This article by Eric Gorski, whose truth-challenged reporting has come under scrutiny at Jihad Watch and other blogs before, is a fairly standard study of misrepresentation of the jihadist threat in the mainstream media. In other words, it isn't worth much as information for information's sake, but reading between the lines can be highly instructive.
"'Radical Islam' should jolt voters, evangelicals say," by Eric Gorski for the Associated Press:
Following last month's Values Voter Summit in Washington, conservative Christian power-broker Gary Bauer sent an e-mail to supporters.
He ticked off the issues dear to activists in attendance. ...
Then the one-time presidential hopeful turned his attention to a different threat, one social conservative leaders hope will shake their constituents from their apathy about the 2008 presidential race.
"The war against Islamofascism is in many respects a 'values issue,"' Bauer wrote. "That may seem like an odd statement at first glance, but, as I have often said, losing Western Civilization to this vicious enemy would be immoral."
[...]
"It's the ultimate life issue," said Rick Scarborough, president of the Texas-based conservative Christian group Vision America. "If radical Islam succeeds in its ultimate goals, Christianity ceases to exist."
It may seem like a small point, but this sort of inaccuracy-- not acknowledging the dhimmi laws, which "protect" Christians and other "People of the Book," but subject them to humiliation and oppression as perpetual second-class citizens -- is quite unhelpful in that it gives an apologist an opportunity to derail the debate and paint sugar-coated pictures of Muslim / non-Muslim coexistence, the supposed convivencia in Islamic Spain, and so on.
That might sound alarmist, but Scarborough's words illustrate how many conservative Christian leaders view matters of national security as a battle between good and evil — nothing short of a clash of civilizations.
With America at war in Iraq and continued aftershocks from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, national security is an issue for all the campaigns. But disagreement exists about how to frame the threat, with Republicans more likely to blame radical Islam and Democrats speaking more generally about terrorism.
The use of "Islamofascism" is another flashpoint. Proponents of the term argue that Islamic radicals who embrace totalitarian methods evoke European fascist movements of the early 20th century. Critics call it manufactured propaganda, a 21st-century scare tactic that fails to capture the complex causes of terrorism.
Fine. Try "jihad." It's shorter, and doesn't "fail to capture the complex causes of terrorism."
[...]
Tensions between evangelical Christianity and Islam are long-standing, too. Aside from major theological differences, the two traditions work tirelessly to win new believers and often compete. Evangelical missionary groups have long protested restrictions on access to predominantly Muslim nations in Africa and the Middle East.
Yes, they "often compete." But it's not a free market, and what makes that the case is Islamic law, which forbids the promotion of other beliefs, prescribes the death penalty for apostasy, and forces Christians and other "People of the Book" to live as second-class citizens, or dhimmis.
The Sept. 11 attacks, carried out by Muslims who cited their religion as a motivating factor, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further inflamed evangelical anxiety.
So, why is the Christian right so concerned with Islam?
"These Christian right activists are very concerned with order," said John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "And radical Islam, in the same way that radical Communism was, is a threat that would interfere with families, with good government, and also the church and the spreading of the Gospel."
Order? What John Green is describing almost sounds like a Christian variant of Sharia (and this would be good point to note that Gorski's article never mentions the jihadist imperative to impose Islamic law). Of course, this charge is a red herring brought out by those who wish to portray conservative Christians as being as dangerous to a free society as the Taliban.
Alternatively, one might posit the explanation that these groups, being committed to a non-Islamic faith and the freedom to practice it, and also often being in contact with Christians persecuted in the Islamic world, are in a position to realize what they stand to lose under Islamic law. And they certainly aren't alone there, but they're the easiest group to portray as bad guys.
Not surprisingly, U.S. Muslim leaders are critical of the pitched rhetoric and warn of the consequences if evangelical leaders fail to separate militants from the vast majority of Muslims.
Note to U.S. Muslim leaders: that's your job.
