Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bondage in the Name of Tolerance
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, endorsed adopting some aspects of Sharia law for Muslims, lest, he told the BBC, British Muslims be forced to choose between "the stark alternatives of culture loyalty and state loyalty."

Williams' remarks followed a report in the London Telegraph that the British government has made official the practice of paying welfare benefits for multiple wives in polygamous marriages.

The paper reports there are an estimated 1,000 polygamous marriages in the United Kingdom, although no one is sure how accurate that number is. Polygamy is illegal in the United Kingdom. Yet the British government rewards polygamous families who had married outside the United Kingdom -- not with deportation to countries that recognize polygamy, which would make sense -- but with extra welfare payments for extra wives.

Great Britain prides itself in its multiculturalism and inclusion. But when the British government subsidizes polygamy and the Anglican leader promotes Sharia, they risk conferring upon extremist Muslim men special status, while relegating Muslim women to second-class status.

Western democracies function because all citizens are deemed to be equal. Polygamy is inherently unequal for women. Period. Yet in the name of tolerance, in a bid to make sure they will not be seen as Islamophobic, they enable discrimination.

The timing of the archbishop's comments couldn't be worse. While Williams is enraptured with the rich theological disputes of Muslim scholars, he fails to note that British women are suffering as radical Islamists have been beating up on mainstream Islam.

A new report, "Crimes of the Community, Honor-Based Violence in the U.K." by the Centre for Social Cohesion, catalogs the horror of forced marriages -- often after unwitting girls are sent abroad for a "vacation" -- female genital mutilation, domestic abuse and an estimated 10 to 12 honor killings in the United Kingdom each year.

The archbishop tried to soften his position by explaining that he does not want to see "extreme" Sharia punishments (especially against women) endorsed by the British legal system. The Islamic Sharia Council already augments divorce settlements -- although the honor-violence report suggests that these panels often shortchange women and try to pressure them into returning to life-threatening marriages.

It's not only Our Betters in Europe who, in the name of political correctness, become apologists for polygamists. In 2005, then-Canada Prime Minister Paul Martin commissioned a $150,000 study to debunk the notion that same-sex marriages could lead to legalized polygamy -- only to watch the three law professors on the panel recommend that Canada repeal its anti-polygamy law. Because: "The parties most likely to suffer from this rule are the left-behind wives."

If secular Western nations had bedrock values, maybe there would be no need to worry about Values Creep. But when, as the honor-violence report noted, even womens activists defend female genital mutilation, its clear that the only absolute in liberal societies is doubt.

Up against fanatics with barbaric ideologies, we are outgunned. We don't even care if they want to hurt us.

"If you had a map of the U.K. showing the location of Islamist groups -- or terrorist cells -- and you had another map showing the incidence of honor-based violence and you overlaid them, you would find that they were a mirror," noted Nazir Afzal, the Crown prosecutor on honor-based violence.

It makes you wonder if Western nations have a death wish.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
the archbishop of Canterbary a raving
mad man. Sharia law is crazy- cuting off hands, killing girls who are raped (or date, or have been flirted at. Although I think polygamy {no matter which sex is favored} may be its own punshment ;)

Peter, you fool
First off, it's "Canterbury." You don't need to know this; you only need to copy it.

Second, this story is six days old now. Why is Debra bringing it up now? Oh yes. To whip up the fools who can't even copy a place name.

Third, the Archbishop explicitly excluded any "cuting (sic) off hands, killing girls who are raped (or date, or have been flirted at." As you would know, had you read Debra's article.

Fourth, the Archbishop has repeatedly explained that he does not intend sharia to be a parallel system of law, but merely _suggested_ we might consider using religious law as an _optional_ way of resolving _civil_ disputes. The UK already has such a system for jewish civil law.

Last, at his speech in Lambeth Palace today he received a standing ovation, which you may take as you please.

Having said that, let me add that I loathe Rowan Williams as a representative of an edifice based on imaginary friends supported by state power. His only redeeming feature is a support of gay rights. Even that I wish he would drop so that his church could divide into the Ineffectual Wing and the Crazier-Than-TownHall Wing, each of which can be more easily crushed.

But Williams is a thoughtful man. He raised a thoughtful question. And he does deserve to be called a madman by someone who can't even copy the name of the Archbishop's position.

I marked this as a neutral because
Rowan Williams has said that he was misquoted on the statement and that he has not advocated Sharia Law in Great Britain. I do not know what the truth, as far as his statements go, but I will say this.

This is why it is so important to have a written Constitution that states emphatically what the limitations on the power of government are AND to have a court system that takes those limitations as they are written.

You see, in the U.S. Sharia Law could not be implemented in any form because the government is forbidden from endorsing any one religion and this would certainly be an endorsement. Of course, we do not have the second part of my sentence that said a court that interprets the limitations as written. Currently the court is more or less anti-religious and we need no fear Sharia Law. However, should that swing back the other way with the appointment of judges sympathetic to the Muslims, it could well go the other way. The stage has already been set and Stare Decisis established for the government to meddle in religious affairs.

I urge people of faith to remember this the next time they are advocating some law based on their religion or religious morality. A government that can and will male law based on religion will make religion based on law.

The Real Lesson Here

The real lesson we can learn from the Archbishop's insane death-wish remarks is to see that all of Islam is not conducive to assimilation.

Like it or not, Western Civilization was and remains founded in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. And like it or not, Judaism and Christianity -- and the countries founded upon their principles -- are not compatible with Islam. This incompatibility is due to the intolerance inherent and indivisible from all of Islam.

The Archbishop has lost touch with the Tradition that he is supposed to be representing and defending.

It is hard to imagine the magnitude of the amusement that the mullahs in the U.K. and Europe must be feeling right now. They must be rolling around the floors of their mosques with sheer delight. Taking advantage of the disintegration of Christianity, today's Muslims are accomplishing the invasion of Europe in a few decades that their forebearers could not do in a thousand years of bloody warfare.

The Archbishop's comments teach us that Islam is NOT just another religion that can be added to the melting pot. The Archbishop is in denial.

He knows very well that all of Islam has the ultimate goal of attaining total world domination through any means necessary. And do not believe the implication made in Saunders column that "mainstream" Islam is somehow tolerabel and that it is only "radical" Islam that you need to worry about.

Every Islamic sect can find in its doctrine a way to justify the subjugation, torture and execution of every non-Muslim and the destruction of any and all forms of democratic government.

Ms. Saunders: if you believe otherwise, you too have a death wish.

And Vic...
... if Wannabee is successful in changing the Constitution?

I recognize that you warn against precisely such a thing. But if you read the comments here (ColinCody, eg, explicitly wants a xian republic), you'll see that your sanity is scarce on the ground.

Separately, a written Constitution is no guarantee of much. I am partial to the explicitness of the US constitution, but I cannot say that the UK 'constitution' has been any less successful, given its provenance. Why, I hear 'separation of church and state' taken more seriously in the UK than the US, despite the explicit melding of the two institutionally in the UK.

Line-by-line refutation of Silly Handle
is just not a good cost/benefit use of my time. Clearly READ: Witness by Whittaker Chambers is quite mad.

So let's hit the hight points. First off, Western Civilization owes far more to the Greeks and Romans than to xians. Can you say "Dark Ages"?

Second, the issue is not that "Islam has the ultimate goal of attaining total world domination through any means necessary," it is that any totalitarian belief system that cannot distinguish reality from the constructs of its 'holy' book (and I include here the Little Red Book) is dangerous.

So first, let's marginalize xianity so that reason prevails. Then let's start work on the islamists. Not a "crusade" (for that is exactly where READ: Witness by Whittaker Chambers is heading), but the good fight between reason and imaginary-friend-fueled madness.


Vic is wrong.

Vic says, "Currently the court is more or less anti-religious and we need no fear Sharia Law."

Not true. Today's courts are not anti-religious but are only anti-Christian.

The courts are very pro-Islam, pro-Pagan and pro-Athiest. To the extent that it disadvantages Christanity, the courts are also pro-Jewish but never at the expense of Islam, Paganism or Atheism.

Islam and Sharia are already making great strides in U.S. courts. Sharia is already being incorporated into and replacing federal and state law in the U.S.

Sorry Vic.

MellorSJ2
As far as I know, the U.K. has no written Constitution. Did they write one yesterday and I not hear about it?

As for the ability of the Consitution to work you left off the second thing I said....courts that uphold it. A Consitution that is "interpreted" as a flexible with time as the liberals like is just another orinary piece of paper.

READ: Witness by Whittaker Chambers
The court I was referring to here was the SC and I know of NO instances where they have supported Sharia Law, Muslims, or any other religion any differently than Christianity.

If you have instances please point them out.

Vic: What?
Please explain how can you interpret anything I wrote as suggesting thr UK has a written constitution.

Your second comment is not relevant in the face of an unwritten constitution.

Please find out more before you comment on that of which you have no experience or knowledge.

Response to MellorSJ2

I was called a madman by people like MellorSJ2 on September 10, 2001 for predicting that an Islamic terrorist attack would occur that was only a tenth the size of what happened the next day.

If I am mad, it is not because I lack sound and deep knowledge of Islam and the real danger it poses to non-Muslims.

My best friend growing up was a Muslim. His father had escaped the torture chambers of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I did then and still do consider him a model of bravery. My friend and I played on the same little league teams. His mother was an all-American girl raised as a Baptist who converted to Islam. They were good neighbors and great friends -- at least until we became adults.

When my friend and I became independent adults and had to make the decision to stay with our family's religion, join another or find another meaning to Life, each of us became active believers in the respective Faiths in which we were brought up.

My friend's Islamic sect is one of those referred to as "mainstream". Around the time of the first Gulf War I asked my lifelong childhood friend, "Would you cut off my head if a leader of your church ordered you to do it." His answer:

"Without hesitation." We have not spoken since.

I am the child of a European immigrant and have lived and worked in Europe for a number of years and am sure that the number of Muslims I know intimately is greater than the number of Muslims you have ever seen. I have actually read the Koran and have been formally educated in Islam by pro-Islamic university professors.

Only a madman would want to start a Crusade. I do not want to start a new Crusade. I did not pick the fight that we are now waging for our lives.

MellorSJ
You wrote “Separately, a written Constitution is no guarantee of much. I am partial to the explicitness of the US constitution, but I cannot say that the UK 'constitution' has been any less successful, given its provenance”

Perhaps you are not familiar with what you write 5 minutes after you write it.

To: Read Witness
You speak of things I know nothing about. I feel at last as if some of my time here (reading TH) has been repaid. Thanks

Please learn to read ,Vic
“Separately, a written Constitution is no guarantee of much.'

Presumably, there's no argument here.

"I am partial to the explicitness of the US constitution,"

Or here.

"but I cannot say that the UK 'constitution' has been any less successful, given its provenance”

Now, where exactly do I say the UK 'constitution' is written? And why would I use quotation marks? And how do you explain the usage by British scholars (and Britons) of the word 'constitution' to mean that body of law-by-precedent that constitutes the UK 'constitution.'

I think I'll put this down to typical American parochialism, and drop it. Unless, of course, you wish to dig deeper.

I repeat for Silly Handle's sake
"So first, let's marginalize xianity so that reason prevails. Then let's start work on the islamists. Not a "crusade" (for that is exactly where READ: Witness by Whittaker Chambers is heading), but the good fight between reason and imaginary-friend-fueled madness."

I repeat, for Silly Handle's sake
"So first, let's marginalize xianity so that reason prevails. Then let's start work on the islamists. Not a "crusade" (for that is exactly where READ: Witness by Whittaker Chambers is heading), but the good fight between reason and imaginary-friend-fueled madness."

I believe
that God has lifted His hand from the Anglican church and it is now free to wander without guidance where it will.

As for those above who live only to insult Christianity and taunt Christians, most of us have heard worse and we will pray for your conversion before you must drink the cup you have poured.

You can mock and caper because you believe in your hearts that when the crunch comes, we will save you.

Sorry. We will pray for you before Dies Irae, but after that, you are on your own. And you are too ignorant to even understand what that means, but you will.

“Islam vs. Islamist”
I found this review of the movie called “Islam vs. Islamist” on a blog called “A View from the Right”. The movie is very controversial, in fact PBS who helped fund the movie, refused to show it during prime time.

The part I find interesting about this review is that it points out the flaws in NEOCON logic, as well as the LEFT, on the Middle East. NEOCONS think we can convert the culture to be like the West and the LEFT believes in “happy talk” about the issues with Islam. Please read and tell us what you think.

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/%e2%80%9cislam-vs- islamist%e2%80%9d


MellorSJ2
"This story is six days old now. Why is Debra bringing it up now? Oh yes. To whip up the fools who can't even copy a place name."

Go ahead and attack Debra if you wish. But I would draw the line at attacking her motives for bringing this up now. You could be wildly wrong. And anyway, this story is still current and is still being written about by others.

"So first, let's marginalize xianity so that reason prevails. Then let's start work on the islamists. Not a "crusade" ... but the good fight between reason and imaginary-friend-fueled madness."

So far, in connection with the struggle against Islamists, the people I thought would be reasonable -- feminists, secularists and leftists generally -- haven't been, while Christians have been. So, why would you want to marginalize our best allies? It's the left you should be attacking.

mellor @ 4:36am


4:36am


Separately, a written Constitution is no guarantee of much. I am partial to the explicitness of the US constitution, but I cannot say that the UK 'constitution' has been any less successful, given its provenance. Why, I hear 'separation of church and state' taken more seriously in the UK than the US, despite the explicit melding of the two institutionally in the UK.

MellorSJ
I will put this down to the typical athiestic liberal who uses English as a second language. Not only is he limited in knowledge, but he is a bigot as well.

But, as I have already wasted too much time responding to you today, I will simply stop it here.

Resonse to Vic:

Just google "sharia US law constitution" and you will find many instances of where Sharia is being unconstitutionally imposed by anti-Christian judges in the U.S.

You may also be enlightened by reading the article found at http://iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/AbuTalut/AbuTalut4.htm.

In the above article you will see how American "mainstream" Muslims hold the U.S. Constitution in contempt.

