During the last round of the endless Esmay imbroglio, I followed a link from Esmay's site to an anonymous blog that invoked me, gratuitously and without any specific examples of inaccuracies in my writing, in writing about the alleged sins of Little Green Footballs:
To top it off, LGF has become an Internet Book Tour for anti-Muslim viewpoints from non-Muslims (yes, I believe that the head of Jihad Watch can actually present a completely unbiased view of the Muslim community – NOT).
You're right, of course, whoever you are. The head of Jihad Watch cannot actually present a completely unbiased view of the Muslim community. Nor has the head of Jihad Watch ever claimed to present a completely unbiased view of the Muslim community.
If you find someone who presents a completely unbiased view of the Muslim community, you have discovered the elusive unicorn, and out-Diogenesed Diogenes. If you find someone who claims to present a completely unbiased view of the Muslim community, you have found a liar.
In fact, the head of Jihad Watch is biased. Quite spectacularly biased.
The head of Jihad Watch is biased against the proponents of a totalitarian, genocidal ideology that has announced its intention to destroy Western civilization and subjugate all those outside that ideology. The head of Jihad Watch is biased against those who would ignore, deny, or make excuses for the adherents of this totalitarian, genocidal ideology. The head of Jihad Watch is biased against liars and deceivers, and those who abet jihad terrorism in any way.
I agree with the publisher of the Atlanta Constitution, Ralph McGill, who wrote this in 1963: "I believe in being strongly partisan on issues which require a choice. There are some newspapers which are mute and others which carefully engage only editors with chronic laryngitis. But there comes a time in all controversies when one must hit the issue right on the nose or turn tail and die a little."
I agree with William Cobbett, publisher of the colonial-era Federalist newspaper, the Porcupine's Gazette: "To profess impartiality here would be as absurd as to profess it in a war between virtue and vice, good and evil, happiness and misery." Indeed. Impartiality between the jihadists and their victims? No, thank you.
I agree with the New Jersey printer who wrote in 1798, according to Cynthia Crossen in the Wall Street Journal: "The times demand decision: there is a right and a wrong, and the printer, who under the specious name of impartiality jumbles both truth and falsehood into the same paper, is either doubtful of his own judgment or is governed by ulterior motives."
All that said, does that mean that anything I have written here, or in my books, or monographs, or articles, is inaccurate? If you think so, bring it. Bias does not equal inaccuracy, and I stand by what I have written. Attempts to show me wrong have thus far involved unsupported, sweeping generalizations, or outright falsehoods, or ludicrous errors and misrepresentations on the part of the one making the charges.
And one thing all those people who made those charges have in common: they're all biased. It may surprise you to learn, in fact, that bias is universal and inescapable. No one can escape his point of view. The virtue of the early partisan press of the United States was that in those days newsmen owned up to their biases, whereas today those biases are just as strong, but covered over by a profession of objectivity that is as hollow as it is impossible.
Likewise in academia: professors like Omid Safi and Carl Ernst preen and strut in the Emperor's New Clothes of academic objectivity, which they think will hide the fact that they are nothing more and nothing less than shallow and manipulative propagandists.
Not that I mind the bias of the professors. I don't mind it at all. They can't escape it, after all, and just as I ask that my own work be judged on its accuracy or inaccuracy, so I believe theirs should be also. Biases should be noted and held in mind as an interpretative tool, but never used to dismiss anyone's work out of hand. That would be like dismissing the writings of everyone who has a nose on his face. What I despise about Safi and Ernst and their ilk is the sham of their objectivity, but their work is not worthless because of their biases; it is worthless because it is inaccurate and propagandistic -- as I have shown of Safi at Dhimmi Watch and of Ernst (quite briefly) in my new book.
In any case, all those engaged in this new "rightosphere" (whatever that is) crusade against bias in reporting about jihad should beware of placing themselves in an impossible and untenable position.
Oh yes, I'm biased, and so are you. And when it comes to the ideology of jihad and Sharia supremacism, you should be, if you have any moral sense left at all. It is time, in McGill's words, either to hit the issue right on the nose or to turn tail and die a little.
