Now, let's give this some thought. Start with Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative who believes in the aforementioned principles, but who has also admitted to spending his college years in his dorm room frying squirrels in a pop-corn maker.
Okay, so you start with some hard and fast truths, you add in some barbaric culinary practices, and before you know it, you're beheading infidels and putting Osama Bin Laden on speed-dial. It's a slippery slope that conservatives need to watch out for.

Posted by: jewdog at January 17, 2008 8:57 PM

Does this mean that all the left wing nuts, like Carter, are in truth conservatives?

The problem is very simple:

People don't understand what Islam is all about.

Many liberals, conservatives, and moderates don't get it. It is a problem that is independent of the person's political beliefs and values.

If you get it....you would not want to build bridges, give money, reconstruct, fight for, give land, or anything else that might help the expansion of Islam, until that civilization comes into the modern world.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 17, 2008 9:03 PM

Methinks there isn't much difference between bible- thumpers, born-agains, and fundamental Muslims. They all think there's is the only way to salvation.

Posted by: spartanoak at January 17, 2008 9:14 PM

" Methinks there isn't much difference between bible-thumpers, born agains,and fundamental muslims"
spartanoak

Please tell me how many Christians of any stripe are involved in murders of those they don't agree with. You have made an outrageous statement that I am challenging you to back up with facts. Back it up or withdraw the statement...or be the fool you appear to be.

Posted by: pismopal at January 17, 2008 9:27 PM

Better, far better, to be a biblical literalist than a quranic literalist--there are rational, consistent ethical norms--e.g., The Golden Rule--in one, irrational, arbitrary, ethically relative norms inthe other.

Even so, I must say, that neither text, revealed or not, Descended from The Clouds Already Bound and Printed, nor can salvation--if truly a universal message--be TOO dependent on literacy and the art of printing. We must factor in human agency in discerning, preserving, and transmitting Divine revelation; and in understanding and applying it.

Posted by: John C at January 17, 2008 9:33 PM

Better, far better, to be a biblical literalist than a quranic literalist--there are rational, consistent ethical norms--e.g., The Golden Rule--in one; irrational, arbitrary, ethically relative norms in the other.

Even so, I must say, that neither text, revealed or not, Descended from The Clouds Already Bound and Printed, nor can salvation--if truly a universal message--be TOO dependent on literacy and the art of printing. We must factor in human agency in discerning, preserving, and transmitting Divine revelation; and in understanding and applying it.

Posted by: John C at January 17, 2008 9:34 PM

I think DD simply pushed his culture war theme too far, finding in it an untenable (because solipsistic and thus narcissistic) explanation for the behavior of others. I can sympathize with Muslim parents wishing to protect their children from the detritus of western decadence; if I had kids I’d anguish over it. And I can sympathize with people from traditional cultures facing a modern world their cultures do not equip them to deal with. But the thought has never entered my head to kill anyone –let alone any random strangers—over it. Such behavior has its source and inspiration in Islam itself, and in the vain hope that psychotic acts will somehow help to cleanse the earth.

Posted by: Darryl Harb at January 17, 2008 9:42 PM

I am a conservative Christian and I would respectfully ask Andrew Sullivan to look at the founder of my faith The Lord Jesus Christ of "'Don't hit back at all.' If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. " Mathew 5:9 and "The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone." (John 8:7) fame, with founder of the Islamic faith Muhammad Strike terror in the hearts of the infidels (cf. Qur'an 8:60)? ... to kill and be killed, and thereby enter Paradise (cf. Qur'an 9:111).

Moral equivalence is just a divisive deception; there are no equivalent scriptures or texts to back it up at all.

I used to be filled with the same fevered hatred of Christians that burdens Andrew Sullivan, I'd spit in their faces and they would stand there and pray for me. You can't fight unconditional love, not when you know they have got something you desperately want: peace.

There’s that word 'peace' - Christianity is the religion of peace alright. Oh and I want more of it.

Posted by: LivingVictory at January 17, 2008 10:06 PM

"Does this mean that all the left wing nuts, like Carter, are in truth conservatives?

The problem is very simple:

People don't understand what Islam is all about.

Many liberals, conservatives, and moderates don't get it. It is a problem that is independent of the person's political beliefs and values.

If you get it....you would not want to build bridges, give money, reconstruct, fight for, give land, or anything else that might help the expansion of Islam, until that civilization comes into the modern world."

Outstanding comment, greatcometof1577. Anyway you slice and dice this nonsense, it really comes down to the lack of knowledge and understanding of Islamic scripture and theology. There is no other explanation.

I'm not a literalist Christian, by the way, as most of us Roman Catholics are not, but I don't know of ANY literalists (and I know quite a few) who fit Mr. Sullivan's stereotypes. Plus, unanimously, they are against Islam for all the right reasons. It never ceases to amaze me that these media and government elites, who were educated at the top tier schools, continue to bring out the tired old arguments that have been definitively debunked so many times that they are beyond repair. That tells me that intellectual sloth tends to show up rather often among these people. Andrew Sullivan still thinks Christianity is the greater threat to his gay **s than is Islam, and so he just has to use the moral equivalency argument. And they use it because the know that they are not going to get any favorable legislation from the party that tends to have more of a focus on national security (despite the lacunae in its own understanding of Islam). Andrew Sullivan thinks militant jihad is not a threat at all to his lifestyle. Well, he's imitating the ostrich.

That's his agenda. Liberals/Leftists run the gamut from the very few who would confront jihad to the very many who would either appease it or ignore it entirely.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 17, 2008 10:08 PM

I've read variations on the Christianist argument a million times. It's typical sloppy thinking which leads to (idiotic) conclusions like the Quakers are pretty much like the Spartans, or here that ordinary Christians are one interfaith meeting away from joining Osama Bin Laden.

Not that people can be reasoned out of such a position without teaching them world history and working your way up from there, but...

When Christians tried to emulate the life of Jesus they created monasticism. When Muslims emulate Mohammed they wage jihad for Allah to expand the power of Islam.

The only time Christians every created anything like jihadis they became monastic knights: Hospitaller, Templar, Teutonic, and so on. Not current events needless to say, and hardly an exact comparison. For one thing, those who killed were merely forgiven, not promised the most luxurious abode in paradise.

Posted by: Beagle at January 17, 2008 10:09 PM

Islam, to its true believers, is a religion and a civil code. The Quran is considered as the infallible word of God. A good Muslim has to take it as a hole without doubting any word in it. In the Qoran there are good teachings as well as incitements for violence especially against those who do not share the Belief.
Christianity is based on the new testament which emphasizes at the complete separation of the heavenly and the mundane . No fanatic Christian would be able to find a verse in the Gospels that can justify any act of violence. Osama bin laden and his likes do not hesitate to state verses from the Quran to support their barbaric actions.
This is why no matter how fundamentalist a Christian is he does not have the ideological ammunition to commit any inhumane acts in the name of God.

Posted by: Ali moughanni at January 17, 2008 10:20 PM

A good Muslim has to take it as a hole

Don't we wish...

Posted by: kamala at January 17, 2008 10:30 PM

"Better, far better, to be a biblical literalist than a quranic literalist--there are rational, consistent ethical norms--e.g., The Golden Rule--in one, irrational, arbitrary, ethically relative norms inthe other."

I'm not so sure. There are some things in the Bible that I wouldn't like to see taken literally. As a woman, I have issues with certain Pauline doctrines, for example.

Then, too, there are harsh punishments prescribed for transgressors of the laws. A Biblically inspired stoning is just as bloody and ugly as one inspired by the Qur'an.

No, I'm not an apologist. The reason Judeo Christian societies are more humane than Islamic ones is because we don't do that, anymore. There are some things that should be left to God, and we realize this, in the West.

As you noted, John C, neither book descended from the clouds. Biblical literalists would do very well to remember that many documents were considered and rejected by mortal men, for inclusion or exclusion in the Bible.

Posted by: Abscedere at January 17, 2008 10:34 PM

Maybe some of the signers of this manifesto would like to come to my house, and explain Revelation to me, since they find it (the Bible) to be the "clearest verbal picture of reality that has ever come into the hands of mankind."

I'm still new to Christianity, but I have to say--Revelation reads as though John dropped acid, before he took up his quill.

Posted by: Abscedere at January 17, 2008 10:47 PM

I have to admit, as an agnostic, that if I had a choice between saving a Christian or a Muslim from falling off a cliff, and knowing nothing else about either of them, I would be inclined to save the Christian.

The Christian would have no problem inviting me to dinner, meeting his wife and children and might even serve up a fine smoked ham.

Posted by: USBeast at January 17, 2008 11:13 PM

Abscendere

Have you read many news stories about biblically-inspired stonings recently? Human rights groups release anything you'd like us to read?

Posted by: Beagle at January 17, 2008 11:16 PM

That manifesto reads like someone with a messiah complex wrote it.
To an atheist, this is a whole lot to do about nothing, and laughable, if not for the serious implications.

Posted by: duh_swami at January 17, 2008 11:48 PM

Abscedere, American Protestant Evangelism that deems 1000 years of Christendom between the death of the last Apostle and Martin Luther to be a Black Hole in history, is not the only Christianity, contrary to the postings of many.

Posted by: cantor at January 17, 2008 11:49 PM

I don't know why more Christians don't point out this obviously glaring difference between Christianity and Islam, concerning judgment & dealing with each group's perspective of "wickedness - sin - corrupt behavior"...in how each set of believers relate & respond accordingly.

Christians are not commanded in any way what so ever step into the role of executing final judgment upon those who have a lifestyle of "wickedness [as defined in the bible], and further more Christians are commanded not even seek vengeance when wickedness is done unto them. "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I will repay" [Romans 12:19-20] to "do good unto those who insult & persecute you" to "pray for your enemies"[Matthew 5:44]...the bible is quite clear concerning this.

On the other side the Quran sure seems to hand Muslims the sword to strike against "the enemies of Allah"...

"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:5

And the actions of fundamentalist Muslims sure agree with this over and over almost every single day on this planet.

Posted by: SoteriA at January 18, 2008 12:06 AM

LOL, Andrew Sullivan.

"nuff said.

Posted by: awake at January 18, 2008 12:14 AM

Sully is just spouting what most liberals think.

That said this is Sully we're talking about not some bastion of rationality and learning.

Posted by: waltc at January 18, 2008 12:24 AM

abscedere

I can understand your initial reaction to the Apocalypse, also known as 'Revelations'.

However: to understand the literary genre that John is using - and it *is* an established form - just read Ezekiel and Daniel. Both are books written - like John's - by a person and a community that had been through terrible times and was still facing terrible times. You may also find it helpful to compare the final words of 2 Chronicles 36, with the words of Revelations 22: 17. 2 Chronicles comes last in the Jewish Bible; so the invitation to 'come' to Jerusalem, at the end of Revelations, parallels the call to 'go up' to Jerusalem from exile, at the end of the Jewish Bible.

Furthermore: much in Revelations must be understood figuratively - for example, Revelations 12: 1-5 has to be read side by side with the gospels (read Matthew 1 and 2, Luke 1 and 2. then jump straight to the Passion and Resurrection accounts); the events of verses 6-17 are best understood as referring, in dramatic, poetic terms, to the massive assaults both upon the Jews in Israel, and upon the church, which had taken place by the time John wrote the book, and were in fact still happening.

Despite the strangeness and violence of much of 'Revelations', what stands out to me, in light of the discussion taking place on this thread - comparison of Islam with Christianity - is that John's vision of the final goal, of 'heaven', of redemption, is radically different from that presented in Islam.

Running right through John's book - from the 'letters' in chapters 2-3, to the climactic vision in Chapter 22 - is the theme that the heart's desire of the believer, the whole end and meaning of human life, is intimacy with God.

Chapter 3: 20 - 'behold, I [Jesus] stand at the door and knock (cf Song of Songs 5: 2-5?); if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne".

Chapter 22: 4 - "And THEY SHALL SEE HIS FACE".

No Muslim would dare to even imagine such a possibility, let alone think of it as desirable!

Much ribald fun is made by some commenters, here at jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch, of the Muslim idea of the afterlife as an endless orgy with '72 virgins', the high-breasted houri sex-angels and the pearly little boys. Others find Mohammed's idea of 'heaven-as-five-star-brothel' frankly shocking.

Ten thousand times more shocking, to any pious Muslim, is John's - and, so, the church's - vision of total human intimacy, friendship and closeness with God Himself, conceived of in such down-to-earth imagery as that of opening the door to a friend, dining with them, looking into their eyes.

A Muslim dreams of the erotic embrace of a houri.

A Christian longs simply to look in the face of...GOD.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 18, 2008 1:01 AM

Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul. That should say it all.

Posted by: Cornelius at January 18, 2008 1:15 AM

Yes. It does.

Posted by: Hugh at January 18, 2008 1:51 AM

Speaking of the erotic embrace of houri, is Andrew a top or a bottom? He seems to define himself by his uncontrollable sexual urges, too, so this is a valid question. (sarcasm)

Posted by: Bingo at January 18, 2008 1:57 AM

Andrew Sullivan is a gay man who has an ax to grind against Christianity because the majority Christian churches around the world view homosexuality as a sin.

Andrew enjoys trashing Christianity whenever he gets the chance.

Andrew Sullivan is not much of an intellectual.

I don't take him seriously.

Posted by: Johnathan at January 18, 2008 2:03 AM

Hello Mr. Spencer,
I have read your writings regularly in Human Events and truly appreciate all your efforts.
I am a long time subscriber to Human Events, and am looking forward to more of your work there,and now here at Jihad Watch.
God bless.
JagmanJagman

Posted by: JagmanJagman at January 18, 2008 2:09 AM

"A Christian longs simply to look in the face of...GOD."

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

Exactly!

Posted by: champ at January 18, 2008 2:54 AM

These liberal 'progressives' resemble a mental cesspool...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 18, 2008 3:28 AM

With the exception of one or two nutters at the extreme fringes of fundamental Christianity, they don't advocate killing homosexuals.

Mainstream Islam does advocate death. We have had several "moderate" Imams advocating just that.

Perhaps Andrew Sullivan should consider that.

Or do dead gay Muslims not count?

Posted by: Celsius at January 18, 2008 4:43 AM

I am a conservative Roman Catholic (Think polar opposite of the “Cape-Cod Orca.”) and because no respect is due, Andy is a bitter hate-mongering ass.

ass: A vain, self-important, silly or aggressively stupid person - American Heritage.

In your case, change "or" to "and".

Hey Andy, have you picked up Andres Serrano’s latest coffee table book?

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 18, 2008 5:00 AM

Excuse me for the re-write - but I can see where he has come from and gone to ...

"We affirm that this Allah/Mohammed given [God-inspired], inerrant Koran [Bible] is the only absolute, objective, final test for all truth claims, and the clearest verbal picture of reality that has ever come into the hands of mankind. By it, and it alone, are all philosophies, books, values, actions, and plans to be measured as to their consistency with reality, visible and invisible. Whatever statements or values are in opposition to the statements and values of the Koran [Bible] err to the degree of their opposition...

We affirm that the Jihad [Great Commission] is a mandate by Allah/Mohammed [our Lord] to go forth into all the world and make Sharia [Bible-obeying] disciples of all nations. Getting men's souls saved is only a preliminary part of fulfilling the Jihad [Great Commission]. Our work is incomplete unless we teach them to obey all Allah/Mohammed [He] commanded. The words of the Lord's prayer for Allah's [God's] will to "be done on earth as it is in heaven" are another way to state the essence of the same Jihad [Great Commission]...

We affirm that all true believers in the Koran [Bible-believing Christians] must take a non-neutral stance in opposing, praying against, and speaking against social moral evils such as the following… B. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality and other forms of sexual perversion."

I guess Robert could supply the correct Arabic words and translations for the bits I fudged - but you get the picture ..

Posted by: drk at January 18, 2008 5:20 AM

You know,I dont know why any conservative web sites stil link to Andrew Sullivan these days.....

Siljander deserves to get his arse kicked really hard......

how on earth can any Christian find any common ground with Islam is beyond me.

Posted by: Joe Bananas in Pajamas at January 18, 2008 5:37 AM

Islam is a mutual extermination society. There exists no Muslim sect wherein jihad-robots view less than 70% of claimed muslims, as anything but apostates. Do they respect freedom of conscience? See for yourself:

http://www.4shared.com/file/16326431/7c9c024a/False_Religions.html

Posted by: supercargo at January 18, 2008 6:43 AM

I think it's absolutely clear that Islam currently holds the world record for religious abuse, with its holy book quoted from here to the next market bombing and honor killing.

And that is a unique problem. And (at least I think) it makes it by far the most problematic religion on the planet at present.

But it actually points to a more basic and dangerous problem that is the source of ALL problems FUNDAMENTALIST religion presents culture.

If you define fundamentalism as the belief that you or the holy book you have or the even the DOCTRINES that you have are perfectly true, making assailing them or questioning them or doubting them a failure on the part of the believer, that is the core problem.

Because if that's what you think, then by the placement of DOCTRINE you can do whatever you want. You can go to war, declare homosexuals sinners, disenfranchise women, etc.

Suddenly then, every word that came through any prophet becomes something you can use against another human being. These unassailable verses then are crafted into DOCTRINES that priests of whatever sort imbue with the same infallability you've ascribed to the scriptures. Thus a Pope can write a book like the Malleus Maleficarum, and claim by the INFALLABILITY invested in him by the DOCTRINE that scriptures somehow grant him this and then carry out a war against women, the least threatening and most vulnerable group in any culture.

The truth is that the DOCTRINES of the world's religions were all crafted by heterosexual men and contain the means of retaining their supremacy. The ones having to do with the suppression and spiritual disenfranchisement of women are legendary, which is why only in the 20th century (since ancient times, that is) do you find that women are allowed into the FULL priesthoods of .0001% of the world's religiou orders. We're not counting the abbesses of convents who still have to answer to some guy.

Homosexuals, peoples of some races, and all women are accustomed to these disenfranchisements, and they ANGRY about it. And that's where I think Andrew Sullivan is at. And that's why I think he makes a mistake in this regard in lumping all religion together. And perhaps for many it's tempting to simply do as drk has done above: change the words above and see if they fly. Unfortunately, they actually do, because on balance a FUNDAMENTALIST MIND IS A FUNDAMENTALIST MIND, AND WHETHER THAT TURNS INTO DISENFRANCHISING ACTION IS USUALLY DETERMINED BY WHETHER THE GROUP IS IN PRIMARY AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

For example, if fundamentalist Christians had 90% of the vote in this country, would homosexuals be allowed to teach schools? No, they wouldn't.

About women, I think the problem is absolutely self-evident: all religion, save perhaps Reform Judaism and some very liberal Protestant sects (which I disagree with for other reasons) disenfranchise both women and homosexuals. The DOCTRINES used to do this vary and some of them are ridiculously mind-twisting. For example, based on the fact that Jesus was a man last time, some sects claim that Christ MUST be a man NEXT time. Why? Makes no sense at all: If God chose to have a virgin birth last time, He can do it again, making the contribution of MEN unnecessary; and if he wanted to make the re-emergence of Christ a woman, he could certainly do that as well.

But on the basis of some form of "mold" that God "supposedly" made last time, these sects maintain a disenfranchisement of women by means of their barring from the ministry - even making it illegal for them to enter certain parts of the sanctuary!! - on the basis of Jesus' being a man. AND they refuse to allow birth control, which the world desperately needs, especially those in the Third World, on the basis that the next Christ would be the son of a living man rather than a virgin birth.

And this is where the lack of consistency really starts to show. Using the "mold" of the last time it happened to set the status of women in stone, they ignore the fact that men weren't necessary for that occurrence at all.

So the fact they are making INCONSISTENT DOCTRINAL CHOICES that favor men is just patently obvious.

Further, it's clear from the way the species has ALWAYS been that homosexuality is completely normal. And now -- BAD NEWS FOR THE HETERO PATRIARCHY -- there's solid scientific evidence of how it happens, and some really good implications about why:

A recent study of 15,000 Israeli women and their children found this:

The 1st MALE child of any woman will almost certainly be heterosexual.

The 2nd MALE child of any woman will probably be heterosexual.

The 3rd MALE child of any woman stands a little better than even chance of being gay.

The 4th MALE child of any woman will probably be gay.

The 5th MALE child of any woman will almost certainly be gay.

Sperm determines GENDER; but birth order of the mother determines SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

This makes it very much more likely, of course, that boys born in families with many, many children will turn out to be gay than in families that use birth control and limit children to one or two.

Why would this happen? Well, if defined cultural groups have too many children, it's good if the excess don't all run have a whole bunch of children, because if they do, they'll be extinct in 50 years from overpopulation.

Also, if excess male (and female, too, though no studies have been done on female birth order yet) population doesn't spend all its time growing enough crops to feed a huge family, the culture then has excess mental and physical capital to improve its function.

This is just one kind of issue confronting the DOCTRINAL INFALLABILITY with which priests and imams invest themselves -- and always have invested themselves.

The fact that Christianity does not weight its doctrine with scripture does not make the January 1st invective by Pope Benedict against homosexuals any less disenfranchising, socially damaging, and threatening. Why? Because he takes onto himself a mantle of infallability.

RIGHT NOW the biggest problem with religion is overwhelmingly Muslim. But don't be surprised if groups disenfranchised by Christianity don't also rail against it.

It is certainly NOT the case that women and homosexuals have to just sit back and take it off Christianity any longer. That does NOT make Christianity as bad as Islam. Right now it isn't.

But don't think the threat isn't possible. The Inquisition lasted 500 years, and the last person put to death by the RCC was a South American Indian burned at the stake for the HERESY of speaking his native language.

And that is why the ATTITUDE that any human being has the whole truth about God, the nature of reality, and patterns of right relationship based on a scripture passed down is not only ARROGANT but is a recipe for cruelty.

Biblical and Qur'anic scholars can prove to you that the scriptures of both religions have been tampered with severely to give us what we have today — and even if they weren't, the belief that such scriptures are perfect and complete — and perfectly interpreted — renders a haughty supremacy in all who hold the attitude. AND it's extremely unintelligent.

That doesn't mean I'll be advocating the destruction of all religion. In fact, I don't agree with Christopher Hitchens on this at all.

It is not that religion needs to be destroyed; it is that it needs to be transformed to pull it into alignment with the very best of human rights and human dignity — casting aside the prejudices and disenfranchisements of the past in ALL AREAS — so that it can become a pure force for good, not one contaminated and deformed by rank sexual oppression and the suprmacism which is not spirituality by NEGATIVE EGO DONNING THE ROBES OF GODHOOD.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 7:43 AM

P.S. To answer the inevitable question:

I'm pro-life in terms of abortion; I passionately approve of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 8:01 AM

"Abscedere, American Protestant Evangelism that deems 1000 years of Christendom between the death of the last Apostle and Martin Luther to be a Black Hole in history, is not the only Christianity, contrary to the postings of many.

Posted by: cantor"

.....black holes in ancient history could be attributable to the non existence of modern presses, a notable lack of scribes (old history of the written variety was hand written), an extremely slow method of delivering notable news items...delivery was handled by foot travel and hampered by highwaymen and vandals)....every once in while a discovery is made in some cave somewhere of ancient documents or drawings on the cave walls...Muslims still prefer to remain in ancient time..

....since the western inventions of the press, airplanes, satellelites, the internet (which , contrary to popular belief was not invented by OWL GORE), radio, TV and Google, history can be viewed and deciphered in real time....issues can be debated in real time, and the violence perputrated by the Islamic death cult can be view on a global scale that was impossible during the "black hole" of the time in history that seems to be unaccounted for...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 18, 2008 8:20 AM

Morgan Sinclair wrote,

“This makes it very much more likely, of course, that boys born in families with many, many children will turn out to be gay than in families that use birth control and limit children to one or two.”

I had better inform my mother. She had 12 children in all.

By the way, you left out #6. From the progression you have stated, I would guess:

"The 6th MALE child of any woman will certainly be gay."

I’m just wondering because I am the oldest of six brothers and want to know if I need to talk to my youngest brother’s female fiancée.

fiddlesticks

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 18, 2008 8:38 AM

Assume for a moment that the study is accurate.

By its own logic, if all families limited procreation to one child, no more than two, then relative sexual orientation percentages would change dramatically. The end result would be an almost completely heterosexual population.

fiddlefaddle

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 18, 2008 9:08 AM

PatagonianPlato wrote:

By its own logic, if all families limited procreation to one child, no more than two, then relative sexual orientation percentages would change dramatically. The end result would be an almost completely heterosexual population.

Yes, that's what the study implies. By extension it implies that there would be a much larger % of gay population in predominantly Muslim and Roman Catholic countries where women tend to have much larger families, religions that tend to put them under great stress.

However, all religions do, so the basis of homophobia may be deeper than religion itself. I do not have any idea what the source of homophobia really is, so I can't even offer a guess. Some people seem to have it, and some people don't.

It may imply, however, that if a religious orientation demands that its adherents do not practice any form of birth control, that orientation has no right to say its homosexual community is somehow rooted in sin (which dicta have HUGE impact on the psychology of any group against which they are leveled) or should suffer any discrimination with regard to the priesthood, any other profession, housing, etc., or be responsible to "confess" it as a sin.

As more information about homosexuality comes to light from medical studies, particularly those that seem to have located areas of the brain and pre-birth settings of brain chemistry, one would expect the prejudices about it to fall.

There is no culture in history in which homosexuality has NOT existed, so it is obvious that it is endemic to the human POPULATION and has nothing to do with "sin". It's ridiculous, and it's cruel. The Nazis, the ultimate patriarchal culture softened not a bit by any feminine energy of compassion, made homosexuals wear pink triangles in the same ways they made Jews wear yellow stars of David, and they exterminated them right along with the Jews.

So ... it's good to be careful what your ideology, religious or otherwise, espouses.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 9:23 AM

Spartanoaks: what you don't know will kill you, for eternity. God prospered Ishmael's (the illegimate son of Abram and Hagar) line which became, more or less, the arab nations. Why? HE knew they would be trouble, especially for Christians, because HE said so (read Genesis 16).

So again, why would HE prosper the future enemies of His Chosen People. (Please remember that Jesus came before Muhammed.)

Why indeed..... Because THIS IS A TEST. All who smuggly ignore or renounce THE TRUTH will suffer in ignorance. Sooner or later Everyone will have to stand up in defense of what they believe, the muslims will see to that. You, sir, apparently have no belief to defend, but that won't save you.
You can't "sit this one out"....

Christianity or Islam; one is real, one isn't.

Posted by: n.a. palm at January 18, 2008 9:36 AM

P.S. The reason, even (obviously) being a social liberal and a feminist, that I don't leave the Christian church is that I believe that ON BALANCE it does far more good than harm and is one of the planet's most necessary positive forces. AND the other reason is that it is responsive for reason and fairness. In the end, I believe, the Christian church will modify every single doctrine that it carries that is discriminatory. Some churches already have. Others will follow. For example, the RCC gave its own doctrine of infallability a back seat to fairness when it removed from the Jews responsibility for Jesus' death, after almost 2,000 of holding the doctrine. That is just a MAJOR, MAJOR thing for it to have done. And beautiful. Also, Pope John II launched an investigation into the Inquisition, and even if many if not most scholars believe the church's report on this grossly underestimated its impact, the church in effect apologized for it, as it also apologized to the Guarani of Paraguay for the behavior of its priests there.

It is this responsiveness to fairness that is lacking in Islam, which is going in the opposite direction.

That said, if the RCC does not respond soon to women's rights in the Third world and to pre-conception birth control issues, my fear is that its now-positive role will turn into a negative one. Because behind the scenes there is a clear collusion by the RCC to support the Islamist resistance to CEDAW at the UN.

CEDAW may be the most powerful tool for obliterating shari'a law worldwide. Shari'a law is HIGHLY focussed on the control of women, and the passage of CEDAW worldwide and sanctions against any country that doesn't support it WILL result in the breaking of the hold of shari'a in all Muslim countries.

But if the RCC continues to withhold support, it will become the world's most powerful enabler of the spread of shari'a.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 9:45 AM

n.a.palm

You are the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You think you and your particularly doctrinal culture are PERFECTLY and COMPLETELY correct. I do not believe you.

And YOU are coming onto a public board and basically telling someone that they'll go to hell if they don't believe as you do, and that God, rather than the compassionate progenitor of all life in its joyous abundance, is a trap-setter who burns the imperfect.

That's NEGATIVE EGO DONNING THE ROBES OF GODHOOD.

Judgment belongs to God, and the complexities of people's love of God and worship of God and joy in God are NOT yours.

Judge not. And have compassion for your enemies, even while you resist them, because they grew up in a brainwashing you can't even imagine.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 9:49 AM

M. Sinclair:

It's perfectly all right for you not to believe me, I didn't write these things, God did. You have credited me with saying things I didn't say. As for judgment, I did not say anything about it. But, rather, you judged me as some kind of single minded zealot. My original post referred strictly to the state of the earthly debate and mortal conflict we are in now with Islam.

Doesn't Islam send you scurrying to the Koran, and the Bible, to see what they say about these things?

How quickly you religious sophisticates get angry when any one dares to repeat and ponder and believe what God has told us.

You can't defeat Islam with nothing, or, especially, compassion, or ecclesiastical pomposity.

Posted by: n.a. palm at January 18, 2008 10:19 AM

Morgaan: And that is why the ATTITUDE that any human being has the whole truth about God, the nature of reality, and patterns of right relationship based on a scripture passed down is not only ARROGANT but is a recipe for cruelty.

You hit that nail right on the head. Murdering people in the name of God is the logical conclusion for religious maniacs. Possessing the 'whole truth'
about God, makes one God. Making yourself God is blasphemy in most religions, and even polite society rejects it as lunacy. Yet history is loaded with people who have that attitude. It's not religion at that point, it is mental illness. It would be nice if religion helped people out of their psychosis,
but unfortunately it gets them in deeper until they too experience the God state where everything they say and do is supreme. I have witnessed this first hand when drunken debaucher's, and serious sinners become 'born again'. After two weeks of reading the Bible and going to Church, they become experts on the subject and start accusing others of sin. This is the early stage of the 'Know everything Godly' syndrome. That would be great if it really was a Godly state, but it is not, it is an ego tripping, self serving, often destructive
or violent form of mental illness.
I basically agree with the rest of your article.
I think gay's are born gay, having to do with karma and cycles, but that is another story.
Turtulian called all women an 'Eve' and blamed
them (you) of bringing death on to the planet.
Allah created women stupid and made them bleed (menstruate) for Eve's antics in the garden
I guess God is really down on you women. If you recognize this as being the bunch of macho BS it is, you are then exempt...
If you go for it, walk seven paces behind your hubby and carry his luggage...:)

Posted by: duh_swami at January 18, 2008 10:35 AM

We affirm that all Bible-believing Christians must take a non-neutral stance in opposing, praying against, and speaking against social moral evils....

Obviously this manifesto was edited. It's missing the part that says believing Christians must kill or enslave all sinners, non-believers and apostates. But why would Andrew Sullivan leave out the linchpin of his case? Surely as good a reporter as he has better sources.

Methinks there isn't much difference between bible- thumpers, born-agains, and fundamental Muslims. They all think there's is the only way to salvation.

spartanoak,
There is a huge difference. Others are free to believe as they wish. My religion doesn't sanction envy or revenge while the Muslim is free to look at his neighbor's property and take it for himself if his neighbor is other than a Muslim in good standing. My way to salvation doesn't require me to kill you if you won't convert or accept a dhimmi status. Far from it. I would be condemned for such an act, while the Muslim believes it is his sacred duty to rid the world of people like you and me.

Posted by: PMK at January 18, 2008 10:37 AM

Sperm determines GENDER

Morgaan,

Sperm determines SEX.

GENDER is a grammatical reference used to separate nouns into categories - masculine, feminine and neuter.

Posted by: PMK at January 18, 2008 10:58 AM

PMK ... get a better dictionary, so you don't make a fool of yourself so often. Everybody COMPLETELY understands what I'm saying here, so I have met the ONE real purpose of language: that it communicates.

1 a: a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c: an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

2 a: sex b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 11:08 AM

There seems to be no limit to the creative and sometimes sublimated vitriol towards Christianity that oozes through the cracks in discussions like these. I am 52 years old, so I was still a kid during the pre-Vatican II days and have seen many changes. I've studied for the priesthood and been many places around the world. Seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. Overall, and overwhelmingly, I think my Church's work has accomplished a lot of good. Anyone who thinks that we Christians claim perfection for ourselves is daft. Still, the premise and points of Robert's book, "Religion of Peace: Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't", are perfectly valid. But, I suppose we have to let people with grudges vent, as is their right.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 18, 2008 11:09 AM

Duh_Swami ...

Yup. One of the great fears of men is of "Amazon" (generically used here) culture in which they would be subserviant to women.

If men want to know how women feel, they only have to think of how THEY would feel if roles were reversed.

My own opinion is that, secondary ONLY to abusive law and punishment, the exclusion of women from leadership of religious rites has the most influence on their continued disenfranchisement as it has mostly been religion that has kept them down for the last 5,000 years.

What's the result of this? Women do 85% of the world's work and own 3% of its wealth, JK Rowling and Queen Elizabeth notwithstanding. They are barred from leadership roles in the religions that define them as less worthy (and separate is ALWAYS unequal), and, in terms of doctrine ALWAYS DEFINE THEM AS SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF MALES.

Whether this comes from the evangelical opinion expressed by Pat Robertson that a woman should not speak in opposition to her husband, but pray to God that God enlightens him (what a crock!!!!!) on the fairly soft side (she can always get a divorce though some churches may not recognize her right to do so) to rape and honor killing, the most extreme form of agression toward women, rampant in the Islamic world.

The major religion of this planet is neither Islam nor Christianity. It is The Patriarchy to the service of which all religions have been bent, and they have been so bent by violent force, often against good men as well as women. The result of the Inquisition is that matriarchal Europe was transformed to a patriarchy, and that was much the point of it.

Islam is now almost COMPLETELY a religion devoted to spreading the most violent patriarchal culture ever seen, beside which the remaining (and fading) anti-woman tenets of Christian churches fade. Hinduism is still AWFUL about such as well, and racist, too. Evidence of that includes the fact that MILLIONS of Hindu "untouchables" have converted to Buddhism, because once you're a Buddhist, the classification can no longer stick.

So what happens here is this: that disenfranchised groups within a religion—barring some device that forces them to stay in it (death for apostasy), for example—will remove the religions base of power by attrition—by conversion.

This is my fear for Christianity, my religion of choice. Because Christianity does NOT enforce apostasy tenets by temporal punishment, it has to way to make sure its people STAY in the religion. My guess is that Christianity is bleeding believers because women are leaving in droves because (1) they are disenfranchised and no longer buy that garbage and (2)nobody can or will force them to stay.

Because Islam DOES force women to stay (it couldn't keep most of them otherwise, wouldn't you say?) — and because Islamists are DETERMINED to pull every possibly new human body out of that Muslima's womb in a demographic war — the only way Christianity can win (or Western civilization, either) is if Christianity COMPLETELY removes disenfranchising tenets from the religion, opens all levels of the priesthood to religion and takes a sane position on birth control so that abortion can be viably illegal.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 11:23 AM

Fred Islinglass

Anyone who thinks that we Christians claim perfection for ourselves is daft.

Fred, actually there are some *incredibly* pushy Christians around, but other than frothing at the mouth and trying to deeply, pathologically frighten other people about what "God" is going to do to them later, they do not generally shoot, bomb, behead, stone, and amputate you out of your opinion. In fact, I can't remember hearing that at all, ever.

And I think I've made that clear.

That said, Christianity has some things to clean up.

But that is not the same has having to go back and excise about 1/3 of your scriptures and change your attitudes about everything from whether your daughter can learn to read and how you can stomp on non-Muslims, which is the general problem Islam now faces.

I won't say I think Christianity is perfect and will be thoroughly open about what I don't like, but ...

I keep going to church ever time I can manage to get there, and I have my favorite church where I just love to be, so I'm not equating the two religions at all.

I think Islam is DANGEROUS, and I think anybody who says otherwise is either woefully disinformed or lying.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 11:33 AM

"It is not that religion needs to be destroyed; it is that it needs to be transformed to pull it into alignment with the very best of human rights and human dignity"

This Morgaan Sinclair character above is talking about Fundamentalism in the abstract, abstracted from actual historical evolution of cultures. When Sinclair writes, as quoted above, that religion "needs to be transformed to pull it into alignment with the very best of human rights and human dignity", Sinclair ignores the massive fact that this has already happened (with minor exceptions that prove the rule) with Judaism and Christianity throughout the West, and it has happened to a great extent because of innate principles and predilections those two religions have. Judaism and Christianity should be complimented for having for the most part (with minor exceptions that prove the rule) evolved, they should not be constantly berated as moral retards who must be constantly coerced by Englightenment Secularists, lest they revert back to the abstract type that Sinclair suspects will otherwise always rear its ugly head.

Only one religion "needs to be transformed to pull it into alignment with the very best of human rights and human dignity", and that is Islam. All the other religions have already done so (with minor exceptions that prove the rule). Sinclair's posts above are not only redundant and useless, but misleading and frankly dangerously counter-productive in the climate we have to labor in just to get the message out about the threats of Islam.

Posted by: cantor at January 18, 2008 11:35 AM

The news about Siljander may be shocking, considering his public declaration as an "Evangelical Christian."

But it is understandable in light of the many statements Jesus made concerning "wheat and tares"... that many will come and say "Lord, Lord" and He will respond "I know you not!"

One of Jesus' main themes was the fact that true spirituality was inner and that outward religiousity does not necessarily equal inner spirituality.

When a politician signs a document, it does not mean anything -- other than being an action to encourage a certain kind of voter (e.g. Evangelical Christians).

However, anyone who genuinely believes the Bible is God-inspired and inerrant could not possibly do what Siljander has done. Because believing the Bible to be God-inspired and inerrant means believing what the Bible teaches... which is contrary to Siljander's actions and the beliefs of those he has been assisting.

It should be noted that (at least in the excerpt printed here) the list of "social moral evils" he focuses on are all sexual sins which no Muslim extremist would argue with.

It looks to me that Siljander was never a genuine Christian, but was a moral conservative (in the sense of focusing on these "social moral evils") who ended up making common cause with the wrong people.

In an effort to form bridges with "moderate" Moslems (and who can determine who really is moderate), he may have been duped by those who agreed with his views on "social moral evils" and ended up supporting Islamists.

And then there is the money factor...

Posted by: StephenDvd at January 18, 2008 11:37 AM

"Sinclair's posts above are not only redundant and useless, but misleading and frankly dangerously counter-productive in the climate we have to labor in just to get the message out about the threats of Islam."

Which is why I've chosen to ignore her input; but what I don't understand, is why she is allowed to post at all.

Posted by: champ at January 18, 2008 11:55 AM

Cantor ...

Disenfranchising more than 50% of the population in one form or another is not a "minor" infraction of any sort. It is major.

And clearly you are a man who thinks he has the right to define disenfranchisement as "minor" rather than listening to those on whom that disenfranchisement is visited about the IMPACT of it.

And ... apparently when someone says something you don't agree with they are dangerous.

So what you're really saying is that until everything about Islam is straightened out, no one should say anything about other religions and their problems. I am saying that if other religions solve their problems Islam DOESN'T STAND A CHANCE. And if they don't, Islam DOES stand a VERY BIG chance indeed.

In fact, if you think that I or anybody else should wait on activism against wife-burning in India you can frankly go take a flying leap.

This began with an explanation by me of why I think Andrew Sullivan WRONGLY conflates Christianity and Islam.

But if you want to understand WHY he makes this mistake, you will have to look at the constant disenfranchising and psychologically damaging invective to which gays are exposed by hypocritical churches who don't mind letting them into the priesthood because they can't fill the ranks, but who still, even looking down on them, treat them better than women who are disallowed entirely.

Now I'm wondering why I'm even talking to a person like you. You love your supremacist position, and anybody who challenges it is called all kinds of things they're not, based on nothing but your fantasies and what suits your keeping power that doesn't, and never did, belong to you.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 11:56 AM

It's obvious from a number of posts on this thread that Robert needs to publish re: "the misunderstanders of Christianity".......one of the reasons Islam is such an effective threat is that most people know even less about Christianity than they now do (thanks in no small part to Robert)about Islam.

Some posters believe, like Andrew Sullivan, that both religions are equal, and that they both have good and bad in them. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL. Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. It is the Anti-Christianity, and it will devour anyone who will let it. The Christians did NOT start the crusades, Muhammed did. Within a few years after his death 4 of the 5 great capitals of Christianity, including (to this day) Jerusalem, had fallen to the muslim swords. Wake up, you part time Christians, before it's too late for you.

Posted by: n.a. palm at January 18, 2008 12:14 PM

When are these bone-heads going to get it that the bible quotes Jesus as saying "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's".

Separation of church and state is intrinsic to Christianity.

And need I say that the central message is "Love thy brother".

And that in the context of Jesus having said "Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name receives me, and whosoever shall receive me receives him that sent me. For he who is the least among you all, he is great." -- I mention that to differentiate it from dicta in other cultures that say be good to your own gang.

The basic doctrines are diametrically opposed.

So when are these bone-heads going to get it that they are obsessing over irrelevancies and superficialities.

Yes, there are Christian millenialist cults.

Yes, people have killed in the name of Christ.

Yes, there are literal believers among the Christians (not being cited here as a fault, but rather a superficiality).

Yes, nearly everybody has 2 eyes and a nose and so did Jack the Ripper. That does not make us all the same as Jack the Ripper.

These morons go into convulsions of intellectual excitement over the word "fundamental". All things fundamental are bad. Fundamental Christianity is just like fundamental mohammedanism because they're both "fundamental". And so is fundamental communism, and fundamental naziism, and fundamental Bahaism.

They learn a new word and go nuts.

The sheer stupidity of these people is infuriating.

Posted by: joeblough at January 18, 2008 12:16 PM

OK, here it is, simplified for champ and others with extremely low IQs and comprehension problems—and not enough creativity to think of something substantive to say and instead fill up post after post with personal attacks on other people.

Can't answer POINTS? Well, perhaps that's because there IS no viable answer to the point I made.

Now ...

Islam, the world's most dangerous religion and its worst violator of human rights, will not lose adherents in the coming century.

ISLAM will GAIN adherents in the next century:

(1) anyone who born into the religion has to stay there
(2) anyone who leaves the religion is killed for it
(3) the women and gays who who would LIKE to leave can't do so
(4) they are engaged in a demographic war with women trapped in a prison of forced reproduction
(5) it has a HUGE selling point for men and spreads like wildfire because it promises men four wives, the greater share of the inheritance, total control of women, and guarantees that they can be physically abusive

CHRISTIANITY will LOSE adherents because:

(1) it does not and cannot force people to stay as it also does not violently impose itself or gays,k women or anybody else
(2) women and gays who are disenfranchised within the religion are leaving in DROVES
(3) literacy is strong and as soon as women are literate the birth rate drops to 2-3 children per woman in her lifetime

SOLUTION: Christianity has only to do with women and gays what it did with Jews: remove doctrines that disenfranchise or anathemize them.

Christianity also needs to SUPPORT POPULATION LIMITS RIGHT NOW, both for the good of the planet and for its own survival and the survival of Western culture. The answer is not to make 6 billion more Christian babies that will starve to death in the Third World.

The answer is to support worldwide efforts at population control, especially in European cultures. Norway, with the strictest immigration policies AND the a NATIONAL campaign to limit population growth, is the freest country (by all application models) in the world and enjoys the highest standard of living.

The only good news is that Muslim population is about to peak and start downward, and they are completely aware of this, which is why they are pushing the jihad now. In another generation they won't have enough young men to wage a jihad based from the Middle East.

Christianity is losing Europe both by population AND BY ATTRITION. And that attrition has come because humanity's perception of human rights has outdistanced the church's embrace of it.

The Church isn't just being drowned in a sea or uncontrolled Muslim population growth on the continent. It's destroyed itself by its own bigotry, a problem that can be reversed.

On the bright side, churches which have already rid themselves of disenfranchising doctrines are are PACKED.

And churches that haven't done so have FEW CHILDREN IN THEM BECAUSE MANY OF THE WOMEN WHO WOULD HAVE HAD THOSE KIDS LEFT THE CHURCH AND ARE RAISING THEIR CHILDREN IN A SECULAR ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN BROUGHT UP IN CULTURES THAT DISENFRANCHISE ANYBODY.

Most nuns who enter convents now are primarily taking care of aging nuns as fewer women stay in the church. They're run a geriatic clinic in a dying culture.

So perhaps the solution is to change a wrong doctrine so that women do not feel they have to leave the church out of self-respect.

REFERENCE: for Muslim demographic decline in the Middle East see Spengler, "The Demographics of Radical Islam" at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 12:31 PM

Hey pismopal,

You sure are excitable, aren't cha?

Jumping to the conclusion that I was referring to the "actions" of these three kinds of believers is what got you off-track.

My message refers to the way they "think" about their respective faiths, not their otherwise disparite behavior. Thanks for bringing your misinterpretation to my attention.

Posted by: spartanoak at January 18, 2008 12:55 PM

Attention Mr. Sullivan:

Brain transplants haven't yet been made scientifically feasible (and, yes, I see STRONG evidence indicating that you are in need of one). Until the day comes when brain transplants ARE rendered surgically possible, we will try to reach you by employing logic and reason (which Christianity employs as well, believe it ot not--although we can see that you are utterly clueless to that fact...your education has evidently failed you miserably which is regrettable since you have been unnecessarily been writing appalling, laughable and truly execrable nonsense about Christianity!).

Although Christianity and Islam do have something in common they are both classified as "religions" and and all similarities end there. Christianity's Yahweh and Islam's for example al-lah are two SEPARATE and UNRELATED ENTITIES.

All Christians born again (or otherwise)by the way are bound by the ten commandments which include: "thou shalt not commit murder." Thus--

No born-again Christian or any Christian for that matter is permitted to kill or commission killing for Christianity, commit suicide, acts of terror such as bombing etc as homicidal activities are pre-emoted by the ten commandments.

Regarding al-Qaeda, they represent Islamic teachings practically to the fullest degree possible. For example, the Kuran teaches in Surah 9.5: "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every strategem of warfare agains thtem...." Mind you, this is not a time-specific item given over a historic incident it is a presecription given to all Muslims as how to deal with non-Muslims. It is diametrically opposed to anything taught by Christianity. Muslims are taught to kill non-Muslims. Some could classify this as first degree murder under US law (and Christian doctrine as well). Those thousands of terror attacks since 9-11 that al-Qaeda instructs Muslims to perform ARE for the most part in keeping with Islamic teachings. The gap between islam and Christianity at this point should be totally obvious to even the most casual observer. If you do not see this gap between the two faiths, you must not WANT to see it.

America was founded by Christians. It never bore the slightest resemblence to an Islamic state. Murder has always been a capital offense in America (not so in the Islamic nations, unless there has been western-influenced moderation of Islamic laws).

If you are unaware that you have slandered Christianity, you had no business writing about it. If you DO know better than to slander and mislead uninformed persons about the nature of Christianity, you would be advised to STOP DOING SO IMMEDIATELY.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 18, 2008 1:29 PM

champ

And BTW, zinging my by PRETENDING you are answering somebody else and claiming you are "not answering me" is just a more covert (and dishonest) way of doing what you've done for more than a year. Follow me and others from thread to thread hoping you can convince someone in authority to cancel the freedom of speech of some people you don't personally like.

Just a clue to those who are thinking of saying something champ doesn't like.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 1:38 PM

THE GREAT COMMISSION

Mat 28-18-20 Jesus came and told his disciples, "I have been given complete authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

I have pasted the Great Commission quote so as to compare what Sullivan in quoting Siljander, turns and uses as a club on his enemy. His enemy is not Islam, it is the Bible and the God of the Bible.

Others have taken this thread to further inject their own logic by adding "woman and homosexual" straw man equivalence to do the same thing as Sullivan.

The assumptions are wrong about men being in charge. The verses quoted above indicate otherwise. Unbelief is the result of this logic. Regarding homosexuality, read Romans 1:16-32, you might be surprised that the occurrence of homosexuality has the potential of being even higher. No dought this text has been read, commented and argued about for centuries. The opprative word in this passage is "God gave them up..."

The Gospel (Good News) is that He has provided a way in spite of our sinful condition. As long as some will think that something is not a sin, their argument is not with me but with God. Unfortunately many think Christ is as much of a threat as Islam.

John 3:19
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

يوحنا 3:19
هذا هو الحكم ، وعلى ضوء ذلك قد حان في العالم ، والرجل يحب الظلام بدلا من النور لأفعالهم هي ال

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at January 18, 2008 1:44 PM

Sinclair wrote: "Disenfranchising more than 50% of the population in one form or another is not a "minor" infraction of any sort. It is major."

It would be, if the Christian and Jewish people who supported such Disenfranchisement were also major. But they're not. They are minor. And the culture all around them -- including the majority of Jews and Christians who participate in it -- is overwhelmingly modernist and accomodating of the ongoing progress of secular values.

(The above assumes reasonably that by "Disenfranchisement" Sinclair means political (which includes legal, which in turn necessitates physical coercion such as police, prisons and various punishments) Disenfranchisement; not merely disgruntled emotions some Jews and Christians might have while more or less accepting the dominant cultural status quo of secular progress all around them, but working peacefully to try to adjust it here and there within the laws to try to reflect at least some leftover crumbs from their overwhelmingly marginalized religious values.)

Posted by: cantor at January 18, 2008 1:50 PM

I'm not so sure. There are some things in the Bible that I wouldn't like to see taken literally. As a woman, I have issues with certain Pauline doctrines, for example.

Then, too, there are harsh punishments prescribed for transgressors of the laws. A Biblically inspired stoning is just as bloody and ugly as one inspired by the Qur'an.

No, I'm not an apologist. The reason Judeo Christian societies are more humane than Islamic ones is because we don't do that, anymore. There are some things that should be left to God, and we realize this, in the West.

As you noted, John C, neither book descended from the clouds. Biblical literalists would do very well to remember that many documents were considered and rejected by mortal men, for inclusion or exclusion in the Bible.

You're kind of all over the map here, touching on the Mosaic law, cannonicity, and the view of women in the NT.

The reason Christians don't stone adulterors and wage holy war, despite the pattern left in the Mosaic law, is that we see the purpose of the Mosaic law as fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus.

Posted by: PRCalDude at January 18, 2008 1:59 PM

"Andrew Sullivan equates born-again Christians with Al-Qaeda"

Perhaps Sullivan is a closet Muslim, because he certainly doesn't sound like a Christian to me by making statements like this.

Anyway, comparing what Jesus stood for and the sinless life that He lived -- up against Mohammad's twisted belief system and his sinful life style is a better way to compare the striking differences between Islam and Christianity.

Take a look at this link:
http://www.christring.org/shortseries/jesusormuhammad.htm

"THE SUMMARY: The God of Jesus Christ sent His Son to die for you. The god of Muhammad demands that you send your son to die for him."

"When the threat of death becomes a door to paradise, the final barrier to temporal risk is broken. When a Christian says from the heart, "To live is Christ and to die is gain," he is free to love no matter what. Some forms of radical Islam may entice martyr-murderers with similar dreams, but Christian hope is the power to love, not kill. Christian hope produces life-givers, not life-takers."

The only thing I personally disagree with from Piper's above statement is this: "Some forms of radical Islam may entice martyr-murderers with similar dreams..."

Piper is following a PC path by stating this, but I am not so inclined, nor am I the least bit shy about saying that Islam as a WHOLE is the problem. Other than than his outline is spot on!

Posted by: champ at January 18, 2008 2:46 PM

Ironic that Sullivan gave his own Michael Moore fka Sontag award (for "moral equivalence in the war on terror") for 2007 to Keith Olbermann for saying....

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was," - Keith Olbermann, Playboy.

Maybe Sullivan should consider nominating himself for his 2008 award.

Posted by: yadayada at January 18, 2008 3:22 PM

“Christianity also needs to SUPPORT POPULATION LIMITS RIGHT NOW, both for the good of the planet and for its own survival and the survival of Western culture.”

Morgan, I find this statement astounding. The reason, discussed ad-infinitum here at jihadwatch, is that native (nominally Christian) Western Europeans are not having children, and the Muslim immigrants are procreating their pants off. This is the exact strategy that Islam has chosen to employ in order to destroy the West.

“The only good news is that Muslim population is about to peak and start downward,”

You are certainly not the first to make this statement. I have read it numerous times. IMHO it is entirely unsubstantiated.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 18, 2008 4:36 PM

Morgan, I realize that you are a serious person who means well. I have no desire to be disrespectful to you. However, your recommendation that Westerners have fewer children is far more harmful to the anti-jihad than anything that the ex-Congressman has done.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 18, 2008 5:27 PM

Indifference can stem the tide to any Hurricane.

Right, Erich! :-)

Posted by: champ at January 18, 2008 5:37 PM

Spartanoak

I'll consider your last post a retraction of your original post stating that there was no difference between Christian fundamentalists and muslim fudamentalists. Since you admit that they behave differently you are admitting that there is a hell of a difference. What any of them "think" is mildly interesting to me and perhaps a lot of JW's.
At the risk of being perceived as excitable I will underline that your post wasn't misinterpreted, it simply was not true.

Posted by: pismopal at January 18, 2008 5:40 PM

Yes, Islam is far worse than Christianity, to the level that they aren't currently even in the same ballpark. That said, just because Islam remains as bad as it is doesn't mean that other religions are exempt from criticism in the meantime. Christianity, at least the more conservative forms of Christianity, still teach that homosexuality is wrong, that premarital sex is wrong, that pornography is wrong, that swinging is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that women should obey their husbands and shouldn't lead in church, and that non-Christians will spend eternity suffering in hell, or at least won't make it to heaven (and don't get me started on how evil many forms of children's entertainment such as Harry Potter supposedly is). As long as the more conservative Christians continue to teach these things then us more liberal Christians are still going to have to speak out against their ideas. And please don't tell me that if the US was run by said conservative Christians that many of the so-called "sinful" things I listed wouldn't be illegal (even if execution wouldn't necessarily be the punishment for most of those "sins," unless the Inquisition was brought back), because I personally know many who would love to see some of those things made illegal (heck, I would have loved to see some of those things made illegal back in my Christian fundamentalist days).

So yes, Islam is currently still a bigger threat than Christianity. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't warn people about the dangers (and errors) of conservative Christianity in the meantime though, even if they are currently less lethal than the dangers of Islam.

Posted by: The Christian Heretic at January 18, 2008 10:04 PM

"Christianity, at least the more conservative forms of Christianity, still teach that homosexuality is wrong, that premarital sex is wrong, that pornography is wrong, that swinging is wrong, that abortion is wrong, that women should obey their husbands and shouldn't lead in church, and that non-Christians will spend eternity suffering in hell, or at least won't make it to heaven (and don't get me started on how evil many forms of children's entertainment such as Harry Potter supposedly is)."

So what? That's their right.

"As long as the more conservative Christians continue to teach these things then us more liberal Christians are still going to have to speak out against their ideas."

So what? That's your right.

All irrelevant.

Posted by: cantor at January 18, 2008 10:26 PM

“So yes, Islam is currently still a bigger threat than Christianity. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't warn people about the dangers (and errors) of conservative Christianity in the meantime though, even if they are currently less lethal than the dangers of Islam.”

Focus on “less lethal.” Other than a few abortion clinics murders a few years ago, thoroughly condemned by every mainstream fundamentalist Christian denomination, I am not aware of any "lethalness" emanating from Christians at all. If you are, please list all such examples of "lethalness." In any case, the exception proves the rule. What rule? Christians are not lethal!

By saying that they are “less lethal,” you continue the fantasy that they are, “lethal.”

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 5:51 AM

By saying that they are “less lethal,” you continue the fantasy that they are, “lethal.”

Go back and reread what I wrote. That sentence did not imply that Christianity was at all currently lethal (although it has been in the past. Inquisition anyone?), it was saying that Islam is. It was a figure of speech.

Posted by: The Christian Heretic at January 19, 2008 8:47 AM

"Follow me and others from thread to thread hoping you can convince someone in authority to cancel the freedom of speech of some people you don't personally like."

For the record, I am a strong supporter of Freedom of Speech.

What I stand against are falsehoods and immature attacks and invective name calling towards others. No one should be free to indulge in these practices.

Likewise, I am exercising my Freedom of Speech when I confront these things; so may I suggest taking an overdue look in the mirror so you can examine your own stiffling comments towards others.

Regards,
Champ

Posted by: champ at January 19, 2008 5:10 PM

champ

You seem COMPLETELY incapable of ever answering a single point anybody makes.

Your exercise of free speech seems to consist of suggesting people be BANNED FROM THIS BOARD for not agreeing with you, though you will not offer an analysis of their points so that they and others might understand why you do not agree.

Wanting other people banned for opinions with which you do not agree (or for other unstated reasons)is not support of free speech. Rather, what is going on seems like adolescent junior high school games.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 19, 2008 7:32 PM

Andrew Sullivan isn't a Muslim. He's just gay and tired of anti-gay invective coming from many areas.

Where he makes his mistake is that equates the threat of different forms of prejudice. As one gay commentator said (paraphrase): Jerry Falwell was bad (said gays for God's punished of the USA for allowing gays), but Jerry Falwell didn't want to drop a wall on them like the Saudis do.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 19, 2008 7:40 PM

Perhaps I can help clarify the state of affairs:

I'm an Israeli religious Jew. Both fundamentalist Christians and jihadist Muslims seem to think I'll be going to their particular brand of hell, but the reaction to this is different. The Christians send missionaries [who I'll admit are evil in their way] who attack non-physically thinking they'll preventing me from going to hell. The jihadists send people with guns and bombs who actually try and send me to hell ASAP.

To re-cap:

Christians: send missionaries-- bad/don't kill

Muslims: send terrorists-- VERY bad/do kill.

Questions?

Posted by: MosheC at January 19, 2008 8:19 PM

MosheC states: "The Christians send missionaries [who I'll admit are evil in their way] who attack non-physically thinking they'll preventing me from going to hell."

If Christians are verbally attacking you with the message of hell, then I would agree that this practice is wrong. In my disciplship training we are instructed to approach people in 'love', not so that they feel attacked. No way!

So the next time a Christian verbally attacks you in some way then I would suggest quickly sending them on their way, because that is not how Jesus taught his disciples to behave.

Sorry you were treated that way. Take care.

Posted by: champ at January 19, 2008 8:31 PM

"You seem COMPLETELY incapable of ever answering a single point anybody makes."

This is why I rarely take you seriously, Morgan, because of hyperbolic statements like this. You sure say stupid things for someone who brags about being so damn smart.

Posted by: champ at January 19, 2008 10:15 PM

The way this Morgaan Sinclair types, with those words in ALL CAPS punctuating HERE and THERE like a knife desperately stabbing, and with that strangely emotional insistence and wild accusations that don't even have any real basis, kind of reminds me of that Dutch Muslim woman's e-mail in the Dhimmi Watch thread.

Posted by: cantor at January 20, 2008 5:18 AM

Champ:

However it is done, missionizing is an attack. It's like a spiritual or intellectual rape. The missionary just wants to "convert" the person which, whether the missionary knows it or not, is an expression of hatred and contempt. Do not get me wrong. Missionaries ARE evil and disgusting. Just currently Christian missionaries are not killing people which makes them LESS evil than those who are. "Discipleship class"?! Think of it as spiritual rape techniques class next time you go.

Of course, if one resists a missionary too much, the violence of the hatred will show itself. Christians have throughout history probably killed far more of my people than Muslims. The problem is that although Christians have stopped murdering for a while at least [though I HOPE the change is permanent] the Muslims are attempting to catch their numbers up.

Posted by: MosheC at January 20, 2008 10:40 PM

I learned something new:

Morgaan's FALSEHOOD:

"Thus a Pope can write a book like the Malleus Maleficarum, and claim by the INFALLABILITY invested in him by the DOCTRINE that scriptures somehow grant him this and then carry out a war against women, the least threatening and most vulnerable group in any culture."

Morgaan, no Pope wrote this, do a google search. And it seems the Vatican disowned the book.

"The truth is that the DOCTRINES of the world's religions were all crafted by heterosexual men and contain the means of retaining their supremacy. The ones having to do with the suppression and spiritual disenfranchisement of women are legendary, which is why only in the 20th century (since ancient times, that is) do you find that women are allowed into the FULL priesthoods of .0001% of the world's religiou orders. We're not counting the abbesses of convents who still have to answer to some guy."

Wow, horrible DISENFRANCHISEMENT (may no one's feelings EVER by hurt), how much you have SUFFERED for not being a priest. This is indeed COMPARABLE to flying planes into buildings. SERIOUSLY. So what?

The rest of your post is nothing more than WHINING. Oh noes!!! We have disagreements if Jesus will come back as a woman or a man- they are such MYSOGYNISTS!

Maybe you will also recognize that using capitals is ANNOYING.

Take care.

Posted by: npabga at January 21, 2008 12:06 AM

Hi MosheC -

Please share your faith with me, as I am genuinely curious what your beliefs are; and I promise not to share my beliefs with you - not unless you choose to ask me specific questions.

You had mentioned hell in your previous post, so my primary question is specific to that topic. What do you believe happens to your soul after death? Do you believe in an after life? Do you believe in a hell? Do you NOT believe in an after life? And do you NOT believe in a hell? I simply want to know what you do believe so I can listen and learn - not judge.

And if you don't wish to write back for whatever reason, then that's OK, because I will respect whatever you decide.

Take care.

Posted by: champ at January 21, 2008 1:13 AM

Show me anywhere in the Bible, "statements by Christ, Jesus the Masiah" where we are ordered to behead, berate or even belittle another person on this Earth, much less fly a plane into a building killing 3,000 innocent people including other muslims, wonder if those muslims, 'if they had the chance to come back' would, like even the allegedly moderate islamists state that it was wrong to kill all those people?

Posted by: americanpatriot at January 21, 2008 5:48 PM