Doubtless that this will be problematic for McCain going forward. The MSM will use this to blunt criticism of the Obama/Wright relationship in the general.

Many Muslim blogs have already run this story with the video of Parsley's words.

I am still banking on Robert's "prediction", with both fingers crossed behind my back.

Posted by: awake at May 22, 2008 10:00 AM

Islam: 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil’ – I’m afraid that I find that concept rather refreshing in view of all the dhimmi posturing from our ‘leaders’ these days. Sure makes Mr. Bushes stubborn insistence on "Islam is a religion of peace" theme look rather limp in comparison.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 22, 2008 10:22 AM

When it comes to Islam, I would take McCain's wingnuts over either Barack's or Hillary's wingnuts any day of the week . . . .

Posted by: urbanIIredux at May 22, 2008 10:24 AM

I think this lame attempt to render a campaign stop statement of support with obama's intimate 20-year relationship is idiotic. Moreover, it is liable to backfire in the MSM's face once people really think about it.

Posted by: Infidel33 at May 22, 2008 10:25 AM

sorry, that should be to render it equivalent to

Posted by: Infidel33 at May 22, 2008 10:34 AM

"In a statement to ABC News about Parsley's comments, McCain's campaign said the senator 'obviously strongly rejects such statements.;'"
-- from the article above

Senator McCain both "obviously" and "strongly" rejects "such statements"?

Why "obviously"?

And why "strongly"?

If he wishes to object to "such statements" he should not fall back on the word "obviously" but tell us what about those statements he objects to, for it is not "obvious" at all what about them is objectionable.

He might distance himself, if distance himself he calculatingly must, in a much more nuanced and milder way. He could let it be known that he thinks the statements "raise issues that we will have to be addressing" about what prompts those who call for Jihad, and what instruments have received undue attention and what other instruments of Jihad need to be examined. Above all, Senator McCain agrees that this is primarily an ideological war, made on non-Muslims by those who claim that Jihad, as a "struggle" to expand the boundaries of what is called Dar al-Islam, and to push back the boundaries of what is called Dar al-Harb, is not tangential but central to Islam.

What is clear is that the definition of the "war" being waged against us, and against many others around the world, has been far too narrow, and Senator McCain, as someone who has spent a long time in the military, is keenly aware of the need not to see "war" purely in military terms, but to recognize, and prepare to check, instruments of warfare that go far beyond combat or terrorism, which to its practitioners is legitimized as a form of combat, updated for the times and the circumstances.

But to reject "obviously" and "strongly" statements that are mostly true, disturbs. For what Paster Rob Peasley wrote is, if not entirely true, or not as suavely put as it might be, is, at least far truer than what one routinely reads about Islam in The New Duranty Times or The Bandar Beacon, or hears from the mouths of pontificating members of the political and media elites, who blandly assume that the long-suffering members of the American public will forever take their word for it about Islam without doing a little investigation -- we are all Boston Blackies now --of the texts and tenets of Islam (look at how many who call themselves "conservatives" or Republicans are -- see this site -- disgusted with the Bush Administration's continued empty vaporings about Islam as a "religion of peace"). No, their authority is being questioned, and they are being openly mocked, for the things they would have us believe about Islam.

Question Authority? When it shows itself as idiotic, about Islam, about energy policy, about everything under the sun, as those who presume to instruct and protect us have shown themselves to be, over the past several decades? You bet.

Posted by: Hugh at May 22, 2008 10:36 AM

McCain has repeatedly urged the U.S. to show respect for Islam.

WHY? Why is it deserved?

"Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists," McCain told the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles on March 26.

I don't want a president who will "win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of moderate (according to whom?) Muslims who do not want their future controlled....."

For heaven's sake, it's been almost seven years since Muslims showed us just how barbaric they could be in the name of Islam. Those that didn't commit that act of mass murder danced in the streets. If there are any Muslims who don't believe in this jihadist violence then we shouldn't have to win their hearts and minds. They should be working with us at this very moment. To paraphrase George W. Bush in one of his more lucid moments as president:

If they are not already with us then they are against us.

