To InstaPundit: No, they won’t
posted at 1:45 pm on May 14, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I get the warning and humor of this line, but frankly I’m tired of it. Prof. Reynolds needs to hit the books.
THE ANSWER TO THE EXAMINER’S QUESTION IS SIMPLE: It’s because people are afraid they’ll blow things up.
Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine.
He’s right that the credible threat of violence drives people all over the world to bow to unreasonable Muslim demands, demands they would laugh off if they came from Christians or members of any other faith. Demands like this, and this, and situations like this. But he’s wrong that “fundamentalist Christians” are going to take this as a cue to start up their own terrorism to get what they want. And he’s wrong because he starts with an error on the basics: Namely, that Christianity and Islam aren’t the same thing, don’t believe the same things and don’t teach the same things. The foundational texts of the two faiths are very different, and the differences make all the difference in the world.
The New Testament doesn’t teach that violence against non-Christians is ok. The Koran, especially the second half of it, does indeed teach that violence against non-Muslims is ok. In fact, it commands violence against infidels in certain circumstances.
If you want to talk about the Crusades, well, they were defensive wars against imperialist Muslims who were spreading Islam by the sword. If you want to talk about the conquistadors or the Inquisition, go ahead. Those actions were done in the name of God, true, but entirely outside any actual New Testament teaching. Tim McVeigh? Agnostic who had more in common with the Luddite Unabomber than any Christian. Eric Rudolph? Agnostic who preferred Nietzsche to the Bible. Three of the most murderous men of the last century — Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin — were all atheists/occultists. Should we start expecting effette latte-drinking Utne reader types to start engaging in terrorism if they don’t get their way? Perhaps, and leftwing ecoterrorism doesn’t get nearly enough coverage, but InstaPundit never makes that argument — he always draws the false parallel from Muslims to Christians as though they’re two sides of the same coin when they’re not. Bin Laden and Zawahiri and Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad constantly quote the Koran to justify their global jihad, itself a dual Islamic concept that includes both internal and external warfare. Saladin’s jihad followed Muhammad’s example. Christianity has no such concept and Christ provided no similar warlike example.
It’s a pity that five years into this war, or nearly 30 if you’re dating its beginning to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so few people actually understand this. Most of our political leaders in both parties don’t understand it, secular humanists constantly conflate Pat Robertson with the Taliban thereby demonstrating that they don’t get it, and most of our pundits and most of our major bloggers obviously don’t understand it either. Our dominant strains of voluntary ignorance may literally kill us.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Hmm, and I thought he was using a sarcastic tone.
shiftzz on May 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Nice post, Bryan. Instapundit is lobbing grenades at a straw man, even if it’s under the cover of tongue-in-cheek.
The radical differences between OT/NT and the Koran are instantly apparent to anyone who bothers to take a look at both. And to restate Bryan’s point above, the fundamental (sorry) difference between violent acts done in the name of Allah/Islam and those (largely if not exclusively historical) done in the name of Jesus is that the Biblical texts themselves flatly condemn the latter, while the Koran actively endorses the former.
TexasDan on May 14, 2007 at 2:02 PM
i don’t know. in bitter moments i’ve thrown that sort of thing out there. i meant it, and maybe he meant it, to scold christian conservatives. not becuase i seriously believe it but you can only hear so many times that unless you’re a “family values”, anti-gay, schiavo worshipping evangelical, that you can’t be a conservative before you really say something hurtfull back.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Funny you should mention the Utne Reader, BP.
Those people are usually hard-core pacifist Quaker types, too.
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 2:04 PM
I’ve rarely felt like that. I do, however, often feel that unless you’re a family values evangelical, you’re a guest in the Republican Party — to be treated with hospitality (since, after all, your vote is needed), to be sure, but there’s no question whose party it is.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM
I’ve often wondered how you guys publish this blog without personally going off the deep end. You wallow through things I can’t even look at (from serious stuff like Memri to stupid stuff like DKos and The View) to present us readers-digest examples of jihadism, BDS, creeping dhimmitude, trutherism, and the general run of far-left BS. I couldn’t do it and still maintain my sense of humor.
Well, it’s nice to see you finally snap, Bryan. It proves you guys are human too.
Now go have a beer and then, as a prank, set up Allahpundit and Glenn Reynolds on an atheist blind date.
Anton on May 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM
I’m not so sure Glenn is an atheist.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:09 PM
I’m just finishing Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. Bryan, your spot on! There is a VAST difference in these two major world religions. Islam and Christianity are fundamentally opposite. There are few commonalities, i.e. prayer, group worship etc. But at the heart of each, lies an entirely different view of human nature and the potential that people, as individuals, have.
Troy Rasmussen on May 14, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Exactly. It’s a polite version of dhimmitude.
Enrique on May 14, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Expecting cojones where there aren’t any, and will not be in a long time, maybe not until it’s too late.
Bryan, love your powerful ending statement.
Entelechy on May 14, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Islam does have a section of its doctrine which matches Christianity.
