There was an election in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas won. And what can we say about Hamas? It is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just like al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists, it infuses nationalism with religious faith. What is their goal? The ethnic cleansing or the death of all Israelis, and the incorporation of their land into the new state of Palestine. Suicide bombing is one weapon they have used on a regular basis. Hamas leaders have already been quick to say that they will take their place in the legislative assembly and keep their weapons. Commentators patiently explain how corrupt the other politicians were in Gaza and the West Bank, and so the people wanted change, they wanted to get rid of corruption. That’s what motivated the Palestinians to elect Hamas. They don’t really buy in to all that Jew hatred and suicide bombing. It was just about the economy stupid! The economy in those places is so poor, of course the people were desperate and picked Hamas. But the election is over and now and the slogans will be only slogans, but they will have to moderate themselves since they need to focus on building roads and hospitals and collecting the garbage and they’ll have to compromise and work for a peaceful solution.

No. It is 1932 and the Nazis have come to power. Hamas is a terrorist organization; they preach hatred against the Jews and use the same arguments that the Nazis did. They do not believe in compromise. They belive in sending youths to blow themselves up in the hopes of killing Jewish women and children. And they will no more moderate themselves than the Nazis did when they gained the chancellorship of Germany. The Palestinian people do not want peace. They want war. They just voted for it. And war there shall be. Bet on it.

Send to Kindle

About R.P. Nettelhorst

I'm married with three daughters. I live in southern California and I'm the interim pastor at Quartz Hill Community Church. I have written several books. I spent a couple of summers while I was in college working on a kibbutz in Israel. In 2004, I was a volunteer with the Ansari X-Prize at the winning launches of SpaceShipOne. Member of Society of Biblical Literature, American Academy of Religion, and The Authors Guild
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to

  1. Shannon Tidwell says:

    Mr. Nettelhorst,

    A colleague gave me a copy of your piece “Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State.” Therein, you ask why Christians want to believe that our Founding Fathers were Christians. Well, the answer lies in your answer. You cite Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Williams as being Deists and hope that the reader will say “Ah, so it is. Our Founding Fathers were Deists.” Does four equal fifty-six? After all that’s how many men signed our Declaration of Independence.
    Have you read the Mayflower Compact or the constitutions of the 13 original colonies? Christianity does dominate. What does the original the constitution of Delaware mean where it says office holders profess a “faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore.”? What did Maryland’s constitution mean when it said, “Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.”? What did Art. II. of the Massachusetts Constitution mean with these words: “The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.”? Why did New Hampshire amend their constitution in 1877 deleting the requirement that office holders be of protestant religion? What does this section in New Jersey’s constitution mean: “That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.” North Carolina’s original constitution said, “no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.” Pennsylvania’s original constitution said office holder would take the following oath: “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” What about that? The first constitution of South Carolina said of members of the house and senate “they shall jointly in the house of representatives choose by ballot from among themselves or from the people at large a governor and commander-in-chief, a lieutenant-governor, both to continue for two years, and a privy council, all of the Protestant religion.” What about that? Vermont’s constitution said, “That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding, regulated by the word of GOD; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience; nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment, or peculiar mode of religious worship, and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatsoever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner controul, the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship: nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, and keep up, and support, some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of GOD. Observe the Sabbath? What’s that about? Virginia’s constitution said that “religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Christian forbearance?
    So, Mr. Nettelhorst, how many men do you think supported the constitutions I cited? You may rest assured that the number was a lot higher than four.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *