Recently I was interviewed by a reporter who asked me to agree that the jihadists were at war with the modern world -- with modernity itself. This is a common view: that somehow we are facing a revolt of the Amish, an uprising by people who want to restore some pre-technological world.
I surprised her by disagreeing, and trying to explain to her that as far as they're concerned, the Sharia is perfectly modern; since it comes in their view from the eternal God, it can never be outdated. And the jihadists themselves have never hesitated to use the most sophisticated modern technologies to further their aims -- including using the Internet for PR and recruitment. Here is more evidence, from the Christian Science Monitor, with thanks to JJP Mackie:
WASHINGTON – The gist of their messages hasn't changed much. But the frequency of them has. Since Sept. 11, 2001, members of Al Qaeda have released an audio- or videotape about once every six weeks.Most notably, Osama bin Laden, invisible to the world for more than two years, sent a videotape to Al Jazeera just three weeks ago. Before that, a young man claiming to be an American recorded a 75-minute screed on a videotape that was delivered to ABC News along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
But the communication is hardly limited to the airwaves. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi alone has posted messages on the Internet to his followers in Iraq several times in the past week, urging them to resist the US campaign in Fallujah.
The routine appearance of these tapes and Internet postings, despite tighter security, highlights Al Qaeda's growing sophistication in producing and airing messages for internal communication as well as for shaping global opinion....
Military officials have thought it would be difficult for Al Qaeda leaders to coordinate operations because they couldn't use telephones, which are traceable. But marines in Fallujah this past week found computers that appear to indicate that Mr. aZarqawi and Al Qaeda leaders outside Iraq at least tried to talk with one another in cyberspace....
The tape that was delivered to ABC News nearly a month ago, by a man calling himself Azzam the American, still baffles intelligence community officials here.
The FBI posted a four-minute segment of the tape and a partial transcript, along with an "urgent" request for help in identifying the individual, on its website on Oct. 30, the day after ABC aired a similar segment.
According to an FBI spokesman, the bureau has received several tips but still hasn't identified the man definitively. Yet some intelligence officials believe he is Adam Gadahn, a young man who converted to Islam and left California for Pakistan six years ago.
That tape is a 75-minute diatribe echoing bin Laden's claims that Islam is under attack by the West - occupying lands and exporting corrupt values. It says that continuous jihad is the only solution....
"It's a recruiting pitch," says Jenkins, who has spent much of the past year trying to look at the world from Al Qaeda's viewpoint and who evaluated a transcript of this 75-minute interview obtained by the Monitor.
"For them, recruiting is much closer to missionary work.... Above all, the purpose of this screed is to enlist people in the greater cause of jihad."...
But the overarching message from the tape is that Al Qaeda's communications systems are evolving to outwit security measures imposed by governments and are succeeding as a recruiting tool.
"Their communications systems are light-years more sophisticated than they were on 9/11," says Michael Scheuer, a former senior intelligence official who studied Al Qaeda for more than a decade. "Not only is it sophisticated, but prompt and the quality is high. They pretty much dominate the Internet in terms of Islamic literature. - it's of very high quality, controversial, interesting to read, and appeals to Muslims."
"But the overarching message from the tape is that Al Qaeda's communications systems are evolving to outwit security measures imposed by governments and are succeeding as a recruiting tool."
This is the scary part. Extending the analogy of communication tech to more deadly areas, how long before they catch up with WMD tech that is essentially pre-70s by western standards? And what exactly are we doing about it?
These insights and articles are inportant, they are true, and they are needed. The speed of Al Quedas
evolution can be truly devastating and catch the Western Democracies by suprise(and our growing group of allies of non-westerm, non-democratic allies).
However I wonder if perhaps another dimension could be added to the website as well-a series of petition pages addressing particular concerns, and a weblink page to help us readers introduce the site to ther sites and request links.
Just a thought. Information without the ability to act on it can be frustrating. Many times I've emailed the URL's of these articles out to people. But I feel like Cassandra warning to doomed. So many are just, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay." Maybe those of us that can see the danger would have our efforts more pointedly useful to address the governments that are actually able to effect these important changes anyway.
This pr propaganda stems from the pounding we are affording them on all fronts,seems to me they are like wounded dogs licking themselves and yelping,their outlets are few and far between now and the numbers are coming down quick.
Caches of weapons found, plans thwarted every where convince me that many freedom loving people across the Globe Will Not TOLERATE islamic ideolgy in this Century just like it has been in the past.