Rowan Williams
The C of E should lose all state funding immediately and its prelates expelled from the House of Lords...

mellor @ 4:36am
Now do you still say you did not write this? It is there to look at

It is interesting the posts that are here. But, to say 20 +/- min. after posting, you deny it, is amazing.

Sort of makes your posts funny!

Suing for peace
Archbishop Williams' comments are simply part of a trend we're seeing increasingly across Europe: it has become quite obvious to me that Europe's Anglo population has resigned itself to a future under Islamic rule and is, in effect, trying to sue for peace now with the Islamic sector of its population so that when Muslims are the majority in Europe, they won't be slitting the throats of their Anglo brethren as infidels. If the Anglo Europeans care so little about the future of their civilization that they would rather do this than actually procreate sufficiently to ensure its survival, I say good riddance to Europe. This is the real reason the Europeans are so anti-American: because they see their own civilization dying while America's is still continuing strong - and no one is sending sympathy cards to Europe, either. As someone commented, those who have already acquiesced to their fate always despise those who still have a survival instinct. When in 30 or 40 years (or less) the Anglo French wake up one day to discover that they're living in a Islamic horror far worse than anything even the Nazis imposed on them, they'll pine again for the Americans to deliver them - only this time, U.S. GI's won't be storming the beaches of Normandie to come to their aid. That's why French Jews who can are getting out of France now: they see the handwriting on the wall, and they're not going to wait for the second coming of Kristallnacht, only this time in a French rendition.

cultural, historical traditions.
Whether one nation has a written constitution, and another does not, and then assessing whether one is superior to the other SOLEY by virtue of that fact, takes us nowhere.

What matters are the cultural and historical traditions of the people governed by any constitution, whether formally codified in a written document.

USSR had a written constitution, codified in 1936. It claimed to protect freedom of speech, assembly, press.

Our constitution enshrined those and other rights a century and a half before that.

But a written constitution did not save the Russian people from oppression. It was a sham.

The English have a rich tradition dating back to the Magna Carta, and later, to the writings of Hobbes, Locke, etc.

Our forefathers, God bless them, were greatly influenced by Locke, and earlier by the ancient Greeks.

In reviewing the cultural and historical traditions of Islam, including the Koran, are there assumptions and values on individual liberty and tolerance that would induce a person to think Islam is compatible with the values of democracy?

Apparently President Bush thinks so. So do many "diversity hounds" and multicultural zealots.

Indeed, Bush's Iraq venture is predicated precisely upon that conviction.

I think Bush and the diversity hounds are wrong here.

Fatally wrong.

I don't see Islam, as presently practiced, compatible with the liberties we take for granted in the west.

It lacks the cultural and historical traditions necessary for freedom to flourish.

Tolerance & Our Death Wish
Yes Debra, we have a death wish in the name of tolerance, "we love it" and "all of Islam revels in it". They hate our so-called barbarism, we just love their Polygamy, Honor killings, Suicide Bombings and the creme de la creme of the Muslim world, Female Genital Mutilation. Oh Debra! (sob) let me remind you, that's not how all of the Muslim world thinks okay, it's just a few here, a tad there, who's really keeping score huh? (sob) Hold me, I need a hug.
So the British are actually paying cash money upfront for Muslim men to exercise their right to be "themselves" that's so genuinely-heartwarming and inspiring, and (sob)loveable-Those poor, poor Muslim men having to maintain Sharia Law and the promise, mind you, not guaranteed martyrdom in the afterlife, (sob)
that whole 72 virgins thing has been blown way, way out of proportion.
The women aren't complaining, well except for Ayan Hirsi Ali and a few others, but jeez louise who's keeping count, you've got to remember we're only talking about the "Religon of Peace" here folks, or is it "Piece"- a piece here, a piece there, some clitorial skin in the corner over there or pieces of our bodies blown to bits along with chards of glass, munitions and wreckage.
It pains me to say this, the Israeli's already know it as an absolute certainty, we will eventually, in the name of tolerance, come to know, love, and accept the stench of decaying flesh if we don't wise up and soon.

Comments

The Archbishop has made outlandish comments before.

Methinks he should render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and that which is God's to God.


Ingratitude
There's one other thing about the European kow-tow to the Islamist sector of its population: if the Anglo Europeans think its Muslim population is going to be grateful down the road for the accomodations the Anglo Europeans are making to their culture now, they're living in yet another episode of classic European denial. America is about to put on trial Khalid Sheik Mohammed - a man America opened its doors to and allowed to get an engineering education at North Carolina A&T University. He sure showed his gratitude for our benevolence, didn't he? I'm sure most of the readers of Townhall's columns are familiar with the history of Mohammed Atta: he was in an Israeli jail for his participation in an attack on an Israeli bus in which Israelis were killed, but was freed because of pressure put on Israel by Secretary of State Warren Christopher during Bill Clinton's administration. Again, he sure had a funny way of showing his gratitude to America, didn't he? We're seeing yet another episode of European appeasement - only this one will be even more disastrous than it was in the 1930's, because this time American troops won't be coming to deliver Europeans from the consequences of their foolishness.

Standshisground
I couldnt agree more. I read a book a few yrs back called While Europe slept by Bruce Bawer. He starts the book describing himself as a gay liberal. Its nice to know there are gay people out there (and liberals as well, however few) that see the danger posed by radical Islam. For the life of me i cant understand why women and gay people arent the most ardent advocates of the war on Radical Islam.

To Standshisground:

Being a child of a European immigrant with close relatives still living in Europe and having lived amongst them, I can tell you that the post-WWII generations are vehemently anti-American and starkly ignorant of Christianity and their own history.

European schools teach that WWII was caused by American imperialism and that it is every European's duty to expel the remaining vestiges of that distinctly American-caused war. Students are given credit for participating in protest marches to close down U.S. military bases and to remove all missile defenses.

Christianity is taught as the collection of myths and superstitions that Europeans have outgrown and that their backward, hillbilly American cousins have yet to outgrow.

Islam is taught as the wonderfully enchanting faith of the peaceful and peace-loving peoples of the gloriously rich cultures of the Middle East. All Islamic-related violence is taught as justifiable self-defense. The only country more evil than America is Israel. Anti-Semitism is openly taught. Israel cannot do any good because its existence is illegitimate. Until America created Isreal, no Islamic Arab had ever given a single thought to hurting a Jew, an American or anyone else for that matter.

No where can you find a textbook that contains a single positive statement about the U.S. let alone one that acknowledges that every European democracy owes its very existence to the United States.

It is outrageous, frustrating and sad.

But no human should ever say "good riddance" to another. Aside from wanting to help the people of Europe, we should not concede any territory to our enemies. Europeans have lost their bearings. But we should do everything in our power to help them regain their footing.

Mellior et al

Just remember how tolerant the Muslims are of gays in their society

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072105iran.htm

And the archbishop wants to bring that to Britain.
How naive!

What must be done
Western society must defend what few values it has left. I would hope that monogamy is one of them (which is only to say that we should only pay welfare benefits to one wife at a time).

What I find ironic here is that
the liberals who have been in love with the liberal SCOTUS stretching a rubber Constitution say here now that it offers no protection because governments like the Soviet Union just stepped all over it.

