Spencer: Gingrich disavows Sharia

In Human Events this morning, I discuss Newt Gingrich’s anti-Sharia statements:

Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization. Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was “one of the nation’s worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry.” How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor? By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it.

It all started last Tuesday, when Gingrich took a question about whether he would ever endorse a Muslim for President. “It would depend,” Gingrich answered, “entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Sharia,” the Islamic legal code that mandates stonings, amputations, and restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

“A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat.” He even came out in favor of a federal law banning the use of Sharia in American courtrooms.

Gingrich also displayed an admirable grasp of the realities of Sharia, noting that the “rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400% increase in women being killed,” and pointing out other negative manifestations of Sharia: “The application of Sharia in places like Iran “¦ churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and “¦ the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand, when the Americans arrived, to about 500,000 today.”

Gingrich concluded: “I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don’t think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don’t think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us.”

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has challenged politically correct pieties so directly, and spoken so forthrightly about the realities of Islamic law. In August 2010, Gingrich made a point that our political elites of both the Left and the Right have still largely failed to grasp: “This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. “¦ One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law, which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”…

There is more.

Maldives: Fears of resurgence of female genital mutilation
Egypt: New member of parliament swears to abide by Sharia
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    I thought this was one of the most sensible things G said and found it in no way objectionable.

    I only wish he would disclaim any intention to impose Christian versions of divine law on the nation and an intention to try to stop any such thing with efforts equal to those he would direct against Shariah.

    But that effort can be taken to extremes, too.

    Isn’t worrying about halal food too much like worrying about kosher foods?

    Isn’t worrying about Muslim rules for banking unreasonable and even silly compared to worrying about Muslim organizations gathering funds for terrorism?

    PS.

    Unlike so many on the left I have as a secularist and strong separationist been entirely unable to become irate at Republican efforts nationally or in the states to resist or oppose the imposition of Shariah through or in American law and American courts.

    So far as I can tell, they only re-affirm the separation of church and state, though with particular regard to Islam.

    Hence my only objection is that these measures are unduly narrow in concerning ONLY Shariah.

  2. says

    Btw, your article at HU considerably understates the hostility of 19th Century (and even early 20th Century) Catholicism to modernity, republicanism, democracy, and anything remotely connected to religious liberty – except where Catholics were a minority too weak to impose upon the state.

    Kennedy’s speech was in defiance of the beliefs and desires of the Vatican and the Catholic clergy of the US, much as modern Catholics in politics who support abortion rights, the legality of easy divorce, or even the legality of contraception are in opposition to the official church.

  3. says

    “A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat.”

    Huh? Oh well, I don’t expect his understanding to be perfect, he’s doing all right so far…He can get the fine details later…

  4. says

    If Sharia is banned, this doesn’t change the fact that Muslims will continue to read their God’s commandants in the Quran, and believe it’s their duty to eventually usurp the government. It’s not a mere belief, overwhelming evidences show they will act on these beliefs, especially if they have the power and numbers, even if it means deaths to non-Muslims. So, we can expect greater deception and stealth jihad, as the Muslims or as Allen West calls them “enemy combatants” grow in power and numbers. From countless incidents in history and currently in Egypt, we know what this will eventually mean for the country.
    If only these measure are taken, it will be like allowing murderers in your home, as long as they promise to behave, and not lie, and obey certain rules. As long as they promise and don’t use taqiyah, and endless amount of murderers, whom in their hearts are hell bent on your destruction as commanded by Allah, who’s more important than your laws, are allowed and welcomed to stay.

  5. says

    “Btw, your article at HU considerably understates the hostility of 19th Century (and even early 20th Century) Catholicism to modernity, republicanism, democracy, and anything remotely connected to religious liberty – except where Catholics were a minority too weak to impose upon the state.”

    I’m not a Catholic, but let me ask, would you rather live in country ruled by Catholics or Muslims?

  6. says

    When Governor Romney essentially took the side of Hamas (Hamas is the Palestinian’s legitimately elected government; “Bush, Rice say Palestinian elections show “power of democracy”) in the December 10 Iowa debate, I lost faith in Romney. I cannot vote for him in our Florida primary. Against Obama, yes. Against Gingrich, no.

    excerpts:

    Romney: 22:05:51:00 They– Israel does not want us to make it more difficult for them to sit down with the Palestinian (terrorists – wildjew).

    Governor Mitt Romney: 22:06:03:00 –and the– and the United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to– to do his job (i.e., negotiate with the terrorists – wj).

    Romney: 22:07:30:00 If– if– if– if Bibi Netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say it. But our ally, b– the– the people of Israel, should be able to take their own positions and not have us negotiate (with the terrorists – wj) for them.

    Romney: 22:08:29:00 And I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability. And make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with– with rockets going in, with people dying, I don’t do anything that would harm that– that (“peace”?) process.

  7. says

    Gingrich concluded: “I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism. I don’t think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don’t think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us.”

    I do believe ol’ Newt just got a vote in the Arizona GOP primary, which will be held on February 28.

  8. says

    Newt, I thought you were smarter.

    All officers of the US take an oath to “this Constitution” (5 USC §3331; the Constitution’s Article VI uses the descriptor “this” to underscore adherence to the written document; ha, ha!). The president takes a special Article II oath (again, ha, ha!).

    The fundamental, overarching thesis of the Constitution is limitation, not expansion. Once again, ha, ha!

    As it is now, too, too few have taken the oath seriously. That fault lies with the people who themselves do not know their document and its thesis of limitation (and the public schools and MSM make sure that situation continues). If known and understood – that freedom from government comes only when government is kept small and limited – the people in turn would elect representatives who would be faithful to their voluntarily-taken constitutional oaths.

    All of this unbelievable federal expansion has occurred without muslims in Congress or the WH. (Yes, yes, I know; a strong case can be made for the present occupant.)

    An oath to anything other than allah and the advancement of Islam is meaningless to the muslim. So chuck any thought that a muslim would actually and genuinely support and defend “this Constitution” since it is incompatible with shariah. The Constitution’s supremacy clause sets up “this Constitution” and laws made in pursuance thereof as the supreme law of the land. But to the muslim the supreme law is the koran; hence humans can/will NEVER be “rightly guided” from man-made law. So the Constitution is to be instantly disregarded by the muslim

    Newt is way off on this one. Islam and only Islam and its imposition on the rest of the world are the overriding goals of the muslim. Thus the US could NEVER EVER have a muslim president in the constitutional sense of the word since the Constitution and all federal laws are man-made and therefore inferior.

