Obama Administration Corrects Clapper's Claim That Muslim Brotherhood Is 'Secular'
The Obama administration took the rare step Thursday of correcting its own intelligence chief after the official claimed Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular."
February 10 at 4:42pm via Fox News
Arthur likes this.
What a goof ball, GOOD FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA for correcting this goof ball.
February 10 at 4:44pm
The confusing thing is (as I pointed out in a discussion that ended with me losing some conservative 'friends') that there are two levels (at least) to organizations like the MB. Unlike Western organizations, they operate on multiple philosophies. The Salvation Army, for example, does charity but does not have any military activities, despite the name. By comparison, many of the extremist Islamist groups have both military wings and charitable wings. That is what makes them so entrenched in the lives of the people. After the war with Israel, it was Hezbollah which rebuilt much of the damaged area. Of course, one might hope that the Lebanese would have remembered that it was Hezbollah which brought the battle to their homes, but such seems not to be the case.
Organizations like the MB have long presented multiple faces depending on the audience they wish to reach. For the West there is one face, for their more extreme adherents there is another. One would hope that the chief of intelligence would be intelligent enough to know about that. Ugh.
February 10 at 4:53pm
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood has stated openly that it will accept a secular Egypt if that's what the majority of Egyptians want.
February 10 at 7:00pm
Yes, it sounds good, I agree. However, we will see. They have a history that is not pretty.
Do you really belive them?
February 10 at 7:54pm
Who cares what they do? It's their country. The Egyptians can run it any way they wish.
February 11 at 2:30pm
Yes, I believe that they are prepared to have a multi-party democracy and that if they were to gain power, they would not institute sharia and a one-party dictatorship. However, they could be pushed into it by violence from the Empire, such as by the CIA, etc.
February 11 at 8:19pm
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says a lot of things. It has a long history of saying one thing to the secular world and then making opposing statements to it followers.
There is a great story (told by an Imam) of a Jewish man who is regularly approached by his Moslem neighbors with the aim of his conversion. So one day he tells them, "I think that there is little difference between my faith and yours, but I love my wine too much to give it up." The neighbors respond, "that is no problem, convert and keep drinking wine." So he converts, and then they tell him, "Now you are a Muslim, and alcohol is forbidden. If we find you drinking wine we will kill you."
It is permissible to deceive in order to perform the will of god. One need not look far to find public examples of MB openly stating its desire for Sharia.
Sunday at 2:20pm
Arthur, what is the Mossad's Motto? Deception.
Please don't read the following with a harsh tone of voice in mind. Rather, read it very matter-of-factly.
There is a realist streak that has been invading the Muslim Brotherhood for decades; but more importantly, if you continue speaking the way you are here, Arthur, you will be facilitating undermining that proper invasion of anti-sharia thinking.
If you think psychology doesn't work in both directions, what's the point in your having written here anyway?
In the end, we reap what we sow. Don't you believe in that? Don't you want Arabs to be every bit as enlightened as the most enlightened Jew ever? Some Arabs are showing great signs of enlightenment. What help is pessimism but to spread doubt and failure? What's in it for you?
To me, you appear to be stuck in a decades-old time-warp concerning the possibilities for the Muslim Brotherhood to function in a multi-party democracy.
Look at how Sinn Fein changed. People change. We can become what we want — thank God.
It's accelerating. We're networking. Go with it.
Sunday at 5:35pm
The Mossad is not a religious movement seeking to govern the spiritual life of an entire people, and, to be blunt, it operates under the same degree of deception as the secret services of any nation (including USA, Canada, British, French, Russian, Egyptian, Libyan, Chinese, Lebanese, Saudi, Pakistani, Indian and so on). I am talking about a religious principle, seen in more than just the Muslim Brotherhood, but in many such groups.
What is the Muslim Brotherhood's motto?
"Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur'an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
Yes, yes, yes, clearly open and democratic and eager for a secular society. When the motto changes, let me know.
The people of Iran also wanted a free society with human rights, but then found that the religious party was quite beyond their ability to resist. This is, indeed, something that the people of Egypt need to remember. As it is said, those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
There is a difference between awareness of risk and pessimism, and there is a difference between hopefulness and blind naivete. One needs to be aware of the possible dangers to avoid them. Hopefulness in and of itself will not guarantee success.
