New Spencer book cover

Excellent, Robert! Keep up the good work.

- a Secular Conservative/Humanist

I think the insent picture is wrong. It should be a picture of the wtc towers burning or a choice of any number of pictures of the typical Islamic attacks. I'm sure Voice of the Martyrs, Compass or any number of Christian organizations could also provide an appropriate picture of what Muslims following the so called Religion of Peace have done to Christians today. Show a split-Christians helping Muslims during the aftermath of earthquakes in Pakistan and Aceh and the beheaded Christian school girls. I have no idea why the publisher would have a picture of a crusader ? holding a sword with (bloody?) mail gloves. Actually I think there should be no picture.

Yayyy! The new phone book is here! The new phone book is here!!!

- Steve Martin

Cheers,

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Roberts, as with all of your books i will be buying this as well , and will once again try in vain to get my friends to read it or open their minds to the possibility that just because the media and Muslims tell us that Islam is a Religion of peace , it isn't..
Looking forward to some more truth .

Good cover. Now let's see what the reaction is to the contents of this book.

Oh, Bulldog. I am confident that the new phone book is MUCH more interesting than this!

(Actually, in all seriousness, I am pleased with how this one came out.)

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert,

The title and crusader photo is going to inflame them into riotous behavior. Please, please hire extra security when speaking at public engagements. As always, I wish you great success, and I'm sure it will be a #1 bestseller.

Warm regards,
Bonnie

Robert:

I am excited about buying copies of this book for family and friends as well as for myself. Will you be going on a book signing tour?

JSobieski:

I'll be going around here and there, but mostly it will be radio, and maybe -- maybe -- a TV show now and again, although I rather doubt it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

As already remarked on above, the cover is ill fitting.

Put aside whatever you may know and reason like a person who doesn't know much about the history of the Crusades but has heard a little bit of the PC ready made replies.

The argument goes like this...

"Islam, a so called religion of peace is responsible for suicide bombings."

Muslim apologists argue, "Yeah but Christianity was responsible for the Crusades"

As I said, put aside what YOU know about the Crusades. The problem is the cover will not get past superficial reviewers who blow it off as "Sheer hypocrisy! Spencer claims Christianity is a true Religion of Peace and yet he alludes to a Crusader on the cover which represents the single most bloody slaughter of innocent Muslims in history and done by Christianity! Ask anyone! Even non-Muslims like Karen Armstrong know this to be true!"

Even though, technically Christianity is not much of a "peace" religion, but their teachings does show that, while islam doesnt, not in one single line. But in a standoff between both, I, without any doubt will choose christianity, even though I got some death threats from christians for blasphemy, but the death and intolerance like the muslims do, are long gone and dead...

Here's one that didn't make the cut.

Goob - #1 with a bullet, baby. I like the way you think.

Mr. Spencer - good luck and Godspeed with your latest effort and all to come.

Oh I will be buying it. I like the cover too. It is always one of the two things that people bring up about Christianity to prove their point that Christianity is as violent as islam. And I ALWAYS have to go into a diatribe about why the Crusades were started and when, and that yes, some men may have become like their enemy - that is to be expected, and the times were very different. And the other major time period is the Inquisition.

And they have nothing to say about the continued 1400 years of muslim violence. Oh and they get their info from movies that show muslims as the good guys while the Christians are the bad guys. It is really hard to deal with people like that, but I try.

I like the idea that this book is coming out because it will hone my arguments and give me a good reference for all of those same arguments.

Thank you!

Diabolical Spencer, I love the cover and look forward to reading your book. Then I will systematically pass it on to someone else. Knowledge and education keep us civilized.

Goob, thanks for showing us how that jihadboy is everywhere.

Robert:

This book couldn't be more timely. We need to get Presidente se vende (allahu akbar) George Bush(-itez) to read it!

The western democracies are being fatally misled by brain dead morons particularly (but not exclusively) ones on the "left" of the political spectrum. Although being a moron is not in itself a criminal act, when such lunacy as we see daily in the media concerns an issue as critical as Islamic infiltration and insurgency in the west, the misleading and misinforming of untold millions of people is having truly catastrophic consequences and as such requires intensive damage control and strong counteraction by persons who know better (such as yourself).

Americans simply can no longer afford to be led around by clowns like Howard Dean, Michael ("There is no terrorist threat!")Moore among many, many others (especially on the political left) who remain suicidally clueless as to the very real, grave danger that Islam poses to us.

From a political perspective, the misguidance radiating from the US Democratic Party and other leftwing bastions of ignorance concerning the crisis stemming from militant Islamic insurgence and infiltration will have to be neutralized ASAP. Somehow. This is not so much politics as it is SURVIVAL-- our survival and the survival of the civilization we have built. If only most people could be made to see why this is true.

The fallacies spread by political correctness is directly linked (as most of us have noted here) to the advancing and infiltration of jihad in our nation. We have been blinded by politcally correct bogus arguments and are thus socially bound by a stranglehold which emboldens Islam and its jihadists to move against us with ever fiercer determination.

The house of political correctness therefore requires demolition if we are to save the western democracies from Islam and its jihad war. How can we do this? Who among us can do this? And when? This book provides us with some help towards handling and resolving this very real political dilemma of dealing with (and neutralizing) political correctness, the blindness and severe problems that it creates.

At the very least book this book provides hope that brain dead morons will not be leading America and the western democracies to our and their demise at the hands of something so ghastly as Islam. And a means of combating political correctness has arrived.

Bravo, Robert Spencer!

Congratulations!

Courtroom Jihad:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/07/02/courtroom-jihad/

I will buy it and take it to work to educate people I work with.

I will buy it and take it to work to educate people I work with.

Congratulations!

Courtroom Jihad:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/07/02/courtroom-jihad/

Or better yet, have the two symbols, the cross and the cresent moon and star instead for cover picture.

Robert

It's nice to see Ann Coulter's endorsement on the cover, but is it known for a fact that she is aware of the threat of Islam and Jihad, or is she more like a mainstream Conservative commentator who only views the problem to be Islamo-Fascists, and a tiny minority of extremists who are not the true Islam...?

I don't recall her ever pounding on Islam in the same way that she pounds on Liberals.

"...Even non-Muslims like Karen Armstrong know this to be true!" - posted above

Is that the best punchline you could come up with?

-XRDC

Wow, awesome cover :D

Crusader with fist on sword -- I approve.

I like the pic myself,as for inflaming the inflamed,how could you escape it?

As another thought who cares if they get inflamed?what are they gonna do threaten him with death?AGAIN?

They are the ones trying to instill fear,that means they are the ones afraid.With good reason too.

The truth hurts doesn't it DUDAS?

Bravo Robert!

The picture is perfect for the title because many Muslims & Muslim apologists argue that the Crusades are in tandem with Islam -- and they aren't.

A must read book!!

And please note that I appreciate your input very much, but at this point the book has gone to press: the title and the cover are final.

Hehe like it Robert - an old boss of mine used to say - "I shall carefully and democratically take into account each of your thoughts and inputs..then I'll come back and announce my decision!'

Bet you wish you could've wound the clock forward a bit to have Islamic Rage Boy on the cover though ;)

Robert -- you are chief on my prayer list. God speed!

I’ll have to read your book to understand how “Love your enemies” can give us “hope to defeat Islamic supremacism.” Are you sure you’re not one of those liberals? … Just kidding! Good luck on the book tour! Hopefully you'll become involved in some good debates.

Two worldviews in opposition to each other, with monumental consequences for all humanity -- your clear exposition of this, Mr. Spencer, is a Must Read, definitely.

The crusader's sword, tasteful and bold. Appropriate.

Hope that the Coulter endorsement brings lots of buyers.

One of the things she is best loved for is her directness with the truth. Her endorsement is fully appropriate and I was glad to see it.

Best luck.

I should point out -- the point to that picture selection is undoubtedly not about inflaming the unquenchable hordes of Islam. It is instead about arousing the Spirit of the Slumbering West.

I might be overstating it, but I somehow doubt it.

Robert,

We will be listening and watching for your TV and radio appearances as usual.

Do you have any past debates/interviews that you are particularly satisfied with and would be considered the "cream of the crop" to date?

-XRDC

What some people seem to have a problem is with the separation of men (women too) from the religion and its teachings. There are bad men who commit bad things in the name of a religion but that is not what Christianity teaches. And look how the Christian based societies treat those bad deeds - they catch them, give them a trial and mete out punishment accordingly, if applicable. And there are some deeds done in the name of Christianity, such as what the Jesuits have done to American Indians centuries ago, and this is still not what Christ taught. These men are not Christians, except in name only.

Islam is based on a man who was violent (out of over 78 battles he fought in over 35 of them), taught the tactics against others, such as lying, kidnapping, torture, enslavement, etc (to name a few) and dance and ulalate when their martyrs kill innocent infidels. The shahid is an honored thing and they start their training of jihad (not that spiritual kind - but the violent kind) to boys starting at about 6-10 years of age.

I would say that Robert Spencer probably has written all of this much better than I could ever dream, but I just had to respond to those who think that Christianity might even hint at being close to islam. There is no comparison, except if one wants to compare the differences.