Namely everything that the Bible has to say about the End-Time Anti-Christ and False Prophet, in Islam there is a duo of Messianic figures, the Mahdi and the Muslim Jesus who do everything that the Bible says the AC and FP will do.
I summarized my findings here
http://vincep312.home.comcast.net/islamlast.html
(Its not all original research.. links to my sources are on each of the three documents)
VinceP1974 on May 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM
I’d add to that list “the subjugation of individual will to a Borg-like collective that priveleges ideological conformity over free thought.”
Enrique on May 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Sort of like a GOP dhimmi?
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Enrique, being in the other major party is a crass version of dhimmitude.
Entelechy on May 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Their hospitality is much warmer than what real dhimmis receive, but yeah, I pay the jizya every November.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Only during the primary. Once that formality is out of the way, we are graciously asked to vote, work and contribute to the candidate who has been anointed.
A one day, national primary would do wonders for the Republican Party.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Ah, Enrique beat me to it!
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Enrique on May 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Thanks for the stark reminder – lived in in commun*sm – you can have it!
Entelechy on May 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Why? So we could nominate blue-state Republicans like Rudy who wouldn’t stand a chance of winning any blue states in the actual election?
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
From Bryan’s piece:
What’s keeping the Jews in check?
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Rudy has a chance of being competitive in NY and other northern states drawing huge amounts of money and resources from the Dems. A Red state good ol’ boy has zero appeal and the Repubs will virtually concede the northeast. This frees the Dems to concentrate on Blue or Purple states forcing the Repubs to do likewise. This plays out over and over. Bush barely even gave the northeast a fly by. The best defense is often a good offense.
Strategery matters.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Bill: Keeping the Jews in check is a Islam thing:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
VinceP1974 on May 14, 2007 at 2:24 PM
You think Rudy can’t win NY?
I disagree.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 14, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Riiiight. That is an absolutely false and ridiculous statement. If you really can’t tell the difference between Islam and Christianity, and the differences in the societies that the two faiths tend to give rise to, then I’m sorry to say this but you’re blind.
Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 2:27 PM
It also might give some of us who don’t live in early primary states and actual say in who our candidate might be and encourage growth in the party.
Full on democracy is a good thing.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I bring it up, yet again, that Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, gave his blessing for his daughter to have an abortion. He donated to Planned Parenthood, and his wife started entire chapters. Are the Evangelical Christians more Republican than him?
Unless you’re a family values evangelical, you’re a guest in the far religious right, not in the Republican party. Being a Republican has nothing to do with religion. There are Republicans of all religions, and no religions, as you know, Allah.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Dhimmitude is an actual concept in Islam. You have learned about it post 9-11. You really ought to study it in greater detail because you obviously don’t understand it. It doesn’t exist in Christianity, so your use of it in this context is out of bounds.
It is your confusion on issues like this that leads to InstaPundit-style conflation of faiths that don’t match up at all either in letter or spirit. You’re smearing innocent Christians based on the actions of a subset of Muslims. That level of confusion is not helpful and may be lethal.
Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Let me try to make the point without an attempt at humor:
Yes, it’s a pity that they do. This will not change by asking them to compare the founding texts of Christianity and Islam. I agree with your analysis, Bryan, but my comment was really about spending far more effort than the Instapundit joke was worth.
Jummy, I started out as a Northeastern country-club Republican, so I understand where you are coming from. But do you seriously think the Republicans are different in this regard than the Democrats? I think the Republicans have a much bigger tent than the Democrats. Just surf over to Kirsten Power’s blog to read about what’s it’s like to be a Democrat of faith.
Anton on May 14, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Right, Bryan. We’ve already done the killing of non-believers, in name of our religion, during the Crusades, sanctioned by the Pope.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:33 PM
When I read this sort of thing from Instapundit, I wonder if he really understands Christianity. Apart from just wars and other typical self-defense, Christianity does not teach fighting. That’s why I never understood why artists and other public figures receive all this praise for their avant guarde views whenever they mock and attack Christians. Yeah, there’s real courage: attacking a creed that preaches “love your enemies” and forgiveness. What bravery!
Sydney Carton on May 14, 2007 at 2:33 PM
a guest at best.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:35 PM
ii really just wish the christians would spead out between the two parties. but that won’t happen until the marxist-lenninists (slight exaggeration) leave the democrat party.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Dig it – New York is NOT the capitol of the universe.
Also, I’ve never voted for a Dem presidential candidate and my first vote was cast for Nixon. You are atheist I’m agnostic. I don’t look for a home in the Republican party any more than I’d look for a home in a church. I look at political parties as place to find candidates. Home – that’s a place I built to my comfort level – for me.
Stephen M on May 14, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I think Glenn’s point is that if it continues to be an acceptable form of practice, by working everytime it happens, overtime it will become accepted by others, seeing that it works.
Nothing’s to say that a branch, no matter how small, of a Church couldn’t break off and pick this behavior up. Killing isn’t acceptable either by the Bible, yet it’s not unusual to have a Christian having committed murder.
