Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on June 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
There is no appreciable number of people in this country, religious Christians or otherwise, who support the murder of abortion doctors. The same cannot be said of Muslims who support suicide bombings in the name of their religion.
Yet speak of the disproportionately violent strain in Islam to a “progressive” person and you’ll be met with sneering recitations of millennia-old Christian crusades or Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As for conservative Christians’ contemporary political endeavors, lobbying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools or forbidding same-sex marriage simply does not threaten society in quite the same way as the genital mutilation of young girls or the bombing of the London transit system.
I happen to support a legal regime that would, in Bill Clinton’s famous words, keep abortion safe, legal and rare. I hold no brief for the religious right, and its views on homosexuality in particular offend (and affect) me personally. But it’s precisely because of my identity that I consider comparisons between so-called Christianists (who seek to limit my rights via the ballot box) and Islamic fundamentalists (who seek to limit my rights via decapitation) to be fatuous.
***
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 Next »
Oh… this has the potential to bring in everyone…
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I’ll say this till the day I die: Marriage isn’t a right. Never was, never will be. And it certainly isn’t just a “religious” matter. Atheists get married all the time. So do people with zero religious backgrounds.
SuperManGreenLantern on June 3, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Well, it’s like this: to this day, lefties dredge up Timothy McVeigh to condemn the “religious right”. The idiots don’t know that McVeigh was an agnostic, like many of them.
ddrintn on June 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Lord, how I LOVE the HAMMER!!!!!!!!
He’s always right on the mark!!!
IrishGirl17 on June 3, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Ahhh… but the question is did McVeigh have a Christian relative?
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:38 PM
A question was posed to me regarding the assassination of said “doctor”: “Would you kill Hitler to prevent the Holocaust?”
My answer was, “This was a little different.”
To which my friend retorted, “How?”
Silence filled the air.
AbaddonsReign on June 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM
imma convert to al islam
weeeee!
blatantblue on June 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Follow-Up Question: Did McVeigh ever listen to remorseless hatemonger demagogue Rush Limbaugh?
TMK on June 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Follow-Up Follow-Up Question: Did McVeigh ever encounter a Christian radio station after dialing away from Rush’s show?
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:42 PM
As a heterosexual male I can say with confidence that I do NOT have the right to marry another male. Keeping the definition of marriage the same as it has been for thousands of years isn’t taking anyone’s rights away, that’s preposterous.
When blacks weren’t allowed to drink from the same drinking fountain as whites, or sit in the same part of the bus as whites, they in fact did not have the same rights as whites. However, homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals. Neither can marry their own gender, both can marry the opposite gender. Heterosexual and homosexual rights are exactly the same, the only difference is that many homosexuals want rights that neither of us currently have.
frost on June 3, 2009 at 10:42 PM
If he had desecrated a Quran his death would have been justified. Hey, it’s just the culture.
faol on June 3, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Here’s a test for the whiny appeasers and apologists: Walk through downtown Tehran or Riyadh holding a Bible and asking passerby if they would be willing to convert to Christianity.
Then walk through downtown New York City or D.C. while holding a Koran and asking passerby if they would be willing to convert to Islam.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM
B-b-b-but social and cultural norms don’t matter…
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Hard-Hitting Investigative Question: Was McVeigh ever molested by Catholic priests while listening to fat pill-popping white-supremacist Rush Limbaugh?
TMK on June 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I participated at the Special Report Online this evening that takes place after the show. My question was the first they discussed…..YAY.
But later Major Garrett came on and explained why the White House never released a statement regarding the shooting of the soldier, but had on the murder of Dr. Tiller. He basically said, they didn’t release the statement publically, but if you called the White House you could get a copy of that statement.
I was shocked when I heard it and maybe ladyingray can explain further because she was also in the converstion. Here’s the link, but I can’t figure out how to get the conversation with the panel to replay it.
Link to Fox online report.
Knucklehead on June 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM
We can also contrast the reactions by the left to incidents of Islamic violence versus their reaction to the Tiller murder.
