Former GOP congressman indicted for aiding terrorism; Update: Born-again Christian?

posted at 3:05 pm on January 16, 2008 by Bryan

Just across the wires.

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

Siljander served in the 1980s and has been a lobbyist ever since. In fact, the lobbying is related to the terrorism charges. Imagine that.

Throw the book at him.

Update: Lots of people have been photographed with Yasser Arafat. Siljander is one of them. He’s all about the “reconciliation” and building of bridges.

Update (AP): Curiouser and curiouser. Debbie Schlussel says not only does she know Siljander, she used to work for him. And he was a very devout Christian at the time.

Update: Siljander was an evangelical, but his views evolved over time into a more syncretic understanding. Read the article. As a fellow evangelical, I see the same tendency to paper over real religious differences in our churches every day, and that tendency is coming from honestly curious people like Siljander as well as from denominational leaders who are more interested in playing numbers games than sticking up for truth.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Too bad we don’t have any arenas nearby.

I could settle for a firing line.

knob on January 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Is this really any surprise? The religious right has been in line with islamic terrorist doctrine for decades now, hatred for homosexuals, anti-choice, more religious involvement in government etc.

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Does anybody kmow if he endorsed anyone in the GOP?

menoname on January 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM

“Siljander”? Sounds Lutheran.

HerrMorgenholz on January 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Is this really any surprise? The religious right has been in line with islamic terrorist doctrine for decades now, hatred for homosexuals, anti-choice, more religious involvement in government etc.

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Oh, that’s why Democrat talking points get repeated in Osama Bin Laden’s videos….makes perfect sense.

I hate to tell you, but multiculturalism is married to islamoterrorisim, not Conservatives.

Asher on January 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM

Put Murtha in charge of the Congressional investigation. Actually, it should probably be Henry Waxman but he’s got more important stuff on his plate, what with the steroids in baseball thing. Hey, I know,..how about the CIA folks in charge of vetting Lebanese illegals before they are cleared to handle secure information.

a capella on January 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I hate to tell you, but multiculturalism is married to islamoterrorisim, not Conservatives.

Asher on January 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM

yes because radical islam is well known for its emphasis on inclusion and respect for different cultures. Oh and they love secularization too.

What a joke.

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Siljander”? Sounds Lutheran.

HerrMorgenholz on January 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Sounds Scandinavian. And, Harald is right here trolling his little heart out. Connect the dots.

a capella on January 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Looks like instead of building bridges, he was burning them. Let him sit in Gitmo.

mogilla on January 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM

yes because radical islam is well known for its emphasis on inclusion and respect for different cultures. Oh and they love secularization too.

What a joke.

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM

No, you ridiculous person, because multiculturalism is only prepared to denounce its own culture– that of Western Judeo-Christian values. It turns a blind eye to the depredations of any other culture, as it views all cultures as equal, except it’s own, which is inferior.

Of course it doesn’t make sense. It’s multi-culti.

snickelfritz on January 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM

yes because radical islam is well known for its emphasis on inclusion and respect for different cultures. Oh and they love secularization too. What a joke.
crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM

NO…because multiculturalism is the “bend over backwards for all cultures, even cultures that want to destry ours” credo of the liberals who hate America first and think the jihadis are just deprived of education, jobs, economic opportunities, and respect.

Or did you MISUNDERSTAND what Asher said?

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Thanks, Snickelfritz. Nice to have somebody agree nearly simultaneously!

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM

NO…because multiculturalism is the “bend over backwards for all cultures, even cultures that want to destry ours” credo of the liberals who hate America first and think the jihadis are just deprived of education, jobs, economic opportunities, and respect.

Or did you MISUNDERSTAND what Asher said?

nope thats just the radical right-wing definition of multi-culturalism you would get from reading a daily two minutes hate on isolated instances from far right websites like this one.

OMG another bathroom somewhere installed footbaths?!?! SHARIA!!!!

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Dude, multiculturalism has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with tearing down Western traditions of liberty — religious and political. Multiculturalism is suicidal by nature and the deeper thinking advocates of it know this full well.

Drum on January 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM

Born-again Christian?

Yeah, AP. Jesus made him do it.

ulyses on January 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM

nope thats just the radical right-wing definition of multi-culturalism you would get from reading a daily two minutes hate on isolated instances from far right websites like this one.