Robert,

I hope you don't mind if I use Goob's cover one the book I buy!

Can't get enough of that Rage Boy...

Ah, what a shame. My birthday is on the 12th of august. I will be in the States in august so I may take a copy home with me.

Robert, any chance that you will be signing your new book in Boston or New York in august? Or will your book only be sold sold under-the-counter in New-York ;-)

Congratulations with your new title.

Mr Spencer, are you quite sure the title of the book is provocative enough?

Heh.

I shall lay a bet that either Karen Armstrong or John Esposito (or both) will be commissioned to review 'Religion of Peace?...' by one of the liberal US dailies.

I imagine these poor dears will be so disgusted that they will have to wear rubber gloves while reading it.

'The Truth about Mohammad' needs to be made into a movie.

bravo Robert,

Looking forward to the release. I will purchase as soon as it is released.

A Nonny Nonny,

If my previous experiences run true to form this time, the mainstream US dailies will not review the book at all, but will ignore it completely.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Robert,

That cover inspires hope and resolve, and yet there is something more. You dare to set the record straight, that good and evil exist side by side, that all religions are not the same and that Christ is worth dying for.

God bless and keep you, Robert. I'm sure the picture of the hands in the chain maille are yours.

Jesus/Christianity or Muhammad/Islam, you decide:

http://www.christring.org/shortseries/jesusormuhammad.htm

Robert,

Perhaps I am betraying a certain affinity with the Christian Crusades (as my pen name well attests) but the bloody, mail-clad hands of a crusader on the cover of your new book seem entirely appropriate to me. Incidentally: I actually am a descendant of crusader who, legend has it, was knighted by Richard 1st of England for gallantry beneath the walls of Acre during the third crusade – a knowledge that I take great pride in. However, contrary to an often biased contemporary historical perspective, the Christian cause during those Crusades was both a righteous and appropriate one in view of the Muslim barbarism and conquest of that far of time. I truly believe that winning our war against militant Islam today will involve restoring a certain unabashed pride in things 'Western' and an abiding faith in our Judeo/Christian culture. I am not suggesting, by the way, that all should necessarily subscribe to my specific religious beliefs but that we might all share a common history and cultural heritage - if you will. In 1095, as Pope Urban preached and launched the First Crusade, he reportedly ended his rousing speech with the very bold statement ‘GOD WILLS IT’ and we too should proceed with such confidence and simplicity of righteous motives! I am definitely buying your wonderful new book, as I have all the rest, and thank you for all your courageous and good work, Robert!

descendantofacrusader

Robert pretty much addresses that in his book 'The PIG to Islam (and the Crusades)'.

@descendantofacrusader: We need only adopt one sure belief -- the superiority of Western Civilization over Islamic Barbarism.

I believe you have it right.

"...Even non-Muslims like Karen Armstrong know this to be true!" - posted above

Is that the best punchline you could come up with?

You misunderstand what I wrote XRDC. That comment is not a punchline from a "someone" who is opposed this Robert or JihadWatch, rather that is the typical argument we hear from opponents and the PC crowd. Hence the qotes around it.

I though that was clear, but I guess not =)

Christianity is certainly less violent than Islam at present, but historically it has certainly not been a "religion of peace", at least in practice - the Inquisition, witch-hunts, routine massacres of Jews & infidels, and yes the Crusades. I consider Spencer's defense of this sorry chapter in history to be as appalling as any mullah's defense of jihad. The Catholic Church itself has apologized for the Crusades, and it does not apologize often or lightly.

Acts of violence against family planning clinics and abortion providers are regularly committed by Christian extremists today. One such extremist recently rammed his vehicle into a woman's health clinic and firebombed it in the mistaken belief that abortions were performed there. Interestingly, despite the fact that his attack was very similar to the recent airport attack in the UK, he was charged only with arson rather than terrorism and sentenced to a mere 5 years in prison (I guess it's only terrorism if a Muslim does it).

As long as there is religion (or any other irrational ideology such as Communism and Nazism that requires unquestioning faith), there will be fanatics willing to die and kill for their beliefs.

Is it the paper soft enough to wipe with? I can use the cover to fan my grill.

progressive

I thought you guys simply used more than 3 pebbles, duly applied with your left hand.

Sahih Muslim. Version 1.03 - Translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
Book 2: The Book of Purification (Kitab Al-Taharah) >> Chapter 12: HOW TO CLEANSE ONESELF AFTER RELIEVING ONESELF

Book 2, Number 0505:
Salman said that (one among) the polytheists remarked: I see that your friend even teaches you about the excrement. He replied; Yes, he has in fact forbidden us that anyone amongst us should cleanse himself with his right hand, or face the Qibla. He has forbidden the use of dung or bone for it, and he has also instructed us not to use less than three pebbles (for this purpose).

Robert,

I look forward to getting your new book. I bought five of your books all at once and I must say I’m overwhelmed. I thought that they would clarify the picture of Islam/Muslim take over of “Infidel” countries. What I found was many, many pictures that make up the main big picture. I need to study it more. I don’t have enough words of praise for your work.

Also I learn a lot from many who post here.

"Acts of violence against family planning clinics and abortion providers are regularly committed by Christian extremists today."

Mattbert, please provide proof of your statement, that is, if you have any and aren't just painting with a broad brush.

I buy all of your books Robert...But this book is the I want the most...thank you for this book.

mattbert -

I'm not quite sure if your post is done tongue in cheek, or if you are being serious. I hope you are spoofing - surely your post reads exactly like the Moral Equivalence 101 cliches that Robert's book addresses. You only failed to mention Timothy McVeigh for the caricature to be perfect.

I already pre-ordered 4 copies from Amazon a couple of weeks ago.

I always buy extras to pass around.

Isabella, do a search on google and you'll find plenty of documentation of violence committed by Christian "pro-life" fanatics. Here are a few links to get you started.

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/
http://abortionviolence.com/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence

OHHHHHHHHHH another ass wiper. Cooooooooooooool

mattbert,

"Christianity is certainly less violent than Islam at present, but historically it has certainly not been a "religion of peace", at least in practice - the Inquisition, witch-hunts, routine massacres of Jews & infidels, and yes the Crusades. I consider Spencer's defense of this sorry chapter in history to be as appalling as any mullah's defense of jihad. The Catholic Church itself has apologized for the Crusades, and it does not apologize often or lightly."

Big differences though. While Christianity NEVER blessed or commanded a believer to do violence against others in its scriptures or Holy Bible, despite the violence done in the past by those who profess the Christian faith. Islam, in its Koran DOES bless and command violence against others. Go online, go to the new blog that Robert Spencer has set up and you will be amazed by the many references on violent jihad that Muslims are commanded to do against others. Give Robert Spencer credit that he goes in depth on the history of Islam and violent jihad. Mr. Spencer is the 21st century on Islam as Bernard Lewis has been to the 20th.

Also will add that when a Christian does violence against others, there is quick condemming of violence by those in Christian leadership.

Is it the paper soft enough to wipe with? I can use the cover to fan my grill.

Posted by: progressive

**************************************************

You've heard of Toilette paper?

Prgressive or should we call you Digressive ?

Of course you'de take issue with the cover , and if it weren't the cover it'd be the text , if not that it would be the fact that Westerners are waking up and educating themselves , and learning the truth about WHAT Islam truly is . The days of Islam being believed to be peaceful and Tolerant are slowing winding down. With the discovery of Doctor Jihadi in the UK and his bungled attack we are learning albeit at a much slower pace than we should that any and ALL Muslims know what Islam is really about and that ANY Muslim can be a murderer in waiting, even a healer. I take comfort in the fact that the more we learn and discover about Whom is a potential Jihadist the more people learn that NO Muslim is above suspicion. They have noone but themselves to blame. Apathy and silence didn't excuse the Germans from Nazzism and it won't excuse Muslims for this either. personally i think all muslims should live in Muslim lands, being that their Death cult's ideology does not permit peaceful coexistence. WE do know who the villain is.

Mr. Spencer, I greatly look forward to reading this book, and the cover looks wonderful...however, I don't think a blurb by Ann Coulter is a good thing at all. It could cause people to take your work much less seriously.

Mattbert~ I'm interested in seeing a link from one of those sites you follow, detailing how many people Christian terrorists have killed in the name of God in the past 30 years.

Then I want to compare it to the 10,000+ islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred in the same period of time.

Oh btw, can you tell us when the last time was that someone died from Christian terrorist attacks? I believe the last time an abortion doctor was shot, was about 9 years ago, but I could be wrong.

I wonder how many doctors of All stripes have been killed world-wide by islamic terrorists.... just in the past 9 months.

I really want to read this one and I absolutely love the cover!

But Mr. Spencer are you begging for a fatwa to be issued against you? WHo know you be the next person to be knighted for a book :).

Mattbert:

“The Catholic Church itself has apologized for the Crusades, and it does not apologize often or lightly.”