"If you look at the global picture, what these groups are doing is reinforcing the idea that America is in a crusade against Islam, and that this not a war against a group of extremists, but a war between religions," said Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. "In the long run, it's to the detriment of America's interests and it's pandering to a bloc of voters in a very shortsighted way."
[...]
Still, in meetings with Republican presidential candidates, Christian conservatives are most interested in hearing an acknowledgment of the Islamic threat. The GOP hopefuls are obliging.
Giuliani — whose preferred term is "Islamic terrorists" — has denounced Democrats for failing to use the phrase. Christian conservative leaders acknowledge their elevation of the issue has contributed to an ironic twist at the top of the polls: Giuliani, the candidate most associated with the war on terrorism, not only won Robertson's endorsement but is polling well among evangelicals despite his two divorces and support for abortion rights and gay rights.
A threat as massive as that which the jihadists pose requires making common cause with those with whom one disagrees on other issues. And doing so recognizes that the jihadists threaten us all, not just a particular voting bloc.
How inconvenient for the gorskis of the world that so many of the most outspoken and relentless opponents of Islam, do not fit his prefabricated views and his sly sloganeering. Think of all the apostates from Islam, such as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who have been so good at analyzing the the menace, of Islam. Think of such Europeans as Oriana Fallaci and Pim Fortuyn, the former -- though a lifelong atheist and, what's more, distinctly anti-clerical and anti-Vatican, left her papers to the Vatican, and saw Pope Benedict (correctly) as understanding the threat to the West, one that might not be grasped in time, of Islam. Not one of those listed fits the gorskian notion of a Christian evangelical. All are (or were) freethinkers, atheists, and in their social views not a few are libertine, and in their economic views, far from being free-market fundamentalists.
But that wouldn't fit his prefabricated, and fabricated, template. So he carefully leaves out, from his little tale, any mention of such people, any hint of their existence. He can keep this up, or he can decide to begin to tell something like the truth.
Why, if he looks at this site he will see, along with Robert Spencer, others who can hardly be described as "Christian evangelicals."
It's his choice. Should Eric Gorski continue writing nonsense, or should he try, just for the hell of it, a little sense now and then? He might find he can get the hang of it. He may even grow to like it.
"Note to U.S. Muslim leaders: that's your job."
Good point. Why do they always demand we do this when they refuse to do it themselves? Seems to me that is part of Taqiyya & Kitman inc... over the ultimate goals to re establish the caliphate.
-- I M P O R T A N T ------
Please listen to the following:
Caroline Myss about THE SACRED CONTRACT OF AMERICA!
http://www.worldpuja.org/archives/2007-11-01/index.php?rnd=7379
Listen from approx the 30 minute mark
let the progam load completely then put pointer on and click on black line at the bottom - the black line will become red - then take it to the center mark (approx 30 min).
Guiliani was talking to someone can't remember but he said.
He is not personally pro-choice, he wants babies to live, but he understands that the women involved are sometimes between a rock and a hard place. He does not want to turn the women into criminals by banning abortions, punishing the women further.
@allat
I have a problem signing up to something just to hear a recording. Do you have a link to YouTube or something like that? I am more and more concerned with data harvesting and privacy. I would put what you linked as equal to spam. Even if what is recorded worth listening too.
I'll check as to how elase to listen and come back to you.
But the reason I put that up is to let you all know that EVERYBODY is coming in from all angles and areas - from the Spiritual and the Metaphysical - letting us know that America and therefore, the world, is in deep trouble as to the POSSIBLE LOSS of Freedom.
Saying the same thing that this Website Jihad Watch is saying. Coming at it from a different perspective.
And that we cannot be passive anymore - we absolutely have to take an active part to retain our freedom - we cannot any longer stay at home - at let others take care of the business.
People, this situation - world events - the marching of a religious fundamentalism is the most frightening thing ever.
I've had a good time on this website, and have had fun, and frustation and anger at world events, but this is the most frightening thing ever:
If America falls, if this Light of Freedom is snnffed out, the rest of the world falls.
