| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
We have had a few posters here who have repeatedly sounded the alarm about a threat they think is every bit as large as that of the global jihad: the theocratic ambitions they think are cherished by Christians. My reason for thinking this equation of "right wing Muslims" with "right wing Christians" is arrant nonsense is summed up by a response I made to Khaleel Mohammed when he said that I should pay more attention to Tim LaHaye's novels than to the jihadists: "Tell you what, Khaleel: as soon as Tim LaHaye beheads a non-Christian and Fox News gleefully replays the video, I’ll get right on that."
Now John McCandlish Phillips, a former New York Times reporter, explains in "Columnists have called a linguistic holy war on Christians" in the Manchester Union Leader why the media lust to equate the "Christian jihad" with the Islamic variety is dangerously misleading. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, they are detracting from credible reports, and making it harder for the American people to discern the activities of the real jihad and defend themselves against it.
But this kind of pseudo-analysis is unfortunately widespread. One intelligence analyst even found it at the highest levels of the intelligence community: when he warned his superiors about Islamic jihad, they were dismissive, and told him that if he wanted real religious extremism, he should look into Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Which buildings did those two fly planes into?
Says Phillips:
The opening salvo of the heavy rhetorical artillery to which I object came in on March 24, when Maureen Dowd started her column in the Times with the declaration “Oh my God, we really are in a theocracy.” While satiric, it was not designed to be taken lightly.Three days later Times columnist Frank Rich sweepingly informed us that, under the effects of “the God racket” as now pursued in Washington, “government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma.” He went on to tell Times readers that GOP zealots in Congress and the White House have edged our country over into “a full-scale jihad.”
If Rich were to have the misfortune to live for one week in a genuine jihad, and the unlikely fortune to survive it, he would temper his categorization of the perceived President Bush-driven jihad by a minimum of 77 percent....
From March 24 through April 23 (when The Post twinned Colbert I. King’s “Hijacking Christianity” with Paul Gaston’s “Smearing Christian Judges”), I counted 13 opinion columns of similarly alarmist tone aimed at us on the Christian right: two more in The Post by Richard Cohen headlined “Backward Evolution” and “Faith-Based Pandering;” one by his colleague, the urbane Eugene Robinson, “Art vs. the Church Lady” (lamenting that “the pall of religiosity hanging over the city was reaching gas-mask stage”); and three by Dowd, two by Paul Krugman and three by Rich in the Times. In “What’s Going On” (March 29), Krugman darkly implied that some committed religious believers in our nation bear a menacing resemblance to Islamic extremists. In “An Academic Question” (April 5), Krugman, conceding the wide majority of secular liberals over conservatives on the faculties of our major universities, had the supreme chutzpah to tell us why: The former, unfettered by presuppositions of faith, are free to commit genuine investigative work and to reach valid scholarly conclusions, while the latter are disabled in that critical respect by their unprovable prior assumptions....
How many columns did those people write about the Islamic jihad in that span?
Posted by Robert at May 11, 2005 9:28 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The denigration of Evangelical Christians as "rightwing, intolerant theocrats" who control the Repbulican Party once again demonstrates that Liberals live in a fantasy world. The Democratic Party is much more dependent on "rightwing Christians" then are Republicans. As we all know the definition of rightwing as applied to Christians is a group of people who are bibilical literalists, opposed to the abortion, homosexual marriage and Darwinian evolution. A majority of African-American Christians fit this description. Just goes to show how inately racist Liberals are. They cannot even correctly identify the religious views of their most important voting block
Posted by: jerry![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 11, 2005 10:03 AM
*pops in for 30 seconds* LaHayes?
Books that are totally works of fiction? Bible-based, true, but still fiction.
As compared to what we see going on around the world on a daily basis?
What elitist drug are these people smoking?
I will admit, there is One chance of a theocracy in the US: if these people keep assisting the jihadists by ignoring Jihad.
*gone*
Posted by: Gary at May 11, 2005 10:21 AM
Let's face it. The lefts grasp of reality is tenuous at best.
