Prophet-ing from Cartoons

You will probably recall the cartoon controversy that engulfed the world only months ago, revealing the deep-seated tensions and division between Islam and the West. For Muslims, the decision by the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to publish the cartoons was an inexcusable assault on their core beliefs; whereas, for Westerners, it was simply the act of a free media that the Islamic world must come to terms with. Yesterday, Flemming Rose, the editor who chose to publish the cartoons, came out in defense of his decision.

The bottom line, according to Flemming, is that the publication of the Muhammad cartoons was “an act of inclusion, not exclusion; an act of respect and recognition.”

Flemming’s profound insight into the social costs associated with the “Muslim demographic surge” that Europe is currently facing makes his article a must read for any American who is concerned with the similar Hispanic demographic surge that their country is currently facing. Nevertheless, his bottom line defense for the publication of the cartoons, as noted above, is both weak and completely unnecessary.

The Defense

Flemming’s social commentary revolves around a central theme: Muslim migrants to Europe are not integrating into Western society. He blames this phenomenon on Europe’s leftist, PC mentality that promotes multiculturalism over social integration. Thus, according to Flemming:

“[Publishing the cartoons was] an act of inclusion. Equal treatment is the democratic way to overcome traditional barriers of blood and soil for newcomers. To me, that means treating immigrants just as I would any other Danes. And that’s what I felt I was doing in publishing the 12 cartoons of Muhammad last year.”

I entirely agree with Flemming’s notion that all people should be treated equally and that a group’s particular religious beliefs does not shield them from the same scrutiny and satirical commentary that other religious groups face. Nevertheless, using the Islamic prophet to make a point is unnecessary and understandably offensive. Flemming disagrees:

“Those images in no way exceeded the bounds of taste, satire and humor to which I would subject any other Dane, whether the queen, the head of the church or the prime minister.”

Personally, I have no problem with religious satire, nor do I believe that it exceeds the bounds of taste and humor. However, the satirizing of Christianity, for example, does not require questionable depictions of Jesus Christ. That said, the depictions of Muhammad do not begin to justify the response that followed, nor can a creative imagination make it so.

Islamist Hypocrisy

As Flemming points out, the Islamic response to the cartoons — outside of the United States — was marked with a level of fury that greatly exceeded the bounds of rationality:

“Lives were lost, buildings were torched and people were driven into hiding.

"And yet the unbalanced reactions to the not-so-provocative caricatures — loud denunciations and even death threats toward us, but very little outrage toward the people who attacked two Danish Embassies — unmasked unpleasant realities about Europe's failed experiment with multiculturalism.”

Of course, anyone who believes that the cartoons were anything more than an excuse for the violence that followed has lost sight of reality. The Islamic world was not expressing their outrage at the cartoons, but rather their antipathy for Western societies in general. For the most part, the American Muslim community cannot be compared to their foreign counterparts, which Flemming rightly attributes to the United States’ inviting definition of nationality. In other words, if you choose to embrace America, you will be embraced as an American in return, whereas, migrants to Europe are never embraced as European.

The chorus of protests from Muslims around the world were especially hypocritical considering the vile content that one consistently encounters in the Muslim press. Nevertheless, Westerners were collectively labeled intolerant and racist.

Iran’s largest selling newspaper responded to the Muhammad depictions with a Holocaust cartoon contest. Sadly, few Muslims protested the “intolerance” that characterized that competition. Then again, offensive depictions of Jews and Christians are simply a regular feature of Islamic newspapers, so there is little point in letting a contest bother you. Besides, who doesn’t like contests?

Common Ground

The publication of the Muhammad cartoons and the reaction that they spurred were driven by a common motivation: profit, not prophet. As Flemming points out, there was a conspicuous gap between the date of the original publication and the reaction that followed:

“[It] required a highly organized campaign, several falsified (and very nasty) cartoons and several months of overseas travel for the aggrieved imams to stir up an international reaction.”

If anything, the Islamic community should have directed their anger — and any that remains — at the imams who prostituted their faith for some political currency. After all, no level of fury will overcome the simple fact that Flemming was well within his rights to publish the cartoons. That they were tasteless will never change that fact.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 1, 2006 4:38 PM
Comments
Comment #153481

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but cartoons cannot hurt you.

The real issue is one that plays out at much lower volume in the United States, and that is religious intolerance. If someone were to release a cartoon in a major publication depicting a negative charicature of Jesus, what do you think the response from the Christian Coalition may be? Certainly not riots and murders, but protests and boycotts. The principle at work is the same: some people cannot accept opposing beliefs, especially when those beliefs are a direct attack on their own. Why is that?

Posted by: David S at June 1, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #153503

Any outrage from Islamofacists is a ruse. While the UBL’s of the world make plain their hatred of all things non-muslim by the deaths they cause, the muslim public at large participates in a game of hide and seek. While they make statements opposing terror, they still harbor, still aid and secretly cheer for the bombers and martyrs. It’s a part of the muslim tradition, it’s OK to lie to a non-muslim if in your opinion you are furthering the cause of allah. Outage over these cartoons is just an opportunity for those less likely to strap on a bomb to make their true feelings known, to be able to act out in a crowd what they wouldn’t act out by themselves. Don’t be sucked into the trap, we don’t believe what they believe so we deserve death, PERIOD! Not my words but the words of their twisted prophet and deity. Until the so-called moderate muslims make a stand against terror with more than words, by turning in terrorist and exposing their plots, shutting off the money and proclaiming an end to their JIHAD via stringently enforced religious edict, then they are simply behaving in the way they have been taught to behave all their lives.

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #153504

DavidS

The principle is not the same. If I disagree with you and I tell you that I don’t want to do business with you anymore, that is a civilized response. If I try to kill you or burn your house, that is something very different.

Nobody is that tolerant of beliefs they really don’t believe in. Look at all they boycotts of the Boy Scouts.

Posted by: Jack at June 1, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #153509

David S wrote:

“If someone were to release a cartoon in a major publication depicting a negative charicature of Jesus, what do you think the response from the Christian Coalition may be? Certainly not riots and murders, but protests and boycotts. The principle at work is the same: some people cannot accept opposing beliefs, especially when those beliefs are a direct attack on their own.”

The Scubaredneck responds:

First off, a negative characature of Jesus is all too common in American society, as are the responses. The fact that one group makes disparaging remarks and another responds with “protests and boycotts” is part of free speech in America. It has nothing to do with “accepting opposing beliefs.” Is the person disparaging Christianity more tolerent than the person who responds to the disparager?

This is quite different, however, from the riots, violence and killing that spun up from the Muslim cartoons. It’s one thing to stop buying Ford cars because of their stand on gay marriage. It’s a completely different thing to blow up the factory.

The Scubaredneck

Posted by: The Scubaredneck at June 1, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #153513

The cartoons of Mohammad were simply silly line drawings, but the Imams used them as an excuse to further stir up the hatred that already exists among the Muslims for anything Non-Muslim. This is not a new phenonenem—-this hatred, if you will read history, has existed far longer than there has been an Islamic religion! It has been between the Arabs and Jewish peoples since the time of Issac and Ishmael. Do not take my word for it, and do not even take the word of the Bible. You can read it in the Arab’s own histories. But Mohammand brought it all under one religion 1,500 years ago, and consolidated the hatred in the name of Allah. This hatred also included Christians, who arose 500 years before the birth of Mohammad, because they believed in the Son of Jehovah God, the Saviour Jesus Christ. Therefore, they, too, must be annilated!These cartoons were not really offensive, just an excuse to do what the Muslims do best..burn, destroy, and kill!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 1, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #153514

I obviously see the difference. My question was, “Why do people feel the need to respond at all?”

You say “a negative charicature of Jesus is all too common in American society.” Some surely believe that a positive charicature is too common. I guess the point is, why does everyone care so much about what everyone else thinks?

There is clearly no comparison between violence and civil protest, but there is a comparison in being intolerant of views that differ from your own.

As an end note, doesn’t everyone remember the lesson that if someone is trying to get under your skin, the best thing you can do is ignore them. Responding only encourages them.

Posted by: David S at June 1, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #153524

Show of hands please.

Can someone name me one Muslim country that enjoys a free press?

The Muslims in America are here because they want to be here. They understand that we have a free press, and though it may make them uncomfortable at times, it is part of the price of living in America.

Comparing Western (Christian), and Eastern (Muslim) cultures is comparing apples and oranges. There is an entirely different belief structure.

BTW, they probably think we’re out of our minds as well.

Posted by: Rocky at June 1, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #153540

David S wrote:

“There is clearly no comparison between violence and civil protest, but there is a comparison in being intolerant of views that differ from your own.”

You attempt to fly the flag of tolerance but those who disparage religions views are, in fact, the intolerent ones, not those who merely defend their views (in civil, respectable ways).

The Scubaredneck

Posted by: The Scubaredneck at June 1, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #153541

I think if you put this in historical context, Christianity has, at times, shown it can very easily descend into using violence against those who oppose it. The nazis, the inquisition, the crusades, salem witch trials…the real difference is how much the government in question does to fan or snuff the flames.

Posted by: David S at June 1, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #153547

David S wrote:

“I think if you put this in historical context, Christianity has, at times, shown it can very easily descend into using violence against those who oppose it. The nazis, the inquisition, the crusades, salem witch trials…the real difference is how much the government in question does to fan or snuff the flames.”

The Scubaredneck responds:

David, get your facts straight. While the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were about folks doing horrible things in the name of Christianity (a very different thing from “Christianity” doing something), neither Naziism nor the salem witch trials (a highly over-inflated event, indeed) had any direct connection to Christianity, especially not in the sense you are suggesting.

The Scubaredneck

Posted by: The Scubaredneck at June 1, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #153548


Dr. Politico: After reading your post, I agree with your conclusions. However, I think in your last paragraph, You inadvertantly touched on the reason for our major disagreement with fundamentalist Islam.

I think that the major problem we have with the fundamentalist Islamists is that they will not prostitute, as both Christainity and Judaism have, their version of God’s law to a government, business concern, a free press or any other institution of man. Indeed, they want all of the institutions of man to be subserviant to their version of Allah’s law.

In America, we are see a somewhat similar situation. The fundamentalist Christians want to force the government, on behalf of all it’s citizens, to follow their fundamentalist hand picked version of God’s law. If this were to happen, then the citizens of this country would end up in the same boat that the citizens of Iran find themselves in. We have to be leary of the fundamentalist Christians like one is leary of the salesman that comes to your door. If you let him get his foot in your door, he is going to end up selling you something and may end up selling you his whole bill of goods.

Posted by: jlw at June 1, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #153551

Scubaredneck-

You’re missing the point.

If someone says “I hate Christianity. It is nothing more than a collection of wives’ tales.”

Is that disparaging? Or, is that a contrary point of view?

Posted by: David S at June 1, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #153552

Thomas Jefferson summed it up nicely, though he still takes some heat for it.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

In other words, what I believe, I believe. Nothing you say or do will change that, and your words or non-violent acts (like drawing a cartoon) should not incite me to anger or violence.

Unfortunately, there is no accomodation in the Muslim religion for turning the other cheek.


Posted by: vietnam_vet at June 1, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #153555

jlw
Please excuse me if I offend, but are you out of your mind? Fundamentalist Christians should be feared in the same way as muslim fundamentalists are in Iran? When has a FC ever told its audience that their duty is to kill everyone that doesn’t believe as they do? Force government to follow their hand picked version of Gods law? What particular Christian belief has you shaking in your boots as we speak? Is it the radical view that we shouldn’t abort babies for the sake of individual expediency? Or maybe the whole love the man hate the sin thing is terrorizing you. Forget any hope of having a reasonable, rational debate on this issue on this particular blog - at least in my case, ‘cause I ain’t wearing no foil on my head for nobody!

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #153559

David S wrote:

“If someone says “I hate Christianity. It is nothing more than a collection of wives’ tales.”

Is that disparaging? Or, is that a contrary point of view?”

It depends on the intent of the speaker. It may very well be that they believe Christianity to be nothing more than “a collection of wives’ tales.” In that case, it may simply be a contrary (and perhaps un- or misinformed) opinion. It may also be that the speaker is attempting to be pejorative, in which case they are being disparaging and intolerant.

Note, however, that the proper response would be to champion their right to hold the opinion while defending one’s own position. Defending one’s own opinion might take the form of publicly critiquing their opinion, protesting their opinion and/or boycotting their interests. (The response to the Dixie Chicks’ political remarks is a good case in point.)

This is exactly what both tolerance and free speach are all about: allowing for differences of opinions while still both respecting the rights of both sides and vigorously defending one’s own position. This is what did *not* happen with the cartoons.

The Scubaredneck

Posted by: The Scubaredneck at June 1, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #153562


JR: I don’t fear the fundamentalist Christians because I don’t think that the people of this country would be foolish enough to allow them to take over. But, let us say,just for the sake of argument, that this was a fundamentalist Christian country and that all of our law was based on their hand picked version of God’s law. If you don’t believe that if they controlled the government, that their version was the law of the land and that they aren’t capable of being just like the fundamentalist Islamists then you know nothing of history and perhaps you should do a little reading. I’ll give you a little hint, it’s called the dark ages.

Posted by: jlw at June 1, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #153568

jlw

Most fundamentalist don’t want to take over government. They mostly just want to defend themselves from government. Some people are constantly trying to push Christianity out of the mainstream.

I am not religious, but I have many fundamentalist friends. They never try to convert me and I don’t bother them. I suppose they assume that I am going to hell and maybe they are right. I cannot be offended by that. It is just what they believe. Nobody know until we get there. Some people will be surprised (or not)

Posted by: Jack at June 1, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #153572

ok jack I will bite. In what ways are fundamentalists in need of protection from the government?

Posted by: 037 at June 1, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #153573

Jack:


I think you’re just wrong on this one. While not every fundamentalist Christian is running for office (though we have Pat Robertson et al to discount that statement, already) they most certainly *do* want to deeply influence policy.

The more we abhor the vagaries of these fundamentalist Islamic governments, the more we should be concurrently fighting to keep any and all religion out of our own. It’s bizarre to me that people don’t see that more clearly.

Posted by: davidL at June 1, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #153579

Fundamentalists, like everyone else, need protection from the government. Our founding fathers designed the constitution and included the bill of rights for that very same purpose; creating a mechanism to limit government and its excesses at the expense of the individual citizen. The reason they state that our rights are God given is that if the highest power man can appeal to is the government, then man has no rights but what the government deigns to grant before taking them away at its convenience. Do you honestly think that the government has our best interests at heart? The 20th century experiments with man created government (the Nazis, Communists, Pol Pot) were beyond comprehension in their murderous cruelty. Without that higher power to appeal to (and protect us) there is no limit to what a government would do to its population if it deems it best for itself. All the murders laid at the feet of Christianity are dwarfed in number and scope by what these “enlightened” God free governments wrecked.
All the major scientific disciplines were originated by Christians using their brains to explore and illuminate God’s creation for the benefit of man. Christianity isn’t anti-intellectual. Science needn’t be anti-Christian except to those with an agenda. The Nazis and the Communists were rational to a fault. Rationalization is double edged. Without a moral compass you can rationalize anything, any behavior, any act.
The Christians serve the law of God which is a truth outside themselves. The Muslims only compass is their sense of honor and they act guided by “Allah’s will” which is whatever they can get away with.
Jak

Posted by: jak at June 1, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #153585

If you are interested in seeing the cartoons you should look at this site. It’s an excellent resource.

According to the site, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishing the drawings after a local author said he was unable to find any artist willing to depict Mohammed for his upcoming book. In other words, the paper asked artists to contribute pictures expressly to piss off Arabs.

Worse, when the pictures were distributed throughout the Middle East, the imam included pictures the Danish paper never printed, including a dog having sex with a Muslim bending over to pray, and Mohammed as a pig. These fake pictures were simply racist.

The racist overtones of the pictures is what I think bothered most of the Arabs in the first place. I think the Jesus / Mohammed comparisons are wrong. What’s better might be Arab killer / Dirty Jew / Darkie. Art Spiegleman makes the point better than I can in this drawing (scroll midway down the page).

Anyway, we value freedom of speech, but if some KKK member or Nazi wants to make a hate speech, and someone from a foreign country is visiting I would make sure they knew that’s not what most of us believe. Kind of the same thing here. I think, again, we needlessly polarized many Arabs against us in our zeal to defend free speech without also saying the cartoons didn’t reflect what all of us believe.

Posted by: Max at June 1, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #153586

“All the major scientific disciplines were originated by Christians using their brains to explore and illuminate God’s creation for the benefit of man.”

And all this time I thought Science was a process of discovery based on proof and experimentation. Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: 037 at June 1, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #153587

The Art Speiglman link is here:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/recent/

Fun link too, check it out.

Posted by: Max at June 1, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #153588

jlw
You sir have an outright hatred of either Christianity or religion. I will pray for you, I’ll pray that you don’t injure yourself as you fall down the rabbit hole! The hand picked laws you keep talking about, what are they? How do they threaten society in any way, shape or form? What one thing about Christian fundamentalists do you fear, or worry about the most? What non hand picked laws do you believe have not been influenced by Judeo-Christian religious text or tradition? If all Christian bashers have is “the dark ages” you’re leaving a gap of @ 8-900+ yrs of genuine Christian contributions to the betterment of mankind. And please no garbage about the Crusades. History has been revised to show the muslim in the role of victim - pure nonsense! The Christians in Europe only began to fight back after years and years of conquest and abuse by muslim raiders. Sorry.

Posted by: JR at June 1, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #153589

DavidL,

Are you saying it is ok for a person to want to influence policy based on their beliefs as long as they are not christian beliefs? When our founding fathers separated church and state it was to avoid a “national religion” that forced everyone to bend to their doctrine. These were things that were happening in Europe.

We speak based on our religious beliefs and you on whereever your beliefs come from. Do either of us deserve to be heard above the other? NO! Muslims of today who riot and kill non-muslims because we are dogs are no better and no worse than christians of yesteryear who either converted the heathen natives or kill them in the name of God.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 1, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #153591

Researching Rose, it seems that he’s a PNAC minion and has been suspended from the magazine. Look it up.

As for the article, it’s 1984 doublespeak:

War Is Peace,
Freedom Is Slavery,
Ignorance Is Strength

Posted by: Dave at June 1, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #153595

Excellent responses JR and lllplus2! Let me clear up a big misconception I see over and over regarding the Nazis’ supposedly Christian background.

“Jesus was nothing more than the illegitimate child of a female Jew.” -Adolf Hitler

I think all you lefties have quite a few more skeletons in your closet regarding secular or downright atheist regimes slaghtering countless millions than the Christians. You always bring up the twenty or so killed in the Salem witch trials and the crusades, ignoring the great secular accomplishments of the 20th century(Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot). Just one of those guys killed more people than were killed by so-called Christians in all of history. You gotta stop worrying about the splinter in the eye of Christianity and start dealing with that California Redwood in your own.

Posted by: Duano at June 1, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #153598

I think the cartoons were another GREAT example propounding to Americans, or at least those that heard about the controversy, the true ways of Islam.

Posted by: Mike Tate at June 1, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #153603

Hitler’s not exactly secular. He’s more occult. One way you can tell is that he chose the Indian Luck symbol known as the Swastika as his logo, on advice from a psychic, no less. There was a great deal of grail/germanic mythology associated with the Third Reich.

Tyranny, lies and other evils are no strangers to any culture, secular, forcefully atheist, or religious. The Mullahs who incited the riots committed evil acts.

But this whole Islamofascism thing is a farce of generalization. What we are feeling here is the backlash from years of European domination of these cultures. Trying to dominate them once again with our culture will not help.

America must become a friend to the people of the Middle East, to the Muslims of the world. This Clash of Civilizations thing is for people who lack imagination. We must put these folks at ease about being part of a modern world. At the same time, we must stand back and let them preserve some of their traditions. We must not get the idea that we can replace their culture with ours. We try that, we only embolden those who violently oppose our cultural leadership.

In the end, we must emphasize that our culture is one of freedom, and that freedom includes the right to reject what one considers unholy and immoral.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #153607

Duano,

amen.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 2, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #153616

Stephen Daugherty,

“America must become a friend to the people of the Middle East, to the Muslims of the world. This Clash of Civilizations thing is for people who lack imagination. We must put these folks at ease about being part of a modern world. At the same time, we must stand back and let them preserve some of their traditions. We must not get the idea that we can replace their culture with ours. We try that, we only embolden those who violently oppose our cultural leadership.”

which traditions are these? Are you referring to the ones where they kill a bunch of civilians with a car bomb? Or maybe the one where they dance in the streets after 9/11? How about when they kill there own if they convert to christianity? I can tell you my children have done nothing to them, but if they where stranded in a muslim nation, as christians and Americans, they would have an automatic death sentence.

I feel sooooo sorry that they are unable to keep their traditions. Next time I am in the middle east I will give them a hug and tell them it is ok to kill me because my “Right to Life” is not nearly as important than their traditions.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 2, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #153617

Everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that the Muslims conquered the Middle east, plus Spain, centuries ago, and it was not by sweet talking. They were pretty viscious fighters, killing anyone who got in their way, including women and children.The only ones who survived, lived among them at great price, paying heavy taxes just to live, could be murdered at at a moment’s whim, with no punishment meted out to the killer, their belongings confiscated by any Muslim who wanted them, and treated as lower than dogs.Is it any wonder the Christians and Jews at last arose and fought back? Even a cornered little mouse will turn and fight the cat when there is no escape. And as for those who are so afraid of the funamendalist Christians, why do you fear them so greatly? Don’t you remember our laws are based on the fundamentals of the Bible? Surely you recall the Ten Commandments, even though they are no longer allowed to be displayed in our courtrooms. As for the cartoons, why is no one raising a stink over the nasty cartoon the Muslims recently printed — a Muslim kid urinating in the face of the Statue of Liberty? Why aren’t WE rioting in the streets? Burning buildings, killing people? Where are the demands for apologies that bring the governments of the world sniveling and groveling to our feet, as they did to the Muslims? Because we ARE a Christian nation, and it has never been our way to avenge a stupid insult such as that by violence! And that is the difference between a nation built on Islam, and a nation that was originally based on Judeo-Christian beliefs! (If you don’t believe me, read the Declaration of Independence for yourself!)

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 2, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #153632
which traditions are these? Are you referring to the ones where they kill a bunch of civilians with a car bomb? Or maybe the one where they dance in the streets after 9/11? How about when they kill there own if they convert to christianity?

Check back Western history. We’ve done that too in the past. Okay, that was not car bombing but just villagers slayering and homes/lands burning, and these unchritian “witches” were posseded by Satan, afterall! Does it make such a difference on our past(?) traditions of being violent, immoral and intolerant?

Also, until we find out that muslims lands host the most large and easy to exploit oil fields on earth, nobody care that much about forcing muslims nations to drop so-called violent traditions.

Last but not least, Culture can’t be reduced to a set of traditions.

I can tell you my children have done nothing to them, but if they where stranded in a muslim nation, as christians and Americans, they would have an automatic death sentence.

Don’t you think these days it worse when you’re an american in a muslim nation than when you’re just christian?
Beside, many muslim nations are not islamists. Take Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordania, Morroco, Tunisia for example: they all have non-muslims minorities. Alive.

Oh, talking about keeping or not old traditions, US and islamist nations cherish at least one: death penalty.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 2, 2006 5:36 AM
Comment #153647

Philippe Houdoin,

The point that I am trying to make is it wrong for us to have done it in the past. I see a lot of people justifying what muslim nations do today by pointing out what we did in the past. How does that make it ok? If a nation decides to institute slavery based on a person’s color are you saying we shouldn’t say anything about this because we one did that here? Should we not talk about the horrors of the holocaust because we murdered and caused the death of millions of native Americans as we stole their lands?

“Oh, talking about keeping or not old traditions, US and islamist nations cherish at least one: death penalty.”

When was the last time we took someone off the streets because of where they were from, put them in front of a camera beaten and bloodied, and sawed their head off?

“Don’t you think these days it worse when you’re an american in a muslim nation than when you’re just christian?”

If you were to go to a church that funds evangelist you would know that to be a christian in a lot of muslim nations spreading christianity is a death sentence. If sunni and shi’a can’t get along what do you think they do to arab christians? Arab christians csn expect the same treatment as any western christian. Does this mean that all of the people and all of the nations of the middle east are like this? No. But, would you get in ocean to pet sharks and hope that this one won’t bite you?

You can’t make them right by pointing out our wrongs. Wrong is wrong. Evil is evil.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 2, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #153648

IIIplus-
Liberals would die out from mere natural selection if we were so lacking in survival instincts as you suggest. Your sentiments make for a nice tangent to rant about, but it’s at right angles to what I’m actually suggesting.

What makes you think that I don’t see the violence as pathological, as something to be opposed, violently if necessary?

No, the truth is, I just see the problem for it’s real world complications, instead of overgeneralizing the culture of the Middle East. You have difference of language, ethnicity, religion, and attitudes towards the modern world that run deep.

What they might have in common is the experience of European and Ottoman colonialism and oppression. That would likely account for much of the unrest, pathological governance, and reactionary conservatism of values. That said, there are other, older distinctions that underly those commonalities.

This blindness to the results of ethnic difference is part of our problem in bring Iraq to a successful conclusion.

Angel 1-
While I would not believe that the Muslims were perfect angels in their conquest, there is historical record of Orthodox, Catholic, and Jewish populations surviving for centuries within Muslim lands. Those populations survived up to the 20th century, and some still exist. It says something that Tariq Aziz and the founder of Baathism were both Christians.

As for them revolting? That’s hardly the case. What happened was the Europeans came in and colonialized the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

As for Judeo Christian beliefs, I believe they were involved in our nation’s founding. That said, you’ll have to explain why many of the Founding Fathers were doubters and deists, and why this nation was founded in such a way that Christianity had no binding legal claim on the souls of the nation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #153660

lllplus2,

The point that I am trying to make is it wrong for us to have done it in the past. I see a lot of people justifying what muslim nations do today by pointing out what we did in the past. How does that make it ok?

Not justifying. Putting back their current actions in civilization history point of view. I think it often worth to remind that muslims are as human as we are. They make errors. As we do. Their current errors are very similar to the ones we did in the past. While we’re doing new ones ourself too.

No, this doesn’t make right what they’re doing wrong.

Just try to remember that what right and wrong values are not written in stone and universally known and agreed. Our values are a huge part of our Culture, which means they came from our own history. They don’t always match others Cultures, though.

“Oh, talking about keeping or not old traditions, US and islamist nations cherish at least one: death penalty.”

When was the last time we took someone off the streets because of where they were from, put them in front of a camera beaten and bloodied, and sawed their head off?

Except for the “head sawed” part, many Guantanamo and Abu Graib detainees could applied here, alas.

Beside, where did I said “terrorists barbarism” instead of legal “death penalty”??
Do you want to argue that there’s no man or woman legally killed by death penalty in US? So does in many muslims nations, right?

As many europeans, death penalty is against my values. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re right about death penalty. But the wrongness or rightness regarding death penalty is not universal. Yet. As was slavery some centuries ago for example.
I’m sure at these times many people thought slavery was all right and had no moral issue with it…

If you were to go to a church that funds evangelist you would know that to be a christian in a lot of muslim nations spreading christianity is a death sentence.

There is a difference between risking death sentence because you’re christian (or whatever religion other than official one) and risking death sentence because you’re *spreading* it. Doesn’t make it right according to our both values system, agreed, but the fact is many muslims nations openly tolerate christian minorities, some forbid spreading altenative religions while the most radical ones, a very very small number, give death sentence to non-muslims.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 2, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #153664

Philippe Houdoin wrote:

“Beside, many muslim nations are not islamists. Take Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordania, Morroco, Tunisia for example: they all have non-muslims minorities. Alive.”

The Scubaredneck replies:

I guess you missed the news reports of the late 1990s and then recently when Indonesian Muslims were burning Christian churches and killing Christians.

The Scubaredneck

Posted by: The Scubaredneck at June 2, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #153679

The Scubaredneck-
When SOME. A FEW. There are hundreds of millions of people in that country. You might as well blame every Irish person for what the IRA did, or every Saudi for Bin Laden. Many of those countries listed by Houdoin have particularly moderate populations. Your attitudes about Muslims and Arabs are shaped by a view informed by the modern state of things. It’s instructive to look at picture of the Bin Laden family taken in the sixties and early seventies. What’s happening is that the Arabs and Muslims of the world are whipsawing between the temptations and benefits of the modern world, and the comforting traditions and ideologies of the past. Both are fueled, almost literally, by the oil in the region.

If we take the path of hatred and belligerence here, we will reap what we sow. If we can be more clever, more fair-minded, we can wean people away from the need to fall back on the most reactionary and radical of the Islamic beliefs. Just as our experiences with the modern world helped us walk away from the worst of our prejudices, so can it be for the muslims of the world.

You must recall that for a long time, Muslim culture was THE enlightened culture. The Renaissance borrows very heavily from Muslim texts, which were at the forefront of scholarly pursuits at the time.

The reason why they feel they have to beat up on us for our attitudes is quite simple: they have been faced with hundreds of years of being second string to us, when once they were among the best at what they did. What got them there was the gradual decline of their civilization, the rise of ours, and the renewed appreciation for learned studies in ours, coupled with an ossification of scholarly pursuits with theirs.

The best thing we can do for them and us, is get off this high horse and engage these people with the respect we’d like to be accorded. offer incentives for trade, incentives for them to develop industry, and incentives to revive their old culture, in the stead of this newer, more austere, less learned approach.

We cannot do this without their cooperation, though, and that we must earn. We will earn that, in part, by pressuring our European allies to do better with Muslim immigrants, welcoming them and integrating them into the communities. Make the relationships of Europe and the Middle East less exploitative of the Arabs and Muslims, more welcoming.

This, as opposed to doing what Europe is doing, which is more or less trying to protect their culture from demographic and linguistic change (sound familiar?) We should encourage greater connection between our cultures, because such connections give people greater stakes in peace and cooperation. Let’s end the stupidity, not add on to it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #153683

Dr.Politico-
I agree with you. I do want to take a moment to say that while I also do not have a problem with satirization of religious icons, If it is done in a humorous way,even for profit,ok. If it is done to attack or villify the particular group,then it is categorically a hate crime.

Posted by: jblym at June 2, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #153684

No one in American is FORCED to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Yet if you remember your history, that is the reason the colonists came to these shores in the first place—to have the freedom to worship as they please! And they were pleased to worship that same Judeo-Christian God. And He was the One Who is written into our Declaration of Independence, and elsewhere in our Constitution. Most of our Presidents have stated their belief in The Deity, but have never endeavored to force that belief on the rest of the nation. Quite unlike the Islamic world, which says there is NO true religion but ISLAM, and you would do well to accept it, or your life is in danger. The Dhimmies, which are what non-Muslims are called, were less than than human in they era of which you speak,( I have read extensively of this time period and religion, as I am very curious— my spouse would say NOSY!) and they had virtually NO rights! They could be killed if a Muslim simply felt out of sorts on a given day! And, no punishment would be given! To this day, there is no serious penalty in Muslim countries for a Muslim who murders a non-Muslim. Egypt has a huge Muslim population, which is why there are many Egyptian bloggers and protesters in prison at this moment—because they have the guts to speak out against the Islamic terrorism that is taking place throughout the world! There is also a growing population of Muslims in Turkey; Indonesia has the LARGEST population of Muslims of any nation outside of the Middle East (listen to the news for THIS one); Morroco has always been Muslim, since the MOORS conquered it ages ago! Islam is intolerent of any religion that does not bow to Allah. As I have said before, I have the suras to back up what I write. All you have to do is ask, I will write them here and you can look them up for yourselves. Do not take my word for it. And yes, The Catholic Church was responsible for centuries of the Inquistion—-that was NOT Christianity! That was HUMAN GREED and BIGOTRY! Anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet hates Jews,cannot be a true Christian, as the very one they claim to serve was a JEW! Jesus kept all the Jewish holidays, even taught in the TEMPLE! If He were not a JEW, He would not have been allowed to teach in the Temple! So do not equate the atrocities of the Inquistion, Hitler, etc, with Christianity, any more than you can compare it with Islam. They are worlds apart.

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 2, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #153691

David S
Why is disagreeing with Christianity not being intolerant but disagreeing with someone that disagrees with Christianity is?
Why should Christians have to except every belief out there but the ones that disagree it don’t have to except Christian beliefs?
Sounds like you want everything to be one sided. The side your on. That’s intolerance.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 2, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #153694

Stephen, I agree with your post 100%.
I’ve tried to express the same kind of points myself but I’ve failed miserably so far to make them as clear as you just did.
Thanks.

This, as opposed to doing what Europe is doing, which is more or less trying to protect their culture from demographic and linguistic change (sound familiar?)

That’s why, in fact, I’ve changed my mind and I’m now fully for Turkey becoming an EU member. If EU successfully overcome its teenage period she’s facing now, I mean.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 2, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #153700

Angel,

There is a strong tradition of separation of church and state in Turkey. With 99% of turkish being muslims, I guess Islam is not the source of intolerance about other religions.
Maybe the intolerance come from islamic governments, not Islam?
That would be great, as people tend to not survive long compare to religion…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 2, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #153706
that was NOT Christianity! That was HUMAN GREED and BIGOTRY!

But that was done in its name. As radical islamists commits terrorist acts in name of Islam.
Don’t expect many people to see any real difference. On both side.

If human greed and bigotry make such atrocities happened in name of Christianity, any reason to NOT think the same is making islamists commiting atrocities in name of Islam?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 2, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #153720

Philippe

But that was done in its name. As radical islamists commits terrorist acts in name of Islam. Don’t expect many people to see any real difference. On both side.

If human greed and bigotry make such atrocities happened in name of Christianity, any reason to NOT think the same is making islamists commiting atrocities in name of Islam?

The difference here between Christianity is that the Bible teaches that if you get struck on one cheek to turn the other if you are forced to go one mile go two. Islam teaches that if someone does not convert to kill them. They are not comparable.

what i just said about Christianity is the same reasons you cant call the Inquisition Christian it is the very opposite of Christian by definition. While Islamo Terrorism is very much a teaching directly from the Koran.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 2, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #153773

this is LLLplus2’s wife.
yes people that is 3 Ls.

we don’t believe in the death penalty.
it is wrong to kill someone even if a person did kill someone else. i am only human though and if it were my child i would feel like killing them.

i think the world has gone through enough violence and needless loss of life that all who are alive today should be able to see that it is not the answer. yes, even the radical muslims. do they see things getting better as they blow up civilians? no. which is why the next day they blow some more up. it hasn’t accomplished anything except getting them 70 some odd virgins.
which is another thing that is strange. they could go through those 70 or so virgins in 70 days why doesn’t allah give them an endless amount for eternity? just thought i would lighten things up a bit. sorry bad sense of humor.

there are muslims who come to this country and are free to hold to their values and customs. i think it is nuts for people here to sit and say that we should respect islam, but you christians have to go. a picture with Jesus laying in poop is fine and we have to respect the artist’s opinion, but shame on someone who makes a picture of mohammed in any situation, we need to respect the muslims. respect this! be quiet christians you are not allowed an opinion because you are not popular, but i can say what i think because i am a liberal forward thinking person. common place minds with common place opinions. do you even know that we worship the same god? yes the same god as the muslims, just different scripture. i have a right to have my christian beliefs and they have a right to their muslim beliefs. i don’t care what others believe as long as they are not breaking the peace with their beliefs. i will give respect to everyone no matter what they believe. if they bring their disrespect to my my door they better have a getaway car. when you bring disrespect to this conservative site you are just looking for a fight. you don’t want to bring about peace you just want to fight. you say be tolerant, but you aren’t tolerant toward us conservative/christians. so go ahead and be a hypocrit and say that we should be quiet and we are no good. you are lucky we are on a blog and you are not at my door.

do i here a car beeping?

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 2, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #153775

I have said it before,Islamic fanatics,Christian fanatics,no difference. Fanatics will always follow the agenda that is the most destructive to any one who is not with them.
You may want to excuse these people because of lack of education,but they choose to stay in the Dark Ages. I believe that any group who wishes to preach hatred and intolerance can and should be smote.

Posted by: jblym at June 2, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #153783

jblym

I have said it before,Islamic fanatics,Christian fanatics,no difference. Fanatics will always follow the agenda that is the most destructive to any one who is not with them. You may want to excuse these people because of lack of education,but they choose to stay in the Dark Ages. I believe that any group who wishes to preach hatred and intolerance can and should be smote.

WOW that sounds rather fanatical. Maybe you need to smote yourself first. Then we will be able to follow your example.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 2, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #153815

LLLPlus2’s Wife, you make very good sense, only one thing, as I have said before. Allah and Jehovah are not the same God, as even the Muslims will tell you. And you are correct about the difference in the way we are supposed to re-act concerning the publishing of political cartoons, or other degrading ‘art’ concerning our respective deities. Anything goes as long as it is about our Christian Saviour, Jesus Christ, and we are supposed to keep our mouths shut, and heaven help us if we dare to object! Yet when the Islamic world terrorized entire nations over those silly cartoons, actually killing people, the media raised such outraged cries of ‘sacrilege to the Prophet” (he is not MY prophet!) and ‘hate speech” (there was no talking involved”), intolerance of religion’, that all governments were practically crawling on their knees , begging the Muslims to accept their apologies! And I STILL haven’t heard ANYONE apologizing for the picture of the Muslim kid urinating on the face of the Statue of Liberty, have you? Nor have I heard an outcry from the world news media! And has any nation blasted Iran for the contest they ran to see who could draw the most vulgar, blasphemous cartoon of Messiah Jesus? Oh, but I forgot—-that was perfectly acceptable to the rest of the world. That was against JESUS and Christianity! Yes, Our Lord preached love and forgiveness, and turn the other cheek, but I can assure you from the heart, if the lives of my loved ones were threatened, I would fight to the death to protect them, and ask Jesus for forgiveness later.By the way, another little difference between Muslims and Christians in the U.S. When we Christians go to a bank for a loan, we have to pay interest, right? Well, because the Islamic law forbids Muslims from paying interests, there are banks in America that gives laons to Muslims—-WITHOUT any interest at all! Now how fair is that to the rest of us? Seems like to get a break here anymore, you better convert!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 2, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #153821

Angel 1

where’s one of these banks? It would be perfect for financing the purchase of a new house.

Posted by: SirisC at June 2, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #153839

037:
“And all this time I thought Science was a process of discovery based on proof and experimentation. Thanks for clearing that up.”

Interesting that the scientific method you describe is credited to Francis Bacon who was a Christian and saw it as a way of discovering how God created everything.

Einstein spoke of thinking God’s thooughts after Him. Kepler, Newton, (long list here) based their inquiry on a Christian (Creationist) worldview.

Posted by: TimC at June 2, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #153862

TimC,

“Einstein spoke of thinking God’s thooughts after Him. Kepler, Newton, (long list here) based their inquiry on a Christian (Creationist) worldview.”

Yet when Galileo, tried to say that the Earth revolved around the sun, they tried to excommunicate him.

Posted by: Rocky at June 2, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #153940

I remember Anne Coulter wrote a very intersting opinion of the rioting. The cartoon that was at the root of the rioting depicted Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, wearing a turban that was shaped like an old fashioned bomb with a lit fuse. She pointed out that rather than be introspective and question why the world would view them this way, they rioted and seemed to prove the cartoon valid. I don’t feel that all Muslims are violent, I’ve known several in college and a few here in Iraq and they are decent people. Unfortunately, too few moderates are willing to speak out, probably out of fear that they will be killed. Beyond this, since the bulk of Muslim countries don’t have a fee press, most of them have been fed anti-American propoganda all of their lives.

Much more upsetting to me was the American media’s response to the issue. Sheer PC cowardice prevents them from publishing these cartoons, but they condemn this administration for saying reporters who leak classified information shouldn’t be punished? What a load of bull. The only time our media has more spine than a jellyfish is when it attacks our own government knowing full well it will be protected by that same government.

As for why the Founding Fathers were so adamant about not having a state religion, let’s not forget that Europe was not far removed from massive religious wars that killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Beyond this, many fled Europe to be able to worship as they chose.

However, the idea that the Founders would approve of the liberties they wrote into the Constitution being used to justify the secular-humanist and morally relativistic culture that liberals are imposing on America is ludicrous. Look at the old state laws. Homosexual behavior, abortion, etc were all banned. Furthermore, Jefferson, the architect of the wall of separation between Church and State, recommended the Bible as one of two texts he felt should be in schools.

If the Founders could see what the radical liberal movement has imposed onto America, always through the unelected and largely unaccountable court system over the will of the people, they would be appalled. Any liberal who complains about conservative forcing their beliefs on them is a hypocrite. Starting in the 50s with school prayer being forced out, the liberal elitists have used the court system to impose their views on America, not the other way around.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 3, 2006 1:50 AM
Comment #153966

SirisC, try HSBC for your bank loan, BUT, you MUST be Muslim, so convert in a hurry! They are the only ones exempt from paying interest to this huge concern. And, Thomas Jefferson never mentioned a ‘Wall between church and state”. He was speaking of a National religion, such as they have in England . The Anglican Church is the legal Church of England, although the citizens are not forced to belong. Jefferson also remarked that a nation without the influence of God would be a nation without laws. No president has ever tried to force our nation to belive and accept his beliefs, but we must NOT mock him for them. Ronald and Nancy Reagan consulted the ‘psychic’ Jeanne Dixon on many occasions before deciding important matters of state. The media found no fault with that, yet when President Bush consults Christian leaders, there is a huge outcry from the liberal press AND his detractors in the government! Why is it acceptable to accept the advice of one who supposedly ‘Sees the future”, and praying to the ONE WHO HOLDS the future? One simple reason——the media is both anti-Bush, and, most important. ANTI-GOD!! Face it, Liberals, we Christians are here to stay until the Lord says it is time to go, and we are going to have our say , even though we are going to have to fight through every court in the land for that right!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 3, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #153975

Angel1,

“The Anglican Church is the legal Church of England, although the citizens are not forced to belong.”

The reason that the “Pilgrims” fled England for “religious freedom” was that every time the Monarch changed so did the state religion.
Those that didn’t follow the Monarch’s choice were persecuted.

“Ronald and Nancy Reagan consulted the ‘psychic’ Jeanne Dixon on many occasions before deciding important matters of state. The media found no fault with that,”

You must be having a case of selective memory.
Reagan was mocked in the press, for the “physic” advice he recieved at that time.

Posted by: Rocky at June 3, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #153988

Angel1,

You have forgotten liberal politicians have no problem with God as long it is in a church full of “black voters”. They denounce God and then stand in his house to gather votes. You will see whichever dem2008 pretending to worship all over the media in the coming 18 months.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 3, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #153991

this is the wife again. christians and muslims have a common back ground as far as they say they are descended from abraham/ishmael and think that the covenant was made with him instead of through issac. after that i have no idea. i don’t know anything about the allah and jehovah thing.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 3, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #154003

Wife,

Beyond claiming a line descent from Abraham through Ishmael rather than Issac as the Jews claim, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all profess to worship the same God. Islam further identifies Jews and Christians as “People of the Book.” Jesus is revered as a great prophet second only to Muhammed. Islam even believes that Jesus was born of a virgin and will come down from Heaven in the end times, but they do not believe him to be Divine, nor do they beleive he actually died on the cross. They also identify the Holy Spirit not as a person of the Trinity, but as the Archangel Gabriel whom they believe spoke to Muhammed and dictated the Koran.

Unfortunately, Islam is also a religion founded on warfare. Muhammed himself is revered as a great warrior along with being a prophet. Islam’s rapid spread was primarily possible because its two powerful nieghbors to the north, the Byzantine Empire (what remained of the eastern portions of the Roman Empire after the fall of its possessions in the West) and Persian Empire had been engaged in a long series of wars. Cities in the Middle East from Iraq through Egypt had been taken and retaken and both Empires were to weak to resist this new onslaught from the south. Islam’s expansion was buy the sword and it was only stopped by successful armed resistance, such as when Charles Martel defeated them in France.

Islam was also influenced by the history of the region. Roman power in the Middle East had been dominant in the region for almost 900 years, and the two cities most desired by Islamic conquerers were Constantinople (modern Istanbul in Turkey, capital of the Byzantine Empire) and Rome itself.

This legacy of conquest was there in Islam from its beginnings and is still a common theme. Islam is currently in some form of violent conflict on almost all of its borders. To the north with the Russians, to the West with Europe, to the South with black Africans, and to the East with India and Christians in the Phillipines. To steal a movie title, Islam can be summed up as A History of Violence.

Islam was for most of the Middle Ages of Europe a far more advanced culture. however, it began to decline Europes power rose in the 15 and 1600s. By 1800, Islamic forces were no longer a threat to Europe, and the Russians actively began siezing its territory. Islamic lands were largely passed over by the industrial revolution, and it was not until Ataturk began to modernize Turkey after WWI that any Islamic state began to advance by European standards.

Today, oil is as much a blessing as a curse for Islamic lands. Most are otherwise resource poor, and constant warfare and a lack of investment into critical infastructure such as education, leave a legacy of massive unemployment and crushing poverty. It is ironic that of all the other violations of human rights Saddam committed, women were very liberated in Iraq.

The future of Islam is largely dependent on what they do with their oil. While populous, almost all Islamic nations are militarily weak compared to their neighbors. Only Pakistan has an atomic bomb, but they probably lack the means to effectively deliver it. All other considerations but the military issue aside, America can bomb any Muslim nation it wants out of existence and Europe could easily roll over the region, as could Russia and probably China as well. This weakness, coupled with a contempt of all “infidels” will probably keep Islam from advancing, though a decline in birth rates might be able to stem the near constant state of revolution in most of the Muslim world.

Islam will continue to be a problem for the West for decades. While they do not have the capacity to invade Europe in a military fashion, the Europeans are committing mass cultural and racial suicide by not having enough children to even replace their existing populations, the same in Russia. The same roles that Mexicans supposedly play in America is being filled by Muslims in Europe, who don’t much like their host countries. I get an evil feeling like I’ll see the cross on top of the Vatican replaced with a cresent in my lifetime. Of course, Europe is bringing this on itself. Hope this was helpful.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 3, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #154176

1LT B, If Russia and China continue to side with Iran, and will not back the rest of the member nation regarding sanctions if Iran will not cease enriching uranium, you may yet see that star and crescent over the Vatican, and many other places! And even if Iran might SEEM to give in, you can bet your life, there will be hidden labs somewhere, still working their little turbaned heads off with the project, because there is no way on this earth they are going to give up their dream of a nuclear bomb, and the target they are going to use it on…Israel! Oh, and Rocky, Dear, I have VERY good memory, and I do remember the media love affair with Jeanne Dixon that began when she “Warned Jack Kennedy about Dallas.” She became the nation’s darling, and when The Reagans became her ‘Friends’ the media did joke about it, but it was not in a sneering, nasty way, rather more like patting a rather amusing child on the head! AND, the Angelican Church is STILL the offical Church of England, and the people are no longer persecuted, was my meaning earlier!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 4, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #154192

Angel1,

“She became the nation’s darling, and when The Reagan’s became her “Friends” the media did joke about it, but it was not in a sneering, nasty way, rather more like patting a rather amusing child on the head!”

Like they joked about Reagan calling Nancy “mommy”?

Yeah, and Nixon called her “the soothsayer”.

I suppose you could consider that a term of endearment.

Posted by: Rocky at June 4, 2006 2:16 AM
Comment #154197

thanks for the info 1LT B. also interesting is that china has a problem with the men not being able to find wives because every one was aborting girls or leaving them to die at birth thanks to the one child policy. (120 men for every 100 women) there are starting to be a lot of very horney chinese men with no outlet except their hands and they could be persuaded to use them to fight for women. russia also has a lot of women who can’t find “quality” men. the women don’t want to have babies. the government is tryng to pay them to have children, but they are not biting. italy is also paying people to have children. i wonder how that is going. we could have a lot of half chinese, half russian babies running around soon under the banner of that crescent and star that will be at the vatican since they don’t have enough people to fight a war.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 4, 2006 2:58 AM
Post a comment