One final word: before you tell me again not to dignify these silly attacks with responses, please note that I am replying not in order to engage in a discussion with those with whom rational discussion has proved impossible, but in order to illustrate certain principles and bring certain truths to light -- principles and truths that are larger than one particular reply to some anonymous sniping blogpost -- for people of good will.
How dare you be biased against people who want to kill you. Don't you realize how little your lives are worth. It's their culture who are you to judge them? In a truly multicultural society people would realize that their being killed will bring about greater tolerance.
In case anyone had any doubt, this is supposed to be sarcastic.
Bias does not equal inaccuracy.
This simple fact still eludes many people. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I've been accused of being biased or a link I've posted has been accused of being biased. The accusers have been, of course, entirely unbiased and completely objective.
Of course Mr. Spencer - Umid Safi and Carl Ernst are not objective.
For example their participation in the First Annual Rumi Festival in 1998 in Chapel Hill, NC. Umid was a young grad student then and Ernst gave some addresses to the fawning public which was then fed a romanticized and New Age "sufism" based upon the abusrd renditions of Coleman Barks and various other preparations to suit the American palate for exotic spiritualities of higher consciousness.
There were female semazen (Mevlevi whirling dervishes) and gooey treacly attitude to be had by all.
This was the face of Islam being presented to the unsuspecting public in those days before 23 jumada ath thani 1422 hijri (9-11-01 AD). The religion of peace and Rumi. The Rumi of Coleman Barks and the sufi-ism of Carl Ernst, the professor.
You present another face however, the one which of course had Mansour Al Hallaj chopped up and crucified in Baghdad for his very sufic proclamation Ana ul Haq.
The happy Allah of the Sufis and the Jihad Allah of the Salafi dawa which is the real face?
Evidently since you haven't any credential as a PhD in sufi-sim and Islamic studies and are not tenured at a liberal and highly regarded University, you have no right to pronounce. However your personal invitation to embrace Islam from Azzam al-Amiriki and his Murshid Ayman al Zawahiri is commendation enough I would warrant.
I suppose the Esmays of the world expect us to sit around and applaud the efforts of those who seek to destroy us. Either that or act like an ostrich. What sheer idiocy!
I'd venture to say that yes, the staff of JW/DW is biased against Islamania but that bias is benign compared to some of the posters here and I for one am proud of them all!
What the #@$^%& is quote unquote "Anti-Muslim" supposed to mean anyway? Do any of these magic-wand utopian apologists ever define their terms?
"Bias does not equal inaccuracy, and I stand by what I have written."
Well said. This is exactly what the utopian socialists are trying to do, manipulate the English language to imply accusations of wrongdoing.
I guess this Dismay fellow is BIASED against Jihad Watch.
Andrea Yates
Fred Phelps
Warren Jeffs
Mary Winkler
Oliver O Grady
Dennis Rader
These are the "christians" this dumb-bell uses to excuse jihad....(they do it too!)
God deliver us from idiots.
Open your eyes! The world could be ruled by islam.
I will not go quietly into the burqa.
I question the moral status of anyone who knows enough about Islam and isn't strongly biased against it.
Biased isn't the same as being non-objective. Being objective simply means thinking in accordance with facts and context. So in fact NOT taking a stand against Islam (or nazism or communism or any other form of evil) after having examined the facts is being non-objective and possibly evil.
Christian apologist Ravi Zacharius puts it this way: "How do you reach a people who hear with their eyes and think with their feelings?"
You'd think that academicians would have been trained sufficiently in critical reasoning to realize that accusations of "bias" are nothing but an ad hominem argument. You evaluate each argument on its own merits, rather than trying to sling mud at the messenger.
How ironic that sound reasoning is being abandoned by the same bunch that "reasoned" its way into this multi-culti morass to begin with.
Report asks: "What the #@$^%& is quote unquote "Anti-Muslim" supposed to mean anyway? Do any of these magic-wand utopian apologists ever define their terms?"
I've wondered the same thing for years now. IMHO, it is the evolution of the MSM semantics to label those who don't share their world view as bigots.
The word "racist" was an early term, but the unwashed masses came out and said "But, Islam isn't a race."
This evolved into "Islamophobia", but the peasants said to the elites "Doesn't phobia mean an irrational fear; the qur'an says kill infidels"
With out multi-culti, pc culture saying that islam is a "religon of peace, hijacked by a few radicals" it implies that the majority of muslims are peaceful people. (Maybe they are, but who knows the percentage). But, by using the term "Anti-Muslim", it implies a bigotry against those peace-loving people.