Obviously, the Church wouldn’t do it as a whole. But nothing would stop a bunch of psychos like the VTech shooter, from forming a group, and thinking they’re were doing it as part of their religion. I mean, he thought he was dying like Christ. If a bunch of psychos see it work over and over again, they’re bound to attempt it, to get what they want, regardless of religion.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Bryan -
1. Yes, it is.
2. I was using it in the context of the GOP, with Christianity being a component of what makes a good Republican.
3. I am aware that the GOP has no actual concept of dhimmitude, I was joking.
4. I don’t conflate faiths, except in the most general of terms. Namely the reliance on faith. But yes, the details of the New Testament and the Koran are quite different.
5. I’m not “smearing” anyone, see point 3 …
6. … to which Allah responded with an in-kind joke about paying the jizya.
Just a little light humor.
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 2:42 PM
C’mon, it’s funny to picture Allah living miserably under the taxation & yoke of GOP dhimmitude.
“I get no respect, I tell ya. No respect!“
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 2:44 PM
If we’re going to be fair here, there’s been plenty of talking from the other side that makes those of us who ascribe to the whole “family values” ordeal as though we should be kicked out, as though the “real” conservatives are only of a Goldwater variety.
After all, Enrique can’t bear to touch his keyboard without coming up with a new insult to Christians, and we don’t even have a viable social con in this race yet.
If anything, we’ve got a tiny civil war here that is not at all one-sided.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 2:44 PM
never seen the inside of a country club. i know it’s just a term, and i’ve met those who fit the description (skin crawling from reccolecting the encounter), but that too has become a watchword for “not sufficiently conservative for lack of western church affiliation”.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Amen.
If you are looking for a home in a political party, then your life is missing something.
And as others have suggested, if you don’t like the fact that religious conservatives (of which I am not, just a plain-old conservative) have an influence over the Republican party, you can always join the Democrats where religious folks have no influence whatsoever – although I don’t think you’ll like the rest of what goes with that.
thirteen28 on May 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Okay, bye! We’ll see how you like the rest of “what goes with that,” too.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Perhaps I’m just a victim of my generations knack for always feeling like the outsider, however, I fall under the category of ‘values voter’ (sort of, I have those values and vote for them – i.e. marriage amendment, pro-life, etc – but I’m more concerned about the war on terror and that is a bigger issue to me).
As a values voter, I often feel like the Republican party is a temporary home as well. That’s why many ‘values voters’ will identify as conservatives that vote Republican as opposed to being Republicans (even though we donate to the Republican party).
Basically, there will always be issues that the party lines up with us on and makes us feel special inside. On other issues, the Republican party will do a nice 180 away from our opinion and we’ll end up feeling like a ‘guest’ in the party.
Illegal immigration is a huge issue of mine and I don’t agree with the majority of the Republican leadership on this issue (and definitely not the majority of Democrat leadership on the issue). Does that mean that the party is actually for pro-amnesty folks and that the rest of us are just guests?
Nope. It just means that in any party larger than 1, someone will be unhappy about the official stance on one issue or another.
JadeNYU on May 14, 2007 at 2:50 PM
You realize, of course, that without the crusades, Europe would be part of the caliphate?
This statement above is like talking about the holocaust and saying, “Right, Bryan. We’ve already done the incineration of innocent civilians, in the name of Freedom, during the firebombing of Dresden, sanctioned by the government.” Well, yeah, that’s true, but it’s also wildly misleading.
Lehosh on May 14, 2007 at 2:51 PM
It’s hard to tell with you guys sometimes. The fact is, nearly any time I write on faith here the immediate response is to attack either me or Christians rather than take the post or what I’m saying on its own merits (but I’m the “intolerant” one who imposes “dhimmitude” on non-evangelicals in the GOP).
The fact is, InstaPundit has been using that line or lines in a similar vein for years and it’s neither funny nor factual. Others say similar things nearly every day. I do get the humor of it as I said in the first line of the post, but it isn’t funny and doesn’t stand up to the facts. It’s a smear. And I’m a more than a little bit fed up with secularist types making this same category error over and over and over again wrt to this war. It leads to an awful lot of unforced errors on our part and to divisions within our own ranks when we need to stay unified.
Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Ummm…. what?
Yeah, it kinda is. Christians kinda frown on that sort of behavior and make it a point not to do it.
In fact, considering that Christ spoke of “knowing a tree by its fruits,” most would argue that any person who murders is not a Christian any more than a tree that produces oranges is not an apple tree.
Now we do accept everyone into the faith, even those who have done horrible things. You’re just not allowed to keep doing those things once you’re in.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I’m not leaving – I’m not the one complaining about religious conservatives either. I think they are an overwhelming net good for the Republican party, even if I don’t share all their views on religion.
Do you?
thirteen28 on May 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM
You’d be amazed how many of us have taken you up on your offer. Not becomming Dems, just joining the majority party, Independents.
See you in the general when you need me.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 2:54 PM
There are violent fundamentalists in Judaism. Meir Kehane and Baruch Goldstein come to mind.