May you mossies be SHAHEED in one fell swoop.
"They pretty much dominate the Internet in terms of Islamic literature"- and sites like Jihad watch must be in constant fear of being shut down or being accused of committing a hate crime against this "great religion".
Political correctness has run amok in the West just like Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Spencer,
Talking of technological know-how:
Fantastic as it is, your/our JW/DW blog could improve its presentation if only the loggers' nicknames came on top instead the bottom of their respective posts, the rational behind it been that this other way we wouldn´t need to scroll all the way down to know who is ‘talking’, an especially convenient feature when, as it usually happens, it is a long ‘speech’.
Also, I believe there`s a way to show at any moment who is connected. Some messages specifically directed to a logger get ‘lost’ for lack of this also convenient facility.
Thanks a lot
Mr. Spencer,
Talking of technological know-how:
Fantastic as it is, your/our JW/DW blog could improve its presentation if only the loggers' nicknames came on top instead the bottom of their respective posts, the rationale behind it been that this other way we wouldn´t need to scroll all the way down to know who is ‘talking’, an especially convenient feature when, as it usually happens, it is a long ‘speech’.
Also, I believe there`s a way to show at any moment who is connected. Some messages specifically directed to a logger get ‘lost’ for lack of this also convenient facility.
Thanks a lot
We need sites proclaiming NO JIHAD, challenging Islam in an interesting provocative way with Islamist Reformists & moderators speaking to Muslims. TO MAKE THE BRAINWASHED THINK!! SHOWING BIN LADEN AS HE REALLY IS ; NOTHING DEPRIVED ABOUT HIM, HE IS A FANATICAL & CRAZY TERRORIST. ALSO THERE IS NO HONOR OR JOY IN DYING IN JIHAD JUST HEAPS OF PAIN. MYTHS OF VIRGINS SHOULD ALSO BE EXPOSED.
O.T. here is an article on msnbc on van Gogh's killer.
"From civic activist to alleged murderer"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6597068/
Surfing the net,i found an interesting article on the Theo Van Gogh killing,on the Al Jazeera website....it says that the dutch filmmaker has turned "freedom of speech" into a much more dangerous "freedom of hate and freedom to insult"....it was him who was guilty of insulting the islamic faith and he deserved what ho got,sayd Al Jazeera.
They also present in a totaly distorted way ,the burning of mosques,churches and schools incidents;According to Al Jazeera,the local churches organized demonstrations of support for the muslim community and they also denounced the racist attacks against the muslim faith...then the churches were attacked and burned down by right wing extremists,to punish them,for supporting the muslims...
About new ideas on how to promote,expand and improve the Jihadwatch website,i have the following concern:many who surf the net and learn about JW,mistakenly think that it is a jihadist website,and they don`t even give it a second thought..
The name of this website should be changed to something like StopJihad.com ,to make it clear to anyone it is in fact an anti jihadist website.
A name like Jihadwatch,furthermore,it concedes to the public in general and to the jihadists in particular,that we at JW are of a contemplative kind,we are just watching the jihad and the jihadists...
Our message,though ,should be a different one:we should move from watching,to doing something about it,from contemplative to preemptive,from passive to active,from merely informing people about the jihad problem,to teaching people how to look for and recognize jihad in our midst,what to do about it and how to get organized.
Just my 2 cents.
Islam and our liberal society is like fire and water. You can't mix the med-evil with modern day civilisation. But it is amazing how good they have become with PR! The lies, the distortions,the bigottry and the deceit is amazing. Equally amazing that they find so many gullible souls in the West willing to gobble up Islamic propaganda. Just how far can a book take our cause if it is not supported by the media? A website that is not watched by the "mainstream" and people like us encouraging each other will not drive the message home. That Islam is not a "religion of piece", that it is a subversive cult based on conquest and terror, which one (or two) of our politicians or media barons would dare to take it on? And again, how can we (like the canary in the coalmine) raise awareness and money, big money to start up a 24 hour Jihad watch news channel to counter Al Jazeera, BBC and 10 second soundbites from CNN?
Valid points terminator.
Could we at least raise the funds for a once a week show using memritv stuff ?
Mr. Spencer,
You miss the point of your interviewer's question. Modernity is not technology, although that is a part of it. Of course, Islamists will use whatever tools at their disposal to acheive their ends.
