1

Well said. The "theocracy" argument is designed to mock and silence those whose political views are informed, at least in part, by their religious views. If someone claims to have a faith but wouldn't let it influence their political views, then it must not be much of a faith. The left finds it much easier to foolishly scream "theocracy" than to slug it out in the marketplace of ideas.

2

OK - you win. US Christian conservatives don't want to establish a theocracy.

Unfortunately, they're still (broadly speaking) hateful, extremist nutbars who want to bring all of society to heel under a Medievally repressive religious regime imposed by law and controlled by their sectarian authorities. But at least it's not, you know, theocracy, so it's cool.

All you've done is taken a very narrow and literalist definition of theocracy and shown it doesn't apply in a technical sense. But by your definition, there is no theocracy anywhere on Earth - not in Israel (modern or, Josephus notwithstanding, ancient), not in Iran, not under the Taliban, not even inside the Vatican City or anywhere else - because any state that has any form of mortal ruler, however god-besotted, is not technically a theocracy.

But words can have multiple meanings - as you know, since you frequently assert the "connotation" of words whose "denotation" is otherwise. It is only a slight broadening of meaning to use "theocracy" to connote "trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system"; more accurately, it is "trying to impose religious dogma through the legal system", and that is certainly the aim of the religious-political right wing. If you insist on another term for that, all right (try "Dark Ages"), but you haven't made the phenomenon go away.

Finally, Volokh's implication - that a Christian-Right Dark Ages is no different from the Civil Rights Movement - is simply asinine. Aside from the obvious, an important difference between them is that left-wing activists have found personal motivation in their religious beliefs for policies they could defend on grounds of universal human rights; the right wing takes their personal religious beliefs as the end-point they seek to impose on others who hold other views, usually in contravention of others' rights. (That is the difference between "imposing dogma on the law" and "imposing dogma on others through the law".)

Martin Luther King found it necessary to remind white Christians that they should support civil rights because of their putative religious beliefs; he never said everyone had to be a Christian, or that no one was entitled to act on matters of conscience according to beliefs he did not share. He felt his religious beliefs supported the proposition that everyone was entitled to freedom and equalily of privilege under the law; he never used his beliefs to deny rights and freedoms to others, or to claim that others did not deserve rights and freedoms because they did not share his beliefs. It's the difference between religious belief and theocracy.

3

OK - you win. US Christian conservatives don't want to establish a theocracy.

Unfortunately, they're still (broadly speaking) hateful, extremist nutbars who want to bring all of society to heel under a Medievally repressive religious regime imposed by law and controlled by their sectarian authorities.

Sounds like someone forgot to take their medication.

4

Kev,
You didn't have to take 6 paragraphs to say "but I like left leaning religious politics and hate right leaning religious politics". You could have just say "I like left leaning religious politics and hate right leaning religious politics".

5

Of course, the elephant in the room is that there really are folks that want to "bring all of society under a Medievally, repressive, religious, regime...", but they ain't US Christian conservatives. Let's contrast, the Pope (a Conservative Christian leader) makes some critical observations about Islam and what happens? A nun gets waxed and various leaders of this "religion of peace" call for his death. Then a couple of days later KTK calls US Christian conservatives "nutbars" and implies they want to set up a Taliban-like regime in the US and what happens? Aside from some good-natured riducule, nothing. No need for KTK to move into an armed compound or hire guards or send his family into hiding. Nothing. Makes you wonder what it is about KTK that makes him really concerned about the latter case, but apparently not so much the former.

6

Wow - I just got a look at some of the invitees for Washington Briefing. Let's see who's planning to show up:

Ann Coulter (featured speaker!)
James Dobson
Jerry Falwell
Tony Perkins
Rick Santorum
Sean Hannity
Newt Gingrich
George "Macaca" Allen
Mitt Romney
Bill Bennett
... And so many more!

So we've got Senators and Congressmen and Governors showing up to rub elbows with right wing hate speech pundits and the oiliest of the corrupt Christian corporate establishment. Now what could all this mean in terms of an American theocracy? Why, it means that James Dobson gets briefed on issues before a senate committee does (happened this year), it means Falwell is invited to assist in the drafting of legislation, and it means my tax dollars are used to fund a White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives and my tax dollars are sent to faith based organizations, all of which I vigorously protest.

No, we don't get to a theocracy in a week. We get there in a series of steps that, collectively, chip away at the wall between church and state, slowly dripping away on the idea of a secular society and replacing it with repugnant structure of demagogues controlling an ingorant and emotional public. And you prevent that sort of thing before it starts. At least, you try to. Sometimes you fail, and then you get a George W. Bush to deal with - and no, it's no fun at all.

7

Joe says:

The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans.

Isn't what you are complaining about above rather similar to what Christian Evangelical organizations in Colorado, including the one you work for now, tried to do when they put together Ammendment 2?

Text of the Ammendment:

Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

This essentially took away the right of gay and lesbian Americans in Colorado to petition their own State government. Which is one reason why the CO State Supreme Court, and later the US Supreme Court, overturned it.

US Supreme Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion:

To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.....

...Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests...

...[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

8

BTW, I don't think that these Christian political organizations are attempting to start a theocracy, although I enjoy using that term to needle them.

A theocracy would be run by God. What these groups want is quite down-to-earth naked political power. Thier ideas are not from God, they are from men, and are often corrupt and immoral, such as the legislation I previously menition.

I don't object to Christians running the Nation. I do object to bad people doing so.

9

Come on folks, let's get progressive! When are we going to get rid of those pesky laws against murder? After all, wasn't that some suggestion or something by some God? Therefore, if that law stays on the books, it's someone trying to cram their religious (hate-filled) morality down my throat, isn't it?

We need to stop that theocracy before it gains speed -- quick, repeal murder laws!

10

This essentially took away the right of gay and lesbian Americans in Colorado to petition their own State government

Oh please, it did nothing of the sort. Did you even read the text of the amendment before you "cut and pasted" it? What it does say is that being homosexual (etc.) is not a criteria for minority status, quota preferences, etc. Essentially it says that being a homosexual is not going make it easier to get into college or get a government job, and why the he** should it?

11

Interesting. I've been a Christian and pretty conservative most of my life, and no one that I know has ever described me as "hate-filled", not even behind my back, because you know that stuff always comes out in the end.

Not my neighbors, not my co-workers, not my best friend, who's a liberal, and more importantly, a Christian, and not my wife who votes the opposite of me about 85% of the time. Seems to me those most familiar with hate, are those who are most comfortable throwing those kinds of labels at a big group of people.

12

Somewhat off-topic: Joe, I think we could probably come up with a statement that is both a pernicious lie and does not contain a grain of truth. (Unless you were saying that your specific example is the most pernicious lie.)

