"This monumental bit of silliness on Time's part..."
-- from Robert's comment above

Not at all. Merely the apotheosis of Self-Esteem Studies.

Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 8:54 AM

Me and Britney Spears?

How do I get my pixel off the cover? Nothing but a recall of every issue will satisfy me now.

Posted by: Shy Guy at December 17, 2006 8:57 AM

From the article.

"If you choose an individual, you have to justify how that person affected millions of people," said Richard Stengel, who took over as Time's managing editor earlier this year. "But if you choose millions of people, you don't have to justify it to anyone."

Wow, he really went out on a limb here, huh? Guess you know what to expect from Time in the near future.

Posted by: awake at December 17, 2006 8:58 AM

a title for your new book:

Christians, islam wishs you piece!

Posted by: Thndrbang at December 17, 2006 9:04 AM

oh come on. Time is empowering every individual to do the right thing. because guess what? we are all responsible.

Posted by: sectionOne at December 17, 2006 9:07 AM

I would like to thank all my friends, family and fans who nominated me for this prestigious award!
To be held up as an equal to the likes of osama and al zawahiri,ahmadinejad and cowards like kerry and murtha is just so humilating!
thankyou, thankyou!

Posted by: Thndrbang at December 17, 2006 9:08 AM

Time should name the issue "The Height of Laziness". The articles should all be "fill in the blanks" stories.

Posted by: Josephine at December 17, 2006 9:09 AM

ill be signing autographs alongside jimmy carter and handing out six packs of billy beer and peanuts!

Posted by: Thndrbang at December 17, 2006 9:16 AM

Re. suggestions for a book title: Here are my two cents, for what they are worth (maybe one cent).

I guess it depends on the target audience.

If the book is a comparison of the ways in which Christianity and Islam differ, especially in their definitions of peace and their actions, then the title seems apt.

I wonder if non-Christians would find the title compelling, since it sounds like it might be about "why my God is better than your God". If Christians are the intended audience, it's alright.

If others are also included in the intended audience, is there a title that could convey the information that:

Islam's peace = submission to Islam

Posted by: Josephine at December 17, 2006 9:24 AM

Robert, instead of describing it as a failure of the Western will, I would describe it as just another tactic of the dominant media: a media that is alien to Western culture and seeking to exert influence over the “herd”.

Granted, there are too many of us that allow ourselves to be “under the influence”, and thus this sense of “loss” of Western will. But there also are a lot of us who maintain our distinctions and standards, and are proud to claim the superiority of our belief system over others. Let’s separate the West from the alien media and avoid looking at the latter as the voice of the former.

Posted by: Tancred1099 at December 17, 2006 9:37 AM

Robert you could look at this way, that Western culture is so superior that we allow some people to be shallow and the media along with it.
as for a title for your upcoming book, some along these lines perhaps, "The True Religion of Peace", and let the readers guess which one it is when they read your book. you might have some old fashion logo on your book that represents Christianity, like fish, ect. give a few hints to those with a brain.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 17, 2006 9:43 AM

Regarding your book title -

Islam has its own definition of peace, which involves the world living under its slimy skin, notwithstanding most sensible Muslims who prefer to get on with their lives.

Just call the thing
Misbegotten Siblings - Light and Dark in Religion, a comparison of Christianity and Islam.

(Both of which came from the original Judaism of course.)

There you go!

Posted by: carpediadem at December 17, 2006 9:52 AM

And not only the apotheosis of Self-Esteem Studies. But also a Consolation Prize to Everyman, as Everyman becomes smaller and smaller in political and economic significance. Our government is run more and more by a ruling class that has been allowed to render itself permanently immune to the vicissitudes of real (economic) life, its members guaranteed, once they are elected or in some cases been appointed, a permanent prosperity. That permanent prosperity comes from so many possibilities for post-"public" service: appointment to a think tank, membership on corporate boards (just like all those Corporate-Boarders who made up the Baker-Hamilton Study Group), lobbying, lecture tours in which the wisdom acquired from being in the Cabinet or Congress or a President can be traded on ruthlessly (not least for well-paying foreign audiences, as Clinton and George Bush Senior know so well), and every variety of what is prim ly called "the private sector" to which so many return, they tell us, "because now I have kids in college and have to meet the tuitioin payments." That apparently explains why they need a cool half-million a year to start with, and then the sky's the limit.

Meanwhile, the maldistribution of wealth -- not inevitable or natural, as some fanatics of the "free market" would have us believe, but merely the product, at a particular time and in a particular space, of particular policies, corporate fictions made possible by the law, and tax policies that reflect ideas that may not withstand close scrutiny if "prosperity" is defined not as a sum but as the way in which people live, make choices based at least sometimes on considerations other than those of greed and gain, and define or are permitted to define "happiness."

Now, we read, the class of well-paid professionals now harbor its own envy of the hedge-fund rich, as they should, and resent the way some are allowed to make hundreds of millions or indeed billions, without the marginal tax rates being what they should be to recapture much of that unmerited wealth, and with it, the widespread malaise among so many made acutely conscious of this maldistribution that outdoes even that in a banana republic, and who, furthermore, find their own children swept up in the pursuit of, or deliberate implacable avoidance of, the the rapacious pursuit of happiness, described by the old churchmen correctly as "radix malorum cupiditas est," forced even on those reluctant to embrace such a view but not able to withstand all the forces that make them get on that treadmill since everyone else now seems to be on it, and thereby following, not "their bliss" (that pet phrase of the hollow commencement speeches) but rather, their interests, their bent, their true vocation. And if they decide in the end to stand on the sidelines of that imposed race for riches, they will be constantly demoralized, as they have every right to be, by the constant throwiing in their faces -- oh, the list of billionaires compiled by Forbes is just the tip of the unseemly iceberg -- of the vast sums made by others, for the exercise of unadmirable skills and the display of unadmirable greed.

Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 10:11 AM

I'll definitely be on the lookout for your new book once it's done. But I am not sure about the title. I think people are already hostile to Christianity in general, and any comparison between it and Islam will automatically be dismissed. A title like this might make people dismiss it even sooner. (Just my opinion, of course. I wish I was more imaginative in order to give a suggestion of a better one.)

Posted by: Mo at December 17, 2006 10:12 AM

Whether the following might be a title for Mr. Spencer's next book or a title for some other book,here's what I'd like to see: Why Islam Is Not a Religion. In the course of the book he'd explain why Christianity and Judaism are religions, whereas Islam is a totalitarian ideology with a religious veneer.

Why is such a book needed? Because the principal obstacle to the dissemination and acceptance of the truth about Islam is the delusion that it's a religion and thus entitled to the respect and freedom to proselytize that we accord to all religions.

Most people are afraid that if we place any restrictions on Muslim activities, we'll have no principled way to object to similar restrictions on Christian or Jewish activities. They therefore equate antisemitism and hostility toward Christianity with "islamophobia." Again, that's because of the delusion that Islam is a religion. Once that delusion is dispelled, those obstacles will dissolve and the truth will find wider acceptance.

Posted by: Frieda at December 17, 2006 10:17 AM

Robert:

I like the title that you have tentatively chosen.

Let me recommend a book that you may already have; "ISLAM AND THE BIBLE,WHEN TO FAITHS COLLIDE" By David Goldman as part of your reference material.

Posted by: Mackie at December 17, 2006 10:29 AM

Yes, Come to cyberray and watch Y.A.A.F.M. 12:MUSLIMS this is the best satire I've seen
re: the Muslim Vs. Christian controversy

Posted by: Cyberray at December 17, 2006 10:30 AM

My suggestion for a title...

"The War on Terror"
Freedom Versus Submission

Then a picture of an american flag and islam's flag in shapes of swords dueling(crossed).

Posted by: Infidel_Dog at December 17, 2006 10:31 AM

Thanks guys, I could not have done it without you.
I'm so going to put this on my resume.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at December 17, 2006 11:04 AM

How about this title:
"Why [fill inthe blank] is a religion of peace and Islam is an ideology of 'rest in peace'"

Posted by: BunrattyBill at December 17, 2006 11:43 AM

Hugh, the ruling class:

Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep
--Measure for Measure

"We have lost the power even of imagining what the ancient idealization of poverty could have meant, the liberation from material attachments, the unbribed soul."
--William James

The unbribed soul. Old Eagle America.

I remember a telling moment elections back, hearing the ubiquitous Larry King asked his own choice for President and he replied: Lee Iacocca, since, after all, the United States was just one big business and it should therefore be run by a businessman. No John Adams around to verbally crack his thick skull.

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 11:56 AM

Two Topics I'd Like To See In Robert's New Book:

1. It is easy today to look back at some of the more regrettable acts performed "in the name of Christianity" hundreds of years ago and say that those were done in spite of Christianity rather than due to its teachings. But what did Christian leaders say at those times? When Pope Sixtus IV approved the Spanish Inquisition, wasn't he trying to be a good/true Christian? When Pope John XII ordered the Inquisition in Toulouse in 1320--the burning of the Talmud and expulsion of Jews, wasn't he trying to be a good/true Christian? When Pope Gregory VII in 1078 decreed that Jews could not hold office or be superiors to Christians, wasn't he trying to be a good/true Christian?

2. If Christianity is a "religion of peace," and Islam isn't, what is Judaism? Judaism does not have the new testament nor the figure of Christ to point to as the epitome of non-violence. And the Old Testament certainly has some brutal dictates for Jews (e.g., stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, etc.). Yet no Jews in the world today, even the most orthodox, take those dictates literally. Why? Why can't Islam take a similar path?

Posted by: kamala at December 17, 2006 12:11 PM

Now, we read, the class of well-paid professionals now harbor its own envy of the hedge-fund rich, as they should, posted by Hugh.
Hugh are you for re- distribution of wealth like what mr.Lenin brought to Russia?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 17, 2006 12:12 PM

Don't be idiotic.

Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 12:19 PM

Big difference is that the Christian faith had both the reformation/enlightenment periods, which was the gateway for it to begin to clean itself up, get back to its Bible roots, and grow to the great faith we see today.

Also it is not suprising that "Time Magazine" chose the common everyday person, all of us to be the person of the year. With the communications revolution of the 21st century, power is less in the hands of the few.

Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukah to this website, staff, and posters. God Bless.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 17, 2006 12:21 PM

kamala,

"2. If Christianity is a "religion of peace," and Islam isn't, what is Judaism? Judaism does not have the new testament nor the figure of Christ to point to as the epitome of non-violence. And the Old Testament certainly has some brutal dictates for Jews (e.g., stoning for adultery, death for apostasy, etc.). Yet no Jews in the world today, even the most orthodox, take those dictates literally. Why? Why can't Islam take a similar path?"

The big difference and there is two, is that Judism, in its prophets, called its people back to faith in God, and when they lost the two temples in Jerusalem, it developed the synogogue/rabbi/teaching system that is seen today.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 17, 2006 12:27 PM

Here are some thoughts...

'How I Learned to Embrace All Cultures, But Didn't Live to Tell About It'

'Catch 23: The Multiculti Mantra'

'Imperative Choices in an Age of Moral Relativism'

'Civilizational Suicide: Let's Emulate the French'

'Ahmed and Me: An Improbable Tale of Friendship, Cross-Cultural Understanding, and Suicide Bombing'

Posted by: Cornelius at December 17, 2006 12:36 PM

HUGH: "And if they decide in the end to stand on the sidelines of that imposed race for riches, they will be constantly demoralized, as they have every right to be, by the constant throwiing in their faces -- oh, the list of billionaires compiled by Forbes is just the tip of the unseemly iceberg -- of the vast sums made by others, for the exercise of unadmirable skills and the display of unadmirable greed."

RESPONSE: On the contrary. If they are mature, rational human beings, they can wish others well while they succeed or fail in the pursuit of their own dreams.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 17, 2006 12:44 PM

Bigcatgirl13106,

But in Islam we know that there exists the threat of a Muslim reading the Qur'an Hadith on his own and discovering that to be a true Muslim, he should, e.g., kill an apostate.

On the surface, it seems like the same thing could happen to a Jew--i.e., read the bible to determine that a "true Jew" should kill an apostate. Yet this doesn't happen and hasn't happened for who knows how long.

Clearly Jewish orthodoxy undertook a process long ago to ensure that such commands are not taken literally. Why can't Islam do the same?

Posted by: kamala at December 17, 2006 12:46 PM

Robert,

I hope you read Frieda's excellent comment above. (I'll send it in an email, just to be sure you have it.)

"Why Islam is NOT a Religion" indeed!

Now that's a title I'd pre-order tomorrow.

Posted by: Malinois at December 17, 2006 12:48 PM

How about: "Will the real religion of peace please stand up."

Posted by: Sylvia at December 17, 2006 1:02 PM

Well there's already "islam for Dummines," so how about:

"islam for the streetwise"

or "Why multiculturalism does NOT work."

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 17, 2006 1:29 PM

Robert--
to those of us who understand what's at stake--YOU ARE the man of the year!

Posted by: BB at December 17, 2006 1:40 PM

Robert

Congratulations. Actually, I agree with TIME's choice - thanks to the Internet, and an endless supply of content managers - us - all of us do deserve the 'Persons of the year' award. I don't know that Britney or Mahmoud belong here, unless the former provides endless info about herself on her website (sort of like Paris Hilton), while Mahmoud could have made it on his own had he made good on his August 22 promise.

Anyway, for your next book, I'd suggest 'Why Islam is not a religion like any other'. The titles by Malinois and AIG are good, but easy to turn off readers on the fence, while this title, a variation on their suggestion, could read either way to a potential reader unfamiliar with your work i.e. the ones with the open minds. You've already written a book on Islam and Catholics, so I encourage you to be more ambitious, and draw comparisons between Islam, vs. the top 5 religions - Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hindusism and Sikhism/Confucianism. That way, those who see Christianity and Judaism as 'White' religions will be encouraged by the fact that the others, which aren't normally associated with 'White', also compare too favorably against Islam.

It also furthers your goal of uniting Infidels behind this struggle. Oh, and this time, please have Reginery drop the RevivingIslam.com blurb that appeared on your last two books - with all the threats you've received, surely you can vary them a bit.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 17, 2006 1:47 PM

Suggested book title:

"Jesus and Mohammad -- a study of contrast"

Posted by: rational at December 17, 2006 1:52 PM

With no due respect to Time Inc. I decline the award.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 17, 2006 2:06 PM

AIG

Your understanding about the Sikhs is correct, as you can confirm here.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 17, 2006 2:07 PM

Robert -- I'd suggest that you could help more with a title (and associated content) something similar to:

Separation of Church and State --
and Islam as a foreign-funded political party.

Posted by: nick222 at December 17, 2006 2:14 PM

Infidel Pride misses the point. He says "for your next book, I'd suggest 'Why Islam is not a religion like any other'. The titles by Malinois and AIG are good, but easy to turn off readers on the fence, while this title, a variation on their suggestion, could read either way to a potential reader unfamiliar with your work i.e. the ones with the open minds." Infidel Pride is inviting precisely the comparisons and contrasts that are made all the time by proponents of the various religions. But the point of having as a title (and subject) "Why Islam Isn't a Religion" is to prevent comparisons and contrasts with real religions such as Christianity and Judaism. If you contend that it's different from the "other religions" you're admitting that it's a religion and entitled to the protections and respect that we accord to all religions. Sure it's different from Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism is different from Christianity, and both are different from Buddhism and Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and Taoism, and so on. They're all on one side of the definitional divide, and Islam stands alone on the other, BECAUSE IS IT NOT A RELIGION. As I said before, it's a totalitarian ideology with a religious veneer.

Posted by: Frieda at December 17, 2006 2:21 PM

I think the point of Robert's book is that one belief system is actually superior to the other so the title cannot be exclusively about Islam
("Why Islam is not a religion")... perhaps "Will The Real Religion of Peace Stand Up?" if anyone remembers What's My Line. Otherwise, if the book seeks a wider arc "The Defense of the West" or an even wider arc "Infidels Are Us"...

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 2:29 PM

So we're all Person of the Year, lumped in with Nicole Richie, Ayatollah Khameinei, Kevin Federline, Flava Flav and all of the contestants on his reality show, and Jimmy Carter, are we?

I smell a 6 billion-member class action lawsuit for slander...

Posted by: MarisolJW at December 17, 2006 2:34 PM

Will Time come out with an issue celebrating which Mankind deserves to be awarded for the year:

Mankind of the Year?

Which Mankind will it be? Al Mu'minun, or Al Kafirun?

Posted by: remote_control at December 17, 2006 2:38 PM

Robert

Let me shorten my suggested title to

Islam - a 'religion' like no other

The sneer quotes also address Frieda's very valid points above. However, I'd submit that even without them, the term is valid, since during the Cold War, there were schools of thought that classified Communism as a religion in its own right. Under that definition, Islam certainly qualifies.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 17, 2006 3:31 PM

That's not a bad title, Robert. But then I'd like to write a sequel: "Why Judaism is a religion of good cooking, and Islam is not".
Kishke yes, humus no.

Posted by: jewdog at December 17, 2006 3:36 PM

Frieda,
I'm pleased you returned to remonstrate IP's addition to the title YOU proposed, and which AIG and I seconded.

Nothing much to add except--could not the "Why" be dropped to make room for a bigger font on the cover that even the "blind" could see?

ISLAM
IS NOT A RELIGION

Posted by: Malinois at December 17, 2006 3:39 PM

Frieda

I'm including the definition of religion from dictionary.com, so that we have in front of us the various definitions that apply.

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

While Islam does not fit the definitions 1, 6 and 9, it does meet the other definitions above, and can arguably be called a religion. Under definition 2 and 3 above, one could call Communism a religion, even though it's universally recognized as a totalitarian political ideology. However, given how we associate religion, one would be right in saying that Islam doesn't fit that template. Also, while it is valid that no two religions are identical, they all share an underlying similarity of message of virtue, and all that it entails - truth, charity, tolerance, equality of man, yada yada yada. However, Islam doesn't share that except in a very perverted and limited way.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 17, 2006 3:43 PM

TITLE: "Clash of Civilizations"
SUBTITLE: "Why Christianity is a Religion of Peace and Islam is not"

Posted by: Charles the Hammer at December 17, 2006 3:46 PM

it does meet the other definitions 2, 3, 5 and 8 above. Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Islam meets definition 4 above.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 17, 2006 3:46 PM

Charles the Hammer

I've never agreed with the 'Clash of Civilizations' label, since Islam is demonstrably not a civilization.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 17, 2006 3:48 PM

Yes but its the term that people hear all the time.

Posted by: Charles the Hammer at December 17, 2006 3:53 PM

Jewdog - your post reminds me of a delightful Jewish saying I heard just yesterday about the meaning of Chanukah:

"They tried to kill us"

"They didn't"

"Let's EAT"

* * * * * * * * * * * *
"60 Minutes" To Air Newly Released Holocaust Documents

Tonight
7 P.M. EST
CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/main2267927.shtml

Posted by: Malinois at December 17, 2006 4:01 PM

Robert Spencer's newly contracted book is a tricky project. Without sufficient care, it could tar him as offering not an objective case about Islam, but a religious one "biased" toward Christianity.

Therefore the title should indicate somehow the factual, reportorial, non-religious character of the content (unless Robert will depart from his customary factual approach).

Perhaps:
Why Christianity Is A Religion of Peace and Islam Isn't
[subtitle:] A Historical and Factual Report

Such a title would be provocative, which might be good.

Posted by: traeh at December 17, 2006 4:16 PM

Robert, I would be very disappointed if you were to lower the tone of Christianity or any other non-Islamic religion and compare it with Islam.

Islam is not a religion but an ideology of terror.

I am not a religious person by any measures, however. I wish you will write a book, which will become one of the references in the academic institutes and a casual traveling will also be able to read it at an ease. The idea would be to relate the World events, since 9-11 to the Fundamentals of Islam.

The Fundamentals Of Islam - would be another recommendation.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 17, 2006 4:56 PM

Robert, I would be very disappointed if you were to lower the tone of Christianity or any other non-Islamic religion and compare it with Islam.

Islam is not a religion but an ideology of terror.

I am not a religious person by any measures, however. I wish you will write a book, which will become one of the references in the academic institutes and a casual traveling will also be able to read it at an ease. The idea would be to relate the World events, since 9-11 to the Fundamentals of Islam.

The Fundamentals Of Islam - would be another recommendation.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 17, 2006 4:56 PM

Robert, I would be very disappointed if you were to lower the tone of Christianity or any other non-Islamic religion and compare it with Islam.

Islam is not a religion but an ideology of terror.

I am not a religious person by any measures, however. I wish you will write a book, which will become one of the references in the academic institutes and a casual traveling will also be able to read it at an ease. The idea would be to relate the World events, since 9-11 to the Fundamentals of Islam.

The Fundamentals Of Islam - would be another recommendation.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 17, 2006 4:56 PM

Sorry folkes about the repeated postings above. Roberts filter board interrupted my posting, hence I tried posting it twice.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 17, 2006 4:59 PM

Sylvia,

"How about: "Will the real religion of peace please stand up."

In one week's time we will have a gentile reminder of the real "ROP" stand up for that answer.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 17, 2006 5:11 PM

While chasing other rabbits on google I came across these
excerpted observations about what the author calls the "religion barrier":

"From early childhood, most Americans are taught that religion is a personal matter and not a subject of polite conversation (unless you know someone well enough to know that you will not tread on toes by having such a discussion).  You learn that religion must be accorded "special handling," and that religion is "above criticism."  By the time they reach adulthood, many people have developed a powerful aversion to regarding any religion as anything other than basically good.  It goes like this: Religion is good; Islam is a religion; therefore, Islam is good."

"Muslims exploit this Achilles heel in Americans.  Groups such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) follow the pattern of the civil rights industry.  Any whiffle of critical questioning or criticism of Islam brings the cheap suits of CAIR to full throat.  As a result, many critics of Islam, infected with political correctness, back down.  Were they secure in their positions, critics would stand up to these pressure groups to defend their values.  Islamic pressure groups, meanwhile, masterfully exploit the confusion by playing this "religion card," along with racial, cultural, and immigrant cards, all of the current tools of "victimism." 

"Americans could lose their struggle against Islamic Jihad or be forced into an extreme, mutually-destructive, war, if they do not correct their most serious, and most under-recognized, vulnerability.  This is the vulnerability non-Islamic Americans share and can be called their "religion barrier."  It means that they accord Islam the same respect that they accord Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. simply because Islam is a religion.  Americans need to reprogram this aspect of their thinking in order to see Islam for what it is and to be able to deal with it definitively."

More here:
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/a_gmason_p4.htm

Posted by: Malinois at December 17, 2006 5:25 PM

In Europe, a book that has 'Christianity' on the frontpage will be either ignored or only displayed at church-libraries or religious book-stores.

Given that the Churches are also 'Dhimmie' by and large, and taking into account that Roberts Islam-critique will do nothing to keep the shallow and politically correct minds at ease, there is not even much of a chance that church-related outlets will be eager to carry it....

I could be wrong, actually I hope to be wrong on this one, but then again......?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 17, 2006 5:32 PM

Well, actually, we're multi-cultural already. It's just that the upper echelon wants to stir a hornet's next and divide us more, but includg a 3rd culture. And this is done, I suspect, to control We,The People more.

The problem is now the division of the Amer. because of 1 group of immigrants coming in fr the south - and another fr the MD. But I'd rather take the Mex. immigrants - because they're already with the Westrn and religious mores - that adhere to the Amer. culture - and are WILLING and READY to blend in.

As an overview - the Mexis are mestizo and indian villagers that are curanderos and shamans - with the outlook that there are OTHER REALITIES - other existences and emphasize this. And that we are children of the Creator, who loves and cares for us, as well they say, Spirit has asked them, to teach us what they know of All things.

While the islamics emphasize the worse of life, and the lowest of ethics and morality, that there is no love or equality between humanity or betw man and woman, And that gives no hope for a better world. An ugly outlook.

Betw the two immigrant groups, I'll take the curanderos and shamans, any time.

---------
I write all this to suggest to Roberto, the title that will be attention get- right now there are a lot of books pro & con islam - to get the attention of the people, appeal to their pride in their culture and achievements.

I suggest to have a cover with a blue baseball cap w/an American Eagle in front. And the title:

"America - Why it is the Hope of the World.

But I'll hv to tell you something outstanding. I was lookg at a video of a spiritual workshop in Yelm. ANd the Tacher - has an audience fr many countries - he's going around wearing a blue baseball cap with a red eagle in front- and leans over the audience, saying:

"There're lots of people don't like this country...."

leans over the Mexican group

"Mexico, (he points to the eagle in his cap) - you see this eagle? This is America.. if you don't like it, too bad!"

Calls out to the French group,

"France, see this Eagle? This is the hope of the world.

Before Columbus, the people knew there was a place called Merica. This was the dream. They already know that the'd find it, follwing the North Star."

You don't like it...too bad." It's here - and going to stay. '"Too bad if you don't like it

----------------
And it's true, the is the only place that is the hope of the world.

GOD BLESS THIS LAND! god bless america!

It's not tacky to say this, and how much one loves this land. Science, physics has already found that thoughts give out energy waves for good or bad.

There was another net talk show interviewing an American woman who is Jewish - and her husband was stationed by his co. in Israel for a couple of years. She has many friends there. Now fr talking to them, she found that the the state of Israel subsidizes the Orthodox rabbis. Pays for their housing, the schooling of their children, and gives them food stamps. In return, these Orthodox Jews have to spend their time in the synagogues and yeshiva, reading the scriptures, praying and daviding for Israel. That is all their prayers and thoughts and energy waves are sent out for the benefit of Israel.

What does that mean? IS the state of Israel throwing money away..for no reason? Could there be...such a thinking as the power of thoughts?

Why would Israel - a modern state - the highest rate of education and hi tech be spending money on this?

Then thoughts do effect events!

GOD BLESS THIS LAND!

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 17, 2006 5:39 PM

Suggested title:

Why Judeo-Christian values produce peace and Islamic rituals churn up hate!

Posted by: Anti-Crescenter at December 17, 2006 5:47 PM

I agree with Infidel Pride; deciding what counts as a religion and what doesn't is subjective. Muslims could just as easily argue that Christianity isn't a religion, according to their definition of religion (not enough smiting, too much cheek-turning).

Nobody ever said all religions are by definition "good"; a Satan-worshipping human-sacrificial cult is still a religion, just a really bad one from our point of view. And the fact that it is a religion should not deter us from wiping it out as a matter of self-preservation.

I like rational's idea of personalizing the title. How about "Jesus and Mohammad: A Study in Contrasts" or more colloquially "Jesus and Mohammad: Not Even Close".

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2006 5:51 PM

I would be very disappointed if you were to lower the tone of Christianity or any other non-Islamic religion and compare it with Islam. - Mushuntcowboy

That concern touches on a central reason why this book should be written:

One of the most common arguments inflicted on those who point out the violent tendencies inherent in Islam through its teachings and the example of its founder is: "Well, isn't Christianity just as violent?"

And the politically correct, "revised" history of the Crusades-- discussed in an earlier book-- is just one facet of that: For one thing, many people, including hyper-secular liberals as well as Muslim apologists, equate every real and imaginary sin of the West with its Christian foundations. It's crucial to demonstrate that Christianity, as such a fundamental element of Western civilization, can not only hold its own when compared/contrasted with Islam, but comes out looking mighty fine.

It will be easier to advance the public discourse on jihad with the tu quoque copout dismantled in detail.

Hence, "The Death of Tu Quoque," or "Tu Quoque is Dead and I Killed It," might be swell as possible titles. Then again, the Latin terminology might scare your average bookstore customer.

Just thinking out loud.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor, and
Time Magazine Person of the Year(!)

Posted by: MarisolJW at December 17, 2006 5:52 PM

Our government is run more and more by a ruling class that has been allowed to render itself permanently immune to the vicissitudes of real (economic) life, its members guaranteed, once they are elected or in some cases been appointed, a permanent prosperity. -from above

Late stage Capitalism, and bad for the Country. But no agreement on a monopoly of political power among the ‘rich’ over the rest of us 'Men of the Year'. 84% of Federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners, and that same group of voters probably pays 95% of capital gains taxes. There are many registered voters who are not income earners at all.

Democracy threatens excellence as he who excels can always be out-voted by those who don’t (not to imply that today's ruling class represents excellence). At this point, democracy may win the struggle, and then quickly disappear. Plato and Aristotle recognized that pure democracy is unsustainable.

The system in 2006 makes it difficult to stop the growth of, let alone make responsible, federal entitlement programs. We’ll see the raising, or end of, contribution caps for Social Security first, and then means testing. That will buy the program a few years. Benefits will continue to be expanded as the entitlement class learns to exercise its growing demographic influence. Wealth taxes, a la France, will kick in. And in a generation or two, the successful small business owner will be paying 90% of the fruits of his 80-hour work weeks to the government, and will re-locate to the ‘Banana Republics’ who perform back-flips to just skim 8%. When the responsible Oriental countries stop loaning money, the Great Experiment will come to an end.

The good news is that whatever comes next will quickly do away with the threat of expansionist Islam and re-install a strong value system. The bad news is that there will be other casualties. Hopefully we can have a soft landing back to the Framer’s vision of voters being stakeholders.

Posted by: limes at December 17, 2006 5:53 PM

Or "Christianity and Islam: Love vs. Hate", or "Christianity and Islam: The Ultimate Love-Hate Relationship".

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2006 5:54 PM

Hi, Robet. Lots of interesting suggestions here -- your book is half-written already. The title that occurred to me was a little less obvious:

"Will the Real Religion of Peace Stand up?"

I hope, once you put both feet into the world of comparative religion that you have the fortitude to acknowledge the peaceful streams in many other religions, including even som strands of Islam; it would not be right to tar them all with one brush. But of course the thrust of the book must be not upon strands of religions as they have developed over the centuries but upon the source documents, which would argue in favor of your original title. One must make nodding acquaintance with the Crusades and the Inquisition, of course, but the last chapter(s) should focus on how these sources are reflected (or not) by adherents in contemporary society.

I just think something like what I suggest might draw a wider readership, and might even get you onto some of the booklists that are afraid to touch your recent titles.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at December 17, 2006 6:06 PM

Why Christianity Is A Religion of Peace -- And Islam Isn't.....

Robert Spencer, you are my hero. Seriously.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 17, 2006 6:20 PM

Book title for Spencer's upcoming book:

Christians and Muslims:
Apples and Oranges? By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them.

* * *

Some chapter titles:

Muslim Apologies: Cherrypicking?

Islamic Sources of Violence: 72 Raisins in Paradise

Mister Taliban, Tally Me Banana

Mohammed and the Watermelon Patch

Are Muslims Out Of Their Gourd?

Posted by: remote_control at December 17, 2006 6:24 PM

That is a good title Archimedes. And I thought so when I suggested it earlier this afternoon!

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 7:11 PM

The comparison which Robert intends to make, I suspect, goes beyond the peace issue. How about

"Why Christianity is Better than Islam."

Posted by: Archimedes at December 17, 2006 7:15 PM

Don't be idiotic.
Posted by: Hugh
\l guess my dry sense of humor does not work on the internet, sorry about that. l was just joking Hugh!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 17, 2006 7:45 PM

That is a good title Archimedes. And I thought so when I suggested it earlier this afternoon!

Good one Nick, I missed your first post. Great minds think alike.
I also think your title about Islam being a foreign-funded political party is a great one, and perhaps superior. Tempting as it may be, getting into slugging it out in the name of comparative religion might be conterproductive to what Spencer is trying to do. To anyone but another christian a straightover comparison between the religions would seem quite jingoistic. Though the thesis may be unassailable, it's probably a bad idea -- if the plan is to actually have some effect other than further entrenchment. Spencer's strength is his ability to keep the high moral ground in these discussions.

At any rate, it must come down, at some point, to straight-across comparison between Islam and ... well, any other decent 20th century religion, either on the basis of current practice or source documents. Perhaps someone else should write the "comparison" book, and Spencer write a hard-hitting one on the Islamist political agenda and the nature of the threat to the world today. I'll vote for a Pipes/Spencer collaboration on the issue.

I'd like to see a book-length comparison of the scriptures, though, or even an interlinear book comparing Qur'an/Hadith, New Testament and Torah/Prophets side-by-side, with no commentary. If we're going to do comparative religion, why not just let the text speak for itself?

BTW, it is Archimedes2 -- my bad; when I started posting here some time ago I did not realise there was already an Archimedes onsite, so I began adding the "2" rather than pick something completely new. I've read all Archemides' posts and would be glad to take the credit for them though honour demands I don't...I won't presume that the sentiment is returned.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at December 17, 2006 7:46 PM

As others have mentioned, I think the proposed title is somewhat problematic. It suggests that the author (Mr. Spencer) will divide the world, split it, into two factions (actually two religions), and then make a judgement -- ie, Christianity is good, Islam is bad. If this book is just another polemic against Islam, then who will be your readers? Who will be your audience? Needless to say, it will be others who agree with the initial assumption (as indicated by the title).

Here's my take -- I think that both Christianity and Judaism have been able to accommodate "modernity." They've made the transition. Many living in Muslim countries have not made the transition, and the real die-hards (the Islamists) are fighting tooth and nail to preserve what they think is "authentic Islam." (I also believe that this has been a recurrent problem throughout Islam's history -- when times become "too liberal" the fanatics decide that the people are "back-sliding" (sinning) and you get a revivalism movement -- a puritanical, and typically murderous, attempt to bring the people back to a "purer" form of Islam.)

The interesting questions are then, why are some religions (Christianity and Judaism) able to make the transition and Islam not? What factors are at play? What's hindering Islam?

I also suspect that there may be psychological differences between these religions -- does Islam offer a certain appeal to certain kinds of personalities? that is, Islam attracts authoritative, domineering, controlling personality types? Does this, in turn, prevent Islam from developing democratic societies or an ability to tolerate minorities?

I think that if some of these questions can be looked at, maybe the "problems with Islam" can be better identified (not that an outsider could ever "correct" them, of course!) This could also have a wider appeal (larger audience), and further a debate/discussion (as opposed to being simply an outraged polemic spelling out the "evils" of Islam or preaching to the converted).

Posted by: J.S. at December 17, 2006 7:54 PM

Another book in the new year? Great-something to look forward to, along with Iran's monkey man getting his comeuppance (I hope).

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 17, 2006 7:54 PM

Anna Nicole should have won- after all she brought genuine love and warmth to an ailing old fell in his time of need [sarcasm] http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at December 17, 2006 9:04 PM

Archimedes 2, it is, and thanks.
The war against The West is first and foremost a war against Judeo-Christianity. The Muslim world considers the West to be synonymous with Christianity. However inaccurate, this is their perspective. Muslims overwhelmingly believe Westerners are Christians and that Christians are Crusaders--bent on destroying Islam. Nothing wrong with making a strong case for the moral, intellectual and spiritual superiority of Christianity and its heritage (which itself comes gift-wrapped with "bad conscience" for its human betrayals and shortcomings, critical thinking is part of that heritage) that gives courage and passion to its defenders and even can speak to doubting Muslims (yes, there are some--Walid Shoebat, Mark Gabriel recent examples who found found a very different Religion of Peace)... Robert's instincts are pretty good.

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 9:13 PM

Amen to that, Robert...

...besides, most of us in the real world don't really care about anything at SLime magazine anyway...it's part & parcel with the MSM.

Posted by: jcom972 at December 17, 2006 9:45 PM

Archimedes2:

To improve chances that Robert's book could lead to Senate hearings (or similar), perhaps eventually leading to appropriate laws, maybe a "racier" or "more stimulating" title would be useful, e.g.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

versus

ISLAM AS A FOREIGN-FUNDED POLITICAL PARTY

(Another Communism)

Posted by: nick222 at December 17, 2006 9:48 PM

J.S. said

The interesting questions are then, why are some religions (Christianity and Judaism) able to make the transition and Islam not? What factors are at play? What's hindering Islam?

As Robert has pointed out in his books, Christianity (and I guess Judaism)'s holy books were written by humans (the Gospels), who were falible when writing down their recollections of events and teachings. According to Islam, Allah spoke directly to Mohammad, who memorized Allah's message word for word. Therefore the Qur'an cannot be wrong, whereas modern Christians could decide, for example, that some particularly troubling phrase was misquoted and doesn't represent the true teachings of Christ, and therefore it will be given less importance (think the violent sections of the Old Testament).

Secondly, there is the example of the life led by each religion's founder, Jesus and Mohammad. One was a peaceful carpenter who taught us to love one another, the other was a caravan-raider who killed, took slaves, had intercourse with 9 year olds, ordered the murder of poets who mocked him, etc. How can you believe that Mohammad is the Perfect Man, the Final Prophet, and not by extension not believe that violence is acceptable?

But I'm not very coherent at summarizing; I recommend reading Robert's books, if you haven't yet.

Nick Danger said

The war against The West is first and foremost a war against Judeo-Christianity.

I'm sure the Hindus in India would be surprised and glad to hear that, as would the Buddhists in Thailand. We in the West think we're the center of the universe, but the best lesson we could learn is that every non-Muslim in the world is the target of Muslim violence.

Posted by: special_guest at December 17, 2006 9:50 PM

Robert,
Why restrict your Islamic comparison to only Christianity? Islam is uniquely violent when compared to ALL other religions, and athieism as well. Your next book would be more universal in appeal if it addressed the (very politically incorrect) idea that Islam is more Political Ideology than "Peaceful" Religion.

Suggested Title:
Beyond "Religion" - The Islamic Total System of Life

Posted by: Xero G at December 17, 2006 10:06 PM

I said the war against The West, that's self-explanatory. Obviously. the war against Hindus and Buddhists is not the war against the West. I thought we were talking about Robert's next book whose parameters he clearly indicated.

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 10:09 PM

I'm not talking about The West as the only source of the battle with the
World Islamic Revolution but I will say the World Islamic Revolution regards The West and America in particular as the chief impediment to dominating the 21st Century. This is not to minimize in any way what Hindus and Buddhists contend with or to say that the war on Christianity is itself not a global phenomenon. It does mean The West requires a renewal of meaning and purpose, faced as it is by an existential threat and mortal danger. Is that parochial?

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 17, 2006 10:46 PM

Zero G: Why restrict your Islamic comparison to only Christianity? Islam is uniquely violent when compared to ALL other religions, and athieism as well. Your next book would be more universal in appeal if it addressed the (very politically incorrect) idea that Islam is more Political Ideology than "Peaceful" Religion.

I don't disagree with this statement, but I accept the inclusion of athiesm with some caution. While it's true that athiesm is not a violent doctrine in and of itself, and that the vast majority of athiests are also humanists, specific athiest doctrines, such as were manifest in communist china and russia, have produced some of the worst crimes against humanity. Witness Stalin's starvation of 50 million Ukrainians and others in the 50's and Mao's pogroms resulting in somewhere between 70 and 100 million deaths. These two men alone accounted for more deaths of innocents than Hitler and the jihadists of the last century combined -- though the Jihadists are trying very hard and may soon approach this number.

I'd like to throw in Hitler as an athiest; but then some would toss him in as a christian villain, but this is surely not right, as it would take an extremely shallow reading of christianity to admit him -- at best he was a pretender only to the point that it was convenient to project some association with Christianity. He was an outwardly "religious" man who made claims to being a christian but was openly hostile to all aspects that offended him (pretty well the whole ball of wax).

About as much of a case could be made that he was Jewish (it is thought that he was 1/4 Jewish by blood, though noone knows for sure). I think it's safer to say that he was a deranged man who used religious associations to his own ends.

Apparently noone really wants to claim Hitler, though Dar Al-Islam seems to really like the guy.

Anyway, I think Athiesm needs to be held separate in such discussions. As a religion it is sterile soil in which various nasty things can be cultured -- or it can remain benign. It can be as aggressive about recruitment as any religion, and can lend itself to moral theories (or rejection thereof) that are quite nasty.

(The same can be said about all religions, except that one can then point to the contradiction with the core teachings of the faith. Athiests only core teaching is the rejection of God, from which many athiests draw the corollary that there is no absolute moral standard. Then we can get into nasty stuff, eugenics, ethnic cleansing and the like, and still be "faithful" to athiesm.)

Posted by: Archimedes2 at December 17, 2006 11:28 PM

Why Islam Isn't A Religion of Peace-- And Christianity Is

Christianity Is A Religion of Peace--Islam Is Not

Religion of Peace?

Islam: Religion of Peace or War?

The Religion of Peace

Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?

Is Islam A Religion of Peace?

Is Islam a Religion?

The Religion of Peace: Christianity or Islam?

Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 17, 2006 11:52 PM

Between Christ and Mohammed: The Irreconcilable Differences Between Christianity and Islam
http://www.islamcomicbook.com/books/1891833545/index.htm

This book can be downloaded, chapter by chapter, but I must say it just turned me off. Who was it that said "comparisons are odious"?

As for your new book, Robert, I would steer away from the comparison theme.

I'd like to see a theme and title that refutes the "We all worship the same God by different names" taqiyya. Something like "Islam's Allah is NOT the same God". A bit rough, I know, but you get my drift.

Posted by: SandiM at December 17, 2006 11:55 PM

I hope you include today's gospel in your book. Luke 3:10-18. John the Baptist on what is the right thing to do if one is a government employee such as a tax-collector or soldier (or senator). Short version, don't use your official position to cheat, persecute and steal.

It's actually a biblical argument against earmarks and other theft. And it's clearly against the endemic corruption in Muslim countries.

Posted by: Pangloss at December 18, 2006 12:06 AM

Islam Sucks, Christianity Rocks.

-- Foreword by a distinguished agnostic, Hugh Fitzgerald

Posted by: remote_control at December 18, 2006 12:37 AM

"Along with this wholesale levelling comes an unwillingness or inability to declare any model of society or any belief-system superior to another"

Outwardly. Only outwardly. Within is harbored judgment and prejudice in bountiful excess.

Posted by: alexon at December 18, 2006 12:53 AM

"Why Christianity Is A Religion of Peace -- And Islam Isn't" -- potential title of Robert's new, yet-to-be-written, book.

This touches on a fear of mine that Christianity is too peaceful to defeat ruthless Islam. I know that's a very simplistic reduction but it does concern me.

Posted by: alexon at December 18, 2006 12:58 AM

Nick Danger, I'll apologize if I offended you, that was not the intention. It was not you I was disagreeing with, but the oft-stated notion that the jihad started recently, and only (or primarily) against the U.S. (or U.K./Australia/Israel). I assume you know better, but James Baker thinks so, so does Jimmy Carter, GW Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.