With violence committed by Muslims, we are warned about not over-reacting, about how not all Muslims are radicals and about how we must address the root causes of their anger and disaffection.
With the murder of Tiller, we heard no such concerns or warnings. Indeed, there were fevered attempts to link the murderer with all conservatives or Christians on the political right or in the anti-abortion/pro-life movement.
Again, with Muslims, the reaction is one of caution. With the murder of Tiller, all caution was abandoned.
SteveMG on June 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM
tsk tsk… trivial… We don’t even ask those kind of questions. We already printed the answers. We are just trying to figure out w
ho his uncle’s pastor wasif his uncle ever attended Reverend Wright’s great church to give Tim the hope he needed.Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM
It’s good to see that some folks with whom we disagree on issues that are obviously very important to them can come to our defense on issues that are very important to us, even though they disagree with us on those issues.
We non-knee-jerk conservatives pat ourselves on the back all the time for being able to see the other side’s POV even though we respectfully disagree. At the same time we righteously deride the knee-jerk Left’s demonization of people based on their opinions (and perhaps fail to do the same on the other end of the spectrum, except at the Phelpsian extremes).
So as thinking, caring people of a conservative persuasion, let’s thank our ideological opponents for seeing the difference, as Hugh Hewitt put it some years ago, between opponents and enemies, and coming to our defense despite our differences.
skydaddy on June 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Krauthammer for Chief Thought Leadership Officer of the Las Grandes Cojones Party.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Scenario 1 = dead guy
Scenario 2 = new congressman
faol on June 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Guess he doesn’t read the Free Republic.
crr6 on June 3, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Yeah, that I saw… then I was reassured by this…
BRUTAL HONESTY: OBAMA FINISHES “VERY CANDID” SPEECH TO MIDDLE EAST
phew… for a second, I thought he didn’t want to stir up any problems or something ;)
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:49 PM
What is it about pro-homosexual, pro-feminist secularists like President Obama that makes them want to get lovey-dovey with homosexual-killing, women-enslaving theocrats like Iran’s President AckMyDumbJihad? Kinda reminds me of the Canadian leftists marching arm-in-arm with Muslim leaders against Mark Steyn a few months back (Steyn was being investigated by the Canadian Inquisi-, uh, I mean government for the crime of hurting Muslims’ feelings).
The only answer I can come up with is that maybe the love of big government has the West’s liberals and Islam’s radicals making eyes at each other.
jgapinoy on June 3, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Maybe, but then again maybe he had read the anti-government rantings of Noam Chomsky or The Nation. Who knows. LOL
ddrintn on June 3, 2009 at 10:49 PM
SteveMG on June 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Because even the libs know this is just window-dressing to cover a political agenda; they know damn well that Christians aren’t going to attack them back for what they say.
It’s easy for the lefties to puff themselves up while they confront the evil Christians, precisely because the death of Tiller is an extreme anomaly.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Wait, Obama is pro-feminist? I thought he was doing a pretty good job of not offending Saudi Arabia for it’s barbaric treatment of women.
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM
What was that? I can’t seem to read some of your post.
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Still, abortion-clinic doctors aren’t dropping like flies.
ddrintn on June 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM
frost on June 3, 2009 at 10:42 PM
That’s not a very persuasive argument. Using your logic, interracial marriage would never have been legalized, because heterosexuals all have “the right to marry someone of their own race,” right? It’s all in how you frame the issue.
Blacksheep on June 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM
CK…. ouch!
Love the last line!
katy on June 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM
A question that has perplexed me for years.
1) The secretly all play for the same team.
2) Liberalism is a mental disorder and mental disorders aren’t logical
3) They aspire to be like them but a “kinder, gentler” version. Meaning, that’s what they’d like to do to us, not poor Homosexuals and pedophiles and such.
Take your pick.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 10:52 PM
And unlike the alleged anomaly of late term abortions, this really is an anomaly…
Upstater85 on June 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Charles the Hammer nails it.
