Geert Wilders' film could very, very easily get him killed. (He's already guarded around the clock.) It essentially picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam."Fitna" is certainly provocative, yet it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.
It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.
It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.
For more on Fitna, the Darwin Fish, and rollicking good times in a Turkish café, read it all.
Its great work. But where are so called 'moderate' muslims criticizing these hate full imams. Dan Brown must be happy not to write a book on muslims. Dan Brown picks easy targets.
Wow,, I just read a excellent article at FrontPage,, on Sharia Law.
There is no way,, EVER, that islam can function in the 21st century the way it is,,
Read this,, no wonder these people are so backwards,,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8AD3D2F1-FD2C-4E78-B233-2F97FCF97B94
It's appalling,, the endless rules under sharia. These people can NEVER think for themselves, under islam.
)0(
solsticewitch13
OT, but Islam related.
A man converts to Christianty and his family orders his death.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/282531.aspx
The more articles I read by Jonah Goldberg, the more I agree with and like his writing. I may have to move his book up in line of ones I plan to read.
One more OT,
“America for Sale” to Sharia Sovereign Wealth Funds
Brigette Gabriel's site:
http://blog.americancongressfortruth.com/
He makes an excellent point, which is often overlooked, namely that people are very much into bashing Christianity as a show of their - mostly newly acquired - 'enlightened' atheism.
When asked why they do not also attack Islam with the same fervour, they wriggle out by saying that, ahem, they of course mean all faiths ... yeah, right.
Now I do not want to be seen as generally bashing any atheists and agnostics here - I've had many good and profound discussions with many of them. Above all I would not want to convey the impression that all who are anti-jihadist need to become Christians straightaway. However, I am more and more gaining the impression that countering jihad is possible only by consciously embracing the values of our Western societies, in the knowledge that they are based on Christianity and would not have evolved without that religion.
The 'Darwin Fish' is a sign of lack of knowledge of history generally, and particularly of the conditions Christians live under in Islamic countries. More, it denigrates their fortitude.
It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence.
That's a very interesting perspective and one I have not thought of. If it is true, it shows how off the mark they are.
I wonder if its not a question of supporting or not supporting the fanatics, but not taking the time understand the difference between a religious Christian and a religious Muslim.
When asked why they do not also attack Islam with the same fervour, they wriggle out by saying that, ahem, they of course mean all faiths ... yeah, right.
I tend to agree with this much more...
solsticewitch13, well it works in quite a number of countries - and if a person tries to think outside of sharia law while under it - their brain will be severed right along with their neck. And it is working even in many of our Western countries because they are allowed to practice it in their own communities. In fact, they are getting us to obey it by their continual demands - segregation, prayer rooms, etc - and we obey like little dhimmi. Now, remember they are easing it in to our lifestyles or else they threaten us and use fear. Also what they do if they don't get their way is just continually, unashamedly, bug us for us to bend to their ways. And then we acquiesce - and they continue on with their next demand. It is called 'creeping sharia'. And one day - it becomes too late.
So, the thing to do is STOP SEGREGATION, PRAYER ROOMS, teaching our children their 5 tenets, having a week of being like a muslim, KICK OUT THE MSA in our Universities and any other muslim organization that thinks they should censor and twist our colleges, etc.
Just a start - but there is a whole heck of a lot of cleaning up we need to do to stop their thinking we should change our ways to suit their sharia laws.
"It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence."
That's because of a well developed cowardice, the natural survival instict of secular progressives.We shall see how they react when the chips are down. More than likley rely on the establishement for protection. My inclination is to let the muslims do their job...Then I'll do mine.
"It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, but they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor inclined to use violence."
That's because of a well developed cowardice, the natural survival instict of secular progressives.We shall see how they react when the chips are down.More than likely rely on the establishement for protection.My inclination is to let the muslims do their job...Then I'll do mine.
The reason one doesn't see more anti-Muslim bumper stickers may be fear of Muslim road rage.
Louis Palme recently published an analysis of the 10,000 Islamic Terrorist Attacks since 9/11/01(see http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/show.aspx?aid=16035 ). He found that in the U.S. the second most frequent weapon of Islamic terror after guns was vehicular manslaughter.
If you are not a Muslim then you are in trouble regardless!
Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary. (on the BBC)
"You are innocent if you are a Muslim," Choudary tells the BBC. "Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
I agree - unique characteristics of Christianity led to the development of the secular Enlightenment. Respect for individual rights, Protestant notions about leaving belief as a matter between a man and his god, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's (divorcing religion from state), concern for the poor, desire to bring the Kingdom of God to earth, but not through violence but by emulating Jesus.
However, I assert in turn that Christianity has developed under the influence of Hellenistic philosophies and Jewish wisdom philosophies. Many of the ideas that came about after the European Enlightenment existed already during the Ionian Awakening and subsequent philosophical thought in Greece, long before there was a Christianity.
It's short-sighted to claim that secular West won its values in spite of instead of largely because of notions that existed in Christian theology and philosophy, but it's also short-sighted to credit solely Christianity with their development.
"The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it."
I thought Goldberg's article was right on the mark. It illustrates perfectly what passes for courage in intellectual circles today.
Theo van Gogh
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Geert Wilders
Pat Condell
Ehsan Jami (something in the Dutch water?)
Hugh Fitzgerald
Wafa Sultan (possibly - she is nominally a Muslim)
Whom am I missing? Anyone want to add to the list?
From the article: "The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it."
Got it in one, criticism without fear of consequences is not standing up for freedom. It is a form of smug abuse. Wonder if those who sport a 'Darwin' fish would do the same with an Islamic symbol?
Though I hate his stance on Israel: Christopher Hitchens
I agree to an extent. It's the old argument: why do atheists etc show more contempt for Christians than they do Muslims, when Muslims would be much more apt to do atheists violence, and much more brutal violence at that.
One counter that has percolated in my mind for a long time but I have never seen expressed is this:
relatively innocuous yet proximal threat vs brutal and extreme yet distant threat
As much as I despise the beliefs and actions of Muslims when compared to present-day Western Christians, I have never been punched in the eye for saying I don't believe in the Qur'an. I have been punched in the eye for saying I don't believe in Jesus.
It might be true that I see the desert religion of the Muslims to be a poor copy of Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, and I esteem it to foster a civilization that is brutish and retarded when compared to that of the West.
But
That doesn't mean I am going to be a good dhimmi for the Christians and keep my mouth shut when Christians, who live next door to me in number and not halfway around the Earth, endeavor to have my kids say their prayers in school, use my taxes to put their commandments on the wall of our public buildings, and attempt to have poppycock masquerading as science taught in the public schools.
And Christians aren't merely our neighbors; Christians are the people with political clout on the local, state, and national level. How many atheists have been elected to office? I'm sure some have, but not many.
And in any case it's not Muslims who have political power (yet) in our country, so, again, it's a question of distant threat vs proximal threat.
Keep in mind that I wear a shirt, unwashed sometimes so that I can wear it more frequently, that identifies myself as a kufr in Arabic script. I don't decide to wear shirts that mock Christians.
I live in a university town, so I do see Muslims out and about from time to time, but sadly hardly whenever I choose to wear my childishly mocking shirt.
I choose to speak out against muslims because I am a person influenced more by principle than pragmatics. Some other atheists, freethinkers, etc might be more pragmatic than me.
I second the notion to pick up Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Daniel Pipes, who I'm referring to here, said:
It changed the way I understand politics.
A killer endorsement if I ever saw one...
I concur. This book is controversial, but for real conservatives it's great fun, and a godsend. It deals with fascism as a meta-phenomenon, and enables us to identify re-application of fascist ideas in modern politics, including what adherents of a certain Middle Eastern religion are trying to do.
As for Islamofascism as such, Jonah Goldberg deals with it in one brief sentence (of 400 pages). He calls it quintessential fascism and moves on to elaborate on less obvious issues :)
Oh. Danish MSM is surprisingly open to deep Islam-critical articles. Latest is one by Mogens Rukov analyzing why Islam (as such!) violates the Danish constitution. English translation at my blog EuropeNews. (Link-whoring? If you think so, please tell me).
Henrik - were you "Templar" on the themoviefitna.com Web site?
Non-croyant, that wasn't me.
I've contributed to a bit of info at Gates of Vienna (who ranks #1 on Google for "Fitna download" !!), but I didn't write anything at themoviefitna.com web.
The reason I ask is because Templar used the expression "of cause."
British people saying "of course" might sound like they are saying "of cause," especially to non-native ears.
But, then again, I think he was copypasting, so maybe he was using your material.
Yes, that's a phoenetical misspelling. Thanks for catching that.
Indeed looks like Templar took it from EN, which he's in his proper right to do. I publish my essays under what I call the "Fjordman license" (I should do a Wiki entry on that) which means any electronic republication and translation is permitted - don't even ask - but publication in print media has the rights reserved.
I think it's a practical approach to copyright when we have messages we just want heard, for the merit of the message, yet want a fair share of the pie in case someone takes actual profit from what we write.
I agree with you, henrik. Those are the conditions under which I would publish online. However, I think it's dishonest to present someone else's words as your own under any circumstances, but I realize that some people do it out of neglect instead of intent, and I am sure that was how Templar was doing it.
I always try to include a source link when I quote someone.
To awake - see how I picked up on that "of cause" stamp on henrik's writing? That's what I bring to bear in my Internet sleuthing.
/flex
Good and thoughtful writing, and interesting to hear yet another story of an apparently secret believer in Turkey.
I think he might also have mentioned that the fish thing is also a symbol of resurrection, Jesus having been dead for the same period of time as Jonah was in the belly of the whale.
Yes, I know, whales are mammals and not fish, their throats are too small etc, but there are a couple of records of 19th century whalers being swallowed by sperm whales, and anyway it is just allegory, right ? We are just meant To Get The Picture, ok ? And the distant ancestors of whales had feet too, but it was just a passing phase until they could get themselves back into the oceans. Let us make sure that our freedoms don't go the same way as the whale's feet. Hmmm...
Non-croyant, I agree. A link to the original is a requirement in the "Fjordman license".
From Goldberg's
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.
Goldberg's voice is a bit of welcome sanity in the current discord of political discussion. The misguidance of today's "progressives" is unnerving. Like the progressives of the early twentieth century, there seems to be no form cynical propaganda or intellectual laziness beneath today's progressives; not the pseudoscientific emotionalism of the global warming hysteria , not the shameless resurgence and promotion of the emotional politics of jelousy and class envy of Carl Marx, not even the array of mindless and gutless politically correct initiatives borne of the primitive post-modern mindset.
Despite the orgy of wishful thinking that progressives are currently wallowing in, it's not likely we are finding of some new understanding of humanity, nor are we witnessing an evolution of the human species. Instead, liberal society appears to be sliding backward at an increasing pace. The regurgitation of old bad ideas, intellectual and practical dead ends, has moved from campus oddities to mainstream political candidates. We see attacks, not just on the wild excesses of a few particular businesses, but on the intellectual foundation of political freedom and free market economics.
We have moved into a bizarre universe of thought were having convictions is a bad thing, unless it's the conviction not to have convictions. Now, patriotism is a bad thing, unless it is recognizing the enemy's patriotism for his religion while disparaging support for our country. Today, even scientific rigor is rigorous only if it supports a particular foredrawn conclusion.
I've always heard that history repeats itself, but watching it happen before one's own eyes is terrifying.
I agree RalphInfidel. Take as an example the scientific area of study known as Creationism aka Intelligent Design. It starts with the forgone conclusion that there is a creator or designer of life on Earth and tries to apply the Scientific Method in reverse to prove that foregone conclusion.
How very sad.
non-croyant,
relatively innocuous yet proximal threat vs brutal and extreme yet distant threat
The rush by gulf states to master 20th century weapons and delivery technology (not to mention infiltration into the U.S. across our uncontrolled boarders) while they enforce 7th century theocratic rule doesn't allow me to take much solace in your observations.
… I have never been punched in the eye for saying I don't believe in the Qur'an. I have been punched in the eye for saying I don't believe in Jesus.
Not that I'm condoning the behavior, but if this is the worst thing that you experience in life, consider yourself truly blessed. I strongly recommend against running that experiment continually in a heavily Islamized area.
Most males, by the time they reach adulthood, have been in a fistfight or two, or a dozen, over a variety issues. If this is no longer true, it could explain a lot of things we see around us.
I still maintain, as I did at the end of this thread that:
To assume that: faith is tyranny and atheism is not, is also an abandonment of reason in my view, as history has shown. There are too many other factors involved… like the tenets of the faith, and the things the atheists actually DO believe.
These scientists are sometimes known as "cdesign proponentsists."
I agree, Ralph. I am much more lucky than women in gays living in the lands of the ummah, and I am much more lucky than India Tracy.
non-croyant:
Take as an example the scientific area of study known as Creationism aka Intelligent Design. It starts with the forgone conclusion that there is a creator or designer of life on Earth and tries to apply the Scientific Method in reverse to prove that foregone conclusion.
I agree, see this exchange between myself and Pelayo, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry right now.
Theo van Gogh
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Geert Wilders
Pat Condell
Ehsan Jami (something in the Dutch water?)
Hugh Fitzgerald
Wafa Sultan (possibly - she is nominally a Muslim)
Whom am I missing? Anyone want to add to the list?
Common Non Croyant...You know exactly what I mean and don't try to play cute...Just because you are a non-believer or so your handle seems to indicate.Believers and non believers of all types are in this fight so don't get your dander up with phoney sarcasm. The people you listed are heroes of mine as well.
non-croyant,
The hyperlinked text above should read "this exchange between myself, Pelayo, and Xeno"
Later.
From solomonpal:
Common Non Croyant...You know exactly what I mean and don't try to play cute...Just because you are a non-believer or so your handle seems to indicate.Believers and non believers of all types are in this fight so don't get your dander up with phoney sarcasm. The people you listed are heroes of mine as well.
Exactly Non Croyant... Solomonpal speaketh the truth. :)
solomonpal,
What I understood you to say was that there was a dearth of "secular progressives" who are concerned about violent expressions of Islam. I listed some people whom I would count as secular progressives in response.
And yes, there is the additional point that in that list are some of those who are among the most famous and outspoken critics of Islam.
I agree that there are some self-hating liberals, secular/atheist/whatever and not, who have a double standard when it comes to Islam - far too many. It's a source of great frustration to me, and I chalk it up to white guilt and I-want-to-offend-my-daddyism.
But I think it's unfair to imply that there is something fundamental to the thinking of "secular progressives" (among whose number I count myself) which makes them incapable of criticizing Islam.
>>>Just a start - but there is a whole heck of a lot of cleaning up we need to do to stop their thinking we should change our ways to suit their sharia laws.
Posted by: R_not
>>>>
Hi Folks,,
Yeah, I agree R_not,, but I think before that even happens,, we have to educate the politicians, about the truth.
I resent that they are basically destroying our way of life, because they have no idea of what is really happening. They force this primitive tribe culture on all of us, in the name of multiculturalism???
They tell us to embrace, the culture,, are they INSANE?????? How can you embrace a culture, that stones people to death, and so on and so on.
I think we should all raise a frickin STINK to the UN,, and the Human Rights Commision. What about protecting OUR rights,, for a change.
Alot more Infidels,, than there is 7th century cave creatures,,
so,, let's bitch at our politicians, write letters, giving the human rights commission our serious issues with that death book.
Get some lawyers involved and sue that cult disguised as "religion",, for planned genocide of most of the human beings on this planet.
Like my favourite Britt,, Pat C,, sez,, I wanna see the wonder of the 21st century,, not all the crap, that is being forced on us,, by the primitive 7 century ideology,, called islam.
They are collectively dragging our civilization down to their barbaric level,, flat out,, this HAS to end!!!
namaste
)0(
solsticwitch13
"don't annoy the bikers"
Well let's just chalk it up to a misunderstanding and shake hands. But I disagree with you on the point you made.It's because of "secular progressives" we are in this fix but I do understand there are some who "do not have a double standard when it comes to Islam" and thus I count you as one. And as an ally too, whatever your means of resistance. This may come as a surprise to you but there are intellegent, rational other than secular progressives out there. Why even some of my best friends are secular progressives! ;)
And I think, solomonapl, that secular progressives, or at least secular humanists, have a singular strength in countering the demands of muslims.
Secular humanists can say to muslims that:
Muslim prayers will not be forced on our school kids.
Qur'anic "science" will not be taught in our classrooms.
Shari'a laws will not be hung on our courthouse walls.
Blasphemy will not be punished in any way.
Muslims who convert from Islam to any other belief or lack of belief will not be penalized in any way - much less executed.
Women will not be segregated from society. They will not have to wear special garb. They will not be required to be escorted by related males or anyone else, and their voice will be heard in society on an equal level with any man's.
Homosexuals will not be persecuted in any way.
And so on &c.
Why are secular humanists singularly strong in this particular tack for resisting Islam? Because we would mean it just as much if "Christian" were put in the place of "muslim" above (and "Biblical" for "Qur'anic" etc).
Secular humanists can counter Islam from the basis that no one's religious beliefs - no one's - should determine public policy and laws.
I think that is a stronger attack than "your religion is false and you are worshiping a false god - you ought to convert."
why do atheists etc show more contempt for Christians than they do Muslims
Interesting point.
It is the Christian ethos and devout Christians, that gave rise to separation of church and state, the abolition of slavery, emancipation of women, compassion to prisoners of war, the Red Cross, charities, to name just a few.
The greatest scientists, i.e., those who changed the way we look at the Universe - Newton, Einstein, Mendell, and Dalton, were all devout Christians or God fearing Jewish, engaged in the investigation of the mystery of the God's creation. They did so because of the free will that Christianity gives, as well as the deep humility that is required when undertaking investigations of the mysteries of nature that Newton etal undertook. It is not a coincidence that modern science takes off only in Christendom and not elsewhere.
"Darwinists" realise that they owe nothing to Islam, and other religions. As far as the Darwinists are concerned, to destroy Christianity is thus far more important, as only then that their claims can be entertained.
Darwinism and Athiesm exist only as a counterpoints to Chistianity, and certainly not to any other religion. As such, they are parasites of Christainity. Even the appropriation of the "Jesus fish" indicates that.
I'm not going to allow this thread to degenerate into another debate over belief v. non-belief, or evolution vs. creationism, etc.
Goldberg was using the Darwin fish to make a point. Let's not lose track of that point.
I'm not going to allow this thread to degenerate into another debate over belief v. non-belief, or evolution vs. creationism, etc. Posted by: MarisolJW
Fair enough. Yet it is an interesting point as to why atheists show more contempt for Christians than they do Muslims, regardless of the merits of any belief system.
A mundane reason - It is a truism that deep affection as well as vituperative quarrels take place within the family. Creationism, Darwinism, Atheism, rationalism etc are part of the Christian or Western family. Such arguments could therefore be just a family quarrel.
That's fine non-croyant. Whatever your take on resistance. But it didn't work too well for the SP's or SH's in Europe now did it. The fight and means you describe is against Chritians and within the context of Western civilization.There is a platform for debate.It's give and take with nothing more serious than battered egos and sensibilities.Some SH offended being in proximity of a public prayer or some Catholic insulted because The Virgin Mary is covered in dung and considered art.It's the arrogance of the two extremes that make it an issue. It ebbs and it flows.
The fight against Islam is more a life and death struggle for Western civilization.It will take all of us regardless of our stipe to win in the end and all types of resistance.
I see you switched over to secular humanist.I don't think SH and SP are the same but may share values. Might this be why you are a bit fustrated with your progressive brothers? I can see a distinction.
Just finished watching a program on LINK TV about a Spanish citizen fed up with consumerism who marched in soliderity with North Koreans. Would he be a secular humanist or progressive?
- Albert Einstein
I wonder what Newton would have believed had he been born later in time ...
Non-croyant,
I understand the argument you are making, the difference is in how effective I think it will be toward accomplishing the end you seek.
Your argument is well reasoned. In this case, unfortunately, a well reasoned argument will only be effective in persuading those that don't need persuading. Rationality is explicitly rejected by the Islamic doctrine that threatens us. You may argue that Christianity does the same, that it too rejects rationality. In some cases this is true, but in the last few centuries this irrationality is a far less ingrained part of Christian theology, as our scientific, technological, and economic advancement demonstrates.
Never in history has such a relatively weak and backward enemy forced so many concessions from such a benign and advanced adversary. And there is no reason to let it happen today.
So, if we cannot appeal to reason for peace, what can we appeal to? I think the only possible answer is: their survival instinct.
For those who profess a love of death greater than our love of life, regardless of their number, I propose offering to give them their wish in the most immediate, cost effective manner possible.
I am confident Islamic leaders who whip their populations into frenzies of religious outrage over some 'offense' to Islam are far less eager to die that they would have us believe. For Islamic leaders our most effective strategy is letting them know that they will not escape death at our hands (or at the hand of our machines, as the case may be) should they decide to continue the jihad.
Each time we demonstrate our capability and will to dispatch an Islamic leader in this manner, we do more to convince the Muslim masses that Allah cannot protect them from educated, well armed, and determined infidels than reasoned rhetoric can ever do.
Until there is some evidence that the Muslim world is ready to reject imperialist jihad, reject supremacist theology, to engage in diplomacy without Islamic double speak and double standards, I recommend talking with them in a language they will understand: lethal force, in whatever quantity it takes.
This communication method, proven throughout history, has the advantage of working even if the enemy chooses not to listen, but it has nothing to do with Christianity.
DP111,
Such arguments could therefore be just a family quarrel.
That's certainly the way I'd like to look at it.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's because Christianity inherits much of its philosophy from Hellenistic philosophy and Greek philosophy before that - all the way back to the Ionian Awakening, which took place over a six hundred years before Christ was born.
Actually, we are 100% in accord when it comes to this strategy, which would horrify some of my liberal friends. Quite frankly I hold people who have the beliefs that muslims do beneath contempt, and I have no desire to win them over. I'm not necessarily hawkish in attitude; I think it might be an effective strategy to cordon them off from the rest of the world (and ban immigration) until they self destruct or shape up, but I don't know if that's feasible.
I'd much rather cut them off and focus on fixing domestic issues. I'd feel bad for the freethinkers in the lands of the ummah, but we can't save the whole world can we? They'll have to take things into their own hands.
- from the referenced article.
What the heck is (transliterated) Ichthoye?
It's actually the Greek word ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthys - fish) which is an initialism, as he said, for Ιησούς Χριστός Θεού Υιός Σωτήρ (or like he he said: "Jesus Christ, God's son, savior").
Just an FYI - it irritates me when people screw up foreign languages.
Posted by: MarisolJW at April 2, 2008 7:37 PM
The patience of a Saint, reiterated.
This was a fantastic article. Working in a university environment, I have become increasingly weary of the old, rehashed attacks on Christianity, especially in the arts. Striking out at one who won't strike back is not an act of bravado; it's an act of cowardice.
That is exactly my sentiment in regard to all the atheist bashing that goes on in the comments section of this Web site.
Jonah Goldberg states: "Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought)."
>>OK - so he isn't a Christian, and yet he graciously accepted the business card without feeling the need to draw attention to the fact that he WASN'T a Christian.
Occasionally I will end a hand written letter or an e-mail with the fish symbol >>Not only do I agree with Jonah about the Darwin fish, but I'm impressed with his ability to pinpoint why he finds this bumper sticker offensive; and he isn't giving the stereotypical response that you would expect from a non-Christian, so I admire his ability to think clearly and not emotionally on the subject.
(transliterated) ICHOYE (or possibly ICHOUE)
*it's hard to commit an error on purpose, so I committed an error in trying to commit an error.
BTW, I think referring to "fishers of men" would have been more appropriate.
"....all the atheist bashing that goes on in the comments section of this Web site."
All things being equal - they give as good as they get.
I won't be happy till everyone stops calling gnostics "heretics". I mean what's a Chardinist catholic to do?