    What is more, the entire concept of governmental limitation is unknown in the islamic world. The mosque and the state are one. Islam in short is total government, the very antithesis of our system of delegated authorities, with the people being the ultimate sovereigns. (Yet another ha, ha!)

    Add into the mix the concept of Taqqiyah with which most JW readers are familiar. Now can you see why John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.[*]” Adams of course was referencing Christian morality.

    Islamic morality permits, actually mandates, lying for the sake of allah and the advancement of Islam. How then could any oath uttered/subscribed by a muslim ever be considered genuine and from the heart in the sense that Americans expect? Of what value is the testimony of any muslim in court if, according to his/her Islamic code, lying is permitted?

    Do you see the problems, Newt?

    *Adams was a little naive on his opinion of oath takers, and we see where the failure to follow the Constitution by non-muslims expressly has taken us. Daily individual freedoms are being stripped from us. TSA, anyone?

  9. says

    Gingrich said something that the voters in South Carolina responded favorably to. Let the other Republican candidates take note. Let the candidates for every office in the land take note: Shariah is not welcome in this land.

  10. says

    The wider ranging comments about sharia law are among the very few sensible comments from this presidential hopeful.
    Pity though that he’s not at all a genuine conservative nor an electable candidate, because of this not-making-the-ballot issue, which means he’s not in the race for some 500+ delegates.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Sag

  11. says

    I would vote for Gingrich solely because he tells the truth about Sharia. We’ve tried the other and it hasn’t worked. Why not try telling the truth for once?

    I am not counting him out just yet. He’s a politician who has made things happen in the past, maybe he will do so again. He is sure getting a lot of high-profile endorsements.

  12. says

    Gingrich’s statements may explain the “cold reception” he got in Tampa during the debates.

    On a recent trip through the International Mall near the Tampa Airport, I felt like I was walking through Abu Dubai mall. There were so many hijab’d and niqab’d Muslim women walking through the mall. Surrounding malls like Westshore Mall don’t have anywhere near the same amount of Muslim women walking through. The stores are nicer at the International Mall (read – richy rich) so that may explain the higher presence of Muslims since they need a place to spend their oil money.

    Tampa is Muslim Friendly city as witnessed by the coverup of the recent Honor Killing of Fatimah. There was also a recent Jihad arrest here. The Tampa area Muslims are propagating and there is only one reason they would have an interest in this city. Ft. McDill – head of the Special Forces Command Center is here and they are the guys kicking the arses of Jihadis around the world. No wonder then the Muslims would come here to propagate so eventually they could turn the city against the base and in high enough numbers, over run it.

  13. says

    Newt Gingrich: America at Risk: Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan, American Enterprise Institute, July 29, 2010 (After ~15:00min. Video at http://american.com/archive/2010/july/america-at-risk-camus-national-security-and-afghanistan)

    Transcribed here are parts of this speech relating to sharia (includes some notes about material not transcribed):

    (Newt reads from his 1984 book “Window of Opportunity”) “The long term struggle against terrorism will be a dark and bloody one. Involving years of vigilant counter terrorism, a level of surveillance and spying that the liberals will call intolerable. And a willingness to strike back with substantial force at the originator of the action, rather than the foot soldiers of the terrorist movement.”

    “Let us be clear. This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. The militant form believe in using military power in one form or another. The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [means], but their end goal is exactly the same thing.

    The fight against sharia and the madrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. And it is time we had a national debate on this, and one of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider sharia as a replacement for American law, period.

    And let me draw a sharp distinction between those muslims that live in the modern world and those muslims that would radically change the modern world.

    Radical islamists want to impose sharia on all of us, for legitimate reasons. And let me be quite clear, you can respect your adversary without agreeing or giving in. They have profound, deeply held beliefs and one of the great challenges for secularists is they can’t understand the level of passion that a belief that is derived from an underlying religious form leads one to have. Which is why, frankly, believing Christian and Jewish Americans have a better understanding…..

    Stealth jihadists use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools…
    Violent jihadists use… violence. But, in fact, both are engaged in jihad.

    And they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with the imposition of radical sharia.”

    (- disagrees with universities)

    “Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world and the underlying basic belief which is that law comes directly from God and is therefore imposed upon humans and no human can change the law without it being an act of apostasy is a fundamental violation of a tradition in the Western system which goes back to Rome, Athens and Jerusalem which has evolved and given us freedom across the planet on a scale we can hardly imagine, and which is now directly threatened by those who would impose it. So, let me be also quite clear that rules are radical and horrific.

    Don’t explain it and so it becomes like being a Rotarian
    Example of the moderation from stoning to handing for adultery… The left doesn’t understand that…”Sharia is a direct mortal threat to virtually every value that the left has…

    …(radical) islamists are those people who seek to impose sharia.”

    Radical islamists are not compatible with the modern world, and not compatible with civilization as we know it.

    [There are] three Fronts [to address]: America…Europe…
    Middle East…

    (about the Ground Zero Mosque) …[it] should be a Battlefield Memorial, should be rebuilt exactly as it was before the attack (19 months or as rapidly as possible)

    We are trapped in our own confusion.

    I see the construction of a mosque at GZ is a Political Act. An act of triumphalism “Cordoba House” built a mosque on top of a church.. Half of us are too ignorant and half of us are too timid. Congress could declare, AG of New York, City of NY… Could slow or stop it. Stunningly outrageous.

    Half the mosques in the US have mortgages held by Saudi Arabia.

    Temerity to stand up and say enough. We don’t need to be lectured by (apologists).

    Sharia finance – largest AIG. Teaching sharia finance is the first step to the normalization of sharia.

    I believe sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and the world as we know it. And it is that straight forward and that real.

    I believe we have to understand that the struggle – military, political, societal, economic, cultural, intellectual – with radical islamists may well last several generations, may well last longer than the cold war [with the USSR]. Because it is a much more fundamental, I think a much more difficult struggle.

    The victory of sharia would clearly be the end of the government that Lincoln was describing [in the Gettysburg Address]. [This] requires us to say to the radical islamists …freedom will prevail.” Newt Gingrich

  14. says

    “And let me draw a sharp distinction between those muslims that live in the modern world and those muslims that would radically change the modern world.”

    How can you tell, let alone “draw a sharp distinction” in vivo, Mr Gingrich?

    More hogwash from this Big Gov “conservative”: liberals would oppose the WoT, and all that comes with it. Well, the police state is making great strides under über-Liberal BHO-bomber. But apart from that, isn’t it deeply ironical that the bipartisan hobby of neo-Wilsonian nation building, foreign interventionism or whatever label fits the (sizeable) bill, almost never fails to – somehow – propel Jihadists-R-Us to power?

  15. says

    I still support Santorum ahead of the rest, but it looks increasingly unlikely that he’d be the nominee.

    While Newt’s statements are welcome, someone needs to ask him about the role Grover Norquist has in getting Muslim sympathizers into key positions in government. Confront him from the right, rather than from the Left.

    That actual policy of his means a lot more than statements he makes about Shariah law.

  16. says

    Hi All,
    I think we should all be very happy that a major politician (Newt), would be so bold as to begin the real discussion that needs to happen- which is to discuss where the motivation for jihadists comes from. Sharia is as good a place to start as any, as Sharia is the application of the koran, sira, hadith, and the life of muhammad. Look up some of Newt’s videos and you will gather that he knows a lot; I would say much more than he is letting on to. A politician needs to be very calculating in how much one says about the most off limits discussion of our day. I, for one, am delighted with Newt. He is telling it like it is with regards to the Palistinian’s, Sharia and radical islam, and the biased media. He’s is helping to start these conversations. He has my vote. Go Newt!!!

  17. says

    Why would Mr Gingrich qualify as a genuine conservative?

    Well, perhaps because he:

    1) Opposes the corporate greenie “Global Warming” scheme? Yes, only thing: he actually supports it, quite avidly.
    2) Strongly refuses the corporatist mixing of govt and enterprise, let alone profits from it? Yes! Just forget about that Freddy M thing then.
    3) Opposes the UN? Yes! Yet he doesn’t. Even worse: he said that the US “challenge” here, is “compounded” by its Constitution.
    4) Rejects out of hand the Big Gov fixation on foreign “nation building”, and spending money the US govt doesn’t have? Yes, except that he doesn’t. Another agreement here with Gore c.s.
    5) Loathes the notorious Big Gov, “New Deal” pres. Roosevelt? Nope, he called this prototypical progressivist, “the greatest president of the 20th century”.
    6) Refuses to be a typical Rockefeller Republican? Alas..
    7) Tried his utmost not to co-sponsor any bill with Ms Nancy Pelosi? Well, 418 bills would make that at least a debatable issue.
    8) Doesn’t support gun-control? Yes! Except that he actually does.
    9) Stands for quintessential conservative modesty? Actually, “hubris” might well be his middle name.
    10) Holds Woodrow Wilson below contempt? Nope, he claims to be a “realpolitik Wilsonian”.

    Maybe a “social conservative” then? You know, Mr Gingrich, the erstwhile “family values” crusader of the Clinton era? Well, perhaps family values only matter when it’s convenient to the former speaker. Let’s nutshell the current and rather remarkable Gingrich definition of “family values”:

    Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

    Here, as in other matters, the word of this counterfeit-conservative has been, say, “less than reliable”.
    Only thing he seems to be really passionate about, as well as fairly consistent, is this weird Tofflerian “Third Wave” thing, combined with the typical greenie support for Al Gore’s “consensus”-science” of MMGW.

    But wait! The man utters some crystal clear anti-jihadism.. so let’s put our single-minded CJ trust in this fine upstanding Washington “outsider”.

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Sag

  18. says

    “Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization. Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was “one of the nation’s worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry.” How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor? By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it.” — headline

    Go, Newt! We need someone strong like Newt who’s willing to tell the TRUTH about islamic law. Woo-hoo! Yeah those liars over at CAIR deserve to get upset.

    But what was NOT deserved, was Newt being called a bigot. No he isn’t. The only thing that liars like CAIR have, or liars in general have; in their slimy bag-of-tricks, is to throw a negative label on someone with names like: bigot, hater, islamophobe, the list goes on …

  19. says

    I am not talking about presidential ability. Do you think Gingrich is a racist; a racial supremacist like Obama and his twenty year spiritual mentor?

  20. says

    CAIR characterized Sharia as teaching “marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge,” but left out the unpleasant bits.  Anyone who wants to see what Sharia is like can look to the states where it is implemented, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Western apologists for Sharia claim that it is so multiform that it has no particular character that anyone can point to.  In reality, wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, historically and today, it has looked pretty much the same, and has contained elements absolutely inimical to Western notions of freedom and human rights. – Robert Spencer

    Exactly right. Islamic Sharia looks the same now and forever, totally inimical to our modern Western Multicultural values of freedom, fairness, equality and human rights. Gingrich is a champion for calling it.

  21. says

    Newt Gingrich may be the most honorable citizen when it comes to the Islamization of America than any we’ve heard of.

    It may take that kind of assertiveness and honesty to stand up to these jihadists and their allegiance to the ideology of Islam.

    I’m not suggesting further killings. There are much wiser ways to keep our constitution, civil freedoms, and laws. However, assertiveness and honesty is about 80% of it.

    For example standing up for our rights and liberties, and helping all apostates so they are not murdered, or forced to suffer extreme mental and phyisical barbaric domination and submission

    Our fears are warrented as free and civilized citizens. However, fear is neither a good defense or offense in this case. War isn’t effective when dealing with an ideology that is 1400 years old. It wasn’t in the 8th and 9th century’s either.

    Put yourself in the shoes of a typical Muslim who sees no way out. Who’s family and friends have lived this way forever. And the alternative is (and always has been) the evil enemy. Of course you are submissive and abused. But apostating means certain death.

    These people see no other way out but to stay the same. But wait, what if apostating was possible without death, or punishment.? What would you do.?

    Indeed you would apostate in a second. So you see my friends helping those in need can be both a defense and an offense, without killing or WWIII.

  22. says

    We forget that the Speaker of the House does not vote. Therefore, the Speaker typically says things that are not backed up by a voting record. Mr. Gingrich is used to making daring speeches that other Congressmen and Congresswomen would not make because they would be compared to their actions. So, the question is what action would Mr. Gingrich actually take?

  23. says

    Spencer: Gingrich disavows Sharia
    …………………..

    Some real sanity from Newt Gingrich.

    No”he is not perfect”but he seems the most consistently anti-Shari’ah and anti-Jihad candidate still in the race, and is not afraid to say so. That goes a long way in my book.

