For my Jewish brethren and any other "spiritualists". Please, you can stop quibbling with the Christians about how they use "Jesus" or "Christ" in a context like this because you miss the point. Sure there are plenty of times when the name of Jesus is invoked in a context that is uniquely Chhristian. This is not one of those times. Jews, for example, can easily understand the point of this article by by recognizing that "Jesus" in this context is like saying, 'Adoni' or 'Eloheynu'. So, read the article again transposing your favorite name for god. Try 'Devine 'Inteligence' or 'Great Spirit'. It is just another name of god, the same god that led the Hebrews across the wilderness and brought the Pilgrims to American shores. ...

Chapman is wrong. Look up the the "belief-conduct distinction". If in fact this Mosque were merely for "nothing more than religious use" chapman would be correct. Yet if that were the case the promoter of the Mosque would not be Imam Rauf and Imam Rauf would be blasting the promoters as apostates and sellouts to the Great Satan. We in the west need a new word since Muslims don't readily make this distinction. How about Shariafile or Shariaficators. In theory Islam can be and in some cases is "just a religion". That is not the case here. Mr. Rauf makes no apology for the fact that he advocates for Sharia. Letting this particular Mosque promoted by this particular Imam go forward would be no different than permitting the ...

Your problem here is that these statements are funny and are used to make valid points.

The reason to read and respond to your offal Is because you are clever. You make a declarative statement and seem to think we will all swoon at your brilliance. You don't bother to explain why you think the Rush/John transaction has nothing to with capitalism. How stupid of me not to get it. Then you try to seem professorial by talking about the authors credentials. I suppose these "wrong credentials" relieve you of the obligation to rebut the author. You put your arrogance on display by declaring Rush's choice to be a "mistake". That is the problem utopian thinkers like you. You don't like it when people make their own choices. Free choice. That is what capitalism is all about and that is why you don't get it. You don't believe in...

Michael is always wringing his hands over “right wing hysterics” he sees behind every remark betraying any passion about the conflict between left and right. Any use of the word “evil” by a conservative and we all get another lecture about “right wing excess”. He doesn’t seem to notice “left wing excess” and if he notices he doesn’t express much concerned. This is in spite of the fact that excess such as actual violence, raw bigotry, misogyny, and grotesque exaggeration of the opposition’s flawed elements mostly comes from the left by a wide margin. It seems a mystery why Michael worries about the discrediting of conservatives due to their own passionate rhetoric when extreme and grotesque rhetorical excesses from the left has...

Michael, Michael, way too much attention to this this question. A simple, “I doubt the theory of Machiavellian intent in the destruction of the economy by Obama.” and a sentence or two about “he had his chance” and “the guy just isn’t that smart” would have sufficed. We need more about the government meddling that caused the crash and more about why Obama/Pelosicare is poison for the country. This article was an unfortunate waste of your time and mine at a time when we need to focus on defeating the bad policy and those that promote these policies.

Michael, Michael, way too much attention to this this question. A simple, “I doubt the theory of Machiavellian intent in the destruction of the economy by Obama.” and a sentence or two about “he had his chance” and “the guy just isn’t that smart” would have sufficed. We need more about the government meddling that caused the crash and more about why Obama/Pelosicare is poison for the country. This article was an unfortunate waste of your time and mine at a time when we need to focus on defeating the bad policy and those that promote these policies.