BTW when did "moslem" become "muslim"? Anybody know?
They used to call up TalkSport radio's Charlie Wolf, and they used to say "you're biased". He would say (and to paraphrase the great man) "of course I am, but then your not paying for my impartiality."
He was referring of course to the BBC, who make us pay a tax for their services. If we don't pay, then we go to prison. The BBC thinks that it occupies the centre ground, but it so veering to the left that it is verging on the Loony Lane. Well, we had that debate recently.
And of course Charlie was stressing the point through comparison. His radio show was independent, and he could hold his own opinion, and he could say the heck what he damn well wanted to say.
I see that the big problem is that we are being brought up these days not to be offensive - not to step of the Politically Incorrect path. It doesn't matter if what you say is the truth, if it offends the sensibility of the Politically Correct canon, then it is wrong, and it shouldn't be a view to be observed or heard. The accusation of bias is then levelled, or worse, the accusation of bigot, rascist, heterosexual white male etc. Just take a look at how they are trying to ban the alternative global warming theory. If you say that it is not man who is causing the rise in temperature, then you are supposed to be conspiring a genocide.
The BBC is governed along the path of the Politically Correct. Folks, once and for all, this means that just because it's the BBC, it doesn't mean that they are telling the truth. In fact, they are likely to be lying. The good old days of Gorbochev listening to Yeltsin's counter-coup on the World Service, and knowing that it cannot be a lie - those days are well and truly gone. (In fact I dread to think what the BBC are telling our enemies on that station nowadays).
I used to stay up all night listening to that TalkSport show because, love it or hate it, it was the only place in the whole of British Media where you could hear an opinion, and know exactly where it was coming from. It was an oasis.
And what did they do in the end with this piece of radio gold? Well, they replaced it with George Galloway. Enough said?
Robert Spencer: Well said, as always. Thank you.
"BTW when did 'moslem' become 'muslim'? Anybody know?"
ShortBoard Surfer -
Ever since 9/11, CBC Radio (in Canada) has featured countless interviews and documentaries about "The Religion of Peace".
For years, I heard it pronounced "Muzz-lum". Then, sometime this year, suddenly everyone on the CBC (radio & TV) started pronouncing it "Moose!-lim".
Someone must have sent a sensitivity memo to all staff. Since when do I have to pronounce a word as if I came from Iran??? (Or should I say Ee-rawn?)
I'm constantly reminded of the Saturday Night Live sketch in which English-speaking Americans pronounced Spanish words (the names of Mexican dishes, for example) with exaggerated accents. "Chimmi-CHON-GA!"
For those who would throw the Bible at the critics of the Koran, I would like to ask, how many fanatic killings of civilians worldwide are inspired by the Bible in the present times? They never mention the religion-inspired violence, the beheadings accompanied with shrill cries of Allahu Akbar, do they? We don't see them standing up to the bullies of Islam, but are free to express fulminations at those who seek to clear the deliberate confusion about Islam. It is obvious they are serving as the foot soldiers of global jihad, in propagating false ideas, what is called the mind fuck, brainwashing, Goebbelspeak or the Sanskrit Buddhibhed.
To cite an ancient example from the Mahabharat, the whole world was split into two warring camps with no fence sitters. The powerful commander Karna had thrown his lot with evildoers. He began to chide the Pandava brothers for seeking to kill him with unfair means while he was down on his knees trying to free the stuck wheel of his chariot in the battlefield. Krishna then cited for him all the evil perpetrated on humanity by those he supported, asking him, "Where was your dharma at that point?"
Once again the time has arrived to choose where we stand without ambiguity, to end Islamic impunity without pettyfogging scruples about the human rights of the terrorists and fairplay against the despicable killers and abusers of women.
Islamic jihad is all-out war against civilisation, and those who would defend Islam in these polarised times out of humanitarian concern for the Muslims, would do well to see where they were themselves placed in the battle, before scolding others for their 'bias'! Islam has caused enough real misery around the world since its inception, and once again with vengeance when thousands of innocents have lost their lives for no fault of their own in recent times, for us to be fooled by the forked tongue of Islam!
