If Islam is the Problem, What is the Solution?

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=world+trade+center&iid=2481733″ src=”http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/2481733/world-trade-center-sold/world-trade-center-sold.jpg?size=500&imageId=2481733″ width=”234″ height=”352″ /]

Nine years ago, 19 men with a perverted sense of righteous martyrdom commandeered four passenger planes in an attempt to take down The World Trade Center, The Pentagon and the White House. Three of the planes reached their target with devastating effect. The fourth plane, the one headed for the White House, crashed in Pennsylvania when the hijackers were overcome by the heroic passengers. The 19 men had one thing in common that has presented the United States of America with one of its most compelling crises of conscience. The 19 men were all devout, radical Muslims. Now, a country whose fundamental principle is freedom of worship is faced with how to evaluate Islam. Recently, we have seen an evaluation that is frightening in its paranoia, a paranoia that seems to grow the further we get from that terrible Tuesday morning.

Suddenly an entire “industry” has arisen around being “non-Muslim experts on Islam”. I won’t use the word Islamaphobe which carries too much baggage. Let’s just call them self-professed experts. They would have us believe that Islam is not even a religion, but rather a vile social movement disguised as a religion. They cherry pick the Koran to prove how evil the “religion” is.

As they warn us about the evils of Islam, the experts are short on solutions. Let us buy their perspective wholesale. Let’s say that Islam is on the same level as the Nazi party and the KKK. What are we to do about it?

Convene a cross denominational panel to publicly draft a declaration that Islam is not to be further recognized as a religion.

Have the United Nations prepare sanctions against every predominantly Muslim country on the planet, to outlaw the practice of Islam or face penalty.

Engage our ground forces and air force both within the United States and around the world to destroy every existing Mosque, since they are terrorist incubators.

Arrest and detain every practicing Muslim in the United States with conversion to one of the “sanctioned” religions being the only condition for release.

If Islam is the problem my friends then what is the solution? If Islam destroyed the World Trade Center as many would have you believe, then how can we allow Islam to exist?

If the proposed solutions I have laid out are repugnant to you, then perhaps you should reevaluate your attitude toward Islam.

We either believe that religion is a force for good in the world and that only individual men are evil or we commit ourselves to the dangerous exercise of defining the good religions vs the bad ones and then take the necessary steps to root out “evil”.

The next time you go quoting Newt Gingrich, think about what you’re willing to do to solve the problem as Newt has defined it. I say the solutions make it crystal clear that you have defined the problem incorrectly.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

309 thoughts on “If Islam is the Problem, What is the Solution?

  1. The 19 men had one thing in common that has presented the United States of America with one of its most compelling crises of conscience. The 19 men were all devout, radical Muslims.” – R

    Listen R, you act as if it was a coincidence that they were Muslim. It wasn’t a coincidence- it was by design- huge difference.

    Suddenly an entire “industry” has arisen around being “non-Muslim experts on Islam”. I won’t use the word Islamaphobe which carries too much baggage. Let’s just call them self-professed experts. They would have us believe that Islam is not even a religion, but rather a vile social movement disguised as a religion. They cherry pick the Koran to prove how evil the “religion” is.” – R

    Islamophobia? A self-professed expert on Islam? Cherry picking?

    OK, I’ve lived in the Middle East. I’ve studied Islam. I have family members who are Muslims. My profession is the study of Islamic radicals and counter terrorism. Guess who’s sitting in the arm chair on a Monday morning…

    If Islam is the problem my friends then what is the solution? If Islam destroyed the World Trade Center as many would have you believe, then how can we allow Islam to exist?

    If the proposed solutions I have laid out are repugnant to you, then perhaps you should reevaluate your attitude toward Islam.
    ” – R

    Are those they only options? Because you say so? How about we don’t lose who we are. Every other religion in this country is expected to tolerate the views and expressions of everyone else. When Terry Jones said he was going to burn a stack of Korans, he received over a hundred death threats. Other groups said they were going to burn a stack of bibles in response to Jones’ at- how many threats do you think they got?

    I can easily point out a long list of what I would consider comparable radical philosophies in Christianity, except that I’d have a pretty hard time finding an example of where that philosophy resulted in the death of ‘non-believers’.

    But this post is a red herring.

    We either believe that religion is a force for good in the world and that only individual men are evil or we commit ourselves to the dangerous exercise of defining the good religions vs the bad ones and then take the necessary steps to root out “evil”.” – R

    Wow, how un-nuanced of you. Really, could you point out where anyone has proposed a ‘government solution’ to Islam? If I didn’t have to worry about some asshole strapping 5 pounds of C4 to his ass, then I’d frankly not give a shit about any of those tenets in Islam that I disagree with. However, that isn’t the case now is it.

    Be honest R, when you hear about an explosion in a market anywhere, what is the very first thought that goes through your mind? Buddhist extremists? Of course not.

    I don’t have to hate Islam- and I don’t. But I do have some significant issues with many of its classical tenets. Until there is an effort to address those classical tenets: the denigration of women, the intolerance to other religions, the censorship to expression, or the promotion of violence. Yes, the promotion of violence.

    We can discuss the political aspects of Islam later…

  2. Excellent questions, Rutherford. Ones which Gorilla seems to ignore wholesale.

    WHAT IS YOUR FINAL SOLUTION, Gorilla? Your only answer that I can see is the “smiley faced” tactical nukes. Is that really your answer? If so, how will you apply a nuclear solution to the Muslims in the US? In Europe? In any area that isn’t 100% Muslim (ie, everywhere)?

    If you are making a ridiculous proposal (the problem is Islam), then step up with a reasonable answer that isn’t insane.

    If all you can come up with are insane solutions, I hope you’ll forgive us if we don’t bow down to your “expertise.”

    A crazy expert is still crazy.

  3. Excellent questions, Rutherford. Ones which Gorilla seems to ignore wholesale.

    WHAT IS YOUR FINAL SOLUTION, Gorilla? Your only answer that I can see is the “smiley faced” tactical nukes. Is that really your answer? If so, how will you apply a nuclear solution to the Muslims in the US?

    In Europe? In any area that isn’t 100% Muslim (ie, everywhere)?” – Dan

    You are quite possibly the stupidest fucking person I’ve ever had to engage with. Scratch that, Sensico still owns that title, but you’re pretty fucking close.

    Really, are you that fucking dense?

    No Dan, you fucking twit, I do not propose nuclear weapons, nor do I propose rounding up Muslims and applying a final solution. My odious contempt for you deepens at every encounter.

    No, I think your ploy into this stupid line of thought an intentional effort. How best to ignore the second post when you can apply enormous amounts of hyperbole to an obvious sarcastic comment, and then plod on derailing the conversation.

    Congrats on identifying how much of an asshole you are.

    If you are making a ridiculous proposal (the problem is Islam), then step up with a reasonable answer that isn’t insane.

    If all you can come up with are insane solutions, I hope you’ll forgive us if we don’t bow down to your “expertise.”

    A crazy expert is still crazy.” – Dan

    As I said before, it is the classical tenets of Islam that I have issue with. As I said before, it is going to take a reformation within Islam to address the classical tenets that are incompatible with modern society. As I said before, it is these so called moderates- this supposed silent majority- who will have to raise their voice, who will have to come out from the shadows and confront the “radicals” stealing their religion. We can beat their fighters, but the ideology of Islamic radicalism must be addressed and confronted by Muslims.

    So why don’t you tell us what the solution is? Or have you already in your constant bloviating? Grabbing your ankles may be an effective strategy in your neck of the woods, and might even make you popular among the Islamic extremists- but it doesn’t defend our borders from the very real threat of Islamic terrorism. So, next time you stuff that ball in your mouth, which I’m sure is a good look for you, ponder how you address an ideological premise that finds solace in God and openly claims- and frankly I believe them- that they love death more than we love life. Tell me, what would be your negotiation points?

  4. Obviosuly there are only two paths. Sanction and kill all muslims or operate the other side of their glory hole.

    Well Rutherford, I hadn’t considered any of your well-reasoned options. But since you have identified the only ones, I’ll leave you and Dan to continue the pleasuring.

    I thought you were smarter than this strawman logic Rutherford. Dan? Not so much. . .

  5. What a pathetically shallow but incredibly telling statement. And libs pronounce Conservatives are simple? 🙄 You think a statement like this an example of your profundity Rutherford?

    We either believe that religion is a force for good in the world and that only individual men are evil or we commit ourselves to the dangerous exercise of defining the good religions vs the bad ones and then take the necessary steps to root out “evil”.

    Only pure religion is a force for good – the rest is evil. And that statement defines you Rutherford – all religions are basically the same. Defines Dan too, but he won’t admit it.

    You want a start Rutherford? Why don’t you begin to judge fairly? Why don’t try to enlighten yourself by first beginning to educate yourself about discernment? Why don’t you measure the results, then pass objective judgment? Why don’t you attempt a stab at truth? And since I know you can’t because your knowledge of religion pure ignorance, I’ve got an idea. Consider it a challenge.

    You seem intent on defining Islam by a few bad apples? Why don’t you Rutherford demonstrate to us doubters that Islam is simply being perverted by the few, the positive results of Islam? Prove to me that Islam is just being perverted by a “few” lost souls, and at its heart, Islam is a religion of peace, measure it by its works, show me the results, give me an education?

    Instead of arguing about this, why don’t we evaluate some simple things. Something easily measured. Like immigration rates vs. religion majority?

    See, if Islam is a force for good as you would suggest, I need a question answered. Why are so many of them wanting to emigrate from countries that are completely Muslim?

  6. Rutherford’s question is a worthy one. His condescending lecture that accompanies it makes me laugh.

    If a man from another galaxy read his post, he would think that 9/11 was an isolated incident. Nice spin, R. It was cute how you insinuated that the years that separate us from September 11, 2011 make our irrationality all the more intense. As if there isn’t a laundry list of violence in the name of Islam that would rival a Major League Baseball almanac in size since then.

    The Islamic world will one day be decimated. The radicals will eventually get their hands on WMD and do something unspeakable. The West will return the favor in kind. Only after a million casualties will Muslims realize that a passive relationship with their radical brethren not worth the bloodshed.

  7. Rabbit,

    Men like Rutherford have to ignore the unpleasant facts when they type these posts. It’s a bitch because those inconvenient, pesky facts just don’t meet narrative.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/27/2989095/fbi-data-hate-crimes-against-muslims.html#storylink=scinlineshareb

    If Rutherford were really interested in facts, he might note that Jews are almost ten times more likely to suffer from a “hate crime” (a misnomer) as Muslims.

    Stone cold silence about that. 😉

    So here’s some clarifying info from the FBI. According to the latest hate crime statistics available, there were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A closer look: 65.7 percent of them were committed against Jews. Against Muslims? 7.7 percent.

    http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/surprise-more-hate-crimes-against-christians-than-against-muslims-101489994.html

    Muslims in America have perfected victimhood. So let’s give a shout out about that…Rutherford, is this regard, is a useful idiot and tool.

  8. Tex, the irony is too much to take. We’re talking about a world wide religious movement that comes up with laws that enforce spanking women for eating ice cream in public. You can’t make this stuff up. And the so called progressive R is always providing these savages positive spin?

    That being said, his question is a fair one.

    I look at Islam as a whole the same way I look at the Ground Zero Mosque.

    Muslims have the same natural rights as we do. So they get to build their disrespectful mosque and 200 million of us get to call them assholes for doing so.

    Call out Islam for what it is. Call out the moderates for their passivity. And kill radical operatives. What else can we do?

  9. Rutherford asks, “Let’s say that Islam is on the same level as the Nazi party and the KKK. What are we to do about it?”

    The answer to his is of course the solution you fail to see.

    To repeat Gorilla, where anyone has proposed a ‘government solution’ to Islam? In fact its the “government’s (read Obama’s) involvement and a complicit media that has fueled the devolution to the nut jobs like Jones.

    It’s no coincidence that there is an emergence and studious reexamination of the principles upon which the country was founded. The role of government as you view it is not a solution to anything. Nor is the false belief that we as Americans are obligated to abandon or own First Amendment rights to appease those that seek to “exploit” our inherent tolerance and compassion.

    Which of your proposed solutions applies to the Nazi Party or KKK? I doubt that it’s no more rallying to their defense as it is to prevent their existence through government intervention.

  10. You know Tigre, it just sort of clicked, the irony of R’s supposition comparing Islam with the Nazi’s and the KKK: can you think of any other entity that has voiced and acted in a more anti-Jew manner?

    Freudian slip?

  11. I think with this comment ,which I’ll apologize for its length now,will further confuse my Right side friends.

    19 men with a perverted sense of righteous martyrdom

    This is actually a pretty crappy statement as guilty if not more so of exactly what the posts author wants readers to think of the anti Islam folks.
    Suddenly an entire “industry” has arisen around being “non-Muslim experts on Islam”.
    I’m being a bit of a prick here but this statement is historically untrue and furthermore,and more dangerously,fails to acknowledge that the confrontation that is Islam v West as we live it now isn’t unilateral nor is it the same as it ever was. What I mean by that is previously it was isolated incidents other than those directly linked to the Israel/Palestinian thing.Even the days of the Iran’s Revolution and Khaddaffi (how he spelled it then) were looked on as non-religious outrages.
    Let’s say that Islam is on the same level as the Nazi party and the KKK.
    Again,pricks in the house ro ro ro !!!
    I think most sane folks go to great lengths to not compare Islam to the NSDAP or KKK or anything else. Most of the sane in fact take some serious shit for stressing the Radical,or ist and ism thing. (Islamist,ism-jihadists,ism etc) I know I sure have.
    If the proposed solutions I have laid out are repugnant to you, then perhaps you should reevaluate your attitude toward Islam.
    I think I’m more inclined to reevaluate my attitude towards you R. This is somewhat tempered by your closing remarks,but not by much. Islam as an inanimate object is flawed in that it fails to police itself. Along time ago I decided moderate Muslims were not the answer. I still believe that to be true.The world and more so the Islamic world actually needs the strictest adherents. People that follow the Five Pillars,respect those of the Book and although will still embrace a ton of stuff your average Westerner can’t wrap their head around. That really is the best case scenario.
    As for your jab at Newt.
    You and yours can take exception to the packaging,just as you would with Wilders Fitna and assorted other acts and statements. Just remember though,those works rely on being able to use nuggets of truth about acts carried out in the name of Islam. If the followers of Islam don’t care about the sanctity of their faith….why do you?

  12. Alfie, as predicted, I am confused. You’re saying R is full of shit, right?

    “What I mean by that is previously it was isolated incidents other than those directly linked to the Israel/Palestinian thing.Even the days of the Iran’s Revolution and Khaddaffi (how he spelled it then) were looked on as non-religious outrages.”

    What did I miss then? I remember these as always looked upon for what they were: a product of theocratic society.

  13. Have the United Nations prepare sanctions against every predominantly Muslim country on the planet, to outlaw the practice of Islam or face penalty.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    *reads it again*

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

    *wipes tears from eyes, regains some level of composure*

    Yeah, like the UN “penalties” for violating the no fly zone, and other sanctions.

    The UN has been a great vehicle for greed, graft, corruption, and giving those who attack Israel a platform for condemning them.

    Its long past time we serve them with an eviction notice and make their palace on Turtle Bay into a real whorehouse rather than the political/international equivalent of one.

    While I hated the fact that they managed to pussify Jack Bauer in the later seasons of 24, I loved his dismissal of the UN “soldier” in Redemption.

  14. El Tigre I assumed my writing skills may cause confusion but more so I’ve been put on notice of late that I’m not right of center by some. My views on Islam and the West is a great topic to have that charge levlled.
    I simply don’t remember Libya being viewed as anything other than a pariah. I don’t recall them being viewed as Islamist.Their support and participation in terrorism seemed more political than theocratic.
    As for Iran. Well I was young then but again even though the theocrats were coming to power it never left me with the taste that that was was it was all about. I find support there in that the Shah deserved to be ousted,I understand Iranian anger at the US/UK and that many supporters of the Revolution were dismayed in Orwellian fashion that the country went the route it did.
    On a short note,yeah I find Rutherford to be wrong here.

  15. What a pleasure. I got exactly the reaction I expected and the reaction proved my point. With the exception of Dead Rabbit, not a solution found among any of you.

    More later.

    In the words of BiW:

    Bwahahahahahahhahhahahahahahaha

  16. Rutherford I don’t know if I should await your fuller spewing later or jump on you again.
    Both!
    You offer no solutions so far either. You need to more than anyone on this thread.
    Is it really our place to police a religion? As I alluded in my earlier: “If the followers of Islam don’t care about the sanctity of their faith…” a little intelligence would take that and the bit about the stricter adherents and there you go.The only folks that can police it are those that follow it.

  17. Since you haven’t defined “the problem” in your cryptic post, I can’t wait to hear about your solution. From what I can tell by the majority of your commentary, no matter how you slice it, your “solution” is it’s to utlizie the government to sheild Islam from scrutiny or criticism.

    Since you’re claiming you got us by the tail, it better be damn good Rutherford.

  18. Alfie, I usually find your writing extremely cogent. This one was a little queer though. I have to ask. Are you an attorney or professional academic? I ask because I note something in your use of punctuation that indicates it to me.

  19. As I said before, it is going to take a reformation within Islam to address the classical tenets that are incompatible with modern society.

    I fully agree with this statement but many folks go one step beyond this Gorilla, and say such reform is impossible because the religion is rotten at its core. Elric is quite explicit in this belief. Tex only slightly less so.

  20. Call out RADICAL Islam for what it is. Call out the moderates for their passivity. And kill radical operatives. What else can we do?

    With that correction, I basically agree with you Rabbit.

  21. I think most sane folks go to great lengths to not compare Islam to the NSDAP or KKK or anything else.

    Wrong. Newt Gingrich made the comparison explicit and not a single Republican politician or pop star (Palin) called him to task on it.

  22. Obviously I did not present the “solutions” as anything I truly believe should happen. The point of my post is that we have heard a lot lately about the evils of Islam from certain quarters. Listen to some of the rhetoric on BiW’s blog comments (and in one case Alfie’s) and you’ll get the message. Islam and their false God. One person actually wrote our world has a choice between Christ and nihilism. And you call my post simple.

    Well yes … the post was deliberately simple because the conclusions being made by many right now … conclusions that are seeping into the mainstream, are dangerously simple. Rudy Giuliani on Meet the Press today, said we are at war with Islam. He didn’t modify it or qualify it. And then like the dumbass he is, he said the opposition to Park51 had nothing to do with Islam. WTF????

    Rabbit actually did propose the best solution … and I agree a non-governmental one but Rabbit fails to see that opposing the supposed GZ Mosque has nothing to do with calling out radical Islam for what it is. There is nothing radical about the proposed mosque. In fact, since Rauf has recently announced that space will be provided at the community center for worship by other religions, it is anything but radical.

    Prove to me that Islam is just being perverted by a “few” lost souls,

    Tex, it is as easy as 1-2-3. There are billions of Muslims all over the world. There are maybe (pulling this number out of my ass) a million radicals? Those numbers sound pretty good to me to not smear the entire religion. Like they say, 999 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong. 😉

  23. Tex makes one very valid point which I echoed on my “radio” show today. The incidence of anti-Muslim hate crime is very low. He’s right … about 7% compared to about 70% against Jews.

    Rather than say Muslims are playing the victim card, I’d prefer to suggest that this anti-Muslim push within the US of late, is relatively new … they are not accustomed to it. Jews have been unjustly hated for centuries and have faced simmering resentment and prejudice in this country for decades. I’d argue that when a Muslim complains about discrimination, blacks and Jews should tell him “welcome to my world.”

