Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Riots in France Dominate the News in Europe
The bird flu scare has not gone away, but it seems to have passed from the headlines as quickly as the scores from last years minor leagues. The French riots started in Paris looking like some victory party for the Super Bowl, but they passed into an international tragedy. The spread of the riots to other towns in France has many Europeans skeptical of their spontinaety and scared of their spread across borders. Rest assured, I feel no threat here in Portugal. However, since the riots are following definite patterns, and the rioters see no need to stop, it seems reasonable that they have a backing and organising entity, whatever that mey be.
Analysis of these riots has been twofold. Many news comentators think that they are very economic in nature. The poor, jobless, and miserable masses have turned to gangs for identity. These gangs have turned to violence for effectiveness. Others, and some on the street have whispered of a religious and racial reason. The violence is happening in the immigrant African and Arab population. This population has felt the sting of discrimination and ostracism in a white European and Catholic society.
If the rioters are from either perspective, they have turned to the wrong solution. Do they stand to gain from the economy better after they destroy national infrastructure, people's homes, businesses, and sense of well being? No. They stand to only spread their own misery with this behavior. If they seek regime change in France, they need better moral authority to resort to violence. They also need better judgment, since they stand to only criminalize their identity and their cause. Resposible citizens are seeking change in better ways.
Do they stand to further their own cause religiously? This is a deeper question. Violence has been the modus operendai for quick spread of religion through history. Each of the grand and great empires, even those before the solomonic era spread through conquering militarily more than they spread through intellectual or spiritual conversion. Even Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. These violent have not stated religious reasoning, though. And how effective have these systems of religion been? They have tended to pass into history for us to study, but not practise. We do not see a Muslim seik endorsing this violence. It is mostly a waste of a nations resources. Religion not only must provide explanations for the unknown and passion for the present. It must provide a future. These people have no message for the future. They only steal, break, and burn their own hope in this life with their actions. They will not earn any eternal positive reward for this. Even Islam's violent writings come in a historical context, and Christianity has no valid claim to violence, when the only One who has the right to conquer and fight is the only One who will have final rule, and bring and end to evil (God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ).
But it is clearly stated in New Testament teaching that Christ alone is worthy to undertake this task. His followers must wait patiently, while He worls out his plan, which spans several generations and patiently offers salvation by grace to all through the finished work of Christ on the cross, shedding His blood to pay for sin and satisfy God's justice. This was a violent act too, but Christ did not reach out to destroy others, but to give His own life for the sacrifice.
Analysis of these riots has been twofold. Many news comentators think that they are very economic in nature. The poor, jobless, and miserable masses have turned to gangs for identity. These gangs have turned to violence for effectiveness. Others, and some on the street have whispered of a religious and racial reason. The violence is happening in the immigrant African and Arab population. This population has felt the sting of discrimination and ostracism in a white European and Catholic society.
If the rioters are from either perspective, they have turned to the wrong solution. Do they stand to gain from the economy better after they destroy national infrastructure, people's homes, businesses, and sense of well being? No. They stand to only spread their own misery with this behavior. If they seek regime change in France, they need better moral authority to resort to violence. They also need better judgment, since they stand to only criminalize their identity and their cause. Resposible citizens are seeking change in better ways.
Do they stand to further their own cause religiously? This is a deeper question. Violence has been the modus operendai for quick spread of religion through history. Each of the grand and great empires, even those before the solomonic era spread through conquering militarily more than they spread through intellectual or spiritual conversion. Even Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. These violent have not stated religious reasoning, though. And how effective have these systems of religion been? They have tended to pass into history for us to study, but not practise. We do not see a Muslim seik endorsing this violence. It is mostly a waste of a nations resources. Religion not only must provide explanations for the unknown and passion for the present. It must provide a future. These people have no message for the future. They only steal, break, and burn their own hope in this life with their actions. They will not earn any eternal positive reward for this. Even Islam's violent writings come in a historical context, and Christianity has no valid claim to violence, when the only One who has the right to conquer and fight is the only One who will have final rule, and bring and end to evil (God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ).
But it is clearly stated in New Testament teaching that Christ alone is worthy to undertake this task. His followers must wait patiently, while He worls out his plan, which spans several generations and patiently offers salvation by grace to all through the finished work of Christ on the cross, shedding His blood to pay for sin and satisfy God's justice. This was a violent act too, but Christ did not reach out to destroy others, but to give His own life for the sacrifice.
