A Spotlight In the Right Place

Dana Milbank for WaPo nails it:
Without listening to Ahmadinejad, how can the world appreciate how truly nutty he is?

As President Bush said yesterday, "an institution in our country gives him the chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country". Ahmadinejad's speeches tell us two things. First, he is not beholden to the truth (Milbank really gets into this). Second, he is not accustomed to the embarrassment of a free press. His means of dealing with hard questions is to flatly deny the accusations - even when we have video of him saying the opposite in a Farsi news conference!

So accustomed to being worshiped and so unaccustomed to being questioned, he really stands to lose whatever scant credibility as a critic of America he formerly had.

Ahmadinejad has also stolen a page or two from Borat's script:
Borat: "You telling me the man who try to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?" (src)
Mahmoud: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country"

Borat: "Democracy is different in America. For example: women can vote but horse can not!"
Mahmoud: "The freest women in the world are women in Iran."

Borat: "Although Kazakhstan a glorious country, it have a problem, too: economic, social, and Jew."
Mahmoud: "It is quite clear that a bunch of Zionist racists are the problem the modern world is facing today". (src)

Borat: [narrating] "He insist we not fly in case the Jews repeated their attack of 9/11."
Mahmoud: "If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly - why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved..." (src).

Borat's chorus: "Kazakhstan friend of all except Uzbekistan"
Mahmoud: "For hundreds of years, we've lived in friendship and brotherhood with the people of Iraq."
I could go on. Posted by Chops at September 25, 2007 10:05 AM
Comment #234264


Nowhere does the Right expose itself to more grief than in its efforts to throw up a wall of prejudice in dealing with the Left. The furor over Ahmedinejad’s being allowed to speak was an opportunistic attempt to turn some minds against leaders on the Left. That loses us an opportunity to point out common enemies.

By making this forum available to the wacko leader of a country pursuing nuclear weapons the Left has proven much of what was said of Iran in holding that country’s leadership up as a part of an “Axis of Evil”. Unfortunately, that will be lost with hyperpartisans now seeking to cover their rhetorical kiesters.

I’m a conservative because I believe our ideas are better. If we have to resort to doing a better job of prejudicing the middle to win the day we’re sunk.

Hooray that Ahmedinejad had a chance to make a blithering fool of himself in front of the world. Now let us not follow in his footsteps.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 11:13 AM
Comment #234267

Without listening to a Bush speech, how can the world appreciate how truly uneducated he is?

Posted by: Rachel at September 25, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #234278

Don’t forget “I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about” either.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 25, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #234284

Sort of makes one wonder why Columbia would cancel an invitation to the head of the Minutemen, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #234291


Are you listening?

…WHAT ideas?

fiscal conservatism? small government? world diplomacy?

WHAT ideas? Are you, perhaps, confusing conservative campaign promises with reality?
It sure appears that way!

Posted by: RGF at September 25, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #234295


“So accustomed to being worshiped and so unaccustomed to being questioned, he really stands to lose whatever scant credibility as a critic of America he formerly had.”

It also tells us that without the democratic talking points, like the ones he used on the 60 minutes interview, he doesn’t know what to say.

“an institution in our country gives him the chance to express his point of view, which really speaks to the freedoms of the country”

Yeah, a terrorist thug dictator is allowed to speak at Columbia University; however, this same University banned the ROTC and the Minutemen were “mobbed” off the stage. Some “freedom of speech” in this country. Nice.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 25, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #234297

I was all for letting him speak and answer questions. Of course, I’m all for engaging dictators in diplomatic discussion too. That was how we won the cold war, in my opinion.

Posted by: Max at September 25, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #234301

It made me wonder who is nuttier, the islamic nuts Ahmedinejad plays to, or the evangelical nuts that Bush plays to.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 25, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #234312

At least one good thing came out of it. He gave proof that homosexuality is not genetic. It doesen’t occur in Iran so it can’t be genetic.

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 2:26 PM
Comment #234320

Last I checked Christians haven’t hijacked 4 planes and flown them into buildings. Last I checked Christians haven’t called for the annihilation of entire nations. (recently) Last I checked Baptists don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up Methodists’ weddings.

