Nonsense. A baseless worry. Muslims will use whatever they can to claim they are the victims of an Infidel "Crusade." A diminished presence of Evangelical Christians -- who are well-represented in the American military -- would not change the Muslim reaction or claims of victimhood one whit. But if one were to limit the presence of Christian Evangelicals in the Pentagon or in the military, that would inflict quite unnecessary damage on our own, American, efforts to protect ourselves. They are to be welcomed, not maligned. Of course, too-aggressive efforts at proselytizing, whatever the sect or religion, are always to be vigilantly monitored -- but that is another, quite different matter.

Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2006 7:54 AM

Laughable. I'm sure that Muslims in the Pentagon are just peachy though.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 12, 2006 7:56 AM

Some info on Mikey Weinstein. He's not totally out of line here-->> http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:PW3fEtAhAqEJ:www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3%3Fartid%3D10883+%22Mikey+Weinstein%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Posted by: dennisw at December 12, 2006 7:58 AM

The only manner in which professions of faith by American military endangeres national security is when some members not only try to evangelize to other servicemen and officers, but also when they use their rank to reinforce their often unwelcome efforts. This leads to issues such as will the wing man and the lead work well together, will the nonreceptive lieutenant's platoon receive the tougher patrol assignment from the commander, etc.

chsw

Posted by: chsw at December 12, 2006 8:38 AM

Crackdown on Christianity Alert!

They have Bible study and prayer groups and who does this offend?

So now Muslim terrorists in other countries are the deciding factor in Christians being able to meet and practice their faith at their workplace during their breaks?

And men and women who are proud to serve their country can't wear their uniforms if they are going to say anything about their Christian beliefs? Do they have to change into civilian clothes prior to bending their knees in prayer?

*cough, sputter, spit*

Posted by: Josephine at December 12, 2006 8:44 AM

Okay everybody. Countdown to the destruction of the United States of America has begun.

With this dhimmitude you're all going down!

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 12, 2006 8:51 AM

Next we need to prohibit church services on sunday. this will show those god ole jihadi boys that they shud like us.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at December 12, 2006 9:12 AM

Tony "the Liar" not only las a clue of what he's doing - he knows EXACTLYhat he's doing - don't fool yourself.

Those at the top called the Elite- are all member of some kind of gang - (they call themselves Masons) also in Islamic countries - wherein they can id themselves. Even when out of office officially - and they get "preferred status." Don't you think The Tony the "Poodle"
is best pal with "whatshisface" of Iran?

So when the "great Unwashed" is screwed - the Elite will always get special priviledges.

This sort of thing has always gone on - even before the time of the Romans. The Romans conquered - and took the "native" rulers back home with them - and after the big show of parading in golden chaines - they lived in style later.

The saying is something like " the last act of a deposed ruler is to empty the country's treasury" - or something like that.

What is the greatest treasure the West has?

Allat

Posted by: allat at December 12, 2006 10:04 AM

OHH:

"Public displays of faith by high-ranking military officers project an image of a Christian nation waging war on non-Christians"

and we do not see public displays of hate and violence by high ranking Islamic clerics (In Islam Clerics, government officials and military are all in one)projecting Islamic nations waging war on Jews and Christians.

STUPID ALERT STUPID ALERT--WE ARE AT WAR!!

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 12, 2006 10:13 AM

I'm so tired of hearing about this anti-Christian Weinstein fellow. He loves making a habit of suing the military for "Crimes of Christianity." He's an embarassment to humanity.

Posted by: HistorianTheologian at December 12, 2006 10:27 AM

Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is it a branch of the ACLU aka the Anti Christian Lackeys Union?
Next on their agenda is probably to prohibit any religious services (except muslim, of course) among our servicemen.

Posted by: FIVEOFNINE at December 12, 2006 10:29 AM

"Mikey"

Seems like a pretty effeminate name for a military man. Most would just go by Mike. There is always a hidden axe to grind...

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at December 12, 2006 10:53 AM

CNSNews.com) - Christian military officers who share their faith at work in the Pentagon pose a threat to national security, according to a group that advocates for religious neutrality in the military------

.... Is this the same group that demands that prayer rooms be made availiable, and time off allowed for Muslim prayers, ...I submit this group poses a security threat.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 12, 2006 11:01 AM

BTW, how's that mosque at Camp Pendleton doing?

Posted by: ShortBoard Surfer at December 12, 2006 12:27 PM

It will just reinforce the impression that Bill Clinton gave to Osama bin Laden in Somalia in the 1990s: that we aren't willing to stand up and fight for who we are.

That is despicable. Pure, base, partisanship.

I wonder what impression the Dhimmi-in-Chief has given Bin Laden? Maybe something like this: If you attack us, we will attack Iraq.

Bin Laden... Bin Forgottin'... alive and well, plotting our demise 1,919 days after 9-11. But thank goodness we got Saddam! And to think, it's only cost us 3,000 American lives. Well, at least now the only threat to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait has been taken out.

Maybe by the next time we have a serious terror attack President Obama or President Hillary will finally take care of Bin Laden.

And Mr. Spencer, I KNOW that you are an intellectual, studious gentleman. I KNOW that you can remember all those GOPers calling on Clinton to get our boys out of Somalia (the war Bush Sr. started).

Also I KNOW that you can remember Reagan's carefully rehearsed response to Hezbollah after the murder of 241 US Marines in 1983: "You can run but you can't hide." Well, it turns out they weren't hiding, Ollie North (R-Traitor) had their addresses in his rolodex in the Whitehouse basement. And then Gipper the Walking Nap PROMPTLY cut & ran. Of course the old coot wouldn't have been elected if not for Iran, so maybe he was just repaying a favor. Since he basically just did whatever Nancy's personal astrologer told him, I guess he's not really to blame for his actions.

Mr. Spencer, I know that you occasionally criticize the GOPers, but your biased, out-of-context swipes at Clinton are below you and your exceptional effort to honestly report the truth about Islam. It smacks of the similar muck hurled at Israel by the "Justice and Peace" crowd: no comparison to other people/events, no context, no balance.

Sure, let's criticize Clinton for his failings, and let's criticize Israel. But let's keep the criticism of Clinton's predecessors (and successor) and Israel's neighbors part of the discussion.

Smarmy, out-of-the-blue insults like the one you couldn't resist throwing in (see above) will ONLY SERVE to make more liberals LESS LIKELY to listen to you (and I) when you (we) try to explain to them why radical Islam is the enemy of ALL OF US.

I am only telling you this to try to make your appeals more palatable to those of my liberal brethren that may be inclined to dismiss what you say out of hand. Please, leave the petty, inane political sputum to those of us in the comments... there will be no shortage of that, certainly.

Keep up the good work, Mr. Spencer. I am always your admiring fan.

Cordially yours,

keithjoy

PS... knuckle-dragging JW-ers may submit hate mail to fanorollins@yahoo.com

Posted by: kj at December 12, 2006 12:44 PM

What's such crap about this:

1. Evangelicals serve in the military at over twice their percentage of the American population. Having served many years in the Infantry (point of the spear), I would tell you evangelicals make an even higher percentage of those who are risking the most in combat.

2. Evangelicals are about the only reason America continues to support Israel. If there were no evangelicals, Liberals (including a substantial number of Liberal Jews) would have forced Baker-influenced administration to dump Israel.

3. Evangelicals are the backbone of America's ideological fight against radical Islam. Whether or not one is Christian, all Americans (heck, all non-Muslims) had better understand the "moral spine" evangelical Christianity provides in this fight.

4. The moral and spiritual discipline that comes from leading a "Biblical" life is exactly what Americans want in their military officers. Throughout history, our greatest military leaders have been men of faith. All the academies marched their future officers to Church (or synaguogue) every week up until the 1970's. At that time, some idiot ACLU type decided to make this an church/state issue. Was our officer corps harmed from cadets marching to Church????

5. Islamists believe the West will fall because it has not faith. No faith = no courage (as we see with much of Western Europe). America is great because we are industrialized AND we have faith. This puts a lie to the Islamist ideology of the weak West.

This really pisses me off. Like all evangelicals, I go out of my way to support Israel and Jews. In many cases, I'm fighting turn-coat Jews in attempting to support Israel. WHY IN THE HECK CAN'T LIBERAL JEWS UNDERSTAND THAT EVANGELICALS ARE THEIR BEST FRIENDS AND THEIR PRIMARY PROTECTION AGAINST 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE WHO WOULD KILL THEM IN A HEART-BEAT!!!!!

Posted by: hello123 at December 12, 2006 12:48 PM

"invading American imperialist and crusaders'....

And that is a problem? I don't have any problem with being viewed that way.....do you?

We have been called this for decades....who cares....'sticks and stones may hurt my bones' you know the rest...

Ask your self about these words:

Invading: we have gone into two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. So what. Two countries. How many countries are being terrorized, taken over, military coups, or civil wars by Islam? 30, 40 or 50 countries?

American: yep, we are and not boing to hide the fact.

Imperialistic: Not quite. Try Democratic to the bone.

Crusaders: I wish. If we actually had common ground and would declare an enemy we could actually win.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 12, 2006 1:10 PM

hello123 writes:
"This really pisses me off. Like all
evangelicals, I go out of my way to support
Israel and Jews. In many cases, I'm fighting
turn-coat Jews in attempting to support Israel."

I'm sorry. I'm Jewish and I can say that my experience matches your own. Jewish people make
a great show of how awful those evangelicals are for attempting to convert others, but as far as
I know there hasn't been a beheading (that's a joke, son!) yet when I bring up how bad the
Muslims are I always hear excuses. The tide
seems to be turning, but much too slowly.

Anyways, I'm sorry that I can't tell you that
you're just imagining this! There are lots of
self loathing Jews out there!

Posted by: root_cause at December 12, 2006 1:33 PM

Is it just me or does anyone notice that Islam seems to have more vitality than Christianity? Has Christianity virtually thrown in the towel? I see Christianity surrendering its churches, properties, rights the will to fight.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 12, 2006 2:12 PM

It still amazes me that Jewish groups, like the ADL, would attack Christianity as a threat, and not islam. What can they possibly be thinking. Hmmmm...

Posted by: August22 at December 12, 2006 2:16 PM

Thank you root_cause. I have many Jewish friends and spent over 7 months of my life visiting Israel on a weekly basis (from duty in Egypt). Israel is a wonderful country I will support throughout my life. Most Israel Jews I knew in Israel understood American Evangelicals are rock-solid friends. We can both disagree about Jesus Christ and live as friends.

That said, I know it must kill many Jews (like yourself) to see the "self-loathing" types. It is one thing for someone to stick their head in the sand about radical Islam. It is quite another to actively cause problems for those defending against the scourge. In the case of many Liberal Jews, they should know they will be the first to lose their heads if "we" (all non-Muslims) lose this fight.

As you correctly point out: Evangelicals are not a physical threat. I have found that very few Evangelicals are willing to actually "evangelize". Statistically, only a tiny percentage (1-2%). It is just too uncomfortable for most (like making "cold" calls, with the risk of looking stupid in front of friends AND not money for it!!). If the person being evangelized makes clears they "don't want any", the evangelical will likely never bring up the subject again (Bible commands they are to "wipe the dust from their sandles" and drop the subject). Quite a different issue from Islam which seeks to bring all other humans under political and military submission AND will bring violence to achieve that aim.

Anyway, we are all in this fight together. I only pray more Jews understand Evangelical Christianity is not the enemy but a valuable and necessary friend in our common struggle (Even if it's annoying to occasionally hear about Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life:))

Posted by: hello123 at December 12, 2006 2:19 PM

Keithjoy stated:

"Sure, let's criticize Clinton for his failings, and let's criticize Israel."

You had me going there until you made that statement. What does Israel have to do with this thread? When I hear Liberals deriding Israel and blaming the existance of Israel for all the world's problems I tune them out. The utter lies about Israel perpetrated by the Liberal press makes me sick. Enough already! Pick up a paper and look at all the atrocities committed by muslims around the world...are muslims beheading Christian girls in Indonesia because Israel is building a wall? No, non-muslims are being slaughtered because the scum can get away with it. Christian/Judeo values are the only real weapon we have as a civilization. The symbolism of this being eradicated from the Pentagon sends a powerful message to the enemy. The crusades never ended for Islam.

Posted by: never_submit at December 12, 2006 2:26 PM

There are no self-loathing Jews. That is a misnomer. These Jews are simply Leftist. And their loyality to their politics supercedes their loyalty to their own creed, their loyalty to their country, or even to Israel itself, just as the atomic spies betrayed their country to help the communists in the cold war.

Unfortunately, leftist thought has its roots in the modern Jewish culture, so it is not surprising that we see many Jewish activists on the muslim side of the equation, many in the ACLU, the feminist movement, the civil rights agitators, and in this case, objecting to the Christian presense in the military. I know this is an uncomfortable truth on these pages, as I have had posts deleted for saying it, but we have to be honest if we are to be strong in opposing the dhimmis and the collaboraters. The enemy is the Left. Whomever is on the Left, will oppose us, and advocate for islam. It will always come down to that.

Posted by: August22 at December 12, 2006 2:42 PM

Keithjoy wrote:

"That is despicable. Pure, base, partisanship."

Translation:

"Don’t bring up anything that may offend liberals or you won’t win them over!"

Who cares, really? As if that was the purpose of JW/DW: to speak liberalese. KJ obviously hasn’t been around much lately as there are not many here who laud President Bush. He’s like a caller on a radio talk show who never really listens but likes to call in to have his opinion heard by all and is hoping to one day have his own show.

Robert’s point was directed to thinking people who don’t look at the mere mention of Clinton’s name as proof positive that he is the ultimate cause of all our grief. If he wanted to be “fair and balanced” he could’ve taken a day to thoroughly research and provide a list of at least one mistake made by every president so as not to offend anyone. I’m sure KJ would take the time but the point would be lost by then.

KJ treats anyone who uses a liberals name in vain like a trespasser on his property: You will be shot on sight if my dogs don’t get to you first. Other than that he rarely adds anything to the thread in which he posts. It’s a shame really. He seems fairly intelligent and would be taken more seriously if his views weren’t so focused solely on defending the left.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at December 12, 2006 4:42 PM

Is it just me or does anyone notice that Islam seems to have more vitality than Christianity? Has Christianity virtually thrown in the towel? I see Christianity surrendering its churches, properties, rights the will to fight.

Don't be fooled by the mainstream media. There are thousands of energized, intellectually awake churches throughout the US. There are also many outlets for solid apologetics teaching, including higher criticism of Islam. You don't hear about this because whenever the cable news channels or hollywood moviemakers present anything Christian, it is usually lampooned mercilessly (and ignorantly).

Part of the biblical worldview specifies evil as being spiritual in nature as well as existential:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Ephesians 6:12

For this reason, prayer and fasting is considered a valid line of defence, and a lot of it is going on as we write. Also, Christians have a lot of confidence in Jesus as the Bible describes Him (a mighty warrior, as opposed to the sandaled Mr. Rogers stereotype) and His ability to intercede in the affairs of mankind.

That said, I don't know of any churches signing over their buildings for conversion to mosques.

Posted by: Clive at December 12, 2006 4:47 PM

".......Public displays of faith by high-ranking military officers project an image of a Christian nation waging war on non-Christians..."

Pulleze--

I'm sure we will hear amens from Barry Lynn and the ACLU crowd--afterall, the truly biggest threat we all face today is-- me telling you that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and rose again on the third day. Oh yeah, and you are accountable to G-d for what you do with the death of his Son.---ouch!! Sorry --I'm just the messenger here.

In the Bible, the message of the cross is called an "offense" and a SKANDALON (a trip stone). This is just one more excuse for one more person wants to silence this message--Why? Because it galls us as humans to face our biggest need of all--our individual need for RIGHTEOUSNESS AND FORGIVENESS from almighty G-d.

Merry Christmas and Happy Channukah too--Mikey Weinstein. Don't worry--WE won't blow you up or your synagogue if you don't accept this message. Now, if you reject islam and mohammed, well you/we might have a problem with jihad.

Posted by: BB at December 12, 2006 5:00 PM

XRDC wrote:

"Don’t bring up anything that may offend liberals or you won’t win them over!"

'Who cares, really? As if that was the purpose of JW/DW: to speak liberalese'

Is the purpose of JW/DW to restrict opposition to Jihad to a relatively small, exotic (pretty much a purely American phenomenon), group of right-wing Evangelical (haven't they noticed that Jesus was a leftist?) ultra-conservatives? I do hope not.

Posted by: schmegel at December 12, 2006 5:06 PM

"Is the purpose of JW/DW to restrict opposition to Jihad to a relatively small, exotic (pretty much a purely American phenomenon), group of right-wing Evangelical (haven't they noticed that Jesus was a leftist?) ultra-conservatives? I do hope not."

Certainly not. I don't know who you've been talking to, but most evangelicals I know recognize that Jesus' teaching doesn't fall neatly along the lines of partisan politics (I doubt we'll hear Rush talking about the virtures of selling all you have to give to the poor). I'd also venture to say that, compared to life under sharia, New Testament Christianity seems down right liberal!

Posted by: Clive at December 12, 2006 5:21 PM

Muslims give the term, "fear of God" an entirely different outlook. They are terrified of a just God and they strive to eliminate "God" from every aspect of your life. They attack you and laugh.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 12, 2006 5:22 PM

Our founding fathers set up a wall between church and state, one of the important things it did was to ensure religious peace between competing sects, cults, religions.. but permitting Evangelization in the Pentagon is a violation of that separation and a source of infinite mischief, regardless of what the muslims may or may not think.

I take exception to this and your conclusion, and robert you are going off the deep end..are you OK

It will just reinforce the impression that Bill Clinton gave to Osama bin Laden in Somalia in the 1990s: that we aren't willing to stand up and fight for who we are.

Should we have wasted more of our money and blood in Somalia Robert? What we lost there was a waste in the first place, and the only reason we went in was because of Leftist and UN propaganda about the poor suffering Somali's.. Screw them then, and screw them now.

Somalia is going inextricably Muslim ruled, the ICU has basically won the country.. but so what, there is no way to defeat them, and it isn't worth our blood and money even trying, just like all of Iraq is not worth the fingernail of one American, much less one Dollar of our money.

And this crap of linking Bill Clinton with emboldening Somalia, is nothing more than a regressive (radical and fascist right wing) talking point.. sorry to see you regurgiate that crap..

And too bad that only World Nut Daily, and Front Page will give you any air time, they appear to have ruined your thinking and smothered your common sense.

But if you want Jihad Watch and your most excellent work and research to be associated with the insanity and bigotry of Pat Robertson (CNS), there is nothing I can say or do to dissuade you, except to mutter forelornly what a loss and a waste.

You and Jihad Watch had so much outreach potential, but you limit yourself by aligning with radical, self righteous bigots like Pat Robertson.. Whom by the way had no problem at all being business partners in blood diamonds with that dictator in Liberia.

Posted by: Nariz at December 12, 2006 5:36 PM

I hope someone is drafting an executive summary of this evangelical threat for the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes ( D-Texas )...

Inquiring minds like his in positions which deal with important issues of national security, like his new Chair does, need to know about threats like this one....

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 12, 2006 5:56 PM

Sorry, but military officers parading around in uniform preaching about a particular kind of Jesus -- a kind who's pretty ridiculous as far as I've been able to make out -- makes me very nervous. Let's not drag the military into that mess.

From kj:

Also I KNOW that you can remember Reagan's carefully rehearsed response to Hezbollah after the murder of 241 US Marines in 1983: "You can run but you can't hide." Well, it turns out they weren't hiding, Ollie North (R-Traitor) had their addresses in his rolodex in the Whitehouse basement. And then Gipper the Walking Nap PROMPTLY cut & ran. Of course the old coot wouldn't have been elected if not for Iran, so maybe he was just repaying a favor. Since he basically just did whatever Nancy's personal astrologer told him, I guess he's not really to blame for his actions.

You're damned right. I've certainly noticed the Bush family in particular has a pathological need to sell out America. Hitler. Khomenei. Reverend Moon. The bin Ladens. Hell, the reason the "old coot" won in 1980 in the first place is because he was cutting deals with the embassy hostage takers behind Carter's back. And everyone outside the U.S. government is quite clear that the "October Surprise" really happened.

Forget the damn Muslims. Why do they hate us?

Posted by: pneumatikon at December 12, 2006 6:25 PM

Three historical revisionists in one thread. Now we just need a few islamofascists to jump in.

Posted by: Gary at December 12, 2006 7:22 PM

"This leads to issues such as will the wing man and the lead work well together, will the nonreceptive lieutenant's platoon receive the tougher patrol assignment from the commander, etc."

CHSW, are you saying this as you know it as fact, or is it just a gut feeling?

Personally I find this statement right in line with what's really been happening world wide for some time now. It's obvious that the world has turned its back on Christianity and has been doing it with great zeal. I personally do not share the Evangelical ideals, but I find it hard to see any evidence of the claims that have been made for years now.

I find it harder to listen to these types of complaints in light of the fact that people who excuse the obvious atrocities by Muslims always point to Christians and particularly the Evangelicals.

This to me is another shining example of how much our society has been shaped on self loathing and the tearing down of anything that might represent our past.

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at December 12, 2006 7:30 PM

"leftist thought has its roots in the modern Jewish culture, so it is not surprising that we see many Jewish activists on the muslim side of the equation, many in the ACLU, the feminist movement, the civil rights agitators, and in this case, objecting to the Christian presense [sic]in the military. I know this is an uncomfortable truth on these pages, as I have had posts deleted for saying it, but we have to be honest if we are to be strong in opposing the dhimmis and the collaboraters.{sic] The enemy is the Left. Whomever [sic] is on the Left, will oppose us, and advocate for islam."
-- from a posting above

Let me start with the easy part.

There is no one "enemy" and the identifying words "left" and "right" are not adequate, do not meet the case. The most implacable warners about Islam have been such people as Oriana Fallaci, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not one of whom could be called "on the right." The American business leaders who for years did the bidding of the Saudis -- as during the AWACS sale in 1981 or 1982, when the heads of United Technologies, the Whitney Corporation, and another fifty companies selling arms or services to Saudi Arabia, all joined to sing the praises of that wonderful country, were hardly "on the left." The oil companies that made up Aramco, and that for decades spun a tale about Saudi Arabia that, as J. B. Kelly said, "the ghost of Scheherezade could not have bettered," were not "on the left." Those who, beginning with the Dulles boys, saw the Saudis and other Muslims only as a "bulwark against Communism" were not "on the left."

There are plenty of sentimentalists and plenty of the venal on both what is called, a bit too easily, the Left and the Right. There are also those, in both camps (if we accept the idea that people are either "Left" or "Right" which I do not, based on my own acquaintance with my own unpigeonholable views, and knowing that many others have similarly unclassifiable views on all kinds of things), who know about Islam and have taken its measure, and those who do not know much about it, and are unwilling to, for fear of what they will find out, and of course there are those who believe the consolatory myth that People All Want the Same Thing or who are Marxists, like Lenin and George Bush, and the editorial writers for The Wall Street Journal, who all seem to think that economic prosperity takes care of any ideological problems, because man is in essence homo economicus.

Left, Right -- it hardly does any good to fling these words around.

As to the nonsense about "leftism" having its roots in "the modern Jewish culture" -- what exactly do you have in mind? Is this merely a throwback to the claims of European antisemites that the entire modern world, created in Western Europe and North America, with all of its problems, is not the result of powerful political and economic forces but rather of what Jews, not much more than 1-3% of the population in European countries, somehow managed to create, even though Jews only received legal equality, and then only in France, at the very end of the 18th century, and during most of the 19th century were hardly were in the corridors of power, and those who were, were a handful of bankers as conservative as werenon-Jewish bankers? The modern world owes its woes to the Industrial Revolution and changes in economic systems, to the growth of transportation which helped force greater centralization of production, in social changes that resulted from such things as a decline in the farming population, in the introduction of mass literacy and mass public education, in a thousand things, possibly including the loss of faith, that had nothing whatever to do with Jews. As for this litany of things -- "feminism" and "civil rights agitators" (what's a "civil rights agitator") and the ACLU (which was a very different sort of organizaton once) supposedly having their "roots in modern Jewish culture" -- one has to rub one's eyes in disbelief that this kind of thing can still be believed, much less be openly peddled.

About one thing you are quite right, however. Whenever your posts have, on that hobby-horse, been ridden into this most disturbing moral dead-end or cul-de-sac, those posts have been eliminated. Rather than have to spend time either eliminating them in the future, or in responding as I have here, I would simply offer this caution: should this topic come up again, it will be impossible to refrain from banning you altogether. Unlike Muslim postings -- say, by Naseem -- that may possess pedagogic value and so continue to be tolerated, a whiff of this sort of thing will not be.

Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2006 7:46 PM

"I've certainly noticed the Bush family in particular has a pathological need to sell out America. Hitler. Khomenei. Reverend Moon. The bin Ladens. Hell, the reason the "old coot" won in 1980 in the first place is because he was cutting deals with the embassy hostage takers behind Carter's back. And everyone outside the U.S. government is quite clear that the "October Surprise" really happened."
-- from a posting above

The Bush family is hardly a model of anything, but conspiracy theories are grotesque. There was and is no "pathological need." The first president Bush was a not-very-intelligent but apparently loyal company-man who held a series of appointments (U.N., C.I.A.) and was sufficiently docile to be assumed as Reagan's Vice-President. He hasn't had an original thought in his head, and like James Baker, was completely uncomprehending about Islam and, in particular, about oil and the desperate need to start getting off oil long ago. But the loss of Iran to Khomenei had nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with our worst president, Carter, and his National Security Adviser Brzezinski, and their Iran specialist, Gary Sick. It is those three who did nothing to save the Shah when he might certainly have been saved, and no one in the American government appeared to know a thing about Khomeini, even though all of his views had been published, in Farsi, and were there for all to read. Apparently such "Iran" specialists as Gary Sick were unable to read Farsi, and certaily unable then, and unable now, to make heads or tails of Islam. As for Carter, those who think his latest book reveals a new and most unpleasant side, are ignoring the decades of evidence that he always was, and is, and will be, a primitive antisemite. And that was certainly on display before, during, and after the Camp David negotiations in which the Israelis, as Israelis do, failed to make their case, allowed themselves to be content with nothing, took Carter's bullying without complaint, and came away with an al-Hudaibiyya joke of a "hudna" that forced them to make the most painful and expensive tangible concessions in exchange for nothing.

This supposed "bin Laden" connection is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. It hardly matters if the conspiracy theorists are of the Lyndon LaRouche or the Markos Kos or some other variety. It is the conspiracy-theorist mentality that gets in the way of lucidity. That "October Surprise" for example. As for the "old coot" -- have you now veered off from the Bushes to Reagan? All very confusing.

Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2006 8:10 PM

Off topic:

IRAN: CHRISTIANS OPPOSING HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONFERENCE ARRESTED

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at December 12, 2006 8:31 PM

Hugh, you do a good job of taking to task every dhimmi that comes to mind, but you let the myriad of Jewish groups that go to bat for islam, off the hook. Why is that? If this is uncomfortable for you, Hugh, perhaps as a Jew, I don't know your background, I can understand that, but saying you will not tolerate that view can not be justified on any intellectual level, only on an emotional one. Perhaps this is a sensitive topic for you, and you wish not to have anybody bring this up, under pain of banishment. But as I am not a dhimmi, I do not accept such terms. If I did, I would not be true to the character of the anti-jihad ideal.

As for your points about left and right being a red herring, that argument is specious in that you observe that the saudis may be in bed with Bush, or that moderates, or apostates, may be anti-islam but hardly to the Right. Bush is hardly to the Right, and most neocons are nothing more than big business social liberals. There is little to distinguish any of them from any of the democrats. The great bane of the modern American voter. As for the muslims that are anti-islamic, they are anti-islamic because of their personal experiences with islam.

Those people, these muslims, whether pro or anti-islam that you mention, are outside the western political sphere that we speak. I speak of westerners. And when I speak of westerners, you can indeed frame this battle as between left and right. Those on the Left are always, or 99.9% of the time, opposed to somebody like Robert Spencer and his message. These pages are testimony to that. And those on the Right, are 90% of the time in favor. Take a look at the membership of this site. Take a look at the sentiments expressed herein. Take a look at where the support is. It is on the right.

Is that a co-incidence? I know you know the truth, and you know I know it. We are both too intelligent to play this PC game where we both pretend that there is no nexus between the left and islam. As for the nexus between Jewish intellectuals and the Left, the evidence is overwhelming. This is not some anti-semetic rant. This is historical reality of which few Jews would deny and, of which, most are proud.

Jewish people represent less than 1% of the world's population, yet they have accounted for virtually all the social movements of the last 200 years. Co-incidence?

Karl Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, both Jewish. Co-incidence? In fact, the leaders of Russian communism were mostly Jewish. I can quote the names if necessary.

Ferdinand Lasalle, Jewish, founded the first worker's party in Germany.

Roger Nash, the founder of the ACLU, was inspired by Emma Goldman, an anarchist and Leninist who introduced him to Marxism, of which he later departed, but of whom he said, "was one of the chief inspirations in my life."

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, if you can believe that. In 1909, Henry Moscowitz, not a black man, founded the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson founed the LCCR, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee. That is what I mean by civil rights agitators. Co-incidence?

Let's go back. From 1910 to 1940, over 2,000 primary and secondary schools and twenty black colleges, including Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities, were erected by contributions from Jewish philanthropist, Julius Rosenwald.

During the civil rights movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of whites involved. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the "Mississippi Freedom Summer" of 1964. Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched with Martin Luther King in his 1965 March on Selma.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were actually drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the auspices of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Jewish community has a long history of supporting civil rights laws and always addressing allegations of discrimination in voting, housing, and employment against not only women and blacks but also in the gay and lesbian community and even the disabled community. Co-incidence?

The chicago 7, left wing radicals in the 60's, had three Jewish members. Statistically, they should have had none.

The post-modern feminist movement in America was principally founded and led by Jews like Steinem and Betty Friedan.

This is not to mention that the spies that sold secrets to the Soviets during the cold war were Jewish. Nor does this mention that the Jewish nuclear physicists working on the Manhattan project objected to the use of the bomb only after Germany was defeated, becoming instant anti-war, anti-bomb intellectuals at that point, with the notable exception of Edward Teller. Co-incidence?

Observing the historical fact that Jews have a cultural bias towards the left and towards social movements of the left, does not imply that most Jews are of that mind. What it does mean is that the Left in western civilization, and really, western civilization gave the world the notion of left vs right, has been led by those who were Jewish.

For 1% of the world's population, their contribution, as a group, to the political Left, is undeniable. Their historical contribution to anything right of center is virtually non-existent.

Nor do I have to mention that Jews as a group, historically vote democract, regardless of income bracket, 90% of the time. Why is that, if not a cultural bias towards the Left? Even with noted anti-semites like Carter, Jews still voted for him in droves.

The problem arises however. Islam. Islam, the creed that wants to kill or enslave all the Jews, happens to come under the protective umbrella of the left, and under the scrutiny of those on the Right. So these particular intellectual Jews now have a problem, just as the feminists have a problem. Side with what is right, no pun intended, or side with their historical allegiance to protecting the interests of minorities, especially non-Christian minorities, of which islam is a perfect fit.

I am pointing out this choice has been made, and not to the benefit of the anti-jihad movement. You, Hugh, should be pointing this out too. Essay after essay from you pontificating on this or that angle, and yet total silence on this issue. And when someone else mentions the elephant in the room, you threaten to ban them. For the elephant must not be mentioned.

Let me finish by saing that while most Jews are not Left wing, the intellectual ones are. And it is the intellectual ones that form the special interest groups, go to law school, teach at universities, go into politics, establish civil rights watchdog groups, and so on. So these Jewish groups are rarely to be heard addressing the islamization of America, nor are they supporters of Israel. If we do hear from them at all, then it is to speak up on behalf of the imams, or on behalf of the muslim special interests.

If we are to fully address this effort to islamization America, we must not only name the enemy, but we must also name the politics of his cohorts, and name all the groups that support such politics, whether they be radical feminists, the ACLU, immigration advocates, anti-war moonbats, labor unions, or yes, even Jewish groups, irony of ironies.

To do one, but to refrain from doing the other, is not to fight at all. We have all learned by now the value of not pulling our punches for the sake of political correctness.

Posted by: August22 at December 12, 2006 10:22 PM

..."Mikey"??

Posted by: Geoff at December 12, 2006 10:41 PM

August 22

Yes I agree there is unlimited Jewish Dhimmitude, however I must say from my guy instincts that because the ACLU and some of the other radical organizations that you mentioned are anti-semitic that Jews played no part in it's foundation.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at December 12, 2006 11:26 PM

Nariz you are so right about this site.

Wonderful potential mired by the average reader's inability to see their own narrow vision of how to struggle gainst Islamic influence.

The endless sense of victimhood displayed here from your laments about the 'liberal' media to this oft repeted notion that only a return to a Christian-dominated society can right what ails us in everyway mirrors the attitude of most Muslims.

You think you have the one true religion free of all faults and destined to lead humanity to a better age, well guess what the Muslims feel the same way. How many American don't profess the Christian faith? Yet look at all the problems. Of course you say the answer is they're not Christain enough or their Christianity is a perversion of the true faith. Isn't that the excuse Muslims use everyday?

Try seeing shades of gray instead of black and white for once. You might just win some mainstream allies.

Posted by: kali at December 12, 2006 11:53 PM

"Try seeing shades of gray instead of black and white for once. You might just win some mainstream allies." ~ kali

that's kind of a vague statement... i agree, there are somethings in which should be seen in shades of grey...

but the fact is, i don't think singling out christians professing their faith is an issue of grey or black and white.

even if christianity is full of imperfect people, who do stupid things, i think it should have the same chance, and right, to do and say stupid things that other groups get.

c'mon: "Christian military officers who share their faith at work..." couldn't they have dropped the "Christian?"

'sides, i always thought that the muslims were so mad at the u.s. for being godless anyways.

Posted by: poornbroken at December 13, 2006 12:29 AM

Personally, I don't think evangelization during
work hours is OK (unless you're working as an
evangelist of course ;-) since you should be
doing your job, but there are lots of hours
of the day when you're at work but not working,
like lunch. Not clear from the posting what happened here.

I usually don't mind if someone tries to share
their faith with me at those times, as long as
they politely accept a polite declining of the
invitation to participate. The only Christian in
my experience who didn't accept that (not at
work, BTW) was a "Jew for Jesus" who was a
tenacious and annoying S.O.B. Other Christians
don't bother me when I politely say I'm not interested.

I've had fun discussions with all sorts
of Christians and Mormons on those off work work
hours and my interlocutors were always well
meaning and pleasant. Discussions with sincere
Muslims are a bit trickier, as Muhammad was a
pedophile, caravan robber, and brigand. However,
pointing that out is somethinig they think should
be a capital offense.

Posted by: root_cause at December 13, 2006 1:32 AM

Since what we are seeing is a typical phase of Islamic Imperialism once more on the Attack after years when the cycle had it quiescent; they would naturally think of those who defend against the waves of attacking Muslim fanatics as Crusaders.

So what.........?

What's the deal ?

What is wrong with Crusaders - they kept Islam out of Europe for 400 years until Rogriguez in Spain, Charles Martel in France, Jan Sobieski outside Vienna stopped them.

This has been a continual war between a political cult which is spread by war and maintained by intimidation and violence - and the Western World of Christendom. We did not get worked up when the Nazis accused the West of being Jew-driven Money Men; or the Communists did much the same when they talked of NATO-Capitalists; why so shy when Muslims accuse us of being Christians rather than Capitalists; attack religion not economics ?

Are people so afraid of standing up for Christian Values in the new Post-Marxist "Man is an Economic Unit" West ? Is it just Money that motivates in the West ?

Posted by: Voyager at December 13, 2006 2:32 AM

kali~ you are SO right: nariz does cry 'VICTIM!' quite a bit. I hadn't realized it was whining until now but you are quite correct about him, we thank you for pointing that out!

Posted by: Gary at December 13, 2006 5:14 AM

this committee is nothing more than a front for the ACLU I would bet, since the founding of the United States this country was founded on Christian values not Muslim, not a Hindu, not Buddhist, not Wiccan, but Christian values, and there is not one darn thing wrong with evangelical Christians witnessing to their fellow soldiers. As a wise man once said there are no atheists in foxholes and anyone as a soldier or sailor or airman knows this though I'm not sure about Marines:P I think they worship a bulldog, so I would highly doubt any of these over age flower children and never put a uniform on.

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at December 13, 2006 6:01 AM

Speaking as an Evangelical myself, I think we sometimes come on a little too strong and lacking in sensitivity to what the other guy thinks. Still, we haven't staged a revolution anywhere since 1776....

Posted by: Kepha at December 13, 2006 6:23 AM

was founded on Christian values

Founded on Protestant Values..............read John Bunyan The Pilgrim's Progress

Posted by: Voyager at December 13, 2006 6:34 AM

Here we go again, another anti-Christian attack.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 13, 2006 7:07 AM

An excellent article about American Christian having been good to the Jewish community.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25873

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 13, 2006 7:12 AM

Cristkindlmarket (literally: Christ candle market)

Literally WRONG.

In Germany, Christkindl, or the Christ Child, brought gifts to children on Christmas Eve. Christkindl is depicted as a child riding a mule and was believed to enter homes through keyholes.

Posted by: Voyager at December 13, 2006 8:30 AM

The Military Religion Foundation --Mission Statement:

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

MRFF recognizes that military life requires individual adherence to shared patriotic principles. MRFF also recognizes the need for military personnel to at times temporarily relinquish some Constitutionally granted personal freedoms for the sake of military discipline and objectives.

However, MRFF believes that religious faith is a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom that must never be compromised, except in the most limited of military circumstances, because of its fundamental importance to the preservation of the American nation and the American way of life.

Additionally, MRFF adheres strongly to the principle that religious faith is a deeply personal matter, and that no American has the right to question another American’s beliefs as long as they do not unwontedly intrude on the public space or the privacy or safety of another individual.

Therefore, MRFF holds that:

No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy.

No member of the United States Armed Forces may be compelled in any way to conform to a particular religion or religious philosophy.

No member of the United States Armed Forces may be compelled in any way to witness or engage in any religious exercise.

No member of the military may be compelled to curtail – except in the most limited of military circumstances and when it directly impacts military discipline, morale and the successful completion of a specific military goal – the free exercise of their religious practices or beliefs.

Students at United States military academies are entitled to the same Constitutional rights pertaining to religious freedoms and the free exercise of those freedoms to which all other members of the United States Armed Forces military are entitled.

No member of the military may be compelled to endure unwanted religious proselytization, evangelization or persuasion of any sort in a military setting and/or by a military superior or civilian employee of the military.

The full exercise of religious freedom includes the right not to subscribe to any particular religion or religious philosophy. The so-called “unchurched” cede no Constitutional rights by want of their separation from organized faith.

It is the responsibility of the military hierarchy to ensure that the free exercise of religious freedoms of all enlisted personnel are respected and served.

All military personnel have the right to employ appropriate judicial means to protect their religious rights.
+
++
+
+
+
+.....After reading their mission statement I fail to see where there is any obligation to determing sedurity threat levels.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 13, 2006 8:46 AM

I might simply have written, in response to a posting above by "August22" at 10:22 p.m. a simple three-letter reply:

Q.E.D.

However, when I examine closely the comically selective assemblage of information and misinformation, the display of an incipient paranoid style, connected to a wilfull misreading of data, but not yet having bloomed into the full-fledged thing, and find as well the most obvious mistakes -- the founder of the ACLU was not "Roger Nash" but that Mayflower descendant Roger Baldwin, and in any case the ACLU is not, and never has been, as the poster dreamily appears to believe, a "Jewish organization" nor has it always been, as the same poster appears to believe, an organization to be deplored, as it is today -- I realize that this is a chance not to be missed.

It is going to be fun to reply to that posting in detail, not for the sake of that particular poster (he will not be returning) but for the sake of others who may not quite see all the ways in which this (incipient)paanoid manner reveals itself.

But first I have to go buy some coffee. I will need some caffeine.

Posted by: Hugh at December 13, 2006 9:36 AM

"In Germany, Christkindl, or the Christ Child, brought gifts to children on Christmas Eve. Christkindl is depicted as a child riding a mule and was believed to enter homes through keyholes."
Posted by: Voyager

Thanks for the information; I had never heard of Christkindl. It sounds like a sweet tradition.

Posted by: Josephine at December 13, 2006 11:53 AM

Josephine...............Merry Christmas !

Christkindl

http://www.christkindlesmarkt.de/

http://www.galenfrysinger.com/nuremberg_christkindlmarkt.htm

Wohlfahrt

Posted by: Voyager at December 13, 2006 3:09 PM

Thanks, Voyager, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

Posted by: Josephine at December 13, 2006 5:20 PM

Today--(12-13-06) I heard Mikey Whine-stein on Mitch Albom radio program here in Detroit making his case.

There was NO CASE made about any national security threat from Christians. It's just a lot of hype. The 2-3 callers who were either in the military or a parent of soldier told Mikey that they had never encountered or heard of ANY harassment.

Another caller stressed that the charge of "unconstitutionality" is totally bogus. Mikey whined---but could make no case. In a nutshell--he just doesn't like men in uniform sharing their faith while in uniform. So many evangleicals in the service is not something he appreciates.

Some "internal national security" threat! Oy vey!
If WJR posts the link--I will post it here as soon as I see it.

Posted by: BB at December 13, 2006 7:44 PM

I don't think this has been mentioned yet and I believe it to be important.

I looked at the Board of Directors for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and found that Reza Aslan is listed.

Posted by: INC at December 14, 2006 1:04 AM

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Posted by: CGW at December 14, 2006 4:58 AM

Hugh, August 22 is a longtime poster. Respond, but please don't ban.

Posted by: CGW at December 14, 2006 4:59 AM

I forgot yesterday. I will respond today. The banning comes only following the usual procedure:

1) elimination of several posts, designed to give a silent warning

2) posted warning about the nature of the problem and why that problem should not occur again

3) banning.

End of story. I don't ban too much. I ban far too little. This website is not Hyde Park Corner. It is private property -- the supreme rights of which are a favorite theme, incidentally, of the banned poster in question.

Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2006 5:55 AM

It is private property, but it's like a private lawn on which the owner is, among other things, selling lemonade. Sure, the owner can banish buyers of the lemonade from his lawn if he so desires, but if he and his colleagues do it too much, his lemonade sales may begin to go down too far for comfort. (For the analogy-impaired, the "lemonade" represents Robert Spencer's books, whose sales it would be difficult to argue are not being benefitted enormously by the popularity of this site.)

Posted by: remote_control at December 14, 2006 5:24 PM