Just what do you think that our liberal SCOTUS has been doing since FDR was president? And all of ya'll support this.

Excuse me ...
"...lest, he told the BBC, British Muslims be forced to choose between 'the stark alternatives of culture loyalty and state loyalty.'"

Didn't they make that choice when they immigrated?

De la Frontera
In Spain there are areas such as Jerez, where the sherry comes from, that are full titled Jerez de la Frontera because this is one of the places where the frontier between Islamic and Christian Europe was sited. This battle is still joined and this frontier still exists but it is no longer territorial but social and civil.You have to understand that many people are incensed by the Archbishop's remarks,(5000 hits on the BBC website in the first hour) partly out of fear and partly out of logic-Can you have a different system of law for every religion and indeed what qualifies as a religion? What about those(maybe devout) not attached to any religion? If an ethos has inviolable tenets of religion that are against the law (EG Death for apostasy)how can the state connive at that? If we have any parts of Sharia law, will this not allow fundamentalists to justify the extreme versions because they will say "But they have Sharia law in the UK"? Recently Politicians in the Netherlands have been killed for speaking out against Islam and there is a group called the council for ex Muslims who are brave enough, or angry enough, to have publicly publicly declared their apostasy and live in daily fear of their lives. Before the militants arrived Muslims in the UK were fairly integrated and law abiding,I am sure the majority still are but Govt. empowerment of religions has moved religion in the UK and Europe from being a benign influence to a powder keg.

How about benefits to Christians?
The Archbishop should be seeking to put his time to tasks that would project the C of E as a serious defender of Christianity, not pander to the imigrant intruders.
For example, perhaps setting up exclusion zones where only members of the Christian faith are allowed to enter - a good start would be the City of Canterbury, closely followed by York, Westminster and Winchester. Other zones could be added as these are purified and purged.
Sharia law may prove to be a useful guide to how Medina and Mecca are protected

This is just
plain nuts. If any strict followers of the Koran currently living in Western-style democracies want to install Sharia Law, let them go back to whence they came and don't let the door hit you in the arse. That should be the fundmental approach by any democrat government with common sense. Of course, that eliminates the UK bluebloods, and most European governements who long ago bent over to grab the ankles to appease radical Islamists out of fear. Not loathing, just sheer, palpable fear and weakness. In other words, they're just like USA liberals who can't wait to squeal, "Please don't hurt us. We surrender!"

We here in the U.S. should not give an inch to accomodate Muslimism. No footbaths, no bell-ringing calls to pray, no bending to cab-drivers who don't like dogs or liquor, no berkas on driver's licenses, no prayer rugs in airports. No NOTHING! If you don't like freedom, go home. Period. We long ago have decided that we separate our politics from religion. If that's not for you, Muhammad, kindly depart.





England
created a penal colony out of Australia. They, however, have shown more common sense than their deporters. The Austrailian president himself has declared that they like their culture, and if anyone that is Muslim does not want to assimilate, they can leave.
President Bush, Democratic party, are you listening?
Lastly, for MellorSJ who wants to jettison Christianity for religion free reason, I give you Joe Stalin, and Mao Zedong for bedfellows... good, reasonable athiests who exterminated more in one century than all wars combined. Reasonable folks they were, no Christianity at all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Scripture plainly states, " I, Wisdom, lead in the way of righteousness" (Proverbs 8:20). Long ago, God, through the prophet Jeremiah, summed up the problem of then Israel, but indirectly, that also of humanity. As it is written: "For my people have commited two evils: they have forsaken Me, The Fountain of Living Waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." (Jeremiah 2: 13) This is one of many figures of speech employed by God in the Bible to make an emphatic point, and that is, when people abandon God, and the truth of His Word,and, most especially, His Wisdom; they will always hew themselves out some theological or philosophical system that they think will work. But just when they need the power, it isn't there. This archbishop is obviously a false prophet; i.e.,a prophet being someone who purports to speak for God. Instead of busying himself with evangelism to Islam,he engages in the abject stupidity of appeasment to evil. Instead of teaching his people revelation faith through Christ, he panders to fear. Instead of declaring to the homosexuals that they need to repent, he endorses their various idolatries. And, perhaps, he has illustrated the greatest challenge of the West: How shall we deal with the hopelessly stupid? The answer (from God) has always been this: " Get wisdom, get understanding..." ( Proverbs 4: 5). One hopes it isn't too late. Remember, o ye who read this, " All the paths of wisdom are peace." (Proverbs 3: 17b) Much untried in the centuries since it was written.

Europe is now what US will be
America is only a generation or two behind England and three behind Europe. If it weren't for illegal immigrants, our population too would be falling. Thanks to judicial fiat in Roe v Wade, we not only have 43 million less Americans living here, working, paying taxes, but those who would have been 40 years old now, would have had several children as well that are now not here either.

Multi-culturalism is anathema to any country, and it divides us into hundreds of little hypenated fifedoms. Universal tolerance is the hallmark of a society that stands for nothing.

"A nation divided...." Matthew 12:25, Sam Houston, and Abraham Lincoln all knew that Europe has awaken to as in a bad dream. Multi-culturalism has to divide us by definition. Acceptance (tolerance) of Sharia is like paying off a guard at the great wall of China to open the door.


Read Matthew Chapter 24
Govern yourselves accordingly.

The limits of multiculturalism
What is evidently very hard for many of my fellow liberals to understand is that the demand to live according to sharia coming from members of the Muslim communities in the UK, Europe, and Canada is not "extremist" from the Islamic standpoint of those communities. It is rather perfectly conventional and ordinary; devout Muslims, including many who are in no way supporters of jihadist violence, believe that living according to God's law is an absolute necessity for them. Crucial to most Muslims' sense of who and what they are, crucial to their very identity, is bound up in sharia. A Muslim forced not to live by sharia is undergoing a severe personal hardship.

Now we Americans might laugh at all this--although there was a time when many Christians had equivalent views--but we should not ignore the basic fact that sharia is at bottom incompatible with the laws and customs that have evolved in the Western world generally, including both Europe and the US.

We now see plainly that the European nations and the UK should never have allowed such large numbers of Muslims to come there. We must not follow their path.

THE ARCHBISHOP'S LOOSE SCREW
The Archbishop should be retired involuntarily and placed in a facility for the irrevocably, irretrievably, insane. That is the only rational conclusion that can be made about such illogical statements.

The USA got most of its laws from English Common Law.

Thank God we had English Common Law to follow when we began our great nation. And may God help us if the Sharia morons ever start catching hold of Americans in any substantial numbers. He is the only One who can help.

Just as an aside, why do you think the radical muslims want to keep women subjugated? The answer: they are scared absolutely to death of an educated woman who could recognize the Sharia moron males for what they are. "Coward" comes to mind, among other names.



Response to Frigglenitz
You consider that the reasons some Muslims want to keep women subjugated is because they are afraid of educated women. There may be something in this, certainly they seem to loose half of the productive power of their society, but there is also something which is not much talked about,almost taboo, but which one man can see in the mind of another,and this is that quite a lot of man get a sexual buzz from the control of women. So when the claim is that it is done for reasons of religion, many men would reply "Yeah, right?"

