Article

2006-11-24 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2006-11-24 02:50|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Frankly, Christian theologians need to conduct the same criticisms of Islam, that Muslims toss at other faiths. Interfaith contacts benefit only Muslims.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-11-24 06:54|| 2006-11-24 06:54|| Front Page Top

#2 Why does the Left choose to fight "radical Christianists" and ignore the radical Islamists? I've got something of a theory: Rosie et al. are lifestyle liberals who, not to put too fine a point on it, want to do what they want to do if it feels good, free of negative consequence. The Judeo-Christian notion of "sin" is that there are certain things you are not supposed to do even if you want to and it feels good, and there are negative consequences for sin. These people have been hearing disapproval of what they want to do from traditional Judeo-Christian sources all their lives, and so those people are the enemy!

Why do they not feel the same way about Islamofascists?

1. They've never lived under sharia and they don't know any Wahabbi imams.

2. The Wahabbi imams hate the Christers almost as much as they do, and while the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he's someone I can do business with if I have to.

Posted by Mike 2006-11-24 08:18|| 2006-11-24 08:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Perhaps Rosie should remember that Radical Islam wants death by stoning to gays and adulterers AND apostates.

Radical Islam wants NO separation of church and state and that means Mullahs instead of High Court Judges, and an Ayatollah or Sheikh instead of a president.

Oh and Rosie, when the Radical Islamists take over, your word is worth 1/2 of that of a man's in the court of Sharia law.

And if you are raped, because you didn't wear a burqa you deserved it and should be imprisoned because you are 50% responsible for the crime.

Posted by anon1 2006-11-24 08:19|| 2006-11-24 08:19|| Front Page Top

#4 Oh and Rosie, when the Radical Islamists take over, your word is worth 1/2 of that of a man's in the court of Sharia law.

Actually, I believe it is ¼th, but whose counting. The Rosies of the world bash "radical Christianity" (*I have no idea what that is) because Christians, no matter how radical, won't be sawing their heads off for insulting Christ!

Hey! Maybe we ought to borrow a few plays from the muzzie playbook.

Posted by Mick Dundee 2006-11-24 09:18|| 2006-11-24 09:18|| Front Page Top

#5 the muzzie playbook

To be blunt: the playbook that has winning plays in it tends to be the one that, sooner or later, everybody uses. Every group with an axe to grind and goals to accomplish will eventually use Islamo-fascist tactics. I'm not pointing my finger at Christiantity - we baby Jesus loving types have been pretty restrained for a long time - but the other guys seem to have changed the rules.

I wonder how old "gun owners should all be put in jail" Rosie O'Donnell is going to react to the first gay suicide bomber? How about the first time Act Up stages a hostage crisis? Sound fantastic? It shouldn't: the rules have changed.

Forever.

Posted by Secret Master 2006-11-24 11:35|| 2006-11-24 11:35|| Front Page Top

#6 This fat f**king bitch is the ruination of this show. This fat sow would be exterminated within seconds by jihadis the instant her loud pie hole flapped open. Actually, seeing her head sawed off her fatass wouldn't bother me, very much unlike Daniel Pearl.

Posted by SpecOp35 2006-11-24 13:48|| 2006-11-24 13:48|| Front Page Top

#7 SpecOp35, we don't advocate harm to American citizens on this blog no matter how odious their beliefs. Rosie is entitled to her beliefs even though I (and most everyone here) believe she's a clueless, harmful idiot. So let's tone down comments that might be interpreted as threats. Thanks, the management. AoS.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-11-24 16:44|| 2006-11-24 16:44|| Front Page Top

#8 A question for Rosie O'Donnell:

If there is no difference between Christian fundimentalists and Muslim, how come there aren't mass demonstrations calling for Andres Serrano and Phillip Pullman's deaths?

Posted by Korora">Korora 2006-11-24 17:23|| 2006-11-24 17:23|| Front Page Top

#9 "Why does the Left choose to fight "radical Christianists" and ignore the radical Islamists?"

My theory's a little different from yours: Rosie et al are miserable people, and their misery makes them hateful. The hatred needs a target, and "Christianists" are handy, trendy targets, and above all safe ones.

The hatred comes first-- and the bullshit rationalization of its object comes later.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-11-24 17:52|| 2006-11-24 17:52|| Front Page Top

#10 she should petition Sharia for Gay Marriage. They might not want to deal with her tho', with their distaste for pork

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-11-24 18:34|| 2006-11-24 18:34|| Front Page Top

#11 To address the moron known as Rosie before going deeper into this:

My theory's a little different from yours: Rosie et al are miserable people, and their misery makes them hateful. The hatred needs a target, and "Christianists" are handy, trendy targets, and above all safe ones.

Bingo, David D.. Christians are a safer target. They do not threaten to saw your head off for defaming their religion. It is far easier for someone of Rosies moral and mental laxity to criticize a perceived (or trumped up) enemy at home than to do her homework, abandon her own preconceived notions, and unite with fellow Americans, Christian or otherwise, in the common cause of preserving our nation. Rosie and too many other liberals are so blinded in their hatred for America that they cannot see the Islamic forest for their own ideological trees.

Back on topic:

Were living through the battle of the born-agains: Bush the born-again Christian, bin Laden the born-again Muslim.

Again, Ill call into question just how badly mistaken Bush may have been to not point up the threat of Islamism to some greater degree during this last election cycle. No, he did not have to declare war on the entire Muslim world, but there certainly may have been some real merit to militating the American public towards a better understanding of the enemy we face.

The authors above comparison is quite puerile with respect to the larger issues at hand. This same infantile assessment is reflected further along as well:

But its hard not to warm to an author who describes the United States as the worlds God-intoxicated hegemon with such implacable plonking earnestness.

If ever there was a God-intoxicated hegemon, it is Islam. To ignore this vital fact solely for the sake of engaging in another stale round of Bush-bashing is both irresponsible and a disservice to the reading public, who would be far better served by having their attention directed to the larger threat.

Without question, the media has been the most egregious violator when it comes to being off-message, unless one accepts that their true intention is to promote Islam at the cost of national security. However, in light of the powers vested in him by dint of office, Bush has also strayed well off message. It is also quite possible that Bush underestimated how many Americans he enraged by actively eroding the separation of church and state. He gave his administration an unmistakable air of Christian dogma and not only made it easier for Islam to paint our nation as Christian Crusaders, but lent an easy foothold to domestic critics as well. People like Rosie are sufficiently shortsighted whereby a threat nextdoor can easily consume whatever meager reserves of attention span they may have and thereby prevent such mental midgets from recognizing the larger threat of Islam.

Make no mistake, Islam is the greater danger and, more often than not, the ~~great unwashed~~ uneducated have little if any notion of just how significant the threat is. Bushs mumbling in his bully pulpit has not helped this one whit. His continued address of Islam as The Religion of Peace has almost entirely ~~neutered~~ neutralized any momentum he might have gained from finally trotting out the far more appropriate name, Islamofacism.

The articles author refers to:

a stealth campaign to inflict upon the US a future in which American politics and culture have been systematically purged of secularism, and in which the Constitution will be rewritten to bring it into line with the moral and sexual worldview of the Vatican. Thats quite the ambition. American religiosity is for the most part strikingly unRoman and Father Neuhaus himself finds the evangelicals a bit of a bore, what with their forced happiness and joy and awful music.

This is a direct reflection of public dissatisfaction with Bushs erosion of church and state, even if his actions nowhere approach the hysteria projected by the above quote. You can be certain that less well read morons and knee-jerks will gleefully bash Bush for doing exactly what is cited above, even though there is a yawning gulf between the quotes content and actual reality.

in America the church is about to swallow the state

That the above quote even received page space from the press shows just how sensitive, if not completely overblown, this issue is.

I fully understand that Bush, as a Christian, most likely feels personally compelled to bring forward his faith in personal life. Questions arise when that same faith may interfere with this nations unity, political cohesion or even its security. Bush may well have alienated more hawkish elements of the republican electorate with his reluctance to prosecute the Middle East campaign in a more decisive fashion. His PC approach must have been seen by them to stink as sweet as any liberal spoutings of the same balderdash.

Combine this with his inability to project a clear message regarding the massive threat that Islam poses to our nation, its liberties and even its religious institutions and the damage only multiplies. Clearly, there was a substantial portion of crossover voters that migrated away from the republican message. The resulting defeat for republicans will do far more damage to our national security than any potential risks from denouncing Islam more clearly or simply backing away, at least temporarily, from his decidedly Christian agenda. This howling about Theocrats would seem to point rather strongly at such a perception, regardless of whatever substance, or lack thereof, they may actually contain.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-24 21:17|| 2006-11-24 21:17|| Front Page Top

23:40 gorb
23:35 Mark Z
23:31 Mark Z
23:28 gorb
23:27 Mark Z
23:21 gorb
23:20 gorb
23:18 Seafarious
23:17 gorb
23:17 Seafarious
23:17 gorb
23:14 Mark Z
23:09 gorb
23:06 gorb
22:59 wxjames
22:57 C-Low
22:48 Zenster
22:44 rjschwarz
22:42 Zenster
22:42 gorb
22:40 Verlaine
22:37 Zenster
22:32 Zenster
22:29 Verlaine