New's Analysis and Commentary   |  On Comity

On Comity

In Papua New Guinea, the Lutherans got there first, but the Catholics soon followed.  So after fighting with one another over the lives and souls of cannibals, they finally decided it was silly, that they should reach “comity”.  Quit arguing and contending, when the field of harvest was so great, and they were so few.  So they divided the country, and on one side of a particular river,to this day, the people are mostly Lutheran, and on the other side they are mostly Catholic, and if you move, normally (such as getting married or getting a job) it is common to switch churches as well.

This is called “comity”.  It’s sometimes called “parity”.

When the Baptists (and others not in on the original deal) arrived, they didn’t get the same courtesy!  No, they have to contend with a very tight coalition of Catholics and Lutherans, who may not care for one another, but are certainly agreed that “we don’t need any more missionaries in our territories!”  The fact is, they would rather people remain cannibals than to allow competition in the arena.

See definitions below:

Main Entry: co·mi·ty  []   []
Pronunciation: \ kä-m -t , k -\
Function:  noun
Inflected Form(s):  plural co·mi·ties
Etymology:   Latin comitat-, comitas, from comis courteous, probably from Old Latin cosmis, from com- + -smis (akin to Sanskrit smayate he smiles) ­ more at smile
Date:  1543
1 a: friendly social atmosphere : social harmony <group activities promoting comity> b: a loose widespread community based on common social institutions <the comityof civilization> c: comity of nations d: the informal and voluntary recognition by courts of one jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another
2: avoidance of proselytizing members of another religious denomination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity

Comity, in law, refers to legal reciprocity ­the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other nations (or other jurisdictions within the same nation), particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of theirexecutivelegislative, and judicial acts. The term refers to the idea that courts should not act in a way that demeans the jurisdiction, laws, or judicial decisions of another jurisdiction. Part of the presumption of comity is that other jurisdictions will reciprocate the courtesy shown to them. Many statutes relating to the enforcement of foreign judgments require that the judgments of a particular jurisdiction will be recognized and enforced by a forum only to the extent that the other jurisdiction would recognize and enforce the judgments rendered by that forum. Seereciprocity (international relations).

In the law of the United Statescomity may refer to thePrivileges and Immunities Clause (sometimes called theComity Clause) in Article Four of the United States Constitution. This clause provides that “The Citizens of eachState shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
In the context of professional licensure, comity refers to one jurisdiction granting credit for experience earned and exams passed in a different jurisdiction.[1]

But comity should not be misinterpreted as implying that all laws are of universal jurisdiction. In many countries, comity is effective only to the extent that foreign laws or judgments do not directly conflict with the forum country’spublic policy: for example, the United States will not enforce foreign judgments (such as defamation judgments) that present a conflict with the strong free speech protections in the U.S.

The problem with “Christendom” today is that most so-called Christians have decided to accept comity with the World, with the political powers, with the kings of the earth.  We are content to “live and let live.”  Unfortunately, we are not told to do that.  Worse, we are told to NOT do that!  (“Know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God?”)

The Muslims are not plagued with this problem.  They don’t believe in comity.  (At least, the REAL ones don’t.)  They only act nice until they have the upper hand.  Then we are given the options to convert, to die, or to stand them off with physical force.

Our compromised view leads us to being content to sit down with sodomites and child molesters and abortionists and have political comity with them, allowing them room under the “Big Tent” if they will but allow us the same comity.  And then we wonder why they mock us for being hypocrites.

I suggest that sincere Muslims have a much more Biblical worldview than we do in this regard, because they are practicing what we ought to practice!!!  That is a refusal to compromise with the world!  They shame us with their proper attitude toward compromise, regardless of their heresies in all other respects!  (They also shame us with their practices of modesty, and several other points, but that’s for another day.)  Furthermore, they are willing to die for their faith — whereas we are only willing to form committees to study the problem and recommend solutions, which often wind up suggesting that we accommodate our Enemies, in the hopes that they won’t kill us.

When Charles Martel, Duke of the Franks, and head of most Europe, finally decided that Europe had to resist the Muslims who had occupied Spain, Greece, parts of Italy, and were marching on western Europe, he finally applied the only workable solution to dealing with a militant enemy, and that was to defeat them, or die trying.  He defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD, and stopped the westward and northern spread of Islam, throwing them completely out of Europe, but not defeating them.

There are only two ways to defeat radical Islam — either we convert them, every last one, or we kill them all!  Here’s the shameful thing — it ought to be the same for us!!  But, until we grasp the concept that the best word to describe our duty toward the world, as Christian Believers, is “warfare”, not “accommodation”, not “comity”, and not “the big tent theory”, we are going to be fighting a retreating action from the World, and we are going to experience defeat, not victory.

I’ve been thinking of a great bumper sticker these days, which would probably be perceived as a political campaign by most who see it:

Charles Martel

Where are you when we need you?

In fact, I’m thinking of writing in Charles Martel for president this year.

© Daniel D. New, Permission to copy, with credits, is hereby granted.-

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Share This Post

Google1DeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Reload Image

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.