13

Based on my friendship and interaction with thousands of Christians, I must agree with you Joe. I have never met a single Christian who advocated a theocracy for the United States.

I think it would be fitting for you to follow this up with a post explaining that the paranoid claims of many on the religious right are also absurd. You quote Keillor, but he's clearly joking. I don't know of a single non-Christian American who wants to persecute Christians, take away their rights of freedom of religion or right to vote. Yet, many conservative Christians, including Mr. Perkins at your own FRC, act as if Christianity is under assault and on the verge of being outlawed. I'm sure this is an effective technique for agitating his (your?) base and raising money, but it's not honest.

14

We see the evil that lies within the roots of Identity Politics, the attempts to purge morality from the public square, and the subversion of the political process through the courts. Light is a great disinfectant; Liberalisms days are numbered.

15

Why, it means that James Dobson gets briefed on issues before a senate committee does (happened this year), it means Falwell is invited to assist in the drafting of legislation,

Gee, it sounds like you want to take Falwell's and Dobson's right to petition their own govenmnet. What would Gryph say? So do you have a problem when the Sierra Club or ACLU gets to assist in the drafting of legislation or gets briefed on issues before a Senate committee or does it only raise your ire when "conservative Christians" get to?

16

Ouch, I should probably hit preview before post. As all conservative Christians know, government is not spelled "govenmnet"; it is spelled "guvmint".

17

KTK calls US Christian conservatives "nutbars" and implies they want to set up a Taliban-like regime . . . Makes you wonder what it is about KTK that makes him really concerned about the latter case, but apparently not so much the former.

I didn't say the Christian right were the only religious crazies.

But they're the only ones in danger of imposing a new Dark Ages on this country. That's a good reason to worry about them, in the context of the political environment in this country, and not to worry about others in that same context.

If your defense of your coreligionists is that you looked around and found a place two continents over where there's someone who's worse, I think we're entitled to regard that as setting the bar too low.

18

Big Kev,

As opposed to those enlightened explicitly secular governments like the USSR that lead the world into a time of new enlightenment?

Lets face some facts here, when it comes to your view of the world you've already decided what's out there before you bother looking. The storylines have been set in your mind before you've even looked at the cast list, and so we get coming from you ridiculous caricatures, instead of measured, reasoned arguments.

But, then again, I suppose its easier to simply dismiss the claims and arguments of a group you disagree with than to actually examine them.

19

I didn't say the Christian right were the only religious crazies.

Let's see in KTK's world folks who blow up airplanes, impose amusing little things like burkhas and genital mutilation on women, and cut folks heads off with rusty knives are the same as folks who, let's see, go to church, give money to help victims of natural disasters, have jobs, and, hmmm, oh yeah, and vote Republican. Their all crazies. Hmm, must be a sad little world.

But they're the only ones in danger of imposing a new Dark Ages on this country.

I'm trying to imagine what this "new Dark Age" of Christian theocracy would look like. The only thing I can picture is a world that looks pretty much like it does now, except with maybe fewer gay-pride marches, gangster rappers, and tatoo parlors.

If your defense of your coreligionists is that you looked around and found a place two continents over where there's someone who's worse, I think we're entitled to regard that as setting the bar too low.

Actually it's not a defense, it is an observation. You are far more concerned about the imaginary threat of a US Christian theocracy than you are about folks who really want to establish a real hardcore theocracy, complete with honor killings, queer stonings, and heretic burnings. At this point, I think folks are entitled to question your perspective if not your sanity.

20

Ogre:
When are we going to get rid of those pesky laws against murder? After all, wasn't that some suggestion or something by some God?

Rrrrrright, because everyone knows there's no rational, secular justification for a prohibition of murder. Just like everyone knows that Exodus is the first known prohibition of murder, and earlier such prohibitions that existed wholly independent of the Judeo-Christian tradition were planeted there by Satan who traveled backward in time to trick us and test our faith.

ucfengr:
Gee, it sounds like you want to take Falwell's and Dobson's right to petition their own govenmnet.

Uhh, no, it sounds like he's crying foul at the preferential treatment. I don't think he advocated anywhere to deny them any rights whatsoever.

21

ucfengr:
The only thing I can picture is a world that looks pretty much like it does now, except with maybe fewer gay-pride marches, gangster rappers, and tatoo parlors.

You forgot the part where women's suffrage goes away, where any and all sexual activity outside of marriage is criminalized, where the birth control pill is banned, where we return to the "good old days" of "traditional marriage" where interracial marriage was strictly forbidden (cf. Bob Jones), where women are legally the property of and subservient to their husbands or fathers, etc., where working on the Sabbath is punishable by death, etc.

22

"You forgot the part where women's suffrage goes away, where any and all sexual activity outside of marriage is criminalized, where the birth control pill is banned, where we return to the "good old days" of "traditional marriage" where interracial marriage was strictly forbidden (cf. Bob Jones), where women are legally the property of and subservient to their husbands or fathers, etc., where working on the Sabbath is punishable by death, etc."

Care to quote a single influential Christian group or person who has advocated any of these things?

23

You forgot the part where women's suffrage goes away, where any and all sexual activity outside of marriage is criminalized, where the birth control pill is banned, where we return to the "good old days" of "traditional marriage" where interracial marriage was strictly forbidden (cf. Bob Jones), where women are legally the property of and subservient to their husbands or fathers, etc., where working on the Sabbath is punishable by death, etc.

Come on...What mainstream (even fringe mainstream) conservative-Christian group is in favor of any of this? Dobson, Falwell, even that old "debil" Pat Robertson? Please. We can probably start wondering about your sanity too, Tom.

24

You know, it's funny. Sometimes I read liberal blogs just to see what they're saying, and the comments are filled with left-wing, hate-filled diatribes against the right.

Then I come to a conservative Christian blog and in the comments I find ... left-wing, hate-filled diatribes against the right.

Lotta hate going around. Most of it from one side.

25

We do have problems with Dominionists like Rod Parsley. But let's be practical here. Those Dominion groups, with all the volume they produce, do not have in place or even available any sort of mechanism to impose a Theocracy, let alone replace the Constitution.

Another issue is the regular lumping of the Reconstructionist crowd into the Dominionist camp. That generalization makes criticism simple for the Left -- just blast them all, right or wrong.

The Left has no foundation for its criticisms. Instead they spend their time with name-calling.
And that's what this point is really all about -- childish behavior.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

26

ucfengr writes: "The only thing I can picture is a world that looks pretty much like it does now, except with maybe fewer gay-pride marches, gangster rappers, and tatoo parlors."

I'm curious, are you suggesting that these be outlawed? Or that if more Christians held political office (I don't see how that's possible) people wouldn't want to do these things?

27

"Care to quote a single influential Christian group or person who has advocated any of these things?"