If "peaceful" Muslims don't want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists then what are they doing to prevent that from happening?

There is no middle ground here. It's why John McCain is unfit to be president.

Posted by: PMK at May 22, 2008 10:41 AM

Enough with the winning of the hearts and minds. It is not happening.

Posted by: Exposing Islam at May 22, 2008 10:55 AM

"America was founded with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Rod Parsley must be alluding to Christopher Columbus and his patrons, Ferdinand and Isabella, who hoped that his discoveries would yield new wealth with which to finance a crusade against the Moors.

Posted by: John C at May 22, 2008 10:57 AM

The problem isn't that Islam has been hijacked by extremists, but that Mohammad, that pretentious sadist, hijacked Christianity and corrupted it to serve his bloody and lusty agenda.

Whether or not anyone agrees with Christian truth claims, Pastor Parsely hit the nail on its head. Islam is by definition anti-Christ.

Posted by: Lex at May 22, 2008 10:59 AM

The problem isn't that Islam has been hijacked by extremists, but that Mohammad, that pretentious sadist, hijacked Christianity and corrupted it to serve his bloody and lusty agenda.

Whether or not anyone agrees with Christian truth claims, Pastor Parsely hit the nail on its head. Islam is by definition anti-Christ.

Posted by: Lex at May 22, 2008 10:59 AM

http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/

WARNING : GRAPHIC !

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 22, 2008 11:03 AM

awake, No doubt the MSM will use the Obama/Wright fiasco. Yes, you're right on that.

Unfortunately (and sadly), many Americans are too lazy to investigate facts about the candidates. They're more interested in hearing quick sound bytes, and judging from there.

Wright's accusations against white America and the government are patently false on many levels.

However, Parsley's accusations against Islam and Mohammed can be easily proven simply by reading the Qur'an, or through reviewing the taped (video and audio) statements of self-described jihadi terrorists.

On the bright side, unlike when the Obama/Wright story hit, I haven't seen any huge amounts of media coverage on McCain's "problem" pastoral endorsement. In fact, other than the ABC News site itself (and a link to ABC News on Yahoo! News), JW is the ONLY place I've even seen this story. (Not that this is surprising, given that ABC News was the home of the late, ultra-liberal, Clinton-promoting, GOP-loathing "newsman," Peter Jennings. I would expect no less from ABC's "impartial" newsroom.)

More legitimate news organizations don't even mention this story. FoxNews' front page has a McCain story about VP talks; CNN has a video about a barefoot Cindy romping in Vogue, and MSNBC has two stories - one about McCain's potential VP's, and one about Ellen DeGeneres asking McCain to walk her down the aisle.

Posted by: Lori B. at May 22, 2008 11:16 AM

As with Pastor Rod Parsley, and the Reverend John Hagee of San Antonio,Texas,the MSM and other liberal media outlets are going to continue attacking McCain on these religious leaders support, or connections and will no doubt search out more.

Both Reverend Hagee and Pastor Parsley have been very strong preachers against the scourge of the Islamic Ideology in contrast to Christian theological teachings. I do believe that strong Christian Ministries' have a duty to reflect in the strongest terms the factual differences between these religions to their congregations so that there is a clear understanding of the difference in the underpinnings of these religions.

There should be many more preachers coming together that can speak to the differences that are in such stark contrast with each other. We have waited way to long to address these differences in the Christian Community.

There are still to many Christian theologians such as the Arch dhimmi of Canterberry who make the serious mistake of appeasement towards this aggressive political/religious Ideology that is called Islam

Posted by: Mackie at May 22, 2008 11:23 AM

I don't want to win muslim hearts and minds. I'd rather win a year's supply of some useful household cleaners.