In India, soon after the Mumbai train blasts, the simians of the banned jihadi outfit with the avowed goal of Islamising India, Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), perpetrated bombings in a Mosque in Malegaon during an annual celebration of the Shabbe barat, an event frowned upon by the Wahhabis. They killed about 13 Muslim pilgrims and injured nearly 300, using exactly the same devices (bombs placed in pressure cookers with timers and explosives, on parked bicycles) as were employed in the Mumbai train blasts.
Following the visit of Sonia Gandhi (Muslim Appeaser in Chief of India) to the town, the Police arrested scores of Hindu 'terrorists', who had to be let off after a few days for lack of evidence! The senile Marxist leadership participating in the UPA alliance at the Centre, wanted Maharashtra to be declared a terrorist state, assuming that Hindu 'terrorists' were behind both Mumbai and Malegaon blasts!!!
And after a delay of more than 3-4 months, the State Police have begun arrests of the real perpetrators, the jihadis, who wanted communal riots across the State, so that they could point at Hindu atrocities to justify jihad in a well-worn circular argument that continues to fool so many! Once again, the Italian seminary-graduate Sonia has issued a call to the Police not to target Muslims in their investigations!!!
No, we can't afford to lose the head of JW through being 'fair' to Islam. You have correctly shown the way, Robert: PROUD TO BE BIASED AGAINST ISLAM!!!
Robert said
Look at me, I'm ready to start my own blog. Or to work for the MSM.
Robert: Great essay. I am applauding as hard as I can down here in Texas, and I wish only that you could hear it.
The modern-day disease of apologitis:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20678893-32522,00.html
"The West has mistakenly believed tolerance begets tolerance. Having discovered that it spawns intolerance, we are finally getting back into the values debate."
Keep posting the biased posts - I'd rather have a hundred people who I might disagree with yet who hold their convictions strongly, than any number of "fair weather friends" who will change their minds aty the drop of a hat ....
AMEN BROTHER !!!!
Robert's got it right again.
The lost imaginaries can't handle the truth.
Hi, I'm Gotham, and I'm biased.
bias is universal and inescapable.(*
Bias does not equal inaccuracy. (*
These two solid statements in the article sum up a lot about the human nature.
RS, perhaps there is a need for scientific language that we could communicate to others in without being biased, here I mean a language which will indicate objectivity about one's opinion when expressed in it.
Right on, Robert! I wish that piece would become required reading in all English (Arabic, French, Spanish, Pharsi, Swahili, etc.) and Political Science classes around the world. And psychology, ethics, religion, and what the heck, math classes, as well.
Well I've always said that just because you're biased it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. So I guess you and I agree on that Robert.
Along the lines of "biased", I just got called a "xenophobe" who needed to "go to Confession" by a fellow Catholic eager to prove how much he embraced the cultural/moral relativism of the Suicidal West. That is a West which he assured me was "not any better" than any other culture (including one that considers women plates of meat for cats to devour). I DO hope Jesus got this guy's memo. That "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" talk is so exclusionary, JC!
Robert Spencer, how DO you keep your good humor with these lunatics bent on dhimmitude and surrender?
A huge thunderclap of applause Mr Spencer, that is one of the most outstanding and courageous rants I have read.
And By the way, the word rant is not necessarily a negativity.
Some rants are awesome, like yours, and some are pitiful (like Esmay's).
And your fortitude and perceptivity, accounting for your unwillingness to fall into an apologetic trap is outstanding.
You have nothing to apologize for, nothing to deny, when it comems to assessing and reporting on Muhammad and Islam.
On the other hand, Esmay and others of his ilk are, quite evidently, intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.. and that assessment from one who considers himself a "liberal", a second amendment, anti immigration, Islamophobic, America First liberal anyway.
Anyone who is a proponent of individual freedom is (or at least should be) objectively anti-Islamic.
Biased. Bigot, Discriminatory &/or Racist = WE disagree with you.
Open-minded, Humanitarian, and Fair = WE agree with you.
You are using subjective reasoning = WE disagree with you.
You are being objective = WE agree with you.
People throw around words like bias, discrimination, racist and bigot nowdays without much thought.
