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
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Jonah Goldberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Evolution of Religious Bigotry
by Jonah Goldberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


I just watched "Fitna," a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Released on the Internet last week, "Fitna" juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as "apes and pigs," protesters holding up signs reading "God Bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to Hell" - these are among the powerful images from "Fitna," Arabic for "strife" or "ordeal."

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt's grand imam threatened "severe" consequences if the Dutch didn't ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing "hatred."

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he'd scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXOYE, which means fish and also is an acronym for "Jesus Christ God's Son, Savior." Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren't alone.

In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you've seen these too. The fish is "updated" with little feet on the bottom, and "IXOYE" or "Jesus" is replaced with either "Darwin" or "Evolve."

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that "hate is not a family value." But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. "Namely: It's acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ŒShalom' written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ŒUsury' written inside the same symbol would be an outrage."

But it's the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.

Whatever the faults of "Fitna," it ain't no Darwin fish.

Wilders' film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

"Fitna" is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer - in film, book or cartoon - is dubbed "intolerant," while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.

It's not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it's that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jonah Goldberg's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Moderate Muslims
Show me a room full of moderate Muslims and I'll show you an empty room.

The moderate Muslim who killed his two daughters in Dallas, Texas, three months ago has still not been found. They were killed as an honor killing. His family, including his wife, in Dallas will not cooperate with the police.

Good article
It's ??T?S. Here is a table of the acrostic:

Greek Transliteration English

??s??? Iesous Jesus
???st?? CHristos Christ
Te?? THeou God’s
‘???? hUios Son
S?t?? Soter Saviour

Good grief, what's with this site?
Can't even do simple unicode symbols. It's a shame that the programming nerds who make the site so cluttered and busy, and cause so many broken links can't do something more useful.

goldberg
Once again, your blog is completely marginal and goofy. You lament the "Darwin Fish". How'd ya manage to work that simpering little nugget into your fetid blog?

You speak and write like an intelligent person, but what you say could easily be heard as a Sunday morning fart (in church or not).

How offensive do you and your tedious perspective think it might be for conservatives like me to be identified with the masses of deranged creation-believers?


not going to tell you...
...you know, that pretty much proves the man's point. I am not a christian, never was, unlikely I ever will be. I do find the entire premise that anyone can dump grief and hatred on christians in this country, but god forbid they do the same to any other religion, judaism, the muslim faith, atheism (which is a belief system so it counts as a religion) or any otehr ism. Here you are with more BS, creationist believers are deranged. Wow, high tolerance there. You sound like a liberal.

A true conservative believes in religious freedom. You know, like the Founding Fathers wrote about. In that old document you obviously haven't read, The US Constitution. Before you claim to be a conservative, try reading about what the term actually means.

Hate?
I have been waiting for someone with credibility to review this film and here it is. Someone makes a film showing what the followers of Islam have done over the past 50 years and it is branded a “hate” film. LOL, I guess one could say that it truly is a “hate film” when it documents a practice of hate and barbarism. If these people are such a small percentage of the followers of Islam then why do they always get away with their actions?

Muslim Child Calling Jews Monkeys & Pigs
I found a copy of the film and was able to save it to my hard drive.

I think the thing that bothered me the most (and all of it is bothersome) was the 3 1/2 year old Palestinian girl who was interviewed and asked why she hated Jews. Her answer was that they were monkeys and pigs. When asked by the interviewer/coach where she had heard this she said it was in the Quran.

And we wonder why the cycle of hate and violence continues. The answer is they indoctrinate their children from birth to hate the Jews because they are monkeys and pigs.

Religious Bigotry?
Seems to me the cut off heads, blown apart bodies, executed gays, and taught toddlers are mostly Muslims. Do you call Muslims terrorizing Muslims religious bigotry or political tyranny. Islamofacism is political.

(BTW, I prefer the FSM fish.)

Non-Muslims Deserve to Be Punished?

FOX-A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

“Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet,” the Imam says, according to the report. “If you don’t believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain.”

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam’s position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/report-non-muslims -deserve-to-be-punished

YouTube Warned to Remove Koran Film

CNS- The government of the world’s most populous Islamic state says YouTube has two days to take down a Dutch lawmaker’s provocative film on the Koran or it will block access to the popular video-sharing Web site.

The warning by Indonesia came as the U.N.’s primary human rights watchdog ended a month-long session amid allegations by Western member-states and non-governmental organizations that Islamic nations are working to curtail free speech.

Geert Wilder’s 16-minute film linking Islam’s revered text with terrorism has sparked protests in a number of countries. It also drew criticism from the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the European Union.


Geert Wilder fitna the movie anti Koran film

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/youtube-warned-to- remove-koran-film


Thasic
Hey, thanks for at least reading what I wrote. I'm very tolerant of most belief systems. But the evangelical Christians on the right are very different than most. Their self-righteousness has facilitated our insane foreign policy over the past 7 years and an infinite number of other atrocities on our country, which we'll be discovering and paying for many years to come. They believe they are infallible since God is directly advising them in all matters - it's the epitome of arrogance. To be sure, many of them are good people, but the ones in charge of our country on the right are a cancer on our society that needs immediate treatment. Goldberg's reference to the Jesus fish strikes me as a nasty little jab to more open-minded, and yes ,conservative people such as me.

We'll see real bravery....
...when libs put the word "Darwin" inside a Star of David or a Muslin Crescent on their car. I doubt we'll ever see that.

Agree completely
The funny thing about the outrage at the 'Fitna' movie is that while they are outraged at the movie compilation of acts created in the name of Islam, they don't condemn the people that are in the movie perpetrating the image of Islam.

I think they would be better served by being angry at the people IN THE MOVIE rather than the movie itself. He didn't make up fictional images for the movie. Those are current events which don't encourage outrage among the Muslim community.

I know this is just rehashing your post, but the irony is so big that Muslims can't see the real offensive behavior because of their outrage at the person pointing it out. It's almost like blaming the messenger. . . oops, is that offensive as Muslims often refer to Mohammed as the 'messenger' of Allah. I'll be listening for the fatwa against me because of my heresy for referring to Wilders as the 'messenger'.

Indonesia out of East Timor!
I have that bumper sticker right next to my Darwin Fish. I'm brave enough and care enough to protest political oppression and oppose right wing religious dogma on my car. Plus, I drive a Prius all you dirty rotten right-wing gas guzzlers!
Other bumper stickers on my car:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
"Buck Fush"
"January 20, 2009"
"Impeach Cheney First"
"Get out of my Womb, Bush"
"Babies = Stem Cells"

Open mind Darwinist??
How can anyone, lambasting Christians for not believing Darwin's "theory", consider themselves open minded? Research the odds, to believe everything in existence today came from one simple protein does not take an open mind, it takes blind faith oblivious to all reasoning. It takes more blind faith to believe Darwin than to believe a pocket watch just crawled from the mud with no watchmaker! Yes, the odds are better for the watch to "just happen" than for Darwin's theory to be true! Now that's having a closed mind!

Smugness?
THAT would belong to those who decided to use the fish on their cars in the first place. Religion is a personal matter, and I couldn't care less to which one any person belongs. Certainly people should not have to fear identifying themselves as members of a particular faith when asked appropriately, but my problem with the fish is that NO ONE IS ASKING. And that is PRECISELY to what the Darwin fish is a response. It IS mocking those who feel it necessary to demand attention based on their religious affiliation, and on that level I have no problem with it. By the same token, anyone simply feeling it necessary to broadcast "faith" in evolution over theism is equally as conceited. I just doubt that the vast majority of Darwin fish are anything other than a sarcastic parody. And lastly, how do Darwin fish exhibit "courage without consequences" any differently that those with the original fish? It would seem to me that BOTH are possible with freedom of speech and religion...

Rob writes:
"to believe everything in existence today came from one simple protein does not take an open mind, it takes blind faith oblivious to all reasoning."

----

Hey Rob, help me out here. What was that first protein? Was it one of the enzymes in the biosynthetic pathways that make the nucleotides that can then be incorporated into DNA or RNA strands that can then encode that protein? Or was it something else. Since you seem to know that life arose from a single protein, I'd love to know how that little wonder reproduced and 'mutated' and underwent selection to develop DNA and encode all the cellular processes, encode for multicellularity, encode for the transition from a circular (bacterial) genome into the multiple separate chromosomes of eukaryotes, etc. I just haven't seen this paper in Nature, Science or Cell - even though it's taken for granted in my kid's textbook.

liberalism=religion
As a conservative scientist, I find this constant association of Darwinism with liberalism to be offensive and absurd. There is no parallel there! The truer parallel would be between religioni and liberalism, as both are grounded in emotion and group identity politics rather than rationality. Both ignore scientific reality. Both ignore empirical evidence. Both embrace facade, symbolism, and hollow gestures. Knowledge and reason are the mortal enemies of liberalism and religion.