That ‘apology’ in and of itself does not constitute a flaw or admission that the Crusader’s basic ‘cause’ – to free the Holy City of Jerusalem for pilgrim access once again – but an admission that their deeds were sometimes violent during that noble endeavor. True the crusaders themselves got violently out of hand on many occasions, as did the inquisitors did during the Inquisition, but it was more a case of wrongful actions of the practitioners of the faith than the faith in itself or its founder as is certainly not the case with Islam. I believe this distinction to be a primary issue that Robert is addressing in his new book.

Completely agree with Jonas above. As a reformed liberal (at least in regards to foreign policy), Coulter is already in this "choir." We need to get more left-leaning folks to understand the threat we are facing. Coulter is far too divisive for this to occur.

This issue of Islam and jihad is not one of left vs. right, but having her name on the cover makes it that way.

HALLELUJAH!

Is it the paper soft enough to wipe with? I can use the cover to fan my grill.

How nice. Even something for the Troll :)

“Descendantofacrusader: Robert pretty much addresses that in his book 'The PIG to Islam (and the Crusades)”

I am well aware of this great book of Robert's, as I own it, and your point would be what, Infidel pride??............

"Is it the paper soft enough to wipe with? I can use the cover to fan my grill".

Posted by: progressive at July 2, 2007 2:58 PM

progressive -- Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Very cool cover, love the crusader on the front. I really like the idea of that for a cover because one of the lefts or a Muslims greatest arguments is "what about the crusades" even though the real question is were those crusaders really following the commands of Christ? Were they really doing Christs work with their crusades? The Crusades were in fact an act of self defense, responding to centuries of crusades by Islam but keeping that aside, it is simple to see that those who had gone out to fight were infact doing the opposite of what the bible told them to do.

Can the same be said for Islam and the words of their lone Prophet? Truthfully not.

Can't wait to read this.

How refreshing it is to read dissenting views amongst all this adulation for Robert Spencer.

Of our friend progressive I would ask this: why don't you read Spencer's new book instead of wiping your bottom with it? For starters, I think soft-ply tissue is probably cheaper though if you wait a few weeks you may be able pick up a cheaper copy of Religion of Peace?... on Amazon or similar.

Personally, I enjoy reading articles and books by polemicists or those whose views differ sharply from mine. Know thine enemy and all that.

One of the reasons why I have little regard for Muslims' outrage at The Satanic Verses is that I have little doubt that few, if any, of the protestors or their leaders have actually read the thing.

Why not read it and see if Spencer's arguments have any merit? Your bottom will thank you if you do.

Mattbert,

To humor you, I checked out your links, but apparently you didn't.

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ This one said that there were 1700 acts of violence at abortion clinics between 1977-1994 with four people being killed in 1994 and 1 killed in 1993, although there is no information on who was killed or who did the killing. The link also said that there had been 167 attacks in that 15 year period. That averages out ot 11.13 per year. I can see why you would be trembling.

This site,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm, lists 24 murders or attempted murders between 1989 to 2004. Well which is it, murders or attempted murders? Even if it is murders that averages out to 1.6 per year for fifteen years. If we scroll down a little further there is a list of the five abortion doctors who were shot and/or killed between 1994 and 1998. That's one a year, which hardly proves your point that "acts of violence against family planning clinics and abortion providers are regularly committed by Christian extremists today."

Your Wikipedia entry states that:

"Abortion-related violence is most frequently committed by anti-abortion activists in the United States, against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." It then goes on to say: "The most recent act was an arson at an abortion clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia on May 9, 2007." There is no information to back up what you are saying, just a definition of abortion, an explanation of Virginia Beach and a timeline of events in history that took place on May 9th. Very weak, indeed.

But my favorite of all your links is this one:
http://abortionviolence.com/. You didn't even look at it, did you? It's a video of a pro-choice advocate assaulting a pro-life advocate.

Since there was no link regarding your allegation that an "extremist recently rammed his vehicle into a woman's health clinic and firebombed it in the mistaken belief that abortions were performed there," and since you neglected to tell us where or when this happened, please provide that information.

REgressive,

I personally think the NYT would make better TP.

Gary,

Look at the beginning of my first sentence:

Christianity is certainly less violent than Islam at present

I have never denied that Islam is by far the most violent religion in existence today. What I take issue with is Spencer's depiction of Christianity as a "religion of peace" despite the fact that it has racked up a gruesome body count over its 2000 year history.

"Kill them all, God will know his own"

mattbert,

try the most violent religion in history. only communists & nazis have been as violent, based on my studies.

i think isabellathecrusader has a point - show us some numbers here to help us out. because until you see all the numbers you can get your hands on, you're not gonna get what we're saying.

for ex: islam has killed more in thailand alone in 4 years than the inquisition did in 350.

see?

Robert,
I am looking forward to reading this as soon as possible. I do like the cover, it speaks volumes!
I like Ann Coulter too! She is against ji-hadist islamist. She does speak up and people try to shut her up.
I need to read your book so I will be up to speed.
I all so want to thank you Robert I think you are a giving person in what you do. Just thank God for people like you. Stay safe and God Bless You!

List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 3 Months

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

@Isabellathecrusader: I think I saw Mattbert running that way, with his tail between his legs.

Nice shellacking. :)

Mr. Outdoor cat-

I just pre-ordered the book. Every one of your books are a good read and all are well thought out, clearly expressed. It's not he fuzzy crap of people like Karen Armstrong. She belongs in an institution. She likes institutions. She fees safe in institutions.

Miss_Anthrope,

How're you doing, girlfriend? Thanks for your support but Mattbert can't show us any more numbers because they don't exist. By his own references he can only account for five abortion doctors attacked and/or killed, and the last was killed nine years ago, which makes his argument fall like a house of cards. I'm still waiting on information regarding the firebombing of the women's health clinic. It probably wasn't a women's health clinic at all, but rather a reference to the jihadist wannabe down at Chapel Hill last year. I can't for the life of me see how anyone could mistake a Christian Pro-lifer for and Muslim jihadist nut.

BTW, you do not want to use the NYT's anywhere near your delicate areas because we need you to be here and I don't want you coming down with any filthy disease that might be lurking in that fowl excuse for a newspaper.

Foehammer,

Thank you sir. I'm not trying to be a bitch. It's just if you want to play with the big boys here at JW, you've got to get your facts straight.

My daughter is deeply involved in the Pro-life movement and I've met a lot of her compatriots, and I've never met one that was violent. So many of them are young people who have a deep faith in God and wouldn't hurt a flea. That's not to say that there aren't nuts in every walk of life, but to compare the Pro-life movement to Islamic Jihad is just simply ludicrous and has to be, as you say, shellacked!

***Oh no**** "pro-life"! The horror.

All you "Planned Parenthood" fans look up Margaret Sanger's background...please.
http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm

Oooh, a drawing the line in the sand book, I like it. There is no allah and mohammad is a pedophile...

About the book...already pre-ordered.

Based on the recent terror attacks in the UK:

What they should do is allow 10,000 or so Iraqi's in the UK. That is like allowing 10,000 Argentineans in during the Falkland Islands war into London, or the Germans when WW2 was at its peek.
The country has opened its arms too much to the world and the enemy or shall we say the dubious situation or sensitive times. It’s bound to explode in our country is we allow people to flow in from a country that has not settled it's war crises let alone freedoms.

In a way it's good because more people can come here on this website and others and all agree to write and join in to say look Europe you are being naive and letting the Lions out in the streets when you should have left them in the zoo or back in the dessert out of Europe, one day we will get mutilated.
But will they learn? No, so hope God blinds them spiritually as punishment as they go on doing and the UK deserves this just for being stupid on it’s self defence strategy they lack.

The joke of the year arose when pro Bush bloggers shook their hagiographical posture to Goof-One, and attacked him for his slavish return to DC's Islamic Center. That followed his doormat conduct towards the OIC. When did Goof stop being the dork who can't put 2 words together, as attested to by almost daily Letterman-Leno-Kimmel-Stewart snippets of his dry-drunk idiocy? Omission to scrutinize this President has meant that US troops are ordered to conduct worthless patrols, 24-7 through IED country. And when they are murdered, nothing is done when videos of same appear on newstands with a block of the Green Zone.

Hopefully, now that he has been personally attacked by Airhead-One (Karen Hughes), Robert Spencer will remind Bushies that Goof-One propagates a benign-islam line, as a proffer for post administration Saudi millions. For the billionth time, it is not Bush policy to fight terror; his efforts are directed to pacifying terrorists. He wants al-Qaeda members to vote; he doesn't want them to die. Contrary to the brain-distortion inherent to the current madness, the following is verbatim US policy, as it arose on September 16, 2001, at the Islamic Center, while US bodies were being pulled out of the rubble of the WTC:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.
------------------------
To find the source, you need only Google, "Islam is peace."

That looks sharp, A1 job. Good luck.

mattbert~ interesting that you only chose me to respond to. Figured I was the weakest link, eh?

The errors of Christianity's past DO NOT excuse what islam is doing today, and has done 10 times over, compared to Christianity. You might wish to look up the Hindu Kush mountains, for example, and discover how many people died for those mountains to have that name. I daresay the Crusades, the Inquisition and all the wars between Catholic and Protestant barely even begin to approach such numbers.