Ah, multiculturalism!
I am just trying to picture multiculturalists in 1939:

"Who are we to say the German Nazi culture is wrong? Perhaps death camps are an integral part of a vibrant Nazi culture! In the interest of pluralism, we should embrace their cultural traditions!"

It sounds absurd, and, because it is a European culture, it is. European cultures never get respect from multiculturalists (unless they are inherently backwards and intolerant, but they have to be pretty bad for European cultures to get respect.)

But perhaps if the next Nazis spring up in the third world, I am sure multiculturalists will say pretty much want I wrote above.

MISPLACED TOLERANCE
Under the pretense of tolerance, and in the name of “Political Correctness”, "Multiculturalism" and Liberal Immigration, we have opened our gates to millions of Muslims, who bring us stupidity, ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance. Americans have become insulated from reality. To ensure we never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, Racial Profiling is now “Politically Incorrect”. Airport security must now conduct “random” searches of 80-year-old women, infants, airline pilots with proper ID, Secret Service Agents, Members of Congress, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss. But leave Muslims alone least we be guilty of racial profiling.
As Forrest Gump so aptly put it:
”Stupid is as Stupid does.”

THE MUSLIMS HAVE ONE GOAL: WORLD DOMINATION!

COMPLACENCY, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE ABSOLUTE ACCEPTANCE IN THE RIGHTNESS OF MULTICULTURALISM WILL BE OUR DEATH.

Too much editing
I made too many edits, and wrote nonsense in my last sentence. Scratch that "perhaps" at the beginning of my last sentence and it should make sense.

Sorry for the gibberish.

A perspicacious comment from jfp
"So far, in connection with the struggle against Islamists, the people I thought would be reasonable -- feminists, secularists and leftists generally -- haven't been, while Christians have been."

This is true, and it is depressing in the extreme. For an excellent (if Anglocentric and sometimes ponderous) analysis of this phenomenon, I recommend "What's Left?" by Nick Cohen. He makes just that point, and provides numerous (mostly British) examples over the last century. He also provides credible explanations for how it came to be.

"So, why would you want to marginalize our best allies?"

I cannot conceive how the xians can make a principled argument against the islamists. "My god is bigger than yours?" Last thing we want is a crusade.

"It's the left you should be attacking."

The left are beyond redemption. They want my money, and they have no principles. Sure, they support civil liberties but their excesses are doing more damage than good. As Cohen and jfp point out, they do not support, say, gay Iranians 'because' Iran is against the US. Madness.

*If* the republicans can expel the theocrats *AND* establish itself as the party of fiscal responsibility, we have a chance of winning this battle, both against the left and the forces of islamist reaction. If we squander $3 trillion and 4000 lives and carry on fighting silly battles over abortion, we might just as well shoot ourselves now and get it over with.



reading comprehension for Rick C and Vic
"Separately, a written Constitution is no guarantee of much. I am partial to the explicitness of the US constitution, but I cannot say that the UK 'constitution' has been any less successful, given its provenance. Why, I hear 'separation of church and state' taken more seriously in the UK than the US, despite the explicit melding of the two institutionally in the UK."

Yes, I wrote this. No, it nowhere suggests that the UK's 'constitution' is written.

Good sense from jerabaub at 08:10
True.

Especially the last comment regarding Bush's view of the crazies.

Oh no! Not again, profblog
"England created a penal colony out of Australia."

You know why? Because the US declaration of independence made it impossible to dump the criminals there.

"They, however, have shown more common sense than their deporters. The Austrailian president himself has declared that they like their culture, and if anyone that is Muslim does not want to assimilate, they can leave."

Australia doesn't have a president, it has a prime minister. And the PM who said this is now ex-.

Nonetheless, you make a good point.

"Lastly, for MellorSJ who wants to jettison Christianity for religion free reason, I give you Joe Stalin, and Mao Zedong for bedfellows... good, reasonable athiests who exterminated more in one century than all wars combined. Reasonable folks they were, no Christianity at all."

Fool. Stalin was trained in an Orthodox seminary. Both Stalin and Mao (and islam) are totalitarian. That;'s the point. What's next? Hitler and Stalin murdered millions and they both had mustaches? Stalin and Mao didn't believe in Zeus?

The absence of an imaginary friend in no way guarantees sanity.

Have you discussed this with
The Archbishop of Canterbury? The one who wants Brits to accept the idea of Sharia Law?

Btw, is he Catholic, or is he Anglican?

Anglican... that would be the state religion established by Henry VIII because following the rules of the Catholic church was proving a bit inconvenient.

"Why, I hear 'separation of church and state' taken more seriously in the UK than the US, despite the explicit melding of the two institutionally in the UK.""

"Last thing we want is a crusade."

Mellors, most people don't want war most of the time.

Hate to tell you this... but we're in the middle of another Crusade NOW.

Gestell writes:
Once again, It is true that before anything becomes political or economic, it is spiritual in origin. "....devout Muslims....believe that living according to God's law is an absolute necessity for them". Thanks for writing that. It provides an opportunity to expose the counterfeit. In history, there may be no more classic a misunderstanding. Judaism cannot subscribe to mainstream Christianity, because the latter holds to the notion of the trinity.The Jews (rightfully) and a few in-the- know Christians, say there is One God, whose Name is Yahweh Elohim, El Shaddai. Islam also says there is one god. They call him allah. While we have no problem with the sincerity of the views of rank and file Islam, our question to them is: Are you sure you're worshipping the right God? Our Bible plainly states that there are TWO.As it is written: " But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to those who are lost; in whom the god of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, should shine unto them." Jesus of Nazareth summarized the 10 Commandments into two, the second of which is pertinent to today's discussion: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This concept continues it's long march through history to be fully implemented. Nevertheless, it pretty much negates such things as beheadings of rape victims, female genital mutilations, treating women as cattle, slavery, child marriages,etc. In one of the epistles of John, it is written, " how can you say that you love God, whom you haven't seen, when you haven't loved your neighbor, whom you have seen? "

Freedomknight
The reason Moslem men control their women as they do(and it's the only bit of sense I see in Islam) is the same reason Jews are forbidden to eat pork and certain other foods, and Hindus can't eat cows. At the times those admonitions were laid down, it could be deadly to eat pork and those other foods. A cow is more valuable as a tractor than as foodstuff, and might well kill you were you crazy enough to try to eat it (Anthro 101).

The rules the moslems have regarding females, and the similar rules Victorians had, and most other civilized cultures had, is the cause of two things:

Females can get pregnant.
Females don't have sense enough to come in out of the rain.

The moslem culture has gone haywire, somewhere. In the Victorian culture, the rules of conduct for females were generally enforced socially by older females, but the responsibility lay with the adult males. A man was expected to rule his household, because he was held responsible for it. That part is always forgotten by the idiot liberals who want to pretend that, just for shjts and giggles men bossed women around.

I'll give you an example:

In one of her articles (I think it was in "How to talk to a Liberal") she complains about gun laws, because she was walking home (!) one night (!!) and was accosted by a mugger. Now, in those older cultures, she would have been expected to have a male escort. Not just any male escort, but one who could be responsible for her safety. The Moslems would have whipped her for it; the Victorians would have chastised her father, brother, husband, or, lacking all of those, her host.


