Islam is Not Kind to Christians

Recently, a handful of popular podcasters have claimed that Islamic regimes are historically “very kind” toward Christians. Those who make this claim are either willfully ignorant or are advancing an agenda. The historical record is not ambiguous. 

For example, the claims that relations between Islam and the Christian world were peaceful for 500 years until the First Crusade are false. Mohammad died in 632. By 732, Islam had taken the Holy Land and North Africa from the Christian Byzantine Empire. It had also conquered Spain and advanced into France a few hundred miles from Paris.  

After taking additional land in southern France and establishing bases in the Alps, Muslims launched raids into Germany. They also sacked the outskirts of Rome and took control of Sicily. In 1071, they defeated the Byzantines and took control of most of modern Turkey. Twenty-four years later, the Byzantine Emperor asked the Pope for help, leading to the First Crusade. 

Christians in these conquered territories were treated as dhimmis, second-class citizens who were required to pay the jizya, a special tax and sign of submission that was often accompanied by ritual humiliations. Failure to pay the tax could result in death, enslavement, and the destruction of the local church building.  

No public displays of Christianity were allowed, including the ringing of church bells or even praying aloud in one’s own home within earshot of a Muslim. No new churches could be built, and no old churches could be repaired without permission, which was rarely given. Criticism of Islam and evangelizing Muslims was strictly forbidden. In court, a Christian’s testimony was worth less than a Muslim’s. Christians could not have authority over a Muslim or have a house taller than a Muslim’s. They could not bear arms or ride a horse. At times, they were forced to wear distinctive clothing. 

Another claim is that Muslim rulers protected Christian holy sites and repaired them when damaged. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Typically, important Christian holy sites were converted to mosques to show the victory of Islam. The most prominent example is Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the largest church in Christendom for 1000 years. When the city fell to the Turks, it and other churches were desecrated and converted to mosques. 

An exception was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, perhaps because it was a major pilgrimage site that generated revenue for the Caliph. However, in 1009, Caliph Al Hakim destroyed it. It lay in ruins for decades until his successor allowed the Byzantines to rebuild it, likely to again collect pilgrimage revenues. 800 years later, the church was severely damaged in a fire.

Local Christians blamed Muslims, but the official story is that it was caused by a candle or oil lamp. The Ottomans allowed it to be repaired using Christian funds donated from overseas. They did not pay for the repair. 

In the Ottoman Empire, that some claim was kind to Christians, boys were taken from Christian homes to be raised as Janissaries, or Muslim slave-soldiers who were taught to despise their Christian families. Girls were often taken as slaves into harems, and violence often broke out against Christian communities in Ottoman territories. The worst violence was the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides of the early twentieth century, in which between 1.5 million and 2.5 million people were killed by the Ottoman government. 

The same violence against Christians continues today, with abductions, forced marriages, murders, arson of churches, and oppression of Christians in places like Pakistan and Egypt, and increasingly in Europe. There is a prohibition of churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries and, of course, the ongoing slaughter of Christians by Islamists in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa. 

So no, Islam has not been kind to Christians. The only reason to make this claim is to make the occasional anti-Christian acts of Israelis look worse. But there is no comparison. Christians in Israel have more rights and freedoms than in any Muslim country, especially in history. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality. 

John Stonestreet, Glenn Sunshine

https://breakpoint.org/no-islam-is-not-kind-to-christians/ 

 

Faithfulness in Hong Kong

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, internationally, another milestone should be recognized. July 1, 1997, marks the anniversary when the British government handed over control of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. A 50-year transitional period was established under a principle known as “one country, two systems,” in which Hong Kong serves as a capitalist center in an otherwise Communist nation. It also serves as the hub for religious freedom, with 1.4 million Protestants and Catholics living there who have ministry proximity into mainland China. 

But on this 29th anniversary of the handover, the future of the Church and of religious liberties there is far from clear. While many Hong Kongers hope to hold onto these freedoms and retain the degree of independence until 2047, others are apprehensive, believing that Hong Kong will more likely be assimilated into the mainland politically, legally, and ideologically. 

Afterall, in 2014 the Chinese Communist Party interfered with the Hong Kong elections by screening out any candidates they deemed disloyal to China, contradicting the spirit of “1 country, 2 systems.” This led to over 1.2 million people who took to the streets in peaceful protest, using yellow umbrellas to deflect tear gas.   

In 2019, protests were renewed over a proposed extradition bill, which gave carte blanche for the CCP to persecute anyone they deem a threat to the motherland, including ministry workers. In a city of 7.5 million people, an estimated 2 million protested what became the National Security Law, many pushing children in strollers or elderly in wheelchairs. Protestors were backed and, in many cases led, by Hong Kong’s Christian population. At one point, the praise chorus “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” became an unofficial anthem of the protests. 

In fact, it is impossible for the power of the Chinese state to grow in Hong Kong without Christians appearing as an increasing threat. First, Christianity is incompatible in a moral sense. As former Cardinal Joseph Zen put it, Christianity is a rejection of “the whole culture, which is now reigning in China, a culture of falsity, of dishonesty, a lack of spiritual values.”  

Second, and more importantly, Christianity is incompatible with Communism in its view of reality itself and, especially, Who is in charge over it. To call this a conflict of interest for Christians in Hong Kong is an understatement.  

Already, in response to the security law, Hong Kong has seen a mass exodus of young professionals and ministry workers. Most churches no longer have enough volunteers or giving to sustain them. Smaller churches have merged to avoid closing, while other larger multi-site churches have closed campuses after losing over 1,000 congregants. The church workers who stay in Hong Kong find themselves carrying more responsibilities to an aging congregation, with few prospects of finding someone to carry on their work. 