And that's just ONE muslim event.

Uh huh, I daresay EVERYONE was barbaric back in the day - but only Islam is in the 21st century.

Only Islam.

Bring Back The Crusades!

The Crusades were a result of the Muslim take over Europe, and that provocation like many countries that were fought over and lost because Islam had the sword to do so, untill they met the Knights of Europe. In theory for mankind its probably the biggest blessing in disguise in history how ever wrong the Crusades may have seem. But the front cover represents this: maybe we have to defend our freedoms like the knights did and be brutal back like WW2 to stand up and die for a society that includes all people and religions together without war, because then war can not ignite out of favourtism and double standards and equal rights which Islamic countries lack on diverse nature of people and nationalities and other religions. If this is not true why so many Islamic laws against leaving Islam and not allowing other faiths in the East?

This is freedom people all nations in under one roof without trouble, the rest of world needs to catch on.

The Crusades seem wrong? No way! Yay Crusades!

Bring Back The Crusades!

Robert .........why oh why do always want to confuse things with the facts
for heaven's sake.....................

Robert, take care. We need you.

MusHunt gonne keep hunting.

Whoa, are we all in agreement that the Crusades were wrong, wrong, wrong? I don't think so. There may have been some abuses by human beings who were involved in them but to continue the lie that's been perpetrated by Muslims is preposterous. Muslims love to kill first, complain about being attacked later. The fact is that from the beginning of the Catholic Church, pilgrims had been traveling from Europe to visit the Holy Land. When the Mohammadans decided that they owned the place the reaction from Europe was, the hell you say. I can't account for everything that happened on the road to Damascus because man has a free will and so do Christian men, but there were plenty of European knights who went to the Holy Land to make the way safe for Christian pilgrims to continue visiting. You can't say that Richard the Lion-Hearted or King St. Louis of France were scoundrels and they played integral parts in the Crusades. So enough, already.

And God knows why the Catholic Church is apologising for the Crusades. Without the Crusades, the Catholic Church wouldn't exist today, indeed there wouldn't be a Christian church or denomination left in Europe today. The Crusades slowed down the Jihad waged against the West by 200 years. And Portugal was liberated from Islamic rule by Crusaders. Just look at what would have happened without the Crusades. Constantinople falling by 1253 rather than in 1453. Vienna besieged by 1260 - and probably falling to the Saracens. Europe overrun two centuries before the Renaissance, meaning the things we take for granted today never getting invented, because the sort of learning and objectivity which marked the Renaissance era onwards would never have taken place. We would still be stuck in the medieval era of superstition in the here and now of the 21st century.

Right on Darcy! Bring back the Crusades!

This is an excerpt from a cover story entitled, "The Real Story of The Crusades", by Thomas F. Madden:

"Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands".

You can read the entire cover story here:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Hey Elias,

Good to see you, buddy! No worries about unanswered e-mails. We are all very busy, especially with the big 4th of July par-tay coming up in a couple of days. I actually made a big bowl of my mom's potato salad in between postings here this afternoon.

Champ, that was a good article, but you can't honestly believe that Muslims are aggressors, can you? I mean what with those peaceful medical doctors over in Britain shaking things up over the weekend. (Removing the tongue from my cheek. :)

Someone needs to mention to those brain surgeons that, like oil and water, skin and lit gasoline don't mix.

Oh, that's a beautiful cover. Good work by Regnery.

The cover makes an excellent background for my computer.

Good luck and thank you Robert.

(Ann Coulter to me is a hero, and a talented and brilliant comic)

OT
How to handle the "kufaars' demands from ummah.com
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26105_Ummah.com-_How_to_Handle_the_Kuffars_Demands&only

Ruy Diaz,

That's a fabulous website attached to your name. Very informative, thanks.

Alas, you're both wrong (although I am sure I will enjoy your book as much as I have the others, Mr. Spencer).

The liberals are wrong for ignoring the vast threat to the West posed by Islam.

You are wrong for believing that Christianity is any better than Islam.

Western civilization today stands on the Enlightenment, not Christianity. The values of the Enlightenment embody secularism and reason; these came not from Christianity but from a de facto rejection thereof. Christianity does not embrace reason; the rejection of Darwinian evolution by a large segment of Christians demonstrates that. Christianity has the advantage of having set aside its more violent urges, but to say it is a "religion of peace" belies history as surely as to say that Islam should bear that title.

Secularism is the best friend that religion ever had. In a secular United States, all religions; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever, are equally protected.

I stridently hope my fellow secularists will wake up to the threat posed by Islam. But the virtues your new book ascribes to Christianity, I think, more properly describe our modern secular culture.

What also helped the Christian faith was that it went through a needed reformation.

Regnery put together a beautiful cover for you, Robert. Best of luck with the book. I'll look for you on the news channels on your media tour. Is the Colbert Report in your future? ;)

Aggressors? Never! Doctors? Not quite!

That's absolutely true, Bingo, but alas the process of Reformation was in itself bloody.

I completely agree that Islam is sorely in need of a similar process of shedding its barbaric origin to emerge as a faith capable of dealing with the modern world. Let's all hope it comes sooner rather than later, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it's coming any time soon.

"That's because the Roman Catholic Church, is a defunct, useless, politically correct, bullshit institution nowadays. And that's coming from a Catholic."

Now there's the Elias I love! Let's get into it...

The Catholic Church was hijacked back in the 1960's and effectively neutralized. Vatican II was the biggest joke and the faithful have been suffering ever since. It's no coincidence that within a few years of the changes being made that abortion was legalized in the U.S., Catholic South Vietnam was betrayed and enslaved and that the prayers at the foot of the altar for the conversion of Russia were abolished, all in the name of progress and modernism. And what do we have as a result? The rise of Islamic oppression and destruction, the mass exodus of Catholics from their religion, millions of human beings dying yearly from abortion, and from Islamic honor killings, retribution murders and holy-than-thou Sharia law enforcement. We've tossed God out on His ear, all in the name of "Enlightenment", tried to eradictate his name, image and honor off our monuments, out of our schools and out of our memories so as not to offend, who? And don't forget about Communism. It's alive and well in the country with the most people on the planet where human rights are trampled on like yesterday's newspaper.

Yes, secular humanism certainly has improved the lives of millions around the world and even now protects us all from the onslaught of violent Islam.

Transhumanist, serious question...is that picture of the chimera a photoshop?

"I think Jesus Christ is worth dying for." Me too.

Transhumanist, I wonder, is there anything you're willing to die for?

ariun at LGF answered my question. It is a real photo, but the "chimera" is an artist's conception.

The truth is that those who believe in secularism will be the first to get attacked by the Islmofacists.

Isabella & Elias,

It is very true that the fruits of Vatican II were destructive to the Catholic Faith. However, most of the destruction was done by those committed to the mythological "Spirit of Vatican II" rather than by persons who actually read its documents. It's kind of like liberal Supreme Court justices who find a "right" to abortion and infanticide in the "spirit" of the Constitution because they don't know how to read its actual words.

The good news is the Benedict XVII is trying to correct some of these outrages. In five days, the pope will issue a Moto Proprio restoring access to the old Tridentine Mass for all Roman rite Catholics http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-jun27-07.htm

This is one small step in the right direction. Of course, you can expect most of the world's bishops to ignore this just like they fight everything from the Vatican. When I see what happened to the Roman Mass, I thank God that my Byzantine Divine Liturgy has never been "reformed" or "updated"!

Isabellathecrusader:

"I think Jesus Christ is worth dying for." Me too.
Transhumanist, I wonder, is there anything you're willing to die for?”

Well said! I pity Transhumanist’s cynical, relativist attitude for he/she surely seems to suggest the name.

Provoslani,

I'm very sceptical about the Moto Proprio. I guess those of us who are traditionalists are supposed to thank our lucky stars, but I don't downshift that fast. I've been in the trenches fighting the war of the Novus Ordo since I was a very small child, over forty years now, keeping the faith and not giving in to the Protestantized, watered down version of the "mass". I know so many people who left the church because our mass was taken away from us. I have in-laws who went to twelve years of Catholic school and have no idea what a mortal sin is. Yes, the fruits of Vatican II are all around us. And it's not just the spirit but also the intent behind it, coupled with deliberate deception that boils my blood.

I have no doubt that the rise of Islam is in direct proportion to the bishops ignoring the Blessed Mother's message at Fatima to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. She warned us about WWII, which we could have avoided, and the bishops did nothing. She warned us about the annihilation of several nations and kingdoms (has anyone seen the Austro-Hungarian Empire lately?) and said that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world if we didn't turn our lives around and get back to her Son. She also gave Sr. Lucy the third secret of Fatima which was supposedly released in 2000 but this is refuted in Antonio Socci's book, Il Quarto Segreto di Fatima (The Fourth Secret of Fatima) in which he argues that not all of the third secret was released and theologians during the twentieth century have surmissed that the third secret was not released by 1960 as the Blessed Mother had requested, partly because the message talks about the apostacy in the Catholic Church, starting with the hierarchy. I guess the archbishops and cardinals thought that if they just kept the secret a secret, no one would ever find out. Kind of weird then, that we have so many priests being arrested for having sex with little kids, the church is bankrupting itself with lawsuits, no one seems to know anything about Catholicism, unless they make stuff up to bash it, and again, violent Muslim extremism, or as it's better know, mainline Islam, is on the rise and all our western governments have been neutered by multiculturalism and political correctness and don't have a clue how to deal with it.