I have read the article about how Google was used to channel the revolution, but one would have to be totally ignorant to miss the fact that it was the Army that allowed the demonstrations to continue. Had the Army not allowed them to stay, this might just as easily have turned into Tiananmen Square or Iran (or any other of the many such demonstrations that have been put down with force). This was far bigger than that small group and their facebook pages, and it will need far more to help direct the process once it is in motion. This is not like writing on a blackboard, where they can erase and start over from scratch. This is more like diverting a river, and once it begins to move, it is not easily redirected.
The idea that my post is going to 'poison' the revolution is beyond ridiculous. My opinion, that the Muslim Brotherhood is a potentially slippery slope, is just as valid as yours, and just as rightfully a part of the debate. How bizarre that you push to silence me in a discussion of people seeking their freedoms. Is stifling others a part of freedom?
I hope that you have been able to read this with a 'matter of fact' type voice as well.
Sunday at 6:00pm
I am also concerned because the man on the street in Egypt tends towards horrific antisemitism. Egyptian media and education has been anti-Semitic for decades, and the image of Jews killing children to get blood for matzoh is something that is broadcast during family viewing hours.
Sunday at 6:04pm
There are those who say that the Talmud calls for deception too. Do we throw away all practicing Talmudists?
The members of the Brotherhood are being influenced away from a hardline view of their Motto. That's just how it is. Will it lead to conversion from Islam? I say it already has and will continue to do so. It won't happen as readily though with Zionist paranoia.
Everyone's words have an impact. I'm not assigning to you the ability to determine the outcome single-handedly. You though are not alone in expressing your position, and I was referring to the cumulative impact. Your voice is in with a large group of naysayers, which can be a self-fulfilling prophecy of negativity — of having expectations for the Egyptians that are far too low.
It wasn't a Tiananmen Square, and it's not Iran and won't be. The reason for that is because of the voices of those who were heard by Washington, whether Benjamin Netanyahu wanted that or not.
As for the anti-ethnic-Jew sentiments of which you wrote, those of the Jewish people who call themselves Zionist have this very moment a great historic opportunity to also change away from the vast evil they have been engaging in against the Palestinians and especially the Gazans. Do that, and the TV shows in Egypt you hate will end.
I'm glad your view is rapidly becoming the minority view in the world, will continue to shrink, and will one day disappear completely right along with Islam. There will be ups and downs along that way of course.
Sunday at 9:17pm
Who said "throw them away"? Did I? There is a good difference between being wary and throwing something away. As for others, the Christian Church has a reasonable history of burning Talmuds and other such works. Just so you know.
The Zionists have an opportunity to move away from the "vast evil" that they have engaging in against the Gazans? Clearly we know where your information on the area comes from.
How interesting that you say that the voice of the protesters was heard in Washington, whether Netanyahu wanted it or not. Why not whether King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz wanted it or not? After all, not only did he express support for Mubarak, but also called him personally. But since he is an Arab and fellow Muslim, that is not noted. Other Arab rulers also opposed the revolt. But they do not matter. Only Netanyahu is important, as if his word had the power to make or break this revolution. It is only important for the Arab media to report that Netanyahu made any statements that even approximate support for Mubarak while ignoring open statements of support from other Arab nations.
For thousands of years, Jews, Zionists who desired to live in their ancestral home, emigrated to Israel. Under Arab control, they were second class citizens, subject to taxes, forced to walk in the street instead of the sidewalks, and subject the vagaries of Islamic rule. For example, if one Jewish parent died, the children were seized by the state and raised as Muslim. Or, to give a more recent example, prior to 1967, Jews who dared to walk above the 7th step to the Cave of the Patriarchs was punished by death. Quite the model of peaceful coexistence, no? By comparison, under the heinous and criminal Israeli occupation, not only do Muslims have full access to the site, but they even have the majority of the site closed off for them.
In almost any airport in the world, you cannot enter a plane without having your luggage scanned, being questioned and going through some form of scanner or metal detector. We all accept this as necessary because on a small number of occasions men have brought knives or explosives onto planes. If you are a Gazan, having to go through such a search is a 'war crime' and makes your home a 'prison', despite the fact that there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks coming from Gaza into Israel, and that thousands more have been prevented. But I guess you don't think about that much, do you?