There are some evangelical nuts, but they work withing a democratic system. Comparing them to suicidal, genocidal fanatics is offensive to me as a Christian.

Posted by: Silima at September 25, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #234324

Here! Here!, as the old cheer went. We Christians get a bad rap because, well, we’re human. At least our guiding scriptures do not advocate wars of conquest. (And don’t start trotting out Joshua and David, etc. There really is a difference between the old and new Testaments. Not even Jews, who share the Old Testament with us, recognize the lessons there as advocacy for conquest.)

But, we ARE human. We are prejudiced. We fail to recognise our failings. We fail to recognise our limitations. In short, we sin. And, in case those of you who would put us on a very short leash haven’t noticed, that is exactly what our religion warns us about! Perhaps that is why Baptists DON’T bomb the weddings of Methodists, and even we condemn the wildest of our radicals who would shoot up an abortionist’s office.

You see, we believe God loves even those who don’t know to love him. That would include those who think we’re nuts.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #234325

You are confusing office holders with the Party. In both parties you will note that there is a lot of grumbling about office holders who promise one thing and then run off to the perceived “center”.
Hillary Clinton is doing that even as we speak, promising liberal groups she is a liberal while being much more moderate when she must communicate with a broad audience. Democrats, and even Republicans, congratulate her for being such a clever campaigner. And so-called “sophisticated thinkers” think well of her for the fraud.

We voters in both parties need to get a spine and make thes people tell us the truth, or toss them when they lie. If they really reflected our desires we would all get lessons in the real-world consequences of those desires. Right now only about 20 to 30% of the office holders in either party really have ideals to match ours.

The rest are just opportunists looking to have jobs big enough to keep their heads swollen.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #234348


I realize you’re joking. But it’s no lauphing matter that there are no gays in Iran because they’re all killed. Pretty sad.

Posted by: Max at September 25, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #234349

Silma, Christians didn’t do those things. They did others. Like bombing Black Churches with little Black Girls inside. Like bombing Planned Parenthood clinics. Like bombing and invading Iraq which posed no threat to America’s homeland, killing 10’s of thousands of them, and continues to do so in the name of “It’s for their own good”.

Yeah, right. Ignorance and hate can be found in the fellowships of all the world’s great religions and amongst atheists too.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 25, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #234353

Lee and Silma: What is true about most Christians is also true about most Muslims including most Iranians.

Max: Yes, it was a crude joke. I imagine that most homosexuals in Iran are in the closet rather than dead. It used to be so in America.

Posted by: jlw at September 25, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #234354

jlw, meaning that in the past American’s that were gay and came out of the closet were killed? I don’t think you are implying that America killed our homosexual population are you? We certainly made it rediculously hard on them, prosecuted them, I would even say on occasion murdered them.

Posted by: Edge at September 25, 2007 8:06 PM
Comment #234359

David, you’re certainly correct that “ignorance and hate can be found in the fellowships of all the great religions.” There’s no doubt about it.

But using that as the basis for suggesting that all religions are the same in this regard ignores the teachings of each religion.

Here’s an analogy: it’s probably true that some small number of people who claim to be strict Vegans every now and then secretly break down and gobble up a greasy bacon-cheeseburger. That doesn’t mean, however, that Vegans are just as likely to eat meat as everybody else. The same holds true for the occasional “Christian” who bombs an abortion clinic or murders an abortion doctor. Like a cheeseburger-eating Vegan, that Christian is not following the beliefs that they profess to hold.

Now, I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are like the vast majority of those of any faith who abhor violence. But it’s denying reality to suggest that even those peaceful Muslims openly condemn their violent members to anything resembling the same degree that Christians do. And it is denying reality to suggest that anything comparable to executing gays, honor killings of women, etcetera (all of which is sanctioned by Islam) goes on in majority-Christian countries or is sanctioned by the Christian populations who live there.

Also, you claim that “Christians” bombed churches with little Black girls inside. It seems to me that the real Christians were the ones INSIDE the church (which was, after all, a Christian church). We have a pretty good idea who those individuals who bombed that church in Birmingham were—uneducated white racist males. I’ve never heard anything to suggest that they were members of any Christian church, much less that they were motivated by any teachings they may have received there. If anything, they were probably motivated by the virulent segregationist rhetoric of Alabama’s Democratic party and its leaders.

Posted by: Liam at September 25, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #234361


You say “most Muslims” and “most Christians” as though you were expressing an equivalency. But, as with Slima’s post, one does not see Christians strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocents purposely to establish a world order founded in the law of their religion.

There are pretty twisted Christian sects, most of them wrapped around an idolatrous hero worship masquerading as Christianity, but they horrify the VAST majority of Christians. We vocally denounce such aberrations. Even the worst of these, though, Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind, are trying to run away from the world, becoming a danger primarily to those that confront them out of concern for some of their members, and then themselves as they essentially turn suicidal.

Indeed, most Muslims are people of peace, but it is not at all unfair to ask if Muslims feel a holy conviction to stand up to people of their own faith, at personal risk, for a belief that God loves Jews, and Christians, and complete heathen.

Secondly, Edge makes a great point. Would you say Christians killed gay people? I’m old enough to remember a time when there was considerably less tolerance for wearing the way one used their sex organs like a team mascot. But, my father’s VENERATED high school vice principal, from the black heart of the Deep South, had had a life-long live in, same sex “partner” since the late forties. I knew no one who thought ill of him when I taught him art in the late seventies and early eighties. Maybe gays of today wouldn’t think of him as gay, given such fidelity, but that was not the social norm and people in “Christian” society seemed to put up with it.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #234363

fundamentalist fanatics exhist in all major religions, to say that christians dont do things like islamic fanatics do is at best naive. I seem to remember christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics not to long ago.

Jeanene Garofolo said on bill maher the other day something that rang very true…”the hardcore right wing in irian no more represents the people of iran than the hardcore right wing represents us americans.”

we all need to remember that the government isnt typically a reflection of the people it is more typically repersentative of unrestrained Id.

Posted by: john at September 25, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #234364

Lee, just for the record, Jim Jones and David Koresh might both have been “Christians” in their early lives, but there was nothing Christian in the slightest about either of the cults they led later on.

This isn’t just a value judgement on my part about what makes a “real Christian.” It’s a factual observation about their beliefs. Jones claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus, Buddha, and Lenin, for crying out loud, and Koresh claimed that he was “the Son of God,” a messiah who was going to open the “Seven Seals” and that it was his duty to have sex with the prepubescent daughters of his followers. Not even a very, shall we say “creative” reading of Christianity, has anything to do with the deranged nonsense that issued from those two madmen.

Posted by: Liam at September 25, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #234369

John, we’ll disagree there. If we look accross the history of Christianity you can make the argument extremists have done similar things.

Today, Islam wins hands down. There is just no comparison in the world we live in today. The range, scope, number of deaths, etc. add up in exponents of any Christian action you can point to in the last 20-30-40 years.

But hey, I think the big difference here is trying to say it is OK for Islam to be violent because Christians are violent.

Me, I fall on the side that neither should be violent and that Islam worries me the most right now.

Posted by: Edge at September 25, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment #234370


When a cross was burned in the yard of one of my family members (McComb, Miss. October 1963) it was because he expressed his Christian conviction that blacks were fully human and fully deserving of the rights guaranteed them under the Constitution. The people engaged in those acts of opression and violence tried to use the dominant religion for cover, as bigots everywhere, in every religion, will do.

But the point is that, in spite of having been assaulted several times for his expressed convictions, his CHRISTIAN witness was to continue to publicly stand up for the beliefs that cast a pall of danger on his life. He, and a number of people in the community who cooperated with him were threatened with bombing (McComb had a reputation for that sort of thing) and their phones were tapped. That courage in the face of real danger (this was a part of the state in which there had been a number of killings over racial issues) eventually won some battles, convincing the less courageous Christians in their midst they, too, could stand up for what they knew to be right.

We are not a better “kind” of people than Muslims are. I want to see that courage in the Muslim community.

The story of events referenced above can be found in The Two Faces of Janus: The Saga of Deep South Change, by J. Oliver Emmerich

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 10:01 PM
Comment #234371


I did say- “There are pretty twisted Christian sects, most of them wrapped around an idolatrous hero worship masquerading as Christianity, but they horrify the VAST majority of Christians.”

I could masquerade as Jimmy Carter. I could even believe I was Jimmy Carter. But in my present state of sanity both you and I know I won’t ever BE Jimmy Carter.

Give me a little credit.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 25, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #234372

Is the suggestion here is that the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, both of which were conducted by Christians, are not deserving of being included as a fair comparison?

Posted by: DOC at September 25, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #234373
Is the suggestion here is that the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, both of which were conducted by Christians, are not deserving of being included as a fair comparison?

I’ll just bite the bullet on this one and say that yes, things that happened 500, 750, or close to a thousand years ago are not deserving of being included as a fair comparison.

That is, except in one respect: Christianity has gone through through a long process of reforming itself since those times. In fact, since its Dark Ages, Christianity has played a crucial role in the advancement of human rights, right up through our own Civil Rights Movement.

Islam, on the other hand, is arguably going backward from its Golden Age, and was probably more civilized 500 years ago than it is today. If you study the history of Islam, there was a time when Islamic societies rivaled and even exceeded the West in some areas of science, culture, and politics. But look at where they are now.

Posted by: Liam at September 25, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #234379
That is, except in one respect: Christianity has gone through through a long process of reforming itself since those times. In fact, since its Dark Ages, Christianity has played a crucial role in the advancement of human rights, right up through our own Civil Rights Movement.

Christianity has done little for women’s rights…most denominations don’t ordain women, or, if they do, women reach a stained glass ceiling.

It is our Christian, born-again President and vice-president who lied to get us into a war that has killed and maimed far too many Iraqis and Americans all for control of oil.

I see Christians who support the war and who support the president as having no faith at all in their god…they don’t know, nor do they care at all about the providence of God…they’re too busy amassing “stuff” for “me, me, me, me”…greed is NOT a Christian value…nor is hate…

As the saying goes, Christianity has yet to be tried.

Posted by: Rachel at September 25, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #234381

Rachel, you have to go all the way back to Lincoln to find a US President who didn’t clearly profess a belief in Christianity. If you want to blame all the failings and personal limitations of these Presidents on their religion, then why not credit their accomplishments to their religion as well? I don’t suggest that—I’d just say that there are a lot of factors at work beside religion, including personal ones.

As far as ordaining women goes, there are actually quite a few denominations that do that. Including the denomination of which George W. Bush is a member, the Methodists.

Personally though, I think that the decision to ordain or not ordain women is a far cry from the decision of whether or not to stone them for adultery, forbid them from owning property, or forcing them to wear a veil. But maybe that’s just me.

Posted by: Liam at September 25, 2007 11:00 PM
Comment #234382

Hey now Liam, let’s not let facts get in the way of bashing Christians! Stop that you are making sense.

It would be nice to hold all religions to the same standard Christianity is held to in the USA. A truly noble cause.

Posted by: Edge at September 25, 2007 11:18 PM
Comment #234385

I believe its telling that the last President who didn’t claim Christianity is also considered our greatest President. I have studied Mr. Lincoln quite a bit and he seemed to have more of the good qualities of humanness and spirituality than any President since. In his first term GW compared himself to Lincoln (referencing being a wartime Pres and fighting for freedom). I have to say that again just to feel the effect of it…George Bush compared himself to Lincoln….Gee….we’re doomed.

Posted by: Scott at September 25, 2007 11:34 PM
Comment #234391

Liam - Inquisition activies continued in the Spanish occupied areas of North America until it was abolished in Europe in 1834.

Look up “Curse of the ham”. Christianity played a large part in promoting and supporting the slavery of Africans in the Americas.

You might also find it interesting that the Vatican respsponse in 1866 to the Emancipation Proclamation, was in support of slavery and did not change it’s official stance from the support to the condemnation of the slavery of converted Christians until 1888, and did not condemn slavery for all humans until 1917.

It was renegade Baptists and Methodists that ultimately had to fight for over a century to change the attitude of the larger Christian community. While Roman Catholics in the US south were still reconciling thier view on the civil rights movement with the Vatican, it was again the Baptists and Methodists that continued to spearhead true civil rights reform.

Your 500 years of Christian reform regarding human rights was actually 100 years of reform, and was completed less than 100 years ago.

I would argue that it was the effect of freedom and democracy on American Christians that caused the reforms as they pertain to slavery and civil rights, and not Christianity itself.

Posted by: DOC at September 26, 2007 1:06 AM
Comment #234392

Liam, it was Christians, and ONLY Christians who ever dropped atomic bombs on metropolitan cities of another country. In the name of God and Country.

You see the logic, then deny it and confuse it. The Islamic terrorists are no more representative of the vast fellowship of Muslims than Timothy McVeigh or the KKK were of the fellowships of Christianity.

The Islamic terrorists use Islam for their political, defensive, and offensive agendas. So does the US Government use liberty and democracy to as cover for getting military control over Middle East oil flows. Tactics differ because of size and wealth and military strength.

If the US were overrun by the Chinese here in the US, I have absolutely no doubt terrorism would become our tactic of choice as well. Terrorism has always been the tactic of the militarily weaker and less wealthy opponent, from the Irish against the British Army, to the S. Africans against the Afrikaners. One’s religion does not prevent some people from electing terrorism when they see their futures being taken away by outsiders of more powerful means.

There should be no tolerance for the terrorism that takes innocent non-combatant lives. But, there also should be no tolerance for bombing innocent non-combatants either, which the US has participated in Iraq. Each side believes in its moral superiority and justification for taking innocent lives. The truth is, no party to war is moral after the war ends. War is evil, and exacts evil acts by all parties to it.

Any attempt to explain acts of war on the basis of the combatant’s religion is a false argument. War and killing is not about faith in God. War is about power and autonomy, offense and defense. War is never about faith. Faith simply becomes a weapon of war like anything else that can be used to acquire advantage. I seriously doubt OBL even believes in a god.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn he was an atheist or agnostic, like many of our own politicians who hide it for campaigning purposes and attend services as a requirement of their career, like typing or keeping memos or books.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 1:20 AM
Comment #234394

Christians are blessed with very short memories and an ability to disown their fanatics. Do any of you remember Timothy McVeigh? How about Jim Crow terrorism when young black men were tarred, feathered, hung in trees and set on fire for looking at a white woman? There are still people alive today that participated in that. How many civil rights leaders and freedom riders were murdered by Christians? Does Medgar Evans ring a bell, how about Martin Luther King?

The Iraqis were treated better and had more freedom under Saddam Hussain than blacks had under the Jim Crow laws of the southern bible belt. Most white Christians did not participate in these activities but they did nothing about it for a hundred years and before that two hundred years of slavery. By those standards, the fundimentalist muslim terrorists are new kids on the block.

Now you say that the normal muslims won’t control their terrorists. Well, we sure taught those people in Iraq who had nothing to do with the terrorists a good lesson. Christian America killed tens of thousands of them and made it possible for them to kill each other over religious differences. In addition we opened their borders and allowed thousands of terrorists to pour into Iraq to murder our troops and many more Iraqis. But,it is everyone else who’s crap stinks, not ours.

Christians, Muslems and Jews have been fighting and killing each other for more than a thousand years. Each has demonized the others to justify much of the killing. This is the main reason why I gave up on religion and sometimes I wish that God would just admit that he created an inferior product and get this over with. But then I think of the good things that Christians, Muslims and Jews have done and I try to be optimistic about the future.

It is hard to be optimistic anymore because it is likely that we will soon be killing many thousands of innocent Iranians because their mad men can’t be allowed to have what our mad men have. They might use their nuclear weapons to commit mass murder which would mean mass suicide for their people.

Posted by: jlw at September 26, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #234396

You know what world leader Colombia should invite to their forum next? George W Bush. But I bet he wouldn’t show. He’d never allow college students to grill him like Ahmadinejad was grilled.

Posted by: muirgeo at September 26, 2007 2:14 AM
Comment #234397

Yet again jlw you use thousands of years to define the hear and now. Where are the Christians today that fit your discription. They don’t exist.

Right here, right now (great song by the way) your post does not hold water. You use generalities to hold up our current situation. The vast majority of Christians seek ways to help their fellow man and not impose their religion or beliefs on others.

A healthy portion of Muslims are doing the opposites. And their moderates are doing nothing.

Posted by: Edge at September 26, 2007 2:40 AM
Comment #234405


It is hard to be optimistic anymore because it is likely that we will soon be killing many thousands of innocent Iranians because their mad men can’t be allowed to have what our mad men have.

I share your sentiments. It has long been the hypocrisy of Christian character that has turned me away from joining with the masses to further their cause. Their cause is not always clear and often strays from the moral ground they preach. They stand for love, peace, respect and moral values while at the same time supporting blood for oil under the guise of a quest for democracy.

It seems to be important to love and respect your fellow man so long as he does not have something you want. Or so long as he shares the same beliefs and values as you.

I have no problem with teaching the values of goodness and morality. Christian teachings advocate for these values to a large degree and I applaud those efforts. However when these values are compromised in the interest of dominance, wealth and power I see only the hypocrisy and foolishness of those who blindly practice and advocate for a religion that they believe can only do good.

It is not the practice of religion itself that presents a problem for me. It is the fact that so many blindly support those who would hide behind it and use it to further a not so moral agenda.

Posted by: RickIL at September 26, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #234407


But, as with Slima’s post, one does not see Christians strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocents purposely to establish a world order founded in the law of their religion.

Actually, you do. From Wikipedia:

National Liberation Front of Tripura The National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Fundamentalist Christian militant group in India, demanding a separate Christian state. Allegedly funded by the Baptist Church of Tripura, it is accused of ethnic cleansing[13] and bombings that have killed hundreds, as well as forcing gunpoint conversions. They were declared a terrorist organization under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2002.[14]

and from the same article, Christians beheading Muslims:

Poso, Jakarta (2000) On July 26, 2007, 17 Christians were convicted of religion-inspired terrorism under Indonesian law. A Christian mob attacked, murdered, and beheaded two Muslim fishermen in September 2006, reportedly as retaliation for a previous court ordered and legally sanctioned execution in 2006 of three Christians convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000.[16] In addition to the seventeen Christian defendants found guilty of “acts of terrorism by the use of violence”, two defendants received fourteen year sentences for their main roles in the killings, while ten were sentenced to twelve year terms. Five other defendants in separate hearings received eight year sentences for their part in the disposal of the bodies.


It’s easy to try to paint Christians and Muslims as fundamentally different. But in some parts of the world, Christian terrorists are doing exactly the same things that we have condemned Muslim terrorists for doing.

Posted by: Jarandhel at September 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #234424

1) The Crusades, for which Christians have always received a bum rap, were in response to CENTURIES of muslim violence and conquest. They were just trying to take back holy land that had been taken by the sword. The left conveniently forgets this.

2) Timothy McViegh did not do what he did out of any moral christian motivation. He was a paranoid delusional person acting out of fear and hatred of his government.

3) Eric Rudolph, the clinic bomber was not part of any organized religion and had not been for years. In fact he denounced any religious affiliation or motivation.

4) To say that those who dropped atomic bombs and supported Jim Crow were doing so out of religious fervor is outlandish in the extreme. These people were also all democrats as well. Should we say that this evil was perpetrated by democratic party teachings and ideology? Just because someone is a christian does not mean that everything they do is for Jesus. Muslims on the other hand put all of their hatred and bloodshed right on the doorstep of islam. They claim that all they do is in the name of islam and all of its teachings.

5) Everything that is mentioned above that has been laid at the feet of christianity is all AGAINST the teachings of that faith. All of the conquest and bloodshed in the name of islam is straight from that religions teachings. Hundreds of years ago, Christianity went through it’s enlightenment. Islam has never had it’s age of enlightenment and continues to act in the name of violent, hateful and intollerent religious teachings and has never advanced past the 9th century, religiously, economicaly or culturaly.

The left conveniently forgets all of this or intentionally distort it. Stop making excuses for what you know is wrong.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 26, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #234428

Beirut Vet, you ignorance of the philosophical tenets of Islam are overwhelming. If the religion of Islam were a religion of violence, how is it 96% of Muslims are peaceful in their faith and lives?

The same argument you make about western Christians of violence not following their faith, is true of Msulims who co-opt Islam as a tool for violence and war. Just as there are many ways to interpret Biblical passages either for peace or violence, there are many ways to interpret the Koran as well.

Christianity is not a superior religion to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. It is just different. The vast majority of followers of all the world’s major religions seek comfort, peace, understanding, and enlightenment in their religion. Al-Queda is no more representative of Islam than the KKK are of Christianity, despite both invoking their religion as a basis for their group’s identity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 1:12 PM
Comment #234430

Edge: Most of the events that I mentioned happened in my lifetime which is the here and now to me.

That part about Christians not wanting to impose their beliefs on others was meant to be a joke wasn’t it? Anti-abortionists, anti-gay marriage, prayer in public schools, creationism are beliefs that only a few reactionary Christians are trying impose on others. The vast majority of Christians speak out against these reactionary Christians and their Imposition every day.

Posted by: jlw at September 26, 2007 1:15 PM
Comment #234442


I am not ignorant of the philisophical tenets of islam, nor am I ignorant of the way it is used and supported throughout the muslim world, nor am I ingnorant of what they want to do to you.

Having been a student of it for many years and having actually been there many times, I am in a better position than you to discuss its tactics and goals.

Stay here grounded in your never to be realized dream of voting out incumbents and pray you never have to deal with this evil yourself, for you are ill-prepared for it. No, this job will be done by those smarter and more brave than any of us.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 26, 2007 3:14 PM
Comment #234449

Beirut Vet, your personal anecdotal experience hardly constitutes an education in the matter. Try taking a philosophy of religions course. It would put some meat on those bragging bones.

You say you are not ignorant. OK. But, your comments sure as hell are. And loaded with prejudice and religious hatred I might add. Tell me if I subscribe to your rhetoric, does a sheet and hood come with the subscription? The satan-y kind are prettiest. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #234478


It was Christians who led the Crusades, Christians who killed an abortion doctor recently and if you believe that GW is a bona fide, a Christian who attacked Iraq with bombers and rockets. There have been by some estimates over a million Iraqi’s killed in a Christian Evangelical President on a “crusade” (his words).” A terrorist is a bomber without an airforce or navy.”

Maybe it was oil, maybe it was daddy’s assassin, maybe it was WMD, or maybe a Christian nut who believes he was called to defend us from those millions of unwashed Muslims who haven’t done a damn thing to anyone.

Of course, you wish to blame them for a few fanatics while absolving your brand of voodoo as innocent.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 26, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #234497

jlw, sorry for the slow response, job and practice for the rug rats. You have replied to my posts recently, asking you questions, thank you.

Sorry, I can see why you think that Christians impose their beliefs. I can see your point here. I would have to argue that it is because that is what is promoted, the select few are pushing their agenda.

As part of the Chicago Archdiocese for four decades, I can tell you that I keep missing those meetings were we plot to convert America and then the world. ;) In my associations here, there is just never discussion about how the world should be more Christian. More to the point that the world should be more tolerant. I would say the hotter topic is ending the war in Iraq, most believe “get out”.

You last post seems to be focused more on current day Christians than where I started asking questions. Which was about comparing modern Christians to modern Muslims. I still see no comparisons in the way the execute their beliefs. You are right to point out that they might have similar rejection of say the gay population, however their means for enforcing their beliefs are no longer comparable. Iran’s mouthpiece proves this point well from my point of view.

Posted by: Edge at September 26, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #234621


I notice that in true liberal fashion you do not address the points that I bring up but resort to the only thing a liberal has to fall back on, personal attacks

This is because your arguments, or in your case lack there-of, cannot stand up in the light of day. So instead of refuting the arguement, you just attack personally. An attack that you could not ever possibly get right or prove.

But hey, nice try. I know this is all you have.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at September 27, 2007 3:53 PM
Post a comment