I associate conservativism with rationality. I am not a conservative because I dislike liberals. I am a conservative because I am a knowledgable, logical thinker. Liberals are those who just aren't educated enough to understand reality. Aside from this ignorance, they also tend to be irrational thinkers, more interested in their own psychological well being. Now reread those qualities and apply them to religious folk. The application is entirely valid in my experience.

Similarly, the real association is between Darwinism and conservatism, because both are characterized by sound reasoning and analysis of empirical evidence. Sure, I tend to side politically with religious people, and am glad to have them on my side, but I suspect I would disagree with the reasoning underpinning their support for certain conservative ideas and policies.

Darwin Fish
I have always thought the Darwin fish was a subtle parody of the Christian fish. When I bought mine, it was more for the humor than for offending Christians.

BTW, there are plenty of other similar items for offending other religions. There's Buddha fish, Gefilte fish, Infidel t-shires (written in Arabic, one of my favorites). There is no shortage of "offensive" materials out there. Capitalism has seen to it that, if someone can make money off of it, it will exist.

The world would be better off if everyone didn't take things like this so seriously. People will disagree with you at some point, so get over it. Be strong in your own beliefs and don't let the smart alecks out there worry you.

The Morals of Mockery
"It IS mocking those who feel it necessary to demand attention based on their religious affiliation, and on that level I have no problem with it."
-------
I bet you go ape-$hit over those Mason symbols, eh?

You prove Jonah's point that the point of the Darwin fish, at least for a subset of people, is mockery. If it were just proudly promoting a view, a 'Darwin' emblem with a transitional species, without the Jesus fish symbol, would be sufficient. I's revealing that you revel in the mocking others.

Pathetic
Perhaps Goldberga, and others, would like and answer as to why there is a difference between American attitudes toward Christians and Muslims.

In America, the religion trying to establish itself as the basis of American life is Christianity. The religion seeking to force itself into the science classroom and trying to meld its beliefs into the social and political fabric is Christianity.

Thus, in America, the resistance is to Christianity. If and when Islam tries to do the same, it will be met with the same resistance from people who think government should be based in reality, not myth. It just so happens that the forces of ignorance and intolerance in this country tend to be Christian.

Roger
Funny, but I feel the same way about conservatives as you do about liberals. May I suggest that the party we need most is the "rational party of somewhat smart people"

However, one major difference between the liberal and conservative factions as they stand is that conservatism is thoroughly infected with religious mental processes, which start with the answer and then interpret data to fit the revealed truth.

When liberals do that, its just as bad, but it's not built into the mentality the way it is in conservatism.

GreenDay
I wasn't trying to DISprove the point of the article regarding the mockery aspect of the Darwin fish. I was merely stating that those smugly placing the fish on their cars were on a certain level deserving of it (the same as a Darwinist "promoting a view"). Again, it all boils down to (in either case) felling the need to answer the question NOT asked. And yes, there have been people deserving of mockery since man first stood upright. I'm guessing that parody and satire are not your cup o' tea.

I rather like the Darwin fish...
I like the Cthulhu one even better though.

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/03/di001 .jpg

:-)

Thasic considered
Agree with you on religious freedom, which is conceptually a derivative corollary implicit in the principles of freedom of speech and thought.

Disagree that atheism is a religion. "Atheism" qua atheism is nothing more or less than the absence of a theistic belief. By your standard, those who don't believe Elvis is alive constitute a "religion." Reductio ad absurdum.



not going to tell you 8:01 comment
Anyone from the South will recognize the pattern here. "I'm not prejudiced, but..." is ALWAYS followed with an incredibly bigoted statement. In NGTTY's case, "I'm usually tolerant...." Come to think of it, the bigotry of that kind tried to shift blame to create suspicion towards an entire group of people. This was the simple minded way to explain everything from the economy (why the bigot is poor) to morality (why the bigot can't get a date.)

And now xians were the secret cabal behind the war? Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld were radical Christians? The shadowy overlords behind the Administration--the 700 Club?

Bumper sticker messages
I liken the Jesus Fish to a "John Edwards for President" bumper sticker...they both mean the same thing: IDIOT ON BOARD.

Green Day
I wonder what would happen if you were to try to drive your car with all it's cute stickers in, say, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or the UAE?
Now, that would require true bravery.

And they can't even see, ...
So many people posting are proving Jonah's point over and over yet they can't even see that they're doing so.

Take Puftwaffe as an example. First he(?) boldly proclaims, "Certainly people should not have to fear identifying themselves as members of a particular faith," then he proceeds to attempt to make Christians fear -- asserting that they have no right to be identifying themselves in any way but a nervous, private, diffident whisper when someone happens to ask.

Take note, left-liberal fascist bullies -- its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Since the practice of Christianity requires that Christians proselytize -- "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation -- attempting to prevent Christians from speaking their message aloud in public is denying us our freedom to practice our religion. Not to mention that other pesky, little Constitutional right known as Freedom of Speech.

The ability of the left-liberals to parody themselves into extremes beyond the possibility of satire would be unbelievable in a work of fiction. But here they are in real life.

Mother of 4
And where did I state that the religious "have no right to be identifying themselves"? I am honestly curious. If you read it again, maybe a little more carefully this time, you will understand the point which was that it is UNSEEMLY for a person to demand attention for their religious affiliation without even being asked. And my comment about being ASKED "appropriately" was conveying the idea that it is NOT ALWAYS appropriate for a person to question another regarding his or her religious beliefs. Wow, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Plenty of smugness to go around
Jonah Goldberg is offended by the Darwin fish. I wonder how many of those sporting those fish on their cars are offended by the casual assumption that accepting evolution is tantamount to atheism.

There are any number of believers who accept evolution. They see evolution as the set of rules that living things follow. Who designed these rules is not something science is capable of addressing.

On the other hand, if people want to deny the ability of a designer to create rules that would lead to human beings, they are free to commit whatever form of blasphemy they like. It's a free country.

I am
A christian, not an idiot, and proud of what I am. I don't believe I'm wrong, but lets say your argument is right. At least if I try to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, I can leave this world when it's my time and say I tried to do no wrong. Can you say the same thing of Darwin's teaching?

eastlake joe
What exactly do you think "Darwin's teaching" is? I don't think its analogous to the teachings of Jesus.

offendology
here we go again. why is it so difficult for some conservatives to grasp that conservativism is very much compatible with atheism? the ides are actually pretty similar: things gradually evolve, without a grand plan, and whatever endures the test of time probably performs a useful societal/biological function - religion included.

"I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there's the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers."

oh, here is the "O" word where we are all supposed to hang our heads in shame and begin to apologize profusely. i've never heard of the darwin fish before but it sounds like a pretty innocent joke. i really don't see how it implies sympathy for islam or other religions. most aggressive atheists around (sam harris etc) are equally, if not more, critical of islam than of christianity.

"I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it."

last time i checked, you were writing for a conservative journal - not exactly the world's most dangerous job. which is perfectly all right (in fact, i prefer that you don't risk your life too easily).

puftwaffe
" it is UNSEEMLY for a person to demand attention for their religious affiliation without even being asked."

If a Jesus Fish on a bumper is unseemly, is a woman who wears a small, gold cross on a necklace in public UNSEEMLY?

Wow, how narrow minded can you be?

Mother of 4
You write:

"attempting to prevent Christians from speaking their message aloud in public"....

I don't know of anyone trying to do that. CAn you point me to an example, preferebly one that hasn't already been exposed as a religious right propaganda ploy.

Roger
Great post! Not a scientist but with you as a skeptical conservative.

My guess is the association between Darwin and Liberalsim comes from the misapplication of Darwin's evolutionary model and Herbert Spencer's survival-of-the-fittest metaphor in the early part of last centruty, a misapplication Hayek called scientism.

The "association is between Darwinism and conservatism" is detailed in Larry Arnhart's _Darwinian Conservatism_.

Tadd Peake
Your question depends entirely on what the person intends in wearing such an article of jewelry. Most people I know that wear jewelry with relgious symbols generally wear it UNDER their clothing, because most of their clothing is not worn in such a way as to be revealing enough to expose it. The same is not true of a sticker on a vehicle which is always visible and INTENDED to be seen by others. Also, wearing personal jewelry containing religious symbols has been the norm for thousands of years whereas I doubt many chariots ever sported a Jesus fish. But again, it ultimately boils down to the REASON the person feels the need to draw attention to his or her religious affiliation. THAT is the unseemly part whether it is personal or vehicular adornment. Sorry that you find the idea that smug Christians exist to be "narrow-minded".

Pierces_girl
First of all, that you've never seen a Darwin fish surprises me. They're ubiquitous. It's pretty much a required bumper ornament for anyone who also sports "Tolerance and Diversity" or faded "Re-Defeat Bush" stickers on their vehicle.

Secondly, why is it a problem for us (conservatives) to be offended by something? It's not as though we're (a) starting a Jihad to kill the makers and owners of the Darwin Fish (b) planning a class-action lawsuit to injoin the makers from making them or the owners from displaying them or (c) planning to call anyone who has them bigots, racists, intollerant, or anything else that some people say when someone says something offensive.

Thirdly, why is it OK for people that Liberals approve of to be offended when I say, for example "There are violent Muslims in the world" or "Homosexuality is sinful behavior" or "Mumia abu Jamal (a black man) committed a heinous crime" and not OK for me to be offended when I'm called a bigot or "backwards" or "unscientific" for having a differing opinion? That (as Mr. Goldberg says here) is precicely the message that the Darwin Fish is expressing. It's taking a symbol that is actually fairly important to Christians (Because it was used in the Roman days for Christians to identify each other, and apparently is still used that way in truely intollerant areas) and using it to slam Christianity.

By the way, it's interesting to note that Mr. Goldberg is Jewish (so far as I know) and I applaud him for recognizing the importance of the "Jesus Fish."

The Darwin fish is not the issue
I really wish Mr. Goldberg had left this cissue, which I think is really a non-issue, out of his commentary. The real issues to me are two-fold: the first is a documentary taken as "offensive" and the second is the power of the offended to censor something like this 15 minute film. When does the recitation of facts/statistics, or the dissemination of pictures of actual events become an example of intolerance? This is ludicrous! I just LOVE the "or else" mentality of the "offended" - don't show this "or else" we'll boycott you, don't disseminate that "or else" we'll declare a fatwa against you, don't even pose a question we don't like (e.g., the President of Harvard) "or else" we'll get you fired from your job. When is all this crap going to stop?

Jack
"In America, the religion trying to establish itself as the basis of American life is Christianity. The religion seeking to force itself into the science classroom and trying to meld its beliefs into the social and political fabric is Christianity."

What a "maroon" you are. The bible is the foundation of this country. The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian and the others deists. Christianity has brought liberty. Our rights are not bestowed by gov but are inalienable because they come from God.

As socialist/Marxist principles get stronger and stronger in this country expect liberty to decline. This is very true in "liberal" Europe and even in Canada. Hate speech laws are a good example. Focus on the Family can not broadcast in Canada. Mark Steyn is being sued by Moslems because they don't like his book "America Alone".



"It just so happens that the forces of ignorance and intolerance in this country tend to be Christian."

You are insane Jack.

Poking badgers
The problem isn't that there are offensive things in the world. The problem is that while Blacks, Gays, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews (sometimes), Feminists, and Liberals can shout "I'm Offended" from the mountaintops and people will rush to their aid to quash the "offense," Christians in particular and conservatives in general have no such protection. Why do you think "The Passion of the Christ" was called "anti semitic" (which it most certainly was not) by just about every major media outlet, but people scoffed when Christians took offense to blasphemous or sacrilegious films like "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Dogma," and "The Davinci Code?"

Mi
I think a good point to make here is that while a 15 minute film juxtaposing violence committed by Muslims with the Koran risks the producer's life, things that commonly blaspheme Christianity (and the fish is a minor, subtle example) get no such reaction.

Jack
"If and when Islam tries to do the same, it will be met with the same resistance from people who think government should be based in reality, not myth."

Have Islamofascists made demands to control freedom of speech and to control what we allow on the internet?

After they made their threats did they get what they wanted? Is that coercion? And why would any person of principle cave in to that? why would any sane person or person of principle go along with the inanity that the film maker is responsible for the violent actions of others?

What does Jack and others like him have to say? The usual of course, Christians are the evil ones.


puftwaffe reveals enough
The point is that it's selectively intolerant in 21st century America to be offended because people exhibit symbols of their Christian faith on bumpers or on their person.

BTW, a tiny cross on a tiny chain shows over many "unrevealing" necklines. So do cross tie tacks, earrings, rings, medals, to mention a few.

"Unseemly," "need to draw attention," "smug Christians."

puftwaffe, you're too much. No really!

p.s. Did I write that "the idea that smug Christians exist to be "narrow-minded"? I don't think so.


The Evolution of Religious Bigotry
I find it interesting that those who preach
"tolerance" are the least inclined to extend that "virtue" to those with whom they disagree.

Who has endowed Muslims with the right not to be offended? Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are routinely confronted with media they deem offensive, so who will protect their "right" not to be offended?

Tadd Peake
No, but that was the implication of your crtiticism. It assumed that ALL Christians wear or display such symbols without any intent to broadcast a most personal aspect of their lives. Also, I never said I was "offended" by fish stickers but simply that those displaying them had less than noble reasons for doing so. Can ANYONE on here read above a 4th grade level?

not
"But the evangelical Christians on the right are very different than most. Their self-righteousness has facilitated our insane foreign policy over the past 7 years and an infinite number of other atrocities on our country, which we'll be discovering and paying for many years to come. They believe they are infallible since God is directly advising them in all matters - it's the epitome of arrogance."

Evangelical Christians have committed an "infinite number of atrocities" on our country? Supposedly Bush's foreign policy had something to do with Christianity?

Bush is a disaster. Jesus said you are either for me or against me. Blaming Bush's bad decisions on Christianity is just the natural inclination for those who are against Christ, and indeed hate those with a genuine saving faith in JESUS CHRIST. "not" is indeed correct in noting the difference between genuine faith and nominal dead Christianity (which is OK).

BTW, I have to question whether Jorge is a Christian. No "evangelical", bible believing Christian would say we all pray to the same god. I also don't see how a real Christian would be carrying water for the new world order/one world gov guys. Bush has been working overtime on the North American Union. I guess he never read the part in the bible that tells how that one world gov thing turns out. He may be just carrying a prop bible like Clinton.


"Darwinism?"
Evolution is not a religion, and Darwin is not a god to be worshiped. There seems a need by some to compare or contrast the scientific theory of evolution with religious faith. The two are not comparable any more than the laws of physics could be compared with religious faith. As physicists study the smaller and smaller sub-atomic realm, they discover “laws” that make little sense to us in the larger world. But should the quest for knowledge be stopped because of its risk to the faithful?

I can’t say whether a belief of evolution equals atheism, but if a need for God is solely (or “soul-ly”) based on a need to explain our presence here, then I understand why the faithful would resist such knowledge.

As evidence of evolution increases, the foundations of a God-based creation are damaged and the faithful become more and more concerned their lives (and especially their afterlives) are losing meaning. I do not believe in a god or a creator, but I sympathize with your plight.

As for the “Evolve” fish being offensive—I guess it worked. As do “offensive” stickers about sports teams, politicians, etc. Get over it.

There they go again,
Puftwaffe claims he's not actually trying to silence Christian. And other join the chorus demanding to know when anyone has attempted to make Christians fear to identify themselves.

Then Puftwaffe promptly declares that its unseemly for a person to proclaim his religious faith by openly displaying the symbols of that faith.

As I said, its beyond satire. Yet they can't even see.

Mother of 4
Since you don't consider it unseemly for an individual to broadcast his or her intimately personal relationship with a supreme being of any faith, do you find it similarly laudable for a homosexual to be publicly proud of that aspect of his personal life? I am betting not...