The only thing I want from muslims is for them to live in their muslim world and for them to stay out of the Western world so we can continue to enjoy the freedoms that come with being Westerners in the 21st century.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at May 22, 2008 11:38 AM

As I had mentioned to Mr. Spencer, I have a tough time communicating with certain Roman Catholics who refuse to believe anything bad about Islam. There is a core of wingnuts in the RC church who resemble the extreme secular Left/Code Pink crowd in that they believe that: WE Americans deserve what we get for our sins; we must have done something to annoy those nice peaceloving Muslims; WE can dialog our way out of this; WE can retreat home from jihad; and "love our enemies" means capitulating until we are only fighting when our backs our entirely to the wall i.e., wait for a modern day Dunkirk. I get exasperated with both extremes refusing to see ISLAM and its core scriptures, theology, and jurisprudence as the problem.

At least with my fellow Catholics, I can counter with my allegiance to my Baptismal vows. Since I truly do believe it was an angel but NOT Gabriel in that cave, I would break my Baptismal vow to renounce Satan, all his works and all his lies if I embraced the Jew hating, woman beating, dog loathing, Resurrection denying, Islamic supremacism. Christian love does not mean toleratiing the intolerable.

Posted by: bevc at May 22, 2008 12:03 PM

Actually I wish the MSM would play some soundbites of the good pastors speeches. The the American people may get a clue as to who or what the real enemy is.

Sure McCain may lose the muslim vote, but I'm guessing Barak Hussein already as that one sewn up any way. So there is nothing for McCain to lose and everything for him to gain.

Contrary to popular MSM portrayal, there are a lot of Christian and Christian leaning Democrats that may not want to vote for a muslim endorsing candidate named Hussein.

As bad a candidate as I think McCain is, the alternative is much much worse.

Posted by: walterc at May 22, 2008 12:06 PM

Lex:
“Mohammad, that pretentious sadist, hijacked Christianity and corrupted it to serve his bloody and lusty agenda”

I agree that Mohammad certainly possessed all of those seamy qualities but no one has ever “hijacked” Christianity simply because Islam & Christianity are mutually exclusive of one another. Despite dhimmi Popes who kiss Korans and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would like to make room for sharia law in the UK, one cannot be a Christian and subscribe to anything Islamic.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 22, 2008 12:07 PM

David Corn tried to make an issue out of Parsley's statements several months ago. It's been hanging out there on the Internet since then. The left blogosphere tried to do a blogburst a couple of weeks ago, aided and abetted by Ali Eteraz. I've been trying to keep it out of the mainstream. Parsley is not McCain's "Jeremiah Wright."

Posted by: Connie at May 22, 2008 12:45 PM

Hugh: Senator McCain both "obviously" and "strongly" rejects "such statements"?

Why "obviously"?

And why "strongly"?

Because when the truth makes you sound like a bigot to the uneducated (or willfully deluded) it's not only political poison, but immediately shuts down any chance that they'll listen to what you have to say. It doesn't matter whether it's right or true, it's unpleasant and people will almost always choose the pleasant lie to the unpleasant truth.

Posted by: morguerat at May 22, 2008 12:45 PM

Hugh: Senator McCain both "obviously" and "strongly" rejects "such statements"?

Why "obviously"?

And why "strongly"?

Because when the truth makes you sound like a bigot to the uneducated (or willfully deluded) it's not only political poison, but immediately shuts down any chance that they'll listen to what you have to say. It doesn't matter whether it's right or true, it's unpleasant and people will almost always choose the pleasant lie to the unpleasant truth.

Posted by: morguerat at May 22, 2008 12:46 PM

descendantofacrusader,

By hijacking Christianity, I mean that Mohammad stole the Gospel narrative.

His Jesus (Isa) had a miraculoous conception, but Luke's Gabriel and Mohammad's Gabriel disagree on everything else, meaning either that Mo's Gabriel, in true Islamic fashion, abrogated Luke's earlier revelation to Mary, or that someone was lying (perhaps to cover Mary's suspected fornication -the liberal Christian interpretation, as well as that of Jesus' contemporary enemies). Either way, the Gospel, as written, is false because Mo said it was, period.