OMG another bathroom somewhere installed footbaths?!?! SHARIA!!!!

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Which, oddly, is not opposed by the ACLU when public funds are used to cater to that particular religion. But should that same school rent a room to a group for Bible study, THAT is grounds for a lawsuit.

Multi-culti is a classic example of Orwell pointing out that ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.’

snickelfritz on January 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Oh please, let’s not go there.

And he was a very devout Christian at the time. (AP)

Is this really any surprise? The religious right has been in line with islamic terrorist doctrine for decades now…
crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

How can some complain how the dems will wrongly use this to slander all republicans, but have no problem with implying that Christians are traitors becuase this on was a christian?

AverageJoe on January 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM

nope thats just the radical right-wing definition of multi-culturalism you would get from reading a daily two minutes hate on isolated instances from far right websites like this one. OMG another bathroom somewhere installed footbaths?!?! SHARIA!!!!
crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM

And YOUR definition of Multiculturalism would be????

BTW, having attended university (here in the US) with Muslims I’m actually FOR footbaths in the schools.

WHY?

Because they’re gonna pray anyway and if there are no footbaths the WASH THEIR FEET IN THE BATHROOM SINKS! This is direct personal observations, I’ve witnessed it multiple times myself at night school at a local college.

Frankly I’d rather wash my own hands where people’s feet WEREN’T.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Obviously… should have been “because this one was a christian?”

AverageJoe on January 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

Furthermore, for all their contradictions and hypocrisy (and I am the first to self-righteously point this out at every turn), the religious Christian right in this nation has nothing in common with fanatical Muslims. That you would suggest that they do is an indication that you see all religions as being the same, and that the threat of one over another is not based upon the contents and ideas within it, but the level of devotion with which its followers hold.

This, my friend, is multiculturalism.

Jeez, normally I get asked this question, but now I can ask it of someone else: why the heck are you at this website?

Drum on January 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Multi-culti is a classic example of Orwell pointing out that ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.’

snickelfritz on January 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Exactly. Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

This is suicide. Some Americans love suicide.

Drum on January 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Born-again Christian?
Yeah, AP. Jesus made him do it.

ulyses on January 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM

1. It’s Bryan’s post.
2. The assertion is made by Debbie Schlussel, who worked with him, and has details at her post to support this claim.

We know you didn’t read the full post let alone follow the link, but just jumped at the chance to take a shot at AP. Ended up with a self inflicted wound instead for your trouble.

TexasDan on January 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM

the religious Christian right in this nation has nothing in common with fanatical Muslims.

They’re certainly not synonymous but to say they have nothing in common is ridiculous. You can refer to the similarities I listed in my firstpost in the thread. Above all fundamentalist movements of any religion have in common a hatred for secularization. In fact most fundamentalist movements begin as a reaction to secularization.

Jeez, normally I get asked this question, but now I can ask it of someone else: why the heck are you at this website?

Drum on January 16, 2008 at 5:26 PM

to be honest this site is occassionally correct in pointing out the excesses in my own side. Although I disagree with much of what is posted here I think theres much to gain from reading the opinions of those diametrically opposed to you. Plus the political analysis by AP is well-written and humorous.

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Crr6,

You didn’t answer my question. How do YOU define “Multiculturalism”?

When you say “In fact most fundamentalist movements begin as a reaction to secularization” are you drawing a distinction between Islamism (Salafism, really), Islamic fundamentalism (an interesting term since there’s not really such a thing as Islam that isn’t fundamental in nature), and Islam in general?

Mayhaps you need to do a bit more detailed study of Islam, the Quran, Hadith, and Muslim history. ALL of it, not just its golden age.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Oh yes! Christian bashing time!

Next thing you know we’ll be feeding Christians to lions in the staples center.

Yes! I guess we have much more in common with the dems than we thought.

HaraldHardrada on January 16, 2008 at 5:43 PM

I raised the above because the Prophet did NOT, as I understand it, found Islman as a reaction to secularization.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Dang…finger-stutter. Meant “Islam”.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Culture in a nutshell:

Huge orchestra, lots of musicians, lots of different instruments, but everybody has Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony on their musicstand.

Multiculturalism:

Same orchestra, musicians and instruments, but now there are numerous different scores on the musicstands: Bach, Handel, Elgar, Pink Floyd, Britney Spears, Wagner and Enya.

Care to guess how the concert sounds?

Anybody who is in favor of multiculturalism hasn’t the foggiest clue what culture is, what it’s for and what it accomplishes.

thejackal on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Bryan,

This man had connections to the Reverend Moon

How then to account for Siljander’s involvement in political fronts of the ever-controversial Rev. Moon? Siljander spoke at conferences sponsored by CAUSA, a Moon political unit, in 1985 and 1986. These meetings promote the Moon doctrine of “Godism” or “CAUSA ideology.”

“Democracy arose out of the lack of absolute values, absolute power, and absolute being,” wrote top Moon evangelist Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak in 1983. “When there are no absolutes, the majority opinion is considered the best idea. Godism however, has not been the majority idea…Therefore through democratic elections, people have not selected God’s will, goodness, True Parents, or the Messiah. Our goal and purpose is to follow Godism.”

The “True Parents,” according to Unification Church theology, are Rev. and Mrs. Moon. The Unification Church is the “True Family.” Moon himself desires the “subjugation of the American population and government,” and “an automatic theocracy to rule the world.”

Siljander told the Times of Springfield, Virginia, that he returned his speaking fees when he found out that CAUSA was a Moon group. This knowledge did not, however, prevent his joining the national policy board of the American Freedom Coalition (AFC) in 1987. AFC is another Moon front, formed by the political marriage of CAUSA and Christian Voice. Christian Voice is a political network and lobbying group, on whose advisory board Siljander has also sat.

Many conservatives, however, are wary of Moon. Bob Dugan of the National Association of Evangelicals warned in 1988 of covert Moon control of the AFC, and that “Christian theology…cannot be reconciled with Unification theology.” Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation told CBS in 1985, that “All Americans should be concerned” because Moon “opposes the constitutional system of government in the United States of America.”

Christian Right candidates usually portray themselves as advocates of “traditional values” or “family values.” What does Mark Siljander think about the “True Family” of Rev. Moon? Does the candidate count democracy among the “traditional values?” Virginia voters may want to know.

Pam on January 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Traitor

Throw the book at him.

You do realize that “indicted” is not the same as “found guilty,” right? If he’s guilty, then he should be punished harshly. For now, though, let’s not make the Duke lacrosse rush to judgment on him.

calbear on January 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Throw the book at him.

Yes. Immediately.

Zorro on January 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Firing squad or hanged by the neck until dead?

I’m happy with either one.

funky chicken on January 16, 2008 at 6:23 PM

As a fellow evangelical, I see the same tendency to paper over real religious differences in our churches every day, and that tendency is coming from honestly curious people like Siljander as well as from denominational leaders who are more interested in playing numbers games than sticking up for truth.

You ain’t lying, my man!!

Sultry Beauty on January 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Shaking head….so now being an evangelical Christian means you can’t possibly be a traitor?

funky chicken on January 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM

What’s the matter, Crr6?

Can’t answer my question about Multiculturalism?

Either you’ve logged off and gone away, or you’ve pulled a typical liberal tactic of making a narrow-minded comment about “religious fundamentalism” (yes, liberal views CAN be narrow-minded, despite the fact liberals can’t imagine themselves being such, particularly when it comes to comments about conservatives) but aren’t here to logically define and defend your position.

Liberals seem to love to call conservatives names in an attempt to channel and leverage emotion, but when challenged on the facts and asked to debate using logic, point-by-point, they often just slink away and disappear. At least, that’s the way it seems to me.

Please prove my suspicion about you to be wrong.

And now I have to log out. Will log back in, in about 2 or 3 hours, once I get home.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Is this really any surprise? The religious right has been in line with islamic terrorist doctrine for decades now, hatred for homosexuals, anti-choice, more religious involvement in government etc.

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM

crr6, your argument is logically invalid. For instance, that Hitler was a vegetarian does not imply vegetarians are in line with Nazis. We can always find some ideas in common between any groups of people–most successful groups of people prefer breathing oxygen to mustard gas.

Mainstream fundamentalist Christians don’t approve of the use of terror for political goals. About a decade ago, when the pro-life movement got out of hand to such an extent that a few abortionists were murdered, the fundamentalist Christians acted to squish the extreme rhetoric. You do not observe a similar response from the mainstream of Islam.

And you mentioned hatred of gays on the behalf of fundamentalist Christians, but their views on homosexuality are evolving also. You don’t see any movement in the moslem camp.

As an Western atheist, I have no problem affirming the vast superiority of Christianity and Judaism to Islam.

thuja on January 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM

And we Jews and Christians thank you for that, Thuja.

Shirotayama on January 16, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Mark Siljander claims to be a Christian, but I’d point out to him the following… I Timothy 1:1-2 (AMP) “The Holy Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits and doctrines that demons teach, through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared.”

Joshua P. Allem on January 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM

funky chicken on January 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM

I don’t really think that is what is being said to be honest..I think we read some comments that painted all Evangelicals with a broad brush…and reactions to the comments..

In this mans case, I think he is an opportunist that has presented himself as a God warrior while at the same time accepting money from the Reverend Moon, only to move on to bigger and better things…terrorists..but look, he made a buck..and when it is all said and done..I bet we find a financial web of much deceipt!

It’s cases like this that make me kinda wish we had public beatings

Pam on January 16, 2008 at 7:00 PM

thuja on January 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM

That was a really thoughtful response!

Pam on January 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Update: Siljander was an evangelical, but his views evolved over time into a more syncretic understanding. Read the article. As a fellow evangelical, I see the same tendency to paper over real religious differences in our churches every day, and that tendency is coming from honestly curious people like Siljander as well as from denominational leaders who are more interested in playing numbers games than sticking up for truth.

I don’t think it’s right to call Siljander “honestly curious.” Something had gone wrong with his honesty in religious matters:

After a lengthy search, Siljander recalled, “I could not find one verse in the entire New Testament that ever suggested we should convert anyone to any religion.”

This is patently ridiculously. For instance, Mark 6:8-11

8These were [Jesus's] instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

Other verses can be found and are well-known to fundamentalist Christians. So Siljander was motivated out of something other than intellectual curiosity in his interpretations, since his story depends heavily on an obvious lie.

thuja on January 16, 2008 at 7:05 PM

Off with his head!

madmonkphotog on January 16, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Siljander”? Sounds Lutheran.

HerrMorgenholz on January 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Morgenholz? Sounds like a rude joke about waking up… mit ein Ständer.

Tzetzes on January 16, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Speaking of “papering over differences”, isn’t that what is happening when opposing candidates won’t flat out say “Romney is not a Christian.

corona on January 16, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Shirotayama and Thuja – keep up the good work.

JonRoss on January 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM

First this has little to do with religion and much to do with greed. Greed is nondenominational, affects people of both parties and is perfectly multi cultural.

He didn’t do it because he was or is a Christian or a Republican or even American. He did this because he was a greedy azzwipe. Gitmo is too good for the likes of someone like Siljander (if the charges are found to be true of course).

Christianity, even evangelical Christianity, is nothing like Islam and even less like fundamental Islam. Vengeance is mine is not kill the infidels.

Buzzy on January 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM

crr6 on January 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM Above all fundamentalist movements of any religion have in common a hatred for secularization. In fact most fundamentalist movements begin as a reaction to secularization.

If by secularization you mean the forbidden public expression of relgious belief, I would hope that any liberty loving individual would feel the same as the fundamentalists you have in mind.

But if by secularization you mean a polity that does not recognize one religion over another, there is one highly appropriate example that proves you wrong: Christianity at the time of the founding of this nation. Christians relied upon the secular constitution as protection of their religious liberty. That the majority of states had religiously based constitutions does not nullify the fact that it was (and is) a secular constitution that protects (or at least ought to) religious liberty in this country.

And as for your other point, if anything, secularization is a reaction against fundamentalism.

Drum on January 16, 2008 at 7:19 PM

Is this really any surprise? The religious right has been in line with islamic terrorist doctrine for decades now, hatred for homosexuals, anti-choice, more religious involvement in government etc.

They’re certainly not synonymous but to say they have nothing in common is ridiculous. You can refer to the similarities I listed in my firstpost in the thread. Above all fundamentalist movements of any religion have in common a hatred for secularization. In fact most fundamentalist movements begin as a reaction to secularization.

crr6 your understanding of both Christianity and Islam is incredibly shallow. In Christianity sodomy is a sin that might, if not repented, prevent one from entering heaven. In Islam sodomy is a sin and both the one who is doing it and the one to whom it is being done must be punished by death here on earth. Meanwhile faithful men who follow Allah and enter heaven may have sex with young boys as their reward.

As far as the “choice” issue goes Christianity forbids it whereas in Islam it is never addressed as it would never crop up in the first place seeing as it is demographically suicidal. The colour of Islam is green representing the Springtime and fertility.

In Islam religion and government are inseparable and the Muslim mind is incapable of comprehending it. In contrast secularism is derived from the Bible, from the teachings of Jesus and there wouldn’t be secular governments in any part of the world today without Christianity including majority Buddhist and Hindu countries.

They’re certainly not synonymous but to say they have nothing in common is ridiculous.

On the contrary they have only the most shallow similarities that might seem significant to a myopic, uninformed ignoramus but to suggest that have some sort of commonality is beyond ridiculous.

aengus on January 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM

When will the indictments come down for the Nancy, Queen of Damascus?

fogw on January 16, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Other verses can be found and are well-known to fundamentalist Christians.

Uh yeah but you can read Bible without necessarily being a fundamentalist, right? It seems to me that this term means different things to different people.

aengus on January 16, 2008 at 7:42 PM

Obviously crr6 is just trying to start a fight. He or she couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to believe that

the religious right has been in line with Islamic terrorist doctrine for decades now

,
or that Christians as a group “hate” anybody.
I think crr6 is a Democrat.

jgapinoy on January 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM

You know when my father used to argue with me, my mother would comment that me and him argue because we are too alike. Later on I realized it. Some of the Jesus Camp types are starting to figure that out in their case. There are striking similarities in beliefs although the rhetoric has to deal with different political climates and both lay claim to the hand written word of God. We do know that God, may he be exalted, is not corporeal and does not actually possess a hand to write, but do not think that it is not his absolute word, yet sections of both factions use it for war and profit, but they are the few, not the many.

LevStrauss on January 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Islamofascists & Christians are “too alike”??? LevStrauss, you’ve been hitting the fire water again, right?
Christians are the most generous, selfless, forgiving, & loving group on the planet.

jgapinoy on January 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM

LevStrauss on January 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM

Someone drugged your Jesus Juice with a helpful of camel urine. You give out about the “Jesus Camp” and justify your confusion by referring to Islamic concepts.

both lay claim to the hand written word of God

No, Islam lays claim to the written (actually spoken) word of God.

We do know that God, may he be exalted, is not corporeal and does not actually possess a hand to write

This is your asinine attempt to obfuscate Islamic literalism. No one has ever claimed that God literally wrote the Bible or Koran by hand. However the Koran is considered to the literal word of Allah (the only God) as dictated to Mohammed by Gabriel and is not equivalent to the Bible in this sense.

yet sections of both factions use it for war and profit, but they are the few, not the many.

Bollocks. Compare Thomas Aquinas’ just war theory (based solidly on Christian theology) to Mohammed’s exhortations to conquer infidels in the Koran.

Helpful tip to Muslim trolls: try to avoid Koran-speak like “may he be exalted” to avoid future detection.

aengus on January 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Get the rope…

build the wall on January 16, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Actually the “may he be exalted” line is Jewish my friend. Aengus are you saying that Islam itself is the enemy? I just want to be sure. Are you saying that pre emptive war agrees with the just war theory?

LevStrauss on January 16, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Also, yes the Koran started out as the spoken word, but it wasn’t going to be a viable religion until it was written. Christianity deals with things that were spoken and same with the Torah.

Do you agree that Hagee’s anti Catholic rants and his whole spiel, that we must protect Israel to prepare for the rapture, is a rather dishonest way of distorting Christianity? I don’t think that religion should be used for foreign policy purposes on either side and you know damn well the few are using it as such. Do you think that Bin Laden is really religious, some of his operatives have been seen doing very questionable things such as womanizing, drinking, and gambling? They don’t buy the religious mumbo jumbo that they sell but it sure makes it easier for some schmuck to kill themselves for his cause, to expand his sphere of influence and power. Yes the muslim radicals that kill themselves go that much farther and are more zealous, but that is because it takes that much more belief to actually kill yourself for a cause than it is to simply agree with a war with voice, cash, and vote.

The other similarities of the religious zealots is their distaste for powerful women, their hatred of gays, and belief that this is a religious war for both sides. But like I said, the people that perpetuate this stuff are the few on both sides.

LevStrauss on January 16, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Duh folks. Look at all the recent “pastors” that have fallen from their Ivory Preching Perches. Google it. This guy is no different. He’s human. He like we, is fallible and if tempted because of extenuating circumstances is going to take a bite at the apple. Born again or not.

auspatriotman on January 16, 2008 at 10:26 PM

The love of money is the root of all evil…

SouthernGent on January 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM

All kinds of things seemed to have come in with that last high tide.

I’ve never heard such outlandish foolishness outside of a clumsy madrassa.

BL@KBIRD on January 17, 2008 at 12:46 AM

The love of money is the root of all evil…

SouthernGent on January 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM

I utterly disagree with SouthernGent here. It seems to me more likely that Siljander’s evil derives from some twisted religious idealism rather than from the love of money. Siljander’s statements have the tone of a deluded faith not of greed.

Sadly, the trouble with presenting more a convincing argument is that doing evil for money and doing evil for ideology sound so alike that it’s hard to make any case without vastly more detail than makes sense here. But let me just start by observing that people are motivated by more than simple greed or else Christianity, environmentalism, communism, and libertarianism wouldn’t exist.

thuja on January 17, 2008 at 1:09 AM

There was a day when that was a hanging offense.

TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 5:26 AM

I see the same tendency to paper over real religious differences in our churches every day .. from denominational leaders who are more interested in playing numbers games than sticking up for truth.

Wow, that’s quite a broad stroke you are painting with and not one I am inclined to agree.

ProdigalReflections on January 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM

There was a day when that was a hanging offense.

TheSitRep on January 17, 2008 at 5:26 AM

As much as I would reville in the justice of a summary execution, I can’t shake the want of some of our prison gangs getting ahold of this terd.

whiskeytango on January 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM

As much as I detest this man,
I wonder if he was representative for a muslim majority area.

If thats the case its a bummer that he seems to be representing his base more effectively than our supposed conservative representatives our representing ours.

Sonosam on January 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Update: Born-again Christian?

If we could just get rid of those damn Jews Guns Born-again Christians, everything would be okay.

{sigh}

Traitor?

Indeed. And that’s the point.

Whatever he called himself at points in the past, the truth shows him to be a traitor first.

Lawrence on January 17, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Bryan – “I see the same tendency to paper over real religious differences in our churches every day .. from denominational leaders who are more interested in playing numbers games than sticking up for truth.”

ProdigalReflections – “Wow, that’s quite a broad stroke you are painting with and not one I am inclined to agree.”
- on January 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM

I am in complete agreement with Bryan on this. Reflect for a moment on the internal conflicts within North American Christendom which the political left so often uses as arguments against us.

The political left has a point. And it is foolish for the political right to ignore these problems.

Thanks, Bryan, for being honest about this in your post. This is our problem and if we do not deal with it is our own fault for it becoming a talking point of the secular left.

Lawrence on January 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM

“I see the same tendency to paper over real religious differences in our churches every day .. from denominational leaders who are more interested in playing numbers games than sticking up for truth.”

Hmm. Maybe I’m not privy to who specifically Bryan and Lawrence might be referring to in the sub-context and thus at a disadvantage in appreciating the statement. Given the lack of a contextual reference, and possibly my ignorance of any obvious link, I think a broad statement questioning the motivation of those pursing peace between denominations, such as Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, or with-in religious sects, such as Mormons and evangelicals, or between religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam irresponsible and maybe even dangerous. If we are talking about specific individuals, judged on a case by case basis, I may join you in your condemnation, but the statement (to me at least) implies that pursuing peace with other people whose faith differs from ours, without compromising our own beliefs, is, well … I hesitate to say, pretty narrow thinking and much more representative of the traditional stereotype of people of faith.

ProdigalReflections on January 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2