Danish Embassy Set Ablaze: Can We Co-Exist?
Posted on February 4, 2006
Update: Another Embassy torched!
CNN
The demonstrators were protesting offensive caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed that were first published in a Danish newspaper several months ago.
Witnesses said the demonstrators set fire to the entire building, which also houses the embassies of Chile and Sweden.
Protesters have been staging sit-ins outside the Danish Embassy in downtown Damascus almost daily since the furor over the drawings broke out last week.
Saturday’s protest started out peacefully but as anger escalated, protesters broke through police barriers and torched the building, the witnesses said.
The cartoons, first printed in Denmark and then published elsewhere in Europe, have touched a raw nerve in the Arab and Islamic world, in part because Islamic law is interpreted to forbid any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed, favorable or otherwise.
Aggravating the affront was one caricature of Mohammed wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.
The Danish government has expressed regret for the furor, but refused to become involved, citing freedom of expression.
This seems to be the image that infuriates them the most.
Everyone is pointing out the difference between us and them. Everyone is pointing out how we believe in freedom of expression, and how we react differently when something is offensive to us. Surely, all Muslims are not extremists…but look how many are reacting to this with violence.
My question is simple and sincere. Can democracy co-exist with such large numbers of this kind of extreme mentality? They have no alms with destroying freedom. They have no tolerance for freedom, and illustrate that very well. I’m not advocating anything like wiping them off the face of the earth, but have no doubt that this is the kind of mentality they would advocate for us, and for freedom. So, as groups like CAIR, and the ACLU are quick to defend these extremists, make note that these very same folks would be the first to do away with our First Amendment. If we stand by and appease them, they will destroy us.
Captain’s Quarters says:
That insistence on dictating terms of temporal power makes criticism, by cartoonists or editorialists, absolutely necessary in order to combat the stultifying reach of sharia. Islam sets the terms of debate. It cannot insist on temporal rule based on Mohammed and the Qu’ran and then expect people to refrain from criticizing either one. Christians understand this, even if they don’t pursue the thought intellectually to its end. If we Christians insisted on basing all government and laws explicitly on the four Gospels, we would necessarily be forced to intellectually defend each and every passage, as well as the life and actions of Jesus and his disciples and their assumed infallibility to rule on human activity.
For this reason, we must support the publication of the cartoons by European news organizations. Islam wants to impose its tenets on us, and if we give up the option of political criticism, we have moved more than halfway towards surrender to the Islamists. For those individuals who cross the line into unnecessary offense, the option to use free debate to argue the point will remain open as long as we defend free speech.
With Danish cartoonists fearing for their life, I want to ask my readers this question: Can we co-exist?
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller says No! I don’t even want to try anymore. Screw them and their rapist, child-molesting “prophet.”
Regular Ron answers:
Co-exist?? Now why would I, being a Roman Catholic, and a freedom loving man. Want to Co-exist with people who either want me to Convert, Submit, or be be-headed, for the sake of some guy named Allah??? Crap on that…. Nuke Mecca, and let’s get on with our lives…
Pamela at Atlass Shrugs is on the same wavelength as I am.
We are in the midst of an ongoing struggle, culture against culture, and there is no guarantee of victory. But fight we must, in big ways and small. Some of us can don a uniform; many of us have done so in the past. Most do other things, making their own individual stands right where they are, not surrendering to the ideologies of fear or tolerance of evil, but by living the lives of free men and women and exercising dearly held freedoms.
Including the freedom of speech.
In this, I don’t care how you vote, nor does it matter what church you attend, or not. I don’t care whether you’re red state or blue, pink or green. If you value your freedom to make choices, to live your life as you see fit, respecting the rights of others, even though you disagree on some or many things… if you will not surrender your fundamental liberties merely to save your own skin, and will not submit to dhimmitude, then stand.
And to those of you who would tolerate the intolerable, who fear to give offense rather than speak the truth, who would strike a bargain with evil to save your miserable skins: begone. We have no use for you.
Rick Moran says we can coexist.
By condemning the publication of the cartoons anywhere and everywhere, it is not a question caving in to those who seek to destroy us by using our freedoms against us. Pat Curley has said it most succinctly: “We can defend their right to publish the cartoons without saying, ‘They are right to publish the cartoons.” This simple idea is the essence of freedom of speech in that it illustrates the fact that there are two sides to almost every issue and that by acknowledging one’s right to speak their mind, we also acknowledge a responsibility to take into account the feelings of others.
I reject the notion that there is no responsibility attached to freedom of speech. For the rational among us, it is simple, common decency to think of how one’s words will impact others before uttering them. This doesn’t mean we have to necessarily moderate what we say. But it does mean that idiots like Julian Bond and others who refer to their fellow citizens as “Nazis” or “Hitler” are being irresponsible and should be taken to task not only for the meaning behind their words but also for deliberately causing another human being unnecessary and unconscionable discomfort. There is no difference between calling a Republican “Hitler” and pulling the wings off of a fly – both are done to deliberately inflict pain. And if this were pointed out each and every time it was done, I daresay such comparisons would dramatically diminish.
The forbearance of the major networks and newspapers in not publishing the cartoons is, I’m convinced, an act not of “dhimmitude” but of simple. common decency.
Elegantly worded, Rick. In the end, we can “respect” and show “common decency” all we want, but what will the result yield in our favor? The tension is escalating to a point where I fear there will be no peaceful way to end it. We can change our mentalities to accomodate their sensitivities, but the conflict will not end until their mentalities are changed. Perhaps you are correct on this single issue, that we added fuel where water should have been applied, but in the overall picture I can not see any compromise other than total surrender or total unrestrained war that will end this without a complete change in perspective on their part. I agree that this perspective change can not be forced, but I saw no detailed plan on how to go about this.
On this single issue, I agree…lets not add fuel to the fire, but in the overall picture I don’t think water is always the right answer.
Mark Steyn has a column today discussing sensitivities and multi-culturism/empathy.
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they’ll marvel at how easy it all was. You don’t need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that’s a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural “sensitivity,” the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want — including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the “sensitivity” of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a “diverse” “tolerant” society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.
One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there’s very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, “To be or not to be, that is the question.”
North American Patriot says We are going back to the time of cavemen.
Michelle Malkin has a video that illustrates my point very well.
Others: Gateway Pundit
Ashish’s Niti
My Pet Jawa here, here and here
All Things Beautiful
Rightwing Nuthouse here and here.
MVRWC
Argghhh!
Cao’s Blog
Blogs For Bush
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
19 Responses to “Danish Embassy Set Ablaze: Can We Co-Exist?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
It amazes me that these folks want to be respected by the “civilized” world. They go to someone else’s nation and demand adherence to a vile…oops did I say that out loud…I meant violent religion, even though these nations don’t belong to it or adhere to any specific belief except freedom? What to make of it. It is an Islamic Crusade plain and simple. They must show some restraint or be stopped. BTW…don’t they have their own countries they can torch?
Ofcourse we can. CAIR defending America here, wow, who woulda thunk?
A North American Muslim rights group has called the European media’s rush to publish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad childish.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American Islamic Relations (Cair), said American newspapers have not printed the cartoons as in Europe, perhaps because they feel secure in their constitutional free press protections.
He said: “They don’t feel the need to go out and be gratuitously insulting just to prove that they can do it, which is what the European media seem to be doing in almost a childish overreaction.”
American newspapers gave extensive coverage to the hurt and anger that the cartoons provoked across the world but took a hands-off approach to reprinting them themselves.
“Islamaphobia … is hurting us as a society. We are becoming less open to listen to the voices of dissent and voices which are different.”
Salam al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said US Muslims, are unlikely to take to the streets in outrage.
“We admonish against that because we don’t find it helpful to our situation in America,” he said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E70D2F93-02B5-4678-BEE6-ED5D5EA33C08.htm
Co-exist?? Now why would I, being a Roman Catholic, and a freedom loving man. Want to Co-exist with people who either want me to Convert, Submit, or be be-headed, for the sake of some guy named Allah??? Crap on that….
Nuke Mecca, and let’s get on with our lives…
RR
I would like to think we could coexist, but acts like these seriously make me wonder.
Great job, jay.
There are a few good reasons for the level of outrage over a series of 12 cartoons published in a Dutch newspaper over four months ago. To the point that “demonstrators” are calling for the death of anyone who printed these. Kidnappings, bombings, takeovers of embassies and massive demonstrations not over war or any real threats to Islam, but because they were offended.
They fail to understand how controversy does not discourage the media, it only encourages them. They seem to be quite happy when the press attacks US interests, but cannot stand the same level of criticism when it is directed at them.
They also cannot understand that a truly free press feels no loyalty to anything but itself. Remember how they circled the wagons around CBS and Newsweek?
1. Most predominately Muslim countries do not have freedom of speech-and often are outright theocracies and/or thugocracies. Or both.
2. Most predominately Muslim countries have laws on the books protecting Islam-to the point of having the death penalty for “abusing” the Koran.
3. Most predominately Muslim countries do not have a strong tradition of a free press. And their press is usually state controlled.
4. Muslims cry havoc whenever a picture of Mohammed is released in the Western press. Funny thing, they have absolutely no problem with publishing such pictures themselves.
5. Most predominately Muslim countries do not tolerate any criticism what they see as denouncement of Islam. They have absolutely no problem with depicting Jews with big noses, or dripping blood however. Goebbels would be pleased.
6. They collectively riot when a Koran is allegedly pissed on, but are silent when followers of their religion detonate themselves in mosques, markets and foreign capitals. They say nothing when their followers decimate legitimate religious icons in other countries.
7. Most Mulsims know in their guts that the zenith of their religion has long since passed. The long slow nadir of their faith is partly responsible for their hysterical output of hate and violence. The only really reliable export of Islam. Besides oil, of course.
8. Finally, all of this goes towards making the people of Islamic countries poor, ignorant and continually focused on external threats to take their minds away from the problems in their own lives. It is all America/Israel’s fault they are living as beasts in the field, or in a crummy apartment with four generations of their families. Which is just how their Muslim masters want them to feel.
I guess it all comes down to what Robert E. Howard said when he created the character of Conan the Barbarian:
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing”.
To most “civilized” post-Enlightenment Westerners, Islamic Law (mainly based on the Hebrew Old Testament) is straightforwardly barbaric and repulsive in itself- see Hegel, Renan and other mainstream 19th century European thinkers who have contributed to shaping our view of Islam and the Orient.
It’s sad to see this kind of cultural stereotyping still persists to that day, on both side of the cultural/religious divide for that matter: that hapless Danish cartoonist is as backward as his Saudi censors and probably views them as fanatical fools; whereas they’re probably utterly convinced that a second-tier Scandinavian newspaper must be part of some “Occidental Masonic conspiracy” designed to destroy Allah and his beloved bearded vicar!
But it wasn’t always so Manichean: ironically, throughout the Middle-Ages and until the 18th century, many libertine Western aristocrats and free-thinking philosophers were actually attracted by Islam precisely because they viewed it as a more rationalist and modern faith than Christianity: after the defeat of Napoleon’s republican “Grand Army” and the return to power of the rightwing Catholic kings of France, several of Napoleon’s revolutionary generals choose to move to Cairo and some even converted to Islam.
But this was then…the times have changed and two hundred years of fanatical Wahhabi activism boosted by Saudi Arabia’s immense oil revenues, compounded by France and England’s brutal colonial practices in the Middle-East and North Africa, and America’s unwavering backing of Israel’s war crimes have succeeding in tilting the Mohammedan collective psyche towards a very reactionary interpretation of Islam, which in many ways is simply a natural defense reflex albeit an obscurantist and backward one…
Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states: “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other”.
Prescient words in many ways…
Dear Dr Victorino de la Vega
Thank you for your lecture on european thougt. Well, I do not know if you can see from a danish perspective – One newspaper published 12 cartoons, the newspaper said sorry, but obviously that did not help, and now they burned our embassy. It basically does not have anything to do with the cartoons, they are just an excuse to go to war. It is just an ancient understanding of the world that sees things in conquest and violence – as you guys have experienced in the 9/11. Whether we like it or not, the muslim world have more or less annonced war on the western world.
Wow, big words ‘n stuff. Let’s take them apart, shall we?
Is it really “stereotypical” to be somewhat critical of a religion that has spawned so much latter day death and despair? Call me judgemental, then. I would rather be judgemental here in Western lands than over there.
You see, sir, I have been to the occident and the orient both. I much prefer living in the occident for the freedoms we enjoy-do you think that the mullahs of the Islamotocracies in Southwest Asia permit dissent in this way?
Or even discussion of the topic at all?
In other words, the standard talking points of leftist defenders of headchoppers and homicide bomber. But it is apparent you wish to live in the past. Very well, let us do so.
The United Nations on Vovember 29th, 1947 passed UN Resolution 187, partitioning the area into three entities: Palestine, Israel and an international zone around Jerusalem.
Israel announced its nationhood at midnight May 14th, 1948. Within hours, the collective armies of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Lebabnon attacked into Isreal, bent on wiping out the nascent state completely. They made no bones about how they were going to “drive them into the sea” and how they started the war.
A more relevant thought for you to persue, “Doctor”, is this: what has Islam contributed to the world in the last 500 years?
Another question you may want to think on O Mighty Doctorate of Moonbattery: if Israel has no “right” to exist, then who does?
Strange that such a learned man would so easily buy into the talking points of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the KKK, Al Queda, The National Socialist Party. Strange that you bleat the same moronic ideas that are found in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kampf and the Eternal Jew.
Did anyone notice that the practitioners of “The Religion of Peace” are ransacking a church next to the embassy compound?
Next best thing when you can’t find a synagouge, I guess.
Regarding the “state” of “Palestine”, a short list of holy writ, as accepted by lefty trolls. Rather than trying to improve on Nekama’s excellent troll-smack-down, here is the original post via LGF.
MEMO
This is an automated reply from the [edited] Detector at Little Green Footballs.
Your recent post contained troll-like characteristics which resembles the type of message sent by spoiled ISM members on summer holiday, college students who have recently inhaled Noam Chomsky�s foul rantings, Adam Shapiro wannabes, Nazi sympathizers, or genuine Koranimals.
In order to prevent another thread being hijacked, and to send your message to the appropriate department for response (FOAD, GAZE, Go Away Gordon, or The Bus To Rachel Corrie�s Tomb Is Leaving – Be Sure You�re Under It), kindly reply to the following questions:
1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the �Palestinians� and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel�s border in order to �push the Jews into the sea�. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the Koranimals don�t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn�t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity – making the desert bloom – while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?
2. Did you know that the �Palestinians� could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan which gave Israel AND the Palestinians a countries of their own on land which Jews had lived on for thousands of years before Mohammed ever had a wet dream about virgins? The Arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?
3. Can you tell us ANY Arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have ANY of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any Arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldn�t you just LOVE to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?
4. Since as many Jews (approximately 850,000) were kicked out of Arab countries as were Arabs who left present day Israel (despite being literally begged to stay), why should Arabs be permitted to return to Israel if Jews aren�t allowed to set foot in Arab countries? Can you explain why Arabs can worship freely in Israel but Jews would certainly be hung from street lamps after having their intestines devoured by an Arab mob if they so much as entered an Arab country?
5. Israel resettled and absorbed all of the Jews from Arab countries who wished to become Israelis. Why haven�t any Arab countries offered to resettle Arabs who were displaced from Israel, leaving them to rot for 60 years in squalid refugee camps? And why are those refugee camps still there? Could it be that the billions of dollars that the UNWRA has sent there goes to terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or Hezbollah? How did Yassir Arafat achieve his $300 million in wealth? Why aren�t these funds distributed for humanitarian use?
6. Did you know that the Arabs in the disputed territories (conquered by Israel in the 1967 war which was started by Arabs) and who are not Israelis already have two countries right now? And that they are called Egypt and Jordan?
7. If your complaint is about the security fence which Israel is finally building in the Disputed Territories, are you aware that it is built solely to keep the �brave� Arab terrorists out so that they can no longer self detonate on busses, in dining halls or pizzerias and kill Jewish grandmothers and schoolchildren? Why are the Arabs so brave when they target unarmed civilians but even when they outnumber their opponents they get their sandy [edited] kicked all the way to Mecca when they are faced with Jewish soldiers? Why do Arab soldiers make the French look like super heroes?
8. Please explain why you are so concerned about Arabs, who possess 99% of the land in this region and are in control of the world�s greatest natural resource, which literally flows out of the ground? Can�t their brother muslims offer some of the surplus land and nature�s riches to the �Palestinians�? Or is it true that Arabs are willing to die right down to the last �Palestinian�?
9. Why do you not exhibit the same level of concern for say, people in Saudi Arabia who are beheaded, subject to amputation, stoning, honor killing etc.? What about women who are denied any semblance of basic civil rights, including the right not to be treated as property for the entertainment and abuse of her father, brothers, or husbands? What about the Muslims in Sudan and Egypt who are still enslaved, or the women there whose genitalia are barbarically cut off? How about the oppression of Shiites by Sunnis, the gassing of the Kurds by Iraq, or the massacre of �Palestinians� by Jordan (Black September)? Why doesn�t this concern you?
10. Did you ever stop to wonder how much better off everyone in the region would be if Arabs stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel? What would happen if the Israelis gave up their weapons and disarmed? Would they live to see the next day? But what would happen if the Arabs completely disarmed? You know the answer: They would all be AT PEACE! And if there is no war to rile them up, the Arabs would be forced to look at their own repressive, pre-medieval societies. Why would they want to do that when there are Jews to kill?
11. Have you heard �People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are doomed to failure and misery�? Can you see the parallels to the Arabs, who are blessed with land and oil, but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill Jews? Have you heard Golda Meir�s words to the effect of �There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours�? Why do the Arabs hate so much?
Please state your answers to the questions listed above. If you need assistance or require additional study, then please refer to the following links:
History of the Middle East Conflict:
http://www.infoclick...
Thousands of women killed for honor: http://news.national...
Muslims lament Israel�s existence:
http://www.iht.com/a...
Disputed Territories � Forgotten Facts
http://www.mfa.gov.i...
The size of Israel compared to neighboring countries in the region
http://www.iris.org….
Jews expelled from Arab Countries
http://www.jpost.com...
One Million Jews flee Arab countries � why no right of return for them?
http://www.forgotten...
Middle East Facts
http://yashiko.middl...
Middle East Truth
http://www.mideasttr...
Larry Miller on Hypocrisy
http://weeklystandar...
Please respond to the items listed above. Based on your answers a thoughtful reply or instruction to FOAD will be provided.
Thank you for writing to Little Green Footballs.
Signed,
Troll Early Warning Detection Team
To Wahhabist Islamic fundamentalists from Londonistan to Karachi, “humanism” and “idolatry” are primitive pagan sins that must be combated by all means- and that includes the beheading of “infidels” and other Shariaa-compliant niceties such as autodafes and suicide bombings…
Ironically, the main role model for these fanatical fools is not their own medieval Arab prophet Muhammad, but rather ancient Semitic heroes such as Moses who fought “the decadent/civilized Egyptians armies with a small group of Bedouin believers/guerillas” and Sicarii-in-chief Simon Bin Giora who believed that it was a “believer’s religious duty to kill infidels, collaborators and their children”
See wiki link below for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii
Eventually, secular Roman generals were left with no choice but to massacre them en masse:
“When Albinus reached the city of Jerusalem, he bent every effort and made every provision to ensure peace in the land by exterminating most of the Sicarii.” [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (xx.208)]
I wonder why we have embassys in such backwards, crappy, enemy countries to begin with.
You are blaming the massacre of Jews on Moses?
Excuse me? Did I detect the creeping fog of moral relativism again? To quote Wizbang:
May I suggest that you actually READ the Koran, cover to cover, as I have on several occasions?
Why, you may ask, would I do such a thing? Because I want to know my enemies.
Let’s carry that thought a little further, professor. The difference between a criminal and an enemy is simple. A criminal breaks the laws of our nation. An enemy wishes to destroy our rule of law utterly.
So does this make Islamism, which is gaining ground in most Muslim countries by the way, our enemy? Absolutely. Islamists (or Islamofascists) wish to destroy our secular culture utterly and impose a worldwide caliphate under Shariah-and will do so over my dead body, thanks so much.
They quote Mohammed when they do this, not Moses. Do you even read press accounts?
Getting back to Moses…
I fail to find an example of Moses committing gang rapes, child molestation, forced conversion, massacres, etc. I will acknowledge that Moses was a fanatic, but Mohammed makes him look like a pantywaist, doesn’t he?
Besides, we are getting away from the point here-again. You are delving into ancient Roman history and unattributed tribal legends (the Old Testament). Unless you are saying that you accept the entire Bible as literal truth?
A position I doubt you would support.
Anyway, we are talking about current events. meaning things that are happening right now. The problem with diving into historical records to come up with apologetics, or your attempt to weave a tapestry of moral equivilency, fall flat more often than not.
The fact is that Judaism has not sought to conquer for thousands of years. Christianity likewise gave up the fundamentalist nonsense hundreds of years ago. Both religions are contemporary. Meaning they embrace modern values and advancements.
Not so with Islam. Islam is not open to interpretation. Islam cannot function effectively in the modern world. The followers of the Religion of Pieces know that their religion is in its decline, and are reacting to this with a reacitonary 12th century code of laws-ones they want to force down everyone’s throats.
Say what you will about the conflict we are fighting against these regressive fundamentalists, I can tell you for a fact that the Muslim world would not be as nice to us if the tables were turned.
Again, it is worthwhile for you to read the Koran, so that you might have an understanding of our enemy that extends past Moveon.org, Code Pink and ACLU talking points.
As to your disgusting attempt to paint Jews and Muslims with a broad moral equivilency brush-it has generated this message:
(btw, I know that this is a Christianity vs Islam argument, but it applies equally to Judaism vs. Islam)
Here is a favorite argument of anti-Christian moonbats: “Christianity and Islam is exactly the same!”
“(By that logic, shouldn’t the existence of Eric Rudolph nullify display of the Ten Commandments? I’m just saying.)”
This is a stupid argument, one that I am tired of hearing. Eric Rudolph did not commit his crimes in the name of Christianity, he was a follower of Friedrich Nietzsche. You know, “God is Dead” Friedrich Nietzsche? But don’t believe me on my account by all means. Here is an excerpt from a letter Eric Rudolph wrote to his mother where he rejects Christianity in favor of the teachings of Nietzsche. Read for yourself:
‘I prefer Nietzsche to the Bible’
“Many good people continue to send me money and books,” Rudolph writes in an undated letter. ” Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I’m in here I must be a ’sinner’ in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame. I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the
Bible.”
I found that little gem in a USA Today article dated July 5th 2005. You can find it too by googling “eric rudolph and friedrich nietzsche”. As a matter of fact, it is the top
response to the query.
Would you stop it with this tired, stupid lie already? Just beacause someone blows up an abortion does not make them a Christian by default. As a matter of fact, anyone who knows anything about the real teachings of Christ would not accept this kind of rhetoric.
Moreover, it seems to me that many who view Christianity and “fundies” (and you should know I put the “fun” in “fundies”) as a direct threat to our Western values and way of life conveniently ignore the real threat that Islam makes to the modern world. Can anyone name for me terrorist attacks that were carried out by Christians in the last 10 years?
And don’t mention Timothy McVeigh, that is another tired lie.
With all that said, let’s look to the real fuel behind the “insurgents” (if they are in Iraq) and “rebels” (if they are anywhere else) who revel in detonating themselves for Allah: the Koran.
The Koran is rife with passages that demand the slaughter of Jews, Christians, and infidels. It has reference to the pedophile prophet Mohammed commiting murder, rape, child molestation and other heinous crimes.
Can anyone name a portion of the Bible where Jesus did any of these things?
Another difference between Christianity and Islam is the source of the respective holy writs. the Bible is a document sent from heaven to the prophets through human hosts, meaning that it is open to interpretation and commentary.
The Koran literally came down from heaven *plop* and is not open to the same interpretive process. It is unchangeable, inflexible timeless holy truth. Islam means “submission”, and this is precisely what the religion demands of its followers.
Christianity gives you a choice. You choose to follow the teachings of Christ, or you do not. That is the choice anyone makes before they can even be Christians. What could be more different?
A few questions for the “no church in public square” crowd to ponder:
How many of the Founding Fathers were devout Muslims?
Does Western Civilization have a foundation in Islam that is nearly as strong as its Judeo-Christian one?
How many functioning democracies exist under Islam, without us having to install them?
How many theocracies are Christian?
How many are Muslim?
What is wrong with a nod to the beliefs that our nation was founded on?
What is wrong with affirming our true historical record as a Christian nation?
Many people claim that “leaders” in the American Christian community are advocating for a Christian theocracy to be installed here in America.
Can anyone point to a prominent Christian leader who is demanding that we shred the Constitution and install some sort of “Church of the Americas”? They do not exist, but this ridiculous myth persists.
Oh, and when I read history, it stipulated that Romans were not secular, but rather pantheistic.
Not everyone who does not believe in a monotheistic creed (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) is automatically a “secular” dude. Sorry to burst your bubble.
And I find it extremely ironic that the Muslims are carrying their attacks forward into Western (philosophy, not geography) lands with things that were invented by Western nations.
Getting back to the question I asked you earlier, do you know of anything Islam has contributed to world knowlege in the past 500 years? Can you think of anything Islam has done to advance modern thinking and peace in the world.
Can’t you see this seething religion is a danger to world peace?
Can’t you see that almost every current conflict involves Islam to a greater or lesser degree?
Get fitted for a Thaub if you wish. Me, I plan on keeping my powder dry.
Dr. Victorio:
With all due respect sir, your arguments are a corruption of the truth and twisted logic.
Why blame the victims when hoodlems and criminals try to destroy you and your civilization for no other reason than jealosy and hate?
Dammit, forgot to mention one last thing.
Your attempts to use Lefty Jedi Sophistry only work on the feebleminded.
Such as your freshmen students, perhaps.
Media Perception: “Suicide Bomber”… There is no such thing as a “suicide” bomber, unless the person in question decides to take himself out with explosives-by himself. The last two words are key. By himself. Alone. Without other people. Again, using a word like “suicide” distorts the reality of the enemy we face. 1 a : the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind This is the deliberate attempt to distort reality, again to make the Islamofascists more sympathetic to Western audiences.
And now, in keeping with Channel 40’s policy of always bringing you the latest in blood and guts, in living color, you’re about to see another first–an attempted suicide.
Chris Hubbock, who shot herself during a broadcast in 1970
Reality: Someone who commits suicide is deserving of sympathy. Their last thought in life is how to take their own life. If they do this by themselves they are committing suicide. The etymology on this point is clear. However, someone whose last thought in life is how to steal someone else’s life is not committing suicide, even if they die in the process is committing homicide. 1 : a person who kills another 2 : a killing of one human being by another Ennobling a truly evil person like this by way of attempting to evoke sympathy is demonic. Why should we feel pity for someone who deliberately takes innocent human life as their last conscious act? These people represent ultimate, complete evil. And I reserve complete scorn for them, not just for their actions.
Word matter, professor.
Peter Bland: For myself and on behalf of the Americans here at Bethany Bible College: you rock. I’m tired of anti-Christian leftists trying to paint Christianity as such a danger, and comparing Christians and Jews (or any other religion for that matter) to Islam is ridiculous, and shows a real lack of integrity for the debate. Nothing in the Bible supports this, and nothing, other than the Crusades (which ironically was fought against Islam) could be considered theocratic oppression. I too have read the Koran, and it specifically states that killing the infidel, (who will not convert) is necassary. Also, the violence that this religion was founded on is appalling. (I’m refering to the caravan raids that murdered men, women, and children. Muhammed was such a peaceful fellow)
We did outlaw Shintoism (Japan – WWII).
We’ve banned a religion before, so there is a precedent.
I’m just sayin’….
No.