Doug Giles discusses my new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't:
Man, don’t cha love how mainstream media and their soft-brain disciples make Christians out to be fish-stickered, bug-eyed equals to incensed Islam? If you were to accept as true what some atheists, secularists and prattling gay activists say about Christians, you’d think the church is chomping at the bit to chop off some heads of unbelievers, glory to Gawd!Yep, if you were to believe the barf belched out by the BS brokers on the Left, you’d stagger away Kool Aid drunk with the belief that there is little disparity between conservative Christians and militant Muslims.
As a matter of fact, you probably would be bamboozled into believing that Islam is a peaceful, Little House on the Prairie religion being temporarily hijacked by jihadist renegades, and Christianity . . . Christianity is the real charity-vacant, vicious cult that’s vying for the opportunity to seize the whip and whip us good.Yes, the postmodern reality stylists are working their butts off trying to convince us TV-addled cattle of two primary things: 1) violent jihad is not based on the Koran and 2) All conservative Christians are theocrats ready to burn Sully Erna at the stake, stone Jay Alexander in a nearby gravel pit and governmentally ramrod Christianity down everyone’s pie hole.
I haven’t seen this kind of ham-fisted, forced PR, farcical façade being parlayed upon the public since Michael Jackson tried to make out with Lisa Marie in an attempt to convince us all he’d found true love in an adult of the opposite sex.
Look, there’s no denying violent things have been done by the church and in the name of God, but that has been the exception and not the rule. In addition, when the church has spent time with its head up its butt doing bogus things, the church’s leaders have historically owned it when wrong, have not repeated the gaff, have grabbed the wheel and have effectively steered saints out of any erroneous, detrimental ditch.
Not so with Islam.
In Robert Spencer’s new book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Bob shows those who can still be shown anything factual the massive and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. They are not equal no matter how much the blah blah blatherers of political correctness purport them to be. Their beliefs are not similar, nor their practices, nor their means to spreading their message—and to think otherwise, postmodern Pollyanna, could cost you your rear.
Spencer points out the crystal clear facts that clash with the current anti-Christian hype such as . . .
• Most Muslims do not condemn jihad.
• Christianity and Islam have neither similar traditions nor similar modern realities—Christian religious violence, real or imagined, does not mitigate the reality of jihad.
• A “Christian theocracy” in America is a figment of the Left’s imagination.
• The Islamic world has never developed the distinction between religious and secular law that is inherent in Christianity.
• Christianity has embraced reason—and Islam has always rejected it.
• The Koran does not invite interpretation, and Muslim leaders refuse to discuss how to fit their beliefs into modern society.
• Political differences and unwanted international interference are not, in fact, the cause of the turmoil in Iraq and Middle Eastern antagonism towards the west.
• Jews, Christians and peoples of other faiths (or no faiths) are equally at risk from militant Islam.
• The most determined enemies of western civilization may not be the jihadists at all, but the leftists who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists.
Listen, 21st century truth reconstructors . . . you’ve gotta relax. Please do us all a favor and go get healed from your bad Sunday school experience and lay down your church grinding axe. Thinking people aren’t buying the “Christianity = Islam” smack.
Get real, Goofy. You and I both know that regardless of what a few loopy CINO’s (Christians in name only) have done via violence in the name of the Father that it is not in the body of Christian doctrine to hack off the noggin of the obstreperous. There’s not even an obscure passage in the Book of Revelation that some demented clod could twist like your Gumby doll to make the Christian scripture green light your demise or anyone else’s. Additionally, Christians aren’t longing for TBN to replace DC as our nation’s headquarters.
So chill, you shrill shredders of Christianity.
On the flip side, it is within the pages of the Koran to convert, conquer or kill non-Islamic people. And I’m a thinkin’ that no matter how much you work to besmirch Christianity and misinform on behalf of militant Islam, that if they had it their way, you, the secularist, would be a deceased grease stain on God’s green earth.
Therefore, gay guy, loosen that neckerchief and relax on the anti-Christian rhetoric, okay? Atheists, dial down and go back to studying monkeys (or whatever you do) and secularists, switch to decaf and exhale because you guys are barking up the wrong tree in trying to paint Christians as a coercive, could-be-violent, cabal like, militant Islam.
Radical Muslims, on the other hand, are the ones you need to sweat—because their book has zero tolerance for the likes of Sully and Jay—or anyone for that matter, who doesn’t lock step. You can bet your backside that if uncut Islam were in charge, Christopher Hitchens would be history, Drew Barrymore would be nevermore and Andrew Sullivan would never be seen again.
The Judeo-Christian worldview (and subsequently, the great western traditions it under girds) is the only powerful cudgel in existence to ward off militant Islam. That’s what makes the Left’s lies about Christ’s Church and the Left’s desires to diminish it so diabolical. If the church’s presence and power gets marginalized via these secularists’s anti-Christian propaganda, then all I’ve got to say is, “I hope everyone is cool with wearing burkhas.”
What can I say but yay Doug. We need more Dougs as of yesterday.
I still dont get the left's infatuation with Islam, I really dont. They have as much if not more to lose with Islam than the right does.
‘STOP THE ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE’ DEMONSTRATION (11th SEPT)
Freddy Thielmans, Mayor of Brussels, has banned a demonstration which was scheduled to take place on Tuesday 11th September at 1pm outside the building of the European Parliament to protest against the relentless ‘Islamification of Europe’. The organisers are now mounting a formal legal challenge to the Mayor’s right to take this action.
Until this matter is properly resolved they cannot endorse or accept any responsibility for any protest made by any individual or group of individuals.
However the Mayor of Brussels has no power to prevent tourists from visiting his city. Visitors to this website might like to consult ‘sioe.wordpress.com’ to gain helpful information about visitor amenities and tourist attractions in Brussels.
Well Robert, here we go, the book reviewers are going to have a field day with you. The truth is that the Christian faith, despite the fact that there were those who did violence CLAIMING they were good Christians, in truth they were going against the very teachings of Christanity. Unlike Islam which makes jihad part of the teachings of the Koran as well as bless it against non-Muslims.
Re: Christianity Sucks and Islam is Awesome?
Part of the anti-Christian animus of the left is rooted in their authoritarian belief that only Western Civilization has been imperialist. Many Muslims (particularly in the Mideast) chime in and chant the mantras of the left's delusional hustle on that matter. However, the truth is that all of history (everywhere) is about the conquest, subduing, exploitation of some lately "indigenous people", indigenous culture" and that Arab Imperialism and later Ottoman Turk Imperialism were/are very successful, vicious rationalizations for conquest, exploitation and often the extermination (India, e.g.) of an "indigenous culture", "indigenous people". True Islam gives permission for that.
The Arabs invaded Spain, the Spaniards pushed them out, the Spaniards sought a route to Asia (to avoid the Arab oppressors) and ran into the Americas. The Spaniards then did to the Aztec and others what the Arabs had done to them (Pizarro in Peru was a bin Laden style Imperialist pig). However, much of the success of the Spaniards in the Americas had to do with an ongoing Imperialist pattern (Aztec vs. Toltec, e.g.) in the Americas. It appears that in history one is oppressed when one is not the oppressor.
However, though Christianity has been used to justify Islamic style conquest, there is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that justifies violence against an unbeliever and true Christians are commanded to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God what belongs to God". Christ's kingdom is "not of this world". Islam must control the state, Sharia law must dominate, Muslims are permitted to lie, exploit, and kill unbelievers. There is no real equivalency between the mandates of Christianity and Islam.
Put the words and actions of Muhammad into the gospels of Jesus and get a good laugh at the assertion that there is no difference in the matter of Christian and Islamic beliefs. Islam is patriarchy in overdrive, a perfect rationalization system for Imperialism. Hitler and Himmler admired Islam for that reason. Hitler called Christianity "the Jewish Christ Creed with its pity ethics". Would Hitler have said that about Muhammad?
Probably the worst thing that could ever have happened to Western civilization was the fall of the Ottoman Empire coupled with the rise of Communism.
Both are supremacist doctrines, whose adherents were convinced it was their destiny to rule the world. Both, with an assist from atheists, used the "h" word, hypocrisy, to weaken the religious convictions of Christians and it worked like a charm.
"Probably the worst thing that could ever have happened to Western civilization was the fall of the Ottoman Empire coupled with the rise of Communism".
It is interesting you should say that. Winston Churchill argued very strongly for precisely that after WW1. In a memo to Lloyd George he argued that the defeated German Ally (the Ottoman Turks) should not be treated as Germany, not occupied, and left in place. He seems to have had a presentiment that the alliance with Arab forces against the Ottoman Empire, the occupation of the Mideast, was going to prove to be a great mistake and that the Arabs would turn on those who supported their independence from the Ottoman Empire. He wanted the whole thing left in place. He only supported the occupation of defeated Germany.
Churchill argued that an intact Ottoman Empire would keep the prowling Russian bear contained in the region. He saw nothing good coming out of treating the Turks, the Ottoman Empire, the same way as Germany. He did not want an occupation, but an easy peace for the Turks.
If my memory serves me correctly, Eric Fromkin addresses Churchill's concern in his book A Peace to End All Peace. Churchill looks to have been right but he loyally supported Lloyd George who disagreed with him.
Greetings (Frank, et al.):
I recently read a short story entitiled "The Guest" by Albert Camus, the French-Algerian writer of the last century.
The gist of the story was a Frenchman. a teacher on a desert plateau in Algeria, is visited by a gendarme with an Arab in his custody. The Arab is being taken to court fro killing another Arab. Because of lack of staff, the gendarme orders the teacher to deliver the Arab to the court for trial. The teacher tries to refuse but the gendarme insists and, miffed, leaves the prisoner with the teacher. The next day, the teacher takes the Arab to the court, but before they arrive, offers the Arab the opportunity to flee. The Arab refuses the offer and proceeds to the court alone. The teacher returns to his school and finds a written threat on his blackborad from other Arabs who want him dead for delivering the murderer.
Welcome to the world of Islam.
To put a finer point on Frank's discussion about Western, Christian imperialism being made a scapegoat for Islamic excess, recall that many Asian countries were also subject to the same imperialism, and now many of those countries are stable, economically properous, and secure enough to be unabashedly imitative of Western culture.
The extreme left and anarchistos at large think that Islam will be their pit bull to destroy The Evil America.
They fail to grasp that Islam will savage them next if they halp it achieve this collapse of Civilization.
And then establish a global theocratic gulag.
(They haven't read the pedophile's playbook, but believe the "revolutionary" and "progressive" b.s. that its cunning spokemen spew to dupe useful idiots of their ilk.)
"He (Churchill) saw nothing good coming out of treating the Turks, the Ottoman Empire, the same way as Germany. He did not want an occupation, but an easy peace for the Turks." -- from above
An interesting comment. Is it known whether Churchill was aware, or could have been aware, of the Armenian genocide at that time? If he was aware of the genocide, what possibly could have been his reason for supporting the continuation of the Caliphate under Turkish leadership I wonder. If he wasn't aware of the genocide, I could see his willingness to bolster the sick man of Europe only as some sort of continuation of the Great Game. Either way, it doesn't speak well for Churchill. But perhaps this wasn't his finest hour.
I suppose it's worth repeating here the young Churchill's comment on the violent tendencies of Islam in chapter 3 of his book, 'The Story of the Malakand field force' (1897):
"It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy. Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions,
and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis--as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder
and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British
squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed."
His words seem as true today as they were then.
lol @ topic header...
anyone who would be such a retard as to think such a n illucid thing suffers a mental disease, especially if they're not a mOslem.
Spectacular
Wow.... Did I just read someone express regret for the fall of the Ottoman Empire. No surprise it is PMK, the ME Christian hater. What a foolish sentiment to have. Are you and Frank not aware that the Christian presence in the ME would have been astronomically greater today if Europe had not earlier interfered with the conquest of Satan's Empire by the still very Christian Russia? In fact, Islam would probably be nothing but a horrible relic today.