America is in deep trouble, and I am shaken. I can no longer take world events as a game. It is deadly serious.
Derail the debate? Dhimitude is the reason that Christianity will cease to exist. If dhimmi status really "protected" Christians and Jews, why has Christianity been replaced by Islam throughout North Africa. Lebanon is still on the way to becoming a pure Islamic country. Christians and Jews are abandoning steam ship Iraq. When people are oppressed because of their religion and their religion cannot help them, they will take the easier route. It is pure basic human instinct to convert to the preferred religion to get a better life. Believing in that religion is secondary. Now long have Copts been praying?
It might be inaccurate, but as long as Rick Scarborough and others understand dhimmitude, the debate should not be derailed.
To hear Caroline Myss:
Tech Help
http://www.worldpuja.org/help.php
You have to Sign Up (FREE) - then log in.
It's worth the bother. As I said, everybody - across the Board - is saying the same thing as this "here" website.
Do you have Real player? Download the BASIC Free Real Player right from the Internet:
http://www.worldpuja.org/help.php
To hear Caroline Myss:
Tech Help
http://www.worldpuja.org/help.php
You have to Sign Up (FREE) - then log in.
It's worth the bother. As I said, everybody - across the Board - is saying the same thing as this "here" website.
Do you have Real player? Download the BASIC Free Real Player right from the Internet:
http://www.real.com/
Every campaign needs a catchy theme song. Here's a good one from "Frank Sinatra", for somebody.
www.animatronics.org/strangers/strangers.htm
"Not surprisingly, U.S. Muslim leaders are critical of the pitched rhetoric and warn of the consequences if evangelical leaders fail to separate militants from the vast majority of Muslims."
"Warn of the consequences"? What are they going to do, beat us up? Yell at us? Refuse to transport seeing eye dogs in their taxis? They oughta be warning themselves about the consequences of making threats toward the other 99% of the population.
What do Islamists and Evangelicals have in common? For starters they are both against: education, homosexuality, feminism, science, abortion, free-speech, and secularism. They cooperate on some issues such as evolution and the reasons for the Sept. 11 events; no Islamist would disagree with Falwell's statement that: "..the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'." But, when it comes to the control of the feeble-minded and their contributions - now that's a war.
Pathetic, yet true, the Evangelicals have a great interest in this war on terrorism, it has greatly increased their income. Rudy, despite being pro-choice, they can live with because he will further the cause that this is a religious war and keep on spewing that in order to win we just need to keep the membership growing and the contributions flowing.
I believe Wafa Sultan said it best: "...(this is) a clash between the mentality of the Middle Ages and that of the 21st century." Whether it's the ridiculous, like putting saddles on dinosaurs, or the barbarous, such as hanging homosexuals, it is about the power to dictate what is the "correct belief" that drives the leaders of both groups. If you believe in Wafa's assertions than they are both the enemy.
I'm glad theres at least one sizaeble group that recognizes theres a problem with Islam.
IMO Spencer would be much better off taking his message to Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians rather than giving lectures to uppity, secular neo-marxist college students who hate him and his
message.
waltc,
If Robert takes his message to Evangelicals and Orthodox Christians, he'd be preaching to the choir more or less. That's our job as jihad-watchers to give those people a nudge here and there in the right direction.
Robert is great because he is so patient with uppity, secular neo-marxist college students who hate him and his message. He presents his points without sounding like a conspiracy-spoutin' lunatic. If he gets through to just one, he's done a great service to freedom.
Just a thought re the Evangelicals on abortion. They are very passionate on that issue, despite the fact that there is no reference in the the Bible to abortion, yet some thought reveals a parallel between Christian scripture and abortion: In the New Testament, a mortal woman gives birth to a deity, who is unjustly killed. In a sense then, abortion is tantamount to a crucifixion, in that any baby has divine qualities.