The busy bees have been very busy indeed, But we can take comfort in the fact that Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. And if we can speak freely about this, here and elsewhere where a difference can be made, there is definitely hope. I'll wait and see how the Moto Proprio goes down, but I'm counting my fingers to make sure they are all still with me before I get out of there.

Descendent of a Crusader,

Well, really, what does a secular humanist die for? Everything is here and now for them. They don't believe that this is God's universe and they mistake his gift of freewill for their delusional belief that they can make it without Him, and we in the church are not standing up and telling them they are wrong because we've allowed the P.C. mentality to silence us. I'd hate to be that person when they die and find out there is another life and how you live it is dependent on how you lived this one.

But then as Christians, it's our responsibility to pray and make sacrifices for those who choose with both hands to throw away their relationship with Christ. The Blessed Mother said at Fatima that many people die and go to hell because they have no one to pray for them. Since we know, and they don't, it falls on us to do the charitable thing and help our neighbors by asking for their protection and salvation.

interestinconundrum: Transhumanist, serious question...is that picture of the chimera a photoshop?

Far as I know it's some sort of sculpture, not a photoshop.

Isabella: Transhumanist, I wonder, is there anything you're willing to die for?

Your freedom, for one thing. USAF, 1990-1993. Do I have the pleasure of addressing a fellow veteran?

Elias: Like I said, the enlightenment was not a good thing. Look at the results: Europe is becoming Eurabia. So much for your all-wise "Enlightenment".

Yeah, the Enlightenment never did no good for nobody no how. Except that little thing we call the Revolution.

A big part of why I want to stop the ascension of Islamism is to be able to maintain the fruits of the Enlightenment. Liberty. Democracy. Freedom of conscience. Having a Christianity-only attitude kinda defeats that purpose, don't you think?

Transhumanist,

No, not a veteran but a veteran's wife, USAF, 1982-1994.

I'll bet you weren't a secular humanist back in 1990-1993. More like a Christian that fell away?

Elias,

I agree that Christian unity is absolutely essential. That unity should be based on the Church as it was at the time of the first seven ecumenical councils when the church was one. Everything in the last thousand years should be rejected as innovations or relegated to local custom.

Isabella,

If where you live is completely Novus Ordo, have you checked to see if there is a Byzantine-rite Catholic church in your area. I know this is a completely subjective judgement, but when I visit a Novus Ordo mass, I can feel the hollowness. When I attend the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, whether Catholic or Orthodox, I can actually sense the Real Presence is there.

Isabella, nope, I was an Atheist then as now. (Not a secular humanist, btw; not every Atheist is a secular humanist.) Never been a Christian, never will.

But good on you for being a dependent of a service member. "They also serve, who only stand and wait."

Anyone who has followed my arguments elsewhere (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017111.php) knows that I have concerns about the role of Christianity in the struggle against the Jihad. At some point, when I have enough data, I will prepare a proper essay on this subject.

However, this is not the time. For the moment I will limit myself to congratulating Robert Spencer on his latest book, commit myself to getting a copy at some point, and thank him for helping to save our collective necks.

Deus Vult.

>>Liberty and Democracy are not courtesy of the Enlightenment. Democracy was in fact, created in ancient Greece

I maintain that Robert Spencer should use the Darth Spencer image in the book jacket. If that doesn't get sales, I don't know what will!

“Well, really, what does a secular humanist die for?”

You seem accusatory in your tone as I had thought we were ‘on the same page’ however, I too am a Christian, though not a Catholic, and the answer to your rhetorical question is ‘nothing’. What else could it be as that is what I plainly implied in the first place? Thanks for being a fellow defender of the faith.

Right, that is it. I was hoping to avoid this, but it looks like something needs to be straightened out.

>>You seem accusatory in your tone as I had thought we were ‘on the same page’ however, I too am a Christian, though not a Catholic, and the answer to your rhetorical question is ‘nothing’. What else could it be as that is what I plainly implied in the first place? Thanks for being a fellow defender of the faith.

Transhuman,

You're the one that touts secularism and the Enlightment. As you call yourself "Transhumanist" it's easy to see where one might consider you a secular humanist.

"Western civilization today stands on the Enlightenment, not Christianity. The values of the Enlightenment embody secularism and reason; these came not from Christianity but from a de facto rejection thereof. Christianity does not embrace reason; the rejection of Darwinian evolution by a large segment of Christians demonstrates that. Christianity has the advantage of having set aside its more violent urges, but to say it is a "religion of peace" belies history as surely as to say that Islam should bear that title."

Let's take a look here. You're not really being honest, are you? Western civilization no more stands on the Enlightenment than we all accept that the earth is flat based on Muslim delusions. The whole of western civilization was built, and still precariously perches on, the truths of Christianity, and no amount of smugly declaring yourself an Atheist can change that fact.

The Roman Empire fell by the wayside as Christianity emerged and then flourished and reigned a thousand years, from the early 500's to the Reformation, when the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Rejection of Church Authority, a hallmark of Protestantism, led to the slow decline that we have been experiencing over the past 500 years. The Enlightenment led to the revolution alright, the French Revolution, which saw the slaughter of several thousand human beings under a reign of terror that destroyed the French Christian identity and that would make the Islamofascists proud. In the end, they ate there own. Robespierre lived by the guillotine and died by the guillotine. And France is a mess today. They stubbornly hang on to a socialistic system that provides for them now but is on a short train to economic destruction and is leading to their Islamic enslavement. But they will be cynical to the end, eating their croissants as the Muslims take over and St. Louis spins in his grave, with no idea of the symbolism therein.

Yes, the Enlightenment can show us all how to throw our countries, our freedom and our good sense down the commode.

Okay, _enough is enough_.

>>They, allegedly, die for your "freedom" (a fancy overused bullshit word). What they actually mean by this, is that they don't give a shit about your freedom, they only die for their own freedom. So really, secular humanists are selfishly motivated. Their concept of "freedom" is to hate God. Talk about cursing yourself.

For my fellow Catholics out there please read "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" Pope John Paul talking about current issues as they were in 1994. He starts it out with "Be Not Afriad."

I needed to read what he said about that in todays 2007 world. And believe me I know what I am willing to die for. I have been to Iraq twice and to Suadi once in the past 8 or so years. I just retired after 24 years of service... I would have easily fell into the "religion of peace" frame of mind if it wasn't for this website (and Robert's books) informing me.

But without hope what am I but a angry, fearful, parinoid person who believes there is conspiracy behind everything. Vatican II was a great document and I would like to say any problem with that document lies in what people think about the document....

Mere Christianity is an exptional book for anyone who cares to read it.... Especially Secularist, athiests and reletivists :)

Good Day

Weatherob, Fanusi, Transhumanist et al,

At the risk of making a lot of people here very angry at me, I will point out a provable fact. In the 20th Century, there was one ideology that managed to kill/murder/exterminate more human beings than even Islam or any other sick philosophy. That ideology was Marxism/Leninism in all its various forms.

Marxism is athiest secularism taken to its logical conclusion. Millions of people of all religions were exterminated in the name of atheism, so even though an atheist may have nothing to die for, historically they have been all to willing to kill for their beliefs.

>>You're spot on. But I know you just don't get it: your damned science is going to kill us all. Thanks to your science, we now have the atom bomb. Keep up the great work of collective suicide of humanity, you assholes.>The Roman Empire fell by the wayside as Christianity emerged and then flourished and reigned a thousand years, from the early 500's to the Reformation, when the baby was thrown out with the bathwater>Yes, the Enlightenment can show us all how to throw our countries, our freedom and our good sense down the commode.

>>Marxism is athiest secularism taken to its logical conclusion. Millions of people of all religions were exterminated in the name of atheism, so even though an atheist may have nothing to die for, historically they have been all to willing to kill for their beliefs

To put it more simply: Yes, marxism is atheistic, but it sure as hell isn't rational. Marxism has zip to do with reason.

I am not going to pretend to be an expert on these subjects just because I read a few books.... (believe me I talking about myself no reference to anyone here)

But a great book to debunk Marxism is "Peace of Soul" By Fulton Sheen. :)

Communism and Atheism for sure. I am proud of serving in the military so we can all enjoy the freedom of speech. We all know had we not faught againts Nazism we would not have that freedom... We are now learning if we don't fight against Islamism we will not have that freedom as well. And the Black flag of Islam will be flying over the west....

Good Day

er Communism is Atheism...

EliasAlucard, perhaps you haven't heard Hitler waxing euphoric about his Christianity, his fervent admiration of Christ? Or how his anti-semitism was inherently Christian in nature? Or how he said that he would be a Catholic until he died? Or how the Church allied with Hitler? As did the protestant sects?