You're kidding, right? Let's start with R.J. Rushdooney and Gary North. They certainly aren't mainstream, but they have numerous followers. Google these guys and you will find a wealth of information about them, their beliefs, and their followers. And, like most leaders, their influence extends beyond those who are willing to publicly identify with their movement.

28

Well over 50% of the citizens of this country identify themselves as Christians. Yet there seems to be a stunning lack of action on repealing women's rights to vote. Maybe we are too busy ensuring teenaged girls dress modestly and wait until marriage to have sex? That's not really working out so maybe our focus is on preventing interracial marriage.. except that Tiger Woods is married to a white woman and still somehow manages to be the richest pro athlete on the planet, and Derek Jeter is one of the most popular baseball players.
I'm sure that this overwhelmingly Chrisitan nation is just waiting to spring our agenda of punishing people with death for violating the sabbath as we flock to Target after church.
Come on tgrish, how can you have such a cartoonish view of Christians? It's not like you haven't been hanging around here listening to us for the past few years. Are we all just lying to each other on this blog about waht we REALLY beleive.
At the end of the day you know that none of what you are saying has any basis in reality.

29

Rob Ryan,

You're freaking hilarious. Your prime example is a guy you admit isn't mainstream. I've never heard of either of the two (which doesn't necesarily mean anything, but makes me think they're rather fringe).

Seriously how numerous are these "numerous followers"? How many points are these "numerous followers" worth at the polls? Is it even a half point?

30

I'm curious, are you suggesting that these be outlawed?

If I was, wouldn't I have said "no" instead of "fewer". As an aside, I imagine there would probably be more Wal-Marts too;).

Or that if more Christians held political office (I don't see how that's possible) people wouldn't want to do these things?

If more Christians held political office, it would probably mean that more people (than now) were Christian, which I imagine would lead to less demand for those things, but I am only speculating.

31

I don't think Bush is trying to impose a theocracy in America and I likewise don't think the groups to which I will refer below represent mainstream Republican or Christian conservative thought.

But D. James Kennedy, David Barton, and the folks who want to "Reclaim America for Christ" and see no problem with writing the Bible wholesale into the civil law...they do have strong influence in Republican circles and a scary agenda. We can split hairs over whether their vision technically qualifies as a "theocracy"; but it's still a scary and dangerous vision nonetheless.

And they also rely on bad history to justify their vision. Our Founding Fathers didn't believe religious dogma should be wholesale written into the civil law, and were skeptical of the claims of Truth made by the preistcraft and ecclesiastical authorities. The key Founders -- the ones who gave us the ideas upon which we Declared Independence and constructed the Constitution and took the most prominent roles in leading the newly formed nation -- weren't Christians but theological unitarians who took a cafeteria approach to the Bible. Moreover, even before Rawls, they had their own idea of "public reason" which was "the law of Nature," that being what man can know from his reason alone. Or if revelation were to play any role, it was assist reason, which was Supreme. And "unreasonable" passages in the Bible could be disregarded as "corrupted."

32

"What it does say is that being homosexual (etc.) is not a criteria for minority status, quota preferences, etc. Essentially it says that being a homosexual is not going make it easier to get into college or get a government job, and why the he** should it?"

That's not what it said. It said gays or bisexuals could not receive antidiscrimination protection, something a whole slew of other groups already had. It said nothing about quotas or affirmative action.

33

Tim: "You're freaking hilarious."

Thank you! Maybe, though, I would be less funny if you were more informed.

"Your prime example is a guy you admit isn't mainstream."

That's what is called being forthcoming and not making an outlandish claim. You asked about influential, not mainstream. Are you now moving the goalpost?

"I've never heard of either of the two..."

That seems to be more reflective of your uninformed status than the influence or fame of either of those men. I thought everyone had heard of "Scary Gary" at least.

"Seriously how numerous are these "numerous followers"?"

I don't know, but I do know this: North seems to have no trouble drawing large crowds in small towns. That, to me, is indicative of influence. Rushdoony was quite well known in his time.

"How many points are these "numerous followers" worth at the polls? Is it even a half point?"

If it is half a point, that is 1.5 million people. That's a start, don't you think?

Look, I'm not claiming that America is in imminent danger of turning into an Iran-style theocracy (I'm aware that Iran is not a theocracy by Joe's definition; I'm going with current popular usage), but any movement in that direction, I think, is something to be avoided. There have always been those pulling in that direction since our nation's founding, and they have had small victories along the way. In some states, atheists were ineligible for public office. I would like to see the current trend of legal setbacks for these Roy Moore types continue and the influence of such people minimized.

Perhaps you should do some research before you dismiss the influence of men you've never heard of. Here's a good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism

But since you asked for quotes earlier, here you go:
"So let us be blunt: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberties of the enemies of God."

"The question eventually must be raised: Is it a criminal offense to take the name of the Lord in vain? When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16)."

Both are quotes of Gary North.

34

If the left keeps going, they'lll get their wish.

You never have to worry about an Oppressive Right Wing Christian Theocracy when you live under an Islamic Republic.

35

Rob,

For someone so well informed you're sure not offering any sort of hard numbers.

And if Christian Restorationists are the best you can do its not even a 1/2 point. Its not even enough to elect a single state legislator to office.

36

Actually the North quotes seem to come from a Reason magazine article. I won't doubt their validity, although the quotes are unsourced making it difficult to track down their original source. Towards the end of the article though, you see that actually a lot of people have been distancing themselves from these people.

Here is an interesting quote from the article:
Politically, Reconstructionists have been active both in the GOP and in the splinter U.S. Taxpayers Party; but their greater influence, as they themselves would doubtless agree, has been felt in the sphere of ideas, in helping change the terms of discourse on the traditionalist right. One of their effects has been to allow everyone else to feel moderate.

So, they wield no significant power but make other Christians look moderate. Therefore atheists must all be descredited because I'm sure there are some extreme atheists that make the others just "seem" moderate. Listing this guy as some significant Christian figure is a joke.

37

"For someone so well informed you're sure not offering any sort of hard numbers."

For someone who never heard of Christian Reconstructionism, Rushdoony, or North, you are expecting quite a lot of knowledge from me. Have you a minimum number of adherents/listeners in mind to qualify one as "influential"? If so, you might share it with us.

"And if Christian Restorationists are the best you can do..."

I'm talking about Christian Reconstructionists.

And the "best I could do" was sufficient to make my point; there are influential Christians who advocate some extreme measures. I never set out to claim they were mainstream or that "theocracy" was imminent.

38

Oops, here is the link again:
Reason

39

First rule of thumb...attack your perceived enemies strengths and spit out half truths.
Easy.

Nothing wrong with giving a proper definition of theocracy, it makes the argument look good.
Then go for the 'poor us' on the religious right routine, the left doesn't play fair and persecutes Christians.
It actually works.

Amazing.
At least no one can claim a recycled article is FRC propaganda or an attempt to sound kinder and gentler, which is probably why they hired Joe.

See the word attacks?
The ad hominum at the end to 'anger' the perceived 'opponent?'
It's not dialogue.
Perhaps 34 percent of US citizens do believe in UFO's. And perhaps 10 percent are Reconstructionist or Dominionist Christians that are well funded, and well placed.

Attack the 'other.It's the 'left's fault for blaming us poor Christians. This from the October 2006 FotF Citizen Magazine.
Remember now, distract, make it polorized...

"9-11 was terrible for America. But it's been devastating for liberals... For all its tragedy, at least one good thing came out of 9-11. It exposed the Left's incapacity to deal with evil.... Why won't the Left label and confront evil?
The reasons are not only psychological (fear of confrontation, fear of fighting, fear of dying, loathing of authority figures whether parental or divine, etc.)...

All this leftist aversion to talk about evil has come to the fore since 9-11. In that sense, 9-11 was a catastrophe for the Left. It told most Americans exactly what the Left does not want Americans to believe: that there is major evil in the world which only America can truly fight; that America is not the Great Problem and, even worse, that the Great Problem regards America as its primary enemy; that sometimes only moral violence can end immoral violence; that people do terrible things for reasons having nothing to do with economics; that the U.N. is morally worthless; that America really is exceptional, and that there really is such as a thing as evil and those who fight itare better than those who fight the fighters.

9-11 was terrible for America. But it has thus far been devastating for the Left. That is one reason the Left so hates George W. Bush; and why, in their hearts, they have to hope he--and therefore we--lose in Iraq."

That's not even good copy, but this ain't my battle. Carry on.

40

No time or interest in commenting, but I recieved this in my email today and wanted to share it with ya'll. I think it relates to the subject at hand.

>
>I sincerely don't believe in racism in any form, but after you've read
>this, you may agree with me that the Australians don't beat around the
>bush, and may have it right:
>
>
>Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on
Wednesday to
>get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to
head
>off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim
>leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special
meeting
>with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear
that
>extremists would face a rackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as
heir
>apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked
to
>leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular
>state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your
values,
>and if you want a country which has Sharia law or is a theocratic
state,
>then Australia is not for you", he said on national television.
>
>"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws
>governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another the
>Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree withparliamentary law,
>independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have
the
>opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps,
then,
>that's a better option", Costello said.
>
>Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he
said
>those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to another
>country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told
>reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should
>"clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who
>don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well
then,
>they can basically clear off", he said.
>
>Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by
saying
>he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques Quote:
>"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave it. I am
tired
>of this nation worrying about whether we are offending
>some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali,
we
>have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of
Australians."
>
>"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the
>'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility
that
>our patriotism was offending others. I am not against
>immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a
better
>life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that
those
>who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here,
need
>to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multicultural
community has
>served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As
>Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own
language and
>our own lifestyle."
>
>"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles,
trials
>and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"
>
>"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese,
Japanese,
>Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part
of
>our society, Learn the language!"
>
>"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right
wing,
>political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on
Christian
>principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly
>documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of
our
>schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part
of
>the world as your new home, because God is part of
>our culture."
>
>"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is
that
>you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
>
>"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like " A Fair Go",
then
>you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.
We are
>happy with our culture and have no desire to change,
>and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By
all
>means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
>
>"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow
you
>every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done
complaining,
>whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian
beliefs, or
>Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other
great
>Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."
>
>"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come
here. You
>asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

41

The historical and religious ignorance of the extreme secular left is truly impressive.

The Dark Ages were a result of the destruction of the Western Christian Roman Empire by pagan Germanic tribes. It was the Church that preserved civilisation and learning long enough to convert the pagans, after which civlisation began to return.

So Christian influence on government would not result in a "new Dark Ages", but in a more humane and decent society in which millions of innocent defenseless unborn children were not sacrificed to the idolotry of liberal "rights", and in which there would be more concern for the poor. After all it is Christians pushing Western governments around the world to act on third world debt relief and the horror of human trafficking and sexual slavery.

Meanwhile the West just barely survived a real dark age brought on by neo-pagan Nazis and secular atheist Marxists who between themselves murdered nearly 200 million people.

42

That's not what it said. It said gays or bisexuals could not receive antidiscrimination protection, something a whole slew of other groups already had. It said nothing about quotas or affirmative action.

Jon--You should probabaly read the text a little more closely because it specifically mentions quotas. As to the rest, it doesn't say that GLBT don't receive anti-discriminiation protection, it says that homosexuality is not a criteria for such protection, which is different. They could receive such protecion based on membership in another group. Practically, I think such protection is a bad idea for any group; why should I as a private citizen be forced to do business with an individual that I choose not to for any reason, but I especially think they are a bad idea for groups whose membership is based on a certain behavior or belief. Just as a practical matter, I can clearly differentiate between a caucasion, a black, and an asian, but anybody can claim to be a homosexual and how do you prove otherwise? I imagine there are a significant number of people who would claim to be gay to get preferential treatment in university admissions or government contract award, or even in moving into a desirable apartment co-op.

43

"but I especially think they are a bad idea for groups whose membership is based on a certain behavior or belief."

Well under federal law and I do believe Colorado state law, religion gets it to. And that is based entirely on chosen beliefs.

That's why Amendment 2 was so ridiculous. It said to one social group, you can't have this protection which a plethora of other groups, religion included, already have. In other words, the Christians pushing for Amendment 2 wanted to forbid rights to homosexuals, that they as Christians, have.

"Just as a practical matter, I can clearly differentiate between a caucasion, a black, and an asian, but anybody can claim to be a homosexual and how do you prove otherwise?"

Who would choose to identify as "homosexual" with all of the stigma attached to that word if they weren't really so? And btw, not all but a significant number of gays really can't hide it. See for instance, Clay Aiken or Liberace.

"I imagine there are a significant number of people who would claim to be gay to get preferential treatment in university admissions or government contract award, or even in moving into a desirable apartment co-op."

And I imagine that you are living on another planet.

44

Yawn . . .

I decided to take a look back at what is going on at EO.

I see the same ill-founded, hostile rhetoric and slanders being tossed around by secularists who would howl to high heaven -- or whatever -- if they were treated as they routinely treat others. {And BTW, RR and TG, we sre STILL waiting for your apology, over here.]

And, BTW, if you secularists on being pressed reveal that you KNOW that "theocracy" is an inappropriate, accusatory term, kindly refrain from using it, refrain from trying to justify it and try to correct your co-ideologues who insist on using it. Otherwise, you simply expose yourselves as dishonest and spiteful.

Then, maybe we can return to a more civil tone.

$0.02

GEM

45

Terrance Moeller posted a long comment above which he had received in an email.

Just to clarify. That email is a combination of some real quotes from the Australian leaders plus a diatribe written by an indymedia blogger. I thought it was a bit confusing as to who was saying what. So heres the scoop.

Article at Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp

Australian Treasurer talking about his view of Muslim extremism in Australia.
http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/transcripts/2005/123.asp

Diatribe by the Australian Blogger
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/112854.php

That should help sort it out.

Scott

46

Practically, I think such protection is a bad idea for any group; why should I as a private citizen be forced to do business with an individual that I choose not to for any reason, but I especially think they are a bad idea for groups whose membership is based on a certain behavior or belief

I agree. Which why right after Amendment 2 passed, I immediately fired every heterosexual employee that I had. And since it is legal to discriminate against someone because of their political beliefs, I also fired every Republican on the staff too. And since apparently the terms "Christian" and "Republican" now refer to the same person it had the added benefit of getting rid of people I don't like but couldn't get rid of.

It made for a much happier and profitable workplace.

47

Well under federal law and I do believe Colorado state law, religion gets it to. And that is based entirely on chosen beliefs.

Maybe I am being a little obtuse, but what makes you think I would be in favor of preferences for Conservative Christians, Liberal Christians, Zoastarians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Athiests, Wiccans, or any other religion? My opposition to preferences, affirmative action, etc. is not rooted in "homophobia".

Who would choose to identify as "homosexual" with all of the stigma attached to that word if they weren't really so?

I guess it would be appropriate to ask what century you live in? What real stigma is attached to homosexuality? Yeah, I know same-sex partners can't get married, but other than that? Did Rosie O'Donnell suffer from coming out of the closet? Ellen Degeneres? Jim McGreevey? None that I can really see. Can you name a prominent figure that has come out of the closet in the past 10 years that has really suffered from it? I'm having a hard time recalling any.

And I imagine that you are living on another planet.

And I imagine you more than a little naive. Why wouldn't you claim to be gay or bisexual to secure admission to Harvard (or Yale or Berkely)? You don't actually have to have sex with other men, you just have to say that you do. Heck you probably wouldn't even need to say you are gay, just sign up for a couple of gay right organizations and put it on your admissions form. You really don't have much imagination, do you?

We have probably strayed far enough off topic here, so you may feel free to have the last word.

48

I agree. Which why right after Amendment 2 passed, I immediately fired every heterosexual employee that I had. And since it is legal to discriminate against someone because of their political beliefs, I also fired every Republican on the staff too. And since apparently the terms "Christian" and "Republican" now refer to the same person it had the added benefit of getting rid of people I don't like but couldn't get rid of.

Seems like a stupid thing to do, but hey it's your business; I am not going to try to tell you how to run it. Did you also decide to fire all your Christian/Republican customers?

49

Tim:
Care to quote a single influential Christian group or person who has advocated any of these things?

Birth control pills: Today, conservative Christians merely claim the right to refuse to dispense the pill. But if they thought they could get away with it, they would criminalize them entirely. But you can find some railing against the pill here and here.

Working on the Sabbath: Most prominent Right-Wing Christian organizations support public posting of the Ten Commandments in schools, courthouses, etc., and claim them to be the moral basis for our own laws. (Examples here). According to the Ten Commandments, it is against these laws to work on the Sabbath. According to Exodus 31, the punishment for violating this is death -- Illustrated quite nicely here.

50

Zube:

You should try LGF sometime.

ucfengr:

In all seriousness, I don't think that the Religious Right powers-that-be really want a theocracy, at least not for religious reasons. I think the primary reason that, say, James Dobson advocates the agenda he does is to gain more power and wealth for James Dobson. So as in so many other areas, religion is simply a tool to motivate people to support him (especially financially). To that end, the Christian-as-oppressed-minority canard plays very well, and those religious aspects which play well with the conservative demographic are emphasized (e.g., gays are bad) as well as those that the religion doesn't even address (abortion is bad), while those things that don't play well (earthly wealth is bad, concern for the plight of the poor is tantamount) are downplayed.

51

tgirsch~
You're really trying to give these examples as Christian willingness to set up a theocracy, repeal women's rights, and implement capital punishment for sabbath breakers? This wouldn't even pass muster in the bibliography of a special ed.junior high english class.

But boy, you sure are onto us. Back in the caves we dwell in, we're planning raids to round up women who take birth control pills so as to send them all to concentration camps for "re-education". Further, after the initial wave of sabbath breakers have been sent to the gallows, undoubtably managed by James Dobson, all other remaining non-believerss will have stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inscribed on them screwed into the front of their heads...just to tie in with the prior torture string, which Christians love, as a general rule; torture that is..

Seriously, talk to your Christian neighbors, they all know about "THE PLAN."

52

Finlay:
Well over 50% of the citizens of this country identify themselves as Christians. Yet there seems to be a stunning lack of action on repealing women's rights to vote.

Actually, it's closer to 80%, but I'm not talking about all Christians, I'm talking about right-wing Christians, most of whom, in my not-so-humble opinion, aren't terribly Christian at all. If Joe's numbers are to be believed, these make up something like 23% of the voting public, nowhere near enough to get their full agenda implemented.

But I wasn't basing my scenario on what right-wing Christian groups advocate (as previously mentioned, what they advocate often has little to do with Christianity), but upon what scripture advocates.

I'd also point out that while many wouldn't publicly admit it (and I'm not limiting this criticism to just conservative Christians or even just Christians), the right of women to vote and the increasing prevalence of interracial marriage are viewed by many to be symptomatic of the "moral decline" we keep hearing about.

GEM:
TG, we sre STILL waiting for your apology

Don't hold your breath. You're never going to get anything more than what you've already gotten. It's okay, though, I'm sure you'll pray for me anyway.

ucfengr:

I'd bet that better than 90% of elected federal officials are Christians. And you still think more would change things? Here is a place where I think you would be well served to share my cynicism.

53

Taking a page from Pastor Dan, let's call the religious right what it is: evil.

What is happening on Capitol Hill today is plainly evil. As defined by Walt Lowe in the Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, evil is

that which causes harm, depriving a being of some good which is proper to that being. Moral evil (in religious terms, sin) is the result of a deliberate choice.

Pastor Dan's references are the fact that the Republican Party has become the Pro-Torture Party, but the silence of the religious right on this topic, and their acquiescence to this evil is itself evil.

It is ironic that Carter only quotes dominionists like Peroutka, by the way, since almost all the arguments made - including Carter's disinegenous and dishonest "there is no theocracy movement here" trace back to theocrat Rushdoony.

Evil.

54

GM: "I see the same ill-founded, hostile rhetoric and slanders being tossed around by secularists who would howl to high heaven -- or whatever -- if they were treated as they routinely treat others."

Care to provide an example, or are you merely trolling?

"And BTW, RR and TG, we sre STILL waiting for your apology, over here."

It is you who owes an apology, but, unlike you, I won't constantly pop up and remind you of it. The thread speaks for itself.

"And, BTW, if you secularists on being pressed reveal that you KNOW that "theocracy" is an inappropriate, accusatory term, kindly refrain from using it, refrain from trying to justify it and try to correct your co-ideologues who insist on using it. (Brace yourselves, onlookers, for the cut-and-paste barrage to follow)"

I'll do that the day you quit using "selective hyperskepticism" in a manner that seems to include everyone who doesn't subscribe to your mythology.

"Then, maybe we can return to a more civil tone."

I find that your absence enhances the tone.

"$0.02"

Truth in advertising.

55

Rob Ryan,
We can all call your beliefs "mythology", too. It really means nothing, other than a weak attempt at a veiled insult. If you had a corner on the market of truth, then I guess you'd have the right to throw around that term regarding folks' deeply held faith, and belief systems.

I think hyperscepticism is more of a comment on how much proof and what kind of proof or evidence one actually requires to accept something as true. But, I won't accuse you of it; I don't have the ability to get inside your mind.

But by belittling others views by calling the conclusions they've drawn mythology is a kindergarten tactic, ala, 'booger face'. But if that's what you got, use it, I guess..

56

"We can all call your beliefs "mythology", too."

You could do so, but not accurately; mythology deals with "gods, demigods, and legends of a particular people" (according to my Merriam-Webster). I have no such beliefs. By the way, mythology is not a pejorative term, RB. Perhaps you find it so because you associate the word with other people's mythologies, which you disdain. I'm sure the tone and tenor of your comment is quite as insulting as my use of "mythology".

57

Joe,

Preparing for the Washington Briefing, a sort of Lollapalooza for Christianists,

and Ann Coulter is Courtney Love?

Seriously, how can any "Christian" conference invite Ann Coulter as a speaker!

58

Claims of "evil" against moderate conservative Christians by supporters of Daily Kos's Jew hating blog posters are amusing.

"Cartoons more suitable in Iranian street protests calling for the destruction of Israel, have graced the pages of Daily Kos (the leading, by page views, Democratic blog) . Other greatest hits on Daily Kos include entries extolling the benefit to the world if Israel did not exist, another praising “the Iranian President” for being “absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is”, and others suggesting Israel commits terrorism on a daily basis."

From: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5876

59

Shawn

Claims of "evil" against moderate conservative Christians by supporters of Daily Kos's Jew hating blog posters are amusing.

"Moderate?" There's nothing "moderate" about equating brain dead people to living, breathing born people, just as there's nothing "moderate" about equating human beings to zygotes.

There's nothing "moderate" about being soft on people who torture.

Evil indeed.

And you have to smear Kos posters with the "antisemitic" canard? Especially this week after the tirades of George Allen and Dean Barnett?

Really, I can't imagine how folks who write things like that can live with themselves. I guess the "shame" function in your brain is turned off.

60

Conservative Christians do want a say in the democratic process, as is our right. If we want to preserve traditional marriage and other Christian values, that is also our democratic right, just as it is the democratic right of secularists to oppose that. Excersing our democratic right to have views that are different, even "offensive", and to advance our views in democratically voted legislation, has nothing at all to do with theocracy. A conservative Christian government that is democratically elected is a democracy, not a theocracy. A theocracy only exists when it is imposed by force on a majority population that does not want it.

Mumons claims therfore are either seriously dishonest or plain ignorant. Either way he/she clearly does not have a whit of understanding about the terms he/she is throwing around, as do others promoting the theocracy lie.

The dishonesty and sheer stupidity of the extreme secular left is, as always, impressive.

Mumon opines: "And you have to smear Kos posters with the "antisemitic" canard?"

The factual evidence is there for all to see, as the quote I posted proves.

61

Ah, I see that this drivel is what Shawn was referencing.

Oddly enough, if you click through the links (via Hugh Hewitt - note link sanitized to help Google find better people than Hewitt)you'll see a healthy debate, in one case, and the community rating in the another case a "troll diary."

Finally, a last link is to Dean Barnett, who was guilty of antisemitism himself last week!

Barnett seems to be deathly afraid of anyone finding out that George Allen is Jewish for one simple reason: Republicans can't win elections without the tacit support of antisemites and other bigots. Period.

IOW, civil discourse prevails on Daily Kos.

62

As always the best way to defeat the left is with the truth.

“Joe’s on the Senate floor now and he’s growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate” (by “ctkeith,” posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On “Lieberman vs. Murtha”: “as everybody knows, jews [sic] ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on” (by “tomjones,” posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

These posts on Kos's site prove that the extreme left, and those people like Kos are supporting, are antisemitic to the core.

63

The above quotes from Kos's site peove Mumon is lying, or stupid, or both.

64

Shawn:

You just did what Kevin Drum called "nutpicking."

And you quoted that dishonest Lanny Davis who did the same thing.

You quoted 2 quotes out of -literally- millions.

Why don't you find something more recent?

Answer: because Lanny Davis couldn't either.

Game, set match.

Try again with your strategy of attempting to tar your opponents with your worst crimes. How many Kos-supported candidates kept nooses in their offices or called opponents' aides by racist terms?

Hmmmm?

65

BTW, the latest interesting thing to me on Kos - about Lieberman - is that Joe Lieberman is taking money from Mel Sembler, a Florida Republican who ran what was essentially concentration camps for troubled teens.

Sick. Just sick.

66

Shawn,

Please don't feed the trolls.

RR wrote;

By the way, mythology is not a pejorative term

It could be used as a pejorative term. From Wikipedia, pejorative means...

A word or phrase is pejorative if it implies contempt or disapproval.

You used the word mythology in the following context...

I'll do that the day you quit using "selective hyperskepticism" in a manner that seems to include everyone who doesn't subscribe to your mythology.

...which is meant to be contemptous of Christianity.

Why use the word to describe Christianity instead of say, "your religion" or "your beliefs", etc? What does mythology have about it (Hint: Pejorative) that the word religion or belief couldn't accomplish?

67

Eric & Lisa:

Obviously I had the goods on that troll Shawn, since he he couldn't refute what I wrote.

What does mythology have about it (Hint: Pejorative) that the word religion or belief couldn't accomplish?

Not necessarily perjorative. The word mythology can also connote a metaphorical, allegorical truth that is not literally true, such as the ancient Greek theatric accounts of Orestes.

We may not subscribe to your mythology in the sense of it being literally true, and if that offends you, as Benedict XVI said, I'm sorry you're offended, but basically, it's not my problem.

68

Shawn: Just so you know the can of worms you are opening up, Mummy is an certified nutca....um....er....diarist at DKos.

Sorry, Mummy, but the recent events in Lebanon brought the whacko anti-Semitic, holocaust-denying leftists out in force on your favorite website. Not just in the comments section, either. The anti-Semitic diary entries are well documented. Go to LGF, search for "The Protocols of Daily Kos", and you will get links to many diaries that are over the top with their anti-Semitism.

69

This post deals somewhat with the theocracy issue. It asks whether the American Revolution was consistent with Calvinism, and answers arguably no. Gordon, you may enjoy it. If you do decide to comment though, make them pithy. Book length comments will be deleted by our site administrator.

70

Barnett seems to be deathly afraid of anyone finding out that George Allen is Jewish for one simple reason: Republicans can't win elections without the tacit support of antisemites and other bigots. Period.

Nice try troll, but that dog won't hunt around here. As Shawn pointed out, Kos (where mumon is a proud diarist) is rife (yes, I mean rife as in widespread or prevalent) with anti-semitism. While there may be some anti-semitism on the fringes of the political right, it is pretty close to mainstream on the left. It ain't folks on the right replacing the Star of David with a swastika on the Israeli flag or comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Too many folks on the left are willing to accept without reservation the worst lies about the Jews or Israel, but are willing to accept the lies of a Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden with out question.

71

For those interested, here is my brief reply entitled "Neo-Theocracy."

72

Cheesehead & ucfengr:

Oddly enough, despite the high dudgeon, nobody actually went to Kos and found those links and posted them here. Well, not oddly enough; antisemtism quickly gets troll-rated to oblivion over there.

I'm sure you could find oodles of links critical of Israel, but it is nothing if not antisemitic to equate all criticism of Israel with antisemitism; a considerable plurality, if not majority of American (and Israeli) Jews do not adhere to the militarist sentiments of the right wing of Israel.

Or, I might add, Zionism. Criticism of Zionism does not equate to antisemtism; and I think one of the founding assumptions of Zionism - that "Jews are not like gentiles" is itself problematic, when it comes to bigotry. And there are indeed Jews - the Satmars come to mind - that reject Zionism. (And I won't even go into the fact that 20% of Israel's citizens aren't even Jewish...)

And none of this has anything major to do with the fact that Israel is used as a distraction by extremist Muslim fanatics, except insofar as political forces are gearing up for one huge battle royale in the not too distant future, with the Chinese expected to be the clear winners in all that when the smoke clears.

And that's free speech, baby: the ability to question fundamental assumptions about how the US and the world is structured politically, culturally, and militarily. I know that's not the same as repeating some loudmouth's talking points, but that's more interesting anyway, provided it's done in a respectful polite manner.

Heh. I'm saying that here.

I've got no time to wade through the sewer of "Little Green Footbals" and its racist foaming; Google turned up nothing but the well-known fact -at which LGF takes umbrage - that Kos rightly takes umbrage at George Allen and Charleton Heston playing footsie with the racist CCC.

I did see one other entry where LTF's author took umbrage at the fact that there "were no diaries" on Chavez or Ahmadinejad, which was odd because all he had to do was look. Just because something's not "front-paged" at Kos doesn't mean it's not discussed.

You or LGF's author may not like the fact that we didn't do a ritual denunciation of Chavez but as Richard Cohen pointed out, Chavez was a softie compared to what folks on the right say about people in this country who aren't in lockstep with the slouch towards fascism.

So stop the practiced over-zealous protestations of antisemitism, and clean up your own stench.

It's about time.

And like Kos, I take their racism personally.

73

[Joe, delete this if you will. I wrote it in response to Gordon on another thread which does not now allow comments. It would be a nice enhancement if the comment text area would be disabled when you turn off comments on a post.]

Gordon,

the major issue that has been raised, is that unfortunately, in Islam's FOUNDATIONAL teachings and examples, there is a call to global conquest and subjugation in the name of Allah, and the fact has been amply —sadly — well substantiated.

No at all. For that be substantiated, you would have to show that some significant portion of the 1,000,000,000+ (more than a billion) Muslims in the world actually share this view rather than quote mining and interpreting their holy book based on your own biases. Short of that, and you are well short of that, you are just repeating conservative talking points.

we need to consult the relevant history and see that it is when Islamist expansionism and its associated ideological rhetoric and militancy has been externally contained,

This is particularly interesting. If this "Islamist" program has been contained, that's been accomplished by Christianist and atheist expansionism. Christians were particularly effective in California through their mission system, pretty much wiping out the native Americans in what is today the US State of California. Muslims in Spain were replaced by the Christian Inquisition famous for its torture. To the north and east Muslims in the 20th century were stimied by the atheistic Communists. Does this make atheists friends of Christians ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend")?

As can be seen form the major histori institution of dhimmitude and the associated subjugation of Christians, Jews and other adherents of major inscripturated religions, so is aya 29. This needs to be faced, not dodged.

Yet the Koran says, “Let there be no compulsion of religion.” Why do you ignore this?

we must firmly respond tot he islamist expansionism that has been resurgent since 1979

And what evidence of expansionism can you cite since 1979? What non-Muslim nation is now Muslim? Were is there any evidence of this expansion?

The contrast with Christianity's major reformation: By contrast,the challenge in the institutional Christian church and associated christianised civilisation 500 years ago was to confront immoral, ignorant or disobedient praxis with the foundational sources and examples. Through the printing press and the deeply associated Protestant Reformation, this began, and the process led to a half millennium so far of liberation struggles in light of the challenge in the NT especially, but also the OT.

You need only to look back 150 years to see Christians on both sides of slavery, sufferage for women, eugenics, the Nazis/Holocaust, colonialism/imperialism, the KKK, book burning, lynchings, child abuse, apartheid, mass suicide, theocracy, etc.

Now I know you will say that the people on the wrong side of those horrible events where not really Christian. But how can you take that same arguement away from Muslims who today say that the suicide bombers are not real Muslims? Where do you find the hubris to interpret Islam as an outsider?

Just like the it was not the "typical" Christian who lynched the black man right up to the 1960's, it is not the "typical" Muslim who becomes a suicide bomber.

"Abel Meeropol (1903 – 1986) was an American writer best known under his pseudonym Lewis Allan, under which he wrote the anti-lynching poem Strange Fruit which he subsequently set to music and was famously performed by Billie Holiday."

The first stanza:

"Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees."

The lynchings which occurred for one hundred years in the USA would not have been possible without Christians (those calling themselves Christian) being complicit. The same is true today of Islam, terrorists, and Muslims.

We must fight those that would have their way with terror and violence, those that believe their holy book can be imposed by violence on others. This has nothing to do with whether or not those people are Muslims or Christians.

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."

74

mumon

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

from M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

75

Mumon, I am not a troll, and your excuses for those comments are a joke. The unassailiable fact is that the comments are real, they are on Kos's blog, and they are not unusual. Whether they are supposedly "two" out of "millions" is neither here nor there, and I believe false. It is an indication of the kind of thing one can find on a regular basis on Kos's blog and on other anti-American Marxist sites such as the Democratic Underground. It was YOU MUMON who claimed that Kos's readership was a slice of mainstrean American opinion. Therefore it was perfectly reasonable to challenge that claim, and I did by showing that your claim is a lie. Most Americans are not anti-Jewish or even anti-Israel.

If you want to debate and make claims, you cannot whine like a child when someone challenges you.

Your claim about Kos's blog has been shown to be false.

Admit it.

76

To be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Jewish. The two attitudes are one and the same. Anti-Zionism is just politically correct Jew hatred. Mumon and his vile ilk are the Left wing version of the Nazis, as is there leader Kos.

77

All:

First, thanks to E& L for being fair minded on my behalf.

I think the record speaks for itself, sadly, and not as RR, TG et al imagine. I don't have the time or inclination to get into a point by point rebuttal but I think the facts are accessible in many a thread over the past little while. The most notorious case in point is the still open thread here, in which TG asserted and refused to apologise for [when it was refuted] that Hitler's atrocities are an example of "Christian-inspired violence and genocide." RR then set out to back up the claim, and in so doing in effect argued that his use of Christian terms and texts is sufficient to make that case -- never mind, I suppose, the concept that one can wrench out of context and distort text, or that one can misuse the name of God. [Cf my response esp to Hitler's 1922 speech, also the 1934 Barmen declaration by leading Christians of Germany, and the White Rose movement and martyrs.]

Now, I also see Andy cross-threading, as he attempts to rebut my point that:

the major issue that has been raised, is that unfortunately, in Islam's FOUNDATIONAL teachings and examples, there is a call to global conquest and subjugation in the name of Allah, and the fact has been amply —sadly — well substantiated.

I will comment on points, but first note that the thread in question was still open as att his morning, and has in it copious documentation of the relevant points. On points:

1] you would have to show that some significant portion of the 1,000,000,000+ (more than a billion) Muslims in the world actually share this view rather than quote mining and interpreting their holy book

--> Andy, have you actually LOOKED at the Quran, foundational era examples and history?

--> To take just one case in point here [duly noted by Krauthammer], observe the sharp and ironic contrast between the Muslim violent outrage over the pope's citation from Manuel Paleologos and the silence in the teeth of the case of gunpoint conversion in Gaza.

--> A glance at Q 9:29 - 31 will suffice to show the precise context of the latter action, and a glance at the following [excerpted from the other thread, Sept 21 1:36 am] will suffice to show that even official Muslim state sites -- here Oman -- show the application of Q 9:5, which demonstrates that the at swordpoint conversion effort dates to Mohammed himself:

After God empowered Muslims to enter [NB: softens what happened: questionable repudiation of a treaty and conquest followed by slaughter of selected opponents of Mohammed] Mecca, Islam became the prevailing power and was spread by use of fear. This was particularly evident in the tribe of Quraysh [i.e. the Meccans], who had responded to the Prophet Muhammad’s new message of Islam with unrelenting persecution, eventually putting its resources in the service of the ever growing new religion [i.e. after their subjugation by military force]. The Prophet then saw it preferable to contact neighbouring kings and rulers, including the two kings of Oman, Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, through peaceful means. History books tell us that the prophet had sent messages to the people of Oman, including a letter carried by military escort from Amr Inn Al Aas to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, in which he wrote: ‘In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, from Muhammad bin Abdullah to Jaiffar and Abd, sons of Al Julanda, peace be on those who choose the right path. Embrace Islam, and you shall be safe. I am God’s messenger to all humanity, here to alert all those alive that non believers are condemned. If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy’.

--> In short the accusation of quote mining etc fails.

2] If this "Islamist" program has been contained, that's been accomplished by Christianist [NB the immoral equivalency inference] and atheist expansionism . . . Muslims in Spain were replaced by the Christian Inquisition famous for its torture.

--> Andy, do you know the history of Spain and Portugal? In fact the native -- and Christian -- iberians expelled the Islamist invaders after 800 years of struggle. In short you have overlooked the islamist expansion that was only stopped by Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732 in a major battle that stopped them from conquering France. Then there was 800 years of struggle that ended with the defeat of Granada in 1491. [I leave it to others to detail the inaccuracies in the portrayal of American history in the above. There were abuses, but I think the evidence is that it was mostly old world diseases that New World peoples had no immunity to that sharply reduced native populations.]

--> You then drag in the [im]moral equivalency argument. Now, as hte other thread will amply document, Christians and atheists and others who hold power are capable of horrible things. But, as hte point from the other thread was, when Christians have done so, they did do in defiance or ignorance of the specific teachings of the Scriptures, and it was precisely the general publication of those scriptures that led to waves of reformation and liberation struggles that at length have led the Catholic church itself to repent and apologise for its wrongs. IN SHORT, THERE IS SIMPLY NO BASIS FOR CREATING AN OPPRESSIVE TOTLAITARIAN RELIGIOUS STATE IN THE BIBLE. [That is why the "Theocracy" accusation is a canard.]

--> By sad contrast, there is no appeal to the sources that will be able to directly counter such abuses within Islam, as discussed at length in the other thread. [Similarly, within evolutionary materialist atheism, as the pope pointed out in his Regensburg address, there is no foundation for solid ethics and rights.]

--> Enemy of my enemy is my friend is NOT a biblical saying. I believe it is a traditional Arabic -- as opposed to Islamic -- concept.

3] the Koran says, “Let there be no compulsion of religion.” Why do you ignore this?

--> Q 2:256 is an early surah and aya, which was in effect abrogated by the later medinan ones such as 9:5 and 29. If you had but followed up basic links you would have seen this key principle explained in detail with copious sourcing. [Cf the public gunpoint conversion case above.]

4] You need only to look back 150 years to see Christians on both sides of slavery, sufferage for women, eugenics, the Nazis/Holocaust, colonialism/imperialism, the KKK, book burning, lynchings, child abuse, apartheid, mass suicide, theocracy, etc.

--> Observe that this is a reiteration of an [im]moral equivalency point long since adequately addressed, and which plainly overlooks the point that was cited:

The contrast with Christianity's major reformation: By contrast,the challenge in the institutional Christian church and associated christianised civilisation 500 years ago was to confront immoral, ignorant or disobedient praxis with the foundational sources and examples. Through the printing press and the deeply associated Protestant Reformation, this began, and the process led to a half millennium so far of liberation struggles in light of the challenge in the NT especially, but also the OT.

--> In short, reformation is a process and you will find people on both sides of the question because it takes time to convince people