But even in these infinitesimal minority cases of violent ultra-Zionism, I don’t think their foundational texts could justify a worldwide jihad in the same way the Koran can.
(Dang, it was hard to find a link for BG that wasn’t thinly disguised Palestinian propaganda that claimed an Israeli gov’t conspiracy.)
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 2:55 PM
i’ve said exactly that. i don’t take it back either. it’s gotten to the point where everything christians want has to be implemented as a federal amendment. that is not conservative.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:55 PM
The foundational texts of the two faiths are very different, and the differences make all the difference in the world.
Well, no, Bryan. They are Abrahamic religions. That means they have common foundational texts. Neither Christians nor Muslims pulled their religions from thin air. So, let’s clear the air about that. Proponents of both religions have used their texts to justify all kinds of not-nice things.
There are, unfortunately, plenty of Christian Fundamentalists with more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists then people would care to admit. I suppose the argument could be made that sects who are virulently anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-science aren’t really Christian, but the same can be said for Muslims who espouse those beliefs.
Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 2:56 PM
So Glenn has a Rosie moment, “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam…”
Christians who obey Biblical principles do not live by their appetites, and therefore are not likely to employ such tactics to get their way.
Christians who obey Biblical principles understand that the fight is God’s, and our responsibility is to not get in His way by trying to do things our own way.
Christians who obey Biblical principles understand that this is not our final home, and fighting by the enemy’s methods over material things which are all going to burn, is a useless application of our energies.
It is perhaps possible that some shallowly-taught christian group would attempt such behavior, but Glenn would be completely incorrect to ascribe to them the specific term he used, fundamentalist. No matter how evil people attempt to make that term sound, in application to Christianity it refers to those who accept and believe that the Bible is true, and is the Word and words of God.
Freelancer on May 14, 2007 at 2:56 PM
meier kahane never killed anyone. a sickf**k claiming to be a follower did.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Even if a fringe group did break off, there would be millions of ‘mainstream’ Christians available to condemn the actions of that fringe group (and even help to bring them down).
Furthermore, I find it doubtful that you’d find a majority (or even a plurality) of Christians that would say terrorism is acceptable “when fighting the infidel”….
JadeNYU on May 14, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Well that’s your choice, I suppose. But I certainly won’t quit the party over the influence of religious conservatives.
Over the continued betrayals of conservatism by the party? That’s another story.
thirteen28 on May 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Well, I think the “American Taliban” stuff you see regarding Christians is silly, and devalues how horrible the real Taliban is, for example.
But a GOP dhimmitude joke about Allah is gold.
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM
And that’s exactly my point. Atheists complain that they’re alienated in the party when Christians have to listen to stuff like that all day.
Unfortunately for you, jummy, Regean was able to get support; Goldwater was not.
And the equally unfortunate for you is that libertarians don’t seem to stand a chance on their own, so you can either embrace is wackos or go with the losing shot.
But last, most Christian conservatives don’t want anything changed. They simply want things to stay as they are, hence the term “conservative.”
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Seriously, those on your side of the right are not the only ones being marginalized here. Just read a few of the comments about what some of you think of the evangelicals.
Look, we band together for a reason. Let’s not make this more than it is.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:08 PM
seedubya -
Yes, there are. And there are violent fundamentalists in Islam (of course), Hinduism and even Christianity.
The relevant analysis is in the details:
1. Currently, how many? In other words, what tendency towards violent fundamentalism?
2. What has been the history of this tendency?
3. To what extent is the level of violence due to the source text? Culture? Politics? The self-reinforcing influence of all three?
As you get into these details, it gets interesting. As a rational person, I acknowledge that the Islamiv world has the worst problem with violence. To some extent, I can accept the argument that passages of the Koran can make a Muslim more prone to interpret it as instruction to violence than, say, the New Testament, which is an oddly peaceful book.
All of these factors have weights assigned to their influence in violence, and I can’t specify what each of those relative weights are.
But if indeed the text of the main religious book is the determinative weight, then the question about Jews is an honest one: without the moderating element of the New Testament, why is it that Jews are so largely non-violent and aggressive towards unbelievers?
You say …
… but even my limited knowledge can find carte-blanche for some pretty wicked cleansiing of unbelievers.
So while my question is half-pointed – I do believe that factors like culture can have a large impact on how elements of a given religion are deephasized and adapted over time – part of it is honest curiosity:
the argument that the New Testament is non-violent vs. the Koran has been made exhaustively, time and time again from Christians arguing against Islam.
But what about Judaism? What’s the moderating influence there, without the moderating text?
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Exactly. But I’m talking about unforced errors that tend to be more consequential than that. For instance, pining for an Islamic Reformation to save us misses the point that because Islam and Christianity are fundamentally different, reforming them will lead in vastly different directions. We got a Martin Luther; they get a Ruhollah Khomeini. Another unforced error was allowing sharia to be incorporated into the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions. If they want to move their systems gradually toward sharia over the next century or so that’s one thing, but writing sharia in with our blessing was a huge mistake in that it makes both countries fundamentally theocratic from the get-go. That ain’t good. I think we made that mistake because people at the top of our own government make the same mistake wrt the fundamentals they’re dealing with.
Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 3:11 PM
“deephasized” = deemphasized in comment above
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Yes, so why the static for Glenn? Every religion has its fundamentalist nuts; Islam arguably makes that them the default instead of the outlier, but that doesn’t detract from Glenn’s point that rewarding one group’s violence creates incentives for others to be violent. You guys seem to be flirting with the idea that Christian fundamentalists would never, ever, under any circumstances behave violently. Why not, given the Kahanist example See-Dub’s just given us?
Also, forgive me for suspecting that the motivating factor here isn’t Glenn minimizing the threat posed by imperialist Islam — which, after all, he hasn’t done — but rather Christians not liking to be reminded that yes, even their own wayward members act badly at times. (As do atheists, of course, as Bryan noted.) Essentially, this is boils down to the old misdirection of, “Don’t you know there’s a war on?” — which, ironically, Glenn is rather fond of himself.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Oh, I don’t know, maybe the slaughter of some 6 million of them and the history of subjugation they’ve suffered through.
The sickest thing about the Holocaust (to me anyway) is how they became like animals towards the end, accepting their fate and not even fighting back.
The Jews, even in the glory days of Old Testiment texts, have never been an empire. At their best as warriors, they’ve done alright, but over and over again, they’d curse God and suffer the consequences.
I imagine any religion would be the same if subjected to the history Judaism has had.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:15 PM
the same as what?
obviously you want the constitution changed. there’s the difference. you want the foundational political document of or secular republic changed to prevent the social order around it from changing away from rules set by the church. that’s not how it works. you can be a christian all you want. if you don’t want gays marrying, don’t be gay. conservative signifies a political dispotion, not a religious confession. often the most conservative position is to accept change. especially local, organic change amongst individuals, as is the case of gays coming out and wanting to create stable, lifelong partnerships.
chesterson said something about left and right at their worst. “conservatives are in the practice of preventing wrongs from being righted, while progressives fight tooth and nail to ensure new wrongs are established.”
the latter part perfectly identifies today’s democrat party. why must the former describe ours?
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Take a good look at the primary process for the Republican nomination. Take a real hard look at the pandering the candidates do to people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Do you see anything even remotely similar to that happening with secular conservatives? No, you don’t. There is a litmus test and that’s just a fact.
Look, those on the Christian right should be thrilled. They have the power and any honest assessment will prove that out. What they don’t seem to like is the criticism that comes with that which is normal. If it helps, think of us as Great Britain and you can be the US. We are your allies on virtually everything but we have our own goals, too. But because of your size the screwy primary system you guys dominate the agenda.
So you can to set a lot of the agenda but you get some inbound from your friends for focusing on things that we feel are second tier issues at best. Boo hoo. Anytime you want to trade places you let us know.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM
When I was in high school in the mid 70’s, and Christian values really started being attacked in my area, I saw on the news how the Muslims took their religion so seriously. I saw how thousands and thousands of Muslims would gather in the same place, and pray. I saw on the news how as a huge group, they attacked anything American. I saw how other people were so afraid of them. I saw how the Muslims got their way.
And I said to myself “If Christians in America did this, no one would mess with us”.
I believed that in the 70’s, and I still believe it.
But Christians weren’t raised that way.
SuperManGreenLantern on May 14, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Well said.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Bryan, I swear! Everytime you write anything relating to Christianity, it’s perfect. I wish I could get to the point as fast as you do and still sound like I know what I’m talking about.
Joshua P. Allem on May 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Subjugation suffered at whose hands? (A: everyone’s)
The Nazis killed the Jews, yes. But what people, primarily of what religion, loaded them on to the trains all throughout Europe or looked the other way? And why didn’t the moderating text inhibit such behavior? I don’t blame Christianity at all, even though the denial of Christ’s divinity is a pretty fundamental no-no (though not explicitly punishable by execution in the NT).
Evil can certainly be influenced, even created, by doctrine, religious or otherwise. But doctrine is not all-powerful in creating nor stopping evil. And cultural and political doctrines compete for supremacy in the mind of a given culture or region.
It’s my perspective that sometimes folks looking for simple answers to the war on terror could remember that a little better. The doctrine followed by many Muslims is quite a bit different from the doctrine followed by AQ or Hamas, shared source text or no.
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Also well said.
Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM
We got a Martin Luther; they get a Ruhollah Khomeini.
Um, ok. Not the best of examples, Bryan.
Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Says who? I do not want it changed. On the contrary, I want it upheld.
Umm, no, that’s not at all true either.
Nothing has to be changed to continue to not allow people to marry someone of their own gender. The change only comes if homosexual marriages are allowed.
Really? Please sense the sarcasm in the last question.
So says you, but by its very definition, accepting change is a liberal stance, not a conservative one.