Drum on June 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Dr. K is the voice of sanity in a world gone nuts. He is spot on in his analysis. Go K-Hammer!
d1carter on June 3, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Okay. How much have you had tonight and are you keeping Victoria’s Secret?
Loxodonta on June 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I think the real reason is that many on the left (not all but a significant number) view Christian conservatives or conservatives in general as a greater threat than Islamic radicals.
Recall Olbermann’s comment: “Fox news has done more harm than the KKK”? I’m sure he believes that. So do a large segment of the progressive/left community.
For them, the Islamic threat is exaggerated and what little danger is a result of our policies – chiefly our support for Israel.
No, it’s not that Christians won’t fight back; it’s that for the left radical Islam is a small danger compared to that emanating from conservatives, religious ones especially.
SteveMG on June 3, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I love him too but… not always.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/29/sotomayor_criticize_then_confirm_96713.html
katy on June 3, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Rigid people are just rigid, or so my experience shows. They live in their heads.
No accounting for insanity, either. There’s plenty of that.
I don’t think these acts say much other than we’re human, we are subject to mental illness, and violence is real.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Well, the question is whether homosexuality is a choice, or is genetic. I don’t think that’s been settled yet. A black person is a black person by birth. The situations are not analogous unless you can prove that homosexuals are homosexuals from the womb.
ddrintn on June 3, 2009 at 10:58 PM
As far as far-right Christians go, I was raised in a small town in the South. You would have to go far to find a more sincere group of people than the far right.
Yet, they inadvertedly were cruel.
They were a bit too rigid.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Moreover, rigidity leads to self-riteousness, which then leads to smugness/arrogance.
There’s a lot of that floating around in both far-right and far-left.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:01 PM
The abortion debate would change significantly if it was ever determined to be genetic and a prenatal test developed…
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:01 PM
“which is the bigger threat?”
And the liberals say “HUH?”.
csdeven on June 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Speak for yourself.
As for me:
Insanity runs in my family.
It practically gallops.
– Mortimer Brewster, Arsenic and Old Lace
Loxodonta on June 3, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Live and Let Live, folks.
You really don’t have to stick your nose into the business of others to be a good person.
All of these issues, in my opinion, are nothing more than busybodyness.
It’s unattractive.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I think all mention of marriage should be stricken from lawbooks, tax codes, and political speeches forever. Marriage is a civil matter.
To benefit married people, gay or not, with special rules and favorable tax gimmies discriminates against people who are not married. Any law describing married people does the same.
It should all be abolished as of yesterday.
Spiritk9 on June 3, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Ah good, you’re normal, then. :)
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Even more of it in the center.
ddrintn on June 3, 2009 at 11:06 PM
It gets worse…
Obama is even lying to try to impress his Islamic hosts:
–his dad, described as “agnostic” during the campaign, is now being called a Muslim;
–his grandmother, labeled as a “Christian” during the campaign, is now supposedly planning a trip to Mecca;
–and did you know that the USA is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”?
Not to mention the fact that Obama’s middle name, verboten during the campaign, is fashionable now. (Remember how baking-cookies-stand-by-your-man Hillary Clinton became Hillary Rodham Clinton the day after Bill’s inauguration?)
jgapinoy on June 3, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Yes, let’s punt because a tradition as old as mankind is suddenly a hard topic.
Marriage is not, repeat, is not, about benefits. It is about sacrifice.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:07 PM
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:04 PM
That’s cool. If I were ever to see your husband slapping you around in public and then tossing you into the car, I’d just say “Live and let live, none of my business, I’m a good person” and hum a happy little ditty to myself.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Read appreciable
CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM
^ “Moderates” are rigidly against getting their hands dirty.
ddrintn on June 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM
How so? I was married 25 years, in total. 5 to one. 18 to another.
I don’t even compute your point.
Happily single today, so maybe I just prove the point…
But marriage should be beneficial or it’s simply unnecessary, in my mind.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Don’t bother. She is rigid.
CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM
BINGO! You nailed it.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I think that’s a justification for being a pain in the buttinsky, frankly.
I’m old enough to know that type of attitude rarely helps. It does often block.
No thanks.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM
You might want to do the second one first.
Jim Treacher on June 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Maybe that’s why you were married twice and are now alone.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:13 PM
FIFY
Knucklehead on June 3, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Are you prone to exaggeration as a rule?
I’m actually the type that always interferes in those situations. It drove my “liberal” husband nuts. He was the type to sit by and watch.
Not me.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM
I see enough every day of the results of broken marriages or those that choose to live together with little to no comment to make me realize why giving incentives to marry is a good thing. The stable environment is good for children primarily. More evidence.
CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM
You might want to do the second one first.
Jim Treacher on June 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Shhhhh…I was hoping they would do option one first.
Just ignore Jim, you moonbats, stick to the test as written.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM
The truth always hurts people who hate to hear it.
TMK on June 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Was the Lib the one who stayed with you 18 or 5?
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:17 PM
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Sorry…I got caught-up in your condescending, psychobabbling appraisals of the human condition. I didn’t realize that inane statements such as “live and let live” didn’t apply to you.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:18 PM
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM
See? Yer one of them there Christianists, wishin’ death on yer adversaries!
jgapinoy on June 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Watch out, everyone: crr6, one of the more vile and vicious trolls here, is In The House. It will call you racist and ask you inappropriate questions about your childhood.
It will disregard what you actually say, because this troll knows what you ACTUALLY THINK before you do–and it totally believes in Thought Crime.
It feeds itself on Inflated Outrage: This troll can’t argue, as argument requires reason, so it repeats the All-time Classic Talking Points of the Race-Baiting wing of the left.
As a ‘theraputic leftist’, crr6 thinks it can silence you and shame you by immediately calling you racist. If that trick doesn’t work, it either shuts up or starts with the questions about intimate details of your childhood.
This isn’t the Free Republic, you POS, and those people are not conservative
Janos Hunyadi on June 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I stayed until the kids were out of college for that reason. I can tell you……don’t bother.
They still collapsed at the divorce.
Go figure.
We’ve all recovered now, but I’d say……don’t bother to wait.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:21 PM
What “legal regime” would that be? Unless it is spelled out in at least some detail then it can only be regarded as another empty platitude.
What views would that be? And how? Are we suppose to guess?
Being able to comprehend the difference, and it is certainly a vast one, between “so-called Christianists” and Islamic “fundamentalists” does not require any particular “identity” whatsoever, it merely requires having a functional brain. That’s about it. Nothing at all complicated about it. Nothing that requires your particular “identity”, whatever that is, to comprehend.
MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 11:21 PM
So you do understand it’s about sacrifice and not benefits after all. You just hate the fact that you made a big one.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Excuse me, but we have two idiot trolls in the house tonight.
We have vicious troll
and then we have the self centered, rude, thread hijacking troll..
Beware!!!
Knucklehead on June 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM
I actually wish we had liberals here who can express themselves w/o the name-calling & false accusations. I want to know what they’re
thinkingfeeling, but I don’t want to go to their sites.jgapinoy on June 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM
That was not my point but since you responded ….fix the marriage.
CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 11:25 PM
See? Yer one of them there Christianists, wishin’ death on yer adversaries!
jgapinoy on June 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM
As a casual believer with a strong vein of skepticism, the anti-Christian howlers will have to find a different term for me: “Sorta Christianist So Good Enough” or something like that.
They will have to pin a purple star and a red star on me in the Reeducation Camp, I suppose.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Ann is just on the never ending quest to justify the killing of her unborn. Think about how difficult it is to maintain that front that she has to put on?
CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 11:26 PM
They’ve been trying to destroy Christianity for over 2,000 years. It survived Caesars it will survive the American Left.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM
There are worse things than being an impersonator, friend. With my little green ring I can take you apart molecule by molecule and then put you back together again. And maybe I put you back together right and maybe I don’t. But you’ll be alive and conscious for every second of it
HalJordan on June 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Prohibitions against gay marriage seem to me to be unconstitutional on their face. Everyone with a law degree will (or should) agree that marraige is a fundamental right.
Any restrictions on a fundamental right is evaluated with ‘strict scrutiny.’ If the right is denied to everyone, it is an issue of substantive due process. If it is denied to some individuals but not others, it is an issue of equal protection. Thus, this is an equal protection issue.
To pass strict scrutiny, a law or policy prohibiting a fundamental right must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Second, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. Third, it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
What compelling state interest precludes the right of gays to marry?
Blacksheep on June 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM
The devil is in the details. The girl who sat second chair to me was from a very fundamentalist religion. She married, and her husband stole her jewelry to give to his gay lover.
Her father was an icon in the Church. He even had joining property to the Church of Christ.
When she divorced her gay husband, the Church banned them.
That is what I mean by “inadvertedly cruel.”
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Ones We’ve Been Waiting For #1: Do we give this rebel a purple star or a red star?
Ones We’ve Been Waiting For #2: Just shoot him, and then we can go line up for our soybean rations.
TMK on June 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM
That’s not inadvertent. That’s deliberate.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:28 PM
When I was a young man I got free bags of groceries now and then from a church-affiliated food shelf even though I had nothing to give back; I know which side I will defend.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Puppeted like a useful idiot.
Abortion is not safe, as anyone who takes an objective look at the medical procedure will tell you. There is ample evidence to show links to cancer and various other physical problems that happen due to abortion because it, by nature, is not supposed to take place and unlike surgical procedures which saves lives, only takes one.
I’m not really surprised that doofpundit would rush like a lemming over the cliff to jump on board with this line, but it is sad that people actually believe the pro-abortion side which has every reason to keep abortion happening constantly(for money, sexual promiscuity, etc) would want to keep it “rare.”
TTheoLogan on June 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Such an imagination you have!
:)
I’m off tomorrow to see my son. Can’t wait. He’s a student at SFSU, and he’s got a 4.0. The kid is just having a blast, too.
I’m quite the content mom. Sorry.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Speaking of defending, you were nominated as head of security for Las Grandes Cojones party. See the Newt thread…
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Were you ever molested by a social science professor while smoking a bong?
MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Can you believe that 8 years after 9-11, it takes a commentator of rare clarity to point this out, and that half of the adults in this country don’t know this?
Jaibones on June 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Whatever the relative merits of the abortion debate, it damn sure isn’t rare. Since Roe v. Wade, more than 10% of the potential population of the United States has been aborted.
Blacksheep on June 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Divorce was a sin. That’s what I mean by inadvertent.
This family was beloved.
She divorced, however, and that was against the Church doctrine.
AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM
They need to reevaluate their doctrine.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Good column, but there are a lot of straw man arguments which I find irritating. Most conservatives do not seek to “ban the teaching of evolution”, they want to emphasize that it’s a “theory” that does not explain the origin of life, yadda yadda yadda…
One does not have to be religious to object to gay marriage “at the ballot box”, or object to the gay rights agenda, and, say, phony definitions of “gay” for their kiddie indoctrination programs.
et cetera, et cetera…
Buy Danish on June 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Is this the same son who didn’t develop value until you bestowed it upon him?
TTheoLogan on June 3, 2009 at 11:38 PM
4.0? That is nothing. My son has got a 44.Magnum. You have epic failed as a parent.
Tuco on June 3, 2009 at 11:38 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Uh oh…does it have something to do with my vast collection of guns? Or what? You’re not supposed to know about them, now I’ll have to hunt you down.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I asked, “who has the most guns” when I recruited for the position and your name immediately came up! Hence the nomination.
TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Even so, I accept the position. Wait…Do I have to ride a Segway around and wear a bike helmet, if so I resign effective immediately.
Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 11:41 PM
You were amusing for awhile, but frankly you’re starting to creep me out. Do you ever do anything other than troll my posts? Get a life.
crr6 on June 3, 2009 at 11:42 PM
You and I know the truth. Remember denial is not a river. :D
You cannot wish away the memory.
CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »