It does not suprise me that the secular progressives will always go after the Christians because we who are Christian will not threaten death unlike the islamofacists.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 8, 2007 8:47 AM

An ex-Catholic seminarian, just as Karen Armstrong is an ex-nun, Chris Hedges has been most famous for his intense dislike of Israel, a dislike he gave vent to in his every dispatch as the chief correspondent in Israel for The Duranty Times. In lectures, his complete indifference to the fate of the Jews, his palpable coldness, is expressed with a facial expression bespeaking a kind of languid indifference. But he is not languidly indifferent; he dislikes Israel with a steady fervor too great, and too impervious, to any new information he might acquire, as to be explicable as anything other than a manifestation of the usual mental derangement with which we are all familiar.

Here is a previous post, from 2004, with the bit about Hedges, toward the end, in bold:

"This is significant, and with its accompanying gloss ought to be studied, for several reasons.

First, it brings to everyone's attention the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, which should be emphasized in every discussion about Islam – and in particular, about the value of Israeli “negotiations” or “treaties” or that disingenuous, or still worse, idiotically native, “two-state solution” (even though that it is a “solution” should be obvious, because of course, it would not have been called the “two-state solution” if it weren’t, would it? – as has been said before at this spot). The New York Times is not going to engage in anything so important as actually attempting to educate its readers as to the tenets of Islam, and it certainly has to use, much less explain, such words as “taqiyya” (or "taqiyya/kitman" as is often put so as to anticipate, and dispense with, the hollow objection that "taqiyya" is a concept in Shi'a Islam alone). And when you use that word “taqiyya” you force others to ask what it means, which gives you the opening you seek to explain it to them, and then to continue into a whole little discussion of the vast army of apologists (Esposito, Michael Sells with his “Approaching the Qur’an,” Carl Ernst, and the rest). And if you are debating a Muslim, and raise the issue of taqiyya/kitman, and then begin to quote from Qur’an and hadith, he is brought up short, and quickly reduced either to silence, or to hysterical sputtering (which comes on rather quickly, one notices).

And here is why the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya was invoked in Dubai – the speakers, Yusuf Islam and Yusef Hamza, sense, as do other Muslims, that in too places, people are beginning to wake up (forget about France – Chirac is on the take, Dominique de Villepin is a poseur and fool, and the court “experts” on Islam such Gilles Kepel – do look up Taheri’s review of his latest product in The London Telegraph – are guides to nowhere and nothing). They are worried, just as Osama bin Laden is worried. Maybe the Americans are just a bit too tough. Maybe their uncompromising approach will wake up the Europeans. Perhaps we need to help everyone go back to sleep, by proceeding nicely-nicely (with apologiest to Damon Runyon).
Remember that the Treety of al-Hudaibiyya was concluced in 628 A.D. with the Meccans, and lasted until Muhammad, having greatly increased the number of his followers, felt strong enough to attack the Meccans, and did so on a flimsy pretext. Muhammad knew exactly what he was doing, and even at the time of the Treaty, while his followers were disheartened, he spoke of it as a “victory” and it has always been treated as such by Muslims – an example of his cunning statecraft, of “war as deception.” It is the model, as Majid Khadduri has pointed out, for all subsequent treaties with Infidels. It is NOT possible to make a permanent peace treaty with any Infidel polity. Only a truce, that can be renewed if the Infidel remains too strong, is possible – sulh and not real peace, salaam.
But, you ask, surely Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk and all those people in the State Department who are supposed to be experts on Islam understand this, and explained this to Clinton, and Carter, and all the others who felt it so very important for the Israelis to “negotiate” and sign a treaty with the Arabs. Don’t they? Could they possibly not understand thoroughly all of this? And if the Arab leaders and smiling diplomats assure them that those who talk about the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya are – eyes rolling heavenward in mock outrage – simply people who do not believe, as we do, in the “possibility of peace.” Oh, you have no idea how little they know, the Indyks and the Rosses and the rest of them. Just look at Tom Friedman, with his Pulitzer Prize, and his platitudes, and his plongitudes. He is the Middle East “expert” at the New York Times. And he knows nothing.

Treaties with Muslim states are worthless. But one thing is not: overwhelming and obvious power, so that Muslim rulers have an excuse, a face-saving excuse, not to go war. The doctrine of necessity, of “darura,” justifies failure to attack. Egypt does not attack Israel right now for the same reason Syria does not – darura. That has to be kept in mind. To be effective the deterrent must not only be overwhelming in reality, but must appear overwhelming, so that Muslims will know it. That is why the further reduction in Israel’s size, even if Sharon, in his current obstinate dementia, believes is valuable (an obstinate dementia which some Israelis seem, out of an ignorance of Islam, inclined to treat as serious statecraft, when it is nothing of the sort), will lessen the force of darura, and make war, not peace, more likely. Of course, if it is simply a means to let the “Palestinians” have at each other in Gaza – the “Somalia solution” – well then it may be worth it, as long as outside Infidels do not idiotically enter to keep the peace.

In this connection one should recall that Arafat was fond of invoking the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, but only to Muslim audiences, first in May 1994 in Johannesburg -- it was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to his audiences (See, he was saying, don't worry -- all of this stuff is just to win concessions from the temporarily more powerful Israelis, and when we eventually are strong enough, with Muslims from Capetown to Cleveland, we will go in for the kill, just like Muhammad did with the Quraysh of Mecca -- so relax.

With non-Muslim audiences Arafat would of course never mention the Treaty, but you know -- there was not the slightest reason why American reporters could not have reported the several occasions on which he did so, and attempt to find out about this Treaty. Wouldn't you think that the Washington Post, the New York Times, or 60 Minutes, just might have one reporter -- just one -- who would see mention of this curious "Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya" and want to find out about it, and perhaps even take a book out of the library, to see what it was all about? And wouldn't have been important, during the past decade, or five, to have enlightened readers about Islam? If you are a steady reader of the Times, or the Post, or of whatever Daily Scream you happen to read, have you learned a thiing about Islam in the past few years? Have you ever seen the word "dhimmi" not merely thoroughly explained, but even mentioned?

And it is hardly surprising that not once did the most notoriously anti-Israel reporters from Israel – such as Peter Jennings, now the star in an expensive A.B.C. campaign to make Americans like him, with his decades of sly narrow-eyed nastiness about both the United States and Israel (as for his Great and Good Friend Hanan Ashrawi, who can ever forget Jennings’ interview with her on September 13, 2001, such good friends, as she went ahead and blamed, with Jennings’ evident approval, you know who – and there is so much more that one could say about Peter Jennings), or H. D. S. Greenway, the man who with his bowties and driving up to work at the Boston Globe’s offices in what seemed to be a different car every day, apparently making him a Big Man on Campus, who only within the last year or two, seems to have gotten a hint that all might not be right with the Copts in Egypt – it is clear that he never bothered, in more than two decades of covering the Middle East, ever to learn about dhimmitude, or the persecution of the Copts – he knows nothing, and seems never to have made the effort to begin to study the tenets, the history, the significance of Islam on the Middle East – two decades of mere reporting, and nary a word that makes any sense, that is informed with any understanding of history. What a monument to leave behind. Do you think he has ever heard the words, or could easily define, dhimmi and dhimmitude? Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya? Do you think he knows about the various recensions of the hadith, and precisely how their “authenticity” is judged? Do you think he knows anything about the history of Muslim conquests and the subjugation of non-Muslim peoples? And do you think, if you explained why the relentless Jihad against Israel, disguised as a “struggle for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” has far deeper sources in the canonical texts of Islam, that he would even try to understand, to realize that all these years he’s gotten the story, his main story, completely wrong because he never did his homework?

My, my, how incurious and how almost willfully ignorant some people can be. Neither Jefferson, nor John Quincy Adams (see what he wrote about Islam), nor a real journalist – of the Peroncel Hugoz school – would have spent years of semi-retirement among those inherited Chinese vases in that Needham comfort, without at least beginning to read around in the relevant texts.

And along with Jennings and Greenway, this unholy trinity of the unlearned and unteachable should include the former New York Times correspondent in Israel, the languid Chris Hedges, the one who famously accused Israeli soldiers of "killing Palestinian boys for sport,” published a jejune account of his work that became a pacifist manifesto, based on the idea that everyone is exactly the same as everyone else, and War Is Always A Bad Thing. Now Hedges has been interviewing, still for The Times, the likes of – you may have guessed – Tariq Ramadan.

If the Times wonders why people are going to bloggers for information, perhaps it ought to begin with the likes of Chris Hedges. What are the reporters sent to the Middle East asked to learn in advance? Anything? Have they steeped themselves in Qur’an and hadith? No? Why not? Have they read anything about dhimmitude? No? Why not? How can one report on Iraq, on Israel, on Saudi Arabia, on Egypt, on Algeria, on the Sudan, without knowing what it is that Muslims are taught, endlessly, to believe and to act upon? If reporters do not know these things, then their reports on any Muslim country, or any clash between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Infidel world, are virtually worthless.

And the mention above the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya is one occasion when the newspapers cannot make sense of the meaning, for they do not explain what the whole thing is about – they can’t be bothered to learn about it themselves. Extraordinary.
The Dubai Conference described above points out another development that must disturb many Muslims. For now, when they address fellow Muslims, their words will be reported, or the proceedings filmed. Once upon a time they could be secure in their knowledge that Westerners would not pay much mind, and certainly not that they would study every word. MEMRI.org did not exist. Websites where people could easily retrieve the Qur’an and the most authoritative recensions of the hadith (Bukhari, Muslims) did not exist. Until a year or two or three ago, how many in the Western world were paying attention to Da’wa and demographic invasions? Who knew about dhimmitude? What sages were available to monitor Muslim demands, Muslim hostility, Muslim aggression world-wide? All that has changed, permanently. There may well be people who now come to this site who, in the fall of 2003, innocently went out and bought that little guide to nothing, Karen Armstrong’s meretricious “Islam,” or perhaps some picture-book by Esposito. How far you have come – you know in your own case. And you also know how important it is to educate others. This cannot be stopped; it can be slowed down, or hastened, depending on the resources available – but not stopped.
Everything now appears in the Arab-language press can be read, and translated, by Infidels. Everything that appears on Arab television can be seen, recorded, and translated by Infidels. Every picture of the mutilated body of a dead female shahid that appears in a magazine for “Palestinian” Arab children can circulate – does circulate – around the world. It is having its effect.
And that is why, when reporters in Dubai now see mention of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, it is important not merely for them to report its mention, but to explain what it means – what it portends, what connection it has to real treaties, now being negotiated or at least discussed.

Like Bin Laden in his last tape, offering a kind of hudna if only, only, people stop picking on him, the two “reverts” quoted above think it may be time, but of course only for a time, to cool it, perhaps even to put a brake on the more spectacular terrorist attacks because the Infidels are getting just a mite restless. They need to be lulled back into their previous attitudes, so that we, in turn, can continue to conduct Da’wa, continue to flow in unopposed to the Bilad al-kufr or Lands of the Infidels, and can really get our campaigns for “a Dialogue of Civilisations” (with lots of free trips to luxurious hotels in Morocco or Cairo, and the infinite pains we will take with our Infidel guests – those trips, with lots of other goodies thrown in, can do wonders for disarming grumpy would-be critics, and transforming them into promoters of that panacea, that dialogue of civilizations that is what the world needs now).

The operative sentence, the sentence which encapsulates the "war is deception" theme (see Bukhari, see Muslim) of Al-Hudaibiyya, is this by Hamza Yousef:
“There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion.”
Any newspaper or television that fails to report this story, and to emphasise that line, and what it means, or fails to take the occasion of this story to use it as a vehicle for educating its own reporters, and its audience, is irresponsible and guilty of monstrous malpractice. One more reason to give one’s loyalty, and one’s custom, to trustworthy, amusing, altogether winning Jihadwatch, and sites linked to it.

Yusuf Islam follows up: terrorism just isn’t the way to go, it’s not working out. And surely the right way is to get the same results through Da’wa, the Call to Islam, and precisely because those people in the West are "taught to keep an open mind." (Making it all the more easy for us). It is amazing to see the clear understanding of the mental freedom available to non-Muslims, being invoked by Muslims who wish, through the Da’wa that will take advantage of that very freedom, to in the end deprive those Infidels of that freedom, as they are either subjugated by, or “revert” to, Islam. Even these speakers recognize that Islam is a closed mental universe, that would never allow such spiritual freedom to its own adherents. They, after all, can be killed if they give signs of apostasy from Islam. It does not seem to bother them. What a primitive cult this cult must be.

Yusuf Hamza conveys the same message that Arafat, in other contexts, conveyed. At the moment, he explains, we have made the Infidels just a bit too wary, and they are a lot stronger still (we haven't yet undermined them sufficiently from within). But we all know that demography in Europe is on our side, that those fools will never limit our migrants, never dare to even hint at expelling us. So for now, we must "live like sheep,” but only to “live in the future like lions.” Now, Infidels, what do you think he means when he says we should “live like sheep” now, in order to "live like lions" later? You know exactly what it means, and it does not, for you, mean anything good.

The two Yusufs – Hamza and Islam – express in their own ways what is preached, to his followers, by the smiling, plausible, and most sinister conductor of Da’wa in the “decadent” West, that possible future Thoughtful Scholar in Residence at feckless Notre Dame – Tariq Ramadan.

An indispensable article."

[Posted by: Hugh at November 3, 2004 11:13 PM}

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 8:49 AM

None of this surprises me. I saw this same sort of arrogance against bible-believing Christianity when living in England. Folks who went to church, didn't even know what the Word of God said. If you actually read and believed the bible, you were labled "as dangerous as fundamentalist Islam" (Blunket said something to that effect). It's predictable from the scriptures that in the last days, Christians will suffer some persecution at the hands of non-believers (the world).

Jesus speaking...with some comments to clarify -

"When the world hates you, remember it hated me before it hated you.

The world would love you if you belonged to it (thought like it, acted like it), but you don't. I chose you to come out of the world (to be different from the world), and so it hates you.

(darkness hates light because it exposes evil deeds)

Do you remember what I told you? `A servant is not greater than the master.' Since they persecuted me, naturally they will persecute you. And if they had listened to me, they would listen to you!

The people of the world will hate you because you belong to me, for they don't know (have a relationship with or belong to) God who sent me.

Jhn 15:18 -21

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 9:08 AM

It's criminal that people like Hedges are getting rich on the bestsellers lists because they deal in revisionist spin and hyperbole, and yet I struggle to gain a meager following because I deal in simple truths.

Oh, well, nobody ever said this war was going to be easy or fair. Human conflict rarely ever is.

Posted by: Foehammer at March 8, 2007 9:24 AM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

He's right[smirk]. Us Christians are at war with America!!! Except its a spiritual war with the liberal disease that has infected the hearts & minds of our fellow citizens. It has weakened this Nation to the point where terrorists can arrive first class, be protected by hyper-sensitivity training & cries to not profile middle eastern type looking muslims. Us Christians fight the fight of faith first and foremost, not against flesh & blood...but the wicked principalities inspiring men into blood thirsty jihads.

BUT...

That is not the end of the story.

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as servants of God."
1st peter 2:13-16

Posted by: SoteriA at March 8, 2007 9:36 AM

Chris Hedges was on The Colbert Report (Comedy Central) about 2 weeks ago and lambasted Christians and Conservatives for vilifying Islam. It was so ridiculous. He reminds me in his appearance and mannerisms of a fat pompous twit in my senior social studies class at high school years ago. In every class where a discussion took place, he would demand that everyone agree with his position, no matter how ridiculous, and the teachers were intimidated by him. Everyone else disliked him and would not associate with him except for one or two sycophants.

Posted by: John Sobieski at March 8, 2007 9:36 AM

Hugh: a fine piece and thanks for reposting it.

Names names and points fingers right at these fools at the NYTimes.

(some of these fools might even be beginning to wake up by now - but they will be out on the street in any event when their duplicitous rag shut down. Then what will they say ?: "Yeah, I worked for that lefty commie Punchy Sulzberger for a gazillion years promoting darkness. Yeah, I really helped America defend itself.I dissed Israel and our military. I led a really useful life.")

Posted by: dgene at March 8, 2007 9:48 AM

Yes, well, don't be too concerned about this type of thing. Persecution to Christianity is like sun to a plant. It does nothing but produce beautiful flowers. The Church thrives in it. What destroys the Church is compromise and corruption. Here are the words of the great John Leland, Baptist pastor to some of the founding fathers, including Madsion and Jefferson:

"Be always jealous of your liberty, your rights,” he thundered. “Nip the first bud of intrusion on your Constitution…. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny the worst of despotism.”

"...persecution, inquisition and martyrdom all derive from one rotten nest-egg, which is always hatching vipers: I mean the principle of intruding the laws of men into the Kingdom of Christ.”

“The fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than persecutions ever did.”

“Persecution, like a lion, tears the saints to death, but leaves Christianity pure; state establishment of religion, like a bear, hugs the saints but corrupts Chris­tianity.”

***

And Alec de Tocqueville:

The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained the gradual decay of religious faith in a very simple manner. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail, the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused.

Unfortunately, facts are by no means in accordance with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equalled by their ignorance and their debasement, whilst in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world fulfils all the outward duties of religious fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; and I more especially sought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different persuasions, and who are more especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and I explained my doubts; I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone; and that they mainly attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separation of Church and State...

...In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity: cut but the bonds which restrain it, and that which is alive will rise once more. I know not what could restore the Christian Church of Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be the effect of human policy to leave the faith in the full exercise of the strength which it still retains."

Posted by: Kay at March 8, 2007 9:58 AM

Actions speak louder than words. We can see how intimidated the left is by fundamentalist Christian criticism; they're not intimidated at all; every criticism only stirs them to more lies and calumnies. How brave the left press is in face of these Christian "threats". Then notice their response to Islamicist pressure. Where was our brave, outspoken MSM during the Danish "cartoons of Mohammed" business? Oh, the wonders of a fatwad or two! Allah is mighty, indeed. He certainly shut up the MSM with the greatest of ease.
Then there's the line in the article about how Christian beliefs should not be permitted in the discussion of public affairs. But for the left that only works one way. Father Berrigan was a hero to the left for burning draft records, and the Maryknoll nuns likewise for supporting the Communist take-over of Nicaragua. Apparently their Christian beliefs were okay. But Christian fundamentalists demonstrating outside an abortion mill are bigots and cavemen; they should not be permitted; their beliefs are beyond the pale.
The MSM has become so completely two-faced on public matters that it's surprising they have any viewers or readers at all. I myself stopped watching TV news decades ago; and buy only the Sunday papers -- for the funnies and the grocery coupons.

Posted by: ebonystone at March 8, 2007 10:05 AM

"Alec de Tocqueville"
-- from a posting above

Only to his intimates. For you and me, it's "Alexis."

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 10:16 AM

Well said Kay. Very well said. Christianity has always grown more in times of adversity and persecution. In fact, it is stronger then, I would say, than at times like now when believers have become fat, happy and complacent.

My british spouse was astonished as were family and friends visiting from the UK at the freedom on radio and television to pray, to talk about Christian beliefs and to even say the name Jesus Christ.

Where we lived in England, members of our local CoE were not interested in the things of God. Only in MEMBERSHIP so that they could get to know the village members. SAD kind of little club. We walked in to a meeting one day - invited by our neighbors - carrying our bible - and they looked at us like we had 3 heads.

I imagine that there are indeed differences in the views of the various priests you spoke with. Just as there are SOME in the CoE who stand firm on the Word of God, whilst others (archbishop druid for instance) who are so lefty-liberal that anything and everything is okay.....to the point where they would even deny that Jesus was necessary for salvation to appeal to the lefty-liberal world that they so want to be accepted by.

I am astonished that there is recent talk of the CoE uniting with the Catholics. I would think that there would be great concern that the CoE/Anglicans are too far from the truth of the scriptures to be integrated.

I am not a catholic or protestant - just a bible-believing follower of Christ - so I have SOME disagreements with boths interpretations.

Whilst the pope publically stands against many things of which I agree fully, because they are biblically sound issues, the CoE only has a handful of Vicars (around 80) left in England that actually stand against those things - and they are poo pooed regularly by the pompus, arrogant anglican majority.

Our nation was founded by people who strongly believed in living for God. Separation of church and state was to avoid the very corruption you had in the CoE. It was never meant to remove the Godly faith out of the decisions of our leaders.

As time has gone by, our country (as the world) has become more secular - not attending church or not attending churches where the scriptures are taught and where there is accountability for one's lifestyle - and this in and of itself has removed faith from our leadership as well as our younger generation - the very ones that will be instrumental in making decisions in the near future.

As Believers, we have a duty to share the gospel when the Lord makes the opportunity available, (I'm not one who believes in door knocking) but the truth is going to be rejected much of the time - because people either do not want God or they want to create a God to suit their lifestyle. Think how many heard Jesus and still rejected his message (both religious leaders and religious citizens). Still, the message is not in any way to be a State religion or forced conversion by the sword.

After all, no matter how well someone pretends to be a believer - they may fool men, but God sees the heart and cannot be fooled. Forced conversion is not sincere conversion. If God wanted forced conversion, HE could put us ALL on our knees. He has given us free will. Will to follow or will to reject.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 10:20 AM

Thank you for this.

I had not heard of this book yet. And while there are some groups that push a 'dominion theology' that does sound scary, it is by no means the majority of Christians. (Nor are these sorts of things Biblical.)

But say that all these claims were true. None of these people or groups are advocating violence. And yet all Christians are lumped into one group and suddenly we are the bad guys to be feared. Meanwhile...

Posted by: Mo at March 8, 2007 10:24 AM

This guy is so frightened of the islamists he will throw Christians under the bus. However, it won’t stop there, his kind never do. So, if he were to get his way and destroy all Christians who will he and his gang turn on next? To these lefty’s hamburgers, tobacco and Christians are the enemy. Why, because a hamburger, tobacco or a Christian isn’t likely to cut your head off and enslave your family. Ah well, at least I can say I’m not a member of his gang, so I have that to be grateful for going forward.

Posted by: tgusa at March 8, 2007 10:42 AM

It is always easy for these so called secularists to pick on Christians, we are thought to turn the other cheek. They seem to give a wide berth around islam, but by God they can say anything about Christianity. Times are a changing, and l know many more are finding their roots and we dont give a damm what they say!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 8, 2007 10:43 AM

"He reminds me in his appearance and mannerisms of a fat pompous twit in my senior social studies class at high school years ago. In every class where a discussion took place, he would demand that everyone agree with his position, no matter how ridiculous, and the teachers were intimidated by him. Everyone else disliked him and would not associate with him except for one or two sycophants.

Posted by: John Sobieski """

Proves liberals are getting to kids at an earlier age. Not all of them, thank heavens, but a LOT of them.

I know of a young woman, (lived next door to her when she was growing up and was good friends with her mother and father) who used to go to a large university campus to witness to other young people at the age of 16. She was one of those young people that got saved and then got very active in her church.

She was also strong-willed and when she turned 18 did not want to follow her parent's rules - so kept moving in and out of her house her senior year.

Rather than go to college and live at home, she decided she wanted to be on her own at all costs. She joined the military. Unfortunately, she hated it because she could not do anything but obey people who gave her orders. She hated taking orders. I imagine this was worse in her eyes than having to obey a few rules on curfew that her parents set.

Anyway, she wanted out. Her solution? She got married, got pregnant, left the military, had an abortion immediately and dumped the guy. Remarried a guy she was having an affair with, had a child, dumped the child on the guy and then begged her parents to help her with legal expenses to get the child back - which they did successfully.

She used people to get up the ladder in life. She attended a university (very liberal in nature) whilst using a man who loved her and her child for a free place to live. Once she graduated, she dumped him.

She cut off her parents from her life and the life of her daughter and became a narcissistic liar - quite apparent to people who know her childhood but not to the new people who she met.

She manipulated people by creating a false past for their sympathy. Since she could not afford to be found out, she cut out all the people that knew her past from her life, including her siblings. She turned her back on people who loved her and helped her in her times of need. Mostly, she despised her parents who where Christians, even though they did not preach at her but only showed patience and love and tried to be understanding.

Liberalism became her faith and she would talk of tolerance but would show no tolerance for anyone that disagreed with her views. Much like the high school student above.

This is a small picture of the younger generation - a generation with no tolerance for God or for Christianity. The generation that will be instrumental to the future of this country.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 10:45 AM

By the way, this guy is not afraid of Christians donning bomb belts or throwing people under a bus.

This guys is someone who hates Christianity because when he is around a christian who is living differently, it makes him uncomfortable.

Adulterers like to hang with adulterers, drunks with drunks, etc, etc. It makes them feel okay for the way they are living - even though they know (conscience = with knowledge) that they are living wrong.

Used to be that people did their dirty deeds in the dark (behind closed doors), because such things were not accepted publically.

Now, they insist on having the RIGHT to do their dirty deeds publically, without condemnation, and with public acceptance! Still, they KNOW Christians do not believe the same things and their OWN guilty conscience condemns them.

So they hate Christians and feel the need to attack or belittle them publically.

That's it in a nutshell.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 10:53 AM

Hugh! You catch me every time!

My own personal spell checker, er, classics checker!

I'm so flattered!

Posted by: Kay at March 8, 2007 11:02 AM

Darling, there's more where that came from.

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 11:04 AM

The Goobs,
Smearing all of our youth with the same broad brush makes you sound just like the author of this book. I know for a fact that not all teachers follow in lock step with the lefty ideology. As a matter of fact schools vary in ideology from district to district. If you are drawing teachers from an area that is primarily left that is what you will get. A big fat nothing as far as real education goes. The schools in my area honor our vets, respect our cultures and traditions, they teach from a positive standpoint of America but we never hear about them. Go to an open house at a lefty school and you will find that the parents blindly follow the teachers, now try a district that shows pro Americanism and you will find that the parents scrutinize the teachers and the teachers are well aware of it. Want to find out about a school in your area, just get a hold of a reading list of recommended books and that will tell you much of what you need to know.

Posted by: tgusa at March 8, 2007 11:10 AM

Here I am as a Jew in the United States and I'm supposed to be afraid of Christian Evangelicals? And the many US Catholics who are also kindly disposed toward Jews and supportive of Israel when they can see crunch time coming with Islam?

No sale! My adversary is the same as Israel's. It all comes down do Muhammad and the grip he has on the minds of millions

Posted by: dennisw at March 8, 2007 11:17 AM

tgusa - you are right and I stand corrected. I did indeed sound like I was smearing all the youth in my comments above.

Let me just say that I also know of really wonderful young people who have been raised with godly values and morals. Many of them are home-schooled. Bright and intelligent and a real pleasure to be around. I just feel concerned that this kind of young person is rapidly becoming the minority both here in the US and in other parts of the world.

When I was a kid, we were raised to be patriotic and most of the kids I knew attended church. I grew up in the bible-belt. Right and wrong was black and white. Now everything seems to be put into the gray category.

When I was living in England, it was nothing to be sworn at if you asked a young person (say age 10) to pick up trash that you had witnessed him throwing on the sidewalk. When I was a kid, if an adult corrected me, I would never have been disrespectful to that adult. Things have changed.

I hope our moral, patriotic young people have the strength to stand against the liberalism and anti-Christian sentiment taught in the majority of our universities today. Unlike the girl I mentioned above.

I hope that they are able to be confident when they are belittled by peers for their faith. I hope they find the voice to speak the truth, even when they are in situations where they are the minority.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 11:33 AM

Would some evangelical "in the know" please email me the secret password/directions for the secret handshake/application for the secret decoder ring? I have looked all through my Southern Baptist membership papers, and I can't find the information. How am I going to prove my bone fides when the Christofascists take over?
Sure I have a few books in my house that might assist my cause. I think I can find one by James Dobson, but wouldn't Karl Marx cancel that out? And if anyone pulls my list of library loans, I'm doomed! I have a family. I have children. I don't want them to suffer in the coming Evangelical Inquisition.

I guess it was the Evangelicals turn. Two years ago, it was the Catholics. I was witness to a hysterical secularist fretting about the man selected as successor to John Paul II. What had her so concerned? That the new pope was a hardliner who would encourage persecution of Muslims in Catholic countries. And here I thought persecution of Christians (Catholics and otherwise) in Muslim countries was a more serious concern for the 21st century. Silly me.

Posted by: CJ at March 8, 2007 11:36 AM

As I mentioned at Hot Air when this posted, Hedges told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! a couple weeks ago that if the US went to war with Iran he would not pay his income taxes.

Send Hedges to prison: Bomb Iran!

Posted by: Drum at March 8, 2007 11:36 AM

P.S. My spouse is a teacher and is anything BUT left. Still, we know that disease spreads when it goes unchecked. We can hope that this type of costal liberalism does not spread into the flyover public school systems.

The girl I spoke of went to university in the heart of this country - it has already spread into the flyover universities.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 11:40 AM

The only '+tianist' literalist teaching I have a problem with is this one: "Love your enemy".

Which explains why so many churches and preachers kiss up to the Mohammedans. Time to develop interpretative methods that qualified the above to state that it only applies when the enemy isn't a bunch of genociadal sociopaths or cult entrappers.

For starters, state that it's taken out of context, whenever anybody tries applying it to Muslims.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 8, 2007 11:40 AM

"Would some evangelical "in the know" please email me the secret password/directions for the secret handshake/application for the secret decoder ring? Posted by CJ"

CJ, if you don't 'know' - then us secretitive, sneaky, secret handshaker, evangelicals can't tell you. If we told you, we'd have to throw you under a bus. he he he

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 11:44 AM

Infidel Pride

There are sheep and there are wolves. The wolves think the sheep are for shearing.

One should not become a wolf to get along in life.

Just become a smart sheep and don't let the wolves shear you.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 11:46 AM

The Goobs,
From what I see they have it backwards, you know its not reality that matters to these people it is the perception of reality that counts. I see a rude awakening in store for them in the future, eventually the lies will fall apart like a cheap suit. The kids I talk with today think of diversity as code for racism, after all they are not stupid. Yes it surprised me as well, they have obviously have been listening to the war being waged along those lines. It is a nasty little secret that the mmm wont tell you, children are curious and are often paying attention even if we don’t think that they are.

Give him a permanent vacation in his favorite islamist country before he gets some of us killed. Let him eat dates!

Posted by: tgusa at March 8, 2007 11:51 AM

When the so-called "Christian fascists" start up a daily worldwide body count that looks anything like what the Islamofascists are perpetrating, I'll be glad to listen to what the anti-Christian left has to say on this subject. Comparing a fringe group of radical Christians and saying they're "just as dangerous" as the Islamists is just madness, plain and simple. I'm not a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, or a follower of any other particular religion, but it's clear as day to me what the real threat in this world is. Figuring this one out should be as simple as browsing through these lists and the one I linked to above.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

Posted by: staff_of_magius at March 8, 2007 11:54 AM

It both saddens and angers me when evil is called good and good called evil.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 8, 2007 12:01 PM

Personally, I would be happy if everyone could get rid of their superstitions.
I look forward to the day when Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the rest find their proper place in the textbooks beside the pantheons of Greece and Rome.

Posted by: give me doughnuts at March 8, 2007 12:28 PM

This book comes out at a time when the global south is going through a booming time in growth in adding new members.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 8, 2007 12:31 PM

give me doughnuts,

"Personally, I would be happy if everyone could get rid of their superstitions.
I look forward to the day when Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the rest find their proper place in the textbooks beside the pantheons of Greece and Rome."

Never will happen.

So as long as there is people, and the need to believe beyond themselves then there will be faith.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 8, 2007 12:35 PM

You bet, I have always dreamed of a world where everyone thinks alike! Kinda like the movie Logan’s Run(I’m a Loganite). We can all dress the same, think the same, we can all gather around the simulated campfire at night and eat the same foods, (probably some type of multi colored biscuits) Yes, what a wonderful world it would be.

Posted by: tgusa at March 8, 2007 12:41 PM

Mr. Doughnut,
All religions are not "superstition". Events prophesied in the Bible twenty five centuries ago are being fullfilled daily, some to the predicted DAY. The proof of the Bible's authority is in its prophesies. Education in it will save us! We are not battling people, but principalities!

Posted by: fedupinamerica at March 8, 2007 12:41 PM

Hugh

"Only to his intimates. For you and me, it's "Alexis."

No, not even to his intimates. "Alec" as a nickname is nonexistant in French, as I'm sure you know, and impossible sounding--can you imagine him being addressed by his maitresse: "Mon Alec, voulez vous un peu de vin?"

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 8, 2007 12:44 PM

fedupinamerica, you're comments are true, but it's more convenient for non-believers to say there is no God or worse try to stradle the fence by creating a god (whatever invention that might be) that will suit their sins/ungodly lifestyle.

A dead person cannot raise themselves from the dead. Neither can a spiritually dead person. You might be able to reason with them - the truth of prophesy in the Scriptures, but if they harden their heart and choose to deny God, God will allow them to do it.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 12:53 PM

It should not be surprising that leftists have no idea what labels they put on people.

Christians are not fascists in any way literally:

Christians do not believe in socialism which is the main spoke of fascism.

Christians do not believe in government control of anything and that is what fascists gain power from.

Christians are what created America in being rugged individuals, free trade Adam Smith proponents and moralists who believe in God first and allegeance to their nation and respect for leaders.

The correct title should have been.

THE AMERICANS ARE COMING.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 8, 2007 12:55 PM

P.S. Some try to lump all faith together to justify having no faith - or living a lifestyle that suits their desires rather than living a lifestyle pleasing to the God who created them.

They are only fooling themselves.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 12:56 PM

ovidius naso--

Mrs. Fawlty: "I know, I know."

And you no doubt recall that Gobineau (see the Correspondance) once tried to address him as "mon petit chou-chou" and for some reason De Tocqueville took offense.

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 1:15 PM

give me doughnuts

Why is your “superstitions” exempt?

Posted by: BurgerBoy at March 8, 2007 1:28 PM

Hugh et al:

When he and I used to go out for beers, I always called him "Al."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 8, 2007 1:33 PM

Don't you remember, Robert? I was with both you that night at the table down at Morey's, when to something A. de T. said you replied "you know me, Al." I remember how taken aback I was at your taking such liberties, but he, that old-fashioned liberal, didn't miss a beat.

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 1:45 PM

Hugh

Al was always so gracious. He even paid for the cab that night.

I didn't have no idea that anything like that was coming off. For five minutes I was just dum and couldn't say a word.

Yrs
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 8, 2007 1:49 PM

Goobs,

There are sheep and there are wolves. The wolves think the sheep are for shearing.

One should not become a wolf to get along in life.

Just become a smart sheep and don't let the wolves shear you.

There's a third kind - sheep dogs a.k.a. guard dogs. That category includes most of us here.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 8, 2007 1:55 PM

Robert & Hugh,
Okay, WHAT are you two talking about?

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 8, 2007 2:02 PM

Goobs - check out this excellent Bill Whittle essay entitled Tribes

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html

An excerpt:

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 8, 2007 2:04 PM

Anne--

I hate to say this, you being a girl and all, but:

"'Shut up,' he explained."

Posted by: Hugh at March 8, 2007 2:06 PM

Well Hugh I will be home in a few days and we will have some of the good old times. Regards to all the boys and tell them I am still their pal and not all swelled up over this big league business.

Yrs
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 8, 2007 2:09 PM

Funny how voting with a conscience is seen as criminal while voting without one is just hunky dorey.
Communists and Socialists are natural Allies of Islam. The common thread between them all is the Missery they enforce on everybody.

The trouble with Fundimentilist Christians is they are not unaware of what Islam means.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 8, 2007 2:10 PM

Robert, I don't know much about this particular pastor (Rev Grant), but I don't think your line of argument is especially compelling here.

The quote from Grant does indeed sound awful to me:

"Christians have an obligation... a holy responsibility ... to have dominion in the civil structures... It is dominion we are after."

Is anyone OK with that?

And what gets him off the hook in this piece?

1) "Grant himself denies this." Well, how many Jihadists have you caught saying awful things in one setting who then "deny" it when pressed in another setting.. That's sufficient?

2) ..."Calling himself an ardent defender of the 1st amendment." Again, how many Jihadists and Jihadist sympathizers in America cite the 1st amendment to justify saying and espousing supremacist speech? It happens over and over...

3) ..."An opponent of state churches." If this statement is true, it certainly seems to contradict his statement about dominion above. How many Jihadists contradict themselves? Does that get them off the hook?

To be clear, I'm not concerned about Christianism, nor should anyone else, but for any one case, "denial" is not sufficient for innocence. Yassir Arafat, anyone?

Posted by: kamala at March 8, 2007 3:12 PM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses, point taken.

It's good to point out that there are some, even if they do not claim a particular belief, that still believe in protecting the rights of those who do.

Also, it is good to know that the 'sheep-guard-dogs', love this country and want to protect it from evil.

As a wise sheep, I thank you.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 3:16 PM

Kamala

Arafat was a dissembler, yes, but Osama isn't. Bakri isn't. Abu Hamza speaks plainly. So does Abu Bakar Bashir. Mukhlas Imron. The late Zarqawi. The late Basayev. Etc. etc. etc. Where is the equivalent among Christians?

I do take Grant's denial at face value because it doesn't contradict his actions. The jihadists who do issue denials contradict them by their actions. The one quote from Grant seems damning, but it isn't borne out by anything else in his work or his acts.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 8, 2007 3:18 PM

Goobs - since you're here you're a guard dog too. You're scanning the tree line for wolves and nipping at the sheep to warn them about the wool in their ears.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 8, 2007 3:21 PM

To be clear, I'm not concerned about Christianism, nor should anyone else, but for any one case, "denial" is not sufficient for innocence. Yassir Arafat, anyone?

Posted by: kamala ""

Kamala, when you hear of Christians cutting off heads unless people convert, or blowing up innocent folks in cafes or tieing bomb belts to their kids, THEN you will have cause to question their denial.

Please, do not attempt to lump Christians that believe they should make an attempt to participate in this government and influence it in a positive way - to the likes of Arafat the terrorist.

A Christian is a citizen of heaven, and should be living according to the love that Christ taught. I can't find any evidence in scripture where it shows that Jesus was political - and we are to be christ-like. He told us to give to Caesar what belonged to Caesar and to give to God what belonged to God.

This was quoted above:

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as servants of God."

So, as Believers, this is what we are told to do. Quite a contrast from Islam's agenda.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 3:29 PM

The Goobs, it sure is ironic that you wrote:

Please, do not attempt to lump Christians that believe they should make an attempt to participate in this government and influence it in a positive way

while the worrisome quote from Grant is explicit: "It is dominion we are after. Not just influence."

Again, it's the quote itself that concerned me, and I wanted to point out that denial alone is not enough. I think the key point Robert made in the post above, that the quote "isn't borne out by anything else in his work or his acts" is the critical point I think should have been emphasized in the hot air piece (vs. denial).

And yes Robert, many Islamists tell the truth, but many don't. Take the entire org chart of CAIR, for example. (I wasn't trying to argue there are any Christians in Bin Laden's league.)

Posted by: kamala at March 8, 2007 3:50 PM

Hey, why not just call the book "The Protocols of the Elders of Christian Fundamentalism"?

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at March 8, 2007 4:38 PM

"You bet, I have always dreamed of a world where everyone thinks alike! Kinda like the movie Logan’s Run(I’m a Loganite). We can all dress the same, think the same, we can all gather around the simulated campfire at night and eat the same foods, (probably some type of multi colored biscuits) Yes, what a wonderful world it would be.

Posted by: tgusa ""

....be wary if the food packaging says "soylent green"....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 8, 2007 4:53 PM

"Wait! Stop! To Serve Man is a cookbook!"

From a black & white Twilight Zone but it's the allegory of a person in dar al-Harb finally reading and understanding what's in the Qur'an.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 8, 2007 5:59 PM

kamala,

[Your quote of Grant:] "Christians have an obligation... a holy responsibility ... to have dominion in the civil structures... It is dominion we are after."

What does Grant deny? That he made the statement? Or that he and the Christians he thinks he speaks for want dominion over the civil structures? If it's the former, it should be possible to expose his denial as a lie, or verify its truth. If it's the latter, it would seem he is at least caught in a contradiction, and one would seek further clarification from him to see if he is prevaricating in a manner unseemly for anyone who values honesty. So I agree with you that the matter is not settled by Grant's mere denial.

Posted by: remote_control at March 8, 2007 6:01 PM

I wonder what George Washington would have thought. Should we accuse him of being like a terrorist, because he made decisions on how our country should be set up - based on his understanding of the scriptures and his Christian faith?

Please understand that I do not agree with Grant, in that I personally do not feel that it is our "holy responsibility" as servants of Christ to rule the civil structures. As I said earlier, our responsibility is to live peacefully, to SUBMIT to every human institution (clarified above) and to live in a christ-like manner. The scriptures tell us that God puts kings and rulers in authority.

However, if you are already in a position of leadership - then you should try to make decisions that are pleasing to the Lord - rather than worrying about pleasing men.

Our nation was based on Christian values. This is precisely why non-believers and other faiths prospered and lived peacefully here.

Posted by: The Goobs at March 8, 2007 6:18 PM

I love how the ones opposed to Christ in public life claim to be Christians.
So many have been to "seminary", a lot of these "seminaries" no longer preach the Word of God.
2 Timothy 3

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 8, 2007 7:28 PM

Anne, they are making fun of my misnaming Alexis de Tocquville. Uh, I mean my typo, you know.

Don't pay any attention to Hugh when he talks like that, he is a shameless flirt.

Darling, ha!

Posted by: Kay at March 8, 2007 11:14 PM

This is what you need to tell Hugh, Anne, my dear:

"I ain't got no time to waste on no bushers."

Posted by: Kay at March 9, 2007 12:05 AM

Sadly, Christianity has authority figures who forget that the Kingdom of Heaven is not here on this crazy planet. Though he may not call for violent means of dominion like Bin Laden and company does, I don't like his quote. Nevertheless, me thinks he doesn't have much influence among leaders in DC.

Also, I think this should be said. We don't know whether the so-called Christian Right will become a threat like Islam but that doesn't matter. We need to focus on the real threat now. If (perhaps when) the "Christianists" (what a mind numbingly stupid term, just as bad as Islamist) become a threat, then we can deal with that. They won't. I doubt it. Christians on the whole are sheeps. They love God and are fine with their country's laws.

Posted by: wrathofasma at March 9, 2007 12:38 AM

Something I forgot

Thank you to the poster who posted the sheep and sheepdog quote. Really liked that. I wish I were brave enough to be a sheepdog. I'm studying to be a nurse. That of course is a tough job which nobody wants to do. I wonder if nurses are only one step behind the sheepdogs.

Posted by: wrathofasma at March 9, 2007 1:00 AM

Looking at that video, I agree with Kamala and Remote. Just because Grant has never done any terror acts of his own doesn't mean that his denial should be taken at face value. A more charitable explanation might have been had he stated that by dominion, he meant people of (his) faith trumping the secular progressives like the ACLU at every turn, but in the absense of that, just issuing a mere denial hardly constitutes what one might consider irrefutable proof.

That said, I agree with the main theme of Robert's argument that there's a world of difference between Islamic vs. 'Christianist' threats.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 9, 2007 2:58 AM

After the libs and the Muslim invaders, I am actually GRATEFUL for Christian "fascists!"

Posted by: pythagoras at March 9, 2007 6:02 PM