Why does Gaza have an embargo and the West Bank does not? Is it because Gaza fires rockets into Israel, denies Israel's right to exist at all, and makes no effort to prevent terrorist attacks? What is happening in Gaza has a direct correlation to the behavior of the people of Gaza, or of their despotic leadership (which they elected 5 years ago). When Jordan was in control of the 'West Bank', they treated it as Jordanian territory. They made no effort to establish any "Palestinian" government, no effort to create living conditions other than 'refugee camps', and certainly made no effort to incorporate the "Palestinians" into the other peoples that were suddenly declared "Jordanian" in 1922 when Churchill took what was part of the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland and gave it as a reward to the Arabs in gratitude for their assistance in WW1. When the PLO attempted to take over Jordanian politics, King Hussein sent in his forces and killed thousands of "Palestinians", a massacre known as Black September, possibly 10 times as many as were killed in Operation Cast Lead. Even now, "Palestinians" living in Jordan have had their Jordanian citizenship revoked, once again putting them into the status of second class citizens. But it is only Israel and the Zionists who have done anything to the "Palestinians".
One can easily find interviews with even modern figures in the Arab/Islamic world who will comment on the ferocity of the hatred that the Arabs/Moslems have for the Jews, and even how if all of the Arab Nations' leaders declared peace that the hatred would be there. Even if Israel did not exist, the hatred of Muslims against the Jews would be there. There are even Imams who get up and comment on how the hatred has nothing to do with the land. The children are taught, from an early age, that the Jews betrayed all the prophets, that they were the enemy of Mohamed, and that at the end of days that the Muslims will kill the Jews. One could have peace with Israel and the hate would still be there. In Egypt, children are taught that they won the Sinai in battle, not that it was gained by peaceful negotiations. Even in the long years before the embargo of Gaza, there was clear and blatant hatred in the Egyptian media, mosques and schools. The idea that the only reason for the hatred is because of Gaza is sadly deluded.
As a Christian, I would imagine that you believe that Jesus confronted the moneychangers at the Temple in Jerusalem. Yet Arab children are now taught that the Jews did not have any temple in Jerusalem, that the Jews had no connection with the land at all. Despite the Arch of Titus in Italy, despite the historical records of other nations, despite even Islamic commentators of the early first millennium. What is that about? It is about changing history, and about the hatred that exists between the Arab and the Jew.
Isn't your statement that Islam will disappear from the world a form of discrimination? That the belief in Christ is the only true faith and that one day all will swallow it up?
Not all the concern about the potential for Islamist takeover of Egypt is by Israelis, or even Jews, and it is far from Zionist paranoia. The research shows that the predominant majority of people want Islam to have a role in politics, and a majority identify with the fundamentalists. In Iran, it is doubtful that the majority wanted fundamentalism, but they could not fight back. One hopes that it does not come to that, but it is a possibility that we need to be aware of.
The reason that it was not a Tianenman Square was because the Egyptian Army would not fire on the people, which has little to do with Barack Obama or Benjamin Netanyahu, neither of whom is the Commander in Chief of the Egyptian Army. Mubarak did not have the support of his army, and that is why he finally left. Not because of Washington's influence, and certainly not 'despite' Netanyahu's.
Monday at 12:13pm
6 of 10 Egyptians are concerned about the rise of extremist Islam in Egypt. Why shouldn't we be concerned?
Monday at 12:22pm
I'll take your points in the order you presented them.
So, you are wary but not ready to throw away all of the Muslim Brotherhood. You say there's a "good difference" between your wariness and throwing them away. Just how worried are you then? There are Zionists who would push the button right now to eliminate all members of the Brotherhood. For those Zionists, there is no room for wary. They don't trust any member of the Brotherhood. How far are you prepared to trust the Brotherhood or those Zionists?
For some, burning Talmuds is a direct reaction to crucifying Jesus and all that that signifies. I don't buy into the nonsense that the Pharisees and Sadducees didn't do what the Gospels say that is plead with the Roman Empire to crucify Jesus. As for generational guilt for it, I take people one at a time, which is the more enlightened view, don't you think? Also, there were Jews who did not call for his crucifixion and were rather becoming Christians.
You show a tendency against being direct. Are you saying that the Zionists have not done "vast evil"? A yes or no would be helpful. There's nothing preventing you from then qualifying your answer. If you say that they have not, what is your source of information about the area since you appear to assume that you know mine and also reject those out of hand?