Leftists Are Not Beyond Redemption

As MellorSJ2 says, the left is beyond redemption. But leftists are not. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican.

Like almost all conservatives (save those fortunate enough to be Rush babies or the offspring of Ditto Heads), I had bleeding-heart liberal opinions of many issues before I became aware of the facts.

Conservatism takes effort, liberalism does not. Therefore, liberalism is the default. In the absence of knowledge, people will naturally become leftists. In fact, the left has very, very few members and leaders who are actually aware of the fully platform of the left and still choose to be leftists. By contrast, almost all conservatives are aware of the a significant portion of the platform and choose to be conservative after thoughtful consideration.

Silver-spoon-born power seekers like Hillary Rodham Clinton have contempt for the average person and become liberals because they cannot accept the plank of conservatism that most mentally competent adults will usually make the right choice when provided with the facts of an issue. This is why Hillary left the Republican Party in 1968 and became a Democrat.

Tyrant-wannabes like Hillary are extremely dangerous and cannot be redeemed because they have chosen to become inveiglers. But the vast majority of leftists can be recovered.

Unfortunately, John McCain's record tells us that he too has contempt for the common man and does not accept the same plank that drove Hillary out. The difference is that McCain is not a 21 year-old Wellesley girl and this is not 1968. The Republican Party is however just about as weak as it was in 1968.




The Question Answers Itself
"In one of the epistles of John, it is written, " how can you say that you love God, whom you haven't seen, when you haven't loved your neighbor, whom you have seen? "'

Because I *have* seen my unlovable neighbor.

Sharia law:
We have Sharia law 'lite' in America, and it is being imposed upon us by "Liberals"=Socialist Party and the useful idiot 'liberal' posters here on TH.
You hnow who you are!

Freedomknight
Interesting slant to the "reason" muslim men and some men in general want to subjugate women.

Actually, your contention comported with mine; I hope that is what you intended.

The reason some men get a "buzz," as you call it, from their control of women is that to their small minds they can finally control SOMETHING. Anything or anyone will do, inasmuch as, being weak-willed and weak-minded, they are convinced by way of some inner or outer teaching that they have no possibility of control over anything.

A different upbringing may place an inner prohibition by a male to slap around someone weaker than they. But not always.

The same personality defects are seen in child molesters. FINALLY they have control of someone. They convince themselves in some cases that this is some mutual, certainly acceptable, relationship with the child. In this manner are they justified.

That was a little off-track, but one behavior is not far behind the other. Holds true in the muslim subjugation, the "male superior" model subjugation, and the child molester model. In each case can the cretin convince himself that he is "in control!"

So-called "Theocrats"

MellorSJ2 believes the Republican Party must expel "theocrats". Based on this ill-informed and emotional comment by MellorSJ2 and MellorSJ2's highly offensive use of the Greek chi-derivation "Xian" for "Christian", MellorSJ2 shows that he has not come to grips with the Christian underpinnings of this country.

MellorSJ2: Like it or not, this is a Christian nation. One of the first acts of the Continental Congress in 1775 was to order copies of the Bible to be distributed to every soldier. All soldiers were required to attend daily morning prayer services.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("Mormons") who has to suffer the indignity of ignorant evangelicals accusing me of not being a Christian, I am more qualified than most to launch the accusation that the Republican Party is being run by theocrats but I will not do so.

Although a large base of misinformed evangelicals have wide influence within the Republican Party, it is incorrect and wildly irresponsible to say that evangelicals in any substantial numbers or any others within the GOP are theocrats.

Because I am a Christian (contrary to the
misinformation about Mormons that is fed to many evangelicals) and because I understand that there is a deep and indivisible connection between the Constitution and 18th-19th century protestantism, I am grateful to the evangelicals for being the keepers of the Christian flame within the party.

Maintaining core principles of governance that run parallel to Christian doctrine is essential to sustain the nation such as Providentially declared equal worth of each soul, the priority of individual liberty, the right of the society to demand self-sufficiency of able citizens, civil code based on The Ten Commandments, duty to "love thy neighbor" and to "love thy enemies", etc..

Equality of Religion
America is a Christian nation, without question. It was founded on Christian principles, much of which is still visible today in our society. However over time this country has also progressed, especially socially, to where we are today. Equality of gender, and race have progressed in leaps and strides and have developed values and principles that we, and indeed all liberals hold dear. In the UK I would assume it's the same. The problem with Sharia law, and Islam, is that it has not been subject to the same scrutiny and change that the christian nations have. By kowtowing to this underdeveloped religion and its political implications, essentially leaders such as the subject of this article are submitting to a huge step back socially. Promoters of sharia law persistently argue that because we are a christian nation every value we promote is contrary to the Islamic culture, and therefore in the name of tolerance we should respect their ways of doing things. This logic is so flawed. Yes we do come from a christian society, but that society has been put up to scrutiny and changed to a nation of values that every human holds or should hold. Sharia law is still in the stone age, it holds none of the values which humans have progressed to over so many years. Islam and Sharia law is a dangerous thing, and when leaders such as Rowan should think about is would we want to kowtow to a religion that promotes a value system similar to one we would have had in this country 100 or 200 years ago? Don't stop progress. Stop those who wish to appease digressionists.

Mellorsj
I'm curious, my friend. I understand you despise Christianity for your own reasons, and it's more than simple "non-belief."

But why does it seem to me that you're fiercly wanting to defend Islamic Sharia laws when they are absolutely and currently cruel and murderous to homosexuals and females. I would think this religion would be on your TOP 10 hate list.

I am not religious as you know, and I equate it more so as extreme cultural differences. I would be very upset if we allowed certain Sharia laws to seep into our country. I would fight it tooth and nail. It's a danger to us all, especially you.

Mellor
Yes, the absence of a belief in deity in no way guarantees sanity, as you so often prove on this site.

Why exactly do you think Christians are more of a threat than Muslims? Have many of us been strapping on suicide belts and exploding ourselves in the local Galleria?

Seems to me that the most we do that you might find objectionable is talk about what we believe. Aside from the observation that my beliefs in no way harm you, why is it acceptable for you to spout your empty philosophy anywhere you like, but Christians must be "marginalized"? I see a man who wants the world to be the way he wants it and he's fine with starting a new persecution if that's what it takes to get what he wants.


The answer to a religious problem
The answer to a toxic religion is not generally more of that religion, but it is also not generally a loss of religion. That's rather like trying to cure a diseased gall bladder with singing loudly. It might make you feel less alone with the discomfort, but it's not going to fix the problem. The answer, as has been shown in countries where Christian missionaries have been active among Muslims, is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which teaches something altogether foreign to Islam -- love your neighbor as yourself. You can't impose that upon someone, but Jesus can and does change hearts to bring that about. Only when Muslims become Christians will the threat of Islamic extremism become something of the past.

Christianity works on an individual level. It's not meant to change a society. However, if enough individuals in a society change the very fabric of society changes. Witness the sea change in the Roman Empire after Christianity. That was not done by the sword, but by the gospel message. That so cruel a society could be made to repudiate so many of its cruel practices is an amazing testimony to the power of individual life-transformations upon a society.

standhisground
You said what I say--only much better than I would have.
That pride in "multiculturalism and inclusion", in concert with the generous dole, will spell a dark day for them. Many here would have us on the same path.
You would think Europeans would be the very people who'd recognize the consequences of such appeasement.

One Final Comment, yea, Two:
Shells and Aurorawatcher: Very well said. Re. The Archbishop of Canterbury: Can't some right thinking souls be found in England who will call upon this fool to resign? I think it's high time that the righteous cease their passivity and start putting pressure on the idiots to cease from their idiocy. This man has no business being in any position of authority, especially ecclesiastical.

AudiR10
6:58 a.m. comment AMEN

Don't recall where I read it, but I seem to remember something about this guy practicing
Druid rituals before he was Archbishop. Anyone
verify that?

Galatians 1:8,9,10 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach an;y other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

I mourn for England, I'm first generation and second generation American from British immigrants and still have family there. There were so many great men of God out of England, the Wesleys, Wilberforce, Edwards, Praying Hyde
so many others who spread the Gospel, some even
coming to the American colonies to preach. I pray for this country as well as my ancestral
country that God will remember the prayers of
those who went before, for their people and their lands. I can understand the rest of Europe fading into new dark ages but England with its rich history of evangelism?

Edit error
I cut out Ann Coulter's named inadvertently in a cut-and-paste, and didn't realise it.

The above should read "Ann Coulter, in one of her articles (I think it was in "How to talk to a Liberal") she complains about gun laws,"

Sorry about any confusion that may have caused.

To Shawn:

Although there has been much progress made in many areas such as the end of slavery, this country has also experienced significant digressions in many areas.

Humankind's moral status in this country and everywhere else on the globe is not now nor has it ever been a steady linear progression that is constantly moving upwards.

A smaller percentage of the population is heeding the Ten Commandments than ever in this country and that is not an indication of progress. A person's word is nearly meaningless. Fornication and adultery are epidemic. Fewer fathers are taking responsibility for providing good homes for their children. Disrespect for parents is widespread. Keeping the Sabbath Day holy is routinely ignored. Covetousness is openly advocated as a virtue.

These are NOT signs of progress. What's more, these are signs of decadence that inevitably leave people feeling unfulfilled and lonely for the inner spiritual companionship of a caring Diety that can only be felt through obedience to His commands.

I am sorry but it is pure and unadulterated heresy to call the wholesale disregard for adherence to the precepts and principles upon which this Christian nation was founded "progress".

The answer to all your questions, shells
lie in my previous posts on this thread alone.

"I understand you despise Christianity for your own reasons, and it's more than simple "non-belief."

No, I don't despise xianity, just as I don't despise Santa or Norse mythology. It's a fairy tale with some useful moral precepts revised and improved from previous ones.

What I do despise is xians (or muslims, or norsemen) who think that their private belief system should direct anything other than their own private behavior.

"But why does it seem to me that you're fiercly wanting to defend Islamic Sharia laws"

I cannot say. Especially when I wrote in my first post: "the Archbishop explicitly excluded any "cuting (sic) off hands, killing girls who are raped (or date, or have been flirted at."

And "the Archbishop has repeatedly explained that he does not intend sharia to be a parallel system of law, but merely _suggested_ we might consider using religious law as an _optional_ way of resolving _civil_ disputes. The UK already has such a system for jewish civil law."

As you can see, Williams didn't propose wholesale adoption of sharia and neither did I. If a muslim wishes to divorce his wife under sharia and the wife agrees, why shouldn't the state accept that? The UK accepts Beth Din.

"when they are absolutely and currently cruel and murderous to homosexuals and females. I would think this religion would be on your TOP 10 hate list."

I don't hate any religion. I fear the certainties and brutality of the muslims more than the xians, but we have have to deal with the plank in our own eye first.

"I am not religious as you know, and I equate it more so as extreme cultural differences. I would be very upset if we allowed certain Sharia laws to seep into our country. I would fight it tooth and nail. It's a danger to us all, especially you."

I repeat: neither Williams nor I suggested any such thing.


Aurorablather
Aurorawatcher writes: "Why exactly do you think Christians are more of a threat than Muslims?"

I don't. I think xians are a more proximate and immediate danger than muslims. Moreover, I can have an effect on politics and policy here, no matter how small, while I cannot in Iran, say.

"Have many of us been strapping on suicide belts and exploding ourselves in the local Galleria?"

How soon they forget! Don't you remember the bombings of abortion clinics and the murders of doctors? They were all the rage not so long ago.

"Seems to me that the most we do that you might find objectionable is talk about what we believe."

You flatter yourself, as do so many xians. I skip over it mostly. (Morons 12:13) is a giveaway. When I do read read it I despair that otherwise semi-intelligent people can be so deluded, but what the heck? Not my Sunday morning.

"Aside from the observation that my beliefs in no way harm you,"

Rubbish. While your attempts to outlaw abortion do not affect me personally, it is a diminution of freedom in this country. The results of stem-cell research might, just might, slow my father's mental decline. Oh! You do harm alright. Don't get me started on gay rights.

"why is it acceptable for you to spout your empty philosophy anywhere you like, but Christians must be "marginalized"?"

What could be more empty than letting a fairy tale rule your life?

You want to marginalize muslims, don't you? (And gays, and immigrants and ...) Pot, meet Kettle.

"I see a man who wants the world to be the way he wants it and he's fine with starting a new persecution if that's what it takes to get what he wants."

Then, like hearing aurora, you hallucinate.

What is "reason", MellorSJ2?
MellorSJ2:

In your post at 4:48 a.m., you said (exact quote here): "let's marginalize xianity so that reason prevails". I defy you, or anyone else (like Christopher Hitchens) who thinks like this, to show us "unreasonables" a universally codified standard of reason that's been universally accepted by mankind. What makes your own personal standard of reason any more valid than Mao Tse-Tung's or Pol Pot's, which led them to slaughter tens of millions of their own countrymen, or than that of your typical L.A. gang member, who would shoot you just as soon as look at you without the slightest tinge of conscience? You can't argue that whether you hurt others of your own kind argues for the validity of a particular standard of reason, because then you would be impugning much of the natural world, where cannibalism, thievery, and other things that would be considered pathologies in the human realm are not uncommon. So tell us all, MellorSJ2, what standard of reason do you propose to marginalize Christianity and other religions with, who would decide whether it gets adopted, how would it be put into place, and what tenets would be part of it? I bet neither you nor those who think like you can answer these questions - and I'm betting that if you or they respond to me on this, it will be with an ad hominem attack rather than with a thought-out answer.
Oh, and by the way, when were abortion clinic bombings "all the rage"? They were very isolated incidents which have been practically unheard of for several years, while Muslim suicide and homicide bombings have been a staple of our daily news for quite some time now. In fact, Theodore Kaczynski, who was very definitely on the leftist/atheist side of the political spectrum, probably killed more people all by himself than all who died all the in violence committed by purported theists that was directed at abortion clinics or providers.

America, WAKE UP
We are next.

Standhisground takes his time ...
to get to the point, doesn't he?

Evidence and logic.

Vic
Forgive the Mellon-head, who only want to have both sides of the issue. First he/she criticizes it for being old news, then banters on commenting. Ignorance may be no excuse but it is an answer.. to it :):)

MellorSJ2
All right, I'll be more concise this time: you still haven't answered my questions. Please present any of your "evidence and logic" you allude to - if you can - and explain to us theists what "evidence and logic" necessarily discredits OUR worldview about the nature of things.

standhisground
*You're* the one making fantastic claims. You prove them.

PS You might teach the virtues of concision to one of your co-religionists, scott.

Watch it

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/07/072105iran.htm

This is what sharia law would do in Britian

and this is from a gay web site

can you say necktie?


Mellor's gibberish
"Rubbish. While your attempts to outlaw abortion do not affect me personally, it is a diminution of freedom in this country. The results of stem-cell research might, just might, slow my father's mental decline. Oh! You do harm alright. Don't get me started on gay rights."

I agree; and your attempts to outlaw murder is a dimunition of freedom in this country as well. I should have the right to abort any human being just because he's inconvenient and looks funny (like, say, your average illegal alien).

The results of the experiments performed on Jews in the death camps might cure various diseases including cancer, but I hardly think that justification for turning innocent human beings into fodder for experimentation.

Oh, let's get started on gay rights. Happy people have all the rights heterosexuals have. As do homosexuals.
Quarantining homosexuals when the AIDS epidemic might, just might have slowed its spread into the general population. But we couldn't do that. Treating homosexuals as if they were less innocent than an unborn baby? Shameful!

"Gays" is not a race, it is not a sex. It is an appetite, a perversion of the reproductive drive. Gays deserve no more special rights than do diabetics.

MellorSJ2
Your last two responses to my posts are exactly what I expected from you. I don't recall having made ANY claims about my theistic worldview in any of my posts, sir: I simply challenged you to support the claims you made in YOURS. And totally to my expectation, you either can't or won't, and you hide behind your disdain for people of a theistic bent as justification for intellectual cowardice or laziness. You haven't answered a single one of my questions nor attempted to refute any of the things I have said in my posts (I find it especially interesting that you haven't anything to say regarding my Theodore Kaczynski observation). If you want to come away from this discourse thinking that somehow you've proven your superiority over us "primitives" who believe in God, be my guest: if that's what floats your boat, so be it. But as long as people like you respond to people like me not with serious discussion but with dismissive contempt, don't expect the standard of "reason" you espouse, whatever it is, to ever gain sway in this society, not unless you and those like you intend to force it down people's throats at the point of a gun, and then you would be yourselves exactly what you claim to despise.

I made no claims, standhisground.
Save that belief in an imaginary is offensive to reason.

Many people here agree with me--so long as the imaginary friend is allah.

Really, you'll have to do better than simply declaring victory.


flying fig leaf warning
I think it curious that DS, who would appear to be one of the recent McBitches, follows up Greengeld's excoriating Christian Conservatives yesterday with this warining against the Sandnazis today.

Is a comparison of "religious rights" being encouraged, between the lines? Their religious crazies a warning against ours?

It would seem obvious to me that Christian CONSERVATIVES (note today's column "defining evagelicalism down") are NATURAL and PRIMARY allies AGAINST the kind of abuses DS preaches against here.

But it is EXACTLY those Conservative Christians that the GOP (if Greengeld is any indication) seem INTENT upon getting RID of. A process DS seems to be AIDING!

It's The McChurian Candiates BUDDIES in the Gang of 14, McKennedy, McFeingeld, that are most likely to bend over for the Ragheaded Sandnazis on this one. Yet it's McSame, DS is rooting for!

Similarly, it seems to me that the Reconquista Invasion is bound to be a factor in the increase in human trafficking in the US--something DS should be AGIN given her worries here.

Yet she is backing the Reconquista Candiate--McKennedy.

It doesn't add up.

the big mick

Moral relativism scores yet again


Its why we can't protect children or victims of crime in this country. Its why the quality of American education languishes. Its why the mental health industry is booming. Its why perpetrators are seen as victims.

Now, moral relativism gives license to set the clocks back 2,000 years. Brilliant.

Summarised all-too-well by
"Great Britain prides itself in its multiculturalism and inclusion".

Translation: it almost-perfectly copied (included cent-percent of the DEFECTS) of Canada's Grit-initiated--as a euphemism for "divide to continue misruling and even committing treason"--multiculturalism policy!

In other words, nothing to be proud of, as it will only lead to destruction.

MellorSJ2
Yet again you mention "reason" without defining it. And how do YOU know that God is imaginary? If you have convincing proof of that, present it: this world is waiting to reward handsomely anyone who can do so. But your approach to this whole subject is to beg the question. If you wish to regard with contempt those who believe in God or God Himself, well, here's the irony, this society that Christians have birthed gives you that right without having to court jail or death - a right, by the way, that your fellow non-believers in God who birthed communist societies did not reciprocate to those in these societies who chose to take a contrary view. By the way, if you find living in a God-conscious society too much for you, there are other places you are free to move to where you won't have that issue - North Korea comes to mind. True, you'd have to learn a new language, but think of it as just the price to pay for living in paradise. But why do I get the feeling that you'd rather put up with the irritation of exposure to Christian influence in the U.S. rather than live with what comes without it elsewhere? I'll tell you why: because you know deep down that you'll still get a much better deal from a Christian-influenced society than you'd ever get from any society where your non-theistic brethren hold sway.

Just as I suspected, standhisground...
... another godbot. Why am I not surprised?

Merriam-Webster: "2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways"

Why can't *you* look it up? (And, while I think of it, why can't you use paragraphs?)

"And how do YOU know that God is imaginary?"

I cannot _know_ that god is imaginary, just as I cannot _know_ unicorns are imaginary, or allah is imaginary. But, since there is no credible evidence and logic dictates against the existence of any of them, I'd say it's a racing certainty.

"well, here's the irony, this society that Christians have birthed gives you that right without having to court jail or death "

Funny how the less credible the claim, the more often the claimant see irony in its denial.

Not only do xians flatter themselves, they take credit for being around when good things happen. This society is the result of the Enlightenment, an Age of Reason (see above for definition), and it was pushed forward by "free thinkers." Some, to be sure, believed in a god, but their struggle was in freeing themselves from that superstition. Claims that the US is a xian country (because some guy handed out bibles?) or because a majority claim to be xian but couldn't recite the ten commandments, is so much hogwash.

As it happens, I already live in a post-xian society :)

My last word on the subject, MellorSJ2
Another "irony": I notice how ironic it is that non-believers in God never want to talk about what their kind have wrought in societies where they gained sway: Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. Where people who think like you have had their way, what have they ever accomplished for humanity - other than to greatly reduce its numbers? By the way, many of Mao's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Kim Jong Il's and Kim Il Sung's victims didn't believe in God, either; why their fellow non-theists thought they should be slaughtered is something I'll leave to folks like you to explain. You can call me a "godbot" derisively if you like, but after seeing what you non-theists have "contributed" to this world, your ilk certainly hasn't convinced me that you have something better to offer the world than what the Bible does, quite the contrary, in fact.

What happened to my reply?
,
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.