>>Correction: they only kill anyway they deem in the way of their freedom and utopia dreams, as has been proven empirically with their favourite ideologies: Socialism/Communism, National Socialism, and Liberalism. Not to forget, the perfect onslaught form of government, Democracy.

I already did. I said that I am willing to fight and die for my values, for my loyalty to a sane world. And of course, for my loved ones.

And since I feel like kicking Elias while he's down:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

The defence rests.

To whom it may concern:

I think it worth nothing that the points raised in this thread against the idea of this book -- abortion clinic bombers, the Crusades, Hitler as a Christian, Tim McVeigh as a Christian -- are ALL discussed in the book itself, at length.

It is interesting to see them raised to show that the book is obviously wrongheaded, when in fact they are precisely what the book is about.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Yes as with what Elias is saying thanks.

This interesting discussion brings to my mind how much this book is needed. Well the politcally correct guide to the cursades did touch on this as well.

Good Day

Transhumanist -

The Enlightenment resulted in many ways from individuals influenced by philosophers like John Locke and David Hume, who were influenced by the PRESBYTERIANS of Scotland!

The Calvinist Movement began in 1560 and involved the creation of the Scottish Kirk, or the Church of Scotland. The formation of elders in the Kirk influenced the English House of Commons, which was weak since its inception in the 14th Century, in becoming a major force in English politics.

Scottish locals controlled the structure of their religion, and even gave Brittish monarchs push back when "guidance" came from London. Many philosophers in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Age of Reason/Enlightenment) translated many of these religious ideals into other aspects of thought.

As an Agnostic/Atheist, I am grateful to philosophers for their push for reason and individual freedoms (but with responsibilities!!!), especially as they relate to the Founding Fathers' use in our Constitution. But I don't pretend they existed in a vacuum - the extent of religion during this period cannot be ignored.

(Sidenote: Purely Atheist societies include inhumane atrocities, like the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China. Nothing to be proud of.)

Dear Mr. Spencer,

I fully believe that they are. This is why I said, quote:

>>My apologies in advance to the more rational religious people here - such as Robert Spencer - but can you see how infuriating this argument is?

>>Yeah, I've heard it all. And guess what? You fell for his lies. Mostly, it's because it's convenient of you to believe what he said in public, because of your innate bias towards Christianity. And you know, Hitler is considered the greatest evil of our time, so, correlating him with Christianity is pretty convenient for atheists.>Wrong, this didn't help the Christian faith the least. All Luther did was damage Christendom.>Nowadays, thanks to Luther, we have Gay marriages in the Lutheran Churches, Protestants advocating abortion, and barely any Protestants believing in God.

>>Yeah, I've heard it all. And guess what? You fell for his lies. Mostly, it's because it's convenient of you to believe what he said in public, because of your innate bias towards Christianity. And you know, Hitler is considered the greatest evil of our time, so, correlating him with Christianity is pretty convenient for atheists.>Wrong, this didn't help the Christian faith the least. All Luther did was damage Christendom.>Nowadays, thanks to Luther, we have Gay marriages in the Lutheran Churches, Protestants advocating abortion, and barely any Protestants believing in God.

Descendant of a Crusader,

'Sorry about that. I was not being accusatory. I was just thinking out loud and was sleepy at the time. We're on the same page.

Provaslani,

Thank you for the suggestion about the Byzantine-rite church. I was actually fortunate enough to find an independent traditional church that says the Tridentine Mass and follows all the old customs, last October. It's wonderful and the Presence is definitely there.

Also, you don't make me angry, you make me smile. : ) Telling the truth, about Marxism or anything else, always makes me smile.

Elias,

Well, it took another 500 years after Christ was born for Rome as the Romans knew it to completely go away but my point is that as the Roman Empire under the polytheists declined, Christianity survived and then thrived. And there must be something to this Christianity when so many people were killed for their faith, especially the first three hundred years (read the lives of the saints and you can see that MANY people died for their faith in the fourth century A.D.) and it kept going on, even to now, when that young Christian man in Iraq was gang-raped by thirty crazed Muslims because he would not convert to Islam. He is truly a martyr for his faith and gives hope to those of us who say, I cannot submit, but may not know how we would react in a similar situation.

Fanusi,

I feel sorry for you, I really do. I've read your stuff before but found it so self-servingly illogical, so deliberately provocative, and your ramblings so incoherent that I stopped reading. I noticed though that you posted three times in a row in the wee hours this morning but no one was taking the bait. You seem to desperately need attention and need to appear as if what you say is super relevant.

Implying dumb things like Hitler was an admirer of Christ when in fact he was a member of the Thule Society and was a practicing occultist, and knowing that you will be so easily refuted if anyone cares to look it up, just doesn't make any sense. If in your defense you intend on citing particular individuals to prove that those who practice Christianity are the epitome of evil itself, you need to actually cite cases of practicing Christians. And remember that it goes both ways; Stalin was an Atheist and Leo Tolstoy once estimated that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 70 million people. Based on your logic are we to assume that you too are a mass murderer?

As I read your exchanges with my friend Elias, since I got back in a little while ago, I see that there is some deep and gnawing pain in you that makes you act the way you do. You are hiding from it, but it's still coming up and no matter how much you froth at the mouth and point fingers, the issue keeps coming back to you. What happened to you or what did you do to make you hate God so much?

At first I thought you had a blackheart, but I don't think so anymore. I will pray for you, my friend, that whatever is going on with you that causes you to twist the truth until it is unrecognizable, will be healed and you will be freed from it.

Robert,
My brother is very liberal/left-wing and although I believe your books are the most important reading material of Modern Time, he considers you a polemic writer who only "preaches to his choir". Unfortunately, the inclusion of Ann Coulter's blurb on the cover will make this book radioactive to him and his ilk.

I just wish in the future, at least for the book's cover, you wouldn't use phrases or quotes to scare off the crowd who needs to read it most...the crowd of liberal-lefty multi-cultural, moral-equivalent, Jihad apologists; who also HATE Ann Coulter. (I LOVE her but I'm one of your "choir members").

Respectfully,
Xero G

Fanusi Khiyal:
“Of course, that line of argument is a load of nonsense. But perhaps it illustrates to certain people how infuriating their aguments can be”

Sorry if I have drawn the atheists out as that was not my intention, however, as a Christian, my life has hope whereas yours is utterly devoid of it. And, for your cold existentialism, I pity you but so be it if that is the dark pessimism you have chosen.

"Take a look at the loving tolerance that was practiced by Christianity in Europe when it was powerful. And this is the case across the board for religion when it is powerful (with the possible exception of the Jains). In Tibet, under the Dalai Llama's the most appalling cruelty was practiced, including the gouging out of eyes as punishment. And that was from _Buddhism_ for crying out loud."

posted by Fanusi Khiyal,
-----------------------------------

Fanusi,

Cruelty has been an unfortunate part of human nature from the beginning. Christianity (and Buddhism) teach us to resist these impulses and rightfully sees them as sinful. Because of our fallen human natures we all violate these religious principles.

The accusation against Dalai Lamas would fall in the same category if they were true. However I suspect that they are probably Chinese Communist propaganda. Totalitarian regimes are masters at smearing others with the very crimes of which they are guilty themselves. Just look at the continuing smears against the regime of the late Shah of Iran, who tried to lift his people out of Islamic darkenss. Then look at the crimes which the revolutionary regime that replaced him commits every day. The same applies to the martyred last Tsar of Russia, under whose regime less than 200 people were executed, mostly murderers and rapists. Under Lenin, this many people were killed in one hour.

This thread has been enormously entertaining. Catholics vs. Protestants, Secular Humanists vs. Any Religion, Christians vs. Muslims, and on and on. People cherry-picking information to support their point of view, and flat-out revising history when that's not enough. What fun.

I feel I must contribute something, so here's a tasty morsel I plucked from the cherry tree:

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

- Hitler Youth marching song

*bows mockingly to descendantofacrusader and Isabellathecrusader* While I dearly appreciate the 'compassion' they show for my supposedly dark and miserable existence, they are deeply mistaken, and I cannot help but wonder whether this is not partly due to projection - I, after all, need no fairy tales to value my life.

But, in a spirit of Christian charity, as it were, I will take their lines at face value and assure them that my life is glorious. How could it not be? I am wealthy beyond the dreams of the kings and emperors of the past; I am safer, and more long lived, and have access to powers and abilities that would make the maddest Pharoh, Prophet or Priest tremble in fear and misery. I can fly, I can travese the world in a scant few hours. And I am free of the superstitions and fears that plagued them. I do not tremble before night-terrors, nor appease uncaring gods, nor scream in fear of a vision beyond the grave.

But for a few paltry pounds I have access to books containing knowledge that exceeds Aristotle's, and contain vistas undreamt of by Plato. How can I possibly have earned such honour? I have, at my fingertips, the combined knowledge of twenty-five centuries of men who searched this world fearlessly and wrung its secrets from it. I have travelled across four continents - how many of even the great explorers can say that?