Of course, what has always been true about the Church’s existence and flourishing remains true for Christians in Hong Kong. Our hope has never been dependent on who is sitting on an earthly throne. Certainly, whether Hong Kong is ruled by a Communist regime or a democratic party matters greatly in terms of freedom, safety, and the future. Still, either way, the risen Christ is Lord over all Creation and has called His people to that specific time and place in history, to that specific moment within God’s grand story of redemption.  

God has called some Christians to remain in Hong Kong. They must count the cost of what it will take to be the Church there, to minister to the physical and spiritual needs of people, and to live as counter-cultural ambassadors in an otherwise frenetic metropolis. With 2047 looming, Christians there will be forced to recommit, over and over again, to Christ in an increasingly authoritarian city, while also accepting the weight of the task to which God has called them.  

At the same time, like He has throughout history in times of increasing cultural pressures, God has sovereignly used the situation to in Hong Kong to send His people out from there to other places around the world. In addition to reminding us of the plight of Christians in Hong Kong, they will take the Church forward and to other places, serving as businessmen, attorneys, fathers and mothers, computer engineers, and leaders who hold fast to Christ and live under His Lordship in a new time and place.   

For the American church, this is a cautionary tale of what happens when religious freedoms are lost. Even more so, it is a wonderful affirmation that God is at work, and the Gospel is lived out by His people in His strength. We have a shared Lord, and a shared calling, to be faithful and committed where He has placed us, regardless of how difficult it may be.  

 

From Breakpoint 

Did Trump make COVID-19 vaccines un-available?

Short answer, No.

COVID-19 vaccines are available in the United States for the 2025–2026 season, but eligibility is restricted compared to previous years. The FDA has approved updated vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax targeting the JN.1 lineage of the Omicron variant. These are primarily recommended for:

• Adults aged 65 and older.
• Individuals under 65 with certain high-risk conditions (e.g., obesity, asthma, cardiovascular disease, or other chronic health issues as defined by the CDC).
• Children aged 6 months and older with high-risk conditions (Moderna and Novavax only, as Pfizer’s vaccine is no longer available for those under 5).

You can get vaccinated at pharmacies like CVS, Walgreens, or other providers, often at no cost with most insurance, though restrictions apply based on state laws and eligibility. Some pharmacies may require a prescription until the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issues final recommendations, expected after their September 18, 2025, meeting. 

The CDC’s Bridge Access Program, which provided free vaccines for uninsured individuals, ended on August 31, 2024. For the most accurate information, check with your local pharmacy or healthcare provider, or use Vaccines.gov to find locations by entering your ZIP code.

China had mass-produced fake mail-in ballots for Democrat Joe Biden.

 

KOMO News

@komonews

Congress was given an intelligence report that raises serious concerns that China had mass-produced fake U.S. driver's licenses to influence the 2020 election with fake mail-in ballots for Democrat Joe Biden.

 

https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/fbi-reveals-report-on-alleged-chinese-plot-with-fake-us-drivers-licenses#

What are the Democrats doing?

We just went through a weekend of protest against kings. The crwds claimed Mr Trump is a king.  But he was elected.  That is evidence he is not a king.  Royalty does not get elected, the same was Kamala Harris was not elected.

So what the left doing?  They are implementing a social change that will give them power without any responsibility. In essence they are making themselves kings.

The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political theory attributed to sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, outlined in their 1966 article, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," published in The Nation. It proposes creating social change by overwhelming government systems to force reform. Below is an outline of the strategy based on their original work and subsequent interpretations:

Outline of the Cloward-Piven Strategy

1. Objective: Accelerate systemic change by overloading public welfare systems to expose their inadequacies and push for radical reforms, ideally toward a guaranteed income or socialist policies.
2. Core Mechanism:
   • Mass Enrollment in Welfare Programs: Encourage maximum participation in existing welfare programs to strain their capacity.
   • Crisis Creation: Overburden bureaucracies, causing administrative and financial crises that reveal systemic flaws.
   • Demand for Reform: Use the resulting chaos to advocate for fundamental changes, such as replacing welfare with a universal basic income or broader wealth redistribution.
3. Key Steps:
   • Mobilize the Poor: Organize communities to demand their full welfare entitlements, increasing pressure on local and federal systems.
   • Expose Inequities: Highlight inefficiencies and injustices in the welfare system through public campaigns and protests.
   • Escalate Demands: Push for structural changes when the system buckles, leveraging public discontent to advocate for sweeping policy overhauls.
4. Intended Outcome:
   • Collapse of the existing welfare framework due to unsustainable demands.
   • Replacement with a more equitable system, ideally a guaranteed annual income for all citizens, eliminating poverty.
5. Historical Context:
   • Developed during the 1960s War on Poverty, amid growing civil rights activism and dissatisfaction with welfare inefficiencies.
   • Influenced by Saul Alinsky’s community organizing tactics and the broader progressive push for social justice.
6. Criticisms and Interpretations:
   • Critics argue it’s a deliberate attempt to destabilize government and promote socialism, often exaggerating its intent as a conspiratorial plot.
   • Supporters view it as a legitimate strategy to force accountability and address systemic poverty.
   • Misrepresentations on platforms like X often frame it as a shadowy scheme to collapse capitalism, though the original article focused narrowly on welfare reform.

Notes

• The strategy was theoretical and specific to the U.S. welfare system in the 1960s. Cloward and Piven later clarified they did not advocate for economic collapse but for exposing systemic flaws.
• No evidence suggests a formal "plan" was ever implemented, though some attribute urban welfare crises (e.g., New York City’s 1970s fiscal issues) to its influence.
• Recent discussions on X and web sources often politicize the strategy, linking it to broader progressive or leftist agendas without direct evidence.