The Evangelicals' emphasis on this issue has antagonized liberals who don't understand it.
Just another propaganda hit piece as bad as patrick french's article posted above this thread.
Simple research of the "sources" tell the tale, especially USA today, Mr Greene (formerly of the "bliss institute" lol, and the *ahem* "news outlets" he's listed to have appeared on).
May as well have had Pravda do a "study" on capitalism...LOL.
Puhlease.
:-D
There are these people who look for nothing but division in the growing opposition to political Islam. One must wonder about their motives.
The opposition to political Islam has no bounds to any particular faith. There are people of Buddhism, Catholicism, Evangelicalism, Hinduism, many others, and even those without religion, that all oppose it.
"Shakeel Ahmad Bhat is the product of poverty, lack of opportunity and state brutality."
from the article cited in the posting
Thank heavens for that. If he had wealth and opportunity, and lived in a land without state brutality, think of the damage he could do -- like the British physician who rammed a car full of explosives into the Glasgow air terminal, or the North Carolina graduate student who mowed down pedestrians on a sidewalk with his SUV. they weren't poor, they didn't lack opportunity, and they lived in liberal Western democracies. But they are all Moslems.
Sorry, I meant my comment above to go to the posting about Rage Boy and the Daily Mail. I have re-posted it there.
QUOTE THIS: "It's an Extremists' World, the Moderates just live in it."
@Mick_n_NYC
I find it very offensive that you include and link Islam with Christians. I note you used the word Evangelicals, they are one in the same. I am not going to debate you because this thread and subject of the forum is about Islam Jihad. And you rancor is not contributing to the subject.
Your words are full of misrepresentations and show complete ignorance on both Islam or Christianity. Your POV shows clearly the low spiritual state that this country is in and is one of the reasons that most don't get the seriousness of this threat. This thread shows, as well as your post, that others are at fault instead of the true enemy ISLAM.
Please don't respond to me because I will not respond to you.
Matt 7:6
Don't give what is holy to unholy people. Don't give pearls to swine! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.
مات 7:6
لا تعطي ما هو مقدس لunholy الشعب. لا تعطي اللءلء الى الخنزير! انهم سوف تدوس على اللآلئ ، ثم انتقل الهجوم ولكم
I'm voting (as of today) for Giuliani in 2008.
I emplore all other conservatives, especially those in the JW community who are well-versed in dealing with the reality of Islam, to do likewise.
Choose you candidates wisely in 2008.
Jewdog, the Old Testament speaks of causing a miscarriage and the penalty for that, as well as describing children as gifts from God. "The fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul" ? How about offering children to Molech? The New Testament teachings on love make abortion inconsistent with Christian faith. I read a touching article in JWR titled, "In Hebrew, Womb Means Compassion". It was an account of how a Jewish woman changed her mind about supporting abortion.
Mick- nice try.
So why does a Republican president continue to shell out consultation fees to the Islamic Society of North America? The ISNA is the local branch of Jamaat-i-Islami (Islamic Society) of Lahore, Pakistan. The JI invited Osama bin Laden to attend their 1998 convention. I have noted that over a dozen times on the Homeland Security tip line. Still, Bush invites ISNA terrorists to attend his Eid jack-boot lickings, and he Still relies on them for Oval Office consultation on "islamic affairs." Secular and Christian Republicans should be revolting against that Saudi errand boy. Cheney leached $60 million from Gulf War 1 contacts; Bush wants to top that. Bush-Cheney should be required to wear clown suits.
I have to agree with Mick_n_NYC in that many conservatives (not all, but many) are almost as anti-gay as the Muslims (not to mention their other less-than-admirable attributes, such as opposition to interracial marriages, which remains very strong in many Red states), though with the added--and crucial--caveat that they don't support killing them (well, most don't, anyway).
As for Im.mad.as.Hell's response to him: a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
My problem with the upcoming elections is that the Republican candidates are too socially conservative, and the Democratic ones don't have a clue when it comes to Jihad. So who do I vote for? In all likelihood, I'll be sitting at home on Election Day, enjoying an "adult beverage" and watching all the drama unfold on TV.