In short, scarcely a day goes by without my being in awe of the magnificent fact of my own existence - something so glorious that I could almost not quite believe it, were it not self-evident.

So, please, do not waste your pity on me. It is completely pointless. My fury arises not because of any pain, but because I cannot bear to see precious, irreplacable human life wasted on fantasies. You have a maginificent gift of existence - why waste it grovelling before some imaginary tyrant?

>>Implying dumb things like Hitler was an admirer of Christ>I never said that. If anyone is dishonest here,it's you for misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. >They, allegedly, die for your "freedom" (a fancy overused bullshit word). What they actually mean by this, is that they don't give a shit about your freedom, they only die for their own freedom. So really, secular humanists are selfishly motivated. Their concept of "freedom" is to hate God. Talk about cursing yourself.>Oh really? Since there are atheists protecting Islam, why all the hypocrisy when you accuse the joke that is known as Vatican II, of protecting Islam?>Why? What does it matter if you're an atheist? Why aren't you simply a nihilist? Nihilism is the most logical conclusion of atheism>Truth is, you're not ready to die for everyone because you value this life more than anything else.

Now, don't get me wrong, suicide attacks are idiotic and I'm not defending it, but at least the muslims prove that they're ready to die for their convictions, as selfish and stupid as their convictions might be (72 virgins in heaven), you have to hand it to them, they're ready to go all the way.

That's more than I can say about any atheist.

Fanusi Khiyal:

“I am wealthy beyond the dreams of the kings and emperors of the past; I am safer, and more long lived, and have access to powers and abilities that would make the maddest Pharoh, Prophet or Priest tremble in fear and misery. I can fly, I can travese the world in a scant few hours. And I am free of the superstitions and fears that plagued them. I do not tremble before night-terrors, nor appease uncaring gods, nor scream in fear of a vision beyond the grave.”

While you are flittering about from place to place over the globe, Fanusi Khiyal, I am mindful of the Rolling Stones hit song: Sympathy For The Devil:

Please allow me to introduce myself
Im a man of wealth and taste
Ive been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
And I was round when jesus christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain………….

But you couldn’t be him now could you, Fanusi Khiyal? LOL at your feigned vanity!

At EliasAlucard:

"Actually, the Roman Empire fell because of how the Germanic tribes sacked it, barbarians as they were and always have been.

Christianity actually rejuvenated the Roman Empire for a few hundred years by uniting the Roman Empire's inhabitants in the Christian faith (of course, only after killing lots of Assyrian Christians), not to forget, its successor, the Byzantine Empire, was largely thanks to Christianity."

That is a completely incorrect assessment of how the Roman Empire collapsed. The "Germans" were in the empire because they were invited in, not because they invaded like some Hollywood-esque barbarian horde. Emperors invited them in as leverage in their struggles with imperial rivals, and local districts made deals with them because the central authority was no longer protecting them like it used to.

Christianity did no such thing. Granted, we will never know what the Christian population of the empire was at any point from 0 AD to 476 AD, but to say that the entire empire's inhabitants were "united" by this faith is just statistically improbable. Maybe by the very end of the empire would the idea of Christianity as the demographically dominant religion hold any water. This is not to say that your logic may not have been the rationale behind Constantine's conversion. A few decades before Constantine, the emperor Aurelian promoted the Sun God as a way to unite the diverse Roman religions behind a common figure.

That being said, Christianity at that point was hardly a unifying force. For all the good that Christian leaders and monastic communities did during that period, there were plenty of examples of religious violence, both towards destroying "pagan" temples, and towards massacring other Christian sects like the Arians. Jesus may have been peaceful, but he birthed a fair number of unruly children.

At EliasAlucard:

"Actually, the Roman Empire fell because of how the Germanic tribes sacked it, barbarians as they were and always have been.

Christianity actually rejuvenated the Roman Empire for a few hundred years by uniting the Roman Empire's inhabitants in the Christian faith (of course, only after killing lots of Assyrian Christians), not to forget, its successor, the Byzantine Empire, was largely thanks to Christianity."

That is a completely incorrect assessment of how the Roman Empire collapsed. The "Germans" were in the empire because they were invited in, not because they invaded like some Hollywood-esque barbarian horde. Emperors invited them in as leverage in their struggles with imperial rivals, and local districts made deals with them because the central authority was no longer protecting them like it used to.

Christianity did no such thing. Granted, we will never know what the Christian population of the empire was at any point from 0 AD to 476 AD, but to say that the entire empire's inhabitants were "united" by this faith is just statistically improbable. Maybe by the very end of the empire would the idea of Christianity as the demographically dominant religion hold any water. This is not to say that your logic may not have been the rationale behind Constantine's conversion. A few decades before Constantine, the emperor Aurelian promoted the Sun God as a way to unite the diverse Roman religions behind a common figure.

That being said, Christianity at that point was hardly a unifying force. For all the good that Christian leaders and monastic communities did during that period, there were plenty of examples of religious violence, both towards destroying "pagan" temples, and towards massacring other Christian sects like the Arians. Jesus may have been peaceful, but he birthed a fair number of unruly children.

EliasAlucard, you are quite the arrogant one for someone who believes in that which can't be proven. I hope for your sake that what you believe turns out to be correct. If so, you'll be plenty lonely in Heaven: your style of attack may convince many people that an eternity with you is worse than Hell.

>>How many times haven't I run into this Hitler speech before? If anything, this speech, only confirms my previous statements on the psuedo-Christianity of the Nazis, called Positive Christianity, which was meant to eradicate the existence of Christianity in the long haul.

At Fanusi:

Just for the sake of argument, I would say that Machiavelli makes a very good case for tyranny being rational. Fear is a powerful motivator, and I would bet that many tyrants in the past have made the cold calculation that it is better to be feared than to be liked. This is in no way a justification of tyranny, but rather a caution that even the most irrational things in life make sense to some people. But then again, some things in life are just academic.

Fanusi Khiyal:

“while I am flattered to be considered the equal of such an illustrious personage, I must decline. And, since I have just realised that alot of fools will mistake my writings in order to smear me as a 'cash brat', allow me to say that come from the middle-class, and go to University on a scholarship. Which still makes me richer than most of humanities emperors, comparatively speaking. It's just that I realize it.”

And more from the Stone’s famous opus:

“I stuck around st. petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a generals rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah”

Just what is your game, Fanusi? Many of us are also of humble beginnings and have attended university yet have not ended up with your convoluted logic. “Ah, whats puzzling you - Is the nature of my game, oh yeah” yada, yada, yada

I am merely going to observe that when your rhetorical opponents are reduced to quoting _pop-lyrics_ at you, it is a sure sign that they are intellectually outgunned, and have lost the mental battle and are, metaphorically speaking, running screaming for the hills.

For my part, I am going to wait for someone with intellectual honesty to actually address my points.

Fanusi Khiyal:

If the ‘pop-lyrics’ fit, so be it – wouldn’t you say? And ‘intellectual honesty’ was really my point in the first place but then you failed to see that didn’t you? As far as a sparring equal: have no fear as you hardly fit the challenge. Get real, grass-hopper!

You mean to tell me we are dealing with a snot-nosed college student with delusions of grandeur? What's your aim here, Fanusi...to solve the problem of Islamic Jihad or muck up the works? You are not an ally here and I was correct to be suspicious when I saw you'd made those three posts in the 4:00am hour this morning, one right after the other. I should have known you were just a kid with a probable high IQ and with a big, big ego to match.

Your arguments are B.S. and you've proven nothing. Begone! You have no power here.

Fanusi, et al.

I will offer you two propositions.

Proposition 1.) I freely admit that I cannot prove the existence of God just as you must admit, if you are honest, that you cannot prove he does not exist. This is why we have the free will to believe or disbelieve. However...

Proposition 2.) If there is not God, then there can be no absolute standard of right and wrong. It truly is the law of the jungle and thus only might will make right. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot realized this and acted accordingly.

While I suspect that while there may be honest agnostics acting according to the first proposition, a logical atheist is likely to act according to the second. After all, what higher authority is there to judge him? When I read the most famous advocates of atheism, whether Bertram Russell, Karl Marx, or the early Jean-Paul Sartre, I am struck, not by the lack of belief in God but by their obsession with Him. I also detect this in some posters here. I don't believe in the existence of tooth fairies but I'm not going to become militant against someone who does.

In fact I suspect that many atheists subconsciously realize the reality of God in ways far deeper than most Christians. Despite their loudest claims, their atheism is not a lack of believe in God but a visceral hatred of Him. They proclaim his non-existence because that is their greatest desire. A desire they know will never be fulfilled. As for me, if God is a delusion, then He is a necessary one to give meaning to our existence. However, being a believer, I have Divine assurance that the universe has meaning. This is the only proof of God necessary.

>>And ‘intellectual honesty’ was really my point in the first place but then you failed to see that didn’t you>What's your aim here, Fanusi...to solve the problem of Islamic Jihad or muck up the works?

mattbert:

You are giving us a stale, tired argument that has been disproved more times than the Gabor sisters have been married.

