THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
ESPN under fire for pulling announcer from UVA game
Published on Aug 23, 2017
Conservative
Review's Deneen Borelli on the fallout over ESPN removing announcer
Robert Lee from their coverage of a University of Virginia football
game.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
FRANKFORT, Ky. —A prominent professing atheist
organization characterized the Bible as a “violent, racist book” in
scolding the governor of Kentucky over his recent remarks lamenting the
ramifications of removing the Bible from public schools.
Gov. Matt Bevin appeared on the Tom Roten Morning Show on Aug. 15,
where he discussed the public unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia, as
well as a recent bill he signed dubbed as the “Bible Literacy Bill.”
“When you go back a couple of hundred years, in most instances the
only textbooks that were in our public schools were the Bible,” he said.
“And so to that end to pretend, again, to scrub history and pretend
that that wasn’t reality, I think is a dangerous precedent.”
“And it’s interesting, the more we’ve removed any sense of spiritual
obligation or moral higher authority or absolute right and wrong,
the more we’ve removed things that are biblically taught from society,
the more we’ve seen the kind of mayhem that we were just discussing,”
Bevin stated.
However, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) soon fired off a letter
to Bevin to take issue with his words, which they characterized as
being “inflammatory.” It asserted that the Bible is rather a “violent,
racist book” that was used to justify slavery in American history. “The Bible is a violent, racist book that has inspired violent,
racist organizations,” wrote Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie
Gaylor. “Ironically, the Bible that you want to unconstitutionally
interject in public schools encourages violence and racism. Inculcating
more American children in the ways of the Bible would not have prevented
Charlottesville.”
The two opined that God’s selection of the Jews as His chosen people
can cause feelings of supremacy. Citing Scriptural examples of the
battles that the people of Israel fought against heathen nations on the
way to the promised land—which they referred to as God ordering
genocide—FRF said that telling believers that they are “part of the
chosen few” can lead to racism.
“The Bible is rife with such harmful supremacist teachings: ‘The Lord
your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be His
people, His treasured possession,’ Deut. 7:6,” Barker and Gaylor stated. They also contended that the KKK professes to be Christian, and that Adolph Hitler was Roman Catholic. “If you want less violence, less religion is a good place to start.
Your inflammatory comments were short on facts, history, and reality,
much less a reverence for the First Amendment and its Establishment
Clause,” FFRF wrote. “Please do not misuse your public office to promote
your personal religion.” The atheistic Church-State separation group had previously denounced Bevin for calling for local churches to organize prayer walks in Louisville to help curb violence in the city.
“You don’t need permission from me how to do it. You know, you walk
to a corner, pray for the people, talk to people along the way,” he told
a group of pastors in June. “No songs, no singing, no bullhorn, no tee
shirts, no chanting. Be pleasant, talk to the people, that’s it.”
Bevin, a Southern Baptist, has likewise urged the Body of Christ to open their homes to foster children and those needing forever families. Bevin himself is an adoptive father.
“Three hundred and fifty—plus or minus—young people are right now
fully able to and desirous of being adopted. There’s more than 6,000
churches in Kentucky. There should not be any child in Kentucky able to
be adopted, ready to adopted, wanting to be adopted, who does not have a
home,” he declared at the “Summit to Save Our Children,” becoming
visibly grieved.
1 John 4:20-21 reads, “If a man say, ‘I love God,’ and hateth his
brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment
have we from Him: that he who loveth God love his brother also.”
1 John 3:14-15 also reads, “We know that we have passed from death
unto life because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother
abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye
know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.”
1 Corinthians 13 likewise instructs Christians that without love
toward their fellow man, “I am nothing,” and then defines love in
detail.
“Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind, charity envieth not,
charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself
unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil,
rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all
things, believeth all things, hopeth all things [and] endureth all
things.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
USA –-(Ammoland.com)-
Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show where we CRUSH the various
legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of the gun
world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we are talking about the epic
ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals tossing the “good reason”
requirement for a carry permit in the trash. Bear with me this is huge
and there’s a lot to explain.
If you are a NRA life member, an
annual member for the past five years, or know someone who is, head on
over to adamkraut.com to get a petition to place me on the ballot for
the NRA Board of Directors in 2018.
For those of you that have
been paying attention, you may have known that the District of Columbia
has been the subject of a lot of litigation over the past two decades in
relation to firearms. The original Heller, that we talk about all the
time, struck down a 1976 ban on the possession of handguns, followed by a
decision tossing aside the District’s total ban on carrying firearms.
To circumvent that decision, the District of Columbia implemented a
requirement that an individual show “good reason” to be granted a
concealed carry pistol license. And yes, that’s what a carry permit is
called in DC.
Carry licenses were issued subject to the chief of
police’s discretion. The law authorized the Chief to issue a license to
anyone who “has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or
property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that
he or she is a suitable person” to be licensed. You may have heard this
“good reason” also referred to as “good cause” and you can find similar
laws in places like California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
The
law also enable the Chief to establish criteria to determine whether a
person had established “good reason”. In order to demonstrate “good
reason” to fear injury, an applicant must “at a minimum [show] of a
special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general
community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous
attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” So
basically, you had to prove that your life was worth of defending.
The
other option would be for applicants to apply under the “other proper
reason for carrying” criteria. These applicants had to show that they
were employed in a manner that required the carrying of cash or other
valuable objects transported on their person. So for example a person
who regularly carried diamonds on their person in the course of business
may have qualified for a license. The regulations implemented by the
Chief also gave individuals the ability to apply if they had a close
relative who was so physically or mentally incapacitated that they could
not defend themselves. Simply put, a very small percentage of
law-abiding citizens would qualify, leaving the majority unable to
procure a license.
This provision was challenged by a man named
Brian Wrenn, as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and two of its
members all in one lawsuit. Another man named Matthew Grace and the Pink
Pistols challenged the provision in another lawsuit. For those of you
who are unaware, the Pink Pistols are a LGBTQ organization who advocates
for the use of lawfully-owned and lawfully-concealed firearms for the
self-defense of the sexual minority community. Both suits requested a
preliminary injunction to be issued. If you don’t recall what a
preliminary injunction is go check out the video I did on the California
injunction, there’s a link in the description or if you’re watching on
YouTube, you can click the card up in the corner.
The District
Court denied the preliminary injunction requested by Wrenn but granted
the one asked for by Grace. As a result, in both instances, the parties
appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals which consolidated the cases
and heard them together.
The Court was left to determine whether
the “good reason” requirement impeded on a “core” Second Amendment
right. It began the analysis by looking at the Supreme Court’s decision
in Heller. Finding that the Second Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” was
self defense, and that the text of the amendment protects the right to
“keep” and “bear” arms, the Court determined that it was “more natural
to view the Amendment’s core as including a law-abiding citizen’s right
to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.” The Court
specifically noted that the Heller decision found “ to “bear” means to
“‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or
defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” As a
result that definition shows that the Amendment’s core must span…[to]
the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This
analysis was bolstered by a long line of cases the Court quickly
recounted.
After determining that the “good reason” law burdened a
“core” right, the Court looked at several other arguments. First, it
examined the argument set forth by the District of Columbia which stated
that densely populated or crowded areas were excluded from the right to
carry a firearm. This argument was premised on old English law, which
had banned such conduct dating back to 1328. The District argued that
because similar laws had found their way to the colonies by the 1700s
and later on to the states by the mid-to-late 1800s, the “core” right to
carry did not apply to those areas. Yes, that’s right, they’re citing
to a law from the 1300s.
Fortunately, the Court quickly dismissed
such an illogical argument. It noted that due to Heller “we can sidestep
the historical debate on how the first Northampton law might have
hindered Londoners in the Middle Ages. Common-law rights developed over
time, and American commentaries spell out what early cases imply: the
mature right captured by the Amendment was not hemmed in by longstanding
bans on carrying in densely populated areas. Its protections today
don’t give out inside the Beltway.” Simply put, the Court stated that
the Second Amendment was not restricted in its applications to carrying
firearms in densely populated areas.
The
District advanced another argument that I found quite curious. It
argued that based on old English surety laws, carrying a firearm was
excluded from the core Second Amendment protections. For those
unfamiliar with surety laws, the Court provides an excellent example.
“These
laws provided that if Oliver carried a pistol and Thomas said he
reasonably feared that Oliver would injure him or breach the peace,
Oliver had to post a bond to be used to cover any damage he might do,
unless he proved he had reason to fear injury to his person or family or
property.” Essentially, Oliver was posting money of his own in the form
of a bond as “insurance” against him taking some adverse action. So
this is social justice warrior insurance from ye olde days.
However,
this argument was also rejected by the Court. Unlike the District’s
characterization, surety laws did not deny a regular person the right to
carry a firearm unless they showed a special need for self defense.
Rather, everyone had a robust right to carry a firearm. It was only
restricted in the event that someone was reasonably accused of
potentially being a danger. The rationale explained in Heller squarely
rejected that such civil burdens shed light on the historical right
found in the Second Amendment.
The Court then turned to the
decisions issued by other Circuit Courts in relation to “good cause”
cases. It found that the majority have stated that burdens on carrying
firearms trigger intermediate scrutiny. Remember, Intermediate scrutiny
requires that the challenged law further an important government
interest in a manner that is substantially related to that interest.
The
Second Circuit found that the right to bear arms must count for less
than the right to keep arms since the right to bear has been regulated
more stringently. Likewise, the Fourth Circuit has concluded that as
conduct outside of the home is examined, firearms rights have always
been more limited and restrictions on such conduct is acceptable. The
Third Circuit relied on the reasoning set forth by the Second and Fourth
Circuits to conclude that a “good reason” law should be subject to
intermediate scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit, everybody’s favorite circuit,
determined in its en banc Peruta decision that because outright bans on
concealed carry have been upheld, “good reason” provisions must be
constitutional.
However, the Court was unimpressed with the
analysis that the circuit courts chose to use. Quoting the panel
decision from Peruta, the Court stated that “the Second, Third and
Fourth Circuits…declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of
the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home…As a
result, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right
and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of
responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful
self-defense purposes…[They] failed to comprehend that carrying weapons
in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component
of the right to bear arms.”
The 7th Circuit, the only other
circuit to engage in a historical analysis through the lense of Heller,
also struck down a more widely applicable carrying ban. The Court
concluded that carrying beyond the home, even in populated areas,
without special need, falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s
coverage.
After concluding that the right to carry beyond the home
was within the core of the Second Amendment, the court was left to
determine what level of scrutiny to apply in examining the challenge.
Grace and Wrenn argued that the ban should be struck down, without
applying any level of scrutiny, and for the court to apply the same
logic found in Heller. The District argued that intermediate scrutiny
was the correct level of scrutiny to apply.
After a brief review
of Heller, the Court stated that “[a]t a minimum, then, the Second
Amendment must enable armed self-defense by commonly situated citizens:
those who possess common levels of need and pose only common levels of
risk.” It further found that “if the Amendment is for law-abiding
citizens as a rule, then it must secure gun access at least for each
typical member of that class.” The “good reason” law imposed by the
District bars most people from exercising the right at all. Under the
Heller analysis, a complete prohibition of Second Amendment rights are
always invalid. As such, there is no need to apply any scrutiny
analysis.
The Court went on to say that “By declining to apply
tiers of scrutiny to a total ban on ownership, Heller I closed off the
possibility that courts would erroneously find some benefits weighty
enough to justify other effective bans on the right to keep common arms.
We would flout this lesson of Heller I if we proceeded as if some
benefits could justify laws that necessarily destroy the ordinarily
situated citizen’s right to bear common arms—a right also guaranteed by
the Amendment, on the most natural reading of Heller I.” The Court noted
that the “good reason” law was not a total ban, but also acknowledge
that the ban on ownership in Heller had limited exceptions before it was
struck down as unconstitutional. As such, the same analysis should be
applied in this case.
The Court summarized the analysis by stating
“[a]t the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible
citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home,
subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include,
for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban
areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for
self-defense. In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the
typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally. The
District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of
that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink
this law under Heller I.”
The Court continued “Because the
District’s good-reason law merits invalidation under Heller I regardless
of its precise benefits, we would be wasting judicial resources if we
remanded for the court to develop the records in these cases.” As a
result, the Court vacated the orders below and remanded the cases to the
District Court with orders to enter permanent injunctions against the
enforcement of the District’s “good reason” law. In short, the “good
reason” requirement will no longer be part of the application process in
DC.
The District could seek review of the Circuit Court’s panel
decision, but it is unknown if they will pursue that review at this
time. As of the filming of this episode, orders have not yet been issued
for the permanent injunction against the District and the “good reason”
requirement is still currently in effect until that happens. If you
liked this episode or found it informative be sure to hit that like
button and share it around with your friends. And if you aren’t
subscribed already, you better make that happen and be sure to ring that
bell so you don’t miss an episode. Also, check out my website
adamkraut.com.
And as always thanks for watching!
Links for this episode:
Wrenn,
et al. v. District of Columbia, et al. :
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E2F5AEE1CAB3A06C85258168004F3EE5/$file/16-7067.pdf About The Gun Collective
The
Gun Collective is dedicated to bringing you the highest quality, fast
paced gun content possible. Started in June 2015 by Jon Patton, TGC has
rapidly taken off to become a go-to source for the things you need to
know without a bunch of BS. Please check out TheGunCollective.com to learn more and see what the hype is all about!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Hungary has offered asylum to Christian convert Aideen
Strandsson because the Swedish government plans to deport her to Iran
where she could face prison or even the death penalty for apostasy.
Even worse, Strandsson states that she was told by Swedish authorities that “it’s not our problem if you decided to become a Christian.”
It is ironic that Sweden has a reputation as “the world’s humanitarian conscience and a safe haven for refugees” in the face of its rejection and mockery of Strandsson.
Swedish MEP Malin Bjork once issued an indictment against Hungary
due to its tight immigration policy and rejection of EU refugee quotas.
Bjork stated, demonstrating the pervasive, divisive and propagandist
narrative: “When it comes to the political course, Hungary is playing a
very dangerous and racist game and right-wing nationalist game and I
don’t think we should adapt to it.” But now that Hungary has come out in
support of Aideen Strandsson, it has used the opportunity to showcase
its sensible immigration policy in the face of false accusations of
racism:
On
CBN Newswatch, Aug. 3: Sweden shields 150 ISIS fighters, but won't
protect this Christian asylum seeker; With anti-Semitism rising,
Congress signals urgent need for Jewish liaison, and more.
Robert Spencer on Google changing its search results to spike criticism of Islam
In this new video, I discuss how Google has changed its first page
results for searches of terms such as “jihad,” “sharia” and “taqiyya” to
display only positive explanations of Islamic concepts.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of
the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29). UK jihad preacher Anjem Choudary said in February 2013:
“We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya
(protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway.
The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t
it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give
us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one
from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see
people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for
you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s
Allowance.”
“Refugee hate preacher received $620K in social benefits in Switzerland – media,” RT, August 23, 2017 (thanks to David):
A Libyan immigrant who called on Allah to “destroy”
non-Muslims during his prayer in a Swiss mosque claimed $620,000 in
social benefits for over a decade from a predominantly Christian state,
local media report. In his hate speech, Abu Ramadan called on Allah “to destroy the enemies of our religion,” Switzerland’s SRF broadcaster reported, citing an audio recording in its possession.
The “enemies” according to the preacher included “Jews, Christians, Hindus, Russians and the Shia [branch of Islam].”
Yet, Ramadan received some 600,000 Swiss francs ($620,000) in social
benefits from the Swiss government over the last 13 years, according to research conducted by the Rundschau program of SRF and the Tages Anzeiger newspaper.
According to the newspaper, the man came to seek refuge in
Switzerland in 1998 after he fled his homeland, explaining that he’d
been pursued by authorities for spreading religious propaganda for the
Muslim Brotherhood.
With political asylum granted and a residence permit, the 64-year-old
Ramadan hardly ever worked, instead living on social payments from 2004
until 2017.
Ramadan, who can barely speak French or German according to news
outlets, is said have preached in small towns of Biel and Neuchâtel, as
well appeared on the Libyan Islamic channel, Tanaush TV.
In addition, research claims to have found his pictures at luxury
hotels, made when he accompanied pilgrims to Mecca and Medina in Saudi
Arabia.
Through a statement by his lawyer, the preacher claimed to Tages Anzeiger that he respects other religions. “Love, tolerance and generosity are my guideline in my relations with Muslims and non-Muslims,” the statement reads.
However, according to the tape obtained by the Swiss outlets, he also preached that “a person who befriends a disbeliever is cursed until the Day of Judgment.” In fact, the man apparently never studied theology and also denied being an imam, the newspaper says….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This is why I didn’t restore the PayPal button on the sidebar when
they unblocked the Jihad Watch account. Clearly this was a concerted,
organized effort to choke off funding for counterjihad sites not just in
the U.S., but all over the world, and many of these groups have not had
their accounts restored. Moreover, the effort to choke us off
continues.
“PayPal blocks account for PI donations,” translated from “PayPal sperrt Konto für PI-Spenden,” PI News, August 23, 2017 (thanks to Andrew):
Islam is terrorizing the whole world. The blood of “unbelievers” is shed in a unique trail of hatred and murder. Whoever
does not want to play this cruel game at the edge of a genocide, who
says what he sees, calls the truth by name, is fought by this unholy
alliance. Now this fight is really going on. It
was first the deletion teams in social networks, the controlling and
systematic readjusting of the algorithms of search engines, and the
merciless criminalization of simple citizens and their opinions. Now the monetary bleeding shall begin In
an apparently worldwide concerted action, PayPal is currently
systematically blocking the accounts of, above all, Islam-critical blogs
and individuals. Within a few days, two of the sharpest Islamic-critical US websites received a letter from the group, and PI is now affected. The PI donation account has been blocked to PI because of its “type of activity.” The wording is apparently the same for all, with only different addressees:
We have recently reviewed your usage of PayPal’s services, as reflected in
our records and on your website http://www.pi-news.net/ .. Due to
the nature of your activities, we have chosen to discontinue service to you
in accordance with PayPal’s User Agreement. As a result, we have placed a
permanent limitation on your account.
We ask that you please remove all references to PayPal from your website.
This includes removing PayPal as a payment option, as well as the PayPal
logo and/or shopping cart.
If you have a remaining balance, you may withdraw the money to your bank
account. Information on how to withdraw money from your PayPal account can
be found via our Help Center.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions or
need our support, please contact the PayPal Brand Risk Management
Department at aup@paypal.com.
Sincerely,
Tanya
PayPal Brand Risk Management
PayPal
Pamela Geller, who not only runs a website, but also repeatedly takes effective media actions against Islam (PI-NEWS reported here and here),
which have up to now been protected by the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which guarantees freedom of the press
and freedom of opinion, was also sent a letter of the same wording, as was Robert Spencer, who runs the site Jihad Watch. Islam and the Left against People Obviously, Islam takes more control of the world every day. There
are more than ambitious helpers here: left-wing ethicists and their own
people-hating groups and individuals, such as George Soros. Jihad
Watch reported that, among others, ProPublica, funded by George Soros,
had been called to classify and block sites like Jihad Watch as hate
sites. PI is also affected. We received the message last week. The truth is a dangerous warrior and the word her sharp sword. This
weapon and others is to be beaten from our hand – obviously by all
means, because this action is presumably still one of the more harmless,
and more is likely to come….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The apotheosis of the Left’s infatuation with Islamic jihad: a propaganda video
for the Islamic State, courtesy of the British government.
“Pure poison… it’s like a Nazi recruiting film from the 1930s: CHRISTOPHER STEVENS reviews The State,” by Christopher Stevens, Daily Mail, August 20, 2017:
A really super-cool club. That’s how a young black
British doctor describes Islamic State in tonight’s episode of The
State, her eyes shining as she records a YouTube message urging other
young women to follow her example and defect to Syria.
‘A really super-cool club.’ There’s no irony in her voice. Dr Shakira
Boothe (played by Ony Uhiara) is a single mother from London who claims
to be part of the first generation of Muslims building a religious
paradise on earth.
This, then, is how Channel 4, a publicly owned British broadcaster,
depicts Islamic State five days after a terrorist attack in Barcelona
that killed more than a dozen people – during a year that has seen
British children killed by a suicide bomber at a Manchester pop concert.
A four-part drama screening on consecutive nights, The State is
supposedly based on real events in Syria and Iraq, seen from the
viewpoint of several British recruits who fled their homes to join the
jihad or Holy War. It showcases graphic footage of torture and
dismemberment.
The second episode tonight includes an appallingly callous tableau of
dead babies in an incubator ward, after a bomb strike on a hospital.
It is sickening. But it isn’t the gore and scattered limbs that leave
a tight knot in the stomach: it is the moist-eyed adulation as The
State pleads with us not just to sympathise with the British jihadis but
to love them.
All the women are elegant but strong – independent heroines making a
positive choice to sacrifice their freedom for the sake of their pious
religious convictions. Joans of Arc, every one. All the men are
sensitive and soft-spoken – driven to fight in God’s army for their love
of their families. Everyone is deeply intelligent and multi-lingual,
with extensive knowledge of the Koran.
And they are all ridiculously good-looking of course, with the
occasional Poldark moment for the boys as they strip off their uniforms
to reveal waxed chests with moulded six-packs. The soundtrack is all
swelling orchestras and throbbing drums, with moments of sad Spanish
guitar when a character dies.
No one will be surprised to discover that the writer and director of
the State, Peter Kosminsky, is not a veteran of the civil war in Syria.
He did not carry out research missions to Raqqa and Aleppo.
In fact, middle-class film-maker Kosminsky is 61 years old and
Oxbridge-educated, the epitome of the London media luvvie who is
desperate to demonstrate that he is less racist than anyone else at his
Hampstead dinner party. He’s been the subject of a South Bank Show
profile by Melvyn Bragg. You get the picture.
The dialogue of The State gives him away at every moment. It’s
Dad-speak, a middle-aged man’s failed effort to sound ‘down with the
kids’, which parrots comical slang last used in the 1970s by the Bay
City Rollers – words such as ‘super-cool’.
In tonight’s opening scene, one fighter waves his AK47 and shouts:
‘This is better than flipping burgers!’ It’s meant to be a victory shout
– but instead, the line is fake, patronising and, in its assumption
that well-educated British Asians like him are destined to work at
McDonald’s, dismissively racist.
Kosminsky’s dead ear for dialogue is matched by his inability to
smell out lies. Because all the scenes are based on second-hand
research, they mirror the propaganda videos that cascade on to the
internet, showing life under Sharia law. Much of the series consists of
the director’s attempts to capture the camera angles common in phone
videos of battlefields and marketplaces.
It’s baffling that a man who knows how the television world works –
he won Emmys and Baftas for his adaptation of Wolf Hall, after all –
seems blind to the crass manipulation of Islamic State’s official
videos. Kosminsky believes that the choreographed beheadings and the
carefully curated aftermath of bombings are true and accurate depictions
of ISIS life.
For fear of imposing his own opinions on viewers (good liberals never
do that) he offers no comment on the medieval morality of Islamic
State. Racism is endemic: the leading characters soon learn to sneer
openly at the pathetic white fighters, who are mostly fat, tearful,
closet homosexuals.
All of the characters have left their homes without saying goodbye to
their parents, though Kosminsky is at pains to point out that this
doesn’t mean they are ungrateful or unloving – it’s just that they
didn’t dare risk alerting the forces of government oppression.
The men practise dismantling their assault rifles with their eyes
shut, and learn the basics of misogyny: ‘A woman in this life is
defective!’
And when the bomb strikes that baby ward, there is no hint that any
blame lies with the ISIS cowards using the hospital as their shield. If
anything, the fault is with the unseen hand, presumably American, that
fired the missile. The only explanation for the characters’ betrayal of
Britain is summed up in one line: ‘I ain’t never going back to that
kuffar dump, bruv.’ Kuffar, as the constant scroll of Arabic dictionary
definitions tells us, means dirty, foreign and unholy….
Kosminsky cannot be incapable of understanding how most viewers will
regard his perverted vision of ISIS. But he only cares about the
opinions of his peers in a deluded bubble. Any decent human being,
anyone who has felt despair and heartbreak at the terrorist attacks
sponsored by Islamic State, will feel nothing but revulsion for his
characters. They are traitors to their families and friends. Society has
provided so much entertainment and education to enrich their lives, and
they are turning all of it to the most evil uses. The State is no sort of truthful drama, as it claims to be. This is a
recruitment video to rival Nazi propaganda of the Thirties calling
young men to join the Brownshirts….
The State-Channel 4 last night "A
really super-cool club. That’s how a young black British doctor
describes Islamic State in tonight’s episode of The State, her eyes
shining as she records a YouTube message urging other young women to
follow her example and defect to Syria."
The State: National Geographic
Published on Aug 6, 2017
The
State takes a bold, unflinching approach to telling the fact-inspired
stories of young ISIS recruits and offers an authentic and nuanced look
inside one of the most serious global threats we face today. After a
year of extensive research and interviews, Golden Globe and BAFTA
awards-winning writer and director Peter Kosminsky sheds light on an
unknown and unimaginable world. The two night event series premieres
Monday, Sept. 18 and Tuesday, Sept. 19 on National Geographic.
Channel 4 defends isis drama the state after criticism