Posted by: Kemaste at May 11, 2005 10:28 AM
Well, the godly political society may be one in which care is taken to be sure that no sinner (which IS all of us save Jesus Christ) is allowed too much power. This was a scarlet thread (ignored by 19th century American Unitarian schoolbooks) running through the political thought of the Reformed branch of Protestantism from Zwingli down through the Puritans--and including, believe it or not, Calvin himself, that arch bugaboo and prince of darkness in the imaginations of secular liberals. This is why Evangelical churches are usually under plural leadership, and subject most important things to the vote of the congregation. And what kind of fascists would really love to see a president who tells his secretary of education, "Look, your job over the next four years is to find other employment for all of your people. We're going to totally de-regulate American education, and if the teachers' union squawks, so be it..."?
Then again, I'm old enough to remember Scotty Reston's paeans to Mao Zedong. Perhaps the reason the _Duranty Slimes_ hates and libels us so much is that its editors know full well that we're the orginal limited government advocates. Worse, if the Islamofascists ever start gunning for them, the editors of the _Duranty Slimes_ will expect my son to put his butt into uniform and hold the line while theirs are sent to Yurrupp and out of harm's way. May they choke on their next slice--oops, tranche--of quiche.
Posted by: Kepha at May 11, 2005 11:15 AM
We are in far greater danger of a liberal secular autocracy than any Christian theocracy. As a matter of fact we are already on the road to an autocracy. Which side of this debate has enacted legislation to limit/ban political speech? Not the evangelicals or traditional Catholics. Stanley Kurtz has a good take on this at
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200504280758.asp
Kurtz makes the point that the activism Christians who take their faith seriously is nothing more than self-defense given the decades long relentless denigration dished out by the liberal secularists and helped along by the mainstream media.
Posted by: Belay at May 11, 2005 11:58 AM
Credit for this may actually go to Nick Kristoff who started with this crap about Christian extremists being a greater danger around the Xmas holiday season, I just can't remember the exact context.
And crap, this kind of moral equivalency indeed is.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at May 11, 2005 12:31 PM
Every religion has its share of fanatics.
But not all fanatics act with the same degree of destructive behavior. Some fanatics are not dangerous at all, while some are capable of most anything. There are two forces at work here. The fanatics predisposition to violence, and spiritual sickness. Annie Bailey, the turn of the century theosophist, wrote numerous books on spirituality...one of them dealt entirely with spiritual illnesses. I believe that Islam causes psychotic episodes in believers. The nobility of man should not be measured in decapitations.
Our compassion should not be expressed by suicide bombings. Evil perpetrated by men on men
for power or gain only, is caused by predisposition to violence and gross materialism...Evil perpetrated on men by men for the sake of religion, is spiritual sickness. All religions have an element of this but Islams is pervasive. Christians, Jews, even Wiccans and Satan worshippers dont strap on bombs and blow up school buses. They dont fly planes into buildings and they dont "LOVE DEATH"...only those with serious spiritual illnesses do those kinds of things...
at May 11, 2005 2:10 PM
Duh_Swami~ you have the right of it.
If I may add: Kurtz, the writer mentioned above (whom I have posted here several times), calls himself secular. It is right there in at least one of his articles. If he is having a problem with this delusion of a christian conspiracy...
Doing a google just now, I see the Left is lambasting him severely- which means he must be on to something. Just plug in 'Kurtz secular wrong,' as one possible search...
Posted by: Gary at May 11, 2005 2:21 PM
sorry, exchange 'dominionist' for 'secular'
Posted by: Gary at May 11, 2005 2:22 PM
"What elitist drug are these people smoking"
Welcome to the topsy-turvey world of post-modernism, where Zarqawi is a freedom fighter and George Washington is a terrorist. I know it is a theme I often repeat, but it behooves us to understand the phenomenon that has, over the last 50-100 years, transformed true liberals into self-hating "citizen-of-the-world" traitors. Only shock therapy can cure them. I was healed by my reading of the Koran a few months after 9/11. I can recommend other forms of shock therapy for the truly hardcore:
Those who believe that Sharia law and restrictions on abortion are morally equivalent should be invited to witness a woman being stoned to death for having a baby out of wedlock.
Those who believe the Patriot Act "victimizes" Muslims should be invited to witness Muslims being whipped to death for eating in public during Ramadan.
Those who believe that the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research will take U.S. medicine to the "stone age" should volunteer to work in Afghanistan to see what a stone age clinic really looks like.
Those who believe that Jerry Falwell's "controversial" comments about Muhammad are morally equivalent to Bin Laden's many fatwas should sit in on a typical sermon in Gaza (with a translater).
Sad thing is, some of these cases are terminal: We see how Islam destroys all sense of proportion. That’s what happens when you start them early public schools that ridicule the concept of objective reality and moral absolutes.
The Muslim world has madrassas that teach "irrefutable" hatred of none-believers. The post-Christian world has madrassas that teach nihilism and never ending self-doubt.
at May 11, 2005 3:22 PM
Duh_Swami,
I am really sorry to burst your bubble about theosophy and Anne Bailey, but Bailey seems to be rabid anti-Semite in her own right. Behold:
"The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God [and against the Aryan race, whom Bailey admires] Thus the history of the wandering Jew began and the Jew since has known no lasting peace."
"Their [the Jews] aggressive history, as narrated in the Old Testament, is on a par with present-day [1940's] German accomplishment..."
"Their religious history has been built around a materialistic Jehovah, possessive, greedy, and endorsing and encouraging aggression..."
"Today [1949] the law of racial karma is working and the Jews are paying the price [for evil done in past lives], factually and symbolically ... "
"They [the Jews] have never faced candidly and honestly as a race the problem of WHY [sic] the many nations, from the time of the Egyptians, have neither liked nor wanted them... Yet there must be some reason, inherent in the people themselves, when the reaction is so general and universal."
"The Jews are the reincarnation of spiritual failures or residues from another planet... The Jew represents materialism, cruelty and a spiritual conservatism, under the domination of the separative, selfish mind, that from which all good [New Age] disciples want to emerge."
"The word "love" for others is lacking in Judaism... The Jew has never grasped the love of God. The God of the Jews is possessive and greedy. Jehovah is not God."
"They did it [rejected a new religion, i.e., Christianity] again in Palestine 2000 years ago; will they do it again, as opportunity is offered to them? The difficulty with the Jew is that he remains satisfied with the religion of nearly 5000 years ago and shows little desire as yet to change. (Bailey, The Reappearance of Christ, p. 81.)"
"The Jewish problem will be solved by the willingness of the Jew to conform to the civilization, the cultural background and the standards of living of the nation to which -- by the fact of birth and education -- he is related and should assimilate."
"It [the solution to the Jewish problem] will come by relinquishment of the pride of race and of the concept of selectivity; it will come by renouncing dogmas and customs which are intrinsically obsolete and which create points of constant irritation to the matrix in which the Jew finds himself. It will come when selfishness in business relations and the pronounced manipulative tendencies of the Hebrew people are exchanged for more selfless and honest forms of activity... ( Esoteric Healing, p. 263 et. seq.)"
"The evil karma of the Jew today [written in 1949] is intended to end his isolation, to bring him to the point of relinquishing material goals, of renouncing a nationality that has a tendency to be somewhat parasitic within the boundaries of other nations, and to express inclusive love instead of separative unhappiness..."(Ibid.)"
Here is the link:
http://www.ety.com/HRP/booksonline/antizion/B.htm
I have not verified these quotes on my own at the library (that is why you do not see references to the actual books), but she is seems to be echoing most of the theosophical anti-Jewish crap invented by Helen Blavatsky 100 years ago.
at May 11, 2005 3:37 PM
Whoops!!!
I gave you the wrong link. That is a holocaust-denial webisite (I'm one of those people who believe in keeping there enemies really close). Here is the correct link:
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/bailey.html
Posted by: Andrei Rublev at May 11, 2005 3:43 PM
A thought experiment for today: what would Mohammad have done if he were in the position of Jesus near Jerusalem during that fateful passover?
Would Mohammad have entered the city, proclaimed beliefs that would alarm Roman authorities, and, perhaps, offend Jewish ones? Would Mohammad have been so reckless? Would he be ready to die for his cause in the belief that surrendering himself to his powerful opposition would ironically transform heaven and earth, overcome death, and set ablaze a divine light of peace on earth that might save even the ones who killed him?
I don't think so. Mohammad would have been careful to recruit as many people as he could to his cause, and only those who would completely submit to his wishes. No potential traitors. If he knew of a Judas, adios. He would garner adequate defense for himself, raise money and hide. He would continue to build his strength, preaching peace and surrender to God and the prophet, while he negotiated with Roman and Jewish authorites, maybe even telling them what they want to hear. And he would run from the forces rallied against him if he were threatened. And, if he needed money and resources for his growing cult following, he would raid communities, caravans or whatever he had to do. No need for his followers to tell stories about miraculous mulitplication of food; nope, instead, he would take pride in the 'victories' his followers achieved by force; these 'victories' would be proof that God was with them. And then, when he felt he was strong enough, or if he were backed into a corner and was forced to fight, he would rally his fanatical following; and he would have trained them and prepared them for the fight: fight and die, that is your obligation. You will be rewarded even more if you fight than if you do not.
The Romans had a very big army. So, perhaps, Mohammad would have had to run. Perhaps he would not have had the victories he achieved in the Arabian peninsula during his lifetime. But, one thing is very certain: he would not have entered Jerusalem on that passover. Everything Jesus did during that passover, and everything Jesus reportedly said, is inconsistent with the message and examples of Mohammad.
Posted by: JTF at May 11, 2005 3:49 PM
And this website shows the connection between theosophy and (make sure you are sitting down when you read this) ... Adolf Hitler's beliefs:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual3/chap09.html
I don't believe the Wiesenthal Center is in the habit of publishing B.S.
at May 11, 2005 3:50 PM
The more stories like this, the more muddy the waters get. The more muddy the waters, the more people that will turn a blind eye. The more people that turn a blind eye, the more blood will eventually have to flow. Of course on the bright side, I dont suppose anyone will go out of their way (at a time when they can ill afford to), to help these naysayers keep their blood on the right side of their skin.
Posted by: Absolution at May 11, 2005 4:14 PM
The claims of some in this article are just ridiculous. If there was ever going to be a theocracy it would have been enshrined into the Constitution by the Framers back in 1787. The Framers and the rest of the country were VERY religious back then. It didn't happen then because the Framers didn't want it to happen. They just broke away from England and England's mandated loyalty to one church. The Founding Fathers wanted RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, and that's why they instituted a secular democracy along with the 1st Amendment which guaranteed such freedom.
People who keep screaming that "we are in danger of going back to a Christian theocracy" should take note of the historical fact that there was NEVER a Christian theocracy in the United States of America.
at May 11, 2005 5:42 PM
I have some Aussie friends who tell me that this is a popular saying: "The biggest difference between Australia and the United States is the Mississippi River."
Well, the biggest difference between Islamia and the United States is the Constitution.
As Duh_swami says, every religion has its share of fanatics, but as long as we take the Constitution seriously, we need not fear a theocracy of any kind.
at May 11, 2005 7:55 PM
Those columnists are, at best, woefully ignorant of the huge factor Christianity has played in our nation's history. At worst, their blatant attempts to equate Christianity with islam is undercutting the important heritage people of faith have had in our history.(See www.wallbuilders.com for a more complete discussion.)
As I see it, the Great Awakening resulted in, one generation later, freedom in America via the American Revolution. The Second Great Awakening resulted, one generation later, in the Abolitionist movement and freedom to the slaves in America.
The Jesus Movement in the US in the early 1970's, one generation ago, is, I believe, the motivating factor in the push throughout the world for Freedom.
And why would freedom movements be a natural outgrowth of Christian movements? It is because "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty."
at May 12, 2005 12:58 PM
The progressives are talking against Christians because they see them as political enemies. This is pure political expediency. I bet that if they were in a real-life situation, they would be more scared of someone wearing a t-shirt with WWMD than WWJD.
Posted by: former liberal WF at May 12, 2005 4:18 PM
There's one thing I love about Christian fundies, you can criticize them without risk to your life.
Posted by: spect8or at May 13, 2005 3:45 AM
There's one thing I love about Christian fundies, you can criticize them without risk to your life.
Posted by: spect8or at May 13, 2005 3:46 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)