It's not about Israel, it's not about U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, or Russian troops in Afghanistan, or whatever the excuse is of the moment. It's 1,350 years of Islamic warfare against the infidels, no matter our race, creed, or religion. We are all the same to them, kafirs one and all. And that may end up being the downfall of Islam. They've picked a fight with every other person on the planet, and there's alot of us.

Posted by: special_guest at December 18, 2006 1:07 AM

Peace by Piece: Religious Violence Examined
or
Ritual: Daily Obligations to Allah
A horrifying look at the future if forced to live under strict Islam.

Posted by: Xero G at December 18, 2006 1:32 AM

How bout:

Islam? , What is it good for? ,
absolutely nothin , say it again! "

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 18, 2006 1:59 AM

Not offended, special_guest. I think everyone here understands the jihad imperative
perfectly well and knows surahs 9:5 and 9:29 by heart. Robert's piece concerned the West's "failure of will." Certainly, people in the West need to understand the jihad is almost 1400 years old and is self-referential and exists for its own reasons, it is not caused by the West. But it does challenge us to find the will to resist "the enchroachments of the Islamic jihad ideology" in ways specific to the West.

Posted by: Nick Danger at December 18, 2006 2:15 AM

Religion of Peace??? How can it be the "religion of peace" without the Prince of Peace at the helm??

The children of the Lord are LOVING the world into becoming Christians. Christ-ians are "Christ-like". They manifest the "Peace that passes all understanding".

By the deeds of the followers of Islam we could say that their "Prince" is the Prince of Darkness.

Posted by: guide inside at December 18, 2006 5:07 AM

Islam-the Religion of Peace and Terror, the untold Truth.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 18, 2006 6:42 AM

Special_guest wrote: "As Robert has pointed out in his books, Christianity (and I guess Judaism)'s holy books were written by humans (the Gospels), who were fallible when writing down their recollections of events and teachings."

Actually, a traditional understanding of Jewish scripture (the Torah) has it that every letter of the text is fixed, unalterable, divine. The text cannot and should not be messed with -- it's perfect as is.

To use a secular example -- take a Shakespearean play. Would it be appropriate for someone to alter the words of a Shakespearean text? (In the past, there have been huge debates -- much ink spilt -- in the English literature field about a single letter -- for example, was Juliet's last words "rest in peace" or "rust in peace?") Even with the case of Shakespeare, it's not OK to just re-write the text or insert phrases as it suits you.

Anyway, once you have a body of text that cannot be altered -- that does not mean that the INTERPRETATIONS of that text are frozen. Again, to use an example from Shakespeare, there's a purported love sonnet which Shakespeare wrote to an unknown person. Now, some who read this sonnet claim (ecstatically) that it demonstrates that Shakespeare was a homosexual. I do not believe that this is only interpretation available. It is also quite possible that this interpretation is dead wrong. Thus the interpretations can be debated, argued over, etc.

Oftentimes I suspect that the interpretations given to a text reflect the mind of the reader -- that is, the interpretation will tell you more about the person reading the text, then about the text. (Many years ago I read a newspaper article about a rabbi who read the Koran, and the rabbi concluded that the text was perfectly "OK" -- that it did not incite violence.)

Posted by: J.S. at December 18, 2006 10:01 AM

Randomly metastatic populations around the globe are not exploding and beheading and plotting worse on the basis of the Shakespeare texts, nor on the basis of any other texts other than those of Islam. So literal inerrancy and/or unalterability is therefore not the pivotal problem.

Posted by: remote_control at December 18, 2006 1:16 PM

Here's another one: "Pax Islamica: Why Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isn't."

Makes the connection between empire and Islam, and also tackles the co-opting of Christianity by the Romans and subsequent empires.

Posted by: Sylvia at December 18, 2006 4:40 PM

This monumental bit of silliness on Time's part is just another illustration of the West's failure of will.
........................

I couldn't agree more. The specific Time focus is on, of all things, YouTube. Now, of course, like anything on the web, it can potentially be used for something serious (like the JW site itself).

The fact is, though, that most YouTube clips are more likely to be shots of Britney Spears partying without her knickers, or amusing clips of some dude, like, falling off his skateboard.

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Posted by: gravenimage at December 18, 2006 11:44 PM

The title of some of your post's would be a good title for your new book. The one that always catches my eye is, "Christian radicals attack and behead Buddist's...no, wait."

Every time I see a title like that it causes me to laugh hysterically and draws my attention. I don't suggest that exact title, but something similar to it. It would also attract the PC crowd, (but for the wrong reason) Muhahahaha.

Glad you are writing this Robert. It is a good subject and hopefully it will be one that will wake up many that have fallen asleep in Christianity.

Gbu, and keep up keeping us informed
Alien

Posted by: Alien2thisWorld at December 19, 2006 4:26 PM

Instead of proclaiming the "greatness" of Christianity vs. the horrors of Islam, I have a different opinion: All deity - worshipping religions are atrocious, but Islam's more atrocious than most. While Christians don't (for the most part) wage literal war against infidels (anymore, that is), they are also sworn to "enable" non-believer to "submit" to “god”. Although they've (for the most part) managed to mature beyond the "holy war" mentality, zealous Christians do appalling damage to the quality of life worldwide through their inhuman resistance to family planning and AIDS - control measures and their promotion of the most appalling prejudice and ignorance (ex: Sexism and Creationism). The most insightful and scathing critique of religion in general was given in (of all places) Muslim Arabia a millennium ago:

a.. The world holds two classes of men-intelligent men without
religion, and religious men without intelligence.

b.. As for religion, all men unquestioningly accept the creed of
their fathers out of habit, incapable of distinguishing the true from
the false.

c.. Religion is a fable invented by the ancients, worthless except
for those who exploit the credulous masses.

d.. Religions have only resulted in bigotry and bloodshed, with sect
fighting sect, and fanatics forcing their beliefs onto people at the
point of a sword. All religions are contrary to reason and sanity.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Ma'arri, (973-1057)
Arabic poet and philosopher

Posted by: EthiopianAtheist at December 20, 2006 4:48 AM