  24. One other point that illustrates the MSM’s complicity in religious divisiveness.

    On “This Week”, Christiane Amanpour interviewed Imam Rauf. When it came time to ask him about mosque funding and his attitude toward Hamas, they left those questions for their “web extra”. This is pure bullsh*t. The two issues that most trouble the opponents of Park51 need to get aired on national television and not relegated to the web where most folks will not bother to watch. (I haven’t watched it yet myself …. I will when I finish this comment.)

  25. What a pleasure. I got exactly the reaction I expected and the reaction proved my point. With the exception of Dead Rabbit, not a solution found among any of you.

    Or perhaps some of us simply didn’t feel that the solutions you offered for acceptance were in any way the end of the inquiry, and didn’t feel like propping up or burning your strawmen down.

    One person actually wrote our world has a choice between Christ and nihilism. And you call my post simple.

    And this is why I choose not to play your game. At times your understanding of philosophy and epistomology are less than that of a child.

  26. Rutherford, there are certainly elements of Islam that do not fall within the realm of “radicalism” that taste rotten to the Rabbit and should, if you are even remotely an honest broker, taste rotten to you. T
    hey need to be called out as such.

    We disagree on the Ground Zero Mosque. At the very least I find it distasteful. I don’t like the things the Imam says and wish he would stay the fuck a way from Ground Zero. You think he is Kool and the Gang. So be it.

    When it comes down to it, you cling to cultural relativism. I don’t. Let’s move on.

    Dude, you have written a ton of social commentary laced with barbs against traditional, American culture. Why is it an imperative to give Islam such a pass that you find the need to point blank tell the Rabbit that he should leave any criticism tucked away in his holster?

  27. Rutherford,

    I’ve got a great solution but you won’t like it. Ronald Reagan proved it works when he damn near blew Daffy Muammar Gaddafi to kingdom come. If he’d have had the luxury of cruise missiles with guided sighting, Muammar would be sleeping Old Mo about right now. It’s called power and force – something every numb nutted lib I’ve ever met doesn’t have the stomach for.

    You useful idiots proved this with Saddam Hussein – you’ll acquiesce every time when faced with uncertainty of life and death – never mind Obama is slowly sucking the life out of this country at the moment with your cheering him on. Real irony.

    You just don’t seem to understand that Muslims, even so called moderate Muslims that sit in silence while dozens of terrorist events are carried out each and every day in the name of Allah, practice submission – your submission.

    So right now I’d be hearing the whining of jet engines ready for Tehran loaded with laser guided thermobaric bombs attached with a message for Mahmoud if I were President – and if midget man wants to threaten nuclear annihilation, I’ve give him a demonstration of one.

    I’d have nuked Tora Bora in a minute without asking anyone’s permission. That SOB that planned the bombing would be quartz right now – standing as a glass monument to what happens to mofos who convince fools to fly planes into buildings.

  28. Rutherford, would you mind comparing and contrasting a radical and a moderate?

    Is Saudi Arabia moderate?

    Can Sharia Law ever be moderate?

    Does “moderate” mean Islam “light”?

  29. It’s late and I’ve had a long busy day. I looked through about half of these comments and got to the one where Rutherford said that no one had yet defined what their solution is (except for Rabbit) and skipped down to here. Rutherford, did ANYONE ever answer the question?

    If not, what are all these words for? Just more babble?

    I did see Gorilla’s rant, where he said at least one thing that made a t least a little sense and to which I can agree…

    We can beat their fighters, but the ideology of Islamic radicalism must be addressed and confronted by Muslims.

    Amen. That is right. So, what is your solution to getting this accomplished? You make a joke about nuking them and get upset if someone asks you if you’re being serious (I know, you all hate clarifying your positions, it should just be “obvious…”), so, what is YOUR solution?

    You also asked me the same…

    So why don’t you tell us what the solution is?

    And I am glad to repeat what I’ve already said multiple times: The best solution is to go after those who commit crimes (the terrorists, the plotters, the funders) and give support to/side with those who are moderate, who are reasonable, who are peaceable.

    It’s quite an obvious solution seems to me.

    What we DON’T want to do and what is butt ugly stupid is to say ridiculous things like “we’re at war with Islam,” or “Islam is at war with us.”

    We ought not engage in moronic statements like that. We ought to treat our moderate, reasonable Muslim brothers and sisters with the respect due to decent human beings. Bigotry and ignorance is not the way to do that.

    On this front, George W Bush was right (and I rarely say that).

  30. Just for fun, a little news I heard today in church…

    Darfuri Muslims are working with Christians to build a church in Southern Sudan as a symbol of reconciliation and gratitude.

    The Muslims, members of the Darfur Students Association at the University of Juba, say they want to express gratitude to Lopez Lomong, a Sudan-born American track and field athlete who has publicly urged China to pressure the Sudanese government to end the conflict in Darfur.

  31. The problem is that any Muslim that down plays Islam’s call for a very explicit political system is denying a major tenant of their faith. Moderate Muslims are not very Muslim. So, if you’re super duper cool with moderates, your actually making the statement that Islam sucks.

  32. Within many religions – certainly within Christianity and Islam – there are a range of believers and a range of ways to interpret their sacred texts and their religious teachings. Many fundamentalist and conservative Christians would call moderate Christians and anabaptist Christians and progressive Christians “not very Christian.” But that does not mean that we AREN’T very Christian. It just means we have a different way of approaching our faith than they do.

    The extremists and literalists within both Christianity and Islam do not get to speak for everyone else within their religion and they certainly do not get to speak for God with God’s blessing. YOU may think that Moderate Muslims are not very Muslim, but you are an outsider (I presume) without years of devotion and study to their faith (I presume) and I simply don’t think a non-Muslim “expert” on Islam holds as much water as an actual Muslim scholar and believer. As anywhere, people are always the best experts on what they themselves believe.

  33. Dan, I don’t think you’re even a Christian…I think you play church, I don’t care how many pews your sit in every Sunday.

    You’re the antithesis of the New Testament Christian, besides your mouthing of the beatitudes. And I’m absolutely sure Judas had a turn the other cheek side to him too. 😉

    I haven’t found you the least bit honest about Christianity in your witness. You bend the Words to fit your own set of rules to make it comfortable for you, that your dubious act is covered either by either playing dumb (which I find insulting) or ignoring the content.

    And I do speak for Christ, therefore I boldly claim by Christ to speak for God by repeating His exact words….no one goes to the Father but by Christ. That is specific and its exclusive, and it is not up for debate. You make a mockery of grace by bending the essence of grace under the guise of some peace monger. It’s cowardly and speaks far more of pantheism that it does of Christianity. You won’t even admit Muslims aren’t going to be there without accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

    And I’ll repeat again there would be no America with your mind set…those moderate Muslims would run right over you, and you’d either submit to allah or burn. So if I were you, and you’re really honest in your faith, you ought to get down on your hands and knees tonight and thank your lucky stars that there are men and women far more brave that you that ready to protect your rights, when you would do nothing to protect there’s.

  34. You know, much of the examination of Islam appears to me to be prompted by the left’s efforts to redefine Islam as generally peace-loving to contrast it with their caracature of the right as hate/war mongerers. In other words, your forget two of your self-proclaimed experts here — you and Dan.

  35. Not claiming to be an expert on Islam, speaking for myself. Just noting human nature and that it is safe to say that human nature does not change, just because you’re in one culture or another. We are all given to violence, to a degree. We all find justification for employing violence – even violence towards innocents, if we think the cause is just. We are all given to hate and distrust those from other groups.

    At the same time, it is part of human nature to yearn for justice, for the right, for good. As the GZM Imam (Rauf) just recently said…

    The world wants to like America. The guiding values that Thomas Jefferson articulated so eloquently — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — resonate strongly around the world, transcending countless superficial and cultural differences, not because these are American values, but because they are universal values, embedded in the human heart.

    To presume that some entire group is evil and does not also yearn for these values imbedded in the human heart, is to make an illogical assumption counter to the human condition.

    I’m not attempting to redefine Islam or even to DEFINE Islam. I’m trying to point out the illogical and immorality of presuming some group is not human in the way that the rest of us are. It’s a fatal flaw in one’s logic the moment someone steps in that direction, seems to me.

  36. Rutherford the onus is on you my virtual friend. I’ve Googled the hell out of Gingrich and at war with Islam and can’t find him saying the words. I find people like Maddow and MediaMatters implying it secondary to the “straight to DVD movie” America at Risk. Everything I’ve seen about that still focuses on those that are at war with us and even Obama has made it a point that he’s gonna fight back.

  37. Having spent almost three years being called a dhimmi by the likes of Elric leaves me unimpressed by the far end of he spectrum he and his reside on.
    I am equally disgusted by those on the side of Dan and Rutherford. Your nauseating postings show a cluelessness that astounds.I’ve rescanned the thread and haven’t seen where anyone has called anyone non human. Where did I miss it?

  38. I did not say you call Muslims non-human. If you’ll read what I wrote, I’m saying that those who claim that ALL of ANY group is lacking in basic human conditions, that they are starting off with bad logic. ALL of humanity wants to see justice, an end to oppression, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    What I think Rutherford is wondering and myself as well is, even if you think Islam is a totally evil system in and of itself, what then? What are you proposing? That’s the answer I’d like to see, anyway.

  39. ALL of humanity wants to see justice, an end to oppression, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Well that blanket statement is simply untrue in its purest form.
    Also I have not said Islam is a totally evil system and have not proposed anything other than that the world shouldn’t look for/to “moderate Muslims” but instead to strict adherents.See comments 17&22.

  40. For many many years the men behind the Reich Wing curtain (Koch, Wall Street, big pharma) have used red herrings to keep the rabble frothing at the mouth – and ignoring thier real interests.
    Commies, gay marriage, Darwin…and now Muslims….
    Scan up and you see it still works very very well on some.

  41. Gingrich isn’t a viable candidate but not because he is some type of has been or loser. Like them or not his ideas are a plenty.
    As for this story line there are a few important components.
    #1. Gingrich opened with What if…
    #2. The original article is not by Newt Gingrich but Dinesh D’Souza.
    #3. In or out of context of Obamas own words and actions it actually isn’t implausible.
    #4. No matter your spot on the political spectrum keep in mind what “Kenyan anti-colonial behavior” fully entails. I would put it to most that they’re assumptions are incorrect.

  42. And I do speak for Christ

    Whooooa!! I must not have gotten enough sleep last night. Did I just read that?

    Tex … surely you did NOT just say that. You are not even an ordained minister (I don’t think) much less the Pope, and you speak for Christ? I need to go back and read the comment again. Maybe I lost how context makes that statement anything but delusions of grandeur on a frightening scale! 😯

  43. I have to be an ordained minister (a joke) to state exactly what the Bible says? Jesse Jackson is an “ordained” minister and he’s got a forked tongue which hisses. Ordained minister. 😆

    Let’s try this again, and I absolutely do speak for Christ, therefore I speak for the TRUE LIVING GOD because these are HIS WORDS…

    John 14:6

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    I’m just the messenger boy Rutherford. But unlike Dithering Dan, I will state EXACTLY what the Bible says and tell you without worrying about what the world thinks while doing so.

    P.S. – Did you see that Skunk Dawg has returned? 🙂 Can I make fun of his style, or is that taboo too? I noticed since I caught Hippie reconstructing history about his ‘Trig’ denial, he magically disappeared for a thread or two so it will be forgotten. I don’t forget. 🙂

    But at least old Hippie has a brain that he uses. The above is like sponge or plant – instinct. 😈

  44. “Just noting human nature and that it is safe to say that human nature does not change, just because you’re in one culture or another.”

    I was thinking the exact same thing about the Nazis and KKK. We really shouldn’t label all of them because of a few bad apples.

  45. If all Christians were all labelled by the actions of Fred Phelps, Terry Jones, or even some of the Christians here, then some of you might think differently about how you place labels on others.

    People need to ask themselves if they would like to be labelled based on the actions of someone else. I know I wouldn’t.

    Way too many are forgetting The Golden Rule these days.

  46. Heck yes. Even some regressives are nice people. Misguided, ignorant, but nice.

    followed by:

    Stereotyping is jungle shorthand that has no place is a civilized society… even our cat knows better.

    Sad state when the pets are smarter than the owner.

  47. “We either believe that religion is a force for good in the world and that only individual men are evil or we commit ourselves to the dangerous exercise of defining the good religions vs the bad ones and then take the necessary steps to root out “evil” “.

    I don’t believe that religion – any religion – is necessarily a force for good in the world. Nor am I willing to get into the business of separating the sheep from the goats – the good religions from the bad ones – because I don’t think that any religion can really claim moral superiority over the others. In the immediate case, can we really say that Christianity has shown itself to be a religion of peace, love and freedom, while Islam is a religion of violence and repression?

    Not even close. Taking the long view, I rate them as about equal.

    So just as we don’t judge people by their race or ethnicity (some present company excepted, of course), obviously we shouldn’t be in the business of judging people by their religion either. There are evil Muslims and good Muslims. There are evil Christians and good Christians.

    Shouldn’t we judge people as individuals, and not lump them into groups “foreign” or “other” than us for judgment. Of course.

    Us vs. “them” – it’s history’s oldest con. And a very effective one. It rouses the rabble every time. When will we ever learn?

  48. Speaking of Newt the looney:

    Dog, Newt really screwed the pooch on this one. First, his commentary makes no sense. On “Morning Joe”, Charles Blow was asked to explain it and he was dumbfounded. Didn’t know where to start. Neither did anyone else on the panel this morning.

    I was fooled for a moment into believing Newt was the smart conservative. He’s an idiot. And watching Andy Card give a lame defense of him this morning nearly made me lose my breakfast.

    Newt will not be President in 2013. That I can assure you.

  49. I’ve Googled the hell out of Gingrich and at war with Islam

    Never said Newt said we were at war with Islam. I said he equated Islam with Nazi’s. Google that and you’ll get some hits … I guarantee. 😉

  50. Thanks for coming back Gray … I assume you saw my invite on your blog.

    I am a major skeptic and critic of organized religion … every single one of them. The mob mentality and exclusivity has always bothered me. The reason I temper my condemnation (particularly of the current Christian and Jewish religions in particular) are the numerous good works they do and charitable functions that they serve.

    I have met Christians who are incredibly inclusive and who feel that good people are blessed whether or not they recognize Christ as the only path to God.

    While you and Dog may write Tex off as a troll, I think he is one of the more interesting folks I’ve met on the web. I know enough to know he cares about people and that he is as 100% convinced of his religious convictions as you and I might be skeptical of them.

  51. gray,actually glad to know you’re alive. I think you are wrong though. If one looks at Islam one of its biggest pitfalls is how it is so insular. On the flip side Christianity when it has had failings has had them going outward.They are not equal however by any stretch.

  52. Tex and Tigre, time and time again you prove Conservatives incapable of understanding nuance. My gripe with you guys vis-a-vis Dan was VERY specific. If you think any of us are assh*les, have at it. When have I ever edited ad hominem comments? I just know that arguments about HOW to argue can get tedious as hell. If I don’t like it on BiW’s blog, I can escape it. here I’m stuck … so I asked nicely if folks could refrain and I gave Dan a specific request to help in that effort.

    So both of you …. grow the f*ck up and have a good time here. Nobody’s censoring you.

  53. The folks who want to build this mosque, who are really radical Islamists, who want to triumphfully (sic) prove they can build a mosque next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists. Those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy… This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.

    Newt Gingrich
    Are you serious Rutherford????

  54. While you and Dog may write Tex off as a troll, I think he is one of the more interesting folks I’ve met on the web. I know enough to know he cares about people and that he is as 100% convinced of his religious convictions as you and I might be skeptical of them.

    “Interesting” is your highest compliment for him? If you want to take that tack, I would choose “bizarre” instead of interesting.

    I have no doubt that Tex is 100% convinced of his religious convictions – just as he is about every single one of his opinions. I have never seen any indication that he “cares about people” except as they are useful to proving himself right in every matter. What else does he even care about?

    In my humble opinion, he’s the sort of Christian who gives Christianity a bad name – intolerant, highly opinionated, and thinking himself infallible.

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Gandhi

  55. I think I know what Kenyan anti-colonialist behavior is – but I don’t see how it is relevant here to Obama.

    “Anti-colonialist behavior” relates to those having been colonized by imperialists taking offense – and perhaps doing something about it. We did that in 1776.

    I am sure that Kenyans, most Africans, and many others who were “saved” from thier primative state or are still being exploited have similar feelings. That is much of the feeling that Osama has exploited so well. Making Muslims feel inferior is not a healthy path. Think Marshall Plan.

  56. Graychin, I thought you were dead. Fortunately, unless Rutherford has a big change of heart, at least here my comments will stand as typed. Did you keep censoring your opponents that you advertise under challenge before you tuck tail and run, or get out the banning stick to make them go away under the ruse of technical problems?

    Can I assume the Two Useful Idiots Blog must have never taken off, being Dawg the Dummy is off leash? I hesitate even getting started with you again because I have such a negative opinion of you and your pal. You think I give Christianity a bad name; I think you epitomize exactly what is wrong with America and why its taken such a nasty turn the last 50 years.

    However, now that you’re back, make sure you stay around until the first week of November. I’ve been waiting to remind you of your capricious nature and your previous guarantees, including the one about Conservativism and Republicans going the way of the Whigs. I’ve got them all saved up as testament to your monumental inaccuracy in prediction. 🙂

    And yes, whether you realize it or not, you are a huge benefactor of Christianity which without doubt formulated Western culture. Saying all religions are the same is like saying all governments are the same. Now kind of like your challenge at your blog, I recognize that you really don’t mean that, but for my benefit because I know you’re not that dumb.

    Mr. Ghandi also drank his own urine. I guess you guys have another thing in common. 🙂

  57. “R”,

    When did I say you were censoring me? I said that you’re not going to dictate to me how to debate. Tedious describes Dan. Asshole describes Graychin. Inane describes Dawg. You? I’d have to think about it. And just about the time I’ve gotten busy, in one week you’ve got all your buddies back. And I won’t even be around much to argue.

    Old Graychin Van Lumberjack accusing me of being opinionated? Well, yeah. Isn’t that the purpose of commenting on a political blog? 😆

    Is this what passes for profundity at the Two Useful Idiots Blog? I would expect something like that from Dawg. I had to make sure that was Graychin that left that statement. I think Dawg is dumbing deviancy down… and Graychin has been hanging around him too much.

  58. “Dog if you’re dogging the Marshall Plan you truly are a hyper-partisan Pavlovian revisionist loon.”

    That kind of thinking drove post WWI Germany into the poor house and into the hands of Hitler. The Allies learned thier lesson – but history is obviously not a regressive strong point or we never would have gone into Iraq – and we would have left Afganistan in 2002.

  59. “hyper-partisan Pavlovian revisionist loon.”
    That is as meaningless as what Newt said….string enough words together and it is supposed to be an insult of some kind?

  60. but history is obviously not a regressive strong point or we never would have gone into Iraq – and we would have left Afganistan in 2002.

    Yellowbitch who was totally unaware of the US internment Camps for the Germans and Italians in WWII and WWi is lecturing someone else on understanding history?

    Are you even capable of a meaningful contribution, or are you going to run back and forth under the table, begging for a scrap to be pitched to you?

  61. #1. Gingrich opened with What if…
    #2. The original article is not by Newt Gingrich but Dinesh D’Souza.
    #3. In or out of context of Obamas own words and actions it actually isn’t implausible.
    #4. No matter your spot on the political spectrum keep in mind what “Kenyan anti-colonial behavior” fully entails. I would put it to most that they’re assumptions are incorrect.

    Alfie, wow.

    1. The “What if…” is the intellectual way of introducing an idea you agree with but dodging your agreement with it. It’s the kind of crappy debate style you guys bitch about on these threads all the time.

    2. This is a quote from D’Souza:
    “Marriage does not civilize men. Women do. This point is even evident in the gay community: it helps to explain why lesbians are generally much better than male homosexuals in sustaining long-term relationships.”

    Here’s another:
    “The feminist error was to embrace the value of the workplace as greater than the value of the home. Feminism has endorsed the public sphere as inherently more constitutive of women’s worth than the private sphere. Feminists have established as their criterion of success and self-worth an equal representation with men at the top of the career ladder. The consequence of this feminist scale of values is a terrible and unjust devaluation of women who work at home”

    Oh, and 9/11 was the fault of liberals. Dinesh has a history of saying stupid sh*t on a par with a five year old backing it up with pseudo intellectual gobbledygook. Newt “what iffing” him shows Newt to be an assh*le.

    3. It is not implausible that Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonialist. Mmmkay … and you know what? It’s not implausible that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin’s baby. Do we really want to go there?

    4. Your fourth comment is lost on me. As I read on Twitter today, I guess Newt has a problem with the anti-colonialists who demanded independence back in 1776.

    Newt has the brain of …… a newt. 👿

  62. There was some comment about Obama;s father – so i did some self education. Obama Sr. was basicly in opposition to the authoritarian kleptocratic government the English left behind them. The Brits were not into democracy for the colonies – quite the contrary – they nurtured an elite who would kiss thier butts.
    So sure you could say Sr was anti colonialist or rather the odious residue they left behind wherever they went. Sounds like a good guy in that regard.
    Newt’s comment was not related to that – it was a sideways glance at the birthers.

  63. Oh “R”, you’re in desperate need of an ass whipping again.

    Newt is many things – including being a cad and an occasional scum bag. Perhaps Newt is even a misogynist.

    The one thing I can assure that Newt isn’t, is stupid. Now let’s be honest.

    I know I don’t need to point this out to an Ivy League intellect, as I know you’re terribly confused but certainly not dumb. So, let’s review stupid because you’ve been on the Left so long, you’ve forgotten what stuck on stupid reads like.

    Dawg is stupid. 😐

    I mean Obama will pay my rent stupid. You don’t need to look further than that.

  64. Are you serious Rutherford????

    Alfie, serious as a heart attack.

    Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.

    This is making an equivalency between Islam and Nazis. Plain as day and indisputable … and completely wrong headed.

    Nazi’s killed Jews. Japan, the government, attacked Pearl Harbor. Islam did not do a damn thing to us. Islam is not a sovereign nation. Islam despite claims to the contrary, is not a political movement. Islam is a religion. Batsh*t crazy followers of that religion are doing some crazy-ass stuff. But the preponderance of followers of the religion are NOT doing that crazy ass stuff. So the equivalency fails.

    Rabbit among others has mentioned the way Muslims treat their women. That is as much cultural as it is religious. I knew a Catholic Indian many years ago who beat the living crap out of his wife. His culture condoned the behavior even though Christianity did not (if you ignore of course those parts of the Bible that do condone it).

    And i think it was Tigre who accused me of thinking I’m an expert on this. No, I’m not. But I’d like nothing more than to have a living breathing Muslim get into this thread to tell all of you how full of crap you are (some folks of course, excluded).

  65. The one thing I can assure that Newt isn’t, is stupid.

    Well, if Newt’s latest quote is his way of improving his cred for a Presidential run, then yeah … he’s one stupid mofo. That is unless he thinks there are enough birthers in this country to sweep him into office. 😉

  66. Ummm dog the Marshall Plan was post WWII and drove Germany to become a great economy.
    You and Rutherford are commenting on the D’Souza piece and have obviously not read it. You are also both clueless. You’ve come to a battle of wits unarmed but stubbornly go on fighting with the incorrect rhetoric of those you follow. Awesome.
    Rutherford your #3 retort earlier shows you to be a douchebag throwing little sissy fit punches in the air. Good for you though you got your Palin dig in
    Rutherford…Newt runs multiple successful businesses…you don’t. His grey matter is superior to yours.
    Dan #95
    Hey dickhead you were given answer. One last time. STOP LOOKING FOR “MODERATES” AND LOOK TO STRICT FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM
    Signing off with quite possibly my last post here at RL blog. Good night.

  67. “And i think it was Tigre who accused me of thinking I’m an expert on this. No, I’m not.”

    Yes you do. You and Dan have all the answers.

  68. Not only can Dan not answer clearly, he can’t read clearly either. This thread has been full of answers – just not the ones he wanted to read.

    —————–

    Japan, the government, attacked Pearl Harbor

    Rutherford, you history is incomplete. In fact, what you are witnessing not as different from WWII and Japan as you might believe. Oh, there were peaceful Japanese that didn’t want war – like peaceful Muslims.

    But here’s what somehow has been lost in history. And I pulled this Wiki if you want to research it further, because I think you would eerie similarities…

    <i<After Japan's defeat in World War II, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers issued the Shinto Directive and ordered the separation of the government from religious affairs during the occupation of Japan, and separation of church and state was incorporated into the 1947 Constitution of Japan.

    On 1 January 1946, Emperor Shōwa issued a statement, sometimes referred to as the Ningen-sengen , in which he quoted the Five Charter Oath of Emperor Meiji and announced he was not an akitsumikami (incarnation of a god).

    Let’s remember who kamikazes were dying for – substitute emperor for Allah…and you’ll note that part of the terms of surrender was the rejection of the emperor – god incarnate. For Japan, WWII was a holy war. 😉

  69. The question I’m wondering is, IF you think Islam is evil or IF you think this is a Muslim problem nearly across the board and not a problem with a small percentage, THEN WHAT is your proposed solution to the problem?

    What is your answer to THAT question?

  70. And humor this poor stupid fella. Make it easy for me. Say, “Islam itself is the problem, across the board with all Muslims. What we need to do to solve this problem is…” and put your answer in there.

    Or state clearly, “No, Islam itself is not the problem. It’s a problem with a percentage of Muslims. What we need to do with those misbehaving Muslims is…”

    If you want to advocate a position, advocate it. Stand up, make yourself clear. State your position. IS Islam a problem across the board or not?

  71. “Ummm dog the Marshall Plan was post WWII and drove Germany to become a great economy.”

    Exactly and a good friends of the US. No Hitlers either. On the other had see what we have created in Iran? Yes we created that…. DUH – starting with creating the Shah. We give the worst Iranian elements more fodder every day – we feed them. Try economic improvement on Muslims instead of invading them – that has not worked nor will it. Well fed folks with jobs don’t do kamikaze.

  72. Islam is the problem – the ones practicing the “real” religion of Islam are your fundamentalists. Sharia is a basic tenet and it is incompatible with the Constitution. Moderate Muslims are by definition secular. Period.

    Clear enough Dan?

    Now as a professed Christian, what is your solution to tell them Mohammad is a false prophet? When will you begin to speak the truth Dan? And see if you can answer the question succinctly without more questions.

    And Rutherford is full of baloney. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that condones wife beating, and in fact it escalates women to equal of men, and every time Rutherfod makes that statement, it makes him a liar. We’ve corrected him enough now that he knows better.

    Rutherford hates Christianity and hates Christ.

  73. Try economic improvement on Muslims instead of invading them – that has not worked nor will it.

    Yes, as decades of petrodollars enriching the Saudis has proved…except for that whole “funding the wahabbists” thing.

    It isn’t up to us to improve their lot in life. Its up to them, and if they want to accomplish it by being murderous asshats, then we reserve the right to help them meet Allah up close and personal like.

  74. Damn Rutherford,

    I just read your defense of Hippie on BIC’s blog.

    Are you so dead set to have shared political friends here on your blog that you require invitations and will lie to boot? What a disappointment. I’ve got to admit, lately my trust in not your political leanings or judgment, but simple honesty is coming into question. That’s Graychin type tactics…and the reason I disdain the propagandist.

    I busted Hippie’s chops as his memory is not nearly as good as he would like to believe – and from my own response Mr. Mendacious, you can tell us much. So cut the shit.

    Looks like you’ve lost Alfie and you’re about to lose me with that horseshit…

    You want to go the way of Graychin’s blog where you have about six comments a week? Crap like that will lead you down that road…

  75. His culture condoned the behavior even though Christianity did not (if you ignore of course those parts of the Bible that do condone it).

    Please R, cite for me which parts of the Bible condone “beating the crap out of our wives.” It might be helpful for us if you can tell us which translation it is in, as well, since I’ve never seen any such sanction in the King James, New King James, or New International Versions.

  76. Hell, there were members of the Japanese Military who didn’t want war, at least not with us.

    Absolutely, as in “I’m afraid we’ve awoken a sleeping giant…”

    But with libs, you have to take one step at a time – and even then, they normally don’t get it.

  77. If you want to advocate a position, advocate it. Stand up, make yourself clear. State your position. IS Islam a problem across the board or not?

    Dan this is exactly why I wrote the article in the first place. With the exception of Rabbit and to a lesser degree Alfie, no one here wants to deal with a problem statement and a solution statement. The reason is that they are all on record making extreme (and therefore ridiculous) problem statements in the past (“Islam is evil.” “Allah is a false God.” “Christ was perfect, Mohammed was a pedophile.” it goes on and on.) With these generalities, what solution could they possibly be left with? Extermination of Muslims. A religious war. Ahhhhh but they don’t want to go there. THAT offends their sensibilities. That’s why Rabbit gets kudos from my perspective.

    Rabbit has said that the “solution” is to be honest when we see Islam go wrong, encourage moderates to do the same, and kick the crap out of violent radicals.

    Alfie, as best I understand, says that if Muslims abide by the fundamental goodness in Islam and strictly adhere to it, then that is the solution. Maybe he’ll come back and confirm this interpretation if he can get over having my “not implausible” theory placed side by side with D’Souza’s. 😉

    Oh and Alfie, while I am at it …. you greatly overestimate how much brains it takes to run a successful business. Even Tex will begrudgingly testify that executive success is not rocket science. Once I get my business off the ground, I’ll have a successful business AND be faithful to my wife … so I’ll have Newt beat on two levels. 😉

  78. Rutherford hates Christianity and hates Christ.

    Now THAT is ridiculous. I am deeply skeptical about Christianity in that I think the organization corrupts the ideal. As for Christ …. why would I hate Christ? Seriously, unlike Mother Theresa, I’ve heard nothing but good things about him. The fact that I question his divinity does not mean I hate him. I’d love nothing more than to see Christ admired in the vein of Martin Luther King Jr., as a man who preached peace and like many peacemakers was murdered for his trouble. In fact, to be fair …. unlike Martin Luther King Jr., I’ve heard nothing but good things about Christ. King was an adulterer.

  79. Well fed folks with jobs don’t do kamikaze.

    Dog, I can’t back you on this one. We’re pouring lots of money into Afghanistan in addition to troops and all the money is getting gobbled up in corruption. Sadly, financial assistance is not the answer either.

    My feeling about Afghanistan is somewhat hopeless. They are a prehistoric nation that missed the bus to modernity and I don’t think the bus is gonna come by that stop again … and if it did, they wouldn’t recognize it and wouldn’t get on it. Sorry to be such a downer but at the moment, that’s how I feel.

  80. Tex. before you accuse me of all brands of dishonesty, let’s take this step by step.

    1. You told Hippie you would prove him a liar, or at best, forgetful.
    2. You supplied a quote by you to prove your point. How that proves him a liar is beyond me …. which is why I kidded you about being your own lawyer.
    3. I found the damning quote from Hippie and my representation of it was honest. First, he pointed out to you that I had honestly asked you what you knew about the abbreviation “Trig” from your medical studies. Second, he stated that he had no reason to believe Sarah did this but that if she did, it would be pretty f*cked up. Now you can argue that Hippie pulled a Newt on this one by using the “if ….” tactic. OK …. so be it.

    You were justifiably pissed at me for the conjecture. I don’t blame you … it was a petty and immature turd to throw at Palin. It was NOT a shot at her kid … something you still fail to understand. But again, my main point on BiW’s blog was that your argument on that issue is with me. Hippie was a minor player in the whole scenario.

    Are you so dead set to have shared political friends here on your blog that you require invitations and will lie to boot?

    I’m not entirely sure what this is about but I’ll take a stab at it. Gray posted a blog today for the first time in awhile. It was a good post. I told him so and invited him to stop by and take a peek at this thread. I see nothing particularly wrong with that. I hope you didn’t think this blog was the exclusive domain of conservatives with the lone exception of its host?

  81. Since Alfie is defending D’Souza so far as I can see, I will now have to wade through the entire garbage dump of an article and then probably devote a full post to it. But not tonight. Sleep is more important.

  82. BiW I’ve already pulled up misogynistic scripture from the Bible in previous threads. I’m not doing it again. Besides, the typical answer I get is “that is Old Testament and doesn’t represent Christianity.” The Bible gets parted like the Red Sea when it suits your purposes. “We love peace …. that stuff was written by the Jews.”

  83. Mmmm, if the scripture I quoted suggested women subservient to men, as I recall it did, then that is indeed misogynistic and then nutjobs can use that scripture to justify beating the crap out of their wives.It’s not a huge leap.

    Now this is an odd aside …. but tell me, why in a country you say is rooted deeply in Christian teachings, did women not get to vote until the early 20th century? Quote me the passages in the Bible that instruct Christians that women should have an equal part in all matters… passages that the Founding Fathers must obviously have ignored. 😐

  84. Rutherford,

    You’re extending the lies. The fact that Hippie was a “minor” player is irrelevant. He was a player nonetheless. It was him that was reconstructing history, and you don’t have to look any further than my own response because it obvious from the comment I was put out with the both of you. The only way you could possibly prove me wrong from that comment was to say I posted it with modification. And you’ll note it was verbatim. Hippie denied everything – in fact, if you reread his post, he insinuates he was neutral; show me where. Hippie either reconstructed, was forgetful contrary to his bravado, or lied. Take your pick.

    Now on to Jesus. You wish Jesus was looked at in as favorable light as MLK? Is that some type of sick joke? Christ changed the world. While I admire King for a host of reasons, I don’t even think King makes the top ten of great Americans, and I doubt most people do outside the politically correct crowd either. While a fabulous orator and probably the best known during the Civil Rights March, King was but one of many brave souls who placed it on the line. Your ignorance and denial of Christ’s proclaimed place is extraordinary. Consider this statement:

    Seriously, unlike Mother Theresa, I’ve heard nothing but good things about him. The fact that I question his divinity does not mean I hate him.

    You’ve called Him a liar Rutherford, because Christ claimed divinity first! That was His very purpose, His reason for His sacrifice. Don’t tell me you admire Him. Good grief… As far as downplaying women? That’s a joke too. Heard of Mary? Or Mary Magdalene? It was two women who met Christ upon his resurrection – not men because they were cowering someplace. No religion has done more for women than Christianity. Christ didn’t differentiate between men and women. The fact that Christ assigned cultural roles should be clear to anybody but the muddle headed unbeliever looking to criticize where none is warranted. Christ has assigned men as head of household and to pastor the flock; women as nurturers – neither is superior, each one complementary. And to anybody that understands “weaker vessel” and isn’t a limp-wristed lib, uncomfortable around strong women who like being women, they get it. The only superiority that I’m aware of, was that men were “first made.” And I would happy to back this up with scripture, if necessary. Read Proverbs 31 and tell me Judaism and Christianity are hostile to women.

    And finally, I don’t care if you invite Graychin. You could use the support to even things out and it is your blog. I’m the one that invited “Mr. Practical” here in first place to could slap the horse’s ass without moderation or modification. The fun lasted about a week, before I figured out he was more lame than I originally surmised. Graychin is Dawg Sr. and garden-variety Christian bigot with a far Leftist slant. They’re a dime a dozen across the net.

  85. BiW wouldn’t the difference lie in the fact that the constitution explicitly referred to men and therefore needed amendment to include women?

    The constitution does not refer to gays or heteros or marriage if I’m not mistaken. So why would an amendment be needed to alter legislation regarding gay rights?

  86. Tex … I know you find this a stretch but I really don’t think I’m calling Christ a liar. When I wear my secular hat (which I do 99% of the time) I assume that either Christ was deluded or he was misquoted. Am I not correct that Christ himself did not write any of the Bible but rather was interpreted by disciples? It may not give you much solace, but if anything I may be calling Matthew, Mark, Luke and John liars. Or maybe they are just deluded?

    Also … I would not overstate King’s contribution. I didn’t intend to. He was the first peacemaker who came to mind. Perhaps Gandhi would be a better example? I don’t know.

  87. Seems I missed a bit of fun, so I’ll capture my thoughts in one comment to keep the numbers down. There’s a little something for everyone in here…

    And I am glad to repeat what I’ve already said multiple times: The best solution is to go after those who commit crimes (the terrorists, the plotters, the funders) and give support to/side with those who are moderate, who are reasonable, who are peaceable.” – Dan

    Spoken like a true liberal. These aren’t crimes, they are acts of war.

    Whether you believe that you’re at war, they most certainly do- and act accordingly.

    You’ve said to show the moderates, the reasonable and the peaceable. How do you define them? What constitutes a ‘moderate, reasonable, and peaceable’ Muslim?

    Whe you have some who constantly trolls for attention and contributes nothing to the discussion …. Troll-X” – Yellowbitch

    Hello pot, meet kettle…

    gray,actually glad to know you’re alive…” – Alfie

    Well, that’s one of us…

    That kind of thinking drove post WWI Germany into the poor house and into the hands of Hitler. The Allies learned thier lesson – but history is obviously not a regressive strong point or we never would have gone into Iraq – and we would have left Afganistan in 2002.” – Yellowbitch

    Explain…

    Try economic improvement on Muslims instead of invading them – that has not worked nor will it. Well fed folks with jobs don’t do kamikaze.” – Yellowbitch

    Do you honestly think that infrastructure development and free trade with Iran would prevent them from going nuclear? Really?

    Because bin Laden or Ahmaddinnerjacket are a couple of skinny starving fools, mad out of their minds from lack of nutrition. Or maybe not. What about Muhammad Atta, the 9/11 operational commander, surely he was, except for being a successful, well paid engineer… Surely it is hunger, not ideology that drives these men.

    Dan this is exactly why I wrote the article in the first place. With the exception of Rabbit and to a lesser degree Alfie, no one here wants to deal with a problem statement and a solution statement. The reason is that they are all on record making extreme (and therefore ridiculous) problem statements in the past (“Islam is evil.” “Allah is a false God.” “Christ was perfect, Mohammed was a pedophile.” it goes on and on.) With these generalities, what solution could they possibly be left with? Extermination of Muslims. A religious war. Ahhhhh but they don’t want to go there. THAT offends their sensibilities. That’s why Rabbit gets kudos from my perspective.” – R

    How do I, as a white guy, fix the socio-economic issues of the black community? Tell you what, I’ll wade into Harlem, gather about me a group of ‘moderate, reasonable and peaceable’ blacks and together we’ll move forward to change the culture of the black community which is inflicting upon itself 75% single mother households, less than 50% graduation rates, and ~ 40% incarceration rates. Because I’m going to succeed where how many other black guys- like Bill Crosby, etc- have failed.

    Does this clear things up for you now? Non-Muslims can’t fix Islam. Period. We can’t provide guidance on a direction, beyond what we’ve already done for years, nor can we contradict and contravene the controversial tenets and suras of the faith. We can’t provide a solution to the problems of Islam, Islam is going to have to do that.

  88. Ahem…

    WASHINGTON – The federal government hired a New Orleans man for $18,000 to appraise whether news stories about its actions in the Gulf oil spill were positive or negative for the Obama administration, which was keenly sensitive to comparisons between its response and former President George W. Bush’s much-maligned reaction to Hurricane Katrina.

    The government also spent $10,000 for just over three minutes of video showing a routine offshore rig inspection for news organizations but couldn’t say whether any ran the footage. And it awarded a $216,625 no-bid contract for a survey of seabirds to an environmental group that has criticized what it calls the “extreme anti-conservation record” of Sarah Palin, a possible 2012 rival to President Barack Obama.

    The contracts were among hundreds reviewed by The Associated Press as the government begins to provide an early glimpse at federal spending since the Gulf disaster in April. While most of the contracts don’t raise alarms, some could provide ammunition for critics of government waste.

  89. Does this clear things up for you now? Non-Muslims can’t fix Islam. Period. We can’t provide guidance on a direction, beyond what we’ve already done for years, nor can we contradict and contravene the controversial tenets and suras of the faith. We can’t provide a solution to the problems of Islam, Islam is going to have to do that.

    Gorilla, thanks for providing an answer (clarifying your earlier answer). So let me change the question to get to the question that I’m wanting to see the answer to:

    I GET that you think the answer lies with Muslims and I agree that you have a point. MY QUESTION then, is WHAT do you think our policies should be in regard to what you consider to be the “Muslim problem?”

    If you think it’s a Muslim problem for Muslims to fix, is it your position we should be doing nothing? What is your solution FOR US to be doing? That was my point.

    If you merely think we should prosecute/stop the misbehaving individuals (and misbehaving individuals are committing CRIMES, not acts of war, acts of war are done by national design, not a group of individuals acting independently – SOURCE) and leaving Muslims alone otherwise, then you and I are not far from disagreeing.

    So, to clarify for you: WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION FOR THE US as it relates to “the Muslim problem,” – what should our policies be about Islam?

  90. Tex, nice try, but you still did not even come close to answering the question. You HALF-answered it, leaving off the main answer. You said…

    Islam is the problem – the ones practicing the “real” religion of Islam are your fundamentalists. Sharia is a basic tenet and it is incompatible with the Constitution. Moderate Muslims are by definition secular. Period.
    Clear enough Dan?

    Okay, you are clear that you agree with Rutherford’s titular premise (IF ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM…), so what is your answer to the the ACTUAL QUESTION? That question is (read slowly so you don’t miss it)…

    WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

    IF ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

    Or, to put it another way, if you want to play Gorilla’s game:

    WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING US POLICY SHOULD BE IN REGARDS TO THE “ISLAM PROBLEM”?

    Clear enough?

  91. Gorilla asked…

    You’ve said to show the moderates, the reasonable and the peaceable. How do you define them? What constitutes a ‘moderate, reasonable, and peaceable’ Muslim?

    Um, the ones that are moderate and reasonable and peaceable?

    Someone who wants to kill you if you’re a Westerner or a Christian is not moderate, reasonable or peaceable.

    Someone who would like to share with you their religion, but will not kill you or imprison you or otherwise oppress you if you don’t convert is moderate, reasonable and peaceable.

    Just standard English understandings of the word is what I mean. If someone has a live and let live approach to their faith, I consider that moderate, reasonable and peaceable. If someone want to enforce acceptance of their faith by weight of law is NOT moderate, reasonable or peaceable.

    And I’m not talking about those people of faith (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who’d like to see reasonable tenets of their faith tradition that apply in a universal manner codified into law. Those Christians and Muslims who think it reasonable to implement “thou shalt not steal” “thou shalt not kill” into our legal system, that’s not a problem. There are natural law reasons for wishing to see those codified aside from any religious reasons.

    I’m speaking about those tenets which might fall under more of a religious nature – criminalizing homosexuality, for instance, or disallowing divorce, these are more RELIGIOUS-Y tenets, set apart from Natural Law, or law that can be rationally agreed upon regardless of your faith tradition. Someone who wants to implement “religious-y” rules by force of law, those are the ones being less rational, moderate and/or peaceable.

    Beyond that, when the People of a nation can’t agree on where that line lies (THIS law is a reasonable “natural” law kind of law, THAT law is more religious, in nature – admittedly, it’s not always a clean line between the two), moderate, rational and peaceable people don’t kill or take the law into their own hands when things don’t go their way.

    That’s my relatively short answer to that question.

    Do you not think there are any moderate, reasonable and peaceable Muslims out there?

  92. Tex, this is off topic and addressing NONE of my stated points, so I hesitate to address it, given my promise to Rutherford to ignore your more ignorant and pointless points, but there may be a point to it yet, so…

    Now as a professed Christian, what is your solution to tell them Mohammad is a false prophet? When will you begin to speak the truth Dan? And see if you can answer the question succinctly without more questions.

    1. Answer the question succinctly is EXACTLY what I’d love to see you do to the ACTUAL TOPIC and ACTUAL QUESTION asked here (Again: IF ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION???)

    2. What is my solution to tell them Mohammad is a false prophet? That is an oddly stated question. Do you mean something more like this:

    “Dan, my opinion is that ONE solution for the “Islam problem” is for Christians to preach to Muslims, converting them to a better way. Do you think evangelism is a good approach? How would you suggest sharing the good news with Muslims?”

    Is something like THAT what you’re asking? I think perhaps it is. If so, I’ll answer that series of questions later today, if Rutherford doesn’t think it’s wrongly off topic. Right now, I must go to work.

    My short answer to that is, yes, I think evangelism is always a good idea. But “good” evangelism, not “bad” evangelism. In my humble opinion, much of what passes for evangelism today is not very well done and is counterproductive to actually sharing good news.

    My longer answer (with apologies to Gorilla, you may want to skip this part)…

    Evangelism is just that, “sharing the good news.” I think this ought to be done respectfully and in love and 90% should be done by lifestyle, as much as words. As St Francis said, “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.”

    Jesus said he came to “share good news with the poor, release for the captive, health for the sick, the day of Jubilee (day of God’s good favor), when economic justice prevails” (my expanded paraphrase). In the context of the Bible, the “good news” was very much just that, “GOOD NEWS.”

    We are SAVED by – are being saved by – grace! This is good news, indeed. We are being saved FROM oppression TO brotherhood and justice with one another. This is good news, indeed! We are being saved FROM greed TO sharing. We are being saved FROM loneliness TO community. Good news, good news!

    This is how evangelism ought to be approached generally, it seems to me, with the biblical model in mind, not modern cultural norms (and much of today’s evangelism is much more culturally inspired than biblically, seems to me). When Paul meets with folk who worship other gods in the book of Acts, does he foam at the mouth and condemn them as sinners, hellbound, awful, awful people? No, he is quite reasonable and respectful with them. He said, in part…

    Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

    “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.

    From one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth… God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

    Paul was respectful. He did not mock their many gods. He found common ground with them. He acknowledged that THEY TOO, are children of God.

    Do I believe in evangelism? Sure, but respectful compassionate, reasonable evangelism, as is modeled by Paul here.

  93. R said: “It was a petty and immature turd to throw at Palin. . .”

    Having gone back to look, virtually every comment you made in that thread and surrounding threads was nothing short of vile and dispicable.

    It’s telling that you can hold such contempt for Palin or for that matter any individual that you disagree with politically, then turn around and lecture us about an unwilingness to embrace the supporters of Islam. Really effed up.

    If it’s true that you are what you hate, I suggest a swim in lake You.

    Seems your “solution” is a combination of precsiely what I suspected: Capitulaion, surender, and appeasement. According to your friends, throw money at Islamic nations to Boot.

    If only we would stop stereotyping these peace-lovers and quit complaining about the mosque at ground zero we could all share a coke and a smile.

  94. “Dog, I can’t back you on this one. We’re pouring lots of money into Afghanistan in addition to troops and all the money is getting gobbled up in corruption. Sadly, financial assistance is not the answer either.”

    You should add “financial assistance ta the point of a gun – given to our own stooge – Karzai”. Nope that will not work. Try somewhere – where we are not shooting. Malaysia perhaps?

  95. Dan, clearly your not very familiar with Islam, Imam Rauf or Islamic jurisprudence in general.

    Anyone who is a proponent of Sharia law, clearly, falls outside this ‘moderate, reasonable and peaceable’ moniker.

  96. “Do I believe in evangelism? Sure, but respectful compassionate, reasonable evangelism, as is modeled by Paul here.”

    Poke the “sinners” in the eye evangelism is one of the biggest problems with Christianity. It seems to be the licence for all sorts of self righteousness and uncouthness.

    You can spot them froma a mile away – I ignore the doorbell.

  97. “Anyone who is a proponent of Sharia law, clearly, falls outside this ‘moderate, reasonable and peaceable’ moniker.”

    Anyone who says that has heard far too much hate radio.

  98. Anyone who says that probably knows what the hell sharia laws is, as opposed to the idiots who comment on it blindly…

  99. Interesting that a key topic that has not come up here is Israel which is a huge burr in the side of many in the Muslim world which some like Osama and the Iranians use to great effect.

    There is a start on Israeli – Palestinian talks again. Will anything happen? Who knows. Perhaps a right winger like Netanyahu can pull out a rabbit – like Nixon did with China. Regrettably the whole topic has rarely been one of intelligent conversation in the the US. Anyone who is not 110% in for the worst of the Zionist neocons is an anti-Semite. Bush sat on his hands….
    Que the wingers and end-of-timers…for some more ranting.

  100. Why do I have to solve their problem?

    Um, that was the POINT of the post? Remember the title? IF ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM, WHAT’S THE SOLUTION?

    If you have no opinions on what we ought to be doing, why are you bothering commenting on this particular post?

    Your answer seems to be, thus far: Islam is a problem and I’m not advocating ANY solutions/policies for the US, because it’s a problem they’ll have to resolve themselves.

    You could have said that in one sentence and moved on, right?

  101. Gorilla at No. 2: “Really, could you point out where anyone has proposed a ‘government solution’ to Islam? If I didn’t have to worry about some asshole strapping 5 pounds of C4 to his ass, then I’d frankly not give a shit about any of those tenets in Islam that I disagree with. However, that isn’t the case now is it.”

    Dan, you’re an idiot.

  102. So then, ALL of us agree that we pursue the “bad guys” who happen to be Muslim and, as it relates to Islam, that’s all?

    Fine, we’re both in agreement then (with the possible exception of Tex and others who have offered no solutions). With the caveat that I think it wise to engage productively with reasonable Muslims.

    Game. Set. Match. We both win.

    What’s your problem with agreement?

  103. Folks like gorilla ARE the problem. Same lizards who have no trouble with people starving or going without medical care in this country. Those problems that are “not yours” have a way of turning around and biting…. Society’s problems are yours – like it or not.

  104. Pray tell, expand. How am I the problem? Better yet, since you didn’t include yourself as a part of the problem, then I assume you consider yourself a part of the solution. With that said, what’s the solution to radical Islam? How are you going to combat and mitigate extremist ideology?

    Or is the bitch just talking out his fat ass?

  105. Rutherford,

    Before I answer your question, do you see why most of us ignore Dan, or at the least make him target practice? Look at that crap from above. You answer his questions and he acts like it’s not there. You ask him a question and he runs backwards. I’m sure you’ve been in contact with instruction for Dan, but seriously – you have no room to criticize any of us about our approach with a fake.

    Christ was deluded or he was misquoted. Am I not correct that Christ himself did not write any of the Bible but rather was interpreted by disciples? It may not give you much solace, but if anything I may be calling Matthew, Mark, Luke and John liars. Or maybe they are just deluded?

    Well, at least your being more honest now. Christ couldn’t have been misquoted, unless you are to assume every single author of the New Testament misquoted him in the same capacity, with the same message, over a span of forty years. And that would include at a minimum 500 witnesses to his life, who heard the same message, would have read the Gospels, denied nothing, and anyone succeeding Christ by two generations, including all Christian 1st century Fathers. So, I think we can put the “He was misquoted” to bed. If you wish to think Christ was deluded, then we are getting someplace in the first step to a little honesty. Refreshing.

    And don’t misunderstand me about King. He was a great American, though flawed, and great civil rights proponent, though many of those great writings and speeches were probably plagiarized. King’s writings from the Birmingham jail almost surely were, and his greatest speeches paraphrasing some of the Old Testament. I don’t care – they’re still wonderful to read and beautiful to listen to. All Americans, black, white, yellow, and brown should listen to King’s message – who first and foremost was a Baptist Preacher. King would disagree with you about your assessment of Christ. I hope you do realize that. But I compliment you on your honesty. You probably thought I was going to be outraged or hammer you. Nope. I like people who talk straight – and that was straight as a string.

    Now read Proverbs 31 and still tell me the Bible is hostile and derogatory to women. When you can admit you are wrong about its derogatory nature toward women, then we are making a little progress about our discussions of faith and Christianity.

  106. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln

    Republican (Insert any name here) defeats Barack Obama in 2012, new poll reveals

    A newly published CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holding a narrow lead (21% to 18%) over former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the quietly-started-but-nobody-wants-to-admit-it-yet race for the Republican nomination of 2012.
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (15%), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (14%), Texas Rep. Ron Paul (10%) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, about-to-be-former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (all at 3%) finish up the hypothetical poll field.
    You’ll note the prominent appearance of the word “former” in that list. That’s a sobriquet that once could have been disqualifying for an aspiring president but now actually puts him/her in the clear from the tsunami of anti-incumbent/Washington fervor gushing from the deepwater well of voter emotions these days.
    But perhaps more interesting than the individual standings is that disappointed, frustrated, angry registered voters also told pollsters that at this point in time, less than halfway through the term of No. 44, they’d actually be good with anyone labeled Republican for No. 45 against anyone named Barack Obama — 50% to 45%. (The GOP’s 50% is up from 48% in March and Obama’s 45% is down from 47% back then.)

  107. “Pray tell, expand. How am I the problem”

    read 146 again – you caused that.
    Your frequently expressed anti-Muslim bigotry.
    Your stand on Iraq, afghanistan, Israel.

    If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem….

  108. “But perhaps more interesting than the individual standings is that disappointed, frustrated, angry registered voters also told pollsters that at this point in time, less than halfway through the term of No. 44, they’d actually be good with anyone labeled Republican ”

    Generic polls are worthless. Now put an individual name up against Obama and watch the swing.
    Half term governor Palin?
    Teflon Mitt?
    Barbour?
    Newt?
    How about the Huckster?

    What a pile of losers.

  109. read 146 again – you caused that.
    Your frequently expressed anti-Muslim bigotry.
    Your stand on Iraq, afghanistan, Israel.
    If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem….
    ” – bitch

    Oh, I see- its my fault Islam and Muslims are an intolerant lot who are quick to violence and mayhem. I suppose, likewise, that the War Suras in the Koran are my fault as well, or the writings of Quyb , Hanna, Azzam, Maqdisi, etc are my fault too.

    I suppose the Danish cartoons were my fault as well?

    Show where I’ve been a bigot against Muslims.

    Tell me, what is my stand on Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.

    I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts, I’ve had a hell of a lot more impact on solving the problem than your fat ass…

  110. “I’m sure you’ve been in contact with instruction for Dan, but seriously – you have no room to criticize any of us about our approach with a fake.”

    You think?

  111. “Oh, I see- its my fault Islam and Muslims are an intolerant lot who are quick to violence and mayhem”

    146 is about a reaction to YOUR INTOLERANCE….

  112. Really? I wasn’t for burning the Koran, but I respect his right to do so.

    While your bloviating, why don’t you provide some examples of Islamic tolerance…

  113. I suppose it was Salman Rushdies fault too?

    Do you even know why they are fighting in Kashmir?

    Your ignorance is amusing…

  114. How many terrorist acts in , oh, the last 30 years can you attribute to non-Islamic organizations?

    Of the Islamic variety, how many have Islamic state sponsorship?

    You call it a phobia, I call it historical trending.

  115. If you go back thirty years, you have a shitload of deaths by terrorists and thuggish regimes in Latin America unrelated to Islam in any way (and many with direct connections to white Christians in the US, thank you very much – although to be sure, there were some Leftist/communist terrorism in there, too). We’re talking tens of thousands of deaths, easily.

    Also we had the skirmishes in Northern Ireland, right?

    Maybe you want to say “in the last ten years” to better boost your argument?

  116. Speaking of scary terrorist acts….:
    “We see the essence of Christianity in a group like the Michigan Christian Militia, which was arrested by the FBI this spring for trying to kill local law enforcement officers with improvised explosive devices. Militia members call themselves Christian warriors and say they are preparing to battle the anti-Christ—an evil force described in the Christian Bible. One of their symbols is the cross.

    We see the core beliefs of Christianity in a group called the Branch Davidians—a Protestant sect whose founder had 140 wives, some as young as 12 years old.

    Searching for Christian martyrs, we find Eric Rudolph, a member of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement who bombed abortion clinics, including one in Birmingham, Alabama that killed a police officer and wounded others. Rudolph also bombed a lesbian bar in Atlanta and was the Olympic Park bomber during the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 that killed a woman and wounded over 100 people. Distilling the essence of Christianity from Rudolph would tell us that it is a religion that believes in violence, in the superiority of white people, and in spreading its rule to others.

    What about Christian beliefs and rituals that are practiced by millions of Christians around the world? Are some of them sinister? Absolutely—if we view them through a lens of ignorance and distrust.

    The first thing to worry about is the cross. It is a sacred symbol to Christians, displayed by many around their necks, inside their houses of worship and educational institutions, and even on public grounds they own. Christians persist in these public displays, despite the fact that the cross represents human sacrifice. Christians have commemorated this sacrifice for centuries and worshipped the one sacrificed. They have memorialized other acts of biblical violence in their paintings, sculpture, poetry, and song—heads served on platters, blood gushing from wounds, knives thrust into flesh, thousands slaughtered in the name of their God. Many of these gruesome scenes can be found in the stained glass windows of their churches.

    One of their sacred rituals is to symbolically drink the blood and eat the flesh of the human sacrifice they worship. Some sects do this weekly (Episcopalians), while some in other sects (Catholics) do it every day. And they indoctrinate their children—some as young as seven—in this cannibalistic ritual.’

  117. Last 30 years?

    The invasion of Iraq comes to mind….ask an Iraqi…

    Panama 1989

    Greneda 1983

    There are more. It’s OK if youare a neocon.

    The New American Century people were and are advocating US invation at will.

  118. Yes Rutherford. I have worked with the French – those stories are real. Hard as it is to beleive in these days of American bigotry – the US is better in general. The US has a good history of immigration and assimilation – most of the world does not. We are stronger because of it. Having said that every wave of immigrants still gets the same unwelcome mat. This time it is Hispanics, Muslims. Before that Vietnamese. Before that Japanese and Chinese. Before that Polish, Irish – you get the picture.
    And everytime it is the same. The first generation may never learn English well. But the second generation goes to the Ivy Leagues and is more accomplished than thier multigenerational peers.

  119. I absolutely agree with YellowDog. Despite our own faults, I think the US is a role model in many ways for the rest of the world. I just also think it’s important to keep things in perspective.

    We ARE a great nation with great ideals. We certainly do better in most ways than most Muslim nations, in my opinion, as well as most nations in general.

    BUT, we are not perfect. If we start off with the notion that America does no wrong and sweep the thuggish dictators and terrorist groups that we have shamefully supported, it undermines our arguments that we are a good role model.

    A great nation? To be sure.

    Flawed with many imperfections, nonetheless? To be sure.

  120. YellaDog…

    It is a sacred symbol to Christians, displayed by many around their necks, inside their houses of worship and educational institutions, and even on public grounds they own. Christians persist in these public displays, despite the fact that the cross represents human sacrifice.

    For SOME Christians the cross represents human sacrifice (a blood sacrifice to “pay for” the sins of humanity to an angry God), but not all Christians.

    I think it is entirely safe to say that to Jesus and the people of the early church, what the cross represented was an instrument of state torture and capital punishment, used to “pacify” insurrectionists and those who’d oppose the State or pose what the State anything that might be considered a threat.

    In spite of this, Jesus tried to remove the power of this State-Threat, saying, “TAKE UP your cross, follow me…”

    For some of us, the cross represents the ultimate symbol of self-sacrifice, love and grace.

    fyi.

    [sorry Gorilla for the “preaching,” just offering an opinion and clarification…]

  121. The whole point of that long post is that it is easy to take someone else’s beliefs and pervert them – if that is your intent. Just as is being done to the Muslims…

  122. For SOME Christians the cross represents human sacrifice (a blood sacrifice to “pay for” the sins of humanity to an angry God), but not all Christians.

    What a joke…and you call yourself Christian and make a statement like that? You don’t even understand the basic tenets.

    But not all lost. We found an earthly kindred spirit for you. Dan and Yellow Dawg. Dan, you two are a match made in heaven. Trust me on this one… 😈

  123. Last 30 years?

    The invasion of Iraq comes to mind….ask an Iraqi…

    Panama 1989

    Greneda 1983” – Bitch

    Well, aren’t you the fucking dick…

  124. “Last 30 years?

    The invasion of Iraq comes to mind….ask an Iraqi…

    Panama 1989

    Greneda 1983” – Bitch

    Well, aren’t you the fucking dick…”

    The truth is a bitch….

  125. Tex…and you call yourself Christian and make a statement like that?

    ? Some Christians DO consider Christ’s death on the cross as an atonement to a God who can’t be satisfied in any other manner than a perfect blood sacrifice. What are you getting your knickers in a knot for?

    You’re familiar, I guess, with Jonathan Edwards and his famous sermon. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

  126. Tex…

    Look at that crap from above. You answer his questions and he acts like it’s not there.

    Is it just me or is this just insane? DID he somewhere address the question posed by this post (ie, “WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?”)??

    I’m entirely capable of missing it, but that’s at least twice the Tex has suggested that he’s answered the question and yet, I don’t see anything approaching an answer to this question from him.

    Am I just missing something or has he left this question totally untouched?

  127. Rabbit boiled down the blog blabber to a thick putrid soup.

    Soup: The libs here don’t believe Islam is a political system.

    They just plain and simply refuse to believe it!

    We can’t have a conversation because of this. There is nothing to say.

    On to the next topic.

    The butt darts will go on forever ignoring the severed heads, executed gays, chopped off hands of shoplifters and women trapped in the home barred from even driving a car. All of this institutionalized by the “friendly” Muslim state that opposes Al Queda and Iran. Oh, all devout Muslims must visit this place if they can afford it. Awesome.

    Yeah, this bag is comparable to a few cults rooted in modern Christianity.

    Rabbit is done with this debate. Let’s get back to diagrams of pocket pussies or some shit.

  128. What debate? Rutherford asked a question and everyone promptly ignored it for the most part (although you answered it with the same answer that we – or at least we have and gorilla non-answered it with apparently the same answer that we have, so it appears that everyone who has answered agrees with Rutherford, you and me.

    The ones who haven’t answered it, well, they haven’t answered it.

    So again, WHAT debate?

  129. Some Christians DO consider Christ’s death on the cross as an atonement to a God who can’t be satisfied in any other manner than a perfect blood sacrifice.

    Some Christians? How about all Christians…

    What a twisted individual you are. And I’ve answered your Muslim question so many times, I’ve lost count. So has Gorilla; so has Rabbit and perhaps a few others.

    The problem isnt’ that the question wasn’t answered. The problem is only your own. That is, you’re too dense to understand the context, much less understand the answer…

    Don’t you have a spinning machine that needs attending, or a loaf of bread baking (from the bread baking machine in the electric oven)? 😆

    Let’s handle a question you might be capable of understanding. Why do people think Amish make such great bread? My mom can knead bread with the best of them, and her’s is much when baked. Would mom qualify as Super Amish?

  130. And so, you say, “I answered that question by saying…” and fill in the blank. Or say, “I answered that question back in comment #…” and fill in the blank. I’m not seeing it.

    And no, not all Christians believe in a literal Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (the one in question, or some version of that). There are many theories of atonement (none of which are straight from the Bible) but rather, are ways of explaining HOW God’s grace works to save us.

    For some of us (many anabaptists included), we’re not all that concerned about or think we’re capable of KNOWING the mechanics of how we’re saved. We simply believe, as the Bible tells us, that we are saved BY GRACE, through faith in Jesus. THAT is how the bible puts it and that is sufficient to our understanding.

    We do think it may make some sense to speak of paying a price metaphorically, but not literally. (Do you really think the God of the universe, omnipotent and omniscient, is so crippled that God is UNABLE to choose to forgive us without a blood sacrifice? -Don’t answer that, it’s all off topic, anyway)

    But no, not all Christians believe in a more literal Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement. Just ain’t the case, factually. In fact, it wasn’t even a solid theory until the 12th century, when Anselm came up with it. So right there, you have half of Christendom’s history not believing in it.

    And now, this is really off topic and I’ll quit going down this line. Feel free to write me if you’d like to continue on this line of thinking and I’ll be glad to talk Bible with you.

  131. Dan,

    Where did you dredge up this “theory?.” How about we talk about New Testament “theory.” Or better yet, how about we go back to the first sacrifice required by Cain and Abel? You don’t get that either, do you? Do you not recognize the sacrifice during the entire Old Testament is a testament to the New? You try to spin this as really complicated, and yet it quite, but most profound.

    If you wish, we can go back to Abraham’s sacrifice and talk Jewish history of the blood sacrifice, signifying very specifically Christ’s death. I don’t know where you are digging this up, or who is feeding you this garbage, but crap about a solid theory until the 12th century is a some new age hocum. The may sell well in academic circles of blowhards, but it is pure bunk. How about we talk about the 1st century Christianity, what the Bible says, and quit worrying about your new age, new earth, Gnostic like religion of Christian flavor?

    “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission (forgiveness of sin) ~ Hebrews 9:22

    And without forgiveness of sin, you’re not entering heaven pal. Like I said, you pervert grace Dan – worse, you spin the Word of God to make it fit your wishes…

  132. Do you really think the God of the universe, omnipotent and omniscient, is so crippled that God is UNABLE to choose to forgive us without a blood sacrifice?

    Is that what passes for profundity in the Anabaptist Church? Kind of along the lines of can God make a rock bigger than He can lift? Deep…

    It’s not a matter of what God is capable of doing Dan. It’s a matter of “HOW” he chose to do it, and whether you believe it or not. It’s not a matter of understanding the mechanics – your word, not mine. And God did it by manifesting Himself in the flesh to make the only justified and perfect sacrifice. And as far as to the reasons why it was done that way? There isn’t a theologian alive, or has ever lived who can truthfully answer the reasons. Job got no answer and neither did Isaiah. His Ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not Our thoughts.

    I’m pretty much through debating with your flavor of Christianity, because no one else cares to read this. Frankly though you seem to be saturated with “theory”, I think you have completely missed the spirit of the real love, which is first based on truth – absolute truth.

    But I do know one thing. If left to your ilk and your ways, there would be no America or American way of life, no Constitution, no Declaration of Independence, complete submission to some perverted form of religion whether sharia or King George. I find your type virtually useless to the Kingdom of God, a collective, sheltered and isolated cult of sorts. It’s frankly dangerous, but only to those who choose to practice as much.

    Though you may preach peace at all costs which sells well to weak and passive, ironically I have found many Amish and Mennonites rude, unfriendly, condescending, and haughty. I certainly didn’t find them pious by any stretch. That may be Hollywood – it ain’t reality.

  133. Mmmm, if the scripture I quoted suggested women subservient to men, as I recall it did, then that is indeed misogynistic and then nutjobs can use that scripture to justify beating the crap out of their wives.It’s not a huge leap.

    Well, R, one of the interesting things about the New Testament is how things often end up being both repeated and clarified in different chapters.

    Now if I remember the verse you were citing correctly, it was Ephesians 5:22

    22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

    to which it was either Tex or I who responded and told you to keep reading, because it didn’t support your misogynist claptrap to finish the whole thing

    22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[a] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

    and this is stated again in 1 Peter 3:1-7

    1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

    If you can extrapolate “Husbands can beat the crap out of their wives” out of that, then you simply aren’t being honest.

    In addition, I was not entirely truthful in my answer to this gem:

    Quote me the passages in the Bible that instruct Christians that women should have an equal part in all matters…

    I gave an incomplete answer to the question. I said it doesn’t.

    Women at that time frequently were uneducated and notorious for falling prey the heresies and false doctrines, which is why there were admonitions about them being leaders, and speaking on certain topics. There were exceptions, and Paul commended the assistance and participation of Prescilla and Aquilla in the epsistles to the churches. This did not mean that they were not equals in spirit, as made clear in Galatians 3:28

    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    I’m sure you don’t care, but I had issues with letting such casual slanders stand unopposed.

  134. Dan,
    There have been, predominantly, three groups to use terrorism: Islam, Anarchists and Communists. The only real exception to these entities has been the Irish conflict, which goes back some 400 years.

    When you stack the three entities together, and then count the number of attacks they’ve executed, you will find that Islamic terrorism far exceeds the other two.

    The anarchists go back to the late 19th century, with their real claim to fame being the McKinley assassination.

    That leaves the commies, whose hey day was the 60’s and 70’s. Red Army Faction, Weatherman’s Underground, and the FARC are some known examples. Interestingly, tied to these are most political assassinations. Communist terrorism has significantly declined since the fall of the soviets.

    This leaves Islamic terrorism, which by far, has killed far more than the other terrorists combined. Both the number of attacks and the body county of their attacks- even excluding 9/11- is hands down the number one terrorist threat.

  135. Gorilla…

    There have been, predominantly, three groups to use terrorism: Islam, Anarchists and Communists.

    This makes me wonder if you’re truly unaware of history or just ignore the parts which you don’t like.

    Contras = terrorists, funded by the US (illegally for part of that time), killed, raped, tortured and “disappeared” thousands of Nicaraguans in the 1980s.

    Pinochet regime = thuggish regime which used terrorism against his own people (propped up by capitalist US)

    Somoza regimes = thuggish regime which used terrorism against their own people (propped up, at least for a whlie, by the US – until finally the last Somoza became too unstable even for us to support).

    Saddam Hussein = thuggish regime propped up for a time by the US (until he became too unstable even for us to support)

    Osama bin Laden = Muslim-based terrorist, yes, but propped up by US for a time.

    Other US-supported Latin American leaders which used terroristic methods against their own people would also be on that list.

    The US itself has used terrorism and have been convicted of war crimes for, among other things mining a harbor in Nicaragua.

    I love our nation, but we can’t be blinded to her faults and mistakes. We have factually supported terrorists, we have factually engaged in terrorism, we had a school (the School of Americas in Georgia) where we TRAINED terrorists – people who went on to kill Catholic nuns – in effective guerrilla terrorism.

    To be blindly patriotic is to not be patriotic at all. “My country, right or wrong,” is a morally wrong position to hold.

    Do I think the US has as bad a record as the Soviet Union or some few Muslim extremists? No. Is it bad enough, though? Yes.

    And so I wonder: Are you just ignorant of our own history with terrorism and thuggish practices, or just deliberately ignoring that?

  136. Dan, you’re a perfect liberal. You shall know them by their fruits…

    What you do is find a fault, any fault, then magnify that fault to define a defense of your position. And worse, you’ll then flip the script and use this as defense when it suits you. And you’re pretty good at it under the guise of Gospel. Saul Alinksky tactics. Demonizing the opponent with sweet nothings – and put a beatitude spin on it. Beautiful – straight out of the Sanhedrin.

    This is what Rutherford does to me about pointing out the sins of Christians so he can criticize its imperfections – as if somehow this shoots holes in Christ’s message. Same with Graychin; same with Ghandi. Take an imperfect people and measure them by the perfect message. Some loon shoots an abortion doctor – there’s Christianity in a nutshell.

    What? Christians not perfect? Therefore, you have no position or right to cast judgment or criticize. America supports a ‘freedom fighter’ turned despot? America supports terrorists and by definition terrorism. America removes Saddam without WMD provocation? Imperialistic and equally guilty. And I’ll bet a hundred bucks you’re hearing this inside the walls of your little church. Sounds like the Sheik – we helped make Bin Laden so we are in large part also to blame for 9/11.

    So I have a question for your pastor, you and the members of the Anabaptist commune – the same commune that ignores all of the Old Testament, though Christ taught from the Torah.

    What would your church do right now if by chance Gorilla, or Elric, or BiC, or Cathy, or Natassia, or Rabbit, or Alife, or even little old Tex is right and you’re wrong about Islam? That at its core, Islam is sharia and you’re going to submit – at the edge of the sword, if necessary. You just going to put out the welcome mat of the enemies of Jesus and turn the other cheek? Lay your neck on the chopping block as they savage the wife and children?

    And you really believe that is the message of Jesus Christ?

    But don’t tell me you love America. It’s insulting. You love the benefit of living in America. You always flavor with ‘I love America’ BUT..then followed by a constant criticism of both tactic and/or result. That’s not love – that’s an indulged, petulant child and reeks of self servitude.

  137. “R”,

    I hope you’ve learned your lesson.

    There’s a danger when you visit neighboring blogs to invite back old, like-minded friend to come back.

    While at Graychin’s, you must have contracted and brought home the non-life threatening, but debilitating virus now more commonly known as Dawgus micro dickest virus.

    Scientists are still contemplating whether it can be defined as a life form or not, as it appears to require a host to reply replicate and shows no intelligence, operating on leeching from the host, but I understand while harmless, like porno advertising, it’s a bitch to shake. 🙂

  138. This makes me wonder if you’re truly unaware of history or just ignore the parts which you don’t like.” – Dan

    Yawn… Let’s review…

    Contras = terrorists, funded by the US (illegally for part of that time), killed, raped, tortured and “disappeared” thousands of Nicaraguans in the 1980s.

    There is significant contention on the validity of the human rights abuse claims made against the Contras. Did some happen? I’m sure they did, they were rebels operating in the jungle against a brutal regime that was itself engaged in human rights abuses. Almost every organization that was accusing the Contras of human rights abuses were pro Sandinista, so objectivity on the matter is questionable at best, but I see you’ve regurgitated the Noam Chomsky sound bites well…

    Pinochet regime = thuggish regime which used terrorism against his own people (propped up by capitalist US)

    Ahhhhhh, this isn’t terrorism. That’s not to say it is good, but it is not terrorism. States can sponsor terrorism, but brutal tactics of oppression against their own populations just isn’t terrorism.

    Somoza regimes = thuggish regime which used terrorism against their own people (propped up, at least for a whlie, by the US – until finally the last Somoza became too unstable even for us to support).

    Your colors are running pretty clear here. These were the people the Sandinistas were fighting against, and before the over throw, were using terrorism themselves to do so. Regardless, the same argument applies- brutal oppression by the sitting regime doesn’t constitute terrorism. The Sandinistas (a communist organization) tactics do, but you didn’t want to talk about that, now did you…

    Saddam Hussein = thuggish regime propped up for a time by the US (until he became too unstable even for us to support)

    Yawn. Supporting Saddam against Iran, a year or so after the Iranian revolution and the storming of our embassy. Hmmmmm, imagine that. We weren’t as close as you liberals would like to think, and our knowledge of what Saddam was doing internally was not nearly so well refined. When he started picking on others, we stepped in, which I think demonstrates we weren’t so supportive as you might claim. But once again, oppression isn’t terrorism. He sponsored Palestinian terrorist groups, he allowed the Abu Nidal group sanctuary, we could question those actions, and maybe go so far along those lines, but your argument falls flat. Again.

    Osama bin Laden = Muslim-based terrorist, yes, but propped up by US for a time.

    Osama bin Laden was never supported or propped by the US. Ever. You can’t demonstrate a single shred of proof showing otherwise. The US provided support to the Pakistani government, which then distributed that support to the mujahedeen. It isn’t even clear that bin Laden ever received any of that aid either, as most of what he was doing was based on his own funding streams and his primary role was to organize the mujahedeen in Pakistan prior to their movement into Afghanistan.

    But we’ll both agree that at last, you’ve named a terrorist, who is- wait for it- a Muslim. Funny, two terrorists have been named in this, bin Laden the Muslim terrorist and the Sandinistas, a communist terrorist.

    What did I say again?

    There have been, predominantly, three groups to use terrorism: Islam, Anarchists and Communists.

    Thanks for playing…

  139. “R”, I believe the other day, you noted that Gorilla had been jousted by the insufferable Dan? Or was shoot and score? More on that in a second.

    Well, I just read Gorilla’s excellent response to Dan’s “shot at the hoop.” concerning terrorism and the associated debate. I do know there are times that even Tex the mouth recognizes there are subject matter experts on this board. I wouldn’t debate BiW at law, or Rabbit how to make brew. I wouldn’t debate with you about which choice of software to use. I wouldn’t even debate Graychin about accounting or tax rules.

    So you should learn a lesson from me. You don’t debate Gorilla about security and terrorism.

    I don’t know if Dan hit the backboard with his shot against Gorilla as you suggested Dan scored. I do know that in reading Gorilla’s response, maybe I was wrong about how the Gorilla got his name.

    Because there is a basketball colloquialism amongst the brothas and even white bread like me and the Rabbit when shooting hoops on the school grounds. It’s the most intimidating shot in basketball. It’s called the GORILLA DUNK, where the ball is viciously slammed into the basket with such force, not only is the opponent left to watch in awe, but the ball hits him in the face when it clears the net.

    Your playground basketball Dan just got schooled and I enjoyed reading that… 🙂

    I do hope you’ll give credit where credit is due..

  140. I like to think of myself like this. Does the silver back in me come out from time to time? Of course, but I’m here to help…

  141. Dan, you’re a perfect liberal. You shall know them by their fruits…

    What you do is find a fault, any fault, then magnify that fault to define a defense of your position.

    You make statements like this and don’t point out what they are referencing and expect people to follow your point. You sometimes are just not a very good communicator, brother. As always, it is helpful to say, “Dan when you say X, it means…”

    I assume, though, that you’re speaking of my pointing out the thousands/tens of thousands of deaths and oppression committed by the US, or by those we’re supporting, or with our dollars or in our name and how I claim that this is a bad thing.

    Well, that’s just the case: I DO, in fact, think supporting the Contra terrorists (and they WERE terrorists, engaged in rape, attacking civilians, killing, “disappearing” innocent people – I have friends who’ve lived there and friends of friends who’ve lived through it, beyond the numerous reports substantiating this fact) was a horrible wrong, incredibly harmful to our great nation and destructive to our great values. In fact, this is one of those things that began to turn me from a Reagan Republican to a more progressively-minded fella.

    Do you think that it was good for us to commit war crimes in Nicaragua? For us to support terrorists? Then we disagree and I think support for such is contrary to both Christian and American values.

    Support terrorists all you want, but then don’t claim to have any high moral ground when you get around to wanting to condemn terrorism against us. You have lost your voice.

    And worse, you’ll then flip the script and use this as defense when it suits you. And you’re pretty good at it under the guise of Gospel. Saul Alinksky tactics. Demonizing the opponent with sweet nothings – and put a beatitude spin on it. Beautiful – straight out of the Sanhedrin.

    Your fingers are typing, but you’re saying nothing.

  142. What? Christians not perfect?

    No, they’re not. No one is. What of it?

    Therefore, you have no position or right to cast judgment or criticize. America supports a ‘freedom fighter’ turned despot? America supports terrorists and by definition terrorism. America removes Saddam without WMD provocation? Imperialistic and equally guilty.

    I have very little idea of what point you’re trying to make here. Yes, America HAS factually supported terrorists and terroristic dictators/rulers/puppet despots. Are you calling this a good thing?

    …And I’ll bet a hundred bucks you’re hearing this inside the walls of your little church. Sounds like the Sheik – we helped make Bin Laden so we are in large part also to blame for 9/11.

    Hearing WHAT inside my church? You’re not making yourself clear. Am I hearing that terrorism is an evil, regardless of who commits it? Yes, I am. Do you disagree?

    Are you familiar with the Bible? Are you familiar with the passage, “You’ve sowed the wind, now you’ll reap the whirlwind,” from the Prophet Hosea? Do you understand the concept? Hosea is warning Israel that if you play with fire, you’ll get burned. “Israel has rejected the good,” Hosea said leading up to this passage. Rejecting the good, holding on to the evil, this is what leads to sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Our negative actions will generally have negative consequences.

    This is a truism found throughout the Bible. Do you disagree with this truism?

    In the NT, we read, “Don’t be deceived, God won’t be mocked, a man will reap whatever he sows.”

    We can see the truth of this borne out in the real world. We support a thug or a terrorist (Somoza? Pinochet? Bin Laden? Saddam Hussein???) and later on, that support comes back to bite us on the bottom. You remember the joke during Bush’s WMD days? “I KNOW he has WMDs. We still have the receipt!” (rim shot).

    It IS a valid truism that you reap what you sow.

    Back in the OT, God warns, “a father’s sin will be a curse upon his children, to the fourth generation…” That’s NOT God saying “Your children are CURSED!” That is the pointing out of this truism: Our actions have consequences. Our NEGATIVE actions will tend to have NEGATIVE consequences.

    I don’t know about you, but I and my church, we believe this to be true. As a result, we DON’T support terrorism. Not when it’s a wacked out Muslim, not when it’s someone paid for with my tax dollars, not when it’s my own gov’t. Call me crazy, but I am consistently opposed to terrorism. You?

    So, yes, only a fool would say that our actions don’t have consequences. Our one time support for bin Laden does put some of the blame on us for what eventually happened with bin Laden. “You break it, you buy it.”

    We need to own up to our own mistakes if we want to learn from them.

  143. So I have a question for your pastor, you and the members of the Anabaptist commune – the same commune that ignores all of the Old Testament, though Christ taught from the Torah.

    Don’t speak in ignorance, brother. It makes you look, well, ignorant. As a point of fact, we LOVE the OT, teach and preach from it regularly, weekly. And you’re right, much of Jesus’ commands to us (LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, “I have come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick, freedom for the captive, the day of Jubilee!”) are echoes or come directly from the OT.

    We love the OT and do not, in fact, ignore it.

    What would your church do right now if by chance Gorilla, or Elric, or BiC, or Cathy, or Natassia, or Rabbit, or Alife, or even little old Tex is right and you’re wrong about Islam? That at its core, Islam is sharia and you’re going to submit – at the edge of the sword, if necessary. You just going to put out the welcome mat of the enemies of Jesus and turn the other cheek?

    I would hope to act just as Jesus and the early church acted when faced with that situation. With God’s grace and trust in God. And I wouldn’t find it completely unexpected. As Peter noted…

    For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his footsteps.

    “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

    When he was insulted, he returned no insult; when he suffered, he did not threaten; instead, he handed himself over to the one who judges justly.

    He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness.

    Tex…

    And you really believe that is the message of Jesus Christ?

    “That”? “That,” what?

    That we are to follow in the steps of Jesus? Yes, I think that is a central teaching of Christ.

    That we are to ignore murderous threats? No.

    That we are to NOT rely upon terrorism to stop “bad guys”? Yes.

    That we are to love our enemies? Yes.

    Submit to an imposed and oppressive version of Sharia law? No, absolutely not.

    Stand opposed to an oppressive law by killing innocent people? No.

    Stand opposed to oppressive law? Yes.

    Jesus lived in a time with oppressive laws. The Jewish people and, later, the Christian church were well familiar with being on the receiving end of oppressive laws. Jesus himself was KILLED by corrupt leaders using/twisting oppressive laws, executed by the state for being an insurgent.

    They were familiar with oppressive laws and had clever ways of dealing with them, standing up to them.

    “When you are struck on the left cheek, turn to them the right also.”

    Not cower under oppressive laws, not engage in deadly force, but confront oppressive laws/actions with solid grace and meek power.

    “When someone demands your cloak, give to them also your tunic.”

    If you are familiar with culture from this time period, you’d know that seeing nudity was considered an embarrassment and strike against the person who SAW the nudity. Jesus was looking at the oppressive laws at the time (and the laws allowed for taking a person’s cloak to repay a debt, for instance) and had this clever way of undermining this law. “Here, here is my overcoat… AND (starts removing clothes) my tunic as well…” “NO! No! Wait! stop! Get out of here, you loon…” This teaching, in context of the times, was a humorous and clever bit of Alinsky-like political theater. The oppressed would have gotten the joke, and taken heart.

    “If a soldier demands that you carry his pack one mile, take it two…”

    Under Roman law, a soldier had the authority to demand an oppressed citizen carry his pack up to one mile, but no more. Any more than that, and the soldier would be breaking the law and running the risk of getting in trouble himself. Jesus and his listeners would know this. Again, this is a humorous and clever bit of non-violent resistence, using the laws and cultural norms of the time to confront oppression.

    Like that, is how I would hope to stand up to any oppressive laws. Like Jesus taught. After all, I’m a follower of Christ and, by extension, his teachings.

    Tex…

    But don’t tell me you love America. It’s insulting.

    Get over it brother. I love America. I love our greater ideals. I stand opposed to corrupting and undermining those greater ideals. If you find that insulting, well then, that’s just an added bonus, I guess.

    Don’t get your feelings hurt so easily, friend. You’ll spend your life in whiny misery.

  144. What would your church do right now if by chance Gorilla, or Elric, or BiC, or Cathy, or Natassia, or Rabbit, or Alife, or even little old Tex is right and you’re wrong about Islam?

    Fascinating Tex … truly because I have long pondered writing a post entitled “What if they’re right?” the premise of which is what if one of the non-Christian religions has THE answer? This means that it is all of you guys who are “lost”. Scary thought.

    Personally, I don’t think any of you are lost … or maybe the reverse, we are all lost.

  145. Dan,

    You told me I speak in ignorance, so I looked up the history of you Anabaptist Church. And I noticed a few glaring discrepancies with consistency concerning your interpretation of the Bible. I’ll mention only a couple.

    First, from an Anabaptist site,

    Anabaptists view the Protestant canon, which includes the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as uniquely authoritative. Most Anabaptist groups have given greater attention to the Gospels than other parts of the Christian scriptures.

    Except Paul, who had a divine revelation from the Gospel Himself said “ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD.” How do you decide one part being more important than the other? Are the Gospels and Christ speaking more important than say Christ speaking in Acts or the Book of the Revelation? And since I believe that was also Christ speaking in the Old Testament, the prophets including Hosea for instance, how do you decide what is important and what can be discarded?

    Second, if you love the Old Testament, how do you disregard so much of it? Say granting rights to homosexuals to marry when God called homosexuality a sin, and then I assume ignore the exclusive nature of marriage between man and woman, the most important earthly relationship since Adam and Eve?

    And how do you balance your pacifism when there would be no Jewish or Christian history without sacrifice in battle? God gave the Jews a covenant, but the Father certainly did not hand it to them.

    I find your faith convenient. I wouldn’t find it very fulfilling Dan.

    I could go further, but I learned enough Anabaptist history to agree with some of it, disagree with some of it. Like I said, I find your type almost cult like, self-serving, somewhat insulated, and not a particularly effective witness. Give me Billy Graham. 😉

    Finally, your logic is convoluted to say the least about Islam. There will be no turning the other cheek, because you will have no cheek to turn if fundamental Islam has its way. You will submit, or you will die. It’s really as simple as that Dan.

  146. Tex…

    How do you decide one part being more important than the other? Are the Gospels and Christ speaking more important than say Christ speaking in Acts or the Book of the Revelation?

    The bible contains this passage…

    Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,

    Ram the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,

    Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,

    Jesse the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.

    And on and on, Matthew goes in Chapter 1.

    The same Bible contains, a few chapters later…

    Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.

    Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’

    But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

    If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.

    Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.

    Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

    But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you

    In the first passage, you have a slightly interesting (but not very) list of Jesus’ ancestors with some value, but little impact upon our daily life.

    The second passage is direct teachings from Jesus on how to live our lives on a daily basis.

    Given that, from a practical point of view, Jesus’ direct teachings are of much greater importance than a list of grandparents.

    This is why anabaptists tend to put more value on some passages than others – because they are more important in our daily lives and the anabaptists are all about orthopraxis (right living)…

  147. Tex…

    And since I believe that was also Christ speaking in the Old Testament, the prophets including Hosea for instance, how do you decide what is important and what can be discarded?

    Easy enough to answer: I don’t discard any of it. Never suggested otherwise. How many times do I need to point how highly we value the OT for that to sink in?

    Tex…

    Second, if you love the Old Testament, how do you disregard so much of it?

    I don’t disregard any of it. Can you comprehend that?

    Do you understand the difference between me disagreeing with your take on a passage and me disregarding a passage? You are not God, when I disagree with you, I am not disagreeing with God, just some anonymous fella on the internets who does not appear to be especially familiar with the Bible. Do you understand the difference between me disagreeing with you and disagreeing with God?

    I know you you said you can speak for Jesus, but let’s not get carried away. I know Jesus. I spend time with Jesus. And you, sir, are not Jesus.

  148. Tex…

    And how do you balance your pacifism when there would be no Jewish or Christian history without sacrifice in battle?

    Well, Christianity survived by following in Jesus’ non-violent steps for the first ~300 years of its existence, despite incredible persecution. So anabaptists (who themselves have experienced hundreds of years of oft-times violent persecution and yet managed to survive) plan to do it the same way Jesus and the early church did it. Sound reasonable to you?

    (As an aside: Do you know why the Mennonites were called “Mennonites,” after Menno? Was it because he was one of the greatest leaders of the early anabaptists? Actually, no. It’s because he’s one of the few leaders who weren’t killed by churches and the military.)

    Tell me: Do you think Jesus and the early church were wrong for not throwing in with the Zealots and fighting violence with violence? Do you think Jesus was (as some of your comrades so indelicately put it) a “pussy” for teaching all that “love your enemy/turn the other cheek” crap?

  149. I said…

    Actually, no. It’s because he’s one of the few leaders who weren’t killed by churches and the military.

    And yes, Gorilla, we anabaptists know a good amount about terrorism coming from Christian sources. Just not recently, thankfully. Ever read Martyrs Mirror? Talk about your terrorism!

    How ’bout the story of the anabaptist who was escaping the authorities across a frozen Netherlands when his lone pursuer crashed through some thin ice. What did ol’ Dirk do? Returned and rescued the soldier. You know what happened next? Of course you do, Dirk was burned at the stake.

    And yet, we still have anabaptists with us today, as is the church despite its early persecution. I guess maybe persecution isn’t enough to kill off the church, no matter how much Tex is afraid of that happening.

    How about this, Tex: Why don’t you worry about your faith and let the anabaptists worry about ours? We’ve been doing this a bit longer than you have…

  150. Finally, Tex said…

    There will be no turning the other cheek, because you will have no cheek to turn if fundamental Islam has its way. You will submit, or you will die.

    My friends who have lived in Muslim Morocco for 15+ years would beg to disagree. And since they have actual experience with Muslims in a Muslim nation and you don’t, and since you’re an anonymous voice on the internet with no apparent knowledge of what you’re speaking of, I hope you’ll understand if I listen to them (and many other voices with first hand experience) over you?

  151. There will be no turning the other cheek, because you will have no cheek to turn if fundamental Islam has its way. You will submit, or you will die.

    But EVEN IF that were the only choices (and it’s not), I do not fear death especially. I would hope that I would stand up against oppressive laws and violent actors and do so in a way that is faithful to my understanding of God, right and wrong.

    Would you answer just one question (at least one): IF you think that peaceable Christians living in an oppressive and deadly society will all die, then how do you explain the early church? The anabaptists?

    Love is but a song we sing
    And fears the way we die, pal.

  152. Yes Rutherford. I have worked with the French – those stories are real.

    Well Dog, this may surprise you but I’m actually with the French on this one. The burqa is to my way of thinking a symbol of male domination over the woman. It goes beyond “traditional” to prehistoric. Also, from a crime perspective it is problematic because people should be identifiable by face. A woman in a convenience store with a burqa on is only a smidgen away from a street thug in a convenience store with a ski mask on.

    I’ve heard the argument, “ok next thing you’ll be banning yarmulkes”. While I personally think it’s very silly for someone to believe the have to wear a cap all day, I don’t see the symbolic nor the crime related issues with a yarmulke that I see with the burqa.

    This is one where I readily understand how folks could disagree with me.

  153. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

    This kind of argument gets tiring. The problem here is that you refuse to acknowledge that there are Christian loony tunes just like there are Muslim loony tunes. A Christian loony tune reads 22, 23 and 24 and then stops reading and then …
    beats the crap out of his wife

    Case closed. I’ve readily admitted I’m no scholar of comparative religion but I don’t think it’s a leap to suggest that most scripture in all the religions has sufficient ambiguity and contradiction to justify all sorts of behavior and since belief in the fundamental element of all religion (a creator active in every day affairs) is itself irrational, all bets are off about rational interpretation of scripture.

    Just look at what you quoted. It is a blatant contradiction of itself. If the woman refuses to be subject to her husband “in all things” then what is the husband to do? Seems to me there is a quid pro quo implied by the entire verse. She says yes to everything you want, and in return you treat her like a queen. What happens when she gets “out of line”?

  154. Women at that time frequently were uneducated and notorious for falling prey the heresies and false doctrines,

    Oh you’ve got to be kidding! So women in that day and age were just naturally stupid? What kind of sexist drivel is that? Being wise has absolutely nothing to do with education. A smart woman cannot be deceived by a con man, whether or not she was “educated”.

  155. While at Graychin’s, you must have contracted and brought home the non-life threatening, but debilitating virus now more commonly known as Dawgus micro dickest virus.

    Tex, dontcha know I never get my shots when I visit other blogs? There’s no telling what microscopic varmints are crawling around inside of me. 😉

  156. Osama bin Laden was never supported or propped by the US.

    G, aren’t you creating a distinction without a difference here? Wasn’t our foreign policy at the time that we’d rather have a bin Laden than to have Russia in Afghanistan? I think Dan is right in spirit if not in detail.

  157. The gullible style in American Propaganda
    Taxing the rich hurts poor people.
    Osama bin Laden did it and if you need to see evidence, you are a traitor and wingnut!
    Obama been CIA was born in HAWAII and if you need to see evidence, you are a traitor and wingnut!
    9/11 – Don’t ask, don’t tell.
    The trillions we spent on the war didn’t screw up the economy – it was all those HOME BUYERS!
    Unions hurt workers.
    Corporations are responsible.
    What oil?
    HFCS is natural.
    You probably need some medication because you are not thinking right.
    Just say no to drugs and don’t forget to take your medications!
    Try some of our role models on TV.
    Politicians are credible.
    Celebrities opinions are important to you.
    You need the products we advertise.
    Politicians are trustworthy. Let’s take what they say seriously.
    A bunch of islamic rednecks in the mountains of Bora Bora are a threat to Western Civilization and they want to rape you after burning your Bible.
    Osama bin Laden is ALIVE!!!!
    Cuba – BAD commies. China – GOOD Commies.
    We have satellites that watch your every move!!!
    Politicians and rich people care about poor people.
    War is good for the economy.
    We do it all for you.
    You vote counts!
    There is difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
    Where the war industry owns the media they impose no bias on the news and the programming.
    The enemy is everywhere!
    You are with us, or you are against us.
    Four more years.
    I’m done with that.
    Robot killing machines are fair in war.
    We don’t know what happened to the value of your money – NO ONE DOES! (snicker snicker snicker).

  158. LOL Dan @ 217 …. my point exactly! 🙂

    Regarding Gorilla’s assertion that government sanctioned terrorism is not terrorism per se, I’m not sure I’m with that although I do think I get the distinction he’s trying to make.

  159. Legally, gov’t sanctioned terrorism is probably called war crimes or crimes against humanity, rather than terrorism.

    But in fact, when you send goons to villages to rape, to torture, to kill, to kidnap, you ARE engaging in terrorism, in terroristic methods. And this is what happened throughout Latin America during and prior to the Reagan years.

    Those are just the facts.

    Now what SOME people try to do is say that such tactics were justified and, while ridiculous, at least that is debatable. But to pretend that it didn’t happen on a wide scale basis is just blind partisan chosen ignorance.

  160. G, aren’t you creating a distinction without a difference here?
    No he isn’t. The truth is the USA went to great lengths NOT to support the factions of mujahadeen that had AQ in them.Supporting the mujahadeen had multiple layers,just as the Soviet entry did.
    As for the US and Latin America. There is someone that needs to get the grown ups version of history,reality and politics and isn’t gorilla.

  161. Dog, the major problem with the propaganda points you list is that some have a kernel of truth to them which allows the folks who use them to hook the believer. You say something that approximates truth but doesn’t tell the whole story and bang, you’ve got your blind follower in tow.

    For example: Unions hurt workers. Well, yes actually sometimes they can. If they are unreasonable in their demands, companies can suffer in meeting those demands, layoffs ensue etc. On the other hand, without unions companies can run roughshod over workers.

    The biggest fault of Americans is refusal to handle complexity. We like simple solutions and easy folks to blame. Both parties are good at feeding this. I just happen to believe the GOP plays the propaganda game more than the Dem’s do.

  162. There is someone that needs to get the grown ups version of history,reality and politics and isn’t gorilla.

    I’m talking first hand experience here, Alfie, not conservative talking points. Of the two, I’ll take first hand experience over partisan press releases any day.

    I KNOW people on the ground in Nicaragua (especially) and in other nations, as well. The Contras WERE terrorists, they engaged in terroristic activities. The Sandinistas did too, but to a much lesser degree and generally in retaliation to Contra atrocities.

    The US DID support the Contras. The US DID mine the harbor at a nation we weren’t at war with.

    We can each suggest that the other is only looking to partisan talking points. The difference, I suspect, is that I’m relying upon first hand information. You?

  163. G, aren’t you creating a distinction without a difference here? Wasn’t our foreign policy at the time that we’d rather have a bin Laden than to have Russia in Afghanistan? I think Dan is right in spirit if not in detail.” – R

    No, which is one reason why we were funneling the funds through Pakistan because we recognized that they had a better grasp on the fighters. Our intent wasn’t to support some religious vanguard, it was to provide support to indigenous Afghans, who up to that time, were actually moving towards modernity. If you look at photos of Afghanistan in the 60’s and 70’s and compare them to today, you would think the dates were backwards- they are not. Afghanistan has literally devolved over the last 4 decades.

    As to terrorism, terrorism is non-state actors using violence to threaten and intimidate state actors for political purposes. The FARC are terrorist= non-state actors perpetrating terror to intimidate or overthrow a state government so that they may take control. The Sandinista, prior to taking control, used terror to over throw the regime so that they could take power. Once they took power, they were no longer perpetrating terrorism- THEY WERE THE STATE- but their oppression against the people were crimes against humanity.

    Poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

    I’d recommend Dan, and others, put down the revisionist efforts of Chomsky and read something that isn’t published by Disinformation.

  164. Such as… what? Something put out by Oliver North?

    Get real, Gorilla. Unless you have some better source than actual on the ground information from someone NOT associated with rightwing bullshit and apologism, you aren’t credible.

    I guess you think the “war crimes” we were CONVICTED of was all made up and imaginary sweetness and light?

    Talk about pollyanna…

  165. And since they have actual experience with Muslims in a Muslim nation and you don’t, and since you’re an anonymous voice on the internet with no apparent knowledge of what you’re speaking of, I hope you’ll understand if I listen to them (and many other voices with first hand experience) over you?

    And you would know my history how? Or those I’m affilated? You presume a lot, say a lot, but add very little pal. That’s why I generally ignore you because you’re boring as hell.

    What’s the name of your church? Heaven’s Gate?

    Easy enough to answer: I don’t discard any of it. Never suggested otherwise. How many times do I need to point how highly we value the OT for that to sink in?

    You can point it out until the cows come home, but it won’t change the fact you don’t practice what you preach. The practicality of your application is twisted – very twisted. Homosexual marriage, for instance. If you can’ t figure out that’s not only contrary to scripture but perverted, I’d say not only are you a deceived but a dumb ass.

  166. Dan as for on the ground.
    Cuba,Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic,Panama,El Salvador, Nicaragua and Chile plus Costa Rica and Argentina but those two don’t really count here. I either know people on the ground or havestood on the ground myself.

    You are stuck being you. For you that’s not a bad thing per se and I’m not tossing that out there as an insult nor anything that follows.
    You live by rules as you see them and I’d put it to the group that no matter how noble those rules and assorted other parameters are they are not based in reality.
    You constantly (since I’ve virtually known you) put out that x,y or z were terrorists,or terrified innocents etc. This simply doesn’t jive with Real Politik.

  167. Dan, there’s a slew of history books out there by real historians who don’t have a political axe to grind. Find one and read it.

    In the mean time, shut the fuck up…

  168. And your source for this???

    I’ve talked to people who lost family members to terrorist attacks in Nicaragua. I know people who come from there. I’ve seen credible reports, including from the Catholic Church (ah, but I know, they’re in on the cover up, too, dang Commie Catholics!).

    Unless you have SOMETHING CREDIBLE to counter evidence I’ve seen, heard and read, I will have to dismiss you as someone who looks at terrorism through rose colored glasses, choosing to ignore it when we do it/pay for it.

    Anything credible? Any evidence at all??

    No?

    I’ll resume ignoring your insubstantial apologies for Rightwing misdeeds.

  169. Gorilla, no, I’ll pass on shutting up. You’ve offered nothing credible, just unnamed “books.”

    I’ve read books. I’ve read reports. I’ve heard from first hand sources.

    If you want to believe Ollie North and Princess Pollyanna, go ahead. Everything is goodness and light. IF that’s what you want to believe.

    Myself, I’m interested in the Truth.

  170. Tell you what else doesn’t jive Alfie.

    Dan asking me how 1st Century Christians survived the first three centuries under Roman jurisdiction, believing that comparable to the practice of Islam. The man is clueless about Islam, even when the results of its practice stare him in the face.

    I guess Dan actually thinks the Roman Empire comparable to modern day fundamental Islam.

    Dumb analogy…real dumb. There’s the answer to your question Dan. I think it specious…

  171. You’re a poor guesser.

    Hugo Chavez is a flawed man with some serious human rights and free press concerns. Ditto Castro.

    Let me guess, you think North is a great man.

    Am I any closer than you were? Because you weren’t close at all.

  172. No, just a convicted war criminal.

    So, you dig the man? He the “Great White Warrior, Noble and Strong” to you?

    Perhaps I’m better at this mind reading crap than you all are. Because frankly, y’all stink at it.

    And does that mean you have no credible (ie, not Right Wing apologists) sources for believing your pollyanna view of Latin America?

  173. Do you mean to tell me that the Sandinista never hurt anyone?

    As I quite clearly noted, their is good evidence that the Sandinistas committed atrocious actions, too.

    But we weren’t PAYING and SUPPORTING the Sandinistas. And, beyond that, by all evidence, their crimes were of a much lesser nature and quantity than the Contras terrorism.

  174. “After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents.”

    He wasn’t convicted of war crimes, but of covering up war crimes and related illegal and immoral behavior. You’re not seriously suggesting that North DIDN’T sell weapons to Iran (illegally) and turn around and give that money to Nicaraguan terrorists (illegally), are you?

  175. He wasn’t convicted of war crimes, but of covering up war crimes and related illegal and immoral behavior.
    So was it a lie or exaggeration? Making a judgment based on your worldview which as I said earlier isn’t conducive to sitting at the grown up table.Well at least you sort of recanted.
    Did North and Co. sell weapons to Iran. Yes
    Was it illegal? No.
    Was using funds from the sales to aid the Contras illegal?Technically no. It ran counter to stated Administration policy and there is why and where people go after Reagan on the whole “who knew and when and why not if he didn’t” ???
    As for violating the Boland Amend. Well that is in the eye of the beholder . I’d say it was a crappy partisan amendment but was indeed a law that was violated.
    Oh yeah btw those convictions were vacated-right?

  176. Um, yeah. By Reagan-appointed judges for no legitimate reason other than payback.

    It’s that sort of sick politics that will kill our country, if anything will.

    And yes, you are right, a law was violated, the Boland Amendment. We funded terrorists (ie, those who engaged in documented terrorist actions – killing, raping, wounding).

    That was my point.

    Was my saying “He was a convicted war criminal” a lie or an exaggeration? Neither. He WAS convicted and he DID commit war crimes. By his own admission. Proud to do it, he said.

    Sick, sick, sick.

  177. Dan, you’re died in the wool lib. Did you vote for Obama too? 🙂 Did you get your Hope & Change and the rent paid for?

    Ain’t he something. I’ll bet you were a Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and Bill “Blue Dress” Clinton man too, weren’t you. A huge fan of John Kerry and Al Gore, with a predilection for the latter because you’re a proponent of anthropogenic global warming, hey?

    Is there a Leftist cause you don’t support Dan?

    Tell me something. Before you converted to Anabaptist or whatever you are calling yourself now, did you smoke a little weed with the long hairs, strum the guitar, attend Woodstock?

  178. Wow! There is a lot of venom for this post.

    It seems to me that Rutherford asked a valid question. At the risk of putting words in Rutherford’s mouth, these appear to be the available options:

    1) We (America/The West) are at war with Islam
    2) We are at war with radical Islam
    3) We are at war with terrorists – most of whom happen to be Muslim
    4) We’re at war with specific countries.
    5) War? What war?

    If the answer is “1”, then Rutherford asks what do you want to do about it? He presents a list of options that are indeed strawmen. But that was an intentional literary device on his part.

    The responses, save for a few, have completely missed the point. Maybe there’s a history between bloggers here that I am unaware of, but Rutherford’s question seems perfectly valid. Yes, Rutherford could have worded portions of his post better, but it appears many are picking at the nits, while ignoring the elephant.

    FWIW, I think options 2 and 3, as I defined them above, are where we are at.

  179. As I have already mentioned, I was a Reagan Republican until Reagan’s style of conservatism drove me away from that notion of conservatism.

    Didn’t care for Clinton so much, I do like Obama, but that’s mostly by comparison to the former disaster-in-chief. Not so much a fan of Kerry, either. Gore I’m rather indifferent about.

    As noted repeatedly, you all just aren’t very good at reading minds. I wouldn’t give up your day job.

    And, as noted before, I’m currently and always have been a tea-totaller straight arrow. I do love me some guitar and mandolin, though.

    Here I am singing with the kids at church…

    Hope that works…

  180. Wow, Dan has come unglued.

    But we weren’t PAYING and SUPPORTING the Sandinistas. And, beyond that, by all evidence, their crimes were of a much lesser nature and quantity than the Contras terrorism.” – Dan

    Oh, so your terrorism wasn’t as bad as mine? What the fuck kind of logic is that?!

    By the by, quote me were I say I supported the Contras or Oli North.

    I didn’t, did I. I said that the sources claiming that the Contras were committing human rights violations were biased because they were overwhelmingly pro-Sandinista. When you’re hitting for the other side, your opinions of the opposition don’t really matter.

    The Sandinista committed many of the same crimes as the Contras, as they were both after the same thing: control of the state. The only separator between the two, for me, is that one was communist and the other wasn’t. When picking between two evils, that is a decider.

  181. Um, yeah. By Reagan-appointed judges for no legitimate reason other than payback.

    Ummm, WRONG.

    Judge Gerhard Gessel, the trial judge overseeing the trial that convicted him, and later who dismissed the suspended convictions, was an LBJ appointee.

    And using testimony that is specifically exempted from use due to an immunity agreement is not “No legitimate reason”. Criminal procedure exists for a reason, and if the prosecutor breaks the damn rules, then he deserves to lose.

    The three judge panel on the DC Circuit which heard the appeal consisted of Abner Mikva, a Carter Appointee, and Laurence Silberman and David Sentelle, Reagan Appointees. None of the three jusdge panel were novices at the law, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the government’s appeal.

  182. You are correct, Gorilla, on those points, my bad. My point was, he DID take actions that were contrary to US law and supportive of terrorism and war crimes.

    And so, I AM correct that you are a fan of Ollie while you are wholly wrong when it comes to reading my mind, is that the case? Then perhaps you fellas ought to give up on the mind-reading and stick to basic facts and short sentences with small words…

    ha.

  183. You are correct, Gorilla, on those points, my bad. My point was, he DID take actions that were contrary to US law and supportive of terrorism and war crimes.

    And so, I AM correct that you are a fan of Ollie while you are wholly wrong when it comes to reading my mind, is that the case? Then perhaps you fellas ought to give up on the mind-reading and stick to basic facts and short sentences with small words…” – Dan

    You are a complete clown. You admit to being wrong and then presume that admission automatically translates to your own biased supposition of what I do or don’t believe? Who’s mind reading now?

    Once again, show me where I supported Olli North or the Contras?

    Again, I didn’t. I said that both the Sandinista and the Contras were bad but that one of them was worse than the other- the Sandinista.

    And you were just schooled, mighty handily I might add, on the “war crimes” claim. You’ve pretty much shot all the legs out from under your house of cards while simultaneously showing how unhinged you are.

    Again, thanks for playing…

  184. Ron, I’d say we’re at #3, recognizing that #2 is where Moderate Muslims need to go.

    If we ever get to #1, its because #3 failed.

  185. Ron, I’d say we’re at #3, recognizing that #2 is where Moderate Muslims need to go.

    If we ever get to #1, its because #2 failed.

  186. Oh, and the “War Crimes”?

    They seem to be absent from the twelve counts he was tried on in the district court:

    Count One: Obstruction of Congress in September and October 1985, when congressional committees sought information on press reports alleging that North was engaged in a variety of contra-support activities, in violation of the Boland prohibition on U.S. aid. The indictment charged that North and McFarlane obstructed Congress by falsely denying in three letters North’s contra-assistance efforts. The first letter was sent September 5, 1985, to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); the second, on September 12 to a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee; and the third, on October 7 to HPSCI, responding to additional questions.

    Counts Two, Three, and Four: False statements to Congress, charging specific misrepresentations in the three letters described in Count One. These included statements that North had not solicited funds or other support for the contras, had not provided military advice to them, and had not used his influence to facilitate the movement of supplies to the contras.

    Count Five: Obstruction of Congress in August 1986, charging that in a presentation to HPSCI members and staff, North falsely denied press accounts that he: (1) had given military advice to the contras; (2) had knowledge of specific military actions conducted by the contras; (3) had contact with retired Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub within the previous 20 months; (4) raised funds in support of the contras; (5) advised and guided Robert W. Owen with respect to the contras; and (6) had frequent contact with Owen.

    Count Six: Obstruction and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of congressional investigations in November 1986, charging that North helped draft a false chronology of the Iran arms sales and altered and destroyed documents in response to congressional inquiries into the Iran initiative.

    Count Seven: Obstruction of a presidential inquiry conducted by Attorney General Edwin Meese III from November 21-23, 1986. The indictment charged that North made false statements to Meese on November 23, including that: (1) the NSC had no involvement in the diversion of Iran arms sales proceeds to the contras; (2) the Israelis determined how much of the proceeds from the arms sales were diverted to the contras; and (3) North had advised contra leader Adolfo Calero to open bank accounts in Switzerland to receive the diverted funds. The indictment also charged that North obstructed the Meese inquiry by altering, destroying, concealing and removing relevant official documents.

    Count Eight: False statements on November 23, 1986, charging the specific misrepresentations North made to Meese as described in Count Seven.

    Count Nine: Concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, falsifying and destroying official NSC documents relevant to the Iran/contra matter from November 21-25, 1986.

    Count Ten: Receipt of an illegal gratuity, charging North with accepting a home-security system paid for by Secord, in exchange for official acts performed by North.

    Count Eleven: Conversion of traveler’s checks, charging that North from April 1985 to July 1986 personally used $4,300 in traveler’s checks from approximately $90,000 in checks given to him by Calero for hostage-release and contra-related expenses.

    Count Twelve: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. The indictment charged that beginning in the spring or summer of 1985, North and others conspired to defraud the United States by illegally using a tax-exempt organization, the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty (NEPL), to solicit money for weapons for the contras and other unlawful purposes.

    And the actual convictions? Yeah, no “war crimes” there, either:

    North was found guilty of:

    — Aiding and abetting an obstruction of congressional inquiries in November 1986 (Count Six).

    — Destroying and falsifying official NSC documents (Count Nine).

    — Receiving an illegal gratuity (Count Ten).

    You obviously aren’t a lawyer, and probably shouldn’t play one on TV, either.

  187. Again I ask you: Do you REALLY think North didn’t sell weapons to Iran illegally to give money to terrorists in Nicaragua illegally?

    You appear to admit that this happened, so, perhaps you just aren’t a morally rational person nor should you play one on TV, either.

  188. Gorilla…

    You admit to being wrong and then presume that admission automatically translates to your own biased supposition of what I do or don’t believe? Who’s mind reading now?

    I was admitting to being mistaken about the Reagan appointed judges and mistakenly thought you were the one who brought that up. I didn’t see your comment til later.

    And then I ASKED you (not predicted, ASKED – see the little question mark??) “And so, I AM correct that you are a fan of Ollie while you are wholly wrong when it comes to reading my mind, is that the case?” You never have answered the question and so I ASKED it again. I didn’t state that was the case, but based upon your continued non-answer, I was beginning to suspect that this might be the case.

    So, how about it: ARE YOU A FAN OF NORTH?

    Gorilla…

    I said that both the Sandinista and the Contras were bad but that one of them was worse than the other- the Sandinista.

    And you have yet to offer up any real world reason why I should accept your conclusion – despite what I have read, what I have heard in person from first hand witnesses, despite the graveyards I have looked at full of the end result of Contra intervention.

    For the record, I’ve never read anything by Chomsky about Nicaragua. Who have you read that makes you think there is an equivalency between the Sandinistas and the Contras? “Books” is not a compelling answer.

  189. Do you REALLY think North didn’t sell weapons to Iran illegally to give money to terrorists in Nicaragua illegally?
    The former wasn’t illegal no matter how many times you include it in the charge Dan.

  190. And you have yet to offer up any real world reason why I should accept your conclusion – despite what I have read, what I have heard in person from first hand witnesses, despite the graveyards I have looked at full of the end result of Contra intervention.” – Dan

    The fact that you read Chomsky says volumes…

    Listen, I don’t really care what your opinion of Nicaragua is. This has never been about Nicaragua, except in the fact that apparently, it is your white whale. You’ve tried to conflate guerrilla warfare, terrorism, dictatorships and junta’s together. These are not the same thing and frankly you can jump up and down panting like a 5 year old all you want, it won’t make them the same thing.

    And I’m sorry, because you said so, well, ok…

  191. Do you REALLY think North didn’t sell weapons to Iran illegally to give money to terrorists in Nicaragua illegally?” – Dan

    According to you, no.

    “After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents.”” – Dan @ 244

  192. Dan is confused individual – and he’s been wrong on virtually every subject he’s conversed here. Here’s a man that supports a President that sat in the church for 20 years and had his children baptized by a preacher that said things like “God Damn America…the chickens have come home to roost.” A blatant racist and spiritual adviser to Dan’s man.

    The mighty kazoo band – and that’s about the Christian influence Dan and his church carry.

    Dan, do me a favor. This isn’t my blog. But when you’re addressing me, I don’ t care to discuss scripture anymore. My gut tells me you’re to be avoided…

  193. When have you EVER discussed scripture here? You appear to be fairly ignorant of scriptures, brother. That, and you seem to confuse your interpretation with God’s own words.

    You appear to worship yourself, friend, and that would make for a sad, sad god. But any time you’d ever actually like to talk about scripture, you just let me know.

    In the meantime, I’ll discuss the Bible if it comes up, I don’t need your permission.

  194. Again I ask you: Do you REALLY think North didn’t sell weapons to Iran illegally to give money to terrorists in Nicaragua illegally?

    Dan, you didn’t ask me. I just jumped in to correct your lies about his convictions and the vacation of the convictions.

    You appear to admit that this happened, so, perhaps you just aren’t a morally rational person nor should you play one on TV, either.

    I admitted nothing of the sort, nor did I “appear” to do so. A jury of his peers declined to convict him on that charge, and therefore, I cannot legally say that it happened.

    I’d love to address your assertion about my being “morally rational”, but I’m having trouble finding a definition.

  195. Dan, 🙂

    Your theological ignorance stands as a monument here. Enough said.

    I have nothing to prove to you, and you’ve yet to stump me or teach me a thing I didn’t know, besides forcing me to look up Anabaptist history (cult like), so I have no idea how you would know my shortcomings. Like your statement about my supposed ignorance of Muslims from above, you presume much for someone you don’t know. Unlike you, I’ve shared little here with you because frankly, I’ve never met anybody on Rutherford’s board that bores me more.

    Debating you is like debating any liberal theologian I’ve met across the net. You quote the same tired phrases with the same stupid analogies straight out of something like Jeremiah Wright’s Church, who invariably twists scripture for self-aggrandizement. I would characterize you as a modern day Balaam. I doubt anybody here is blown away with your abilities.. Your Old Testament ignorance is astounding, and your a smorgasbord of contradictions. Color me unimpressed with your wit or expertise concerning theology.

    As for everything else? You’ve been shown to be either completely uninformed, a propagandist, or concerning a few examples a bald faced liar quoting baloney as fact. And worse, you don’t have the sense to be embarrassed as you indulge yourself in the next subject.

    Now, hear this so you understand me completely, because like your comments, your reading comprehension is weak.

    In the meantime, I’ll discuss the Bible if it comes up, I don’t need your permission.

    I said don’t discuss it with me. I find your perversion of scripture and inadherence to even general guidelines twisted and retching. And yes, you do need my permission to discuss it with me sport. I ask nicely once, just in case I wasn’t clear the first time.

  196. Oh? And asking nicely is supposed to matter?

    It didn’t seem to matter when I asked you not to slander me, nor when I asked you to address personal comments in a personal email. Or when I just asked you questions.

    Seems like, if I were playing by your rules, asking nicely wouldn’t mean a dang thing.

    Fortunately for you, I’m not playing by your rules.

  197. I will say, “Stop discussing the Bible with me” is one of the strangest requests I’ve heard a Christian ask someone else. But tell you what: I’ll let you make the call on this one, Tex:

    What would YOU say if someone asked you to stop discussing the Bible with them? What is the rule that you think you should abide by? Tell me that and I’ll strive to abide by your ruling.

  198. What would YOU say if someone asked you to stop discussing the Bible with them? What is the rule that you think you should abide by? Tell me that and I’ll strive to abide by your ruling.

    Abide by their wishes and practice what I preach. One day, you and I can take it off the board and we will match wits to see if I’m as simple as you attest. Paradoxically, that is also what I think of your depth and intellect.

    Iron sharpens iron…

    But not here…

  199. Any time you’d like to visit my blog or email me, feel free. I just posted today a look at economic messages found within Psalms 62 – 73. It’s part of a larger, on-going series on “The Bible and Economics” where I am working on quoting from the Bible a fairly exhaustive list of passages that deal with wealth, poverty, money, economic oppression, living simply, living within our means, etc.

    You can find a listing of the whole series here, if you’re interested…

    http://bibleandeconomics.blogspot.com/

  200. Hey Dan, for your reading pleasure. No, I don’t want to talk about it…

    Shariah a danger to U.S., security pros say

    A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States.

    In a report set for release today, the panel states that “it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam’s authentic moderates and reformers.”

  201. Your link doesn’t work.

    So, you’re saying that the “experts” agree with me? That we need to do what we can to empower Islam’s moderates? Okay, thanks for the support.

  202. Well, I was relying on GORILLA’s quote that says, “it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam’s authentic moderates and reformers.” That being my position, all along.

    Are you suggesting that Gorilla’s quote does NOT reflect the opinion of these particular “experts?”

    I’ll try your link out again…

  203. Whilst I’m perusing your link, I’ll note this quote from a Right Wing Watchdog group…

    Founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, the Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a prominent member of the militarist advocacy community…

    In a 2002 article about CSP, journalist Jason Vest summarized: “Gaffney and CSP’s prescriptions for national security have been fairly simple: Gut all arms control treaties, push ahead with weapons systems virtually everyone agrees should be killed … give no quarter to the Palestinians and, most important, go full-steam ahead on just about every national missile defense program…”

    Since the election of President Barack Obama, CSP has served as a vocal opponent to administration security policies, issuing alarmist pronouncements that question the president’s patriotism and pushing exaggerated threat assessments…

    rightweb.irc-online.org

    So, if you’re pointing to a right wing organization that makes claims consistent with right wing opinions, well, that WOULD be surprising, huh?

    Still, I’ll check ’em out.

  204. Well, I was relying on GORILLA’s quote that says, “it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam’s authentic moderates and reformers.” That being my position, all along.” – Dan

    Except that you wouldn’t know one if he smacked you in the mouth. How do I know? Because every single time I’ve asked you what a moderate is, you have failed to provide a definition, let alone an example.

    In fact, you fail at this because you’ve used Rauf as an example of a moderate, when he is in fact not.

  205. Really?

    IPS is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power. http://www.ips-dc.org/about

    You never cease to disgust me. Oooooo, boogey-man right win propaganda, let me whip out my handy dandy left-wing propaganda and call myself learned and moderate.

    I can so see you typing away with a ball in your mouth…

  206. I believe I have answered your what is a moderate question over and over. Here it is again: A Muslim Moderate is one who is willing to live and let live. He may like to see you convert to Islam (just as Christians would like to see you convert to Christianity), but if you DON’T convert, then okay. That is okay with the moderate (Muslim, Christian or otherwise).

    The moderate won’t kill you, he won’t jail you, he won’t torture your or terrorize you if you don’t agree with them. They won’t even demonize, slander or bully you. THAT is what I mean by a moderate.

    What do YOU mean by a moderate?

    Did you see the answer THIS time? Or would you like me to repeat it yet again?

  207. So your right wing source has this to say, in its introduction…

    Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the to-
    talitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive
    legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of
    shariah as a “religious” code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the
    secular sphere – economic, social, military, legal and political.

    Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle.

    On one side of the divide are Muslim
    reformers and authentic moderates – figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and
    leader of the world’s largest libertarian Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama – whose members embrace
    the Enlightenment’s veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms.

    On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be im-
    posed on the life of a pluralistic society.

    By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists.

    Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employ-
    ing stealthier means – seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic
    state and called a caliphate.

    On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah.

    For these ideologues, shariah is not a private
    matter.

    So, even though it is right wing writ, they agree with me on the problem: That there are SOME Muslim extremists who would like to impose Sharia law by force. There are OTHERS (“moderates”) who are willing to live and let live.

    By the authors’ admission, they are not saying they know how many are in the extremist group vs the moderate group. Still, we agree that there are moderates and extremists. Nothing sensational there.

    cont’d…

  208. Your source also notes…

    First, the shariah adherents who comprise the supremacist camp constitute a mainstream and dynamic movement in Islam. Importantly, that characterization does not speak to the question of whether this camp is or is not representative of the “true Islam.”

    There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and their understandings about their belief-system, as well as their practices with respect to it, vary. In light of this, there may not be a single “true Islam.” If there is one, we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.

    Okay, fair enough, we still agree.

    Continuing…

    Consequently, regardless of what percentage of the global Islamic population adheres or otherwise
    defers to shariah… it is punching well above its weight. For that reason, it is a serious threat to the United States even if we as-
    sume, for argument’s sake, that hopeful pundits are correct in claiming that shariah Islam is not the preponderant Muslim ideology.

    Here, the appear to have jumped over from saying that sharia’s meaning depends upon who’s defining it, to associating it with the extremists’ view only. A mistake on their part, if that’s what they’re doing…

    A second point is that it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam’s authentic moderates and reformers…

    Again, my point all along…

    That cannot be done by following the failed strategy of fictionalizing the state of Islam in the vain hope that reality will, at
    some point, catch up to the benign fable.tion at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam’s authentic moderates and reformers.

    Who is “fictionalizing” the state of Islam and how are they doing so? This group seems to want to associate being reasonable with reasonable Muslims with ignoring the threat posed by extremists, but I know of no one doing this so the point (if that is the point) is moot, meaningless.

    Anyway, I’m not reading their whole book. They seem to generally agree with my/our points, in their introduction and conclusion sections. They seem to departing in agreement with my understanding in suggesting that some of us are ignoring the threat posed by “stealth moderates.” I don’t believe that to be the case at all and I see nothing here to support such a claim.

    Do they really think that we can be “tricked” into giving up our civil rights by “stealth moderates” twisting our own rules to their benefit? No, I don’t think we’re that stupid. No more than we can be tricked by “stealth conservatives” twisting our political system and polluting it with half-truth and out right lying smear campaigns.

    At least I would hope not.

  209. No Dan, they do not agree with you.

    The author is calling a moderate, with reference to Sharia, one who differs with the traditional socio-political application of the religious law by synthesizing and internalizing the modified interpretation of Sharia.

    A non-moderate, would be an Islamist, or one who supports the traditional application of Sharia.

    This is what infuriates me with you, you comment on Sharia like you understand what it is, but clearly you do not. This is why you consistently fail to grasp concepts like Taqqiya, innovation or fiqh.

    I’m sure I’m going to regret this…

  210. What about this:

    A non-moderate, would be an Islamist, or one who supports the traditional application of Sharia.

    …is different than what I said:

    <BA Muslim Moderate is one who is willing to live and let live. He may like to see you convert to Islam (just as Christians would like to see you convert to Christianity), but if you DON’T convert, then okay. [with the inverse being that an “Islamist” (as this group is calling them) is NOT okay with a live and let live approach]?

    The only difference I’m seeing is that they are wiling to say that what they call the “traditional application of Sharia” is the one that is not okay with live and let live, whereas I’m doing what they SAID they were going to do – “If there is one [ie, One True Belief about Sharia], we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.”

  211. “If there is one [ie, One True Belief about Sharia], we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.” – Dan

    No Dan, they said:
    In light of this, there may not be a single “true Islam.” If there is one, we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.

    IF and MAY are pretty definitive in the sense that it isn’t definitive. Your presumption, at any rate, amount to putting words in their mouth.

  212. You’re nitpicking, sounds like to me.

    My position is that
    1. we need to deal with and support moderate reasonable Muslims.
    2. We need to stand opposed to/arrest/stop those who are dangerous and
    3. We need to be cautious about any that would use our rules (ANYONE – extremist Muslims or extremist Christians or extremist atheists) to try to legislate their pet religious rules in ways that violate natural law and our liberties.

    This is a reasonable position that I don’t think anyone disagrees with. Even your right wing group.

    When it comes to details, we may get into disagreements, but in their general overview, I don’t know that anyone much disagrees with them and it certainly seems compatible with my position.

    If you want to get into details, by all means, do so. But the rules (as I outline them above and as I’ve BEEN talking about) are sound logical rules.

    You sound like you want to argue against someone that does not exist here. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead, let me know if you ever want me to join that conversation.

  213. You’re nitpicking, sounds like to me.
    My position is that
    1. we need to deal with and support moderate reasonable Muslims.
    [Gorilla: of which you can’t identify, let alone define. Nebular, subjective terms like ‘reasonable’ or ‘moderate’ don’t say anything. ]

    2. We need to stand opposed to/arrest/stop those who are dangerous and
    [Gorilla: still locked into a law enforcement mindset. I’ll let you arrest the suicide bomber…]

    3. We need to be cautious about any that would use our rules (ANYONE – extremist Muslims or extremist Christians or extremist atheists) to try to legislate their pet religious rules in ways that violate natural law and our liberties.
    [Gorilla: Liberals perhaps? Environmentalist? ]

    This is a reasonable position that I don’t think anyone disagrees with. Even your right wing group.
    When it comes to details, we may get into disagreements, but in their general overview, I don’t know that anyone much disagrees with them and it certainly seems compatible with my position.
    ” – Dan

    It isn’t a position, it is one of the vaguest non answers ever. The details are important, except that your ignorance makes the details something that we cannot talk about. You haven’t even been clear on your position, aside from a pacifist position.

    If you want to get into details, by all means, do so. But the rules (as I outline them above and as I’ve BEEN talking about) are sound logical rules.

    You sound like you want to argue against someone that does not exist here. If you want to argue with yourself, go ahead, let me know if you ever want me to join that conversation.” – Dan

    What rules?

    See, I knew I was going to regret this. Dan, I’d just assume you go fuck yourself…

  214. So, we agree on the generalities and you don’t want to bring up any specifics? Fair enough. We agree on the generalities, then.

    If you ever want to deal with specifics…

  215. Gorilla:

    of which you can’t identify, let alone define. Nebular, subjective terms like ‘reasonable’ or ‘moderate’ don’t say anything.

    Hey, I can’t really help it if, after several times of offering a specific definition, you can’t read it. It’s there, in quite specific terms.

    Is it the case you’re not seeing it somehow or that you just aren’t capable of reading definitions? That might explain a lot, actually…

  216. Here, Gorilla, let me ask the question again specifically, and I’ll type slowly to try to help:

    MY DEFINITION OF A MODERATE MUSLIM:

    A Muslim Moderate is one who is willing to live and let live. He may like to see you convert to Islam (just as Christians would like to see you convert to Christianity), but if you DON’T convert, then okay.

    With the inverse being that aN extremist Muslim (ie, NOT a moderate) is NOT okay with a live and let live approach.

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DEFINITION, OR DO YOU NEED ME TO USE SMALLER WORDS OR OTHERWISE CLARIFY?

  217. A Muslim Moderate is one who is willing to live and let live. He may like to see you convert to Islam (just as Christians would like to see you convert to Christianity), but if you DON’T convert, then okay. ” – Dan

    Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Islam?
    Jizza?
    Shariah?

    I’ll ask you again, to provide an example and I’ll also ask you again to define moderate. Do moderates follow Shariah? How do hadiths and fatwas impact ‘moderate’ Muslims?

  218. FIRST THINGS FIRST.

    DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT SEE THE DEFINITION I HAVE GIVEN YOU?

    If you can’t read my words, then there’s no point in repeating the examples of moderates, as you won’t be able to see that any better than you can my definition.

  219. You have yet to define it.

    I have asked you, several times, what does that mean? Look two comments up- how do those those factors, common and standard elements of Islam, play into your moderate definition. I have asked you to provide an example of a moderate, of which you have still failed to do. Is Rauf a moderate to you?

    Regurgitating vague generalities like “live and let live” really don’t mean anything. Should I define ‘definition’ for you so you can understand what I’m asking?

  220. You have yet to define it.

    This is factually not true in the real world. I DID define it.

    What does it MEAN when I define Moderate as one who won’t kill you or imprison you if you don’t accept their faith? IT MEANS JUST THAT!

    What do you MEAN what does it mean? The language is clear. What part are you having trouble understanding?

    Address what you think is unclear in my definition and I can address your lack of understanding. Just saying, “Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Islam? Jizza? Shariah?” is not a critique of my definition. I don’t know what you mean by any of that.

    Territory of war/territory of peace? What the hell?

    I’m saying (and read closely so you get my understanding) IF MUSLIMS DON’T KILL YOU, OPPRESS YOU, HARM YOU IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, THEN THEY ARE MODERATES.

    I don’t care what they identify (or don’t identify) as al-Harb or al-Islam, I care about their actions. IF their actions are not moderate as I describe clearly, then they are not moderate.

    Understand?

  221. “Dar al-Harb/Dar al-Islam? Jizza? Shariah?” is not a critique of my definition. I don’t know what you mean by any of that.” – Dan

    Exactly my point.

    You don’t know what is in Islam, you don’t understand the doctrine or the tenets, and so you are not capable of recognizing a moderate position, let alone a moderate representative.

    And I’m sorry, to listen to you- of all people- complain about ‘definitions’ is more than a little disingenuous. You have used ‘definitions’ to exhaust conversations with tedious, pointless dribble that isn’t associated with the discussion at hand. The one time when the point of the conversation is definition, you suddenly fade into inarticulate vagueness.

    No Dan, it is not my lack of understanding, it is your lack of knowledge and refusal to admit such.

  222. Well, there WAS a definition there and it WAS pretty clear and specific. My definition does not require that I understand all facets of Islam, my definition is not faith-specific. IF you can live and let live, then you are a moderate. IF you will enforce your religion by law on rules that are faith-specific (as opposed to natural law), then you are NOT a moderate.

    You want to stone gays because they don’t agree with your faith tradition? You are not a moderate.

    You wish gay folk would be straight, but if they’re not, well, that’s on them? You’re a moderate.

    You would like to see laws requiring women to cover their cleavage and, if you don’t get those laws passed, you harass and assault the women who do so anyway, you are not a moderate. If you are concerned about the prevalence of cleavage in the world but if laws aren’t passed and cleavage isn’t outlawed, you live with it without oppressing those who disagree with you, you are a moderate.

    It’s fairly straightforward and clear, seems to me. I can’t help it if you can’t see a definition when one is presented to you.

    Of course, I suspect that you DO see it and you disagree with it for some reason or another, but I have no idea why, since you didn’t say. Instead, you just insist that I haven’t given a definition for a moderate, which any grade school reader can see is obviously not true.

    Gorilla, you’d do better in communicating if you’d acknowledge reality rather than trying to argue with strawmen.

    You know, like “Okay Dan, yeah, you’re right. You DID give a definition. My problem with your definition (that you DID clearly give) is…”

    Like that. But just denying reality just makes you look ridiculous and like an extremist partisan.

  223. my definition is not faith-specific.

    This is the crux of the problem Dan. Gorilla is positing as many others do that the faith-specific definition of moderate in the context of Islam is something none of us would agree is truly moderate, e.g. acceptance of Sharia law.

    I am woefully ignorant of Islam and the devil is in the details. I know enough to know it is one strange bird. Sharia law I think is the major thing that makes Islam one strange bird. The only Christian analogy I can think of is excommunication from the Catholic church if you divorce. Other than that, I have trouble identifying Christian examples of doctrine that are executed in modern society with the brutality of Islam.

    I have long maintained that religion is a salad bar. There are MANY Muslims who go to the Islam salad bar and pick only those “foods” that nourish their souls and don’t feed their hatred. There are some very vocal and visible Muslims who go to the salad bar and eat the hot tamales and get all fired up and kill people.

    I think the problem that arises is when some folks say that a Muslim, moderate in behavior, is not a real Muslim.

  224. Rutherford, did someone hijack your identity? You’re getting warmer. Almost distancing yourself form the inane muslim-as-victim rhetoric. And, you didn’t berate Gorilla for criticising the manner in which Dan presents himself.

  225. This is the crux of the problem Dan. Gorilla is positing as many others do that the faith-specific definition of moderate in the context of Islam is something none of us would agree is truly moderate, e.g. acceptance of Sharia law.” – R

    Exceedingly well said, which is why I echo Tigre’s concern about your health- you ok?

    This is the other reason why I want Dan to provide an example, which he either can’t do, or refuses to do.

  226. As stated, I’m waiting to find out if you can even read what I’ve written. DO YOU SEE THE DEFINITION I GAVE – HAVE GIVEN MULTIPLE TIMES?

    Why carry on if you can’t see my clear answers?

    Yes, I refuse to answer until you address my ACTUAL position.

    Rutherford, I get your point. My point, though, is BEHAVIOR-specific. IF a Muslim behaves in a moderate manner (as I have defined), he/she IS a moderate as far as I’m concerned. IF they don’t behave in a moderate manner (Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian…), then they are NOT a moderate.

    I don’t care so much what you believe or don’t, in deciding if you’re a moderate. I believe in what you DO and SAY. Actions, not thoughts.

  227. I echo Tigre’s concern about your health- you ok?

    LOL … yeah fine. One of the things I actually excel at is mediating between two opposing opinions. I’m actually better at that than strictly partisan politics but that’s not as much fun on a blog is it? 😉

    The reason Dan is not providing the example you seek, IMHO, is because he has defined himself out of the argument. His “moderate” plays by Dan’s rules, or perhaps the rules of any decent human being. Your argument is that such a moderate is contrary to the major tenets of Islam.

    It kinda reminds me of the gentleman Mafia hit man. He is honor bound not to kill your wife or your kids but he will blow your head off. Is he a “moderate”?

    One thing perhaps that someone here can answer for me … is Sharia law codified in the Koran or is it a separate entity? I suspect the latter.

    I see two problems that revolve around the numbers. We’ve got about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. I simply cannot fathom that many people devoted to a religion of “hate”. Second, we’ve got Christians composing more than 2 billion people. So just by the numbers, who is winning the “religious war”? Seems Christians are in no great danger of being supplanted by Muslims.

  228. Dan, here is the problem. A man, regardless of religion, who behaves in a moderate manner is by definition moderate. I think we can all fully agree with that. This makes him a moderate human but does it make him a moderate Muslim?

    The problem which you and I are both very concerned about is that zealotry has led many to deny Muslims their basic HUMAN qualities. They have turned Muslims into monsters such that the average Muslim is deemed incapable of ignoring the radical parts of his faith.

    Again, it comes down to folks defining what it is to be a true believer. This is one of my several gripes about organized religion. It is a f*cking country club. Folks pass judgment (Christians, Jews, Muslims, the whole lot) on who is a real member and who is not. It’s the same thing we’re seeing with RINO’s. If a Republican actually wants to reason … and perhaps compromise to move the ball forward, he is ostracized as “not a real Republican”.

    It’s the juvenile club mentality that most of us have not grown out of since we graduated from high school.

  229. Oh … and before anyone else points this out, the same thing goes on with the Dem’s and the so called Blue Dogs.

    Of course, libs are excluded from the country club, group think mentality? They never leave their unearned ivory towers. It must be wonderful to be so gifted – we little people just wished your great confidence carried over to positive results instead of abject failure.

    Pffftt.

    The most judgmental, intolerant clan in the world are American libs. Hypocrites and liars – all overrated.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s