Mo's Isa didn't die on the Cross, either. Allah tricked the soldiers into crucifying the stunt double. How very clever of Allah! Of course, this scenario makes liars of Jesus -who predicted his death in Jerusalem- and of John the Baptist -who referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Why would Mo see things differently? Because hell, which had him by the balls, wanted more than anything else to discredit the Vicarious Atonement and create a substitute for it, and Mo was more than willing to play the useful idiot for Gabriel, that lying spirit.

No Incarnation, no Vicarious Atonement, no Resurrection. Christians are not simply fools for believing any of it, they are blasphemers and infidels who are under Allah's curse for believing any of it, you see?

Hell had found its man in Mohammad, and Islam expects al-Mahdi, the anti-Christ to come. Are we outraged now by Islam's vicious depredations? We haven't seen anything yet.

Posted by: Lex at May 22, 2008 12:49 PM

"Posted by: bevc at May 22, 2008 12:03 PM"

I, too, am a Catholic with a lefty priest. I have made one of my projects the call to Catholics and other Christians to learn about Islam from non-Muslim prior to going blindly into Interfaith efforts. The efforts are noble, but naive. They assume the Muslims who engage in Interfaith meetings do so with the same reciprocity of spirit, when they do no such thing.

Posted by: Connie at May 22, 2008 12:55 PM

correction: from non-Muslim sources

Posted by: Connie at May 22, 2008 12:57 PM

Not being at all religious myself, I find it difficult how any believing Christian, of whatever sect, could extend respect to Islam. To other major faiths, yes, in part because they preceed Christianity, in part because they don't themselves usurp Jesus for their own ends to castigate Christians (as Islam does) and in part because faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism don't sanction dire earthly harm against the unbeliever for sundry reasons as Mohammed's creed clearly does. Besides, in Islam there is no Golden Rule which is extended to all, believer and unbeliever alike, as there is in all other major faiths. And let's not forget the character of Islam's founder, diametrically opposite in so many ways to Jesus. So, am I missing something here? Why the respect?

Posted by: Wellington at May 22, 2008 1:01 PM

"WE Americans deserve what we get for our sins; we must have done something to annoy those nice peaceloving Muslims"

bevc,
Is it possible you are misinterpreting what the Catholics say? Are they really saying "we must have done something bad to deserve it" or are they saying "it's all part of God's plan and we must accept it"?

The two paths may lead to the same end but they start from different points. Then there's "love our enemies" and "turn the other cheek", verses which have been used to instill pacifism in many Christians. These are meant to apply to our personal relationships with one another but have been misapplied in the public sphere. Christ also said to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's". Government has no right to turn the other cheek on my behalf. I might forgive the person who has wronged me but that doesn't relieve government of its own obligation in the matter.

Posted by: PMK at May 22, 2008 1:16 PM

Here is the biblical definition of 'anti-christ' (without even going into the vast number of similarities between the Imam al-Mahdi and the Beast, or the fact that early Christian writers believed Muslim armies to be the army of 'locusts' that come up like smoke from the 'bottomless pit' and cover the earth in Revelation, chapter 9):

1 John 2:22 - Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

Meaning: If you deny that God has a Son, you are 'antichrist.'

Muslims deny that God has a Son. Therefore, by definition they are antichrist.

So what's the big deal?

Posted by: Lori B. at May 22, 2008 1:16 PM

Connie: You misunderstood. My parish priests are NOT lefties. Far from it. They are NOT the ones to whom I was referring.