And being denied a piece of paper is preventing them from doing this? I had no idea lifelong partnerships were so fragile.
Is this your only beef, that Christians disagree with homosexual marriage? If so, you’ve got more than Republicans to contend with seeing as in every vote that was done those in favor of keeping marriage as it is were in the 75% range or higher.
Personally, it’s not my pet issue. Though I feel it would be glaringly hypotcritical to allow one population to change the terms of marriage while denying that right to other portions of the population.
My personal view is that if we’re going to change marriage to allow it to conform to the times it is in, then we should do so completely not half@ssed. Abolish marriage altogether and create nothing but legal partnerships that can be comprised of any gender and any number of individuals those involved wish.
But if homosexuality is the only beef you have with us religious types, maybe you got it easy. Because when it comes down to it, nothing a married couple can get is denied a nonmarried couple that takes the proper steps.
In fact, married people who make above a certain amount are actually subjected to further taxes than those who are not married.
Please tell me your dislike of us is because of something greater than that, especially when all you want is a simple bandaid that only applies directly to these times without looking ahead to injustices that will be uncovered once other former taboos are normalized the way homosexuality was.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Thanks Bryan. Well said and it’s about time.
One simply can NOT compare a spiritual religion like Christianity ,based on love, to a ‘government’ controlling cult like Islam which is based on submission.
Can’t happen in reason.
shooter on May 14, 2007 at 3:34 PM
I wasn’t arguing otherwise. I can’t think of a single empire of the past that didn’t enslave or nearly enslave the Jews.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Okay, maybe you should have some gratitude for us bailing your butts out.
Matticus Finch on May 14, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Esthier -
Didn’t mean to imply that you were arguing otherwise, just used the aspect you brought up to expand on my point.
BillINDC on May 14, 2007 at 3:38 PM
A good test of his theory would be having a Christian sect living among the muslim terrorists groups for years, watching and living in their midst to watch and learn? Would they be turned into terrorists like their Muslim brothers? Or would they continue to grow, in the shadow of Christ, and strive for co-existence and peace with their Jewish brothers and sisters?
Hey, I just found one, the Palistinians Christians. For decades they have been the Palistinians that have shown compassion, and you would be hard pressed to find any act of terrorism attributed to them (their could always be one or two whack job somewhere). In fact Israel has a very large population of Palistinians Christians living in peace with the Jews.
I am afraid that his theory has been put to a test, a real life test, and his theory has failed. But then I am sure he already knew this. Speaks to his intellect or research.
right2bright on May 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM
i thunb back and forth through my pocket constitution and i can’t find either “marriage” or “leviticus” in there. what part of the constitution are you desperate to see upheld?
yes that is one solitary symptomatic thing. in general, the adoption of christianity in place of a systematic, social science-based social theory has resulted in a popular movement who’s base is prone to shallowness and uninquisitiveness because, in place of the socratic method, scripture forms the absolute floor of all knowlege.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Sad, but true.
Well put, as always, Bryan.
SisterToldjah on May 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Is this another “woe is me, Pat Robertson gave me a swirly and Jerry Falwell stole my lunch money” thread?
Sweet Lord.
Sick of you pansy agnostic/atheist/secular/types whining. Also sick to death of “evangelicals” whining about not getting enough of whatever they want today. Right now.
By all means, sit it out. Kerr-rist. It can’t be any worse to be governed by Hilary! or Obamamessiah than listening to you kvetch nonstop about the mean “evangelicals” that want to “amend the constitution” in unspecified ways, or the growing Lutheran menace in Wisconsin or whatever the hell has you girls’ panties all in twist.
Seriously. Then Allah can write all day long about the latest socialized medicine plan from a dem congress, or one of our other libertarian types can wax eloquent about the real threat to gun rights. Explosive growth in subject matter for conservative “Important Action Alerts” and “Pretty Vicious Rants”. It’ll be good for traffic. Webhits all around for out-of-power conservatives complaining about the direction of the country. Half the time, I think some of you actually want to become conservative Jeremiahs, crying out in the political wilderness. Beats the hell out of building and sustaining a functional and governing coaltion, doesn’t it?
I’m sick of politics. Internicine battles between factions on the right that basically have an asthetic problem with one another that causes them to blow up fairly trivial disputes into coalition busting civil wars, and outright crazy people taking control of the left. Feh.
Fred on May 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I’m sorry, but I seem to have slept while our agenda was set.
I saw prayer at football games leave while I was in high school.
I saw a valedictorian get silenced during her own graduation speech because she mentioned God too many times.
I see Christmas trees labelled “holiday trees” which calls back to the Winter Solstice, a religious holiday in and of itself, while ignoring the one people come out in droves to spend their money on.
I see abortion becoming normalized in our society while we debate whether or not women should be able to suck the brains out of their partially birthed children.
I see Bush pandering to the left on issues of immigration.
And again, the two main contenders so far are McCain and Rudy. Do we even have any other possible contenders who are any further from the religious right than those two?