Rob from VA writes:
Open mind Darwinist??
How can anyone, lambasting Christians for not believing Darwin's "theory", consider themselves open minded? Research the odds, to believe everything in existence today came from one simple protein does not take an open mind, it takes blind faith oblivious to all reasoning. It takes more blind faith to believe Darwin than to believe a pocket watch just crawled from the mud with no watchmaker! Yes, the odds are better for the watch to "just happen" than for Darwin's theory to be true! Now that's having a closed mind!
------------------------------------------------
I always find it amusing when people try to claim how impossible it is that a single celled organism can evolve over millions of years into the variety of life we see today. If a single celled organism called a zygote can produce the complexity of the human body in just 9 months, where exactly is the problem for evolution?

Simpler terms
Since so many on here have reading comprehension problems, maybe I should simplify things a bit for the pea-brained. An individual's choice to adhere to any faith (or no faith at all) is a PERSONAL decision regarding one of the most intimate aspects of his or her life. As such, it is not information that needs to be broadcasted publicly without anyone asking or for other than a limited specific purpose (Self-identifying as Christian while protesting at an abortion clinic, for example). I no more want to know about a complete stranger's religious leanings than I want to know about his marital health, his medical conditions, how much money he makes, or what he enjoys doing sexually. He certainly has a RIGHT to tell me those things, but that does not make it appropriate information to disclose to any and all.

Who is bigoted?
Mr. Goldberg, you are Jewish (or perhaps Jew-ish, really none of my business). Don’t hide that; just come out and proudly proclaim it.

You laud moderate Muslims for condemning extremist Muslims, yet fail to mention extremist Christians. More Christians need to condemn the offensive statements of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, John Hagee and other Christian leaders. Their denunciations of Islam, Judaism, Atheism or even other Christian denominations are no less a cancer than the one you describe.

As someone who does not subscribe to any religion, I find the Jesus fish offensive for the same reasons you find the Darwin fish offensive. From what I am able to discern, people display these as if to say, “Showing Christian pride” and “I am better, more privileged and than you are because I believe I am going to heaven and you are not.” For all I know, the person displaying the Jesus fish share the same opinions as the extremist Christians, such as the afore-mentioned Robertson, Graham, et al. For the record, I do not own a car fish, Darwinian or otherwise.

Who is bigoted?
Mr. Goldberg, you are Jewish (or perhaps Jew-ish, really none of my business). Don’t hide that; just come out and proudly proclaim it.

You laud moderate Muslims for condemning extremist Muslims, yet fail to mention extremist Christians. More Christians need to condemn the offensive statements of Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, John Hagee and other Christian leaders. Their denunciations of Islam, Judaism, Atheism or even other Christian denominations are no less a cancer than the one you describe.

As someone who does not subscribe to any religion, I find the Jesus fish offensive for the same reasons you find the Darwin fish offensive. From what I am able to discern, people display these as if to say, “Showing Christian pride” and “I am better, more privileged and than you are because I believe I am going to heaven and you are not.” For all I know, the person displaying the Jesus fish share the same opinions as the extremist Christians, such as the afore-mentioned Robertson, Graham, et al. For the record, I do not own a car fish, Darwinian or otherwise.

The darwin fish
From the article:
"Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers."

That's the intended message.

Since the 60's, (and maybe always), it's been a common ruse to assert you are way too intelligent to do the thing you actually think you should be doing (a guilt defense). The draft dodgers of the 60's never admitted they were afraid to go, they were "too smart to be cannon fodder". Thus does the darwin fish and 'science' make some people comfortable in their rejection of religion. They can't just do it quietly, they have to be sure people know it's because they're too intelligent.

Frankly, I don't see a problem reconciling religion and evolution (symbolised by Darwin), and I reckon most people don't. I suppose the very hardcore fundamentalist scriptural literalists do, but I doubt that represents a large number of people.
The Darwin fish doesn't bother me- I kinda like it. I look at it and see that Christianity encompasses, surrounds, embraces... and is larger than evolution.

It's also amazing to me how many people have the wrong idea about science, and view it as known, irrefutable cast in stone truth, and as anti-religion. Both are false.

puftwaffe
So you demand "don't ask/don't tell" when it comes to religion? But I am sure if I asked you to shut up about your sexual orientation and urges, keep it to yourself, "don't ask/don't tell" you would start shrieking HOMOPHOBE! at me and assert that you GOTTARIGHT to shove your sexuality in my face 24/7 and I got no right to tell you I simply don't want to know about it.

Oh, and let's have "Don't ask/don't tell" about your gender, your living arrangements, your income, your place of business, your political party (and all that it stands for), in fact everything that makes you different from me.

And tell your wife that if I happen to want her advice on how much better I'd look with a different haircut and how much happier I'd be if I were married, I'll let her know. In return I promise not to tell her how much better she'd look if she would lose 45 pounds, and how much happier we all would be if she'd discipline her children. ThatADeal?

Can't We All Just Mind Our Own Business And Let Other People Mind Their Own Business?

Puftwaffe
Pea brain? Have you considered that it is your inability to express yourself rationally and calmly that is inhibiting you ability to get out your message on what is acceptable and not acceptable for Christians to do in following our faith? You have taken to your keyboard as someone with road rage takes to a steering wheel and horn. If seeing a fish or a cross bothers you, ignore it. Know that, should you choose to complain, you should expect that many Christians will not docilely accept your stupidity. So, you are not a Christian. I can get over that fact. Why don't you?

AudiR10
I guess you can't read my last post...

zedsmom
How would it be MY inability to express myself that leads others on here to falsely describe what is clearly written in my posts in order to attempt to argue against them? Either those people are illiterate or intentionally lying about what is contained in my comments. I chose to suggest the former since at least illiteracy is not a sin...LOL

Puftwaffe
Since you say it is my right to choose any religeon I wish, Wouldn't it follow that I also have the right to proclaim my faith in whatever way I wish? Or are you, indeed trying to silence the christians?

eastlake joe
Try reading the last line of my "Simpler terms" post...

eastlake joe
Also, it is not trying to "silence" anyone to suggest that not ALL topics are appropriate in the company of ALL people at ALL times. There seem to be a lot of people that don't understand the difference between something you CAN do and something you SHOULD do...

Rob Ratten
Your prime target is the Christian. Let me point out that you left out Rod Parsley and Jerry Falwell. Yes, I know the latter is deceased but you would not know it in reading TH posts by people of your like thought. You seem to think that these men speak to and for all Christians. You are wrong.

It is apparent to even the meanest of intelligences that you have no overall knowledge of religious movements and history. Take a quick read of The Battle for God to support some of your specious arguments. The author's name is Armstrong.

One size does not fit all in Christianity; nor does it in Judaism, Islam, and other religions. You act as thought Christians sit in rapt attention when any of the men you cite speak. That is false and you cannot prove it otherwise.

Christians are people of faith. The religion provides the structure by which we commune with one another. Having a non-believer comment on our faith is nothing short of the blind men's description of the elephant.

As to Jews, we Christians would not have our faith but for them. A quick glance at The Bible shows the Jewish books as the Old Testament and the time of Christ forward as the New Testament.

Islam's Qu'ran promotes the killing of all Jews and Christians. Although you are neither, you are not exempted.

In my younger years, I studied earnestly to see how God was the same for all. Sadly, I discovered that Islam's Allah has nothing to do with the God that I, as a Christian, and the God the Jews worship.

I will put a cross or a fish on my car, on my person, or in my house as I see fit. It is the constant reminder to me of the greater purpose for which I live. If that disturbs you, then I suggest that you have greater problems and are simply looking for another thing to fuel your unhappiness and anger.

zedsmom
If you require a cross or a fish to be a constant reminder to you of your greater purpose, it would seem to me that it belongs inside your car where YOU can see it and not outside where you can't.

to protest or not to protect
"The problem isn't that there are offensive things in the world. The problem is that while Blacks, Gays, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews (sometimes), Feminists, and Liberals can shout "I'm Offended" from the mountaintops and people will rush to their aid to quash the "offense," Christians in particular and conservatives in general have no such protection."

the problem probably does exist, but that does not mean that the solution is to now offer such protection to conservatives. after all, such "protection" inevitably harms the protected because it insulates them from valid criticisms. the solution is, in my view, to refuse to apologize every time somebody feels offended. conservatives should pick up the slack on that - both by not acting offended and by ignoring others' oh-so-sensitive feelings.

Puftwaffe
You are spinning a web of words to justify those same hopeless falsehoods in which you have centered your life. Hopelessness leads to the anger you have. I guess name-calling and denigration make you feel better temporarily. It must be hard to be an athiest or an agnostic. To think your life as no more meaning than a worker bee must be deflating.

I don't suggest you try Christianity. I would suggest that you try anger management so that your secular viewpoiont can be better controlled and understood by you.

Puftwaffe
That is your opinion. It is duly noted and discarded.

Does it bother you to see fluffy dice or other things hanging from a rear-view mirror? Do bumper stickers for the candidate you are not supporting or a secular idea you don't like make you angry?

Or do only Christians light your temper fuse?

Mi
You are quite right, I think--the darwin fish isn't the main issue, although it is an example of what Mr. Goldberg is trying to say, which is that the liberal....sorry, progressive...left expends energy thumbing their noses as christians, but does not breathe any objection to a religious faction that is currently responsible for quite alot of violence. He's right--it doesn't take a lot of courage to diss christians.

You make a good point about censorship of the offended, but I would caution you that "documentary" doesn't always equal "true", so it makes little difference whether this was a documentary or an on-the-table work of fiction. People are allowed to be offended or even outraged about something. They ought not be allowed to blow something up or commit murder in the name of their offense.

zedsmom
Feel free to quote ANY portion of my comments that is indicative of "anger". I am anxious to see what kind of tenuous link you make in order to justify your baseless speculation. As far as the fluffy dice go, if you can tell me what specifically the owner of the vehicle is attempting to convey, I will let you know if it bothers me. Since there IS no implied message, why would it bother me? And candidate bumper stickers do not bother mesince they are temporary and serve a specific limited purpose. Now with regard to your need for constant reminders, why would you put the fish OUTSIDE instead of where you can see it SIGNIFICANTLY more often? The problem is, that is NOT why you put on your car. Whether it is some form of self-congratulation or maybe just "keeping up with the Joneses" in the church parking lot that also one, doesn't really matter. You put it outside so that OTHER people can see it and consequently draw attention to yourself. Your stated reason has nothing to do with it, since where you put it is contrary to that purpose.

How funny
Some poster wrote
"It just so happens that the forces of ignorance and intolerance in this country tend to be Christian."

Which is a pretty ignorant and intolerant statement.

Sorry. I just got a good laugh from that.

Puft
You assert of those who display fish symbols that "those displaying them had less than noble reasons for doing so".

Why do you think that?
have you asked anyone why they have one?
Or did you just project your own personality trait into it?

zedsmom
We need to become more educated about what Moderate Muslims are. What do the majority of non-radical muslims really believe? You know those normal types of people like ourselves, what do they believe? They have jobs, love their children, want to get ahead and to have a future and enjoy life;just like us? What do they think about people like the man you mentioned who killed his daughters? What do they think about the American people who have thrown their children off bridges, or drowned them in the bath tubs. Do they call them radical christian do you suppose?

Some people seem to think that they know about Islam and its people so well, but I seriously doubt that they have ever lived amoungst them or have friends that are Islamic.

Show me a room full of moderate Muslims and I'll show you an empty room? PLEASE What a silly statement. Are you by any chance Muslim so you can have enough facts to say this?

How do you back up the statement you made? Is this an opinion formed from reading Newspapers and then extrapolating it to mean what you just said, or what? How many Muslims do you actually know? How many different Islamic Countries have you visited?

Do you speak Arabic so you might have a close and personal understanding of these people?

Polarizing statements like that do not help any situation and actually encourage the problems we have with religous intolerance.

Extremism
Extremists

One of the definitions of extremists means, “The outer most” Any extremists, whether they be Christians, Atheists, or Muslims, are not a representation of the ‘real’ thing. I think people need to quit using the extremes of anything to define the actual beliefs of what they are attacking, at that particular moment. I say let the extremists of the groups go on out and make each other uncomfortable, so that the rest of us reasonable people, be they Christian, Muslim, or Atheists, can carry on with our beliefs and still respect each other.

Extremists are radical and militant. They don’t want rational discussion and dialog. They are not aiming at coming to agreement. They only polarize, and divide. They are like the angry child that is left out of something, who then decides if I can’t be the most important one, I will ruin it for everyone else.

Darwinism & Islam…

Is there any public forum where Darwinism is not assumed? In fairness to the darwinites many of them don’t realize the prevalence of their evangelism. To them this is the natural order of things. A common practice in our family is to note these things. While the data may be good and useful, it is the interpretation that must be refuted and corrected.

The resistance to Darwinism does not come from Islam. In many ways they have adopted the philosophy of Darwinism. That is, the strong will prevail over the weak. It is Biblical Theology that resists the idea of common descent and macro-evolution and all the associated godlessness of this vain philosophy.

At the time of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon the prophet Daniel predicted that the Kingdom of Messiah would come during the time of the Roman empire [Daniel 2].

“…the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed…and it shall stand forever” [Daniel 2:44].

The Roman persecutors are long ago passed from the scene. The Kingdom of God is still advancing to all generations and into every nation just as prophesized by Christ at the coming of the New Covenant…

“…I will build My church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it’ [Matthew 16:18].

Will the philosophy of Darwinism prevent the advance of the Kingdom of Heaven? Picture the darwinite fish as floating on its back with its feet in the air. Darwinism is already dead, but many darwinites haven’t got the message.

Here is the latest admission from a review of Expelled the movie that paves the way for accommodation with ID…

When pressed by Stein, Dawkins allows for the possibility that life’s apparent design could have been produced by intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe—who themselves had evolved and then brought life here!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled- review

Extremists excuse to destroy
Extremists are only out to create trouble, because they, themselves are angry and the issue they are fighting, is not necessarily what they are angry about. They need to get over their issues and then rejoin the reasonable majority of people that can dialog with others that disagree with them, in open minded, sane, meeting of individuals, who respect each others rights of personhood.

None of us can always completely understand another person, we all have different perspectives. Even the words we use to express ourselves have different meaning and associations for each individual person. It takes time to understand the perspective of another person, and to know why they make the decisions they make. We need to give each other room and let them show us what they are feeling and thinking. And if dialog doesn’t change one or the other, we still honor each other for our individual beliefs.
Honor and respect for the inalienable rights of another is a sign of a reasonable, wise person who is able to join with others in dialog, even with those who oppose them or disagree with them.

Extremism never accomplishes anything but confusion and war. It never brings about change of any value. It can’t bring another to change their views. In truth extremism is hate disguised in some supposed higher reason. Extremists are people who want their own angry way.

Puftwaffe
What does anything mean beyond the meaning you abscribe to it? But, in your answer it is clear that Christian symbols bother you.

I think I will buy a fish to put on the bumper of my car. Then, I will see it when I unload groceries, plants for my garden, or go into it for any other reason.

I am getting off the computer to take my dogs for a walk. Then I will put my Beethoven CD on and listen to Fur Elise while I read. I might even listen to Christian rock. I am re-reading The Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton. Why don't you give it a try? Merton started his life disbelieving in anything seeming remotely religious.

If you don't see the anger in your seeking out an argument and the words you use, no one can help you. As for me, there is just so long I will discuss Christianity with a non-believer. There is a saying: You cannot teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig.

rob ratten
Sorry you're offended by fish symbols on people's cars. That tells us all you don't have many big problems to deal with. I'm glad for that.

You think that asking moderate muslims to denounce their bombing bretheren is akin to asking moderate christians to denounce Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, John Hagee and other Christian leaders.
Good grief Rob, do you see those as equivalent??
Voicing a view is one thing. Strapping a bomb on someone, cutting off heads...a whole 'nother thing. Doncha think?
(that's actually a question)

Dustyo
I know Muslims. I have studied Islam. Name the practicing "moderate" Muslims speaking out against the terrorist element. CAIR?

zedsmom
I asked you to QUOTE any portion of my posts which demonstrates the anger you claim, and I am still waiting... And no, Christian symbols do not bother me, it is the motivation BEHIND why some Christians feel it necessary to broadcast their faith that is the problem. As I stated earlier and you quickly forgot, this is about the inappropriateness of broadcasting ANY extremely personal information indiscriminately. I would be JUST as put off if you put a sticker on your car telling everyone how much money you make. This is NOT the purely religious question you seem to think it is.

Puftwaffe
Read your own posts and what you had to say. Last thing I will say on that.

Now you argue "inappropriateness of broadcasting any extremely personal information indescriminately". So, now you are the arbiter of that? Further, you are a mind reader and can ferret out people's motivations when it comes to Christian symbols. When news of the Constitution and the First Amendment reach your outpost of humanity, it would serve you well to study it.

You really need help.

Last word from me. I have other things to do. Sorry you don't.

camanintx
Chance.

Puftwaffe
There are two other reasons I will post symbols proclaiming I'm a christian. First is the fact that I'm a christian who is not ashamed of the fact and are quite proud to let others know it.
Second, I display my symbols,as you call them, so if there are any who want to ask about christianity I would be willing to discuss it. I don't say you have to be a part of my religeon, quite the opposite, it's not an easy choice. The "Christian Police" like you who say it's wrong to display my faith and even worse say I shouldn't be christian make it a very hard choice indeed. The good thing is you nor anybody else can make me stop except by my death and if you would take it that far then that's on you. Even though you don't believe I will still say may god bless you.

Offended.
I put a Ford symbol on my Volvo because I know it offends some Chevy drivers. Who with any intelligence would, after all, drive a Chevy. Brain dead.

zedsmom
No, YOU made the claim so support your argument with a quote or two (if it is as "obvious" as you claim). And it seems that you are the one in need of "help" since you are unable to read. What did I mean when I said that there is a difference between what people CAN do and what they SHOULD do? Pretty sure that says you have a RIGHT to express your religious convictions, but that does not make it appropriate to do so at all times with all people in all circumstances. I am also fairly certain that the most well-known guideline for polite conversation with people you don't know is that religion and politics should be avoided. I'm sorry if you consider that guideline to infringe on your right to be inappropriate. Just what subjects DO you consider to be inappropriate to broadcast in public? I would like to know.

eastlake joe
Please confine yourself to the comments I have actually made when attributing a certain argument to me. Find in one of my posts where I say that you "shouldn't be a Christian". You obviously feel so passionately about this topic as to invent the majority of that which you are arguing against. And so what if you are proud to be a Christian? If I am proud of my high paying job, should I post my salary on my vehicle? Or would that be off-putting?

reply to SunThe1 and others
Who exactly are these leftists you guys always yap about who (supposedly) just love Islamic oppression of women and gays? I'm an academic liberal and I can't think of very many people of my ilk who are sucking up to Islam. So I'm puzzled. What I think is going on is this: any liberals who are not gung-ho for the war in Iraq are thereby assumed (with the usual breathtaking leap of illogic beloved by conservatives) to be on the side of the bad guys. No, it is possible to be against the war and critical of American policy and involvement, without thereby becoming a fan of al-Qaeda. Just look within, and you'll find your own Pat Buchanan and a lot of others whose views could be described as I just did.

So, where are the lovers of sharia among liberals? Names, anyone?

gestell
It has nothing to do with Iraq.

The thought that I may have alluded to (that I think was part of the article) had to do with a tendency to advocate "tolerance" and a hesitancy to say anything negative about something or someone who could be in any way tied to a minority.
I think it's fair to say that those sentiments (tolerance and politically correct speech, or in some cases identity-censored speech) are more usually associated with those calling themselves liberal.
The point of the article actually was that it has become taboo to criticise anyone but a christian (unless it's a white male I suppose). That trend didn't come from the conservatives.

Not ashamed
I don't have a fish symbol, so am not really defending a personal choice of my own. I've just never been into bumper stickers and the like. It's certainly not because I'm ashamed of my Christianity. Some posters here would like it if Christians were ashamed. Why? I'm sure they have their justifications. In reality, it comes down to their dislike of the confrontation between their will and God's will that comes about whenever they hear the gospel. They don't want to hear that they're sinners who have disobeyed God. They don't want to hear that theirs is NOT the way to spiritual enlightenment. They don't want to hear that God really is above them and expects them to meet a certain standard or be left out of His kingdom. And, even if Christians don't go around shouting that on bullhorns, that's what we say when we stick a fish on our cars or wear a Christian T-shirt. For people who prefer to believe that the truth can't be known, running up against people who have met the Truth and had Him set us free is -- well, annoying. They'd prefer that we were ashamed of something instead of forgiven of everything. Not perfect, just forgiven of not being perfect.

Gestell:
You're absolutely right. It's not that liberals
love Islamic fascism; I'm certain they don't.

It's that they long to see the United States
humbled, defeated, and brought down to third-
world level.

It just so happens that Islamic radicalism is
the current prominent threat to the US. That,
more than any philosophical/political agree-
ment, is the reason the left is just wild about
Islam these days.

Once global jihadism is defeated, I predict that
the left will fall in love with some other move-
ment, cause, or ideology. Fickle bunch.

Dexl
Good answer to both sides! Although I prefer to put a Ford symbol on a Chrysler, old feud you know!!

Bring on the controversies
The threat to our civilization resides not so much in a few individual acts of violence, but in the general loss of martial spirit in our culture. That loss starts with thinkers holding back or qualifying everything they say for fear of being called hypocrites, haters, liars, intolerant, or just plain full of it. It ends with the people being unwilling to return violence against individuals, groups, or nations for fear of the same.

Notice that there are few calls to martially target the Muslims threatening people with violence for exercising their free speech. It should be obvious that in an advanced society, all threats of violent criminal activity should be dealt with swiftly and certainly.

Gestell
I've enjoyed your posts on TH.

While it is possible to be against the Iraq war and other US foreign policy without becoming a fan of AQ, it is equally possible to take the side of AQ without becoming a fan of AQ. And it is possible to work to thwart US policy in common cause with AQ without sharing common cause on oppression of women, etc.

Those Leftists who find it hard to call AQ "the bad guys", who minimze or doubt their atrocities, who always seem to justify their attacks because of US actions, who magnify and present as emblematic any misbehavior by US personnel, we tend to *conclude* they are on the side of AQ.

Of course, that's a dangerous conclusion to make. Similar to the danger that Leftists court when they assume (or conclude) that Righties don't like entitlements and affirmative action because they're greedy and racists. Or that Righties desire a strong military because they like war or have a cut in the contracts. It's better to ask why people take the positions they do and then dissect their answers.

But what I think you are seeing most of is not leaps in logic, but just hyperbole for political positioning. And there's plenty of that on both sides in the political arena.

I believe
Jonah Goldberg is an Episcopalian.

Aurorawatcher Thank you.

It's really hopeless to try and discuss christianity with enemies of the Cross. They just don't get it, whatever happened in their lives to seethe with such hatred for God has
caused them to lash out at the ones they deem as representatives of God.
Their ignorance of our judeo/christian heritage is sadly appalling. They are obviously products of our dumbed down educational system and probably products of the higher education??? indoctrination by marxist leninist professors. They think they are intelligent and so superior because they are above the dark ages of religion.
We can only tell them the Good News, what they do with it is between them and their CREATOR.
I often wonder when I hear or read these smug
statements as some have posted here, how will they meet their deaths? They say Voltaire died
screaming and seeing demonic beings. Will they
die with courage into what they consider the dark unknown? Or fearfully? It's proably something they can't admit even to themselves.
I don't think I could live a happy life believing
in nothing, and intolerant of those of us who do believe. And judging by their posts, I didn't read any happiness in them, Christian symbols
just remind them of the dreariness of their
selfish existence.

Don't worry Tea Party,
They will regret their decision to reject the FREE gift of salvation. Christians are confident because they believe the truth. One can always be confident in the truth. The Bible states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Also the fool says in his heart that there is no God. So what we have here are a bunch of fools lacking even the beginnings of wisdom.

ValiantForTruth
"The resistance to Darwinism does not come from Islam. In many ways they have adopted the philosophy of Darwinism. That is, the strong will prevail over the weak. It is Biblical Theology that resists the idea of common descent and macro-evolution and all the associated godlessness of this vain philosophy."

The ideas expressed in a work called _Atlas of Creation_ are remarkably like yours. Except they were written by a Muslim. It too makes the claim Evolutionary Theory is about survival of the fittest, the strongest, which is odd, considering the theory makes no such claim. So what is it you and this Muslim are arguing against? And what is this "philosophy of Darwinism"? I've never heard it, except from Creationists.

lonestarblues -- darwinism
From wikipedia:
"Darwinism is a term for the underlying concepts in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin."

And the disambiguation tag at to top reads: "This article is about Darwinism as a philosophical concept. For the biological evolution, see Evolution. For modern evolutionary theory, see Modern evolutionary synthesis."

Natural selection, which is commonly expressed as "survival of the fittest", is still a key component of evolutionary theory. And it is that idea that also gets lumped under darwinism.

Wiki on Social darwinism:
"Social Darwinism is a hypothesis that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. The term is an extension of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest."

facile argument from Goldberg
There are some interest issues surrounding the topics that Goldberg raises, but he manages to combine them in a way that dumbs things down rather than illuminating them.

The reason that people find the Fitma movie offensive is pretty aptly captured by the 3:16 post by zedsmom, although she applies it only to Christianity. In a country in which muslims are a disadvantaged minority, a leading politician puts together a film associating Islam with the worst actions that some muslims have done in the name of Islam. This is like the "Fred Phelps tells us what Christianity is about" approach to religious analysis. As with the Christian Bible, the Koran is big enough to contain offensive passages and salutory passages, so selective quoting can allow one to claim it says just about anything. But then that is true of Christianity. What hasn't been defended in the name of the Christian bible (and obviously don't answer murder or slavery because they clearly have.)

the fish
Instead of discussing the real issues about the movie, Goldberg instead gives the digression about the Darwin's fish, starting with the silly idea that putting a Jesus fish on ones car in the US is somehow a similar act to a jesus fish on a card in Turkey.

But this is one of those areas in which it is silly to pretend it is irrelevant that there is one dominant religion in the country and other minority religions. So the discussion becomes as silly as pretending that having a black history month is similar to having a white history month as if blacks and whites inhabit similar roles in American history.

The anger at the Darwin fish is silly. Puffwaffe comes close to getting it right, but misses it somewhat in a way that winds up making the objections look more reasonable.

In a country which is as Christian as ours, it is not surprising, or objectionable, that Christian symbols would be ubiquitous. It is reasonable to object to government involvement with promoting those symbols. If Christianity, with its numerical advantage, needs government help to thrive, then there is something wrong with Christianity. But if you are offended by someone putting a jesus fish on their car, then you get offended way to easily.

But if Christianity provides many of the ubiquitous symbols in our society, it will naturally provide the source for many of the satiric symbols in society. Just as non-christians should learn to accept that living in such a christian society they will be inundated with christian symbols, christians should learn to accept that living in such a christian society means living in a society in which satirizing of christian symbols is ubiquitous.

more on fishes
It is silly to say that it is offensive for christians to put out for public consumption, in as innocuous a way as a symbol on the back of a car, that they are christian. It is equally silly to say that christians should be able to make clear how dominant they are in society, but nobody should be allowed to comment on it (except presumably to state their thankfulness for getting to live in such a Christian country).

There is nothing wrong with the Jesus fish. And there is nothing wrong with the Darwin fish. And in a nice sign that there are at least some Christians not looking to appear like they have no sense of humor, there is even a car symbol with a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish. I hope the symbolism behind that is that your Darwinism is no threat to my faith in Jesus. But there is nothing wrong with that. And since to take it further would be to beat the joke into the ground, I suspect the Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish will get the last clever say.

I'll buy a bumper-sticker that says
"Nice weather today, isn't it?"

That seems to be the only "appropriate" topic of "conversation" on bumpers, according to puftwaffe, because everything else a person actually *cares* about is "personal."

Bumper-stickers aren't about "polite convesation." After all, how many times do you engage in conversation with the person in front of you in traffic?

Bumper stickers are decoration. Some of them have a message. Some of them are funny. Some of them proclaim membership in a club, and some of them make no sense at all. They're not about conversation or being polite. They're about personalizing your vehicle, so you feel more connected to it, and have an easier time identifying it in a crowded parking lot.

So many cars look the same, if I didn't have some means of identifying my car, I'd spend hours looking for the sucker.

To Gestell
Jonah Goldberg's point isn't so much that the left is sucking up to Islam, his point is that a lot of the very same leftists (in academia, the media, Hollywood, etc.) who gleefully take occasions to demean and denigrate Christians and the Christian influence in the U.S. show an abject cowardice when it comes to confronting Islam. A lot of the very same leftists (especially in the media and Hollywood) who conspicuously mock and attack Christians and Christianity strangely show a somehow recently developed "sensitivity" when it comes to saying or doing ANYTHING that might appear to be offensive to Muslims. If the left thinks that what the influence of Christianity has wrought in this nation is offensive, so be it, but if they're offended by anything that smacks of Christianity, why are they not infinitely more offended by anything that smacks of Islam? Why have the same people who won't hesitate to open their mouths or use their positions to insult Christians developed a case of lockjaw when it comes to expressing anything that might appear to be offensive to Muslims? For all the opponents of religion conflate Christianity and Islam as being equally bad, the fact is they're lying about that and they know it. As 84_cavy said yesterday, no one who displays a Darwin fish on their car apparently seems concerned that some offended Christian may become a threat to their personal safety - but if they put that Darwin symbol within a Muslim crescent, I'll bet they wouldn't believe that to be true of Muslims.

dmac
"From wikipedia...."

Read the rst of that piece, to where it distinguishes between Creationist usage and Scientific usage?

"The term Darwinism is often used in the USA by promoters of creationism to describe evolution, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement....."

"However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period."

One misrepresents, the other represents accurately.

"Natural selection, which is commonly expressed as "survival of the fittest", is still a key component of evolutionary theory. And it is that idea that also gets lumped under darwinism."

Up to you. But natural selection is not related to survival of the fittest in the scientific theory. Survival of the fittest was a metaphor Herbert Spencer used to describe an aspect of the economy. Others mistook the metaphor for reality, what Hayek calls scientism. Indeed, it is this mistake that gets lumped under the misrepresentation.

Natural selection in science means adaptation.

"Wiki on Social darwinism..."

Yes, Social Darwinism is based upon the scientism behind survival of the fittest.

What surprises me is that even though these facts are fairly well known, Creationists continue to repeat them. I just don't understand that. It seems immoral, I mean, to revise history like that. Is it because the ends justify any means? But that's what socialists like Marx believed.

Puftwaffe -- Still Beyond Parody
Homosexuality is not a religion (though many of its practitioners exhibit cult-like behavior).

The US Constitution specifically protects religious expression. It does not specifically protect perverted sexual behavior.

Your attempt to declare even the most minimal public expression of religious conviction outside the bounds of acceptable behavior is the finest example of the bullying fascism of the liberal left that I've seen in years.

And you still don't even grasp that you're trying to stomp on others' Constitutional rights, stifle others' speech, and force them to take their Constitutionally protected right to practice their religion underground in a way that would be right at home in the old USSR and in red China.

It seems that you are missing your true calling. You should be heading for China to volunteer to join their army as it crushes those dangerous Tibetians who dare to practice their religion in public and who won't abide by your standards of keeping religious belief completely secret.

Mother of 4
The supreme court protects religious expression from government interference not from being found unacceptable. I don't understand puffwaffe's over the top reaction to Jesus fish, but Americans are no more protected from having their religious beliefs deemed unacceptable by individuals than they do their sexual orientation.

lonestarblues vs. dmac
It's amazing that more than 150 years after Charles Darwin first proposed his Theory, the vast majority of the world has yet to understand it. Why do I say "amazing"? Simple. It is without question the single most important theory that ever has--or ever will be elucidated--by the field of science. That so many remain ignorant of its meaning and implications is truly a depressing statement about society's understanding of science (and really, of reality).

One of the misconceptions that runs rampant through these comments (and indeed in most debate about on this topic) is the confusion between evolution and the Theory of Evolution. Evolution refers to the scientific observation that all living things belong to a grand "Tree of Life" (i.e. all organisms share a common ancestor). The Theory of Evolution is the scientific explanation of this fact--it describes the algorithmic process which generated this observed Tree of Life. They are two different things. Neither of them is a philosophy and neither of them is a religion.


(continued from above)
The term "Darwinism" is rarely understood by those not heavily involved (or educated) in the field of evolutionary biology. As lonestar alluded to, a "Darwinist" is a particular subtype of evolutionist. A "Punctualist" would be another subtype. To most outside evolutionary biology, there would be no difference between the two.

"Natural selection" is a component of the Theory of Evolution and does mean in general "survival of the fittest". However, as a scientist, I would prefer to say that it refers to the exclusive propagation of those DNA sequences (e.g. genes) that best increase the probability of their own propagation. They achieve this by indirectly influencing--through complex biological processes--the structural, operational, and behavioral characteristics of the organism within which they reside. In short, genes which increase an organism's ability to reproduce are selected for and those which inhibit this ability are selected against. This is the selective filter through which successful organismal genomes flow.

The term "Social Darwinism" is an expansion on the above-mentioned ability of DNA to indirectly influence behavior. It is an attempt to explain organismal decision-making in evolutionary terms.

Mother of 4
"The US Constitution specifically protects religious expression. It does not specifically protect perverted sexual behavior."


The SCOTUS has already ruled that whatever consenting adults do in their own bedroom is none of your business...nor that of the government. Rather sensible, I think. Funny how we as Republicans used to believe that your personal business was just that, at least before we became interfering moral scolds.

To Standshisground
"...the very same leftists (in academia, the media, Hollywood, etc.) who gleefully take occasions to demean and denigrate Christians and the Christian influence in the U.S. show an abject cowardice when it comes to confronting Islam."

Precisely! The protective shield of "tolerance" which many liberals use to defend Muslim behavior (suicide bombings, honor killings, female circumcisions, televised beheadings, murderous rioting in response to publishing cartoons, etc.) is nothing more than multicultural, moral relativist sophistry.

However…perhaps, these liberals have a point… Christians have failed to truly appreciate the artistic nuances of Serrano’s “P*ss Christ”… Christians who boycott Broadway shows exploring the “homosexual nature of Christ” are homophobes who lack sophistication… Christians who seek to display the nativity scene alongside a Menorah or Star of Islam during the holidays are euro-centrically intolerant… Christians are always accurately portrayed in television and film as narrow-minded bigots whose fanatical attitudes are exceeded only by their insufferable self-righteousness (unless you are a Catholic priest, in which case you are also a pedophile).

In any case, should any take offense to this, “I am offended that you are offended!”

Roger
"the confusion between evolution and the Theory of Evolution"

You make a very good point, evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution a model that attempts to approximate it, tentatively, incompletely, probabilistically. The model is not the reality, no model can be. Seth Lloyd, _Programming the Universe_, says in order to fully capture the universe in a model would require another universe. I think this problem extends across the board, however, people come up with analogies and metaphors for the mysterious and unknown and often begin to believe them as the thing itself, omitting reference altogether.

"It is an attempt to explain organismal decision-making in evolutionary terms."

Right, and it works, to a point, as a metaphor. But you can take it too far, as was done in eugenics and fascism. Again, people falling for their own metaphors.

Simplest explanation of evolutionary theory, including that at the organismal level, is David Sloan Wilson's _Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives_. He takes Dawkins to task for his selfish gene concept.

the historian
I actually think that the left's reluctance to take on Islam while showing no reluctance at all to do so with Christianity is much more than multicultural, moral relativist sophistry: I think it's downright fear (although there is certainly much of the former, as you said earlier). Which, of course, is exactly the point of Goldberg's thread: that when it comes to actually having to put something consequential on the line in opposing "religion", its opponents are not exactly profiles in courage. As I've opined previously on posts to other articles in weeks past, why is it that many publicly outspoken opponents of Christianity on the left who claim that Christians are just as dangerous as Muslims have no hesitation in insulting Christians but have put self-censorship on themselves when it comes to saying anything about Muslims? The New York Times, for example, has shown no reticence whatsoever about publishing material that is clearly offensive to Christians - and Catholics - but when it came to the choice of carrying those Mohammed cartoons that stirred up Muslims in Europe, all of a sudden the Times discovered sensitivity for Muslims' beliefs. The question answers itself: although the left is much too cowardly and dishonest to admit it, it clearly doesn't fear that offended Christians will drive vehicles full of explosives into the edifices of institutions on the left or pull a Theo Van Gogh on its leaders - but the left is obviously deathly afraid that Muslims will do exactly this.

Roger
"'Natural selection' is a component of the Theory of Evolution and does mean in general 'survival of the fittest'."

I have to disagree, and this is why--which I think you'll agree with.

Imagine a simulation on a landscape of hills and on that landscape somewhere in a valley a unicorn. Survival of the fittest could be modeled as a simple rule: Step up. OK, our unicorn takes off, stepping up, up, up, till it reaches the peak of the hill closest to where it started. It looks out and says (yes, a talking unicorn) oh, my, the next hill over is higher! But survival of the fittest is the rule, it can only step up, not down.

Can we solve the unicorn's problem by introducing random mutation, a rule that knocks things sideways? No, our little unicorn will tumble down the hill some, but then climb again.

Survival of the fittest is a dead end.

The solution is to change the rule to adaptation, survival of the good enough. It's rule is step up till you're half way up the hill. And so by this natural selection process our unicorn climbs halfway up the first hill. And now when random mutation knocks him sideways, it knocks him off the hill, into the valley, opening a possibility of climbing halfway up the higher hill.

Survival of the good enough is, well, good enough.

Oversimplification. Sure, the landscape in our model is static, when in reality it's dynamic. But, it's only a thought experiment anyhow, just a model.

Evolutionary theory is just as simple.

StrivingForSense
Like your bumper sticker. No one could accuse you of being "unseemly".
(I'td be kinda humorous too when you're driving in a rainstorm).

Lonestar
You assume that evolution supports only "upward" changes in the characteristics of living things.

I'm confused as to what "upward" means to you. If it means better suited to procreate in it's living conditions, I would agree. But I think you are suggesting that "upward" implies greater complexity, right?

Your unsupportable assumption that evolution always occurs in one, "upward" direction is simply incorrect. Clams are an excellent example of this fact, not having changed much for the past 300 million years or more. There are many Paleozoic clam species - like spiriferids -that had spectacular and complex shell forms, but these are all gone, extinct. Many of their cousins, selected by evolutionary processes for continued existence, are much less complex than some of the early clams.

My guess is that your unicorn story - which I found offensively pompous - is more focused on the general creationist belief that mankind could not have been created through evolutionary processes. I would suggest you put down the bible if you're looking to make scientific arguments, and go to a library and/or non-biased sources on the internet.

not going to tell you
"You assume that evolution supports only "upward" changes in the characteristics of living things."

Actually, no. I was trying to illustrate the concept of natural selection and random mutation as a mathematical fitness function. Up represent closer fitness. It was just a model.

"I'm confused as to what "upward" means to you. If it means better suited to procreate in it's living conditions, I would agree."

Yes, if by that you simply mean better adapted to environment.

"But I think you are suggesting that "upward" implies greater complexity, right?"

If that results in better adaptability, sure. Sometimes simple is more adaptable.

"Your unsupportable assumption that evolution always occurs in one, "upward" direction is simply incorrect."

You're making way too much of up without awaiting my answer to your question what do I mean. Evolution doesn't occur in any direction. Evolution is just change. Some change is better adapted to the changing environment, some not.

"Clams are an excellent example of this fact, not having changed much for the past 300 million years or more."

Their shells vary according to environment. There are several species, some that did not adapt and are extinct. Simple adaptation, or not. Nothing implied about greater complexity if that doesn't provide for greater adaptability.

"My guess is that your unicorn story - which I found offensively pompous - is more focused on the general creationist belief that mankind could not have been created through evolutionary processes."

It's a paraphrase from various sources, some biological, one economics. But offensively pompous? What an odd criticism.

not going to tell you
"I would suggest you put down the bible if you're looking to make scientific arguments, and go to a library and/or non-biased sources on the internet."

I suggest Pigliucci & Kaplan's _Making Sense of Evolution: The Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Biology_. They cover fitness landscapes, and valid criticisms of the metaphor, but it's a tough read unless you work in the field. An easier read is Beinhocker's _Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics_. He simplifies the math.

Religious Bigotry?
Pot? This is Kettle. You're black.

Bigotry that becomes the religious in our nation is due all in part to their irresponsible behavior of attempting to infringe on the civil liberties of others by trying to impose their narrow view of life, a philosophy they wish to live by, and insist that everyone else does, as well.

It's not enough that they wish to martyr themselves and suffer, everyone must participate in this shared suffering.

No one cares if the religious want to have their religion.

No one cares if they want to have churches where they put their religious symbols.

No one cares if they want to pray at school during non-school activities.

No one cares if they want to stand in the middle of Times Square pontificating and moralizing others(and they do).

EVERYONE CARES when in a pluralistic society where pluralistic religions abound, religious people want to use pluralistic American tax dollars to fund their particular subjective idea of life.

Fund your private schools.

Fund your social services.

Fund your churches.

Just stop creating litigation and legislation that infringes on the civil rights, freedoms and personal choices of ALL AMERICANS.
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.