I am talking about so called Catholic websites that are on the Right for the most part -- or at least like me, very traditionalist in theology --- but whose Bush Derangement Syndrome and single lens focus on the misnamed "Iraq War" (it is one theater in a World War) blind them to believing "their own lying eyes" even when Osama and his brethren release another taped message or beheading video. They, like their mirror images on the Left, just cannot see the big picture. They cannot connect the dots from a slaughtered Buddhist teacher in Thailand to a jailed journalist in Malayasia to a beheaded Christian schoolgirl in Poso, Indonesia to embattled fellow Catholics in Philippines. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.

They think Muslim women are veiled due to modesty and respect for women in refreshing contrast to our little slutty half-naked celebs in the West. They think being anti-abortion makes the Islamic cultures pro-life even when I point out that though I am glad they were not aborted, girls such as Amina and Sarah Said are QUITE DEAD now and it is directly related to their father's faith (his cult and his culture).

They may hate Bush (I have my own problems with the President) but they sure are like him when it comes to their naive belief that we can ignore or dialog with jihad/sharia.

Posted by: bevc at May 22, 2008 1:28 PM

"Book of Prophecies”, written by Columbus contains over 200 biblical

Columbus believed his discovery of the New World was necessary in order to fulfill an ancient prophecy.

1500 AD, he wrote about America in one of his famous letters: "God made me the messenger of the new heaven and the new earth of which he spoke in the Apocalypse of St John after having spoken of it through the mouth of Isaiah; and he showed me the spot where to find it."

When Columbus made his case to win support from the Vatican and the Spanish monarchy, at the centre of his manifesto was a millennial prophecy about the destiny of the land that he would discover. A "New World" was to arise in the West to fight a final Crusade against the Arab powers (Muslims) of the Middle East.

Columbus's own writings prove that he believed that God revealed His plan for the world in the Bible, Columbus believed that he was obeying the mission God staked out for his life when he set sail west across the Atlantic Ocean.

So when
“Parsley and other evangelicals say;
“America was founded in order to destroy Islam” they are not making it up,
Columbus believed he was chosen by God, and the “New World” was to fight the final Crusade,.

Hmm, What if...

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at May 22, 2008 1:31 PM

I never heard of Rod Parsley before today, but suddenly I'm a big fan of his.

Well, OK, he supports McCain, but other than that I'm a big fan.

Posted by: shortfattexan at May 22, 2008 1:44 PM

Lex:

You and I are "on the same page" but there are many who call themselves "Christians" often unwittingly subscribe to false dawah claims about how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all just three happy 'Abrahamic Religions' living in happy coexistence and worshiping the same "god". The point I was making was not directed at you but on a great many gullible 'Christians' out there who don't seem to know the difference. We left a church awhile back because the 'minister', with a doctorate in Christian ministry, would neither affirm the exclusive divinity of Christ nor condemn the 'religion' that terrorists emulate in doing evil across the globe.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 22, 2008 1:58 PM

I never liked parsley before, used to toss it off the plate. Now I have to say I like it.

Posted by: maunalio at May 22, 2008 2:16 PM

I have watched Rod Parsley's television show maybe a dozen times over the years, so I am somewhat familiar with his position on Islam. Assuming this headline is true, and I have no reason to doubt otherwise, then I would have to agree with Rod 100%.

I disagree with McCain, though; suggesting that we need to respect Islam. Respecting Islam will never enter MY mind because doing so would mean that I need to embrace their prophet, Mohammad, and I don't. I do, however, encourage Muslims to leave Islam due to it's evil ideologies and barbaric practices.

Plus, there is no softer-side to Islam, and the Moderate-Muslim is only a myth. I also don't subscribe to the notion that reform within Islam is possible, due to the fact that Mohammad lived a soulless life. Who in their right mind would follow such a man. I just don't get it.

Islam be gone!

Posted by: champ at May 22, 2008 2:36 PM

descendantofacrusader,

As horribly retrograde as their theology is, at least Muslims don't waffle and hedge their bets about who they believe Mohammad to be, unlike those exquisitely tolerant of everything except orthodoxy "Christians" who may as well worship Eckhart Tolle.