And when he spoke of his support for abortion was that supposed to be aimed at us religious folk?
I keep hearing that we run the party, and I’d like to believe it, but I’ve yet to see anything resembling proof.
Last, Britain may quarrel with the US, but she doesn’t want the US out. Maybe we can draw the line there and accept that while we don’t agree all the time, we’re certainly better off united. This isn’t directed at you per se but at any who think we’re nuts and don’t belong.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Bill–as for Judaism, I don’t know but maybe the Talmud or Midrashim include some of the moderating influence not obvious in the Old Testament.
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 3:49 PM
How about we make this a little quicker? Which part are you so “obviously” convinced I want to change?
You don’t see any of that in your approach to Christians? You don’t know me, and you already think you’ve got me pegged.
And how petty is you argument anyway. If Christians left the party, the party would lose. It’s really that simple.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Alright. I was just trying to make that clear in case it wasn’t.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 3:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment
you see, to amend something is to change it.
jummy on May 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Bullseye.
Great post.
thirteen28 on May 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM
You know something, jummy? Pick another topic other than Gay Marriage, cos I gots news: its not just the big bad right wing evangelicals that attend the megachurches and get their marching orders faxed to them by Pat Robertson that don’t want gay marriage. Personally? Not my hobby horse to ride (although it sure looks like its yours), but still. Dude. Your issue isn’t with the evangelical right. It’s with 60-80% of your fellow voters (IIRC), depending on which state you live in that’s had a vote on the issue.
Google it.
Fred on May 14, 2007 at 3:59 PM
But, then you can’t say that killing, sanctioned by the Pope, hasn’t happened in the name of religion. I’m not attempting to compare Christianity to Islam. They’re different, and one actually teaches killing. My whole point is, it’s happened with us too. Difference is, we fixed it, and it’s not acceptable.
You’re saying it’s unusual to find a Christian commit murder? Really? How about Timothy McVeigh?
Look, everyone, I’m not saying that the Church condones killing. It detests it. I get that. All I’m saying is you can’t say beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no group of psychos, will form a group, and think they’re killing in the name of Christianity. Will the church condone it? No. Will it be responsible? No. Am I saying Christianity is like Islam? No.
All I’m saying is that if threats continue to be an accepted practice to get what people want, then some psychos, and psychopathic groups, of all religions will start using it to get what they want, even if they think, in their twisted mind, that they are doing it for religion.
Like I said, look at the VTech shooter. The nitwit thought he was dying like Christ. He was insane, and didn’t follow the teachings of the Church. But, he still thought it was comparative. All you need is a few VTech shooters, and there are, to get together, and you’ve got a problem.
Will Christianity be responsible? No. It doesn’t teach violence. I don’t agree that all fundamentalist Christians will. Obviously not. 99.99% won’t.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yeah, I get what an amendment is, but apparently my writing sucks so much that you refuse to read the things I write.
I’ll make it quick this time.
1. The amendment isn’t changing what marriage is. All it’s doing is defining what marriage already is in order to keep it from being changed.
2. My stance has nothing to do with that amendment anyway. My stance is all or nothing.
If we decide that marriage is something that needs to adapt to the times, then it needs to adapt to all times, not just the one we are currently in and therefore must become something entirely different.
It must become a mere contract that is not subject to moral or any other objects other than what is defined in the contract provided that those involved can legally sign a contract.
But again, that would actually change things and would not be conservative in the sense that it would not conserve much of anything.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Reason is what separates Faith from Fundamentalism. Its also what separates political Islamism from Christianity. Not to mention, political Islamism is a control mechanism where as Christianity is not. Natan Sharansky explains the difference.
E. M. on May 14, 2007 at 4:05 PM
well said
brak on May 14, 2007 at 4:05 PM
You don’t find him just a tiny bit unusual?
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I’ll stipulate that any religion can be hijacked by antisocial extremists. This includes Christianity. But to do so for Christianity, they need to take away the emphasis from the text of the Bible. Two examples that come to mind are Jim Jones’ Jonestown cult and David Koresh’s Branch Davidians, which became centered on the personalities of the leaders instead of on a scrupulous adherence to the text of the Bible.
Which is, after all, what “fundamentalism” actually means–think strict constructionist. Fundamentalism doesn’t actually mean “zealot” or “hardliner”, even though it has picked up that connotation. It refers to a close and usually literal interpretation of scripture.
By the way, I don’t know the particular theology behind these incidents, but Christian extremists have killed a few abortion practitioners here and there. (For reasons Bryan laid out in the original post, Eric Rudolph doesn’t count.)
Those people are terrorists and roundly condemned as such. That there are any abortion clinics still standing in the red states is a testimony to Christian forbearance. The very Christian pro-life movement has been, with those few exceptions, non-violent and committed to bringing about change through legal means. I suspect it will continue to be so–even for something as hideously evil and appalling as abortion.
see-dubya on May 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Also, Timmy goes back to the whole knowing your tree by its fruits thingy. Timmy was not showing any apples, so he clearly wasn’t an apple tree even if he pretended to be.