  24. says

    Newt the extravagant liar is back

    Gingrich: Secular ‘Elite’ Promoting ‘Radical Islam’

    “Secular” does not mean “secularist.”

    Our secular elites are just the elites of the entire county, minus the clergy.

    The claim that the elites of the entire country, minus the clergy, are promoting radical Islam is paralyzingly stupid and transparently absurd.

    What about our secularist elites?

    Now, our elites as a whole are by no means especially devoted to secularism, even with the clergy left out.

    But no doubt some of them are, just as some of the population as a whole are.

    But secularism is of course completely contrary to the cause of radical Islam.

    Once again, Newt is talking nonsense.

    But it is nonsense that works for the more stupid of the voters he is trying to reach.

  25. says

    All right, to address the actual quoted remarks of he ex-Speaker, there is this.

    All judges, except those in ecclesiastical courts, are secular.

    In America, very likely nearly all are in some measure secularist.

    A minority seem to be separationist to the point of taking the First Amendment to exclude such things as plaques of the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

    We already have, on the whole, and have had from the beginning, a secular state.

    The alternative would be a formally clergy-dominated state.

    Think of the official role of the organized clergy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Now imagine any clergy at all playing such a role in America.

    Who actually wants that?

    Not even Newt, I suppose.

    Who are the religious bigots who want to “drive Christianity out of public life in America”?

    The stricter separationists among the secularists do, yes, which is to say they want to drive the crèches off the City Hall lawns and the quotations from the Bible off the walls of court houses.

    But religious bigots?

    The Buddhists, perhaps?

    Animists?

    Phooey.

    There are none.

    And who are the (secularist?) judges and religious bigots who, together, want to make excuses for Shariah?

    Pshaw.

    The only truthful part of the quoted portion of Newt’s remarks was his characterization of the OIC.

    And negotiating a deal with them is not the same as sharing their goals.

    Reagan made arms deals with the Communists.

    No one was foolish enough to suppose he had any sympathy with Communism.

  26. says

    I’m sorry, but tell me again he’s not a right-wing panda bear for the Christianist loons of America.

    In two days he’s sucked up to John Hagee and the goofs at CBN talking complete, crazy eyewash both times.

    He’s nuts or he’s one of the most skillful bullshitters in the Republican Party.

  27. says

    Further proof …

    Note the above comment by “Gaius” as he unleashes more of his hatred towards Christians. He was hinting at it over the past week, but now this poster has revealed what he’s truly about here:

    “I’m sorry, but tell me again he’s not a right-wing panda bear for the Christianist loons of America.

    In two days he’s sucked up to John Hagee and the goofs at CBN talking complete, crazy eyewash both times.

    He’s nuts or he’s one of the most skillful bullshitters in the Republican Party.”

  28. says

    I am an atheist born, raised, and educated as a Catholic, including Holy Cross College and Duquesne University.

    Even during the 19th Century the most reactionary of Catholics in the US were never, so far as I know, given to terrorism.

    Nor was there any sort of organized effort, that I know of, to somehow make Catholicism the unique, established religion of the US.

    Still, even to this day the Church pursues – or would if it thought it had a chance of success – such piecemeal establishment as public funds in aid of parochial education or the banning not only of abortion but also of the use of contraception.

    As to the other issue you raised in an earlier post, I personally am not aware of any sound constitutional objection to banning or limiting Muslim immigration, or to banning or limiting student or other visas for Muslims.

    I was frankly amazed not even the latter was done in the days immediately following 9/11, especially given all the terrorists involved were here on temporary visas of one sort or another.

  29. says

    I don’t generally defend this lack of forthrightness. I prefer honesty. If Gingrich were as blunt as you suggest, he might not have a prayer being elected in this politically correct environment. Have you studied Abraham Lincoln, what he said – the compromises he made – to win the White House?

  30. says

    Here. Look at this. I would not have done this but I would never have been elected president in 1860.

    Abraham Lincoln to Salmon Chase
    Springfield, Illinois
    June 9, 1859

    Dear Sir:

    Please pardon the liberty I take in addressing you, as I now do. It appears by the papers that the late Republican State convention of Ohio adopted a Platform, of which the following is one plank, “A repeal of the atrocious Fugitive Slave Law.”

    This is already damaging us here. I have no doubt that if that plank be even introduced into the next Republican National convention, it will explode it.

    Once introduced, its supporters and it’s opponents will quarrel irreconcilably. The latter believe the U.S. constitution declares that a fugitive slave “shall be
    delivered up”; and they look upon the above plank as dictated by the spirit which declares a fugitive slave “shall not be delivered up” I enter upon no argument one way or the other; but I assure you the cause of Republicanism is hopeless in Illinois, if it be in any way made responsible for that plank. I hope you can, and will, contribute something to relive us from it.

    Your obt. Servt

  31. says

    That’s a really clear explanation of the problem with Newt’s position on muslims in the White House.

    And it clarifies the problem with the current muslim in the White House.

    I wish you could ask Newt about that directly, and get a straight answer.

  32. says

    “Newt, I thought you were smarter.”

    He is smarter than you by a mile.

    What a smart politician can publicly say and privately believe is different.

    I’m sure Gingrich doesnt need your – long winded school marm explaining to a nursery child – exposition. Gingrich has shown in his debates he grasps things pretty well.

  33. says

    You wrote: “I only wish he would disclaim any intention to impose Christian versions of divine law on the nation and an intention to try to stop any such thing with efforts equal to those he would direct against Shariah…”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How is Gingrich trying to impose Christian versions of divine law on the nation?

  34. says

    “Pity though that he’s not at all a genuine conservative…”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Who is a genuine conservative in this race? On national security / foreign policy, who looks to be the most conservative in the Republican race?

  35. says

    I didn’t actually say he was, but I seem to recall he has agreed that America ought actually to be governed, as Huckabee has sometimes insisted, by “God’s law.”

    And who thinks the motivation for and point of DOMA was not religious and specifically Christian?

    Is not the frantic insistence of conservatives including G on rejecting gay marriage a case of them insisting that the law of the states and even of the nation comply with Christian law – “God’s law,” as they would say?

    And is G not a devoted defender of “establishment lite”?

    I mean such things as Christmas crèches at City Hall or the Ten Commandments at courthouses, congressional invocations, military chaplains, prayer or (worse yet) creationism in the public schools, or the national motto?

    Or that gigantic cross in a public park someplace on the west coast, I think it was.

    Yes, he rejects the faintest presence of Islamic religious law.

    But he’s gung-ho, I think for Christian religious law!

  36. says

    You wrote: “And who thinks the motivation for and point of DOMA was not religious and specifically Christian?

    Is not the frantic insistence of conservatives including G on rejecting gay marriage a case of them insisting that the law of the states and even of the nation comply with Christian law – “God’s law,” as they would say?”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You might conclude from my appellation, I am not Christian. We do have this idea of a shared “Judeo-Christian” tradition and heritage, do we not? As I understand it, these are the morals and the ethics that Jews and Christians share in common.

    Homosexuality is not a pressing issue for me though I think it can be said, a traditional (husband / wife) marriage is the ideal according to our Judeo-Christian tradition. Isn’t that what DOMA is about? Traditional marriage. Do you think homosexual / gay marriage needs to be sanctioned by law? If so, why? How are morals and ethics an imposition of Christian law? Does DOMA make homosexuality a crime punishable by death like it is in Iran and Saudi Arabia?

  37. says

    Gingrich’s statements may explain the “cold reception” he got in Tampa during the debates.

    On a recent trip through the International Mall near the Tampa Airport, I felt like I was walking through Abu Dubai mall. There were so many hijab’d and niqab’d Muslim women walking through the mall. Surrounding malls like Westshore Mall don’t have anywhere near the same amount of Muslim women walking through. The stores are nicer at the International Mall (read – richy rich) so that may explain the higher presence of Muslims since they need a place to spend their oil money….

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Interesting. Thanks.

  38. says

    After Romney condemned Gingrich for his honest statements about the Palestinian terrorists at the December 10 debate in Iowa, Santorum joined with Romney repudiating Gingrich.

    Santorum pointed out that “Mitt’s point was — was the correct one.” We don’t want “to make it more difficult for them (the Israelis) to sit down with the Palestinians”, i.e., with the terrorists. Santorum said Gingrich was wrong to engage an issue he (Santorum) claimed was “not our fight.”

    Is there any question Norquist, if he was watching the debate, would have cheered Romney and Santorum?

    In light of that, why not ask Romney and Santorum about the role Grover Norquist has in getting Muslim sympathizers into key positions in government, since they are both cheer-leaders for negotiating with these murderous peoples?

  39. says

    Yes, at this point Rick Santorum gets my vote, as I see him as the total package – and he has much better character. I agree with his core values, and he has not lowered himself – as Romney & Gingrich have done – by engaging in smear campaigns one against the another. As much as I dislike seeing these two go toe-2-toe, it does reveal what these two men are made of, and I don’t like what I see; as far as their character goes (among other things as well). Yeah I wish that Rick were getting more votes, too. IMO, he deserves it more than the other two. And Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance of becoming the nominee any more. He’s a nice guy and everything; in fact, he could easily be my favorite uncle, but he wouldn’t make for a very good president. Not at all.

  40. says

    That said …

    No matter who the nominee turns out to be: Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney – hey, or Rick Santorum – then they will get my vote and full support, warts and all.

    Nobama 2012!

  41. says

    “Why would Mr Gingrich qualify as a genuine conservative?”

    I guess he doesnt. “A genuine conservative” I guess must swill beer, be incestuous, and have a max IQ of 40.

  42. says

    This is an anti-jihad site. Perhaps you forgot, I asked you earlier:

    Who is a genuine conservative in this race? On national security / foreign policy, who looks to be the most conservative in the Republican race?

    Instead of answering my questions, you gave me a litany of reasons why Gingrich is a big-government socialist and a hypocrite. We have three men to choose from. Dr. Paul is not even a consideration – we already have a racist in the White House – except Romney and Santorum said they would each vote for Dr. Paul were he the nominee.

    Why did you dodge my questions?

  43. says

    Sagunto ;

    Your post should lead others to really check out Newt, just to find out as much as needed, to make the informed selection.

    Just how would his intention to remove the “law” from islam, mesh with our constitution? Attack islam as a cult, the entire “faith” from that position, you may have a chance. It is not our business to Ronco a islam of our liking and desire.

    This is looking a lot like 2008 all over again.

    Obama had people fainting when he spoke of “Change coming to America”. Hitler could make the masses swell with anger and passion with the venom in his speaches.

    And Newt has the brains and mastery to feed hungry wolves raw, red meat.

    Newt, the “Reagan Conserative” progressive.

  44. says

    Hi, Jolene, notice my response to “Infidel Pride” ..that my first pick is Rick Santorum.

    But if Newt Gingrich becomes the nominee, then he will definitely get my vote and full support, especially in defeating obama. As much as I dislike the fact that Newt has been married, what, 3 times (I think) – his problem love life doesn’t even hold a candle to the enormous problems that obama has caused for our country. Wouldn’t you agree?

  45. says

    “Can a life spent disavowing ethics in every single venue truly get you everywhere?” — regarding Newt Gingrich

    I only mentioned his past problem love life, but obviously you meant more; although I find your above comment an exaggeration. I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on this.

    “What does this say about us as a culture?”

    More to the point, what does this say about our culture to have elected a man like obama?! I mean who is worse, in your opinion: obama or Gingrich? Clearly obama is worse. And those that voted obama into office need to seriously rethink about voting for him a second time, not unless they’re as determined as obama is to have a socialist/communist America.

  46. says

    Where does it say Spencer and Geller cannot endorse political candidates? No question they have been critical of those candidates who are weak on jihad, both global and domestic.

    As far as I am concerned (I don’t read Pamella’s site as much as this one) Spencer hasn’t gone nearly far enough. To me there is a clear distinction between Gingrich and the others on Islam, jihad, etc. What am I missing? I watched most of the debates.

    They (Spencer and Geller) both rightly exposed Governor Rick Perry. What would you have them do? Be silent? You don’t think they should educate the public who is and isn’t saying the right things about this dangerous problem we are facing, that will only get worse in the years to come? They have no moral obligations as American citizens?

  47. says

    Hi Jolene –

    In your last comment (2:59PM), you made a cardinal point.

    In case you’re interested, my own – slightly awkward – Dutchie style denotation of unease with regard to the issue of scholarly independence and the drifting “above-parties” position of JW, look here.

    Take care,
    Sag

  48. says

    …”there seem to be many ‘whoever the R candidate is will get my vote’ people right now.”

    This “whoever the R candidate is will get my vote” position, is a well thought out and important STRATEGY. It’s a way to eliminate obama from office. No one considers Newt or Mitt perfect candidates, but considering the alternative they certainly are! BTW, you never answered my question about who is worse: obama or Newt. I assume from your comments that you pick obama. And what are you going to do if Newt is the nominee, not vote? I assume that as well from your comments. Hey I don’t mean to give you a hard time, so I hope that I am wrong and that you’ll support the Republican nominee – whoever he will be.

    “But many can’t seem to contain their misplaced enthusiasm for Newt Gingrich. The passionate trust in this untrustworthy man is a red flag — literally.”

    I don’t think anyone has any illusions about Newt …

    And the brightest red flag is if someone does NOT support the Republican nominee! C’mon, as conservatives we all need to rally and vote obama out of office. This much is sooo obvious.

    “What if the same people who engineered Obama’s win are engineering Gingrich’s win?”

    Conspiracies of this magnitude are really hard to prove. All we can effectively do as individuals is vote for, or against, someone. And I propose that we vote obama out of office; which may mean holding ones nose and voting for the Republican nominee.

  49. says

    Talk is cheap, yes, but that’s pretty much what we have. Gingrich is not an unknown. He has a record both good and bad. America has had many flawed leaders, even personally flawed wartime leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt who reputedly had several mistresses and a disjointed marriage. I’m not saying it is good but we need to look at the entirety of a man and the times in which we are living. What candidate in the Republican race understands our times. Romney? Santorum? Both sided with the Palestinians in the December 10 debate. Seems to me if a man sides in word with our enemies, can we not expect him to side in deed with them?

    What about Oskar Schindler? He was a heavy drinker and a womanizer who saved better than a thousand Jews working in his factories from the Nazis. Churchill’s wife (Clementine) had an extramarital affair as did Winston according to historians. In many ways Churchill was a flawed man who understood the threat the enemy posed. He was one of few. Is it possible you are too narrowly focused? No one is saying Gingrich, much less any politician can be fully trusted but we have what we have to work with.

  50. says

    Jolene –

    You wrote:

    “In 1994, Newt Gingrich described himself as a fan of the ideas espoused in the book, The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, in which homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, and abortion are all viewed as perfectly normal and even desirable.”

    This is very reminiscent of the old tried and tested J.S. Mill way of undermining tradition, all for the greater good of the “Religion of Humanity”.

    You might have heard of the work by prof Linda Raeder on this less well known side of Mill. Here’s a // great synopsis // as an introduction (pdf).

    Cheers,
    Sag

  51. says

    “How’s that?”

    Well, since you asked, your reply is immature and doesn’t even answer my question. I never asked who you would VOTE for, I asked who was worse: obama or Newt. Reading comprehension problems, I guess ..

    Okay you want to play games? Fine. When you’re ready to have a more serious discussion then check back with me. You started this conversation with me, and I answered your queries in a civil manner. You on the other hand apparently want to play silly games. Until then, I’m done.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Regardless, as conservatives we all need to rally to get obama out of office. Nobama 2012!

  52. says

    “Report me to the moderator!”

    Why? You have not used abusive script. However I do find some of your comments a tad bit childish, but they’re hardly worth reporting to the moderator, lol!

  53. says

    “Race wars can be purposeful. Don’t you agree?”

    I’m not sure where you are going. What do you mean, race wars can be purposeful? I asked if you think Gingrich is a racist like Obama? Does it matter?

  54. says

    …okay now you want to shut people up? I don’t think so.

    Who died and made you the micromanager / moderator of JW?

    ~~~~~~~

    wildjew,

    Your questions are excellent, but I wish you luck in getting a straight answer out of this poster …

    :)

  55. says

    Wildjew, an idea is not less religious for being supported by two religions, one of which gave birth to the other.

    Yes, I am perfectly OK with legal recognition of gay marriage.

    You can say all you want that opposition to it is moral but the view of sexual morality doing the opposing is with all but invisible exceptions entirely religion-based and entirely Christian.

    No, DOMA does not make homosexuality punishable by death.

    How did that question even come up?

  56. says

    D,

    This raises the question how the Koran, with its history and endorsement of Holy War and enormous cruelty and violence, differs relevantly from, say, those parts of the Bible that contain the ancient Jewish law and that recount the Jewish conquest of Palestine.

    The difference I see is that, so far as I know, no significant number of Jews or Christians thinks the ancient Jewish law is now literally valid and ought to be enforced by modern governments, in contrast with the attitude of Muslims that the violent injunctions of the Koran and the Muslim Shariah are valid and ought to be enforced.

    Christians who demand God’s law be enforced (Huckabee, for instance) don’t generally mean to revive stoning to death for homosexuality and the few nutjobs who do are no model for the vast majority.

    But then people write books like KOS’s “American Taliban” equating the Christian right with the Taliban and blur all differences.

    And as a result people who insist that the really distinctive quality of the Koran in this regard is a reasonable basis for suppression like Geert Wilders are never seriously addressed but merely demonized.

  57. says

    Let me ask you a question Gaius just to get a handle on your point of view. Do you think opposition to partial birth (late-term) abortion is religious or moral?

  58. says

    Newt Gingrich may be the most honorable citizen when it comes to the Islamization of America than any we’ve heard of.

    It may take that kind of assertiveness and honesty to stand up to these jihadists and their allegiance to the ideology of Islam.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Excellent point, Vnbushman …yes, we need someone strong who will take a stand against evil thugs like CAIR, et al.

  59. says

    champ ;

    Nobama in 2012, sounds good.

    However, would you support (R[l])Ron Paul, if he were the last one standing, only because he is not Obama?

    2008 all over again, the lesser of two evils. The devil you know is worse than the one that gets invited in.

    In any case, Santorum looks to be the best choice for the GOP(frankly, the only choice), regardless of his faults.

  60. says

    Islofob IS-1 …

    “However, would you support (R[l])Ron Paul, if he were the last one standing, only because he is not Obama?”

    That’s easy, I would vote for Ron Paul if that were the case. That said, Ron Paul doesn’t stand a snowballs chance, so thank God for that. Ron Paul’s foreign policies are abysmal. But he does oppose obamacare and big government, etc, so I do like that about Ron Paul. However his foreign policies, especially with regards to Iran, are so weak and wrong they’re scary and leave the US vulnerable! He is a bigger dhimmi-dumbbell than I think Carter was/is.

    I really love and admire Rick Santorum, and I can only hope and pray that he will be the nominee; although, sadly, it appears unlikely that he will be. Rick is, imo, more the total package and he would make a great president. And at this point, Newt is my second choice, but if he does become the nominee, then of course I will vote for him.

  61. says

    “2008 all over again, the lesser of two evils. The devil you know is worse than the one that gets invited in.”

    But obama is pure evil, whereas I would never, ever say that about any of the final four. Sure, there are certain things that I don’t agree with from each of the final four, but none of them even come CLOSE to Nobama’s laundry list.

    obama is the most deceitful and evil president that we have ever had. Honestly, I cannot say one nice thing about him. And my husband voices the same opinion about this man; and last night we could barely stomach his State of the Union address. I even heard my husband shout out a few times, “What BULL!!!”, in response to some of his lies. Also, my husband noted that not once did obama make any mention of OUR precious freedoms, but only framed his statements around HIS government. Good catch, Honey!

  62. says

    It would depend on who is objecting and why, of course.

    Even Roe recognized that after viability it is unreasonable not to agree the unborn child is, well, and unborn child.

    For that reason I agree late term abortions ought to be banned and think “partial birth abortion” a misnomer.

    “Partial birth infanticide” is more accurate.

    On the other hand, the idea that a fetus is an unborn child in, say, the first trimester has no basis at all but religious conviction.

    Anyway, so I think.

  63. says

    Ever since “Gaius” began his debut last week on JW, I have come to expect these kinds of snide and thoughtless remarks from him. He hates Christians, and on more than one ocassion has brought up hot topics like: abortion, homosexuality, in what appears to be an effort to stir up trouble. Also, he’ll go off topic in bringing up these hot topics, and then he tries to disguise his hate for Christians in his comments. But he isn’t fooling me.

  64. says

    Champ, you have fooled yourself.

    I have been visiting this site to read the posts and comments for quite a bit longer than I have been commenting.

    I notice that people don’t feel any need to hide their views here.

    Nor then will I.

  65. says

    I just wanted to add that I think reports of his political “death” have been rather premature. He is certainly not a sure thing”but he now seems a stronger candidate than ever.

  66. says

    champ ;

    A level headed answer to my question. Great to see that, and agree with your direction.

    I like Mitt as well as Rick, but Newt is the bridge too far. If he would just deep-six his statements about being a Reagan anything, it would be a good start. It is all about trust in the next leader, he is more like Obama in his direction than most know.

    A wise approach you have.

  67. says

    Gaius,

    Oh really, then why have you repeatedly made snide remarks about Christians? For example, you mentioned being an Atheist. How would you like it if folks around here made one snide remark after another about Atheists? …by blaming Atheists for this and that. I can’t imagine that you would appreciate those kinds of put downs. You are either lieing about your hatred for Christians, or you are in complete denial about it, but it’s pretty plain to me. Either way, the snide remarks will get you nowhere here, and fast. Again, consider what you would think about someone writing something on par about Atheists that you continue to write about Christians. This is Jihad Watch, not Christian Watch. Also, there are other Atheists who comment here who do not feel the need to take pot shots at Christians like you apparently do.

    And David’s response to this comment should enlighten you as well, you wrote:

    “You can say all you want that opposition to it is moral but the view of sexual morality doing the opposing is with all but invisible exceptions entirely religion-based and entirely Christian.”

    David’s response? Here:

    “Did u actually read this before you posted?

    I have no idea what you mean to say. You wrote gibberish.”

    I agree with David, your comment makes little sense; but in spite of that you managed to put down Christians, and your comment came completely out of left field, which makes it off topic as well. You know there are other forums where you can freely express your hatred for Christians, but this is not one of them. Our goal here is for those on the anti-jihad team to work together towards fighting jihad and sharia, not to take shots at the team. Remember, islam is the enemy, not Christians.

    Also, Robert Spencer has written an excellent book worth reading: Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn’t. Take care.

  68. says

    “Champ, you have fooled yourself.”

    Wow you’ve really made a fool of yourself with that comment considering the fact that you’ve proven my point in spades with your last comment. Hilarious!

  69. says

    Gaius wrote:

    And who are the (secularist?) judges and religious bigots who, together, want to make excuses for Shariah?
    ……………………….

    With respect, I believe you are missing the point.

    Most non-Muslims acting as apologists for Shari’ah in the West are not looking forward to an Iranian-style theocracy at all.

    The problem, in fact, is that they don’t believe there is any danger whatsoever of such a thing occurring, and so they are willing to whitewash Islam, and pooh-pooh the idea that Jihad and Shari’ah represent any real threat.

    If you look up the term “useful idiot”, you will find it describes just this sort of person.

  70. says

    Gravenimage,

    You write,

    “Most non-Muslims acting as apologists for Shari’ah in the West are not looking forward to an Iranian-style theocracy at all.

    “The problem, in fact, is that they don’t believe there is any danger whatsoever of such a thing occurring, and so they are willing to whitewash Islam, and pooh-pooh the idea that Jihad and Shari’ah represent any real threat.”

    As to the first sentence, I am not sure what you mean by non-Muslims defending Shariah in the West.

    It is one thing to defend the availability of halal foods, for example, and quite another to want the government to punish adultery with whipping or homosexuality with stoning.

    Many non-Muslims including me would defend the availability of halal foods.

    Does that make me an apologist for Shariah?

    Even though, in fact, I also favor making public wearing of the Niqab illegal, right alongside Bill Maher and Bill Press?

    It is true that “the official position” of liberals in general is that the veil – really, a big, dense black tent – ought to be permitted just as we permit, say, the habits of nuns (which are not quite what they used to be, are they?).

    But against them I agree with Maher, Press, and many others that the Muslim veil is a sign of the subjection of women to the men of their families and often even of their brutal, violent subjection.

    Well, whether I am such an apologist or not in your eyes, you are quite right I am not looking forward to an Iranian style theocracy in the US!

    As to how far there is any danger of such a thing happening here, I suppose that depends on how much additional Muslim immigration we have and whether they are mostly Shiite.

    Sunnis are more likely to want to take over the country democratically in the manner of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or the Algerian Front Islamique du Salut of the 1990s.

    And it looks like they might – but they might not – be perfectly happy to control the country through an ordinary democratic regime they can, through huge majorities, make every bit as horrific and unlivable as Iran.

    I assure you, I am aware enough of the problem to be perfectly willing to limit or even stop Muslim immigration and even temporary visas for Muslims, as I have said before.

    But you are probably right that relatively few people, and especially relatively few liberals – or moderates, independents, or uncommitteds, for that matter – have even had the thought that there might really, given enough Muslim immigration, fast enough, be a danger or theocratic Muslim domination of the government, the law, and the country.

    But in any case your remarks are yours and what Gingrich said was something else, entirely.

    Look again at his actual words, and at my criticism of those words.

    Gingrich made claims quite different from yours, specific claims that are not only untrue but absurd and demagogic.

    IMHO, anyway.

  71. says

    PS.

    Well before immigration has brought us enough Muslims to try to dominate the country democratically there would surely be enough for Muslim terrorism to become a very, very serious problem.

    It doesn’t take a Muslim majority for Muslims to start murdering politicians who want to limit Muslim immigration, cartoonists who dare to caricature Mohammed, or film-makers who dare to attack Islam.

    And it doesn’t take a Muslim majority to dhimmitize enough non-Muslim politicians to make real inroads on free speech or to have a real impact on the law.

    I have suggested making the Niqab illegal.

    Long before they have a majority Muslims would begin to demand, and perhaps violently, the toleration of Islamic polygamy, I think.

    Lucky for us Muslim immigration has so far been a mere trickle, relatively speaking.

  72. says

    Champ,

    You may make no distinction between Christians and Christianists, but I do.

    Many have argued there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim or no real difference between Islam and Islamism.

    It would be much less plausible to make such claims about Christians and Christianists.

    And in any case as has been pointed out by Geert Wilders, among many others, Christianity is a much milder religion than Islam.

    It is people like KOS who make no distinction between Christians and Christianists and insist the latter are every bit as bad as the Islamists.

    I think he is wrong on both counts.

  73. says

    Champ,

    You may make no distinction between Christians and Christianists, but I do.

    Many have argued there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim or no real difference between Islam and Islamism.

    It would be much less plausible to make such claims about Christians and Christianists.

    And in any case as has been pointed out by Geert Wilders, among many others, Christianity is a much milder religion than Islam.

    It is people like KOS who make no distinction between Christians and Christianists and insist the latter are every bit as bad as the Islamists.

    I think he is wrong on both counts.

  74. says

    Gaius,

    You wrote:

    “I’m sorry, but tell me again he’s not a right-wing panda bear for the Christianist loons of America.”

    You may care to defend this statement, but we can all see how insulting it is towards Christians, so give us ALL a break.

    According to you, then; you are not insulting Christians, but Christianists. Again, you do NOT make sense, since there is not distinction here. What a bunch of malarkey.

    That would be like me taking your statement and directing it at Atheists (like yourself) and claiming that I’m not insulting them. Lets use your own , here goes …

    “I’m sorry, but tell me again he’s not a left-wing panda bear for the Atheist loons of America.”

    How ridiculous to claim that you are not insulting Christians, I mean of course you are, liar. Just as it’s an insult for me to turn your own comment around on Atheists.

    Don’t you see that you’re embarrassing yourself with your foolish lies? You’re a clown.

  75. says

    Gaius wrote:

    As to the first sentence, I am not sure what you mean by non-Muslims defending Shariah in the West.
    …………………………..

    I’m referring to non-Muslims who scoff at the idea of Shari’ah being any sort of danger in the West. There are a large number of clueless people who”while knowing very little about the oppression and inequality Shari’ah actually entails, even when leaving aside its gaudier aspects such as stonings”assert that Shari’ah is perfectly in line with democratic Western values.

    Few anti-Jihadists have a problem with Halal foods and Wudu baths, as long as they are not imposed on Infidels”and *no* serious person has an issue with matters such as Muslims praying five times a day or fasting on Ramadan.

    More:

    Many non-Muslims including me would defend the availability of halal foods.

    Does that make me an apologist for Shariah?
    …………………………..

    Per above, no”nor do I believe you thought this was what I meant.

    More:

    Well, whether I am such an apologist or not in your eyes, you are quite right I am not looking forward to an Iranian style theocracy in the US!

    As to how far there is any danger of such a thing happening here, I suppose that depends on how much additional Muslim immigration we have and whether they are mostly Shiite.
    …………………………..

    Of course, there is a difference between Sunni and Shi’ite”but not so the average Infidel would notice. This is like asking a Jew in 1930s Europe whether they would rather be brutalized by the Brown Shirts or the SS”and then taking umbrage when they failed to make a great enough distinction between the two.

    Both Sunnis and Shia are savage to Infidels and other vulnerable people under a Shari’ah state. And why not? Both sects adhere to the core texts of Islam. That is why, for instance, you find stoning of women in both Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Afghanistan, Somalia, and Nigeria.

    More:

    Sunnis are more likely to want to take over the country democratically in the manner of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or the Algerian Front Islamique du Salut of the 1990s.
    …………………………..

    Actually, they’ve shown a willingness to use *all* forms of Jihad at their disposal: violent Jihad, as well as such forms of stealth Jihad as the ballot box, demographics (through both immigration and high birth rates), “lawfare”, and Da’wa”and “street” Jihad, which had elements of both, and is especially useful for setting up “no-go” areas.

    More:

    And it looks like they might – but they might not – be perfectly happy to control the country through an ordinary democratic regime they can, through huge majorities, make every bit as horrific and unlivable as Iran.
    …………………………..

    Yes.

    More:

    But you are probably right that relatively few people, and especially relatively few liberals – or moderates, independents, or uncommitteds, for that matter – have even had the thought that there might really, given enough Muslim immigration, fast enough, be a danger or theocratic Muslim domination of the government, the law, and the country.
    …………………………..

    Certainly, this is true in the United States. But France is now almost 10% Muslim”a demographic that would have inconceivable thirty years ago. It is even higher in cities such as Paris”and Malmö, Sweden, and Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Shari’ah is becoming more and more a factor in Britain, as well.
    …………………………..

    More:

    But in any case your remarks are yours and what Gingrich said was something else, entirely.

    Look again at his actual words, and at my criticism of those words.

    Gingrich made claims quite different from yours, specific claims that are not only untrue but absurd and demagogic.

    IMHO, anyway.
    …………………………..

    I am not”as I have noted here many times before”an unalloyed fan of Newt Gingrich and all his policies.

    He does seen to understand that Jihad and Shari’ah are serious issues, though”which is more than I can say for most of the GOP candidates, *or* the current occupant of the White House.