Islamism is a post-modern movement in the sense that it reacts to the rapid and uncomfortable changes of the present by a nostalgia for an idealised past--in this case the age of the prophet and the four rightly-guided caliphs. Modernity, in this sense, is the increasingly diverse world that intrudes upon the lives of Islamists through the growth of international commerce and media. Modernity is the Enlightenment values of scientific, rational thought and tolerance, which are incompatible with literalist and totalitarian interpretations of religion. Their fear of modernity is but the most extreme and violent form of a reaction which is a worldwide phenomena. We see it here in this country in the growth of fundamentalist strains of Christianity as well as in certain currents in utopian leftist thought.
Rob
'We see it here in this country in the growth of fundamentalist strains of Christianity' ~ Hugh Bristic
A few examples, Please? Links? Proof?
Fair enough:
Read the following Wikipedia entry on Dominionism and follow the external links at the bottom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist
Dominionists and their like-minded friends are working to pass legislation to enact their agenda.
New Dominionist Bill Limits the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm
In my home state of Virginia we are now required to post "In God We Trust" in our state courts and schools, sending the message that atheists are not equal citizens in the very places where this is most important.
On the more vigilante, terrorist end of the spectrum, there are the bombings of gay night clubs and abortion clinics. More disturbing perhaps is the support someone like Eric Rudolph had that enabled him to evade authorities for so long.
In Europe, we have the Pope attempting to fill the power vacuum in Eastern Europe left by the fall of communism with Catholicism. View http://www.secularism.org.uk/poland.htm for the details of the church's attempt to dominate Poland.
Obviously, Christian Fundamentalism is not currently the threat that Islamism is, but it is a difference in degree, not in kind. The West has a long tradition of restraining the excesses of religion, but if the secularists in this country were not on constant guard, it would not be long before we returned to the Golden Age of Christendom where witches were burned at the stake and Galileo was imprisoned for arguing the Earth was not the center of the universe.
With good will,
Rob or Hugh or whatever you want to call me
(Its not like we're ever going to meet in person, so what difference does it make?)
n my home state of Virginia we are now required to post "In God We Trust" in our state courts and schools, sending the message that atheists are not equal citizens in the very places where this is most important.
Atheists comprise a small minority of U.S. citizens. Nobody cares if someone is an atheist, but why do you feel that it is cruel and exclusionary to atheists to exhibit something that reflects the beliefs of the vast majority, some of which are historical icons? Atheists can ignore the religious symbols that they reject; they're not going to jump out and grab them, and hold them up for ridicule and persecution.
If people of different faiths can tolerate one another without contempt (muslims excluded), why can't atheists, who are vastly outnumbered, do the same? When I walk into a public building, a courthouse, school, or whatever, I don't stop and announce my religious affiliation; it is irrelevant. It is the few who wish to impose their beliefs on the majority, and use the excuse of inequality to justify it.
Nobody wishes to impose religion on atheists. But when they try to rewrite history and eradicate the symbols of our heritage, they are demanding special treatment and are infringing on our rights, not vice versa.
I do not wish for the government to put up signs in the courts that say "God does not exist," so I don't see how I wish to "impose my beliefs on the majority." I merely wish for the government to maintain its neutrality on matters about which people have serious disagreements and which have nothing to do with the government's legitimate and limited role. Religious ideas should be decided in a free marketplace, not one where special breaks are given to one "product" over another. To say that atheists are the oppressors when we are taxed to pay to have our children indoctrinated into the cult of cereminial deism and made to feel unwelcome in the courts where we come to seek redress is nothing short of Orwellian.
The fact that atheists are a minority is beside the point. Jews are a much smaller minority than the non-religious in this country (http://adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions). They are about equal in number to atheists and agnostics combined. Does that make it okay to put "Jesus is our Saviour" in the courts and schools? Christians are a minority in the Middle East. Does that give Muslims the right to tax Christians to build Mosques?
Religious charities had the right to government funds before Bush, as long as proselytizing was not an integral part of the services they were offering. What Bush did was to make it legal for those charities to use such money to promote their faith. Thus, atheist, agnostics, Jews, and Muslims are now forced to pay to promote the Christian faith. I wonder where the Evangelicals will be when the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas start applying for tax dollars to fund their drug rehab and indoctrination centers?
You say "Nobody wishes to impose religion on atheists." How can you say that if you have read any of the links I have provided? I'm glad you don't, but like "moderate" muslims, you appear to fail to recognize and condemn the efforts of the more extreme of your brethren to impose their world view on others.
With good will,
Rob
Susanp, I agree wholeheartedly. Atheists want to impose their non-belief on everyone else. How can a simple In-God-We-Trust sign signal that atheists aren't equal citizens? Ridiculous. If a person is really an atheist then he or she shouldn't be bothered by that sign any more than he or she is bothered by the horoscope in all the major newspapers.
We must make a distinction between a theocracy, which is what Muslims want, and a moral voice, which is what Christians want. Not approving of gay marriage or preferring characters in movies to keep their clothes on and not cuss DOES NOT constitute a theocracy. Nor does a Christian running for school board. One of the reasons that PC has run amok is due to Christians bowing out of politics and keeping silent on virtually everything. Let them speak!
If you need some reassurance, Bristic, please know that the vast majority of Christians aren't in favor of outlawing blow***s. Just keeping them off TV. God Bless.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
--George Bush Sr.
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm
Yeah. I guess I'm just crazy to be concerned.
With good will,
Rob
Can you name one living admittedly atheist politician? How likely do you think it would ever be for an avowed atheist to be elected president?
I'll give you a hint: an August 2000 Gallup poll asked a representative sample of Americans "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a an atheist would you vote for that person?" The result? 49% said they would not. Discrimination against any other minority to this degree would be condemned by most reasonable people. Where was the hue and cry about this finding?
Where do you good people get this sense that atheists are the opressors and evangelicals are a persecuted minority? How can you be a persecuted minority when the president counts himself among your number and the seven highest ranking Republican Senators received a 100% on the Christian Coalition scorecard?
With good will,
Rob
“Obviously, Christian Fundamentalism is not currently the threat that Islamism is, but it is a difference in degree, not in kind.“
Posted by: Hugh Bristic
It is more than just obvious and the difference is far more than in degrees. The difference is “fundamental” (no pun intended). It is more like the difference between my neighbor’s yappy little chihauhau and the pack of killer pit bulls down the block. Is the difference in degree only, they are both dogs right? I suppose you could say that. I suppose that the chihauhau dreams of having the same impact as the pack of vicious killer pit bulls, but it just isn’t in him no matter what he dreams. Sure some of his ancestors were just as big and mean as these present day pit bulls, but it would now take generations and a rewrite of his DNA to “revert” to his ancient killer status. No… to equivocate Islam with Christianity is plain silly and muddled thinking.
Rob~ I for one have no probs with your choice in beliefs. I just don't see Christian fundamentalism Ever becoming a threat like islam is doing. Christianity pretty much got past that stage with its major religous wars in several centuries prior to the 20th. Not sure how long you've been reading here but it has been discussed quite a bit....
I have a friend in Missouri who has concerns such as yours. Now, I won't get into his beliefs, but he and I sort of fall into the same 'minority,' if you will. Both he and I, and a host of friends across the US and Canada, would stand to lose if such a thing were to occur- but we All stand to lose if islam takes any hold.
If I am not sounding entirely coherent, I am fighting a serious desire to sleep at the moment...
" it would now take generations and a rewrite of his DNA to “revert” to his ancient killer status. "
What it would take is for religion to take over the role of providing education and social services, which is what many evangelicals wish to do (of course to do this they also need to muzzle the courts, which is also on their agenda). This would leave us in a situation not unlike what happened in Israel with Hamas. If you get control of the young and disenfranchised and train them to accept as truth the dictates of tradition, authority, or the group, rather than reason and experience, you are headed down the same path as our Muslim brothers. The sources of power in that situation will feed the resentments and prejudices of their charges to maintain their dominant position.
Islam and Christianity are not the same, but fundamentalist strains of Christianity share with Islam the same epistemology. In each, truth is based on traditon, authority, or group identity and this is a recipe for oppression. If truth is settled or revealed, why tolerate dissent? What can you ever learn from the other?
Now, I will grant you that Islam at its worst is probably more brutal than Christianity at its worst. This is because in Islam there is no scriptural basis at all for the seperation of earthly and spiritual realms and because Islam was founded on war and conflict and lacks the Christian ethic of non-resistance. However, many do not recognize or take seriously these aspects of Christian dogma and see no danger in religion controlling the state as long as it is the right religion--namely, theirs.
With good will,
Rob
Hugh Bristic wrote “What it would take is for religion to take over the role of providing education and social services, which is what many evangelicals wish to do “
And what if they do? Here in Canada a very conservative religious group has been running their own education system for probably 200 years, its called the Catholic board of Education. I have not noticed any of its graduates advocating for the return of the Inquisition.
I would also like to mention that I saw Reverend Farwell (I mention him because I assume he is one of those fundamentalist Christians that we should be worried about?) on television the other night along with other Christian ministers, (one conservative like him and the other two were liberals). Rev. Farwell talked about abortion and unwed mothers. It turns out that as much as he hates the sin of sex out of wedlock, his organization runs a home for unwed mothers (along with huge doses of morality lectures one presumes). Now equate that to the Islamic solution to unwed mothers. As readers of this site know all too well, they don’t bother with homes for them, they just stone them. Is that a difference in degree only? Is that sharing the same epistemology?
"I will grant you that Islam at its worst is probably more brutal than Christianity at its worst." posted by H. Bristic.
Mr. Bristic, You do not understand the threat of Islam in the least if that is the strongest statement you can make defending Western tradition. The Muslims would stomp all over your kind as you whined about your right to believe in Nothing. The fact that Americans won't vote a self-proclaimed atheist into power isn't discrimination; it's the power of democracy. You can thank our Founding Father's belief in God for this freedom we enjoy, this "God-given" right for self-determination.
Hugh Bristic wrote “What it would take is for religion to take over the role of providing education and social services, which is what many evangelicals wish to do “
I should clarify my position on religion and government. I do not want to live in a Christian theocracy, nor do I want to live in a Hindu theocracy, nor a Buddhist theocracy, nor even an Islamic theocracy. The chances of Hindus or Buddhists taking over North American and forcibly converting us to their religion and values, etc, is nil. I have my doubts that any of them have even considered it, even in their wildest dreams. The chances of Christians doing the same are almost nil, no matter what they dream of doing. And almost none of them believe this to be a Christian goal. The chances of Muslims doing it are almost nil as well, but the difference with them is the violence they will use while trying to do it. That is the main difference between Christians and Muslims, and it is not a difference in degree only.
“Your grandchildren will be free to worship God, however they perceive him to be.”
"Mr. Bristic, You do not understand the threat of Islam in the least if that is the strongest statement you can make defending Western tradition."
I understand the threat of Islam and I understand what the Western tradition is. Apparently you, sir, do not. It is not, in its most important sense, Christianity. It is the secular, humanist tradition of self-government that primarily is based on Greco-Roman civilization and its reinterpretation in the Rennaissance and Enlightenment. Upon what basis do you criticise Muslims when you yourself do not respect the rights of minorities in your own country and base your political beliefs on religious dogma just as they do?
" The Muslims would stomp all over your kind as you whined about your right to believe in Nothing."
"Your kind" ... "whined" ... do I sense a hint of glee in your prediction that I would be stomped upon. At least those Muslims know how to handle their atheists, I can almost hear you say.
"The fact that Americans won't vote a self-proclaimed atheist into power isn't discrimination; it's the power of democracy. "
Did you read the survey question? It implies that you would rather see your political opposition be elected than a competent member of your own political party. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what would count.
"You can thank our Founding Father's belief in God for this freedom we enjoy, this "God-given" right for self-determination."
My rights are based on the founding fathers looking at the blood-drenched history of Europe with its religious wars and Divine right of kings and realizing that what best promotes human welfare is for government to have a limited role and for religion and government to operate in seperate spheres. If my rights are based on the fiat of some God, what recourse do I have when some mullah or televangelist claims my rights don't extend to disagreeing with him about the nature or even the existence of God?
Rob
“Your grandchildren will be free to worship God, however they perceive him to be.”
Yes, but will they be free not to?
Could it be that the reason atheists are such a small minority is that people know full well the social ostracism and discrimination they would face for allowing their reason to extend to the religious sphere?
Don't let your justified anger at your neighbor's intolerance, violence and bigotry, blind you to the problems in your own home. "We're not as biogoted and violent as the Muslims" is not an appropriate response when someone points out prejudice and discrimination in the society you live in. Its easy to say someone is overreacting when it is not your rights that are being abridged.
Rob
"Is that sharing the same epistemology?"
Yes, it is the same epistemology. Epistemology is the theory of how we know things. In both instances, the basis for "knowing" is a record of supposedly revealed truth. This is not an adequate basis for determining the truth, whether that scripture is the Koran or the Bible.
Rob
The bottom line is this:
If Hugh Bristic lived in an islamic country and he declared himself being an atheist,he would be charged with blasphemy and decapitated within 48 hours.
He ,however lives in a free country and he can express his stupidity at will.
I would like to ask hughbristic:do you have the right to vote?
do you have the right to get a job,get married,have children,go to school,own a house,etc,etc?!
What exactly are your rights,as an atheist, that are violated?!
Dear HughB:
I am a conservative, albeit a rather liberal one, and a Christian, although I rarely go to church. I love my country, my culture, and my traditions, and I feel that everything dear to me is under assault by left-wing socialists, nihilists, multiculturalists, moral relativists, muslims, and the ACLU.
Perhaps I fail to empathize with your concerns about radical, fundamentalist Christians because I don't know any, despite the fact that I live in the deep south "Bible Belt."
The idea that there is a large contingent of radical Christians determined to impose a theocracy in America is absolutely ludicrous, and should I see any evidence to the contrary, I will be among the first to oppose them.
Tell me, how did America prosper and thrive for two hundred years with references to God scattered throughout the country; in our public institutions, schools, on our currency, etc? Why is it now imperative to eradicate all vestiges of God in the public arena? I fail to see the urgency; they have done no harm thus far unless you consider the few who have been "offended" by them. I can't count the times I have been offended by someone else's idea of morality, righteousness, or propriety. If my desire to preserve my cultural heritage is "Orwellian", your attitude is nothing short of draconian. Faith gives me the courage and commitment to love, but it does not obviate my ability to reason. The Jews are devoutly religious, and they have produced some of the world's greatest thinkers, scientists,teachers,physicians,artists, and musicians.
What will become of America when the ACLU is finished with us? Why are some people determined to fix things that aren't broken, to turn America into a replicate of socialist, hedonistic, multicultural Europe, where Christianity has all but died and is being replaced with radical Islam?
When a void is created, something will fill it. You may not believe in God, but do you believe in Western Civilization? Like it or not, it was strongly influenced by Judaism and Christianity, and it is far superior to any alternatives, don't you think?
The biggest threat to all of us is Islam, not Christianity. You don't have to worry about a Christian terrorist attack or suicide bombing. Christians aren't going to hunt you down and execute you because you're an atheist. Christians won't rape your wife and daughters because they are subhuman non-Christians.
Arguments about religion, separation of church and state, and equality are never resolved amicably, so I have stated my case and I'll say no more. Maybe you will feel less threatened by Christians; I hope so because the threat is nonexistent.
Yes, it is the same epistemology. Epistemology is the theory of how we know things.
Posted by: Hugh Bristic
I know what Epistemology is.
“Your grandchildren will be free to worship God, however they perceive him to be.”
Yes, but will they be free not to?
Could it be that the reason atheists are such a small minority is that people know full well the social ostracism and discrimination they would face for allowing their reason to extend to the religious sphere?
Don't let your justified anger at your neighbor's intolerance, violence and bigotry, blind you to the problems in your own home. "We're not as biogoted and violent as the Muslims" is not an appropriate response when someone points out prejudice and discrimination in the society you live in. Its easy to say someone is overreacting when it is not your rights that are being abridged.
Posted by: Hugh Bristic
Yes I believe they will be. I really don’t care if you choose not to believe in god and I don’t think I ever said that I did. I just know that Christians do not represent a threat to our freedoms in any way. Muslims do.
Well, surprise, surprise, no one has been convinced by anyone else's arguments. I'll close on a note of concilliation by saying I absolutely recognize the threat posed by Islam. I think this is one area where atheists and evangelicals can come together. Everyone in the West needs to realize that the goal of Islam (in any kind of traditional interpretation) is not peaceful coexistence, but dominance. There is no moral equivalence between the civilians unintentionally killed by Israel and the United States when attempting to get at terrorists and the barbaric intentional torture and murder of civilian, men, women and children by Islamists. Terrorists are not militants. Words mean things. Liberal (in the classical sense) western values are better than any other competing value system yet devised.
With good will,
Rob
Terrorists are not militants. Words mean things. Liberal (in the classical sense) western values are better than any other competing value system yet devised.
With good will,
Rob
Posted by: Hugh Bristic
Rob
I could not agree with you more. Your last post was exactly right. We need more people thinking like you. I hope you will continue to post on here.
I look forward to reading more of your arguments.
Mr. Bristic: There was NO glee at all on my part when I asked you to imagine your fate as an atheist in an Islamic country.