Everyone has biases, because everyone has preferences. But is thinking Islam is misanthropic cult thirsting for blood and loot an unfair and an unjustifiable bias?
"He has discriminating tastes." used to be used as a compliment. Everyone discriminates. Is it wrong to choose what is better? If I object to a religious/political system (Islam) because I think it is illogical, unreasonable and a pack of lies and think I can prove that this is so beyond a reasonable doubt have I become a discriminator?
It is whether a preference is justified or unjustified, fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable determines whether discrimination and bias are good or are bad. Unfair, unjustified, unreasonable preferences may include racism and bigotry:
Being racist is wrong. But, as has been said many times, Islam is not a race. To be biased against, to discriminate against a person based on where they were born, the colour of their skin or the language they speak is wrong.
Bigotry is wrong. Disliking other people, other ways of doing things, other opinions, and so on, just because you don't like them is wrong.
The point to my post above is that while you my be biased, they are being bigots.
The point to my post above is that while you may be biased, they are being bigots.
words words words - ALL from their own hearts and minds - but NONE from their own koran......
certainly not in justifying the actual teachings of Beheadings, GandRape, Cricifixions, the cutting off of hands and feet and Treason [all easily found in the Koran]- carried out by none other than humans - against other humans.
God is the Judge - at the Judgment.
The fact that so many Muslims are being taught not to wait until the Final Judgment of God - is proof of where their teachings come from:
Psa 69:6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. [which, by the way, the name Palestine is not mentioned in the Koran]
Jer 9:8 Their tongue is as an arrow [evil spirit] shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait.
You know who you are.
But you know not - who you serve.
"...before you tell me again not to dignify these silly attacks with responses..."
Robert,
I'm one of those that repeatedly assailed you for "wasting perfectly good phalangeal cartilage" answering these self-absorbed shamelessly self-promoting zeros. I apologize for my part in causing you additional irritation.
Not to excuse myself, but I think it was just part of the educational process which you started in me. You've taught me to see the world throught the eyes of my enemy, and to realize what an ugly place it will be if something isn't done. Occasionally I have experienced frustration, even panic. I apologize for second guessing you.
Despite how sycophantic as it may sound, I really admire you, and wish I had the talent, the fortitude and requisite self-effacement to be more like you. I wish that for our leaders as well.
Thank you, many times over.
How could anyone with even a miniscule understanding of islam not be "biased" against it?! I am curious to know how anyone not born into this religion could defend it with a clear conscience and a straight face, especially someone who understands what islam teaches and who pays attention to what muslims do and say, particularly the acts of terrorism they commit on a daily basis.
I also question why these diehard apologists for islam are so determined to discredit you, your website, and your books. What's in it for them to defend the indefensible, and what do they hope to accomplish?
Maybe they are being paid to disseminate lies about you and your work because I can't imagine anyone investing so much time, energy, and raw emotion in a smear campaign for nothing.
People who scream baseless, non-specific accusations merely wish to impugn your integrity and discredit your work. I would suggest that you ignore them, but I know you can't.
Great point, Beth, thank you. How often do the Islamic apologists quote the Koran to make their point? They get themselves on thin ice once they start that since any peaceful text is outdone by a violent, merciless one.
"God is the Judge -- at the Judgement" I will remember that line against the Islamic cult.
Robert Said: "In fact, the head of Jihad Watch is biased. Quite spectacularly biased.
The head of Jihad Watch is biased against the proponents of a totalitarian, genocidal ideology that has announced its intention to destroy Western civilization and subjugate all those outside that ideology. The head of Jihad Watch is biased against those who would ignore, deny, or make excuses for the adherents of this totalitarian, genocidal ideology. The head of Jihad Watch is biased against liars and deceivers, and those who abet jihad terrorism in any way."
Nice soapbox speech Robert! This site is served up as red meat for Christian extremists like the Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists who inspite of their condemnation of Islam, have a surprisingly similar vision of a Christian future: "Theonomy
The New Testament teaches us that--unless exceptions are revealed elsewhere--every Old Testament commandment is binding, even as the standard of justice for all magistrates (Rom. 13:1-4), including every recompense stipulated for civil offenses in the law of Moses (Heb 2:2). From the New Testament alone we learn that we must take as our operating presumption that any Old Testament penal requirement is binding today on all civil magistrates. The presumption can surely be modified by definite, revealed teaching in the Scripture, but in the absence of such qualifications or changes, any Old Testament penal sanction we have in mind would be morally obligatory for civil rulers.
Greg Bahnsen, No Other Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), p. 68." http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/theondef.htm
Christian extremists are using Muslim fundamentalism as an excuse to advance their own agenda, and Robert is touring the network of Christian broadcasters that promote these views, and of course says nothing about the movement for Christian theocracy. And he tries to lull the rest of us to sleep with the assurance that we have nothing to worry about since Christianity already had its reform, there is no risk of sliding back into the Inquisition and all is safe now in Christendom.
Personally I doubt it, but what I really want to know is what is the end game for this uncompromising philosophy that: "there may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam." Are you telling us that we have to give up on all hope that Muslims will want to reform their religion and get used to the neocon dogma of endless war? As AEI’s Michael Ledeen apparently put it some years ago:
“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”
I believe all religions, including Christianity, are man-made. So I care little what the religious texts say. The practise of Christianity in America today is in many ways at odds with the way it was practised in the 2nd and 3rd centuries or during the Middle Ages.
Christianity was reformed, not because of what it said in the Bible, but because of pressures from society. If Muslims want their religion reformed, it will happen regardless of the call to arms of the Medinan verses in the Quran.
There are other Muslims calling for reform besides Irshad Manji and Ayan Hirsi Ali, but they get no notice here because they are closer to mainstream Muslim thought. The moderates should be encouraged, and not automatically accused of practising taqqiya. Christian fundamentalists seem to be united with Muslim fundamentalists in ensuring that there are no peacemakers to get in the way of their wish to fight the clash of civilizations.
Rusty:
Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are tiny movements whose views are rejected by mainstream Christian bodies. They are equal to the global jihad as a threat only in the minds of paranoid anti-Christian leftists.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Re:Rusty:
Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are tiny movements whose views are rejected by mainstream Christian bodies. They are equal to the global jihad as a threat only in the minds of paranoid anti-Christian leftists.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Ever hear of these guys:(my edit)
"Born in Christian Reconstructionism, which was founded by the late R. J. Rushdoony, the framers of the new cult included Rushdoony, his son-in-law Gary North, Pat Robertson, Herb Titus, the former Dean of Robertson’s Regent University School of Public Policy (formerly CBN University), Charles Colson, Robertson’s political strategist, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, the late Francis Schaeffer, and Paul Crouch, the founder of TBN, the world’s largest television network, plus a virtual army of likeminded television and radio evangelists and news talk show hosts............Within a period of twenty to thirty years beginning in the 1970’s, Dominionism spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided and abetted by television and radio evangelists. More than any other man, Pat Robertson mobilized the millions of politically indifferent and socially despised Pentecostals and fundamentalists in America and turned them into an angry potent army of political conquerors.[46]
But it would be a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals and fundamentalists alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have joined and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47] .........when a government is seen to be the enforcer of the Deuteronomic laws, it’s easy to take the next step and say that it is the duty of the “Christian” Dominionist government to subdue the wicked of the world, especially the vast American middle class, because its collective licentious life style is bringing the nation down as a whole; therefore the government must “minister the wrath of God” against the citizens of America as punishment for “rebelliousness.” That the entire scheme is an unending circular argument, escapes the notice of the rank and file sitting in the pews.
In their new role as ministers of God’s wrath against this nation, Dominionist political strategists are aware they must not be seen as being cruel and hateful. So at first, until the population is completely subdued and dominated by the elect, Dominionists are forced to devise laws that will create the political, social, and medical environment that will ultimately ensure that the wicked are punished—but it will appear—at first blush to be a gift. "
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm
And of course Yurica runs a left wing site, but it does serve to balance out a lot of the rhetoric I've heard from the religious right. Such as this assinine concept of godless, secular humanists taking over the United States. More and more religious leaders have been using this straw man argument to move the U.S. closer to theocracy.
P.S. Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute,who I mentioned in the previous post, seems to have been very influential with the shaping of the neocon doctrines of total war and endless war, and provides the scariest, most inflamatory quotes. This is another good one:
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Terror-Masters-Happened/dp/0312320434