I mentioned Netanyahu but not Aziz. From that you conclude I'm saying only Netanyahu matters? That's jumping to a huge and strange conclusion especially since Mubarak is the one who's been overthrown and he was an Arab dictator. He mattered. That was obvious. So why do think I may be inconsistent concerning other dictators, puppet or otherwise?
"Only Netanyahu is important, as if his word had the power to make or break this revolution." That's a strange thing to say to me when my point was that he didn't have the power — good thing too. Are you under the false impression that there wasn't a strong debate within the Obama administration about where to come down on this whole thing? The American neocons have had a quick running debate with the Likudniks over Egypt. The neocons won that debate within the White House. One might say that Obama is "cautiously optimistic." In fact, I'm surprised he hasn't said it. Perhaps now he will. It would be a mistake not to be just optimistic though, but he knows the power of money within the US. At no risk to me to say it, the Zionist lobby has plenty of it, even though their sway is on the wane through the efforts of anti-Zionists, of which I am one and loud.
I don't know what Arab media you follow, but I saw hundreds of articles in Arab media about Arab so-called leaders supporting Mubarak. In fact, I saw more about that than I did about Netanyahu.
You are equating Jews and political Zionists. Herzl is the father of the Zionism of the state of Israel. He was an anti-Jew by the standards of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. In Israel, the Europeans have systematically discriminated against the non-Europeans and in large measure, the religious.
Okay, so you are relating a certain reading of history in support of your wariness. Let me be as clear as I can. I'm not for sharia, but I don't buy your level of wariness. Time will tell which of us is right. My emphasis in media has been to take the Brotherhood at its word right now, just as Sinn Fein was accepted. I would have done the same regarding Hamas when they were duly elected. I would have started talking to Hezbollah long ago, long before the 2006 war. I would talk with Iran now and not from the position that it is a given that they have a nuclear-weapons program in the works.
Look, you are sugar-coating Zionism by way of bad mouthing the Gazans while ignoring the sins of the Zionists. The Palestinians were living all over the land when the Zionists started entering in. The Zionists owned about 5% of the land (some of it by dubious means) and were "given" over 50% (albeit non-binding) by the UN General Assembly. Hundreds of Palestinian villages were destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were turned into refugees. The Zionists, under Begin and others, committed terrorism left and right to carry out the ethnic cleansing. Why do you fail to discuss that history here? The answer to that is obvious. You promote the one-sided, pro-Zionist position.
Frankly, I see in your reply the error of two wrongs making the Zionists right.
You seem to think that all the terrorism and ethnic cleansing and wholesale taking of land has all been justified because Jews had a longing to return and take over to reestablish a Jewish state where Arabs could never be equals under the law. It isn't justified.
"Under Arab control, they were second class citizens, subject to taxes, forced to walk in the street instead of the sidewalks, and subject the vagaries of Islamic rule. For example, if one Jewish parent died, the children were seized by the state and raised as Muslim. Or, to give a more recent example, prior to 1967, Jews who dared to walk above the 7th step to the Cave of the Patriarchs was punished by death." The Kahanists took care of that in typical Irgun mass-murder fashion.
Would the Zionists have been subjected to sharia had they not decided in Europe to horn into Palestine to establish Zionist supremacy? I'm not excusing sharia at all. I don't like sharia. Braheem here can attest to that. He's read me going straight at Islam. You see, I'm taking on sharia and Zionism and Pharisaism all at the same time. I don't want any of it for cause. Let me also say that I take on the Crusaders too, who were Christian in name only. I mention that because you have a tendency of thinking that if I don't name some group that I am leaving them out for some reason beyond a lack of endless time.
"under the heinous and criminal Israeli occupation, not only do Muslims have full access to the site, but they even have the majority of the site closed off for them." Yes, and they have whole freeway systems closed off to them even on the occupied territories. They have the Wall built on their land often dividing them from their fields, etc. You think that's justified though where I say the Zionists had no business horning in and conducting terrorism and ethnic cleansing, etc. in the first place. Before you pull out the other Zionist replies, I don't believe any people anywhere should ever have horned in. I also believe that the one-state solution is the practical one right now and that the Arabs should be held to the highest standards if and when they become the majority population. That sort of thinking is the wave of the future and is on evidence in Egypt right now.
I see Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria all being one in the future and not under political Zionism but rather unforced, real Christianity (non-coercive, consensual).
2 minutes ago
The number of rockets from Gaza went down, down, down before Operation Cast Lead. You know that. Also, Hamas killed rogue groups in Gaza that Hamas caught firing rockets. You know that too. To say that they hadn't been preventing attacks is a flat-out lie. It was Israel that didn't live up to its end of the understanding, which was to allow shipments into Gaza to return to pre-siege levels. They kept them down at only 15-25% while still entering Gaza to bulldoze businesses, schools, orphanages, and crops and trees, etc. Of course, from WikiLeaks cablegate cables, we know that Israel had always been planning to keep Gaza just above total collapse while typically lying about Zionists intentions.
"in 1922 when Churchill took what was part of the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland" Calling it a "Mandate" is an overstatement/distortion.
I fail to see what difference King Hussein's stupidity has on whether or not my position vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the correct one. Arabs have been stupid toward their fellow Arabs. The same may be said of Jews and every nationality.
There are Arabs who hate the Jews and Jews who hate the Arabs. You aren't telling anyone anything that he doesn't already know. The question is whether you get behind the Democracy Movement and hold the Brotherhood to the statements it has made. I say that that is what we do. I say that we back the Movement globally and inside Israel too. Therefore, Jewish nationalism manifesting as a Jewish state goes. Islamic states go where those are one-party dictatorships. They exist until the people vote that the state is not Islamic. When they do that, it is honored by the world.
I don't like coercion, even coercive democracy. It is though a stepping stone that much of the rest of the world appears to require.
Arthur, you are too stuck. You are failing to appreciate the magnitude of the changes being caused by global communications. The Imams in the Mosques are losing the debate with the rest of the world. The process will continue. Only reactionary tendencies, which I see in your writing here, will retard that. You're expending wasted energy on failed Hasbara-type thinking.
"Arab children are now taught that the Jews did not have any temple in Jerusalem, that the Jews had no connection with the land at all. Despite the Arch of Titus in Italy, despite the historical records of other nations, despite even Islamic commentators of the early first millennium. What is that about? It is about changing history, and about the hatred that exists between the Arab and the Jew." That sort of effort by those Muslims is failing and failing very quickly. That's one of the reasons Islamic dictators hate the Internet. It's the part of the Internet I love.
"Isn't your statement that Islam will disappear from the world a form of discrimination?" Of course it is, but it's not the connotation you're suggesting. What it is not is coercion. You don't believe Islam is good. You've made that quite clear. Do you want what isn't good to survive? I don't. I want it to die out because people change their hearts (core) not by force of arms but by realizing the evil that is their own selfishness putting themselves first rather than having everyone first. That's what Jesus taught and still does through the spirit.
"The research shows that the predominant majority of people want Islam to have a role in politics, and a majority identify with the fundamentalists." We can't win the peace where we can't talk. There will be more freedom in Egypt now, not less — provided the "West" handles itself correctly.
The Egyptian military did the right thing giving the legal team 10 days to come up with amendments to the constitution. The Brotherhood is forming a political party, but it says it will adhere to a multi-party democracy. Let's hold them to that.
"In Iran, it is doubtful that the majority wanted fundamentalism, but they could not fight back." This is not 1979 or Iran. An Iranian-type, sharia constitution is not what the Egyptians have or will have coming out of the ongoing process. You don't understand the people behind the Revolution.
Look, you also don't have the same understanding of the power of the word that I have.
"The reason that it was not a Tianenman Square was because the Egyptian Army would not fire on the people, which has little to do with Barack Obama or Benjamin Netanyahu, neither of whom is the Commander in Chief of the Egyptian Army. Mubarak did not have the support of his army, and that is why he finally left. Not because of Washington's influence, and certainly not 'despite' Netanyahu's." Leaving aside the spiritual, that's the biggest mistake in your analysis. The military gamed the whole thing. They considered every angle they could. They did the what-ifs until they were coming out of their ears. If they had conducted a massacre, how would American, European, and global public opinion have reacted? They looked at that and said to themselves that it would spell disaster for Egypt. It wasn't difficult for them to reject it since their military isn't voluntary. Also, there are ideologies within the military that are anti-fascist. Nasserism is still much more important than media coverage has been suggesting.
We should be more so resolved than concerned. That's my approach. Red sky in the morning or red sky at night is on a state-by-state basis but the weather is still global and also influenced by the Sun and Moon and stars, etc. It's not all an intellectual exercise in the common understanding of the term. It's emotion. It's feeling the movement. That's my Christianity speaking. That's how it works.
about a minute ago
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)