CF you are missing the point
CF says:
"I see us getting closer to peace in the future. "
This is only partly true. We will get closer to peace, but not a true lasting peace. The "peace" that is coming is based on tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, and political correctness.
Let me explain a logical thought process that hopefully all can understand. Peace is the absence of conflict. Conflict is struggle between good and evil. Good and evil are defined by your perspective and what you believe (your moral code).
So here's how the coming "peace" will be achieved: we achieve peace by eliminating conflict. We eliminate conflict by eliminating good and evil. We deny the existence of good and evil, and destroy the very idea of moral distinction.
Then, we parade around in our intellectual superiority, advertising to the world how GREAT we are because we are tolerant. We, the great enlightened, have overcome archaic notions of right and wrong, and freed ourselves to see that there IS no right and wrong, only different. Homosexuality is no longer deviant, but a legitimate "alternative" lifestyle. All religions are the same, since they all worship a "god", so what's the big deal?
In fact, there are only a few things that we will NOT tolerate in the coming time of peace: the Bible, the name of Jesus, Christians, and moral clarity.
Political correctness, and multiculturalism (the belief that all cultures and morals are equal, and one cannot judge another) are the keys to the great lie. The great lie is that peace can be achieved through human means.
We saw this when Clinton was under investigation when he pointed out how "it depends on what the meaning of "is", is. " See? We are destroying not only the definition of a word, but the IDEA of the definition! The very concept of a definition is against this new-age ideology because it's NOT open to interpretation. That's what makes a definition what it is! In order to "convert" people to the new thinking, you first have to tear down ANY concept that is not relative. When you are dealing exclusively with ideas and terms that you can DEFINE AS YOU GO (and change the definition at your whim), THEN you can manipulate and control people.
And so, the campaign against the truth will go. The idea of evil will be done away with (and since it will still exist in reality, we must then call this evil "good").
So what IS the truth? The truth is that there will ALWAYS be evil in this world, as long is there is someone who "goes around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour". Not until the great battle of the ultimate in good (God) against the ultimate in evil will evil be eliminated. ONLY then will there be a lasting peace.
So what would a lasting peace look like? There would have to be unity. That unity would from common religion, common values, goals, and purposes. It would not be arrived at by consensus, but rather DETERMINED by a POWERFUL AUTHORITY-- an authority able to determine such things by force. The one true lasting peace will be when this powerful authority is God, and He reigns on earth.
BEWARE! This powerful authority could also be a prominent world leader, perhaps UN sec-general. Beware of the attempts at unity by dissolving the ideas of truth. Beware of unified religions. Beware of claims of peace through appeasement. Beware of the tolerance of evil. Beware of calling good evil, and evil good. This "lasting peace" will the greatest of all deceptions.
If you honestly believe that peace can be achieved through human efforts, then you have to either 1) deny the idea that there is evil, or 2) believe that being evil is of no consequence.
ANY "PEACE" THAT COMES BEFORE GOD DOES IS FALSE AND A GREAT LIE
I, too question our UN involvement, and exactly how we can instill American values in a culture that doesn't have them. Our American Government is based on American ideals, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These ideals are based in large part on the Christian worldview of our Founders.
Integrating such values into a Muslim culture will be very difficult; it's one of those "square peg, round hole" problems. The only way to make the hole a square one would be to violate our own ideas of tolerance and political correctness by bombing them to the stone age, wiping Islam from their land, killing all their people, and colonizing the area with Americans.
Hey, that's what we're accused of already, so it might not be much of a political loss!
The REAL problem in America is that political correctness and the "new age" ideology has created situations where our values conflict with themselves. We can't condemn Islam (because that would be intolerant), yet we also can't condone the abuse of women, so what do we do? We can't "racially profile" a Muslim American (that would violate his "civil rights"), but we know that a young male Muslim is far more likely to be a terrorist that an a little old lady who's over 65.
This situation of our morals conflicting with themselves is why we are forced to split hairs by creating false distinctions (i. e. "radical fundamentalist Muslims" vs regular Muslims). They are not two different religions. It's simply those that REALLY believe, vs those that are Muslim in name only.
I hope this can provide some moral clarity to those whose experiences (Viet Nam, etc. ) have led their minds to not be able to see things clearly.
Hohn
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
Hohn how is that for not PC thinking 