Wow, looks like Kool-Aid DOES have side-effects after all! LOL
"Wow, looks like Kool-Aid DOES have side-effects after all! LOL"
A great messiah shall arise and deliver the Muslims from their ignorance--and his name is Johnnie Walker (the Red Label variety, of course).
Seriously, many of these uptight shaikhs and mullahs would greatly benefit from a few shots of the good stuff. At the very least they would chill out a bit.
Hell, maybe even that crazy German bastard Jagermeister could help out--after all, Muslims were always rather fond of Hitler and Germany.
@allat:
A most thought provoking presentation, thank you for posting the link.
I cannot agree with everything Ms. Myess says, nor do I think she would expect everyone to do so.
Her point about the 2008 Presidential candidates ignores one fact: If one is going to be "politically savvy" as she recommends, then one must naturally vote, selecting one from among the candidates offered.
It's well and good for her to criticize the current... ahem... offerings (we all do that, to some degree). Any American should be critical of the candidates, their platforms, and their promises.
Still, in the end, there will be only a few candidates to choose from, because that's the way it works.
She raised some excellent points, though, with regard to individual responsibility to preserve the Sacred Contract of America.
What Gorski is ignoring is that the church has its own sources of information, as Robert points out:
" these groups, being committed to a non-Islamic faith and the freedom to practice it, and also often being in contact with Christians persecuted in the Islamic world, are in a position to realize what they stand to lose under Islamic law."
A gentleman in my parish church once worked as administrator for a large mission organisation that performs works of mercy in many countries, including Muslim countries. There is NOTHING about the manifold deceits and violences of Islam, that he does not know. I knew a missionary couple (husband Chinese Australian, wife Euro-Australian) who lived for years in Pakistan. Another couple spent years in Indonesia. These people had no illusions whatever.
An analogy. During the Cold War, there were plenty of well-meaning Christians who became Useful Idiots. But for every one of those, there were others, who were not deceived. Some had witnessed the horrors of Stalinism or Maoism first-hand (such as Gladys Aylward, missionary, naturalised citizen of China, who in Peking witnessed the execution, by beheading, one after the other, of dozens of Chinese Christian students). The unofficial lines of communication, bringing stories of executions, rapes, tortures, imprisonments of clergy and ordinary believers, church burnings, bible burnings, and mass murders, continued to function throughout. In dozens of churches around the western world you would have found ordinary blue-collar and white-collar christians who had never read Solzhenitsyn, yet knew exactly what Stalin and his successors were getting up to.
Likewise: despite Useful Idiots and Islamochristians aplenty, ancient and modern, the wiser heads in all the churches - eastern and western, orthodox, catholic, protestant - have always known the truth about Islam. I was only a teenager when I read, in simple popular paperback form, the autobiographies of two female Pakistani defectors from Islam, who had become Christian believers: their stories made it crystal clear that Muslims who convert to Christ may find their nearest and dearest howling for their blood. I didn't need Mr Spencer's books, or even Samuel Zwemer's, to tell me about Islam's attitude to apostates.
The testimonies of contemporary converts from Islam to Christianity - from the prominent, like Lamin Sanneh or Patrick Sookhdeo or Daniel Shayesteh or Walid Shoebat - to the humble, like Lina Joy or Abdul Rahman, or Mohammed Hegazi, and any number of others known only through the newsletters of groups such as The Barnabas Fund, the Bible Society, Voice of the Martyrs or Open Doors - these stories are spreading, spreading, spreading among ordinary Christians out there in suburbia and smalltownia, quite independently of mainstream media and academia. The internet has speeded this up considerably.
Remember: Spencer's very first book was written for the-Catholic-in-the-pew.
Perhaps church leaders are catching up with their constituencies, just a little bit quicker than the politicians are catching up with theirs...