Oh.. what to call it.
Naming America's Nameless War
We shouldn't have stopped anyway, in the 14th century. The threat remains, and is growing exponentially, with invasion of Islam into nominally Christian civilization.
A central goal of our foreign policy should be the isolation and enfeeblement of Islam, which is a mortal threat to civilization. A central goal of our domestic policy should be to foster the re-growth of Christian civilization, which is our last best hope.
Let's see... Need to "enfeeble" Muslims, atheists, gays, and liberals, all of whom are a threat to civilization.ReplyDelete
Did I forget anyone?
I did, I did!Delete
Evolutionary biologists, climate scientists, lawyers, welfare recipients, the IRS, the NSF, the mainstream media, public schools, universities, and Wikipedia.
And I am not even half done!
What do you recommend that we do about Islam?
Read the following clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Unless you are prepared to argue that the Founding Fathers only meant Christianity by "religion."Delete
So the religion clauses of the First Amendment prevent us from taking any action unfavorable to Islam?
Does that apply to Christianity as well?
So when atheists take actions using government coercion (lawsuits, etc)unfavorable to Christianity, that violates the religion clauses of the First Amendment?
A private lawsuit is not government coercion.Delete
I'd be happy if the government would simply stop discouraging Christianity and discriminating against its adherents. It doesn't need to foster it.ReplyDelete
Muslims...don't get me started. I'd love to coexist with them, but it appears that coexistence is not their strong suit.
Mornin' Popeye! So how are Christian Fundamentalists [cue ominous music here] trying to FORCE their religion on you?ReplyDelete
Christians fight for prayer and curriculum that supports their religion in public schools, they try to dictate who can marry based on their religious views, they try to limit access to contraception for non believers, they try to force women to carry unwanted babies to term, they fight to suppress ideologies, facts, and histories that don’t support their beliefs, they fight to use the public square to promote their religion, they openly brag that they make public policy decisions based on their faith, etc. etc. etc.ReplyDelete
On the majority of social issues Muslims and Christians are largely in agreement, differing only in that Muslims are more extreme in the lengths they will go to in order to ensure everyone conforms. On the spectrum of human beliefs it’s hard to imagine two belief systems more closely aligned. Islam is after all the third Abrahamic religion, simply adding another book of revelation.ReplyDelete
Fighting one crazy faith based belief system with another that is as close to its ideological twin as it gets is hardly a recipe for a better world. Unfortunately Christians can’t really mount a substantive argument against Islam because the only valid arguments undermine their own religious beliefs.
On the majority of social issues Muslims and Atheists-in-Power are largely in agreement, differing only in that Muslims are less extreme in the lengths they will go to in order to ensure everyone conforms. On the spectrum of human beliefs it’s hard to imagine two belief systems more closely aligned. Islam is after all a totalitarian religion, just like atheism, simply adding a book of revelation.
Fighting one crazy faith based belief system with another that is as close to its ideological twin as it gets is hardly a recipe for a better world. Unfortunately atheists can’t really mount a substantive argument against Islam because the only valid arguments undermine their own irreligious beliefs.
You’re crazy. Both Christians and Muslims subscribe to the Ten Commandments, the difference being that the Muslims in power actually try to enforce as law the commandments that we would find unconstitutional. Who in this country is arguing that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our law and should be prominently displayed? Not atheists. Christianity and Islam are like fraternal twins that don’t get along.Delete
Comparison of Islam, Christianity, and Atheism in power:
All Islamic States are authoritarian, at least.
All states with established Christian churches are democracies with long records of respecting human rights.
How would you summarize the record of Atheism in power?
"You’re crazy. Both Christians and Muslims subscribe to the Ten Commandments.."
No. The Muslims have 195 commandments known as 'the heart of morality'. There are some that are obvious rip offs of the Mosiac laws, but they have been altered to suit the Muslim creed.
"... the difference being that the Muslims in power actually try to enforce as law the commandments that we would find unconstitutional. "
The constitution (of the US?) is not a biblical or koranic text.
"Who in this country is arguing that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our law and should be prominently displayed? Not atheists."
What's your point? Is it that state-atheists believe that laws should be entirely subjective to those in power? We all know that. They have demonstrated it very well.
"Christianity and Islam are like fraternal twins that don’t get along."
They may have the same great, great grandfather (Abraham) but they are born almost 700 years apart to different parents in different regions. Islam is an offshoot, not a twin. One is a faith based on choice, the other on submission.
Atheism however, if we should follow your analogy, is like the brain damaged child of a drunken paganism.
Atheists fight for censorship and curriculum that supports their irreligion in public schools, they try to dictate who can marry based on their irreligious views, they try to force payment for contraception on believers, they allow women to kill unwanted babies, they fight to suppress ideologies, facts, and histories that don’t support their beliefs, they fight to use the public square to promote their irreligion, they openly brag that they make public policy decisions based on their faithlessness, etc. etc. etc.
Popeye, I thank all that is sacred that you are not operating a nookular reakter anymore. The operations manuals are a bitch.ReplyDelete
So let me try that question again:
How are Christian Fundamentalists trying to FORCE their religion on YOU?
In that context, Popeye, "YOU" means "you the Popeye person", "yourself". Or, in textish, U. Does that help?
So your answer gets an F. F-minus, actually. Zero. Nada. Nil. Here's why: since U claim to be male, I assume U are not pregnant with an unwanted baby, attending public school, having trouble finding cheap contraception (although that would hardly be necessary with an inflatable girlfriend), delving into ancient libraries for suppressed histories....
Now that I've clarified the deeper meanings of "YOU", can U answer the question? Or is it beyond your personal abilites?
Crusades? No. I would not call the modern conflict with Islam a Crusade. For a number of reasons, really. But the most important being that this war is almost totally asymmetrical.ReplyDelete
There are many similarities, I will concede. But the differences on our end are so numerous as to disqualify the term. Jihad? Yes, definitely. Unorganized, but religiously supported and howled from the rooftops, cockpits, in streets, and anywhere you find the 'Mujahedin'. Crusade? No. I would not slur the Crusades in such a way, as brutal as some episodes had been.
Why? Too sloppy, no theological support from Rome or any other major Church, no Christian kings or Queens declarations, no unanimity, and even more players involved. The tactics involved are increasingly divorced from such an ideological venture, as well. The only remaining strong similarities (on our side) are the geography and the involvement of Holy Orders in both the fighting and the medical/triage/charity aspects.
In short: I think it would be an insult to the real Crusaders and the actual ideological Crusades to call the modern conflict such without some MAJOR readjustments on our side.
Re: What to do about Islam? Carrot and cane.
Two things to start: Reciprocate hostilities region by region and bloc by bloc, but only targeting military infrastructure until a real Muslim theological challenge to Jihad is presented. Once that is presented ally with such powers against the hostile ones. Secondly reciprocate with trade. Good will and free trade to be met with the same sentiments. Economic warfare and embargo to be returned in spades.
In this last mention, we should endeavour to cut our reliance on any resources that originate within the Muslim blocs.
A final bold suggestion: Allow the middle eastern power blocs to solve their own issues, only intervening when our own interest are actually threatened. A very good example of this would be not to ally ourselves with fanatics who execute Christians in order to depose and install imaginary democracies.
Democracy is just not the key here, folks.
All the ipods, big macs, and coca cola in the world will not convince the Muslim world that constitutionalism or republic is moral.
The latest promise of an 'information revolution' is just as unrealistic. Witness the 'Arab Spring' and the resulting chaos.
The best we can hope for is a magnanimous (non hostile) monarchy, and even that is a revolutionary concept in those regions. We can back such efforts with a real hope of change.
"Christian fundamentalists are no different than Muslim fundamentalists."ReplyDelete
The fundamentals of the faiths (ie. the teachings of Christ contrasted with those of Muhammad) you have named are not the same. Ergo, the fundamentalists are necessarily different. Contrast a monk with a Wahhabi imam or an Anglican Bishop with a Shiite Ayatollah.
Your inability to see those numerous and profound differences speaks to a lack of insight and distinction, not a similarity between the fundamentals of these groups. It is a dangerously stupid form of theological reductionism.
But, in truth, what you see is irrelevant.
It is what the Jihadis see that matters in this conflict.
What they see in me is an expected enemy, devoted to his cause and faith. They have told me this many times.
In people like you?
Go and ask them.
Alternatively, Popeye, I can take it as "Christianity hasn't affected me at all but I've been told I shouldn't like it and here are the talking points I was given".ReplyDelete
Now 'fess up. That's really the answer, isn't it?
Last time I checked not all pregnancies are by immaculate conception. Contraception and abortion affect the male partners of the women on whom you tacitly admit Christians are trying force their beliefs.ReplyDelete
By your logic if more than half the people I know and care about are murdered, but I’m not, then I have no reason to complain about murder, or that if someone was raped in the past, but is not currently being raped, I shouldn’t have a problem with rape.
KW's basic beef with Christians is that we are allowed to vote.ReplyDelete
KW, did you know that there are plenty of liberals running around, justifying their policies by religion? Why is it okay for them to do it? Everyone should pay higher taxes because that's what Jesus would want, right? Well, Jesus never said that and some people aren't Christians, so what do they care?
[Last time I checked not all pregnancies are by immaculate conception. Contraception and abortion affect the male partners of the women on whom you tacitly admit Christians are trying force their beliefs.}
All laws are forced beliefs. Christians are arguing (through the political process) that people should pay for their own contraception, and that killing babies in the womb is wrong and should be illegal.
Although you believe that people should be forced to pay for contraception used by others, and that killing babies in the womb should be legal, what exactly is so outrageous with Christians disagreeing with you, and acting through the political process?
Do other people not have the right to disagree with you, and act politically on the disagreement?
The issue of Christians and contraception go far beyond the controversy of the Affordable Care Act. For example, Christian speakers are invited to schools to tell outright lies about contraception to children in order to promote abstinence.ReplyDelete
By my logic? That's absurd. I asked a question, Popeye. Just a simple question. No conclusion, no "logic" involved.ReplyDelete
You are one freakishly weird guy.
So you're having difficulty finding contraception? Is that your problem? It's not a Christian thing, child. Here are the steps....
Step 1: Go into just about any convenience store (they call them convenience stores because they are conveniently located, usually with gas pumps), Walgreens, WalMart, CVS, Target, etc., etc.
Step 2: Ask where the rubbers are. (hint - don't bring up logic, OK?) Just say "Where are the rubbers?" and leave it at that, OK? Got it? You may need to practice in front of a mirror.
Step 3: Buy some.
If you need help, ask hoo. Maybe you two together can get it done.
See, that wasn't so hard! Only three steps! A big boy nookular reakter thoughtful guy can handle it!
BTW, your years in the "Navy" must have been quite a spectacle, sailor.
Dealing with Progressives, one quickly learns how fearful and paranoid they are. Imaginary Christian "oppression", evil corporations killing their own customers, military veterans who fought for this country being labeled as ticking terrorist bombs, etc., etc.ReplyDelete
But even that shortlist doesn't begin to plumb the depths of their stinking fear, cowardice, and paranoia. But this might:
Yet another student has landed in a heap of trouble for having something that represents a gun, but isn’t actually anything like a real gun.
This time, the perpetrator was a six-year-old boy. The menacing weapon in question was a plastic Lego G.I. Joe gun roughly the size of a quarter, reports WGGB-TV.
The incident unfolded Friday morning on a school bus headed to Old Mill Pond Elementary School in Palmer, Mass.
"Aieeeeee!!! Help us!!! He has a GUN!!!!"