Islam during the twentieth century alone is directly responsible for more than 60 million murders of Christians. In the mid-1960s, for example, 5 million Christians were massacred by jihadists in the Nigerian section of Biafra. At about the same time, Indonesians hacked to death more than 1 million Chinese-Christians in Java. Now multiply such atrocities over 1400 years and you may figure out how Islam managed to slaughter over 300 million innocent people.

The Kuran TEACHES first degree murder--read the Kuran's Surah 9.5 for example. In contrast, the bible teaches the 10 commandments that outlaw killing for any reason other than self-defense.

Muslims kill not out of 'fanaticism' but because the teachings of Kuran and al-lah REQUIRE them to do do. Outawing murder would never be possible with Islam because first degree murder is an intrinsic component in Islam as the Kuran teaches. Read the Kuran if you "disagree" with me.

That is why the body count in Islamic countries is always so high. Christianity has no jihad and no requirement to kill besides the fact that it outlaws such killing (murder).

mattbert:

You are giving us a stale, tired argument that has been disproved more times than the Gabor sisters have been married.

Islam during the twentieth century alone is directly responsible for more than 60 million murders of Christians. In the mid-1960s, for example, 5 million Christians were massacred by jihadists in the Nigerian section of Biafra. At about the same time, Indonesians hacked to death more than 1 million Chinese-Christians in Java. Now multiply such atrocities over 1400 years and you may figure out how Islam managed to slaughter over 300 million innocent people.

The Kuran TEACHES first degree murder--read the Kuran's Surah 9.5 for example. In contrast, the bible teaches the 10 commandments that outlaw killing for any reason other than self-defense.

Muslims kill not out of 'fanaticism' but because the teachings of Kuran and al-lah REQUIRE them to do do. Outawing murder would never be possible with Islam because first degree murder is an intrinsic component in Islam as the Kuran teaches. Read the Kuran if you "disagree" with me.

That is why the body count in Islamic countries is always so high. Christianity has no jihad and no requirement to kill besides the fact that it outlaws such killing (murder).

>>Muslims kill not out of 'fanaticism' but because the teachings of Kuran and al-lah REQUIRE them to do do

Robert,

I am a huge fan of yours and am thankful that someone has the courage to confront violence within Islam...but I couldn't help but notice that little endorcement blurb on the top of the book cover. Ann Coulter? ANN COULTER?! Are you KIDDING me?! PLEASE tell me you're not a fan of hers!

I am a huge fan of yours and am thankful that someone has the courage to confront violence within Islam...but I couldn't help but notice that little endorcement blurb on the top of the book cover. Ann Coulter? ANN COULTER?! Are you KIDDING me?! PLEASE tell me you're not a fan of hers!

Posted: by GetBornAgain

Frankly that baffles me. I think she's a vile, despicable excuse for a human being who degrades the political debate and causes far more harm than good to the conservative agenda.

Ann Coulter - the Michael Moore of the right. Appalling woman.

I believe that my mind suppressed that at first, but it is another instance of what I mean about self-imposed marginalization. A quote by Ann Coulter is guaranteed to drive away those we need to reach most.

Anne Coulter rocks. She's a woman with a mind of her own, and very articulate. I'll grant you she is not always charitable but she says in public what liberals only say behind people's backs. She is no more vile or despicable than Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton or any of those stupid women who put makeshift scarves on their heads last week in a show of true dhimmitude. She is everything the Muslim whackos are afraid of when it comes to women and putting her own the cover of the new book is the best and biggest F.U. to the jihadis who want to bury us.

And here we have, once more, an example of the mind-stultification going on. "The Evil agenda of the Left". What manner of nonsense is this?

Do you know anything about the huge corpus of Old Left thinking? Carl Sagan, George Orwell, Victor Hugo? I have said before, and will say again, that we have good allies in figures such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Ignoring or deriding such powerful, important allies just because they are politically on the left is not just misguided, it's pathalogical. This is beyond right or left thinking.

For the record, I'm politically libertarian.

Ann Coulter is a vicious airhead, an attention slut who parrots mindlessly the slogans of the stalest, most idiotic elements of the right, as exemplified by her crack-barrel christianity and creationism. The issue of creationism is an excellent litmus test for intellectual honesty, because any creationist has demonstrated that they will ignore, deny or distort the most overwhelming amount of evidence to fit their own preconceptions. Therefore they may not be taken seriously.

Inside every story, whether it be lie or not, is a kernel of truth. If you look deep, and I mean really deep, within what Anne Coulter writes, you can find a kernel of truth. That's about as charitable as I get with Anne Coulter. Fanusi has already summed up her faults quite nicely, which I think encapsulates the fact that Anne builds her career on being provocative. Wait, that's too nice. Anne Coulter builds her career on being a bitch. She is tapping into the same mentality that seems to be sweeping the world these days. Instead of trying to reach some sort of compromise, instead of trying to find the middle where the truth usually lies, politicians of many stripes focus on the extreme positions that force people to choose between increasingly opposed camps. It's the widely acknowledged strategy of Karl Rove. Coulter is popular because she gets noticed because she pisses people off. There's no middle ground in what she says; you either have to completely agree with her or not.

When you look at it rationally, you also realize that it's not all that dissimilar from what the terrorist leaders are doing in the Middle East. For example, if cooler heads could prevail, it is entirely possible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to coexist in one state (though currently unlikely). Unfortunately, the leaders of those terrorist/resistance cells know that peace means the end of their power because their power and authority came from their place in the conflict. No conflict = no place = no purpose. So they bomb stuff and provoke the Israelis into striking back and what do they create......more chaos, which is where they thrive. It's what they know, it's what they want. So yes, they're assholes, but they're not that hard to understand. They're not aliens, they're not insane fanatics (not all of them at least), and they're not part of some "secret" global Islamic jihad conspiracy to take over the planet.

I think that for our purposes, we could distinguish between "Leftists" and "Liberals." Leftists are those who go out of their way to accommodate Islam and are awestruck by the likes of Hugo Chavez (they used to think the Soviet Union wasn't so bad, but it no longer exists, so they latch on to any Stalin wannabe that manages to rise to the top in some backwater country). Liberals, on the other hand, hold liberal social values and are not easily fooled by someone like Chavez, who actually holds democracy and human rights in great contempt. Myself, for instance: I am liberal on almost every social position (I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, etc.), yet I despise Hugo Chavez and his ilk and am no admirer of Islam. Being liberal does not, in and of itself, imply a subservience to Islam--on the contrary, my commitment to these values (which are, to me, the greatest accomplishment of the West) leads me to hold in contempt a religion which explicity repudiates them. Many liberals have seen through the illusion of "the religion of peace," just as many rightists remain enthralled by it (Dinesh D'Souza, for instance). For the purposes of this website, we need merely to distinguish between those who oppose violent jihad and those who do not, regardless of their political affiliations.
(that last sentence notwithstanding, Ann Coulter is still a bitch)

Just to state again what I said in my previous column: if I understand Mr. Spencer correctly, this site draws no distinction between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans--only between those that support violent jihad and those that see through the illusion of "peaceful Islam." Looking over this entire debate, it seems people are far too busy defending their political beliefs, when doing so is entirely unnecessary. Do you oppose the dark aspects of Islam and their threat to the West? Good--you belong on this site. Beyond that, I could care less what you believe, and you should care less what I believe. So let's not waste our breath on useless debate, shall we?

Elias,
It seems you operate more from the conservative Christian perspective. I obviously don't agree with it, but I respect your right to hold whatever belief s you see fit. Perhaps you can extend me the same courtesy and adopt a somewhat more courteous tone in your replies. Nastiness is unnecessary.

And let me repeat yet again: on this website, all that matters is that we are all engaged in a battle against jihad. We may be liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim (there ARE some who oppose jihad, believe it or not) or atheist or, for all I care, scientologist (whackjobs though they may be), but the unifying factor is our opposition to jihad. That's all that should matter. The acrimonious debates in support of one's political outlooks are redundant here, and frankly they detract from more pressing concerns. We all oppose jihad; let's unite around that principle and set our other differences aside. The jihadists would like NOTHING more than to see us divided.

At GetBornAgain

That's actually a valid point. The biggest problem that this site has is that the people who frequent it take what could be a half-decent proposition (opposition to violent Jihad and religious terrorism) and morph it into a bash-Islam party. Yeah, I know, Mr. Spencer's all into proving that Islam's fundamental tenets revolve around violent Jihad. Personally, I strongly disagree with his historical analysis. Sure Islam has a violent past; so does Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. But now I digress.......

Regardless of how "prone to violence" Islam as a religion may be, the people here really need to remember that Muslims are still human beings. To portray them as puppets to a sick criminal cult is about two steps short of anti-antisemitism and one step short of racial prejudice against Italians and Irishmen because they might answer to the Pope instead of the President of the United States.

>>The only one here, providing useless debate, is that Fanusi dude. You know, with his constant nagging of how wrong Robert Spencer is

Since when did we take to piling on people for being atheists, anyway? I thought we were above that.

I am going assume that you are talking about me ElaisAlucard. I challenge you to produce the quotations that support that filthy little smear.