You use the term unusual. This would imply that it happens all the time.
How many Tims do you got?
Let’s face it, while it may be commonplace to see a Christian inside a church, it certainly isn’t an every day experience to see one trying to kill people.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM
… and another excellent post.
thirteen28 on May 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Well wakey, wakey. Just today, you can hear the leader of that populous state of S. Carolina, a state not even important enough to have their own name but one that has to share it with their neighbors to the north, arguing with Florida about moving their respective primary dates. Why? Power. Simple as that. And what is one of THE single driving factors in the SC primary? How religious can you be.
Since when did that become a qualification for President? I don’t care what religion or lack of religion a President has, I care that they focus 1) on national defense and 2) on a sound fiscal policy. But those issues, the primary reasons we should be electing a President, have become secondary to a rigorous examination of not just is the person religious, but do they follow the “right” religion. Think I’m wrong? Who on the Republican ticket is more devout than Romney? Who not only went to a religious university but then did a religious mission? Yet you have a leader of a Christian movement in FL, the other state looking for first in the union status saying flat out that a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan. Satan? How Christian. You have the head of the Southern Baptist Convention saying as I write this that he will encourage his followers not to vote for Gulliani. Guess why? Don’t tell me Christians don’t have a litmus test and it has NOTHING to do with being President.
Whether or not a class valedictorian gets to say God in a speech is not a concern I want my President or member of Congress to think about for a nano-second. Same same with Christmas trees. The only thing I want the President to do is appoint strict Constitutionalist judges, overturn Roe v. Wade because it was improperly decided, and let the states make the call. Immigration, see national security. Bush is no worse than 70% of our so called Republican leaders.
If you don’t think the religious right has a disproportionate influence on the leader of Republican party, then I’m sorry, I don’t think the facts are on your side. I don’t want you guys to leave the party. I just want you to focus on things that actually matter to the job. We are electing a President, not a religious leader.
ps…watch the debate tomorrow night..see if religion comes up.
JackStraw on May 14, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Let’s put this in perspecitive, Jack. We (Christians)are the US and you (agnostics) are the UK. You agree in many respects but have your own agenda as well. Fine. I’m completely with you up to that point. It’s just that you’ve ignored the whole thrust of Instapundit’s comment. What he said — to extend the metaphor — was this:
Sooner or later those damn Americans are going to start with the car bombings and suicide vests. Why? Because, when all is said in done, they’re more like the enemy than like us.
Who is pushing who out of the conservative coalition?
John on May 14, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Plenty? Then you should have no trouble naming five. And I don’t mean Fred Phelps, who has been pretty much universally denounced and whose “church” is largely made up of his own relatives.
I personally don’t mind being reminded of our own “wayward members” because in Christianity we denounce them quickly and thoroughly. We don’t apologize or make excuses for it or allow that kind of crap to get any traction.
Laura on May 14, 2007 at 4:10 PM
And family values are wrong? Anti-gay went out of the conservative party years ago, just because someone is anti-gay marriage, does not make them “anti-gay”, and because one fights for live (no matter how worthless you think it is) you consider that wrong and not admirable? And now the conservative are the ones that say hurtful things…listen up, when was the last time a liberal was shouted down at a univerity when invited to give a speech, when was the last time a liberals house was stormed and the liberal was beaten for believing in his message, when was the last time a conservative marched on the capital and defaced a national monument, what liberal speaker must have body guards when touring a universtity campus. Well my friend, it is the conservatives who are the party of sanity, the liberals are tough, and they act tough, and they bully, and they are the ones carrying the message of hate.
You equate belief with conservative then tell me…
o great one, how many hospitals have been built by athiests or non-belivers, how many non-believers open their doors everynight to feed the poor, the down-trodden, how many non-believers arrive with a 747 full of life saving medicine within hours of a catastrophe. Oh yes, the non-believers have such a low opinion of someone who holds solidly to a belief, but you and the rest of society, feed off the benevolence of believers.
right2bright on May 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Yeah, he compared himself. That’s hardly the same as saying it’s not unusual for Christians to kill. It’s also not the same as saying he felt he was doing what he was doing for Christ.
In this context, the “nitwit” was using Christ’s sacrifice as a metaphore.
If I were to say that my dad’s got the belly of budah, it wouldn’t mean I think he’s the god in the flesh, only that he’s got a potbelly.
Esthier on May 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM
That’s my whole point. There are psychos in our Church, who would break off and do the same thing. They wouldn’t have the support of the Church, and the Church would condemn it. All I’m saying is, it’s not impossible that some psycho group could break off, and think they were doing it in the name of Christ, no matter how twisted their logic.
amerpundit on May 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Who is it that typically conflates Christian fundamentalists with the Taliban? Leftists.
Who is it that typically cowtows to radical Islam? Leftists.
And who is Glen Reynolds trying to convince? Leftists.
He’s using their own ideas against them. Maybe he could have phrased it better, but I wouldn’t take offense at it.
sandberg on May 14, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »