are the cause of our own future fate. That's true for Bin Laden. And for the Baptist church as well.

More often it's not true. There are many injustices in the world.

[Skybird]

It seems like that, doesn'T it. However, we do not know if maybe what we label as "random chance" events are connected in a more complicatedf fashion to earlier events (maybe even in other lives we spend) as if we are able to see and understand that connection. Have you seen that great new movie, "Babel" (at last that is the German title)?

But that argument is dangerous ground, for it could lead to barbarism like saying "the child in Africa suffers starvation, so it probably has done something in another life that made it deserving that." This is one of the reasons why almost all Buddhist teachers and masters I ever met stressed people not to spend their time with attempts to find out what they have been in earlier lifes (most end up finding that they have been Ceasar, Cleopatra, or a king of this and that place anyway...). We have enough problems with the one life we currently live - why increasing our burdens by learning about problems in our other lifes as well...?

On a more pragmatic level, we are very often creators of our fate, yes. Walk in a wet T-Shirt in a cold winter night, and you get pneumonia. Dance half-naked through night-time streets, and you eventually get raped. Learn good at school and have better chances in the future, do bad at school, and have lesser chances. Same with regard to your children's education. But here it already starts again: you are working-class, you are poor, can'T afford to send them to best schools available. Random chance? Or logical consequence of events hidden in behind the veil of times? Is the fate of your children linked to something that you hzave done two hundred years ago - and is it all just to let you see what becomes of your children, are they only a theatre play that is the conseqeunce of something that "you" have done back then? This is an ever-imploding spiral, isn't it.

The red line between being creative and being fatalistic is a very thin one. I prefer to encourage people to accept as much responsebility for their lifes as possible, and leave out the mechanisms of "fate", "divine intentions" and "God's will" as much as possible. But I know that that attitude of mine holds it's own risks. It could lead to megalomania, hyper-activity, and destructive action. Maybe you know this old prayer:

Gott gewähre mir den Mut / God grant me the courage
die Dinge zu ändern, / to change those things
die ich ändern kann / that I can change,
Gelassenheit, die hinzunehmen, / calmness, to accept those
die ich nicht ändern kann, / that I cannot change,
und Weisheit, / and wisdom
zwischen beidem zu unterscheiden. / to differ between both.

An all-time favourite of mine. :up:

[Iceman]

How deep is your love (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21151564-2,00.html)? :roll:

Good Question...:) ...an eye for an eye is the old way.

Matthew 5

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.




44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?


Let it rain. :) The Lord did battle for the jews in Egypt a few years back I remember..I think He is able to do it again...He is not blind or deaf to the goings on of Earth nor will He suffer the righteous and fatherless to always be trodden under foot.