Recently I chatted with a freind from high school, raised Catholic, who is now a member of Unity. These folks believe that we are all parts of God, but have chosen, pre-birth, to be amnesiacs in this life. The goal? For God to discover who God is, because God is also an amnesiac. Also, sin is an illusion and there is no hell. I told my friend that her belief is completely nuts. Yes, she admitted that she gets that a lot, even from her own children. What can I tell her? That at least she's not a Scientologist or a Raelian?

Posted by: Lex at May 22, 2008 3:26 PM

"Posted by: bevc at May 22, 2008 1:28 PM"

I didn't misunderstand you, really. Unfortunately, many Catholics are diehard Democrats who do not understand that the far left has hijacked their party. But certainly you are correct in that even those who aren't, refuse to believe that Islam is evil at its very roots and worth fighting against. They are anti-war and cannot (or refuse to) reconcile just cause, preferring to submit to BDS.

The Vatican was against the war at the beginning, but fortunately, an extremely brilliant Pope Benedict has seen a bright spot and taken advantage to call clerics to reason, even as he, prior to becoming Pope, did not think Islam could be reformed. I think he still feels the same way, but he has called them on it.

I have been contacting the various diocese around the country, as well as posting on some of the Catholic websites and blogs, praising those who do seem to "get it" hoping that they will discuss this with other clergy.

I have also blogged on other Christian sites and Mormon sites alerting them to the terrorist connections (as per this blog and Emerson's) of some of the charities they elect to work with.

Posted by: Connie at May 22, 2008 3:49 PM

"Posted by: bevc at May 22, 2008 1:28 PM"

I didn't misunderstand you, really. Unfortunately, many Catholics are diehard Democrats who do not understand that the far left has hijacked their party. But certainly you are correct in that even those who aren't, refuse to believe that Islam is evil at its very roots and worth fighting against. They are anti-war and cannot (or refuse to) reconcile just cause, preferring to submit to BDS.

The Vatican was against the war at the beginning, but fortunately, an extremely brilliant Pope Benedict has seen a bright spot and taken advantage to call clerics to reason, even as he, prior to becoming Pope, did not think Islam could be reformed. I think he still feels the same way, but he has called them on it.

I have been contacting the various diocese around the country, as well as posting on some of the Catholic websites and blogs, praising those who do seem to "get it" hoping that they will discuss this with other clergy.

I have also blogged on other Christian sites and Mormon sites alerting them to the terrorist connections (as per this blog and Emerson's) of some of the charities they elect to work with.

Posted by: Connie at May 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Lex:

It’s depressingly sad that ‘modern’ mainstream ‘Christianity’ often seems awash in its own sea of relativism when the Gospel is so very clear about good, evil, salvation, and the true nature of God [not Allah]. This same equivocal cancer, I’m quite sure, resulted in the mental sickness that my former ‘Christian’ minister suffered from and; one that could, in the end, signal the death nel for Western Culture and its Judeo-Christian foundation. And this: simply the unfortunate result of losing our once clear belief systems that clearly delineated between right & wrong, good & evil, and the true God & the false. This is why, and as you say: that Muslims don’t “waffle and hedge on their bets” [religious beliefs] and why, tragically, the West may lose in its epic battle for survival against 'holy' barbarism.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 22, 2008 3:58 PM

an evangelical minister who describes Islam as "anti-Christ"

Well. Islam IS anti-Christ! Is telling the truth a crime?

Posted by: calatrava at May 22, 2008 5:01 PM

The Forth Estate does not like Preachers of the Truth. Especially if they are Preachers.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 22, 2008 5:23 PM

The way I see it, on Christian awareness of the nature of Political Islam, jihad-sharia Islam.

the current Pope 'gets' it. At least one Cardinal - George Pell, in Australia - is on the page (he's read Bat Yeor, yay!). If Benedict XVI can come up with a good solid hard-hitting encyclical he'll enlighten more than just the Catholics. There are plenty of clergy and laity who are simply clueless, and many who are totally dhimmified; they need a major wake-up call.

The current head of the Anglican Communion is clueless. He has, however, a number of Bishops who are not - chief among them that apostate-from-Islam, Patrick Sookhdeo, who has been doing his darndest to wake up his fellow Anglicans, and society in general. My prayer: Sookhdeo gets the top job and EDUCATES the Anglicans.

Other protestants? - the full range, from clued-up, to clueless dhimmis and out and out Islamochristian traitors.

The charismatics/ pentecostals/ evangelicals include many who know what they're doing. They, too, are being taught by people who have apostasised from Islam, and don't beat around the bush - e.g. Daniel Shayesteh.

I don't know how things are going with the Orthodox. Fr Zakarias Botros with his 'Life TV' in Arabic is definitely no dhimmi, and he is making a big dent in the Muslim world. Copts outside Egypt are making noise.

Perhaps the most significant Orthodox bodies, living outside the Muslim world, are the Greeks and the Russians - if their leadership could stand up and give some leadership and teaching, it could have a major effect. I do understand that there are many Muslims, within the Federation, who are apostasising and being baptised into the Orthodox church - I hope the Orthodox are exercising due caution to make sure these conversions are genuine.

Ethiopian Christians of all varieties probably need lots of spiritual and physical encouragement and assistance from their slightly-less-beleaguered brethren.

The most important thing for ALL Christians and christianised societies to understand, is that the Jihad is driven by factors completely internal to Islam, and by opportunity (whether the Muslim world has access to the means for conducting jihad) and has NOTHING to do with what we ourselves regard as sins or virtues, nor with anything we may have done, or not done, to Muslim neighbours. We have GOT to get rid of any idea that 'we deserve it' because 'we are being punished for our sins'. That idea crippled even the earliest christian communities who were assailed by the jihad.

They forgot that even the purest, most devout, most sexually chaste, just, and temperate Christian community, living peacefully and piously and prayerfully, doing no harm to anyone or anything, is a target for Jihad - simply and solely because its members are NOT MUSLIMS.

We Kafir (not only Christians, but everyone else) 'oppress' and 'offend' Muslims merely by ...existing.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 22, 2008 9:18 PM

Alan Colmes put up the statement on Hanity & Colmes tonight:

Parsley: "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world,"

And whines to Dick Morris about that statement 'cause Obama was hit so (unfairly) hard by comments by his Pastor, Wright. Dick Morris went on to say essentially, .. a lot of Americans would agree with that statement.

Amen to that.

Posted by: Sounder at May 22, 2008 9:32 PM

I too watched Hannity and Colmes tonight and can only take so much of Colmes on a "good" night. As for Colmes and the statement by Pasrley: so what is incorrect about it? How many attacks committed by Tibetan Buddhists agianst non Buddhists? Darn, those Catholic ETA types are at it again. Too bad Mark Steyn was being rather reserved tonight. Senator Graham was not at all helpful and this spinning of what Islam truly is to the West/the Infidel West has got to stop. Would someone please ask why Muslims continue to kill all those they deem as infidel, etc? And the answer would be we were insulted when so and so made a movie insulting Mohammed, etc. Okay, so how many times have Christians killed someone for insulting Jesus Christ or the Bible? Name one time. Go ahead, just one time. That artist who did the crufix in a jar of urine -still alive. the artist who did the picture of the Virgin Mary in dung - still alive.
Come on - we're waiting.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at May 22, 2008 10:01 PM

Olberman of MSNBC -
"Parsley's Hate Speech" compared to "Wright's comparatively silly comments."

Parsley states that islam's goal is to take over the world, violently if need be. Muslims themselves say that, don't they?

"Wright's comparatively silly comments". His 'silly comments' seemed more like a Hate Speech rant to many observers.

I must be missing something. I don't see the equivalence.

This will be rerun for as long as possible.

If Colmes and Olberman both think there is an equivalence here, then it will be beat to death by the media for weeks. They love Obama and will do anything and everything they can to elect him. The same talking heads that bent over backwards explaining why Wright's comments should not affect Obama are now saying McCain should be responsible for Parsley's comments.

Posted by: Borg at May 22, 2008 10:37 PM

If McCain were smart, he would use his "Straight talk express", and call both pastors in for a town hall meeting, with questions answered for the people. With him there, he could show his position, and allow the pastors to give the reasons for their statements.

He just may get a bump in the polls when it is all said and done.

If he were smart.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at May 23, 2008 1:34 AM

McCain has repeatedly urged the U.S. to show respect for Islam.

Uh huh...Respect for Islam. Now thats something to seriously ponder...for about two seconds. Respect for Islam, just exactly what does that mean in real life? I don't know what that is, I have never had any. If McCain has some, I wonder where he got it?
I have looked everywhere in Islam, that I know of, for a source of respect...I went to the Quran, I read the whole thing twice and some parts more, I found nothing there I could respect, but it did give me a headache. Then I got addicted to Hadith, but found no fount of respect there either. I listened to Zarqawi speaches and watched his beheading movies, but I could find no trace of respect. I can't remember the names of all the Islamic scholars and clerics I have read, or watched their video's, and cant find any respect there either.
So where is McCain getting this respect? What form does it take, dhimmitude and jizya? I can't respect that...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 23, 2008 1:38 AM

The public at large isn't psychologically prepared for the curtain obscuring Islam to be pulled back so roughly.

Therefore McCain must tread carefully and not alienate any indifferent-to-Islam and merely-nominal "Muslims" (or give ammunition to those who would naturally symapthize with such a put-upon "underdog") with this kind of firebrand preacher.

One who doesn't understand that politicians need to coax and cajole the opposition, not shock them awake.

Parsley may be right, but he is too impolitic.

McCain needs to win the White House, which means not coming off as a "religious extremist" to the nervous voters who now naively think that Islam is just like Methodism or Buddhism or Mormonism.

Parsley is skipping ahead too much for the general populace.

This is a campaign of education, which cannot be dumped on people's empty heads and expected to simply fill them.

Their wariness and disgust with Islam's dismal dogmas must grow naturally.

Or it will not penetrate and take root and bear fruit.

Just as physicians have to talk to their patients differently than they do to one another, Parsley's "bedside manner" is too clumsy for the political arena.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2008 2:03 AM

McCain lives and plays in Arizona, so how does a Texas minister become his preacher? Only in the Main Stream Media! Yet White is O'Bamas minister directly and the play hear no evil see no evil and speak no evil! Gotta love it!

Posted by: kwg1 at May 23, 2008 2:37 AM

I'm with McCain's "wingnuts", too. They're just being honest about what they believe. And, I doubt that their solution to the Islamic evil is mass murder as in the jihadis' solution to the kufr problem. In all likelihood, these revered gentlemen would hold that conversion of Muslims to Christ is the solution; and bloody war is justifiable only in self-defense.

If you believe that God became man in Jesus Christ and paid the final sacrifice for our sins, you simply cannot believe that a mere set of rules (mostly tailor-made to justify carvana raiding, pillage, rape, and the like) is from God Almighty.

Posted by: Kepha at May 23, 2008 9:06 AM

profitsbeard: Exactly!!! Let's just hope that's his strategy...

Posted by: mepeteart at May 23, 2008 11:48 AM

God Bless Pastor Rod Parsley!! It's good to see that someone who is at least associated with one of the presidential candidates knows the truth about Islam and is willing to state it publicly. Now if only Pastor Parsley's knowledge of Islam and his courage to speak about it were contagious - and maybe could infect McCain - and, through him, all the people and other politicians that McCain comes in contact with.

Posted by: nightlight at May 23, 2008 4:39 PM