This article encompasses so much of the frightening changes taking place in America today. A community college professor, teaching a course on world politics, taught a unit on terrorism. In that unit, he gave a quiz that included the following three questions and answers:

Who do terrorists strive to emulate? A. Mohammed

Where is terrorism encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law? A. The Medina verses [i.e., the portion of the Qur’an traditionally understood as having been revealed later in Muhammad’s prophetic career]

Terrorism is _______ in Islam. A. justified within the context of jihad.

Keep in mind, this professor has been at this college for 24 years as you continue on in the article.

The interim president, Christina Haines, apologized for the "inaccurate" and "inappropriate" questions. Haines and the school then gave the professor an apology letter to mail to the student and he was to remove the quiz questions.

The professor, Damask, refused and claimed his academic freedom was being threatened. He then defended his teaching by noting his sources in the Qur'an, the hadiths, and sira.

In May, Damask was told that before teaching any further classes on Islamic terrorism, he would have to meet with an Islamic religious leader to go over course content and he would need to take a class taught by a Muslim.

After that, the college's chancellor publicly apologized for the way in which things were handled and the lack of consideration for the Damask's academic freedom.

Then, Damask, his wife, his grandson, and his 85-year old parents started getting hundreds of death threats. The school was also threatened. And as the article says, "Damask’s calls to have those messages removed from the school’s Instagram account have not been successful to date."

This story has all of the elements of cancel culture, with an added side of reeducation and revisionist history/NewSpeak.

https://sofrep.com/news/arizon....a-college-professor-

A taste of heaven
I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.
Revelation 7:9
Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir, New York https://youtu.be/DfW2mkkMTAg
Seoul, South Korea
https://www.facebook.com/gospe....lhyms/videos/2852571
India in 31 languages (there are more)
https://youtu.be/Eb7g7-IIKVc
Enjoy !

Been recommending people to come to this format. Fb is sinking.

Also just started reading this. Pretty good so far.

My cousin’s friend wrote a book for young women entering college. A book about challenges, tips, scripture, insights, balancing faith, school, relationships, etc. Haven’t read it yet, but will be starting it soon.

if anyone has any other faith related book recommendations, i’m all ears.

Never was on Twitter, but fully on Parler.
Will FB be the next place for the exodus?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28..../health/us-coronavir

I just posted this on Facebook. It is the first time I've put these thoughts down in words and I think has a role to play in the undermining of our country, so here we go:

But the fact that it is socially acceptable to export that behavior to 'real world' society, eg, to get people fired, etc, is where the friction is.

What you describe is definitely one aspect of the situation. I think another aspect, which I believe is why 'social media' is bad for society, if not humanity itself, is that it throws into close contact ideas and persons who would never have interacted, except through certain, structured, mediums.

For example, I could have Friend A who I interact in real life with and get along just great with who personally believes that rich people should be beheaded. Let's say I believe that rich people should rule the world. Since both of us would have views which we know are radical, we aren't likely to talk about them in polite company. In the old universe, if we were ever to interact, it would be through some kind of intentional effort or activity. Ie, I might read his book, or he might read my magazine, of we might go to an organized debate where we expect contradictory ideas to be aired. But now we are 'friends' on social media and we learn what we really think, and since we each view the other view as outrageous and perhaps even wicked, it becomes war.

In the old universe, when making friends, people gravitated towards people they were compatible with, and I don't think that is bad. In fact, I think that is healthy. It is of course also healthy to interact with people who have diverse viewpoints, but the medium by which that interaction occurs is important. Now there is no 'medium.' It is more than 'face-to-face.' It is flesh pressed upon flesh.

In my example above, I tried to pick some radically opposite viewpoints to contrast. It doesn't help, however, that some people find 'outrageous and perhaps even wicked' some really rather banal things, and on social media you suddenly discover (for example) that some 'friend' thinks you are evil because you wear a clip on tie instead of using the double windsor. Or, conversely, one of your 'friends' thinks skinning capitalists alive is a respectable, mainstream position, and is shocked to hear anyone opposed to skinning ANYONE alive.

Before social media, there was exchange of ideas. But they were often on web pages or on discussion forums. You had to go out of your way to find them, and make an intentional effort to participate. Now it happens just by scrolling through your timeline. Flesh against flesh, as it were.

Add to this what you described, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

President Trump wished highest court of the land to overturn 'unconstitutional' Obamacare that allows killing of babies through abortion

More at: https://dailyreport.us/headlin....es-june-27-2020/2921